United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Southern Region

Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species

Diversity Report

Prepared for Land Management Plan Revision 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Forests in Mississippi G-i

Table of Contents

G.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ G-1

G.1.1 Viability Evaluation Process............................................................................................................... G-2

G.1.2 Forestwide Ecological System Sustainability ..................................................................................... G-2

G.1.3 Ecological System Sustainability Characteristics............................................................................... G-5

Relative Abundance ......................................................................................................................................... G-5

Non-native Invasive Species............................................................................................................................ G-5

Structure (old-growth forest) ........................................................................................................................... G-6

Structure and Tree Age Diversity .................................................................................................................... G-6

Fire Regime...................................................................................................................................................... G-7

Remoteness (road and trail density)................................................................................................................. G-7

G.2 Ecological Systems .................................................................................................................................... G-7

G.2.1 Upland Longleaf Pine Forest and Woodland...................................................................................... G-7

Upland Longleaf Pine Forest and Woodland Ecological System Characteristics............................................ G-7

Upland Longleaf Pine Forest and Woodland Desired Ecological Condition................................................... G-8

Upland Longleaf Pine Forest and Woodland Management Strategy ............................................................... G-9

Upland Longleaf Pine Forest and Woodland Key Ecological Attributes......................................................... G-9

G.2.2 Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland ........................................................................................ G-10

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland Ecological System Characteristics .............................................. G-10

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland Desired Ecological Condition ..................................................... G-11

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland Management Strategy.................................................................. G-11

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland Key Ecological Attributes........................................................... G-11

G.2.3 Loblolly Forest.................................................................................................................................. G-12

Loblolly Forest Ecological System Characteristics ....................................................................................... G-12

Loblolly Forest Desired Ecological Condition............................................................................................... G-12

Loblolly Forest Management Strategy........................................................................................................... G-13

Loblolly Forest Key Ecological Attributes.................................................................................................... G-13

G.2.4 Southern Loblolly-Hardwood Flatwoods.......................................................................................... G-14

Southern Loblolly-Hardwood Flatwoods Ecological System Characteristics ............................................... G-14

Southern Loblolly-Hardwood Flatwoods Desired Ecological Condition....................................................... G-14

Southern Loblolly-Hardwood Flatwoods Management Strategy................................................................... G-14

Southern Loblolly-Hardwood Flatwoods Key Ecological Attributes............................................................ G-14

G.2.5 Slash Pine Forest............................................................................................................................... G-15

Slash Pine Forest Ecological System Characteristics .................................................................................... G-15

Slash Pine Forest Desired Ecological Condition............................................................................................ G-15

Slash Pine Forest Management Strategy........................................................................................................ G-16

Slash Pine Forest Key Ecological Attributes................................................................................................. G-16

G.2.6 Northern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest ........................................................................................... G-17

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest Ecological System Characteristics................................................. G-17

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest Desired Ecological Condition ........................................................ G-17

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest Management Strategy .................................................................... G-17

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest Key Ecological Attributes.............................................................. G-18

G.2.7 Southern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest ........................................................................................... G-18

Southern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest Ecological System Characteristics................................................. G-18

Southern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest Desired Ecological Condition ........................................................ G-19

Southern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest Management Strategy .................................................................... G-19

Southern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest Key Ecological Attributes.............................................................. G-19

G.2.8 Southern Loess Bluff Forest ............................................................................................................. G-20

Southern Loess Bluff Forest Ecological System Characteristics................................................................... G-20

Southern Loess Bluff Forest Desired Ecological Condition .......................................................................... G-21

Southern Loess Bluff Forest Management Strategy ...................................................................................... G-21

Southern Loess Bluff Forest Key Ecological Attributes................................................................................ G-22

G.2.9 Southern Mesic Slope Forest ............................................................................................................ G-22

Southern Mesic Slope Forest Ecological System Characteristics.................................................................. G-22
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-ii National Forests in Mississippi

Southern Mesic Slope Forest Desired Ecological Condition ......................................................................... G-22

Southern Mesic Slope Forest Management Strategy ..................................................................................... G-23

Southern Mesic Slope Forest Key Ecological Attributes............................................................................... G-23

G.2.10 Northern Mesic Hardwood Forest .................................................................................................... G-23

Northern Mesic Hardwood Forest Ecological System Characteristics .......................................................... G-23

Northern Mesic Hardwood Forest Desired Ecological Condition ................................................................. G-24

Northern Mesic Hardwood Forest Management Strategy.............................................................................. G-24

Northern Mesic Hardwood Forest Key Ecological Attributes....................................................................... G-24

G.2.11 Floodplain Forest.............................................................................................................................. G-25

Floodplain Forest Ecological System Characteristics.................................................................................... G-25

Floodplain Forest Desired Ecological Condition........................................................................................... G-26

Floodplain Forest Management Strategy ....................................................................................................... G-26

Floodplain Forest Key Ecological Attributes................................................................................................. G-26

G.2.12 Lower Mississippi River Bottomland and Floodplain Forest ........................................................... G-27

Lower Mississippi River Bottomland and Floodplain Forest Ecological System Characteristics................. G-27

Lower Mississippi River Bottomland and Floodplain Forest Desired Ecological Condition ........................ G-27

Lower Mississippi River Bottomland and Floodplain Forest Management Strategy .................................... G-28

Lower Mississippi River Bottomland and Floodplain Forest Key Ecological Attributes.............................. G-29

G.2.13 Near-coast Pine Flatwoods ............................................................................................................... G-29

Near-coast Pine Flatwoods Ecological System Characteristics..................................................................... G-29

Near-coast Pine Flatwoods Desired Ecological Condition ............................................................................ G-29

Near-coast Pine Flatwoods Management Strategy......................................................................................... G-29

Near-coast Pine Flatwoods Key Ecological Attributes.................................................................................. G-29

G.2.14 Xeric Sandhills.................................................................................................................................. G-30

Xeric Sandhills Ecological System Characteristics ....................................................................................... G-30

Xeric Sandhills Desired Ecological Condition............................................................................................... G-30

Xeric Sandhills Management Strategy........................................................................................................... G-31

Xeric Sandhills Key Ecological Attributes.................................................................................................... G-31

G.2.15 Rock Outcrops.................................................................................................................................. G-31

Rock Outcrops Ecological System Characteristics........................................................................................ G-31

Rock Outcrops Desired Ecological Condition ............................................................................................... G-32

Rock Outcrops Management Strategy ........................................................................................................... G-32

Rock Outcrops Key Ecological Attributes..................................................................................................... G-32

G.2.16 Black Belt Calcareous Prairie and Woodland................................................................................... G-32

Black Belt Calcareous Prairie and Woodland Ecological System Characteristics......................................... G-32

Black Belt Calcareous Prairie and Woodland Desired Ecological Condition................................................ G-32

Black Belt Calcareous Prairie and Woodland Management Strategy............................................................ G-33

Black Belt Calcareous Prairie and Woodland Key Ecological Attributes...................................................... G-33

G.2.17 Jackson Prairie and Woodland.......................................................................................................... G-34

Jackson Prairie and Woodland Ecological System Characteristics................................................................ G-34

Jackson Prairie and Woodland Desired Ecological Condition....................................................................... G-34

Jackson Prairie and Woodland Management Strategy................................................................................... G-34

Jackson Prairie and Woodland Key Ecological Attributes ............................................................................ G-34

G.2.18 Ephemeral ponds and emergent wetlands......................................................................................... G-35

Ephemeral ponds and emergent wetlands Ecological System Characteristics............................................... G-35

Ephemeral ponds and emergent wetlands Desired Ecological Condition...................................................... G-35

Ephemeral ponds and emergent wetlands Management Strategy .................................................................. G-36

Ephemeral ponds and emergent wetlands Key Ecological Attributes............................................................ G-36

G.2.19 Cypress Dominated Wetlands........................................................................................................... G-36

Cypress Dominated Wetlands Ecological System Characteristics................................................................. G-36

Cypress Dominated Wetlands Desired Ecological Condition........................................................................ G-37

Cypress Dominated Wetlands Management Strategy.................................................................................... G-37

Cypress Dominated Wetlands Key Ecological Attributes ............................................................................. G-37

G.2.20 Wet Pine Savanna ............................................................................................................................. G-38

Wet Pine Savanna Ecological System Characteristics................................................................................... G-38

Wet Pine Savanna Desired Ecological Condition.......................................................................................... G-38
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-iii

Wet Pine Savanna Management Strategy ...................................................................................................... G-39

Wet Pine Savanna Key Ecological Attributes................................................................................................ G-39

G.2.21 Seeps, Springs, and Seepage Swamps .............................................................................................. G-39

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage Swamps Ecological System Characteristics .................................................... G-39

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage Swamps Desired Ecological Condition ........................................................... G-39

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage Swamps Management Strategy........................................................................ G-39

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage Swamps Alternatives and Effects.................................................................... G-39

G.2.22 Herbaceous Seepage Bogs and Flats................................................................................................. G-40

Herbaceous Seepage Bogs and Flats Ecological System Characteristics ...................................................... G-40

Herbaceous Seepage Bogs and Flats Desired Ecological Condition.............................................................. G-40

Herbaceous Seepage Bogs and Flats Management Strategy.......................................................................... G-41

Herbaceous Seepage Bogs and Flats Key Ecological Attributes................................................................... G-41

G.3 Species Selection Process......................................................................................................................... G-41

G.3.1 Species Selection Process Introduction............................................................................................. G-41

Ecological System Context for Species......................................................................................................... G-42

Identification and Screening of Species......................................................................................................... G-42

Species Methodology..................................................................................................................................... G-43

G.3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species................................................................................................. G-44

Threatened and Endangered Species List ...................................................................................................... G-44

Threatened and Endangered Species Forest Plan Components...................................................................... G-45

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species ........................................................................................................... G-46

Locally Rare Species...................................................................................................................................... G-46

G.3.3 Terrestrial Species Groups Covered by Ecological System Sustainability Forest Plan ComponentsG-47

Cypress Dominated Wetlands Associates...................................................................................................... G-49

Herbaceous Seepage Bogs and Flats Associates............................................................................................ G-50

Mature Mesic Deciduous Forest Associates.................................................................................................. G-52

Mature Open Pine-Grass Associates.............................................................................................................. G-54

Mature Riparian Forest Associates................................................................................................................ G-56

Mature Upland Pine-Hardwood Associates................................................................................................... G-58

Pine Flatwoods Associates............................................................................................................................. G-60

Ponds and Emergent Wetlands Associates .................................................................................................... G-62

Prairie Associates........................................................................................................................................... G-64

Rock Outcrop Associates............................................................................................................................... G-66

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage Swamps Associates.......................................................................................... G-67

Wet Pine Savanna Associates........................................................................................................................ G-69

Xeric Sandhill Associates.............................................................................................................................. G-71

G.3.4 Terrestrial Species Groups Requiring Additional Forest Plan Components..................................... G-73

Bat Roost Structure Group............................................................................................................................. G-73

Den Tree Associates ...................................................................................................................................... G-75

Downed Wood Associates............................................................................................................................. G-77

Forest Interior Birds....................................................................................................................................... G-78

Species Sensitive to Fire Injury ..................................................................................................................... G-80

Snag Associates ............................................................................................................................................. G-82

Species Dependent on Fire to Maintain Habitat............................................................................................. G-83

Species Sensitive to Hydrologic Modification of Wetlands .......................................................................... G-88

Species Sensitive to Recreational Traffic (Terrestrial and Non-riverine Aquatic) ....................................... G-92

Species Needing Occurrence Protection ........................................................................................................ G-98

Stump and Stump-hole Associates............................................................................................................... G-100

Calciphiles ................................................................................................................................................... G-101

Species Sensitive to Canopy Cover Modifications...................................................................................... G-102

Species Sensitive to Soil Disturbance.......................................................................................................... G-104

G.3.5 Aquatic Systems ............................................................................................................................. G-109

Rivers and Streams ...................................................................................................................................... G-109

Lakes and Permanent Ponds ........................................................................................................................ G-111

Aquatic Species Associations ...................................................................................................................... G-111

Aquatic Coarse Woody Debris Associates .................................................................................................. G-112
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-iv National Forests in Mississippi

Open Water Associates................................................................................................................................ G-113

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Modification of In-stream Flow..................................................................... G-114

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Non-native Invasive Species.......................................................................... G-116

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Non-Point Source Pollution........................................................................... G-116

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Stream Sediment............................................................................................ G-117

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Stream Toxins................................................................................................ G-119

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Water Temperature Regime........................................................................... G-120

Species Sensitive to Recreational Traffic .................................................................................................... G-121

G.4 Crosswalk between NatureServe’s Ecological Systems and Forest Service Forest Types..................... G-123

G.5 Ecological Site Type Definitions............................................................................................................ G-130

Xeric – ......................................................................................................................................................... G-130

Dry – ............................................................................................................................................................ G-130

Upland Loess – ............................................................................................................................................ G-131

Prairie –........................................................................................................................................................ G-132

Dry-Mesic – ................................................................................................................................................. G-132

Mesic –......................................................................................................................................................... G-132

Non-riverine hydric –................................................................................................................................... G-133

Alluvial – ..................................................................................................................................................... G-133

Water –......................................................................................................................................................... G-134

G.5.1 Relative Abundance Matrix ............................................................................................................ G-134

G.6 Species for which there is no known or potential occurrence based upon suitable habitat on the National 

Forests in Mississippi (Not evaluated further)...................................................................................................... G-145

G.7 Threatened and endangered species removed from the National Forests in Mississippi list due to no known 

occurrence............................................................................................................................................................. G-151

G.8 Regional forester sensitive species analyzed for the National Forests in Mississippi............................ G-152

G.9 Locally rare species analyzed for the National Forests in Mississippi ................................................... G-155

List of Tables

Table G 1. Crosswalk between planning terms of the National Forests in Mississippi and the Nature Conservancy G3

Table G 2. Element condition scores........................................................................................................................ G-4

Table G 3. Definitions of structural classes.............................................................................................................. G-6

Table G 4. Upland longleaf pine forest and woodland key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability

....................................................................................................................................................................... G-10

Table G 5. Shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability

....................................................................................................................................................................... G-12

Table G 6. Loblolly forest key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability ................................. G-13

Table G 7. Southern loblolly-hardwood flatwoods key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability G15

Table G 8. Slash pine forest key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability............................... G-16

Table G 9. Northern dry upland hardwood forest key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability.. G18

Table G 10. Southern dry upland hardwood forest key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability G20

Table G 11. Southern loess bluff forest key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability ............. G-21

Table G 12. Southern mesic slope forest key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability ........... G-23

Table G 13. Northern mesic hardwood forest key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability.... G-25

Table G 14. Floodplain forest key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability............................ G-27

Table G 15. Lower Mississippi River bottomland and floodplain forest key attributes and indicator metrics of 

ecosystem sustainability................................................................................................................................. G-28

Table G 16. Near-coast pine flatwoods key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability.............. G-30

Table G 17. Xeric sandhills key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability ............................... G-31

Table G 18. Rock outcrops key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability ................................ G-32
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-v

Table G 19. Black belt calcareous prairie and woodland key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem 

sustainability .................................................................................................................................................. G-33

Table G 20. Jackson prairie and woodland key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability........ G-35

Table G 21. Ephemeral ponds and emergent wetlands key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem 

sustainability .................................................................................................................................................. G-36

Table G 22. Cypress dominated wetlands key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability.......... G-37

Table G 23. Wet pine savanna key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability........................... G-38

Table G 24. Seeps, springs, and seepage swamps key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability . G40

Table G 25. Herbaceous seepage bogs and flats key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability G-41

Table G 26. Ecological sustainability evaluation score ranges and definitions...................................................... G-44

Table G 27. Federally listed threatened and endangered species included in the forest plan revision process ...... G-45

Table G 28. Species to group relationship weights................................................................................................. G-48

Table G 29. Terrestrial species groups and associated ecological system(s).......................................................... G-48

Table G 30. Species in cypress dominated wetlands associates ............................................................................. G-49

Table G 31. Cypress dominated wetlands associates key attributes and indicator metrics..................................... G-50

Table G 32. Species in herbaceous seepage bogs and flats associates.................................................................... G-51

Table G 33. Herbaceous seepage bogs and flats associates key attributes and indicator metrics........................... G-52

Table G 34. Species in mature mesic deciduous forest associates.......................................................................... G-53

Table G 35. Mature mesic deciduous forest associates key attributes and indicator metrics ................................. G-54

Table G 36. Species in mature open pine-grass associates..................................................................................... G-55

Table G 37. Mature open pine-grass associates key attributes and indicator metrics............................................. G-56

Table G 38. Species in mature riparian forest associates........................................................................................ G-57

Table G 39. Mature riparian forest associates key attributes and indicator metrics ............................................... G-58

Table G 40. Species in mature upland pine-hardwood associates.......................................................................... G-59

Table G 41. Mature upland pine-hardwood associates key attributes and indicator metrics.................................. G-60

Table G 42. Species in pine flatwoods associates................................................................................................... G-61

Table G 43. Pine flatwoods associates key attributes and indicator metrics........................................................... G-62

Table G 44. Species in ponds and emergent wetlands associates........................................................................... G-63

Table G 45. Ponds and emergent wetlands associates key attributes and indicator metrics................................... G-64

Table G 46. Species in prairie associates................................................................................................................ G-65

Table G 47. Prairie associates key attributes and indicator metrics........................................................................ G-66

Table G 48. Species in rock outcrop associates...................................................................................................... G-67

Table G 49. Rock outcrop associates key attributes and indicator metrics............................................................. G-67

Table G 50. Species in seeps, springs and seepage swamps associates.................................................................. G-68

Table G 51. Species in seeps, springs and seepage swamps associates key attributes and indicator metrics......... G-69

Table G 52. Species in wet pine savanna associates............................................................................................... G-70

Table G 53. Wet pine savanna associates key attributes and indicator metrics...................................................... G-71

Table G 54. Species in xeric sandhills associates................................................................................................... G-72

Table G 55. Xeric sandhills associates key attributes and indicator metrics .......................................................... G-72

Table G 56. Species groups requiring additional forest plan components.............................................................. G-73

Table G 57. Species in bat roost structure group .................................................................................................... G-73

Table G 58. Bat roost structure key attributes and indicator metrics...................................................................... G-74

Table G 59. Species in den tree associates ............................................................................................................. G-75

Table G 60. Den tree associates key attributes and indicator metrics..................................................................... G-76

Table G 61. Species in downed wood associates.................................................................................................... G-77

Table G 62. Downed wood associates key attributes and indicator metrics........................................................... G-77

Table G 63. Species in forest interior birds group .................................................................................................. G-79

Table G 64. Forest interior birds group key attributes and indicator metrics ......................................................... G-79

Table G 65. Species sensitive to fire injury ............................................................................................................ G-81

Table G 66. Species sensitive to fire injury key attributes and indicators.............................................................. G-82

Table G 67. Snag associates ................................................................................................................................... G-82

Table G 68. Snag associates key attributes and indicator metrics .......................................................................... G-83

Table G 69. Species dependent on fire to maintain habitat .................................................................................... G-84

Table G 70. Species dependent on fire to maintain habitat sample performance measures, may vary by location and 

unit ................................................................................................................................................................. G-86
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-vi National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 71. Species sensitive to hydrologic modification of wetlands.................................................................. G-88

Table G 72. Species sensitive to hydrologic modification of wetlands sample performance measures, may vary by 

location and unit............................................................................................................................................. G-90

Table G 73. Species sensitive to recreational traffic............................................................................................... G-93

Table G 74. Species sensitive to recreational traffic key attributes and indicators................................................. G-96

Table G 75. Species needing occurrence protection............................................................................................... G-98

Table G 76. Stump and stump-hole associates ..................................................................................................... G-100

Table G 77. Species in calciphiles associates....................................................................................................... G-101

Table G 78. Calciphiles key attributes and indicators .......................................................................................... G-101

Table G 79. Species sensitive to canopy cover modifications.............................................................................. G-102

Table G 80. Species sensitive to canopy cover modifications key attributes and indicators................................ G-103

Table G 81. Species sensitive to soil disturbance ................................................................................................. G-104

Table G 82. Species sensitive to soil disturbance key attributes and indicators................................................... G-107

Table G 83. Current condition watershed-wide (all ownerships), the percentage of National Forest System managed 

lands, and the Forests’ relative management influence................................................................................ G-110

Table G 84. Aquatic species groups and components .......................................................................................... G-112

Table G 85. Species in aquatic coarse woody debris associates........................................................................... G-113

Table G 86. Aquatic coarse woody debris associates key attributes and indicators............................................. G-113

Table G 87. Species in open water associates....................................................................................................... G-114

Table G 88. Open water associates key attributes and indicators......................................................................... G-114

Table G 89. Species in aquatic species sensitive to modification of in-stream flow ............................................ G-115

Table G 90. Aquatic species sensitive to modification of in-stream flow key attributes and indicators............... G-115

Table G 91. Aquatic species sensitive to non-native invasive species.................................................................. G-116

Table G 92. Aquatic species sensitive to non-native invasive species key attributes and indicators.................... G-116

Table G 93. Aquatic species sensitive to non-point source pollution ................................................................... G-117

Table G 94. Aquatic species sensitive to non-point source pollution key attributes and indicators..................... G-117

Table G 95. Aquatic species sensitive to stream sediment ................................................................................... G-118

Table G 96. Aquatic species sensitive to stream sediment key attributes and indicators ..................................... G-118

Table G 97. Aquatic species sensitive to stream toxins........................................................................................ G-119

Table G 98. Aquatic species sensitive to stream toxins key attributes and indicators.......................................... G-119

Table G 99. Aquatic species sensitive to water temperature regime .................................................................... G-120

Table G 100. Aquatic species sensitive to water temperature regime key attributes and indicators..................... G-120

Table G 101. Species sensitive to recreational traffic........................................................................................... G-121

Table G 102. Species sensitive to recreational traffic key attributes and indicators............................................. G-122

Table G 103. Soil relative abundance matrix........................................................................................................ G-135

List of Figures

Figure G 1. Relationship of variables used to rate risk to species viability .............................................................. G-2

Figure G 2. Species screening and selection process overview.............................................................................. G-43
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-1

G.1 Introduction

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations (1982) require that habitat be managed to support 

viable populations of native and desirable non-native vertebrates within the planning area (36 CFR 

219.19). Additionally, USDA regulation 9500-004 (1983) reinforces the NFMA viability regulation by 

requiring that habitats on national forests be managed to support viable populations of native and desired 

non-native plants, fisheries, and wildlife. These regulations focus on the role of habitat management in 

providing for species viability. Supporting viable populations involves the proper distribution of habitat 

capable of maintaining interacting populations at levels that result in continued existence of the species.

The National Forests in Mississippi (Forests) support high levels of biological diversity relative to other 

regions. Viewed at both national and global scales, a large number of species are present for which

population viability may be of concern. A detailed demographic or habitat capability analysis is not 

practical for all of these species. Therefore, our goal for this evaluation is to use a clearly defined, 

transparent process to identify species for which there are substantive risks to maintenance of viable 

populations, and to ensure consideration of appropriate habitat management strategies to reduce those 

risks to acceptable levels where feasible.

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. This report describes the analysis process used to 

identify, evaluate, and develop guidance for sustaining ecological diversity. This report and the ecological 

sustainability evaluation database from which it was derived not only provide the overall framework for 

many of the forest plan components and the systems-based direction in the revised forest plan, but are 

also expected to be an important source of data and guidance for sustaining native ecological systems and 

species when implementing the forest plan.

Because NFMA regulations require providing habitat for species viability within the planning area, the 

focus of this evaluation is on habitat provided on national forest land. Although surrounding private lands 

may either contribute to or hinder the maintenance of species viability on national forest land, private 

lands are not relied upon to meet regulation requirements. For this reason, habitat abundance was assessed 

based on conditions found on national forest land. Habitat distribution was assessed considering the 

condition of intermixed ownerships and conditions, which in turn may affect the interactions of species 

among suitable habitat patches on national forest land. While most plant and animal species needs are 

expected to be met by sustaining ecosystem diversity, a species-specific analysis was conducted to 

evaluate whether additional provisions were needed for federally listed species, regional forester’s 

sensitive species, and locally rare species.

Much of the information used in this evaluation was compiled by NatureServe under a participating 

agreement with the Forest Service. NatureServe is an international non-profit organization, formerly part 

of the Nature Conservancy. Its mission is to develop, manage, and distribute authoritative information 

critical to conservation of the world’s biological diversity. Partnership with NatureServe was sought as a 

means to ensure that the best available information on species status and habitat relationships was used in 

this evaluation. 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.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-2 National Forests in Mississippi

G.1.1Viability Evaluation Process

Viability risk over the next 50 years was assessed for each species in relation to its principle habitat

relationships by forest plan revision alternative. Risk assessment was based on three factors: 1) current 

species abundance, 2) expected habitat abundance in 50 years, and 3) expected habitat distribution in 50 

years (Figure G 1). Once risk ratings were developed, management strategies were assessed to estimate 

how well alternatives provide for species viability.

Figure G 1. Relationship of variables used to rate risk to species viability

A comprehensive list of species with potential viability concerns was compiled for the National Forests in 

Mississippi. The list includes those species found, or potentially found, on the Forests from the following 

categories:

• species listed as proposed, threatened, or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act, 

• species listed on the regional forester’s sensitive species list, 

• species identified as locally rare on the national forest by Forest Service biologists,

• birds of conservation concern as identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, declining species of 

high public interest, and 

• species suggested by panels consisting of local experts. 

Unless otherwise indicated throughout this document, the evaluation of migratory birds focuses on 

breeding populations only. Wintering and migrating populations were considered during planning, but 

viability evaluation is most accurate when viewed in terms of relative stability of breeding populations.

G.1.2Forestwide Ecological System Sustainability

The species and ecological system sustainability evaluation framework for the National Forests in 

Mississippi was built around principles developed by the Nature Conservancy in their Conservation 

Action Planning Workbook (Nature Conservancy 2005). Although built on the Nature Conservancy

structure, this document generally uses Forest Service terminology rather than the Nature Conservancy

terms to refer to parts of the framework. Table G 1 provides a crosswalk between relevant Forest Service 

and Nature Conservancy terminology.

Current Species Abundance 

(Forest Rank)

Future Habitat Element 

Abundance

Future Habitat Element 

Distribution

Liklihood of Habitat 

Element Limitation

Risk of Habitat 

Relationship to Species 

Viability
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-3

Table G 1. Crosswalk between planning terms of the National Forests in Mississippi and the 

Nature Conservancy

Forest Service Terms The Nature Conservancy Terms

Native ecological systems,

threatened and endangered species,

regional forester’s sensitive species

locally rare species

Conservation targets

Characteristics of ecological system sustainability (key 

characteristics),

appropriate ecological conditions for specific [species]

Key ecological attributes

Performance measures Indicators

[no equivalent] Indicator ratings

Forest plan components Strategies

The Forest Service developed a relational database, the ecological sustainability evaluation tool, based on 

the structure of the Nature Conservancy planning tool. The ecological sustainability evaluation tool 

served as the primary process record for the species and ecosystem diversity analysis. This tool includes 

documentation of scientific and other sources consulted, uncertainties encountered, and strategic choices 

made during development of the database. Additionally, the tool documented the many relationships 

among parts of the framework. For example, species were often related to one or more characteristics of 

ecological systems, and a given forest plan component frequently affected multiple ecological systems or 

species.

The following steps were used to build an ecological sustainability framework, with each step 

documented within the ecological sustainability evaluation tool. This iterative process was methodical 

and utilized sequential steps, as described below.

1. Identify and define ecological systems

To define terrestrial ecological system sustainability, all terrestrial ecological systems on the National 

Forests in Mississippi were identified using NatureServe’s International Ecological Classification 

Standards (NatureServe 2004a, 2004b). Through coordination with NatureServe, systems were added, 

removed, or renamed (as needed) to ensure all systems on national forest land were represented. Each 

system was defined in terms of existing Forest Service forest types and Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) soil drainage types (sections G.1 and G.2). All identified terrestrial ecological systems

were included in the ecological sustainability framework. Current acreage of each system was calculated 

using Forest Service geographic information system (GIS) data.

2. Identify species

To assess species diversity, a comprehensive list of plant and animal species was compiled by combining 

species lists from a variety of sources, including: federally-listed threatened and endangered species 

obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, State Species of Conservation obtained from the 

Mississippi Natural Heritage Program, State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, the Birds of 

Conservation Concern list compiled by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service’s list of 

sensitive species. Additional species were added based on input from recognized conservation experts 

within the state. Species were then screened for inclusion in the framework and designated as threatened 

and endangered, regional forester’s sensitive species, or locally rare species.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-4 National Forests in Mississippi

3. Identify and define characteristics of ecological system sustainability and related performance 

measures

To identify key characteristics and performance measures for terrestrial ecological systems, a series of 8 

meetings with experts knowledgeable about ecological conditions and species in Mississippi were held in 

January 2005. Experts reviewed lists and definitions of ecological systems and suggested important 

ecological characteristics and performance measures to be addressed during planning. Final 

determinations of ecological sustainability components were based on expert input, subsequent additional 

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

The framework for sustainability of aquatic ecological systems was based on watersheds. Included in the 

ecological sustainability evaluation database were all 5th level hydrologic/watershed units (HUCs) that 

contained national forest land (Clingenpeel and Leftwich 2006). The framework for addressing 

characteristics and performance measures for watersheds was developed by regional Forest Service staff 

for use during national forest planning across the Southern Region. It involved use of standard GIS 

datasets to assess watersheds in terms of sediment loads, pollution point sources, flow modification by 

dams and road crossings, and riparian land use. 

As performance measures were identified for both terrestrial and aquatic systems, criteria were set for 

rating each performance measure as poor, fair, good, and very good relative to ecological sustainability. In 

general, poor and fair ratings indicated areas of concern for ecological system sustainability (Table G 2).

Rationale and sources used in making choices were recorded in the ecological sustainability evaluation

tool.

Table G 2. Element condition scores

Range of 

Condition Score Condition Definition of ecological sustainability evaluation Score Applied 

To Planning Elements

3.51 - 4.0 Very Good Element conditions are optimal; associated species’ populations 

should remain robust and potentially even expand.

2.51 - 3.50 Good Element conditions are acceptable; associated species’ populations 

should remain stable.

1.51 - 2.50 Fair

Element conditions are slightly inadequate; although associated 

species’ populations may persist for some time, they may be subject 

to gradual decline.

1.00 - 1.50 Poor

Element conditions are severely inadequate. Associated species’ 

populations are expected to severely decline; localized extirpations 

are occurring or are imminent.

4. Link species to the ecological systems and watersheds and identify any additional needs of 

species 

In the January 2005 meetings, experts helped link terrestrial and aquatic species to ecological systems and 

watersheds in which they occur. It was determined that species’ needs were best met when species were 

grouped before linking them to systems and, in particular, characteristics (key attributes) of systems that 

specifically address a given species groups needs. This linkage allowed us to assess how well the 

ecological system and watershed frameworks covered needs of these species. Where ecological 

conditions for these species were not covered by the ecological sustainability framework, additional 

characteristics, performance measures, and rating criteria were added so these species would be covered.

Therefore, all species have their needs covered by ecological sustainability framework, or a combination 

of the ecological sustainability framework and other additional forest plan components. 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-5

5. Assess current condition of performance measures

Current values and ratings of all performance measures were estimated using a variety of methods. Many 

current values were derived through analysis of existing GIS databases. Assumptions and methods for 

determining current values and ratings are recorded in the ecological sustainability evaluation tool.

6. Develop Forest Plan components

Forest plan components were proposed with the goal of providing ecological system sustainability and 

ecological conditions for identified species based on the ecological sustainability evaluation tool. In some 

cases, current requirements and processes outside of the planning process were identified that address this 

goal. All elements of the ecological sustainability framework will be addressed by appropriate 

management direction in the forest plan. 

7. Assess future outcomes

To assess the adequacy of proposed management direction under different alternatives, values and ratings 

of performance measures were projected 10 and 50 years into the future. Many of these projected values 

were derived from a series of spreadsheets that were developed to predict ecological system type 

heterogeneity and vegetation structural conditions that would result from implementing proposed 

management activities. For some watershed performance measures, a model was used to predict changes 

in sediment load resulting from the estimated levels of activities. Where projected outcomes were rated as 

poor or fair, adjustments to forest plan components were made (where possible) to improve these 

outcomes. In some cases, improving expected outcomes to good and very good ratings was not possible 

due to factors beyond Forest Service control (i.e., limits to expected budgets and program levels, and 

trade-offs with other uses). 

This report serves as a description of background, current status, and desired conditions for ecological 

systems on the National Forests in Mississippi. Current conditions for ecological system characteristics 

reported here are based on a “snapshot in time.” Conditions on the Forests are constantly changing and 

new techniques improve how data can be used to measure progress. Data should be updated in 5-year 

intervals to measure progress towards achieving desired conditions. 

G.1.3Ecological System Sustainability Characteristics

In order to evaluate ecological sustainability, it is important to assess the ecological processes, ecological 

system composition, and structural characteristics important to the long-term persistence of ecological 

systems on the Forests. The following characteristics are important to all ecological systems, and are 

grouped here because they have forestwide optimal conditions that cross ecological system boundaries 

and support long term sustainability of the landscape as a whole.

Relative Abundance

Relative abundance is defined as the percentage of each ecological site type covered by the appropriate 

ecological system. Ensuring that native ecological systems occur on appropriate sites is important in 

sustaining ecological and species diversity in Mississippi. This key component will be covered in the 

revised forest plan by the forestwide and individual ecological system desired condition statements and 

objectives. Section G.5.1 lists each national forest and the desired condition for relative abundance. 

Non-native Invasive Species 

Non-native invasive species, including both flora and fauna, can have severe detrimental effects on native 

species and are problematic across the Forests. Preliminary, current, and projected data all indicate nonnative invasive species are widespread on all units and will continue to persist despite any aggressive 
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-6 National Forests in Mississippi

efforts to treat non-native invasive species by the Forests. The desired target for control of non-native 

invasive species is to maintain or reduce the percent coverage of invasive exotic plants to three percent or 

less across the Forests. Special emphasis for achieving this target should be placed on threatened and 

endangered habitat and rare communities that are most likely to have negative impacts from invasive 

plant and animal species. This issue will be addressed in the revised forest plan under forestwide desired 

conditions, objectives for eradication and treatment of non-native invasive species, and guidelines to help 

control non-native invasive species at the project level.

Structure (old-growth forest)

Old-growth forest is an important structural component of the forest and is vital to sustaining species 

diversity. The desired condition is to maintain a minimum of 10 percent of forested lands in old-growth

condition across the Forests. This percentage of old-growth should represent a mix of forested ecological 

systems with emphasis on rare systems. 

Structure and Tree Age Diversity

Structure and age diversity are both important characteristics of forested ecological systems. Every 

forested community consists of a mixture of age-classes and a diversity of vertical structure (Table G 3), 

with young growth replacing losses due to natural decadence, storm events, pest infestations, and 

wildfires. Structure is also important to non-forested systems such as grasslands and shrub/scrub habitats.

Table G 3. Definitions of structural classes

Structural Class Definition

Mature Closed Canopy Forest

Forest over a certain size or age with overall canopy closure (all layers) greater 

than 80 percent. (Our typical undisturbed second growth forest). Includes 

natural canopy gaps.

Mature Open Canopy Forest Forest over a certain size or age with overall canopy closure of 60-80 percent.

(typical of thinned forests)

Mature Woodland Forest over a certain size or age with overall canopy closure of 10-60 percent.

(typical of ecologically restored woodland and savannas)

Mixed-age Forest Forest with two or more dominant tree ages, typical of natural regeneration 

after seedtree or shelterwood harvests.

Young / Mid-aged Forest Even-aged stands of small to medium size or aged trees (pole timber or 

immature sawtimber).

Regenerating Forest Shrubland Even-aged stands less than 5-10 years of age (shrub stage).

Regenerating Forest Grassland Even-aged stands less than 5 years of age (grass/forb/seedling stage).

Open Land with less than 10 percent canopy cover in permanent or long-term open 

condition (grasslands, barrens, etc.; not newly cut forest regeneration.)

An appropriate balance of vertical structure within each community provides critical habitat for 

associated species that require either early seral (grass/forb-seedling/shrub), mid-seral (poletimber –

hardwoods 5-11 inches diameter breast height (d.b.h.); pines 5-9 inches d.b.h.), and late seral (sawtimberhardwoods greater than 11 inches d.b.h.; pines greater than 9 inches d.b.h.). The overall quantity and 

distribution of vertical structure contributes to the sustainability and diversity of the ecological 

communities by providing a mix of early seral, immature, and mature stands. Early seral was designated 

as all known acres of each system in regeneration, seedling, or non-stocked condition. Immature stands 

were defined as all known acres of each system in the poletimber condition. Mature stands were defined 

as all known acres of each ecological system in the sawtimber condition.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-7

Canopy closure, as a surrogate for horizontal structure, was measured as a combination of stem density, 

basal area and extent of canopy cover. This measure was used primarily to delineate forested (closed 

canopy) from open canopy conditions.

Fire Regime 

Fire regime performance measures include landscape-scale fire in surrounding/adjacent habitats allowing 

for distribution and dispersal of fire-dependent species, and encompass Fire frequency and seasonality.

Fire frequency was measured as the average percent of all known community occurrences plus 100 meter 

buffer burned at the appropriate interval. Seasonality was measured as the percent of each community 

burned during the period of growth from leaf-expansion to leaf-fall, depending on project-level goals. In 

some but not all cases, seasonality is an accurate surrogate for intensity. Since intensity goals will vary 

from burn to burn it is difficult to pre-quantify ideal intensity objectives at a forestwide scale. It is 

presumed that restoration, maintenance, fuel-reduction and other prescribed fire goals will be considered 

at the project level when planning burn intensity. The revised forest plan will provide guidance on desired 

conditions for each ecological system.

Remoteness (road and trail density)

Remoteness, referred to as “distance from roads” in the ecological sustainability evaluation database, is a 

measure of the average density of roads and trails (miles per square mile) within a community type at the 

landscape scale, and is an important characteristic of ecological system sustainability. High road density 

can cause habitat fragmentation, increase the spread of invasive vectors, and negatively impact species 

which are susceptible to direct mortality from vehicles. The desired condition is to maintain or restore 

where necessary road and trail density to no more than 1.0 mile per square mile across the forest. As a 

general rule, roads should not bisect or be located within rare communities and should not alter the 

hydrologic function of ecological systems. However, many roads that bisect national forest lands are 

outside of Forest Service jurisdiction and, therefore, cannot be unilaterally closed without cooperation 

from local, state and other federal agencies. Forest plan guidance will provide for aquatic organism 

passage and provides guidelines to protect rare and wetland communities from negative effects of roads. 

G.2 Ecological Systems

The following sections describe the 22 ecological systems identified for the National Forests in 

Mississippi. Each description includes appropriate background material on the historic range and 

composition of the ecological system, desired ecological conditions, recommended management 

strategies, principal ecological system characteristics, performance measures, and potential threats. 

G.2.1Upland Longleaf Pine Forest and Woodland

Upland Longleaf Pine Forest and Woodland Ecological System 

Characteristics

Abundance of the longleaf pine forest ecological system on the landscape is the most important 

characteristic of this system due to its widespread conversion to other forest types over the past century as 

a result of agricultural clearing, forest management, and fire suppression. Restoration of the longleaf pine 

forest ecological system to appropriate sites is the highest priority for long-term sustainability of this 

ecological system.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-8 National Forests in Mississippi

Herbaceous Groundcover is an ecologically essential 

characteristic of the pine-dominated ecosystems in the 

southeastern coastal plain ecoregions of the United States.

Fire regime is a process fundamental to long-term 

sustainability of this ecological system. Many species 

associated with it are dependent upon fire to maintain open 

canopy conditions. Under historical reference conditions, fire is 

believed to have been frequent enough to limit development of 

fire-intolerant hardwoods and both loblolly and shortleaf pines. 

Fire also stimulated rich understories of grasses and forbs. Fire suppression has led to increases in 

overstory canopy and shrub densities, reducing densities of grass-forb understories. Plant species 

diversity in these understories also has been adversely affected by intensive grazing and mechanical site 

preparation in some places. Management activities are frequently needed to restore longleaf pine 

overstories, open canopies, historical fire regimes, and characteristic grass-forb understories.

Canopy structure is an attribute essential to species diversity and long-term sustainability of this 

ecological system and its associated components. Open longleaf pine forests provide foraging and nesting 

opportunities for many species, including the federally threatened gopher tortoise and associated species.

Tree age diversity is a characteristic important to the longleaf pine ecological system. Mature forest and 

woodland (including old-growth) in this system provide a variety of nesting and foraging opportunities 

for many species and provide adequate fine fuels to carry fire throughout the system. Maintaining a 

sustainable mix of tree ages is important to long-term stability of the ecological system.

Upland Longleaf Pine Forest and Woodland Desired Ecological Condition

Overstories are typically dominated by longleaf pine with relatively low frequencies of oaks, other 

hardwoods, and other yellow pines. Scattered clumps of hardwoods occur on xeric sites in this ecological 

system. Midstories are sparse and typically dominated by scrub oaks and other hardwoods. Understories 

are open and dominated by dense growth of grasses and forbs.

This system supports populations of associated threatened and endangered species, including the 

endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, the threatened gopher tortoise, and Mississippi gopher frog.

Where conditions are appropriate, several rare communities are typically embedded within this larger 

system including herbaceous seepage bogs, xeric sandhills, and depression ponds.

The longleaf pine forests and woodlands are composed of a wide range of age classes, from regeneration 

to old-growth. Regenerating, young, and mid-aged forest and woodlands may occur in small scattered 

patches (less than 2 acres), but typically occur in even-aged patches of 3-25 acres. Regenerating longleaf 

pine forest and woodland (0-10 years old) comprise 1-10 percent of system acreage once conversion from 

non-target species has occurred, with the proportion of regenerating forest possibly exceeding 10 percent 

during the conversion. Individual and small patches of snags and live overstory trees provide diversity to 

the vegetation structure within the regenerating forest and woodland. Residual snags and live overstory 

trees may form a sparse overstory resulting in a two-aged forest. Mature forest and woodland (60 years 

old or older) comprise approximately 65 percent of system acreage, which includes 10 percent of system 

acreage in old-growth.

Forests and woodlands are open to very open, with canopy closure in mature examples of this system 

being less than 80 percent (often less than 60 percent), especially within gopher tortoise habitat. Open 

conditions are maintained with fire, which occurs on an average return interval of 1-3 years; 

approximately 40 percent of fires occur during the growing season.

Understory Composition Guidance: 

This ecosystem includes midstories 

that are sparse and typically 

dominated by scrub oaks and other 

fire-tolerant hardwoods. The 

understory should be open and 

dominated by dense native grasses 

and forbs, the density of which are 

dependent on local soil conditions
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-9

Upland Longleaf Pine Forest and Woodland Management Strategy

Strategies for restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the longleaf 

pine ecological system should emphasize the appropriate fire 

regime, thinnings, and gap creation to promote and maintain the 

desired ecological system structure. Some restoration is expected 

to occur during the first decade of implementation; however the 

primary focus is on improving existing stands to manage for 

federally threatened and endangered species. Restoration remains a 

long-term goal for longleaf pine forests on the Forests, but the rate 

of progress will be slow given current program levels and 

competing Forest plan needs. Tools such as stewardship programs 

and collaboration with partners offer opportunities to foster 

longleaf restoration.

