United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern Region

Biological Assessment

National Forests in Mississippi

Land and Resource Management Plan

Prepared by:

Shaun Williamson 

Threatened and Endangered Species Program Manager/Forest Planning Biologist

September 2013
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

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

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

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

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S. W., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
Land and Resource Management Plan

i

Table of Contents

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 1

Summary of Determination of Effect...........................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 2

CONSULTATION WITH USDI FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE..................................... 3

PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTION .................................................................................. 4

SPECIES CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED ........................................................................ 6

Dusky Gopher Frog.......................................................................................................................................8

Affected Environment...............................................................................................................................................8

Threats......................................................................................................................................................................9

Responses to Threats ................................................................................................................................................9

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................................10

Determination .........................................................................................................................................................10

Dusky Gopher Frog Critical Habitat Effects............................................................................................11

Determination .........................................................................................................................................................11

Mississippi Sandhill Crane .........................................................................................................................11

Affected Environment.............................................................................................................................................11

Threats....................................................................................................................................................................12

Response to Threats................................................................................................................................................12

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................................12

Determination .........................................................................................................................................................13

Red-cockaded Woodpecker ........................................................................................................................13

Affected Environment.............................................................................................................................................13

Threats....................................................................................................................................................................13

Response to Threats................................................................................................................................................13

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................................14

Determination .........................................................................................................................................................15

Gulf Sturgeon...............................................................................................................................................15

Affected Environment.............................................................................................................................................15

Threats....................................................................................................................................................................16

Response to Threats................................................................................................................................................16

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................................17

Determination .........................................................................................................................................................17

Pallid Sturgeon ............................................................................................................................................17

Affected Environment.............................................................................................................................................17

Threats....................................................................................................................................................................18

Response to Threats................................................................................................................................................18

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................................18

Determination .........................................................................................................................................................19

Indiana Bat ..................................................................................................................................................19

Affected Environment.............................................................................................................................................19

Maternity Roosting (summer) habitat .....................................................................................................................19

Threats....................................................................................................................................................................20
Biological Assessment

ii

Response to threats .................................................................................................................................................20

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................................20

Determination .........................................................................................................................................................22

Louisiana Black Bear ..................................................................................................................................22

Affected Environment.............................................................................................................................................22

Threats....................................................................................................................................................................23

Response to Threats................................................................................................................................................23

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................................23

Determination .........................................................................................................................................................23

Gopher Tortoise...........................................................................................................................................24

Affected Environment.............................................................................................................................................24

Threats....................................................................................................................................................................24

Response to Threats................................................................................................................................................24

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................................25

Determination .........................................................................................................................................................25

Louisiana Quillwort ....................................................................................................................................26

Affected Environment.............................................................................................................................................26

Threats....................................................................................................................................................................26

Response to Threats................................................................................................................................................26

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................................27

Determination .........................................................................................................................................................27

Pondberry ....................................................................................................................................................28

Affected Environment.............................................................................................................................................28

Threats....................................................................................................................................................................28

Response to threats .................................................................................................................................................28

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................................28

Determination .........................................................................................................................................................29

LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................. 29

List of Tables

Table 1 Summary of Effects Determinations.................................................................................. 1

Table 2 Federally listed threatened and endangered species included in the Forest Plan Revision 

process............................................................................................................................................. 7
Land and Resource Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi 1

Summary

Objectives of this Biological Assessment are to:

 Comply with requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as 

amended, so that actions by federal agencies do not jeopardize the 

existence of federally listed species, or destroy, or adversely modify their 

critical habitat.

 Assess the effects that implementation of the National Forests in 

Mississippi Land and Resource Management Plan will have on threatened 

and endangered species known to exist on or near the Forest.

 Provide biological input to ensure Forest Service compliance with the 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and Forest Service Manual 

(FSM) 2670. 

Summary of Determination of Effect

This analysis addresses ten endangered and threatened species and one species’ designated 

critical habitat (Table 1). 

Table 1 Summary of Effects Determinations

Species Taxon Status Determination

Dusky Gopher Frog (Rana 

sevosa)

Amphibian Endangered Likely to Adversely Affect

Dusky Gopher Frog Critical 

Habitat Effects Habitat Endangered Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Mississippi Sandhill Crane 

(Grus Canadensis pula)

Bird Endangered Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Red-cockaded Woodpecker 

(Picoides borealis)

Bird Endangered Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser 

oxyrinchus desotoi)

Fish Threatened Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Pallid Sturgeon 

(Scaphirhynchus albus)

Fish Endangered Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Indiana Bat (Myotis 

sodalis)

Mammal Endangered Likely to Adversely Affect

The revised National

Forests in Mississippi 

Land and Resource 

Management Plan has 

the potential to 

adversely affect the 

Mammal Threatened

Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Biological Assessment

2 National Forests in Mississippi

Species Taxon Status Determination

Indiana bat through the 

possible “take” (as 

defined by Endangered 

Species Act) of 

individual 

bats. Although levels 

of vegetation 

management are not 

likely to diminish 

summer roosting in a 

significant way, the 

possibility for an 

adverse effect cannot 

be completely 

eliminated with the 

implementation of any 

level of 

management. Foraging 

and roosting habitat 

will be improved and 

increased by 

implementation of 

active prescribed fire 

and timber harvest 

programs that decrease 

overstory cover and 

canopy closure plus 

increase the number 

and quality of potential 

roost trees such as 

hickory and 

oak. Forest-wide 

standards, guidelines 

and prescriptions 

specific to Indiana bats 

will greatly reduce the 

potential for adverse 

effects, but the 

possibility for “take” 

still exists. Therefore 

the determination of 

effect is likely to 

adversely affect.

Louisiana Black Bear
Land and Resource Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi 3

Species Taxon Status Determination

(Ursus americanus luteolis)

Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus 

polyphemus)

Reptile Threatened Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Louisiana Quillwort (Isoetes 

louisianensis) Plant Endangered Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Pondberry (Lindera 

melissifolia)

Plant Endangered Not Likely to Adversely Affect

The Determination of Effect for the Indiana bat and dusky gopher frog is “likely to adversely 

affect.” 

Although levels of vegetation management associated with the Land and Resource Management 

Plan are not likely to diminish Indiana bat summer roosting significantly, the possibility for an 

adverse effect cannot be completely eliminated. Foraging and roosting habitat will be both 

improved and increased by prescribed fire and timber harvest programs that decrease overstory 

cover and canopy closure, plus increase the number and quality of potential roost trees. 

Vegetation manipulation, ecosystem restoration, and prescribed fire used to achieve desired 

habitat conditions for the dusky gopher frog, although beneficial, may also directly affect the 

species. Forestwide guidelines and management prescriptions specific to these species and their 

habitat will reduce the potential for adverse effects to levels that are likely insignificant and 

discountable, but the possibility for “take” still exists. 

Formal consultation with United Stated Department of Interior (USDI) Fish and Wildlife Service 

is required for each species. 

The Determinations of Effect for the red-cockaded woodpecker, gopher torotoise, dusky gopher 

frog critical habitat, Louisiana quillwort, pondberry, Missisippi sandhill crane, gulf sturgeon, and 

pallid sturgeon are “not likely to adversely affect.” Informal consultation with the USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service is required.

Introduction

This programmatic Biological Assessment (BA) assesses the effects of implementing the 

management activities proposed in the revised National Forests in Mississippi Land and 

Resource Management Plan (LRMP or Forest Plan). The planning area includes all federal land 

managed or administered by the National Forests in Mississippi in Tippah, Benton, Marshall, 

Lafayette, Union, Pontotoc, Chickasaw, Yalobusha, Choctaw, Oktibbeha, Winston, Sharkey, 

Issaquena, Scott, Newton, Smith, Jasper, Jefferson, Copiah, Lincoln, Franklin, Adams, 

Wilkinson, Amite, Jones, Wayne, Greene, Pearl River, Forrest, Perry, George, Stone, Jackson, 

and Harrison Counties, Mississippi. The purpose of this analysis is to assess potential effects on 

federally listed threatened and endangered species, and critical habitat, which occur within the

National Forests in Mississippi. 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans provide broad guidance and information 

for project and activity decision making for each national forest. The original National Forests in 
Biological Assessment

4 National Forests in Mississippi

Mississippi Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) was adopted in 1985. The

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) calls for plans to be revised every 10 to 15 years, to 

incorporate new information, to account for changed national policy and direction, and to address 

new issues and opportunities. This revision of the Forest Plan incorporates new information, 

addresses evolving issues and trends, accounts for changes in national policies and direction, and 

includes updated views from public users and stakeholders.

This revised Forest Plan is the result of a multi-year planning process and collaboration with the 

public and other agencies, groups, and interested parties. It differs from the previous plan in 

focusing more on an integrated vision of how the national forests are to look and function in the 

future rather than how individual projects would be implemented. This plan uses a new format 

and emphasizes an adaptive management approach that will continue to include public input and 

technical adjustments as changes are needed.

From the pine forests of the Gulf Coastal Plain to the upland hardwoods in the northern part of 

the state, the National Forests in Mississippi cover 1.2 million acres of diverse natural resources 

and valued public lands. The revised Forest Plan has been developed to guide the general 

management direction of the National Forests in Mississippi over the next 15 years. Over the 

years, some aspects of the original plan remained valid, but most issues, conditions, and practices 

changed. This revision of the Forest Plan incorporates new information, addresses evolving 

issues and trends, accounts for changes in national policies and direction, and includes updated 

views from public users and stakeholders.

Distributed across the State of Mississippi, National Forest System lands include an array of 

ecological systems that are representative of the ecological diversity of the different portions of 

the state. Forest-wide, pine-dominated stands (many of which resulted from reforestation efforts 

in the 1930s) are the most common forest communities. Large tracts of loblolly pine represent 

the most prevalent forest type, but fire-dependent stands of native longleaf pines along the lower 

Gulf Coastal Plain still occupy a portion of their historic range. Oaks and hickories dominate the 

dry slopes and ridges in the northern half of the state, where sheltered bluffs and mesic ravines 

contain a mix of hardwoods that includes American beech, white oak, and Southern magnolia. 

Along the Mississippi River Delta, approximately 60,000 acres of forested wetlands constitute 

the only bottomland hardwood National Forest in the National Forest System.

This Biological Assessment was prepared in accordance with United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (USDA-FS) manual 2670 and is guided by

requirements set forth in the National Forest Management Act. Determinations of effects 

by habitat and species are made based on best available information.

