United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Southern Region

Appendix F - Management Indicator

Species

Prepared for Land Management Plan Revision 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Forests in Mississippi F-i

Table of Contents

Document Abstract.................................................................................................................................................... F-1

F.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. F-1

F.1.1 Review of 1985 Management Indicator Species...................................................................................... F-1

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)............................................................................................... F-3

Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)......................................................................................................... F-3

Pitcher Plants (Sarracenia spp.)........................................................................................................................ F-4

White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus)..................................................................................................... F-4

Eastern Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) .................................................................................................... F-4

Eastern Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).................................................................................................... F-4

Fox squirrel (Sciurus niger).............................................................................................................................. F-5

Delta Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger subauratus)................................................................................................. F-5

Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) ........................................................................................................ F-5

Wood Duck (Aix sponsa).................................................................................................................................. F-6

Bachman’s Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis)...................................................................................................... F-6

Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna)............................................................................................................ F-6

American Kestrel (Falco sparverius)................................................................................................................ F-7

Rufous-sided Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus)............................................................................................. F-7

Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)...................................................................................................... F-7

Pine Warbler (Dendroica pinus)....................................................................................................................... F-7

Downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens)........................................................................................................ F-8

Eastern Screech-Owl (Otus asio)...................................................................................................................... F-8

Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina) .................................................................................................................. F-8

Lotic Fish .......................................................................................................................................................... F-9

Lentic Fish ...................................................................................................................................................... F-10

F.1.2 Additional Species Evaluated................................................................................................................. F-10

Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris) ...................................................................................................................... F-10

Southern Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus fontalis)................................................................................................ F-10

Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina)............................................................................................................. F-11

F.1.3 Management Indicator Species Selected................................................................................................ F-11

Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) .................................................................................................... F-11

Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris) ...................................................................................................................... F-11

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)............................................................................................. F-12

Southern Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus fontalis)................................................................................................ F-12

Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus).................................................................................................... F-12

Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina)............................................................................................................. F-12

F.1.4 Management Indicator Species Evaluation Tables For National Forests in Mississippi by Ranger District

F-13

Literature Cited........................................................................................................................................................ F-15

List of Tables

Table F 1. Management indicator species selected for National Forests in Mississippi in the 1985 Forest Plan...... F-2
This page intentionally left blank
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi F-1

Document Abstract

This report documents the review of the original 1985 management indicator species list. Identifies 

species determined to be indicators of management effects concerning plan implementation on plant and 

animal diversity for the revised plan.

F.1 Introduction

During development of the 1985 Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan) for National Forests 

in Mississippi, 44 management indicator species were selected. This report documents the evaluation of 

these species to determine if these species and others are valid indicators of management effects 

concerning plan implementation on plant and animal diversity.

Both the concept of management indicator species and the application of the management indicator 

species concept have been critically reviewed in the scientific literature since the 1982 regulations were 

adopted. Limits to the usefulness of the concept and/or its application are reflected in the literature (e.g., 

Caro and O’Doherty 1999; Grossman et al. 1990; Landres, Verner, and Thomas 1988; Noss 1990; 

Simberloff 1998; Weaver 1995). Nonetheless, the 1982 regulations will remain in effect until further 

direction.

F.1.1 Review of 1985 Management Indicator Species

The process and rationale for selection of management indicator species for the 1985 forest plan is

summarized below:

Selection was made from a complete listing of known vertebrates occurring on the National Forests in 

Mississippi. Basically, the process of elimination was used to screen species down to optimal candidates 

and select on particular characteristics that meet management needs. Process procedure is as follows:

1. Elimination of those species not dependent on forested habitat or not affected by management 

activities. This included species, which were found in various habitat types and considered to be 

habitat generalists.

2. Elimination of transient species and non-residents, which were not significantly dependent on 

national forest lands.

3. Eliminated species, which could not be suitably evaluated due to the lack of information or the need 

of a usable monitoring procedure.

4. The resulting list was then examined to identify species with the most limiting requirements on forest 

seral stages and special habitat components.