Most upland sites dominated by slash or loblolly pine on National Forest lands in Mississippi are artifacts 

of reforestation activities of the twentieth century. During the early and mid twentieth century, the science 

and technology of the time did not allow for replanting of longleaf pine after virgin longleaf forests were 

harvested. As a result, slash and loblolly pines were introduced under different management-emphasis 

regimes that focused on reforestation, game species and fire suppression. While the restoration of more 

ecologically rich and sustainable longleaf systems can be a decades- or centuries-long long, laborintensive and expensive process, much of the ecological function associated with longleaf systems can be 

restored relatively quickly and easily by first transitioning existing slash and loblolly occurrences through 

"high-function" slash and loblolly phases.

For the purposes of this planning process, high-function loblolly and slash pine phases are defined as 

those in which the fire and canopy regimes are sufficient to restore all or most of the 

understory/groundcover composition and structure normally associated with healthy, sustainable longleaf 

pine-dominated systems despite the differences in overstory composition. The presence of mature 

dominate canopy trees capable of supporting, or already supporting, the endangered red-cockaded 

woodpecker is an additional indicator of high-function and takes precedence over longleaf restoration 

activities. Thinning cuts and some reseeding may be required to assure the proper groundcover 

assemblages but, with appropriate fire regimes, these activities should be fairly easy to accomplish in 

order to achieve high-function loblolly and slash phases in a relatively short period of time when 

compared to other restoration methods. 

We recognize that groundcover vegetation is the primary attribute required to support much of the 

biodiversity normally associated with healthy longleaf systems. We also simultaneously acknowledge that 

there are subtle and, in many cases, poorly understood ecological functions that require longleafdominated canopies for these systems to be considered fully restored. Accordingly, high-function loblolly 

and slash occurrences should be considered only partially restored and restoration efforts should continue 

until both the overstories and understories meet the criteria for fully restored longleaf systems.

Upland Longleaf Pine Forest and Woodland Key Ecological Attributes 

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 4. These indicators are iterative and can be 

amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.

Restoring the Canopy: Where 

longleaf is still present, appropriate 

fire frequency, seasonality, and 

intensity may be sufficient to 

encourage the gradual return of 

longleaf dominance. Where 

longleaf is absent, manual or 

mechanical plantings may be 

required and should be executed in 

ways that minimize disturbance of 

the already-restored groundcover 

in high-function loblolly and slash 

occurrences.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-10 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 4. Upland longleaf pine forest and woodland key attributes and indicator metrics of 

ecosystem sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very 

Good

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential 

acres with Appropriate 

System

<50 50-74 75-89 >90

Distance from Roads

Paved Open Road 

Density (Road miles 

per sq. mile)

>2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Total Road and Trail

Density (Road miles 

per sq. mile)

>2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Gated Road 

Density (Road miles 

per sq. mile)

>2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Open Road 

Density (Road miles 

per sq. mile)

>2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Fire Regime

Percent of System 

Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval

<25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System 

Acres Burned During 

the Growing Season

<21 21-40 or >80 41-60 61-80

Forest Age Diversity

% Mature Forest <45 or >75 45-49 or 71-75 50-54 or 66-70 55-65

% Regenerating Forest 0 or >15 11-15 1-5 6-10

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with 

Invasive Species 

Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Percent of Invasive 

Species Occupying 

System

>6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

Understory 

Composition

Compliance with 

Understory 

Composition Guidance

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Vegetation Structure % Mature Open 

Canopy <65 65-74 75-85 >85

G.2.2Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland Ecological System 

Characteristics

Abundance of the shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland ecological system on the landscape is the most 

important characteristic of this system, due to its widespread conversion to other forest types over the past 

century as a result of agricultural clearing, forest management, and fire suppression. Restoration of the 

shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland ecological system to appropriate sites is the highest priority for 

long-term sustainability of this ecological system.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-11

Fire regime is another characteristic fundamental to long-term sustainability of this ecological system.

Species diversity and richness are dependent upon fire to maintain open canopy conditions and floristic 

composition.

Canopy structure is a characteristic important to species diversity and long-term sustainability of this 

ecological system and its associated components. Open shortleaf pine forests provide foraging and nesting 

opportunities for many species.

Tree age diversity is another characteristic important to the shortleaf pine ecological system. Mature 

forest and woodland (including old-growth) in this system provide a variety of nesting and foraging 

opportunities for many species and provide adequate fine fuels to carry fire throughout the system.

Maintaining a sustainable mix of tree ages is vital to long-term stability of the ecological system.

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland Desired Ecological Condition

Over-stories are typically dominated by shortleaf pine grading into stands with a mixture of upland 

hardwoods and other yellow pines. More typical are areas in which oaks, hickories, sweetgum, yellow 

poplar, maples, and blackgum have become prominent in the mid-story and overstory and herbaceous 

patches are rare. Under-stories are dominated by dense growth of grasses and forbs. This system supports 

populations of associated rare species, including Bachman’s sparrow and the northern bob-white. Where 

suitable site conditions exist, several rare habitats are typically embedded within this larger system 

including rock outcrops, seeps, springs, and seepage swamps, and ephemeral ponds and emergent 

wetlands. Where site conditions are appropriate, these habitats are present and functioning within the 

larger system.

Ages of diagnostic tree species are diverse, providing a sustained availability of forests and woodlands 

across age classes, from regeneration to old-growth. Regenerating, young, and mid-aged forest and 

woodland may occur in small scattered patches (less than 2 acres), but typically occur in even-aged 

patches of 3-25 acres. Regenerating forest and woodland (0-10 years old) comprise approximately 1-10 

percent of system acreage. Individual and small patches of snags and live overstory trees provide diversity 

to the vegetation structure within the regenerating forest and woodlands, and in some areas snags and live 

overstory trees form a two-aged forest. Mature forest and woodland (60 years old or older) comprise 

approximately 65 percent of system acreage, which includes 10 percent of system acreage in old-growth.

Forests and woodlands are open to very open, with canopy closure in mature examples of this system 

being less than 80 percent. Open conditions are maintained with fire, which occurs on an average return

interval of 1-3 years with approximately 40 percent of fires occurring during the growing season.

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland Management Strategy

Forest strategies for restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland 

ecological system should emphasize restoring the appropriate fire regime and using thinnings and evenaged and uneven-aged regeneration activities during the first decade of Forest plan implementation.

Restoration of this ecological system remains a long-term goal for shortleaf pine-oak forests on the 

Forests, but not one that will be immediately implemented given current program levels and competing 

needs. Tools such as stewardship programs and collaboration with partners offer opportunities to foster 

shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland restoration.

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 5. These indicators are iterative and can be 

amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-12 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 5. Shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland key attributes and indicator metrics of 

ecosystem sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very 

Good

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential 

acres with Appropriate 

System

<50 50-74 75-89 >90

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Paved Open Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Total Road and Trail

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Gated Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Open Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres 

Burned at Desired 

Return Interval

<25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System Acres 

Burned During the 

Growing Season

<21 21-40 or >80 41-60 61-80

Forest Age Diversity

% Mature Forest <45 or >75 45-49 or 71-75 50-54 or 66-70 55-65

% Regenerating Forest 0 or >15 11-15 1-5 6-10

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Percent of Invasive 

Species Occupying

System

>6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

Vegetation Structure % Mature Open Canopy <65 65-74 75-85 >85

G.2.3Loblolly Forest 

Loblolly Forest Ecological System Characteristics

Abundance of the loblolly pine forest ecological system on the landscape is the most important 

characteristic of this system. Loblolly pine forest is widespread throughout the National Forests in 

Mississippi and occupies sites which historically supported other forest types. Conversion of the loblolly 

pine forest ecological system to appropriate ecological systems is the highest priority for long-term 

sustainability of the forest. However, loblolly pine and loblolly pine-hardwood forests should be retained 

on site types where it is native.

Loblolly Forest Desired Ecological Condition

This system is a predominately mature or old-growth forest with a diversity of vertical and age structure 

on sites with suitable habitat for this species and in areas where it historically occurred. Sites on which 

this association occurs that are not of historical occurrence are converted to the desired historical type as 

described in the ecological system sustainability characteristics (section G.1.3). Until restoration to 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-13

appropriate historical condition is completed, loblolly pine forests and woodlands are managed toward the 

desired condition for the appropriate ecological system.

Loblolly Forest Management Strategy

The management strategy for loblolly pine is to restore this 

species to appropriate ecological diversity systems over time. 

Until restoration to historical forest types is completed, loblolly 

pine forests and woodlands should be managed toward the 

desired condition for the appropriate ecological system and to 

sustain species diversity and threatened and endangered species.

Thinnings, gap creations, and even-aged and uneven-aged 

regeneration are important management activities to promote and 

maintain the desired ecological system structural conditions.

Appropriate fire regimes for the future ecological system should 

be implemented. Restoration of appropriate ecological systems 

remains a long-term goal for loblolly pine forests on the National 

Forests in Mississippi. Tools such as stewardship programs and 

collaboration with partners offer opportunities to foster restoration of the appropriate ecological systems.

Loblolly Forest Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 6. In most cases, these indicators are intended to 

address the restoration of this ecosystem to appropriate native systems. These indicators are iterative and 

can be amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.

Table G 6. Loblolly forest key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very 

Good

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres 

Burned at Desired Return 

Interval

<25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System Acres 

Burned During the Growing 

Season

<21 21-40 or >80 41-60 61-80

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Paved Open Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Total Road and Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Gated Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Open Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of Ecological System 

Acres at Desired Condition <50 50-70 71-90 >90

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System >6 4-6 1-3 <1

Vegetation Structure % Mature Open Canopy <65 65-74 75-85 >85

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

Restoring Native Ecosystems is a 

high priority across the National 

Forests in Mississippi. On sites 

where loblolly pine is not native, 

restoration of Upland Longleaf Pine 

Forest and Woodland can be 

enhanced by transitioning loblolly 

through the high-function phases 

described previously. Outside of the 

native range of longleaf, restoration 

to other native ecosystem types such 

as shortleaf-oak, hardwoods, and 

prairies among others, is desired.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-14 National Forests in Mississippi

G.2.4Southern Loblolly-Hardwood Flatwoods

Southern Loblolly-Hardwood Flatwoods Ecological System Characteristics

Abundance of the southern loblolly-hardwood flatwoods ecological system on the landscape is the most 

important characteristic of this system. This ecological system has remained largely intact with most 

maintenance work related to restoration of the species diversity component.

Fire regime is believed to be another characteristic fundamental to long-term sustainability of this 

ecological system. Species diversity and richness may be dependent upon fire to maintain open canopy 

conditions and floristic composition.

Canopy structure is a characteristic important to species diversity and long-term sustainability of this 

ecological system and its associated components. Open southern loblolly-hardwood flatwoods provide 

foraging and nesting opportunities for many species, but especially for the red-cockaded woodpecker.

Tree age diversity is another characteristic important to the southern loblolly-hardwood flatwoods 

ecological system. Mature forest and woodland (including old-growth) in this system provide a variety of 

nesting and foraging opportunities for many species and provides adequate fine fuels to carry fire 

throughout the system. Maintaining a sustainable mix of tree ages is vital to long-term stability of the 

ecological system.

Southern Loblolly-Hardwood Flatwoods Desired Ecological Condition

Southern loblolly-hardwood flatwood overstories are typically dominated by loblolly pine and associated 

hardwoods, especially water oak. This system supports populations of the federally endangered redcockaded woodpeckers. Where suitable site conditions exist, several rare communities are typically 

embedded within this larger system including Jackson prairie, rock outcrops, and seeps, springs, and 

seepage swamps. 

This system is dominated by mature and mid-aged forest, and a network of well-distributed old-growth is 

present. Early seral components exist in sufficient quantities to sustain this system over time. Forests are 

open to very open, with canopy closure in mature examples of this system being less than 80 percent. Fire 

occurs at an interval of 1-3 years with approximately 40 percent of fires occurring in the growing season.

Southern Loblolly-Hardwood Flatwoods Management Strategy

Forest strategies for maintaining and enhancing the southern loblolly-hardwood flatwoods ecological 

system should emphasize restoring the appropriate fire regime and using thinnings and even-aged 

regeneration activities during the first decade of forest plan implementation. The goal of the Bienville NF 

is the maintenance of this ecological system on the Forests. Management of this system for recovery of 

the red-cockaded woodpecker and restoration of any embedded endemic Jackson prairie are important 

objectives for management of this ecological system. Tools such as stewardship programs and 

partnerships offer opportunities to foster these objectives.

Southern Loblolly-Hardwood Flatwoods Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 7. In most cases, these indicators are intended to 

address the restoration of this ecosystem to appropriate native systems. These indicators are iterative and 

can be amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-15

Table G 7. Southern loblolly-hardwood flatwoods key attributes and indicator metrics of 

ecosystem sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very 

Good

Forest Age 

Diversity % Mature Forest <45 or >75 45-49 or 71-75 50-54 or 66-70 55-65

Vegetation 

Structure % Mature Open Canopy <65 65-74 75-85 >85

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System >6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres 

Burned at Desired Return 

Interval

<25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System Acres 

Burned During the Growing 

Season

<21 21-40 or >80 41-60 61-80

Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Paved Open Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Total Road and Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Gated Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Open Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Ecological System 

Abundance at 

Desired Condition

Percent of potential acres 

with Appropriate System <50 50-74 75-89 >90

Vegetation 

Structure % Mature Open Canopy <65 65-74 75-85 >85

G.2.5Slash Pine Forest

Slash Pine Forest Ecological System Characteristics

Abundance of the slash pine forest ecological system on the landscape is the most important 

characteristic of this system. Slash pine forest occurs in four units of the Forests and may occupy sites 

which historically supported other forest types. Restoration of the slash pine forest ecological system to 

appropriate ecological systems is the highest priority for long-term sustainability of the forest.

Slash Pine Forest Desired Ecological Condition

This system is a predominately mature or old-growth forest with a diversity of age and vertical structure 

on sites where this species is appropriate and historically occurred. Areas where this association has been 

introduced via planting are restored to the desired historical type as described in the ecological 

sustainability evaluation database. Until restoration to appropriate historical condition is completed, slash 

pine forests and woodlands should be managed toward the desired condition for the appropriate 

ecological system.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-16 National Forests in Mississippi

Slash Pine Forest Management Strategy

The management strategy for slash pine is to regenerate it on appropriate sites over time. Slash pine is of 

natural occurrence on some alluvial soil sites on the De Soto NF and should be retained according to 

ecologically sustainable amounts. On other units, restoration to historical ecological systems from slash 

pine is necessary. Until restoration to appropriate historical condition is completed, slash pine forests and 

woodlands should be managed toward the desired condition for the appropriate ecological system. 

Thinnings, gap creation, and even-aged and uneven-aged regeneration are important management 

activities to promote and maintain the desired ecological system structural conditions. Appropriate fire 

regimes for the future ecological system should be restored to slash pine forests. Restoration of 

appropriate ecological systems remains a long-term goal for slash pine forests on the Forests. Tools such 

as stewardship programs and collaboration with partners offer opportunities to foster restoration of the 

appropriate ecological systems.

Slash Pine Forest Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 8. In most cases, these indicators are intended to 

address the restoration of this ecosystem to appropriate native systems. These indicators are iterative and 

can be amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.

Table G 8. Slash pine forest key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very 

Good

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres 

Burned at Desired Return 

Interval

<25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System Acres 

Burned During the Growing 

Season

<21 21-40 or >80 41-60 61-80

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Paved Open Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Total Road and Trail

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Gated Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Open Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of Ecological 

System Acres at Desired 

Condition

<50 50-70 71-90 >90

Vegetation Structure % Mature Open Canopy <65 65-74 75-85 >85

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Percent of Invasive 

Species Occupying System >6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-17

G.2.6Northern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest 

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest Ecological System Characteristics

Abundance of the northern dry upland hardwood forest on the landscape is the most important 

characteristic of this system due to its widespread conversion to other forest types over the past century as 

a result of agricultural clearing, forest management, and fire suppression. Restoration of the northern dry 

upland hardwood forest ecological system to appropriate sites is the highest priority for long-term 

sustainability of this ecological system.

Fire regime is another characteristic fundamental to long-term sustainability of this ecological system.

Fire is important to achieve regeneration of desired hardwood species and maintain community function.

Canopy structure is an important characteristic for species diversity and long-term sustainability of this 

ecological system and its associated components. Closed canopy hardwood forests provide foraging and 

nesting opportunities for many species.

Tree age diversity is another characteristic important to the northern dry upland hardwood ecological 

system. Maintaining a sustainable mix of tree ages is vital to long-term stability of the ecological system.

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest Desired Ecological Condition

Overstories are typically dominated by upland oaks (post, southern red, blackjack, and white) and 

hickories (mockernut and sand). Often loblolly and shortleaf pines are intermingled with hardwoods.

Midstories are sparse and typically dominated by dogwood, persimmon, and other hardwoods.

Understories are also sparse and dominated by seedling hardwoods, shrubs and forbs. This system 

supports populations of associated rare species, including the worm-eating warbler and the yellow lady’sslipper. Where suitable site conditions exist, several rare habitats are typically imbedded within this larger 

system including rock outcrops, seeps, springs, and depression pondshores. 

Ages of diagnostic tree species are diverse, providing a sustained availability of forests across age classes, 

from regeneration to old-growth. Regenerating, young, and mid-aged forests may occur in small scattered 

patches (less than 2 acres), but typically occur in even-aged patches of 3-5 acres. Regenerating forests (0-

10 years old) comprise no more than 7 percent of system acreage. Individual and small patches of snags 

and live overstory trees provide diversity to the vegetation structure within the regenerating forest and 

woodlands, and in some areas snags and live overstory trees form a two-aged forest. Mature forest (60 

years old or older) comprises approximately 70 percent of system acreage, which includes 10 percent of 

system acreage in old-growth. Forests are closed, with canopy closure in mature examples of this system 

being greater than 80 percent. Low intensity fire creeps into this system from the surrounding upland 

community and occurs on an average return interval of 1-6 years.

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest Management Strategy

Forest strategies for restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the northern dry upland hardwood forests 

should emphasize restoring the appropriate fire regime and using thinnings, gap creation, and irregular 

even-aged regeneration activities. Return of relative abundance to approach historical levels is a longterm goal for upland hardwood forests on the National Forests in Mississippi, but not one that will be 

immediately implemented given current program levels and competing needs. Tools such as stewardship 

programs and collaboration with partners offer opportunities to foster upland hardwood forest and 

woodland restoration.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-18 National Forests in Mississippi

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 9. In most cases, these indicators are intended to 

address the restoration of this ecosystem to appropriate native systems. These indicators are iterative and 

can be amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.

Table G 9. Northern dry upland hardwood forest key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem 

sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good

Forest Age Diversity % Regenerating Forest <3 or >7 3 or 7 6 4-5

% Mature Forest <55 or >75 55-59 or 71-75 60-65 66-70

Vegetation Structure % Mature Very-Closed 

Canopy <65 65-74 75-85 >85

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres 

Burned at Desired Return 

Interval

<25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System Acres 

Burned During the Growing 

Season

<21 21-40 or >80 41-60 61-80

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Paved Open Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Total Road and Trail

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Gated Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Open Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential acres 

with Appropriate System <50 50-74 75-89 >90

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System >6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

G.2.7Southern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest 

Southern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest Ecological System Characteristics

Abundance of the southern dry upland hardwood forest on the landscape is an important characteristic of 

this system due to its conversion to other forest types over the past century as a result of agricultural 

clearing, forest management, and frequent intense burns. Maintenance of the southern dry upland 

hardwood forest ecological system where it occurs is the highest priority for long-term sustainability of 

this ecological system.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-19

Fire regime is another characteristic fundamental to long-term sustainability of this ecological system.

While the system did not burn frequently, it does exist within the matrix of a fire-maintained ecological 

system.

Canopy structure is a characteristic important to species diversity and long-term sustainability of this 

ecological system and its associated components. Closed canopy hardwood forests provide foraging and 

nesting opportunities for many species.

Tree age diversity is another characteristic important to the southern dry upland hardwood ecological 

system. Maintaining a sustainable mix of tree ages is vital to long-term stability of the ecological system.

Southern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest Desired Ecological Condition

Southern dry upland hardwood forest overstories are typically dominated by upland oaks (post, southern 

red, and white) and hickories (mockernut and sand). Pines (longleaf, loblolly, and shortleaf) may be a 

significant species component but are not dominant. Midstories are typically dominated by dogwood and 

other hardwoods. Understories are sparse and dominated by seedling hardwoods, shrubs and forbs. This 

system supports populations of associated uncommon species, including the worm-eating warbler and the 

mimic glass lizard. Where site conditions are suitable, several rare communities are typically imbedded 

within this larger system including seeps, springs, and seepage swamps and emergent ponds and wetlands.

Ages of diagnostic tree species are diverse, providing a sustained availability of forests across age classes, 

from regeneration to old-growth. Regenerating, young, and mid-aged forest may occur in small scattered 

patches (less than 2 acres), but typically occur in even-aged patches of 3-5 acres. Regenerating forests (0-

10 years old) comprise no more than 3 percent of system acreage. Individual and small patches of snags 

and live overstory trees provide diversity to the vegetation structure within the regenerating forest and 

woodlands, and in some areas snags and live overstory trees form a two-aged forest. Mature forest (60 

years old or older) comprises approximately 80 percent of system acreage, which includes 10 percent of 

system acreage in old-growth. Forests are closed, with canopy closure in mature examples of this system 

being greater than 80 percent. Low intensity fire creeps into this system from the surrounding upland 

community and occurs on an average return interval of 1-6 years.

Southern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest Management Strategy

Forest strategy for restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the southern dry upland hardwood forest 

ecological system emphasizes using natural processes to reach the desired conditions. Southern dry 

upland hardwoods are generally intermingled among the dominant pine ecosystems. As a result, this 

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

system burns less readily than the surrounding pine dominated systems, it is difficult to predict whether or 

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

fire exposure, the actual burn rates may vary. It is especially difficult to predict seasonality/intensity due 

to the differences in ground cover moisture regimes between upland hardwoods and surrounding pine 

systems. It is considered natural and an ecologically appropriate attribute of fire behavior for embedded 

hardwood communities to burn at rates lower than fire exposure rates. No management activities were 

identified to promote and maintain the desired ecological system structural conditions other than 

maintaining it at its current abundance across the Forests over time.

Southern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 10. In most cases, these indicators are intended 

to address the restoration of this ecosystem to appropriate native systems. These indicators are iterative 

and can be amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-20 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 10. Southern dry upland hardwood forest key attributes and indicator metrics of 

ecosystem sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very 

Good

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Paved Open Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Total Road and Trail

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Gated Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Open Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential acres 

with Appropriate System <50 50-74 75-89 >90

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres 

Burned at Desired Return 

Interval

<25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System Acres 

Burned During the Growing 

Season

<21 21-40 or >80 41-60 61-80

Forest Age Diversity % Mature Forest <61 61-70 or >90 71-80 81-90

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Percent of Invasive 

Species Occupying System >6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

Vegetation Structure % Mature Very-Closed 

Canopy <65 65-74 75-85 >85

G.2.8Southern Loess Bluff Forest 

Southern Loess Bluff Forest Ecological System Characteristics

Abundance of the southern loess bluff forest on loessal soils is the most important characteristic of this 

system due to its conversion to other forest types over the past century as a result of agricultural clearing 

and forest management. Restoration of the southern loess bluff forest ecological system on appropriate 

sites is the highest priority for long-term sustainability of this ecological system.

Fire regime is another characteristic of long-term sustainability of this ecological system. While the 

system did not burn frequently, it does exist within the matrix of a fire-maintained ecological system.

Canopy structure is a characteristic important to species diversity and long-term sustainability of this 

ecological system and its associated components. Closed canopy hardwood forests provide foraging and 

nesting opportunities for many species.

Tree age diversity is another characteristic important to the southern loess bluff forest ecological system.

Maintaining a sustainable mix of tree ages is vital to long-term stability of the ecological system.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-21

Southern Loess Bluff Forest Desired Ecological Condition

Overstories are typically dominated by many types of hardwoods, especially cherrybark oak, water oak, 

swamp chestnut oak, tulip poplar, Florida sugar maple and pignut hickory, with beech and magnolia 

present but not numerous. The more-or-less open subcanopy contains magnolia, hornbeam, tulip poplar, 

red maple, and dogwood. The understory is relatively sparse and consists of shrubs and woody vines.

Switchcane is a prevalent member of the shrub layer and may dominate in places. This system supports 

populations of associated rare species, including Webster’s salamander, Swainson’s warbler, and fetid 

trillium. Where site conditions are suitable, several rare habitats are typically imbedded within this larger 

system including rock outcrops, seeps, and springs. 

Ages of diagnostic tree species are diverse, providing a sustained availability of forests across age classes, 

from regeneration to old-growth. Regenerating, young, and mid-aged forest may occur in small scattered 

patches (less than 2 acres), but typically occur in even-aged patches of 3-9 acres. Regenerating forest (0-

10 years old) comprise no more than 5 percent of system acreage. Individual and small patches of snags 

and live overstory trees provide diversity to the vegetation structure within the regenerating forest and 

woodlands, and in some areas snags and live overstory trees form a two-aged forest. Mature forest (60 

years old or older) comprises approximately 80 percent of system acreage, which includes 10 percent of 

system acreage in old-growth. Forests are closed, with canopy closure in mature examples of this system 

being greater than 80 percent. Fire creeps into this system from the surrounding upland community and 

on an average return interval of 6-20 years. 

Table G 11. Southern loess bluff forest key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem 

sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Paved Open Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Total Road and Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Gated Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Open Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Ecological System 

Abundance at 

Desired Condition

Percent of potential acres with 

Appropriate System <60 60-79 80-89 >90

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval <25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System Acres Burned 

During the Growing Season <21 21-40 or >80 41-60 61-80

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species 

Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System >6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

Vegetation Structure % Mature Very-Closed Canopy <65 65-74 75-85 >85

Southern Loess Bluff Forest Management Strategy

Forest strategy for maintaining and enhancing the southern loess bluff forest ecological system 

emphasizes using natural processes to reach the desired conditions. No management activities were 
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-22 National Forests in Mississippi

identified to promote and maintain the desired ecological system structural conditions other than 

maintaining it at its current abundance across the Forests over time. Restoration of this ecosystem to its 

appropriate system will be accomplished through conversion of loblolly pine forest.

Southern Loess Bluff Forest Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 11. In most cases, these indicators are intended 

to address the restoration of this ecosystem to appropriate native systems. These indicators are iterative 

and can be amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.

G.2.9Southern Mesic Slope Forest 

Southern Mesic Slope Forest Ecological System Characteristics

Abundance of the southern mesic slope forest is the most important characteristic of this system due to 

its conversion to other forest types over the past century as a result of agricultural clearing and forest 

management. Restoration of the southern mesic slope forest ecological system on appropriate sites is the 

highest priority for long-term sustainability of this ecological system.

Fire regime is another characteristic fundamental to long-term sustainability of this ecological system.

Low intensity fire is important to achieve regeneration of desired hardwood species and maintain 

community function.

Canopy structure is a characteristic important to species diversity and long-term sustainability of this 

ecological system and its associated components. Closed canopy hardwood forests provide foraging and 

nesting opportunities for many species.

Tree age diversity is another characteristic important to the southern mesic slope forest ecological 

system. Maintaining a sustainable mix of tree ages is vital to long-term stability of the ecological system.

Southern Mesic Slope Forest Desired Ecological Condition

Overstories are typically dominated by hardwoods (beech, white oak, cherrybark oak, southern magnolia), 

although mixed loblolly pine-hardwood conditions also exist within this system. Subcanopies are more or 

less open and typically contain magnolia, hornbeam, tulip poplar, red maple, and flowering dogwood.

Shrubs include red buckeye, switch cane, witch hazel, and deciduous holly. The forest floor typically has 

a rich organic layer with abundant leaf litter. This system supports populations of associated rare species, 

including Webster’s salamander, bay star vine, and ravine sedge. Where site conditions are suitable, 

several rare habitats are typically imbedded within this larger system including rock outcrop, seeps, and 

springs. Ages of diagnostic tree species are diverse, providing a sustained availability of forests across age 

classes, from regeneration to old-growth. Regenerating, young, and mid-aged forest may occur in small 

scattered patches (less than 2 acres), but typically occur in even-aged patches of 3-9 acres. Regenerating 

forest (0-10 years old) comprise no more than 5 percent of system acreage. Individual and small patches 

of snags and live overstory trees provide diversity to the vegetation structure within the regenerating 

forest and woodlands, and in some areas snags and live overstory trees form a two-aged forest. Mature 

forest (60 years old or older) comprises approximately 80 percent of system acreage, which includes 10 

percent of system acreage in old-growth. Forests are closed, with canopy closure in mature examples of 

this system being greater than 80 percent. Low intensity fire creeps into this system from the surrounding 

upland community and occurs on an average return interval of 1-6 years. Loblolly pine dominated 

associations on the Bienville NF are burned on an average return interval of 1-3 years.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-23

Southern Mesic Slope Forest Management Strategy

Restoration to this ecological system will involve conversion from slash pine forest on the Chickasawhay 

and De Soto units and mesic loblolly pine on the Homochitto and Bienville units to historic forest types, 

along with thinning loblolly and slash pine throughout the Forests. Both managed and natural thinning of 

pines will favor establishment of mesic hardwoods over time. No additional management activities were 

identified to promote and maintain the desired ecological system structural conditions; rather this system 

should use natural processes to reach the desired condition.

Table G 12. Southern mesic slope forest key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem 

sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Paved Open Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Total Road and Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Gated Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Open Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential acres with Appropriate 

System <50 50-74 75-89 >90

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval <25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System Acres Burned During 

the Growing Season <21 21-40 or 

>80 41-60 61-80

Forest Age Diversity % Mature Forest <61 61-70 or 

>90 71-80 81-90

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species 

Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Percent of Invasive Species Occupying 

System >6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

Vegetation Structure % Mature Very-Closed Canopy <65 65-74 75-85 >85

Southern Mesic Slope Forest Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 12. In most cases, these indicators are intended 

to address the restoration of this ecosystem to appropriate native systems. These indicators are iterative 

and can be amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.

G.2.10 Northern Mesic Hardwood Forest

Northern Mesic Hardwood Forest Ecological System Characteristics

Abundance of the northern mesic hardwood forest is the most important characteristic of this system due 

to its conversion to other forest types over the past century as a result of agricultural clearing and forest 
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-24 National Forests in Mississippi

management. Restoration of the northern mesic hardwood forest ecological system on appropriate sites is 

the highest priority for long-term sustainability of this ecological system.

Fire regime is another characteristic fundamental to long-term sustainability of this ecological system.

Low intensity fire is important to achieve regeneration of desired hardwood species and maintain 

community function.

Canopy structure is a characteristic important to species diversity and long-term sustainability of this 

ecological system and its associated components. Closed canopy hardwood forests provide foraging and 

nesting opportunities for many species 

Tree age diversity is another characteristic important to the northern mesic hardwood forest ecological 

system. Maintaining a sustainable mix of tree ages is vital to long-term stability of the ecological system.

Northern Mesic Hardwood Forest Desired Ecological Condition

Overstories are typically dominated by hardwoods (beech, white oak, cherrybark oak, southern magnolia, 

etc). Mixed loblolly pine-hardwood conditions may exist within this system in the southern portion of the 

range. Subcanopies are more or less open and typically contain magnolia, hornbeam, tulip poplar, red 

maple, and flowering dogwood. Shrubs include red buckeye, switch cane, witch hazel, and deciduous 

holly. The forest floor typically has a rich organic layer with abundant leaf litter. This system supports 

populations of associated rare species, including Webster’s salamander, American ginseng, and Turk’s-cap 

lily. Where suitable site conditions exist, several rare habitats are typically imbedded within this larger 

system including rock outcrops, seeps, and springs. 

Ages of diagnostic tree species are diverse, providing a sustained availability of forests across age classes, 

from regeneration to old-growth. Regenerating, young, and mid-aged forest may occur in small scattered 

patches (less than 2 acres), but typically occur in even-aged patches of 3-9 acres. Regenerating forests (0-

10 years old) comprise no more than 5 percent of system acreage. Individual and small patches of snags 

and live overstory trees provide diversity to the vegetation structure within the regenerating forest and 

woodlands, and in some areas snags and live overstory trees form a two-aged forest. Mature forest (60 

years old or older) comprises approximately 80 percent of system acreage, which includes 10 percent of 

system acreage in old-growth. Forests are closed, with canopy closure in mature examples of this system 

being greater than 80 percent. Low intensity fire creeps into this system from the surrounding upland 

community and occurs on an average return interval of 1-6 years.

Northern Mesic Hardwood Forest Management Strategy

Restoration to this ecological system is expected to use conversion from loblolly pine forest and be 

accomplished through thinning loblolly throughout the Forests. Both managed and natural thinning of 

pines should favor mesic hardwoods over time. First thinnings, subsequent thinning and gap creation 

were identified as important management activities to promote and maintain the desired ecological system 

structural conditions.

Northern Mesic Hardwood Forest Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 13. In most cases, these indicators are intended 

to address the restoration of this ecosystem to appropriate native systems. These indicators are iterative 

and can be amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-25

Table G 13. Northern mesic hardwood forest key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem 

sustainability

Key Ecological Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very 

Good

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Paved Open Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Total Road and Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Gated Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Open Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential acres with 

Appropriate System <50 50-74 75-89 >90

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres 

Burned at Desired Return 

Interval

<25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System Acres 

Burned During the Growing 

Season

<21 21-40 or >80 41-60 61-80

Forest Age Diversity % Mature Forest <61 61-70 or >90 71-80 81-90

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System >6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

Vegetation Structure % Mature Very-Closed Canopy <65 65-74 75-85 >85

G.2.11 Floodplain Forest 

Floodplain Forest Ecological System Characteristics

Abundance of the floodplain forest is an important characteristic of this system due to its conversion to 

other forest types over the past century as a result of agricultural clearing and forest management.

Maintenance and improvement of species composition of the floodplain forest ecological system on 

appropriate sites is the highest priority for long-term sustainability of this ecological system.

Canopy structure is a characteristic important to species diversity and long-term sustainability of this 

ecological system and its associated components. Closed canopy hardwood forests provide foraging and 

nesting opportunities for many species.

Tree age diversity is another characteristic important to the floodplain forest ecological system.

Maintaining a sustainable mix of tree ages is important to long-term stability of the ecological system.

Species composition is another characteristic important to the floodplain forest ecological system.

Wildlife species associated with this ecological system rely on a varied mix of mast-producing hardwood 

species to survive. The current databases are not designed to track the improvement of species 

composition. Forest plan direction emphasizes having species appropriate to the site across the landscape, 

and it is assumed that removing off-site species and allowing natural succession to occur will be sufficient 

to sustain populations of a variety of mast-producing trees and associated species. As new data becomes 

available, it should be incorporated into the corporate database to ensure that species can be sustained.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-26 National Forests in Mississippi

Floodplain Forest Desired Ecological Condition

Bottomland hardwood tree species such as beech, white oak, cherrybark oak and southern magnolia are 

present in the canopy, although mesic hardwood species are present in areas less frequently flooded.

Mixed loblolly pine-hardwood conditions may exist within this system. Midstories are sparse and 

typically dominated by upper canopy species, although hornbeam, yellow poplar, red maple, and 

flowering dogwood are also present. Shrubs include red buckeye, switch cane, witch hazel, and deciduous 

holly. Switchcane is a prevalent member of the shrub layer and may dominate in places. Understories are 

generally open with sparse grass, forb and woody vine species. Drift piles and standing dead trees 

decompose naturally on the ground. The forest floor typically has a rich organic layer with abundant leaf 

litter. Canebrakes are scattered along streams in appropriate sites. This system is shaped by healthy 

hydrologic functions and processes. Several populations of rare species are associated with this system, 

including the endangered Louisiana quillwort, Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, southeastern myotis, American 

ginseng, and Turk’s cap lily. It also supports demand species such as the eastern wild turkey, river otter, 

and mink. Where suitable site conditions exit, several rare habitats are typically imbedded within this 

larger system including canebrakes, beaver ponds, seeps, springs, and cypress dominated wetlands.

This system is dominated by mature forest and woodland (60 years old or older), and a network of welldistributed old-growth is present. Early seral components exist in sufficient quantities to sustain this 

system over time. Ages of diagnostic tree species are diverse, providing a sustained availability of forests 

across age classes, from regeneration to old-growth. Regenerating, young, and mid-aged forest occur in 

small scattered patches (less than 2 acres). Regenerating forest (0-10 years old) comprise no more than 5 

percent of system acreage. Woody debris and snags are abundant throughout the forest. Mature forest (60 

years old or older) comprises approximately 90 percent of system acreage, with 10 percent of the mature 

forest in old-growth. Forests are closed, with canopy closure in mature examples of this system being 

greater than 80 percent. Low intensity fire occasionally creeps into the system from the surrounding 

upland community.

Floodplain Forest Management Strategy

Forest strategy for restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the floodplain forest ecological system 

emphasizes using natural processes to reach the desired conditions. However, an integrated vegetation 

management approach for restoration to this ecological system should emphasize thinnings of loblolly 

pine and mixed pine hardwoods to promote hardwood regeneration and conversion to floodplain forest 

over time. Both managed and natural thinning of pines will favor mesic hardwoods over time. Thinnings 

and gap creation were identified as important management activities to promote and maintain the desired 

ecological system structural conditions.

Floodplain Forest Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 14. In most cases, these indicators are intended 

to address the restoration of this ecosystem to appropriate native systems. These indicators are iterative 

and can be amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-27

Table G 14. Floodplain forest key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very 

Good

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Paved Open Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Total Road and Trail

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Gated Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Open Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential acres 

with Appropriate System <50 50-74 75-89 >90

Forest Age Diversity % Mature Forest <64 64-74 or >95 75-84 85-95

Hydrologic Function

Compliance with 

Hydrologic Function 

Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Percent of Invasive 

Species Occupying 

System

>6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

Vegetation Structure % Mature Very-Closed 

Canopy <65 65-74 75-85 >85

G.2.12 Lower Mississippi River Bottomland and Floodplain Forest 

Lower Mississippi River Bottomland and Floodplain Forest Ecological 

System Characteristics

Canopy structure is a characteristic important to species diversity and long-term sustainability of this 

ecological system and its associated components. Closed canopy hardwood forests provide foraging and 

nesting opportunities for many species.

Tree age diversity is another characteristic important to the lower Mississippi River bottomland and 

floodplain forest ecological system. Maintaining a sustainable mix of tree ages is important to long-term 

stability of the ecological system.

Lower Mississippi River Bottomland and Floodplain Forest Desired 

Ecological Condition

Bottomland hardwood tree species, such as Nuttall oak, overcup oak, honey locust, and American elm, are 

present and diagnostic in the canopy. Midstories are sparse and typically dominated by upper canopy 

species. Understories are generally open with sparse grass, forb and woody vine species. The forest floor 

typically has a rich organic layer with abundant leaf litter. Canebrakes are scattered throughout the system 

in appropriate sites. This system is shaped by healthy hydrologic functions and processes. It supports 

populations of associated rare species, including the endangered pondberry, the threatened Louisiana 

black bear, Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, southeastern myotis, and the red milk snake. It also supports 

demand species such as waterfowl and white-tailed deer, and the unique black Delta fox squirrel. Where 
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-28 National Forests in Mississippi

site conditions are suitable, several rare communities are typically embedded within this larger system 

including canebrakes, beaver ponds, seeps, springs, and cypress dominated wetlands. Riparian areas 

buffer the effects of forest management practices on water quality.

This system is dominated by mature forest and woodland (60 years old or older), and a network of welldistributed old-growth is present. Early seral components exist in sufficient quantities to sustain this 

system over time. Ages of diagnostic tree species are diverse, providing a sustained availability of forests 

across age classes, from regeneration to old-growth. Regenerating, young, and mid-aged forest occur in 

small scattered patches (less than 3 acres). Regenerating forest (0-10 years old) comprises approximately 

5 percent of system acreage. Woody debris and snags are abundant throughout the forest. Mature forest 

(60 years old or older) comprises approximately 90 percent of system acreage, with 10 percent of the 

mature forest in old-growth. Forests are closed, with canopy closure in mature examples of this system 

being greater than 80 percent.

Lower Mississippi River Bottomland and Floodplain Forest Management 

Strategy

Forest strategy for restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the lower Mississippi river bottomland and 

floodplain forest emphasizes using natural processes to reach the desired conditions. However, an 

integrated vegetation management approach should emphasize improvement of species composition and 

maintenance of mature structural condition. Natural processes are expected to contribute significantly to 

attaining the desired conditions within this system. Thinnings, gap creation, irregular even-aged 

regeneration, and uneven-aged management regeneration were identified as important management 

activities to promote and maintain the desired ecological system structural conditions.

Table G 15. Lower Mississippi River bottomland and floodplain forest key attributes and indicator 

metrics of ecosystem sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very 

Good

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Paved Open Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Total Road and Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Gated Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Open Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Ecological System 

Abundance at 

Desired Condition

Percent of potential acres 

with Appropriate System <100 <100 100 100

Forest Age Diversity

% Mature Forest <40 or >95 40-69 70-84 85-95

% Regenerating Forest 0 or >10 6-10 1 or 5 2-4

Hydrologic Function Compliance with Hydrologic 

Function Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System >6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

Vegetation Structure % Mature Closed Canopy <65 65-74 75-85 >85
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-29

Lower Mississippi River Bottomland and Floodplain Forest Key Ecological 

Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 15. In most cases, these indicators are intended 

to address the restoration of this ecosystem to appropriate native systems. These indicators are iterative 

and can be amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.

G.2.13 Near-coast Pine Flatwoods 

Near-coast Pine Flatwoods Ecological System Characteristics

Abundance of the near-coast pine flatwoods ecological system on the landscape is an important 

characteristic of this system due to the past conversion of this forest type to slash pine. Planting slash pine 

involved the use of fertilization and bedding, resulting in an altered hydrologic regime and species 

composition.

Fire regime is a major characteristic fundamental to long-term sustainability of this ecological system.

Many species associated with this system are dependent upon fire to maintain open conditions.

Canopy structure is the most important characteristic to species diversity and long-term sustainability of 

this ecological system. Structure in this system has been greatly altered by past forest management 

practices.

Near-coast Pine Flatwoods Desired Ecological Condition

The amount of woody vegetation is variable, but canopy closure is generally less than 60 percent.

Vegetative condition is characterized by widely scattered longleaf or loblolly pine and in mesic sites by 

scattered slash pine. Understory conditions range from densely shrubby to open and herbaceousdominated, based largely upon fire regime. Fire occurs at an interval of 1-3 years with no less than 40 

percent of fires occurring in the growing season. Effects of past beddings and fertilization are no longer 

evident. This system supports populations of associated rare species, including the endangered redcockaded woodpecker and the rare flame flower. Where site conditions are appropriate, herbaceous 

seepage bogs and flats are imbedded within this larger system.

Near-coast Pine Flatwoods Management Strategy

Forest strategy for restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the near-coast pine flatwoods ecological system 

emphasizes using natural processes to reach the desired conditions. Additionally, integrated fire and 

vegetation management programs should emphasize restoring this system to open conditions and 

neutralizing the effects of past management practices. Woodland thinning was identified as an important 

management activity to promote and maintain the desired ecosystem structural conditions. Many of the 

acres of this system cannot be treated commercially due to the wet environment; however, noncommercial treatments can be applied as opportunities arise (stewardships and partnerships). Natural 

processes also should contribute to achieving desired conditions.

