Appendix E -

Watershed Analysis: 

Determining Watershed Condition for 

Aquatic Sustainability and Cumulative 

Effects at the Planning Level for National 

Forests in Mississippi
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi

This page intentionally left blank
National Forest in Mississippi E-i

Appendix E

Table of Contents

APPENDIX E - .... WATERSHED ANALYSIS: DETERMINING WATERSHED CONDITION FOR AQUATIC SUSTAINABILITY 

AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AT THE PLANNING LEVEL FOR NATIONAL FORESTS IN MISSISSIPPI..........................E-1

E.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. E-1

E.1.1 Background........................................................................................................................................ E-1

E.1.2 Methods............................................................................................................................................. E-2

E.2 SEDIMENT YIELDS ......................................................................................................................................... E-11

E.2.1 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................................... E-12

E.2.2 Bounding the Effects Analysis.......................................................................................................... E-12

E.2.3 Modeling Sediment Yield ................................................................................................................. E-12

E.2.4 Data Interpretation.......................................................................................................................... E-13

E.2.5 Data Sources and Manipulation ...................................................................................................... E-14

E.2.6 Sediment Coefficients for Roads...................................................................................................... E-16

E.3 FISH ASSEMBLAGE – SEDIMENT PROFILE ........................................................................................................... E-18

E.3.1 Methods........................................................................................................................................... E-18

E.3.2 Results and Discussion ..................................................................................................................... E-19

E.4 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................................................ E-28

List of Tables

TABLE E 1. GIS DATA LAYERS USED FOR THIS ANALYSIS AND THEIR USE, SOURCE AND UNITS OF MEASURE......................................... E-2

TABLE E 2. WATERSHED BREAKDOWN – OWNERSHIP, USE, MODIFICATIONS OTHER THAN ROADS ................................................... E-4

TABLE E 3. WATERSHED BREAKDOWN – ROADS, CROSSINGS, AND WATERSHED CONDITION RANKING.............................................. E-7

TABLE E 4. LAND USE AND LAND COVER DATA CLASSIFICATION .............................................................................................. E-15

TABLE E 5. PHYSIOGRAPHIC ZONE DATA VALUES ................................................................................................................. E-16

TABLE E 6. ROAD SEDIMENT COEFFICIENTS ........................................................................................................................ E-17

TABLE E 7. ECOREGIONS AND ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES........................................................................................................ E-19

TABLE E 8. RISK LEVELS AND SEDIMENT INCREASE BY ECOREGIONS.......................................................................................... E-20

TABLE E 9. ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES OF FISHES COLLECTED................................................................................................... E-21
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi

This page intentionally left blank
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forest in Mississippi E-1

Appendix E - Watershed Analysis: Determining 

Watershed Condition for Aquatic 

Sustainability and Cumulative Effects 

at the Planning Level for National 

Forests in Mississippi

E.1 Introduction

This process paper is twofold; 1) it describes a process to address the cumulative effects of management 

activities on watershed condition. This fulfills a portion of the ecological condition requirement 

(specifically the watershed condition) and 2) addresses potential aquatic sustainability over time. This 

fulfills the determination of sustainable populations within the planning area.

E.1.1 Background

Aquatic habitats are unique in that they are primarily found in and adjacent to streams and lakes. The 

mobility of aquatic species is usually limited to these habitats. Habitat alteration is the major cause of 

decline of aquatic diversity in the South. Channelization, impoundment, sedimentation, and flow 

alterations are the most common physical habitat alterations associated with the decline of aquatic species 

(Walsh et al. 1995; Etnier 1997; Burkhead et al. 1997). Other human-induced impacts to aquatic species 

include pollution, introduced species, and over-harvesting (Miller 1989).

Habitat quality within a freshwater ecosystem is determined by activities within the watershed (Abell et 

al. 2000; Scott and Helfman 2002). Therefore, the influence of these activities upon habitats, or 

waterbodies, can be described to determine the condition of the habitat. The evaluation areas for aquatic 

species at the forest plan level are 5th level hydrologic units (watersheds are used interchangeable with 

hydrologic units).

There are 288 freshwater fish species in Mississippi (Ross, 2001); thus, it is impossible to determine 

sustainability for each individual species. As a surrogate, the sustainability of proposed, endangered, 

threatened, sensitive, and locally rare (PETS-LR) aquatic species are assessed and threats to their 

sustainability determined. Other wide-ranging generalist aquatic species are not considered at risk. If the 

habitat sustainability of species with special habitat needs or concerns are maintained, then more wideranging generalist species’ habitat needs will be met.

To determine if there is adequate habitat for these species, the condition of individual watersheds needs to 

be determined. Watershed condition is determined from the physical and anthropogenic interactions 

within the watershed. Ideally, watershed condition would be determined from stream surveys. However, 

the extent and detail required to address all watersheds, including private land, with stream surveys is not 

reasonable or available. To address habitat condition at the watershed level it is necessary to determine 

values from geographic data. These values are compared among the watersheds, and a condition or set of 

conditions is determined.
Appendix E – Watershed Analysis

E-2 National Forests in Mississippi

E.1.2 Methods 

Watershed Condition

Hydrologic units or watersheds are defined as areas that drain to a common point. Fifth-level watersheds 

range between 40,000 and 250,000 acres. These units are queried against other geographic information 

layers. These layers include ownership, streams, roads, point sources, dams, and landuse.

These layers were intersected with the 5th level watersheds and determined as a percent of the watershed 

or as a density (e.g. miles per square mile). The following table shows the data layers, their use, source, 

and unit of measurement:

Table E 1. GIS data layers used for this analysis and their use, source and units of measure

Layers Use Source Unit

watersheds The planning unit USFS 5th level HU

ownership

To determine the extend and 

location of Forest Service 

ownership within the watershed

USFS percent 

streams To determine riparian areas

EPA River Reach 

files ver. 3 not applicable

roads To determine watershed road 

density and riparian road density Tiger census data miles per square mile

landuse To determine watershed and 

riparian area landuse NLCD percent

dams To determine altered flow EPA Basins III number per square mile

point sources To address point sources EPA Basins III number per square mile

This process was modified from the East-wide Assessment Protocol for Forest Plan Amendment, 

Revision, and Implementation (USDA Forest Service 2000). Individual condition factors were valued one 

to five (five being the best) identified by Jenk’s optimization (natural breaks). This method identifies 

breaks between classes using a statistical formula (Jenk’s optimization) within ArcView 3.2a. These 

values (or average of combined of values) were used to determine a range of conditions for each metric.

This allows for a numerical ranking of condition among the watersheds. However, it does not suggest that 

a watershed with a score of 4 is twice as good as a watershed of 2, only that the watershed with a value of 

4 is above average and the watershed with a value of 2 is below average. 

The metrics and combinations of data used determine the metrics are outlined in the following list:

1. Sedimentation was assessed separately by the determining the percent increase above the baseline 

sediment levels by watershed as assessed with the Watershed Condition Ranking (WCR). This 

process is described in detail in the Fish Assemblage – Sediment Profile and Sediment Yield sections. 

2. Point Source Pollutants (density of point sources).

3. Riparian Habitat (road density in the riparian area, and percent forest in the riparian area).

4. Altered stream flow (density of dams, road density in the riparian, and density of road crossings).

Each Forest identified the presence of PETS-LR species for each 5th level watershed across the planning 

area. These databases were combined into a single database and stressors assigned using area experts.
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forest in Mississippi E-3

For each watershed and species, sensitivity to condition categories was assigned based on the species 

sustainability evaluation database, published literature and personal communications (USDA NF in 

Mississippi 2008). Species sensitivity to the four condition categories was compared with the condition of 

their respective watersheds to determine the threats to their persistence in the planning area.

Specific information is not available for the relation of individual species to point source, riparian habitat, 

or altered flows. Therefore, related groups were identified by Jenks Optimization to address this issue.

This allows for a comparison of conditions among watersheds found on the forest. Additional information 

is available from the expert panels. The relationship of fish communities to anthropogenic sediment 

increases is definable and is discussed further in the Fish Assemblage – Sediment Profile section. Threats 

to aquatic species sustainability are not limited to these four variables; however, GIS coverages are not 

available for channelization, introduced species, and over-harvest. These and additional issues or threats 

were addressed by expert panels and can be found in the NFMS ESE, (2005). 