5. Major habitat components were examined to determine adequate species representation.

6. High demand species were added to represent public interest and address issues and concerns.

7. Review by cooperating agencies and professionals in the field of wildlife research and management.
Appendix F – Management Indicator Species

F-2 National Forests in Mississippi

Table F 1. Management indicator species selected for National Forests in Mississippi in the 1985 

Forest Plan

Demand Species Viability Concern Ecological Indicators

Terrestrial Habitats

White-Tailed Deer Red Cockaded Woodpecker Pileated Woodpecker

Wild Turkey Gopher Tortoise Eastern Meadowlark

Fox Squirrel Pitcher Plants Pine Warbler

Eastern Gray Squirrel Downy Woodpecker

Delta Fox Squirrel American Kestrel

Northern Bobwhite Quail Screech Owl

Wood Duck Rufous-Sided Towhee

Hooded Warbler

Wood Duck

Bachman’s Sparrow

Aquatic Habitats (Lakes and Ponds)

Largemouth Bass Golden Shiner

Bluegill Lake Chubsucker

Redear Sunfish

Black Crappie

White Crappie

Channel Catfish

Aquatic Habitats ( Northern Streams-streams north of Interstate 20)

Largemouth Bass Southern Brook Lamprey

Bluegill Bluntface Shiner

Longear Sunfish Striped Shiner

Freckled Madtom

Blackbanded Darter

Banded Darter

Aquatic Habitats ( Southwestern Streams-south of I-20 and west of Hwy. 49)

Spotted Bass Banded Darter

Southern Brook Lamprey

Rainbow Darter

Brindled Madtom

Longnose Shiner

Bluntface Shiner

Blacktail Redhorse

Aquatic Habitats ( Southeastern Streams- south of I-20 and east of Hwy.49)

Spotted Bass Gulf Darter

Longear Sunfish Blackbanded Darter

Shadow Bass Cherryfin Shiner

Weed Shiner

Speckled Madtom
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi F-3

This process resulted in selection of 44 species as management indicator species in 1985 (Table F 1). The 

44 species designated as management indicator species in the 1985 forest plan were evaluated to 

determine whether or not these species were meeting the purposes for which they were selected and to 

consider other species that may need to be added. Each species was considered in turn to determine 

whether or not the management indicator species was dependent on forested habitat and was affected by 

management activities. Species that were found in various habitats (habitat generalists) were likewise 

selected against. Some species were removed because of the lack of a usable and efficient monitoring 

system. Not all forest types or management activities were represented, only those for which there was the 

most perceived management activity. Game species previously selected, although of high public value, 

were considered to be habitat generalists and not good indicators of management and thus were removed 

as management indicator species. These species will continue to be monitored as game species by the 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. Following the aforementioned considerations, 

four previously selected species and four newly selected species were carried forward for additional 

evaluation concerning management emphasis, management influence, and effects of management on 

habitat niche (see section F.1.4). This process resulted in the selection of six species to represent 

indicators of management on the National Forests in Mississippi.

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

Habitat Association - 40+ years, longleaf/yellow pine

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database, acres prescribed burned, acres of mid-story control

Population Monitoring - Number of active clusters

This species was selected to represent mature longleaf/yellow pine forest. The red-cockaded woodpecker

is listed as federally endangered throughout its range and is dependent on national forest management for 

its recovery and survival. Many management practices on the National Forests in Mississippi are focused 

on improvement of red-cockaded woodpecker habitat (ex. prescribed burning, mid-story removal, forest 

thinning, etc.). There is a direct correlation between management activities and red-cockaded woodpecker

population levels. This species is fairly easy to monitor, and the forest has numerous years of population 

trend data previously collected.

Recommendation: Evaluate further. Continue to monitor under current protocols.

Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)

Habitat Association - 40+ years, longleaf/slash pine

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database, priority soil surveys

Population Monitoring – Burrow surveys

This species was selected to represent mature longleaf/slash pine forests. However, it also influenced by 

soil types and understory conditions. Population declines have occurred as a result of habitat destruction, 

habitat degradation, and human predation. Gopher tortoises are a “K” species (long lived, low 

reproductive rate); therefore, response to management takes a long time which suggests that the species 

would not be a good indicator of current management.

