Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

Chapter 2 describes the alternatives for a Resource Management Plan (RMP), including the Preferred 

Alternative, that would guide management of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered lands 

(referred to as surface tracts) and non-U. S. Forest Service Federal mineral ownership (non-USFS FMO) 

in Alabama and Mississippi identified in Chapter 1 (Table 1-1 and Table 1-2). An interdisciplinary team 

developed the alternatives to present a reasonable range of management options for guiding resource 

management and activities. The management alternatives evaluated in this Draft RMP-Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) were developed to meet resource condition objectives and minimize adverse 

impacts to cultural and natural resources while providing for compatible resource use and development 

opportunities consistent with current laws, regulations, and policies. 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires development and consideration of a 

reasonable range of management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. Alternatives must be 

viable and reasonable; meet the stated purpose and need for the plan; provide a mix of resource 

protections, management use, and development; be responsive to issues identified during scoping; and 

meet established planning criteria (outlined in Chapter 1), as well as Federal laws, regulations, and BLM 

policies. Each management alternative evaluated in the Draft RMP-EIS represents a reasonable approach 

to managing resources and activities. BLM has the discretion to select an alternative in its entirety or to 

combine aspects of the various alternatives presented in this draft to develop the Proposed RMP and Final 

EIS. 

2.1.1 How to Read This Chapter 

This chapter is divided into four sections: 

• Introduction (Section 2.1)—presents an overview of the development and consideration of 

management alternatives and provides direction on How to Read This Chapter (Section 2.1.1). 

• Alternative Components (Section 2.2)—presents the alternative structure and describes 

components that are considered for each alternative. 

• Standard Management Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.3)—describes management 

actions that are applicable or common to all alternatives. 

• Alternatives Analyzed in Detail (Section 2.4)—presents four alternatives for management of 

BLM-administered non-USFS FMO and surface tracts. 

2.2 ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS 

Decisions in RMPs guide future land management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation 

decisions. The RMP alternatives described in this chapter represent approaches to addressing key 

planning issues (presented in Chapter 1) and to managing resources and resource uses in the planning 

area. Each alternative comprises two categories of land use planning decisions: (1) desired outcomes for 

resource management (goals and objectives) and (2) the measures needed to achieve these goals and 

objectives (allowable uses and management actions). These two categories are discussed below. 

• Desired Outcomes (Goals and Objectives). Land use plans must identify desired outcomes 

expressed in terms of specific goals and objectives. Goals and objectives direct BLM’s actions in 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-1 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

most effectively meeting legal mandates; numerous regulatory responsibilities; national policy; 

and other resource or social needs. Desired outcomes should be identified for and pertain to 

resources (such as natural, biological, and cultural), resource uses (such as minerals and lands and 

realty), and other factors (such as social and economic conditions). Goals are broad statements of 

desired outcomes (e.g., maintain ecosystem health and productivity, promote community 

stability, ensure sustainable development) that usually are not quantifiable. Objectives identify 

specific desired outcomes for resources. Objectives may be quantifiable and measurable and may 

have established time frames for achievement (as appropriate). 

• Allowable Uses and Management Actions. After establishing desired outcomes, BLM identifies 

allowable uses and management actions for different alternatives that are anticipated to achieve 

the goals and objectives. Land use plans must identify uses, or allocations, that are allowable, 

restricted, or prohibited on the public lands and mineral estate. These allocations identify surface 

lands and/or mineral interests where uses are allowed, including any restrictions that may be 

needed to meet goals and objectives. Land use plans also identify lands where specific uses are 

excluded to protect resource values. Certain lands may be open or closed to specific uses based 

on legislative, regulatory, or policy requirements or criteria to protect sensitive resource values. 

Land use plans must identify the actions anticipated to achieve desired outcomes, including 

actions to maintain, restore, or improve land health. These actions include proactive measures 

(e.g., measures that will be taken to enhance watershed function and condition), as well as 

measures or criteria that will be applied to guide day-to-day activities occurring on public land. 

Land use plans also establish administrative designations such as areas of critical environmental 

concern (ACECs), recommend proposed withdrawals, land tenure zones, and recommend or 

make findings of suitability for congressional designations (such as components of the National 

Wild and Scenic River System). 

Two types of management actions are included in the alternatives in this RMP. The first is standard 

management common to all alternatives (Section 2.3), which will apply regardless of which alternative is 

selected. The second is management actions and allowable uses by alternative (Section 2.4), which 

represent the choice(s) considered across alternatives. Management actions and allowable uses included 

in this chapter would apply to all BLM-administered surface tracts and non-USFS FMO in the planning 

area. Although anticipated to achieve desired outcomes, the management actions and allowable uses 

described in Section 2.4 may not be achieved during the planning period due to limitations in funding or 

staffing, changing policies or priorities, or new information. These factors could also affect the rate of 

RMP implementation. It is important to note that the RMP is strategic in nature, and, while it provides an 

overarching vision for managing resources in the planning area, it must also be flexible to changing 

priorities, information, and circumstances. 

2.3 STANDARD MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES 

The following standard management would apply regardless of which alternative is selected. These 

management actions are a result of specific limitations on management of resources and land use 

programs defined in various laws and regulations that govern BLM management decisions. 

2.3.1 Air Quality 

Actions authorized on BLM-administered lands and non-USFS FMO would need to be conducted so as to 

comply with Clean Air Act requirements, including the applicable national Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) (Section 109); the State Air Quality Implementation Plan (SIP) (Section 110); 

2-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

control of pollution from Federal facilities (Section 118); prevention of significant deterioration, (PDS) 

including visibility impacts to mandatory Federal Class I areas (Section 160 et seq.); and conformity 

analyses and determinations (Section 176(c)). Section 118 of the Clean Air Act requires Federal agencies 

to comply with all Federal, state, and local air pollution requirements. Section 176(c) prohibits Federal 

agencies from taking any actions that contribute to a new violation of Ambient Air Quality Standards, 

increase the frequency or severity of an existing violation, or delay the attainment of a Standard. It also 

requires Federal agencies to conform to SIPs. BLM policy provides requirements to minimize air quality 

impacts. For example, prescribed burns must comply with BLM Manual 9214 for air quality maintenance 

requirements, to minimize air quality impacts from particulates such as smoke. 

2.3.2 Soil Resources 

Standards and goals under the Clean Water Act (CWA) require measures to minimize non-point source 

pollution and soil erosion. Measures for minimizing accelerated soil erosion would continue to be made 

on a site-specific basis through evaluation of management actions and implementation of best 

management practices (BMPs). Examples of soil BMPs can be found in the Surface Operating Standards 

and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, Gold Book (BLM 2006) and at 

http://www.blm.gov/bmp. 

2.3.3 Unique and Prime Farmland 

Before any decision authorizing surface disturbance, a determination would be made as to if prime or 

unique farmland as defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U. S.C. 4201 et seq.) is in an area 

that may be affected by a proposed action. If prime or unique farmland is present, then an appropriate 

level of analysis would be prepared to determine if the proposed action may have an adverse effect and 

identify appropriate mitigation measures to minimize any unnecessary and irreversible conversion of 

farmland to nonagricultural uses. 

2.3.4 Water Resources 

Standards and goals under the CWA and water quality management objectives developed by the States, as 

required by the 1987 Water Quality Act Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, were 

created to protect the quality of States’ waters and to prevent, abate, and control water pollution. BLM is 

required to maintain water quality where it presently meets Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-

approved State water quality standards and to improve water quality on public lands where it does not 

meet standards as defined by Section 303(d) of the CWA. Any water discharged on the surface by 

industry is controlled through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. 

Actions authorized on BLM lands must also comply with the mitigation requirements defined by the 

Office of Surface Mining regulations for coal leasing and by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 

404 permit requirements. Management actions would be conducted in conformance with the various 

regulations in the CWA, the State regulations, and the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA) to achieve the water quality classifications and standards for surface and ground waters 

developed by the States. 

Management actions would be conducted in a manner conforming to water quality management 

objectives developed by the States. Standards and goals under the CWA require measures to minimize 

non-point-source pollution and soil erosion. Measures for minimizing accelerated soil erosion would 

continue to be made on a site-specific basis through evaluation of management actions and 

implementation of BMPs. Examples of soil BMPs can be found in the Surface Operating Standards and 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-3 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, Gold Book (BLM 2006) and at http:// 

www.blm.gov/bmp. 

2.3.5 Vegetative Communities 

BLM’s role in the management of vegetative communities is to provide habitats that support desired 

plants and animals. BLM would manage for desired outcomes of vegetative communities, including 

control of noxious and invasive species, that incorporate the conservation actions identified in the 

approved state comprehensive conservation strategies. Unless otherwise specified in an alternative, 

vegetation manipulation, including prescribed burning, mechanical alteration, chemical treatment, 

manual, and biological would be allowed if needed to meet resource management objectives. 

2.3.6 Fish and Wildlife 

BLM’s role in the management of fish and wildlife is to provide habitats that support desired animal 

species. BLM would support and coordinate with the State and other partners on habitat improvements 

and protection in compliance with approved comprehensive State fish and wildlife conservation 

strategies. This may include actions such as control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and 

wetland enhancements. Hunting regulations and game management are under the authority of the State 

fish and wildlife agency. 

2.3.7 Special Status Species 

Special status species include all Federal and state-listed species, proposed or candidates for Federal or 

state listing, and those species identified by BLM as sensitive species. BLM Eastern States policy 

designates as “BLM sensitive” those additional species that are considered to be critically imperiled (S-1) 

or imperiled (S-2) by the State Natural Heritage programs. 

BLM would avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of any Federally-listed, State-listed, or proposed 

species; actively promote species recovery; and work to improve the status of candidate and sensitive 

species. If a Federally-listed species may be affected by a proposed management action, there would be 

consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 United States Code [USC] 1531 et seq.). If a proposed 

management action might impact a State-listed species, there would be consultation with the appropriate 

State game and fish agency. Harvesting of any sensitive species would be prohibited, except when 

explicitly authorized for scientific purposes by an appropriate State and/or Federal agency. 

If a proposed activity could affect candidate or sensitive species or their habitat, BLM would avoid 

activities that would contribute to a need to list such species or their habitat. Thus, BLM could require 

modifications to or reject a proposed activity that could jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed 

or listed threatened or endangered species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of a designated 

or proposed critical habitat. BLM would not approve any surface-disturbing activity that may affect any 

such species or critical habitat until obligations are met under applicable requirements of ESA, as 

amended, including completion of any required procedure for conference or formal consultation. 

2.3.8 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

Unless a separate, site-specific plan is in place, all wildfires would be suppressed. Agreements, as needed, 

would be pursued with Federal, State, and local government fire protection agencies for fire suppression. 

2-4 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Prescribed burning would be allowed on a case-by-case basis if needed to meet vegetative communities or 

fish and wildlife habitat management objectives. 

2.3.9 Cultural Resources 

Management actions would comply with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as 

amended (16 USC 470), which provides protection for significant cultural resources. An appropriate level 

of inventory would be conducted for all actions with a potential to affect these resources, in compliance 

with the requirements of Section 110 of the NHPA. Actions would require additional consultation with 

the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in compliance with Section 106 of NHPA, and/or the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800). 

Cultural resources would be identified and protected on a case-by-case basis, according to site-specific 

needs. Any significant sites discovered would be available for scientific, conservation, traditional, or 

interpretation uses. A site that is not significant (as determined by BLM with SHPO consultation) would 

be released from management concerns. 

2.3.10 Paleontological Resources 

Significant paleontological sites are protected under FLPMA. FLPMA charges BLM to (1) manage public 

land so as to protect the quality of scientific and other values and (2) see that land and resources are 

periodically and systematically inventoried. Known paleontological resources would be managed 

according to the BLM 8270 Handbook and the BLM Manual for the Management of Paleontological 

Resources. 

If discovered, paleontological resources would be managed to protect their important scientific values. 

Area closures, restrictions, or other mitigation requirements for the protection of paleontological values 

would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Collecting of scientifically significant vertebrate and 

invertebrate fossils by qualified paleontologists would be allowed by permit only. 

2.3.11 Visual Resources 

Because of their small size, the surface tracts are a relatively small component of the visual landscape. 

Consequently, they have not been the subject of a traditional BLM visual resource management (VRM) 

inventory and are not assigned VRM classes (defined in Section 3.2.9). Case-by-case processing of land 

use and mineral development proposals would consider impacts to visual resources where these have been 

identified as public concerns. All surface tracts would be managed as VRM Class III, except for the 

Coosa River tracts in Alabama and Hancock County tract in Mississippi, which would be managed as 

VRM Class II. 

2.3.12 Minerals 

Federal mineral estate would be available for conveyance to owners of the surface estate as provided in 

Section 209 of FLPMA. Section 209 provides for this conveyance if there are no known mineral values in 

the land or if reservation of the mineral rights to the United States is interfering with or precluding 

appropriate surface development of the land and such development is a more beneficial use of the land. 

BLM would retain the FMO with known mineral value. 

As discussed in Section 1.3, BLM-administered non-USFS FMO in the planning area includes Federal 

mineral estate underlying lands of BLM or other Federal surface managing agencies (excluding USFS) 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-5 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

and split-estate whereby the Federal Government owns all or a portion of the mineral estate but the 

surface estate is State or privately owned (i.e., non-Federal). BLM-administered non-USFS FMO under 

the jurisdiction of another Federal surface managing agency would be available for exploration and 

development as directed by the surface managing agency. Split-estate (i.e., non-USFS FMO underlying 

private or state-owned surface lands) would be subject to stipulations deemed necessary to protect 

existing surface improvements or use. BLM would apply stipulations to oil and gas leases as determined 

through this plan; however, surface management agencies may provide their own stipulations that would 

be attached to a lease during the lease approval process. 