Near-coast Pine Flatwoods Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 16. In most cases, these indicators are intended 

to address the restoration of this ecosystem to appropriate native systems. These indicators are iterative 

and can be amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-30 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 16. Near-coast pine flatwoods key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem 

sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very 

Good

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Paved Open Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Total Road and Trail

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Gated Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Open Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential acres 

with Appropriate System <50 50-74 75-89 >90

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres 

Burned at Desired Return 

Interval

<25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System Acres 

Burned During the Growing 

Season

<21 21-40 or >80 41-60 61-80

Invasive Species

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Percent of Invasive 

Species Occupying System >6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

Vegetation Structure % Open <70 70-79 80-89 90-100

G.2.14 Xeric Sandhills 

Xeric Sandhills Ecological System Characteristics

Abundance of the xeric sandhill ecological system on the landscape is an important characteristic of this 

system, due to its widespread conversion to other forest types as a result of agricultural clearing, forest 

management, and fire suppression. Restoration of the xeric sandhill ecological system to appropriate sites 

is a high priority for long-term sustainability of this system.

Fire regime is another characteristic necessary for the long-term sustainability of this ecological system.

Many species associated with this system are dependent upon fire to maintain open canopy conditions.

Canopy structure is a characteristic important to species diversity and long-term sustainability of this 

ecological system and its associated components. Open and woodland conditions provide foraging and 

nesting opportunities for many species. Woodlands are ideal habitat for the federally threatened gopher 

tortoise and associated species.

Xeric Sandhills Desired Ecological Condition 

This ecological system is managed primarily for recovery of the federally threatened gopher tortoise.

Examples of this system are in an open to woodland condition with canopy closure typically less than 60 

percent. Dominant tree species include longleaf pine, bluejack oak, turkey oak, and other oaks.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-31

Groundcover is sparse and open conditions and fire occurs at an interval of 1-3 years with approximately 

40 percent of the fires occurring in the growing season. Ephemeral ponds and wetlands are embedded 

within this system and provide quality habitat for a diversity of native species.

Xeric Sandhills Management Strategy

Forest strategy for restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the xeric sandhills ecological system emphasizes 

using fire and woodland thinning to restore habitat suitable for use by the federally threatened gopher 

tortoise and its associated species. Xeric sandhills are embedded in the surrounding longleaf pine matrix 

and is therefore subject to treatments, particularly fire, applied at the landscape level to the surrounding 

matrix. While some xeric sandhill occurrences are well mapped by soil type, additional soil and site types 

supporting xeric sandhill ecosystems remain unmapped. More thorough mapping of this ecosystem is an 

important data need.

Xeric Sandhills Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 17. These indicators are iterative and can be 

amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.

Table G 17. Xeric sandhills key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres 

Burned at Desired 

Return Interval

<25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System Acres 

Burned During the 

Growing Season

<21 21-40 or >80 41-60 61-80

Forest Age 

Diversity

% Mature Forest <45 or >75 45-49 or 71-75 50-54 or 66-70 55-65

% Regenerating Forest 0 or >15 11-15 1-5 6-10

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Percent of Invasive 

Species Occupying 

System

>6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

Understory 

Composition

Compliance with 

Understory Composition 

Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

G.2.15 Rock Outcrops 

Rock Outcrops Ecological System Characteristics

Rock outcrops are limited in occurrence on the Forests. Characteristics important to sustaining this 

ecological niche include structure of the surrounding forest matrix and protection from human 

disturbance.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-32 National Forests in Mississippi

Rock Outcrops Desired Ecological Condition

Rock outcrops are present and undisturbed on the landscape, typically within mature or old-growth, 

closed-canopy forests. No impacts from upslope erosion and soil disturbance are evident. Human 

interaction with outcrops is limited and human disturbance is not evident.

Rock Outcrops Management Strategy

Human interaction such as littering, graffiti, and traffic can cause negative impacts to species associated 

with rock outcrops. Therefore, these areas should be buffered with mature closed canopy hardwoods and 

management activities should be limited in areas where rock outcrops occur. Rock outcrops should be 

inventoried with effort made to determine moisture regime and community diversity for each outcrop.

Rock Outcrops Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 18. These indicators are iterative and can be 

amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.

Table G 18. Rock outcrops key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very 

Good

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Physical Structure

Compliance with Rare 

Community Physical Structure 

Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

G.2.16 Black Belt Calcareous Prairie and Woodland 

Black Belt Calcareous Prairie and Woodland Ecological System 

Characteristics

Abundance of the black belt calcareous prairie and woodland ecological system on the landscape is the 

most important characteristic of this system due to nearly total conversion to other forest types over the 

past century as a result of agricultural clearing, forest management, and fire suppression. Restoration of 

the black belt calcareous prairie and woodland ecological system to appropriate sites is the highest 

priority for long-term sustainability of this ecological system.

Fire regime is another characteristic fundamental to long-term sustainability of this ecological system.

Many species associated with it are dependent upon fire to maintain open conditions. 

Canopy structure is a characteristic important to species diversity and long-term sustainability of this 

ecological system and its associated components. Open prairie provides ideal habitat for many rare 

species.

Black Belt Calcareous Prairie and Woodland Desired Ecological Condition

Prairie species such as indiangrass, bluestem grasses, rosinweeds, prairie-clovers, yellow-puffs, purple 

cone-flowers, prairie cone-flowers, and others dominate the landscape. Woody vegetation is scattered and 

consists of characteristic prairie species such as post oak, rock chestnut oak, blackjack oak, and some 

eastern red cedar. Sparse woody vegetation surrounds the prairie and allows distribution and dispersal of 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-33

prairie obligate species. Fire occurs at an interval of 1-3 years with no less than 40 percent of fires 

occurring in the growing season. This system supports populations of associated rare species, including 

the prairie kingsnake, white-flowered beardtongue, Mead’s sedge, and rough rattlesnake-root.

Black Belt Calcareous Prairie and Woodland Management Strategy

The most important aspect for continued survival of prairie species is that all prairie soils are restored to 

and maintained at an open prairie condition. Since the soils are limited in occurrence, new prairie soil 

sites cannot be created; however, existing sites can be restored through removal of canopy species and 

return of appropriate fire regimes. Program strategies should emphasize removal of non-native invasive

species, retention of native hardwood species mentioned above (as appropriate), and improvement of fire 

regimes. Reintroduction of prairie species may be necessary but should only be considered as a last resort 

if species are not naturally repopulating the prairie. Program strategy supports the development of rapid 

assessment protocols to ensure protection and sustainability of the system.

Black Belt Calcareous Prairie and Woodland Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 19. These indicators are iterative and can be 

amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.

Table G 19. Black belt calcareous prairie and woodland key attributes and indicator metrics of 

ecosystem sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very 

Good

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Paved Open Road Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Total Road and Trail

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Gated Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Open Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential acres 

with Appropriate System <75 75-89 90-94 >95

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres 

Burned at Desired Return 

Interval

<25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System Acres 

Burned During the Growing 

Season

<21 21-40 or >80 41-60 61-80

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Percent of Invasive 

Species Occupying System >6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

Vegetation Structure % Open <85 85-89 90-94 >94
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-34 National Forests in Mississippi

G.2.17 Jackson Prairie and Woodland 

Jackson Prairie and Woodland Ecological System Characteristics

Abundance of the Jackson prairie and woodland ecological system on the landscape is the most important 

characteristic of this system, due to its almost total conversion to other forest types over the past century 

as a result of agricultural clearing, forest management, and fire suppression. Restoration of the Jackson 

prairie and woodland ecological system to appropriate sites is the highest priority for long-term 

sustainability of this ecological system.

Fire regime is another characteristic fundamental to long-term sustainability of this ecological system.

Many species associated with it are dependent upon fire to maintain open conditions.

Canopy structure is a characteristic important to species diversity and long-term sustainability of this 

ecological system and its associated components. Open prairie provides ideal habitat for many rare 

species.

Jackson Prairie and Woodland Desired Ecological Condition

Prairie species such as indiangrass, bluestem grasses, rosinweeds, prairie-clovers, yellow-puffs, purple 

cone-flowers, prairie cone-flowers, and others dominate the landscape. Sparse woodland condition 

surrounds the prairie and allows distribution and dispersal of prairie obligate species. Woody vegetation is 

scattered and consists of characteristic prairie species such as hawthorns and crabapples. Fire occurs at an 

interval of 1-3 years with approximately 40 percent of fires occurring in the growing season. This system 

supports populations of associated rare species, including the Jackson prairie crayfish, American kestrel, 

Ashe’s Hawthorne, great-plains ladies tresses, and Oglethorpe oak.

Jackson Prairie and Woodland Management Strategy

The most important aspect for continued survival of prairie species is that all prairie soils are restored to 

and maintained in an open prairie condition. Since the soils are limited in occurrence, new prairie soil 

sites cannot be created; however, existing sites can be restored through removal of canopy species and 

return of appropriate fire regimes. Program strategies should emphasize removal of non-native invasive 

species, closure of roads occurring within the system, and improving fire regimes. Retention of native 

hardwood species such as nutmeg hickory, Durand oak, and post oak should be considered where 

appropriate. Reintroduction of prairie species may be necessary but should only be considered as a last 

resort if species are not naturally repopulating the prairie. Program strategy supports the development of 

rapid assessment protocols to ensure protection and sustainability of the system.

Jackson Prairie and Woodland Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 20. These indicators are iterative and can be 

amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-35

Table G 20. Jackson prairie and woodland key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem 

sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very 

Good

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density >0.75 0.51-0.75 0.26-0.5 <0.25

Paved Open Road Density >0.75 0.51-0.75 0.26-0.5 <0.25

Total Road and Trail

Density >2.0 1.0-2.0 0.5-1.0 <0.5

Unpaved Gated Road 

Density >2.0 1.0-2.0 0.5-1.0 <0.5

Unpaved Open Road 

Density >1.5 0.9-1.5 0.4-0.8 <0.4

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential acres 

with Appropriate System <75 75-89 90-94 >95

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres 

Burned at Desired Return 

Interval

<25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System Acres 

Burned During the Growing 

Season

<21 21-40 or >80 41-60 61-80

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Percent of Invasive 

Species Occupying System >6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

G.2.18 Ephemeral ponds and emergent wetlands 

Ephemeral ponds and emergent wetlands Ecological System 

Characteristics

Ephemeral ponds and emergent wetlands are dispersed throughout other ecological systems on the 

National Forests in Mississippi and are limited in scope. Characteristics important to sustaining this 

ecological niche include protection of hydrologic function, fire regime, structure of the surrounding forest 

matrix, and protection from human disturbance.

Ephemeral ponds and emergent wetlands Desired Ecological Condition

Ephemeral ponds and emergent wetlands are dispersed across the landscape. They are characterized by 

soils that are semi-permanently to permanently saturated as a result of groundwater seepage, perched 

water tables, rainfall, or beaver activity. Wetland-associated species such as panic-grasses, rushes, 

spikerushes, beak-rushes, meadow beauties and marsh-pinks are present. Hydrologic function remains 

intact. Ephemeral ponds are present and functioning across the landscape in appropriate sites and provide 

habitat for a diversity of native species. Naturally fish-free isolated wetlands and ponds exist on the 

landscape. Freshwater emergent marshes may contain native fish species. Fire naturally occurs in and 

around this environment, burning through it when water levels are naturally low. This system supports 

populations of associated species, including the ornate chorus frog, tiger salamander, and the crayfish 

snake. The most critical example of this habitat is the “Grady” pond which provides breeding habitat for 

the endangered Mississippi gopher frog and Mississippi sandhill crane.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-36 National Forests in Mississippi

Ephemeral ponds and emergent wetlands Management Strategy

Management activities are frequently needed to restore examples which have been ditched or drained and 

filled. There is a major need for an inventory in order to identify and map remaining and degraded 

examples needing protection and/or restoration. Program emphasis for this rare community type is on 

project level inventories to identify extant examples and identify historical examples which are priority 

candidates for restoration. Projects should incorporate creation of new ponds where appropriate. 

Ephemeral ponds and emergent wetlands Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 21. These indicators are iterative and can be 

amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.

Table G 21. Ephemeral ponds and emergent wetlands key attributes and indicator metrics of 

ecosystem sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very 

Good

Distance from

Roads

ORV Trail Density >0.75 0.51-0.75 0.26-0.5 <0.25

Paved Open Road Density >0.75 0.51-0.75 0.26-0.5 <0.25

Total Road and Trail Density >2.0 1.0-2.0 0.5-1.0 <0.5

Unpaved Gated Road Density >2.0 1.0-2.0 0.5-1.0 <0.5

Unpaved Open Road Density >1.5 0.9-1.5 0.4-0.8 <0.4

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres 

Burned at Desired Return 

Interval

<25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System Acres 

Burned During the Growing 

Season

<21 21-40 or >80 41-60 61-80

Hydrologic 

Function

Compliance with Hydrologic 

Function Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System >6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

G.2.19 Cypress Dominated Wetlands 

Cypress Dominated Wetlands Ecological System Characteristics

Cypress dominated wetlands are dispersed throughout other ecological systems on the Forests and are 

limited in scope. Characteristics important to sustaining this ecological system include protection of 

hydrologic function, relative abundance of this system on the landscape, structure of the surrounding 

forest matrix, and protection from human disturbance. Restoration of appropriate sites to cypress is a high 

priority for long-term sustainability of this system.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-37

Cypress Dominated Wetlands Desired Ecological Condition

Mature or old-growth forest or woodland dominates this system, with a varying degree of canopy closure 

shaped by healthy hydrologic functions and processes. Historical sites on hydric soils are restored to this 

ecological system. Conditions of the surrounding vegetation types allow distribution and dispersal of 

cypress dominated wetland obligate species. This system supports populations of associated rare species, 

including the cypress-knee sedge, swallow-tailed kite, and southeastern myotis. 

Cypress Dominated Wetlands Management Strategy

Management activities are frequently needed to restore cypress dominated wetlands where appropriate.

Restoration of the hydrologic integrity to prevent drainage is a key component to the management 

strategy of this system. Program emphasis should be on inventory and mapping on a project basis to 

document all remaining examples and identify those needing restoration. All examples of this community 

should be managed for old-growth.

Cypress Dominated Wetlands Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 22. These indicators are iterative and can be 

amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.

Table G 22. Cypress dominated wetlands key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem 

sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Paved Open Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Total Road and Trail

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Gated Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Unpaved Open Road 

Density >2.0 1.26-2 0.26-1.25 <0.25

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential acres 

with Appropriate System <50 50-84 85-94 >95

Hydrologic Function

Compliance with 

Hydrologic Function 

Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Percent of Invasive 

Species Occupying 

System

>6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-38 National Forests in Mississippi

G.2.20 Wet Pine Savanna 

Wet Pine Savanna Ecological System Characteristics

Abundance of the wet pine savanna ecological system on the landscape is an important characteristic of 

this system due to the effects of past land use practices including fire suppression, system drainage, and 

conversion to other forest types.

Fire regime is a major factor fundamental to long-term sustainability of this ecological system. Many 

species associated with wet pine savannas are dependent upon fire to maintain open conditions.

Canopy structure is an important characteristic for species diversity and long-term sustainability of this 

ecological system. Structure in this system has been greatly altered by past land management practices.

Wet Pine Savanna Desired Ecological Condition

This rare wetland system has a scattered canopy (typically 5-10 percent cover) of stunted longleaf pine 

and slash pine that is shaped by healthy hydrologic functions and processes. Pitcher plants are 

characteristic of this system. Fire occurs at an interval of 1-3 years with approximately 40 percent of fires 

occurring in the growing season. This system supports populations of associated uncommon species, 

including the endangered Mississippi sandhill crane, pitcher plants, and giant spiral ladies'-tresses.

Herbaceous seepage bogs and flats are typically embedded within the larger system where site conditions 

are appropriate.

Table G 23. Wet pine savanna key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem sustainability

Key Ecological Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density >0.75 0.51-0.75 0.26-0.5 <0.25

Paved Open Road 

Density >0.75 0.51-0.75 0.26-0.5 <0.25

Total Road and Trail

Density >2.0 1.0-2.0 0.5-1.0 <0.5

Unpaved Gated Road 

Density >2.0 1.0-2.0 0.5-1.0 <0.5

Unpaved Open Road 

Density >1.5 0.9-1.5 0.4-0.8 <0.4

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential 

acres with Appropriate 

System

<60 60-89 90-94 >95

Fire Regime

Percent of System 

Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval

<25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System 

Acres Burned During 

the Growing Season

<21 21-40 or >80 41-60 61-80

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with 

Invasive Species 

Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Percent of Invasive 

Species Occupying 

System

>6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-39

Wet Pine Savanna Management Strategy

This system as described by desired condition does not currently exist on the National Forests in 

Mississippi, and the management strategy for this system is to convert 1,000 acres of what is now near 

coast pine flatwoods to wet pine savanna. Removal of canopy species to create open conditions and 

restoration of ephemeral ponds will support habitats used by the federally endangered Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane. Frequent growing season burns will reduce woody vegetation in the understory and 

promote the herbaceous component which is integral to this system.

Wet Pine Savanna Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 23. These indicators are iterative and can be 

amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.

G.2.21 Seeps, Springs, and Seepage Swamps 

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage Swamps Ecological System Characteristics

Seeps, springs, and seepage swamps are dispersed throughout other ecological systems on the National 

Forests in Mississippi and are limited in scope. Factors important to sustaining this ecological niche 

include protection of hydrologic function, fire regime, structure of the surrounding forest matrix, and 

protection from human disturbance.

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage Swamps Desired Ecological Condition

Mature forest (60 years old or older) comprises approximately 80 percent of system acreage, with 10

percent of mature forest in old-growth. Forests are closed, with canopy closure often greater than 80 

percent. In the northern part of the state, this system is a deciduous forest typically characterized by black 

gum, water tupelo, and red maple, while to the south it grades into an evergreen forest characterized by 

sweetbay and black gum. Fire creeps into this system from the surrounding upland community; however, 

seeps, springs and seepage swamps typically only burn during extreme droughty periods. This system is 

largely undisturbed and hydrologic function is intact.

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage Swamps Management Strategy

Program emphasis should be on inventory and mapping on a project basis to identify all remaining 

examples and those needing restoration. Seeps, springs, and seepage swamps should be protected from 

hydrologic degradation and restored to desired conditions where appropriate.

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage Swamps Alternatives and Effects

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 24. These indicators are iterative and can be 

amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-40 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 24. Seeps, springs, and seepage swamps key attributes and indicator metrics of 

ecosystem sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very 

Good

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density >0.75 0.51-0.75 0.26-0.5 <0.25

Paved Open Road Density >0.75 0.51-0.75 0.26-0.5 <0.25

Total Road and Trail

Density >2.0 1.0-2.0 0.5-1.0 <0.5

Unpaved Gated Road 

Density >2.0 1.0-2.0 0.5-1.0 <0.5

Unpaved Open Road 

Density >1.5 0.9-1.5 0.4-0.8 <0.4

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres 

Burned at Desired Return 

Interval

<25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System Acres 

Burned During the

Growing Season

<21 21-40 or >80 41-60 61-80

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Percent of Invasive 

Species Occupying 

System

>6 4-6 1-3 <1

Reduction of Fire Ants <30 30-69 70-89 >90

G.2.22 Herbaceous Seepage Bogs and Flats 

Herbaceous Seepage Bogs and Flats Ecological System Characteristics

Abundance of the herbaceous seepage bog and flats ecological system on the landscape is an important 

characteristic of this system due to the effects of past forest management including fire suppression, 

system drainage, and conversion to other forest types.

Fire regime is a major factor fundamental to long-term sustainability of this ecological system. Many 

species associated with it are dependent upon fire to maintain open conditions. 

Canopy structure is an important characteristic to species diversity and long-term sustainability of this 

ecological system. Structure in this system has been greatly altered by past forest management practices.

Herbaceous Seepage Bogs and Flats Desired Ecological Condition

The system is typically open, although the amount of woody vegetation is variable. Hydrologic function 

of this community is intact. Fire occurs at an interval of 1-3 years with approximately 40 percent of fires 

occurring in the growing season. A subset of this system known as quaking bogs generally have a higher 

percentage of woody shrub coverage due to extreme wetness of the system which prevents fire from 

spreading across the surface except in very dry years. This system supports populations of associated 

uncommon species, including the Camp Shelby burrowing crayfish, pitcher plants, and the bog spicebush.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-41

Herbaceous Seepage Bogs and Flats Management Strategy

Program emphasis should be on inventory and mapping on a project basis to identify all remaining 

examples and those areas needing restoration. Known examples of this system should be given priority 

when applying fire to ensure suitable return intervals and seasonality. The system should be protected 

from hydrologic disturbance during all project work, including restoration and maintenance. Removal of 

canopy trees may be necessary to restore open conditions and should be done in accordance with all 

appropriate guidelines and to foster desired conditions.

Herbaceous Seepage Bogs and Flats Key Ecological Attributes

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process previously described in section G.1.1, indicators of 

ecosystem health were identified as described in Table G 25. These indicators are iterative and can be 

amended or supplemented as new information becomes available.

Table G 25. Herbaceous seepage bogs and flats key attributes and indicator metrics of ecosystem 

sustainability

Key Ecological 

Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very 

Good

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density >0.75 0.51-0.75 0.26-0.5 <0.25

Paved Open Road Density >0.75 0.51-0.75 0.26-0.5 <0.25

Total Road and Trail Density >2.0 1.0-2.0 0.5-1.0 <0.5

Unpaved Gated Road Density >2.0 1.0-2.0 0.5-1.0 <0.5

Unpaved Open Road Density >1.5 0.9-1.5 0.4-0.8 <0.4

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres 

Burned at Desired Return 

Interval

<25 25-50 51-75 >75

Percent of System Acres 

Burned During the Growing 

Season

<21 21-40 or >80 41-60 61-80

Hydrologic Function Compliance with Hydrologic 

Function Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Persistence of 

Species 

Occurrences

Compliance with Species 

Occurrence Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

Physical Structure

Compliance with Rare 

Community Physical Structure 

Guidelines

NoncompliantNot Used 

(Pass/Fail)

Not Used 

(Pass/Fail) Compliant

G.3 Species Selection Process 

G.3.1Species Selection Process Introduction

Planning for ecological system sustainability is an iterative process that involves first providing for a 

diversity of ecosystems across the landscape and then developing additional components to meet the 

biological needs of specific species or species groups. Management of most plant and animal species will 

coincide with the management for ecological system sustainability in the forest plan area. However, 

additional provisions may be needed to provide for specific species. 
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-42 National Forests in Mississippi

Ecological system characteristics were evaluated through collaborative development of an ecological 

sustainability evaluation database, best available science, consideration of data and trends documented in 

the Analysis of Management Situation, annual monitoring evaluations, and reviews. A similar analysis 

process was also used to assess species diversity. This report describes the species evaluation process and 

uses the understanding gained from analysis of ecological system sustainability to develop additional 

forest plan components for species diversity.

Ecological System Context for Species

Twenty-two native ecological systems were identified for the National Forests in Mississippi using 

NatureServe’s International Ecological Classification Standards (NatureServe 2004a, 2004b). Through 

coordination with NatureServe, systems were added, removed, or renamed as needed to ensure all 

conditions on National Forest System land were represented. Each system was defined in terms of 

existing USDA Forest Service forest types and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil 

drainage types. Current acreage of each system was determined using Forest Service GIS data. All 

identified terrestrial and aquatic ecological systems were documented in a relational database referred to 

as the ecological sustainability evaluation tool, which was based on the structure of the Nature 

Conservancy planning tool. The ecological sustainability evaluation tool served as the primary process 

record for ecological sustainability analysis. It included documentation of scientific and other sources 

consulted, uncertainties encountered, and strategic choices made during development of the database.

Descriptions of ecological conditions that provide for ecological system sustainability were incorporated 

into forest plan components. These ecological conditions were further analyzed to understand the 

environmental context and ability for National Forest System (NFS) lands to contribute to the diversity of 

plant and animal species. The following analysis process was used to determine if further species-specific 

forest plan components were necessary to sustain species diversity.

Identification and Screening of Species

The National Forests in Mississippi started with a statewide species list compiled from a variety of 

sources including threatened and endangered, regional forester’s sensitive species, Birds of Conservation 

Concern list, Mississippi Natural Heritage Program plant and animal lists, Mississippi State 

Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy species of greatest conservation need list, expert panel nominations, and 

demand species (Figure G 2). The original list consisted of 562 plant and animal species with ranges 

occurring throughout the state. Input was then sought from a panel of taxonomic experts including 

biologists from Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, universities in Mississippi, private conservation organizations, and other Forest Service 

personnel. Discussions included threats, local trends, and whether forest plan components developed for 

ecosystem diversity were sufficient to conserve the species. Data from these meetings was used during 

species evaluations and species screenings. Throughout the process, species were both added and delete 

as new information became available.

Sections G.6 and G.7 list the species which were removed from consideration because they did not occur 

or have potential to occur on NFS land based upon suitable habitat, range, or expert taxonomic consensus.

If these species are found to occur on the Forests, they will be re-considered and carried through the 

evaluation process.

The remaining species were classified into the following three categories: threatened and endangered, 

regional forester’s sensitive species, and locally rare species. The process for categorizing threatened and 

endangered species was based on lists maintained under the Endangered Species Act. Potential regional 

forester’s sensitive species included plant and animal species on the region 8 sensitive species lists, those 

species with a Rounded Global Rank less than or equal to G3, and/or sub specific taxa with a TRANK 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-43

less than or equal to T3. Inclusion as locally rare species was based on recommendation of a panel of 

experts and included species not categorized as regional forester’s sensitive species or threatened and 

endangered with a State Rank (SRANK) less than or equal to S3. These species may be common 

elsewhere in their range but are rare on the periphery resulting in concerns with genetic diversity of the 

species. For a full explanation of the species ranking system, please see the Natureserve website at 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm (11/16/2012).

Some species were identified as demand species. There are no population viability concerns for demand 

species, but the economic and /or recreational value of these species to the public make them an important 

component of some ecological diversity systems; therefore these species are included in appropriate 

ecosystem diversity analyses.

Figure G 2. Species screening and selection process overview

Species Methodology

Species sustainability and habitat condition scores were derived using the most current science, literature 

and expert opinion best reflecting natural processes at work within the natural diversity of plant and 

animal communities and best supporting the viability of associated species and their habitat needs. The 

effects of each alternative were analyzed using the ecological sustainability evaluation model in terms of 

sustainability scores of the species which were determined as a reflection of the condition scores of the 

combined associated species groups and habitat scores, as well as weighted by how important that the 

Original species list 

derived from all sources

No known potential habitat 

or occurrence on the 

Forests; excluded from 

further consideration

Potential habitat or 

occurrence on the Forests; 

classified into four 

categories

Threatened 

and 

endangered –

Species listed 

by US FWS or 

NMFS as 

threatened or 

endangered

Regional 

forester’s 

sensitive

species –

Species for 

which

population 

viability on the 

Forests is a 

concern; 

determined by 

the regional 

forester

Locally rare 

species –

Species for 

which continued 

representation 

on the Forests is 

a concern; 

determined by a 

panel of experts

Demand 

species –

Species with no 

population 

viability 

concerns, but 

important from 

an economic 

and/or 

recreational 

perspective
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-44 National Forests in Mississippi

associated group is to that species (very high, high, moderate, low). Ranges and definitions of species 

ecological sustainability evaluation scores are shown in Table G 26.

Table G 26. Ecological sustainability evaluation score ranges and definitions

Range of 

Condition Score Condition Definition of ecological sustainability evaluation Score Applied 

To Planning Elements

3.51 - 4.0 Very Good Habitat and/or population conditions are optimal; species populations 

should remain robust and potentially even expand.

2.51 - 3.50 Good Habitat and/or population conditions are acceptable; species

populations should remain stable.

1.51 - 2.50 Fair

Habitat and/or population conditions are slightly inadequate; although 

species populations may persist for some time, they may be subject 

to gradual decline.

1.00 - 1.50 Poor

Habitat and/or population conditions are severely inadequate; 

species populations are expected to severely decline; localized 

extirpations are occurring or are imminent.

G.3.2Threatened and Endangered Species 

This section covers threatened and endangered species which management actions may be necessary to 

protect species under the Endangered Species Act (36 CFR 219.16). Ecological conditions that are needed 

to conserve threatened and endangered species are provided by the forest plan components for ecosystem 

diversity.

Threatened and Endangered Species List

The list of threatened and endangered species in Mississippi is maintained by the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service and can be found at: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/StateListing.do?state=MS&status=listed

Developing the Forests list of threatened and endangered species was completed cooperatively with the 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. Some categories of occurrence raised questions about which species should 

and should not be retained on the list. The following direction provided the Forests the means to 

determine which species would remain on the list:

If an occurrence is thought to be an “accidental”, i.e., an occurrence of a species well outside its normal 

range, then consideration of the species in the forest plan revision process may not be warranted as 

determined by the responsible official. However, only if there is general consensus about the accidental 

nature of the occurrence.

In some situations, a threatened and endangered species occurred on the forest historically but there are 

no current occurrences. In this case, for a species which has been absent from a forest for a long period of 

time, and there is no expectation that it would be reestablished, consideration of the species in the forest 

plan revision process may not be warranted.

Both of these circumstances occurred with threatened and endangered species on the Forests. Forty-five 

threatened and endangered plant and animal species with ranges occurring throughout the state were 

included and evaluated in the ecological sustainability evaluation process. Thirty-six species were 

removed from our list (section G.7) because they did not occur or have potential to occur on National 

Forest System land based upon suitable habitat, range, or expert taxonomic consensus (FSH 1909.12, 

Chap. 40, Sec. 43.22d). If these species are found to occur on the National Forests in Mississippi, they 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-45

will be re-evaluated and carried through the evaluation process. Nine threatened and endangered species 

remained and were further evaluated in the ecological sustainability evaluation process (Table G 27).

Table G 27. Federally listed threatened and endangered species included in the forest plan 

revision process

Taxa Species District Most 

Likely to Occur Status

Amphibian Mississippi Gopher Frog

(Rana sevosa) De Soto Endangered

Bird Mississippi Sandhill Crane

(Grus canadensis pulla) De Soto Endangered

Bird Red-cockaded Woodpecker

(Picoides borealis)

Bienville 

Chickasawhay 

De Soto 

Homochitto

Endangered

Fish Gulf Sturgeon

(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi)

Bienville

Chickasawhay

De Soto

Threatened

Fish Pallid Sturgeon

(Scaphirhynchus albus) Delta Endangered

Mammal Louisiana Black Bear

(Ursus americanus luteolus)

Chickasawhay, 

Delta, De Soto, 

Homochitto

Threatened

Reptile Gopher Tortoise

(Gopherus polyphemus)

Chickasawhay

De Soto Threatened

Vascular Plant Louisiana Quillwort

(Isoetes louisianensis)

Chickasawhay

De Soto Endangered

Vascular Plant Pondberry

(Lindera melissifolia) Delta Endangered

Threatened and Endangered Species Forest Plan Components 

Throughout the National Forests in Mississippi, threatened and endangered species protection and 

threatened and endangered habitat enhancement is a priority, so their needs are particularly emphasized.

Many of the forest plan components developed integrates multiple resource areas or systems for the 

National Forests in Mississippi to maintain or improve threatened and endangered species habitat and/or 

distribution in order to protect and conserve these species. Other forest plan components are more specific 

to species needs and management. Habitats for all threatened and endangered species are provided 

through forestwide emphasis in management prescriptions in associated forest communities and in 

compliance with US Fish and Wildlife Service recovery plans and the Forests implementation guides.

Desired conditions in land management planning reflect a broad vision that characterizes the desired 

outcome of land management. In some cases the desired conditions already exist, and our intent is to 

maintain them. In other cases they may be achievable in the relatively near future or may only be 

achievable over a long period of time. Desired conditions for threatened and endangered species for the 

National Forests in Mississippi will be included in the ecosystem diversity and species diversity sections 

of the forest plan.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-46 National Forests in Mississippi

Objectives for maintaining species diversity for the national forests in Mississippi will be included in the 

forest plan. Restoration, maintenance, and enhancement of all ecological systems generally provides for a 

diverse and sustainable population of species throughout the Forest. Species objectives for some 

threatened and endangered species are located within their respective ecological system while others 

require additional objectives to ensure their long-term sustainability. 

Guidelines are the sideboards that frame our management activities on the Forest. They ensure the 

protection of resources as we implement projects that move toward the desired conditions. Some 

guidelines in the forest plan (chapter 4) will be specific to threatened and endangered species while most 

encompass needs and protections of threatened and endangered species along with other species and their 

associated ecosystems found on the Forests. 

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

regional forester’s sensitive species are defined as "plant and animal species identified by the regional 

forester for which population viability is a concern as evidenced by: (a) significant current or predicted 

downward trends in population numbers or density, and/or (b) significant current or predicted downward 

trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution." (FSM 2670.5).

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list

Regional foresters identify regional forester’s sensitive species occurring in a region by examining up-todate sources of information pertaining to the population status and viability as well as habitat conditions 

and threats to species. These sources include the US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service candidates for federal listing and state lists of endangered, threatened, rare, endemic, 

unique, or vanishing species in the region, especially those listed as threatened under state law.

Regional forester’s sensitive species are managed to ensure their population viability and preclude a trend 

towards Federal listing. Prior to any action, there must be an analysis of effects on regional forester’s 

sensitive species populations and population viability, as well as regional forester’s sensitive species

habitat. Population viability objectives must be established when making decisions that would 

significantly reduce sensitive species numbers. Section G.8 lists the regional forester’s sensitive species

analyzed in the ecological sustainability evaluation process.

Regional forester’s sensitive species requiring additional forest plan

components

Specific forest plan components were developed for certain regional forester’s sensitive species in which 

the ecological system sustainability components did not sufficiently address the needs of the species or 

there was desire to have additional forest plan direction for the species. These groups consist of species 

that may have a very limited distribution, have declining populations, are potentially impacted by 

management activities, or for which additional forest plan direction is desired and we have adequate 

information about their life histories and habitats. Species groupings were used to identify commonly 

shared conservation needs and develop appropriate forest plan provisions. Additionally, species were 

grouped by their threats and limiting factors where possible. As a result, some species required multiple 

groups to cover their needs.

Locally Rare Species 

Locally rare species are species for which population viability and/or continued existence on the National 

Forests in Mississippi are a concern. Unlike the previous two categories, these species are considered to 

be at no risk of imperilment at a range wide scale. Forest plan components may or may not be necessary 

to achieve management goals for these species. 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-47

Locally Rare Species List

All species identified as of management concern during meetings with taxonomic experts that were not 

classified as threatened, endangered or sensitive species were considered eligible for consideration as 

locally rare species. The potential locally rare species list for the Forests included species that were 

known to exist or have habitat on NFS lands. Using data collected from meetings with taxonomic experts 

and the species screening process, some species were then eliminated from further consideration 

according to the following criteria: 

• Species secure in the forest plan area based on knowledge of its occurrence, distribution, availability 

of habitat, and responses to any management of natural disturbances that might occur.

• Species not affected by any current or potential form of management or lack of management in the 

planning area. 

• Species for which there is too little information known to complete a reliable assessment. In these 

cases, the lack of critical information should be disclosed and actions towards acquiring that 

information should be highlighted. 

• Species with suitable habitat, but no confirmed occurrence on the Forests (these species will be reevaluated if found to occur on the National Forests in Mississippi).

• Species state rank is S3 or above.

• Species designation in SWG Forest plan is Tier 3 or below

(http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm 11/16/2012).

Species that met these screening criteria were eliminated from further detailed consideration in the 

planning process. Documentation of this step was essential and reasons for eliminating species based 

upon taxonomic expert panel consensus were recorded in detail in our ecological sustainability evaluation

tool. Potential locally rare species will be reviewed periodically for changes in status or when new 

information is available, and these species will be re-evaluated if warranted.

The locally rare species remaining for further consideration were screened again to determine whether 

ecosystem diversity forest plan components fully covered their sustainability needs or if they required 

development of additional forest plan components to support species sustainability. Section G.9 lists the

locally rare species analyzed in the ecological sustainability evaluation process.

Locally rare species requiring additional forest plan components

Specific forest plan components will be developed for some locally rare species. For these species, the 

ecosystem diversity components did not adequately address the needs of the species or there was a desire 

to have additional forest plan direction for the species and they were combined into groups. These groups 

include species that may have a very limited distribution, have declining populations, are potentially 

impacted by management activities, or for which additional forest plan direction is desired and we have 

adequate information about their life histories and habitats to create forest plan components. Species 

groupings were used to identify commonly shared conservation needs and develop appropriate forest plan

provisions. Additionally, species were grouped by threats and limiting factors where possible; therefore, 

some species required multiple groups to cover their needs.

G.3.3Terrestrial Species Groups Covered by Ecological System 

Sustainability Forest Plan Components

The Forests used species groups as an evaluation and analysis tool to improve planning efficiency and for 

development of management strategies. Species were grouped according to their habitat needs, limiting 

factors, threats, and specific habitat elements (snags, den trees, woody debris, etc.). All federally listed 
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-48 National Forests in Mississippi

threatened and endangered species are included in species groups because although they have individual 

species requirements for management, their management is connected with ecosystem and species 

diversity. Many threatened and endangered, regional forester’s sensitive species, locally rare species, and 

demand species occurred in multiple groups.

Table G 28. Species to group relationship weights

Species to Group 

Weights Group Weight Description

Very High All or nearly all of the species' needs are covered by the needs of this group for at least 

one phase of this species' life history.

High A high proportion of the species' needs are covered by the needs of this group for at least 

one phase of this species' life history.

Moderate A moderate proportion of the species' needs are covered by the needs of this group for at 

least one phase of this species' life history.

Low A low proportion of the species' needs are covered by the needs of this group for at least 

one phase of this species' life history.

Table G 29. Terrestrial species groups and associated ecological system(s)

Species Group Associated Ecological System(s) and Other Forest plan Components

Cypress Dominated Wetlands 

Associates Cypress Dominated Wetlands, Rare and Wetland Communities

Herbaceous Seepage Bogs and 

Flats Associates Herbaceous Seepage Bog and Flats, Rare and Wetland Communities

Mature Mesic Deciduous Forest 

Associates Northern Mesic Hardwood Forest, Southern Mesic Slope Forest

Mature Open Pine-Grass 

Associates

Loblolly Pine Forest Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland, Slash Pine 

Forest, Upland Longleaf Pine Forest and Woodland

Mature Riparian Forest 

Associates Lower Mississippi River Bottomland and Floodplain Forest, Floodplain Forest

Mature Upland Pine-Hardwood 

Associates

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest, Southern Dry Upland Hardwood 

Forest

Pine Flatwoods Associates Near-Coast Pine Flatwoods, Rare and Wetland Communities

Ponds and Emergent Wetlands 

Associates Ephemeral Ponds and Emergent Wetlands

Prairie Associates Black Belt Calcareous Prairie and Woodland, Jackson Prairie and Woodland, 

Rare Communities

Rock Outcrop Associates Rock Outcrops

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps Associates Seeps, Springs, and Seepage Swamps

Wet Pine Savanna Associates Wet Pine Savanna, Rare and Wetland Communities

Xeric Sandhill Associates Xeric Sandhills

Initial groupings of species were at a broad spatial scale and were based on similar habitats associated 

with ecological systems. Each group was analyzed by species, and determinations made on whether 

species needs were fully met by forest plan components for the associated ecological systems. These 

groups and the ecological system(s) with which they are associated are listed in Table G 29. Species to 

group relationships were weighted from very high to low with higher ratings indicative of indispensable 

relationships between species and the habitat attributes targeted by a given group (Table G 28).
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-49

Cypress Dominated Wetlands Associates

These species are generally associated with swamps that are dominated by cypress and require intact 

hydrologic function of this system. A list of targeted species associated with this species group can be 

found in Table G 30. Of the listed species, only the cypress-knee sedge is dependent on the presence of 

cypress trees. Headcutting is threatening hydrologic integrity of two of the better known examples on the 

National Forests in Mississippi (Holly Springs and Homochitto NFs). It is assumed that sustainable 

populations will continue as long as there is permanently flooded cypress-gum forest with hydrologic 

integrity. Headcutting or other events leading to drainage and sedimentation from adjacent uplands may 

prevent management for sustainable populations of these species, and rapid assessment protocols should 

be designed to measure sustainability of cypress dominated wetland associates. Relative abundance of 

cypress dominated wetland ecological systems and restoration and maintenance of hydrologic integrity 

are key characteristics for this species group. Planting of cypress may be necessary to restore some of 

these sites. Forest plan components include desired conditions for cypress dominated wetlands and 

guidelines for vegetation/wildlife; soil and water; roads; herbicides; and administration, facilities, and 

recreation.

Table G 30. Species in cypress dominated wetlands associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Aix sponsa Wood Duck Moderate

Anas platyrhynchos Northern Mallard Moderate

Anas rubripes American Black Duck Moderate

Carex decomposita Cypress-knee Sedge Very High

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat High

Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed Salamander Moderate

Myotis austroriparius Southeastern Myotis High

Elanoides forficatus Swallow-Tailed Kite High

Depending on past history of disturbance and other factors, bald cypress may occur with other species 

such as black gum, water tupelo, green ash, ironwood and red maple. Cypress dominated wetlands may be 

found throughout the Forests, but due to inconsistencies in past mapping practices there is no current 

accurate estimate of the amount of acreage in this type. Current condition of this type on the forest is 

probably relatively young forest growing back from harvest in the early part of this century. Several key 

locations are at risk due to headcutting of streams threatening to drain the wetland, while other locations 

have been harvested without successful cypress regeneration and await restoration. 

The desired condition for species in this group is occurrence within a mature or old-growth forest or 

woodland dominated by this system, with a varying degree of canopy closure shaped by healthy 

hydrologic functions and processes. Historical sites on hydric soils are restored to this ecological system. 

Conditions of the surrounding vegetation types allow distribution and dispersal of cypress dominated 

wetland obligate species. 

Management activities are frequently needed to restore cypress dominated wetlands where appropriate. 

Restoration of the hydrologic integrity to prevent drainage is a key component to the management 

strategy of this system. Program emphasis should be on inventory and mapping on a project basis to 

document all remaining examples and identify those needing restoration. All examples of this community 

should be managed as old-growth. 
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-50 National Forests in Mississippi

Using the ecological sustainability evaluation process, key attributes and indicator metrics were identified 

as described in Table G 31. These attributes and indicators are iterative and can be amended or 

supplemented as new information becomes available.