Consultation with USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

Interagency cooperation between the Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

regarding proposed, endangered, or threatened species is described in Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service personnel reviewed the effects of this 

project on these species, and a signature indicating USDI Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence 

is attached to this BA. The USDA Forest Service will request further section 7 consultations 

with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service for all exceptions, modifications, and waivers.
Land and Resource Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi 5

Proposed Management Action

The proposed action is the implementation of a revised Forest Plan based upon the Preferred 

Alternative (Alternative C) analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement Land and 

Resource Management Plan National Forests in Mississippi (2013). The purpose of the revised 

Forest Plan is to provide long-term, strategic direction for natural resource management on the

National Forests in Mississippi. Projects designed to implement the direction of the revised 

Forest Plan are undertaken only after additional project-specific environmental consideration and 

public involvement.

The revised Forest Plan is the result of collaboration with partner agencies, interested user 

groups, and private citizens. Existing habitat conditions are different from those found in the presettlement forests. Objectives in the revised Forest Plan are designed to restore major forest 

communities, especially habitat structure, composition, and distribution, to a condition needed to 

maintain the viability of species associated with these communities. The desired conditions and 

objectives for ecological diversity and species diversity are more fully described in Chapters 2 

and 3 for the revised Forest Plan. 

Specific proposed vegetation management activities for restoration include prescribed fire, 

timber harvest, wildlife habitat improvements and herbicide use. Prescribed fire is the tool that 

provides for restoration on the most acreage of the National Forests in Mississippi. Historically, 

the role of fire in shaping the native plant and animal communities in Mississippi was not well 

understood, and the use of prescribed burning as a tool for reversing the loss of habitat and native 

communities was not widely practiced. Today, an aggressive prescribed fire program on the 

Forests is returning the national forests to a more historic fire regime and at the same time 

maintaining human safety as the highest priority. While the prescribed burning program in 1985 

averaged 124,000 acres annually, the average in recent years was over 200,000 acres. The 

revised Forest Plan estimates that approximately 220,000 acres will be treated by prescribed 

burning annually across the Forest. Control lines will generally consist of existing roads, trails, 

and streams wherever possible. In areas where control lines need to be constructed, methods will 

include use of hand tools and/or bulldozer. Lines will consist of 2-5 foot wide strips dug to 

mineral soil. Some smaller trees (9" diameter at breast height [dbh] or less) will be felled during 

construction, but larger trees will usually be avoided with the line going around and between 

them. Snags (standing dead trees) near the line will be felled which pose a hazard to personnel 

or may burn and fall thus spreading fire across the line into areas not scheduled for burning.

Timber sales, which include regeneration cuts, thinning, and salvage are another important 

management activity that alters and/or disturbs the greatest acreage of forested habitat on the 

National Forests in Mississippi. The total projected annual harvests include regeneration (2,522 

acres), and thinning (14,119 acres). Timber sales are offered through a competitive bid process to 

achieve various objectives, which include restoration of the structure and composition of the 

forest, stand regeneration for wildlife habitat improvement, and commodity production in 

support of local economies. 

Timber harvest operations include the clearing of skid trails, log landings, and temporary roads 

to access timber harvest units. These roads will be closed and seeded after use. Timber stand 

improvement activities may also be implemented. This would involve mechanical or chemical 

treatment to remove competing trees that are generally 5 inches or less in diameter.
Biological Assessment

6 National Forests in Mississippi

Salvage harvest is included in the previous estimates of acreage of timber harvest. The objective 

is to salvage trees for use as wood products following natural disasters such as wind storms, 

tornados, heavy snow/ice, and floods or insect outbreaks (e.g. gypsy moth, southern pine beetle). 

Although salvage sales are similar to other timber sales, they differ by being implemented 

quickly to recover dead or damaged trees for forest products (before they decay or become 

unsuitable for such commercial use) and to reduce spread of insects and disease. It is impossible 

to accurately project future amounts of salvage. Potential salvage depends on the amount and 

severity of future tree mortality and damage resulting from events such as insect outbreaks, ice 

storms, and windstorms. 

Wildlife habitat improvement activities include the maintenance of existing grassland openings, 

the creation of new temporary openings in the form of seeding log landings and temporary roads, 

and generally ecosystem restoration projects. Stream habitat enhancement activities are used to 

enhance streams and sometimes involve the felling of individual trees for use as fisheries 

structures.

The National Forests in Mississippi utilizes herbicides to accomplish several objectives including 

non-native invasive plant control, wildlife habitat improvement, timber stand improvement, and 

control of roadside vegetation. Herbicides applied on the forest require comprehensive risk 

assessments that analyze human, wildlife and environmental risk. The Forest Service generally 

applies only low risk herbicides chosen to minimize risk to human and wildlife health, and often 

uses selective treatments over broadcast treatments, and technology that minimizes spray drift. 

Risk assessments estimate potential off-site movement by spray drift, percolating ground water, 

and surface water runoff, which must be minimal to un-measurable for approved pesticides and 

rates of active ingredient per acre. Approved herbicides have low toxicities and short persistence, 

and low risk of exposure. Protective measures include applying herbicides according to labeling 

information and using formulations registered by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 

approved by the Forest Service.

A number of other management activities are proposed to meet specific management needs 

beyond ecological restoration. These generally affect small areas and include management of 

roads, recreation, special use, grazing, and soil and water improvement activities. In general, 

road management for the National Forests in Mississippi entails the maintenance or improvement 

of existing corridors (reconstruction) rather than establishing new roadways (construction). The 

primary focus will be on maintaining and rehabilitating the existing road system. Maintenance 

priorities will include bridge safety, adequate signs, suitable stream crossings, and any 

resurfacing or reconstruction needed to provide an overall road system that is useable and safe. 

Road maintenance includes brushing, surfacing, culvert and bridge replacement, and grading to 

assure safe public access within the Forest.

No major development of recreation facilities is proposed. Management for recreation activities 

on the forest will address maintenance needs on hiker and bike trails, hunter and fishing access 

points, and developed sites such as campgrounds and parking lots. Actions would include 

brushing, removal of hazard trees, and limited removal of trees during trail construction. A new 

backcountry designation on the Tombigbee National Forest and acquisition next to Black Creek 

Wilderness provides approximately 4600 acres of more remote outdoor experiences. Mountain 

bike trails would be allowed as a way for people to tour the undeveloped area but outdoor skills 

are emphasized. Management options that could be explored are primitive hunting and other use 

experiences. Special area designations may require additional trail segments for public access 
Land and Resource Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi 7

and site protection which may in some locations provide distinctive destinations for forest 

visitors, improving visitor experience and discovery of unique natural and cultural heritage. The 

total amount of trails will remain approximately the same or have a slight increase. Developed 

recreation sites would stay approximately the same number and size. Emphasis on aquatic 

habitats will improve anglers catch and maintenance or enhancement of habitats for some game 

species may increase hunting opportunities.

Special use authorizations are issued for multiple purposes to individuals, corporations, and other 

government agencies. The predominant uses are for public roads, communication facilities, oil 

and gas leasing, military training activities, and utility rights-of-way. Proposed actions include 

maintaining the existing permits and authorizing new permits. The maintenance activities would 

predominantly be road maintenance and maintenance of utility line corridors including hazard 

tree removal and maintenance of grass/forb and shrub communities within the right-of-way. New 

authorizations that would involve clearing of trees are not expected to be substantial. 

The National Forests in Mississippi proposes to continue to implement soil and water 

improvement projects. These projects generally include closing and seeding abandoned roads, 

illegal roads and trails, rehabilitating old mine sites, and stream bank restoration. The projects 

could involve some clearing of trees to facilitate treatment operations.

Species Considered and Evaluated

The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for listing proposed, threatened and 

endangered species. The Forest Service cooperates with that agency’s efforts in conserving these 

species through protection and habitat management. The Forest Service conducts activities and 

programs to assist in the identification, conservation, and protection of proposed, threatened, and 

endangered species and their habitats. Site specific evaluations are conducted for any proposed 

activity that may take place within habitat for these species or near known populations. The 

National Forests in Mississippi threatened and endangered species program priorities include: 

 Implement Forest Service actions as recommended in recovery plans for federally 

listed species. In the absence of an approved recovery plan, implement and, if 

necessary develop interim Forest Service guidelines. Update interim guidelines 

as needed when new science becomes available.

 Work with USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and other conservation partners to 

develop recovery plans for federally listed species and candidate conservation 

agreements for species proposed for listing.

 Coordinate with partners to implement measures to resolve conflicts with 

proposed, threatened, and endangered species and their habitats.

 Monitor trends in population and/or habitat of federally listed species.

The list of Threatened and Endangered species in Mississippi is maintained by the USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service and can be found at: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/StateListing.do?state=MS&status=listed
Biological Assessment

8 National Forests in Mississippi

Developing the Forest list of threatened and endangered species was completed cooperatively 

with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Some categories of occurrence raised questions about 

which species should and should not be retained on the list. The following direction provided the 

Forest the means to determine which species would remain on the list:

 If an occurrence is thought to be an “accidental”, i.e., an occurrence of a species well 

outside its normal range, then consideration of the species in the forest plan revision 

process may not be warranted as determined by the Responsible Official. However, only 

if there is general consensus about the accidental nature of the occurrence.

 In some situations, a threatened and endangered species occurred on the forest 

historically but there are no current occurrences. In this case, for a species which has 

been absent from a forest for a long period of time, and there is no expectation that it 

would be reestablished, consideration of the species in the forest plan revision process 

may not be warranted. 

Both of these circumstances occurred with threatened and endangered species on the Forest. 

Forty-four threatened and endangered plant and animal species with ranges occurring 

throughout the state were included and evaluated. Thirty-four species were removed from our 

list because they did not occur or have potential to occur on National Forest System land 

based upon suitable habitat, range, or expert taxonomic consensus (FSH 1909.12, Chap. 40, 

Sec. 43.22d). If these species are found to occur on the National Forests in Mississippi, they 

will be re-evaluated and carried through the evaluation process. Ten threatened and 

endangered species remained and were further evaluated including critical habitat for one 

species.

Table 2 Federally listed threatened and endangered species included in the Forest Plan Revision process.