After this plan is approved it is expected that additional FMO tracts will be identified or acquired. If these 

tracts are similar in resource values and within the environmental issues analyzed in this plan, the new 

tracts will be managed according to the guidance of this plan and incorporated into the plan through plan 

maintenance. 

Coal leasing potential within the planning area is limited to the Warrior Basin1 in Alabama because of the 

distinctive presence of the appropriate geological conditions (e.g., continuity of coalbeds, thickness of 

coal, quality of coal seams) and existing infrastructure (e.g., existing subsurface mining operations and 

access roads) for development of coal resources. BLM-administered non-USFS FMO available for coal 

leasing is located in Walker, Fayette, Jefferson, and Tuscaloosa counties. Coal is also present to a lesser 

degree in Marion and Winston Counties, but the development of Federal coal in these counties is unlikely. 

Non-USFS FMO in the Warrior Basin would be available for further coal leasing consideration and 

limited to underground mining methods. BMPs would be applied as appropriate when processing a Lease 

by Application (LBA). 

2.3.13 Recreation 

BLM surface tracts are open to dispersed recreational use, including hunting, fishing, hiking, and nature 

study. Case-by-case processing of land use and mineral development proposals would consider impacts to 

recreation where it has been identified as a public concern. Due to the scattered nature of the small 

surface tracts and lacking recreation interest, special recreation management areas (SRMAs) would not be 

designated within this RMP and all surface tracts would be managed as extensive recreation management 

areas (ERMAs). 

2.3.14 Lands and Realty 

All land use proposals would be evaluated for conformance with plan objectives and land use decisions. 

Case-by-case processing would include analysis of environmental impacts through the NEPA compliance 

process. Land disposals would be conducted to meet the requirements identified under applicable 

authorities. To be considered suitable for disposal through sale, lands must meet the following criteria 

outlined in Section 203 of the FLPMA: 

(1) such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to 

manage as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management by another Federal 

department or agency 

(2) such tract was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for that or 

any other Federal purpose 

1 The term Warrior Basin is a geologic province. The Black Warrior Basin is the drainage area of the Black Warrior River. 

2-6 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

(3) disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, 

expansion of communities and economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or 

feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other public objectives and values, 

including, but not limited to, recreation and scenic values, which would be served by maintaining 

such tract in Federal ownership. 

Lands may be exchanged as authorized by Section 206 of the FLPMA when the exchange would serve 

the national interest and benefit BLM programs or the programs of other Federal agencies. Lands may be 

conveyed to State and local government agencies and other qualified organizations under the Recreation 

and Public Purposes Act of 1926 (R&PP), as amended. Under R&PP, lands may be conveyed or leased 

only for an established or proposed project for which there are development and management plans, as 

well as adequate funding by the R&PP applicant to complete the development and a reasonable timetable 

of development. 

Specific surface tracts identified for disposal under the various management alternatives would be 

evaluated for the presence of significant resource values before such action. Resources to be evaluated 

would include minerals, recreation, cultural resources, wetlands, and special status species. This 

evaluation would also be applied before disposal of any additional BLM-administered surface tracts that 

are identified or verified after approval of the RMP. 

Some tracts may have uncertain titles. These are cases in which the tracts are claimed by private owners 

but government land records show that they were not transferred from Federal ownership. Tracts with 

uncertain titles would be handled on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the Color-of-Title Act, under 

which claimants may apply for transfer of these tracts and, if qualified, purchase the tracts to obtain title. 

Appendix B provides a list of lands of uncertain title occurring within the planning area. 

Existing withdrawals (listed in Appendix I) would be subject to review to determine if they are serving 

their intended purpose. BLM has the authority to revoke, modify, extend, or change withdrawals in 

accordance with the provisions and limitations of Section 204 of FLPMA. 

After this plan is approved it is expected that some additional surface tracts may return to BLM 

administration after revocation of withdrawals, reversion of R&PP lands and resolution of title. These 

additional surface tracts will be managed according to applicable guidance of this plan. 

This plan does not identify specific utility corridors because of fragmented BLM surface land ownership 

within the planning area and uncertainties in demand. Right-of-way (ROW) avoidance areas established 

for protection of sensitive resources and tracts that may be suitable for corridors are identified in the 

management alternatives presented in Section 2.4. Tracts identified as available for disposal through sale 

or exchange would be managed as avoidance areas if granting of a ROW might adversely affect tract 

marketability, unless otherwise specified in the alternatives. 

Resolution of unauthorized use would be pursued on a case-by-case basis. Resolution would include 

termination of use and payment of damages, including reclamation of disturbed land, if needed. In some 

cases, use may be authorized through ROWs, permits, leases, or land disposal. Valid authorizations would 

be protected if the land undergoes disposal. 

2.3.15 Hazardous Materials 

Proposed activities on BLM-administered surface tracts and non-USFS FMO would be evaluated for their 

potential to release hazardous materials into the environment. Authorized use of hazardous materials must 

comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Disposal of hazardous materials is 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-7 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

prohibited. Discovery of “unpermitted” hazardous materials would be handled in accordance with the 

reporting, removal, and remediation requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL 

This section presents four alternatives for BLM-administered surface tracts and non-USFS FMO. Each 

alternative represents a direction to guide future management of BLM-administered public lands and 

resources in Alabama and Mississippi. Alternative 3 was selected as the Preferred Alternative because it 

protects sensitive resources, while allowing mineral development and providing management efficiency 

through disposal of most of the scattered surface tracts. 

Management themes represented in each alternative include the following: 

• Alternative 1 (No Action)—represents the No Action Alternative (i.e., continuation of current 

management). BLM would continue the current management approach by retaining all BLMadministered surface tracts and employing custodial management. BLM management actions 

would occur in response to an application for use presented by another entity or compliance 

actions required by regulation and policy (as described in Section 2.3, Standard Management 

Common to All Alternatives). Potential impacts and mitigation would be identified and assessed 

when application is made for activity on a specific piece of BLM-administered land. 

There would be 760,570 acres of BLM-administered non-USFS FMO that would be open to oil 

and gas leasing. Management of oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development would be 

subject to the standard lease terms and conditions that are included on the lease form. 

• Alternative 2—proposes that BLM would retain specific BLM-administered surface tracts. BLM 

would investigate opportunities to manage the tracts in partnership with other agencies or 

organizations. Use of the tracts would be consistent with management objectives and other land 

use decisions. Tract-specific constraints for resource uses, such as ROW access, would be based 

on the presence of sensitive resources (e.g., special status species and important cultural 

resources). In addition to the management for fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, and 

cultural resources outlined in Alternative 1, more proactive management would occur on specific 

tracts to protect important natural and cultural resources. Management actions for specific tracts, 

as needed, could include installing walkovers and sand fencing on actively used tracts to protect 

special status species habitat, vegetation treatments to enhance or improve native landscapes on 

actively used tracts, and habitat management to achieve objectives in established fish and wildlife 

conservation strategies. 

There would be 760,452 acres of BLM-administered non-USFS FMO that would be open to oil 

and gas leasing; since an additional 365 acres would be closed to protect habitat of the Federallylisted Alabama beach mouse. In addition to standard terms and conditions, conservation measures 

would be applied as stipulations to oil and gas leases and BMPs would be used to reduce adverse 

effects caused surface-disturbing or disruptive activities associated with oil and gas operations on 

BLM-administered non-USFS FMO. Conservation measures, including no surface occupancy 

(NSO), controlled surface use (CSU), seasonal stipulations, and BMPs are presented in Appendix 

D. Under this alternative, lease stipulations would include a 1,000-feet NSO buffer from aquatic 

habitats and Alabama beach mouse habitat would not be available for lease. The stipulations in 

Appendix D would be applied in addition to the standard lease terms and conditions on the lease 

form. For each stipulation there are provisions for waiver, modification, and exception provided 

in Appendix D, which could be applied as appropriate. The BMPs would be considered 

2-8 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

mandatory to reduce adverse impacts to specific resources and would be applied to oil and gas 

operations on new and existing leases. There would be some flexibility in implementation of each 

BMP, depending on site-specific conditions. Where there is potential to affect Federally-listed, 

proposed, or candidate species or designated critical habitat, application of BMPs and/or waiver, 

modification and exception to stipulations would normally require coordination and possible 

formal consultation with USFWS. 

• Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative)—All of the BLM-administered surface tracts would be 

available for disposal except the Hancock County tract in Mississippi. For some of the surface 

tracts, there would be conditions placed on the disposal that development and use of the tract 

would be consistent with the resource management objectives and allowable uses established for 

the tract. Restrictions on use after disposal would be provided in the patent transferring 

ownership. Valid existing rights and other valid authorizations would be protected if disposal 

occurred. 

Until the surface tracts are disposed, management would apply tract-specific constraints for 

resource uses, such as ROW access, based on the presence of sensitive resources (e.g., special 

status species and important cultural resources). In addition to the management for fish and 

wildlife habitat, special status species, and cultural resources outlined in Alternative 1, more 

proactive management would occur on specific tracts to protect important natural and cultural 

resources. Management actions for specific tracts, as needed, could include vegetation treatments 

to enhance or improve native landscapes on actively used tracts and habitat management to 

achieve objectives in established fish and wildlife conservation strategies. 

There would be 760,570 acres of BLM-administered non-USFS FMO that would be open to oil 

and gas leasing. Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 uses conservation measures that would be 

applied as lease stipulations and BMPs to reduce adverse effects caused by surface-disturbing or 

disruptive activities associated with oil and gas operations on BLM-administered non-USFS 

FMO. The stipulations in Alternative 3 are different from Alternative 2 in two ways. First, 

Alabama beach mouse habitat would be available for lease, subject to a NSO stipulation. Second, 

the buffer from aquatic habitats would be reduced to 250 feet. 

• Alternative 4—Alternative 4 proposes that all BLM-administered surface tracts would be made 

available for disposal from Federal ownership with no specific condition on use after disposal. 

Valid existing rights and other valid authorizations would be protected in the event of disposal. 

Under this alternative, management of BLM-administered non-USFS FMO would be the same as 

Alternative 3. 

2.4.1 Management of Non-Forest Service Federal Mineral 

Ownership 

The discussion of proposed management of mineral leasing and development of BLM-administered 

non-USFS FMO presented in this section is limited to oil and gas leasing. Non-USFS FMO includes 

mineral ownership underlying BLM-administered surface tracts. Proposed management for coal leasing is 

presented in Section 2.3, Standard Management Common to All Alternatives. Where non-USFS FMO is 

concerned, decisions of this RMP will pertain only to BLM’s role in administering the minerals. 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-9 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternatives 1 through 4 were developed to present a reasonable range of options for where leasing can 

occur to guide decision making for managing mineral leasing and development. There are four oil and gas 

leasing categories: 

• Open to leasing, subject to standard lease terms and conditions—includes areas in which 

standard lease terms and conditions are determined to be sufficient to protect other land uses or 

resource values. 

• Open to leasing, subject to minor constraints—comprises areas in which moderately restrictive 

lease stipulations such as timing limitations or distance setbacks are required to mitigate impacts 

to other land uses or resource values. Such constraints are often referred to as CSU. 

• Open to leasing, subject to major constraints—encompasses areas in which highly restrictive 

lease stipulations, such as NSO, are required to mitigate impacts to other land uses or resource 

values. 

• Closed to leasing—is designated for areas where other land uses or resource values cannot be 

adequately protected with even the most restrictive lease stipulations. Appropriate protection can 

be ensured only by closing the lands to leasing. 

The acreage of BLM-administered non-USFS FMO available for oil and gas leasing in Alabama and 

Mississippi by alternative is shown in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2. Federal oil and gas leases contain standard 

lease terms that are included on the lease form, many of which are designed to protect natural resources. 

As described above, special stipulations can be attached to a lease to respond to specific environmental or 

resource concerns for a particular lease area. Special stipulations are developed during the land use 

planning process, such as this RMP. Stipulations are attached to and made part of the lease and modify 

standard lease terms or the manner in which operations may be conducted. The variation of acreage by 

alternative for leasing stipulations associated with oil and gas potential in Alabama and Mississippi is 

shown in Table 2-3 and Table 2-4. Conservation measures, including stipulations and BMPs, are provided 

in Appendix D. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Minerals 

Alabama and Mississippi have been classified as having high occurrence potential for oil and gas 

resources, based on the reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFDS) prepared by BLM. It is 

estimated that 20 wells would be drilled on non-USFS FMO in Alabama and 10 wells would be drilled on 

non-USFS FMO in Mississippi over the next 20 years (BLM Mineral Report 2005). These actions are 

expected to disturb a total of 105 acres in Alabama and 55 acres in Mississippi. 

Table 2-1. Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in Alabama by Alternative 

Leasing 

Oil and Gas 

Category 

(No Action) 

Alternative 1 

(Acres) 

Alternative 2 

(Acres) (Preferred) 

Alternative 3 

(Acres) 

Alternative 4 

(Acres) 

Open to leasing, 

subject to standard 

lease terms and 

conditions 

305,640 119,231 144,895 144,895 

Open to leasing, 

subject to minor 

constraints 

0 91,702 117,506 117,506 

2-10 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Leasing 

Oil and Gas 

Category 

(No Action) 

Alternative 1 

(Acres) 

Alternative 2 

(Acres) (Preferred) 

Alternative 3 

(Acres) 

Alternative 4 

(Acres) 

Open to leasing, 

subject to major 

constraints 

0 94,589 43,239 43,239 

Closed to leasing 8,179 8,297 8,179 8,179 

TOTAL 313,819 a 313,819 a 313,819 a 313,819 a 

Notes: 

a Represents all BLM-administered non-USFS FMO within the State of Alabama.