Recommendation: Remove from management indicator species list. Continue to monitor under current 

protocols.
Appendix F – Management Indicator Species

F-4 National Forests in Mississippi

Pitcher Plants (Sarracenia spp.)

Habitat Association – Coastal bogs and savannahs

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database (acres of pitcher plant bogs)

This species was selected to represent unique lower coastal plain habitat called coastal bogs and 

savannahs. Maintaining coastal bogs and savannahs continue to be a management focus for the National 

Forests in Mississippi. Although this genus is an important attribute of these ecosystems, monitoring is 

not efficient nor a true reflection of management of these systems. Management of these systems will be 

monitored by acres restored as the plan is implemented.

Recommendation: Remove from management indicator species list. Continue to monitor under current 

protocols.

White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 

Habitat Association - 0-10 years, all forest types

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database

Population Monitoring – Wildlife management area harvest data

This species was selected to represent early forest habitat. However, this species is actually a habitat 

generalist and does well in areas containing a mix of habitat types. There is no direct correlation between 

Forest Service management activities and deer population levels.

Recommendation: Remove from management indicator species list. However, because the white-tailed 

deer is a demand species, monitoring of harvest data should continue. 

Eastern Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) 

Habitat Association – 40+ years, all forest types

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database

Population Monitoring – Wildlife management area harvest data

This species was selected to represent mature forests. However, turkey populations are also influenced by 

early seral habitat, prescribed fire, and the development of low vegetation under forest cover. Harvest data 

from wildlife management areas may be influenced by other factors and therefore may not be a good 

indicator of Forest Service management.

Recommendation: Remove from management indicator species list. However, because the Eastern wild 

turkey is a demand species, monitoring of harvest data should continue.

Eastern Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)

Habitat Association – 40+ years, all pine-hardwood and hardwood

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database

Population Monitoring – Wildlife management area harvest data

This species was selected to represent mature pine-hardwood and hardwood forest. Harvest data from 

wildlife management areas may be influenced by other factors (ex. hunter effort) and therefore may not 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi F-5

be a good indicator of Forest Service management. In addition, squirrel populations are highly variable 

because of their responsiveness to abundance of annual mast crops, which can vary widely from year to 

year. Lastly, wildlife management area harvest data does not differentiate between gray squirrels and fox 

squirrels. Eastern gray squirrel harvest is based on estimated percentage of total squirrel harvest by 

wildlife management area biologists/managers.

Recommendation: Remove from management indicator species list. However, because the Eastern gray 

squirrel is a demand species, monitoring of harvest data should continue.

Fox squirrel (Sciurus niger)

Habitat Association – 40+ years, longleaf pine

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database

Population Monitoring – Wildlife management area harvest data

(40+ years, longleaf pine) (wildlife management area harvest data) – This species was selected to 

represent mature longleaf pine forest. However, current literature suggests that fox squirrels are associated 

with edge habitats. The National Forests in Mississippi does not have a goal of managing for edge habitat.

Harvest data from wildlife management areas may be influenced by other factors (ex. hunter effort) and 

therefore may not be a good indicator of Forest Service management. In addition, squirrel populations are 

highly variable because of their responsiveness to abundance of annual mast crops, which can vary widely 

from year to year. Lastly, wildlife management area harvest data does not differentiate between gray 

squirrels and fox squirrels. Fox squirrel harvest is based on estimated percentage of total squirrel harvest 

by wildlife management area biologists/managers.

Recommendation: Remove from management indicator species list. However, because the fox squirrel is 

a demand species, monitoring of harvest data should continue.

Delta Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger subauratus)

Habitat Association – 40+ years, hardwood forests

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database

Population Monitoring – Wildlife management area harvest data

This species was selected to represent mature bottomland hardwood forests on the Delta National Forest.