Taxa Species District Most 

Likely to Occur Status

Amphibian

Dusky Gopher Frog and Critical Habitat

(Rana sevosa)

De Soto Endangered

Bird

Mississippi Sandhill Crane

(Grus canadensis pulla)

De Soto Endangered

Bird

Red-cockaded Woodpecker

(Picoides borealis)

Bienville 

Chickasawhay 

De Soto 

Homochitto

Endangered

Fish

Gulf Sturgeon

(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi)

Bienville

Chickasawhay

De Soto

Threatened

Fish

Pallid Sturgeon

(Scaphirhynchus albus)

Delta Endangered
Land and Resource Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi 9

Taxa Species District Most 

Likely to Occur Status

Mammal

Indiana Bat

(Myotis sodalis)

Holly Springs Endangered

Mammal

Louisiana Black Bear

(Ursus americanus luteolus)

Chickasawhay, 

Delta, De Soto, 

Homochitto

Threatened

Reptile

Gopher Tortoise

(Gopherus polyphemus)

Chickasawhay

De Soto

Threatened

Vascular Plant

Louisiana Quillwort

(Isoetes louisianensis)

Chickasawhay

De Soto

Endangered

Vascular Plant

Pondberry

(Lindera melissifolia)

Delta Endangered

Dusky Gopher Frog

Affected Environment

The dusky gopher frog is listed as federally endangered and is distributed across three localities. 

The largest and best known population, of approximately 100 adult frogs, breed at a pond 

(Glen’s Pond) located in Harrison County, Mississippi on the De Soto Ranger District of De Soto 

National Forest. Dusky gopher frogs were found in 2004 at two other pond sites one of which is 

owned by the state of Mississippi and the other on private land with the nearest recently found 

pond at least 20 miles from Glen’s Pond. In 2013, dusky gopher frogs bred at Pony Ranch Pond

which is also located on De Soto Ranger District. These frogs are part of the Glen’s Pond 

population, but this new site indicates the beginnings of the establishment of a metapopulation 

which was the intent of the management that has been on-going by the Forest Service on De Soto 

Ranger District.

Glen’s Pond is an ephemeral pond, typically dry during the summer. The frogs come to the pond 

to breed in the fall and winter in years when there has been adequate rainfall. The adults 

subsequently leave the pond after breeding. Metamorphosed juveniles leave the pond in the 

summer. A water well and pump is in place to supplement water levels in the pond due to 

inadequate rainfall in recent years. 

Gopher frog habitat includes both upland foraging sites with a subterranean refuge and isolated 

temporary wetland breeding sites embedded within the forested landscape. This species is 

associated with longleaf pine habitat and utilizes burrows of the gopher tortoise and small 

mammals as a refuge from heat and predators. Frequent fires are necessary to maintain the open 

canopy and groundcover vegetation in the aquatic and terrestrial habitats (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2001). 
Biological Assessment

10 National Forests in Mississippi

Threats

The greatest threat to the dusky gopher frog is its small population numbers that makes it 

extremely vulnerable to extinction from natural and man-made processes. In 2003, an 

undescribed disease was discovered in gopher frog tadpoles at Glen’s Pond. Initial work on the 

disease by researchers at the National Wildlife Health Research Center indicated it is similar to 

Perkinsus, a genus of Mesomycetozoan that occurs in marine invertebrates. During work 

conducted to study the Perkinsus-like disease, an additional disease, a chytrid fungus, was found 

in two other species of amphibians at Glen’s Pond. This disease has been implicated in 

amphibian declines worldwide. The effect of these two diseases on the survival of gopher frogs 

is unknown. In close proximity to Glen’s Pond is a 4,000 acre residential development project 

on private land. Urban and commercial development of the surrounding area, including several 

highway projects, has the potential to further degrade this habitat and possibly increase mortality. 

Drought has also resulted in complete reproductive failure in some years.

Responses to Threats 

National Forests in Mississippi along with several cooperators have been involved in research, 

monitoring, habitat management, acquiring land and captive propagation programs. These 

cooperators include the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Museum of Natural 

Science, University of New Orleans, Southeastern Louisiana University, United States 

Department of Interior Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center, University of 

Southern Mississippi Gulf Coast Research Lab, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, 

Harrison County Soil and Water Conservation District, The Nature Conservancy, Western 

Carolina University, Dr. Joe Pechmann, Dr. Steven Richter, Mississippi Department of 

Transportation, Mississippi Army National Guard, Memphis Zoo and Detroit Zoo.

Glen’s Pond has been monitored for the presence of gopher frog egg masses since 1988. A drift 

fence completely encircling Glen’s Pond was established in December of 1995. Both egg mass 

surveys and drift fence monitoring are currently being used to assess population status. 

Movements of adult and metamorphic gopher frogs into and out of the pond are monitored by 

capturing them as they enter and exit the breeding pond. Gopher frog tadpoles were collected at 

each breeding event since 2002 and raised in cattle tanks as a hedge against pond drying or other 

catastrophic events at the pond.

Prescribed burning Glen’s Pond basin and the surrounding upland habitat has been a priority for 

the Forest Service. Frequent fires are necessary to minimize the midstory and maintain 

groundcover vegetation in the aquatic and terrestrial habitats. National Forests in Mississippi 

focus is habitat restoration and management and maintaining a 1-3 year burning regime. 

Critical habitat was designated for the dusky gopher frog on June 12, 2012. This included seven 

areas within De Soto Ranger District encompassing approximately 3,216 acres. These areas 

include habitat surrounding Glen’s Pond and associated ponds, Carr Bridge Road Pond, the Ashe 

Nursery ponds, and three ponds in the Mars Hill area of Perry County. Critical habitat is a term 

defined in the Endangered Species Act. It refers to specific geographic areas that are essential to 

the conservation of a threatened or endangered species. 

This designation of critical habitat will help ensure the dusky gopher frog’s habitat needs are 

sustained and ensure actions do not adversely modify or destroy this habitat. The establishment 

of this critical habitat should assist the Forest in further management of this species by creating a 
Land and Resource Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi 11

focus point for management needs including restoration of longleaf pine, protection of pond sites 

and their hydrology, invasive species management, and prescribed fire. The continuity of habitat 

over large areas should focus management, preclude isolation and allow for dispersal of the 

species across the landscape.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The chosen alternative would create optimal habitat conditions for the species. Direct effects 

could include mortality of individuals from ground disturbing activities associated with habitat 

management. Ground disturbing activities that could potentially harm dusky gopher frogs 

include tree harvest during thinning operations and ecosystem restoration activities including 

longleaf conversion and creation of ephemeral ponds, fireline maintenance and/or construction, 

and road maintenance. Prescribed fire can also cause direct mortality to individuals. Direct 

effects to individuals can be minimized through protection of escape cover such as stumps and 

stump holes and associated gopher tortoise burrows and following guidelines created for 

associated species groups. Timing prescribed fire to when individuals are less likely to be 

moving during a breeding period will also minimize effects to the species. A burn matrix within 

gopher frog habitat has been developed to minimize effects of prescribed fire (see Final

Environmental Impact Statement, National Forests in Mississippi, Land and Resource 

Management Plan, 2013).

Generally, the indirect effects of forest management activities will be beneficial to the dusky

gopher frog. Detrimental habitat isolation and fragmentation effects will be reduced as suitable 

areas are enlarged and joined within the Cooperative Management Unit (CMU), as described in 

the revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Population expansion will be fostered by 

restoration of historically occurring pine species, thinning of mid-successional and mature pine, 

prescribed fire to remove encroaching woody vegetation and restore herbaceous groundcover, 

chemical and mechanical treatment of encroaching midstory where fire is not a viable 

management tool. Capture, tagging, and monitoring of individuals and egg masses will facilitate 

monitoring of the population and translocation of frogs as necessary will optimize reproduction 

and population expansion.

Cumulative effects to dusky gopher frog populations over the long-term in all alternatives are 

expected to be population growth, and ultimately, recovery of the species. Management of this 

species and its habitat will be in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, cooperation with 

the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, 

and the Dusky Gopher Frog Recovery Team. When a recovery plan is written, it will be 

incorporated into management of this species on the National Forests in Mississippi.

Determination

Although effects are projected to be beneficial in the long run, implementation of the revised 

National Forests in Mississippi Land and Resource Management Plan is likely to adversely 

affect the dusky gopher frog as frogs could be killed through the use of prescribed fire. 

Individuals could also be killed by heavy equipment use during habitat management and 

restoration operations. The number of individuals affected cannot be determined but should be 

insignificant as these adverse impacts would be infrequent and chance encounters. Protective 

measures should reduce the possibility of take. Habitat management and restoration will be 
Biological Assessment

12 National Forests in Mississippi

beneficial to the species in the long term. Additional site-specific analysis would be conducted 

on all projects with the potential to affect this species.

Dusky Gopher Frog Critical Habitat Effects

The preferred alternative would create optimal habitat conditions for the dusky gopher frog and 

designated critical habitat. Direct effects to constituent elements of critical habitat could include 

habitat alteration associated with habitat management. Ground disturbing activities include tree 

harvest during thinning operations and ecosystem restoration activities including longleaf 

conversion and creation of ephemeral ponds, fireline maintenance or construction, and road 

maintenance. Prescribed fire can also directly affect critical habitat through creation of grassy 

understory and minimizing a woody midstory thus creating a more open condition. 

Generally, the indirect effects of forest management activities will be beneficial to the dusky 

gopher frog critical habitat. Detrimental habitat isolation and fragmentation effects will be 

reduced as suitable areas are enlarged and joined within critical habitat. Population expansion 

will be fostered by restoration of historically occurring pine species, thinning of midsuccessional and mature pine, prescribed fire to remove encroaching woody vegetation and 

restore herbaceous groundcover, chemical and mechanical treatment of encroaching mid-story 

where fire is not a viable management tool. 

Cumulative effects to dusky gopher frog critical habitat over the long-term are expected to be 

conversion of areas to suitable habitat for the species and management of this critical habitat, and 

ultimately, recovery of the species. Management of this habitat will be in accordance with the 

Endangered Species Act, cooperation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi 

Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks and the Dusky Gopher Frog Recovery Team. When 

a recovery plan is written, it will be incorporated into management of critical habitat on the 

National Forests in Mississippi.

Determination

Implementation of the revised National Forests in Mississippi Land and Resource Management 

Plan is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog.

