Appendix B -

The Planning and Analysis 

Process
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi

This page intentionally left blank
National Forests in Mississippi B-i

Appendix B

Table of Contents

APPENDIX B - THE PLANNING AND ANALYSIS PROCESS..................................................................................B-1

B.1 THE PLANNING PROCESS .................................................................................................................................. B-1

B.1.1 Identification of Purpose and Need (CFR 219.12(b)).......................................................................... B-1

B.1.2 Planning Criteria (219.12(c)).............................................................................................................. B-1

B.1.3 Laws................................................................................................................................................... B-1

B.1.4 National Direction (formerly RPA Program) ...................................................................................... B-2

B.1.5 Public Issues and Management Concerns.......................................................................................... B-3

B.1.6 Other Plans ........................................................................................................................................ B-3

B.1.7 Ecological Factors .............................................................................................................................. B-3

B.1.8 Social Factors..................................................................................................................................... B-3

B.1.9 Economic Factors............................................................................................................................... B-3

B.1.10 Resource Integration.......................................................................................................................... B-3

B.1.11 Inventory data and information collection (219.12(d)) ..................................................................... B-4

B.1.12 Analysis of the Management Situation (219.12(e))........................................................................... B-5

B.1.13 Formulation of Alternatives (219.12(f)) ............................................................................................. B-5

B.1.14 Estimated Effects of Alternatives (219.12(g)) .................................................................................... B-9

B.1.15 Evaluation of Alternatives (219.12(h))............................................................................................... B-9

B.1.16 Preferred Alternative (219.12(i))...................................................................................................... B-10

B.1.17 Plan Approval (219.12(j))................................................................................................................. B-10

B.1.18 Monitoring and Evaluation ((219.12(k)) .......................................................................................... B-10

B.2 TIMBER RESOURCE PROGRAM, SUITABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ANALYSIS ............................................................. B-10

B.2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... B-10

B.2.2 Suitability ......................................................................................................................................... B-12

B.2.3 Estimated Vegetation Management Practices................................................................................ B-16

B.2.4 Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ); Timber Sale Program Quantity (TSPQ); Culmination of Mean Annual 

Increment (CMAI)............................................................................................................................................. B-26

B.2.5 Long-term Sustained Yield and Timber Sale Program Quantity....................................................... B-37

B.2.6 Description of Anticipated Changes and Treatments by Vegetation Type....................................... B-38

B.2.7 Anticipated Age Class Changes for Each Alternative Tabulated by Vegetation Type ...................... B-53

B.2.8 Site Type Definitions......................................................................................................................... B-55

B.2.9 Emphasis Area Data Protocols for Vegetation Model...................................................................... B-59

B.3 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ................................................................................................................................. B-66

B.3.1 Social Economic Impact Analyses .................................................................................................... B-66

REFERENCES CITED.................................................................................................................................................... B-70

List of Tables

TABLE B 1. TIMBER SALE PROGRAM QUANTITY FOR ALL PRODUCTS BY DECADE............................................................................ B-7

TABLE B 2. PRESENT NET VALUES FOR RECREATION ACTIVITIES................................................................................................. B-8

TABLE B 3. PRESENT NET VALUES OF COSTS AND BENEFITS IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS (2010) FOR THE ALTERNATIVES.......................... B-9

TABLE B 4. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS USED IN MODELING ........................................................................ B-11

TABLE B 5. PRESENT NET VALUE (PNV) OF SILVICULTURAL MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES BY ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMA.......................... B-13

TABLE B 6. REVENUES ................................................................................................................................................... B-13

TABLE B 7. LANDS SUITABLE AND UNSUITABLE FOR TIMBER PRODUCTION BY FOREST.................................................................. B-15

TABLE B 8. ESTIMATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ALTERNATIVE A (CUSTODIAL) (LIKELY ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR FIRST 

DECADE) ............................................................................................................................................................. B-16
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-ii National Forests in Mississippi

TABLE B 9. ESTIMATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ALTERNATIVE A (CUSTODIAL) (LIKELY ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR SECOND 

DECADE) ............................................................................................................................................................. B-17

TABLE B 10. ESTIMATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ALTERNATIVE B (NO ACTION) (LIKELY ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR FIRST 

DECADE) ............................................................................................................................................................. B-18

TABLE B 11. ESTIMATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ALTERNATIVE B (NO ACTION) (LIKELY ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR SECOND 

DECADE) ............................................................................................................................................................. B-19

TABLE B 12. ESTIMATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ALTERNATIVE C (PROPOSED ACTION) (LIKELY ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR 

FIRST DECADE)...................................................................................................................................................... B-20

TABLE B 13. ESTIMATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ALTERNATIVE C (PROPOSED ACTION) (LIKELY ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR 

SECOND DECADE).................................................................................................................................................. B-21

TABLE B 14. ESTIMATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ALTERNATIVE D (ACCELERATED RESTORATION) (LIKELY ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

FOR FIRST DECADE)................................................................................................................................................ B-22

TABLE B 15. ESTIMATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ALTERNATIVE D (ACCELERATED RESTORATION) (LIKELY ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

FOR SECOND DECADE)............................................................................................................................................ B-23

TABLE B 16. ESTIMATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ALTERNATIVE E (ENHANCED FOREST HEALTH) (LIKELY ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

FOR FIRST DECADE)................................................................................................................................................ B-24

TABLE B 17. ESTIMATED VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ALTERNATIVE E (ENHANCED FOREST HEALTH) (LIKELY ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

FOR SECOND DECADE)............................................................................................................................................ B-25

TABLE B 18. TIMBER SALE PROGRAM QUANTITY IN MILLION CUBIC FEET (MMCF) ALTERNATIVE A (CUSTODIAL) (LIKELY VOLUME OUTPUTS 

FOR FIRST DECADE)................................................................................................................................................ B-27

TABLE B 19. TIMBER SALE PROGRAM QUANTITY IN MILLION CUBIC FEET (MMCF) ALTERNATIVE A (CUSTODIAL) (LIKELY VOLUME OUTPUTS 

FOR SECOND DECADE)............................................................................................................................................ B-28

TABLE B 20. TIMBER SALE PROGRAM QUANTITY IN MILLION CUBIC FEET (MMCF) ALTERNATIVE B (NO ACTION) (LIKELY VOLUME OUTPUTS 

FOR FIRST DECADE)................................................................................................................................................ B-29

TABLE B 21. TIMBER SALE PROGRAM QUANTITY IN MILLION CUBIC FEET (MMCF) ALTERNATIVE B (NO ACTION) (LIKELY VOLUME OUTPUTS 

FOR SECOND DECADE)............................................................................................................................................ B-30

TABLE B 22. TIMBER SALE PROGRAM QUANTITY IN MILLION CUBIC FEET (MMCF) ALTERNATIVE C (PROPOSED ACTION) (LIKELY VOLUME 

OUTPUTS FOR FIRST DECADE) .................................................................................................................................. B-31

TABLE B 23. TIMBER SALE PROGRAM QUANTITY IN MILLION CUBIC FEET (MMCF) ALTERNATIVE C (PROPOSED ACTION) (LIKELY VOLUME 

OUTPUTS FOR SECOND DECADE)............................................................................................................................... B-32

TABLE B 24. TIMBER SALE PROGRAM QUANTITY IN MILLION CUBIC FEET (MMCF) ALTERNATIVE D (ACCELERATED RESTORATION) (LIKELY 

VOLUME OUTPUTS FOR FIRST DECADE) ...................................................................................................................... B-33

TABLE B 25. TIMBER SALE PROGRAM QUANTITY IN MILLION CUBIC FEET (MMCF) ALTERNATIVE D (ACCELERATED RESTORATION) (LIKELY 

VOLUME OUTPUTS FOR SECOND DECADE) .................................................................................................................. B-34

TABLE B 26. TIMBER SALE PROGRAM QUANTITY IN MILLION CUBIC FEET (MMCF) ALTERNATIVE E (ENHANCED FOREST HEALTH) (LIKELY 

VOLUME OUTPUTS FOR FIRST DECADE) ...................................................................................................................... B-35

TABLE B 27. TIMBER SALE PROGRAM QUANTITY IN MILLION CUBIC FEET (MMCF) ALTERNATIVE E (ENHANCED FOREST HEALTH) (LIKELY 

VOLUME OUTPUTS FOR SECOND DECADE) .................................................................................................................. B-36

TABLE B 28. TIMBER SALE PROGRAM QUANTITY (TSPQ) PRODUCT MIX FOR THE NATIONAL FORESTS IN MISSISSIPPI (FIRST DECADE) IN 

MILLION CUBIC FEET (MMCF)................................................................................................................................. B-37

TABLE B 29. LONGLEAF FOREST TIMBER TREATMENTS BY ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................... B-39

TABLE B 30. LONGLEAF PINE FOREST AGE STRUCTURE AFTER 1ST AND 2ND DECADES ................................................................. B-39

TABLE B 31. SHORTLEAF PINE FOREST TIMBER HARVEST TREATMENTS..................................................................................... B-40

TABLE B 32. SHORTLEAF PINE FOREST AGE STRUCTURE AFTER 1ST AND 2ND DECADES................................................................ B-41

TABLE B 33.UPLAND LOBLOLLY PINE FOREST CONVERSION.................................................................................................... B-41

TABLE B 34. UPLAND LOBLOLLY PINE FOREST TIMBER HARVEST TREATMENTS ........................................................................... B-42

TABLE B 35. UPLAND LOBLOLLY PINE FOREST AGE STRUCTURE AFTER 1ST AND 2ND DECADE........................................................ B-42

TABLE B 36. MESIC LOBLOLLY PINE FOREST CONVERSION ..................................................................................................... B-43

TABLE B 37. MESIC LOBLOLLY PINE FOREST TIMBER HARVEST TREATMENTS.............................................................................. B-43

TABLE B 38. MESIC LOBLOLLY PINE FOREST AGE STRUCTURE AFTER 1ST AND 2ND DECADE .......................................................... B-44

TABLE B 39. SLASH PINE FOREST CONVERSION ................................................................................................................... B-44

TABLE B 40. SLASH PINE FOREST TIMBER HARVEST TREATMENTS............................................................................................ B-45

TABLE B 41. SLASH PINE FOREST AGE STRUCTURE AFTER 1ST AND 2ND DECADE ........................................................................ B-45
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-iii

TABLE B 42. NORTHERN DRY UPLAND HARDWOOD FOREST TIMBER HARVEST TREATMENTS ......................................................... B-46

TABLE B 43. NORTHERN DRY UPLAND HARDWOOD FOREST AGE STRUCTURE AFTER 1ST AND 2ND DECADES .................................... B-46

TABLE B 44. SOUTHERN DRY UPLAND HARDWOOD FOREST AGE STRUCTURE AFTER 1ST AND 2ND DECADES .................................... B-47

TABLE B 45. SOUTHERN MESIC SLOPE HARDWOOD FOREST AGE STRUCTURE AFTER 1ST AND 2ND DECADES .................................... B-48

TABLE B 46. NORTHERN MESIC HARDWOOD FOREST TIMBER HARVEST TREATMENTS.................................................................. B-48

TABLE B 47. NORTHERN MESIC HARDWOOD FOREST AGE STRUCTURE AFTER 1ST AND 2ND DECADES............................................. B-49

TABLE B 48. FLOODPLAIN HARDWOOD FOREST TIMBER HARVEST TREATMENTS......................................................................... B-50

TABLE B 49. FLOODPLAIN HARDWOOD FOREST AGE STRUCTURE AFTER 1ST AND 2ND DECADES.................................................... B-50

TABLE B 50. LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BOTTOMLAND AND FLOODPLAIN FOREST TIMBER HARVEST TREATMENTS............................. B-51

TABLE B 51. LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BOTTOMLAND AND FLOODPLAIN FOREST AGE STRUCTURE AFTER 1ST AND 2ND DECADES ....... B-51

TABLE B 52. NEAR-COAST PINE FLATWOODS FOREST TIMBER HARVEST TREATMENTS ALTERNATIVE A (CUSTODIAL) .......................... B-52

TABLE B 53. CONVERSION TO JACKSON PRAIRIE AND WOODLAND .......................................................................................... B-53

TABLE B 54. NATIONAL FORESTS IN MISSISSIPPI CUSTODIAL ALTERNATIVE A - AGE CLASS OUTCOME............................................. B-54

TABLE B 55. NATIONAL FORESTS IN MISSISSIPPI NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE B - AGE CLASS OUTCOME ............................................ B-54

TABLE B 56. PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE C - AGE CLASS OUTCOME.................................................................................. B-54

TABLE B 57. ACCELERATED RESTORATION ALTERNATIVE D - AGE CLASS OUTCOME..................................................................... B-55

TABLE B 58. ENHANCED FOREST HEALTH ALTERNATIVE E - AGE CLASS OUTCOME....................................................................... B-55

TABLE B 59. SITE TYPE – SOIL TYPE CROSSWALK.................................................................................................................. B-56

TABLE B 60. BIENVILLE DATA PROTOCOLS FOR VEGETATION MODEL........................................................................................ B-60

TABLE B 61. DESOTO DATA PROTOCOLS FOR VEGETATION MODEL ......................................................................................... B-61

TABLE B 62. HOMOCHITTO DATA PROTOCOLS FOR VEGETATION MODEL .................................................................................. B-62

TABLE B 63. CHICKASAWHAY DATA PROTOCOLS FOR VEGETATION MODEL ............................................................................... B-63

TABLE B 64. DELTA DATA PROTOCOLS FOR VEGETATION MODEL ............................................................................................ B-64

TABLE B 65. HOLLY SPRINGS DATA PROTOCOLS FOR VEGETATION MODEL ................................................................................ B-65

TABLE B 66. TOMBIGBEE DATA PROTOCOLS FOR VEGETATION MODEL ..................................................................................... B-66

TABLE B 67. DISTRIBUTION (PERCENTAGE) OF NATIONAL FOREST VISITSABY SPENDING SEGMENTBON THE NATIONAL FORESTS IN 

MISSISSIPPI ......................................................................................................................................................... B-68

List of Figures

FIGURE B 1. LONG TERM SUSTAINED YIELD (LTSY) AND ALLOWABLE SALE QUANTITY (ASQ) ON SUITABLE LANDS ............................ B-38
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi

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

National Forests in Mississippi B-1

Appendix B - The Planning and Analysis Process

B.1 The Planning Process

36 CFR Part 219.12 describes the required process for preparation, revision, or significant amendment of 

a forest plan. The following describes the required steps and how the National Forests in Mississippi 

forest plan revision process will fulfill those steps. Documents identified are in the process record.

B.1.1 Identification of Purpose and Need (CFR 219.12(b))

The current forest plan for the National Forests in Mississippi went into effect in 1985 and has been 

amended 18 times to date. Periodic reviews have identified numerous areas where conditions have 

changed since 1985. In some cases, new scientific understanding evolved, monitoring direction needed to 

shift to more important resource concerns, or current direction was not having the intended outcome. For 

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

restoration and maintenance of biodiversity, old growth forest habitats, and ecosystem management have 

gained public and scientific interest and have emerged as forest management issues. The amount of time 

since the implementation of the 1985 forest plan, new scientific understanding, and shifting public 

interests have all contributed to the need to revise the forest plan.

Public involvement in the identification of significant issues and management concerns has been a key 

part of the planning process. Issues identified by the public, the Forest Service, interested groups, and 

other state and federal agencies guided the need for change and the development of management 

alternatives. 

In addition to issues identified through public involvement, the “USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan for 

Fiscal Years 2007-2012” influenced which Plan revision issues were most relevant. Local national forest 

management direction should be consistent with established national and regional policies, goals and 

objectives. Forest plan direction for the National Forests in Mississippi focused on implementation of 

Forest-specific direction consistent with national and regional policy and management emphasis.

The major issues driving the development of management strategies or plan alternatives were native 

ecosystem restoration, biodiversity and species viability, forest health, vegetation management (timber), 

fire management, old growth, watersheds, access management, recreation, special areas, land use and 

ownership, climate change, minerals, and economic benefits.

B.1.2 Planning Criteria (219.12(c))

The following are identified as planning criteria used in the development of the National Forests in 

Mississippi revised forest plan. 

B.1.3 Laws

Alternatives should meet the intent of the Organic Administration Act and Weeks Law identifying the 

purpose of the National Forest to improve and protect the forest, to secure favorable conditions of water 

flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United 

States.

Alternatives should meet the intent of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 to administer the 

National Forest for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes. That 

these resources are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people; 
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-2 National Forests in Mississippi

making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas 

large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs 

and conditions; that some land will be used for less than all of the resources; and harmonious and 

coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, without impairment of the 

productivity of the land, with consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and 

not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output.

Alternatives should meet the intent of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 

1974 as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 including requirements to provide for 

multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services obtained therefrom in accordance with the 

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, and, in particular, include coordination of outdoor recreation, 

range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness.

Alternatives should comply with the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and other applicable laws.

Protection of water quality to provide for current and future beneficial uses will be a high priority in all 

alternatives.

B.1.4 National Direction (formerly RPA Program)

The goals and objectives of the current Forest Service Strategic Plan will be addressed as applicable to the 

National Forests in Mississippi. These include:

Goal 1. Restore, Sustain, and Enhance the Nation's Forests and Grasslands

Objective 1.1 Reduce the risk to communities and natural resources from wildfire

Objective 1.2 Suppress wildfires efficiently and effectively

Objective 1.3 Build community capacity to suppress and reduce losses from wildfires

Objective 1.4 Reduce adverse impacts from invasive and native species, pests, and diseases

Objective 1.5 Restore and maintain healthy watersheds and diverse habitats

Goal 2. Provide and Sustain Benefits to the American People

Objective 2.1 Provide a reliable supply of forest products over time that (1) is consistent with 

achieving desired conditions on National Forest System lands and (2) helps maintain or create 

processing capacity and infrastructure in local communities

Objective 2.3 Help meet energy resource needs.