Table G 31. Cypress dominated wetlands associates key attributes and indicator metrics

Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group 

Weight

Distance from Roads ORV Trail Density Very High

Distance from Roads Paved Open Road Density Moderate

Distance from Roads Total Road and Trail Density High

Distance from Roads Unpaved Gated Road Density Moderate

Distance from Roads Unpaved Open Road Density Moderate

Hydrologic Function Compliance with Hydrologic Function Guidelines Very High

Ecological System Abundance at 

Desired Condition

Percent of potential acres with Appropriate 

System Very High

Forest Age Diversity % Mature Forest Very High

Forest Age Diversity % Old Forest Very High

Vegetation Structure % Old-growth Very High

Invasive Species Abundance Compliance with Invasive Species Guidelines Very High

Invasive Species Abundance Percent of Invasive Species Occupying System Very High

Ecological System Abundance at 

Desired Condition

Compliance with Rare Ecological System / Rare 

Community Guidelines Very High

Herbaceous Seepage Bogs and Flats Associates

Herbaceous seepage bogs and flats are rare communities and provide unique habitats for many species. A 

list of targeted species associated with this species group can be found in Table G 32. Various species of

pitcher-plants are often dominant in these areas. Inventory and mapping of herbaceous seepage bogs are 

important to help understand and manage these species. It is assumed that sustainable populations of the 

associated species will continue in conjunction with maintenance of hydrologic regime, regular prescribed 

burning, and protection from human disturbance (vehicular and foot traffic). Some of these areas have 

grown up in woody vegetation and may require mechanical clearing. Although guidelines generally

prohibit management activities within rare communities, exceptions can be made for restoration of the 

system. When management activities occur within a rare community, the species associated with it should 

be considered at the project level.

The key attributes and indicators for this group can be tied directly back to the ecological system 

herbaceous seepage bogs and flats (Table G 33). Rapid assessment protocols which measure effects of 

fire, hydrologic integrity, species composition, human disturbance, structure, and relative abundance are 

important to monitoring long-term sustainability of this community and its associated species. Planning

components include desired conditions and objectives for the ecological system herbaceous seepage bogs 

and flats, desired conditions for species diversity, and guidelines for vegetation/wildlife; soil and water; 

roads; herbicides; and administration, facilities, and recreation.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-51

Table G 32. Species in herbaceous seepage bogs and flats associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Agalinis aphylla Coastal Plain False-foxglove Very High

Agalinis filicaulis Thin Stemmed False-foxglove Very High

Agalinis pseudaphylla Shinner's False-foxglove High

Aristida simpliciflora Southern Three-awned Grass Very High

Calopogon barbatus Bearded Grass-pink Very High

Carex exilis Coast Sedge Very High

Cleistes bifaria (=divaricata) Small Spreading Pogonia Very High

Eriocaulon texense Texas Pipewort Very High

Fallicambarus danielae Speckled Burrowing Crayfish High

Fallicambarus gordoni Camp Shelby Burrowing Crayfish Very High

Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry High

Lachnocaulon digynum Pineland Bogbutton Very High

Lindera subcoriacea Bog Spicebush Very High

Linum macrocarpum Spring Hill flax Very High

Macranthera flammea Flame Flower High

Panicum nudicaule Naked-stemmed Panic Grass Very High

Parnassia grandifolia Large-leaved Grass-of-Parnassus Very High

Peltandra sagittifolia White Arum Moderate

Pinguicula planifolia Chapman's Butterwort Very High

Pinguicula primuliflora Southern Butterwort High

Platanthera blephariglottis Large White Fringed Orchid Very High

Platanthera integra Yellow Fringeless orchid Very High

Polygala hookeri Hooker's Milkwort Very High

Procambarus fitzpatricki Spiny-tailed Crayfish High

Pteroglossaspis ecristata (=Eulophia ecristata) Giant Orchid Very High

Rhynchospora macra Large Beakrush Very High

Rhynchospora stenophylla Chapman Beakrush Very High

Ruellia noctiflora Night Flowering Ruellia Very High

Spiranthes brevilabris var floridana Florida Ladies'-tresses Very High

Spiranthes longilabris Giant Spiral Ladies'-tresses Very High

Stylisma aquatica Water Southern Morning-glory Moderate

Syngonanthus flavidulus Yellow Pipewort Moderate

Utricularia olivacea Piedmont Bladderwort Moderate

Utricularia purpurea Purple Bladderwort Moderate

Xyris drummondii Drummond's Yellow-eyed Grass Very High

Xyris scabrifolia Harper's Yellow-eyed Grass Very High
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-52 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 33. Herbaceous seepage bogs and flats associates key attributes and indicator metrics

Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group 

Weight

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at Desired 

Return Interval Very High

Percent of System Acres Burned During the 

Growing Season Very High

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

Paved Open Road Density Moderate

Total Road and Trail Density High

Unpaved Gated Road Density Low

Unpaved Open Road Density Moderate

Ecological System Abundance at 

Desired Condition

Percent of potential acres with Appropriate 

System Very High

Vegetation Structure % Open Very High

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species Guidelines Very High

Percent of Invasive Species Occupying System Very High

Reduction of Fire Ants High

Hydrologic Function Compliance with Hydroligic Function Guidelines Very High

Road Crossings Rating Very High

Indicator Species Status Population Trend of yellow trumpets (Sarracenia 

alata Alph. Wood) High

Ecological System Abundance at 

Desired Condition

Compliance with Rare Ecological System / Rare 

Community Guidelines Very High

Persistence of Species Occurrences Compliance with Species Occurrence Guidelines Very High

Physical Structure Compliance with Rare Community Physical 

Structure Guidelines Very High

Mature Mesic Deciduous Forest Associates

Mature mesic deciduous forest communities are located on cool north-facing slopes with rich soils and 

thick layers of fertile leaf litter. They can be considered to be patches within a matrix of more xeric forest 

types. Each patch is only a small portion of the overall landscape and is generally removed from other 

mesic deciduous forest by over 100m or more. A list of targeted species associated with this species group 

can be found in Table G 34. Species dependent upon this forest type generally require closed canopy 

forest with moist organic soils and thick leaf litter. Abundance of mast-producing trees provides food for 

many species and downed wood, snags, and other refuge are a key requirement within this group Table G 

35. Species should remain sustainable if a mature, closed canopy mesic deciduous forest is maintained on 

the landscape and appropriate guidelines are followed. It is important that only low intensity fire creep 

into these areas to maintain the duff/ organic layer.

The key characteristics and performance measures for this group are the same as for the ecological 

systems southern mesic slope forest, southern loess bluff forest, and northern mesic hardwood forest. The 

key factors for increasing relative abundance are retention of existing mature examples of these systems 

and restoration through conversion of off-site pine species. Forestwide desired conditions as well as 

desired conditions for both mesic forest ecological system and species diversity serve as forest plan

components for these species.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-53

Table G 34. Species in mature mesic deciduous forest associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Antennaria solitaria Single-headed Pussytoes High

Aralia racemosa American Spikenard High

Asarum canadense Canada Wild-ginger Very High

Carex impressinervia Ravine Sedge Very High

Carex picta Painted Sedge Moderate

Celastrus scandens Climbing Bittersweet Moderate

Cornus alternifolia Alternate-leaf Dogwood High

Cypripedium parviflorum Small Yellow Lady's-slipper Very High

Cypripedium pubescens Yellow Lady's-slipper Very High

Desmodium ochroleucum Cream Tick-trefoil Moderate

Echinacea purpurea Eastern Purple Coneflower Moderate

Erythronium albidum White Dog's Tooth Violet Very High

Euonymus atropurpureus Burning Bush Moderate

Frasera caroliniensis American Colombo Moderate

Galearis spectabilis Showy Orchis Very High

Goodyera pubescens Downy Rattlesnake-plantain Very High

Hexalectris spicata Crested Coralroot Very High

Juglans cinerea Butternut Very High

Lycopodium digitatum = flabelliforme Fan Club Moss Moderate

Matelea obliqua Climbing Milkweed High

Pachysandra procumbens Allegheny-spurge Very High

Panax quinquefolius American Ginseng Very High

Physalis carpenteri Carpenter's Ground-cherry Very High

Plethodon websteri Webster's Salamander Very High

Polemonium reptans Jacob's Ladder Very High

Polytaenia nuttallii Prairie Parsley Low

Salvia urticifolia Nettle-leaf Sage Moderate

Schisandra glabra Bay Starvine Very High

Silene ovata Ovate Catchfly Moderate

Solidago auriculata Eared Goldenrod Very High

Solidago flaccidifolia Appalachian Goldenrod High

Trillium foetidissimum Fetid Trillium High

Triphora trianthophora Three Birds Orchid Very High

Uvularia floridana Florida Bellwort High
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-54 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 35. Mature mesic deciduous forest associates key attributes and indicator metrics

Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group 

Weight

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

Paved Open Road Density High

Total Road and Trail Density High

Unpaved Gated Road Density Low

Unpaved Open Road Density Moderate

Ecological System Abundance at 

Desired Condition

Percent of potential acres with Appropriate 

System Very High

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at Desired 

Return Interval Moderate

Percent of System Acres Burned During the 

Growing Season Moderate

Forest Age Diversity

% Mature Forest High

% Old Forest High

% Regenerating Forest High

Habitat Element Abundance

Compliance with Bat Roost Structure 

Guidelines Low

Compliance with Den Tree Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Downed Wood Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Hard Mast Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Snag Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Stump and Stump-hole

Guidelines Very High

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species Guidelines Very High

Percent of Invasive Species Occupying 

System Very High

Reduction of Fire Ants High

Understory Composition Compliance with Understory Composition 

Guidelines Very High

Vegetation Structure % Mature Very-Closed Canopy Very High

% Old-growth High

Mature Open Pine-Grass Associates

Mature upland pine forests and woodlands support a diversity of species and provide critical habitat for 

several rare and endangered species. A list of targeted species associated with this species group can be 

found in Table G 36. Pine-grass associated species are dependent on mature open canopy, fire-maintained 

forests or woodlands across multiple ecosystem types. Frequent fire is critical to maintaining these 

systems, and in the absence of fire, chemical or mechanical means may be needed to maintain the 

herbaceous grass/forb layer. Abundant, diverse ground cover provides food and shelter for a variety of 

wildlife species. By providing for healthy and abundant upland pine forests, species in this group should 

continue to thrive on the National Forests in Mississippi.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-55

Table G 36. Species in mature open pine-grass associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Agalinis pseudaphylla Shinner's False-foxglove Moderate

Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's Sparrow Very High

Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's Sparrow Moderate

Botrychium jenmanii Dixie Grapefern High

Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite Very High

Crotalus adamanteus Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake High

Dalea carnea var. gracilis Pine Barrens Prairie Clover Moderate

Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern American Kestrel Very High

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise Very High

Heterodon simus Southern Hognose Snake Very High

Lobelia appendiculata Appendaged Lobelia High

Marshallia graminifolia var. cynanthera Broadleaf Barbara's Buttons Low

Ophisaurus mimicus Mimic Glass Lizard Very High

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker Very High

Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi Black Pine Snake Very High

Polygala leptostachys Slender Spike Milkwort Moderate

Pycnanthemum muticum Blunt Mountainmint Moderate

Rana sevosa Mississippi Gopher Frog Very High

Rhadinaea flavilata Pine Woods Snake Moderate

The key attributes and indicator metrics for this group are the same as for the ecological systems upland 

longleaf pine forest and woodland, shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland, loblolly pine forest, and slash 

pine forest (Table G 37). Relative abundance of mature upland pine forests as well as canopy structure, 

fire regime, and the resulting herbaceous groundcover are the most important factors in sustaining this 

species group. Forestwide desired conditions as well as desired conditions for each upland pine ecological 

system serve as forest plan components for these species. Objectives are to restore or maintain mature 

open canopy pine forests with appropriate fire regimes help to sustain these species, along with guidelines 

for vegetation/wildlife and fire.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-56 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 37. Mature open pine-grass associates key attributes and indicator metrics

Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group Weight

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

Paved Open Road Density High

Total Road and Trail Density Very High

Unpaved Gated Road Density Low

Unpaved Open Road Density High

Ecological System Abundance at 

Desired Condition

Percent of Ecological System Acres 

at Desired Condition Very High

Percent of potential acres with 

Appropriate System Very High

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval Very High

Percent of System Acres Burned 

During the Growing Season Very High

Forest Age Diversity

% Mature Forest High

% Old Forest High

% Regenerating Forest Moderate

Habitat Element Abundance

Compliance with Den Tree Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Downed Wood 

Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Snag Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Stump and Stumphole Guidelines Very High

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species 

Guidelines Very High

Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System Very High

Reduction of Fire Ants Very High

Understory Composition Compliance with Understory 

Composition Guidelines High

Vegetation Structure

% Mature Open and Sparse Canopy Low

% Mature Open Canopy Very High

% Old-growth Very High

% Open Very High

Compliance with Canopy Cover 

Sensitivity Guidelines Very High

Mature Riparian Forest Associates

These species are dependent upon adequate soil moisture and closed canopy deciduous forest in riparian 

areas. An abundance of mast producing trees and shelter in the form of downed wood, snags, and tree 

cavities must be available for species occurring within this system. A list of targeted species associated 

with this species group can be found in Table G 38. It is assumed that sustainable populations will persist 

if the riparian areas contain a mature, closed canopy forest with little or no unnatural disturbance, and the 

hydrologic function remains intact.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-57

Table G 38. Species in mature riparian forest associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Aix sponsa Wood Duck Very High

Alisma subcordatum Broad-leaved Water-platain High

Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic White Cedar Very High

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat Very High

Dryopteris ludoviciana Southern Shield Woodfern Very High

Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed Kite Very High

Epidendrum magnoliae = conopseum Green-fly Orchid High

Goodyera pubescens Downy Rattlesnake-plantain Moderate

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Moderate

Isoetes louisianensis Louisiana Quillwort High

Isoetes melanopoda Blackfoot Quillwort High

Lasiurus intermedius Northern Yellow Bat Very High

Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler High

Lindera melissifolia Pondberry Very High

Lycopodium cernuum = L. palhinhaea cernua Nodding Clubmoss Low

Mimulus ringens Square-stem Monkey Flower High

Myotis austroriparius Southeastern Myotis Very High

Penstemon tenuis Sharp-sepal Beardtongue High

Platanthera peramoena Purple Fringeless Orchid Moderate

Polytaenia nuttallii Prairie Parsley Low

Pycnanthemum muticum Blunt Mountainmint Moderate

Quercus oglethorpensis Oglethorpe Oak High

Rhynchospora crinipes Hairy Peduncled Beakrush Very High

Schisandra glabra Bay Starvine Moderate

Trillium foetidissimum Fetid Trillium High

Triphora trianthophora Three Birds Orchid High

Ursus americanus Black Bear High

Ursus americanus luteolus Louisiana Black Bear High

Uvularia floridana Florida Bellwort High

The key characteristics and performance measures for this group are the same as for the ecological 

systems floodplain forest and lower Mississippi River bottomland and floodplain forest (Table G 39). The 

key factor relative abundance represents retention of existing mature examples and restoration involving 

conversion of off-site pine species to mature riparian forest gradually over time. Forestwide desired 

conditions as well as desired conditions for each floodplain ecological system and species diversity serve 

as forest plan components for these species. Objectives to restore or maintain floodplain forest will help 

to sustain these species, along with guidelines for vegetation/wildlife and soil and water.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-58 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 39. Mature riparian forest associates key attributes and indicator metrics

Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-toGroup Weight

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

Paved Open Road Density Very High

Total Road and Trail Density Very High

Unpaved Gated Road Density Moderate

Unpaved Open Road Density Moderate

Ecological System Abundance at 

Desired Condition Percent of potential acres with Appropriate System Very High

Forest Age Diversity

% Mature Forest Moderate

% Old Forest High

Habitat Element Abundance

Compliance with Den Tree Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Downed Wood Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Hard Mast Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Snag Guidelines Very High

Hydrologic Function Compliance with Hydroligic Function Guidelines Very High

Road Crossings Rating High

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species Guidelines Very High

Percent of Invasive Species Occupying System Very High

Reduction of Fire Ants Moderate

Vegetation Structure % Mature Very-Closed Canopy Moderate

Compliance with Canopy Cover Sensitivity Guidelines High

Mature Upland Pine-Hardwood Associates

These species are associated with xeric stands of hardwood although pine may be intermingled with the 

oaks. A list of targeted species associated with this species group can be found in Table G 40. These 

forests occur on sandy, porous, nutrient-poor soils typically found on southern and western slopes or on 

hilltops dominated by oaks and hickories. The irregular canopy creates openings for sunlight to penetrate 

to the forest floor, where a variety of saplings develop, opening the way for succession. Oak leaves are 

low in nutrients, high in acid and slow to decay. Oaks stump-sprout following a fire further perpetuating 

their species. Shrub diversity is highly variable throughout this extensive landscape area, providing a 

variety of food sources and habitat for animal species. The ground layer under this relatively sunny 

canopy tends to bloom in mid-summer. Some of the native flowers that occur in this community include 

orchids, rattlesnake plantain, smooth bedstraw, wild geranium, and false Solomon's seal.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-59

Table G 40. Species in mature upland pine-hardwood associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Arabis canadensis Sicklepod Moderate

Carex picta Painted Sedge Moderate

Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite Low

Crataegus triflora Three-flower Hawthorn Moderate

Cypripedium pubescens Yellow Lady's-slipper Moderate

Desmodium ochroleucum Cream Tick-trefoil Moderate

Echinacea purpurea Eastern Purple Coneflower Low

Frasera caroliniensis American Colombo Low

Hamemalis ovalis Big-leaf witch-hazel High

Hexalectris spicata Crested Coralroot Moderate

Lycopodium digitatum = flabelliforme Fan Club Moss High

Ponthieva racemosa Shadow-witch Orchid Low

Prenanthes aspera Rough Rattlesnake-root Low

Quercus oglethorpensis Oglethorpe Oak Moderate

Rhadinaea flavilata Pine Woods Snake High

Salvia urticifolia Nettle-leaf Sage High

Silene ovata Ovate Catchfly High

Solidago flaccidifolia Appalachian Goldenrod Moderate

Triphora trianthophora Three Birds Orchid Low

Uvularia floridana Florida Bellwort Low

The key attributes and indicator metrics for this group are the same as for the ecological systems northern 

dry upland hardwood forest and southern dry upland forest (Table G 41). Forestwide desired conditions as 

well as desired conditions for each upland ecological system and species diversity serve as forest plan 

components for these species. Objectives to restore or maintain upland hardwood forest help to sustain 

these species, along with guidelines for vegetation/wildlife.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-60 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 41. Mature upland pine-hardwood associates key attributes and indicator metrics

Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group Weight

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density High

Paved Open Road Density High

Total Road and Trail Density High

Unpaved Gated Road Density Moderate

Unpaved Open Road Density Moderate

Ecological System Abundance 

at Desired Condition % potential acres with Appropriate System Very High

Fire Regime

% System Acres Burned at Desired Return 

Interval Moderate

% System Acres Burned During the Growing 

Season Moderate

Forest Age Diversity

% Mature Forest High

% Old Forest High

% Regenerating Forest Moderate

Habitat Element Abundance

Compliance with Bat Roost Structure Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Den Tree Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Downed Wood Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Hard Mast Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Snag Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Stump and Stump-hole

Guidelines Very High

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species Guidelines Very High

Percent of Invasive Species Occupying System Very High

Reduction of Fire Ants High

Vegetation Structure % Mature Closed Canopy High

Pine Flatwoods Associates

Species in this group inhabit sparse woodlands dominated by longleaf and slash pine with scattered 

loblolly pine, located predominately on non-riverine hydric soil site types. A list of targeted species 

associated with this species group can be found in Table G 42. Fire is necessary to maintain this habitat as 

well as intact hydrologic regimes. Past agricultural practices have altered the habitat and efforts should be 

made to restore it to its original form. Management activities are frequently needed to restore near-coast 

pine flatwood forests, historical fire regimes, and characteristic grass-forb understories. 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-61

Table G 42. Species in pine flatwoods associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Agalinis aphylla Coastal Plain False-foxglove Moderate

Agalinis filicaulis Thin Stemmed False-foxglove Moderate

Calopogon barbatus Bearded Grass-pink Moderate

Cirsium lecontei LeConte's Thistle Moderate

Cleistes bifaria (=divaricata) Small Spreading Pogonia Moderate

Dalea carnea var. gracilis Pine Barrens Prairie Clover Moderate

Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed Salamander Low

Isoetes louisianensis Louisiana Quillwort High

Isoetes valida Strong Quillwort Moderate

Lachnocaulon digynum Pineland Bogbutton Moderate

Lycopodium cernuum = L. palhinhaea cernua Nodding Clubmoss Moderate

Macranthera flammea Flame Flower High

Polygala hookeri Hooker's Milkwort Moderate

Polygala leptostachys Slender Spike Milkwort Moderate

Procambarus fitzpatricki Spiny-tailed Crayfish Moderate

Rhadinaea flavilata Pine Woods Snake High

Ruellia noctiflora Night Flowering Ruellia Moderate

Spiranthes brevilabris var floridana Florida Ladies'-tresses Moderate

Spiranthes longilabris Giant Spiral Ladies'-tresses Moderate

Stylisma aquatica Water Southern Morning-glory Moderate

Syngonanthus flavidulus Yellow Pipewort Moderate

Utricularia olivacea Piedmont Bladderwort High

Utricularia purpurea Purple Bladderwort High

Xyris drummondii Drummond's Yellow-eyed Grass Moderate

The key attributes and indicator metrics for this group are the same as for the ecological system near coast 

pine flatwoods (Table G 43). Forestwide desired conditions as well as desired conditions for near coast 

pine flatwoods and species diversity serve as forest plan components for these species. Objectives to 

restore or maintain pine flatwoods help to sustain these species, along with guidelines for 

vegetation/wildlife; soil and water; roads; invasive species; herbicides; and administration, facilities, and 

recreation.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-62 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 43. Pine flatwoods associates key attributes and indicator metrics

Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group 

Weight

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at Desired 

Return Interval Very High

Percent of System Acres Burned During the 

Growing Season Very High

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

Paved Open Road Density High

Total Road and Trail Density High

Unpaved Gated Road Density Moderate

Unpaved Open Road Density Moderate

Ecological System Abundance at 

Desired Condition

Percent of potential acres with Appropriate 

System Very High

Forest Age Diversity

Percent of Ecological System Acres in MidAged Trees High

% Mature Forest High

% Regenerating Forest Moderate

Vegetation Structure % Open High

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species Guidelines Very High

Percent of Invasive Species Occupying 

System Very High

Reduction of Fire Ants Very High

Habitat Element Abundance

Compliance with Den Tree Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Downed Wood Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Snag Guidelines Very High

Compliance with Stump and Stump-hole

Guidelines Very High

Hydrologic Function Compliance with Hydroligic Function 

Guidelines Very High

Soil Productivity Compliance with Soil Productivity Guidelines Moderate

Understory Composition Compliance with Understory Composition 

Guidelines Moderate

Ponds and Emergent Wetlands Associates

The species associated with this wetland system utilize a wide array of seasonally flooded depression 

wetlands, freshwater marshes, and ephemeral ponds. A list of targeted species associated with this species 

group can be found in Table G 44. Included here are ponds of various geomorphic origins in a variety of 

substrates including lime sinks and Grady ponds which may hold areas of shallow open water for 

significant portions of the year. Many of these have been altered or destroyed as a result of agricultural 

practices or erosion from disturbance on adjacent uplands. Past management actions in these areas may 

have resulted in woody plant encroachment and drainage of the wetlands. The few remaining examples 

are vulnerable to OHV use, ditching and drainage, and invasion by non-native plants and animals.

Information on location and size of this community type is not well known or documented.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-63

Since they are of small size and often dry up during the year, they are valuable as breeding sites for 

amphibians and are invaluable for Mississippi sandhill crane breeding on the De Soto NF. These habitats 

are also important for Mississippi gopher frog breeding and survival. Many of the species in this group 

thrive in a fishless environment as fish are known predators of larval amphibians. Species in this group 

generally migrate to ponds and emergent wetlands for breeding and are susceptible to hazards caused by 

crossing roads. Species in this group are also susceptible to damage caused by trampling and hydrologic 

modification cause by OHVs or other human disturbance.

Table G 44. Species in ponds and emergent wetlands associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Alisma subcordatum Broad-leaved Water-platain High

Anas platyrhynchos Northern Mallard High

Anas rubripes American Black Duck High

Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed Kite Moderate

Eleocharis melanocarpa Black-fruited Spikerush High

Eleocharis robbinsii Robbins Spikerush High

Eleocharis tricostata Three-angled Spikerush High

Grus canadensis pulla Mississippi Sandhill Crane Very High

Macranthera flammea Flame Flower High

Mimulus ringens Square-stem Monkey Flower High

Myriophyllum laxum Loose Watermilfoil Moderate

Nymphoides aquatica Big Floating Heart High

Nymphoides cordata Floating Heart High

Peltandra sagittifolia White Arum High

Polygala hookeri Hooker's Milkwort Moderate

Pseudacris ornata Ornate Chorus Frog Very High

Rana sevosa Mississippi Gopher Frog Very High

Sagittaria isoetiformis Slender Arrow-head High

Stylisma aquatica Water Southern Morning-glory High

Utricularia olivacea Piedmont Bladderwort High

Utricularia purpurea Purple Bladderwort High

Management activities are frequently needed to restore sites that have been ditched, drained, and/or filled.

Program emphasis for ponds and emergent wetlands is on project level inventory to identify extant 

examples and identify historical examples which are priority candidates for restoration of species 

composition and community structure to reflect the natural range of variation for this community.

Creation of new ponds can help sustain species in this group. 

The key attributes and indicator metrics for this group are the same as for the ecological system 

ephemeral ponds and emergent wetlands (Table G 45). Forestwide desired conditions as well as desired 

conditions for ponds and emergent wetlands and species diversity serve as forest plan components for 

these species. Guidelines include vegetation/wildlife; soil and water; roads; invasive species; herbicides; 

and administration, facilities, and recreation.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-64 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 45. Ponds and emergent wetlands associates key attributes and indicator metrics

Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group 

Weight

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at Desired 

Return Interval Moderate

Percent of System Acres Burned During the 

Growing Season Moderate

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

Paved Open Road Density Moderate

Total Road and Trail Density High

Unpaved Gated Road Density Moderate

Unpaved Open Road Density Moderate

Hydrologic Function Compliance with Hydroligic Function Guidelines Very High

Ecological System Abundance at 

Desired Condition

Percent of potential acres with Appropriate 

System Very High

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species Guidelines Very High

Percent of Invasive Species Occupying System High

Reduction of Fire Ants Moderate

Hydrologic Function Road Crossings Rating High

Physical Structure Compliance with Rare Community Physical 

Structure Guidelines Very High

Prairie Associates

These species are associated with two rare ecological systems (Jackson prairie and black belt) and occupy 

open grassy areas with highly calcareous, high pH soils. The herbaceous and grass species are dominated 

by characteristic prairie species. A list of targeted species associated with this species group can be found 

in Table G 46. Known sites are now in woodland or sparsely forested due to past land use practices. Many 

may show signs of erosion such as gullies. Plant species diversity in these understories has likely been 

adversely affected by past intensive grazing, and use of the prairie openings as wildlife food plots, roads 

and log landings. Management activities are frequently needed to restore prairie vegetation, enlarge 

present openings, and restore damage done by past management actions (remove food plots, log landings, 

etc.), historical fire regimes. Locations of this rare community should be identified and mapped on the 

Forests. Rapid assessment protocols should be developed to determine sustainability of these species, and 

species in this group should be protected from ground disturbance, human disturbance, and habitat loss. 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-65

Table G 46. Species in prairie associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Agalinis auriculata Earleaf False-foxglove Very High

Agalinis pseudaphylla Shinner's False-foxglove Moderate

Asclepias hirtella Prairie Milkweed High

Aster ericoides White Heath Aster High

Carex microdonta Small-Toothed Sedge High

Carya laciniosa Big Shellbark Hickory High

Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite High

Crataegus harbisonii (=C. ashei) Ashe Hawthorn High

Crataegus triflora Three-flower Hawthorn High

Desmodium ochroleucum Cream Tick-trefoil High

Dodecatheon meadia Shootingstar High

Echinacea purpurea Eastern Purple Coneflower High

Erythronium albidum White Dog's Tooth Violet High

Euonymus atropurpureus Burning Bush High

Frasera caroliniensis American Colombo Moderate

Hexalectris spicata Crested Coralroot High

Juglans cinerea Butternut Moderate

Marshallia graminifolia var. cynanthera Broadleaf Barbara's Buttons Moderate

Polytaenia nuttallii Prairie Parsley High

Ponthieva racemosa Shadow-witch Orchid High

Prenanthes aspera Rough Rattlesnake-root High

Procambarus barbiger Jackson Prairie Crayfish Very High

Quercus oglethorpensis Oglethorpe Oak Moderate

Rhamnus lanceolata Lance-leaved Buckthorn High

Spiranthes magnicamporum Great Plains Ladies'-tresses Very High

The key attributes and indicator metrics for this group are the same as for the ecological systems Jackson 

prairie and woodland and black belt prairie and woodland (Table G 47). The key factor for this ecological 

system is relative abundance on the landscape and is a vital step in providing for species sustainability. 

Forestwide desired conditions as well as desired conditions for prairies and species diversity serve as 

forest plan components for these species. Objectives to restore or maintain prairies help to sustain these 

species, along with guidelines for vegetation/wildlife; soil and water; roads; fire; and administration, 

facilities, and recreation. 
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-66 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 47. Prairie associates key attributes and indicator metrics

Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group 

Weight

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at Desired Return 

Interval Very High

Percent of System Acres Burned During the Growing 

Season Very High

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

Paved Open Road Density Moderate

Total Road and Trail Density High

Unpaved Gated Road Density Low

Unpaved Open Road Density Moderate

Ecological System Abundance 

at Desired Condition Percent of potential acres with appropriate system Very High

Vegetation Structure % Open Very High

Indicator Species Status Population Trend of purple prairie clover 

(Dalea purpurea Vent.) Very High

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species Guidelines Very High

Percent of Invasive Species Occupying System Very High

Reduction of Fire Ants High

Physical Structure Compliance with Rare Community Physical Structure 

Guidelines Very High

Rock Outcrop Associates

Rock outcrops are rare, localized features of the landscape which mainly occur along steep hill slopes, 

ravines, or river channels where soils have eroded away. They are usually embedded in a larger ecological 

system and rely heavily on surrounding habitats for landscape scale functions and processes. There are an 

estimated 500 acres of this habitat in the entire state of Mississippi. Distribution on the National Forests 

in Mississippi is unknown; however, rock outcrops may occur on all Forests except the De Soto 

Chickasawhay and Delta units. Although of minor aerial extent, the rock outcrops provide unique quality 

habitat for several species of animals and plants including Webster’s salamander and hairy lipfern.

The primary species associated with rock outcrops on the Forests is Webster’s salamander. A list of 

targeted species associated with this species group can be found in Table G 48. Webster’s salamander is 

found in association with this system and is dependent upon it for thermal refuge. Webster’s salamanders 

are not considered fully covered by ecological diversity forest plan components as they have needs in 

addition to those covered by their associated ecological systems. Many other herpetofaunal and plant 

species also depend upon this rare habitat as rock outcrops provide thermal refuge and foraging 

opportunities for associated species. General management strategy for this species group includes 

completion of inventory and mapping of the ecological system as part of project planning, training on 

recognition and ecological function of rare ecosystems, and development of rapid assessment criteria. 

Management activities are frequently needed to restore hardwood overstories and healthy hydrologic 

regimes such as springs and seeps that often co-occur with rock outcrops. The inclusion of rock outcrops 

in designated old-growth or botanical areas should be a priority of the Forests.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-67

Table G 48. Species in rock outcrop associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group 

Weight

Plethodon websteri Webster's Salamander High

Cheilanthes lanosa Hairy lipfern Very High

The key attributes and indicator metrics for this group are the same as for the ecological systems rock 

outcrops Table G 49. Implementation monitoring and rapid assessment protocols are the tools used to 

measure sustainability of both the system and its associated species. Desired conditions and guidelines for 

the ecological system rock outcrops should cover the sustainability of these species, along with guidelines 

for vegetation/wildlife.

Table G 49. Rock outcrop associates key attributes and indicator metrics

Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group 

Weight

Physical Structure Compliance with Rare Community Physical Structure 

Guidelines Very High

Invasive Species 

Abundance Compliance with Invasive Species Guidelines Very High

Invasive Species 

Abundance Reduction of Fire Ants Very High

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage Swamps Associates

Species occurring in this group require forested wetlands in acidic, seepage-influenced habitats. These 

habitats are usually in deciduous forests or herbaceous communities and are generally found at the base of 

slopes where seepage flow is concentrated and resulting moisture conditions are saturated or inundated. A

list of targeted species associated with this species group can be found in Table G 50. The vegetation is 

characterized by black gum, tupelo gum, and red maple. Due to excessive wetness, historically these sites 

have not been as highly disturbed as adjacent upland areas and are protected from fire except during 

extreme droughty periods. Currently, they are susceptible to damage caused by hydrologic modification, 

canopy cover reduction, and human disturbance. Local lowering of water tables has caused many seeps 

and springs to dry during part of the year. Maintenance of saturated to inundated soil conditions are 

essential to maintenance of the unique forb, grass, and sedge community dependent upon these sites.

Without wet conditions, the site would soon be dominated by more xeric species from surrounding 

habitats. Management activities are frequently needed to maintain canopy closure as appropriate over 

these communities and to ensure maintenance of the water table. Current information on location and size 

of this community type is not well documented.

The key characteristics and performance measures for this group are the same as for the ecological system 

seeps, springs, and seepage swamps Table G 51. Forestwide desired conditions as well as desired 

conditions for seeps, springs, and seepage swamps serve as forest plan components for these species.

Guidelines include vegetation/wildlife; soil and water; roads; invasive species; herbicides; and 

administration, facilities, and recreation.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-68 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 50. Species in seeps, springs and seepage swamps associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group 

Weight

Aster puniceus Purple-stemmed Aster Very High

Carex exilis Coast Sedge Moderate

Carex stricta Uptight Sedge Very High

Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic White Cedar Very High

Dryopteris ludoviciana Southern Shield Woodfern Very High

Dryopteris X australis Small's Woodfern Very High

Epidendrum magnoliae = conopseum Green-fly Orchid High

Isoetes louisianensis Louisiana Quillwort Very High

Isoetes melanopoda Blackfoot Quillwort Very High

Isoetes valida Strong Quillwort Very High

Lindera subcoriacea Bog Spicebush High

Lycopodium cernuum = L. palhinhaea cernua Nodding Clubmoss Low

Macranthera flammea Flame Flower High

Mimulus ringens Square-stem Monkey Flower High

Panicum nudicaule Naked-stemmed Panic Grass High

Parnassia grandifolia Large-leaved Grass-ofParnassus Very High

Peltandra sagittifolia White Arum Very High

Pinguicula planifolia Chapman's Butterwort High

Pinguicula primuliflora Southern Butterwort Very High

Platanthera blephariglottis Large White Fringed Orchid High

Platanthera integra Yellow Fringeless orchid High

Polygala hookeri Hooker's Milkwort Moderate

Pseudotriton montanus Mud Salamander Very High

Solidago flaccidifolia Appalachian Goldenrod Moderate

Spiranthes brevilabris var floridana Florida Ladies'-tresses Moderate

Spiranthes longilabris Giant Spiral Ladies'-tresses Low

Stylisma aquatica Water Southern Morning-glory High

Syngonanthus flavidulus Yellow Pipewort Moderate

Trachyxiphium heteroicum (Hookeriopsis 

heteroica) Trachyxiphium Moss Very High

Utricularia olivacea Piedmont Bladderwort Moderate

Utricularia purpurea Purple Bladderwort Moderate

Uvularia floridana Florida Bellwort Low

Xyris drummondii Drummond's Yellow-eyed Grass Low
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-69

Table G 51. Species in seeps, springs and seepage swamps associates key attributes and 

indicator metrics

Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group 

Weight

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at Desired 

Return Interval Moderate

Percent of System Acres Burned During the 

Growing Season Moderate

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

Paved Open Road Density Moderate

Total Road and Trail Density High

Unpaved Gated Road Density Low

Unpaved Open Road Density High

Ecological System Abundance at 

Desired Condition

Percent of potential acres with Appropriate 

System Very High

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species Guidelines Very High

Percent of Invasive Species Occupying System Very High

Reduction of Fire Ants High

Hydrologic Function Compliance with Hydroligic Function Guidelines Very High

Road Crossings Rating High

Persistence of Species Occurrences Compliance with Species Occurrence Guidelines Very High

Physical Structure Compliance with Rare Community Physical 

Structure Guidelines Very High

Wet Pine Savanna Associates

These species occupy rare wetland systems of open savannas dominated by grasses, sedges, orchids, and 

carnivorous plants. A list of targeted species associated with this species group can be found in Table G 

52. Occurrences on the Forests typically have too much canopy closure with resultant negative impacts on 

hydrologic regime.

Carnivorous plants are diagnostic, especially pitcher plants. Pitcher plants range from dominant or codominant to sparse, and several species may be present. Where ephemeral ponds and emergent wetlands 

are interspersed, this is habitat for the endangered Mississippi sandhill crane. Frequent fires, including 

growing-season burns, are essential for stimulating rich understories of grasses and forbs. Inventory, 

mapping, and developing rapid assessment protocols are priorities for species sustainability. 

Many wet pine savanna sites have been converted to forest or support only depauperate communities due 

to a long history of exploitation, system drainage and fire suppression. Management activities are 

frequently needed to restore healthy hydrologic function, historical fire regimes, and characteristic grassforb understories.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-70 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 52. Species in wet pine savanna associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Agalinis aphylla Coastal Plain False-foxglove Very High

Agalinis filicaulis Thin Stemmed False-foxglove Very High

Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's Sparrow High

Atrytone arogos arogos Arogos Skipper High

Calopogon barbatus Bearded Grass-pink Very High

Cirsium lecontei LeConte's Thistle Very High

Cleistes bifaria (=divaricata) Small Spreading Pogonia Very High

Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite Low

Dalea carnea var. gracilis Pine Barrens Prairie Clover High

Eriocaulon texense Texas Pipewort Very High

Fallicambarus danielae Speckled Burrowing Crayfish High

Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry High

Grus canadensis pulla Mississippi Sandhill Crane Very High

Lachnocaulon digynum Pineland Bogbutton Very High

Lycopodium cernuum = L. palhinhaea cernua Nodding Clubmoss Moderate

Marshallia graminifolia var. cynanthera Broadleaf Barbara's Buttons Moderate

Pinguicula planifolia Chapman's Butterwort Very High

Pinguicula primuliflora Southern Butterwort Very High

Platanthera blephariglottis Large White Fringed Orchid Very High

Platanthera integra Yellow Fringeless orchid Very High

Procambarus fitzpatricki Spiny-tailed Crayfish High

Pteroglossaspis ecristata (=Eulophia ecristata) Giant Orchid High

Rhadinaea flavilata Pine Woods Snake High

Rhynchospora macra Large Beakrush Very High

Ruellia noctiflora Night Flowering Ruellia High

Spiranthes brevilabris var floridana Florida Ladies'-tresses High

Spiranthes longilabris Giant Spiral Ladies'-tresses Very High

Stylisma aquatica Water Southern Morning-glory High

Xyris drummondii Drummond's Yellow-eyed Grass High

The key attributes and indicator metrics for this group are the same as for the ecological system wet pine 

savanna (Table G 53). Relative abundance is the key factor for restoration of this ecological system and is 

a vital in providing for species sustainability. Forestwide desired conditions as well as desired conditions 

for wet pine savannas and species diversity serve as forest plan components for these species. Objectives 

for restoration of wet pine savanna also sustain this species group; along with guidelines for 

vegetation/wildlife; soil and water; roads; herbicides; and administration, facilities, and recreation. 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-71

Table G 53. Wet pine savanna associates key attributes and indicator metrics

Target 

Type Target Name Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-toGroup Weight

ES

Wet Pine 

Savanna

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned 

at Desired Return Interval Very High

ES Percent of System Acres Burned 

During the Growing Season Very High

ES

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Paved Open Road Density Moderate

ES Total Road and Trail Density High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density Low

ES Unpaved Open Road Density Moderate

ES

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential acres with 

Appropriate System Very High

ES Vegetation Structure % Open Very High

ES Indicator Species Status

Population Trend of yellow 

trumpets (Sarracenia alata Alph. 

Wood)

High

ES

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines Very High

ES Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System Very High

ES Reduction of Fire Ants Very High

SG

Wet Pine 

Savanna 

Associates

Habitat Element 

Abundance

Compliance with Den Tree 

Guidelines Very High

SG Compliance with Downed Wood 

Guidelines Very High

SG Compliance with Snag 

Guidelines Very High

SG Compliance with Stump and 

Stump-hole Guidelines Very High

SG Hydrologic Function Compliance with Hydroligic 

Function Guidelines Very High

Xeric Sandhill Associates

Xeric sandhills are a unique habitat type in Mississippi and are a vital component of many species 

ecological needs. For planning purposes, they have been defined as gopher tortoise priority soils and are 

the driest of the upland sites occurring on the Chickasawhay and De Soto NFs. All management decisions 

made within these areas should focus on sustainability of the federally threatened gopher tortoise. A list of 

all targeted species associated with this species group can be found in Table G 54. The tortoise serves as a 

keystone species for many species on this list. Its burrows provide habitat otherwise unavailable for many 

of these species.

The key attributes and indicator metrics for this group are the same as for the ecological system xeric 

sandhills (Table G 55). Forestwide desired conditions as well as desired conditions for longleaf pine, xeric 

sandhills, and species diversity serve as forest plan components for these species. Objectives to restore or 
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-72 National Forests in Mississippi

maintain xeric sandhills and woodland condition in longleaf pine forest help to sustain these species, 

along with guidelines for vegetation/wildlife; roads; fire; and administration, facilities, and recreation.

Table G 54. Species in xeric sandhills associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite Moderate

Crotalus adamanteus Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake High

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise Very High

Heterodon simus Southern Hognose Snake Very High

Ophisaurus mimicus Mimic Glass Lizard High

Peromyscus polionotus Oldfield Mouse Very High

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker Moderate

Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi Black Pine Snake High

Quercus minima Dwarf Live Oak Very High

Stylisma pickeringii var pattersonii Patterson's Bindweed Very High

Table G 55. Xeric sandhills associates key attributes and indicator metrics

Target 

Type

Target 

Name Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-toGroup Weight

ES

Xeric 

Sandhills

Fire Regime

% System Acres Burned at Desired 

Return Interval Very High

ES % System Acres Burned During the 

Growing Season Very High

ES Distance from Roads Total Road and Trail Density High

ES Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

% Ecological System Acres at 

Desired Condition Very High

ES % potential acres with Appropriate 

System Very High

ES

Forest Age Diversity

% Mature Forest Moderate

ES % Old Forest Moderate

ES % Regenerating Forest Moderate

ES

Vegetation Structure % Mature Open and Sparse Canopy Very High

ES % Old-growth Moderate

ES

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species 

Guidelines Very High

ES % Invasive Species Occupying 

System Very High

ES Reduction of Fire Ants Very High

ES Understory Composition Compliance with Understory 

Composition Guidelines Very High

SG

Xeric 

Sandhill 

Associates

Habitat Element 

Abundance

Compliance with Den Tree Guidelines Very High

SG Compliance with Downed Wood 

Guidelines Very High

SG Compliance with Snag Guidelines Very High

SG Compliance with Stump and Stumphole Guidelines Very High
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-73

G.3.4Terrestrial Species Groups Requiring Additional Forest Plan 

Components

This section provides details on groups of species that require further forest plan components in addition 

to those already provided by ecological diversity. Management strategies and appropriate forest plan

components are described for each group. Species groups contain threatened and endangered, regional 

forester’s sensitive species, and locally rare species arranged together for analysis purposes. These groups 

represent small spatial scales and groups of species associated with localized conditions and features that 

cross ecosystem boundaries. A list of targeted species groups needing additional forest plan components 

can be found in Table G 56. Targeted species within each group are in a table as each group is discussed.