Table 2-2. Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in Mississippi by Alternative 

Leasing 

Oil and Gas 

Category 

(No Action) 

Alternative 1 

(Acres) 

Alternative 2 

(Acres) (Preferred) 

Alternative 3 

(Acres) 

Alternative 4 

(Acres) 

Open to leasing, 

subject to standard 

lease terms and 

conditions 

454,930 270,615 359,640 359,640 

Open to leasing, 

subject to minor 

constraints 

0 123 3,021 3,021 

Open to leasing, 

subject to major 

constraints 

0 184,192 92,269 92,269 

Closed to leasing 63,004 63,004 63,004 63,004 

TOTAL 517,934 a 517,934 a 517,934 a 517,934 a 

Notes: 

a Represents all BLM-administered non-USFS FMO within the State of Mississippi. 

Table 2-3. Leasing Stipulations in Alabama by Alternative a 

Area 

Total non-Forest Service 

Federal Mineral 

Ownership (Acres)

 a, b 

ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) 

NO LEASE 

Other Surface Management Agency Lands

 USFWS 3,384 

Department of Defense (DoD) (Maxwell Air Force Base) 1,495 

National Park Service (NPS) 3,300 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-11 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

Area 

Total non-Forest Service 

Federal Mineral 

Ownership (Acres)

 a, b 

Total Affected Area (in acres) b 8,179 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY/NO SURFACE DISTURBANCE 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 0 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 0 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 0 

OPEN TO LEASING SUBJECT TO STANDARD LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 305,640 

ALTERNATIVE 2 

NO LEASE 

Other Surface Management Agency Lands 

USFWS 3,384 

DoD (Maxwell Air Force Base) 1,495 

NPS 3,300 

Alabama beach mouse suitable habitat or Federally-designated critical habitat 365 

Total Affected Area (in acres) b 8,544 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY/NO SURFACE DISTURBANCE 

Bald eagle nests (1,500-ft. buffer around active or inactive nests and communal 

roost sites) 30 

Red-cockaded woodpecker (0.5 mile of a cluster plus a 200-ft. buffer zone 

surrounding that area) 888 

Sea turtle suitable nesting habitat (100-ft. buffer from the mean high tide line of 

coastal beaches) 513 

Gray bat, Indiana bat, Alabama cave shrimp, Alabama cave fish (600-ft. buffer 

around caves, fractures, large sinkholes or 250-ft. buffer around perennial or 

intermittent streams in or adjacent to counties with documented populations) 

12,898 

Gray bat or Indiana bat summer roost or gray bat wintering cave hibernacula 

(0.5-mile buffer) 3,044 

Freshwater aquatic species (1,000-ft. buffer around river, stream, wetland 

spring, headwaters, wet meadows, wet pine savannas, pond, tributary, lake, 

coastal slough, sand bars, vernal pools on granite outcrops, calcareous seepage 

marshes, or small, marshy calcareous streams) 

90,930 

Piping plover/least tern habitat (from the debris rack line to the low tide line of 

coastal beaches) 2,131 

Total Affected Area (in acres) b 110,434 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE 

Bald eagle nests (no tree removal within 1.5-mile buffer zone around active or 

inactive bald eagle nests and communal roost sites) 848 

Gopher tortoise burrow (600-ft. buffer) ND 

2-12 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Area 

Total non-Forest Service 

Federal Mineral 

Ownership (Acres)

 a, b 

Gray bat/Indiana bat hibernacula (1.5-mile buffer) 11,573 

Identified karstic habitat or any hydrologic network connected to caves used by 

listed bat species or other listed cave species 112,368 

Sensitive plant species habitat 103 

Total Affected Area (in acres) b 96,871 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS 

Bald eagle nest or communal roosting sites (timing restriction within 1.5 miles 

between December 1 and August 1) 1,299 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 1,299 

OPEN TO LEASING SUBJECT TO STANDARD LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 119,231 

ALTERNATIVE 3 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) and ALTERNATIVE 4 

NO LEASE 

Other Surface Management Agency Lands 

USFWS 3,384 

DoD (Maxwell Air Force Base) 1,495 

NPS 3,300 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 8,179 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY/NO SURFACE DISTURBANCE 

Bald eagle nests (1,500-ft. buffer around active or inactive nests and communal 

roost sites) 30 

Red-cockaded woodpecker (0.5 mile of a cluster plus a 200-ft. buffer zone 

surrounding that area) 888 

Sea turtle suitable nesting habitat (100-ft. buffer from the mean high tide line of 

coastal beaches) 513 

Alabama beach mouse suitable habitat or Federally designated critical habitat 365 

Gray bat, Indiana bat, Alabama cave shrimp, Alabama cave fish (600-ft buffer 

around caves, fractures, large sinkholes or 250-ft. buffer around perennial or 

intermittent streams in or adjacent to counties with documented populations) 

12,898 

Gray bat or Indiana bat summer roost or gray bat wintering cave hibernacula 

(0.5-mile buffer) 3,044 

Freshwater aquatic species (250-ft.buffer around river, stream, wetland spring, 

headwaters, wet meadows, wet pine savannas, pond, tributary, lake, coastal 

slough, sand bars, vernal pools on granite outcrops, calcareous seepage 

marshes, or small, marshy calcareous streams; buffer may be extended up to 

600 ft. if slope exceeds 10%) 

38,111 

Piping plover/least tern habitat (from the debris rack line to the low tide line of 

coastal beaches) 2,131 

Total Affected Area (in acres) b 58,049 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-13 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

Area 

Total non-Forest Service 

Federal Mineral 

Ownership (Acres)

 a, b 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE 

Bald eagle nests (no tree removal within 1.5-mile buffer zone around active or 

inactive bald eagle nests and communal roost sites) 848 

Gopher tortoise burrow (600-ft. buffer) ND 

Gray bat/Indiana bat hibernacula (1.5-mile buffer) 11,573 

Identified karstic habitat or any hydrologic network connected to caves used by 

listed bat species or other listed cave species 112,368 

Sensitive plant species habitat 103 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 125,044 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS 

Bald eagle nest or communal roosting sites (timing restriction within 1.5 miles 

between December 1 and August 1) 1,299 

Total Affected Area (in acres) b 1,299 

OPEN TO LEASING SUBJECT TO STANDARD LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 144,895 

Notes: 

a All Federal mineral estate in Alabama has high potential for oil and gas resources. 

b Total acres under each alternative do not represent accurate totals shown in Table 2-1 because of the overlap of land 

resources and land use restrictions. 

ND No habitat data available to estimate affected area. 

Table 2-4. Leasing Stipulations in Mississippi by Alternative a 

Area 

Total non-Forest Service 

Federal Mineral 

Ownership (Acres)

 a,b 

ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) 

NO LEASE 

Other Surface Management Agency Lands 

USFWS 60,207 

NPS 2,797 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 63,004 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY/NO SURFACE DISTURBANCE 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 0 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 0 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 0 

OPEN TO LEASING SUBJECT TO STANDARD LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 454,930 

2-14 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Area 

Total non-Forest Service 

Federal Mineral 

Ownership (Acres)

 a,b 

ALTERNATIVE 2 

NO LEASE 

Other Surface Management Agency Lands

 USFWS 60,207 

NPS 2,797 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 63,004 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY/NO SURFACE DISTURBANCE 

Hancock County Marsh 1,810 

Bald eagle nests (1,500-ft. buffer around active or inactive nests and communal 

roost sites) 1,089 

Red-cockaded woodpecker (0.5 mile of a cluster plus a 200-ft. buffer zone 

surrounding that area) 11,710 

Sea turtle suitable nesting habitat (100-ft. buffer from the mean high tide line of 

coastal beaches) 997 

Gray bat, Indiana bat (600-ft. buffer around caves, fractures, sinkholes or 250-ft. 

buffer around perennial or intermittent streams in or adjacent to counties with 

documented populations) 

2,564 

Gray bat or Indiana bat summer roost or gray bat wintering cave hibernacula 

(0.5-mile buffer) 7,073 

Freshwater aquatic species (1,000-ft. buffer around river, stream, wetland spring, 

headwaters, wet meadows, wet pine savannas, pond, tributary, lake, coastal 

slough, sand bars, vernal pools on granite outcrops, calcareous seepage 

marshes, or small, marshy calcareous streams) 

168,383 

Louisiana black bear (1,500-ft. buffer around den trees in occupied bottomland 

hardwood and floodplain forest habitats)c ND 

Piping plover/least tern habitat (from the debris rack line to the low tide line of 

coastal beaches) 4,237 

Total Affected Area (in acres) b 197,863 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE 

Bald eagle nests (no tree removal within 1.5-mile buffer zone around active or 

inactive bald eagle nests and communal roost sites) 8,917 

Gopher tortoise burrow (600-ft. buffer) 122 

Gray bat/Indiana bat hibernacula (1.5-mile buffer) 1 

Identified karstic habitat or any hydrologic network connected to caves used by 

listed bat species or other listed cave species 

ND 

Sensitive plant species habitat ND 

Total Affected Area (in acres) b 9,040 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS 

Bald eagle nest or communal roosting sites (timing restriction within 1.5 miles 

between December 1 and August 1) 13,742 

Total Affected Area (in acres) b 13,742 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-15 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

Area 

Total non-Forest Service 

Federal Mineral 

Ownership (Acres)

 a,b 

OPEN TO LEASING SUBJECT TO STANDARD LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 270,615 

ALTERNATIVE 3 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) AND ALTERNATIVE 4 

NO LEASE 

Other Surface Management Agency Lands

 USFWS 60,207 

NPS 2,797 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 63,004 

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY/NO SURFACE DISTURBANCE 

Hancock County Marsh 1,810 

Bald eagle nests (1,500-ft. buffer around active or inactive nests and communal 

roost sites) 1,089 

Red-cockaded woodpecker (0.5 mile of a cluster plus a 200-ft. buffer zone 

surrounding that area) 11,710 

Sea turtle suitable nesting habitat (100-ft. buffer from the mean high tide line of 

coastal beaches) 997 

Gray bat, Indiana bat (600-ft. buffer around caves, fractures, sinkholes or 250-ft. 

buffer around perennial or intermittent streams in or adjacent to counties with 

documented populations) 

2,564 

Gray bat or Indiana bat summer roost or gray bat wintering cave hibernacula 

(0.5-mile buffer) 7,073 

Freshwater aquatic species (250-ft. buffer around river, stream, wetland spring, 

headwaters, wet meadows, wet pine savannas, pond, tributary, lake, coastal 

slough, sand bars, vernal pools on granite outcrops, calcareous seepage 

marshes, or small, marshy calcareous streams; buffer may be extended up to 

600 ft. if slope exceeds 10%) 

68,656 

Louisiana black bear (1,500-ft. buffer around den trees in occupied bottomland 

hardwood and floodplain forest habitats)c ND 

Piping plover/least tern habitat (from the debris rack line to the low tide line of 

coastal beaches) 4,237 

Total Affected Area (in acres) b 98,136 

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE 

Bald eagle nests (no tree removal within 1.5-mile buffer zone around active or 

inactive bald eagle nests and communal roost sites) 8,917 

Gopher tortoise burrow (600-ft. buffer) 122 

Gray bat/Indiana bat hibernacula (1.5-mile buffer) 1 

Identified karstic habitat or any hydrologic network connected to caves used by 

listed bat species or other listed cave species 

ND 

Sensitive plant species habitat ND 

Total Affected Area (in acres) b 9,040 

2-16 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
c 

Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Area 

Total non-Forest Service 

Federal Mineral 

Ownership (Acres)

 a,b 

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS 

Bald eagle nest or communal roosting sites (timing restriction within 1.5 miles 

between December 1 and August 1) 13,742 

Total Affected Area (in acres) b 13,742 

OPEN TO LEASING SUBJECT TO STANDARD LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

Total Affected Area (in acres)

 b 359,640 

Notes: 

a All Federal mineral estate in Mississippi has high potential for oil and gas resources. 

b Total acres under each alternative do not represent accurate totals shown in Table 2-2 because of the overlap of land 

resources and land use restrictions. 

No habitat data available to estimate affected area. No surface disturbance, including removal of potential den trees, is 

permitted within a 1,500-foot buffer around den trees in occupied bottomland hardwood and floodplain forest habitats. 

ND No habitat data available to estimate affected area. 

2.4.2 Management of Surface Tracts 

For the purposes of this plan, the surface tracts were grouped on the basis of geographic proximity and 

similar management needs. The surface tract groups to be discussed in this section include the Coosa 

River Tracts, Fort Morgan Beach Tracts, Fort Morgan Highway Tracts, Fowl River Tract, Geneva Tract, 

and Jordan Lake Tract in Alabama and the Hancock County Tract in Mississippi. These surface tracts and 

their associated acreage, county, and legal description are listed in Table 2-5. Proposed planning decisions 

for each surface tract grouping, by alternative, are detailed in Table 2-6 – Table 2-12. These tables are 

accompanied by maps depicting the tract locations (Maps 2-1 – 2-7). 