Harvest data from wildlife management areas may be influenced by other factors (ex. hunter effort) and 

therefore may not be a good indicator of Forest Service management. In addition, squirrel populations are 

highly variable because of their responsiveness to abundance of annual mast crops, which can vary widely 

from year to year. Lastly, wildlife management area harvest data does not differentiate between gray 

squirrels and fox squirrels. Delta fox squirrel harvest is based on estimated percentage of total squirrel 

harvest by wildlife management area biologists/managers.

Recommendation: Remove from management indicator species list. However, because the Delta fox 

squirrel is a demand species, monitoring of harvest data should continue.

Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) 

Habitat Association - 0-10 years, longleaf/yellow pine

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database
Appendix F – Management Indicator Species

F-6 National Forests in Mississippi

Population Monitoring – Wildlife management area harvest data, breeding bird survey data

This species was selected to represent early age longleaf/yellow pine forests. However, this species 

actually represents conditions of interspersed woodland, with open grassy conditions. Trend data indicate 

that populations are declining across most of its range. Many of the causes for decline can be attributed to 

factors beyond the scope of Forest Service management (ex. predators, invasive pests, etc.)

Recommendation: Remove from management indicator species list. However, because northern 

bobwhite quail is a demand species, monitoring of harvest data should continue.

Wood Duck (Aix sponsa)

Habitat Association – Delta wetlands and sloughs

Population Monitoring – Wildlife management area harvest data, nest box use, breeding bird survey data

This species was selected to represent wetland and slough habitat on the Delta National Forest.

Maintaining wetland and slough habitat on the Delta National Forest continues to be a management focus 

on the National Forests in Mississippi. While nest box monitoring indicates that wood ducks are 

reproducing at acceptable rates on the Delta National Forest, other data sources such as hunter harvest 

statistics and bird point counts are not well suited to monitoring wood duck populations. Hunter harvest 

statistics are not well suited because wood ducks are not reported separately from other duck species 

harvested. Point counts, by their nature are not suited to sampling a species such as wood duck that 

exhibit relatively low densities and very clumped distributions. This species was initially carried forward 

to be evaluated further pertaining to importance of management emphasis, management influence, and 

uniqueness of habitat niche. This process concluded that the wood duck ranked low in all evaluation 

criteria and does not efficiently indicate the effects of management activities.

Recommendation: Evaluate further. Continue to monitor through nest box use.

Bachman’s Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis)

Habitat Association - 0-10 years, longleaf/slash pine

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database

Population Monitoring – Wildlife management area harvest data

This species represents open mature pine forest with fire maintained conditions rather than 0-10 

longleaf/slash as it was associated to in the past. After discussion, it was decided that red-cockaded 

woodpecker was a better representative of management activities associated with mature pine forest due 

to more in depth data collection.

Recommendation: Remove from management indicator species list. Continue to monitor through 

breeding bird survey (point counts).

Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna)

Habitat Association - 0-10 years, yellow pine

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database

Population Monitoring – Breeding bird survey data
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi F-7

This species is not a forest bird. It is associated with open habitats like prairies, hayfields and pastures and 

is in decline across its range. The lack of detection of eastern meadowlark, despite considerable 

monitoring effort indicates this species is not an adequate indicator of early yellow pine habitat nor would 

it be for open ecosystem types due to its decline rangewide.

Recommendation: Remove from management indicator species list. 

American Kestrel (Falco sparverius)

Habitat Association - 0-10 years, pine-hardwood

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database

Population Monitoring – Breeding bird survey data

This species was selected to represent early age mixed pine-hardwood forests and snag/cavity habitat.

Data on populations of American kestrel on the National Forests in Mississippi for bird counts are sparse, 

despite considerable effort expended on point counts. Other species easily found during point counts 

could represent snag/cavity habitat.

Recommendation: Remove from management indicator species list. 

Rufous-sided Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) 

Habitat Association - 0-10 years, hardwood

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database

Population Monitoring – Breeding bird survey data

This species was selected to represent early age hardwood forests. However, current literature indicates 

that rufous-sided towhees are associated with edge habitats. The National Forests in Mississippi do not 

have a goal of managing for edge habitat.