Analysis results

The following tables display the results of the watershed condition assessment. Raw values as well as 

ranks (based on Jenks optimization for natural breaks) are provided. As discussed earlier risk levels or 

thresholds are not available for point sources, riparian health or hydrologic modification. Information 

related to these categories allows for a discussion of the ranges of modification and the relative position 

of individual watersheds within those ranges.
Appendix E – Watershed Analysis

E-4 National Forests in Mississippi

Table E 2. Watershed breakdown – ownership, use, modifications other than roads 5th Level Watershed Number 5th Level Watershed Name Square Miles Acres % National Forest 

% Forested Land use 

% Agriculture And Urban 

% Riparian Area Forested 

Rcris

Pcs

Mines

Ifd

Dams

Point Per Sq Mile 

Dams Per Sq Mile 

percent number #/sq mi

316010203 Tallabinnela Creek 73.86 47,267 0.7443151 36.0 64.3 36.9 4 3 0.09 0.04 

316010401 Upper Chuquatonchee Creek 207.43 132,757 9.4221938 43.2 56.3 46.2 1 23 0.59 0.11 

316010402 Cane Creek - Houlka Creek 238.34 152,539 9.1496305 55.0 45.1 55.4 5 3 3 4 10 0.46 0.04 

316010801 Sand Creek - Noxubee River 250.71 160,456 25.0882371 84.7 15.0 83.1 8 10 5 25 1.68 0.10 

316010803 Yellow Creek - Noxubee River 159.57 102,125 0.0397210 72.8 27.2 69.0 1 16 0.03 0.10 

317000301 Maynor Creek - Big Creek 145.51 93,126 23.6936720 89.1 10.1 94.7 2 2 0.67 0.01 

317000302 Mason Creek - Big Creek 187.34 119,896 18.1292958 93.2 6.6 97.4 5 0.21 0.03 

317000303 Byrd Creek - Chickasawhay River 134.82 86,285 7.4108859 91.7 7.2 94.4 1 2 0.07 0.01 

317000304 Green Creek - Chickasawhay River 194.04 124,184 0.0202079 92.0 6.9 91.4 2 1 2 12 0.02 0.06 

317000401 Ichusa Creek - Leaf River 210.48 134,708 25.8729840 84.4 15.5 87.4 5 1 11 1.09 0.05 

317000402 Quarterliah Creek - West Tallaha 169.74 108,632 30.0858922 83.9 16.1 88.3 1 2 2 0.65 0.01 

317000403 Hatchapaloo Creek - Oakohay Cree 246.20 157,568 14.8022501 77.0 22.6 85.9 1 2 2 8 0.37 0.03 

317000501 Terrapin Creek - Tallahoma Creek 214.16 137,065 0.0000015 73.6 26.5 83.0 4 2 1 3 19 0.00 0.09 

317000503 Heidelberg - Bogue Homo 278.27 178,091 5.7757628 81.0 18.8 90.5 4 3 1 7 25 0.03 0.09 

317000504 Tiger Creek - Bogue Homo 142.99 91,515 28.1132869 89.2 10.5 92.6 1 1 7 0.39 0.05 

317000505 Little Thompson Creek - Thompson 226.80 145,153 30.0838501 88.3 10.8 94.3 1 1 10 0.50 0.04 

317000507 Piney Woods Creek - Gaines Creek 142.41 91,142 23.6066192 90.2 9.4 96.4 3 0.28 0.02 

317000508 Beaumont - Leaf River 241.53 154,581 17.9745679 78.6 22.2 82.8 24 6 12 22 23 0.32 0.10 

317000509 Leaf River - Atkinson Creek 152.13 97,366 11.5422400 94.0 5.7 97.4 1 3 0.20 0.02 

317000601 Big Cedar Creek - Pascagoula Riv 315.00 201,599 14.7029714 80.1 19.0 92.1 1 2 2 13 0.08 0.04 
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forest in Mississippi E-5

5th Level Watershed 

Number

5th Level Watershed Name

Square Miles 

Acres 

% National Forest 

% Forested Land use 

% Agriculture And Urban 

% Riparian Area Forested 

Rcris

Pcs

Mines

Ifd

Dams

Point Per Sq Mile 

Dams Per Sq Mile 

percent number #/sq mi

317000602 Bluff Creek - Moungers Creek 134.36 85,991 5.7646570 90.1 8.4 89.7 1 4 0.09 0.03 

317000701 Little Black Creek - Black Creek 339.63 217,366 1.9117714 72.3 27.7 88.4 1 4 1 8 31 0.03 0.09 

317000702 Beaverdam Creek - Black Creek 223.41 142,981 54.4581315 89.8 10.2 95.5 9 1 7 1.07 0.03 

317000703 Flint Creek - Red Creek 305.61 195,591 9.8745269 76.8 23.0 89.5 8 2 4 10 26 0.20 0.09 

317000704 Bluff Creek - Red Creek 184.97 118,378 30.9576686 90.2 9.5 94.6 1 9 0.44 0.05 

317000705 Hickory Creek - Black Creek 213.04 136,346 50.8409772 94.3 5.1 95.0 2 1 0.94 0.00 

317000807 Black Creek - Escatawpa River 240.43 153,873 0.0261794 69.1 29.5 82.5 1 2 0.00 -

317000902 Crane Creek - Wolf River 159.91 102,340 0.0828552 73.3 24.7 81.5 3 1 9 0.01 0.06 

317000905 Little Biloxi River - Biloxi Riv 270.26 172,964 15.3811346 85.8 13.8 93.3 3 3 7 6 26 0.14 0.10 

317000906 Tuxachanie Creek - Tchoutacabouf 243.39 155,768 47.2183369 90.1 9.0 93.3 3 2 4 1 0.24 0.00 

318000103 Tallahaga Creek 127.91 81,860 0.1564614 69.8 30.8 78.2 2 5 3 9 13 0.05 0.10 

318000107 Sipsey Creek - Tuscolameta Creek 318.60 203,901 2.8533655 71.6 28.4 79.3 3 3 5 24 0.07 0.08 

318000108 Shockaloo Creek - Tuscolameta Cr 249.24 159,517 13.5913156 72.1 27.8 80.7 4 1 27 0.16 0.11 

318000109 Tibby Creek - Yockanookany River 286.91 183,623 0.0488731 85.4 14.6 83.8 2 1 4 5 11 0.04 0.04 

318000201 Coffee Bogue - Pearl River 348.52 223,052 9.9839324 73.4 26.7 83.2 1 2 6 0.07 0.02 

318000202 Pelahatchie Creek 237.32 151,883 0.6660393 72.1 28.6 78.5 5 6 4 6 14 0.01 0.06 

318000205 Raspberry Creek - Strong River 317.14 202,967 19.1493078 76.8 23.1 84.4 1 2 1 11 0.49 0.03 

801020706 Hurricane Creek - Muddy Creek 118.67 75,948 5.5852600 61.5 38.3 57.4 1 3 19 4 20 0.26 0.17 

801020801 Porters Creek - Hatchie River 60.32 38,605 1.5336539 75.6 24.4 65.4 2 1 1 20 0.07 0.33 

801021001 Indian Creek - Wolf River 216.92 138,830 8.8666459 67.3 32.6 79.4 2 1 17 3 29 0.42 0.13 

803020102 Cane Creek - Mud Creek 87.40 55,934 1.8084615 44.5 55.1 43.0 47 3 0.17 0.03 

803020103 Cypress Creek - Little Tallahatc 455.04 291,226 12.4659084 64.4 35.7 56.5 12 5 97 10 60 0.53 0.13 
Appendix E – Watershed Analysis

E-6 National Forests in Mississippi 5th Level Watershed Number 5th Level Watershed Name

Square Miles 

Acres 

% National Forest 

% Forested Land use 

% Agriculture And Urban 

% Riparian Area Forested 

Rcris

Pcs

Mines

Ifd

Dams

Point Per Sq Mile 

Dams Per Sq Mile 

percent number #/sq mi

803020104 Shelby Creek - Tippah River 153.72 98,383 17.0458393 70.7 29.5 58.3 3 1 50 4 26 0.75 0.17 

803020105 Snow Creek - Tippah River 221.95 142,047 33.0759576 78.2 21.8 75.1 2 69 4 38 1.32 0.17 

803020106 Sardis Lake - Little Tallahatchi 450.30 288,191 2.3811215 74.1 25.2 70.8 2 2 11 1 51 0.13 0.11 

803020203 Tillatoba Creek - Panola Quitman 222.15 142,174 3.5667312 50.5 49.7 49.1 1 2 32 0.16 0.14 

803020301 Burney Branch - Yocona River 272.72 174,539 5.6012545 72.0 28.1 67.6 6 4 73 5 32 0.26 0.12 

803020303 Bynum Creek - Yocona River 220.61 141,193 1.6735268 67.4 31.4 61.0 7 0.05 0.03 

803020401 Lee Creek - Coldwater River 176.06 112,677 0.5145512 52.1 48.2 60.7 2 4 2 6 0.01 0.03 

803020504 Persimmon Creek - Skuna River 382.39 244,730 5.3808627 70.3 29.4 63.1 2 1 2 1 43 0.19 0.11 

803020506 Cane Creek - Yalobusha River 192.89 123,451 0.2650476 63.4 36.9 65.2 1 5 2 6 11 0.03 0.06 

803020716 Silver Creek - Big Sunflower Riv 263.88 168,881 11.6592008 28.1 72.0 48.6 1 6 0.07 0.02 

803020718 Big Sunflower River - Little Sun 224.63 143,765 27.5069312 53.6 46.2 62.6 1 3 0.12 0.01 

803020800 Collins Creek - Yazoo River 196.86 125,990 1.3044888 63.7 36.6 66.3 5 3 1 6 2 0.02 0.01 

806020301 Foster Creek - Bayou Pierre 377.51 241,605 0.3319052 78.6 21.5 81.4 11 5 5 3 13 0.02 0.03 

806020305 Willis Creek - Little Bayou Pier 302.17 193,389 2.4048973 75.0 25.0 81.8 2 5 16 0.09 0.05 

806020501 McCall Creek - Homochitto River 429.06 274,600 19.4966603 83.6 16.1 81.7 2 1 3 12 0.65 0.03 

806020502 Middle Fork Homochitto River - H 386.31 247,241 35.1902295 90.2 9.0 85.6 2 2 5 0.53 0.01 

806020503 Wells Creek - Homochitto River 407.63 260,884 17.1360895 81.2 18.3 82.5 3 4 2 27 0.17 0.07 

806020601 Upper Buffalo River 142.07 90,923 0.8929649 89.3 10.4 90.3 1 2 0.04 0.01 

806020602 Middle Buffalo River 104.59 66,935 0.4416352 92.6 7.1 89.9 2 2 0.02 0.02 

807020201 West Fork Amite River 189.40 121,216 0.1606239 72.1 28.0 76.9 4 1 7 0.05 0.04 

807020203 Woodland Creek - Beaver Creek 104.58 66,933 0.0085504 72.8 27.4 79.2 3 3 4 0.04 0.04 
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forest in Mississippi E-7