Table 2-5. Surface Tracts in Alabama and Mississippi 

Name of Tract Group Acres County Legal Descriptiona 

Alabama 

Coosa River Tracts 

St. Stephens Meridian 

Foshee Islands 

9.58 Coosa T. 22N, R. 16E, Sec. 5, Lots 1, 2, & 5 

3.25 Coosa T. 22N, R. 16E, Sec. 8, Lot 1 

Little Rock Island 0.45 Coosa T. 22N, R. 16E, Sec. 5, Lot 3 

Big Rock Island 6.09 Coosa T. 22N, R. 16E, Sec. 5, Lot 4 

Gilchrist Island 4.38 Coosa T. 23N, R. 16E, Sec. 32, Lot C 

 Huntsville Meridian 

Unnamed Island 0.07 Calhoun T. 14S, R. 5E, Sec. 24, Lot 2 

Smith Island 5.58 Shelby T. 20S, R. 2E, Sec. 24, Lot 1 

Prince Island 12.74 Talladega 

T. 20S, R. 2E, Sec. 24, Lot 2 

T. 20S, R. 2E, Sec. 13, Lot 1 

T. 20S, R. 3E, Sec. 18, Lot 1 

Total Acreage of Tract Group 42.14 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-17 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

Name of Tract Group Acres County Legal Descriptiona 

Fort Morgan Beach Tracts 

 St. Stephens Meridian 

Fort Morgan Beach Tract 0.84 Baldwin T. 9S, R. 1E, Sec. 25, Lot 24 

Fort Morgan Beach Tract 5.32 Baldwin T. 9S, R. 1E, Sec. 26, Lots 13 &14 

Fort Morgan Beach Tract 10.60 Baldwin T. 9S, R. 2E, Sec. 27, Lots 54 & 55 

Fort Morgan Beach Tract 11.94 Baldwin T. 9S, R. 2E, Sec. 25, Lots 73 & 74 

Total Acreage of Tract Group 28.70 

Fort Morgan Highway Tracts 

 St. Stephens Meridian 

Fort Morgan Highway Tract 20.16 Baldwin 

T. 9S, R. 1E, Sec. 25, Lot 5 

T. 9S, R. 1E, Sec. 26, Lot 15 

Fort Morgan Highway Tract 8.88 Baldwin T. 9S, R. 2E, Sec. 28, Lot 43 

Fort Morgan Highway Tract 12.24 Baldwin 

T. 9S, R. 2E, Sec. 27, Lot 56 

T. 9S, R. 2E, Sec. 28, Lot 44 

Total Acreage of Tract Group 41.28 

Fowl River Tract 

 St. Stephens Meridian 

Fowl River Tract 41.73 Mobile T. 7S, R. 2W, Sec. 25, Lots 2–5 

Geneva County Tract 

 Tallahassee Meridian 

East Fork Choctawhatchee River Tract 0.95 Geneva T. 7N, R. 16W, Sec. 22, Lot 4 

Jordan Lake Tract 

 St. Stephens Meridian 

Jordan Lake Tract 4.3 Chilton T. 21N, R. 16E, Sec. 14, Lot 1 

Total Surface Estate in Alabama 159.10 

Mississippi 

Hancock County Tract 

 St. Stephens Meridian 

Hancock County 174.25 Hancock T. 9S, R. 15W, Sec. 25, Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 

SESE 

Total Surface Estate in Mississippi 174.25 

a The legal description is abbreviated according to a rectangular survey system in which T. 22N, R. 16E, Sec. 5, Lot 1 means 

that the area is located at Lot 1 of Section 5 in Township 22 North, Range 16 East, in the meridian specified above. 

Townships are divided into 36 numbered sections. A standard section comprises 1 square mile or 640 acres of land and 

consists of aliquot parts of sections (e.g., half section of 320 acres, quarter section of 160 acres, 16th section of 40 acres). 

The township number indicates how far in a given direction (north or south) of a surveyed parallel the township is located. 

The range number indicates how far in a given direction (east or west) of a surveyed meridian the township is located 

2-18 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Table 2-6. Alternatives for Coosa River Tracts (Maps 2-1a, 2-1b, 2-1c) 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) Alternative 4 

Vegetative Communities 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally-listed and other special status plant 

species and imperiled plant communities. 

Control noxious and invasive plant species. 

No specific management 

goals and objectives are 

proposed. 

Protect mature stands of mixed hardwood/pine 

overstory and a diversity of understory species. 

No specific management 

goals and objectives are 

proposed. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

No specific actions are 

proposed. 

Remove invasive species, such as mimosa (Albizia 

julibrissin Durazz L.) by hand and with selective, hand 

application of herbicide. No specific actions are 

proposed. 

Conduct baseline inventories for special status plants. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally-listed and other special status fish and 

wildlife species and their habitat. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

No specific actions are 

proposed. Monitor fledgling success of active bald eagle nests. No specific actions are proposed. 

Minerals 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Provide for leasing, exploration, and development of BLM-administered non-USFS FMO, while protecting other 

resource values. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tracts would be open 

to leasing, subject to 

standard lease terms and 

conditions. 

The tracts would be open 

to leasing and subject to 

standard lease terms and 

conditions and BMPs, 

except for an NSO 

stipulation of a 1,000-ft. 

buffer from aquatic 

habitats, and stipulations 

to protect bald eagle 

nesting and roosting 

habitat, as described in 

Appendix D. 

The tracts would be open to leasing and subject to 

standard lease terms and conditions and BMPs, except 

for an NSO stipulation of a 250-ft. buffer from aquatic 

habitats, and stipulations to protect bald eagle nesting 

and roosting habitat, as described in Appendix D. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Allow recreation use and travel compatible with other resource management objectives. 

Support water-based recreation opportunities consistent with the Coosa River Recreation Plan (Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission [FERC] Project Nos. 2146, 082 and 618). 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-19 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) Alternative 4 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tracts would remain 

open to recreation use. 

The tracts would be open to recreation use including fishing, picnicking, rest stops of 

boaters and canoeists, and wildlife observation. 

The tracts would remain 

open to motorized vehicle 

use. 

The tracts would be designated as closed. 

Lands and Realty 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage the land ownership pattern, withdrawal, and use of public lands to promote efficiency of management and 

protect important resource values. 

Make public lands available for purposes such as transportation routes or utilities, when consistent with other 

resource goals. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tracts would be 

retained by BLM. 

The tracts would be 

retained by BLM. BLM 

would pursue 

opportunities to manage 

the tracts in partnership 

with other agencies and 

organizations. 

The tracts would be 

available for disposal 

under the condition that 

uses would be consistent 

with the resource 

management goals and 

objectives and allowable 

uses and management 

actions established under 

this alternative. 

In the case of R&PP 

conveyance, use after 

disposal would be 

controlled through 

approval of and 

compliance with the plan 

of development. In the 

case of FLPMA disposal 

(e.g., sale), restrictive 

covenants would be 

required to protect 

sensitive resources. 

The tracts would be 

available for disposal from 

Federal ownership with no 

restrictive covenants. 

Disposal may not be 

allowed if they would 

jeopardize Federally-listed 

species. Land exchanges 

to benefit Federally-listed 

species would be 

permitted. 

The tracts would remain 

open to ROW 

applications. 

These island tracts would be avoidance areas for ROWs to protect native vegetative 

communities and adjacent aquatic habitat. 

2-20 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-21 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-22 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-23 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

Table 2-7. Alternatives for Fort Morgan Beach Tracts (Map 2-2) 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) Alternative 4 

Vegetative Communities 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally-listed and other special status plant 

species and imperiled plant communities. 

Control noxious and invasive plant species. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

No specific actions 

proposed. 

Promote establishment and retention of native coastal 

dune vegetative communities by planting native species 

and installing sand fence to protect existing dune 

habitat. No specific actions are 

proposed. 

Control invasive species through hand pulling, as 

needed. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally-listed and other special status fish and 

wildlife species and their habitat. 

No specific management 

goals and objectives are 

proposed. 

Maintain existing Fish and Wildlife Habitat diversity. 

Actively promote the recovery of Federally-listed 

species such as Alabama beach mouse, piping plover/ 

least turn, nesting sea turtles, and other special status 

species. 

No specific management 

goals and objectives are 

proposed. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

No specific actions are 

proposed. 

Construct protective two dune walk-over structures 

(approx. 300 feet each) and install sand fence to 

enhance and protect existing dune habitat. 

No specific actions are 

proposed. Reintroduce Alabama beach mice in suitable 

unoccupied habitat. 

Monitor sea turtle nesting and mark active nests for 

protection to maximize nestling survivorship. 

Minerals 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Provide for leasing, exploration, and development of BLM-administered non-USFS FMO, while protecting other 

resource values. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tracts would be open 

to leasing, subject to 

standard lease terms and 

conditions. 

The tracts would be 

closed to leasing to 

protect designated critical 

habitat for Alabama beach 

mouse. 

The tracts would be open to leasing and subject to 

standard lease terms and conditions and BMPs, except 

for an NSO stipulation (as described in Appendix D) to 

protect habitat for Alabama beach mouse, piping 

plover/least tern, and sea turtle nesting habitat. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Allow recreation use, beach access, and travel compatible with other resource management objectives. 

2-24 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) Alternative 4 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tracts would remain The tracts would be open to recreation compatible with habitat management 

open to recreation use. including use of the beach and saltwater fishing. 

The tracts would remain 

open to motorized vehicle The tracts would be designated as closed. 

use. 

Lands and Realty 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage the land ownership pattern, withdrawal, and use of public lands to promote efficiency of management and 

protect important resource values. 

Make public lands available for purposes such as transportation routes or utilities, when consistent with other 

resource goals. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

Lots 24 (Section 25), 13 

and 14 (Section 26), and 

54 and 55 (Section 27) 

(Table 2-1 and Map 2-2) 

would be retained by 

BLM. 

Lots 24 (Section 25), 13 

and 14 (Section 26), and 

54 and 55 (Section 27) 

would remain open to 

ROW applications. 

Lots 24 (Section 25), 13 

and 14 (Section 26), and 

54 and 55 (Section 27) 

(Table 2-1 and Map 2-2) 

would be retained by 

BLM. BLM would pursue 

opportunities to manage 

the tracts in partnership 

with USFWS and other 

agencies and 

organizations. 

Lots 24 (Section 25), 13 

and 14 (Section 26), and 

54 and 55 (Section 27) 

(Table 2-1 and Map 2-2) 

would be available for 

transfer to the Bon Secour 

National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR). 

Secondarily, the lots 

would be available for 

disposal under the 

condition that uses would 

be consistent with the 

resource management 

goals and objectives and 

allowable uses and 

management actions 

established under this 

alternative. 

In the case of R&PP 

conveyance, use would 

be controlled through 

approval of and 

compliance with the plan 

of development. In the 

case of FLPMA disposal 

(e.g., sale), restrictive 

covenants would be 

required to protect 

sensitive resources. 

The tracts would be 

available for disposal from 

Federal ownership with no 

restrictive covenants. 

Disposal may not be 

allowed if they would 

jeopardize Federally-listed 

species or designated 

critical habitat. Land 

exchanges to benefit 

Federally-listed species 

would be permitted. 

Lots 24 (Section 25), 13 and 14 (Section 26), and 54 and 55 (Section 27) would be 

avoidance areas for ROWs because of the presence of listed species and 

designated critical habitat. 

Lots 73 and 74 would be transferred to the USFWS as part of the Bon Secour NWR because they occur within the 

boundaries of the refuge. 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-25 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-26 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Table 2-8. Alternatives for Fort Morgan Highway Tracts (Map 2-3) 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) Alternative 4 

Vegetative Communities 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally-listed and other special status plant 

species and imperiled plant communities. 

Control noxious and invasive plant species. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

No specific actions 

proposed. 

Remove invasive species such as cogon grass and 

Chinese tallow using an integrated program of hand 

removal and selective, hand application of herbicide. No specific actions are 

proposed. 

Establish baseline inventories of special status plant 

species. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally-listed and other special status fish and 

wildlife species and their habitat. 

No specific management 

goals and objectives are 

proposed. 

Maintain existing fish and wildlife habitat diversity. 

Actively promote the recovery of the Federally-listed 

Alabama beach mouse and other endemic species, 

particularly migratory songbirds and raptors, using the 

flatwood, scrub, and wetland habitats occurring on 

these tracts. 

No specific management 

goals and objectives are 

proposed. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

No specific actions are 

proposed. 

Incorporate Lots 5 and 15 (29 acres) into future 

prescribed burns conducted on adjacent Bon Secour 

NWR land to improve habitat values for migratory birds 

and scrub endemics as needed, depending on resource 

conditions, and in cooperation with the FWS. 

No specific actions are 

proposed. 

Minerals 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Provide for leasing, exploration, and development of BLM-administered non-USFS FMO, while protecting other 

resource values. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tracts would be open 

to leasing and subject to 

standard lease terms and 

conditions. 

The tracts would be 

closed to leasing to 

protect designated critical 

habitat for Alabama beach 

mouse. 

The tracts would be open to leasing and subject to 

standard lease terms and conditions and BMPs, except 

for an NSO stipulation (as described in Appendix D) to 

protect habitat for Alabama beach mouse and a 250-ft. 

buffer from wetlands and aquatic habitat. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Allow recreation use compatible with other resource management objectives. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tracts would remain 

open to recreation use. 

The tracts would be open to recreation compatible with habitat management 

including sightseeing and hiking. 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-27 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) Alternative 4 

The tracts would remain 

open to motorized vehicle 

use. 