Goal 4. Sustain and Enhance Outdoor Recreation Opportunities

Objective 4.1 Improve the quality and availability of outdoor recreation experiences

Objective 4.2 Secure legal entry to national forest lands and waters

Objective 4.3 Improve the management of off-highway vehicle use

Goal 5. Maintain Basic Management Capabilities of the Forest Service

Objective 5.1 Improve accountability through effective strategic and land management planning 

and efficient use of data and technology in resource management
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-3

Objective 5.2 Improve the administration of national forest lands and facilities in support of the 

agency’s mission

B.1.5 Public Issues and Management Concerns

The alternatives will be developed and analyzed with consideration for the public issues, management 

concerns, and resource use and development opportunities identified and described in the purpose and 

need. (See chapter 1 of the FEIS and appendix A for more information.)

B.1.6 Other Plans

The alternatives will be developed and analyzed with consideration for the plans and programs of other 

Federal and State agencies, local governments, and Indian tribes. The responsible official will review 

these programs and plans to determine how the National Forests in Mississippi forest plan may 

complement or find consistency with these other plans.

B.1.7 Ecological Factors

The management actions needed to restore, sustain, and/or enhance the composition, structure, and 

function of the ecological communities within the national forest will be considered in developing the 

alternatives. The potential effects of climate change will be considered in developing and analyzing the 

alternatives.

B.1.8 Social Factors

Alternatives will consider the effects of different management strategies on the local communities.

B.1.9 Economic Factors

Budget constraints based on past funding trends will be used in the development of desired conditions and 

objectives to provide meaningful measures that can reasonably be expected. The resulting plan shall 

provide for multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services from the national forest in a way that 

maximizes long term net public benefits in an environmentally sound manner.

B.1.10 Resource Integration

During the forest planning process, lands which are not suited for timber production shall be identified in 

accordance with the criteria in Sec. 219.14.

The methods, timing, and intensity of vegetation management practices shall be defined in the forest plan 

with applicable standards and guidelines and associated outcomes in the form of goals, desired conditions, 

and objectives. 

The allowable sale quantity of timber that may be sold each decade will be established for each 

alternative.

Unless otherwise provided by law, roadless areas within the National Forest System shall be evaluated 

and considered for recommendation as potential wilderness areas.

Direction shall be provided for the management of designated wilderness and primitive areas.

Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired 

non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. Each alternative shall establish objectives that would 

help maintain or improve habitat for management indicator species.
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-4 National Forests in Mississippi

A broad spectrum of outdoor recreation opportunities shall be provided for in each alternative. The 

identification of recreation opportunities will include an updated inventory of recreation opportunity 

spectrum classification. The scenery management system will be used in planning to identify visual 

resources and guide management of these resources. The alternatives will provide a diversity of recreation 

opportunities including motorized and nonmotorized recreation.

Mineral exploration and development in the planning area shall be considered in developing alternatives. 

General suitability for minerals and energy development will be established. Private mineral rights will be 

considered in all decisions made in the planning process.

The alternatives shall provide for protection and management of the water and soil resources. Important 

water uses will be identified. 

The alternatives shall provide for the identification, protection, interpretation, and management of 

significant cultural resources on the national forest. Planning for the resource shall be governed by the 

requirements of Federal laws pertaining to historic preservation. Interactions with other multiple uses will 

be considered and impacts analyzed. 

The list of unique or important forest, aquatic, or geologic types needed to complete the national network 

of research natural areas will be checked to ascertain if any potential missing research natural area types 

are located on the National Forests in Mississippi.

The alternatives shall provide for diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species consistent 

with the overall multiple-use objectives of the planning area. The interdisciplinary team shall consider 

how diversity will be affected by various mixes of resource outputs and uses, including proposed 

management practices. The diversity analysis should be based on processes readily identifiable with other 

state or national systems, such as NatureServe. The analysis will address both ecosystem and species 

diversity. 

The minimum management requirements for resource protection, vegetation manipulation, silvicultural 

practices, even-aged management, riparian areas, soil and water, and diversity shall be incorporated into 

the objectives, standards and guidelines in each alternative. 

B.1.11 Inventory data and information collection (219.12(d))

The following are examples of data and information sources used in the planning and analysis process for 

the National Forests in Mississippi revised forest plan and environmental impact statement (EIS):

• Stand examination inventory data collected in the field is entered into our corporate database for 

tracking overstory vegetation with fields of information such as forest type, stand age, condition, and 

acres. Our current GIS (geographic information system) utilizes ArcGIS, which links to our FSVeg 

tabular database.

• Other types of inventory data collected and entered into corporate databases and our GIS include 

roads and trails and conditions, recreation sites and conditions, archeological sites, stream networks, 

certain wildlife habitats, fire history, digital elevation, and land ownership.

• Federal and State agency, local government and tribal websites are a source of information about 

other programs and plans, lists of rare species and occurrence records, some economic information, 

forest health information, soil and water information.

• The National Forests in Mississippi adopted the National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units 

as a consistent nationwide classification system to describe similar ecosystems for planning purposes. 

This framework provides a standardized method for classifying, mapping, and describing ecological 
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-5

units at various geographic, planning and analysis scales. Ecological units across the U.S. are mapped 

based on patterns of climate, soils, hydrology, geology, landform, and topography. These 

classifications represent homogeneous units having similarities among their resource capabilities and 

relationships.

• Place based knowledge and information is contributed by participants in the collaborative planning 

process. 

• U.S. Census Bureau data is used to summarize demographics and some economic information.

• Citations listed in the References chapter provide additional information including the best available 

scientific information in regard to specific analysis topics.

B.1.12 Analysis of the Management Situation (219.12(e))

The analysis of the management situation is a determination of the ability of the planning area covered by 

the forest plan to supply goods and services in response to society’s demands. Benchmarks define the 

range within which alternatives can be constructed and include: (1) the minimum level of management; 

and (2) the maximum physical and biological production potentials. A maximum present net value 

benchmark is also discussed in the section below. As was mentioned in the Purpose and Need section 

above, the development of alternatives focused on ecosystem restoration and increasing biological 

diversity. The present net values calculated for ecosystem management prescriptions generally were lower 

for restoration prescriptions. This was because the cultural treatments to reestablish desired vegetation 

were more costly and the rotation lengths for longleaf and shortleaf were longer.

When considered along with the current level of goods and services provided, projections of demand, a 

determination of the potential to resolve public issues and management concerns, and considering the data 

and information available, this provides a basis for determination of the need for change.

More details of the analysis of the management situation can be found in the following documents: 

Section B.2 of this appendix (B) Timber Resource Program, Suitability and Sustainability Analysis.

Appendix C Analysis of Potential Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River Segments

Appendix D Special Areas, Status, Trends, and Strategies

Appendix E Watershed Analysis

Appendix F Management Indicator Species (MIS) Review

Appendix G Ecosystem and Species Diversity Report

Appendix H Unit Analysis for Ecological Systems occurring on multiple Units

Forest-wide Roads Analysis Report

Timber Program Suitability and Sustainability Analysis

Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old-Growth Forest Communities

B.1.13 Formulation of Alternatives (219.12(f))

A range of alternative plan contents are expressed and considered in the process of formulating a 

proposed plan. The process of developing this proposed plan and alternatives focused first on defining 
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-6 National Forests in Mississippi

common ground among the interested parties and narrowing the initially broad possibilities for plan 

content to those elements generally agreeable to most participants in the planning process.

In addition to issues identified through public involvement, the “USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan for 

Fiscal Years 2007-2012” influenced which Plan revision issues were most relevant. Forest plan direction 

for the National Forests in Mississippi focused on implementation of Forest-specific direction consistent 

with national and regional policy and management emphasis.

The major issues driving the development of management strategies or plan alternatives were native 

ecosystem restoration, biodiversity and species viability, forest health, vegetation management (timber), 

fire management, old growth, watersheds, access management, recreation, special areas, land use and 

ownership, climate change, minerals, and economic benefits.

Benchmark Analysis

Benchmark analysis was used to approximate maximum economic and biological resource production 

opportunities. Also, minimum management levels were analyzed to set a lower bound for Forest 

management. These benchmarks are useful in evaluating the compatibilities and conflicts between 

different resource objectives and defining the range within which integrated alternatives could be 

developed.

Minimum Level of Management Benchmark

This benchmark represents the minimum level of management needed to maintain and protect the 

National Forests in Mississippi as part of the National Forest System. This level of management does 

involve some activities and costs in order to meet the following minimum requirements.

• Protect the life, health, and safety of incidental users;

• Prevent environmental damage to the land or resources of adjoining lands of other ownerships or 

downstream users;

• Conserve soil and water resources;

• Prevent significant or permanent impairment of the productivity of the land; and

• Administer unavoidable non-Forest Service special uses and mineral leases, licenses, permits, 

contracts, and operating plans.

This benchmark was developed as alternative A (custodial management alternative). This developed the 

scenario for management of legal requirements at the lowest feasible funding level.

The legal requirements for the National Forests in Mississippi include management of Threatened and 

Endangered Species. Therefore this alternative included the habitat management necessary to maintain 

the red cockaded woodpecker and gopher tortoise populations on the Forest. This focused the timber and 

burning programs on the Bienville, DeSoto and Homochitto National Forests. This would allow for a core 

capability in these program areas to respond to catastrophic natural events Forest wide.

Current Level of Management Benchmark

This benchmark is the same as the no-action alternative, which is described in this environmental impact 

statement as alternative B. Current level of management reflects the program management levels that 

result from current of budget trends. These budget levels were also used to identify the level of resource 

management projected in the proposed action alternative.
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-7

Maximum Level of Timber Production Benchmark

Maximum timber production was modeled as maximum biological potential using the Excel spreadsheet 

model described later in the Timber Resource Program, Suitability and Sustainability section introduction 

below. The maximum physical and biological production potential benchmark was not developed as an 

alternative because the funding and staffing resources were not likely to be available to achieve that level 

of outputs. This benchmark maximized timber production within the same biological constraints applied 

to all alternatives. However it was not limited based on budget and staffing capabilities. 

The resulting timber yields would be a departure over long term sustained yields in the first three decades.

Then volumes would fall below long term sustained yields in decades 4 and 5. This departure would be 

caused by the heavily accelerated harvest of very productive loblolly and slash pine forests for restoration 

to slower growing longleaf and slash pine and hardwood forests managed at lower densities and longer 

rotations when the desired condition is attained.

Table B 1. Timber sale program quantity for all products by decade

Million Cubic Feet/Decade

Decade 1 Decade 2 Decade 3 Decade 4 Decade 5

557 431 386 279 267

Long-Term Sustained Yield = 307 MMCF per Decade

Maximum Present Net Value Benchmark

Financial efficiency is defined as how well the dollars invested produce revenues to the agency. Economic 

efficiency is defined as how well the dollars invested produce benefits to society. Present net value (PNV) 

is used as an indicator of financial and economic efficiency.

An Excel spreadsheet was used to calculate the present net value over a 50-year period. A 4 percent 

discount rate was used. Decadal and 50 year cumulative present values for program benefits and costs as 

well as present net values are the product of this spreadsheet. For each decade, an average annual resource 

value was estimated, multiplied by 10 years, and discounted from the mid-point of each decade.

The revenue values for timber were the values described in the timber suitability analysis section. The 

estimates of recreation visitors were derived from the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) Report 

for the National Forests in Mississippi, which was updated in 2009. The benefit values for the recreation 

visits came from research conducted by the Southern Research Station. (A recreation “visit” is defined as 

the entry of one person onto a national forest site or area to participate in recreation activities for an 

unspecified period of time. This site visit ends when the person leaves the site or area for the last time.)

Table B 2 displays the economic values that were used in the present net value analysis for each 

recreation activity.

A “maximum present net value” benchmark would represent the combination of management activities 

that would create the greatest difference between the discounted revenues or benefit values compared to 

the discounted costs. In comparing the economic values of the uses of the National Forests in Mississippi, 

recreation (and wildlife-related recreation) provides the majority of the total estimated discounted 

benefits. So a management scheme that would “maximize” the recreation potential on the National Forest, 

and specifically one that would emphasize bicycling, horseback riding and hunting activities, would need 

to be enacted to “maximize” the present net value on the Forest. 
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-8 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 2. Present net values for recreation activities

Recreation Activity Description Value/Visit

Camping Camping at a developed recreation site $51.26

Driving Motorized recreation including driving for site seeing and motorized 

boating activities $43.84

General Generalized recreation including just relaxing, swimming, and nonspecific forest recreation $80.03

Hiking Hiking $51.26

Nature/Historical Nature based activities including special forest gathering, historical site 

visit, nature study visit, and nature study $51.26

Off-Highway Vehicles Off-Highway Vehicle activities including three/four wheelers and 

motorcycles $51.26

Primitive Camping/ 

Wilderness Primitive camping (using undeveloped sites) and backpacking $76.10

Picnicking Picnicking $90.55

Trails Trail use including bicycling, horseback riding and non-motorized water 

activities such as canoeing $205.34

Viewing Scenery/ 

Viewing Wildlife Nature viewing and wildlife viewing $60.01

Hunting Hunting $140.53

Fishing Fishing $45.96

Source: J. Michael Bowker, et. al., Estimating the Net Economic Value of National Forest Recreation: An Application of the National 

Visitor Use Monitoring Database, FS-09-02, September 2009, The University of Georgia.

Note: The values were originally reported in 2004 dollars, and were updated to 2010 dollars using the GDP Price Deflator from the 

US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

For a benchmark that would “maximize present net value using market values only”, the recreation and 

wildlife benefit values disclosed above would not be used since they are not market values (i.e., values 

representing money exchanged in a market place). Instead, the fees received from developed recreation 

areas and campgrounds, and the monies paid for hunting and fishing permits would be the “values”. So, 

under this form of management, developed recreation and campground opportunities would be 

maximized, along with hunting and fishing opportunities. Also, since timber management results in 

“returns to the treasury”, timber production would be a part of this benchmark. The timber management 

that would contribute the most toward maximizing present net value would be the management described 

in the maximum biological potential program described in the maximum timber production benchmark 

described above.

Since the purpose of a benchmark is to identify the range within which integrated alternatives can be 

developed, it was felt that an attempt to speculate and quantify exactly what a “maximum” level of 

recreation uses might be for these benchmarks would not be very useful. However, it is important to 

identify the types of management emphases that would be conducted under such “benchmark” forms of 

management to help facilitate the identification of a range within which alternatives can be developed.

For the alternatives, recreation, wildlife, and timber outputs were estimated and a present net value of 

each alternative determined. In estimating the present net value for the alternatives, the costs used were 

derived from recent Forest budgets for all the program areas on the National Forests. The unit costs were 

then applied to the outcome levels for each alternative. Table B 3 shows the present net values for the 

alternatives.
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-9

Table B 3. Present net values of costs and benefits in millions of dollars (2010) for the alternatives

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Cumulative Total 

Present Net Value $3,004,322 $5,556,813 $6,109,475 $6,049,826 $6,041,772 

Present Value Benefits by Program:

Range $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Timber $75,374 $120,431 $179,981 $202,576 $235,579

Minerals $73,384 $73,384 $73,384 $73,384 $73,384

Recreation $1,278,868 $2,218,825 $2,411,057 $2,411,057 $2,411,057

Wildlife: $2,244,271 $3,929,540 $4,266,602 $4,266,602 $4,266,602

Total PV of Benefits $3,671,897 $6,342,181 $6,931,023 $6,953,618 $6,986,622

Present Value Costs by Program:

Range: $87 $109 $109 $131 $131

Timber: $108,128 $127,198 $133,075 $146,376 $153,038

Roads/Engineering $183,275 $215,602 $225,551 $248,126 $259,402

Minerals: $6,313 $7,423 $7,750 $8,534 $8,925

Recreation $39,729 $46,739 $48,894 $53,792 $56,230

Wildlife: $63,087 $74,211 $77,629 $85,401 $89,276

Soil, Water, Air.. $15,064 $17,720 $18,526 $20,376 $21,312

Protection/Forest 

Health $218,802 $257,421 $269,285 $296,236 $309,689

Lands $15,826 $18,634 $19,483 $21,443 $22,422

Planning, Inv., 

Monitoring $17,263 $20,311 $21,247 $23,380 $24,425

PV Costs $667,575 $785,368 $821,549 $903,793 $944,850

Alternatives Analyzed

The alternatives were developed within the benchmarks. Alternative A (custodial management) was 

developed to analyze the minimum level of management. Alternative B (no-action) was developed to 

analyze the continuation of current management level. Alternative C (proposed action) was developed to 

analyze an alternative that could be implemented with the organization available if adequately funded.

Alternatives A through C had similar overall desired conditions with shifts in implementation strategy 

and program priorities due to funding levels. Alternative D and E were added to analyze not only 

additional funding and program levels but shifts in emphasis from restoration in alternative D (accelerated 

restoration) to forest health in alternative E (enhanced forest health).

B.1.14 Estimated Effects of Alternatives (219.12(g))

The estimated effects of the alternatives are described in chapter 4 of this document. Some of the more 

pertinent effects and outcomes are displayed in tables at the end of chapter 2.

B.1.15 Evaluation of Alternatives (219.12(h))

The ID Team compared the aggregate effects of the alternatives with regard to physical, biological, 

economic, and social impacts, outputs of goods and services, and overall protection and enhancement of 

the environment.
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-10 National Forests in Mississippi

B.1.16 Preferred Alternative (219.12(i))

For the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Forest Supervisor reviewed the ID Team’s evaluation 

and recommended to the Regional Forester that alternative C be considered the preferred alternative; 

which was displayed as the Draft Revised Plan.

B.1.17 Plan Approval (219.12(j))

The Regional Forester reviewed the proposed revised plan and Final EIS and selected Alternative C. The 

rational for this selection is documented in the Record of Decision.