Recommendation: Remove from management indicator species list. Continue to monitor through 

breeding bird surveys (point counts).

Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) 

Habitat Association – 40+ years, all forest types

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database

Population Monitoring – Breeding bird survey data

This species was selected to represent mature forests. It is also an indicator of snag/cavity habitat. The 

pileated woodpecker is easy to monitor through current breeding bird survey.

Recommendation: Evaluate further. Continue to monitor through breeding bird surveys (point counts).

Pine Warbler (Dendroica pinus)

Habitat Association – 40+ years, yellow pine

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database
Appendix F – Management Indicator Species

F-8 National Forests in Mississippi

Population Monitoring – Breeding bird survey data

This species was selected to represent mature yellow pine forest. However, this species is actually 

associated with numerous seral stages of all pine forest. Presently, another species (red-cockaded 

woodpecker) is recommended to indicate the management of pine forest.

Recommendation: Remove from management indicator species list. Continue to monitor through 

breeding bird surveys (point counts).

Downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens)

Habitat Association – 40+ years, slash pine

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database

Population Monitoring – Breeding bird survey data

This species was selected to represent mature slash pine forest and snag/cavity habitat. However, current 

literature suggests that downy woodpeckers are associated with middle-aged and mature forest of both 

pine and hardwoods. Since the great majority of slash pine forests are introduced off-site plantations 

targeted to be restored to longleaf pine, these habitats are expected to decline. No species is known to 

depend exclusively on these slash pine forests, and current management actions are designed to return 

these acres to longleaf pine. In addition, another species (pileated woodpecker) is recommended to 

indicate the management of snag/cavity habitat.

Recommendation: Remove from management indicator species list. Continue to monitor through 

breeding bird surveys (point counts).

Eastern Screech-Owl (Otus asio)

Habitat Association – 40+ years, pine-hardwood

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database

Population Monitoring – Breeding bird survey data

This species was selected to represent mature pine-hardwood forest. However, it is also associated with 

open to medium growth pine as well as clearings and forest edges. In addition, this species is nocturnal.

Data on populations of eastern screech-owl on the National Forests in Mississippi are sparse, despite 

considerable effort expended on point counts. Because regional data indicates an increasing trend, this 

suggests that eastern screech-owl populations on the National Forests in Mississippi are not being 

adequately sampled by the breeding bird point counts.

Recommendation: Remove from management indicator species list.

Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina) 

Habitat Association – 40+ years, hardwood forests

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database

Population Monitoring – Breeding bird survey data

This species was selected to represent mature hardwood forest. The National Forests in Mississippi 

continue to maintain mature hardwood forests in the forest plan. The hooded warbler is easy to monitor 
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi F-9

through current breeding bird survey. This species was initially carried forward to be evaluated further 

pertaining to importance of management emphasis, management influence, and uniqueness of habitat 

niche. This process concluded that the hooded warbler ranked low in all evaluation criteria and does not 

efficiently indicate the effects of management activities on the National Forests in Mississippi.

Recommendation: Evaluate further. Continue to monitor through breeding bird surveys (point counts).

Lotic Fish

Species 

Southern brook lamprey (Ichthyomyozon gagei), cherryfin shiner (Lythururus roseipinnis), bluntface 

shiner (Cyprinella camura), striped shiner (Luxilus chrysocephalus), longnose shiner (Notropis

longirostris), weed shiner (Notropis texanus), blacktail redhorse (Moxostoma poecilurum), freckled 

madtom (Noturus nocturnus), brindled madtom (Noturus miurus), speckled madtom (Noturus

leptacanthus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis), largemouth bass 

(Micropterus salmoides), spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus), shadow bass (Ambloplites ariommus), 

blackbanded darter (Percina nigrofasciata), brighteye darter (Etheostoma lynceum), rainbow darter 