The tracts would be designated as closed. 

Lands and Realty 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage the land ownership pattern, withdrawal, and use of public lands to promote efficiency of management and 

protect important resource values. 

Make public lands available for purposes such as transportation routes or utilities, when consistent with other 

resource goals. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tracts would be 

retained by BLM. 

The tracts would be 

retained by BLM. BLM 

would pursue 

opportunities to manage 

the tracts in partnership 

with USFWS and other 

agencies and 

organizations. 

The tracts would be 

available for transfer to 

the Bon Secour NWR. 

Secondarily, the tracts 

would be available for 

disposal under the 

condition that uses would 

be consistent with the 

resource management 

goals and objectives and 

allowable uses and 

management actions 

established under this 

alternative. In the case of 

R&PP conveyance, use 

after disposal would be 

controlled through 

approval of and 

compliance with the plan 

of development. In the 

case of FLPMA disposal 

(e.g., sale), restrictive 

covenants would be 

required to protect 

sensitive resources. 

The tracts would be 

available for disposal from 

Federal ownership with no 

restrictive covenants. 

Disposal may not be 

allowed if they would 

jeopardize Federally-listed 

species or designated 

critical habitat. Land 

exchanges to benefit 

Federally-listed species 

would be permitted. 

The tracts would remain 

open to ROW 

applications. 

Existing facilities within the highway ROW corridor would be allowed. New 

disturbance would be avoided because of the presence of Federally-listed species 

and designated critical habitat. 

2-28 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-29 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

Table 2-9. Alternatives for Fowl River Tract (Map 2-4) 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) Alternative 4 

Vegetative Communities 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally-listed and other special status plant 

species and imperiled plant communities. 

Control noxious and invasive plant species. 

No specific goals and 

objectives are proposed. 

Promote establishment and retention of native wetland 

and flatwood plant communities. 

No specific goals and 

objectives are proposed. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

No specific actions 

proposed. 

Remove invasive species such as mimosa (Albizia 

julibrissin Durazz L.) by hand and with selective, hand 

application of herbicide. No specific actions are 

proposed. 

Establish baseline inventories to monitor plant 

communities. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally-listed and other special status fish and 

wildlife species and their habitat. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

No specific actions are 

proposed. Monitor fledgling success of active bald eagle nests. No specific actions are proposed. 

Minerals 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Provide for leasing, exploration, and development of BLM-administered non-USFS FMO, while protecting other 

resource values. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tract would be open 

to leasing and subject to 

standard lease terms and 

conditions. 

The tract would be open 

to leasing and subject to 

standard lease terms and 

conditions and BMPs, 

except for an NSO 

stipulation of a 1,000-ft. 

buffer from wetlands and 

aquatic habitat, and 

stipulations to protect bald 

eagle nesting and roosting 

habitat, as described in 

Appendix D. 

The tract would be open to leasing and subject to 

standard lease terms and conditions and BMPs, except 

for an NSO stipulation of a 250-ft. buffer from wetlands 

and aquatic habitat, and stipulations to protect bald 

eagle nesting and roosting habitat, as described in 

Appendix D. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Allow recreation use compatible with other resource management objectives. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tract would remain 

open to recreation use. 

The tract would be open to recreation use including access for fishing, canoeing and 

kayaking. 

2-30 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) Alternative 4 

The tract would remain 

open to motorized vehicle 

use. 

The tract would be designated as closed. 

Lands and Realty 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage the land ownership pattern, withdrawal, and use of public lands to promote efficiency of management and 

protect important resource values. 

Make public lands available for purposes such as transportation routes or utilities, when consistent with other 

resource goals. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tract would be 

retained by BLM. 

The tract would be 

retained by BLM. BLM 

would pursue 

opportunities to manage 

the tracts in partnership 

with other agencies and 

organizations. 

The tract would be 

available for disposal 

under the condition that 

uses would be consistent 

with the resource 

management goals and 

objectives and allowable 

uses and management 

actions established under 

this alternative. 

In the case of R&PP 

conveyance, use after 

disposal would be 

controlled through 

approval of and 

compliance with the plan 

of development. In the 

case of FLPMA disposal 

(e.g., sale), restrictive 

covenants would be 

required to protect 

sensitive resources. 

The tract would be 

available for disposal from 

Federal ownership with no 

restrictive covenants. 

Disposal may not be 

allowed if they would 

jeopardize Federally-listed 

species, associated with 

adjacent wetland/aquatic 

habitat. Land exchanges to 

benefit Federally-listed 

species would be 

permitted. 

The tract would remain 

open to ROW 

applications. 

The tract would be an avoidance area for ROWs to protect native vegetative 

communities and adjacent wetland/aquatic habitat. 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-31 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-32 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Table 2-10. Alternatives for Geneva Tract (Map 2-5) 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) Alternative 4 

Vegetative Communities 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally-listed and other special status plant 

species and imperiled plant communities. 

Control noxious and invasive plant species. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

No specific actions 

proposed. 

Monitor and remove 

invasive species, as 

needed. 

No specific actions are proposed. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally-listed and other special status fish and 

wildlife species and their habitat. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

No specific actions are 

proposed. 

Monitor changes in the 

tract that could affect Fish 

and Wildlife Habitat 

utilization. 

No specific actions are proposed. 

Minerals 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Provide for leasing, exploration, and development of BLM-administered non-USFS FMO, while protecting other 

resource values. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tract would be open to 

leasing and subject to 

standard lease terms and 

conditions. 

The tract would be open to 

leasing and subject to 

standard lease terms and 

conditions and BMPs, except 

for an NSO stipulation (as 

described in Appendix D) of a 

1,000-ft. buffer from aquatic 

habitat. 

The tract would be open to leasing and subject to standard 

lease terms and conditions and BMPs, except for an NSO 

stipulation (as described in Appendix D) of a 250-ft. buffer 

from aquatic habitat. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Allow recreation use compatible with other resource management objectives. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tract would remain 

open to recreation use. 

The tract would be open to recreation use including canoeing, kayaking and fishing. 

The tract would remain 

open to motorized vehicle 

use. 

The tract would be designated as closed. 

Lands and Realty 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage the land ownership pattern, withdrawal, and use of public lands to promote efficiency of management and 

protect important resource values. 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-33 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) Alternative 4 

Make public lands available for purposes such as transportation routes or utilities, when consistent with other 

resource goals. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tract would be 

retained by BLM. 

The tract would be 

retained by BLM. BLM 

would pursue 

opportunities to manage 

the tracts in partnership 

with other agencies and 

organizations. 

The tract would be available for disposal from Federal 

ownership. 

The tract would remain 

open to ROW 

applications. 

The tract would be a ROW avoidance area because it is in a floodplain and critical 

habitat for Gulf sturgeon. 

2-34 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-35 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

Table 2-11. Alternatives for Jordan Lake Tract (Map 2-6) 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) Alternative 4 

Vegetative Communities 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally-listed and other special status plant 

species and imperiled plant communities. 

Control noxious and invasive plant species. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

No specific actions proposed. 

Monitor and remove invasive 

species, such as mimosa, 

Chinese tallow, and cogon 

grass, as needed, by hand 

and with selective, hand 

application of herbicide. 

No specific actions are proposed. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally-listed and other special status fish and 

wildlife species and their habitat. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

No specific actions are 

proposed. 

Conduct inventory of fish 

and wildlife and special 

status species to establish 

baseline diversity. 

No specific actions are proposed. 

Minerals 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Provide for leasing, exploration, and development of BLM-administered non-USFS FMO, while protecting other 

resource values. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tract would be open 

to leasing and subject to 

standard lease terms and 

conditions. 

The tract would be open 

to leasing and subject to 

standard lease terms and 

conditions and BMPs, 

except for an NSO 

stipulation (as described 

in Appendix D) of a 1,000-

ft. buffer from aquatic 

habitat. 

The tract would be open to leasing and subject to 

standard lease terms and conditions and BMPs, except 

for an NSO stipulation (as described in Appendix D) of 

a 250-ft. buffer from aquatic habitat. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Allow recreation use compatible with other resource management objectives. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tract would remain 

open to recreation use. 

The tract would be open to recreation use including access to Jordan Lake for 

swimming and fishing. 

The tract would remain 

open to motorized vehicle 

use. 

The tract would be designated as limited. Motorized vehicle use would be limited to 

State or county maintained roads or other transportation routes specifically 

designated by a BLM-issued ROW. Other motorized vehicle access would be limited 

to administrative use and emergency response. 

2-36 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) Alternative 4 

Lands and Realty 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage the land ownership pattern, withdrawal, and use of public lands to promote efficiency of management and 

protect important resource values. 

Make public lands available for purposes such as transportation routes or utilities, when consistent with other 

resource goals. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tract would be 

retained by BLM. 

The tract would be 

retained by BLM. BLM 

would pursue 

opportunities to manage 

the tract in partnership 

with other agencies and 

organizations. 

The tract would be available for disposal from Federal 

ownership. 

The tract would remain 

open to ROW 

applications. 

The tract would be open for ROWs due to adjacent development and uses. ROWs 

would be collocated if possible. 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-37 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-38 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Table 2-12. Alternatives for Hancock County, Mississippi, Tract 1 (Map 2-7) 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) Alternative 4 

Vegetative Communities 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally-listed and other special status plant 

species and imperiled plant communities. 

Control noxious and invasive plant species. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

No specific actions are 

proposed. 

Monitor for early detection of invasive plant species 

such as cogon grass and Chinese tallow. If detected, 

invasive species would be removed by hand or through 

selective, hand application of herbicide. 

No specific actions are 

proposed. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally-listed and other special status fish and 

wildlife species and their habitat. 

No specific goals and 

objectives are proposed. 

Protect and enhance the estuarine coastal wetland 

marshes in support of the Mississippi Coastal Preserve 

System. 

No specific goals and 

objectives are proposed. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

No specific actions are 

proposed. 

Prescribed burns would be used, as needed, 

depending on resource conditions, and in cooperation 

with the State of Mississippi to promote marsh health. 

No specific actions are 

proposed. 

Minerals 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Provide for leasing, exploration, and development of BLM-administered non-USFS FMO, while protecting other 

resource values. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tract would be open 

to leasing and subject to 

standard lease terms and 

conditions. 

The tract would be open to leasing and subject to standard lease terms and 

conditions and BMPs, except for an NSO stipulation (as described in Appendix D) for 

protection of Hancock County Marshes. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Allow recreation use compatible with other resource management objectives. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tract would remain 

open to motorized vehicle 

use. 

The tract would be open to recreation use including fishing and waterfowl hunting. 

The tract would remain 

open to recreation use, 

including motorized 

vehicle use. 

The tract would be designated as limited to motorized boats in areas of open water. 

Other motorized vehicle use would be limited to administrative use and emergency 

response. 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-39 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) Alternative 4 

Lands and Realty 

Management Goals and Objectives 

Manage the land ownership pattern, withdrawal, and use of public lands to promote efficiency of management and 

protect important resource values. 

Make public lands available for purposes such as transportation routes or utilities, when consistent with other 

resource goals. 

Allowable Uses and Management Actions 

The tract would be 

retained by BLM. 

The tract would be retained by BLM. BLM would pursue 

opportunities to manage the tract in partnership with 

other agencies and organizations. 

The tract would be 

available for disposal from 

Federal ownership with no 

restrictive covenants. 

Disposal may not be 

allowed if they would 

jeopardize Federally-listed 

species, associated with 

wetland/aquatic habitat. 

Land exchanges to benefit 

Federally-listed species 

would be permitted. 

The tract would remain 

open to ROW 

applications. 

The tract would be an avoidance area for ROWs to protect wetland habitat. 

1 These allowable uses and management actions would not occur unless the R&PP patent were to revert to BLM. 

2-40 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-41 
Chapter 2 

Table 2-13. Comparison of Impacts For Alabama 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

Air Quality 

Wildfire could lead to air emissions. Suppression of all fires would result in short term localized impacts, but not anticipated to deteriora

Impacts wouAlternative 1

Although more management actions are proposed for the surface tracts (159 Management actions on the surface Coosa Riveracres), including vegetation and fish and wildlife habitat treatments, these tracts (159 acres), including potential Fowl River, aactions would not be anticipated to deteriorate air quality conditions. ROW development and recreation total of 114 aSince the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a and travel use, would not be surface owntotal of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) would be anticipated to deteriorate air quality avoidance amanaged as avoidance areas, there would be less potential for emissions conditions. decreased passociated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. associated w

compared to 

Estimated emissions from development of 20 oil and gas wells on non-USFS FMO would be responsible for less than one percent of e

development across Alabama for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Sulfer Dioxide (SO2), Particulate Matter (PM10), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and 

Compounds (VOCs). Those emissions would likely occur over a dispersed area and would not cause any noticeable or measurable effPotential oil and gas development on some non-USFS FMO tracts would be in close proximity to the Sipsey Wilderness and the Birminarea. Oil and gas emissions in those tracts could impact wilderness air quality values and jeopardize attainment of ambient air quality. emissions. air quality impacts would not be anticipated. 

Estimated emissions from 1.9 million tons of Federal coal produced annually over the next 20 years would be responsible for less than from other mineral development in the Black Warrior Coal Basin for NOx, SO2, PM10, CO, and VOCs. 