B.1.18 Monitoring and Evaluation ((219.12(k))

Monitoring requirements are identified in the revised plan to evaluate on a sample basis how well 

implementation is adhering to plan direction. (Refer to Chapter 5 of the Revised Forest Plan.)

B.2 Timber Resource Program, Suitability and Sustainability 

Analysis

B.2.1 Introduction

Vegetation management practices envisioned in the revised plan for the National Forests in Mississippi 

(Forests) support restoration of native ecological systems, improve conditions for threatened and 

endangered species, and improve forest health. These ecological restoration objectives are based on the 

desired future conditions described in part 1 of the revised plan. The desired conditions of the plan are 

based on the analysis described in the ecosystem diversity report and the species diversity report included 

in the planning record. An ecological sustainability evaluation model was used to consider conditions 

needed for ecological sustainability, and species diversity and sustainability.

The results of the ecological sustainability evaluation model emphasized restoration of longleaf, shortleaf 

and hardwoods forest wide on appropriate sites. Restoration of prairies on the Bienville District was 

identified as high priority. Restoration of bogs and savannahs in the near coast flatwoods on the De Soto 

District were also considered a priority. In areas identified as red-cockaded woodpecker habitat 

management areas, and suitable soils for gopher tortoise, thinning to achieve optimal habitat conditions 

was deemed highest priority. As program level allowed, other projects addressing forest health and 

general habitat conditions were identified as needed.

The changes in vegetation species composition, condition and age were modeled using an excel 

spreadsheet. Formulas were entered which moved 2006 acres entered by vegetation type and age in ten 

year increments. The formulas accounted for acres modeled to change vegetation types due to restoration 

treatments. The assumptions used in the modeling of vegetation treatments and harvest volumes were 

deemed to be biologically attainable by the interdisciplinary team developing the plan strategy. Likely 

outcomes for the plan were attained by tempering the biologically attainable vegetation program by 

applying treatment priorities and program constraints (budget) to the model. Because of this, system age 

and application of effective rotation lengths were unimportant factors. The likely vegetation program 

should be predominantly thinning and system restoration harvests. The restoration harvests are likely to 

be predominantly clearcuts artificially regenerated. Other regeneration will be predominantly harvest 

methods aimed at natural regeneration (seed tree and shelterwood).

Table B 4displays the relationship between ecological systems used in the ecological sustainability 

evaluation model and the vegetation management model. For more details on the forest type composition 

of the vegetation modeling groups, see the section titled “Vegetation Management Model Silvicultural 
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-11

Assumptions and Parameters” of the Timber Resource Program, Suitability, and Sustainability Analysis 

Report.

Table B 4. Relationship between ecological systems used in modeling

Ecological System Vegetation Modeling Group

Upland Longleaf Pine Forest and Woodland Longleaf Pine

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland Shortleaf Pine

Loblolly Pine Forest, Southern Loblolly-Hardwood 

Flatwoods

Upland Loblolly Pine

Mesic Loblolly Pine

Slash Pine Forest Slash Pine

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest Northern Dry Upland Hardwood

Southern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest

Southern Dry Upland Hardwood Southern Loess Bluff Forest

Southern Mesic Slope Forest Southern Mesic Hardwood

Northern Mesic Hardwood Forest Northern Mesic Hardwood

Floodplain Forest Floodplain Forest

Lower Mississippi River Bottomland & Floodplain Forest Lower Mississippi River Bottomland & Floodplain Forest

Near-Coast Pine Flatwoods Near-Coast Pine Flatwoods

The Timber Resource Program, Suitability, and Sustainability Analysis Report included in the planning 

record is a summary of analysis of the suitability of National Forests in Mississippi forest lands for timber 

production and harvest under the revised forest plan. The analysis also provides estimates of the timber 

sale program quantity and the long-term sustained-yield capacity of these lands. Timber sale program 

quantity is the quantity of timber that is likely to be removed by revised plan implementation. Long-term 

sustained-yield capacity calculations are based on the amount of timber that could be harvested assuming 

the desired conditions were achieved and the silvicultural management strategy for the desired condition 

was being implemented. This estimate was based on the amount of timber that could be removed in 

perpetuity on an annual basis.

Long-term sustained-yield capacity and timber sale program quantity are estimates achieved by use of the 

excel spreadsheet model mentioned above. Timber sale program quantity is aspirational in nature, rather 

than being a commitment to offer certain levels of volume at any given time. The timber sale program 

anticipates silvicultural activities which are analyzed and selected through National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) process decisions which implement the revised plan. These timber sale projects apply active 

management to the vegetative resource in order to move the forest toward desired conditions (see part 1 

of the forest plan). Silvicultural activities described in the Timber Resource Program, Suitability, and 

Sustainability Analysis Report include commercial timber sales of intermediate timber harvesting 

(thinning, seed tree removal), and harvest treatments that are even-aged in nature (clearcut, shelterwood, 

seedtree), two-aged regeneration (shelterwood or seed tree with reserves), or uneven-aged (group 

selection). The size of the vegetation management program (acres of management activities) has been 

determined by the ecological needs of the resource, tempered by the historical budget and personnel 

levels (physical capability) for the National Forests in Mississippi. 

The excel spreadsheet model reflects the changes in vegetation types, ages and condition through five 

decades of vegetation management to achieve the forest plan desired conditions. This spreadsheet model 

included format and formulas to calculate acres of treatment and resulting volumes. The volume tables 

included in this model were based on experienced volume yields and professional judgment. The 
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-12 National Forests in Mississippi

experienced volumes were a sampling of volumes from actual timber sales over many years. These 

volumes were recorded by forest type, age, and timber harvest prescription. The results were averaged on 

a per acre basis for prescribed harvest stand acres. These averages were entered into the excel model as 

well as estimates for harvest at combinations of forest type, age, and prescription; for which there was no 

harvests in past contracts and used to calculate volume outcomes. The section below describing 

anticipated changes and treatments provides likely outcomes in acres for each district and vegetation 

classification based on this model.

Ecological restoration has been the primary management emphasis through the forest plan revision 

process. Improved forest health will also be achieved through implementation of ecological restoration 

projects. The timber sale activities described above will yield wood products to the commercial markets 

in the form of pulpwood, sawtimber and biomass fuels.

B.2.2 Suitability

Stage 1: Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production

The suitability determinations used in plan revision are based on land classifications contained in the 

Forest Service FSVeg forest vegetation database as of 2006. These classifications have been updated 

through inventories and project decisions made over the last several decades. 

Most of the land base on the National Forests in Mississippi (97 percent) is considered tentatively suitable 

for timber production. Exceptions to that include areas administratively or congressionally withdrawn 

from such practices and non-forest land. The remainder of the land base is considered tentatively suitable 

for timber production. 

The tables in section B.2.3 below summarize acres for the timber land classification categories based on

2006 data. These land classifications are subject to change based on field inventory and subsequent 

classifications.

Stage 2: Timber Suitability – Economic Analysis

Table B 5 shows the present net value for silvicultural management alternatives in each ecological system 

/ vegetation type. These silvicultural management alternatives represent a range of management 

intensities or ways to attain different desired conditions. Present net value is the difference between the 

discounted revenues and discounted costs, using a 4 percent rate. The present net values presented do not 

indicate the need to categorize any areas as not cost-efficient in meeting forest plan objectives, which 

include timber production.
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-13

Table B 5. Present net value (PNV) of silvicultural management alternatives by ecological systema

Silvicultural Management PNV/Acre

Upland Loblolly

Even Aged Shortleaf Restoration $828

Even Aged $504

Un-even aged $421

Irregular Even Aged $117

Even Aged Longleaf Restoration 

Short Rotation (HMA) $-109

Even Aged Longleaf Restoration 

Long Rotation (HMA) $-348

Mesic Loblolly

Even Aged Hardwood 

Restoration $463

Un-even aged $360

Even Aged $308

Irregular Even Aged HMA Short 

Rotation $229

Irregular Even Aged HMA Long 

Rotation $73

Slash

Even Aged Longleaf Restoration 

Long Rotation (HMA) $367

Un-even aged $307

Irregular Even Aged $113

Even Aged $-99

Even Aged Longleaf Restoration 

Short Rotation (HMA) $-126

Flood Plain Slash

Un-even aged $767

Even Aged $705

Silvicultural Management PNV/Acre

Shortleaf

Irregular Even Aged $20

Un-even aged $-67

Even Aged $-273

Even Aged Woodland $-332

Longleaf

Irregular Even Aged Woodland $139

Un-even aged $-21

Even Aged Woodland $-126

Irregular Even aged $-282

Even Aged $-413

Dry Upland Hardwood

Un-even aged $308

Irregular Even aged $84

Irregular Even Aged Woodland $-85

Mesic Hardwood

Un-even aged $312

Irregular Even aged $133

Floodplain Hardwood

Un-even aged $285

Irregular Even aged $132

Mississippi River Floodplain Hardwood

Un-even aged $-21

Irregular Even aged $-79

a - See Timber Resource Program Suitability and 

Sustainability Analysis planning process record for a 

description of the different silvicultural management options 

considered.

The present net value calculations above used the historical timber sale revenues, timber management 

costs, road costs and road factors shown in Table B 6.

Table B 6. Revenues

Forest Product Range $ / CCFa Weighted Average $ / CCF

Pine Sawtimber $55.43 – $105.14 $77.90

Pine Pulpwood $8.37 - $35.79 $16.66

Hardwood Sawtimber $33.32 - $60.97 $45.57

Hardwood Pulpwood $2.00 - $38.17 $14.15

a – CCF – hundred cubic feet
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-14 National Forests in Mississippi

• Timber management costs:

○ Sale preparation or administration - $20.79 / ccf

○ Site preparation – range $56.00 – 665.89 per acre; average $245.18 per acre

○ Planting – range $259.00 - $316.00 per acre

○ Stocking surveys - $14.00 - $28.00 per acre

○ Release - $185.00

○ Non-commercial thinning - $410.00

○ Prescribed fire – $56.00

• Road costs and factors

○ Road construction - $0.00

○ Road reconstruction - $21,210.00

○ Road maintenance – $743.00

○ Average miles road constructed per acre harvested - 0.0

○ Average miles road reconstructed per acre harvested - 0.002034 miles per acre

○ Average miles road maintained per acre harvested - 0.002034 miles per acre

Stage 3: Identification of Lands Suitable for Timber Production

The tentative classifications were reviewed prior to plan revision analysis for accuracy and 

appropriateness given the desired conditions for the various forest ecosystem vegetation types. As a result 

of this review, acres in the near coast flatwoods system were modeled as not appropriate for timber 

production. Timber production is not compatible with the open woodland savanna and bog desired 

condition of these sites. Most of these areas were classed as suitable for timber production under the 1985 

Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Mississippi.

Areas identified on the National Forests in Mississippi preliminary list of possible old growth have been 

modeled as not appropriate for timber production as well, if they were not already in that category. This 

was done because there would be no intent to schedule harvesting these stands for regeneration. They 

may be harvested when project level decisions identify the areas are not providing desired old growth 

character or finds the sites more important for restoration than old growth character when the species 

occurring are not deemed site appropriate.

Areas have also been identified as not suitable for timber production during past inventories due to site 

characteristics, uses, barriers to management or red-cockaded woodpecker management guides.

There have also been areas nominated for special area designation and reviewed for appropriateness for 

the designation. The nominated areas deemed appropriate for further consideration for designation were 

placed in a Deferred Withdrawn (400) Land Class. The plan alternatives which move most of these 

designations forward will allow them to be moved to Reserved Withdrawn (300) Land Class. Both 400 

and 300 Land Class designations are Unsuitable for Timber Production. Two of the deferred withdrawn 

areas (See the EIS section 3.5.5 discussion of the 186 acre Lee Creek Proposed Research Natural Area 

and the 80 acre Singleton Prairie Proposed Botanical Area for rationale) were dropped from further 

consideration. These were dropped from all alternatives. Therefore each alternative analyzed, utilizes the 

same allocation of acres to the land base Suitable for timber management.

As can be seen in Table B 7, most of the land base on the National Forests in Mississippi (81 percent) is 

considered suitable for timber production after identifying lands not appropriate for timber production. 

Table B 7 quantifies lands that are suitable for timber production and those lands that are not appropriate 

for timber production. There is a timber land classification map included in the planning record. This map 

displays areas where timber harvesting activities could occur.
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-15

Table B 7. Lands suitable and unsuitable for timber production by Forest

National Forests in Mississippi

Bienville 

NF

DeSoto NF 

DeSoto RD

DeSoto NF

Chickasawhay RD

Homochitto 

NF Delta NF

Holly 

Springs 

NF

Tombigbee 

NF

National 

Forests in 

Mississippi

Totals

Classification Approx. Acres

Total National Forest System 

Land 178,541 368,218 150,369 191,842 60,898 155,661 67,005 1,172,524

Non-forest lands 1603 9,368 291 2,960 1,701 1,979 924 18,826

Lands that have been withdrawn 

from timber production 242 11,169 690 228 711 186 1,200 14,426

Lands where technology is not 

available to ensure timber 

production would not cause 

irreversible resource damage

Lands where there is no 

reasonable assurance they can 

be adequately restocked

Lands Tentatively Suitable for 

Timber Production 176,696 347,681 149,388 188,654 58,486 153,496 64,881 1,139,272

Lands where timber production is 

not compatible with achieving 

desired conditions and objectives 

(Lands not appropriate for timber 

production)

21,748 97,728 10,117 16,585 21,156 12,056 5,627 185,017

Lands Suitable for Timber 

Production 154,948 249,953 139,271 172,069 37,330 141,440 59,254 954,255

Lands Not Suitable For Timber 

Production 23,593 118,265 11,098 19,773 23,568 14,221 7,751 218,269
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-16 National Forests in Mississippi

B.2.3 Estimated Vegetation Management Practices

Table B 8 - Table B 17 show estimated acres of harvests for vegetation treatment to implement the plan 

objectives and priorities for the first two decades under five alternatives. These estimates are displayed by 

district. These likely program acres are provided in the tables below for lands suitable for timber 

production, or where timber harvests are needed to meet other resource objectives on lands not suitable 

for timber production.

Table B 8. Estimated vegetation management practices alternative A (custodial) (likely 

accomplishments for first decade)

Practice Acres By District

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

288 279 494 1,061

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 28,202 16,934 14,896 17,567 77,599

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest

Subtotal 

Acres 28,490 17,213 15,390 0 0 17,567 0 78,660

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

73 73

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 125 125

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest

Subtotal 

Acres 0 0 198 0 0 0 0 198

Grand total 

Acres 28,490 17,213 15,588 0 0 17,567 0 78,858
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-17

Table B 9. Estimated Vegetation management practices alternative A (custodial) (likely 

accomplishments for second decade)

Practice Acres By District

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

288 294 555 1137

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 27067 23,602 20795 17,656 89,120

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest

Subtotal 

Acres 27,355 23,896 21,350 0 0 17,656 0 90,257

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

116 116

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 319 319

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest

Subtotal 

Acres 0 0 435 0 0 0 0 435

Grand total 

Acres 27,355 23,896 21,785 0 0 17,656 0 90,692
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-18 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 10. Estimated vegetation management practices alternative B (no action) (likely 

accomplishments for first decade)

Practice Acres By District

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

981 4,746 177 3,794 4,543 1,854 16,095

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 17680 23,977 14,909 5,079 6,789 23,807 4,862 97,103

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 531 531

Subtotal 

Acres 18,211 24,958 19,655 5,256 10,583 28,350 6,716 113,729

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

79 79

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 184 184

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 33 33

Subtotal 

Acres 33 0 263 0 0 0 0 296

Grand total 

Acres 18,244 24,958 19,918 5,256 10,583 28,350 6,716 114,025
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-19

Table B 11. Estimated vegetation management practices alternative B (no action) (likely 

accomplishments for second decade)

Practice Acres By District

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

52 1,701 4,250 951 3,571 5,030 2,204 17,759

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 17,290 25,304 16,762 4,576 6,672 23,283 4,296 98,183

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 267 267

Subtotal 

Acres 17,609 27,005 21,012 5,527 10,243 28,313 6,500 116,209

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

82 82

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 504 229 733

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 14 14

Subtotal 

Acres 14 504 311 0 0 0 0 829

Grand total 

Acres 17,623 27,509 21,323 5,527 10,243 28,313 6,500 117,038
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-20 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 12. Estimated vegetation management practices alternative C (proposed action) (likely 

accomplishments for first decade)

Practice Acres By District

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

1,558 6,530 1,357 5,712 6,898 3,008 25,063

Uneven-aged 

Management 83 83

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 27,295 29,786 22,788 6,496 10,626 36,284 7,433 140,708

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 799 799

Subtotal 

Acres 28,094 31,344 29,318 7,853 16,338 43,182 10,524 166,653

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

160 160

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 408 70 478

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 51 1,117 1168

Subtotal 

Acres 51 0 1,525 0 230 0 0 1806

Grand total 

Acres 28145 31,344 30,843 7,853 16,568 43,182 10,524 168,459
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-21

Table B 13. Estimated vegetation management practices alternative C (proposed action) (likely 

accomplishments for second decade)

Practice Acres By District

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

1,109 2,113 6,727 1,212 5,835 8,945 3,020 28,961

Uneven-aged 

Management 80 80

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 24,810 33,133 27,216 7,535 10,359 41,277 7,542 151,872

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest

Subtotal 

Acres 25,919 35,246 33,943 8,747 16,194 50,222 10,642 180,913

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

1092 107 1199

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 441 85 526

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest

Subtotal 

Acres 0 0 1533 0 192 0 0 1,725

Grand total 

Acres 25,919 35,246 35,476 8,747 16,386 50,222 10,642 182,638
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-22 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 14. Estimated vegetation management practices alternative D (accelerated restoration) 

(likely accomplishments for first decade)