Table G 56. Species groups requiring additional forest plan components

Species Group Species Group

Bat Roost Structure Group Species Sensitive to Hydrologic Modification of Wetlands

Den Tree Associates Species Sensitive to Recreational Traffic 

(Terrestrial and Non-riverine Aquatic)

Downed Wood Associates Species Needing Occurrence Protection

Forest Interior Birds Stump and Stump-hole Associates

Species Sensitive to Fire Injury Calciphiles

Snag Associates Species Sensitive to Canopy Cover Modifications

Species Dependant on Fire to Maintain Habitat Species Sensitive to Soil Disturbance

Bat Roost Structure Group

Bat species generally live in mature riparian areas on the Forests. They utilize bridges, cisterns, culverts, 

old abandoned houses, leaf litter, snags, and branches, bark, and cavities of live trees as roosts. They are 

insectivores and require some proximity to water. A list of targeted species associated with this species 

group can be found in Table G 57.

Table G 57. Species in bat roost structure group

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat Very High

Lasiurus intermedius Northern Yellow Bat Very High

Myotis austroriparius Southeastern Myotis Very High

Forest Plan Components

It is assumed that if the surrounding riparian area contains mature to old-growth closed-canopy forest 

with little or no unnatural disturbance, a sustainable amount of roost and hibernacula should be present.

Ecological system sustainability forest plan components include desired conditions for floodplain forests, 

ephemeral ponds and emergent wetlands, and species diversity; and objectives for floodplain forests 

(Table G 58).
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-74 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 58. Bat roost structure key attributes and indicator metrics

Target 

Type Target Name Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-toGroup Weight

SG

Bat Roost Structure 

Group

Bat Roost 

Structure 

Availability

Compliance with Den Tree Protection 

Guidelines Very High

SG Compliance with Man-made Roost 

Structure Guidelines Moderate

SG Compliance with Snag Protection 

Guidelines Very High

SG Habitat 

Element 

Abundance

Compliance with Bat Roost Structure 

Guidelines Very High

SG Compliance with Den Tree Guidelines Very High

SG Compliance with Snag Guidelines Very High

ES Upland Longleaf Pine 

Forest and Woodland

Forest Age 

Diversity

% Mature Forest High

ES % Old Forest Very High

ES Southern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest

Forest Age 

Diversity

% Mature Forest High

ES % Old Forest Very High

ES Southern Mesic 

Slope Forest

Forest Age 

Diversity

% Mature Forest High

ES % Old Forest Very High

ES

Floodplain Forest Forest Age 

Diversity

% Mature Forest High

ES % Old Forest Very High

ES Loblolly Pine Forest Forest Age 

Diversity % Mature Forest High

ES Slash Pine Forest Forest Age 

Diversity % Mature Forest High

ES Shortleaf Pine-Oak 

Forest and Woodland

Forest Age 

Diversity

% Mature Forest High

ES % Old Forest High

Although ecological system forest plan components should supply ample amounts of suitable habitat for 

bats, there are additional needs for this group. It is necessary to retain snags and cavity trees for potential 

roosting by bats. Forest plan provisions to retain this habitat element help to insure sustainability of these 

species. In addition, human disturbance can interfere with roosting behavior and removal of existing 

artificial habitat can limit reproductive and foraging activity. Bridges, cisterns, and culverts should be 

checked for presence of bats before removal or modification of structure and alternative habitat should be 

provided when necessary.

The following guidelines were developed specifically for species in this group or address specific needs 

for this group:

• Before buildings, bridges, wells, cisterns, and other man-made structures are structurally modified or 

demolished, they should be surveyed for bats. If significant bat roosting is found, these structures 

should be maintained where consistent with multiple use objectives, or alternate roosts suitable for the 

species and colony size should be provided prior to adverse modification or destruction when 

feasible.

• New road bridge construction should include bat friendly technology and construction materials to 

provide roosting habitat for bat species-of-concern and species-of-interest. 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-75

• Planning and implementation of road construction, fireline construction, wildlife pond and opening 

construction, timber harvests, and other ground disturbing projects should include appropriate 

measures to provide protection for known occurrences of rare species.

Management Strategies

Beyond providing natural habitat, opportunities exist to enhance habitat by utilizing bat friendly bridge 

panels in future bridge reconstruction on the National Forests in Mississippi. Artificial roost installation 

can also improve bat habitat. Retention of snags and cavity trees during project implementation should 

create natural roosting structure for bats, and creation of vernal ponds should increase foraging areas for 

bats. Partnerships may foster bat habitat improvement projects.

Den Tree Associates 

Den trees include cavities in both dead and live trees that are found in a variety of hardwood and 

softwood tree species. The species in this group require cavities or den trees for reproduction, shelter, 

and/or hibernation. A list of targeted species associated with this species group can be found in Table G 

59. Large diameter hollow trees provide important denning habitat for the federally threatened black bear 

in Mississippi. Den trees are also important for sustaining the red-cockaded woodpecker and provide 

refuge for many other species including bats, small mammals, and amphibians and reptiles. It is necessary 

to recruit and retain these trees in areas where those species occur (Table G 60). Several bat species that 

are regional forester’s sensitive species or locally rare species are included under the bat roost structure 

group description.

Table G 59. Species in den tree associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Aix sponsa Wood Duck High

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat High

Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern American Kestrel High

Myotis austroriparius Southeastern Myotis High

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker Very High

Ursus americanus Black Bear Very High

Ursus americanus luteolus Louisiana Black Bear Very High
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-76 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 60. Den tree associates key attributes and indicator metrics

Target 

Type Target Name Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-toGroup Weight

ES

Upland Longleaf Pine Forest 

and Woodland

Forest Age Diversity

% Mature Forest High

ES % Old Forest Very High

ES Vegetation Structure % Old-growth Very High

ES Southern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest Forest Age Diversity

% Mature Forest High

ES % Old Forest Very High

ES Southern Mesic Slope 

Forest Forest Age Diversity

% Mature Forest High

ES % Old Forest Very High

ES

Floodplain Forest Forest Age Diversity

% Mature Forest High

ES % Old Forest Very High

ES Vegetation Structure % Old-growth Very High

ES

Loblolly Pine Forest Forest Age Diversity % Mature Forest High

ES Vegetation Structure % Old-growth Very High

ES

Slash Pine Forest Forest Age Diversity % Mature Forest High

ES Vegetation Structure % Old-growth Very High

SG Den Tree Associates Habitat Element 

Abundance

Compliance with Den Tree 

Guidelines Very High

Forest Plan Components

It is assumed that sustainable populations of this species group will persist if intact mature riparian areas 

are maintained through filter strips, enhanced stream management zones, and protection of bottomland 

hardwood forests. Relative abundance of cavity trees would increase during this process. Assuming that 

mature forests and woodlands are present on the landscape and the additional forest plan components 

(guidelines) listed below are followed during vegetation management treatments, cavities available for 

nesting should remain abundant. Tree age diversity and presence of old-growth for all forested ecological 

systems is a surrogate measure for den tree associates. Ecological system sustainability forest plan

components include desired conditions for forestwide ecosystem diversity, all forested ecological 

systems, streams and rivers, old-growth, and species diversity; objectives include those for floodplain 

forests and old-growth; and guidelines are those for soil and water sustainability.

Although ecosystem diversity forest plan components should supply ample amounts of suitable habitat for 

den tree associates, there are additional needs for this group. It is necessary to retain snags and cavity 

trees for potential use by species in this group. Forest plan provisions to retain this habitat element help to 

insure species sustainability.

The following guidelines would apply to den tree associates: 

• Stumps, standing snags, and den trees should generally be retained to maintain structural diversity 

during vegetation management treatments. Exceptions may be made when necessary for insect or 

disease control or to provide for public and employee safety. Distribution of retained snags may be 

clumped.

• For as long as they remain suitable, known black bear den sites should be protected by prohibiting 

vegetation management and ground disturbing activities within a minimum of 100 feet around the 

den.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-77

• Potential black bear den trees should be retained during all vegetation management treatments 

occurring in habitats suitable for bears. Potential den trees are those that are greater than 36 inches 

d.b.h. containing visible cavities.

• Planning and implementation of road construction, fireline construction, wildlife pond and opening 

construction, timber harvests, and other ground disturbing projects should include appropriate 

measures to provide protection for known occurrences of rare species.

Management Strategies

The key factors for sustainability of this group are recruitment of new den/cavity trees and retention of 

existing trees. Both of these can be measured through implementation monitoring using guidelines.

Artificial cavity installation may be necessary for some of these species. Partnerships may enhance 

improvement of den tree species sustainability on the Forests.

Downed Wood Associates

Species in this association require downed and decaying wood for some vital part of their life history. A 

list of targeted species associated with this species group can be found in Table G 61. Downed wood 

provides shelter for many species and their prey items. Mississippi gopher frog, Webster’s salamander, 

ornate chorus frog, mud salamander, and pine woods snake are all tied to downed wood for some portion 

of their life cycle. The Trachyxiphium moss grows on permanently wet downed wood and cannot survive 

without it. Past forestry practices in Mississippi included removing stumps during vegetative management 

treatments. Retention of downed wood is essential for these species which is why retention guidelines are 

vital (Table G 62).

Table G 61. Species in downed wood associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group 

Weight

Crotalus adamanteus Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake Low

Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed Salamander Low

Heterodon simus Southern Hognose Snake Moderate

Ophisaurus mimicus Mimic Glass Lizard Moderate

Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi Black Pine Snake Moderate

Plethodon websteri Webster's Salamander High

Pseudacris ornata Ornate Chorus Frog Moderate

Pseudotriton montanus Mud Salamander Moderate

Rana sevosa Mississippi Gopher Frog Very High

Rhadinaea flavilata Pine Woods Snake High

Trachyxiphium heteroicum 

(Hookeriopsis heteroica) Trachyxiphium Moss High

Table G 62. Downed wood associates key attributes and indicator metrics

Target 

Type Target Name Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group 

Weight

SG Downed Wood 

Associates

Habitat Element 

Abundance

Compliance with Downed 

Wood Guidelines Very High
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-78 National Forests in Mississippi

Forest Plan Components

Forestwide desired conditions as well as desired conditions for each forested ecological system and 

species diversity serve as ecological system sustainability forest plan components for these species. 

Objectives to restore or maintain mature and old-growth forest help to sustain these species.

Although ecological system sustainability forest plan components should supply ample amounts of 

suitable habitat, there are additional needs for this group. Given that past management practices have 

allowed for the removal of stumps, it is necessary to create additional forest plan components for their 

retention. Forest plan provisions to retain these habitat elements help to insure species sustainability.

The following guidelines would apply to this species group: 

• Dead and downed logs or other woody debris should generally not be removed from rare 

communities. Where needed to ensure public or employee safety, snags may be felled, but will be 

retained within the community as downed wood.

• Planning and implementation of road construction, fireline construction, wildlife pond and opening 

construction, timber harvests, and other ground disturbing projects should include appropriate 

measures to provide protection for known occurrences of rare species.

• Historical skid roads, haul roads, log landings, and mechanical firelines should be reused.

Management Strategies

The major strategy for this group is the recruitment of new downed wood, stumps, and stump holes and 

retention of existing ones at the project level. Retention and recruitment can be measured through 

implementation monitoring and guidelines. It is assumed that the abundance of these habitat elements can 

be indirectly measured by the presence of mature and old-growth forest and woodland. Sustainable 

amounts of mature and old-growth forest in combination with retention guidelines provide downed wood 

into ecological systems. Guidelines for stump retention and minimization of ground disturbance are 

essential when considering the sustainability of species within this group. Although fire can destroy 

downed wood on the ground, it should not be excluded from use. The mud salamander and pine woods 

snakes occur in areas sufficiently moist to prevent fire from destroying downed wood in all but the driest 

of times. Forest plan guidance would limit direct firing and suggest that only low intensity flames should 

be used in these areas. The ornate chorus frog is an upland species and fire is critical to sustaining its 

habitat. Although fire may destroy some downed wood used by this species, having a sustainable supply 

of downed wood recruited into the system by a mature forest should be sufficient to sustain the species.

Forest Interior Birds

Forest interior birds require intact mature forests with no permanent fragmentation by agricultural or 

urban development. A list of targeted species associated with this species group can be found in Table G 

63. Some fragmentation may be present as a result of timber harvesting, however this may only cause a 

temporary reduction in habitat for forest interior species. In most large landscapes, the needs of early 

successional species can be met quickly through various sources of disturbance, including timber 

harvesting. Much more time, however, is required to develop suitable habitat for species that require 

mature forest and other attributes (Table G 64). Effective conservation strategies must focus on 

maintaining adequate amounts of mature forest at any point in time.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-79

Table G 63. Species in forest interior birds group

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's Warbler High

Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush High

Table G 64. Forest interior birds group key attributes and indicator metrics

Target 

Type Target Name Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-toGroup Weight

ES

Shortleaf Pine-Oak 

Forest and 

Woodland

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Moderate

ES Paved Open Road Density High

ES Total Road and Trail Density High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density Moderate

ES Unpaved Open Road Density High

ES Forest Age Diversity % Mature Forest High

ES

Northern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Moderate

ES Paved Open Road Density High

ES Total Road and Trail Density High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density Moderate

ES Unpaved Open Road Density High

ES Forest Age Diversity % Mature Forest High

ES

Northern Mesic 

Hardwood Forest

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Moderate

ES Paved Open Road Density High

ES Total Road and Trail Density High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density Moderate

ES Unpaved Open Road Density High

ES Forest Age Diversity % Mature Forest High

ES

Floodplain Forest

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Moderate

ES Paved Open Road Density High

ES Total Road and Trail Density High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density Moderate

ES Unpaved Open Road Density High

ES Forest Age Diversity % Mature Forest High

SG

Forest Interior Birds

Forest Interior 

Abundance

Compliance with Forest 

Interior Guidelines Very High

SG

Habitat Element 

Abundance

Compliance with Hard Mast 

Guidelines High

SG Compliance with Snag 

Guidelines High

SG Landscape 

Composition

% in Predominately Forested 

Landscapes Very High
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-80 National Forests in Mississippi

Forest Plan Components

Relative abundance of mature forest is a key factor for this species group, as is tree age diversity for all 

forested ecological systems. Forestwide desired conditions for ecosystem diversity, desired conditions for 

each forested ecological system, and species diversity desired conditions serve as forest plan components 

for these species. Objectives to restore or maintain mature and old-growth forest help to sustain these 

species.

Although ecological system sustainability forest plan components help to sustain these species, more 

guidance is needed for sustainability of forest interior species on the National Forests in Mississippi.

Planning forest regeneration in a matrix designed to sustain contiguous mature forest over time is of 

critical importance to these species.

The following guidelines would apply to forest interior bird associates: 

• When planning stand regeneration, priority should be placed on locating new stands adjacent to 

existing young or regenerating stands to maximize the amount of contiguous forest. In accomplishing 

this, maximum regeneration opening sizes should be considered.

• Opening sizes created by timber harvest for silvicultural purposes should not exceed 80 acres for pine 

and pine/hardwood forest types and 40 acres for hardwood and hardwood/pine forest types. Openings

should be considered regeneration for 10 years.

• New communication tower installation and ridge-top developments should be designed to mitigate 

collision impacts to migratory birds through coordination of project planning and implementation 

with the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

• When considering regeneration timber harvests, openings should be shaped and blended to the extent 

practicable with the natural terrain.

Management Strategies

Emphasis should be placed on maintaining contiguous blocks of mature forest to sustain these species.

New treatments should be placed adjacent to young stands to allow for a sustained future of mature 

contiguous forest. This will temporarily increase the percentage of young forest, but it will contribute to 

the overall sustainability of interior species in the future and the effects should be minimized by not 

having more than 10 percent of the forest in young or regenerating condition at any given time.

Species Sensitive to Fire Injury

Individuals of these species are sensitive to fire injury. A list of targeted species associated with this 

species group can be found in Table G 65. Gopher frogs can be injured by effects of direct fire and fire 

can harm red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees and fledglings. Atlantic white cedar has no fire tolerance 

and should be protected from fire. Oglethorpe oak, butternut, and big shellbark hickory have thin bark 

which makes them susceptible to negative effects from fire. Arogos skippers are both dependent upon fire 

to maintain their habitat and sensitive to injury of individuals and populations caused by fire. The rest of 

the species in this group occur in areas where only low intensity fires should occur, however, fires can 

occur in these areas resulting in death of individuals.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-81

Table G 65. Species sensitive to fire injury

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Atrytone arogos arogos Arogos Skipper Very High

Carex impressinervia Ravine Sedge Very High

Carya laciniosa Big Shellbark Hickory High

Celastrus scandens Climbing Bittersweet High

Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic White Cedar Very High

Cornus alternifolia Alternate-leaf Dogwood High

Cypripedium parviflorum Small Yellow Lady's-slipper Very High

Cypripedium pubescens Yellow Lady's-slipper Very High

Galearis spectabilis Showy Orchis Very High

Juglans cinerea Butternut Very High

Matelea oblique Climbing Milkweed High

Pachysandra procumbens Allegheny-spurge Very High

Panax quinquefolius American Ginseng Very High

Physalis carpenter Carpenter's Ground-cherry Very High

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker Low

Quercus oglethorpensis Ogelthorpe Oak Very High

Rana sevosa Missisippi Gopher Frog Low

Schisandra glabra Bay Starvine High

Trillium foetidissimum Fetid Trillium Moderate

Triphora trianthophora Three Birds Orchid Very High

Uvularia floridana Florida Bellwort High

Forest Plan Components

These species would be partially covered by forest plan components for mesic ecological systems, 

including those related to fire, which indicates only low intensity fire should be used (Table G 66).

However, species in this group are especially sensitive to the direct effects of fire, and care should be 

taken whenever fire is used in areas where they are known to occur. There are no direct key characteristics 

for this group, however project monitoring can determine if damage is occurring to species. These species 

are limited in occurrence on the Forests; therefore implementation of special provisions at the project 

level should not interfere with completion of work. 

The following guidelines specific to these species should be used: 

• Planning and implementation of prescribed burns should include measures to provide protection for 

known occurrences of threatened and endangered, regional forester’s sensitive species, and locally 

rare species that are susceptible to damage or extirpation from fire injury. This group is referred to as 

species sensitive to fire injury.

• Planning and implementation of road construction, fireline construction, wildlife pond and opening 

construction, timber harvests, and other ground disturbing projects should include appropriate 

measures to provide protection for known occurrences of rare species.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-82 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 66. Species sensitive to fire injury key attributes and indicators

Key 

Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group 

Weight

Fire Regime Percent of System Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval Very High

Fire Regime Percent of System Acres Burned During 

the Growing Season Very High

Fire Regime Compliance with Prescribed Fire 

Guidelines Very High

Management Strategies

When developing burn plans, the following should be considered at a minimum for all species in this 

group:

• Are any species from this group present or have potential to be present in project area?

• Is species habitat present in project area?

• What are the negative effects of fire to species?

• What protective measures can be performed to reduce impacts to species, i.e. burning during specific 

part of life-cycle (hibernation, non-breeding, dormancy, etc); protecting individuals from direct 

effects of fire; protecting duff layer in mesic areas; etc.?

• Are there sufficient populations of this species adjacent to the project area to re-populate after the 

project? 

• Are there any additional techniques that can be used to reduce impacts? 

Consideration of these questions and guidelines should provide for species in this group.

Snag Associates

Species in this association require standing snags for some vital part of their life history. A list of targeted 

species associated with this species group can be found in Table G 67. Standing snags provide shelter for 

many species and their prey items. Past forestry practices in Mississippi included removing standing 

snags during vegetative management treatments.

If retention / recruitment guidelines and other guidelines pertinent to creation of snags are followed, and 

there is a forestwide level of 30 percent mature and 10 percent old-growth forest that is within good or 

very good rating criteria, then we assume that we are adequately providing enough snags to sustain 

dependent species (Table G 68). Ecological system sustainability forest plan components include desired 

conditions for all associated ecological systems and specific guidelines.

Table G 67. Snag associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Aix sponsa Wood Duck Moderate

Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern American Kestrel Moderate

Drycopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker Very High
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-83

Table G 68. Snag associates key attributes and indicator metrics

Target 

Type Target Name Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group 

Weight

SG

Snag 

Associates

Habitat Element 

Abundance

% of Benchmark Acres of Mature 

Forest Systems High

SG % of Benchmark Acres of Old 

Forest Systems High

SG Compliance with Snag Guidelines Very High

Forest Plan Components

Forestwide desired conditions as well as desired conditions for each forested ecological system and 

species diversity serve as ecological system sustainability forest plan components for these species. 

Objectives to restore or maintain mature and old-growth forest help to sustain these species.

Although ecological system sustainability forest plan components should supply ample amounts of 

suitable habitat, there are additional needs for this group. Given that past management practices have 

allowed for the removal of stumps, it is necessary to create additional forest plan components for their 

retention. Forest plan provisions to retain these habitat elements help to insure species sustainability.

The following guidelines would apply to this species group:

• Stumps, standing snags, and den trees should generally be retained to maintain structural diversity 

during vegetation management treatments. Exceptions may be made when necessary for insect or 

disease control or to provide for public and employee safety. Distribution of retained snags may be 

clumped.

• Planning and implementation of road construction, fireline construction, wildlife pond and opening 

construction, timber harvests, and other ground disturbing projects should include appropriate 

measures to provide protection for known occurrences of rare species.

• Historical skid roads, haul roads, log landings, and mechanical firelines should be reused.

Management Strategies

The major strategy for this group is the recruitment of new snags and retention of existing ones at the 

project level. Retention and recruitment can be measured through implementation monitoring and 

guidelines. It is assumed that the abundance of these habitat elements can be indirectly measured by the 

presence of mature and old-growth forest and woodland. Sustainable amounts of mature and old-growth 

forest in combination with retention guidelines provide snags into ecological systems. Guidelines for snag 

retention and minimization of ground disturbance are essential when considering the sustainability of 

species within this group. Although fire can destroy snags, it should not be excluded from use.

Species Dependent on Fire to Maintain Habitat 

Many species of the southeastern forest depend on fire to maintain the health and wellbeing of their 

habitat. Prescribed burning is an important management tool in a healthy fire-adapted ecosystem by 

recycling nutrients back to the soil and increasing plant diversity and growth patterns. The season, 

frequency, frequency, and intensity of fire are critical variables that should be used based on the existing 

and desired vegetative communities and featured species. A list of targeted species associated with this 

species group can be found in Table G 69.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-84 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 69. Species dependent on fire to maintain habitat

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Agalinis aphylla Coastal Plain False-foxglove Very High

Agalinis auriculata Earleaf False-foxglove Very High

Agalinis filicaulis Thin Stemmed False-foxglove Very High

Agalinis pseudaphylla Shinner's False-foxglove Very High

Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's Sparrow Very High

Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's Sparrow High

Aristida simpliciflora Southern Three-awned Grass Very High

Asclepias hirtella Prairie Milkweed Very High

Aster ericoides White Heath Aster Very High

Atrytone arogos arogos Arogos Skipper Very High

Calopogon barbatus Bearded Grass-pink Very High

Carex exilis Coast Sedge Very High

Carex microdonta Small-Toothed Sedge High

Cirsium lecontei LeConte's Thistle Very High

Cleistes bifaria (=divaricata) Small Spreading Pogonia Very High

Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite Very High

Crataegus harbisonii (=C. ashei) Ashe Hawthorn Very High

Crataegus triflora Three-flower Hawthorn Very High

Crotalus adamanteus Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake High

Dalea carnea var. gracilis Pine Barrens Prairie Clover Very High

Desmodium ochroleucum Cream Tick-trefoil Very High

Echinacea purpurea Eastern Purple Coneflower High

Eleocharis melanocarpa Black-fruited Spikerush High

Eleocharis robbinsii Robbins Spikerush Moderate

Eleocharis tricostata Three-angled Spikerush Moderate

Eriocaulon texense Texas Pipewort Very High

Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern American Kestrel Moderate

Fallicambarus danielae Speckled Burrowing Crayfish Very High

Fallicambarus gordoni Camp Shelby Burrowing Crayfish Very High

Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry Very High

Grus canadensis pulla Mississippi Sandhill Crane Very High

Heterodon simus Southern Hognose Snake High

Isoetes louisianensis Louisiana Quillwort High

Lachnocaulon digynum Pineland Bogbutton Very High

Lindera subcoriacea Bog Spicebush High

Linum macrocarpum Spring Hill flax Very High

Lobelia appendiculata Appendaged Lobelia High

Lycopodium cernuum = L. palhinhaea cernua Nodding Clubmoss High

Macranthera flammea Flame Flower High

Marshallia graminifolia var. cynanthera Broadleaf Barbara's Buttons High

Ophisaurus mimicus Mimic Glass Lizard Very High
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-85

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Panicum nudicaule Naked-stemmed Panic Grass Very High

Parnassia grandifolia Large-leaved Grass-of-Parnassus High

Peltandra sagittifolia White Arum High

Peromyscus polionotus Oldfield Mouse Very High

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker Very High

Pinguicula planifolia Chapman's Butterwort Very High

Pinguicula primuliflora Southern Butterwort High

Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi Black Pine Snake Very High

Platanthera blephariglottis Large White Fringed Orchid Very High

Platanthera integra Yellow Fringeless orchid Very High

Polygala hookeri Hooker's Milkwort Very High

Polygala leptostachys Slender Spike Milkwort Very High

Polytaenia nuttallii Prairie Parsley Very High

Prenanthes aspera Rough Rattlesnake-root High

Procambarus barbiger Jackson Prairie Crayfish Very High

Procambarus fitzpatricki Spiny-tailed Crayfish Very High

Pteroglossaspis ecristata (=Eulophia ecristata) Giant Orchid Very High

Quercus minima Dwarf Live Oak Very High

Rhadinaea flavilata Pine Woods Snake Moderate

Rhamnus lanceolata Lance-leaved Buckthorn High

Rhynchospora crinipes Hairy Peduncled Beakrush High

Rhynchospora macra Large Beakrush Very High

Rhynchospora stenophylla Chapman Beakrush Very High

Ruellia noctiflora Night Flowering Ruellia High

Spiranthes brevilabris var floridana Florida Ladies'-tresses High

Spiranthes longilabris Giant Spiral Ladies'-tresses Very High

Spiranthes magnicamporum Great Plains Ladies'-tresses Very High

Syngonanthus flavidulus Yellow Pipewort Very High

Xyris drummondii Drummond's Yellow-eyed Grass Very High

Xyris scabrifolia Harper's Yellow-eyed Grass Very High

Forest plan Components

Ecological system sustainability components include desired conditions for forestwide ecosystem 

diversity, all ecological systems, old-growth, and guidelines for prescribed burning (Table G 70).

The following guidelines would apply to this species group:

• Planning and implementation of prescribed burns should include measures to provide protection for 

known occurrences of threatened and endangered, sensitive, and locally rare species that are 

susceptible to damage or extirpation from fire injury. This group is referred to as species sensitive to 

fire injury.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-86 National Forests in Mississippi

• During prescribed burning, some fires should be allowed to burn in a mosaic pattern resulting from 

differential influence of topography, fuel loading and moisture, and vegetation type.

• Existing barriers (e.g., streams, lakes, wetlands, roads, and trails) should be used whenever possible to 

reduce the need for fireline construction and to minimize resource impacts.

Table G 70. Species dependent on fire to maintain habitat sample performance measures, may 

vary by location and unit

Target 

Type

Target 

Name Key Attribute Indicator

Line Item-toGroup 

Weight

ES

Upland 

Longleaf 

Pine Forest 

and 

Woodland

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval Very High

ES Percent of System Acres Burned 

During the Growing Season Very High

ES Ecological System Abundance 

at Desired Condition

Percent of potential acres with 

Appropriate System Very High

ES

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species 

Guidelines Very High

ES Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System Very High

ES Reduction of Fire Ants Very High

ES

Southern 

Dry Upland 

Hardwood 

Forest

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval Moderate

ES Percent of System Acres Burned 

During the Growing Season Moderate

ES Ecological System Abundance 

at Desired Condition

Percent of potential acres with 

Appropriate System Moderate

ES

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species 

Guidelines Moderate

ES Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System Moderate

ES Reduction of Fire Ants Moderate

ES

Near-coast 

Pine 

Flatwoods

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval Very High

ES Percent of System Acres Burned 

During the Growing Season Very High

ES Ecological System Abundance 

at Desired Condition

Percent of potential acres with 

Appropriate System Very High

ES

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species 

Guidelines Very High

ES Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System Very High

ES Reduction of Fire Ants Very High
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-87

Target 

Type

Target 

Name Key Attribute Indicator

Line Item-toGroup 

Weight

ES

Xeric 

Sandhills

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval Very High

ES Percent of System Acres Burned 

During the Growing Season Very High

ES Ecological System Abundance 

at Desired Condition

Percent of potential acres with 

Appropriate System Very High

ES

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species 

Guidelines Very High

ES Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System Very High

ES Reduction of Fire Ants Very High

ES

Wet Pine 

Savanna

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval Very High

ES Percent of System Acres Burned 

During the Growing Season Very High

ES Ecological System Abundance 

at Desired Condition

Percent of potential acres with 

Appropriate System Very High

ES

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species 

Guidelines Very High

ES Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System Very High

ES Reduction of Fire Ants Very High

ES

Herbaceous 

Seepage 

Bogs and 

Flats

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval Very High

ES Percent of System Acres Burned 

During the Growing Season Very High

ES Ecological System Abundance 

at Desired Condition

Percent of potential acres with 

Appropriate System Very High

ES

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species 

Guidelines Very High

ES Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System Very High

ES Reduction of Fire Ants Very High

ES

Loblolly 

Pine Forest

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval Very High

ES Percent of System Acres Burned 

During the Growing Season Very High

ES Ecological System Abundance 

at Desired Condition

Percent of Ecological System Acres 

at Desired Condition Very High

ES

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species 

Guidelines Very High

ES Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System Very High

ES Reduction of Fire Ants Very High
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-88 National Forests in Mississippi

Target 

Type

Target 

Name Key Attribute Indicator

Line Item-toGroup 

Weight

ES

Slash Pine 

Forest

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval Very High

ES Percent of System Acres Burned 

During the Growing Season Very High

ES Ecological System Abundance 

at Desired Condition

Percent of Ecological System Acres 

at Desired Condition Very High

ES

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species 

Guidelines Very High

ES Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System Very High

ES Reduction of Fire Ants Very High

Management Strategies

Varying the season, frequency, and intensity of prescribed fire is critical to sustainability of species in this 

group. Prescribed burns occurring in the dormant season provide vastly different results from prescribed 

burns occurring in the growing season. Every effort should be made to increase the use of fall burns after 

growth of native warm season grasses has ceased for the year.

Species Sensitive to Hydrologic Modification of Wetlands

Species in this group (Table G 71) are associated with wetlands, including, but not limited to seeps, 

springs, bogs, swamps, wet flatwoods and ephemeral ponds and are dependent on hydrological integrity 

in these habitats.

Table G 71. Species sensitive to hydrologic modification of wetlands

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Agalinis aphylla Coastal Plain False-foxglove Very High

Agalinis filicaulis Thin Stemmed False-foxglove Very High

Alisma subcordatum Broad-leaved Water-platain High

Alloperla natchez Natchez Stonefly Very High

Aristida simpliciflora Southern Three-awned Grass Very High

Aster puniceus Purple-stemmed Aster Very High

Calopogon barbatus Bearded Grass-pink Very High

Carex decomposita Cypress-knee Sedge Very High

Carex exilis Coast Sedge Very High

Carex stricta Uptight Sedge High

Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic White Cedar Very High

Cirsium lecontei LeConte's Thistle Very High

Cleistes bifaria (=divaricata) Small Spreading Pogonia Very High

Dalea carnea var. gracilis Pine Barrens Prairie Clover Very High

Dryopteris ludoviciana Southern Shield Woodfern Very High

Dryopteris X australis Small's Woodfern Very High

Eleocharis melanocarpa Black-fruited Spikerush Very High
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-89

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Eleocharis robbinsii Robbins Spikerush Very High

Eleocharis tricostata Three-angled Spikerush Very High

Epidendrum magnoliae = conopseum Green-fly Orchid Very High

Eriocaulon texense Texas Pipewort Very High

Fallicambarus danielae Speckled Burrowing Crayfish Very High

Fallicambarus gordoni Camp Shelby Burrowing Crayfish Very High

Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry Very High

Grus canadensis pulla Mississippi Sandhill Crane Very High

Haploperla chukcho Chukcho Stonefly Very High

Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed Salamander Very High

Isoetes louisianensis Louisiana Quillwort Very High

Isoetes melanopoda Blackfoot Quillwort Very High

Isoetes valida Strong Quillwort Very High

Lachnocaulon digynum Pineland Bogbutton Very High

Lindera melissifolia Pondberry Very High

Lindera subcoriacea Bog Spicebush Very High

Linum macrocarpum Spring Hill flax Very High

Lycopodium cernuum = L. palhinhaea cernua Nodding Clubmoss Very High

Macranthera flammea Flame Flower Very High

Marshallia graminifolia var. cynanthera Broadleaf Barbara's Buttons High

Mimulus ringens Square-stem Monkey Flower Very High

Myriophyllum laxum Loose Watermilfoil Very High

Panicum nudicaule Naked-stemmed Panic Grass Very High

Parnassia grandifolia Large-leaved Grass-of-Parnassus Very High

Peltandra sagittifolia White Arum Very High

Pinguicula planifolia Chapman's Butterwort Very High

Pinguicula primuliflora Southern Butterwort Very High

Platanthera blephariglottis Large White Fringed Orchid Very High

Platanthera integra Yellow Fringeless orchid Very High

Platanthera peramoena Purple Fringeless Orchid Very High

Polygala hookeri Hooker's Milkwort Very High

Pseudotriton montanus Mud Salamander Very High

Pteroglossaspis ecristata (=Eulophia ecristata) Giant Orchid Very High

Pycnanthemum muticum Blunt Mountainmint High

Rana sevosa Mississippi Gopher Frog Very High

Rhynchospora crinipes Hairy Peduncled Beakrush Very High

Rhynchospora macra Large Beakrush Very High

Rhynchospora stenophylla Chapman Beakrush Very High

Ruellia noctiflora Night Flowering Ruellia High

Sagittaria isoetiformis Slender Arrow-head Very High

Spiranthes brevilabris var floridana Florida Ladies'-tresses High

Spiranthes longilabris Giant Spiral Ladies'-tresses Very High
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-90 National Forests in Mississippi

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Stylisma aquatica Water Southern Morning-glory High

Syngonanthus flavidulus Yellow Pipewort Very High

Trachyxiphium heteroicum 

(Hookeriopsis heteroica) Trachyxiphium Moss Very High

Utricularia olivacea Piedmont Bladderwort Very High

Utricularia purpurea Purple Bladderwort Very High

Xyris drummondii Drummond's Yellow-eyed Grass Very High

Xyris scabrifolia Harper's Yellow-eyed Grass Very High

Forest plan Components

Ecological system sustainability components include desired conditions for forestwide ecosystem 

diversity, all ecological systems, old-growth, and guidelines for maintaining the integrity of hydrologic 

function (Table G 72).

Table G 72. Species sensitive to hydrologic modification of wetlands sample performance 

measures, may vary by location and unit

Target 

Type Target Name Key Attribute Indicator

Line Item-toGroup 

Weight

ES

Near-coast Pine 

Flatwoods

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval Very High

ES Percent of System Acres Burned 

During the Growing Season Very High

ES

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density High

ES Paved Open Road Density High

ES Total Road and Trail Density High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density High

ES Unpaved Open Road Density High

ES

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential acres with 

Appropriate System High

ES

Ephemeral Ponds 

and Emergent 

Wetlands

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval Very High

ES Percent of System Acres Burned 

During the Growing Season Very High

ES

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Paved Open Road Density Very High

ES Total Road and Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density Very High

ES Unpaved Open Road Density Very High

ES Hydrologic Function Compliance with Hydroligic Function 

Guidelines Very High

ES

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential acres with 

Appropriate System Very High
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-91

Target 

Type Target Name Key Attribute Indicator

Line Item-toGroup 

Weight

ES

Wet Pine Savanna

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval Very High

ES Percent of System Acres Burned 

During the Growing Season Very High

ES

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Paved Open Road Density Very High

ES Total Road and Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density Very High

ES Unpaved Open Road Density Very High

ES

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential acres with 

Appropriate System Very High

ES

Seeps, Springs, 

and Seepage 

Swamps

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval High

ES Percent of System Acres Burned 

During the Growing Season High

ES

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Paved Open Road Density Very High

ES Total Road and Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density Very High

ES Unpaved Open Road Density Very High

ES

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential acres with 

Appropriate System Very High

ES

Herbaceous 

Seepage Bogs 

and Flats

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at 

Desired Return Interval Very High

ES Percent of System Acres Burned 

During the Growing Season Very High

ES

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Paved Open Road Density Very High

ES Total Road and Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density Very High

ES Unpaved Open Road Density Very High

ES

Ecological System 

Abundance at Desired 

Condition

Percent of potential acres with 

Appropriate System Very High

SG

Species Sensitive 

to Hydrologic 

Modification of 

Wetlands

Hydrologic Function Compliance with Hydroligic Function 

Guidelines Very High
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-92 National Forests in Mississippi

The following guidelines would apply to this species group:

• Best management practices (BMPs) should be used during ground disturbing activities.

• Activities that could result in sedimentation or other changes in water quantity and quality should 

have project level design criteria that maintained or improved the hydrologic function of wetland 

communities.

• Erosion control measures should be applied in all ground disturbing activities to reduce movement of 

bare soil and minimize direct delivery of sediment to streams or other water bodies. Appropriate 

erosion control measures (install water diversion, re-vegetation, mulch, silt fence, etc.) should be 

implemented as promptly as practical.

• Filter strips should be used to protect perennial and intermittent streams. Filter strips should be at 

least 33 feet plus 1.5 times the percent slope. Activities that expose more than 10 percent mineral soil 

should be avoided unless the activity occurs at a designated crossing. Site specific analysis should 

determine any mitigation measures in addition to standard BMPs needed to protect water quality.

• Mechanical equipment may operate as long as the soils are dry enough to sustain activity without 

excessive compaction or rutting. In order to minimize resource damage, access may be restricted 

during wet seasons or following rainfall events. This guideline does not apply to dedicated intensive 

use areas such as roads, primary skid trails, and logging decks. Ruts should be smoothed to restore 

hydrology and drainage paths.

• Plowed firelines are not located within savannahs except when needed to protect facilities or 

threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species.

• Management activities planned within rare ecological systems should generally be limited to 

maintenance or restoration activities addressing their specific composition, structure, or natural 

system function needs. 

Management Strategies

The vast majority of wetland communities and the species dependent on them have been degraded to a 

greater or lesser extent by past management activities that have served to drain away water, retain water 

to an unacceptable level (create ponds where they did not occur), or speed up runoff. Each affected 

example must be examined on a case by case basis to determine the best method to restore the desired 

community.

Species Sensitive to Recreational Traffic 

(Terrestrial and Non-riverine Aquatic)

Species in this group are sensitive to excessive human disturbance such as trampling, harassment, 

vehicular mortality, and direct mortality. Reptile species are especially sensitive to being harmed, 

harassed, and killed by humans. This interaction with humans can have long-term negative effects on 

population sizes and sustainability. The black bear is sensitive to high road densities. Mississippi gopher 

frog, gopher tortoise, and snake and plant species on this list are especially sensitive to harm due to offroad vehicles, heavy equipment, horses, and human traffic. Some species are collected commercially and 

used for a variety of purposes including but not limited to food, medicinal, decorative, 

gardening/landscaping, pet trade. A list of targeted species associated with this species group can be found 

in Table G 73.

Direct effects of mortality for this species group could be limited by the implementation of guidelines 

which protect species from direct take, intentional killing or harassment, and limit access to sensitive 

populations of these species. Providing habitat for these species is not enough to ensure long-term 

sustainability of populations. The correlation between occurrence and distance to roads is an important 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-93

attribute for these species’ sustainability (Table G 74). The following actions could be implemented to 

reduce impacts to these species by adopting them as Forest policy; design roads to avoid highly populated 

areas of these species; design roads to include safe passage for these species; provide educational 

materials to the public to increase knowledge and awareness of species needs; work collaboratively with 

state agencies to limit take of fish species in this group on NFS lands; limit recreational access to 

sensitive habitats associated with species on this list; require regulations on collecting permits to limit 

collections to approved scientific purposes only. Includes but not limited to direct impacts from ORVs, 

horses, mountain bikes, and other conveyances as well as direct impacts caused by the activities of 

persons utilizing said conveyances.