(Etheostoma caeruleum), and Gulf darter (Etheostoma swaini) 

Habitat AssociationNorthern streams - streams north of Interstate 20

Southwestern streams - streams south of Interstate 20 and west of Highway 49

Southeastern streams - streams south of Interstate 20 and east of Highway 49

Population Monitoring – Stream electrofishing and seining data

None of the nineteen fish species selected in 1985 serve their intended purpose as management indicator 

species. The following discussion is a summary of the reasons that individual fish species make poor 

choices as management indicator species. This in no way diminishes the biological importance of these 

organisms or suggests that monitoring of fish species should be reduced on the National Forests in 

Mississippi. Fish populations simply do not lend themselves to the analysis of cause and effect 

relationships with land management activities for the following reasons.

1. Interspersed land ownership—Most of the 24 watersheds on the National Forests in Mississippi have 

a relatively low percentage of National Forest System land. In fact, the National Forests in 

Mississippi exhibit a highly unconsolidated land ownership pattern. Seventeen of 24 watersheds have 

approximately 5 percent or less National Forest System lands. Thus, fish populations in a given 

watershed are likely to be significantly influenced by factors occurring on private land, which are 

both out of National Forests in Mississippi control and largely unknown to Forest Service personnel.

2. Fish are highly mobile—Fish can and do move away from stream events which alter their 

environment. These events may be natural, such as flood or drought conditions, or human related 

alterations such as channel modifications or changes in land management practices. In either event 

sampling methods designed to establish long-term population trends can be greatly affected by shortterm movements of an indicator species (fish).

3. Some fish species, such as the brindled madtom actively avoid detection or capture. Madtoms will 

bury themselves up to several inches in the stream substrate to avoid capture. Thus, detection 

becomes extremely difficult even when the species is present in the sampling area.
Appendix F – Management Indicator Species

F-10 National Forests in Mississippi

Recommendation: Remove all 19 species from management indicator species list. However, monitoring 

of streams should continue. Monitoring in the future should focus on a fish community-based assessment.

Fish species should be grouped together based on their feeding and/or reproductive strategies. Indices or 

percentages would be generated based on these strategies. While populations of individual species are 

variable and may fluctuate from year to year in a particular stream or watershed, the community-based 

approach should provide more consistent information. Any significant changes in community-based 

metrics may warrant additional investigation into the health of a stream or watershed.

Lentic Fish 

Species

Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redear sunfish (Lepomis

microlophus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), channel 

catfish (Ictalurus puncitatus), golden shiner (Notemingonus chrysoleucas), lake chubsucker (Erimyzon

sucetta)

Habitat Association – Lakes and ponds

Population Monitoring – Electrofishing and seining

These species were selected to represent lentic (lake) habitat. Monitoring is conducted by electrofishing 

and seining. Many management practices such as liming, fertilizing, and spawning habitat improvement 

are focused on providing recreational fishing opportunities on the National Forests in Mississippi.

Largemouth bass is the principal predator in most National Forests in Mississippi lakes and is also a 

demand species. Population structure of this species has been a good indicator the effectiveness of Forest 

Service management activities. Because of their low level of occurrence and difficulty in capturing, 

redear sunfish, black crappie, white crappie, channel catfish, golden shiner, and lake chubsucker have not 

been good indicators of management effectiveness.

Recommendation: Evaluate largemouth bass further. Remove other 7 species as management indicator 

species. Continue to monitor those species using current electrofishing protocol.

F.1.2 Additional Species Evaluated

Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris)

Species Association – Red-cockaded woodpecker, gopher tortoise, Mississippi gopher frog

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database

Species was selected to measure the effectiveness of management to restore longleaf pine ecosystem.

Measure of effectiveness is by acres of longleaf pine planted by year and number of acres of longleaf pine 

classified in FSVEG.