Practice Acres By District

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

4,373 9,694 1,357 10,683 11,419 5,359 42,885

Uneven-aged 

Management 82 82

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 33,785 19,030 18,722 6,496 8,653 26,775 3,752 117,213

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 1211 1211

Subtotal 

Acres 34,996 23,403 28,416 7,853 19,336 38,194 9,193 161,391

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

901 98 999

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 249 1186 1435

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 47 47

Subtotal 

Acres 47 249 2,087 0 98 0 0 2,481

Grand total 

Acres 35,043 23,652 30,503 7,853 19,434 38,194 9,193 163,872
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-23

Table B 15. Estimated vegetation management practices alternative D (accelerated restoration) 

(likely accomplishments for second decade)

Practice Acres By District

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

4103 3,702 8,117 1,212 9,554 13,463 4,455 44,606

Uneven-aged 

Management 49 49

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 18,767 24,238 30,065 7,535 9,447 27,171 5,279 122,502

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest

Subtotal 

Acres 22,870 27,940 38,182 8,747 19,001 40,634 9,783 167,157

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

765 84 849

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 430 1289 11 1,730

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest

Subtotal 

Acres 0 430 2,054 0 95 0 0 2,579

Grand total 

Acres 22,870 28,370 40,236 8,747 19,096 40,634 9,783 169,736
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-24 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 16. Estimated vegetation management practices alternative E (enhanced forest health) 

(likely accomplishments for first decade)

Practice Acres By District

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

1,558 4,874 1,357 14,095 8,741 3,008 33,633

Uneven-aged 

Management 83 83

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 43,335 29,786 50,047 6,496 16,648 32,725 7,433 186,470

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 1,178 1178

Subtotal 

Acres 44,513 31,344 54,921 7,853 30,743 41,466 10,524 221,364

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

57 98 160

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 1,097 478

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 47 99 1168

Subtotal 

Acres 47 0 1,253 0 98 0 0 1806

Grand total 

Acres 44,560 31,344 56,174 7,853 30,841 41,466 10,524 222,762
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-25

Table B 17. Estimated vegetation management practices alternative E (enhanced forest health) 

(likely accomplishments for second decade)

Practice Acres By District

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

2916 2,113 6,530 1,357 13,705 7,742 3,613 37,976

Uneven-aged 

Management 88 88

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 34,081 33,133 33,133 6,496 14,736 37,012 10,033 168,624

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest

Subtotal 

Acres 36,997 35,246 39,663 7,853 28,441 44,754 13,734 206,688

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

84 84

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 408 11 419

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 1,117 1,117

Subtotal 

Acres 0 1,525 0 95 0 0 1,525

Grand total 

Acres 36,997 35,246 41,188 7,853 28,536 44,754 13,734 208,213
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-26 National Forests in Mississippi

B.2.4 Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ); Timber Sale Program Quantity 

(TSPQ); Culmination of Mean Annual Increment (CMAI)

Table B 18 through Table B 27 show the estimated outputs (MMBF - million board feet, and MMCF -

million cubic feet) from the harvesting described in the previous section for the first two decades of plan 

implementation for five alternatives. The allowable sale quantity (ASQ) is the maximum volume that can 

be harvested on lands suitable for timber production over the first decade. The ASQ is based on the 

amount of timber harvest scheduled for removal from acres suitable for timber production in the first 

decade from the selected alternative. The timber sale program quantity (TSPQ) is the volume harvested 

from lands suitable for timber production, along with the estimate of volume harvested to meet other 

resource objectives on lands not suitable for timber production.

Harvesting may occur on lands that are not suitable for timber production. This harvesting is included in 

this estimate to provide info on possible ecological restoration and management needs within 

Experimental Forests, harvests to restore prairies or other special areas and habitat improvement within 

possible old growth.

Regeneration harvests are limited to stands that have reached the culmination of mean annual increment 

(CMAI). Culmination of mean annual increment of cubic volume does not occur at a precisely 

predetermined age. It varies by species, site quality and by management practices applied to stands. For 

natural even-aged stands of loblolly, shortleaf and slash pine the mean annual increment (MAI) peaks at 

about age 35. For longleaf, however, the peak occurs later at about age 50 (Farrar 1982). Other 

publications indicate that mean annual increment peaks for loblolly and slash plantations earlier between 

20 to 27 years for loblolly and 18 to 25 years for slash (Sullivan and Williston 1977), (Baldwin and 

Feduccia 1987), (Bennett 1963). Culmination of mean annual increment for hardwoods is later than for 

pine species. Data on upland oak indicated a peak of mean annual increment at age 70 for managed stands 

of upland oak (Utz and Sims 1981). A high percentage of National Forests in Mississippi hardwood 

stands occur in minor stream bottoms, lower slopes or floodplains. These sites are likely to sustain higher 

levels of growth than those reported by Utz and Sims. The culmination of mean annual increment for 

hardwood on these sites is likely to be as late as age 90.
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-27

Table B 18. Timber sale program quantity in million cubic feet (MMCF) alternative A (custodial) 

(likely volume outputs for first decade)

Practice Timber sale program quantity (TSPQ) by district

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

0.5 1.3 0 0 0 0 1.8

Uneven-aged 

Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 29.3 11.8 10.6 0 0 20.1 0 71.8

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 1.0 1

Total 

(MMBF) 151.5 61.5 59.5 0 0 100.5 0 373.0

Total 

(MMCF) 30.3 12.3 11.9 0 0 20.1 0 74.6

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 0.1 0.1

Total 

(MMBF) 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.5

Total 

(MMCF) 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0.1

Grand Total 

(MMBF) 151.5 61.5 60.0 0 0 100.5 0 373.5

Grand Total 

(MMCF) 30.3 12.3 12.0 0 0 20.1 0 74.7
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-28 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 19. Timber sale program quantity in million cubic feet (MMCF) alternative A (custodial) 

(likely volume outputs for second decade)

Practice Timber sale program quantity (TSPQ) by district

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

0.5 1.0 0 0 0 0 1.5

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 29.1 11.8 11.5 0 0 20.1 0 72.5

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 1 1

Total 

(MMBF) 150.5 61.5 62.5 0 0 100.5 0 375

Total 

(MMCF) 30.1 12.3 12.5 0 0 20.1 0 75

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 0.1 0.1

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 0.2 0.2

Total 

(MMBF) 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 1.5

Total 

(MMCF) 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0.3

Grand Total 

(MMBF) 150.5 61.5 64.0 0 0 100.5 0 376.5

Grand Total 

(MMCF) 30.1 12.3 12.8 0 0 20.1 0 75.3
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-29

Table B 20. Timber sale program quantity in million cubic feet (MMCF) alternative B (no action) 

(likely volume outputs for first decade)

Practice Timber sale program quantity (TSPQ) by district

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

0 2.4 8.7 .2 7.0 12.5 2.1 32.9

Uneven-aged 

Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial

Thinning 17.6 17.2 10.5 2.8 6.1 26.5 4.4 85.1

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 1.9 1.9

Total 

(MMBF) 97.5 98.0 96 15.0 65.5 195 32.5 599.5

Total 

(MMCF) 19.5 19.6 19.2 3.0 13.1 39.0 6.5 119.9

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

0.1 0.1

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 0.1 0.1

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 0.1 0.1

Total 

(MMBF) 0.5 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 1.5

Total 

(MMCF) 0.1 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.3

Grand Total 

(MMBF) 98.0 98.0 97 15.0 65.5 195 32.5 601.0

Grand Total 

(MMCF) 19.6 19.6 19.4 3.0 13.1 39.0 6.5 120.2
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-30 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 21. Timber sale program quantity in million cubic feet (MMCF) alternative B (no action) 

(likely volume outputs for second decade)

Practice Timber sale program quantity (TSPQ) by district

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

.1 3.0 8.9 1.8 7.0 14.0 2.7 37.5

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 18.5 16.3 10.5 4.2 6.2 25.1 3.9 84.7

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 1.0 1.0

Total 

(MMBF) 98 96.5 97 30.0 66.0 195.5 33.0 616.0

Total 

(MMCF) 19.6 19.3 19.4 6.0 13.2 39.1 6.6 123.2

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

0.1 0.1

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 0.4 0.1 0.5

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 0.1 0.1

Total 

(MMBF) 0.5 2.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 3.5

Total 

(MMCF) 0.1 0.4 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.7

Grand Total 

(MMBF) 98.5 98.5 98.0 30.0 66.0 195.5 33.0 619.5

Grand Total 

(MMCF) 19.7 19.7 19.6 6.0 13.2 39.1 6.6 123.9
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-31

Table B 22. Timber sale program quantity in million cubic feet (MMCF) alternative C (proposed 

action) (likely volume outputs for first decade)

Practice Timber sale program quantity (TSPQ) by district

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

3.5 12.9 1.6 10.6 19.8 3.6 52.0

Uneven-aged 

Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 27.3 20.5 16.2 3.3 9.5 40.2 6.8 123.8

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 2.8 2.8

Total 

(MMBF) 150.5 120.0 145.5 24.5 100.5 300 52.5 893.5

Total 

(MMCF) 30.1 24.0 29.1 4.9 20.1 60.0 10.5 178.7

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

0.3 0.3

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 0.1 0.1

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 0.2 1.9 2.1

Total 

(MMBF) 1.0 0 10 0 1.5 0 0 12.5

Total 

(MMCF) 0.2 0 2.0 0 0.3 0 0 2.5

Grand Total 

(MMBF) 151.5 120 155.5 24.5 102.0 300 52.5 906.0

Grand Total 

(MMCF) 30.3 24.0 31.1 4.9 20.4 60 10.5 181.2
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-32 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 23. Timber sale program quantity in million cubic feet (MMCF) alternative C (proposed 

action) (likely volume outputs for second decade)

Practice Timber sale program quantity (TSPQ) by district

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

3.0 4.2 12.1 1.5 10.5 19.8 3.6 54.7

Uneven-aged 

Management .1 .1

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 27.2 19.9 16.5 3.5 9.6 40.5 6.8 124.0

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest

Total 

(MMBF) 151.0 120.5 143 25.0 100.5 301.5 52.5 894

Total 

(MMCF) 30.2 24.1 28.6 5.0 20.1 60.3 10.5 178.8

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

0.2 0.1 0.3

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 0.1 0.1 0.2

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 1.9 1.9

Total 

(MMBF) 0 0 11 0 1.0 0 0 12.0

Total 

(MMCF) 0 0 2.2 0 0.2 0 0 2.4

Grand Total 

(MMBF) 151.0 120.5 154.0 25.0 101.5 301.5 52.5 906

Grand Total 

(MMCF) 30.2 24.1 30.8 5.0 20.3 60.3 10.5 181.2
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-33

Table B 24. Timber sale program quantity in million cubic feet (MMCF) alternative D (accelerated 

restoration) (likely volume outputs for first decade)

Practice Timber sale program quantity (TSPQ) by district

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

11.3 19.7 1.6 16.1 34.0 8.3 91.0

Uneven-aged 

Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 35.0 12.5 13.6 3.4 7.7 30.0 1.7 103.9

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 5.0 5.0

Total 

(MMBF) 200.0 119.0 166.5 25.0 119.0 320.0 50.5 1000

Total 

(MMCF) 40.0 23.8 33.3 5.0 23.8 64.0 10.1 200.0

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

0.2 0.2 0.4

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 0.1 0.2 0.3

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 0.2 1.4 1.6

Total 

(MMBF) 1.0 0.5 9.0 0 1.0 0 0 11.5

Total 

(MMCF) .2 0.1 1.8 0 0.2 0 0 2.3

Grand Total 

(MMBF) 201.0 119.5 175.5 25.0 120.0 320.0 50.5 1011.5

Grand Total 

(MMCF) 40.2 23.9 35.1 5.0 24.0 64.0 10.1 202.3
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-34 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 25. Timber sale program quantity in million cubic feet (MMCF) alternative D (accelerated 

restoration) (likely volume outputs for second decade)

Practice Timber sale program quantity (TSPQ) by district

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

20.7 8.2 15.5 1.5 15.5 37.5 7.0 105.9

Uneven-aged 

Management 0.1 0.1

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 19.4 15.5 17.8 3.5 8.3 26.5 5.0 96.0

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest

Total 

(MMBF) 200.5 118.5 166.5 25.0 119.0 320.0 60.5 1010.0

Total 

(MMCF) 40.1 23.7 33.3 5.0 23.8 64.0 12.1 202.0

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

0.2 0.2 0.4

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 0.3 0.3 0.6

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 1.2 1.2

Total 

(MMBF) 0 1.5 8.5 0 1.0 0 0 11.0

Total 

(MMCF) 0 0.3 1.7 0 0.2 0 0 2.2

Grand Total 

(MMBF) 200.5 120.0 175.0 25.0 120.0 320.0 60.5 1021.0

Grand Total 

(MMCF) 40.1 24.0 35.0 5.0 24.0 64.0 12.1 204.2
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-35

Table B 26. Timber sale program quantity in million cubic feet (MMCF) alternative E (enhanced 

forest health) (likely volume outputs for first decade)

Practice Timber sale program quantity (TSPQ) by district

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

3.5 9.7 1.6 21.8 26.0 5.8 68.4

Uneven-aged 

Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 45.1 20.5 34.1 3.4 12.1 38.1 9.1 162.4

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 4.8 4.8

Total 

(MMBF) 249.5 120.0 219.0 25.0 169.5 320.5 75.0 1178.5

Total 

(MMCF) 49.9 24.0 43.8 5.0 33.9 64.1 15.0 235.7

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

0.2 0.2 0.4

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 0.5 0.5

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 0.2 0.1 0.3

Total 

(MMBF) 1.0 0 4.0 0 1.0 0 0 6

Total 

(MMCF) .2 0 .8 0 .2 0 0 1.2

Grand Total 

(MMBF) 250.5 120.0 223.0 25.0 170.5 320.5 75.0 1184.5

Grand Total 

(MMCF) 50.1 24.0 44.6 5.0 34.1 64.1 15.0 236.9
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-36 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 27. Timber sale program quantity in million cubic feet (MMCF) alternative E (enhanced 

forest health) (likely volume outputs for second decade)

Practice Timber sale program quantity (TSPQ) by district

Lands where timber production achieves, or is compatible with desired conditions and objectives

Bienville Chickasawhay DeSoto Delta Holly 

Springs Homochitto Tombigbee Total

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

14.7 4.2 9.6 1.5 22.3 21.0 6.1 79.4

Uneven-aged 

Management 0.1 0.1

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 35.3 19.9 34.1 3.5 11.6 43.1 8.9 156.4

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest

Total 

(MMBF) 250.0 120.5 218.5 25.0 169.5 320.5 75.5 1179.5

Total 

(MMCF) 50.0 24.1 43.7 5.0 33.9 64.1 15.1 235.9

Lands not suited for timber production

Regeneration 

Cutting 

(even- or 

two-aged)

0.1 0.2 0.3

Uneven-aged 

Management

Intermediate 

Harvest

Commercial 

Thinning 0.5 0.5

Salvage 

/Sanitation

Other 

Harvest 0.1

Total 

(MMBF) 0 0 3.5 0 1.0 0 0 4.5

Total 

(MMCF) 0 0 0.7 0 0.2 0 0 0.9

Grand Total 

(MMBF) 250.0 120.5 222.0 25.0 170.5 320.5 75.5 1184.0

Grand Total 

(MMCF) 50.0 24.1 44.4 5.0 34.1 64.1 15.1 236.8
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-37

Product Mix

The current mix of timber products as tracked in the Forest Service transaction evidence evaluation 

database was used to estimate products likely to be produced from the Timber Sale Program Quantity of 

each alternative. The volumes modeled were cubic foot volumes not broken into products to estimate 

summaries and totals in the tables above. The transaction evidence evaluation database has historical data 

that is used in the Forest Service appraisal process for timber sales. The recent sales product mix was 

applied as percentages to the forest wide volumes above to estimate the products likely to be produced.

These product outcomes are displayed by alternative in Table B 28.

Table B 28. Timber sale program quantity (TSPQ) product mix for the National Forests in 

Mississippi (first decade) in million cubic feet (MMCF)

Alternative A 

Custodial

Alternative B 

No Action

Alternative C 

Proposed 

Action

Alternative D 

Accelerated 

Restoration

Alternative E 

Enhanced 

Forest 

Health

TSPQ (MMCF) 75 120 181 202 237

Products Product Mix 

Percentage

Pine 

Sawtimber 46 % 35 55 83 93 109

Pine 

Pulpwood 40 % 30 48 72 81 95

Hardwood 

Sawtimber 4 % 3 5 7 8 9

Hardwood 

Pulpwood 9 % 7 11 16 18 21

B.2.5 Long-term Sustained Yield and Timber Sale Program Quantity

The long-term sustained yield for the National Forests in Mississippi is the same for all alternatives. The 

long-term sustained yield does not change by alternative because desired future condition, silvicultural 

acres for management are the same in all alternatives. The alternatives differ mostly in level of program 

based on resources available and some variation in which harvest methods to utilize in moving toward the 

desired conditions. The following chart depicts a long-term sustained yield of 307 million cubic feet per 

decade for lands suitable for timber production. The chart also displays Timber Sale Program Quantities. 

The proposed action Timber Sale Program Quantity is approximately 181 million cubic feet per decade. 

The custodial alternative Timber Sale Program Quantity is approximately 75 million cubic feet per 

decade. The no-action alternative Timber Sale Program Quantity is approximately 120 million cubic feet 

per decade. The accelerated restoration alternative Timber Sale Program Quantity is approximately 204 

million cubic feet per decade. The enhanced forest health alternative Timber Sale Program Quantity is 

approximately 237 million cubic feet per decade. The Timber Sale Program Quantity of each alternative 

analyzed for the National Forests in Mississippi are projected to be almost level and less than the longterm sustained yield (LTSY) for the 5 decades modeled. The Timber Sale Program Quantities are level in 

the alternative projections because the program level is constrained to an assumed level budget and 

program implementation capability for each alternative.
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-38 National Forests in Mississippi

Figure B 1. Long term sustained yield (LTSY) and allowable sale quantity (ASQ) on suitable lands

The USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station Forest Inventory and Analysis 2006 report on 

Mississippi’s forests indicates that the National Forest System Lands in Mississippi have an average net 

annual growth of 71.4 million cubic feet (Oswalt et al. 2009). This same report estimated average annual 

removals at 42.2 million cubic feet. Therefore the gross growth per decade for National Forest System 

Lands in Mississippi based on Southern Research Station Forest Inventory and Analysis has been 1,136 

million cubic feet.