Table E 3. Watershed breakdown – roads, crossings, and watershed condition ranking 5th Level Watershed Number 5th Level Watershed Name Riparian Road Density Stream Crossing Density Watershed Level Road Density % US Forest Service % Forested % Ag Urban % Rip Forest Lu # Pt Source Sq Mi

# Dams Sq Mi

Riparian Rd Density

# Rd Crossing Density

Ws Road Density

Overall Watershed Condition

Risk levels for sediment (low, 

moderate, high)

Rank for Point Source Pollutants

Rank for Riparian Health

Rank for Hydrologic Modification

rank (1-5 with 1 being the worst) rank (1-5)

Watershed condition 

316010203 Tallabinnela Creek 1.09 1.57 2.31 1 1 1 1 5 4 1 1 2 2.00 High 5 1 2.00 

316010401 Upper Chuquatonchee Creek 0.76 1.10 1.70 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 2.13 High 2 2 2.67 

316010402 Cane Creek - Houlka Creek 0.91 1.62 2.06 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 1 3 2.38 Moderate 3 2 2.33 

316010801 Sand Creek - Noxubee River 0.61 0.95 1.81 4 4 4 3 1 2 4 3 4 3.13 Low 1 3.5 3.00 

316010803 Yellow Creek - Noxubee River 0.59 0.95 1.56 1 3 3 2 5 2 4 3 4 3.25 Moderate 5 3 3.00 

317000301 Maynor Creek - Big Creek 0.49 0.74 2.17 4 5 5 5 2 5 4 4 2 4.00 Moderate 2 4.5 4.33 

317000302 Mason Creek - Big Creek 0.53 0.75 2.17 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 2 4.13 Moderate 4 4.5 4.00 

317000303 Byrd Creek - Chickasawhay River 0.59 0.97 2.28 2 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 2 4.25 Moderate 5 4.5 4.00 

317000304 Green Creek - Chickasawhay River 0.66 0.82 2.28 1 5 5 5 5 3 3 4 2 4.00 Moderate 5 4 3.33 

317000401 Ichusa Creek - Leaf River 0.73 1.07 1.78 4 4 4 4 1 3 3 3 4 3.25 Low 1 3.5 3.00 

317000402 Quarterliah Creek - West Tallaha 0.56 0.88 1.40 4 4 4 4 2 5 4 4 5 4.00 Moderate 2 4 4.33 

317000403 Hatchapaloo Creek - Oakohay Cree 0.77 1.15 2.11 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 3.25 Moderate 3 3.5 3.00 

317000501 Terrapin Creek - Tallahoma Creek 1.09 1.60 2.66 1 3 3 3 5 2 1 1 1 2.38 High 5 2 1.33 

317000503 Heidelberg - Bogue Homo 0.86 1.29 2.63 2 4 4 4 5 2 2 2 1 3.00 High 5 3 2.00 

317000504 Tiger Creek - Bogue Homo 0.70 0.91 1.83 4 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 4 3.88 Moderate 3 4 3.00 

317000505 Little Thompson Creek - Thompson 0.52 0.82 1.81 4 5 5 5 3 3 4 4 4 4.13 High 3 4.5 3.67 

317000507 Piney Woods Creek - Gaines Creek 0.55 0.96 2.19 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 3 2 4.13 Moderate 4 4.5 4.00 

317000508 Beaumont - Leaf River 1.41 2.21 3.42 3 4 3 3 4 2 1 1 1 2.38 High 4 2 1.33 
Appendix E – Watershed Analysis

E-8 National Forests in Mississippi 5th Level Watershed Number 5th Level Watershed Name

Riparian Road Density

Stream Crossing Density

Watershed Level Road Density

% US Forest Service

% Forested

% Ag Urban

% Rip Forest Lu

# Pt Source Sq Mi

# Dams Sq Mi

Riparian Rd Density

# Rd Crossing Density

Ws Road Density

Overall Watershed Condition

Risk levels for sediment (low, 

moderate, high)

Rank for Point Source Pollutants

Rank for Riparian Health

Rank for Hydrologic Modification

rank (1-5 with 1 being the worst) rank (1-5)

Watershed condition 

317000509 Leaf River - Atkinson Creek 0.47 0.76 2.20 2 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 2 4.25 Moderate 4 4.5 4.33 

317000601 Big Cedar Creek - Pascagoula Riv 0.63 0.93 2.22 3 4 4 5 5 4 4 3 2 3.88 Moderate 5 4.5 3.67 

317000602 Bluff Creek - Moungers Creek 0.72 1.12 2.61 2 5 5 4 5 4 3 3 1 3.75 High 5 3.5 3.33 

317000701 Little Black Creek - Black Creek 0.75 1.01 2.58 1 3 3 4 5 2 3 3 1 3.00 High 5 3.5 2.67 

317000702 Beaverdam Creek - Black Creek 0.66 0.80 2.23 5 5 5 5 1 4 3 4 2 3.63 High 1 4 3.67 

317000703 Flint Creek - Red Creek 0.70 1.07 2.47 2 3 3 4 4 2 3 3 2 3.00 High 4 3.5 2.67 

317000704 Bluff Creek - Red Creek 0.56 0.87 2.18 4 5 5 5 3 3 4 4 2 3.88 Moderate 3 4.5 3.67 

317000705 Hickory Creek - Black Creek 0.25 0.45 1.53 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 5 4.63 Low 2 5 5.00 

317000807 Black Creek - Escatawpa River 1.28 1.45 2.46 1 3 3 3 5 5 1 1 2 2.88 Moderate 5 2 2.33 

317000902 Crane Creek - Wolf River 0.71 1.01 2.50 1 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 2 3.13 Moderate 5 3 3.00 

317000905 Little Biloxi River - Biloxi Riv 0.83 1.26 2.65 3 4 4 5 4 2 2 2 1 3.00 Moderate 4 3.5 2.00 

317000906 Tuxachanie Creek - Tchoutacabouf 0.73 0.94 2.60 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 3 1 3.88 Moderate 4 4 3.67 

318000103 Tallahaga Creek 0.79 1.22 2.26 1 3 3 3 5 2 3 2 2 2.88 High 5 3 2.33 

318000107 Sipsey Creek - Tuscolameta Creek 0.82 1.12 2.13 1 3 3 3 5 2 2 3 3 3.00 High 5 2.5 2.33 

318000108 Shockaloo Creek - Tuscolameta Cr 0.74 1.06 2.01 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 3 3 3.00 High 4 3 2.67 

318000109 Tibby Creek - Yockanookany River 0.81 1.18 2.02 1 4 4 3 5 4 2 2 3 3.38 Moderate 5 2.5 2.67 

318000201 Coffee Bogue - Pearl River 0.87 1.01 1.85 2 3 3 3 5 5 2 3 4 3.50 High 5 2.5 3.33 

318000202 Pelahatchie Creek 0.87 1.34 2.39 1 3 3 3 5 3 2 2 2 2.88 High 5 2.5 2.33 

318000205 Raspberry Creek - Strong River 0.74 1.08 1.95 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3.25 High 3 3.5 3.33 
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forest in Mississippi E-9

5th Level Watershed Number

5th Level Watershed Name

Riparian Road Density

Stream Crossing Density

Watershed Level Road Density

% US Forest Service

% Forested

% Ag Urban

% Rip Forest Lu

# Pt Source Sq Mi

# Dams Sq Mi

Riparian Rd Density

# Rd Crossing Density

Ws Road Density

Overall Watershed Condition

Risk levels for sediment (low, 

moderate, high)

Rank for Point Source Pollutants

Rank for Riparian Health

Rank for Hydrologic Modification

rank (1-5 with 1 being the worst) rank (1-5)

Watershed condition 

801020706 Hurricane Creek - Muddy Creek 0.90 1.38 2.14 2 2 2 2 4 1 2 2 3 2.25 Moderate 4 2 1.67 

801020801 Porters Creek - Hatchie River 0.42 0.88 2.00 1 3 3 2 5 1 4 4 3 3.13 Low 5 3 3.00 

801021001 Indian Creek - Wolf River 0.72 0.94 2.07 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2.75 Moderate 3 3 2.67 