Table G 73. Species sensitive to recreational traffic

Species Name Common Name Species-toGroup Weight

Agalinis aphylla Coastal Plain False-foxglove Very High

Agalinis auriculata Earleaf False-foxglove Very High

Agalinis filicaulis Thin Stemmed False-foxglove Very High

Agalinis pseudaphylla Shinner's False-foxglove Very High

Alisma subcordatum Broad-leaved Water-platain High

Antennaria solitaria Single-headed Pussytoes High

Arabis canadensis Sicklepod Very High

Aralia racemosa American Spikenard Very High

Aristida simpliciflora Southern Three-awned Grass Very High

Asarum canadense Canada Wild-ginger Very High

Asclepias hirtella Prairie Milkweed High

Aster ericoides White Heath Aster High

Aster puniceus Purple-stemmed Aster High

Calopogon barbatus Bearded Grass-pink Very High

Carex decomposita Cypress-knee Sedge High

Carex exilis Coast Sedge Very High

Carex impressinervia Ravine Sedge Very High

Carex microdonta Small-Toothed Sedge Very High

Carex picta Painted Sedge High

Celastrus scandens Climbing Bittersweet High

Cirsium lecontei LeConte's Thistle Very High

Cleistes bifaria (=divaricata) Small Spreading Pogonia High

Cornus alternifolia Alternate-leaf Dogwood Moderate

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat Low

Crataegus harbisonii (=C. ashei) Ashe Hawthorn Moderate

Crataegus triflora Three-flower Hawthorn Very High

Crotalus adamanteus Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake Very High

Cypripedium parviflorum Small Yellow Lady's-slipper Very High

Cypripedium pubescens Yellow Lady's-slipper Very High

Dalea carnea var. gracilis Pine Barrens Prairie Clover Very High

Desmodium ochroleucum Cream Tick-trefoil High
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-94 National Forests in Mississippi

Species Name Common Name Species-toGroup Weight

Dodecatheon meadia Shootingstar Very High

Dryopteris ludoviciana Southern Shield Woodfern Very High

Dryopteris X australis Small's Woodfern Very High

Echinacea purpurea Eastern Purple Coneflower Very High

Eleocharis melanocarpa Black-fruited Spikerush High

Eleocharis robbinsii Robbins Spikerush High

Eleocharis tricostata Three-angled Spikerush High

Eriocaulon texense Texas Pipewort Very High

Erythronium albidum White Dog's Tooth Violet Very High

Euonymus atropurpureus Burning Bush Very High

Fallicambarus byersi Lavender Burrowing Crayfish Very High

Fallicambarus danielae Speckled Burrowing Crayfish Very High

Farancia erytrogramma Rainbow Snake Very High

Galearis spectabilis Showy Orchis Very High

Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry High

Goodyera pubescens Downy Rattlesnake-plantain Very High

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise Very High

Grus canadensis pulla Mississippi Sandhill Crane Very High

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Moderate

Heterodon simus Southern Hognose Snake Very High

Hexalectris spicata Crested Coralroot Very High

Isoetes louisianensis Louisiana Quillwort Very High

Isoetes melanopoda Blackfoot Quillwort Very High

Isoetes valida Strong Quillwort Very High

Lachnocaulon digynum Pineland Bogbutton Very High

Lindera melissifolia Pondberry Very High

Lindera subcoriacea Bog Spicebush Very High

Linum macrocarpum Spring Hill flax Very High

Lycopodium cernuum = L. palhinhaea cernua Nodding Clubmoss Moderate

Lycopodium digitatum = flabelliforme Fan Club Moss Moderate

Macranthera flammea Flame Flower High

Matelea obliqua Climbing Milkweed Moderate

Mimulus ringens Square-stem Monkey Flower Moderate

Myotis austroriparius Southeastern Myotis Low

Myriophyllum laxum Loose Watermilfoil Low

Ophisaurus mimicus Mimic Glass Lizard Very High

Pachysandra procumbens Allegheny-spurge Very High

Panax quinquefolius American Ginseng Very High

Panicum nudicaule Naked-stemmed Panic Grass Very High

Parnassia grandifolia Large-leaved Grass-of-Parnassus Very High

Peltandra sagittifolia White Arum High
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-95

Species Name Common Name Species-toGroup Weight

Physalis carpenteri Carpenter's Ground-cherry Very High

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker Moderate

Pinguicula planifolia Chapman's Butterwort Very High

Pinguicula primuliflora Southern Butterwort Very High

Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi Black Pine Snake Very High

Platanthera blephariglottis Large White Fringed Orchid Very High

Platanthera integra Yellow Fringeless orchid Very High

Platanthera peramoena Purple Fringeless Orchid High

Polemonium reptans Jacob's Ladder Very High

Polygala hookeri Hooker's Milkwort Very High

Polygala leptostachys Slender Spike Milkwort Very High

Polytaenia nuttallii Prairie Parsley Very High

Ponthieva racemosa Shadow-witch Orchid Very High

Prenanthes aspera Rough Rattlesnake-root Very High

Procambarus barbiger Jackson Prairie Crayfish Very High

Pteroglossaspis ecristata (=Eulophia ecristata) Giant Orchid Very High

Rana sevosa Mississippi Gopher Frog Very High

Rhynchospora macra Large Beakrush Very High

Rhynchospora stenophylla Chapman Beakrush Very High

Ruellia noctiflora Night Flowering Ruellia High

Salvia urticifolia Nettle-leaf Sage High

Schisandra glabra Bay Starvine High

Solidago auriculata Eared Goldenrod Very High

Spiranthes brevilabris var floridana Florida Ladies'-tresses Very High

Spiranthes longilabris Giant Spiral Ladies'-tresses Very High

Syngonanthus flavidulus Yellow Pipewort Very High

Triphora trianthophora Three Birds Orchid Very High

Ursus americanus Black Bear Very High

Ursus americanus luteolus Louisiana Black Bear Very High

Uvularia floridana Florida Bellwort High

Xyris drummondii Drummond's Yellow-eyed Grass Very High

Xyris scabrifolia Harper's Yellow-eyed Grass Very High
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-96 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 74. Species sensitive to recreational traffic key attributes and indicators

Target 

Type Target Name Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group 

Weight

ES

Upland Longleaf 

Pine Forest and 

Woodland

Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Paved Open Road Density Very High

ES Total Road and Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density High

ES Unpaved Open Road Density Very High

ES

Southern Dry 

Upland Hardwood 

Forest

Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Paved Open Road Density Very High

ES Total Road and Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density High

ES Unpaved Open Road Density Very High

ES

Southern Mesic 

Slope Forest

Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Paved Open Road Density Very High

ES Total Road and Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density High

ES Unpaved Open Road Density Very High

ES

Floodplain Forest Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Paved Open Road Density Very High

ES Total Road and Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density High

ES Unpaved Open Road Density Very High

ES

Near-coast Pine 

Flatwoods

Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Paved Open Road Density Very High

ES Total Road and Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density High

ES Unpaved Open Road Density Very High

ES Xeric Sandhills Distance from 

Roads Total Road and Trail Density Very High

ES

Ephemeral Ponds 

and Emergent 

Wetlands

Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Paved Open Road Density Very High

ES Total Road and Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density High

ES Unpaved Open Road Density Very High

ES

Wet Pine Savanna Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Paved Open Road Density Very High

ES Total Road and Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density High

ES Unpaved Open Road Density Very High
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-97

Target 

Type Target Name Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group Weight

ES

Seeps, Springs, and 

Seepage Swamps

Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Paved Open Road Density Very High

ES Total Road and Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density High

ES Unpaved Open Road Density Very High

ES

Herbaceous 

Seepage Bogs and 

Flats

Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Paved Open Road Density Very High

ES Total Road and Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density High

ES Unpaved Open Road Density Very High

ES

Canebrake Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Paved Open Road Density Very High

ES Total Road and Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density High

ES Unpaved Open Road Density Very High

ES

Loblolly Pine Forest Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Paved Open Road Density Very High

ES Total Road and Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density High

ES Unpaved Open Road Density Very High

ES

Slash Pine Forest Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Paved Open Road Density Very High

ES Total Road and Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road Density High

ES Unpaved Open Road Density Very High

Forest plan Components

Collection limits for fishable/huntable and non-game species are set by Mississippi Department of 

Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks; therefore issues of excessive take are beyond Forest Service control.

However, issues pertaining to illegal collection and vegetation collections on the Forests can be regulated.

Forest plan components include species diversity desired conditions and the following guidelines to limit 

collection of species occurring within rare communities to approved scientific purposes only: 

• Collection of flora and fauna from rare communities, wetland systems, and species sensitive to overcollection group should generally be limited to approved scientific purposes.

• Where necessary and consistent with other uses, consideration should be given to seasonal closure of 

NFS roads during critical periods for wildlife species known to be sensitive to human disturbance.

• If unacceptable resource damage is identified in a section of any trail, that section should be closed 

for mitigation, rerouted and/or obliterated.

• Planning and implementation of road construction, fireline construction, wildlife pond and opening 

construction, timber harvests, and other ground disturbing projects should include measures to 

provide protection for threatened and endangered, regional forester’s sensitive species, and locally 
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-98 National Forests in Mississippi

rare species that are susceptible to damage or extirpation from ground disturbance. These are referred 

to as species sensitive to soil disturbance and species sensitive to recreational traffic.

Management Strategies

The strategy for these species is to continue to educate the public on species needs, restrict access to rare 

or sensitive populations, increase road ecopassage, and implement guidelines to protect these species 

where they occur during projects that involve heavy equipment or ground disturbance. New roads and 

trails should be located so as to avoid populations of these species and existing roads and trails should be 

evaluated for closure if they are causing declines to populations. Implementation of the Travel 

Management Rule should assist in reducing ORV impacts to these species by closing user created trails.

Many roads on the Forests are not under our control, so partnerships and collaborative efforts may be 

required to help sustain species in this group.

As stated above, collection limits for fishable/ huntable and non-game species are set by Mississippi 

Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, so issues of excessive take are beyond Forest Service 

control. However, we should explore opportunities to limit access to areas with sensitive populations of 

these species when feasible. The strategy for these species is to continue to educate the public on species 

needs, restrict access to known populations, and limit approval of collections of these species to scientific 

purposes only.

Species Needing Occurrence Protection 

Species in this group (Table G 75) are rare in occurrence on the National Forests in Mississippi although 

habitat is widespread. Habitat assessments cannot accurately predict the presence of these species. Most 

of these species occur in less than five populations on the Forests and are sensitive to management 

actions. Those species which have more than five known occurrences represent populations which are 

critical to the survival of the species and have limited occurrence outside of the National Forests in 

Mississippi. Threatened and endangered species are not included in this group because they require 

species-specific protection and guidance.

Table G 75. Species needing occurrence protection

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Agalinis auriculata Earleaf False-foxglove Very High

Aralia racemosa American Spikenard Very High

Atrytone arogos arogos Arogos Skipper Very High

Carex decomposita Cypress-knee Sedge Very High

Carex exilis Coast Sedge Very High

Carex impressinervia Ravine Sedge Very High

Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic White Cedar Very High

Crataegus harbisonii (=C. ashei) Ashe Hawthorn Very High

Crataegus triflora Three-flower Hawthorn Very High

Dalea carnea var. gracilis Pine Barrens Prairie Clover Very High

Dryopteris ludoviciana Southern Shield Woodfern Very High

Dryopteris X australis Small's Woodfern Very High

Fallicambarus gordoni Camp Shelby Burrowing Crayfish Very High

Galearis spectabilis Showy Orchis Very High

Goodyera pubescens Downy Rattlesnake-plantain Very High
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-99

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise Very High

Grus canadensis pulla Mississippi Sandhill Crane Very High

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Very High

Isoetes louisianensis Louisiana Quillwort Very High

Juglans cinerea Butternut Very High

Lindera melissifolia Pondberry Very High

Lindera subcoriacea Bog Spicebush Very High

Mimulus ringens Square-stem Monkey Flower Very High

Myriophyllum laxum Loose Watermilfoil Very High

Nymphoides aquatica Big Floating Heart Very High

Nymphoides cordata Floating Heart Very High

Pachysandra procumbens Allegheny-spurge Very High

Parnassia grandifolia Large-leaved Grass-of-Parnassus Very High

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker Very High

Procambarus fitzpatricki Spiny-tailed Crayfish Very High

Pteroglossaspis ecristata (=Eulophia ecristata) Giant Orchid Very High

Rana sevosa Mississippi Gopher Frog Very High

Solidago auriculata Eared Goldenrod Very High

Spiranthes brevilabris var floridana Florida Ladies'-tresses Very High

Triphora trianthophora Three Birds Orchid Very High

Uvularia floridana Florida Bellwort Very High

Xyris scabrifolia Harper's Yellow-eyed Grass Very High

Forest plan Components

Because these species are low in occurrence across the National Forests in Mississippi and cannot be 

accurately predicted by availability of habitat, ecosystem and species diversity forest plan components 

should provide some protection for these species; however additional provisions are needed due to their 

rarity and sensitivity to management. The following guideline was created to protect these species:

• Project planning and implementation should include measures to provide protection for the “species 

need occurrence protection” group.

Management Strategies

These species are rare in occurrence across the forest and known populations should be protected.

Protection of habitat alone does not ensure protection of these species in most cases, and protection 

should be given to individuals when work is performed at known locations. The key strategy for members 

of this group is the use of “ecological life-boats” to conserve “the last of the least and the best of the rest”.

A coordinated forest plan will be implemented to insure these species are protected in designated sites in 

sufficient numbers to insure sustainability. Existing reserves such as research natural areas, botanical 

areas, etc. should be utilized to the extent possible. Multiple species will occur in the same reserve.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-100 National Forests in Mississippi

Stump and Stump-hole Associates 

Stumps and stump holes provide a network of underground chambers that support many species (Table G 

76) throughout their life cycle. Past forestry practices in Mississippi included removing stumps during 

vegetative management treatments. Species associated with decaying stumps and stump-holes.

Table G 76. Stump and stump-hole associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Crotalus adamanteus Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake High

Heterodon simus Southern Hognose Snake High

Ophisaurus mimicus Mimic Glass Lizard High

Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi Black Pine Snake Very High

Rana sevosa Mississippi Gopher Frog High

Rhadinaea flavilata Pine Woods Snake Moderate

Forest plan Components

Forestwide desired conditions as well as desired conditions for each forested ecological system and 

species diversity serve as ecological system diversity forest plan components for these species. Objectives 

to restore or maintain mature and old-growth forest help to sustain these species.

Although ecological system diversity forest plan components should supply ample amounts of suitable 

habitat, there are additional needs for this group. Given that past management practices have allowed for 

the removal of stumps, it is necessary to create additional forest plan components for their retention.

Forest plan provisions to retain these habitat elements help to insure species sustainability.

The following guidelines would apply to this species group: 

• Dead and downed logs or other woody debris should generally not be removed from rare 

communities. Where needed to ensure public or employee safety, snags may be felled, but will be 

retained within the community as downed wood.

• Planning and implementation of road construction, fireline construction, wildlife pond and opening 

construction, timber harvests, and other ground disturbing projects should include appropriate 

measures to provide protection for known occurrences of rare species.

• Historical skid roads, haul roads, log landings, and mechanical firelines should be reused.

Management Strategies

The major strategy for this group is the recruitment of new downed wood, stumps, and stump holes and 

retention of existing ones at the project level. Retention and recruitment can be measured through 

implementation monitoring and guidelines. It is assumed that the abundance of these habitat elements can 

be indirectly measured by the presence of mature and old-growth forest and woodland. Sustainable 

amounts of mature and old-growth forest in combination with retention guidelines provide downed wood 

into ecological systems. Guidelines for stump retention and minimization of ground disturbance are 

essential when considering the sustainability of species within this group. Although fire can destroy 

downed wood on the ground, it should not be excluded from use. The mud salamander and pine woods 

snakes occur in areas sufficiently moist to prevent fire from destroying downed wood in all but the driest 

of times. Forest plan guidance should limit direct firing and suggest that only low intensity flames should 

be used in these areas. The ornate chorus frog is an upland species and fire is critical to sustaining its 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-101

habitat. Although fire may destroy some downed wood used by this species, having a sustainable supply 

of downed wood recruited into the system by a mature forest should be sufficient to sustain the species.

Calciphiles

Calciphiles are calcium loving vascular plant species that are dependent upon high levels of calcium in 

the soil to thrive. A list of targeted species associated with this species group can be found in Table G 77.

They generally occur in the black belt, Jackson prairie and loess hills regions of Mississippi (Holly 

Springs, Tombigbee, and Bienville NFs). These areas are relatively small portions of the respective forests 

and offer excellent opportunities for biological reserves. Relative abundance of black belt and Jackson 

prairie is one of the many indicator performance measures for calciphiles (Table G 78). The management 

strategy for these species is to protect the soil on which they occur from degradation, as the assumption is 

that protecting the soil sustains the species.

Table G 77. Species in calciphiles associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Agalinis auriculata Earleaf False-foxglove High

Carya laciniosa Big Shellbark Hickory High

Dodecatheon meadia Shootingstar High

Erythronium albidum White Dog's Tooth Violet High

Euonymus atropurpureus Burning Bush High

Frasera caroliniensis American Colombo High

Juglans cinerea Butternut High

Quercus oglethorpensis Oglethorpe Oak High

Rhamnus lanceolata Lance-leaved Buckthorn High

Table G 78. Calciphiles key attributes and indicators

Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group 

Weight

Fire Regime

Percent of System Acres Burned at Desired Return 

Interval Very High

Percent of System Acres Burned During the Growing 

Season Very High

Distance from Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

Paved Open Road Density High

Total Road and Trail Density Very High

Unpaved Gated Road Density Moderate

Unpaved Open Road Density Moderate

Ecological System Abundance 

at Desired Condition Percent of potential acres with Appropriate System Very High

Vegetation Structure % Open Very High

Indicator Species Status Population Trend of [indicator species name] Very High

Invasive Species Abundance

Compliance with Invasive Species Guidelines Very High

Percent of Invasive Species Occupying System Very High

Reduction of Fire Ants Very High
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-102 National Forests in Mississippi

Forest plan Components

The desired condition for these species is to protect the soil on which they occur from degradation, as the 

assumption is that protecting the soil sustains the species. Desired conditions for ecological and species 

diversity and the guidelines for vegetation, wildlife, soil and water can provide for sustainability of these 

species. 

Calciphilees are calcium loving plants. There are no measurable performance measures at this time, 

however, due to their limited occurrence and specific limiting factors, these species should be protected as 

found. Project level inventories should be completed for these species prior to project implementation.

Groups of these species, when identified, should be mapped and protected from harm.

Management Strategies

Forest strategy to provide sustainable populations of the members of this species group is to identify 

location and aerial extent of calcareous soils. Until better soil mapping can be completed, project level 

mapping utilizing soil test kits will suffice. Presence of members of this species group can serve as 

indicators until soil testing is done. Since these calcareous soils are relatively rare, and many existing

acres have been degraded, protection of all calcareous soil areas is desired.

Species Sensitive to Canopy Cover Modifications

Species sensitive to canopy cover reduction generally occur in areas with closed canopy desired 

conditions, especially hardwood dominated ecological systems; however, some of these areas may be 

targeted for vegetative management treatments. A list of targeted species associated with this species 

group can be found in Table G 79. When conducting projects where species sensitive to canopy cover 

reduction are known or suspected to occur, consideration should be given to maintaining closed canopy 

conditions to provide for sustainable species populations. Project level surveys may be necessary to 

determine species presence; however suitable habitat for the species may serve as a surrogate for surveys. 

The key characteristic for this species group is percent of hardwood dominated systems in a mature closed 

canopy condition. Metrics for these are listed in the ecological systems northern dry upland hardwood 

forest, southern dry upland hardwood forest, northern mesic hardwood forest, southern mesic slope forest, 

southern loess bluff forest, floodplain forest, and lower Mississippi River bottomland and floodplain 

forest, as appropriate for each species (Table G 80).

Table G 79. Species sensitive to canopy cover modifications

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Alloperla natchez Natchez Stonefly Very High

Antennaria solitaria Single-headed Pussytoes High

Antennaria solitaria Single-headed Pussytoes High

Aralia racemosa American Spikenard Very High

Asarum canadense Canada Wild-ginger Very High

Carex impressinervia Ravine Sedge Very High

Carex picta Painted Sedge High

Celastrus scandens Climbing Bittersweet Moderate

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat Moderate

Cypripedium parviflorum Small Yellow Lady's-slipper Very High

Cypripedium pubescens Yellow Lady's-slipper Very High

Cypripedium pubescens Yellow Lady's-slipper Very High
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-103

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Dryopteris ludoviciana Southern Shield Woodfern High

Dryopteris X australis Small's Woodfern High

Epidendrum magnoliae = conopseum Green-fly Orchid Very High

Erythronium albidum White Dog's Tooth Violet Very High

Galearis spectabilis Showy Orchis High

Goodyera pubescens Downy Rattlesnake-plantain High

Haploperla chukcho Chukcho Stonefly Very High

Hexalectris spicata Crested Coralroot High

Juglans cinerea Butternut High

Matelea obliqua Climbing Milkweed Moderate

Myotis austroriparius Southeastern Myotis Moderate

Pachysandra procumbens Allegheny-spurge Very High

Panax quinquefolius American Ginseng Very High

Physalis carpenteri Carpenter's Ground-cherry Very High

Plethodon websteri Webster's Salamander Very High

Polemonium reptans Jacob's Ladder Very High

Schisandra glabra Bay Starvine High

Solidago auriculata Eared Goldenrod Very High

Trillium foetidissimum Fetid Trillium Moderate

Triphora trianthophora Three Birds Orchid Very High

Uvularia floridana Florida Bellwort Very High

Table G 80. Species sensitive to canopy cover modifications key attributes and indicators

Target 

Type Target Name Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-toGroup Weight

ES Southern Dry Upland Hardwood 

Forest

Vegetation 

Structure

% Mature Closed 

Canopy Very High

ES Southern Mesic Slope Forest Vegetation 

Structure

% Mature Closed 

Canopy Very High

ES Floodplain Forest Vegetation 

Structure

% Mature VeryClosed Canopy Very High

ES Northern Dry Upland Hardwood 

Forest

Vegetation 

Structure

% Mature Closed 

Canopy Very High

ES Northern Mesic Hardwood Forest Vegetation 

Structure

% Mature Closed 

Canopy Very High

ES Southern Loess Bluff Forest Vegetation 

Structure

% Mature Closed 

Canopy Very High

ES Lower Mississippi River Bottomland 

and Floodplain Forest

Vegetation 

Structure

% Mature Closed 

Canopy Very High

Forest plan Components

Desired conditions for closed canopy conditions for each of these ecological systems and 

vegetation/wildlife guidelines to maintain those conditions should be developed.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-104 National Forests in Mississippi

The following guidelines would apply to this species group:

• Planning and implementation of timber harvests and other silvicultural treatments that reduce canopy 

cover should include measures to provide protection for threatened and endangered, sensitive, and 

locally rare species that are susceptible to damage or extirpation from canopy cover reduction. 

Management Strategies

Forest strategy to maintain species sensitive to canopy cover reduction is to meet desired conditions for 

the referenced ecosystems. When conducting projects where species sensitive to canopy cover reduction 

are known or suspected to occur, consideration should be given to maintaining closed canopy conditions 

to provide for sustainable species populations. Project level surveys may be necessary to determine 

species presence; however suitable habitat for the species may serve as a surrogate for surveys. 

Species Sensitive to Soil Disturbance 

These are species considered to be especially impacted by excavation or blading of roads and trails, 

compaction of soil, soil erosion, soil sedimentation and others. A list of targeted species associated with 

this species group can be found in Table G 81. If a project has ground disturbing activities planned, than 

these species should be reviewed for occurrence and mitigation. Implementation monitoring and use of 

guidelines are the management tools used in ensuring sustainability of these species.

Table G 81. Species sensitive to soil disturbance

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Agalinis aphylla Coastal Plain False-foxglove High

Agalinis auriculata Earleaf False-foxglove High

Agalinis filicaulis Thin Stemmed False-foxglove High

Agalinis pseudaphylla Shinner's False-foxglove High

Alisma subcordatum Broad-leaved Water-platain Moderate

Antennaria solitaria Single-headed Pussytoes Moderate

Arabis canadensis Sicklepod Very High

Aralia racemosa American Spikenard Very High

Aristida simpliciflora Southern Three-awned Grass Very High

Asarum canadense Canada Wild-ginger Very High

Asclepias hirtella Prairie Milkweed Very High

Aster ericoides White Heath Aster Very High

Aster puniceus Purple-stemmed Aster Very High

Calopogon barbatus Bearded Grass-pink Very High

Carex decomposita Cypress-knee Sedge High

Carex exilis Coast Sedge Very High

Carex impressinervia Ravine Sedge Very High

Carex microdonta Small-Toothed Sedge Very High

Carex picta Painted Sedge Very High

Carex stricta Uptight Sedge High

Celastrus scandens Climbing Bittersweet Moderate

Chamaecyparis thyoides Atlantic White Cedar High

Cirsium lecontei LeConte's Thistle Very High
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-105

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Cleistes bifaria (=divaricata) Small Spreading Pogonia Very High

Cornus alternifolia Alternate-leaf Dogwood Moderate

Crataegus harbisonii (=C. ashei) Ashe Hawthorn High

Crataegus triflora Three-flower Hawthorn High

Crotalus adamanteus Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake Low

Cypripedium parviflorum Small Yellow Lady's-slipper Very High

Cypripedium pubescens Yellow Lady's-slipper Very High

Dalea carnea var. gracilis Pine Barrens Prairie Clover High

Desmodium ochroleucum Cream Tick-trefoil Moderate

Dodecatheon meadia Shootingstar Very High

Dryopteris ludoviciana Southern Shield Woodfern Moderate

Dryopteris X australis Small's Woodfern Moderate

Echinacea purpurea Eastern Purple Coneflower Moderate

Eleocharis melanocarpa Black-fruited Spikerush High

Eleocharis robbinsii Robbins Spikerush High

Eleocharis tricostata Three-angled Spikerush High

Eriocaulon texense Texas Pipewort Very High

Erythronium albidum White Dog's Tooth Violet Very High

Euonymus atropurpureus Burning Bush Moderate

Fallicambarus byersi Lavender Burrowing Crayfish Very High

Fallicambarus danielae Speckled Burrowing Crayfish Very High

Fallicambarus gordoni Camp Shelby Burrowing Crayfish Very High

Frasera caroliniensis American Colombo High

Galearis spectabilis Showy Orchis Very High

Gaylussacia frondosa Dangleberry Moderate

Goodyera pubescens Downy Rattlesnake-plantain High

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise Very High

Heterodon simus Southern Hognose Snake Very High

Hexalectris spicata Crested Coralroot Very High

Isoetes louisianensis Louisiana Quillwort Very High

Isoetes melanopoda Blackfoot Quillwort Very High

Isoetes valida Strong Quillwort Very High

Lachnocaulon digynum Pineland Bogbutton Very High

Lindera melissifolia Pondberry Very High

Lindera subcoriacea Bog Spicebush Very High

Linum macrocarpum Spring Hill flax Very High

Lobelia appendiculata Appendaged Lobelia Moderate

Lycopodium cernuum = L. palhinhaea cernua Nodding Clubmoss Moderate

Lycopodium digitatum = flabelliforme Fan Club Moss Moderate

Macranthera flammea Flame Flower High

Matelea obliqua Climbing Milkweed Moderate

Mimulus ringens Square-stem Monkey Flower Moderate
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-106 National Forests in Mississippi

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Ophisaurus mimicus Mimic Glass Lizard High

Pachysandra procumbens Allegheny-spurge Very High

Panax quinquefolius American Ginseng Very High

Panicum nudicaule Naked-stemmed Panic Grass High

Parnassia grandifolia Large-leaved Grass-of-Parnassus Very High

Peltandra sagittifolia White Arum High

Penstemon tenuis Sharp-sepal Beardtongue High

Physalis carpenteri Carpenter's Ground-cherry Very High

Pinguicula planifolia Chapman's Butterwort Very High

Pinguicula primuliflora Southern Butterwort Very High

Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi Black Pine Snake High

Platanthera blephariglottis Large White Fringed Orchid Very High

Platanthera integra Yellow Fringeless orchid Very High

Platanthera peramoena Purple Fringeless Orchid Moderate

Plethodon websteri Webster's Salamander High

Polemonium reptans Jacob's Ladder Very High

Polygala hookeri Hooker's Milkwort Very High

Polygala leptostachys Slender Spike Milkwort High

Polytaenia nuttallii Prairie Parsley Very High

Ponthieva racemosa Shadow-witch Orchid Very High

Prenanthes aspera Rough Rattlesnake-root High

Procambarus barbiger Jackson Prairie Crayfish Very High

Pteroglossaspis ecristata (=Eulophia ecristata) Giant Orchid High

Pycnanthemum muticum Blunt Mountainmint Moderate

Quercus minima Dwarf Live Oak High

Quercus oglethorpensis Oglethorpe Oak High

Rana sevosa Mississippi Gopher Frog High

Rhadinaea flavilata Pine Woods Snake Very High

Rhamnus lanceolata Lance-leaved Buckthorn Moderate

Rhynchospora macra Large Beakrush High

Rhynchospora stenophylla Chapman Beakrush Moderate

Ruellia noctiflora Night Flowering Ruellia Moderate

Salvia urticifolia Nettle-leaf Sage Moderate

Schisandra glabra Bay Starvine High

Solidago auriculata Eared Goldenrod Very High

Solidago flaccidifolia Appalachian Goldenrod High

Spiranthes brevilabris var floridana Florida Ladies'-tresses High

Spiranthes longilabris Giant Spiral Ladies'-tresses Very High

Spiranthes magnicamporum Great Plains Ladies'-tresses Very High

Stylisma aquatica Water Southern Morning-glory Moderate

Stylisma pickeringii var pattersonii Patterson's Bindweed Very High

Syngonanthus flavidulus Yellow Pipewort Very High
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-107

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Trachyxiphium heteroicum 

(Hookeriopsis heteroica) Trachyxiphium Moss High

Trillium foetidissimum Fetid Trillium Moderate

Triphora trianthophora Three Birds Orchid Very High

Utricularia olivacea Piedmont Bladderwort Low

Utricularia purpurea Purple Bladderwort Low

Uvularia floridana Florida Bellwort High

Xyris drummondii Drummond's Yellow-eyed Grass Very High

Xyris scabrifolia Harper's Yellow-eyed Grass Very High

Table G 82. Species sensitive to soil disturbance key attributes and indicators

Target 

Type Target Name Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-toGroup Weight

ES

Upland Longleaf Pine Forest 

and Woodland

Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road 

Density Moderate

ES Unpaved Open Road 

Density High

ES

Southern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest

Distance from 

Roads 

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road 

Density Moderate

ES Unpaved Open Road 

Density High

ES

Southern Mesic Slope 

Forest

Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road 

Density Moderate

ES Unpaved Open Road 

Density High

ES

Floodplain Forest Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road 

Density Moderate

ES Unpaved Open Road 

Density High

ES

Near-coast Pine Flatwoods Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road 

Density Moderate

ES Unpaved Open Road 

Density High

ES

Ephemeral Ponds and 

Emergent Wetlands

Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road 

Density Moderate

ES Unpaved Open Road 

Density High
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-108 National Forests in Mississippi

Target 

Type Target Name Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-toGroup Weight

ES

Wet Pine Savanna Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road 

Density Moderate

ES Unpaved Open Road 

Density High

ES

Seeps, Springs, and 

Seepage Swamps

Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road 

Density Moderate

ES Unpaved Open Road 

Density High

ES

Herbaceous Seepage Bogs 

and Flats

Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road 

Density Moderate

ES Unpaved Open Road 

Density High

ES

Canebrake Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road 

Density Moderate

ES Unpaved Open Road 

Density High

ES

Loblolly Pine Forest Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road 

Density Moderate

ES Unpaved Open Road 

Density High

ES

Slash Pine Forest Distance from 

Roads

ORV Trail Density Very High

ES Unpaved Gated Road 

Density Moderate

ES Unpaved Open Road 

Density High

SG Species Sensitive to Soil 

Disturbance Soil Productivity Compliance with Soil 

Productivity Guidelines Very High

Forest plan Components

Ecological system sustainability components include desired conditions for forestwide ecosystem 

diversity, all ecological systems, old-growth, and guidelines for vegetation/wildlife and water (Table G 

82). 

The following guidelines would apply to this species group:

• Best management practices (BMPs) should be used during ground disturbing activities.

• Erosion control measures should be applied in all ground disturbing activities to reduce movement of 

bare soil and minimize direct delivery of sediment to streams or other water bodies. Appropriate 

erosion control measures (install water diversion, re-vegetation, mulch, silt fence, etc.) should be 

implemented as promptly as practical.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-109

• Construct and maintain water diversions along skid trails, haul roads, firelines or other disturbed areas 

susceptible to scour or erosion. Water diversions (water bars, dips, and lead off ditches) should be 

properly spaced to disperse runoff before it gains enough velocity to start eroding.

• Historical skid roads, haul roads, log landings, and mechanical firelines should be reused.

• Windrows and piles should be spaced less than 200 feet apart to limit soil exposure, soil compaction, 

and nutrient loss from piling and raking. Windrows should be aligned on the contour. When piling, at

least 80 percent of the area should retain some ground cover of litter and duff, and soil displacement 

by piling rakes should be minimized.

• Mechanical site preparation exposing bare soil should not occur on slope grades greater than 20 

percent.

• Mechanical equipment may operate as long as the soils are dry enough to sustain activity without 

excessive compaction or rutting. In order to minimize resource damage, access may be restricted 

during wet seasons or following rainfall events. This guideline does not apply to dedicated intensive 

use areas such as roads, primary skid trails, and logging decks. Ruts should be smoothed to restore 

hydrology and drainage paths.

• Planning and implementation of road construction, fireline construction, wildlife pond and opening 

construction, timber harvests, and other ground disturbing projects should include measures to 

provide protection for threatened and endangered, sensitive, and locally rare species that are 

susceptible to damage or extirpation from ground disturbance. 

• When creating wildlife food plots, they should be located outside of rare and wetland communities.

• Fireline and road locations should be assessed for the presence of species sensitive to soil disturbance 

prior to construction and adjusted to avoid impacts.

Management Strategies

Forest strategy for these species considered to be especially impacted by excavation or blading of roads 

and trails, compaction of soil, soil erosion, and soil sedimentation is to determine when a project has 

ground disturbing activities planned. Then the project should be reviewed to determine if these species do 

occur and develop mitigation measures. Implementation monitoring and use of guidelines are the 

management tools used in ensuring sustainability of these species.

G.3.5Aquatic Systems

Rivers and Streams 

Rivers and streams consist of all lotic (flowing-water) aquatic systems on the forest and include 

streamside riparian areas and ephemeral channels. Streamside riparian areas are used as buffers at the 

project level to protect watersheds from detrimental effects. These systems provide critical habitats for 

fish, mussels, invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians. There is extensive acreage of this ecological system 

on the National Forests in Mississippi as they occur throughout the area.

Riparian zones are inseparably associated with upland forests and break up the upland areas with 

networks of bottomland forests (both pine and hardwoods). These riparian zones serve multiple ecological 

purposes. Riparian zones serve as natural filters for water borne sediments moving from the uplands and 

into the rivers and streams of the forest. Some species of plants and animals use riparian zones for 

completion of at least some phase of their life cycles, and aquatic species such as fish, some crayfish, and 

mussels are restricted to this zone.

Because of the fragmented ownership pattern, National Forest System lands often include only a small 

minority of the watershed (Table G 83). This restricted control limits the ability of the Forests to provide 
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-110 National Forests in Mississippi

for the sustainability of those communities and species in watersheds (or self-contained sub-watersheds).

However, even these disjunctive tracts have unique ecological values because of the permanent forest 

cover which tends to create cool, clean, flowing waters when compared to adjacent landowners.

Enhancement of water quality is a major goal of the National Forests in Mississippi, but the ability to do 

that is tempered by the percentage of surface area in National Forest System land.

Table G 83. Current condition watershed-wide (all ownerships), the percentage of National Forest 

System managed lands, and the Forests’ relative management influence

Watershed Name Current 

Condition

Percent NFS 

Lands

Relative Ability to Influence 

Watershed Health

Beaverdam Creek - Black Creek Good 54.46 Very High

Hickory Creek - Black Creek Very Good 50.84 Very High

Tuxachanie Creek - Tchoutacabouf Good 47.22 Very High

Middle Fork Homochitto River Very Good 35.19 Very High

Snow Creek - Tippah River Good 33.08 High

Bluff Creek - Red Creek Good 30.96 High

Quarterliah Creek - West Tallaha Good 30.09 High

Little Thompson Creek - Thompson Good 30.08 High

Tiger Creek - Bogue Homo Good 28.11 High

Big Sunflower River - Little Sun Good 27.51 High

Ichusa Creek - Leaf River Good 25.87 High

Sand Creek - Noxubee River Good 25.09 High

Maynor Creek - Big Creek Good 23.69 High

Piney Woods Creek - Gaines Creek Good 23.61 High

McCall Creek - Homochitto River Good 19.50 Moderate

Raspberry Creek - Strong River Good 19.15 Moderate

Mason Creek - Big Creek Good 18.13 Moderate

Beaumont - Leaf River Good 17.97 Moderate

Wells Creek - Homochitto River Good 17.14 Moderate

Shelby Creek - Tippah River Good 17.05 Moderate

Little Biloxi River - Biloxi Riv Good 15.38 Moderate

Hatchapaloo Creek - Oakohay Creek Good 14.80 Moderate

Big Cedar Creek - Pascagoula River Good 14.70 Moderate

Shockaloo Creek - Tuscolameta Creek Good 13.59 Moderate

Cypress Creek - Little Tallahatc Good 12.47 Moderate

Silver Creek - Big Sunflower Riv Good 11.66 Moderate

Leaf River - Atkinson Creek Good 11.54 Low

Coffee Bogue - Pearl River Good 9.98 Low

Flint Creek - Red Creek Good 9.87 Low

Upper Chuquatonchee Creek Good 9.42 Low

Cane Creek - Houlka Creek Good 9.15 Low

Indian Creek - Wolf River Good 8.87 Low

Byrd Creek - Chickasawhay River Good 7.41 Low

Heidelberg - Bogue Homo Good 5.78 Low
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-111

Watershed Name Current 

Condition

Percent NFS 

Lands

Relative Ability to Influence 

Watershed Health

Bluff Creek - Moungers Creek Good 5.76 Low

Burney Branch - Yocona River Good 5.60 Low

Hurricane Creek - Muddy Creek Good 5.59 Low

Persimmon Creek - Skuna River Good 5.38 Low

Tillatoba Creek - Panola Quitman Good 3.57 Very Low

Sipsey Creek - Tuscolameta Creek Good 2.85 Very Low

Willis Creek - Little Bayou Pier Good 2.40 Very Low

Sardis Lake - Little Tallahatchi Good 2.38 Very Low

Little Black Creek - Black Creek Good 1.91 Very Low

Cane Creek - Mud Creek Good 1.81 Very Low

Bynum Creek - Yocona River Good 1.67 Very Low

Porters Creek - Hatchie River Good 1.53 Very Low

Collins Creek - Yazoo River Good 1.30 Very Low

Upper Buffalo River Very Good 0.89 Very Low

Tallabinnela Creek Good 0.74 Very Low

Pelahatchie Creek Good 0.67 Very Low

Lee Creek - Coldwater River Good 0.51 Very Low

Middle Buffalo River Very Good 0.44 Very Low

Foster Creek - Bayou Pierre Good 0.33 Very Low

Cane Creek - Yalobusha River Good 0.27 Very Low

West Fork Amite River Good 0.16 Very Low

Tallahaga Creek Good 0.16 Very Low

Crane Creek - Wolf River Good 0.08 Very Low

Tibby Creek - Yockanookany River Good 0.05 Very Low

Yellow Creek - Noxubee River Good 0.04 Very Low

Woodland Creek - Beaver Creek Good 0.01 Very Low

Lakes and Permanent Ponds 

Lakes and permanent ponds consist of all lentic (still, impounded, or otherwise non-flowing) aquatic 

systems on the Forests, excluding the ecological system ponds and emergent wetlands which are 

discussed in their own section of this report. Many of the lakes on the Forests are man-made structures 

and support recreational activities. Oxbow lakes and sloughs are included within this system and consist 

of all water-bodies associated with floodplain aquatic ecosystems on the forest. These systems provide 

important habitats for fish, birds, mussels, invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians. Lakes and permanent 

ponds occur on all units of the Forests.

Aquatic Species Associations 

Species occurring in these groups require healthy watersheds and good water quality for survival. 

Implementation of streamside management zones and consideration of effects to water quality at the 

project level and management of riparian and floodplain forests should be sufficient to sustain these 

species.
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-112 National Forests in Mississippi

An indicator for the sustainability of these groups is the relative amount of mature closed canopy 

floodplain forests. Other key factors of the sustainability of these species groups are included in the 

ecological sustainability evaluation. Table G 84 depicts 9 of the major factors evaluated and their 

associated ecological variables. Desired conditions require healthy and functioning watersheds.

Guidelines established to follow best management practices, reduce impacts from sediment, use 

streamside management zones, and generally protect water quality should be sufficient to sustain these 

species.

Table G 84. Aquatic species groups and components

Aquatic Species Groups Ecological Variables

Aquatic Coarse Woody Debris Associates

Rivers and Streams 

Healthy Watersheds

Watershed-specific Planning Guidelines

Riparian Forests 

Lakes and Ponds

Lower Mississippi River Bottomland and Floodplain Forest

Floodplain Forest

Open Water Associates

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Modification of 

In-stream Flow

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Non-native 

Invasive Species

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Non-Point 

Source Pollution

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Stream 

Sediment

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Stream Toxins

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Water 

Temperature Regime

Species Sensitive to Recreational Traffic

Aquatic Coarse Woody Debris Associates

These species (Table G 85) are dependent on quantities of coarse woody debris located in the stream or 

riparian area. Coarse woody debris plays a vital role in the life history for many of these species or their 

prey. Coarse woody debris is measured as a byproduct of a mature riparian area enclosing the stream. A 

sustainable amount of debris will enter the stream if the surrounding riparian area contains a mature, 

closed canopy forest with little or no unnatural disturbance. Trees and other woody debris should not be 

removed from streams unless it is for safety or transportation needs. If removed for transportation 

requirements, only those trees in the area adjacent to the road or causing direct impacts to roads, trails, or 

bridges should be removed.

Performance measures for tree age diversity and canopy structure for the riparian ecological systems 

serve as indicators for this species group (Table G 86). Both are at sustainable levels and are expected to 

remain sustainable in the future as long as guidelines established are followed. Forest plan components 

include desired conditions for floodplain forests and watershed health, objectives to maintain mature 

closed canopy forests in riparian areas, and guidelines for soil and water.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-113

Table G 85. Species in aquatic coarse woody debris associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Alloperla natchez Natchez Stonefly Moderate

Anodontoides radiatus Rayed Creekshell Low

Etheostoma raneyi Yazoo Darter Moderate

Farancia erytrogramma Rainbow Snake Moderate

Haploperla chukcho Chukcho Stonefly Moderate

Lampsilis straminea straminea Rough Fatmucket Low

Lasmigona complanata complanata White Heelsplitter Low

Notropis melanostomus Blackmouth Shiner Moderate

Noturus gladiator Piebald madtom Moderate

Percina lenticula Freckled Darter Moderate

Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose Low

Pleurobema beadleianum Mississippi Pigtoe Low

Pleurobema rubrum Pyramid Pigtoe Low

Procambarus penni Pearl Blackwater Crayfish Moderate

Table G 86. Aquatic coarse woody debris associates key attributes and indicators

Target 

Type Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group Weight

WS Hydrologic Function Compliance with Hydrologic Function 

Guidelines Moderate

WS Hydrologic Function Dam Density Rating Low

WS Hydrologic Function Riparian Road Density Rating Moderate

WS Hydrologic Function Road Crossings Rating Low

WS Water Temperature 

Regime Riparian Land Use Rating Very High

WS Water Quality--Sediment Compliance with Sediment-related BMPs for 

Forest Management Low

WS Water Quality--Sediment Compliance with Sediment-related BMPs for 

Roads Management Low

WS Water Quality--Sediment Forest Cover Rating High

WS Water Quality--Sediment Road Density Rating Low

WS Water Quality--Sediment Sediment Risk Rating Low

WS Coarse Woody Debris 

Abundance

Compliance with Coarse Woody Debris 

Guidelines Very High

ES Coarse Woody Debris 

Abundance % Riparian in Mature Forest Very High

Open Water Associates

These species (Table G 87) require areas of open water. On National Forest System land, the largest 

bodies of water are often developed for various outdoor recreational activities. Open water surrounded by 

forest land may be a rare commodity and the National Forests in Mississippi provides opportunities for 
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-114 National Forests in Mississippi

some species that are losing habitat elsewhere. Species needs should be incorporated into management of 

open areas with water, especially large lakes, ponds and rivers.

Abundance is the vital key factor for this species group. As the limiting factor for these species is the 

presence of extensive open bodies of water, Forest Service management should focus on maintaining 

quality and extent of existing habitat (Table G 88). If new opportunities become available to create 

habitat, these species should be considered in all planning processes. Desired conditions and objectives 

for lakes and permanent ponds, both floodplain ecological systems, and rivers and streams will help to 

sustain these species.