Soil Resources 

Management actions on the surface tracts (159 acres), including potential ROW development and recreation and travel use, could impact soils through vegetation clearing activities and ground disturbance. Wind and water erosion, and subsequent loss in soil productivity would occur in disturbed areas where revegetation does not occur. These effects would be localized and short term in areas where revegetation is enhanced or permitted. The effect would be long term but localized if roads or structures were constructed on the 

Management actions proposed for the surface tracts (159 acres), such as removing invasive species and conducting prescribed fire, could increase site-specific erosion in the short term. Sand deposition would be facilitated by planting native coastal dune vegetation as part of dune restoration activities after damage by major storms. Over the long term, improving vegetation communities and fish and wildlife habitat would reduce erosion and overland flows. Since the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva 

Impacts from management actions proposed for the surface tracts (159 acres) would be the same as Alternative 2, except disposing the surface tracts from Federal ownership could increase the chances for subsequent development and associated impacts on soils. However, following disposal, development and use of the tract would be consistent with RMP objectives, which would prevent disposal-related impacts from occurring. 

Impacts wouAlternative 1Coosa RiverFowl River, atotal of 114 asurface ownavoidance adecreased passociated wcompared to Disposal the Federal owncould increasubsequent 

2-42 Al
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

tracts. tracts (a total of 114 acres or 71 

percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) would be managed as avoidance areas, there would be less potential for ground disturbance and increased erosion associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. 

associated imSubsequent tracts could from vegetatand construcwhich could and erosion. 

Oil and gas development could result in both a slight decline in soil productivity and an increase in surface runoff. Cut and fill areas to support well pads and access routes can contribute to local soil erosion. Except for 8,179 acres closed to leasing by other surface managing agencies, non-USFS FMO would be open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions (305,640 acres). The estimated development of 20 wells in Alabama over the next 20 years would disturb approximately 105 non-USFS FMO acres. Required reclamation by Federal and State laws and the minimal surface that might be disturbed would produce only localized effects on soils. Operation of the oil and gas wells could also impact the surrounding soils by potential contamination from accidental spills or improper management of hazardous materials or waste; however, Federal, State, and local regulations would require site characterization and corrective action to restore soil integrity and productivity. 

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated impacts on 105 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. Applying the stipulations in Appendix D would increase the area where seasonal, CSU (91,702 acres), and NSO (94,589 acres) restrictions would be implemented, which reduces disturbance to soils within the protected areas. 

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and assacres would be the same as Alternative 1. Applying thAppendix D would increase the area where seasonaland NSO (43,239 acres) restrictions would be implemreduce disturbance to soils within the protected areasthe 1,000-foot NSO area around aquatic habitats idenwould be reduced to 250-feet, which would reduce prthese areas. In most cases, this buffer is expected to activities from increasing erosion to the point that seddrainages and wetlands increases. In areas with slopadditional measures may be needed to stabilize distu

Future coal development is not anticipated to disturb the surface; therefore, impacts to soils are not anticipated. 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Chapter 2 

Alternative 1 

(No Actio

n) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

Water Resources 

Management actions on the surface tracts (159 acres), including potential ROW development and recreation and travel use, could result in short term and site-specific increases in erosion and surface run-off, 

which 

increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases 

water quality. Impacts 

would be short term in areas 

where 

revegetation was enhanced or permitted. The effect 

would be long 

term but localized if roads or structures were constructed on the tracts. 

Management actions proposed for the surface tracts (159 acres), such as removing invasive species and conducting prescribed fire, could increase sitespecific erosion, 

which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases 

water quality in the short term. Over the long term, improving vegetation communities 

would reduce erosion and overland flo

ws. 

Since the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a total of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface o

wnership in Alabama) 

would be 

managed as avoidance areas, there 

would be less potential for ground 

disturbance and increased erosion associated 

with ROW development 

compared to Alternative 1. No coastal 

wetland habitats or 

water bodies occur 

on or adjacent to the Fort Morgan High

way tracts. Development of additional 

transportation routes and RO

W on the Jordan Lake tract could contribute to 

the already degrading 

water quality of the Coosa River. 

Impacts 

wou

Alternative 1Coosa RiverFowl River, atotal of 114 asurface o

wn

avoidance adecreased pwater resourROW develoAlternative 1

Except for 8,179 acres closed to leasing by other surface managing agencies, non-USF

S F

MO 

would be 

open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions (305,640 acres). The estimated development of 20 

wells in Alabama over the next 

20 years 

would disturb approximately 

105 non-U

SFS F

MO acres. Required 

reclamation by Federal and State la

ws and the minimal surface that 

might be disturbed 

would produce 

only localized effects on 

water 

resources. Oil and gas development could result in surface run-off, which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases 

water quality. Leakage of 

drill fluids, hazardous 

waste spills, or 

leakage from reserve pits could be introduced into the ground 

water as 

well. Additionally, access roads and well pads can alter the local hydrology reducing surface flow to mesic areas and diverting or 

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated impacts on 105 acres 

would be the same as 

Alternative 1. A 1,000-foot NSO buffer around aquatic habitats and applying the stipulations in Appendix D 

would increase the area 

where 

seasonal, CSU (91,702 acres), and NSO (94,589 acres) restrictions would be implemented, 

which 

would 

reduce disturbance to 

water 

resources within the protected areas. This stipulation could be applied to an estimated 90,930 acres or 29 percent of the non-USF

S F

MO 

available for leasing in Alabama. In most cases, this buffer is expected to prevent construction activities from increasing the sedimentation of local drainages and wetlands. 

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and assacres 

would be the same as Alternative 1. Applying th

Appendix D 

would increase the area 

where seasonal

and NSO (43,239 acres) restrictions 

would be implem

reduce disturbance to 

water resources within the prot

alternative, the 1,000-foot NSO area around aquatic hAlternative 2 

would be reduced to 250-feet, which 

wo

occur in close proximity to 

water resources and the p

occur. In most cases, this buffer is expected to prevefrom increasing the sedimentation of local drainages with slopes over 25 percent, additional measures may disturbed soils above 

wetlands or aquatic habitats to 

impacted by increased sedimentation. 

2-44 Al
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

degrading surface water. Because surface discharge of produced water would be a permitted activity requiring standards of water quality, direct impacts to water quality from the disposal of water produced from oil and gas production on nonUSFS FMO would be minimized. Coal development in the Warrior Basin would involve mining of existing underground coal mines, which would further increase the potecontamination. Migration of contaminants into the surrounding soils and aquifers could degrade groundwater quality and thereby affect 

may serve household and domestic uses. 

Vegetative Communities 

Management actions on the surface tracts (159 acres) could result in surface-disturbing activities that would impact vegetative communities. These actions would result in vegetation-clearing and disturbance associated with construction, which could alter vegetation communities. Wind and water erosion in disturbed areas could impede the regrowth of vegetation, allow noxious weeds to grow, and potentially deteriorate aquatic habitats. Retaining surface tracts in Federal ownership would continue the application of protective measures provided by Federal law and agency policies that would provide adequate protection of vegetation. 

Impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be reduced under this alternative compared to Alternative 1 due to limitation on motorized recreation, managing for native vegetation and habitat, and managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts as avoidance areas for ROW. Impacts from retaining surface tracts in Federal ownership and pursuing partnerships to provide management would more directly benefit vegetation by restoring and maintaining continuity and composition of habitat than anticipated under Alternative 1. 

Impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be the same as Alternative 2. Impacts from disposing surface tracts out of Federal ownership consistent with resource management objectives would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Impacts from activities woAlternative 1Disposing suFederal ownfor managemdisposal coufor subsequeassociated imSuch develoand fragmencommunitiespopulations to habitat modegradation. 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Chapter 2 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

The estimated 20 wells to be developed in Alabama over the life of this plan would disturb approximately 105 non-USFS FMO acres. Although 305,640 acres are open to leasing, the potential is low for impacts to sensitive vegetation communities because leasing stipulations would be developed as appropriate to protect for vegetation. 

Impacts from fluid mineral leasing management actions on split estate would be the same as Alternative 1. However, Alternative 2 uses more stringent leasing stipulations in managing all non-USFS FMO. Additional protections would be applied to 91,702 acres managed as CSU, 94,589 acres as NSO, and 8,297 acres closed to leasing. 

Impacts under Alternatives 3 and 4 would be similar texcept buffers for aquatic species and protections of habitat would be reduced. Stipulations would be applmanaged as CSU, 43,239 acres as NSO, and 8,179 a

Future coal development is not anticipated to disturb the surface; therefore, impacts to vegetative communities are not anticipated. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Management actions on the surface tracts (159 acres) could result in surface-disturbing activities. These actions would result in vegetationclearing activities and disturbance associated with construction, which could displace wildlife and alter vegetation, habitat, and forage components important to wildlife in localized areas. This could impair species viability and reduce habitat quality for a variety of species. Wind and water erosion in disturbed areas could impede the regrowth of vegetation, allow noxious weeds to grow, and potentially deteriorate aquatic habitats. Retaining surface tracts in Federal ownership would continue the application of protective measures provided by Federal law and agency policies that would provide adequate protection of wildlife habitat. 

Impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be reduced under this alternative compared to Alternative 1 due to limitation on motorized recreation, managing for existing wildlife diversity and undertaking actions to manage for sensitive wildlife species, and managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts as avoidance areas for transportation project ROWs. Impacts from retaining surface tracts in Federal ownership and pursuing partnerships to provide management would more directly benefit wildlife by restoring and maintaining continuity and composition of habitat than anticipated under Alternative 1. 

Impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be the same as Alternative 2. Impacts from disposing surface tracts out of Federal ownership consistent with resource management objectives would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Impacts from activities woAlternative 1Disposing suFederal ownfor managemdisposal coufor subsequeassociated imSuch develoand fragmensmall, isolatemore vulneramodification 

2-46 Al
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

The estimated 20 wells to be developed in Alabama over the life of this plan would disturb approximately 105 non-USFS FMO acres. Although 305,640 acres are open to leasing, the potential is low for impacts to sensitive wildlife because leasing stipulations would be developed as appropriate to protect wildlife. 

Impacts from mineral leasing management actions on split estate would be the same as Alternative 1. However, Alternative 2 uses more stringent leasing stipulations in managing all non-USFS FMO with exception, waiver, and modification criteria applied as determined through agency direction. Additional protections would be applied to 91,702 acres managed as CSU, 94,589 acres as NSO, and 8,297 acres closed to leasing. 

Impacts under Alternatives 3 and 4 would be similar texcept buffers for aquatic species and protections of habitat would be reduced. Stipulations would be applmanaged as CSU, 43,239 acres as NSO, and 8,179 a

Special Status Species 

Lack of specific areas and species being managed could increase the potential for exotic, invasive species to become established or spread on BLM surface tracts. Cogon grass at the Fort Morgan Highway tracts, in particular, has the potential to alter Alabama beach mouse critical habitat as it forms dense stands displacing native herbaceous plants and potentially increasing fire frequency and intensity. The coastal dune habitat associated with the Fort Morgan beach tracts would continue to be trampled at traditional beach access points damaging habitat for Alabama beach mouse. Dispersed recreation use of the Coosa River tracts has the potential to cause bald eagles to abandon nest sites. Retaining the surface tracts in Federal ownership would continue the application of protective measures provided by Federal law and agency policies that would 

Alabama beach mouse and nesting shore birds would benefit from plantings of native coastal dune vegetation on the Fort Morgan beach tracts after damaging storms. These plantings promote sand deposition and help to reestablish the dunes more quickly. On the Fowl River, Coosa River, and Fort Morgan Highway tracts, woody exotic, invasive species such as Chinese tallow and Chinese privet would be removed by hand and stump treated with approved herbicides. Alabama beach mouse and nesting shore birds at the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would benefit from the installation of two dune walk-overs which would eliminate damaging foot traffic, and allow dunes and vegetation to recover at traditional public access areas at Veterans Road and Mobile Road. Impacts from retaining surface tracts in Federal ownership and pursuing partnerships to provide management 

Impacts from surface tract management, including vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat, would be the same as Alternative 2. Under this alternative, the Geneva and Jordon Lake tracts would be transferred out of Federal ownership without conditions. These tracts are adjacent to Gulf sturgeon critical habitat, but no changes of use are anticipated if it were transferred to private ownership that would affect critical habitat. 

Impacts from managemencommunities habitat, wouAlternative 1The transfer tracts to privto result in loAlabama beplover, snowas well as poAlabama reddevelopmenwould result occupied critAlabama beof the Fort Mare likely to important scas critical haMorgan Beaare designatUSFWS woutaking permiprocess of thtransfers cou

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Chapter 2 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

provide adequate protection of special status species. 

would more directly benefit special status species by restoring and maintaining continuity and composition of habitat than anticipated under Alternative 1. 

Oil and gas development on nonUSFS FMO in Alabama is expected to result in the disturbance of 105 acres of habitat, any of which could occur in areas supporting special status species. Impacts to special status species could include the direct loss of habitat and/or degradation of aquatic or wetland habitats for the Alabama beach mouse, loggerhead sea turtle, piping plover, snowy plover, Wilson’s plover, gopher tortoise, Red-cockaded woodpecker, bald eagle, and special status fish species. Section 7 consultations with the USFWS would be required prior to BLM permitting any action that could adversely affect these Federally-listed species or designated habitat, and subsequent actions would comply with the conditions established by any subsequent biological opinions (BOs). 

Although the number of wells (20) and acres disturbed (105) would remain the same under this alternative, lease stipulations would shift surface-disturbing activities away from sensitive habitats with potential to support special status species. The coastline and all critical habitat for the Alabama beach mouse, including upland scrub sites, would be excluded from leasing. This would avoid potential impacts to Alabama beach mouse, nesting sea turtles, piping plover and other coastal special status species, including least tern, American oystercatcher, and Wilson’s plover. 