803020102 Cane Creek - Mud Creek 0.72 1.32 1.81 1 2 1 1 4 4 3 2 4 2.63 High 4 2 3.00 

803020103 Cypress Creek - Little Tallahatc 0.72 1.05 1.93 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2.63 Moderate 3 2.5 2.67 

803020104 Shelby Creek - Tippah River 0.85 1.13 2.42 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 2.25 Low 2 2 2.00 

803020105 Snow Creek - Tippah River 0.59 0.64 1.91 4 4 4 3 1 1 4 4 3 3.00 Low 1 3.5 3.00 

803020106 Sardis Lake - Little Tallahatchi 0.54 0.68 1.73 1 3 3 2 4 2 4 4 4 3.25 Moderate 4 3 3.33 

803020203 Tillatoba Creek - Panola Quitman 0.89 1.59 2.10 1 2 1 2 4 1 2 1 3 2.00 Moderate 4 2 1.33 

803020301 Burney Branch - Yocona River 0.82 1.19 1.94 2 3 3 2 4 2 2 2 3 2.63 Low 4 2 2.00 

803020303 Bynum Creek - Yocona River 0.99 1.85 1.79 1 3 3 2 5 4 1 1 4 2.88 Low 5 1.5 2.00 

803020401 Lee Creek - Coldwater River 0.95 1.19 2.09 1 2 2 2 5 4 1 2 3 2.63 High 5 1.5 2.33 

803020504 Persimmon Creek - Skuna River 0.78 1.21 1.75 2 3 3 2 4 2 3 2 4 2.88 Low 4 2.5 2.33 

803020506 Cane Creek - Yalobusha River 0.68 1.05 2.26 1 2 2 2 5 3 3 3 2 2.75 Moderate 5 2.5 3.00 

803020716 Silver Creek - Big Sunflower Riv 1.16 0.94 2.01 3 1 1 1 5 5 1 3 3 2.50 High 5 1 3.00 

803020718 Big Sunflower River - Little Sun 0.31 0.49 0.96 4 2 2 2 4 5 5 5 5 3.75 High 4 3.5 5.00 

803020800 Collins Creek - Yazoo River 0.85 0.76 1.75 1 2 2 2 5 5 2 4 4 3.25 Low 5 2 3.67 

806020301 Foster Creek - Bayou Pierre 0.61 0.93 1.80 1 4 4 3 5 4 4 3 4 3.88 Moderate 5 3.5 3.67 

806020305 Willis Creek - Little Bayou Pier 0.49 0.79 1.68 1 3 3 3 5 3 4 4 4 3.63 Moderate 5 3.5 3.67 
Appendix E – Watershed Analysis

E-10 National Forests in Mississippi 5th Level Watershed Number 5th Level Watershed Name

Riparian Road Density

Stream Crossing Density

Watershed Level Road Density

% US Forest Service

% Forested

% Ag Urban

% Rip Forest Lu

# Pt Source Sq Mi

# Dams Sq Mi

Riparian Rd Density

# Rd Crossing Density

Ws Road Density

Overall Watershed Condition

Risk levels for sediment (low, 

moderate, high)

Rank for Point Source Pollutants

Rank for Riparian Health

Rank for Hydrologic Modification

rank (1-5 with 1 being the worst) rank (1-5)

Watershed condition 

806020501 McCall Creek - Homochitto River 0.55 0.77 1.80 3 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 3.63 Low 2 3.5 4.00 

806020502 Middle Fork Homochitto River - H 0.68 0.63 1.73 5 5 5 4 3 5 3 5 4 4.25 Low 3 3.5 4.33 

806020503 Wells Creek - Homochitto River 0.50 0.71 1.71 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3.75 Low 4 3.5 3.67 

806020601 Upper Buffalo River 0.38 0.43 1.41 1 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4.88 Low 5 4.5 5.00 

806020602 Middle Buffalo River 0.49 0.69 1.52 1 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 5 4.63 Low 5 4 4.33 

807020201 West Fork Amite River 0.69 0.97 1.92 1 3 3 3 5 4 3 3 3 3.38 High 5 3 3.33 

807020203 Woodland Creek - Beaver Creek 0.63 0.79 1.73 1 3 3 3 5 4 3 4 4 3.63 High 5 3 3.67 
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forest in Mississippi E-11

Aquatic Sustainability Determinations

Species of concern were related to the four environmental factors assessed in watershed analysis (point 

sources, riparian habitat, flow, and sediment). Sustainability for each PET-LR was determined for each 

watershed where a species occurs, because in many cases watersheds support separate populations, and 

factors affecting sustainability can vary considerably from watershed to watershed. Sustainability 

determinations incorporate elements of species distribution, abundance, and sensitivities to environmental 

factors; watershed condition relative to the species’ environmental sensitivities; and the national forest 

role in the watershed. Sustainability determinations are:

Outcome 1. Species occurs within the watershed with no impairment. Likelihood of maintaining 

sustainability is high.

Outcome 2. Species sustainability is potentially at risk in the watershed; however, the extent and 

location of NFS lands with respect to the species is conducive to positively influence the 

sustainability of the species within this watershed. Therefore, likelihood of maintaining 

sustainability is moderate.

Outcome 3. Species sustainability is potentially at risk within the watershed; however, the extent 

and location of NFS lands with respect to the species is NOT conducive to positively influence the 

sustainability of the species within this watershed. Likelihood of maintaining sustainability is low.

Outcome 4. The species is so rare within the watershed (population is at very low density and/or 

at only a few local sites) that stochastic events (accidents, weather events, etc.) may place 

persistence of the species within the watershed at risk. The extent and location of NFS lands with 

respect to the species is conducive to positively influence the sustainability of the species within 

this watershed. Therefore, likelihood of maintaining sustainability is moderate to low.

Outcome 5. The species is so rare within the watershed (population is at very low density and/or 

at only a few local sites) that stochastic events (accidents, weather events, etc.) may place 

persistence of the species within the watershed at risk. The extent and location of NFS lands with 

respect to the species is NOT conducive to positively influence the sustainability of the species 

within this watershed. Therefore, likelihood of maintaining sustainability is low.

E.2 Sediment Yields

In earlier planning efforts forests were directed to calculate sediment and water yield increases over time.

This served as a surrogate of existing condition and provided a quantification of potential effects of forest 

actions. However, watershed condition was described in general physical terms, not in terms of health or 

vulnerability to management actions. With the current level of planning, available data layers, and GIS 

information there is an opportunity to specifically evaluate watershed condition and estimate the effects of 

management activities based on a number of watershed parameters. Sediment yield or an index of 

disturbance would still be used but the result would be directly related to overall watershed condition or 

health rather than just erosion potential. The following is a description of the process used to address 

Section (d) of the aquatic resources under 36 CFR, 219.23 planning rule (1982) and the associated 

cumulative effects for water quality and associated beneficial uses.

The purpose of this process is to estimate sediment yields and analyze the cumulative effects of proposed 

management actions on water quality. The process provides an objective process to systematically 

evaluate water quality conditions for watersheds covered in whole or part by forest plans. The process 

also provides results that can aid in aquatic sustainability analysis at the community scale.
Appendix E – Watershed Analysis

E-12 National Forests in Mississippi

The process builds upon the East-Wide Watershed Assessment Process, and provides for modifications 

based on local information. Interpretation of analysis results strives to describe objectives rather than 

“constraints” and provides the forests an opportunity to identify and focus on watersheds where there are 

“significant” opportunities to improve condition.

E.2.1 Cumulative Effects

“A cumulative effect is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what 

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result 

from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 

1508.7).

Sediment is an appropriate measure to determine the effects of management activities on water quality 

and its associated beneficial uses on forested lands (Coats and Miller, 1981). Sediment increases can 

adversely affect fish productivity and diversity (Alexander and Hansen, 1986), degrade drinking water 

and affect recreational values. There may be other cumulative impacts such as increases in water yield as 

a result of harvesting methods. However, water yield models do not characterize the impacts of all 

management activities such as road construction and the increase in water yield is generally less than the 

natural variability. Changes in water nutrients or nutrient fluxes within streams as a result of management 

activities are minor and not an appropriate consideration of cumulative effects at the forest plan level.

This model uses predicted sediment yields as the surrogate for determining cumulative impacts for water 

quality.

Changes in land use and disturbance are modeled with respect to estimated increases in sediment and 

predicted impacts are summarized. The significance of predicted impacts are related to criteria designed 

to determine levels of watershed health (WCR) as described in a following section of this paper.

E.2.2 Bounding the Effects Analysis

A valid cumulative effects analysis must be bounded in space and time. For the purposes of forest 

planning, 5th level watersheds are the appropriate spatial bounds for cumulative effects. The 

implementation period for a forest plan is 5 to 15 years, however the appropriate time period captured for 

the sediment model is for 5 decades (50 years).

E.2.3 Modeling Sediment Yield

A detailed description of data sources and steps can be found in Data Sources and Manipulation.