Mississippi Sandhill Crane

Affected Environment

The Mississippi sandhill crane, the most endangered North American crane, is listed as federally 

endangered has declined in range where it once occurred along most of the northern Gulf of 

Mexico coast. A small population of 110-120 Mississippi sandhill cranes exists in southern 

Jackson County, MS from the Pascagoula River west to the county line and from 4 miles north 

of Vancleave, MS, south to Simmons Bayou which is located on the Mississippi Sandhill Crane 

Refuge (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Currently, there are no nests known to occur on 

the National Forests in Mississippi nor has the crane been sighted in recent years.

The Mississippi sandhill crane inhabits pine savannahs as well as associated bay heads, swamps, 

and marshes. These areas are seasonally wet, open to semi-open herbaceous communities 

dominated by grasses and sedges with poorly formed shrubs and trees. Frequent growing season 
Land and Resource Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi 13

fire is required to maintain this habitat. This bird uses the wet pine savannas for nesting during 

the summer breeding season. The ground cover is composed of grasses, sedges, and an array of 

wet-acid-soil plants. Water at the nest sites may range from none to a foot deep. The nests vary

from token piles of grass laid on top of grasses or sedges, to large structures constructed from 

local vegetation. The nests are built at ground level. The cranes feed on the breeding grounds in 

savannas, swamps, and open fields in the spring, summer, and fall. During the winter they often 

feed in the small cornfields and pastures in the northern part of their range (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1991). 

Threats

The greatest threat to Mississippi sandhill crane its small population numbers and its current 

restriction to a small area of Lower Coastal Plain pine savanna in Jackson County, MS. The wet 

pine savanna is critical to the crane’s habitat needs, but most of the original savanna habitat has

been altered by human practices. Wild flocks have also been slow to increase due to abnormally 

high mortality of nestlings and first-year birds. There are no known imminent dangers, but 

projected environmental disruptions include possible tourist, commercial, and industrial

developments in the marsh and waterways.

Response to Threats

The National Forests in Mississippi recognizes that the Mississippi sandhill crane’s habitat needs 

must be met in order for species survival. National Forests in Mississippi focus is to restore and 

maintain wet pine savanna to increase habitat availability for this species. A Sandhill Crane 

cooperative management unit (CMU), as described in the revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan, will be created. This unit will allow for accelerated restoration of habitat 

needed for the expansion of this species at a landscape scale.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Although breeding populations of this species do not currently occur on the Forest, it is possible 

that some areas of the southeastern portion of the De Soto Ranger District have been used for 

foraging purposes. The preferred alternative would create optimal habitat conditions for the 

species. Direct effects to Mississippi sandhill crane, in the form of fatalities to individual birds, 

are not likely to occur through management actions and activities occurring on the National 

Forests in Mississippi. 

Generally, the indirect effects of forest management activities will be beneficial to the 

Mississippi sandhill crane. The cooperative management unit (CMU) will reduce detrimental 

habitat isolation and fragmentation as suitable areas are enlarged and joined within the 

cooperative management unit (CMU). Population expansion to the National Forests in 

Mississippi could be fostered by restoration of historical conditions, thinning of mid-successional 

and mature pine to desired wet pine savanna conditions, protection of hydrologic function, 

prescribed fire to remove encroaching woody vegetation and restore herbaceous groundcover, 

and chemical and mechanical treatment of encroaching midstory where fire is not a viable 

management tool.

Cumulative effects to Mississippi sandhill crane populations over the long-term are expected to 

be population expansion, and ultimately, recovery of the species. Management of this species 

and its habitat will be in accordance with the Endangered Species Act and the most current USDI 
Biological Assessment

14 National Forests in Mississippi

Fish and Wildlife Service recovery plan will be incorporated into management of this species on 

the National Forests in Mississippi as populations occur.

Determination

Implementation of the revised National Forests in Mississippi Land and Resource Management 

Plan is not likely to adversely affect the Mississippi sandhill crane, since no reproducing 

populations currently occur and effects of management would create potential habitat for the 

expansion of the species. Additional site-specific analysis would be conducted on all projects 

with the potential to affect this species.

Red-cockaded Woodpecker

Affected Environment

The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is a medium-sized woodpecker adapted to the historic fire 

maintained mature pine forest ecosystems of the southeastern United States. The range of the 

red-cockaded woodpecker has been reduced to approximately 1 percent of its historic range. It is 

currently listed as endangered by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service throughout its range. The 

red-cockaded woodpecker is native to the open, fire-maintained pine forests of the southeastern 

United States. This species required large areas of mature pine forest with open understories to 

meet both foraging and nesting requirements. They excavate nesting and roosting cavities in live 

mature pines, 60 years old or older, and forage mainly in pines greater than 30 years of age 

within a half mile of the colony site and contiguous to the colony.

Species recovery is dependent on land management practices that mimic historical regimes that 

resulted in open stands of mature pine with understories dominated by forbs and grasses. 

Presently, 56% of all active red-cockaded woodpecker groups (known as clusters) reside on 

National Forest System land (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003b). Thus, the Forest Service 

plays a crucial role in the conservation and recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker.

Threats

Fire suppression and past large-scale timber harvests have resulted in loss of habitat for redcockaded woodpeckers. One of the primary threats to red-cockaded woodpeckers, described in 

the recovery plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003b), is a bottleneck in the number of pines 

available as cavity trees. A second impact on the viability of red-cockaded woodpeckers is 

demographics or the factors associated with the isolation and expansion of small populations

such as genetic bottlenecking. Other threats include the lack of suitable foraging habitat and the 

lack of midstory control. 

Response to Threats

The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that recovery populations of the endangered 

red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) will be accomplished only within large expanses of mature 

and over-mature pine forests managed for the special nesting and foraging habits of this species. 

Four districts within National Forests in Mississippi have been identified by the USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the USDA Forest Service as support units for this species. Two are primary 

core populations, acknowledged to harbor at least 350 potential breeding groups (PBGs) at the 
Land and Resource Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi 15

time of and after delisting – the Bienville National Forest and the Chickasawhay Ranger District 

of the De Soto National Forest. Two others are secondary core populations which will hold at 

least 250 PBGs at the time of and after delisting – the Homochitto National Forest and the De 

Soto Ranger District of the De Soto National Forest (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003b).

In 1995, the Regional Red-cockaded Woodpecker FEIS provided direction to National Forests in 

the Southern Region with RCW population and habitat management objectives. In January 

2003, the RCW Recovery Plan Second Revision was released. The National Forests in 

Mississippi has incorporated these two sources to maximize Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW)

opportunities within existing National Forests in Mississippi conditions, current management 

realities, and forest planning land allocation decisions. The revised Forest Plan Final 

Environmental Impact Statement was used to define the Habitat Management Areas while the 

most current USDI Fish and Wildlife Service recovery plan will be implemented to define 

habitat management strategy, population management guidance and goals, and monitoring 

guidance. 

Current understanding of this species’ biology is sufficient to work towards red-cockaded 

woodpecker (RCW) population goals. National Forests in Mississippi will continue to improve 

and maintain favorable habitat conditions for this endangered species. Multiple techniques are 

available and effective, and strategies have been tailored to individual populations and habitat 

conditions. It is the implementation of these strategies, carefully designed to meet the conditions 

of each of four very different populations and habitat, which will continue to enhance redcockaded woodpecker (RCW) recovery on the National Forests in Mississippi. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The preferred alternative will create acceptable habitat conditions for the species. Direct effects 

to red-cockaded woodpeckers could include mortality of individuals during capture, handling, 

translocation, or prescribed fire. Prescribed fire, even when employed within prescription and 

guidelines, could result in the loss of individuals if nest trees are burned during nesting season. 

The revised recovery plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003b) increases the fire protection 

standard for roost trees (area raked around each roost tree) which will reduce the number of roost 

tree fires to discountable levels. Therefore, the potential for mortality to red-cockaded

woodpeckers during nesting season due to prescribed fire is deemed insignificant and

discountable, with standard protective measures given in the recovery plan. Losses of individual 

cavity trees to fire can be compensated by installation of artificial cavities. Avoidance of 

prescribed fires during the nesting season is not recommended, since nesting season coincides 

with timing favorable for other important ecological fire effects.

Indirect effects to red-cockaded woodpeckers occur at the landscape level and at the population 

level. There will be beneficial effects from the habitat management actions to red-cockaded 

woodpecker habitats and populations. Detrimental habitat isolation and fragmentation effects 

will be reduced as suitable habitat areas are enlarged and joined across the habitat management

areas (HMA). Population expansion will be fostered by: restoration of historically occurring

pine stands; regeneration of mature pine stands with retention of potential roost trees; thinning of 

mid-successional and mature pine and pine-hardwood stands; prescribed fire to remove

encroaching woody vegetation and restore herbaceous groundcovers; chemical and mechanical

treatment of encroaching midstory where fire is not a viable management tool; installation of

artificial roosting and nesting cavities; protection of artificial and natural cavities from 
Biological Assessment

16 National Forests in Mississippi

competitors through the installation of excluder devices; capture, banding and monitoring of 

individual birds to facilitate monitoring of the population; and translocation of birds as necessary 

to optimize annual reproduction.

Cumulative effects to red-cockaded woodpecker populations over the long-term are expected to 

be population growth at rates prescribed in the recovery plan, recovery plan population objective 

attainment, and ultimately, recovery of the species. Management of red-cockaded woodpecker 

(RCW) populations will be according to the most recent recovery plan. 

The preferred alternative also adopts the revised habitat management area delineations. 

Establishing habitat management areas in all alternatives allows for a more landscape approach 

to red-cockaded woodpecker recovery. Habitat management area size is dependent on population 

objectives and habitat quality. Habitat management areas should contain contiguous blocks of 

suitable habitat. This is why, for example, the entire Chickasawhay District is included, 

excluding only the habitat not conducive to the species and its survival. The continuity of redcockaded woodpecker habitat over large areas should preclude isolation of clusters and allow for 

dispersal of red-cockaded woodpecker across the landscape. Since the delineation of tentative 

habitat management areas, better information concerning red-cockaded woodpecker population 

demographics and understanding of ecosystem management and sustainability on the National 

Forests in Mississippi has been acquired; which is why the tentative habitat management areas 

were revised. There should be no direct and indirect effects of establishing boundaries of habitat 

management areas. Cumulative effects of establishing habitat management areas should be 

positive. The landscape approach would provide for nesting and foraging habitat and should 

allow red-cockaded woodpecker social interaction at the landscape level which should help in 

successful dispersal of sub-adults. Inclusion of private in holdings within habitat management 

area boundaries may lead to some habitat fragmentation, but it should not lead to demographic 

isolation. 