B.2.6 Description of Anticipated Changes and Treatments by 

Vegetation Type

The changes in forest conditions through time and acres of harvest treatments were modeled utilizing a 

spreadsheet to develop information for the alternatives as described in section Appendix B - . This section 

provides a summary of the outcomes for the first and second decade from that modeling effort. These 

outcomes are referred to as proposed and probable respectively by decade. Changes in vegetation 

classification, harvest treatments and age conditions are displayed for each vegetation classification.

Upland Longleaf Pine Forest

First thinning, subsequent thinning, and woodland thinning were identified as important management 

activities to promote and maintain the desired ecosystem structural conditions in longleaf system. In 

threatened and endangered species habitat areas, thinning treatments are the highest priority vegetation 

treatments because they help create optimal habitat conditions for species recovery. Table B 29 projects

the proposed level of acres of these activities during the first decade and the probable acres during the 

second decade for each of the alternatives.
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-39

Table B 29. Longleaf forest timber treatments by alternative

First Thinning Subsequent 

Thinning Woodland Thinning Totals

Alternative

Proposed 

1st 

Decade

Probable 

2nd 

Decade

Proposed 

1st 

Decade

Probable 

2nd 

Decade

Proposed 

1st 

Decade

Probable 

2nd 

Decade

Proposed 

1st 

Decade

Probable 

2nd 

Decade

Alternative A

Custodial 3,783 7,391 10,266 15,584 4,877 1,794 18,926 24,769

Alternative B

No Action 3,038 6,287 20,718 19,564 0 0 23,756 25,851

Alternative C

Proposed 

Action 

4,202 6,965 25,100 30,573 4,418 1,563 33,720 39,101

Alternative D

Accelerated 

Restoration 

5,183 11,864 12,759 28,668 7,467 2,851 25,409 43,383

Alternative E

Enhanced 

Forest 

Health 

7,838 12,669 26,747 35,773 9,161 4,674 43,746 53,116

Restoration of the longleaf pine forest ecological system to appropriate sites is the highest priority for 

long-term sustainability of this ecological system. The acres of forest in regeneration (0-10 years) and 

mature condition (age 60 plus) are important for evaluating ecological viability of each system. Table B 

30 projects the proposed level of longleaf pine forest and woodland in regeneration and mature structural 

condition at end of the first decade and the probable acres at end of the second decade for each of the 

alternatives. The acres in regeneration are all the result of conversion from loblolly and slash pine.

Table B 30. Longleaf pine forest age structure after 1st and 2nd decades

Acres of Longleaf Pine Acres in Regeneration Acres of Mature Forest

Alternative Proposed 

1st Decade

Probable 

2nd Decade

Proposed 

1st Decade

Probable 

2nd Decade

Proposed 

1st Decade

Probable 

2nd Decade

Alternative A

Custodial 238,876 239,802 847 

(0.4%)

927

(0.4%)

152,776 

(64%)

160,572 

(67%)

Alternative B

No Action 246,660 256,777 8,632 

(3.5%)

10,118 

(3.9%)

152,775 

(62%)

160,571 

(63%)

Alternative C

Proposed Action 251,152 267,111 13,125 

(5.2%)

15,959 

(6.0%)

152,775 

(61%)

160,571 

(60%)

Alternative D

Accelerated 

Restoration 

261,285 287,942 23,256 

(8.9%)

26,658 

(9.3%)

152,775 

(58%)

160,571 

(56%)

Alternative E

Enhanced 

Forest Health 

251,705 268,389 13,678 

(5.4%)

16,682 

(6.2%)

152,775 

(61%)

160,571 

(60%)
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-40 National Forests in Mississippi

Shortleaf Pine Forest 

First thinning, subsequent thinning, even-aged and uneven aged regeneration were identified as important 

management activities to promote and maintain the desired ecosystem structural conditions for the 

shortleaf system. Table B 31 projects the proposed level of acres of these activities during the first decade 

and the probable acres during the second decade for each of the alternatives.

Table B 31. Shortleaf pine forest timber harvest treatments

First Thin Subsequent 

Thinning

Woodland 

Thinning

Even-aged 

Regen.

Uneven-aged 

Management Totals

Decade

Alternative 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 

Alternative A

Custodial 50 18 1,016 739 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,066 757

Alternative B

No Action 413 189 2,515 2,044 0 0 638 730 0 0 3,566 2,963

Alternative C

Proposed 

Action 

647 330 3,425 2,787 64 36 1,409 1,403 16 14 5,561 4,570

Alternative D

Accelerated 

Restoration 

492 553 2,381 2,159 355 455 343 342 16 17 3,587 3,526

Alternative E

Enhanced 

Forest Health 

558 513 5,860 4,705 0 382 2,773 3,401 16 17 9,207 9,018

Restoration of the shortleaf pine forest ecological system to appropriate sites is the highest priority for 

long-term sustainability of this ecological system. The acres of forest in regeneration (0-10 years) and 

mature condition (age 60 plus years) are important for evaluating ecological viability of each system.

Table B 32 projects the proposed level of shortleaf pine forest and woodland in regeneration and mature 

structural condition at end of the first decade and the probable acres at end of the second decade for each 

of the alternatives. Regeneration acres represent acres converted from loblolly pine as well as even-aged 

regeneration of shortleaf pine. There are a minor amount of slash pine acres on the Holly Springs and 

Tombigbee districts. Slash pine was not modeled separately for these units. Slash pine conversion to 

shortleaf is included in the upland loblolly acres and should be given priority to convert. The values 

represent a decadal total.
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-41

Table B 32. Shortleaf pine forest age structure after 1st and 2nd decades

Total Acres of Shortleaf 

Pine-Oak Acres in Regeneration Acres of Mature Forest

Alternative Proposed 

1st Decade

Probable 

2nd Decade

Proposed 

1st Decade

Probable 

2nd Decade

Proposed 

1st Decade

Probable 

2nd Decade

Alternative A

Custodial 59,139 59,139 0 0 48,960 

(83%)

50,036 

(85%)

Alternative B

No Action 60,819 62,915 2,346 

(3.9%)

2,826 

(4.5%)

50,368 

(83%)

48,640 

(77%)

Alternative C

Proposed Action 61,815 64,497 4,033 

(6.5%)

4,085 

(6.3%)

41,121 

(67%)

47,196 

(73%)

Alternative D

Accelerated 

Restoration 

68,049 75,438 9,281 

(13.6%)

7,669 

(10.2%)

48,589 

(71%)

49,322 

(65%)

Alternative E

Enhanced Forest 

Health 

66,616 73,267 10,279

(15.4%)

10,075 

(13.8%)

46,159 

(69%)

43,831 

(60%)

Upland Loblolly Pine Forest

Overabundance of the upland loblolly pine forest ecological system on the landscape is the most 

important characteristic of this system. Conversion of most of the loblolly pine forest ecological system to 

appropriate ecological systems is a high priority for long-term sustainability of the forest. Table B 33

projects the proposed level of acres converted by regeneration to appropriate ecological systems during 

the first decade and the probable acres during the second decade for each of the alternatives. The values 

represent a decadal total.

Table B 33.Upland loblolly pine forest conversion

Acres Converted

Alternative 1st Decade 2nd Decade

Alternative A Custodial 431 478

Alternative B No Action 8,728 10,507

Alternative C Proposed Action 14,246 15,753

Alternative D Accelerated Restoration 29,928 31,745

Alternative E Enhanced Forest Health 22,890 22,847

First thinning, subsequent thinning, even-aged and uneven-aged regeneration were identified as important 

management activities to promote and maintain the desired ecosystem structural conditions of upland 

loblolly pine. Table B 34 projects the proposed level of acres of these activities during the first decade and 

the probable acres during the second decade for each of the alternatives. The even aged regeneration acres 

include acres harvested to convert to appropriate tree species, but not prairie restoration on the Bienville.
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-42 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 34. Upland loblolly pine forest timber harvest treatments

First Thinning Subsequent 

Thinning

Even-aged 

Regeneration

Uneven-aged 

Management Totals

Decade

Alternative 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 

Alt. A

Cust. 12,884 7,573 14,938 20,665 143 190 0 0 27,965 28,428

Alt. B

No Act. 17,083 14,052 18,520 18,339 9,315 10,787 0 0 44,918 43,178

Alt. C

Proposed 25,827 22,580 27,471 34,128 13,963 16,313 38 36 67,299 73,057

Alt. D

Accel. Rest. 21,990 10,838 23,538 30,850 29,139 32,245 40 0 74,707 73,933

Alt. E

Enh. F.H. 25,587 22,594 37,913 46,666 22,101 22,947 40 7 85,641 92,214

The acres of forest in regeneration (0-10 years) and mature condition (age 60 plus) are important for 

evaluating ecological viability of each system. Table B 35 projects the proposed level of upland loblolly 

pine forest in regeneration and mature structural condition at end of the first decade and the probable 

acres at end of the second decade for each of the alternatives. Regeneration acres represent acres 

harvested but not converted from loblolly pine to shortleaf or longleaf pine. The values represent a 

decadal total.

Table B 35. Upland loblolly pine forest age structure after 1st and 2nd decade

Total Acres of Upland 

Loblolly Pine Forest Acres in Regeneration Acres of Mature Forest

Alternative 1st Decade 2nd Decade 1st Decade 2nd 

Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade

Alternative A

Custodial 299,317 298,807 0 0 135,502 (45%) 152,609 (51%)

Alternative B

No Action 291,042 280,534 1094 (0.4%) 508 (0.2%) 126,016 (43%) 133,104 (47%)

Alternative C

Proposed 

Action

286,524 269,770 506 (<0.2%) 557 (0.2%) 121,965 (43%) 122,818 (46%)

Alternative D

Accelerated 

Restoration

277,087 251,139 313 (0.1%) 339 (0.1%) 114,162 (41%) 104,860 (42%)

Alternative E

Enhanced 

Forest Health

276,880 253,906 0 5 (0.002%) 120,446 (44%) 113,982 (45%)

Mesic Loblolly Pine Forest

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

characteristic of this system. Conversion of most of the mesic loblolly pine forest ecological system to 

appropriate ecological systems is a high priority for long-term sustainability of the forest. An exception to 
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-43

this conversion emphasis would be to retain mesic loblolly in red cockaded-woodpecker habitat 

management areas rather than convert to hardwood dominated overstory conditions not suitable for the 

woodpecker. Table B 36 projects the proposed level of acres converted by regeneration to appropriate 

ecological systems during the first decade and the probable acres during the second decade for each of the 

alternatives. The values represent a decadal total.

Table B 36. Mesic loblolly pine forest conversion

Acres Converted

Alternative 1st Decade 2nd Decade

Alternative A Custodial 60 57

Alternative B No Action 696 624

Alternative C Proposed Action 1,183 1,304

Alternative D Accelerated Restoration 2,424 2,856

Alternative E Enhanced Forest Health 1,983 2,053

First thinning, subsequent thinning, even-aged and uneven-aged regeneration were identified as important 

management activities to promote and maintain the desired ecosystem structural conditions. Table B 37

projects the proposed level of acres of these activities during the first decade and the probable acres 

during the second decade for each of the alternatives. The even aged regeneration acres include acres 

harvested to convert to appropriate tree species.

Table B 37. Mesic loblolly pine forest timber harvest treatments

First Thinning Subsequent 

Thinning

Even-aged 

Regeneration

Uneven-aged 

Management Totals

Decade

Alternative 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 

Alt. A

Cust. 7,289 4,398 10,624 12,167 60 57 0 0 17,973 16,622

Alt. B

No Act. 6,811 6,557 9,278 9,167 696 624 0 0 16,785 16,348

Alt. C

Proposed 10,512 10,618 14,144 13,732 618 2,075 14 13 25,288 26,438

Alt. D

Accel. 

Rest.

8,546 2,916 14,117 10,458 3,172 2,856 8 10 25,843 16,240

Alt. E

Enh. F.H. 11,019 5,358 18,891 17,506 1,983 2,054 8 10 31,901 24,928

The acres of forest in regeneration (0-10 years) and mature condition (age 60 plus) are important for 

evaluating ecological viability of each system. Table B 38 projects the proposed level of mesic loblolly 

pine forest in regeneration and mature structural condition at end of the first decade and the probable 

acres at end of the second decade for each of the alternatives. Regeneration acres represent acres 

harvested but not converted from loblolly pine to mesic slope hardwood forest or longleaf pine. The 

values represent a decadal total.
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-44 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 38. Mesic loblolly pine forest age structure after 1st and 2nd decade

Total Acres of Mesic 

Loblolly Pine Forest Acres in Regeneration Acres of Mature Forest

Alternative 1st Decade 2nd Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade

Alternative A

Custodial 143,109 143,043 0 0 90,909 (64%) 97,778 (68%)

Alternative B

No Action 143,468 142,857 0 0 90,280 (63%) 96,592 (68%)

Alternative C

Proposed 

Action

142,982 141,679 29 (0.02%) 7 (0.004%) 84,021 (59%) 89,817 (63%)

Alternative D

Accelerated 

Restoration

140,993 138,137 0 0 87,804 (62%) 91,883 (67%)

Alternative E

Enhanced 

Forest Health

142,183 140,130 0 1 (0.0007%) 88,995 (63%) 93,878 (67%)

Slash Pine Forest

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

characteristic of this system. Conversion of most of the slash pine forest ecological system to appropriate 

ecological systems is the highest priority for long-term sustainability of the forest. Table B 39 projects the 

proposed level of acres converted by regeneration to appropriate ecological systems during the first 

decade and the probable acres during the second decade for each of the alternatives. The values represent 

a decadal total.

Table B 39. Slash pine forest conversion

Acres Converted

Alternative 1st Decade 2nd Decade

Alternative A Custodial 571 603

Alternative B No Action 4,099 4,179

Alternative C Proposed Action 5,307 6,059

Alternative D Accelerated Restoration 9,219 7,804

Alternative E Enhanced Forest Health 4,296 5,085

First thinning and subsequent thinning were identified as important management activities to promote and 

maintain the desired ecosystem structural conditions. Table B 40 projects the proposed level of acres of 

these activities during the first decade and the probable acres during the second decade for each of the 

alternatives. The even aged regeneration acres include acres harvested to convert to appropriate tree 

species.
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-45

Table B 40. Slash pine forest timber harvest treatments

First Thinning Subsequent 

Thinning

Even-aged 

Regeneration Totals

Alternative 1st 

Decade

2nd 

Decade

1st 

Decade

2nd 

Decade

1st 

Decade

2nd 

Decade

1st 

Decade

2nd 

Decade

Alternative A

Custodial 7,289 4,398 10,624 12,167 60 57 0 0

Alternative B

No Action 6,811 6,557 9,278 9,167 696 624 0 0

Alternative C

Proposed Action 10,512 10,618 14,144 13,732 618 2,075 14 13

Alternative D

Accelerated 

Restoration

8,546 2,916 14,117 10,458 3,172 2,856 8 10

Alternative E

Enhanced Forest 

Health

11,019 5,358 18,891 17,506 1,983 2,054 8 10

The acres of forest in regeneration (0-10 years) and mature condition (age 60 plus) are important for 

evaluating ecological viability of each system. Table B 41 projects the proposed level of slash pine forest 

in regeneration and mature structural condition at end of the first decade and the probable acres at end of 

the second decade for each of the alternatives. Regeneration acres represent acres harvested but not 

converted from slash pine to mesic slope hardwood forest or longleaf pine. The values represent a decadal 

total.

Table B 41. Slash pine forest age structure after 1st and 2nd decade

Total Acres of Slash Pine 

Forest Acres in Regeneration Acres of Mature Forest

Alternative 1st Decade 2nd Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade

Alternative A

Custodial 114,231 113,592 0 0 41,972 (37%) 55,621 (49%)

Alternative B

No Action 110,745 106,566 0 0 40,061 (36%) 49,883 (47%)

Alternative C

Proposed Action 109,537 103,479 0 0 39,052 (34%) 48,108 (46%)

Alternative D

Accelerated 

Restoration

105,625 97,820 0 0 36,006 (34%) 42,875 (44%)

Alternative E

Enhanced Forest 

Health

110,547 105,463 0 0 39,358 (36%) 48,948 (46%)

Northern Dry Upland Hardwood Forest

First thinning, subsequent thinning and gap creation, and irregular even-aged regeneration were identified 

as important management activities to promote and maintain the desired ecosystem structural conditions.
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-46 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 42 projects the proposed level of acres of these activities during the first decade and the probable 

acres during the second decade for each of the alternatives.

Table B 42. Northern dry upland hardwood forest timber harvest treatments

First 

Thinning

Subsequent 

Thinning

Woodland 

Thinning

Irregular 

Even-aged 

Regeneration

Uneven-aged 

Management Totals

Decade

Alt. 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Alt. A

Cust. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alt. B

No Act. 277 108 874 1,649 0 0 967 429 0 0 2,118 2,186

Alt. C

Proposed 435 128 1,236 2,006 24 64 1,538 1,354 11 11 3,244 3,563

Alt. D

Accel. 

Rest.