Following is a summary of the process:

• Using the National Land use Classification Data (NLCD), Digital Elevation Models (DEM), and 

Ecoregions data layers, a determination of combinations of land use, slope class, and physiographic 

zone were made for 30-meter grids. These values were tabulated for each watershed including nonForest Service lands. Results were used to identify estimated erosion values for entire watersheds.

• Tiger Census Roads data, and Ecoregions were used to determine road surface type, physiographic 

zone and length. This information was used to estimate sediment values for each watershed.

• Using a combination of values from Forest Service prescriptions, slope class, and physiographic 

zones, these values were tabulated for each watershed 

• Forest Service personnel provided values for the following categories;

○ The number of acres of prescribed fire planned by period (By ecoregion),

○ Miles of dozer fireline per acre burned,
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forest in Mississippi E-13

○ Miles of temporary and permanent road constructed per acre regenerated,

○ Urban growth,

○ The rotation period on other forested lands, and 

○ Other changes in land use activities or disturbances that individual forests felt were 

important such as oil and gas exploration, pasture conversion or strip mining.

• Coefficients for erosion were taken from the average and high erosion rates found in Dissmeyer and 

Stump (1978) for the appropriate physiographic zone. Recovery rates were determined from studies 

on the Ouachita National Forest. These recovery rates were determined through research and field 

observations.

• Erosion values (from land use activities) were multiplied by a sediment delivery coefficient based on 

watershed size determined from Roehl (1962). Sediment values from roads are part of the WEPP 

calculation. WEPP assumes that sediment values are delivered to the nearest channel. This model 

sums the total number of sediment tons from roads and calculates sediment from erosion delivered to 

the mouth of the watershed.

• Road (by surface type), and fireline sediment values were determined from field surveys using the 

WEPP model to determine sediment values. These values were converted to coefficients by 

physiographic zone and multiplied by the number of miles of road (by surface type), or fireline.

• All values were summarized in a spreadsheet by watershed for the baseline sediment yield and current 

sediment yield (Forest Service and private). 

• The values from the Draft Timber Resource Program Suitability and Sustainability Analysis (USDA 

NF in Mississippi 2007) (total number of acres per planning period by physiographic zone, early 

succession class and slope class) are placed in the sediment spreadsheet for each period.

• Lastly the spreadsheet summarizes predicted management activities by watershed, and planning

period. 

This allows for a discussion of past, present and future activities for public and private lands by watershed 

for a time period of 50 years.

E.2.4 Data Interpretation

The summary worksheet of the sediment model calculates the baseline, current, and predicted sediment 

values for each watershed and period. To determine the potential cumulative effects of water quality and 

associated beneficial uses these sediment values are expressed as a percent increase over the baseline. The 

baseline assumes an undisturbed forest floor with no roads.

Watershed Condition Rank (WCR)

Watershed Condition Rank is a measure that characterizes the condition of 5th level watersheds with 

respect to current and future sediment load increases. In order to establish WCRs, the current sediment 

average annual yield is determined and expressed as a percent above the baseline conditions. This 

provides a relative measure to determine changes within watersheds. The next step in this process is 

determined by using fish community structure with respect to predicted sediment increases to create a fish 

assemblage – sediment profile. A discussion of this process is found in the Fish Assemblage – Sediment 

Profile section. This score is modified by a weighted average where the watershed occurs in more than 

one physiographic zone. Watershed condition is expressed in three categories of risk: high, medium and 

low. This does not necessarily translate into an excellent or poor watershed but categorizes the watersheds 

based on the sediment prediction/aquatic sustainability relationship. 
Appendix E – Watershed Analysis

E-14 National Forests in Mississippi

From the WCR a series of determinations can be made that determine or assign additional Forest 

Objectives. The following section details the outcome of the WCR with respect to adverse effects on 

aquatic biota as they are related to forest management:

Where a watershed risk level is low, the probability (or potential) is low for adverse effects to 

aquatic species. If the results of forest actions remain within this range there should be no adverse 

effect on water quality with respect to beneficial uses (fish communities). Forest Service 

objectives would be to maintain or improve aquatic health through the implementation of 

standards.

Where a watershed risk level is moderate, the potential to adversely affect beneficial uses is 

moderate. Additional forest objectives would be considered. Examples of these additional 

objectives would be conducting watershed assessments during project planning to identify the 

source of the problem, and monitoring prior to project implementation to establish actual health 

of the biota.

Where a watershed risk level is high, the potential to adversely affect beneficial uses is high. In 

addition to objectives listed above, Forest objectives at the project level would seek to maintain or 

restore watershed health and aquatic systems. An example would be to design project level 

activities to have no net increase in sediment yields.

The results of the WCR and other information can also be used to develop partnerships with other 

landholders or managers to improve overall watershed condition and improve aquatic health. This is one 

advantage of analyzing entire watersheds. Not only can Forest Service activities and contributing effects 

be isolated but other watershed effects can be identified as well.

Assumptions, uncertainties and limitations 

Many assumptions are made throughout the sediment model and the WCR. Every effort has been made to 

describe those assumptions and minimize misrepresentation. With that in mind the application of the 

sediment model and associated WCR should not be taken as absolutes but as a method that can describe 

the effects from the range of actions and suggest where a greater risk with respect to water quality and 

aquatic biota exists. This process is developed for the forest plan level.

E.2.5 Data Sources and Manipulation

Data calculations and summary were derived from numerous sources. The following discussion identifies 

ArcView data layers, the source of those data layers and how they were manipulated or queried. The first 

step in any data manipulation is to place the data in a common projection. The projection chosen was 

State Plane Eastern Mississippi, NAD 27, feet.

Layers requested from the Forests include:

Watersheds: Data were place in a common projection. Shared watersheds were assigned a 

common number when there were number conflicts.

Sustainability: The prescriptions from each suitable area were converted to a 30-meter grid. 

Non-forest Service ownerships were deleted. 
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forest in Mississippi E-15

From the Tiger Census (2000):

Roads: Based on the CFCC data attribute road segments were assigned a road surface value of 

paved highway, paved local, gravel or native. These data were then intersected by watershed and 

ecoregion. Miles were calculated and summed by watershed, and ecoregion.

Land use and land cover factors were from:

NLCD (EPA): This information is in a 30-meter grid. The data were reclassified using the 

following classification.

Table E 4. Land Use and land cover data classification

Value MRLC classification Reclass Mix

11 Open Water 1 Water

13 Perennial Ice/Snow 1 Water

21 Low Intensity Residential 2 Residential

22 High Intensity Residential 2 Residential

23 Commercial/Industrial/Transportation 2 Residential

31 Bare Rock/Sand/Clay 3 Quarry

32 Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits 3 Quarry

33 Transitional 4 Forest

41 Deciduous Forest 4 Forest

42 Evergreen Forest 4 Forest

43 Mixed Forest 4 Forest

51 Shrubland 5 Pasture

61 Orchards/Vineyards/Other 6 Cultivated

71 Grasslands/Herbaceous 5 Pasture

81 Pasture/Hay 5 Pasture

82 Row Crops 6 Cultivated

83 Small Grains 6 Cultivated

84 Fallow 6 Cultivated

86 Urban/Recreational Grasses 5 Pasture 

91 Woody Wetlands 4 Forest

92 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 9 Wetlands

Digital Elevation Models provided:

Slope: Using Spatial Analysis Model Builder, discrete slope classes were identified based on 

percent slope. These values were then reclassified for individual forest assumptions. Slopes less 

than 20 percent were assigned a value of 0 and slopes greater than 20 percent were assigned a 

value of 1000.

From the EPA Basins data:

Ecoregions (Bailey): Physiographic zones were assigned a value of 100 – 400 (in increments 

of 100) and converted to a grid (30 meters).
Appendix E – Watershed Analysis

E-16 National Forests in Mississippi

Table E 5. Physiographic zone data values

Ecoregion Value

Middle Coastal Plains 100

Lower Coastal Plains 200

Florida Coastal 

Lowlands 300

Mississippi Alluvial 

Basin 400

From these data sets the following queries were made for the sediment model:

Rd Inputs (Roads): – this is the sum the miles of roads (by surface type) for each watershed and 

ecoregion.

Lu Inputs (Land use): – this is the total number of grids summarized by ecoregion/land 

use/slope for each watershed.

Lu PVT Inputs (Private Land use): – this is the total number of grids from nonforest service 

lands (private) summarized by ecoregion/slope/slope for each watershed.

Tx Alt (A): – this is the combination of ecoregion/management prescription/slope for each 

watershed. This number is duplicated by the number of silviculture treatment options (usually 4). 

In addition treatments not found in the spectrum model are included such as prescribed fire and 

site preparation on national forest lands and silviculture and urban growth on private lands.

These data queries were placed in the sediment model.

E.2.6 Sediment Coefficients for Roads

The WEPP model for roads was used to develop the coefficients. This model was developed by the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center. Documentation of the 

WEPP:Road model is on the internet website http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/. 

Process

Forests or Ranger Districts identified roads that were representative of the roads on their respective units. 

Roads selected contained at least one stream crossing. All roads identified were graveled.