Protective measures required under the recovery plan for habitat management include: protection 

of active and inactive cavity trees within burn units; rotation ages; limitation of regeneration area 

size; and limitation of operable season to avoid nesting and brood-rearing periods in active 

clusters. 

Determination

Implementation of the revised National Forests in Mississippi Land and Resource Management 

Plan is not likely to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker, as residual potential risks to 

individuals after full implementation of guidelines and recovery plan protective measures are 

insignificant and discountable. Additional site-specific analysis would be conducted on all 

projects with the potential to affect this species.

Gulf Sturgeon

Affected Environment

Gulf sturgeon was once widely distributed throughout coastal rivers of the northeastern Gulf of 

Mexico primarily from the Mississippi River east to the Suwannee River. The Suwannee may 

support the only remaining population known to spawn successfully in the wild. This fish is 

anadramous, with adults migrating between fresh water spawning areas and salt water non-
Land and Resource Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi 17

spawning areas. It may migrate as far as 140 miles upstream in early spring for spawning, with 

sub-adults and adults returning to the Gulf of Mexico in late fall, remaining there through winter 

(Heise et al. 2004). Young generally stay in the mouth of the river in winter and spring, where 

they spend the first 2 years of their lives. The substrate in spawning areas in freshwater 

(sometimes tidal) usually is hard clay, gravel, or shell, and may occur in brackish water. 

Spawning probably occurs in the natal river, with offspring returning to areas where they were 

born. 

In Mississippi, the Gulf sturgeon has been collected in the Pearl River and in the Pascagoula 

watersheds. The closest recorded occurrence location to the Chickasawhay Ranger District of 

De Soto National Forest in suitable waterway corridors for adults is the confluence of the Leaf 

River and Chickasawhay River well below the forest boundary. While there is a possibility that 

juveniles may move up into smaller tributaries, no confirmed collections have occurred on the 

district. The largest perennial creek on national forest lands that flows directly into the 

Chickasawhay River on the east side of the district is Big Creek. It is approximately 6 miles 

from the forest boundary to the river. Areas that contain Gulf sturgeon critical habitat on the De 

Soto Ranger District of De Soto National Forest includes: the Leaf River from Mississippi 

Highway 588 to its confluence with the Chickasawhay River, the Pascagoula River from the 

confluence with the Leaf and Chickasawhay Rivers to Pascagoula Bay, and Big Black Creek 

from the confluence Black and Red Creeks to the confluence with the Pascagoula River (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2003a). There are several creeks on the De Soto Ranger District that 

drain into these areas. 

Threats

Gulf sturgeon numbers declined due to overfishing throughout most of the 20th century. Dams or 

sills that are barriers to upstream fish migration during low-water conditions further exacerbated 

their decline. Other threats and potential threats included modifications to habitat associated 

with dredged material disposal, desnagging and other navigation maintenance activities; 

incidental take by commercial fishermen; poor water quality associated with contamination by 

pesticides, heavy metals, and industrial contaminants; aquaculture and incidental or accidental 

introductions; land uses that cause excessive sedimentation, loss of spawning habitat, and the 

Gulf sturgeon's slow growth and late maturation (USDI Fish and Wildlife and Gulf States 

Marine Fisheries Commission 1995). 

Response to Threats

The National Forests in Mississippi recognizes that the Gulf sturgeon’s habitat needs must be 

met in order for species survival. National Forests in Mississippi also realizes that many issues 

are outside Forest Service control such as sediment loading, head cutting of streams, upstream 

discharges, and past channelization practices. To address these issues, the National Forests in

Mississippi works with other agencies, research institutions, and interested partners to 

collectively try to address solutions. Emphasis is placed on incorporating plan components 

during project planning that would seek to address watershed and aquatic systems with emphasis 

placed on the stressors for which the agency has control or jurisdiction by establishing 

streamside buffer zones, restricting vegetation management activities in riparian zones, and 

employing erosion control measures.
Biological Assessment

18 National Forests in Mississippi

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

No direct effects from management are anticipated. Most hydrologic alterations on National 

Forests in Mississippi watersheds occur on privately owned adjacent lands and are outside of 

Forest Service control. The National Forests in Mississippi is not expected to contribute 

negative impacts to hydrologic regimes. The National Forests in Mississippi does not contribute 

to nor manage for non-point source pollution therefore no effects to this species are anticipated. 

Forest activities, such as thinning, regeneration, prescribed fire, and oil and gas leasing may 

contribute temporary low levels of sediment risk. Maintenance of Forest Service roads 

contribute varying levels of elevated sediment depending on slope, elevation, aspect, soil type, 

and road management regimes. Since many Forest Service roads are important for public and 

intra-agency access, these effects are unlikely to abate significantly. In other cases, Forest 

Service roads may fall under shared jurisdiction with other agencies and entities. Here again, 

these impacts are unlikely to abate significantly. Some forest management practices may require 

the application of herbicides and pesticides which may impact aquatic systems. In most 

watersheds, National Forests in Mississippi sediment contributions are minor when compared to 

neighboring land uses. Cumulatively, sedimentation and herbicide and pesticides from the 

National Forests in Mississippi are predicted to have no or discountable effects on Gulf sturgeon 

habitat due to forest-wide standards and guidelines designed to protect water quality and aquatic 

habitats. In all cases, best management practices and guidelines intended to minimize sediment 

risk levels should minimize risks to this species. 

Determination

With protective measures and guidelines implemented, the preferred alternative will have no 

direct effects and insignificant indirect and cumulative effects on the Gulf sturgeon, it is 

determined that all alternatives will not likely adversely affect the Gulf sturgeon.

Pallid Sturgeon

Affected Environment

The endangered pallid sturgeon has a historical range of over 3,500 miles in the Missouri and 

Mississippi Rivers, has been described as one of the rarest fish in North America. The perceived 

rarity and status have placed the pallid at the center of major conflicts over water and river use in 

the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. At the time the pallid sturgeon was listed as an endangered 

species (1990), most information on the species came from the upper Missouri River (~800 

historical capture records). The pallid sturgeon looks very similar to the shovelnose sturgeon 

and has only been recognized as a separate species since 1905 but, is believed to have been rare 

historically throughout its entire range. Consequently, records kept of total harvest prior to 1905 

did not separate the two species. Today, it is essentially restricted to the Lower Yellow Stone 

River, the Missouri River, and the lower Mississippi River. In the state of Mississippi there have 

only been three reported captures of pallid sturgeon. Two were captured in the Mississippi River 

and one in the Big Sunflower River of Sharkey County near Delta National Forest. The later was 

caught on 23 November 1987, 12 miles northwest of Satartia, Mississippi (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1993a). 

Pallid sturgeon habitat preferences are not well known, but it is believed that they prefer to dwell 

in sandy or rocky bottoms of large, turbid, free-flowing rivers. Pallid sturgeons feed on the 
Land and Resource Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi 19

bottom of the river and typically consume aquatic insects, crustaceans, mollusks, marine worms, 

fish and the eggs of other fish. They are generally long-lived, possibly living as long as 41 years. 

Males reach sexual maturity at 5 to 7 years. Females are believed to first spawn at 15 to 20 years. 

Very little is known about the reproductive behavior of this species. Spawning behavior is 

thought to occur April through mid-June, when water temperatures reach a range between 55-70 

°F (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007).

Threats

The pallid sturgeon was probably never a common species throughout its range. During the past 

several decades, populations of the pallid sturgeon have drastically declined. Over-harvesting 

may have been an initial cause of this. However, they are currently threatened primarily by 

habitat modifications from channelization, dam construction, and other navigation maintenance 

activities of major rivers. These changes destroy spawning areas, reduce food supply or access to 

food, and impede the sturgeon’s ability to move within the river. Dams decrease flow rates and

produce cooler water temperatures, making rivers less desirable for pallid sturgeon. Sturgeon can

live and grow in reservoirs, but they cannot reproduce there. Water pollution from rural and

urban development along rivers may also be a problem for pallid sturgeons. A more recent

problem that will affect the future status of the pallid sturgeon is hybridization with shovelnose

sturgeon, which is occurring likely because of a lack of spawning sites for both of these species

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007).

Response to Threats

The National Forests in Mississippi recognizes that the pallid sturgeon’s habitat needs must be 

met in order for species survival. National Forests in Mississippi also realizes that many issues 

are outside Forest Service control such as sediment loading, head cutting of streams, upstream 

discharges, and past channelization practices. To address these issues, the National Forests in 

Mississippi works with other agencies, research institutions, and interested partners to 

collectively try to address solutions. Emphasis is placed on incorporating plan components 

during project planning that would seek to address watershed and aquatic systems with emphasis 

placed on the stressors for which the agency has control or jurisdiction by establishing 

streamside buffer zones, restricting vegetation management activities in riparian zones, and 

employing erosion control measures.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

While neighboring landowners may contribute varying and unpredictable levels of risk to 

watershed health, National Forests in Mississippi will continue to maintain a positive 

contribution to aquatic sustainability. As a result, watershed health is expected to remain 

relatively stable, at least to the extent that National Forests in Mississippi can control based on 

ownership profiles. National Forests in Mississippi lands do not contribute to non-point source 

or stream toxin risk levels therefore no effects are anticipated.

No direct effects from management are anticipated. Most hydrologic alterations on National 

Forests in Mississippi watersheds occur on privately owned adjacent lands and are outside of 

Forest Service control. The National Forests in Mississippi is not expected to contribute 

negative impacts to hydrologic regimes. National Forests in Mississippi does not contribute to 

nor manage for non-point source pollution therefore no effects to this species from Forest 
Biological Assessment

20 National Forests in Mississippi

Service activities are anticipated. Forest activities, such as thinning, regeneration, prescribed 

fire, and oil and gas leasing may contribute temporary low levels of sediment risk. Maintenance 

of Forest Service roads contribute varying levels of elevated sediment depending on slope, 

elevation, aspect, soil type, and road management regimes. Since many Forest Service roads are 

important for public and intra-agency access, these effects are unlikely to abate significantly. In 

other cases, Forest Service roads may fall under shared jurisdiction with other agencies and 

entities. Here again, these impacts are unlikely to abate significantly. Some forest management 

practices may require the application of herbicides and pesticides which may impact aquatic 

systems. In most watersheds, National Forests in Mississippi sediment contributions are minor 

when compared to neighboring land uses. Cumulatively, sedimentation and herbicide and 

pesticides from the National Forests in Mississippi are predicted to have no or discountable 

effects on pallid sturgeon habitat due to forest-wide standards and guidelines designed to protect 

water quality and aquatic habitats. In all cases, best management practices and guidelines 

intended to minimize sediment risk levels should minimize risks to this species. 