Impacts from mineral development would be the samthe aquatic and wetland buffer would be reduced to 2slopes exceed 10 percent, the buffer could be extendprovide adequate protection. In most cases, this buffeconstruction activities from increasing the sedimentatand wetlands. The coastal no lease areas would be rNSO buffer. This change could affect nesting sea turtcritical habitat for Alabama beach mouse, including ahabitats. Although no surface disturbance would occuBLM surface tracts, offsite directional drilling to target would be permitted under this alternative. 

Wildland Fire and Ecology 

Fire response and fuels treatments would apply to the 159 acres of BLM-administered surface land. Wildland fire management would mpublic safety, and developments in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and to natural resource values. Allowing prescribed burning on a would allow for a reduction in hazardous fuel conditions, improving ability to suppress wildfires while maintaining disturbance levels to wcommunities have adapted. 

2-48 Al
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

Allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives and habitat improvements under standard management common to all alternatives would maintain natural fuel conditions across the surface tracts. This would maintain natural disturbance regimes and decrease the frequency and intensity of wildland fires and allow fires to be more easily controlled. Dispersed recreation use would introduce additional ignition sources through human use of natural environments, which could increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. This would be more prevalent in areas that are more accessible. While ROW actions could increase suppression costs, the aspects of ROW related to vegetation clearing and the potential for increased accessibility could reduce suppression costs. 

Vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat management actions, such as removing invasive species and conducting prescribed fire, on the surface tracts would reduce the potential for changes in the vegetation communities from invasive species. As a result, the natural fire regimes would be maintained or restored. This would improve the ability to manage wildland fire in its natural role through application of prescribed fires. The potential for increased wildland fire occurrence would decrease compared to Alternative 1 because travel on the surface tracts would be designated as closed or limited to motorized travel. Since the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts would be managed as avoidance areas (a total of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama), there would be less potential for wildfire impacts associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. 

Impacts from and fish and managemensame as AlteImpacts from and travel mwould be the If tracts were Federal ownfor suppresseliminated, dcosts in wild

Development of 20 oil and gas wells introduces additional ignitions sources throughout the non-USFS FMO, increasing the potential of wildland fire occurrence and introducing infrastructure that requires protection in wildland fire events. Disturbance associated with development could provide increased accessibility for fire suppression equipment, and provide fuel breaks. These impacts would not occur on the 8,179 acres closed to oil and gas development. 

Impacts from minerals management would be the same as Alternative 1, except impacts would not occur on the 94,589 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (8,297 acres). 

Impacts from minerals management would be the samexcept impacts would not occur on the 43,239 acres areas where development would be precluded (8,179 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Chapter 2 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

Cultural Resources 

BLM would continue to protect cultural resources from disturbance, damage, or loss from authorized uses through project avoidance odata recovery if necessary. As inventories are conducted, more cultural sites would be identified. Inventories and adherence to law, rewould protect most cultural sites; however, inadvertent damage of undiscovered sites would remain a possibility. 

Dispersed recreation and standard vegetation treatments could result in inadvertent damage to cultural resources. Ground-disturbing activities associated with ROW construction and maintenance could impact cultural resources. Retaining surface tracts in Federal ownership (whether BLM administered or USFWS administered) would provide protection of cultural resource sites and preserve the setting of sites. 

Vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat management would increase impacts to cultural resources due to implementing vegetation treatments to reduce invasive species and improve habitat. Limiting or closing motorized vehicle use on the surface tracts would increase protection of cultural sites. Impacts from retaining surface tracts in Federal ownership (BLM or USFWS) would be the same as Alternative 1. Managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts as avoidance areas for transportation and ROW would reduce the potential for impacts to cultural sites in these areas. 

Impacts from surface tract management--including vegetative communities, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and ROW management actions--would be the same as Alternative 2. Making surface tracts available for disposal from Federal ownership could result in the removal of cultural properties from Federal ownership and the associated protections by laws, regulations and policies. However, applying conditions and restrictive covenants on management and use after disposal, damage to previously undetected cultural resources could be mitigated. 

Impacts from and fish and managemensame as AlteImpacts from and travel mwould be the Making the CBeach (Lots Fort Morgan Geneva, and available for ownership coof cultural prownership aprotections bpolicies. Disany specified increase the loss of previresources af

Minerals management actions could impact cultural resources. An appropriate level of cultural resource survey would need to be conducted prior to disturbance. Cultural resources on 8,179 non-USFS FMO acres closed to oil and gas leasing would be protected from oil and gas development. 

Cultural resources on 8,297 nonUSFS FMO acres closed to oil and gas leasing would be protected from oil and gas development, as would cultural sites on 94,589 non-USFS FMO acres managed for NSO. 

Cultural resources on 8,179 non-USFS FMO acres clleasing would be protected from oil and gas developmsites on 43,239 non-USFS FMO acres managed for N

Based on the RFD, production of 37.6 million tons of coal from pre-existing underground mines over 20 years would not result in new stherefore, no impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated from coal development. 

2-50 Al
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

Visual Resources 

Allowing recreation activities including motorized vehicle use on the surface tracts could result in decreased visual quality over time. If existing utility and road ROWs that bisect the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts were expanded or otherwise modified, visual quality would be diminished through increased use of these ROWs. 

Actions to improve vegetation communities and wildlife habitat would temporarily diminish visual quality; however, visual quality would be improved in the long term. Limiting motorized vehicle use on the surface tracts could diminish impacts described in Alternative 1. Managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts as avoidance areas for ROWs would help to retain the visual quality of the area by reducing the potential for development activities to occur in these areas. Managing the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts as available for ROW corridors could diminish the visual quality of these areas. 

Impacts from limiting motorized vehicle use and actions to improve vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat would be the same as Alternative 2. Although the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach (Lots 13, 14, 24, 54, and 55), Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership, visual quality would be protected. 

Impacts from and travel mwould be the Making the CBeach (Lots Fort Morgan Geneva, and available for ownership coquality, if the subsequentl

Mineral leasing and subsequent development in could result in the removal of vegetation; construction of access roads, well pads, and other infrastructure; introduction of drilling equipment; and associated dust emissions. These effects would all diminish the visual quality of the area. 

Mineral leasing and subsequent development in could result in the removal of vegetation; construction of access roads, well pads, and other infrastructure; introduction of drilling equipment; and associated dust emissions. These effects would all diminish the visual quality of the area. Closed and NSO stipulations on 33 percent of the non-USFS FMO would prevent these impacts. 

Mineral leasing and subsequent development in could vegetation; construction of access roads, well pads, aintroduction of drilling equipment; and associated duseffects would all diminish the visual quality of the areastipulations on 16 percent of the non-USFS FMO wouimpacts. 

Minerals 

No impacts to oil and gas development would be anticipated from management of surface tracts. This alternative would have the least restrictions on oil and gas exploration and development, with more than 96 percent (305,6640 acres) of nonUSFS FMO open to leasing, subject 

Applying the conservation measures as lease stipulations and BMPs (Appendix D) could also increase exploration and development costs. This alternative would be the most 

Applying the conservation measures as lease stipulat(Appendix D) could also increase exploration and devCompared to Alternative 2, lease stipulations would bthis alternative, with approximately 14 percent (43,23FMO open to leasing, subject to major constraints an

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Chapter 2 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

to the standard lease terms and conditions. The remaining 8,179 acres (approximately 4 percent) would be closed to leasing due to restrictions placed by other Federal surface management agencies. Oil and gas leasing stipulations would support development of the anticipated 20 wells on non-USFS FMO over the next 20 years. 

restrictive on oil and gas exploration and development, with 30 percent (94,589 acres) of non-USFS FMO open to leasing, subject to major constraints and approximately 3 percent (8,297 acres) closed to leasing. The remaining 208,841 acres would be open to leasing, subject to the standard lease terms and conditions (37 percent of nonUSFS FMO) or open to leasing, subject to minor constraints (29 percent of non-USFS FMO). Oil and gas leasing stipulations would support development of the anticipated 20 wells on non-USFS FMO over the next 20 years. 

(8,179 acres) closed to leasing. The remaining 260,0to leasing, subject to the standard lease terms and conon-USFS FMO) or open to leasing, subject to minor of non-USFS FMO). Oil and gas leasing stipulations wdevelopment of the anticipated 20 wells on non-USFS years. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Although Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would be transferred to USFWS, these lots would remain within the boundarieNWR (where they are currently, but are not managed by the USFWS). Allowing motorized travel uses on all surface tracts could result in conflicts between motorized recreationists and recreationists seeking a more natural setting or experience. If existing ROW that bisect the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts were expanded or otherwise modified, the recreation experience would be diminished. Retaining the surface tracts in Federal ownership would maintain access to recreational activity. 

Actions to improve vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat would temporarily diminish the recreation experience. The recreation experience would be improved in the long term. Continuing to allow recreation use on the surface tracts would result in impacts similar to those described under Alternative 1. However, since motorized vehicle use would be limited or closed, more nonmotorized recreation opportunities would be increased while there could be a loss of motorized recreation opportunities. Impacts from retaining the surface tracts in Federal ownership would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Impacts from surface tract management--including vegetative communities, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and ROW management actions--would be the same as Alternative 2. Impacts from retaining the surface tracts in Federal ownership would be similar to Alternative 1. Although the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach (Lots 13, 14, 24, 54, and 55), Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership, recreational settings would be protected, although access could be reduced if not specifically included in the conditions for use or restrictive covenants. 

Impacts from and fish and managemensame as AlteImpacts from and travel mwould be the Making the CBeach (Lots Fort Morgan Geneva, and available for ownership corecreational 

2-52 Al
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

Managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts as avoidance areas for ROWs would help retain recreational opportunities. Making the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts available for utility and road ROW corridors could diminish the quality of the recreation experience. 

Since approximately 105 acres of vegetation removal and construction activities would result from the development of 20 oil and gas wells on non-USFS FMO there could be a decrease in nature-based recreational opportunities due to conflicts with the developments. However, stipulations could indirectly protect the recreational resources in areas where development would be precluded (8,179 acres). 

Impacts from minerals management would be the same as Alternative 1, except stipulations could indirectly protect the recreational resources on the 94,589 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (8,297 acres). 

Impacts from minerals management would be the samexcept stipulations could indirectly protect the recreatresources on the 43,239 acres managed as NSO and development would be precluded (8,179 acres). 

Lands and Realty 

Transferring Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts to the USFWS as part of the Bon Secour NWR would facilitate Federal maKeeping the 159 acres of the surface tracts open to ROW applications would not impact the lands and realty program. Retaining the surface tracts under BLM administration would not allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or non-Federal ownership. 

Managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership) as avoidance areas for ROWs could impose design and siting requirements and associated costs on new ROW or amended or renewed ROW at existing sites. There would be an increased potential for requests for new or amended and renewed ROW at existing sites to be denied. Making the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts available for ROW would accommodate access and efficient energy supply, and minimize 

ROW management actions and associated impacts to lands and realty would be the same as Alternative 2. The Coosa River and Fowl River tracts would be available for disposal with conditions. This would allow opportunities for other Federal agency or non-Federal ownership, but would restrict future use of the tracts. All of the Fort Morgan Beach and Fort Morgan Highway tracts would be available for transfer to the USFWS as part of the Bon Secour NWR. This would facilitate Federal management of the tracts, but would 

ROW managassociated imrealty would Alternative 2The Coosa RBeach, Fort Fowl River trfor disposal with no restrwould allow Federal ageownership wconditions ohowever, disallowed if it wFederally-lis

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Chapter 2 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

additional costs. Retaining the surface tracts under BLM administration and pursuing partnerships with other agencies and organizations could allow for management opportunities for other agencies and organizations, but would not allow for non-Federal ownership opportunities. 

not allow opportunities for other Federal agency or non-Federal ownership. The Geneva and Jordan Lake tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership, which would allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or nonFederal ownership without specified conditions on future use of the tracts. 

designated ccould limit soGeneva and would be avFederal ownallow for oppFederal ageownership wconditions o

Social and Economic 

Recreation and travel, fish and wildlife habitat, and vegetative communities management actions would not cause changes in the economic characteristics (employment, income, and industries) or quality of social assets (housing, education, values and attitudes). BLM lands would remain in Federal ownership. Lands and realty actions would not cause changes in the socioeconomic characteristics. 

This alternative includes active invasive species management on three BLM land tracts. Impacts from these actions on the economic indicators would not be anticipated from these types of vegetation management actions. Stakeholders who value the protection of native vegetation and habitats will likely prefer this alternative over the other alternatives. Socioeconomic impacts from recreation and travel, lands and realty, and fish and wildlife management actions would be the same as those under Alternative 1 since minimal changes are anticipated. 

Impacts from surface tract management--including vegetative communities, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation and travel management actions--would be the same as Alternative 2. Under Alternative 3, a portion of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would be transferred to the USFWS and a number of dispersed BLM surface land tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership with specified conditions on management and use after disposal to meet prescribed resource objectives. Since the types of activities on these lands are not likely to change considerably, there would be minimum impact to socioeconomic characteristics under this alternative. However, stakeholders who feel that the retention of Federal ownership is important to maintain preservationist and open space values might be negatively impacted by this alternative. 