When possible an on-site survey was conducted to determine inputs for the WEPP:Road model. Road 

were divided into segments based on water diversions. Functioning waterbars, broadbased dips, wing 

ditches, and culverts were considered to be water diversions. If no water diversion was present and the 

water had created its own diversion, this also marked a segment break. Additionally, a crest in the road, 

where water ran off in two different directions, was considered a segment break.

Distances for road segment lengths, road widths, road fillslope lengths, and buffer lengths were paced off 

or visually estimated for each road segment. Road gradients, fillslope gradients, and buffer gradients were 

measured with a clinometer for each road segment to determine an average slope gradient. In areas where 

roads or trails occurred in the buffer below the road segment being inventoried, the buffer length and 

slope were calculated as if the road or trail in the buffer did not exist.
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forest in Mississippi E-17

Measurements were then input into the WEPP:Road model on the interactive internet site 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/. Thirty years of simulation were used. This was based on the 

WEPP documentation that states "[f]or climates with more than 500 mm of precipitation, 30 years of 

simulation is generally adequate to obtain an estimate of erosion" (Elliot et. al, 1999). The WEPP:Road 

model was calculated for each ecoregion. Most ecoregions were divided into two or more subdivisions. 

The subdivisions were determined by the geographical range of each ecoregion and National Forest. 

For each ecoregion or ecoregion subdivision a sediment yield per mile of road was determined. Adding 

the amount of sediment from each road segment and then dividing by the total length of the road 

segments calculated this yield. This sediment yield, described in tons per mile, was used as the sediment 

coefficient in the cumulative effects model. 

Sediment yields were determined separately for native surfaced, graveled, and paved roads. The same 

data was used to determine sediment yields for each road surface. 

The same procedure used for roads was repeated with firelines and ATV trails. Only the native road 

surface was calculated for firelines and ATV trails.

The sediment coefficients for each ecoregion or ecoregion subdivision are shown in the attached data 

summary. 

Assumptions, uncertainties, and limitations

Some assumptions were made due to limitations of the WEPP:Road model. These assumptions are as 

follows:

Any road/trail/fireline gradient over 40 percent would yield the same results as a 40 percent 

gradient. WEPP:Road does not accept road gradients over 40 percent.

Any road/trail/fireline gradient of less than one percent would yield the same results as a 0.3 

percent gradient. WEPP:Road does not accept road gradients of less than 0.3 percent.

The absence of fillslopes would yield the same results as fillslopes with a 0.3 percent gradient and 

a one-foot length. WEPP:Road does not accept fillslope measurements with less than a 0.3 

percent gradient and one foot length.

Any buffer length greater than 1000 feet was estimated with a regression.

WEPP:Road does not accept road segment lengths greater than 1000 feet. Any distances above 

1000 feet were estimated with a regression.

Table E 6. Road sediment coefficients

Ecoregion Data Source

Sediment Coefficients

Native 

Road

Gravel 

Road

Paved 

Road

ATV 

Trail Fireline

tons of sediment per year per mile

Middle Coastal Plains Clingenpeel/Lee studies 5.6 23.5 26.5 10.0 10.0

Lower Coastal Plains

Clingenpeel/Curtis studies

5.5 7.0 5.7 7.1 7.1

Florida Coastal Lowlands 15.2 7.06 5.0 2.8 2.8

Mississippi Alluvial Basin Texas studies 15.2 5.0 5.0 2.8 2.8
Appendix E – Watershed Analysis

E-18 National Forests in Mississippi

E.3 Fish Assemblage – Sediment Profile

We examined the relationship between stream fish assemblage and the cumulative sediment load modeled 

from watershed land cover. Our objective was to determine the functional form of the relationship and 

developed indicators of aquatic health. These indicators of aquatic health were used for identifying and 

prioritizing watersheds where the Forest Service can make a positive contribution its health. Our goal was 

to provide conservation planning tools that can guide sustainable management of landscapes and 

proactively protect the integrity of aquatic resources.

Fish collections were used because of the widespread availability of data and occurrence in all watersheds 

and ecoregions. This data is a surrogate for other aquatic biota such as mussels, crayfishes and aquatic 

insects where data are not available.

E.3.1 Methods

Fish collections used in these analyses were obtained from universities and natural resource agencies. The 

watershed above each collection site was modeled (by physiographic province) for sediment yield using 

current land-use information and road network.

Middle Coastal Plains – Fish were collected from 190 sites between 1999 and 2003, by the Aquatic and 

Terrestrial Fauna Team, Center for Bottomland Hardwoods Research, Southern Research Station in 

Oxford, MS. (Melvin L. Warren, Jr., Susie Adams, Wendell Haag, J. Gordon McWhirter, and L. Gayle 

Henderson).

Lower Coastal Plains– Fish were collected from 167 sites between 1999 and 2003, by the Aquatic and 

Terrestrial Fauna Team, Center for Bottomland Hardwoods Research, Southern Research Station in 

Oxford, MS. (Melvin L. Warren, Jr., Susie Adams, Wendell Haag, J. Gordon McWhirter, and L. Gayle 

Henderson).

Florida Coastal Lowlands – Fish were collected from 3 sites between 1999 and 2003, by the Aquatic and 

Terrestrial Fauna Team, Center for Bottomland Hardwoods Research, Southern Research Station in 

Oxford, MS. (Melvin L. Warren, Jr., Susie Adams, Wendell Haag, J. Gordon McWhirter, and L. Gayle 

Henderson).

Mississippi Alluvial Basin - – Fish were collected from 6 sites in 1998. Data sources were the 

Arkansas/Robison fish database and USGS NAQWA database.

We assigned as many of the fish species from each region to several ecological groups according to 

Warren et al. 2001. We included endemic and tolerance assignments, trophic, habitat, and reproductive 

guild classifications.

Endemic fish taxa were identified from the list of fishes from each ecoregion in the planning area. Fishes 

were determined to be endemic if their ranges did not extend beyond three river drainages, based on 

information published in Warren et al. (2000).

The total number of individual fish, in each ecological classification (Appendix A), was summed for each 

collection. This number was divided by the total number of fish captured in the sample to estimate the 

relative abundance of fish representing each ecological attribute. 

We examined the bivariate relationships between sediment increases for each sample watershed and 

relative abundance of fishes collected for that site. We then examined sediment increase for each 

ecological attribute for a wedge-shaped pattern (Faust et al. 1984; Terrell et al. 1996). A wedge-shaped 
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forest in Mississippi E-19

pattern in the data suggests that sediment may limit the ability of stream systems to support a particular 

ecological attribute. That is, the upper bound of the relationship decreases sharply with increasing 

sediment. The variation in the data below this upper bound is consistent with the concept of limiting 

habitat factors: while other factors (abiotic and biotic) may reduce the carrying capacity for fishes below 

this bound (Terrell et al. 1996), sediment increases appear to limit the maximum abundance of some 

species near this boundary. 

The data from the wedge-shaped relationships were then broken into groups for each 500 percent increase 

in sediment. For each group, the values in the 99th percentile were used for the response variable. A 

boundary line analysis (Webb 1972) was used to regress the data to predict the maximum expected fish 

community response for a given increase in sediment. Using the y-intercept, relative abundance values 

were divided into quartiles and used to establish categories of risk. The upper quartile (the least disturbed) 

was considered a low risk. The next quartile was considered a moderate risk and the two bottom quartiles 

were considered the highest risk of an adverse biotic response to sediment increases. The low and 

moderate risk values for each indices for the Middle Coastal Plains and Lower Coastal Plains were 

averaged.

E.3.2 Results and Discussion

Wedge shaped patterns were observed for sediment increases and the following ecological attributes 

(Table E 7).

Table E 7. Ecoregions and ecological attributes

Guild Ecoregion sections

Middle Coastal Plains Lower Coastal Plains

Tolerance Endemica Yes Yes

Intolerance Yes Yes

Trophic

Invertivore-piscivoreb Yes

BHc Possible Yes

BIc Yes Yes

BVc Possible

IPd Yes Possible

PISd Yes Yes

Benthic Feeder Guildd Yes Yes

3 Trophic Food Typesd Yes

4 Trophic Food Typesd Yes

Habitat Benthic Habitat Yes Yes

Reproduction

CGb Yes Yes

ATb Yes

NAb Yes Yes

BBCe Yes

BCAe Possible Yes

OBCe Yes Yes

Veg Rep subd Yes Yes

a - from Warren et al, 2000.

b - modified from McCormic et a,l in press.

c - modified from Halliwell et al, 1998.

d - modified from Smogor and Angermeier, 1998.

e - modified from Simon, 1998

BH= benthic herbivores; BI= benthic insectivore; BV= benthic invertivores; IP+invertivore/piscivore; PIS=piscivore or parasitic; 

CG=clean gravel/sand; AT=egg-attacher; NA=nest associate; BBC= Brood hiders, buriers, clean sand/gravel; BCA= Brood hiders, 

crevice, attachers; OBC= open, benthic, clean sand/gravel; Veg. Rep. Sub=vegetation or organic debris reproductive substrate.