Table G 87. Species in open water associates

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Aix sponsa Wood Duck Moderate

Anas platyrhynchos Northern Mallard Moderate

Anas rubripes American Black Duck Moderate

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat Low

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle High

Myotis austroriparius Southeastern Myotis Low

Table G 88. Open water associates key attributes and indicators

Target 

Type Target Name Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-toGroup Weight

SG Open Water 

Associates

Habitat Type 

Abundance

Total Habitat Type Acres at 

Desired Condition Very High

SG Open Water 

Associates Hydrologic Function Compliance with Hydroligic 

Function Guidelines Very High

SG Open Water 

Associates

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines Very High

SG Open Water 

Associates

Invasive Species 

Abundance

Percent of Invasive Species 

Occupying System High

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Modification of In-stream Flow 

Species in this group (Table G 89) are sensitive to in-stream flow modifications which include 

channelization, dredging, dams, road crossings, and culverts. In many cases, hydrologic modification 

impedes or completely prevents natural migration and dispersal strategies. In other cases, hydrologic 

alteration may change water temperature regimes and water chemistry variables such as dissolved oxygen 

levels. Other more subtle impacts of hydrologic alteration include unnatural fluctuations in hydro period 

that may impede reproduction or other phases in the life history of associated species. Hydrologic 

function and water quality are ver important attributes for this group (Table G 90).
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-115

Table G 89. Species in aquatic species sensitive to modification of in-stream flow

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf Sturgeon Very High

Actinonaias ligamentina Mucket Very High

Alloperla natchez Natchez Stonefly Very High

Alosa alabamae Alabama Shad Very High

Ammocrypta meridiana Southern Sand Darter Very High

Anodontoides radiatus Rayed Creekshell Very High

Arcidens confragosus Rock Pocketbook Very High

Crystallaria asprella Crystal Darter Very High

Etheostoma lachneri Tombigbee Darter Very High

Etheostoma raneyi Yazoo Darter Very High

Farancia erytrogramma Rainbow Snake Low

Haploperla chukcho Chukcho Stonefly Very High

Isoetes louisianensis Louisiana Quillwort Very High

Lampsilis straminea straminea Rough Fatmucket High

Lasmigona complanata complanata White Heelsplitter Very High

Notropis melanostomus Blackmouth Shiner High

Noturus gladiator piebald madtom Very High

Percina lenticula Freckled Darter Very High

Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose Very High

Pleurobema beadleianum Mississippi Pigtoe Very High

Pleurobema rubrum Pyramid Pigtoe Very High

Procambarus penni Pearl Blackwater Crayfish Low

Table G 90. Aquatic species sensitive to modification of in-stream flow key attributes and 

indicators

Target 

Type Target Name Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-toGroup Weight

WS

Beaumont - Leaf 

River

Hydrologic Function

Compliance with Hydroligic Function 

Guidelines Very High

WS Dam Density Rating Very High

WS Road Crossings Rating Very High

WS

Water Quality--

Sediment

Compliance with Sediment-related 

BMPs for Forest Management High

WS Compliance with Sediment-related 

BMPs for Roads Management High

WS Sediment Risk Rating High

WS Coarse Woody Debris 

Abundance

Compliance with Coarse Woody 

Debris Guidelines Moderate

SG

Species Sensitive 

to Modification of 

Instream Flow

Hydrologic Function

Compliance with Hydroligic Function 

Guidelines Very High

SG Dam Density Rating Very High

SG Riparian Road Density Rating Very High

SG Road Crossings Rating Very High
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-116 National Forests in Mississippi

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Non-native Invasive Species 

Non-native invasive species negatively impact native communities in a number of ways. In some cases, 

invasives compete with native species for resources and space. Some invasive species may also prey 

directly upon native species. Still others may temporarily or even permanently alter habitats and 

community structures. The species in this association (Table G 91) are susceptible to competition, 

predation, displacement, and habitat alteration. Compliance with guidelines and management of invasive 

species are vital to these species (Table G 92).

Table G 91. Aquatic species sensitive to non-native invasive species

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf Sturgeon Low

Actinonaias ligamentina Mucket Very High

Anodontoides radiatus Rayed Creekshell Very High

Arcidens confragosus Rock Pocketbook Very High

Etheostoma lachneri Tombigbee Darter Low

Etheostoma raneyi Yazoo Darter Low

Isoetes louisianensis Louisiana Quillwort Very High

Lampsilis straminea straminea Rough Fatmucket Very High

Lasmigona complanata complanata White Heelsplitter Very High

Notropis melanostomus Blackmouth Shiner Low

Noturus gladiator piebald madtom Low

Nymphoides aquatica Big Floating Heart Very High

Nymphoides cordata Floating Heart Very High

Percina lenticula Freckled Darter Low

Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose Very High

Pleurobema beadleianum Mississippi Pigtoe Very High

Pleurobema rubrum Pyramid Pigtoe Very High

Table G 92. Aquatic species sensitive to non-native invasive species key attributes and indicators

Target Type Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group 

Weight

WS Invasive Species 

Abundance

Compliance with Invasive 

Species Guidelines Very High

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Non-Point Source Pollution 

Urban and agricultural land uses generate a wide variety of toxins that often find their way into aquatic 

systems. While no one source may contribute large levels, when aggregated at the watershed scale, these 

toxins may alter water chemistry to a detrimental extent. Species in this association (Table G 93) are 

highly susceptible to alterations in water chemistry resulting from high levels of urban and agricultural 

land uses in a given watershed. Runoff from non-forested land uses can accumulate to levels toxic to 

species in this association. Compliance with guidelines and water quality are vital to these species (Table 

G 94).
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-117

Table G 93. Aquatic species sensitive to non-point source pollution

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf Sturgeon Very High

Actinonaias ligamentina Mucket Very High

Alloperla natchez Natchez Stonefly Very High

Alosa alabamae Alabama Shad Very High

Ammocrypta meridiana Southern Sand Darter Very High

Anodontoides radiatus Rayed Creekshell Very High

Arcidens confragosus Rock Pocketbook Very High

Crystallaria asprella Crystal Darter Very High

Etheostoma lachneri Tombigbee Darter Very High

Etheostoma raneyi Yazoo Darter Very High

Farancia erytrogramma Rainbow Snake Very High

Haploperla chukcho Chukcho Stonefly Very High

Isoetes louisianensis Louisiana Quillwort Very High

Lampsilis straminea straminea Rough Fatmucket Moderate

Lasmigona complanata complanata White Heelsplitter Very High

Notropis melanostomus Blackmouth Shiner Very High

Noturus gladiator piebald madtom Very High

Percina lenticula Freckled Darter Very High

Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose Very High

Pleurobema beadleianum Mississippi Pigtoe Very High

Pleurobema rubrum Pyramid Pigtoe Very High

Procambarus penni Pearl Blackwater Crayfish Very High

Table G 94. Aquatic species sensitive to non-point source pollution key attributes and indicators

Target 

Type Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group Weight

WS Water Temperature Regime Riparian Land Use Rating Very High

WS Water Quality--Sediment Forest Cover Rating Very High

WS Water Quality--Toxics Non-Point Source Rating Very High

WS Water Temperature Regime Riparian Land Use Rating Very High

WS Water Quality--Sediment Forest Cover Rating Very High

WS Water Quality--Toxics Non-Point Source Rating Very High

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Stream Sediment 

Suspended sediments may adversely impact respiration and other biological functions necessary to the 

survival of some species (Table G 95) in this association. As heavier sediments settle to stream bottoms, 

important foraging and spawning habitat may also degrade. Excessive deposits of sediment may disrupt 

photosynthesis in some plant species or even completely bury occurrences. Water quality and hydrologic 

function are vital to these species and were included in the ecological sustainability evaluation model 

(Table G 96).
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-118 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 95. Aquatic species sensitive to stream sediment

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf Sturgeon Very High

Actinonaias ligamentina Mucket Very High

Alloperla natchez Natchez Stonefly Very High

Alosa alabamae Alabama Shad Very High

Ammocrypta meridiana Southern Sand Darter Moderate

Crystallaria asprella Crystal Darter Very High

Etheostoma lachneri Tombigbee Darter Very High

Etheostoma raneyi Yazoo Darter Very High

Farancia erytrogramma Rainbow Snake Moderate

Haploperla chukcho Chukcho Stonefly Very High

Isoetes louisianensis Louisiana Quillwort High

Lampsilis straminea straminea Rough Fatmucket Low

Lasmigona complanata complanata White Heelsplitter Moderate

Myriophyllum laxum Loose Watermilfoil Very High

Notropis melanostomus Blackmouth Shiner Moderate

Noturus gladiator piebald madtom Moderate

Nymphoides aquatica Big Floating Heart High

Nymphoides cordata Floating Heart High

Percina lenticula Freckled Darter Very High

Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose Very High

Pleurobema beadleianum Mississippi Pigtoe Very High

Pleurobema rubrum Pyramid Pigtoe Very High

Table G 96. Aquatic species sensitive to stream sediment key attributes and indicators

Target 

Type Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group Weight

WS Hydrologic Function Compliance with Hydroligic Function 

Guidelines Very High

WS Hydrologic Function Dam Density Rating Low

WS Hydrologic Function Riparian Road Density Rating Very High

WS Hydrologic Function Road Crossings Rating Very High

WS Water Temperature Regime Riparian Land Use Rating Very High

WS Water Quality--Sediment Compliance with Sediment-related BMPs 

for Forest Management Very High

WS Water Quality--Sediment Compliance with Sediment-related BMPs 

for Roads Management Very High

WS Water Quality--Sediment Forest Cover Rating High

WS Water Quality--Sediment Road Density Rating High

WS Water Quality--Sediment Sediment Risk Rating Very High
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-119

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Stream Toxins 

Unlike non-point source pollution, species in this association (Table G 97) are especially susceptible to 

point source pollution. While permitted point sources may not adversely impact this group when 

compliant, spills, discharges, and other accidents may precipitate spikes in stream toxin levels sufficient 

to extirpate entire occurrences. Extreme alterations in water chemistry from any source can be highly 

detrimental to these species along thuse were key attributes in the ecological sustainability evaluation

model (Table G 98).

Table G 97. Aquatic species sensitive to stream toxins

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf Sturgeon Very High

Actinonaias ligamentina Mucket Very High

Alloperla natchez Natchez Stonefly Very High

Alosa alabamae Alabama Shad Very High

Ammocrypta meridiana Southern Sand Darter Very High

Anodontoides radiatus Rayed Creekshell Very High

Arcidens confragosus Rock Pocketbook Very High

Crystallaria asprella Crystal Darter Very High

Etheostoma lachneri Tombigbee Darter Very High

Etheostoma raneyi Yazoo Darter Very High

Farancia erytrogramma Rainbow Snake Very High

Haploperla chukcho Chukcho Stonefly Very High

Lampsilis straminea straminea Rough Fatmucket Very High

Lasmigona complanata complanata White Heelsplitter Very High

Notropis melanostomus Blackmouth Shiner Very High

Noturus gladiator piebald madtom Very High

Percina lenticula Freckled Darter Very High

Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose Very High

Pleurobema beadleianum Mississippi Pigtoe Very High

Pleurobema rubrum Pyramid Pigtoe Very High

Procambarus penni Pearl Blackwater Crayfish Very High

Table G 98. Aquatic species sensitive to stream toxins key attributes and indicators

Target Type Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group Weight

WS Hydrologic Function Riparian Road Density Rating Very High

WS Hydrologic Function Road Crossings Rating Very High

WS Water Temperature Regime Riparian Land Use Rating Very High

WS Water Quality--Sediment Forest Cover Rating High

WS Water Quality--Sediment Road Density Rating High

WS Water Quality--Toxics Non-Point Source Rating Very High

WS Water Quality--Toxics Point Source Rating Very High
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-120 National Forests in Mississippi

Aquatic Species Sensitive to Water Temperature Regime 

These species (Table G 99) are highly dependent on specific water temperature regimes for all or part of 

their life history. Thermal alteration most often occurs when riparian areas are deforested exposing water 

surface to increased levels of direct sunlight. Other sources of thermal alteration, such as accidental 

industrial discharge, are much rarer and usually temporary. Key attributes used in the ecological 

sustainability evaluation model are included in Table G 100.

Table G 99. Aquatic species sensitive to water temperature regime

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Actinonaias ligamentina Mucket Very High

Alloperla natchez Natchez Stonefly Very High

Alosa alabamae Alabama Shad Moderate

Ammocrypta meridiana Southern Sand Darter High

Anodontoides radiatus Rayed Creekshell Very High

Arcidens confragosus Rock Pocketbook High

Etheostoma lachneri Tombigbee Darter Very High

Etheostoma raneyi Yazoo Darter Very High

Farancia erytrogramma Rainbow Snake Low

Haploperla chukcho Chukcho Stonefly Very High

Lampsilis straminea straminea Rough Fatmucket Very High

Lasmigona complanata complanata White Heelsplitter High

Notropis melanostomus Blackmouth Shiner Very High

Noturus gladiator piebald madtom Very High

Percina lenticula Freckled Darter Very High

Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose Very High

Pleurobema beadleianum Mississippi Pigtoe Very High

Pleurobema rubrum Pyramid Pigtoe Very High

Procambarus penni Pearl Blackwater Crayfish High

Table G 100. Aquatic species sensitive to water temperature regime key attributes and indicators

Target 

Type Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group 

Weight

ES Hydrologic Function Compliance with Hydroligic Function 

Guidelines Very High

ES Forest Age Diversity % Mature Forest High

ES Forest Age Diversity % Old Forest High

ES Vegetation Structure % Mature Very-Closed Canopy Very High

WS Hydrologic Function Dam Density Rating High

WS Water Temperature Regime Riparian Land Use Rating Very High

WS Water Quality--Sediment Forest Cover Rating High
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-121

Species Sensitive to Recreational Traffic

Species in this group (Table G 101) are sensitive to excessive human disturbance such as trampling, 

harassment, vehicular mortality, excessive collection, breeding or nest disturbance, and direct mortality.

Many species are collected commercially and used for a variety of purposes including food, medicinal, 

decorative, gardening/landscaping, pet trade, bait collection, and trophy fishing. Reptile species are 

especially sensitive to being harmed, harassed, and killed by humans. This interaction with humans can 

have long-term negative effects on population sizes and sustainability.

Collection limits for fishable/ hunt able and non-game species are set by Mississippi Department of 

Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, so issues of excessive take are beyond Forest Service control. However, we 

should explore opportunities to limit access to areas with sensitive populations of these species when 

feasible. The strategy for these species is to continue to educate the public on species needs, restrict 

access to known populations, and limit approval of collections of these species to scientific purposes only.

Key attributes used in the ecological sustainability evaluation model are included in Table G 102.

Table G 101. Species sensitive to recreational traffic

Species Name Common Name Species-to-Group Weight

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf Sturgeon Very High

Actinonaias ligamentina Mucket Very High

Alloperla natchez Natchez Stonefly High

Alosa alabamae Alabama Shad Moderate

Ammocrypta meridiana Southern Sand Darter Moderate

Anodontoides radiatus Rayed Creekshell Very High

Arcidens confragosus Rock Pocketbook Very High

Etheostoma lachneri Tombigbee Darter Moderate

Etheostoma raneyi Yazoo Darter Moderate

Farancia erytrogramma Rainbow Snake Very High

Haploperla chukcho Chukcho Stonefly High

Lampsilis straminea straminea Rough Fatmucket Very High

Lasmigona complanata complanata White Heelsplitter Very High

Myriophyllum laxum Loose Watermilfoil Low

Notropis melanostomus Blackmouth Shiner Moderate

Noturus gladiator piebald madtom Very High

Nymphoides aquatica Big Floating Heart Moderate

Nymphoides cordata Floating Heart Moderate

Percina lenticula Freckled Darter Very High

Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose Very High

Pleurobema beadleianum Mississippi Pigtoe Very High

Pleurobema rubrum Pyramid Pigtoe Very High

Procambarus penni Pearl Blackwater Crayfish Moderate
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-122 National Forests in Mississippi

Table G 102. Species sensitive to recreational traffic key attributes and indicators

Target Type Key Attribute Indicator Line Item-to-Group Weight

WS Hydrologic Function Riparian Road Density Rating Very High

WS Hydrologic Function Road Crossings Rating Very High

WS Water Quality--Sediment Road Density Rating Very High

SG Distance from Roads ORV Trail Density Very High

SG Distance from Roads Paved Open Road Density Very High

SG Distance from Roads Total Road and Trail Density Very High

SG Distance from Roads Unpaved Gated Road Density Very High

SG Distance from Roads Unpaved Open Road Density Very High
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-123

G.4 Crosswalk between NatureServe’s Ecological Systems 

and Forest Service Forest Types

Crosswalk to this 

Ecological System... If this forest type... Occurs on this Ecological Site Type...

Bienville

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Floodplain Forest

13-loblolly pine - hardwood Water and Alluvial

61-swamp.chest.oak-cherrybark

All

62-sweetgum-nut.oak-willow

63-sugarberry-a.elm-greenash

64-laureloak-willowoak

98-undrained flatwoods

46-bottmhardwoods-yellowpine

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Interior Shortleaf Pine-Oak 

Forest and Woodland

12-shortleaf pine – oak

32-shortleaf pine

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Interior Upland Longleaf 

Pine Woodland

21-longleaf pine

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Jackson Prairie and 

Woodland

35-e.red cedar Prairie

Southern Mesic Slope 

Forest

47-w.oak-b.oak-yellowpine

Mesic, Alluvial, and Non-riverine Hydric

51-postoak-blackoak

53-w.oak-n.redoak-hickory

54-whiteoak

56-y.poplar-w.oak-n.red.oak

58-sweet gum - y.poplar All

69-beech-magnolia

Southern LoblollyHardwood Flatwoods

13-loblolly pine - hardwood Mesic

31-loblolly pine Adanton, Faulkner, Ichusa, Louin, and 

Oktibbeha Soil series

Successional and Planted 

Loblolly Pine Forest

13-loblolly pine - hardwood Xeric, Dry, Dry-mesic, and Prairie

31-loblolly pine All soil series except Adanton, Faulkner, 

Ichusa, Louin, and Oktibbeha soil series

Southern Coastal Plain Dry 

Upland Hardwood Forest

44-s.redoak-yellowpine All

47-w.oak-b.oak-yellowpine

Xeric, Dry, Dry-mesic, and Prairie

51-postoak-blackoak

53-w.oak-n.redoak-hickory

54-whiteoak

Southern Coastal Plain 

Seepage Swamp and 

Baygall (includes forested 

seeps)

68-s.bay-swamptupelo-r.maple All
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-124 National Forests in Mississippi

Crosswalk to this 

Ecological System... If this forest type... Occurs on this Ecological Site Type...

Chickasawhay

Administrative Site 99 - administrative All

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Floodplain Forest

13-loblolly pine - hardwood Water, Alluvial, and Non-riverine Hydric

46-bottmhardwoods-yellowpine

All

61-swamp.chest.oak-cherrybark

62-sweetgum-nut.oak-willow

64-laureloak-willowoak

98-undrained flatwoods

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Interior Upland Longleaf 

Pine Woodland

12-shortleaf pine - oak

21-longleaf pine

25-yellow pine

32-shortleaf pine

49-bearoak-s.scrubo-yellowpine

57-scrub oak

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Southern Mesic Slope 

Forest

13-loblolly pine - hardwood Mesic

47-w.oak-b.oak-yellowpine Mesic, Alluvial, and Non-riverine Hydric 48-n.redoak-hickory-yellowpine

50-yellow poplar All

53-w.oak-n.redoak-hickory Mesic, Alluvial, and Non-riverine Hydric 54-whiteoak

56-y.poplar-w.oak-n.red.oak

58-sweet gum - y.poplar All

69-beech-magnolia

Loblolly Pine Forest

13-loblolly pine - hardwood Xeric, Dry, and Dry-mesic

31-loblolly pine

Slash Pine Forest All

14-slash pine - hardwood

22-slash pine

Southern Coastal Plain Dry 

Upland Hardwood Forest

44-s.redoak-yellowpine

47-w.oak-b.oak-yellowpine Xeric, Dry, and Dry-mesic

48-n.redoak-hickory-yellowpine

51-postoak-blackoak All

53-w.oak-n.redoak-hickory Xeric, Dry, and Dry-mesic

54-whiteoak

Southern Coastal Plain 

Seepage Swamp and 

Baygall

68-s.bay-swamptupelo-r.maple All

Xeric Sandhills Not applicable Xeric
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-125

Crosswalk to this 

Ecological System... If this forest type... Occurs on this Ecological Site Type...

De Soto

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Floodplain Forest

13-loblolly pine - hardwood Water, Alluvial, and Non-riverine Hydric

24-baldcypress

All

67-bald cypress-water tupelo

61-swamp.chest.oak-cherrybark

62-sweetgum-nut.oak-willow

64-laureloak-willowoak

98-undrained flatwoods

46-bottmhardwoods-yellowpine Water, Alluvial, and Non-riverine Hydric

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Interior Upland Longleaf 

Pine Woodland

12-shortleaf pine - oak All

21-longleaf pine

25-yellow pine All except Non-riverine Hydric

26-longleaf pine - hardwood

32-shortleaf pine

49-bearoak-s.scrubo-yellowpine All

57-scrub oak

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Near Coast Pine Flatwoods

14-slash pine - hardwood

Non-riverine Hydric

21-longleaf pine

22-slash pine

25-yellow pine

26-longleaf pine - hardwood

99-brush species All

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Southern Mesic Slope 

Forest

13-loblolly pine - hardwood Mesic

37-spruce pine All

47-w.oak-b.oak-yellowpine Mesic, Alluvial, and Non-riverine Hydric 48-n.redoak-hickory-yellowpine

50-yellow poplar All

53-w.oak-n.redoak-hickory Mesic, Alluvial, and Non-riverine Hydric 54-whiteoak

56-y.poplar-w.oak-n.red.oak

58-sweet gum - y.poplar All

69-beech-magnolia

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Treeless Savanna and Wet 

Prairie

Not applicable Non-riverine Hydric

Loblolly Pine Forest

13-loblolly pine - hardwood Xeric, Dry, and Dry-mesic

31-loblolly pine All

46-bottmhardwoods-yellowpine Xeric, Dry, Dry-mesic, and Mesic

Slash Pine Forest

14-slash pine - hardwood

All except Non-riverine Hydric 22-slash pine
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-126 National Forests in Mississippi

Crosswalk to this 

Ecological System... If this forest type... Occurs on this Ecological Site Type...

Southern Coastal Plain Dry 

Upland Hardwood Forest

44-s.redoak-yellowpine All

47-w.oak-b.oak-yellowpine Xeric, Dry, and Dry-mesic

48-n.redoak-hickory-yellowpine

51-postoak-blackoak All

53-w.oak-n.redoak-hickory Xeric, Dry, and Dry-mesic

54-whiteoak

97-live oak

All

Southern Coastal Plain 

Herbaceous Seepage Bog

Land class code 251(restored) and 832 

(need restoration)

Southern Coastal Plain 

Seepage Swamp and 

Baygall

68-s.bay-swamptupelo-r.maple

Xeric Sandhills Not applicable Xeric

Delta

Lower Mississippi River 

Bottomland and Floodplain 

Forest

62-sweetgum-nut.oak-willow

All

63-sugarberry-a.elm-greenash

65-overcup oak-water hickory

73-cottonwood

74-willow

Holly Springs

Cypress Dominated 

Wetland

24-baldcypress All

67-bald cypress-water tupelo

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Floodplain Forest

13-loblolly pine - hardwood Alluvial

46-bottmhardwoods-yellowpine

All

61-swamp.chest.oak-cherrybark

62-sweetgum-nut.oak-willow

63-sugarberry-a.elm-greenash

64-laureloak-willowoak

72-river birch-sycamore

75-sycamore-pecan-a.elm

98-undrained flatwoods

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Northern Seepage Swamp 68-s.bay-swamptupelo-r.maple

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Interior Shortleaf Pine-Oak 

Forest and Woodland

12-shortleaf pine - oak

25-yellow pine

32-shortleaf pine

33-virginia pine

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Northern Depression 

Pondshore

99 - brush species
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-127

Crosswalk to this 

Ecological System... If this forest type... Occurs on this Ecological Site Type...

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Northern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest

44-s.redoak-yellowpine Xeric, Dry, Upland Loess, Prairie, Drymesic

45-chestoak-scarletoak-yellowpine All

47-w.oak-b.oak-yellowpine Xeric, Dry, Upland Loess, Prairie, Dry48 mesic -n.redoak-hickory-yellowpine

49-bearoak-s.scrubo-yellowpine All

51-postoak-blackoak All

53-w.oak-n.redoak-hickory Xeric, Dry, Upland Loess, Prairie, Dry54 mesic -whiteoak

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Northern Mesic Hardwood 

Forest

13-loblolly pine - hardwood Mesic

44-s.redoak-yellowpine

Mesic, Alluvial, and Non-riverine Hydric

47-w.oak-b.oak-yellowpine

48-n.redoak-hickory-yellowpine

53-w.oak-n.redoak-hickory

54-whiteoak

56-y.poplar-w.oak-n.red.oak

All

58-sweet gum - y.poplar

82-black walnut

Slash Pine Forest 22- slash pine

Loblolly Pine Forest

13-loblolly pine - hardwood All except Alluvial and Mesic

31-loblolly pine All

Homochitto

Cypress Dominated 

Wetland 67-bald cypress-water tupelo All

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Floodplain Forest

13-loblolly pine - hardwood Alluvial

37-spruce pine All

46-bottmhardwoods-yellowpine All

61-swamp.chest.oak-cherrybark All except Loess

62-sweetgum-nut.oak-willow

All

63-sugarberry-a.elm-greenash

64-laureloak-willowoak

71-b.ash-a.elm-r.maple

72-river birch-sycamore

74-willow

98- undrained flatwoods

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Interior Upland Longleaf 

Pine Woodland

12-shortleaf pine - oak

21-longleaf pine

25-yellow pine

26-longleaf pine - hardwood

32-shortleaf pine
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-128 National Forests in Mississippi

Crosswalk to this 

Ecological System... If this forest type... Occurs on this Ecological Site Type...

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Southern Loess Bluff Forest

53-w.oak-n.redoak-hickory

Loess

54-whiteoak

58-sweet gum - y.poplar

61-swamp.chest.oak-cherrybark

69-beech-magnolia

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Southern Mesic Slope 

Forest

13-loblolly pine - hardwood Mesic

47-w.oak-b.oak-yellowpine Mesic, Alluvial, and Non-riverine Hydric 48-n.redoak-hickory-yellowpine

50-yellow poplar All

53-w.oak-n.redoak-hickory Mesic, Alluvial, and Non-riverine Hydric 54-whiteoak

56-y.poplar-w.oak-n.red.oak All

58-sweet gum - y.poplar All except Loess 69-beech-magnolia

Loblolly Pine Forest

13-loblolly pine - hardwood All except Alluvial and Mesic

31-loblolly pine

All

Southern Coastal Plain Dry 

Upland Hardwood Forest

44-s.redoak-yellowpine

45 - chestnut oak-scarlet oak-yellow 

pine

47-w.oak-b.oak-yellowpine Xeric, Dry, Upland Loess, and Dry-mesic

48-n.redoak-hickory-yellowpine

53-w.oak-n.redoak-hickory Xeric, Dry, and Dry-mesic

54-whiteoak

88-black locust

All Southern Coastal Plain 

Seepage Swamp and 

Baygall

68-s.bay-swamptupelo-r.maple

Tombigbee

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Black Belt Calcareous 

Prairie and Woodland

11-eastern red cedar - hardwood

All

35-e.red cedar

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Floodplain Forest

13-loblolly pine - hardwood Alluvial and Water

46-bottmhardwoods-yellowpine

All

61-swamp.chest.oak-cherrybark

62-sweetgum-nut.oak-willow

63-sugarberry-a.elm-greenash

64-laureloak-willowoak

68-s.bay-swamptupelo-r.maple

73-cottonwood

74-willow

75-sycamore-pecan-a.elm

98-undrained flatwoods

99-brush species
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-129

Crosswalk to this 

Ecological System... If this forest type... Occurs on this Ecological Site Type...

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Interior Shortleaf Pine-Oak 

Forest and Woodland

12-shortleaf pine - oak

32-shortleaf pine

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Northern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest

43-oak-e.redcedar

44-s.redoak-yellowpine

47-w.oak-b.oak-yellowpine Xeric, Dry, Loess, Blackbelt Prairie, and 

48 Dry-mesic -n.redoak-hickory-yellowpine

51-postoak-blackoak All

53-w.oak-n.redoak-hickory Xeric, Dry, Loess, Blackbelt Prairie, and 

Dry-mesic

East Gulf Coastal Plain 

Northern Mesic Hardwood 

Forest

13-loblolly pine - hardwood Mesic

47-w.oak-b.oak-yellowpine

48-n.redoak-hickory-yellowpine Mesic, Alluvial, and Non-riverine Hydric

53-w.oak-n.redoak-hickory

55-red oak

All

56-y.poplar-w.oak-n.red.oak

58-sweet gum - y.poplar

69-beech-magnolia

Loblolly Pine Forest

13-loblolly pine - hardwood All except Alluvial and Mesic

31-loblolly pine All

Slash Pine Forest 22-slash pine All
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-130 National Forests in Mississippi

G.5 Ecological Site Type Definitions

Ecological site types are predominately defined by soil drainage classes. Following are definitions of each 

ecological site type followed by a list of which soil series are included in the type on each district.

Xeric –

Represented by somewhat excessively well-drained and excessively well-drained soil drainage 

characteristics occurring on the National Forests in Mississippi. This site type is equivalent to Gopher 

Tortoise priority soils on the Chickasawhay and De Soto NFs.

Soil Name Locations

Eustis and Lakeland loamy sands, 0-8 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Eustis and Lakeland soils, 15-30 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Eustis and Lakeland soils, 8-15 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Lakeland sand Bienville

Wadley fine sand, 0-8 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Dry –

Represented by well-drained soil drainage characteristics occurring on the National Forests in 

Mississippi.

Soil Name Locations

Atwood silt loam Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Benndale and Heidel soils, 8-15 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Cahaba fine sandy loam Holly Springs / Tombigbee/ Bienville

Cahaba sandy loam Homochitto

Gullied land-Smithdale complex Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Heidel fine sandy loam Bienville

Heidel sandy loam, 15-30 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Lexington silt loam, 8-17% slopes Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Lucy and Wadley soils Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Lucy loamy sand Homochitto

Maben fine sandy loam and Sweatman silt lo Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Maben loam and Sweatman fine sandy loam Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Maben silt loam and Sweatman silt loam Holly Springs / Tombigbee

McLaurin and Benndale fine sandy loams, 0-8 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Ruston and Lucedale soils, 0-8 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Shubuta fine sandy loam, 8-12 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Smithdale and Ruston soils Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Smithdale fine sandy loam Bienville /Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Smithdale fine sandy loam, 15-35 percent slopes, eroded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Smithdale fine sandy loam, 8-15 percent slopes, eroded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Smithdale-Rock outcrop sandstone cx Bienville
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-131

Soil Name Locations

Sweatman fine sandy loam Bienville

Saffell Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam

All compartments on Homochitto except: 

202, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 

212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 

221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 

231, 232, 233, 241, 242, 243, 244

Ruston Fine Sandy Loam

Bienville and all compartments on 

Homochitto except: 202, 204, 205, 206, 207, 

208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 

217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 

226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 241, 242, 

243, 244

Smithdale Sandy Loam

Holly Springs, Tombigbee, and all 

compartments on Homochitto except: 202, 

204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 

213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 

222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 

232, 233, 241, 242, 243, 244

Upland Loess –

Represented by loess soils occurring on the National Forests in Mississippi.

Soil Name Locations

Calloway-Grenada complex Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Gullied land - Loring Complex Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Gullied land-Providence complex Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Lexington silt loam, 2-8 % slopes Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Lexington Silt Loam, Eroded Homochitto

Loring Silt Loam, 0-8% slopes Homochitto

Loring silt loam, 2-8 % slopes Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Memphis Silt Loam, Eroded Homochitto

Ruston Fine Sandy Loam

Homochitto: Compartments: 202, 204, 205, 

206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 

215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 

224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 

241, 242, 243, 244

Saffell Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam

Homochitto: Compartments: 202, 204, 205, 

206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 

215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 

224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 

241, 242, 243, 244

Smithdale Sandy Loam

Homochitto: Compartments: 202, 204, 205, 

206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 

215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 

224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 

241, 242, 243, 244
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-132 National Forests in Mississippi

Prairie –

Represented by well-drained alkaline prairie soils occurring on the National Forests in Mississippi.

Soil Name Locations

Demopolis silty clay loam Tombigbee

Gullied land-Demopolis complex Tombigbee

Maytag silty clay Bienville

Okolona silty clay Bienville

Dry-Mesic –

Represented by moderately well-drained soil drainage characteristics occurring on the National Forests in 

Mississippi.

Soil Name Locations

Boswell fine sandy loam Bienville

Demopolis silty clay loam Holly Springs

Freest fine sandy loam Bienville

Freest fine sandy loam, 0-8 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Freest-Susquehanna Complex, 5-12 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Gullied land-Demopolis complex Holly Springs

Kolin silt loam, eroded Homochitto

Loring silt loam, 8-17 % slopes Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Lorman Silt Loam Homochitto

Lorman silt loam, 15-40 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Ora fine sandy loam Bienville

Ora loam Holly Springs

Ora sandy loam Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Petal fine sandy loam, 8-20 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Poarch, Malbis and Saucier soils, 0-8 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Prentiss fine sandy loam, 0-5 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto /Holly Springs / 

Tombigbee

Providence silt loam, 8-15 % slopes Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Savannah fine sandy loam Bienville /Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Savannah fine sandy loam, 0-5 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Providence silt loam, 0-8% slopes Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Providence silt loam, 0-8% slopes Homochitto

Mesic –

Represented by somewhat poorly-drained soil drainage characteristics occurring on the National Forests 

in Mississippi.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-133

Soil Name Locations

Bude Silt Loam Homochitto

Escambia and Basin soils, 0-3 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Falkner silt loam Bienville

Falkner silt loam, 0-3 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Ichusa silty clay loam Bienville

Kipling loam Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Kipling silt loam Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Lenoir silt loam, 0-2 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Louin silty clay loam Bienville

Nahunta silt loam, 0-2 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Oktibbeha silty clay loam Bienville

Stough fine sandy loam Bienville

Susquehanna fine sandy loam, 2-8 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Susquehanna fine sandy loam, 8-15 percent slopes, eroded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Wilcox silt loam Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Non-riverine hydric –

Represented by very poorly-drained and poorly-drained soil drainage characteristics occurring on the 

National Forests in Mississippi.

Soil Name Locations

Adaton silt loam Bienville

Atmore, Plummer and Smithton soils, 0-2 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Alluvial –

Represented by alluvial / floodplain soils are occasionally flooded or frequently flooded occurring on the 

National Forests in Mississippi.

Soil Name Locations

Annemaine loam, 0-2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Ariel Silt Loam, Occasionally Flooded Homochitto

Belden and Leeper silty clay loams Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Bibb fine sandy loam fq fld Bienville

Bibb, Trebloc and Leaf soils, 0-2 percent slopes, frequently 

flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Bigbee loamy sand, 0-2 percent slopes, occasionally 

flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Bruno Sandy Loam, Frequently Flooded Homochitto

Cahaba, Latonia and Bassfield soils, 0-2 percent slopes, 

occasionally flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Cascilla and Jena soils Holly Springs / Tombigbee
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-134 National Forests in Mississippi

Soil Name Locations

Chenneby and Mathiston silt loams Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Collins Silt Loam, occasionally flooded Homochitto

Dorovan and Pamlico soils, 0-2 percent slopes, frequently 

flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Falaya Silt Loam, Occasionally Flooded Homochitto

Gillsburg and Mantachie soils Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Gillsburg Silt Loam, Occasionally Flooded Homochitto

Guyton loam occasionally flooded Bienville

Harleston fine sandy loam, 0-2 percent slopes, occasionally 

flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Houlka silty clay loam occasionally flooded Bienville

Iuka sandy loam, 0-2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Jena fine sandy loam occasionally flooded Bienville

Kirkville fine sandy loam occasionally flooded Bienville

Leeper clay loam occasionally flooded Bienville

Lenoir silt loam, 0-2 percent slopes, frequently flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Mantachie sandy loam 0-2 percent slopes, occasionally 

flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Mantachie silt loam occasionally flooded Bienville

Marietta fine sandy loam Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Marietta silt loam occasionally flooded Bienville

Nugent loamy sand, 0-2 percent slopes, occasionally 

flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Oaklimeter and Collins silt loams Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Ochlockonee and Jena sandy loams, 0-2 percent slopes, 

occasionally flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Ochlockonee-Kirkville complex Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Quitman fine sandy loam occasionally flooded Bienville

Riverwash Homochitto

Stough fine sandy loam, 0-2 percent slopes, occasionally 

flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Trebloc Silt Loam, Frequently Flooded Homochitto

Typic Fluvaquents Holly Springs / Tombigbee

Urbo and Una soils fq fld Bienville

Urbo silty clay loam occasionally flooded Bienville

Water –

Represented by standing water, wet spots, or ponded areas occurring on the Forests. This excludes 

streams, rivers, or other lotic bodies of water.

G.5.1Relative Abundance Matrix

Spatial extent (relative abundance) was important to provide insight into possible restoration objectives.

Relative abundance is defined as the percentage of each ecological site type covered by each ecological 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-135

system. We examined current relative abundance, based upon our FSVeg and soils data, and ecologically 

sustainable relative abundance as designed by the best available science and natural historic range of 

variation. Desired relative abundance may take several decades to achieve. The relative abundance matrix 

uses the ecological site types as defined above to display the ecologically optimal percentage of each 

system on all units.

The following table was created using ecological sustainability evaluation tool. It compares the current 

relative abundance with the ecologically sustainable relative abundance and provides a sustainability 

score. The scores were determined by setting thresholds for each ecological system on each ecological 

site type. For example, on the Ackerman Unit of the Tombigbee NF, floodplain forests should comprise 

no more than 5 percent of dry site types. The thresholds in this example would be as follows:

Poor Fair Good Very Good

>10 5-10 1-5 0

Scores of good or very good indicate sustainable ecological systems. For most systems a range of 

sustainable coverage was determined. The table below is grouped by national forest unit. This was 

necessary due to the diversity of soil site types across the Forests.