Southern Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus fontalis)

Habitat Association – Overstocked pine forests

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database

Population Monitoring – Southern Research, Pineville
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi F-11

This species is selected to measure the effects of forest management aimed at promoting forest health 

(e.g., site/soil based species selection, appropriate fire cycles, and preventing or thinning of overstocked 

stands). However, we don't fully understand what triggers southern pine beetle outbreak population 

cycles, during which southern pine beetle is much less discriminatory in its tree killing behavior, and will 

impact less susceptible stands/species on a much more frequent basis, although to a lesser degree, i.e. 

everything is vulnerable to being attacked during outbreaks, but spots in less susceptible stands will 

typically exhibit lower damage, losses, spread, and duration, than those in more susceptible or higher 

hazard conditions. Aggressive 1st thinnings, snag retention, sawtimber thinning, as well as frequent 

burning of more burnable acres and longleaf restoration on appropriate sites, will reduce the adverse 

impacts of southern pine beetle when outbreak conditions materialize in the future.

Monitoring will be conducted using southern pine beetle phermone trapping survey.

Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina)

Habitat Association – Mature forest interior 

Habitat Monitoring – FSVeg database

Population Monitoring – Breeding bird survey data

This species is known to require large tracts of unbroken forest interior for successful breeding to occur.

This will measure the ability of the Forest Service to reduce “edge” in its vegetation management 

program. Monitoring will be by breeding bird survey and FSVEG database in conjunction with GIS 

analysis of mature forest stands as compared to open areas.

F.1.3 Management Indicator Species Selected

Five previously selected species and three newly selected species were carried forward for additional 

evaluation concerning management emphasis, management influence, and effects of management on 

habitat niche (section F.1.4). Each species was assigned a score of 1-3 in order of priority with 3 being the 

most important for each category. A composite ranking average was calculated for each species and any 

proposed management indicator species having an average composite ranking average of 5 or greater 

were selected. This process resulted in the selection of six species to represent indicators of management 

on the National Forests in Mississippi. In order to estimate the effects of management activities on fish 

and wildlife populations the following species have been selected because their population changes are 

believed to indicate the effects of management activities.

Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides)

Many management practices such as liming, fertilizing, and spawning habitat improvement are focused 

on providing recreational fishing opportunities on the National Forests in Mississippi. Largemouth bass is 

the principal predator in most National Forests in Mississippi lakes and is also a demand species.

Population structure of this species has been a good indicator of the effectiveness of Forest Service 

management activities.

Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris)

This species was selected to measure the effectiveness of management to restore the longleaf pine 

ecosystem. Measure of effectiveness is by acres of longleaf pine planted by year and number of acres of 

longleaf pine classified in Forest Service vegetation management database (FSVEG). 
Appendix F – Management Indicator Species

F-12 National Forests in Mississippi

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

This species was selected to represent mature longleaf/yellow pine forest. The red-cockaded woodpecker

is listed as federally endangered throughout its range and is dependent on national forest management for 

its recovery and survival. Many management practices on the National Forests in Mississippi are focused 

on improvement of red-cockaded woodpecker habitat (ex. prescribed burning, mid-story removal, forest 

thinning, etc.). There is a direct correlation between management activities and red-cockaded woodpecker

population levels. 

Southern Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus fontalis)

This species was selected to measure the effects of forest management aimed at promoting forest health 

(e.g., site/soil based species selection, appropriate fire cycles, and preventing or thinning of overstocked 

stands). Monitoring will be conducted using southern pine beetle pheromone trapping survey. Increased 

index numbers will be evidence for decreased forest health. 

Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)

This species was selected to represent mature forests. It is also an indicator of snag/cavity habitat.

Monitoring will be by breeding bird survey and FSVEG database in conjunction with geographic 

information system (GIS) analysis of mature forest stands.

Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina)

This species is known to require large tracts of unbroken forest interior for successful breeding to occur. 