Nineteen fish community indices were tested for relationships to sediment increases for the Middle 

Coastal Plains and Lower Coastal Plains. The Middle Coastal Plains and Lower Coastal Plains, 
Appendix E – Watershed Analysis

E-20 National Forests in Mississippi

respectively had 16 and 12 indices that exhibited a wedge shaped relationship. Table E 8 shows the risk of 

aquatic species for sediment increases. The Florida Coastal Lowlands and Mississippi Alluvial Basin has 

insufficient sample points to determine wedge patterns. However there was sufficient range of data points 

in the Florida to establish quartile breaks. The risk levels for the Mississippi Alluvial Basin were taken 

from the Delta region in Arkansas.

Table E 8. Risk levels and sediment increase by ecoregions

Risk Level Ecoregion

Middle Coastal 

Plain

Lower Coastal 

Plain

Florida Coastal 

Lowlands

Mississippi 

Alluvial Basin

percent above baseline 

Low 0 to 2,090 0 to 1,253 0 to 7,613 0 to 4,173

Moderate 2,090 to 4,179 1,253 to 2,506 7,613 to 15,226 4,800 to 9,601

High > 4,179 > 2,506 > 15,226 > 9,601
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forest in Mississippi E-21

Table E 9. Ecological attributes of fishes collected

Tolerance Trophic Habitat Reproduction

Species

Common name

Endemica

Intolerance

Invertivoreb

Insectivore-piscivoreb

BHc

BIc

BVc

IPd

PISd

Benthic Feeder Guildd

3 Trophic Food Typesd4 Trophic Food Typesd

Benthic Habitat

CGb

ATb

NAb

BBCeBCAe

OBCe

Veg. Rep. subd

Ambloplites ariommus shadow bass N Y N Y N N N Y N Y N N N N N N N N N N

Ameiurus melas black bullhead N N N N N N N Y N N Y N Y N N N N N N N

Ameiurus natalis yellow 

bullhead N N N N N N N Y N N Y N Y N N N N N N N

Ameiurus nebulosus brown 

bullhead N * N N N N N Y N N Y N Y N N N N N N N

Amia calva bowfin N * N Y N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N Y

Ammocrypta beani naked sand 

darter N Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N Y N N N

Ammocrypta meridiana southern sand 

darter Y Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N Y N N N

Ammocrypta vivax scaly sand 

darter N Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N Y N N N

Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch N * Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

AplodiNtus grunniens freshwater 

drum N * Y N N N Y N N Y N N Y N N N N N N N

Carpiodes cyprinus quillback N * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Centrarchus macropterus flier N * Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Cyprinella camura bluntface 

shiner N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N Y N N

Cyprinella lutrensis red shiner N * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Cyprinella venusta blacktail shiner N * Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N Y N N

Cyprinus carpio common carp N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N N N N

Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Appendix E – Watershed Analysis

E-22 National Forests in Mississippi

Tolerance Trophic Habitat Reproduction

Species

Common name

Endemica

Intolerance

Invertivoreb

Insectivore-piscivoreb

BHc

BIc

BVc

IPd

PISd

Benthic Feeder Guildd

3 Trophic Food Typesd4 Trophic Food Typesd

Benthic Habitat

CGb

ATb

NAb

BBCeBCAe

OBCe

Veg. Rep. subd

Dorosoma petenense Threadfin 

shad N * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Elassoma zonatum banded pygmy 

sunfish N * Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y

Ericymba buccata silverjaw 

minnow

N N Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N N N N N

Erimyzon oblongus creek 

chubsucker N * Y N N N N N N Y Y N Y N N N N N Y N

Erimyzon succetta lake 

chubsucker N * Y N N N N N N Y Y N Y N N N N N N N

Erimyzon tenuis sharpfin 

chubsucker N * Y N N N N N N Y Y N Y N N N N N N N

Esox americanus grass pickerel N * N Y N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N Y

Esox niger Chain pickerel N * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Etheostoma artesiae redspot darter N * Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N Y N N N

Etheostoma caeruleum rainbow darter N * Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N Y N N N

Etheostoma chlorosomum bluntnose 

darter N N Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N Y N N N N N

Etheostoma fusiforme swamp darter N * Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N Y N N N N N

Etheostoma gracile slough darter N N Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N Y N N N N N

Etheostoma histrio harlequin 

darter N N Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N N N N N

Etheostoma lachneri Tombigbee 

Darter Y * Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N Y N N N N N

Etheostoma lynceum brighteye 

darter N Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N Y N N N N N
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forest in Mississippi E-23

Tolerance Trophic Habitat Reproduction

Species

Common name

Endemica

Intolerance

Invertivoreb

Insectivore-piscivoreb

BHc

BIc

BVc

IPd

PISd

Benthic Feeder Guildd

3 Trophic Food Typesd4 Trophic Food Typesd

Benthic Habitat

CGb

ATb

NAb

BBCeBCAe

OBCe

Veg. Rep. subd

Etheostoma nigrum johnny darter N * Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N N N N N

Etheostoma parvipinne goldstripe 

darter N Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N Y N N N N N

Etheostoma proeliare cypress darter N * Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N Y N N N N N

Etheostoma raneyi Yazoo darter Y Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N Y N N N N N

Etheostoma rupestre rock darter Y N Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N N N Y N

Etheostoma stigmaeum speckled 

darter N * Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N Y N N N

Etheostoma swaini gulf darter N * Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N Y N N N

Etheostoma zonistium bandfin darter Y * Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N Y N N N N N

Fundulus catenatus Northern 

studfish N * Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N

Fundulus cf. sp. euryzonus undescribed 

topminnow

Y * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Fundulus chrysotus golden 

topminnow

N * Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N

Fundulus Ntatus blackstripe 

topminnow

N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N

Fundulus Ntti

southern 

starhead 

topminnow

N * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Fundulus olivaceus blackspotted 

topminnow

N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N

Gambusia affinis mosquitofish N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Hybognathus hayi cypress 

minnow N * N N Y N N N N N Y N Y N N N N N N N
Appendix E – Watershed Analysis

E-24 National Forests in Mississippi

Tolerance Trophic Habitat Reproduction

Species

Common name

Endemica

Intolerance

Invertivoreb

Insectivore-piscivoreb

BHc

BIc

BVc

IPd

PISd

Benthic Feeder Guildd

3 Trophic Food Typesd4 Trophic Food Typesd

Benthic Habitat

CGb

ATb

NAb

BBCeBCAe

OBCe

Veg. Rep. subd

Hybognathus nuchalis Mississippi 

silvery minnow N * N N Y N N N N N Y N Y N N N N N N N

Hybopsis winchelli clear chub N Y Y N N N N N N Y N N N Y N N N N Y N

Hypentelium etowanum Alabama hog 

sucker N Y Y N N N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N N N Y N

Hypentelium nigricans Northern hog 

sucker N Y Y N N N N N N Y Y N Y Y N N N N Y N

Ictalurus punctatus channel 

catfish N N N N N N N Y N N Y N Y N N N N N N N

lamprey unidentified 

lamprey * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Labidesthes sicculus brook 

silverside N * Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Lepisosteus oculatus spotted gar N * N Y N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N Y

Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar N * N Y N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N

Lepomis cyanellus green sunfish N N N Y N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N

Lepomis 

cyanellusxmacrochirus

Lepomis 

hybrid N * * * * * * * * X X X * * * * * * * *

Lepomis gulosus warmouth N * N Y N N N Y N Y N N N N N N N N N N

Lepomis humilis orangespotted 

sunfish N * Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Lepomis macrochirus bluegill N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Lepomis marginatus dollar sunfish N * Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Lepomis megalotis longear 

sunfish N * Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish N * Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forest in Mississippi E-25

Tolerance Trophic Habitat Reproduction

Species

Common name

Endemica

Intolerance

Invertivoreb

Insectivore-piscivoreb

BHc

BIc

BVc

IPd

PISd

Benthic Feeder Guildd

3 Trophic Food Typesd4 Trophic Food Typesd

Benthic Habitat

CGb

ATb

NAb

BBCeBCAe

OBCe

Veg. Rep. subd

Lepomis miniatus redspotted 

sunfish N * Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Lepomis sp. Lepomis 

hybrid N * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Luxilus chrysocephalus striped shiner N * Y N N N N N N N N Y N N N Y Y N N N

Lythrurus bellus pretty shiner N N Y N N N N N N N Y N N N N Y N N N N

Lythrurus fumeus ribbon shiner N N Y N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N

Lythrurus roseipinnis cherryfin 

shiner N N Y N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N

Lythrurus umbratilis redfin shiner N * Y N N N N N N N Y N N N N Y N N N N

Micropterus punctulatus spotted bass N * N Y N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N

Micropterus salmoides largemouth 

bass N * N Y N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N

Minytrema melaNps spotted sucker N * Y N N N N N N Y Y N Y N N N N N N N

Moxostoma erythrurum golden 

redhorse N Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N N N Y N

Moxostoma poecilurum blacktail 

redhorse N Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N N N Y N

Moxostoma sp. Redhorse 

genus

N Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N N N Y N

Ncomis leptocephalus bluehead chub N * Y N N N N N N N Y N N Y N N Y N N N

Ntemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Ntropis ammophilus orangefin 

shiner N N Y N N Y N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N

Ntropis atheriNides emerald shiner N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Ntropis baileyi rough shiner N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N
Appendix E – Watershed Analysis