272 100 820 1,677 182 55 75 647 18 22 1,367 2,501

Alt. E

Enh. F.H. 244 90 8,339 5,643 0 461 2,138 2,510 18 22 10,739 8,726

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

system. The acres of forest in regeneration (0-10 years) and mature condition (age 60 plus) are important 

for evaluating ecological viability of each system. Table B 43 projects the proposed level of northern dry 

upland hardwood forest and woodland in regeneration and mature structural condition at end of the first 

decade and the probable acres at end of the second decade for each of the alternatives. Regeneration acres 

represent acres converted from loblolly pine as well as even-aged regeneration of northern dry upland 

hardwood. The values represent a decadal total.

Table B 43. Northern dry upland hardwood forest age structure after 1st and 2nd decades

Total Acres of Northern Dry 

Upland Hardwood Acres in Regeneration Acres of Mature Forest

Alternative 1st Decade 2nd Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade

Alternative A

Custodial 52,376 52,376 0 0 49,098 (94%) 49,730 (95%)

Alternative B

No Action 54,084 56,180 2011 (3.7%) 1,687 (3.0%) 48,132 (89%) 48,335 (86%)

Alternative C

Proposed Action 56,021 57,670 3,186 (5.7%) 3,010 (5.2%) 47,562 (85%) 46,840 (81%)

Alternative D

Accelerated 

Restoration

58,816 62,478 4,520 (7.7%) 4,310 (6.9%) 49,023 (83%) 49,008 (78%)

Alternative E

Enhanced 

Forest Health

57,762 60,947 5,528 (9.6%) 5,696 (9.3%) 46,960 (81%) 45,082 (74%)
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-47

Southern Dry Upland Hardwood and Southern Loess Bluff Forest

Restoration of the southern dry upland hardwood forest and southern loess bluff forest ecological system 

to appropriate sites is important for long-term sustainability of this ecological system. No management 

activities were identified as a priority for the first decade to promote and maintain the desired ecosystem 

structural conditions; rather this system will use natural processes to reach the desired condition. Some 

restoration of upland loblolly to southern loess bluff forest was modeled on the Homochitto.

The acres of forest in regeneration (0-10 years) and mature condition (age 60 plus) are important for 

evaluating ecological viability of each system. Table B 44 projects the proposed level of northern dry 

upland hardwood forest and woodland in regeneration and mature structural condition at end of the first 

decade and the probable acres at end of the second decade for each of the alternatives. The values 

represent a decadal total.

Table B 44. Southern dry upland hardwood forest age structure after 1st and 2nd decades

Total Acres of Southern Dry 

Upland Hardwood Acres in Regeneration Acres of Mature Forest

Alternative 1st Decade 2nd Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade

Alternative A

Custodial 52,030 52,724 517 (1.0%) 694 (1.3%) 46,405 (89%) 48,008 (91%)

Alternative B

No Action 51,768 52,118 284 (0.5%) 350 (0.7%) 46,382 (90%) 47,987 (92%)

Alternative C

Proposed Action 51,997 52,691 517 (1.0%) 694 (1.3%) 46,379 (89%) 47,984 (91%)

Alternative D

Accelerated 

Restoration

52,570 53,994 1,086 (2.1%) 1,424 (2.6%) 46,382 (88%) 47,986 (89%)

Alternative E

Enhanced 

Forest Health

52,425 53,244 941 (1.8%) 819 (1.5%) 46,382 (88%) 47,986 (90%)

Southern Mesic Slope Forest

Restoration of the southern mesic slope hardwoods ecological system to appropriate sites is important for 

long-term sustainability of this ecological system. No management activities were identified as a priority 

for the first decade to promote and maintain the desired ecosystem structural conditions; rather this 

system will use natural processes to reach the desired condition. Some restoration of loblolly and slash 

pine to southern mesic slope hardwoods was modeled on the DeSoto and Homochitto.

The acres of forest in regeneration (0-10 years) and mature condition (age 60 plus) are important for 

evaluating ecological viability of each system. Table B 45 projects the proposed level of southern mesic 

slope hardwoods in regeneration and mature structural condition at end of the first decade and the 

probable acres at end of the second decade for each of the alternatives. The values represent a decadal 

total.
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-48 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 45. Southern mesic slope hardwood forest age structure after 1st and 2nd decades

Total Acres of Southern 

Mesic Slope Hardwood Acres in Regeneration Acres of Mature Forest

Alternative 1st Decade 2nd Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade

Alternative A

Custodial 15,833 15,833 0 0 14,601 (92%) 14,872 (94%)

Alternative B

No Action 16,465 17,009 632 (3.8%) 544 (3.2%) 14,601 (89%) 14,872 (87%)

Alternative C

Proposed Action 16,551 17,361 718 (4.3%) 809 (4.7%) 14,601 (88%) 14,872 (86%)

Alternative D

Accelerated 

Restoration

17,496 18,889 1,663 (9.5%) 1,393 (7.4%) 14,601 (83%) 14,872 (79%)

Alternative E

Enhanced 

Forest Health

16,822 17,825 989 (5.9%) 1003 (5.6%) 14,601 (87%) 14,872 (83%)

Northern Mesic Hardwood Forest

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

system.

First thinning, subsequent thinning and gap creation, irregular even-aged regeneration and uneven-aged 

regeneration were identified as important management activities to promote and maintain the desired 

ecosystem structural conditions. Table B 46 projects the proposed level of northern mesic slope 

hardwoods in regeneration and mature structural condition at the end of the first decade and the probable 

acres at the end of the second decade for each of the alternatives.

Table B 46. Northern mesic hardwood forest timber harvest treatments

First 

Thinning

Subsequent 

Thinning

Irregular Evenaged 

Regeneration

Uneven-aged 

Management Totals

Decade

Alt. 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Alt. A

Cust. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alt. B

No Act. 12 0 100 103 39 27 0 0 151 130

Alt. C

Proposed 19 0 108 207 63 104 1 2 191 313

Alt. D

Accel. 

Rest.

12 2 27 99 62 17 0 0 101 118

Alt. E

Enh. F.H. 11 52 178 239 0 80 2 3 191 321
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-49

The acres of forest in regeneration (0-10 years) and mature condition (age 60 plus) are important for 

evaluating ecological viability of each system. Table B 47 projects the proposed level of to northern mesic 

slope hardwoods in regeneration and mature structural condition at end of the first decade and the 

probable acres at end of the second decade for each of the alternatives. The values represent a decadal 

total by management unit and regeneration acres represent acres converted from loblolly pine and 

irregular even-aged regeneration of hardwoods.

Table B 47. Northern mesic hardwood forest age structure after 1st and 2nd decades

Total Acres of Northern 

Mesic Hardwood Acres in Regeneration Acres of Mature Forest

Alternative 1st Decade 2nd Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade

Alternative A

Custodial 3,568 3,568 0 0 3,051 3,176

Alternative B

No Action 3,782 4,003 253 (6.7%) 248 (6.2%) 3,110 (82%) 3,110 (78%)

Alternative C

Proposed Action 3,879 4,160 373 (9.6%) 385 (9.3%) 2,988 (77%) 3,009 (72%)

Alternative D

Accelerated 

Restoration

4,248 4,838 742 (17.5%) 608 (12.6%) 2,989 (70%) 3,081 (63.7%)

Alternative E

Enhanced 

Forest Health

3,981 4,417 413 (10.4%) 512 (11.6%) 3,051 (77%) 3,099 (70%)

Floodplain Forest

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

system. Restoration to this ecological system will be conversion from loblolly slash, and shortleaf pine 

forest. Both managed and natural thinning of pines will favor floodplain hardwoods over time as well.

First thinning, subsequent thinning and gap creation, irregular even-aged and uneven-aged regeneration 

were identified as important management activities to promote and maintain the desired ecosystem 

structural conditions on the Holly Springs and Tombigbee Districts. No management activities were 

identified as a priority for the other districts on the Forest to promote and maintain the desired ecosystem 

structural conditions; rather natural processes will allow floodplain forests on these units to reach the 

desired condition. Table B 48 projects the proposed level of to floodplain hardwoods in regeneration and 

mature structural condition at end of the first decade and the probable acres at end of the second decade 

for each of the alternatives.
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-50 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 48. Floodplain hardwood forest timber harvest treatments

First 

Thinning

Subsequent 

Thinning

Irregular Evenaged 

Regeneration

Uneven-aged 

Management Totals

Decade

Alt. 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd

Alt. A

Cust. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alt. B

No Act. 110 25 267 343 243 114 0 0 620 482

Alt. C

Proposed 228 30 363 438 383 535 2 5 976 1,008

Alt. D

Accel. Rest. 228 97 284 406 134 153 0 0 646 656

Alt. E

Enh. F.H. 0 94 1,076 1,286 124 480 4 6 1,204 1,866

The acres of forest in regeneration (0-10 years) and mature condition (age 60 plus) are important for 

evaluating ecological viability of each system. Table B 49 projects the proposed level of to floodplain 

forest in regeneration and mature structural condition at end of the first decade and the probable acres at 

end of the second decade for each of the alternatives. Regeneration acres represent acres converted from 

loblolly and shortleaf pine, and irregular even-aged regeneration of hardwoods. The values represent a 

decadal total.

Table B 49. Floodplain hardwood forest age structure after 1st and 2nd decades

Total Acres of Floodplain 

Hardwood Acres in Regeneration Acres of Mature Forest

Alternative 1st Decade 2nd Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade

Alternative A

Custodial 96,424 96,424 0 0 88,435 (92%) 89,925 (93%)

Alternative B

No Action 96,924 97,366 744 (0.8%) 656 (0.7%) 88,192 (91%) 89,568 (92%)

Alternative C

Proposed Action 97,346 98,379 1,305 (1.3%) 1,569 (1.6%) 88,053 (90%) 89,007 (90%)

Alternative D

Accelerated 

Restoration

96,905 97,399 864 (0.9%) 1,029 (1.1%) 88,053 (91%) 89,007 (91%)

Alternative E

Enhanced 

Forest Health

97,885 99,175 1,585 (1.6%) 1,770 (1.8%) 88,312 (90%) 89,321 (90%)

Lower Mississippi River Bottomland and Floodplain Forest

Maintenance and improvement of species composition of the lower Mississippi River bottomland and 

floodplain forest ecological system on appropriate sites is the highest priority for long-term sustainability 

of this ecological system. 
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-51

Thinning and gap creation and irregular even-aged regeneration were identified as important management 

activities to promote and maintain the desired ecosystem structural conditions during the first decade.

Table B 50 projects the proposed level of to lower Mississippi River Bottomland and floodplain forest in 

regeneration and mature structural condition at end of the first decade and the probable acres at end of the 

second decade for each of the alternatives.

Table B 50. Lower Mississippi River bottomland and floodplain forest timber harvest treatments

First Thinning Subsequent 

Thinning

Irregular Evenaged Regeneration Totals

Alternative 1st 

Decade

2nd 

Decade

1st 

Decade

2nd 

Decade

1st 

Decade

2nd 

Decade

1st 

Decade

2nd 

Decade

Alternative A

Custodial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alternative B

No Action 0 0 5,079 4,576 177 951 5,256 5,227

Alternative C

Proposed Action 0 0 6,496 7,535 1,357 1,212 7,853 8,747

Alternative D

Accelerated 

Restoration

0 0 6,496 7,535 1,357 1,212 7,853 8,747

Alternative E

Enhanced 

Forest Health

0 0 6,496 7,535 1,357 1,212 7,853 8,747

The acres of forest in regeneration (0-10 years) and mature condition (age 60 plus) are important for 

evaluating ecological viability of each system. Table B 51 projects the proposed level of to lower 

Mississippi River bottomland and floodplain forest in regeneration and mature structural condition at end 

of the first decade and the probable acres at end of the second decade for each of the alternatives. The 

values represent decadal totals.

Table B 51. Lower Mississippi River bottomland and floodplain forest age structure after 1st and 

2nd decades

Total Acres of Lower 

Mississippi River 

Bottomland and Floodplain 

Forest

Acres in Regeneration Acres of Mature Forest

Alternative 1st Decade 2nd Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade

Alternative A

Custodial 59,197 59,197 0 0 42,906 (72%) 45,708 (77%)

Alternative B

No Action 59,197 59,197 177 (.3%) 951 (1.6%) 42,729 (72%) 44,579 (75%)

Alternative C

Proposed Action 59,197 59,197 1,357 (2.3%) 1,212 (2.0%) 41,549 (70%) 43,139 (73%)

Alternative D

Accelerated 

Restoration

59,197 59,197 1,357 (2.3%) 1,212 (2.0%) 41,549 (70%) 43,139 (73%)

Alternative E

Enhanced 

Forest Health

59,197 59,197 1,357 (2.3%) 1,212 (2.0%) 41,549 (70%) 43,139 (73%)
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-52 National Forests in Mississippi

Near-Coast Pine Flatwoods

Canopy structure is the most important characteristic to species diversity and long-term sustainability of 

this ecological system. Open conditions with widely scattered longleaf and slash pine trees are critical to 

the long-term sustainability of this system providing ideal conditions for rare species to flourish.

Woodland thins and conversion harvests were identified as important management activities to promote 

and maintain the desired ecosystem structural conditions. Table B 52 projects the proposed level of nearcoast pine flatwoods treated at end of the first decade and the probable acres at end of the second decade 

for each of the alternatives. Many of the acres of this system cannot be treated commercially due to the 

wet environment; however, non-commercial treatments can be applied as opportunities arise and natural 

processes will also contribute to achieving desired conditions.

Table B 52. Near-coast pine flatwoods forest timber harvest treatments alternative A (custodial)

Woodland Thinning Conversion Harvest Totals

Alternative 1st Decade 2nd 

Decade 1st Decade 2nd Decade

1st 

Decade 2nd Decade

Alternative A

Custodial 125 319 73 116 198 435

Alternative B

No Action 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alternative C

Proposed Action 226 207 1,109 999 1,335 1,206

Alternative D

Accelerated Restoration 1,186 1,254 794 675 1980 1,929

Alternative E

Enhanced Forest Health 516 756 99 90 615 846

Xeric Sandhills

Restoration objectives for xeric sandhills are included in conversion of loblolly and slash pine forest to 

the upland longleaf pine forest and woodland on the Chickasawhay and De Soto Ranger Districts. Xeric 

sandhills should be given priority when applying treatments within longleaf pine systems. There are 

approximately 21,750 acres of xeric sandhills on the De Soto and approximately 2,150 acres on the 

Chickasawhay. The acres of treatment and conditions are included in the longleaf pine forest section 

above. 

Black Belt Calcareous Prairie and Woodland

This rare ecological system represents open grassy areas dominated by characteristic prairie species.

Within this grassland matrix, woody vegetation occurs sparingly in stream bottoms and hilltops with caps 

of acid soil. It occurs on the Trace Unit of the Tombigbee Ranger District. Maintenance of this system 

may require tree removal, but no harvests are likely. Noncommercial treatment to remove woody 

vegetation is expected on 315 acres.

Jackson Prairie and Woodland

This rare ecological system represents open grassy areas dominated by characteristic prairie species.

Jackson prairie occurs as calcareous islands (<1-160 acres) on gently sloping uplands surrounded by pine 

and hardwood forest on generally acid soils. It occurs on the Bienville Ranger District. Maintenance of 

this system is likely to require tree removal. Noncommercial woody vegetation removal is expected on 
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-53

381 acres. Table B 53 displays proposed harvests in the first decade converting forested prairie soils to 

open Jackson prairie and the probable acres in the second decade for each of the alternatives.

Table B 53. Conversion to Jackson prairie and woodland

Upland Loblolly Shortleaf Pine Upland Hardwood Totals

Alternative 1st 

Decade

2nd 

Decade

1st 

Decade

2nd 

Decade

1st 

Decade

2nd 

Decade

1st 

Decade

2nd 

Decade

Alternative A

Custodial 288 288 0 0 0 0 288 288

Alternative B

No Action 507 280 28 0 29 0 564 280

Alternative C

Prop. Action 789 345 28 0 33 0 849 345

Alternative D

Accel. Rest. 789 345 28 0 29 0 846 345

Alternative E

Enh. For. H. 789 345 28 0 29 0 846 345

B.2.7 Anticipated Age Class Changes for Each Alternative Tabulated 

by Vegetation Type

One of the results of the restoration and regeneration harvests implemented under each alternative would 

be changes in the age class distribution across the Forests.

This section includes Table B 54 through Table B 58 displaying age class information from each 

alternative modeled. The tables display acres within three age groups at the end of the first and fifth 

decades. The three groups used are 0-10 years, 11-59 years and 60 years and above. These groupings are 

used because acres in 0-10, and 60 plus age classes were important components of the ecological 

evaluations done on each alternative developed for plan revision. Also, the acres that each alternative 

creates each decade and the acres reaching mature condition provide the information needed to evaluate 

the flow of forest products over time as well as provide information to evaluate forest health. 

Across all vegetation types the overall forest age shifts to older age classes for all alternatives.

Within individual vegetation types, there are only two alternatives where 60 plus age class acreage was 

less Forest wide after the fifth decade than it was after the first decade. These occurred in the model 

outcomes for shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland in the proposed action alternative (C) and the 

enhanced forest health alternative (E). This also occurred for dry upland hardwood forest in the enhanced 

forest health alternative (E).

At the district level, there were three districts and three alternatives where age classes over 60 years 

contained less acreage than was over 60 after the first decade. Additional summary data by district are 

included in the Timber Resource Program, Suitability, and Sustainability Analysis planning process 

record.

The regeneration harvest acres for the overall forest at the end of decade 5 would result in 0 to 10 age 

class acres of approximately 1 percent for the custodial alternative (A), 2 percent for the no-action 

alternative (B), 3 percent for the proposed action alternative (C) and the accelerated restoration alternative 
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-54 National Forests in Mississippi

(D), and 5 percent for the enhanced forest health alternative (E). This results in effective rotation ages of 

1000 years, 500 years, 333 years, 333 years and 200 years respectively.