Determination

With protective measures and guidelines implemented, the preferred alternative will have no 

direct effects and insignificant indirect and cumulative effects on the Pallid Sturgeon, it is 

determined that the revised National Forests in Mississippi Land and Resource Management 

Plan is not likely to adversely affect the pallid sturgeon.

Indiana Bat 

Affected Environment

This endangered bat is generally associated with limestone caves in the eastern United States. 

The only known occurrence of Indiana bats on the National Forests in Mississippi were tracked 

from the Rose Cave hibernacula in White County, TN to a suspected maternity roost on the 

Holly Springs Ranger District in April, 2013. In addition to finding a new maternity colony, to 

date, this is the furthest documented migration of the Indiana bat. This straight line distance 

from the hibernaculum to the summer grounds is 367 km (228 mi). Winter hibernacula do not 

occur on the Forest.

Indiana bats forage in and around the tree canopy of floodplain, riparian, and upland forests. 

Within floodplain forests, Indiana bats show a preference for areas where canopy closure ranges 

from 30% to 70% (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). Streams, associated floodplain 

forests, and impounded bodies of water are preferred foraging habitats for pregnant and lactating 

Indiana bats, which may fly up to 1.5 miles from upland roosts to feed (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007). In general, Indiana bats forage within the canopy of upland forests, over 

clearings with early successional vegetation, along the borders of croplands, along wooded fence 

rows and over farm ponds in pastures. Indiana bats use larger trees with hollows or loose bark for 

their summer roosts and maternity colonies, but spend their winters hibernating in caves (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2007).

Maternity Roosting (summer) habitat

During summer months, maternity colonies roost under sloughing bark of trees (alive and dead) 

of many species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). Reproductive females require multiple 
Land and Resource Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi 21

alternate roost trees to fulfill their summer habitat needs (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). 

Adults forage on winged insects within three miles of the occupied maternity roost (USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2007). In summer, most reproductive females occupy roost sites under the 

exfoliating bark of dead trees that retain large thick slabs of peeling bark. 

Information and research about summer roosting sites is extremely limited south of Tennessee. 

Recent work has been completed in eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina on Indiana 

bat maternity colonies. The colonies were found to use primary and secondary roosting sites in 

pines and hardwoods (Lacki et al 2009). In all cases the bats were found under the exfoliating 

bark of either pine or hardwood trees, with most of the roosts being in snags (Lacki et al 2009). 

During the summer months, possible threats include the loss and degradation of forested habitat 

around maternal roost trees (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). It is difficult to quantify 

summer roosting habitat for the Indiana bat at a range-wide, regional or local level due to the 

variability of known roost sites and lack of knowledge about landscape level habitat 

characteristics of maternity roosts (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). Maternity roost sites 

in the south are known from Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service). In the south, retention of large pine snags and preservation of over-mature trees will 

provide a sustained future supply of roost trees. Forest management practices that affect 

occupied roost trees may have local impacts on Indiana bat populations (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007). However, the bats live in highly altered landscapes, depend on an ephemeral 

resource, dead and dying trees and are capable of utilizing a wide geographic range and a wide 

variety of tree species and conditions for maternity and summer roosts. 

Threats

Indiana bat populations have been declining since early 1960s. The declining numbers were 

observed at winter hibernacula sites such as caves and abandoned mines, where the bats gather in 

large numbers. The main threats to this species are availability of natural roost structures, loss of 

winter hibernacula, white-nose syndrome, and human disturbance (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007).

Response to threats

Protection and habitat management such as pond creation/management, maintaining available 

roosts/snags, prescribed fire in uplands, bottomland hardwood forest management, and 

protection of riparian zones are key to the survival of this species. The National Forests in 

Mississippi will conduct surveys for new populations and improve and maintain favorable 

habitat conditions for this endangered species. Based on site-specific consultation, areas of use 

(foraging and roosting) will be designated based on site conditions, radio-tracking or other 

survey information, and best available information regarding maternity habitat needs.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

This analysis is programmatic in that it deals only with revised Forest Plan direction, as 

established within various Prescription Areas including; Desired Future Conditions, Goals, 

Objectives and associated Standards and Guidelines that provide limitations on management 

activities for the protection or enhancement of threatened and endangered species, their habitats,

and other resource needs. All actions authorized and proposed under the revised Forest Plan are 

subject to second level, site-specific analysis and subsequent Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Biological Assessment

22 National Forests in Mississippi

Section 7 consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service through the Biological 

Assessment/Biological Evaluation process. 

Potential habitat (forests with trees having exfoliating bark) exists and contains tree species of 

the size and type known to be used by the Indiana bat. The retention of snags, shagbark hickory, 

and hollow trees will allow for potential Indiana bat roost sites. Decreasing canopy closure as 

occurs with timber management and prescribed fire activities will increase the degree of 

exposure of some potential maternity roost trees to solar radiation, providing improved thermal 

conditions for raising young during a wide range of weather conditions. Pond/waterhole 

construction and management will increase the number of upland water sources available for 

Indiana bats. Creation of early successional habitats and forests with an open understory and 

patchy overstory would create insect-rich foraging areas and flight corridors leading to potential 

roost trees. Harvesting would produce a mosaic of regeneration areas intermixed with mature and 

late successional forests. Likewise prescribed fire would also create a mosaic of forest habitat 

conditions resulting from varying fire intensities. This will indirectly benefit Indiana bats by 

prov4iding feeding areas since bats are known to forage within the canopy openings of upland 

forests, over clearings with early successional vegetation, and over ponds. 

The direction contained in the revised Forest Plan provides programmatic, long-term benefits to 

Indiana bat populations on the National Forests in Mississippi. While the Holly Springs Ranger 

District is recognized as potentially providing suitable habitat, long term management actions on 

the District should move the habitat conditions toward the desired future condition and provide 

beneficial effects to the Indiana bat. The revised Forest Plan standards and guidelines provide 

additional protective measures and/or habitat enhancement direction. 

Potential negative impacts to the Indiana bat could occur from the slight chance that individuals 

or small groups of roosting bats (including summer maternity colonies) could be unintentionally 

taken by the intentional felling of live trees harboring undetected roosts (e.g. dead limbs with 

loose bark, small cavities in the boles, or naturally occurring exfoliating plate bark conditions 

exhibited by some tree species), or by the accidental felling of occupied snags, or damaged or 

hollow trees during timber harvest or other activities. Although the likelihood is very low, treecutting activities could result in the inadvertent loss of individual Indiana bats or small groups of 

Indiana bats, via removal of some large-diameter trees occupied by bats during the period from 

approximately April 1 to September 15. 

Potential negative impacts to the Indiana bat could also occur from prescribed burning activities 

on the National Forests in Mississippi. Prescribed burning activities have increased over the past 

several years and this activity will become more prevalent during the next decade. The revised 

Forest Plan anticipates this increase to continue with perhaps between 13,000 to 24,000 acres 

being burned each year. Most of these burns will occur during the winter and spring with some 

occurring during the late summer and early fall. Indiana bats roosting in trees could be negatively 

affected by either smoke or heat from the prescribed burn. 

Cumulative effects are those effects of future State, local, or private actions that are reasonably 

certain to occur within the action area of the National Forests in Mississippi. This Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses only those activities that are authorized by the 

revised Forest Plan on lands that are under the jurisdiction of the USDA Forest Service. Thus, 

any future State, local or private actions that could potentially occur on the National Forests in 

Mississippi would require a permit from the Forest Service and will require compliance with the 
Land and Resource Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi 23

consultation provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There are no State, 

local or private actions reasonably certain to occur as a result of implementation of the revised 

Forest Plan. Therefore, cumulative effects, as defined by the Endangered Species Act, will not 

occur.

Determination

The revised National Forests in Mississippi Land and Resource Management Plan has the 

potential to adversely affect the Indiana bat through the possible “take” (as defined by 

Endangered Species Act) of individual bats. Although levels of vegetation management are not 

likely to diminish summer roosting in a significant way, the possibility for an adverse effect 

cannot be completely eliminated with the implementation of any level of management. Foraging 

and roosting habitat will be improved and increased by implementation of active prescribed fire 

and timber harvest programs that decrease overstory cover and canopy closure plus increase the 

number and quality of potential roost trees such as hickory and oak. Forest-wide standards, 

guidelines and prescriptions specific to Indiana bats will greatly reduce the potential for adverse 

effects, but the possibility for “take” still exists. Therefore the determination of effect is likely to 

adversely affect.

Louisiana Black Bear

Affected Environment

It is estimated that only 50 to 100 Louisiana black bears still remain in the state. When the 

Louisana black bear was federally listed in 1992, the bear’s range in Mississippi was defined as

the area lying west of the Mississippi river levee and south of Washington County (USDI Fish

and Wildlife Service 1995). Black bears, including those that are not Louisiana black bears

(American black bears), are protected in Mississippi due to similarity in appearance. Louisiana 

black bears in Mississippi, in general, are found in three areas within the state: the Gulf Coast, 

the Loess Bluffs of southwest Mississippi, and the Mississippi River Delta. These three areas 

include the De Soto, Homochitto, and Delta National Forests respectively. Mississippi 

Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks compile statewide sightings data for black bears in 

Mississippi. The largest numbers of reported sightings of the Louisiana black bear are located 

along the Mississippi River basin, mainly Issaquena and Sharkey counties. Over the last 5 years, 

the numbers of sightings of bears on or around Delta National Forest has also increased and are 

believed to be due to habitat afforded by the Delta National Forest, the only bottomland 

hardwood national forest in the United States (Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and 

Parks 2006). 