E-26 National Forests in Mississippi

Tolerance Trophic Habitat Reproduction

Species

Common name

Endemica

Intolerance

Invertivoreb

Insectivore-piscivoreb

BHc

BIc

BVc

IPd

PISd

Benthic Feeder Guildd

3 Trophic Food Typesd4 Trophic Food Typesd

Benthic Habitat

CGb

ATb

NAb

BBCeBCAe

OBCe

Veg. Rep. subd

Ntropis longirostris longnose 

shiner N * Y N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N

Ntropis maculatus taillight shiner N * N N Y N N N N N N N N * * * * * * N

Ntropis rafinesquei Yazoo shiner Y N Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N N N N N

Ntropis texanus weed shiner N * N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N N N N N N

Ntropis volucellus mimic shiner N N Y N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N

Nturus funebris black madtom N Y Y N N Y N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N

Nturus gyrinus tadpole 

madtom N Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N N N N N

Nturus hildebrandi least madtom Y Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N N N N N

Nturus leptacanthus speckled 

madtom N Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N N N N N

Nturus miurus brindled 

madtom N Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N N N N N

Nturus Ncturnus freckled 

madtom N Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N N N N N

Nturus phaeus brown madtom N Y Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N N N N N

Opsopoeodus emiliae pugnose 

minnow

N * Y N N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N N

Percina maculata blackside 

darter N * Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N Y N N N

Percina nigrofasciata blackbanded 

darter N * Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N Y N N N

Percina sciera dusky darter N * Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N Y N N N

Percina shumardi river darter N * Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N Y N N N
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forest in Mississippi E-27

Tolerance Trophic Habitat Reproduction

Species

Common name

Endemica

Intolerance

Invertivoreb

Insectivore-piscivoreb

BHc

BIc

BVc

IPd

PISd

Benthic Feeder Guildd

3 Trophic Food Typesd4 Trophic Food Typesd

Benthic Habitat

CGb

ATb

NAb

BBCeBCAe

OBCe

Veg. Rep. subd

Percina vigil saddleback 

darter N * Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y Y N N Y N N N

Pimephales Ntatus bluntnose 

minnow

N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N Y N N N N N

Pimephales promelas fathead 

minnow

N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N Y N N N N N

Pimephales vigilax bullhead 

minnow

N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N Y N N N N N

Pomoxis annularis white crappie N * N Y N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N

Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie N * N Y N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N

PteroNtropis signipinnis flagfin shiner N * Y N N N N N N N N N N * * * * * * N

PteroNtropis welaka bluenose 

shiner N * Y N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N Y N

Pylodictis olivaris flathead 

catfish N * N Y N N N N Y N N N Y N N N N N N N

Semotilus atromaculatus creek chub N N Y N N N N Y N N N Y N Y N N Y N N N

a - from Warren et al, 2000.

b - modified from McCormic et a,l in press.

c - modified from Halliwell et al, 1998.

d - modified from Smogor and Angermeier, 1998.

e - modified from Simon, 1998

BH= benthic herbivores; BI= benthic insectivore; BV= benthic invertivores; IP+invertivore/piscivore; PIS=piscivore or parasitic; CG=clean gravel/sand; AT=egg-attacher; NA=nest associate; BBC= Brood 

hiders, buriers, clean sand/gravel; BCA= Brood hiders, crevice, attachers; OBC= open, benthic, clean sand/gravel; Veg. Rep. Sub=vegetation or organic debris reproductive substrate.

* = unknown
Appendix E – Watershed Analysis

E-28 National Forests in Mississippi

E.4 Literature Cited

Angermeier, P.L. 1995. Ecological attributes of extinction-prone species: loss of freshwater fishes of 

Virginia. Conserv. Biol. 9:143-158.

Alexander, G. R.; Hansen, E. A. 1986. Sand bed load in a brook trout stream. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 

6:9-23.

Burr, B. M., and R. L. Mayden. 1992. Phylogenetics and North American freshwater fishes. Pages 18-75 

in R . L . Mayden, ed. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American freshwater fishes. 

Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Coats, R. N.; Miller, T. O. 1981. Cumulative silvicultural impacts on watershed: A hydrologic and 

regulatory dilemma. Environ. Manage. 5:147-160.

Dissmeyer, G. E.; Foster, G. R. 1984. A guide for predicting sheet and rill erosion on forest land. USDAForest Service, Southern Region. Technical Publication R8-TP6. 40 pages.

Dissmeyer, G. E.; Stump, R. F. 1978. Predicted erosion rates for forest management activities in the 

southeast. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. State and Private Forestry, 

Southeastern Area. Atlanta GA. 39 pages.

Elliot, W. J., Hall, D. E., and D. L. Scheele. December, 1999. WEPP:Road (Draft 12/1999) WEPP 

interface for predicting forest road runoff, erosion and sediment delivery. U. S. Department of 

Agriculture, U. S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology 

and Development Center, Moscow, Idaho.

Fausch, K.D., J.R. Karr, and P.R. Yant. 1984. Regional application of an index of biotic integrity based on 

stream fish communities. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:39-55. 

Halliwell, D. B., R.W. Langdon, R.A. Daniels, J.P. Kurtenbach, and R.A. Jacobson. 1999. Classification 

of freshwater fish species of the Northeastern United States for use in the development of indices 

of biological integrity, with regional applications. Pages 301 - 333 in Simon, T., editor. Assessing 

the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. CRC Press, 

Boca Raton, FL.

Judy, R.D., P.N. Seeley, T.M. Murray, S.C. Svirsky, M.R. Whitworth, and L.S. Ischinger. 1984. 1982 

national fisheries survey. Vol. I Technical Report: Initial findings. USFWS FWS/OBS-84/06. 140 

pp.

Lubchenco, J.A., and 15 coauthors. 1991. The sustainable biosphere initiative: an ecological research 

agenda. Ecology 72:371-412.

Mayden, R.L. 1987. Historical ecology and North American highland fishes: a research program in 

community ecology. pp. 203-222 in W.J. Matthews and D.C. Heins, eds. Community and 

evolutionary ecology of North American stream fishes. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

McCormick, F.H., R.M. Hughes, P.R. Kaufmann, A.T. Herlihy, D.V. Peck, and J.L. Stoddard. In press.

Development of an index of biotic integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands region. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society.
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forest in Mississippi E-29

McKinney, M.L. and J.L. Lockwood. 2001. Biotic homogenization: a sequential and selective process. 

Pp. 1-17 in J.L. Lockwood and M.L.McKinney, eds. Biotic homogenization. Kluwer 

Plenum/Academic Press, New York.

Ricciardi, A., and J.B. Rasmussen. 1999. Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conserv. 

Biol. 13:1220-1222.

Roehl, J. W. 1962. Sediment source areas, delivery ratios, and influencing morphological factors. IASH 

Comm of Land Eros, Pub 59:202-213.

Ross, Stephen T. 2001. Inland fishes of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi. 624pp.

Scharf, F.S., F. Juanes, and M. Sutherland. 1998. Inferring ecological relationships from the edges of 

scatter diagrams: comparison of regression techniques. Ecology 79:448-468.

Scott, M.C., and G.S. Helfman. 2001. Native invasions, homogenization, and the mismeasure of integrity 

of fish assemblages. Fisheries 26(11):6-15.

Simon, T. 1999. Assessment of Balon’s reproductive guilds with application to Midwestern North 

American freshwater fishes. Pages 97 - 121 in Simon, T., editor. Assessing the sustainability and 

biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Smogor, R.A. and P.L. Angermeier. 1999. Effects of drainage basin and anthropogenic disturbance on 

relations between stream size and IBI metrics in Virginia. Pages 249 - 272 in Simon, T., editor. 

Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. 

CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Terrell, J.W., B.S. Cade, J. Carpenter, and J.M. Thompson. 1996. Modeling stream fish habitat limitations 

from wedge-shaped patterns of variation in standing stock. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 125:104-117.

USDA National Forests in Mississippi. 2014. Timber Resource Program Suitability and Sustainability 

Analysis. 221 pages. On file in Jackson MS

USDA National Forests in Mississippi. 2014. Appendix G – Ecosystems and Species Diversity Report, 

FEIS National Forests in Mississippi Land and Resource Management Plan. Jackson, MS

Warren, M.L., Jr., S. Adams, W. Haag, J.G. McWhirter, L.G. Henderson. 2001. Fish and fish habitat 

survey in Mississippi National Forests: fish community sampling 1999-2000. Report to the 

Mississippi National Forests, Jackson, MS

Warren, M.L. Jr., and B.M. Burr. 1994. Status of freshwater fishes of the United States: Overview of an 

imperiled fauna. Fisheries 19(1):6 17.

Warren, M.L. Jr., B.M. Burr, S.J. Walsh, H.L. Bart Jr., R.C. Cashner, D.A. Etnier, B.J. Freeman, B.R. 

Kuhajda, R.L. Mayden, H.W. Robison, S.T. Ross, and W.C. Starnes. 2000. Diversity, distribution, 

and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern United States. Fisheries 

25(10):7-31.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries 

Society Monograph 7.

Webb, R.A. 1972. Use of the boundary line in the analysis of biological data. J. Hort. Sci. 47:309-319.
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi

This page intentionally left blank