Table B 54. National Forests in Mississippi custodial alternative A - age class outcome

Age Class System

End of Decade 1 End of Decade 5

0-10 11-59 60 + 0-10 11-59 60 +

Upland Loblolly Pine Forest 0 163,815 135,502 0 17,530 274,983

Mesic Loblolly Pine-Hardwood Forest 0 53,188 90,909 0 4,660 138,923

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 0 10,178 48,960 0 4,566 54,573

Upland Longleaf Pine Forest 847 85,253 152,776 6,019 25,537 218,271

Slash 0 72,259 41,972 0 1,489 108,818

Flatwoods 0 6,673 10,113 0 368 15,749

Dry Upland Hardwood Forest 0 10,382 95,503 0 655 105,230

Mesic Slope Forest 0 1,750 17,652 0 197 19,204

Floodplain Forest 0 24,278 131,341 0 1,308 154,313

National Forests in Mississippi Totals 847 427,776 724,728 6,019 56,310 1,090,064

Table B 55. National Forests in Mississippi no-action alternative B - age class outcome

Age Class System

End of Decade 1 End of Decade 5

0-10 11-59 60 + 0-10 11-59 60 +

Upland Loblolly Pine Forest 1,094 163,511 126,436 119 20,308 217,305

Mesic Loblolly Pine-Hardwood Forest 0 53,188 90,280 5 4,677 135,399

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 2,346 10,178 48,294 4,070 16,456 49,457

Upland Longleaf Pine Forest 8,632 85,252 152,775 15,554 62,945 218,270

Slash 0 70,054 40,691 0 1,489 92,968

Flatwoods 0 6,704 10,155 0 377 16,482

Dry Upland Hardwood Forest 2,295 10,375 94,514 2,754 10,010 102,484

Mesic Slope Forest 885 1,750 17,613 1,004 3,374 18,960

Floodplain Forest 921 24,278 130,921 1,688 6,405 150,303

National Forests in Mississippi Totals 16,173 425,290 711,679 25,194 126,041 1,001,628

Table B 56. Proposed action alternative C - age class outcome

Age Class System

End of Decade 1 End of Decade 5

0-10 11-59 60 + 0-10 11-59 60 +

Upland Loblolly Pine Forest 506 163,053 121,965 626 19,784 200,880

Mesic Loblolly Pine-Hardwood Forest 29 53,188 89,765 2,336 7,067 125,707

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 4,114 10,178 47,523 4,254 21,165 46,731

Upland Longleaf Pine Forest 13,125 85,252 152,775 17,397 84,221 216,547

Slash 0 70,485 39,052 703 1,489 81,767

Flatwoods 0 6,262 9,487 0 278 12,032

Dry Upland Hardwood Forest 3,703 10,375 93,941 4,287 16,371 96,918

Mesic Slope Forest 1,091 1,750 17,589 1,146 5,071 18,817

Floodplain Forest 2,662 24,278 129,602 5,176 12,377 145,162

National Forests in Mississippi Totals 25,230 424,821 701,699 35,925 167,823 944,561
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-55

Table B 57. Accelerated restoration alternative D - age class outcome

Age Class System

End of Decade 1 End of Decade 5

0-10 11-59 60 + 0-10 11-59 60 +

Upland Loblolly Pine Forest 0 156,759 113,083 0 16,539 147,540

Mesic Loblolly Pine-Hardwood Forest 0 53,188 87,804 0 4,660 126,222

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 9,281 10,178 48,589 4,564 33,309 52,892

Upland Longleaf Pine Forest 23,256 85,252 152,775 19,360 114,067 218,270

Slash 0 69,619 36,006 613 1,489 78,770

Flatwoods 0 6,385 9,679 0 322 14,289

Dry Upland Hardwood Forest 5,606 10,375 95,405 4,823 22,665 100,149

Mesic Slope Forest 2,405 1,750 17,590 1,515 8,128 18,838

Floodplain Forest 3,153 24,278 129,850 3,349 12,212 146,028

National Forests in Mississippi Totals 43,701 417,784 690,781 34,224 213,391 902,998

Table B 58. Enhanced forest health alternative E - age class outcome

Age Class System

End of Decade 1 End of Decade 5

0-10 11-59 60 + 0-10 11-59 60 +

Upland Loblolly Pine Forest 0 157,672 119,209 0 16,766 172,278

Mesic Loblolly Pine-Hardwood Forest 0 53,188 88,995 5,032 4,661 122,921

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 10,279 10,178 46,159 9,281 43,945 34,784

Upland Longleaf Pine Forest 13,678 85,252 152,775 29,510 92,601 203,431

Slash 0 71,189 39,358 703 1,489 85,222

Flatwoods 0 6,605 10,155 0 325 15,225

Dry Upland Hardwood Forest 9,469 10,375 93,342 6,590 26,375 91,072

Mesic Slope Forest 1,402 1,750 17,652 1,620 6,335 18,785

Floodplain Forest 2,942 24,278 129,861 4,458 12,798 145,345

National Forests in Mississippi Totals 37,770 420,487 697,506 57,194 205,295 889,063

B.2.8 Site Type Definitions

Within this document and the spreadsheet model a key grouping classification of vegetation is the site 

type on which the vegetation occurs. The site type is used as an indicator of appropriate vegetation based 

on the desired conditions for ecological systems. Site types are based on soils and landform 

characteristics. Soils were grouped by site type according to the crosswalk in Table B 59.
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-56 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 59. Site type – soil type crosswalk

Site Type Soil Map Unit Name Administrative Unit

Alluvial Annemaine loam, 0-2 percent slopes, 

occasionally flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Alluvial Ariel Silt Loam, occasionally flooded Homochitto

Alluvial Belden and Leeper silty clay loams Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Alluvial Bibb fine sandy loam frequently flooded Bienville

Alluvial Bibb, Trebloc and Leaf soils, 0-2 percent 

slopes, frequently flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Alluvial Bigbee loamy sand, 0-2 percent slopes, 

occasionally flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Alluvial Bruno Sandy Loam, frequently flooded Homochitto

Alluvial Cahaba, Latonia and Bassfield soils, 0-2 

percent slopes, occasionally flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Alluvial Cascilla and Jena soils Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Alluvial Chenneby and Mathiston silt loams Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Alluvial Collins Silt Loam, occasionally flooded Homochitto

Alluvial Dorovan and Pamlico soils, 0-2 percent slopes, 

frequently flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Alluvial Falaya Silt Loam, occasionally flooded Homochitto

Alluvial Gillsburg and Mantachie soils Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Alluvial Gillsburg Silt Loam, occasionally flooded Homochitto

Alluvial Guyton loam, occasionally flooded Bienville

Alluvial Harleston fine sandy loam, 0-2 percent slopes, 

occasionally flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Alluvial Houlka silty clay loam, occasionally flooded Bienville

Alluvial Iuka sandy loam, 0-2 percent slopes, 

occasionally flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Alluvial Jena fine sandy loam, occasionally flooded Bienville

Alluvial Kirkville fine sandy loam, occasionally flooded Bienville

Alluvial Leeper clay loam, occasionally flooded Bienville

Alluvial Lenoir silt loam, 0-2 percent slopes, frequently 

flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Alluvial Mantachie sandy loam 0-2 percent slopes, 

occasionally flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Alluvial Mantachie silt loam, occasionally flooded Bienville

Alluvial Marietta fine sandy loam Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Alluvial Marietta silt loam, occasionally flooded Bienville

Alluvial Nugent loamy sand, 0-2 percent slopes, 

occasionally flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Alluvial Oaklimeter and Collins silt loams Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Alluvial Ochlockonee and Jena sandy loams, 0-2 

percent slopes, occasionally flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Alluvial Ochlockonee-Kirkville complex Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Alluvial Quitman fine sandy loam, occasionally flooded Bienville

Alluvial Riverwash Homochitto
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-57

Site Type Soil Map Unit Name Administrative Unit

Alluvial Stough fine sandy loam, 0-2 percent slopes, 

occasionally flooded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Alluvial Trebloc Silt Loam, frequently flooded Homochitto

Alluvial Typic Fluvaquents Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Alluvial Urbo and Una soils, frequently flooded Bienville

Alluvial Urbo silty clay loam, occasionally flooded Bienville

Black Belt Prairie Soils Demopolis silty clay loam Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Black Belt Prairie Soils Gullied land-Demopolis complex Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Dry Atwood silt loam Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Dry Benndale and Heidel soils, 8-15 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Dry Cahaba fine sandy loam Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF/ 

Bienville

Dry Cahaba sandy loam Homochitto

Dry Gullied land-Smithdale complex Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Dry Heidel fine sandy loam Bienville

Dry Heidel sandy loam, 15-30 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Dry Lexington silt loam, 8-17% slopes Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Dry Lucy and Wadley soils Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Dry Lucy loamy sand Homochitto

Dry Maben fine sandy loam and Sweatman silt lo Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Dry Maben loam and Sweatman fine sandy loam Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Dry Maben silt loam and Sweatman silt loam Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Dry McLaurin and Benndale fine sandy loams, 0-8 

percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Dry Ruston and Lucedale soils, 0-8 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Dry Shubuta fine sandy loam, 8-12 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Dry Smithdale and Ruston soils Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Dry Smithdale fine sandy loam Bienville /Holly Springs NF / 

Tombigbee NF

Dry Smithdale fine sandy loam, 15-35 percent 

slopes, eroded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Dry Smithdale fine sandy loam, 8-15 percent 

slopes, eroded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Dry Smithdale-Rock outcrop sandstone complex Bienville

Dry Sweatman fine sandy loam Bienville

Dry - Bienville and all 

compartments on 

Homochitto except: 202, 

204-229, 231-233, 241-

244

Ruston Fine Sandy Loam Bienville /Homochitto

Dry - All compartments 

on Homochitto except: 

202, 204-229, 231-233, 

241-244

Saffell Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam Homochitto
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-58 National Forests in Mississippi

Site Type Soil Map Unit Name Administrative Unit

Dry - Holly Springs, 

Tombigbee, and all 

compartments on 

Homochitto except: 202, 

204-229, 231-233, 241-

244

Smithdale Sandy Loam Homochitto/Holly Springs NF / 

Tombigbee NF

Dry to Mesic Boswell fine sandy loam Bienville

Dry to Mesic Freest fine sandy loam Bienville

Dry to Mesic Freest fine sandy loam, 0-8 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Dry to Mesic Freest-Susquehanna Complex, 5-12 percent 

slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Dry to Mesic Kolin silt loam, eroded Homochitto

Dry to Mesic Loring silt loam, 8-17 % slopes Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Dry to Mesic Lorman Silt Loam Homochitto

Dry to Mesic Lorman silt loam, 15-40 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Mesic Oktibbeha silty clay loam Bienville

Dry to Mesic Ora fine sandy loam Bienville

Dry to Mesic Ora sandy loam Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Dry to Mesic Petal fine sandy loam, 8-20 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Dry to Mesic Poarch, Malbis and Saucier soils, 0-8 percent 

slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Dry to Mesic Prentiss fine sandy loam, 0-5 percent slopes Chick / DeSoto /HS NF / Tombigbee 

NF

Dry to Mesic Providence silt loam, 8-15 % slopes Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Dry to Mesic Savannah fine sandy loam Bienville /Holly Springs NF / 

Tombigbee NF

Dry to Mesic Savannah fine sandy loam, 0-5 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Dry-mesic Providence silt loam, 0-8% slopes Homochitto

Dry-mesic Providence silt loam, 0-8% slopes Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Mesic Bude Silt Loam Homochitto

Mesic Escambia and Basin soils, 0-3 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Mesic Falkner silt loam Bienville

Mesic Falkner silt loam, 0-3 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Mesic Ichusa silty clay loam Bienville

Mesic Kipling loam Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Mesic Kipling silt loam Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Mesic Lenoir silt loam, 0-2 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Mesic Louin silty clay loam Bienville

Mesic Nahunta silt loam, 0-2 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Mesic Stough fine sandy loam Bienville

Mesic Susquehanna fine sandy loam, 2-8 percent 

slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Mesic Susquehanna fine sandy loam, 8-15 percent 

slopes, eroded Chickasawhay / De Soto

Mesic Wilcox silt loam Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-59

Site Type Soil Map Unit Name Administrative Unit

Non-riverine Hydric Soils Adaton silt loam Bienville

Non-riverine Hydric Soils Atmore, Plummer and Smithton soils, 0-2 

percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Prairie Soils Maytag silty clay Bienville

Prairie Soils Okolona silty clay Bienville

Upland Loess Calloway-Grenada complex Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Upland Loess Gullied land - Loring Complex Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Upland Loess Gullied land-Providence complex Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Upland Loess Lexington silt loam, 2-8 % sloeps Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Upland Loess Lexington Silt Loam, Eroded Homochitto

Upland Loess Loring Silt Loam, 0-8% slopes Homochitto

Upland Loess Loring silt loam, 2-8 % slopes Holly Springs NF / Tombigbee NF

Upland Loess Memphis Silt Loam, Eroded Homochitto

Upland Loess -

Compartments: 202, 

204-229, 231-233, 241-

244

Ruston Fine Sandy Loam, combined with loess 

because the occurrence is not conducive to 

management separately

Homochitto

Upland Loess -

Compartments: 202, 

204-229, 231-233, 241-

244

Saffell Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam, combined 

with loess because the occurrence is not 

conducive to management separately

Homochitto

Upland Loess -

Compartments: 202, 

204-229, 231-233, 241-

244

Smithdale Sandy Loam, combined with loess 

because the occurrence is not conducive to 

management separately

Homochitto

Xeric Eustis and Lakeland loamy sands, 0-8 percent 

slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Xeric Eustis and Lakeland soils, 15-30 percent 

slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Xeric Eustis and Lakeland soils, 8-15 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

Xeric Lakeland sand Bienville

Xeric Wadley fine sand, 0-8 percent slopes Chickasawhay / De Soto

B.2.9 Emphasis Area Data Protocols for Vegetation Model 

For the purpose of modeling, areas were grouped for which similar prescriptions could be implemented to 

meet management emphases. Table B 60 through Table B 66 provide information on the composition of 

these management emphasis areas by district. This information provided the basis for querying the FSVeg

database to summarize acres by emphasis area for modeling also for summarizing acres by suitability 

category.
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-60 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 60. Bienville data protocols for vegetation model

Emphasis 

Area Components Land Class Code Timber Suitability

Grow Only Research Natural Area 330, 430

Not suitable for timber production.

Custodial 

Management

Recreation sites 850

Scenic area 310

Inadequate markets 822

Inaccessible right-of-way needed 823

Physical barriers 826

Road cost exceeds values 827

Threatened and endangered plants 

where ev_code not = 98 or 99 832

Non-Forest 

Land

Administrative Sites 860

Wildlife openings 250

Special uses 240

Road and railroad right-of-way 230

Utility right-of-way 220

Non-forest land 200

River 140

Reservoir 120

Natural lake 110

Water area 100

Un-productive with ev_code =98 or 99 900

Threatened and endangered plants 

where ev_code = 98 or 99 832

Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker

Habitat 

Management 

Area

Non-Old 

Growth 

Emphasis

Stands in habitat management area with 

old growth code not between 0 and 11 

excluding grow only, custodial 

management and non-forest land

Land classes 

not included in

grow only, 

custodial 

management or 

non-forest land 

land class 

codes above

Tentatively suitable for timber 

production.

Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker

Habitat 

Management 

Area Old 

Growth 

Emphasis

Stands in habitat management area with 

old growth between 0 and 11 excluding 

grow only, custodial management and 

non-forest land

Tentatively suitable for timber 

production, but usually determined to 

be not appropriate for timber 

production.

General 

Forest Area 

Non-Old 

Growth 

Emphasis

Non-habitat management area stands 

with old growth not between 0 and 11 

excluding grow only, custodial 

management and non-forest land

Tentatively suitable for timber 

production.

General 

Forest Area 

Old Growth 

Emphasis

Non-habitat management area stands 

with old growth between 0 and 11 

excluding grow only, custodial 

management and non-forest land

Tentatively suitable for timber 

production, but usually determined to 

be not appropriate for timber 

production.
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-61

Table B 61. DeSoto data protocols for vegetation model

Emphasis Area Components Land Class Code Timber Suitability

Grow Only Research Natural Area 330, 430

Not suitable for timber 

production.

Custodial 

Management

Wild and Scenic River 360, 460

Restocking not assured 710

Irreversible damage 720

Recreation sites with ev_code not equal 0 850 

Un-developed Recreation Sites 851

Administrative Sites 860

Un-developed Administrative Sites 861

Nursery 870

Seed Orchard with ev_code not equal 0 871 

MIN Level Steep Slopes 821

Inaccessible right-of-way needed 823

MIN Level Sensitive Soils 824

MIN Level Low Level Management 825

Physical barriers 826

Road cost exceeds values 827

Threatened and endangered plants where 

ev_code not = 98 or 99 832

Other Rare/Endangered Species 846

Military Use 890

Unproductive Land 900

Non-forest Land

Seed Orchard with ev_code = 0 871

Recreation Sites with ev_code = 0 850

Military Use 290

Pitcher Plant Bogs 251

Wildlife openings 250

Special uses 240

Road and railroad right-of-way 230

Utility ROW 220

Cemetary 210

Non-forest land 200

River 140

Reservoir 120

Natural lake 110

Water area 100

Experimental 

Forest Non-Old 

Growth Emphasis

Harrison Experimental Forest with old 

growth code not between 0 and 11. 810

Experimental 

Forest Old 

Growth Emphasis

Harrison Experimental Forest with old 

growth code between 0 and 11. 810
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-62 National Forests in Mississippi

Emphasis Area Components Land Class Code Timber Suitability

Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker 

Habitat 

Management 

Area Non-Old 

Growth Emphasis

Stands in habitat management area with 

old growth code not between 0 and 11 

excluding grow only, custodial 

management and non-forest land

Land classes not 

included in grow only, 

custodial 

management, nonforest land or 

experimental forest 

land class codes 

above

Tentatively suitable for 

timber production.

Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker 

Habitat 

Management 

Area Old Growth 

Emphasis

Stands in habitat management areas with 

old growth between 0 and 11 excluding 

grow only, custodial management and 

non-forest land

Tentatively suitable for 

timber production, but 

usually determined to be 

not appropriate for 

timber production.

General Forest 

Area Non-Old 

Growth Emphasis

Non- habitat management areas stands 

with old growth not between 0 and 11 

excluding grow only, custodial 

management and non-forest land

Tentatively suitable for 

timber production.

General Forest 

Area Old Growth 

Emphasis

Non- habitat management areas stands 

with old growth between 0 and 11 

excluding grow only, custodial 

management and non-forest land

Tentatively suitable for 

timber production, but 

usually determined to be 

not appropriate for 

timber production.

Table B 62. Homochitto data protocols for vegetation model

Emphasis 

Area Components Land Class Code Timber Suitability

Grow Only Research Natural Area 330

Not suitable for timber 

production.

Custodial 

Management

Restocking not assured where ev_code not = 98 710

Not Appropriate 800

Recreation sites with ev_code not equal 0 850 

Un-developed Recreation Sites 851

Physical barriers 826

Non-Forest 

Land

Administrative Sites 860

Undeveloped Administrative Sites 861

Wildlife openings 250

Special uses 240

Road and railroad right-of-way 230

Utility right-of-way 220

Non-forest land 200

River 140

Reservoir 120

Natural lake 110

Water area 100

Restocking not assured where ev_code not = 98 710
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-63

Emphasis 

Area Components Land Class Code Timber Suitability

Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker 

Habitat 

Management 

Area Non-Old 

Growth 

Emphasis

Stands in habitat management areas with old growth 

code not between 0 and 11 excluding grow only, 

custodial management and non-forest land

Land classes not 

included in Grow 

Only, Custodial 

Management or 

Non-Forest Land 

land class codes 

above

Tentatively suitable for 

timber production.

Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker 

Habitat 

Management 

Area Old 

Growth 

Emphasis

Stands in habitat management areas with old growth 

between 0 and 11 excluding grow only, custodial 

management and non-forest land

Tentatively suitable for 

timber production, but 

usually determined to 

be not appropriate for 

timber production.

General Forest 

Area Non-Old 

Growth 

Emphasis

Non- habitat management areas stands with old 

growth not between 0 and 11 excluding grow only, 

custodial management and non-forest land

Tentatively suitable for 

timber production. 

General Forest 

Area Old 

Growth 

Emphasis

Non- habitat management areas stands with old 

growth between 0 and 11 excluding grow only, 

custodial management and non-forest land

Tentatively suitable for 

timber production, but 

usually determined to 

be not appropriate for 

timber production.

Table B 63. Chickasawhay data protocols for vegetation model

Emphasis 

Area Components Land Class Code Timber Suitability

Grow Only Research Natural Area and Botanical Areas 430

Not suitable for timber production

Custodial 

Management

Not Appropriate 800

Sensitive Soils 824

Recreation sites with ev_code not equal 0 850 

Un-developed Recreation Sites 851

Physical barriers 826

Administrative Sites 860

Non-Forest 

Land

Wildlife openings 250

Special uses 240

Road and railroad right-of-way 230

Utility right-of-way 220

Public Park, Cemetery 210

Non-forest land 200

Reservoir 120

Natural lake 110

Threatened and Endangered plants where 

ev_code =98 832
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-64 National Forests in Mississippi

Emphasis 

Area Components Land Class Code Timber Suitability

Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker 

Habitat 

Management 

Area Non-Old 

Growth 

Emphasis

Stands in habitat management areas with old 

growth code not between 0 and 11 excluding 

grow only, custodial management and nonforest land

Land classes not 

included in Grow 

Only, Custodial 

Management or 

Non-Forest Land 

land class codes 

above

Tentatively suitable for timber 

production.

Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker 

Habitat 

Management 

Area A Old 

Growth 

Emphasis

Stands in habitat management areas with old 

growth between 0 and 11 excluding grow 

only, custodial management and non-forest 

land

Tentatively suitable for timber 

production, but usually determined 

to be not appropriate for timber 

production.

Table B 64. Delta data protocols for vegetation model

Emphasis 

Area Components Land Class Code Timber Suitability

Grow Only

Research Natural Area and Botanical Areas 330, 430

Not suitable for 

timber production

Historical Areas 320

Custodial 

Management

Slough Buffers 820, 828

Recreation sites with ev_code not equal 0 850 

Non-Forest 

Land

Administrative Sites 860

Undeveloped Recreation Sites with ev_code not = 0 851

Wildlife openings 250

Special uses 240

Road and railroad right-of-way 230

Utility right-of-way 220

Non-forest land 200

General Forest 

Area Non-Old 

Growth 

Emphasis

Standard forest land, old growth code not between 0-11 500

Tentatively suitable 

for timber production.

Wildlife emphasis, old growth code not between 0 -11 650

Key Area for Wildlife, old growth code not between 0-11 510

Contains threatened and endangered plants, old growth 

code not between 0 -11 512

General Forest 

Area Old 

Growth 

Emphasis

Non- habitat management areas stands with Old

Growth between 0 and 11 excluding Grow Only, 

Custodial Management and Non-Forest Land Tentatively suitable 

for timber production, 

but usually 

determined to be not 

appropriate for 

timber production.

Standard forest land, old growth code between 0 -11 500

Late Serial, old growth code between 0 - 11 600

Wildlife emphasis, old growth code between 0 -11 650

Key Area for Wildlife, old growth code between 0 -11 510

Contains threatened and endangered plants, old growth 

code between 0 -11 512
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-65

Table B 65. Holly Springs data protocols for vegetation model

Emphasis Area Components Land Class 

Code Timber Suitability

Grow Only Research Natural Area and Botanical Areas 430

Not suitable for timber 

production 

Custodial 

Management

Recreation sites with ev_code not equal 0 850 

Restocking not assured 710

Irreversible damage 720

Response info lacking 740

MIN Level Sensitive Soils 824

MIN Level Low Level Management 825

Physical barriers 826

Administrative Sites with ev_code not = 0 860

Un-developed Administrative Sites with 

ev_code not = 0 861

Unproductive Land with ev_code > 0 and < 98 900

Non-Forest Land

Administrative Sites with ev_code = 0 860

Wildlife openings 250

Special uses 240

Road and railroad right-of-way 230

Utility right-of-way 220

Non-forest land 200

Stream 150

Reservoir 120

Natural lake 110

Water area 100

Unproductive with ev_code 0, 98 or 99 900

Experiment-al 

Forest Non-Old 

Growth 

Emphasis

Tallahatchie Experimental Forest with old 

growth code not between 0 and 11. 810

Experiment-al 

Forest Old 

Growth 

Emphasis

Tallahatchie Experimental Forest with old 

growth code between 0 and 11. 810

General Forest 

Area Non-Old 

Growth 

Emphasis

Lands with old growth code not between 0 -11 

excluding lands in grow only, custodial, 

experimental forest or non-forest land

Land classes 

not included 

in grow only, 

custodial, 

experimental 

forest or nonforest land

Tentatively suitable for timber 

production.

General Forest 

Area Old Growth 

Emphasis

Lands with old growth code between 0 -11 

excluding lands in grow only, custodial, 

experimental forest or non-forest land

Tentatively suitable for timber 

production, but usually 

determined to be not 

appropriate for timber 

production.
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-66 National Forests in Mississippi

Table B 66. Tombigbee data protocols for vegetation model

Emphasis Area Components Land Class Code Timber Suitability

Grow Only

Research Natural Area and 

Botanical Areas 330, 430

Not suitable for timber production

Geological / Archeological Areas 340

Custodial 

Management

Recreation sites with ev_code not 

equal 0 850 

Not Appropriate MIN Level 820

Not Appropriate MIN Level Steep 

Slopes 821

Unproductive Land with ev_code > 

0 and < 98 900

Non-Forest Land

Administrative Sites with ev_code 

= 0 860

Wildlife openings 250

Special uses 240

Road and railroad right-of-way 230

Utility right-of-way 220

Public Park, cemetery 210

Non-forest land 200

Reservoir 120

Water area 100

Unproductive with ev_code 0, 98 

or 99 900

General Forest 

Area Non-Old 

Growth Emphasis

Lands with old growth code not 

between 0 -11 excluding lands in 

grow only, custodial, or non-forest 

land

Land classes not 

included in grow 

only, custodial, or 

non-forest land

Tentatively suitable for timber 

production.

General Forest 

Area Old Growth 

Emphasis

Lands with old growth code 

between 0 -11 excluding lands in 

grow only, custodial, or non-forest 

land

Land classes not 

included in grow 

only, custodial, or 

non-forest land

Tentatively suitable for timber 

production, but usually determined 

to be not appropriate for timber 

production.

B.3 Social and Economic

B.3.1 Social Economic Impact Analyses

The Model

Economic effects to local counties were estimated using an economic input-output model developed with 

IMPLAN 3.0 (IMPLAN). IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) is a software package for personal 

computers that uses the latest national input-output tables from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, as well 

as data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau. The software was originally 

developed by the Forest Service and is now maintained by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc (MIG).

Data used for the impact analysis was from secondary data for those counties considered to be in the 

forest’s impact area. The forest’s zone of economic influence was delineated using a standard Forest 

Service protocol (Retzlaff, 2010).
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-67

Forest Contribution and Economic Impact Analyses 

The IMPLAN model was used to assess the economic contributions of the National Forests in 

Mississippi. Economic contribution is a way of assessing the degree to which current forest management 

supports regional and local economies. An impact analysis, on the other hand, describes what happens 

under different management strategy alternatives. The impact of changes in final sales stemming from 

management actions are measured by changes in employment and income. Economic impacts were 

estimated for 2015, using the expenditure data for recreation, wildlife, and hunting (U.S. Forest Service’s 

national visitor use monitoring data) and harvest volume estimates for timber.

Impacts to local economies are measured in two ways: employment and labor income. Employment is 

expressed in number of jobs. A job can be seasonal or year-round, full-time or part-time. The income 

measure used was labor income expressed in 2009 dollars. Labor income includes both employee 

compensation (pay plus benefits) and proprietor’s income (e.g. self-employed).

Data Sources

IMPLAN, an “input-output” model produces a linear relationship so that impact estimates need only be 

calculated once per model and then applied to the direct change in final demand for each alternative. A 

Forest Service-developed spreadsheet known as “FEAST” (Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool) 

was used to apply the IMPLAN impact results to each alternative, expressed in units of output. FEAST 

transformed the dollar impact for a given industry from IMPLAN to the resource output by alternative 

into a specific employment and income estimate. Specifications for developing IMPLAN impact 

estimates (response coefficients) and levels of dollar activity are stated below.

Timber

Volume Data – Volume data was derived from cut and sold reports and estimates from the timber staff, 

by alternative.

Use of the Model –Data from the forest shows that only 63 percent of the timber volume was processed 

in the study area. Most of the timber volume (40 percent) was processed by pulp mills, about 25 percent

was processed by saw mills, 20 percent by veneer mills and the remainder by chip board and pole mills.

Impacts represent the economic activity occurring in all backward linking sectors associated with the final 

demand output of the timber industries described above.

Recreation

Recreation visits include hunting and fishing as well activities such as hiking, camping, horseback riding, 

and viewing scenery. Recreation visits were derived from the national visitor use monitoring survey that 

is done for one-quarter of national forests each year. The National Forests in Mississippi were surveyed in 

2009. The resulting calculations yielded visits for local and non-local, day use, on national forest 

overnight use, and off national forest overnight use. These use metrics were entered into FEAST to link 

with IMPLAN impact response coefficients to yield an impact for recreation and wildlife resources.

Spending Segments

The spending that occurs on a recreation trip is greatly influenced by the type of recreation trip taken. For 

example, visitors on overnight trips away from home typically have to pay for some form of lodging (e.g., 

hotel/motel rooms, fees in a developed campground, etc.) while those on day trips do not. In addition, 

visitors on overnight trips will generally have to purchase more food during their trip (in restaurants or 

grocery stores) compared to day-use visitors. Visitors who have not traveled far from home to the 

recreation location usually spend less money than visitors traveling longer distances, especially on items 
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-68 National Forests in Mississippi

such as fuel and food. Analysis of spending patterns has shown that a good way to construct segments of 

the visitor market with consistent spending patterns is to use the following seven groupings:

1. local visitors on day trips, 

2. local visitors on overnight trips staying in lodging on the national forest, 

3. local visitors on overnight trips staying in lodging off the national forest, 

4. non-local visitors on day trips, 

5. non-local visitors on overnight trips staying in lodging on the national forest, 

6. non-local visitors on overnight trips staying in lodging off the forest, and

7. non-primary visitors (visits to the National Forests in Mississippi were not the primary destination for 

the visit).

Table B 67 shows the distribution of visits by spending segment (data from the National Forests in 

Mississippi NVUM Report, 2011).

Table B 67. Distribution (percentage) of National Forest visitsa by spending segmentb on the 

National Forests in Mississippi

Non-local Segments Local Segments NonPrimaryc Total

Day Overnight 

on NF

Overnight 

off NF Day Overnight on NF

Overnight 

off NF

Percent of National 

Forest Visitsa 8 3 1 81 2 1 4 100

a - A National Forest visit is defined as the entry of one person onto a national forest to participate in recreation activities for an 

unspecified period of time. A National Forest Visit can be composed of multiple Site Visits. 

b - The market segments shown here relate to the type of recreation trip taken. A recreation trip is defined as the duration of time 

beginning when the visitor left their home and ending when they got back to their home. “Non-local” trips are those where the 

individual(s) traveled greater than approximately 50 miles from home to the site visited. “Day” trips do not involve an overnight stay 

outside the home, “overnight on-forest” trips are those with an overnight stay outside the home on National Forest System (NFS) 

land, and “overnight off-forest” trips are those with an overnight stay outside the home off National Forest System land. 

c - “Non-primary” trips are those where the primary recreation destination of the trip was somewhere other than the national forest 

under consideration.

Table B 67 shows that over 80 percent of the visits to the National Forests in Mississippi are local area 

residents on day trips away from home. Less than 7 percent of the visits are made by people who are on 

trips that include a night away from home. According to data from the 2011 National Visitor Use 

Monitoring Report, about half of the visiting parties spend $40 or less per party per visit. Almost 70 

percent of the visiting population comes from households in the $25,000 to $49,999 range; nearly a 

quarter are from households with incomes less than $25,000; and only about 1.2 percent comes from 

households in the $75,000 to $99,999 range.

Federal Expenditures and Employment

Expenditure Data – A forest budget was estimated for each alternative, and these estimates were used for 

forest expenditures, some of which had local economic effects. The proportion of funds spent by program 

varied by alternative according to the themes emphasized for that alternative. Forest Service employment 

was estimated by the forest staff based on examination of historical Forest Service obligations. 

Use of the Model – To obtain an estimate of total impacts from Forest Service spending, salary and nonsalary portions of the impact were handled separately. Non-salary expenditures were determined by using 
Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi B-69

budget object code information from the National Finance Center. This profile was run through the model 

for non-salary expenditures per one million dollars, and the results multiplied by total forest non-salary 

expenditures. FEAST was again used to make the calculations. Salary impacts result from forest 

employees spending a portion of their salaries locally. IMPLAN includes a profile of personal 

consumption expenditures for several income categories.

Revenue Sharing – Secure Rural Schools Payments

Expenditure Data – On October 3, 2008, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination 

Act of 2000 was reauthorized as part of Public Law 110-343. The new Secure Rural Schools Act has 

some significant changes. To implement the new law, the Forest Service requested states and counties to 

elect either to receive a share of the 25-percent rolling average payment or to receive a share of the Secure 

Rural Schools State (formula) payment. A county electing to receive a share of the State payment that is 

greater than $100,000 annually is required to allocate 15 to 20-percent of its share for one or more of the 

following purposes: projects under Title II of the Act; projects under Title III; or return the funds to the 

Treasury of the United States.

Use of the Model – Title I funds were allocated to roads and schools using the national expenditure 

profile for state/local government education (schools) and local model estimates for road construction. In 

IMPLAN, $1 million of each profile was used to obtain a response coefficient for Title I Forest Service 

payments to impact area counties. A response coefficient for Title II funds was estimated by running 1 

million dollars through the Forestry Services Sector Title III funds are given directly to state and local 

governments.
Appendix B – The Planning and Analysis Process

B-B-70 National Forests in Mississippi

References Cited

Baldwin, V. C. Jr. and Feduccia, D. P. 1987. Loblolly pine growth and yield prediction for managed west 

gulf plantations. Res. Pap. SO-236. New Orleans, LA: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 27 p.

Bennett, Frank A. 1963. Growth and yield of slash pine plantations. Res. Pap. RP-SE-001. Asheville, NC:

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 25 p.

Farrar, Robert M. 1982. Predicting growth and yield in natural even-aged pine stands. In: Predicting 

growth and yield in the Mid-South. 31st annual Forestry Symposium. Eds:Hotvedt, James E. and 

Jackson, Ben D. School of Forestry and Wildlife Management / Division of Continuing Education 

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. Pp. 47-60.

Oswalt, Sonja N.; Johnson, Tony G.; Coulston, John W.; Oswalt, Christopher M. 2009 Mississippi’s 

forests, 2006. Resour. Bull. SRS-147. Asheville, NC: U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station. 78 P.

Sullivan, Alfred D. and Williston, Hamlin L. 1977. Growth and yield of thinned loblolly pine in loessial 

soil areas. Technical Bulletin 86. Mississippi Agricultural & Forestry Experiment Station.

Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. 16 p. 

Utz, Keith A. and Sims, Daniel H. 1981. Investment Analysis of upland oaks. Forestry Report SA-FR 12.

Atlanta, GA: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Area, State and 

Private Forestry. 44p.