Table G 103. Soil relative abundance matrix

Ecological System

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Ackerman Unit

Dry (well drained soils) Dry to Mesic 

(moderately well-drained)

Floodplain Forest 0-5 1 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very 

Good

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 55 Poor 0-5 71 Poor

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood 

Forest 40-60 29 Poor 40-60 13 Poor

Northern Mesic Hardwood 

Forest 0-5 3 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very 

Good

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 40-60 12 Poor 40-60 14 Poor

Slash Pine Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Upland Loess Mesic (somewhat poorly drained)

Floodplain Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 80 Poor 0-5 48 Poor

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood 

Forest 40-60 14 Poor 0-5 0 Very Good

Northern Mesic Hardwood 

Forest 0-5 2 Very Good 80-100 37 Poor

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 40-60 4 Poor 1-20 15 Very 

Good

Slash Pine Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-136 National Forests in Mississippi

Ecological System

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Alluvial (floodplain) Water or Ponded Areas

Floodplain Forest 90-100 13 Poor 90-100 0 Poor

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 38 Poor 0-5 49 Poor

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood 

Forest 0-5 1 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Northern Mesic Hardwood 

Forest 0-5 40 Poor 0-5 50 Poor

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 0-5 7 Fair 0-5 1 Very 

Good

Slash Pine Forest 0-5 1 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Trace Unit

Black Belt Prairie Soils Dry (well drained soils)

Black Belt Prairie and 

Woodland 90-100 43 Poor 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Floodplain Forest 0-5 1 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very 

Good

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 38 Poor 0-5 47 Poor

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood 

Forest 0-5 14 Fair 40-60 22 Poor

Northern Mesic Hardwood 

Forest 0-5 1 Very Good 0-5 10 Fair

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 0-5 3 Very Good 40-60 20 Poor

Slash Pine Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very Good

Dry to Mesic 

(moderately well-drained) Mesic (somewhat poorly drained)

Black Belt Prairie and 

Woodland 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very 

Good

Floodplain Forest 0-5 8 Fair 0-5 1 Very 

Good

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 75 Poor 0-5 62 Poor

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood 

Forest 40-60 11 Poor 0-5 1 Very 

Good

Northern Mesic Hardwood 

Forest 0-5 2 Very 

Good 90-100 31 Poor

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 40-60 4 Poor 0-5 4 Very 

Good

Slash Pine Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very 

Good
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-137

Ecological System

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Alluvial (floodplain) Water

Black Belt Prairie and 

Woodland 0-5 2 Very 

Good 0-5 5 Very 

Good

Floodplain Forest 90-100 13 Poor 90-100 8 Poor

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 48 Poor 0-5 11 Fair

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood 

Forest 0-5 8 Fair 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Northern Mesic Hardwood 

Forest 0-5 28 Poor 0-5 65 Poor

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 0-5 1 Very 

Good 0-5 11 Fair

Slash Pine Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Bienville Unit

Xeric (excessively well-drained) Prairie Soils

Floodplain Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 23 Fair

Jackson Prairie and Woodland 0-5 0 Very 

Good 90-100 7 Poor

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 100 Poor 0-5 65 Poor

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps 0-5 0 Very Good 0-5 0 Very Good

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 0-5 0 Very Good 0-5 2 Very Good

Southern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest 0-5 0 Very Good 0-5 3 Very Good

Southern Mesic Slope Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Southern Loblolly-Hardwood 

Flatwoods 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Upland Longleaf Pine 

Woodland 90-100 0 Poor 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Dry (well drained soils) Dry to Mesic 

(moderately well-drained)

Floodplain Forest 0-5 2 Very 

Good 0-5 5 Very 

Good

Jackson Prairie and Woodland 0-5 0.1 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 75 Poor 0-5 79 Poor

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps 0.1-1 0.2 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 1-20 7.7 Very 

Good 0-5 4 Very 

Good

Southern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest 0-5 5 Very 

Good 0-5 4 Very 

Good

Southern Mesic Slope Forest 0-5 1 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very 

Good
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-138 National Forests in Mississippi

Ecological System

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Southern Loblolly-Hardwood 

Flatwoods 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Upland Longleaf Pine 

Woodland 79-99 9 Poor 90-100 7 Poor

Mesic (somewhat poorly drained) Non-Riverine Hydric (poorly drained

Floodplain Forest 0-5 4 Very 

Good 10-20 12 Good

Jackson Prairie and Woodland 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 2 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very 

Good

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 1-5 3 Very 

Good 0-5 3 Very 

Good

Southern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest 0-5 1 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very 

Good

Southern Mesic Slope Forest 10-20 12 Good 5-15 7 Good

Southern Loblolly-Hardwood 

Flatwoods 70-80 79 Very Good 70-80 76 Very Good

Upland Longleaf Pine 

Woodland 0-5 0 Very Good 0-5 0 Very Good

Alluvial (floodplain) Water / Wet Spot

Floodplain Forest 90-100 50 Poor 90-100 67 Poor

Jackson Prairie and Woodland 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 17 Fair 0-5 11 Fair

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 0-5 1 Very 

Good 0-5 4 Very 

Good

Southern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest 0-5 1 Very Good 0-5 0 Very Good

Southern Mesic Slope Forest 0-5 31 Poor 0-5 18 Fair

Southern Loblolly-Hardwood 

Flatwoods 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Upland Longleaf Pine 

Woodland 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Chickasawhay Unit

Xeric (excessively well-drained) Dry (well drained soils)

Floodplain Forest 0-5 4 Very 

Good 0-5 5 Very 

Good

Herbaceous Seepage Bog and 

Flats

Data 

Need

Data 

Need

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 29 Poor 0-5 19 Fair
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-139

Ecological System

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps 0-5 0.2 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very 

Good

Slash Pine Forest 0-5 25 Fair 0-5 24 Fair

Southern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very 

Good

Southern Mesic Slope Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very 

Good

Upland Longleaf Pine 

Woodland 90-100 42 Poor 90-100 49 Poor

Dry to Mesic 

(moderately well-drained) Mesic (somewhat poorly drained)

Floodplain Forest 0-5 3 Very 

Good 0-5 4 Very 

Good

Herbaceous Seepage Bog and 

Flats

Data 

Need

Data 

Need

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 12 Fair 0-5 11 Fair

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps 0-5 1 Very Good 0-5 1 Very Good

Slash Pine Forest 0-5 35 Poor 0-5 31 Poor

Southern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest 0-5 1 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Southern Mesic Slope Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 3 Very 

Good

Upland Longleaf Pine 

Woodland 90-100 48 Poor 90-100 50 Poor

Alluvial (floodplain) Water

Floodplain Forest 80-100 43 Poor 80-100 34 Poor

Herbaceous Seepage Bog and 

Flats

Data 

Need

Data 

Need

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 17 Fair 0-5 13 Fair

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps 1-10 2 Very 

Good 1-10 4 Very 

Good

Slash Pine Forest 0-5 19 Fair 0-5 19 Fair

Southern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Southern Mesic Slope Forest 0-5 3 Very 

Good 0-5 5 Very 

Good

Upland Longleaf Pine 

Woodland 0-5 16 Fair 0-5 25 Fair

De Soto Unit

Xeric (excessively well-drained) Dry (well drained soils)

Floodplain Forest 0-5 2 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very Good

Herbaceous Seepage Bog and 

Flats 0.1-2 0.2 Very Good 0.1-2 0.3 Very Good

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 19 Fair 0-5 14 Fair
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-140 National Forests in Mississippi

Ecological System

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Near-Coast Pine Flatwoods 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps 1-5 5 Very 

Good 0-5 6 Fair

Slash Pine Forest 0-5 22 Fair 0-5 16 Fair

Southern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest 0-5 2 Very 

Good 0-5 2 Very 

Good

Southern Mesic Slope Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very 

Good

Wet Pine Savanna 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Upland Longleaf Pine

Woodland 90-98.9 50 Poor 90-99.9 60 Poor

Dry to Mesic 

(moderately well-drained) Mesic (somewhat poorly drained)

Floodplain Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 2 Very 

Good

Herbaceous Seepage Bog and 

Flats 0.1-4 2 Very 

Good 0.1-2 1 Very 

Good

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 8 Fair 0-5 15 Fair

Near-Coast Pine Flatwoods 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very Good

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps 0-5 2 Very Good 1-5 4 Very Good

Slash Pine Forest 0-5 34 Poor 0-5 19 Fair

Southern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest 0-5 1 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very 

Good

Southern Mesic Slope Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 10-30 5 Fair

Wet Pine Savanna 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Upland Longleaf Pine 

Woodland 90-99.9 53 Poor 65-85 53 Poor

Non-riverine Hydric (poorly drained) Alluvial (floodplain)

Floodplain Forest 0-5 13 Fair 40-60 42 Good

Herbaceous Seepage Bog and 

Flats 3-13 6 Very Good 0.1-2 1 Very Good

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 5 Very 

Good 0-5 14 Fair

Near-Coast Pine Flatwoods 50-70 67 Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps 2-11 8 VeryGood 10-30 15 Very Good

Slash Pine Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 5-15 27 Poor

Southern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest 0-5 0 Very Good 0-5 0 Very Good
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-141

Ecological System

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Southern Mesic Slope Forest 0-5 1 Very 

Good 0-5 4 Very 

Good

Wet Pine Savanna 10-30 0 Poor 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Upland Longleaf Pine 

Woodland 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 15 Fair

Water

Floodplain Forest 70-89.9 58 Poor

Herbaceous Seepage Bog and 

Flats 0.1-2 1 Very Good

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 7 Fair

Near-Coast Pine Flatwoods 1-20 11 Very 

Good

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps 1-20 7 Very 

Good

Slash Pine Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Southern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Southern Mesic Slope Forest 0-5 4 Very 

Good

Wet Pine Savanna 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Upland Longleaf Pine 

Woodland 0-5 12 Fair

Delta Unit

Permanently Wet Seasonally Wet

Lower Mississippi River 

Bottomland and Floodplain 

Forest

100 100 Very 

Good 100 100 Very 

Good

Semi-permanently Wet Temporarily Wet

Lower Mississippi River 

Bottomland and Floodplain 

Forest

100 100 Very 

Good 100 100 Very 

Good

Holly Springs Unit

Dry (well drained soils) Dry to Mesic 

(moderately well-drained)

Cypress Dominated Wetlands 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very Good

Floodplain Forest 0-5 1 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very Good

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 40 Poor 0-5 44 Poor

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood 

Forest 40-60 27 Poor 40-60 14 Poor

Northern Mesic Hardwood 

Forest 0-5 4 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very 

Good
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-142 National Forests in Mississippi

Ecological System

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 40-60 28 Poor 40-60 40 Good

Upland Loess Mesic (somewhat poorly drained)

Cypress Dominated Wetlands 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Floodplain Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 43 Poor 0-5 32 Poor

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood 

Forest 40-60 17 Poor 0-5 0 Very Good

Northern Mesic Hardwood 

Forest 0-5 4 Very Good 60-80 46 Poor

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps 0-5 0 Very Good 0-5 0 Very Good

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 40-60 36 Fair 20-40 22 Good

Alluvial (floodplain) Water

Cypress Dominated Wetlands 1-15 1 Very 

Good 90-100 0 Poor

Floodplain Forest 40-60 12 Poor 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 22 Fair 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood 

Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Northern Mesic Hardwood 

Forest 30-50 46 Good 0-5 87 Poor

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps 1-5 1 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 0-5 18 Fair 0-5 13 Fair

Yalobusha Unit

Dry (well drained soils) Dry to Mesic 

(moderately well-drained)

Floodplain Forest 0-5 1 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very 

Good

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 60 Poor 0-5 77 Poor

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood 

Forest 40-60 28 Poor 40-60 11 Poor

Northern Mesic Hardwood 

Forest 0-5 5 Very Good 0-5 4 Very Good

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 40-60 4 Poor 40-60 6 Poor

Slash Pine Forest 0-5 2 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very Good
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-143

Ecological System

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Upland Loess Alluvial (floodplain)

Floodplain Forest 0-5 1 Very 

Good 75-95 6 Poor

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 84 Poor 0-5 48 Poor

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood 

Forest 40-60 7 Poor 0-5 0 Very Good

Northern Mesic Hardwood 

Forest 0-5 2 Very Good 5-25 43 Poor

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 40-60 2 Poor 0-5 2 Very Good

Slash Pine Forest 0-5 4 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very Good

Water or Ponded Areas

Floodplain Forest 90-100 1 Poor

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 84 Poor

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood 

Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Northern Mesic Hardwood 

Forest 0-5 15 Fair

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and 

Woodland 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Slash Pine Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Homochitto Unit

Dry (well drained soils) Dry to Mesic 

(moderately well-drained)

Cypress Dominated Wetlands 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Floodplain Forest 0-5 2 Very 

Good 0-5 2 Very 

Good

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 84 Poor 0-5 82 Poor

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Southern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest 0-10 4 Good 0-10 2 Good

Southern Loess Bluff Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Southern Mesic Slope Forest 0-5 1 Very 

Good 0-5 1 Very 

Good

Upland Longleaf Pine 

Woodland 90-100 9 Poor 90-100 13 Poor

Upland Loess Mesic (somewhat poorly drained)

Cypress Dominated Wetlands 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Floodplain Forest 0-5 5 Very 

Good 0-5 12 Fair
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-144 National Forests in Mississippi

Ecological System

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Ecologically 

Sustainable 

Coverage (%)

Current 

Value 

(%)

Current 

Grade

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 62 Poor 0-5 62 Poor

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Southern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest 30-50 10 Poor 0-5 1 Very 

Good

Southern Loess Bluff Forest 30-50 16 Poor 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Southern Mesic Slope Forest 10-30 6 Fair 80-99 24 Poor

Upland Longleaf Pine 

Woodland 0-5 1 Very Good 1-20 1 Good

Alluvial (floodplain) Water or Ponded Areas

Cypress Dominated Wetlands 1-5 2 Very 

Good 15-25 17 Good

Floodplain Forest 75-95 37 Poor 65-85 28 Poor

Loblolly Pine Forest 0-5 44 Poor 0-5 41 Poor

Seeps, Springs, and Seepage 

Swamps 1-5 1 Very 

Good 1-8 7 Very 

Good

Southern Dry Upland 

Hardwood Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Southern Loess Bluff Forest 0-5 0 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good

Southern Mesic Slope Forest 5-15 12 Very 

Good 0-5 7 Fair

Upland Longleaf Pine 

Woodland 0-5 4 Very 

Good 0-5 0 Very 

Good
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-145

G.6 Species for which there is no known or potential 

occurrence based upon suitable habitat on the National 

Forests in Mississippi (Not evaluated further)

Taxa Scientific Name Common Name

Amphibian Gyrinophilus porphyriticus Spring Salamander

Amphibian Plethodon ventralis Southern Zigzag Salamander

Amphibian Pseudacris brachyphona Mountain Chorus Frog

Aquatic Invertebrate Cambarellus diminutus Least Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Cambarellus lesliei A Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Cambarus girardianus A Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Cambarus latimanus A Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Hobbseus attenuatus Pearl Rivulet Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Hobbseus cristatus A Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Hobbseus orconectoides Oktibbeha Rivulet Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Hobbseus petilus Tombigbee Rivulet Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Hobbseus yalobushensis A Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Homoeoneuria cahabensis Cahaba Sand-filtering Mayfly

Aquatic Invertebrate Orconectes etnieri A Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Orconectes hartfieldi A Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Orconectes jonesi A Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Orconectes mississippiensis A Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Orconectes validus A Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Orconectes virilis Virile Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Procambarus ablusus A Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Procambarus bivittatus Ribbon Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Procambarus cometes Mississippi Flatwoods Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Procambarus connus Carrollton Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Procambarus elegans A Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Procambarus hagenianus vesticeps A Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Procambarus lagniappe Lagniappe Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Procambarus lecontei Mobile Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Procambarus lylei Shutispear Crayfish

Aquatic Invertebrate Procambarus shermani A Crayfish

Bird Ammodramus maritimus Seaside Sparrow

Bird Ammodramus nelsoni Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow

Bird Anas fulvigula Mottled Duck

Bird Calidris mauri Western Sandpiper

Bird Charadrius alexandrinus tenuirostris Southeastern Snowy Plover

Bird Charadrius wilsonia Wilson's Plover

Bird Egretta rufescens Reddish Egret

Bird Falco columbarius Merlin

Bird Haematopus palliatus American Oystercatcher
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-146 National Forests in Mississippi

Taxa Scientific Name Common Name

Bird Rynchops niger Black Skimmer

Bird Sterna maxima Royal Tern

Bird Sterna nilotica Gull-billed Tern

Bird Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich Tern

Bird Tyrannus dominicensis Gray Kingbird

Bird Tyrannus forficatus Scissor-tailed Flycatcher

Crustacean Fallicambarus burrisi Burris’ Burrowing Crawfish

Fish Ambloplites rupestris Rock Bass

Fish Ammocrypta clara Western Sand Darter

Fish Clinostomus funduloides Rosyside Dace

Fish Cottus carolinae Banded Sculpin

Fish Cyprinella callistia Alabama Shiner

Fish Cyprinella galactura Whitetail Shiner

Fish Cyprinella spiloptera Spotfin Shiner

Fish Enneacanthus gloriosus Bluespotted Sunfish

Fish Etheostoma blennioides Greenside Darter

Fish Etheostoma duryi Black Darter

Fish Etheostoma flabellare Fantail Darter

Fish Etheostoma kennicotti Stripetail Darter

Fish Etheostoma nigripinne Blackfin Darter

Fish Etheostoma rufilineatum Redline Darter

Fish Etheostoma zonifer Backwater Darter

Fish Fundulus dispar Northern Starhead Topminnow

Fish Fundulus euryzonus Broadstripe Topminnow

Fish Fundulus jenkinsi Saltmarsh Topminnow

Fish Heterandria formosa Least Killifish

Fish Ichthyomyzon castaneus Chestnut Lamprey

Fish Leptolucania ommata Pygmy Killifish

Fish Lythrurus fasciolaris Rosefin Shiner

Fish Macrhybopsis gelida Sturgeon Chub

Fish Macrhybopsis meeki Sicklefin Chub

Fish Moxostoma anisurum Silver Redhorse

Fish Moxostoma carinatum River Redhorse

Fish Moxostoma duquesnei Black Redhorse

Fish Moxostoma macrolepidotum Shorthead Redhorse

Fish Notropis boops Bigeye Shiner

Fish Notropis candidus Silverside Shiner

Fish Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor Shiner

Fish Notropis edwardraneyi Fluvial Shiner

Fish Notropis rubellus Rosyface Shiner

Fish Notropis sabinae Sabine Shiner

Fish Notropis wickliffi Channel Shiner
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-147

Taxa Scientific Name Common Name

Fish Noturus exilis Slender Madtom

Fish Noturus flavus Stonecat

Fish Noturus munitus Frecklebelly Madtom

Fish Percina evides Gilt Darter

Fish Percina kathae Mobile Logperch

Fish Percina phoxocephala Slenderhead Darter

Fish Phoxinus erythrogaster Southern Redbelly Dace

Fish Platygobio gracilis Flathead Chub

Fish Rhinichthys atratulus Blacknose Dace

Fish Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Shovelnose Sturgeon

Fish Stizostedion canadense Sauger

Fish Stizostedion sp 1 Southern Walleye

Fish Stizostedion vitreum Walleye

Mammal Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired Bat

Mussel Cyclonaias tuberculata Purple Wartyback

Mussel Cyprogenia aberti Western Fanshell

Mussel Elliptio arca Alabama Spike

Mussel Elliptio dilatata Spike

Mussel Epioblasma triquetra Snuffbox

Mussel Fusconaia barnesiana Tennessee Pigtoe

Mussel Lampsilis hydiana Louisiana Fatmucket

Mussel Lasmigona complanata alabamensis Alabama Heelsplitter

Mussel Lexingtonia dolabelloides Slabside Pearlymussel

Mussel Ligumia recta Black Sandshell

Mussel Medionidus mcglameriae Tombigbee Moccasinshell

Mussel Potamilus alatus Pink Heelsplitter

Mussel Ptychobranchus fasciolaris Kidneyshell

Mussel Quadrula metanevra Monkeyface

Mussel Quadrula rumphiana Ridged Mapleleaf

Mussel Strophitus connasaugaensis Alabama Creekmussel

Mussel Strophitus undulatus Squawfoot

Mussel Uniomerus obesus Southern Pondhorn

Reptile Graptemys nigrinoda Black-knobbed Map Turtle

Reptile Lampropeltis getula nigra Black Kingsnake

Reptile Malaclemys terrapin pileata Mississippi Diamondback 

Terrapin

Reptile Nerodia clarkii clarkii Gulf Salt Marsh Snake

Reptile Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus Northern Pine Snake

Reptile Regina septemvittata Queen Snake

Terrestrial Invertebrate Gastrocopta abbreviata Plains Snaggletooth

Terrestrial Invertebrate Gryllotalpa major Prairie Mole Cricket

Vascular Plant Adiantum capillus-veneris Southern Maidenhair-fern
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-148 National Forests in Mississippi

Taxa Scientific Name Common Name

Vascular Plant Agalinis homalantha San Antonio False-foxglove

Vascular Plant Amsonia ludoviciana Louisiana Bluestar

Vascular Plant Aplectrum hyemale Puttyroot

Vascular Plant Arabis lyrata Dwarf Rockcress

Vascular Plant Arabis patens Spreading Rockcress

Vascular Plant Aristida spiciformis Pine Barren Three-awned Grass

Vascular Plant Asplenium resiliens Black-stem Spleenwort

Vascular Plant Asplenium rhizophyllum Walking-fern Spleenwort

Vascular Plant Aster pratensis Barrens Silky Aster

Vascular Plant Aster prenanthoides Crooked-stem aster

Vascular Plant Athyrium pycnocarpon Glade Fern

Vascular Plant Avicennia nitida Black Mangrove

Vascular Plant Bidens coronata Golden Flowered Beggar Tick

Vascular Plant Burmannia biflora Northern Burmannia

Vascular Plant Calopogon multiflorus Many-flower Grass-pink

Vascular Plant Canna flaccida Golden Canna

Vascular Plant Carex gracilescens Slender Sedge

Vascular Plant Carex jamesii Nebraska Sedge

Vascular Plant Carex seorsa Separated Sedge

Vascular Plant Carex striata Walter's Sedge

Vascular Plant Carex tenax A Sedge

Vascular Plant Carex verrucosa Warty Sedge

Vascular Plant Castilleja coccinea Scarlet Indian-paintbrush

Vascular Plant Chamaecrista deeringiana Florida Senna

Vascular Plant Cheilanthes alabamensis Alabama Lipfern

Vascular Plant Cladium mariscoides Twig Rush

Vascular Plant Cladrastis kentukea Yellowwood

Vascular Plant Clematis glaucophylla White-leaved Leather-flower

Vascular Plant Coelorachis cylindrica Pitted Jointgrass

Vascular Plant Conradina canescens Seaside Balm

Vascular Plant Cooperia drummondii Evening Rainlily

Vascular Plant Coreopsis auriculata Lobed Tickseed

Vascular Plant Coreopsis nudata Georgia Tickseed

Vascular Plant Crataegus brachyacantha Blueberry Hawthorn

Vascular Plant Cypripedium kentuckiense Southern Lady's-slipper

Vascular Plant Dirca palustris Eastern Leatherwood

Vascular Plant Echinacea pallida Pale Purple Coneflower

Vascular Plant Eleocharis elongata Slim Spikerush

Vascular Plant Eleocharis equisetoides Horse-tail Spikerush

Vascular Plant Eleocharis rostellata Beaked Spikerush

Vascular Plant Elyonurus tripsacoides Pan American Balsamscale

Vascular Plant Erythrodes querceticola Low Erythrodes
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-149

Taxa Scientific Name Common Name

Vascular Plant Euphorbia inundata Florida Pine Spurge

Vascular Plant Eustoma exaltatum Tall Prairie-gentain

Vascular Plant Evax prolifera Bighead Pygmycudweed

Vascular Plant Gentiana catesbaei Elliot's Gentian

Vascular Plant Glyceria arkansana Arkansas Manna-grass

Vascular Plant Gratiola brevifolia Sticky Hedge-hyssop

Vascular Plant Gutierrezia dracunculoides Broom Snakeroot

Vascular Plant Gymnocladus dioicus Kentucky Coffee-tree

Vascular Plant Helianthemum arenicola Gulf Rockrose

Vascular Plant Herbertia lahue ssp caerulea Herbertia

Vascular Plant Hibiscus coccineus Brilliant Hibiscus

Vascular Plant Hottonia inflata Featherfoil

Vascular Plant Hydrastis canadensis Golden Seal

Vascular Plant Hydrophyllum appendiculatum Appendaged Waterleaf

Vascular Plant Hypericum myrtifolium Myrtle-leaved St. Johnswort

Vascular Plant Ilex cassine Dahoon Holly

Vascular Plant Ipomoea pes-caprae Railroad Vine

Vascular Plant Juncus filipendulus Texas Plains Rush

Vascular Plant Juniperus silicicola Southern Red Cedar

Vascular Plant Lesquerella gracilis Spreading Bladder-pod

Vascular Plant Ligusticum canadense Nondo Lovage

Vascular Plant Lilaeopsis carolinensis Carolina Lilaeopsis

Vascular Plant Lilium michiganense Michigan Lily

Vascular Plant Linum sulcatum Grooved Yellow Flax

Vascular Plant Lobelia boykinii Boykin's Lobelia

Vascular Plant Ludwigia alata Winged Seedbox

Vascular Plant Lycium carolinianum Carolina Wolf-berry

Vascular Plant Lycopus amplectens Sessile-leaved Bugleweed

Vascular Plant Magnolia tripetala Umbrella Magnolia

Vascular Plant Marshallia tenuifolia Narrow-leaf Barbara's Button

Vascular Plant Mitreola angustifolium Narrowleaf Miterwort

Vascular Plant Nemastylis geminiflora Prairie Iris

Vascular Plant Neviusia alabamensis Alabama Snow-wreath

Vascular Plant Oenothera triloba Prairie Evening-primrose

Vascular Plant Paronychia erecta Beach Sand-squares

Vascular Plant Paspalum monostachyum Gulfdune Paspalum

Vascular Plant Perideridia americana Eastern Eulophus

Vascular Plant Phacelia dubia Small-flower Scorpionweed

Vascular Plant Phaseolus sinuatus Sandhill Bean

Vascular Plant Physalis angustifolia Coast Ground-cherry

Vascular Plant Physalis arenicola Cypress-head Ground-cherry

Vascular Plant Pieris phyillyreifolia Climbing Fetterbush
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-150 National Forests in Mississippi

Taxa Scientific Name Common Name

Vascular Plant Pinguicula pumila Dwarf Butterwort

Vascular Plant Pinus clausa Sand Pine

Vascular Plant Platanthera integrilabia White Fringeless orchid

Vascular Plant Polanisia tenuifolia Slender-leaf Clammy-weed

Vascular Plant Polygala crenata Crenate Milkwort

Vascular Plant Pycnanthemum setosum Awned Mountainmint

Vascular Plant Quercus palustris Pin Oak

Vascular Plant Rhododendron arborescens Smooth Azalea

Vascular Plant Rhynchospora cephalantha var attenuata Capitate Beakrush

Vascular Plant Rhynchospora curtissii Curtiss's Beakrush

Vascular Plant Rhynchospora decurrens Swamp-forest Beakrush

Vascular Plant Rhynchospora fernaldii Fernald's Beakrush

Vascular Plant Rhynchospora globularis var pinetorum Small's Beakrush

Vascular Plant Rhynchospora harperi Harper Beakrush

Vascular Plant Rhynchospora tracyi Tracy's Beakrush

Vascular Plant Rosa foliolosa White Prairie Rose

Vascular Plant Sageretia minutiflora Tiny-leaved Buckthorn

Vascular Plant Sapindus marginatus Florida Soapberry

Vascular Plant Sarracenia leucophylla Crimson Pitcherplant

Vascular Plant Sarracenia rosea Rose Pitcherplant

Vascular Plant Sarracenia rubra ssp wherryi Wherry's Pitcherplant

Vascular Plant Schizachyrium maritimum Gulf Bluestem

Vascular Plant Sedum pulchellum Rock Stonecrop

Vascular Plant Setaria corrugata Coastal Fox-tail

Vascular Plant Spiranthes lacera Northern Slender Ladies'-tresses

Vascular Plant Taenidia integerrima Yellow Pimpernell

Vascular Plant Tiarella cordifolia Heart-leaved Foam-flower

Vascular Plant Trillium ludovicianum Louisiana Trillium

Vascular Plant Trillium pusillum Least Trillium

Vascular Plant Vaccinium tenellum Gale-leaf Blueberry

Vascular Plant Viola pubescens var eriocarpon Smooth Yellow Violet

Vascular Plant Xyris louisianica Louisiana Yellow-eyed Grass

Vascular Plant Yeatesia viridiflora Green-flower Yeatesia
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-151

G.7 Threatened and endangered species removed from the

National Forests in Mississippi list due to no known 

occurrence

Taxa Scientific Name Common Name

Bird Charadrius melodus Piping Plover

Bird Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican

Bird Sterna antillarum Least Tern

Bird Sterna antillarum athalassos Interior Least Tern

Bird Vermivora bachmanii Bachman's Warbler

Fish Etheostoma rubrum Bayou Darter

Fish Scaphirhynchus suttkusi Alabama Sturgeon

Mammal Myotis grisescens Gray Myotis

Mammal Myotis sodalist Indiana or Social Myotis

Mammal Puma concolor coryi Florida Panther

Mammal Trichechus manatus Manatee

Mussel Epioblasma brevidens Cumberlandian Combshell

Mussel Epioblasma penita Southern Combshell

Mussel Lampsilis perovalis = Hamiota perovalis Orange-nacre Mucket

Mussel Medionidus acutissimus Alabama Moccasinshell

Mussel Pleurobema curtum Black Clubshell

Mussel Pleurobema decisum Southern Clubshell

Mussel Pleurobema marshalli Flat Pigtoe

Mussel Pleurobema perovatum Ovate Clubshell

Mussel Pleurobema taitianum Heavy Pigtoe

Mussel Potamilus capax Fat Pocketbook

Mussel Potamilus inflatus Inflated Heelsplitter

Mussel Quadrula stapes Stirrupshell

Plant Apios priceana Price's Potato Bean

Plant Schwalbea americana Chaffseed

Reptile Caretta caretta Loggerhead; Cabezon

Reptile Chelonia mydas Green Turtle

Reptile Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback; Tinglar

Reptile Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern Indigo Snake

Reptile Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill; Carey

Reptile Graptemys flavimaculata Yellow-blotched Map Turtle

Reptile Graptemys oculifera Ringed Map Turtle

Reptile Lepidochelys kempii Kemp's Or Atlantic Ridley

Reptile Pseudemys alabamensis Alabama Redbelly Turtle

Terrestrial Invertebrate Nicrophorus americanus American Burying Beetle

Terrestrial Invertebrate Neonympha mitchellii Mitchell’s Satyr
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-152 National Forests in Mississippi

G.8 Regional forester sensitive species analyzed for the National Forests in Mississippi

Taxa Common Name Scientific Name Global Rank Confirmed 

Occurrence

rationale for selection / 

non-selection 

Amphibian One-toed Amphiuma Amphiuma pholeter G3 N occurrence not confirmed (1)

Amphibian Webster's Salamander Plethodon websteri G3 Y

forest plan components will be developed

Bird Bachman's Sparrow Aimophila aestivalis G3 Y

Bird Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus G4 Y

Crustacean Speckled Burrowing Crayfish Fallicambarus danielae G2 Y

Crustacean Camp Shelby Burrowing Crayfish Fallicambarus gordoni G1 Y

Crustacean Pearl Rivulet Crayfish Hobbseus attenuatus G2 N occurrence not confirmed (1)

Crustacean Jackson Prairie Crayfish Procambarus barbiger G2 Y

forest plan components will be developed Crustacean Spiny-tailed Crayfish Procambarus fitzpatricki G2 Y

Crustacean Pearl Blackwater Crayfish Procambarus penni G3 Y

forest plan components not needed (5) Fish Alabama Shad Alosa alabamae G3 Y

Fish Crystal Darter Crystallaria asprella G3 N

Fish Southeastern Blue Sucker* Cycleptus meridionalis G3G4 N occurrence not confirmed (1)

Fish Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus G3G4 N

Fish Yazoo Darter Etheostoma raneyi G2 Y

forest plan components not needed (5)

Fish Blackmouth Shiner Notropis melanostomus G2 Y

Fish Piebald Madtom Noturus gladiator* G3 Y

Fish Freckled Darter Percina lenticula G2 Y

Insect Natchez Stonefly Alloperla natchez G2 Y

Insect Arogos skipper Atrytone arogos arogos G3G4T1T2 Y forest plan components will be developed

Insect Chukcho Stonefly Haploperla chukcho G2 Y forest plan components not needed (5)

Mammal Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii G3G4 Y

forest plan components will be developed Mammal Southeastern Myotis Myotis austroriparius G3G4 Y

Mussel Rayed Creekshell Anodontoides radiatus G3 Y forest plan components not needed (5)

Mussel Southern Hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana G1G2 N

occurrence not confirmed (1) Mussel Alabama Hickorynut Obovaria unicolor G3 N
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-153

Taxa Common Name Scientific Name Global Rank Confirmed 

Occurrence

rationale for selection / 

non-selection 

Mussel Sheepnose Plethobasus cyphyus G3 Y

Mussel Mississippi Pigtoe Pleurobema beadleianum G2G3 Y forest plan components not needed (5)

Mussel Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum G2 Y

Reptile Mimic Glass Lizard Ophisaurus mimicus G3 Y

forest plan components will be developed

Reptile Black Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi G4T3 Y

Nonvascular Plant Trachyxiphium Moss Trachyxiphium heteroicum 

(Hookeriopsis heteroica) G2? Y

Vascular Plant Shinner’s False-foxglove Agalinis pseudaphylla G1G2Q Y

Vascular Plant Incised Agrimony Agrimonia incisa G3 Y

Vascular Plant Southern Three-awned Grass Aristida simpliciflora G3 Y forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Dixie grapefern Botrychium jenmanii G3G4 Y

Vascular Plant Baltzell's sedge Carex baltzelli G3 N occurrence not confirmed (1)

Vascular Plant Cypress-knee Sedge Carex decomposita G3 Y

forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Ravine Sedge Carex impressinervia G1G2 Y

Vascular Plant Small spreading pogonia Cleistes bifaria G3G4 Y

Vascular Plant Ashe Hawthorn Crataegus harbisonii (=C. ashei) G1 Y

Vascular Plant Three-flower Hawthorn Crataegus triflora G2 Y

Vascular Plant Cream Tick-trefoil Desmodium ochroleucum G2? Y

Vascular Plant Small's woodfern Dryopteris X australis HYB Y

Vascular Plant Butternut Juglans cinerea G3G4 Y

Vascular Plant Pineland Bogbutton Lachnocaulon digynum G3 Y forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Bog Spicebush Lindera subcoriacea G2 Y forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Spring Hill flax Linum macrocarpum G2? Y

forest plan components not needed (5) Vascular Plant Flame Flower Macranthera flammea G3 Y

Vascular Plant Broadleaf Barbara's Buttons Marshallia graminifolia var. 

cynanthera G3 Y

forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Loose Watermilfoil Myriophyllum laxum G3 Y

Vascular Plant White-flowered Beardtongue Penstemon tenuiflorus G3? N occurrence not confirmed (1)

Vascular Plant Carpenter's Ground-cherry Physalis carpenteri G3 Y

forest plan components not needed (5) Vascular Plant Chapman's Butterwort Pinguicula planifolia G3? Y
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-154 National Forests in Mississippi

Taxa Common Name Scientific Name Global Rank Confirmed 

Occurrence

rationale for selection / 

non-selection 

Vascular Plant Southern butterwort Pinguicula primuliflora G3G4 Y

forest plan components will be developed Vascular Plant Yellow fringeless orchid Platanthera integra G3G4 Y

Vascular Plant Hooker's Milkwort Polygala hookeri G3 Y forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Slender spike milkwort Polygala leptostachys G3G4 Y

Vascular Plant Giant Orchid forest plan components will be developed Pteroglossaspis ecristata 

(=Eulophia ecristata) G2 Y

Vascular Plant Oglethorpe Oak Quercus oglethorpensis G3 Y

Vascular Plant Orange azalea Rhododendron austrinum G3 N occurrence not confirmed (1)

Vascular Plant Hairy Peduncled Beakrush Rhynchospora crinipes G1 Y

forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Large Beakrush Rhynchospora macra G3 Y

Vascular Plant Night Flowering Ruellia Ruellia noctiflora G2 Y

Vascular Plant Bay Starvine Schisandra glabra G3 Y

Vascular Plant Ovate Catchfly Silene ovata G2G3 Y forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Giant Spiral Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes longilabris G3 Y

forest plan components not needed (5) Vascular Plant Carolina fluffgrass Tridens carolinianus G3 Y

Vascular Plant Fetid trillium Trillium foetidissimum G3 Y forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Least Trillium Trillium pusillum G3 N occurrence not confirmed (1)

Vascular Plant Florida Bellwort Uvularia floridana G3 Y forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Chapman's Yellow-eyed Grass Xyris chapmanii G3 Y poorly studied species (3)

Vascular Plant Drummond's Yellow-eyed Grass Xyris drummondii G3 Y forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Louisiana Yellow-eyed Grass Xyris louisianica G3 Y poorly studied species (3)

Vascular Plant Harper's Yellow-eyed Grass Xyris scabrifolia G3 Y forest plan components will be developed

1) Occurrence not confirmed - These are species for which habitat exists on the Forests, and although occurrence is likely, it is not confirmed. Species on this list will be re-evaluated if occurrence 

on the Forests is confirmed.

2) Not affected by management - Species which are not affected by any current or potential form of management or lack of management in the planning area.

3) Poorly studied species - Species for which there is too little information known to complete a reliable assessment. This includes species with uncertain population status, uncertain taxonomy, 

uncertain distribution information, or uncertain life history information.

4) Secure in the forest plan area - Species that are secure in the forest plan area based on knowledge of its occurrence, distribution, availability of habitat, and responses to any management of 

natural disturbances that might occur. Includes those species screened during the process with an S-rank lower than S2 or occurrence in SWG Plan less than Tier 2 and did not merit further consideration.

5) Forest plan components not needed - species are covered by forest plan components for ecosystem diversity, which will adequately provide habitat for these species; no other forest plan

components are needed for species conservation. Ecosystem diversity forest plan components are described in the Ecological Diversity Report and include species associated with each ecological system 

as well as ecological diversity driven Forest plan components
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-155

G.9 Locally rare species analyzed for the National Forests in Mississippi

Taxa Common Name Scientific Name Confirmed 

Occurrence

Rationale for selection/ 

non-selection

Amphibian Four-toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Amphibian Ornate Chorus Frog Pseudacris ornata Y

Forest plan components will be developed Amphibian Mud Salamander Pseudotriton montanus Y

Amphibian Red Salamander Pseudotriton ruber Y Secure in the forest plan area (4)

Crustacean Lavender Burrowing Crayfish Fallicambarus byersi Y

Forest plan components not needed (5)

Crustacean Prominence Rivulet Crayfish Hobbeseus prominens Y

Crustacean Choctaw Rivulet Crayfish Hobbeseus valleculus Y

Bird Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Y

Bird Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis Y

Bird Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Y Not affected by management (2)

Bird Swallow-tailed Kite Elanoides forficatus Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Bird Southeastern American Kestrel Falco sparverius paulus Y Forest plan components will be developed

Bird Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Bird Swainson's Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii Y

Secure in the forest plan area (4) Bird Osprey Pandion haliaetus Y

Fish Southern Sand Darter Ammocrypta meridiana Y

Forest plan components not needed (5)

Fish Steelcolor Shiner Cyprinella whipplei Y

Fish Tombigbee Darter Etheostoma lachneri Y

Fish Bluenose Shiner Pteronotropis welaka Y

Mammal Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Y

Forest plan components will be developed Mammal Northern Yellow Bat Lasiurus intermedius Y

Mammal Oldfield Mouse Peromyscus polionotus Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Mammal Black Bear Ursus americanus Y Forest plan components will be developed
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-156 National Forests in Mississippi

Taxa Common Name Scientific Name Confirmed 

Occurrence

Rationale for selection/ 

non-selection

Mussel Mucket Actinonaias ligamentina Y

Forest plan components not needed (5)

Mussel Rock Pocketbook Arcidens confragosus Y

Mussel Rough Fatmucket Lampsilis straminea straminea Y

Mussel White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata complanata Y

Mussel Round Hickorynut Obovaria subrotunda N Occurrence not confirmed (1)

Reptile Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake Crotalus adamanteus Y Forest plan components will be developed

Reptile Rainbow Snake Farancia erytrogramma Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Reptile Southern Hognose Snake Heterodon simus Y Forest plan components will be developed

Reptile Coachwhip Masticophis flagellum Y Secure in the forest plan area (4)

Reptile Slender Glass Lizard Ophisaurus attenuatus U Poorly studied species (3)

Reptile Pine Woods Snake Rhadinaea flavilata Y Forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Coastal Plain False-foxglove Agalinis aphylla Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Earleaf False-foxglove Agalinis auriculata N Occurrence not confirmed (1)

Vascular Plant Thin Stemmed False-foxglove Agalinis filicaulis Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Broad-leaved Water-platain Alisma subcordatum Y Not affected by management (2)

Vascular Plant Single-headed Pussytoes Antennaria solitaria Y Secure in the forest plan area (4)

Vascular Plant Sicklepod Arabis Canadensis Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant American Spikenard Aralia racemosa Y

Forest plan components will be developed Vascular Plant Canada Wild-ginger Asarum canadense Y

Vascular Plant Prairie Milkweed Asclepias hirtella Y

Vascular Plant White Heath Aster Aster ericoides Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Purple-stemmed Aster Aster puniceus Y

Vascular Plant Bearded Grass-pink Calopogon barbatus Y Forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Wild Hyacinth Camassia scilloides Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Coast Sedge Carex exilis Y Forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Mead's Sedge Carex meadii Y Secure in the forest plan area (4)

Vascular Plant Small-Toothed Sedge Carex microdonta Y

Vascular Plant Painted Sedge Carex picta Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Uptight Sedge Carex stricta Y
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-157

Taxa Common Name Scientific Name Confirmed 

Occurrence

Rationale for selection/ 

non-selection

Vascular Plant Big Shellbark Hickory Carya laciniosa Y

Forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Climbing Bittersweet Celastrus scandens Y

Vascular Plant Atlantic White Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides Y

Vascular Plant Hairy Lipfern Cheilanthes lanosa N

Vascular Plant White Turtlehead Chelone glabra Y

Secure in the forest plan area (4) Vascular Plant Green-and-Gold Chrysogonum virginianum Y

Vascular Plant LeConte's Thistle Cirsium lecontei N Forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Small Spreading Pogonia Cleistes bifaria (=divaricata) Y Secure in the forest plan area (4)

Vascular Plant Alternate-leaf Dogwood Cornus alternifolia Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Small Yellow Lady's-slipper Cypripedium parviflorum Y

Vascular Plant Yellow Lady's-slipper Cypripedium pubescens Y Forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Pine Barrens Prairie Clover Dalea carnea var. gracilis Y

Vascular Plant Erect-leaf Witchgrass Dichanthelium erectifolium Y Secure in the forest plan area (4)

Vascular Plant Shootingstar Dodecatheon meadia Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Southern Shield Woodfern Dryopteris ludoviciana Y

Forest plan components will be developed Vascular Plant Eastern Purple Coneflower Echinacea purpurea Y

Vascular Plant Black-fruited Spikerush Eleocharis melanocarpa Y

Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Robbins Spikerush Eleocharis robbinsii Y

Vascular Plant Three-angled Spikerush Eleocharis tricostata Y

Vascular Plant Green-fly Orchid Epidendrum magnoliae = conopseum Y

Vascular Plant Texas Pipewort Eriocaulon texense Y

Vascular Plant White Dog's Tooth Violet Erythronium albidum Y

Vascular Plant Burning Bush Euonymus atropurpureus Y

Vascular Plant American Columbo Frasera caroliniensis Y

Vascular Plant Showy Orchid Galearis spectabilis Y Forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Dangleberry Gaylussacia frondosa Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Downy Rattlesnake-plantain Goodyera pubescens Y

Vascular Plant Big-leaf witch-hazel Hamemalis ovalis Y Forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Crested Coralroot Hexalectris spicata Y
Appendix G - Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report

G-158 National Forests in Mississippi

Taxa Common Name Scientific Name Confirmed 

Occurrence

Rationale for selection/ 

non-selection

Vascular Plant Blackfoot Quillwort Isoetes melanopoda Y

Forest plan components not needed (5) Vascular Plant Strong Quillwort Isoetes valida Y

Vascular Plant Naked-fruited Rush Juncus gymnocarpus Y Secure in the forest plan area (4)

Vascular Plant Appendaged Lobelia Lobelia appendiculata Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Nodding Clubmoss Lycopodium cernuem = L. palhinhaea cernua Y Not affected by management (2)

Vascular Plant Fan Club Moss Lycopodium digitatum = flabelliforme Y Forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Climbing Milkweed Matelea obliqua Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Square-stem Monkey Flower Mimulus ringens Y

Vascular Plant Big Floating Heart Nymphoides aquatica Y Forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Floating Heart Nymphoides cordata Y

Vascular Plant Smoother Sweet-cicely Osmorhiza longistylis Y Secure in the forest plan area (4)

Vascular Plant Allegheny-spurge Pachysandra procumbens Y

Vascular Plant American Ginseng Panax quinquefolius Y Forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Naked-stemmed Panic Grass Panicum nudicaule Y

Vascular Plant White Arum Peltandra sagittifolia Y

Forest plan components not needed (5) Vascular Plant Sharp-sepal Beardtongue Penstemon tenuis Y

Vascular Plant Odorless Mock-orange Philadelphus inodorus N Occurrence not confirmed (1)

Vascular Plant Large White Fringed Orchid Platanthera blephariglottis Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Crested Fringed Orchid Platanthera cristata Y Secure in the forest plan area (4)

Vascular Plant Purple Fringeless Orchid Platanthera peramoena Y

Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Jacob's Ladder Polemonium reptans Y

Vascular Plant Prairie Parsley Polytaenia nuttallii Y

Vascular Plant Shadow-witch Orchid Ponthieva racemosa Y

Vascular Plant Rough Rattlesnake-root Prenanthes aspera Y Forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Blunt Mountainmint Pycnanthemum muticum Y

Forest plan components not needed (5) Vascular Plant Dwarf Live Oak Quercus minima Y

Vascular Plant Bottomland Post Oak Quercus mississipiensis N Occurrence not confirmed (1)

Vascular Plant Lance-leaved Buckthorn Rhamnus lanceolata Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Needle Palm Rhapidophyllum hystrix Y Forest plan components will be developed
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi G-159

Taxa Common Name Scientific Name Confirmed 

Occurrence

Rationale for selection/ 

non-selection

Vascular Plant Chapman Beakrush Rhynchospora stenophylla Y

Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Slender Arrow-head Sagittaria isoetiformis Y

Vascular Plant Nettle-leaf Sage Salvia urticifolia Y

Vascular Plant Eared Goldenrod Solidago auriculata Y

Vascular Plant Appalachian Goldenrod Solidago flaccidifolia Y

Vascular Plant Florida Ladies-tresses Spiranthes brevilabris var floridana Y Forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Great Plains Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes magnicamporum Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant American Bladdernut Staphylea trifolia Y Secure in the forest plan area (4)

Vascular Plant Water Southern Morning-glory Stylisma aquatica Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Patterson's Bindweed Stylisma pickeringii var pattersonii Y Forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Yellow Pipewort Syngonanthus flavidulus Y Forest plan components not needed (5)

Vascular Plant Louisiana Trillium Trillium ludovicianum N Occurrence not confirmed (1)

Vascular Plant Narrow-leaf Fever Root Triosteum angustifolium Y Secure in the forest plan area (4)

Vascular Plant Three Birds Orchid Triphora trianthophora Y Forest plan components will be developed

Vascular Plant Piedmont Bladderwort Utricularia olivacea Y

Forest plan components not needed (5) Vascular Plant Purple Bladderwort Utricularia purpurea Y

1) Occurrence Not Confirmed - These are species for which habitat exists on the Forests, and although occurrence is likely, it is not confirmed. Species on this list will be re-evaluated if occurrence 

on the Forests is confirmed.

2) Not affected by management - Species which are not affected by any current or potential form of management or lack of management in the planning area.

3) Poorly studied species - Species for which there is too little information known to complete a reliable assessment. This includes species with uncertain population status, uncertain taxonomy, 

uncertain distribution information, or uncertain life history information.

4) Secure in the forest plan area - Species that are secure in the forest plan area based on knowledge of its occurrence, distribution, availability of habitat, and responses to any management of 

natural disturbances that might occur. Includes those species screened during the process with an S-rank lower than S2 or occurrence in SWG Plan less than Tier 2 and did not merit further consideration.

5) Forest plan components not needed - species are covered by forest plan components for ecosystem diversity, which will adequately provide habitat for these species; no other forest plan

components are needed for species conservation. Ecosystem diversity forest plan components are described in the Ecological Diversity Report and include species associated with each ecological system 

as well as ecological diversity driven Forest plan components.