This will measure effectiveness of minimizing “edge” in the implementation of vegetation management 

program. Monitoring will be by breeding bird survey and FSVEG database in conjunction with 

geographic information system (GIS) analysis of mature forest stands as compared to open areas.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi F-13

F.1.4 Management Indicator Species Evaluation Tables For National Forests in Mississippi by 

Ranger District

Management Emphasis 

Ranking De Soto RD Chickasawhay RD Holly Springs Yalobusha Ackerman Tombigbee

Bienville Delta De Soto Holly Springs Homochitto Tombigbee

Hooded Warbler 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Largemouth Bass 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Longleaf Pine 2 x 3 3 x x 3 x x

Pileated Woodpecker 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker 3 x 3 3 x x 3 x x

Southern Pine Beetle 3 x 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Wood Duck 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Wood Thrush 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

x - No known occurrence or not likely to occur on this unit.

1 - Primary objective is to avoid or minimize negative impacts.

2 - Achieve multiple resource objectives while maintaining or improving current conditions.

3 - Priority placed on improving conditions with other resource objectives becoming secondary.

NFS Habitat Niche De Soto RD Chickasawhay RD Holly Springs Yalobusha Ackerman Tombigbee

Bienville Delta De Soto Holly Springs Homochitto Tombigbee

Hooded Warbler 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Largemouth Bass 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Longleaf Pine 2 x 2 2 x x 2 x x

Pileated Woodpecker 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker 3 x 3 3 x x 3 x x

Southern Pine Beetle 1 x 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Wood Duck 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Wood Thrush 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

x - No known occurrence or not likely to occur on this unit.

1 - Similar habitat conditions are commonly found across both federal and private ownerships.

2 - NFS lands provide habitat niche generally not common on other lands in the state.

3 - NFS managed lands provide unique habitat conditions essential to the species.
Appendix F – Management Indicator Species

F-14 National Forests in Mississippi

Management Influence 

Ranking De Soto RD Chickasawhay RD Holly Springs Yalobusha Ackerman Tombigbee

Bienville Delta De Soto Holly Springs Homochitto Tombigbee

Hooded Warbler 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Largemouth Bass 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Longleaf Pine 3 x 3 3 x x 3 x x

Pileated Woodpecker 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker 3 x 3 3 x x 3 x x

Southern Pine Beetle 3 x 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Wood Duck 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Wood Thrush 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

x - No known occurrence or not likely to occur on this unit.

1 - Influence considered low or questionable, other outside factors may pose an equal or greater influence.

2 - Influence considered an important (principal) factor for affecting changed conditions.

3 - Positive change in conditions is dependent upon or has a direct correlation to management actions. 

Average Composite Rankings De Soto 

RD

Chickasawhay 

RD

Holly 

Springs Yalobusha Ackerman Tombigbee

Composite 

ranking 

sum

Composite 

ranking 

average

Bienville Delta De Soto Holly Springs Homochitto Tombigbee

Red-cockaded Woodpecker 9 9 9 9 36.0 9.0

Longleaf Pine 7 8 8 8 31.0 7.8

Southern Pine Beetle 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 56.0 7.0

Largemouth Bass 7 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 59.0 6.6

Pileated Woodpecker 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 45.0 5.0

Wood Thrush 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 45.0 5.0

Wood Duck 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 30.0 3.3

Hooded Warbler 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 27.0 3.0

Proposed management indicator species having an average composite ranking average of 5 or greater were carried forward as management indicator species.
Land Management Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement

National Forests in Mississippi F-15

Literature Cited

Caro, T.M. and G. O’Doherty. 1999. On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. 

Conservation Biology 13(4): 805–814. 

Grossman, G.D., J.F. Dowd, and M. Crawford. 1990. Assemblage stability in stream fishes: a review. 

Environmental Management 14:661–671. 

Landres, P.B., Verner, J., and J.W. Thomas. 1988. Ecological uses of vertebrate indicator species: a 

critique. Conservation Biology 2(4): 316–328.

Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4: 

355–364.

Simberloff, D.A. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single species management passe in the 

landscape era? Biological Conservation 83(3): 247–257.

USDA Forest Service. 1985. Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended), National Forests in 

Mississippi. Jackson, MS.

Weaver, J.C. 1995. Indicator species and scale of observation. Conservation Biology 9(4): 939– 942.