Louisiana black bears exist primarily in bottomland hardwood and floodplain forest, although 

use of upland hardwood, mixed pine/hardwood and coastal flat woods and marshes has been 

documented. Normal forest management activities that support a sustained yield of timber 

products and wildlife are considered compatible with Louisiana black bear needs (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1995). Black bears are adaptable and opportunistic, and can survive in the 

proximity of humans if afforded areas of retreat that ensure little chance of close contact with 

humans. Black bears eat a wide variety of foods, but the diet includes vegetable matter, 

including grasses, fruits, seeds, nuts and roots. Insects, fish, carrion and small rodents are also 
Biological Assessment

24 National Forests in Mississippi

eaten. Blackberries, hardwoods that produce acorns and other hard mast, shrubs, fallen logs, and 

brush piles are part of the black bear's habitat (Black Bear Conservation Committee 2005). 

Threats

Black bears once common in Mississippi, have seen their habitat significantly reduced or 

eliminated throughout much of the state. The main reason for this reduction of habitat was the 

conversion of bottomland timber areas to agricultural farmlands. Habitat fragmentation, vehicle 

collisions, unrestricted harvests and illegal harvest are among the reasons for their reductions 

(Black Bear Conservation Committee 1997).

Response to Threats

Bear management should focus on providing suitable habitat and habitat linkages, abundant 

natural food supplies, denning sites, escape cover, and lots of work fostering public acceptance 

of black bears (Weaver 2000). The National Forests in Mississippi recognizes that the Louisiana 

black bear’s habitat needs must be met in order for species protection and recovery. The 

National Forests in Mississippi focus is to restore and maintain habitat and retain and protect den 

sites to increase habitat availability for this species. The National Forests in Mississippi is also 

currently cooperating with the Bear Education and Restoration Group of Mississippi (BEaR) in 

relation to Louisiana black bear conservation, restoration, management, and public education. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Direct effects of the preferred alternative could include temporary disturbance, possible 

displacement of bears and/or prey species, and loss of potential den trees during forest 

management activities. Direct effects to individuals will be minimized through protection of the 

species, following the most current recovery plan, and guidelines created for the species and 

associated species groups.

Habitat quality could be reduced in the vicinity of development activity due to loss of important 

structural components (canopy levels within the Forest and down woody material) and 

fragmentation of habitat which could cause indirect effects. The benefits to Louisiana black bears 

by managing and/or restoring the habitat will far outweigh any negative effects. 

Cumulatively, implementation of the revised National Forests in Mississippi Land and Resource 

Management Plan is predicted to have no or discountable negative effects on Louisiana black 

bear due to forest-wide standards, guidelines, and direction which were designed to protect the 

species and restore its habitat.

Determination

With protective measures and guidelines implemented, the preferred alternative will have 

insignificant negative direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the Louisiana black bear, 

therefore the determination of effect is not likely to adversely affect the Louisiana black bear 

but should benefit the species in the long term. 
Land and Resource Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi 25

Gopher Tortoise

Affected Environment

The gopher tortoise is a terrestrial turtle found in South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, 

Mississippi, and Louisiana, but is most abundant in northern central Florida and southern 

Georgia. Within this range, tortoises occur on the Ocala, Osceola and Apalachicola National 

Forests (Florida), the Conecuh National Forest (Alabama), and the De Soto National Forest 

(Mississippi). The "Western Population” of the gopher tortoise, which consists of those tortoises 

inhabiting the area west of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers in Alabama to southeastern 

Louisiana, has been listed as federally threatened (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). This 

includes all gopher tortoises occurring on the De Soto National Forest. 

This species is native to the open, fire-maintained, pine forests of the southeastern United States. 

Dry habitats ranging from pine-scrub oak to oak hammocks and coastal dunes are favored by this 

species. Favored soils are deep sands occurring on ridgetops and side slopes in which tortoises 

can easily excavate burrows. On the De Soto NF, the majority of gopher tortoises are found in 

longleaf pine stands of various ages and condition classes or along road edges that occur in 

longleaf or other pine stands. However, gopher tortoise also inhabits sites with relatively tight, 

clayey soils. Other trees and shrubs tend to be xerophytic scrub oaks and associated species such 

as wiregrass, legumes, and blackberries with broadleaf grasses. In preferred habitats the canopy 

is relatively open allowing for development of the diverse herbaceous ground flora on which 

gopher tortoises feed, and sunny areas for nesting. The gopher tortoise digs an extensive burrow 

with adult burrows generally about 15-20 feet in length and 6-10 feet deep, but may be up to 47 

feet long and 12 feet deep.

Threats

Currently, the primary threat to the gopher tortoise is habitat loss, either through direct means, 

such as type conversion to pine plantations, agriculture or development; or through indirect 

means, such as fire suppression that changes the understory rendering the habitat unsuitable for 

tortoises. Direct threats to habitat could possibly cause immediate mortality in tortoises or result 

in displacement of tortoises into unsuitable habitats. There is also evidence that past 

anthropogenic activities associated with widespread conversion of longleaf pine habitat to 

unsuitable pine plantations may still be impacting current gopher tortoise populations. Although 

gopher tortoise populations were not completely extirpated from these degraded lands, slow 

growth and late maturation caused by tortoises forced into unsuitable habitat may contribute to 

long-term declines (Aresco and Guyer 1999). Other threats include genetic bottlenecking 

through population isolation, take or harvest, disease, and predation. 

Response to Threats

The National Forests in Mississippi contributes to the conservation and recovery of gopher 

tortoise populations through implementation of conservation measures consistent with most 

recent United Stated Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Gopher Tortoise Recovery 

Plan. Intensive management practices associated with the ecosystem, fire, and species diversity 

objectives within the revised National Forests in Mississippi Land Management Plan have a 

potential to facilitate population expansion because more areas could be maintained in suitable 

habitat conditions.
Biological Assessment

26 National Forests in Mississippi

Habitat management techniques such as longleaf pine and woodland ecosystem restoration, stand 

thinning, prescribed growing season burning, and reestablishing native ground cover should 

increase the chance of gopher tortoise population recovery on De Soto National Forest by 

improving foraging quality and thermal characteristics, thus producing faster-growing tortoises 

that mature sooner (Aresco and Guyer 1999).

Surveying and then periodic resurveying of gopher tortoise burrows helps determine trends in 

gopher tortoise populations. One of the objectives of the Gopher Tortoise Recovery Plan (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1990) is to conduct surveys of gopher tortoise at 5-year intervals. In 

addition to these formal surveys, Forest Service employees document gopher tortoise burrows 

observed during a variety of field activities, including focused surveys designed to locate 

burrows for protection prior to implementation of ground disturbing activities. These surveys 

determine population numbers and provide a valuable “baseline” against which to judge 

recovery. This ‘baseline” enables biologists to determine the effectiveness of recovery activities 

by comparing data from subsequent surveys carried out at 5-year intervals, as recommended in 

the Gopher Tortoise Recovery Plan. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Direct effects could include mortality of individuals from ground disturbing activities associated 

with habitat management. Ground disturbing activities that could potentially harm gopher 

tortoises include tree harvest during thinning operations and ecosystem restoration activities 

including longleaf conversion, fireline maintenance and/or construction, and road maintenance. 

Prescribed fire can also cause direct mortality to individuals. Direct effects to individuals can be 

minimized through protection of escape cover such as gopher tortoise burrows and following 

guidelines created for associated species groups. 

Generally, the indirect effects of forest management activities will be beneficial to the gopher 

tortoise. Population expansion will be fostered by restoration of historically occurring pine 

species, thinning of mid-successional and mature pine, prescribed fire to remove encroaching 

woody vegetation and restore herbaceous groundcover, and chemical and mechanical treatment 

of encroaching midstory where fire is not a viable management tool. 

Cumulative effects to gopher tortoise populations over the long-term are expected to be 

population growth, and ultimately, recovery of the species. Management of this species and its 

habitat will be in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, cooperation with the USDI Fish

and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, and the 

Mississippi National Guard on Camp Shelby. The most current recovery plan will be 

incorporated into management of this species on the National Forests in Mississippi. 

Determination

Implementation of the revised National Forests in Mississippi Land and Resource Management 

Plan is not likely to adversely affect the gopher tortoise, as residual potential risks to 

individuals after implementation of standards and guidelines are insignificant and discountable. 

Additional site-specific analysis would be conducted on all projects with the potential to affect 

this species.
Land and Resource Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi 27

Louisiana Quillwort

Affected Environment

The Louisiana quillwort is a semi-aquatic, primitive, seedless plant related to ferns. Louisiana 

quillwort is a small, semi-evergreen to evergreen plant with spirally-arranged, hollow, linear 

leaves that are erect to reclining. This species does not reproduce via flowers and seeds, and 

instead reproduces via spores formed at the bases of the leaves. New plants can develop from 

spores that grow in bare soils exposed by flood scouring (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1996).

The Louisiana quillwort occurs predominantly on sandy soils and gravel bars on small to 

medium-sized streams. Plants are regularly inundated as much as 50 cm following rains, and 

may be inundated for long periods in wet seasons. It is found in or near shallow channels in 

narrow riparian woodland and bayhead forest communities in pine flat-woods and upland 

longleaf pine (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). This species is listed as federally 

endangered (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1996) because of its restricted geographic range 

and small total population size. It occurs in the East Gulf Plain physiographic province in 

Louisiana and Mississippi. In Mississippi, Louisiana quillwort is found on De Soto National 

Forest in Wayne, Stone, Perry, Jones, Jackson, Harrison, Greene, Forrest, Hancock, and Pearl 

River Counties.

Threats

Natural threats to Louisiana quillwort are limited and include occasional browsing by marsh 

rabbits and whitetail deer, as well as periodic damming of free-flowing intermittent streams by 

beavers. Rooting and wallowing of non-native, feral hogs pose greater threats to Louisiana 

quillwort than the limited damage from native wildlife. Disease and insect pests are not known to 

threaten the plants. More serious threats are posed by direct damage to Louisiana quillwort 

colonies from vehicular and recreational traffic and logging activities as well as increased 

sedimentation from land clearing activities on nearby uplands, soil-laden runoff from upstream 

unpaved roads and wetland crossings, vehicle traffic through upstream riparian areas, and 

various logging activities.

Response to Threats

Extensive stream surveys by USDA Forest Service personnel to locate quillwort colonies, in

compliance with the most current Louisiana Quillwort Recovery Plan in forest maintenance and 

ecosystem restoration operations, and prohibition of tracked vehicle maneuvers in wetlands by 

the military are positive steps to protect Louisiana quillwort on National Forests in Mississippi 

lands.

Surveys of areas proposed for vegetation management activities are conducted when these 

activities will occur in areas containing intermittent streams, along muddy shores, in floodplains, 

scour channels and depressions, usually lined with Titi in hardwood strands and mixed pinehardwood bottomlands. Groups and individuals of Isoetes louisianensis located during these 

surveys will be marked. Forest management activities should avoid direct impact to these 

individuals by keeping activities away from stream banks. 
Biological Assessment

28 National Forests in Mississippi

Present distribution data suggest that long-term survival of the species at the global level is more 

certain than when the species was listed as Endangered by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 

On The National Forests in Mississippi, intensive survey efforts by Steve Leonard and USDA 

Forest Service personnel have resulted in the discovery of populations of several thousand 

individuals across 2 Ranger Districts found in over 50 stream locations.

Compliance with the current recovery plan and pro-active conservation of known populations 

will insure survival of the species. The great majority of known populations are on National 

Forests in Mississippi and the survival of the species is largely up to actions of the USDA Forest

Service acting with the Mississippi Military Department as overseen by the USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The preferred alternative will create acceptable habitat conditions for the species. No direct 

effects from management in all alternatives are anticipated. Louisiana quillwort would be 

protected according to measures in the most current Louisiana Quillwort Recovery Plan and sitespecific conditions based upon input from USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Most hydrologic alterations on The National Forests in Mississippi watersheds occur on privately 

owned adjacent lands and are outside of Forest Service control. The National Forests in 

Mississippi is not expected to contribute negative impacts to hydrologic regimes. The National 

Forests in Mississippi does not contribute to nor manage for non-point source pollution therefore 

no effects to this species are anticipated. Forest activities, such as thinning, regeneration, 

prescribed fire, and oil and gas leasing may cause indirect effects contributing temporary low 

levels of sediment risk. Maintenance of Forest Service roads also contribute varying levels of 

elevated sediment depending on slope, elevation, aspect, soil type, and road management 

regimes. Since many Forest Service roads are important for public and intra-agency access, 

these effects are unlikely to abate significantly. In other cases, Forest Service roads may fall 

under shared jurisdiction with other agencies and entities. Here again, these impacts are unlikely 

to abate significantly. Some forest management practices may require the application of 

herbicides and pesticides which also may impact aquatic systems. In most watersheds, the 

National Forests in Mississippi sediment contributions are minor when compared to neighboring 

land uses. Cumulatively, the National Forests in Mississippi management is predicted to have no 

or discountable effects on Louisiana quillwort habitat due to forest-wide standards and guidelines 

designed to protect water quality and aquatic habitats, minimize sediment risk levels, and protect 

species occurrence. 

Determination

With standards and guidelines implemented, implementation of the revised National Forests in 

Mississippi Land and Resource Management Plan will have no direct effects and insignificant 

indirect and cumulative effects on the Louisiana quillwort, therefore a not likely to adversely 

affect determination has been made for the Louisiana quillwort.
Land and Resource Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi 29

Pondberry

Affected Environment

This endangered deciduous, aromatic shrub is found in the southeastern United States. At 

present, there are populations in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, North 

Carolina, and South Carolina (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). New colonies have been 

discovered since the recovery plan was written in 1993, some of which were near known 

populations, as on the Delta National Forest, and, thus may allow interbreeding to occur (Devall 

and Schiff 2001; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007).

In Mississippi, pondberry is found in bottomland hardwood forests located in Sharkey, Bolivar, 

and Sunflower Counties with the majority of populations found on Delta National Forest. 

Pondberry is usually in or at the edges of low, wet depressions that are usually within or near 

more extensive ridge-bottom forest within the Lower Mississippi Bottomland and Floodplain 

Forest. The species grows in dense clumps of numerous, usually branched stems. Both male 

and female plants produce small yellow flowers. The fruit is a bright red berry. Leaves produce 

a strong, sassafras-like odor when crushed. While pondberry is often found under relatively 

closed hardwood tree canopies, the species can acclimate to a variety of light conditions and may 

grow best at low to moderate light levels (Aleric and Kirkman 2005; Lockhart et al. 2012, 2013). 

However, in the absence of regular flooding, high light levels may increase the growth of 

competing vegetation that would otherwise be held in check (Wright 1989, 1990; Lockhart et al. 

2013).

Threats

Threats to the species include timber harvesting, wetland drainage, road construction and 

conversion of its habitat to agricultural use. A lack of seedling establishment may also be a 

reason for decline and/or lack of expansion. Most colonies have been found to be clonal and 

consist primarily of males (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993b). 

Response to threats

Protection and maintenance of sites is key to the survival of this species. Management activities 

will seek to maintain hydrology and appropriate tree canopy coverage. The National Forests in 

Mississippi will continue to conduct surveys for new populations and improve and maintain 

favorable habitat conditions for this endangered species.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The preferred alternative will create optimal habitat conditions for the species. No direct effects 

from management are anticipated. Pondberry would be protected according to measures in the 

most current recovery plan and site-specific conditions based upon input from USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Direct effects could include mortality of individuals from ground disturbing activities associated 

with habitat management. Ground disturbing activities that could potentially harm pondberry 

include tree harvest during thinning operations and restoration during ecosystem management 

operations. Direct effects to individuals will be minimized through protection of individuals and 
Biological Assessment

30 National Forests in Mississippi

following standards and guidelines created for the species, associated species groups, and the 

species’ recovery plan guidance. 

Generally, the indirect effects of forest management activities will be beneficial to pondberry due 

to the increase of forest health and habitat quality through ecosystem management.

Cumulative effects to pondberry populations over the long-term is expected to be population 

growth, and ultimately, recovery of the species. Management of this species and its habitat will 

be in accordance with the Endangered Species Act and cooperation with the USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. The most current 

recovery plan will be incorporated into management of this species on the National Forests in 

Mississippi. 

Determination

With standards and guidelines implemented, the revised National Forests in Mississippi Land 

and Resource Management Plan will have insignificant direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 

on the pondberry and is determined to not likely adversely affect the pondberry.

Literature Cited

Aleric, K. M. and L. K. Kirkman. 2005. Growth and photosynthetic responses of the federally 

endangered shrub, Lindera melissifolia (Lauraceae), to varied light environments. 

American Journal of Botany 92:682-689.

Aresco, M. J. and C. Guyer. 1999. Growth of the tortoise Gopherus polyphemus in slash pine 

populations of Southcentral Alabama. Herpetologica 55:499-506.

Black Bear Conservation Committee. 1997. Black Bear Restoration Plan. Black Bear 

Conservation Committee, Baton Rouge, LA. 133 pp.

Black Bear Conservation Committee. 2005. Black Bear Management Handbook. Black Bear 

Conservation Committee, Baton Rouge, LA. 88 pp.

Devall, M. and N. Schiff. 2001. Ecology and reproductive biology of the endangered pondberry, 

Lindera melissifolia (Walt) Blume. Natural Areas Journal 21:250-258.

Heise, R. J., W.T. Slack, S. T. Ross, and M. A. Dugo. 2004. Spawning and associated movement 

patterns of Gulf Sturgeon in the Pascagoula River Drainage, Mississippi. Transactions of 

the American Fisheries Society 133:221-230.

Lacki, M.J., D.R. Cox, and M.B. Dickison. 2009. Meta-analysis of summer roosting 

characteristics of two species of Myotis bats. The American Midland Naturalist, 

162(2):318-326.

Lockhart, B.R., E.S. Gardiner, T. Stautz, and T.D. Leininger. 2012. Development and plasticity of 

endangered shrub Lindera melissifolia (Lauracae) seedlings under contrasting light 

regimes. Plant Species Biology 27:30-35.
Land and Resource Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi 31

Lockhart, B.R., E.S. Gardiner, T.D. Leininger, P.B. Hamel, K.F. Connor, M.S. Devall, N.M. 

Schiff, and A.D. Wilson. 2013. Lindera melissifolia responses to flood durations and light 

regimes suggest strategies for recovery and conservation. Plant Ecology 214:893-905.

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks. 2006. Conservation and Management 

of Black Bears in Mississippi. Jackson, MS. 54 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1995. Gulf Sturgeon 

Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 170 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

determination of threatened status of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Federal 

Register 52 (129): 25376-25380.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Gopher Tortoise Recovery Plan. USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 28 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Mississippi Sandhill Crane Recovery Plan. USDI Fish

and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia 42 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993a. Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Plan. USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Bismarck, North Dakota. 55 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993b. Recovery Plan for Pondberry (Lindera mellissifolia). 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 56 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. Jackson, 

Mississippi. 52 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Recovery Plan for Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes 

louisianensis Thieret). Atlanta, Georgia. 26 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule 

to list the Mississippi gopher frog distinct population segment of dusky gopher frog as 

endangered. Federal Register 66: 62993-63002.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

designation of critical habitat for the Gulf Sturgeon. Federal Register 68: 13370-13495.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003b. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker 

(Picoides borealis): second revision. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 296 

pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Biological Opinion of the proposed Yazoo Backwater 

Reformulation Project from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 250 pp. + appendices.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) 5-Year review 

summary and evaluation. Billings, Montana. 120 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First 

Revision. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 258 pp. 
Biological Assessment

32 National Forests in Mississippi

Weaver, K. M. 2000. Black bear ecology and the use of prescribed fire to enhance bear habitat. 

Pp. 89-86 in Proceedings: Workshop on Fire, People, and the Central Hardwoods 

Landscape. USDA Forest Service, Richmond.

Wright, R.D. 1989. Reproduction of Lindera melissifolia in northeast Arkansas. Proceedings of 

the Arkansas Academy of Science 43:69-70.

Wright, R.D. 1990. Species biology of Lindera melissifolia (Walt.) Blume in Northeast Arkansas. 

In: R.S. Mitchell, C.J. Sheviak, and D.L. Leopold, eds. Ecosystem management: rare 

species and significant habitats. Proceedings of the 15th annual Natural Areas 

Conference, New York State Museum Bulletin 471, pp. 176-179.
Land and Resource Management Plan

National Forests in Mississippi 33

Biological Assessment

Prepared by:

SHAUN WILLIAMSON__/s/Shaun C. Williamson____ Date__10/29/13__________

Threatened and Endangered Species Program Manager/Forest Planning Biologist, USDA 

Forest Service, NFMS Supervisor’s Office