Recreation awildlife habitcommunities would not caeconomic ch(employmenor quality of education, vUnder AlternFort Morgan transferred tnumber of dland tracts wdisposal from without condand use aftedevelopmenthese properthe property counties wouthe Federal Taxes, econcounties and that the privatracts could employment areas. Sociahousing, eduare not expethe minimal 

2-54 Al
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

Stakeholderretention of Fimportant to and open spnegatively imalternative. Tfeel the deveis a better uslands would alternative. 

Since only 20 fluid mineral wells would likely be drilled with standard lease terms and conditions over the 20-year planning period, there would be minimal economic impacts from these activities. There would be minimal changes -- a potential slight increase in employment or income as compared with the current situation. Social indicators such as housing, education, and cost of living would not be anticipated to change under this alternative. Attitudes and values of some stakeholders are likely to be impacted by this alternative. 

The same number of wells and acres of surface disturbance are anticipated under this alternative. This alternative provides for the most environmental stipulations on oil and gas leasing of these minerals. Economic and social indicators are likely to be similar to those under Alternative 1. There will be some impacts to stakeholders: stakeholders who believe that oil and gas leasing conditions should be imposed on development and production to mitigate environmental impacts would prefer this alternative to other alternatives; and the oil and gas industry and other stakeholders who believe in unconstrained Federal access to mineral development will least prefer this alternative. 

Socioeconomic impacts from minerals management wAlternative 2. However, lease conditions are less restAlternative 2, but more restrictive than the standard leAlternative 1. Therefore, stakeholders that believe thaconditions should be imposed on development and penvironmental impacts would likely prefer this alternaSince industry costs and availability for well pad locatunder this alternative, oil and gas industry and other sin unconstrained Federal access to mineral developm1 over this alternative. 

The anticipated amount of coal to be produced under this alternative for the next 20 years (1.9 millions tons per year) is consistent with 

the last ten years. Employment and compensation from BLM-administered mining provides for 677 employees with total mining employ$48,236,100. The average annual employee compensation is $71,218, compared with average annual compensation from all industrie(Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA], 2005). Mining in the four-county study area likely provides fiscal revenues to local and state govecommunity and emergency services, school and infrastructure. Some stakeholders will support these mining activities due to the econo

jobs, and government revenues, while others will be concerned that the economic benefit may not offset the risks to environmental and the activity. 

No impacts to Environmental Justice (EJ) populations are anticipated to occur. 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Chapter 2 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

Hazardous Materials 

BLM-authorized activities on surface tracts and non-USFS FMO could include hazardous materials, substances, and waste (including sand spills). These activities are conducted in compliance with 29 CFR 1910, 49 CFR 100-185, 40 CFR 100-400, CERCLA, RCRA, SupReauthorization Act (SARA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the CWA and other Federal and State regulations and policies materials management. Therefore, if any releases were to occur, it would be immediately addressed in accordance with regulation. 

2-56 Al
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Table 2-14. Comparison of Impacts For Mississippi 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

Air Quality 

Wildfire could lead to air emissions. Suppression of all fires would result in short term localized impacts, but not anticipated to deterioraManagement actions on the surface tract (174 acres), including potential ROW development and recreation and travel use, would not be anticipated to deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Although more management actions are proposed for the surface tract (174 acres), including vegetation and fish and wildlife habitat treatments, these actions would not be anticipated to deteriorate air quality conditions. Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in Mississippi) would be managed as an avoidance area, there would be less potential for emissions associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. 

Impacts wouAlternative 1Hancock Coacres or 100 ownership in avoidance apotential for with ROW dAlternative 1

Estimated emissions from development of 10 oil and gas wells on non-USFS FMO would be responsible for less than one tenth of one 

from the mineral development across Mississippi for NOx, SO2, PM10, CO, and VOCs. Those emissions would likely occur over a dispe

and would therefore not cause any noticeable or measurable effect. Potential oil and gas leasing on some non-USFS FMO tracts would be in close proximity to the Sipsey Wilderness in Alabama and the Louisiana. Oil and gas emissions in those tracts could impact wilderness air quality values and ambient air quality attainment. Based on quality impacts would not be anticipated. 

Soil Resources 

Management actions on the surface tract (174 acres), including potential ROW development and recreation and travel use, could impact soils through vegetation clearing activities and ground disturbance. Wind and water erosion, and subsequent loss in soil productivity would occur in disturbed areas where revegetation does not occur. These effects would be localized and short term in areas where revegetation is enhanced or permitted. The effect would be long term but localized if roads or structures were constructed on the tracts. 

Management actions proposed for the surface tract (174 acres), such as removing invasive species and conducting prescribed fire, could increase sitespecific erosion in the short term. Over the long term, improving vegetation communities and fish and wildlife habitat would reduce erosion and overland flows. Because the Hancock County tract would be retained in Federal ownership and management actions would afford more protections, such as NSO and avoidance areas for transportation and ROWs, no impacts would be anticipated. 

Impacts wouAlternative 1Hancock Conon-Federal potential devaffect soils. 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Chapter 2 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

Oil and gas development activities could result in decreased soil productivity, disturb topsoils and surface soil characteristics, and increased surface runoff. Cut and fill areas to support well pads and access routes can contribute to local soil erosion. The estimated 10 wells to be developed in Mississippi over the life of this plan would disturb approximately 55 non-USFS FMO acres. Required reclamation and the minimal surface that might be disturbed would produce only localized effects on soils. 

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated impacts on 55 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. Applying the stipulations in Appendix D would increase the area where seasonal, CSU (123 acres), and NSO (184,192 acres) restrictions would be implemented, which would reduce disturbance to soils within the protected areas. In addition to the stipulations in Appendix D, areas within 1,000-feet of aquatic habitats would be managed with an NSO stipulation, which would eliminate impacts to soils in these areas. 

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and assacres would be the same as Alternative 1. Applying thAppendix D would increase the area where seasonalNSO (92,269 acres) restrictions would be implementedisturbance to soils within the protected areas. Under 1,000-foot NSO area around aquatic habitats identifiebe reduced to 250-feet, which would reduce protectioareas. 

Water Resources 

Management actions on the surface tract (174 acres), including potential ROW development and recreation and travel use, could increase soil erosion and surface run-off, which increase nutrients levels and turbidity and decreases water quality. Impacts would be short term in areas where revegetation was enhanced or permitted. The effect would be long term but localized if roads or structures were constructed on the tracts. The hydric soils associated with the wetlands that encompass most of the tract could be affected by development or construction activities that would dredge or fill the wetlands, compacting soils and hindering natural flow through the wetlands and potentially resulting in the loss of these emergent wetlands. 

Management actions proposed for the surface tract (174 acres), such as removing invasive species and conducting prescribed fire, could increase nutrient levels and turbidity and decrease water quality in the short term. Over the long term, these actions would maintain the emergent wetlands, water quality, and groundwater recharge. Because the Hancock County tract would be retained in Federal ownership and management actions would afford more protections, such as NSO and avoidance areas for transportation and ROWs, no impacts would be anticipated. 

Impacts wouAlternative 1Hancock Conon-Federal increase chadevelopmento water reso

2-58 Al
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

Except for 63,004 acres closed to leasing by other surface managing agencies, non-USFS FMO would be open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions (454,930 acres). The estimated development of 10 wells on non-USFS FMO in Mississippi over the next 20-years would disturb approximately 55 acres. Required reclamation by Federal and State laws and the minimal surface that might be disturbed would produce only localized effects on water resources. Oil and gas development could result in surface run-off, which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases water quality. Leakage of drill fluids, hazardous waste spills, or leakage from reserve pits could be introduced into the ground water as well. Additionally, access roads and well pads can alter the local hydrology reducing surface flow to mesic areas and diverting or degrading surface water. 

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated impacts on 55 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. A 1,000-foot NSO buffer around aquatic habitats and applying the stipulations in Appendix D would increase the area where seasonal, CSU (123 acres), and NSO (184,192 acres) restrictions would be implemented. This would reduce the level of impact to water resources within the protected areas. 

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and assacres would be the same as Alternative 1. Applying thAppendix D would increase the area where seasonalNSO (92,269 acres) restrictions would be implementedisturbance to water resources within the protected aalternative, the 1,000-foot NSO area around aquatic hAlternative 2 would be reduced to 250-feet, which wooccur in close proximity to water resources and the pwater resources to occur. 

Vegetative Communities 

Surface-disturbing activities would result in vegetation-clearing activities and disturbance could affect plants in the sensitive wetland ecosystem, resulting in alteration of vegetation communities in the wetland ecosystem. Wind and water erosion in disturbed areas could impede the regrowth of wetland vegetation, allow noxious weeds to grow, and potentially impact water quality and species dependent on wetland habitat by changing the composition 

Impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be reduced under this alternative compared to Alternative 1 due to limitation on motorized recreation, managing for enhancing and protecting coastal estuarine marsh ecosystem in support of the Mississippi Coastal Preserve System, and managing the tract as an avoidance area for transportation project ROWs. Impacts from retaining the tract in Federal ownership and pursuing partnerships to provide management would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Impacts from activities woAlternative 2Disposing thFederal ownfor managemdisposal coufor subsequeassociated im

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Chapter 2 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

of habitat. Retaining the tract in Federal ownership would continue the application of protective measures by Federal law and agency policies that would protect wetland emergent vegetation communities. An estimated 10 wells to be developed in Mississippi over the life of this plan would disturb approximately 55 non-USFS FMO acres. Approximately 454,930 acres of non-USFS FMO estate in Mississippi as open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions which could disturb, damage, demolish, or impact vegetation. 

Impacts from fluid mineral leasing management actions on split estate would be the same as for Alternative 1. However, Alternative 2 uses more stringent leasing stipulations in managing all non-USFS FMO with exception, waiver, and modification criteria applied as determined through agency direction. Additional protections would be applied to 123 acres managed as CSU, 184,192 acres as NSO, and 63,004 acres closed to leasing. 

Impacts under Alternatives 3 and 4 would be similar texcept protections would be applied to 3,021 acres macres as NSO, and 63,004 acres closed to leasing. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Surface-disturbing activities would result in vegetation-clearing activities and disturbance could affect could affect plants and species in the sensitive wetland ecosystem, resulting in the displacement of species and alteration of vegetation, habitat, and forage components important to wildlife, impairing species viability and reducing habitat quality for mussels, clams, and fish species in the wetland ecosystem. Wind and water erosion in disturbed areas could impede the regrowth of wetland vegetation, allow noxious weeds to grow, and potentially impact water quality and species dependent on wetland habitat by changing the composition of forage and habitat. 

Impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be reduced under this alternative compared to Alternative 1 due to limitation on motorized recreation, managing for enhancing and protecting coastal estuarine marsh ecosystem in support of the Mississippi Coastal Preserve System, and managing the tract as an avoidance area for ROW. Impacts from retaining the tract in Federal ownership and pursuing partnerships to provide management would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Impacts from activities woAlternative 2Disposing suownership wmanagemencould increasubsequent associated imwildlife. 

2-60 Al
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

Retaining the tract in Federal ownership would continue the application of protective measures by Federal law and agency policies that would protect wetland emergent vegetation communities and associated habitat for various turtle species, fish, crab, and native and migratory birds, as well as many mammal species. An estimated 10 wells to be developed in Mississippi over the life of this plan would disturb approximately 55 non-USFS FMO acres. Approximately 454,930 acres of non-USFS FMO estate in Mississippi as open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions which could disturb, damage, demolish, or impact wildlife. 

Impacts from minerals management actions on split estate would be the same as for Alternative 1. However, Alternative 2 uses more stringent leasing stipulations in managing all non-USFS FMO with exception, waiver, and modification criteria applied as determined through agency direction. Additional protections would be applied to 123 acres managed as CSU, 184,192 acres as NSO, and 63,004 acres closed to leasing. 

Impacts under Alternatives 3 and 4 would be similar texcept protections would be applied to 3,021 acres macres as NSO, and 63,004 acres closed to leasing. 

Special Status Species 

The lack of vegetation management actions could result in increased potential for invasive/exotic species becoming established or spreading. This is particularly true of the higher elevations of the Hancock County tract located on Point Clear Island. Cogon grass and Chinese tallow are both known to occur in the area and if uncontrolled could substantially alter the habitats supporting Mississippi diamondback terrapin and tiny-leaved buckthorn. No recreation management actions are planned. Because this tract is not accessible by road, few impacts are 

Removing exotic invasive plant species, particularly cogon grass, could improve habitat conditions for the tiny-leaved buckthorn and Mississippi diamondback terrapin. Prescribed burns could be used to remove wood debris and flotsam left from Hurricane Katrina that create hazards for wildlife and degrade marshes. Limiting motorized use on the Hancock County tract to boating would avoid damaging of sensitive coastal habitats for tiny-leaved buckthorn and Mississippi diamondback. Impacts from retaining surface tracts in Federal ownership and pursuing partnerships to provide management would more directly benefit wildlife by restoring and maintaining continuity and composition of habitat than anticipated under Alternative 1. 

Impacts from and fish and managemensame as AlteImpacts from and ROW mwould be the Under this aCounty tract disposal from The affect thspecies is nothe center of Marsh Preseextensive wedevelopmen

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Chapter 2 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

anticipated by designating the tract open to vehicles. However, use of four-wheelers on remote upland areas, such as Point Clear Island, could damage sensitive maritime forests and scrubs. Retaining the tract in Federal ownership would continue the application of protective measures by Federal law and agency policies that would protect special status species. 

likely that spwould contintract being mwith the MissSystem. 

Oil and gas development on nonUSFS FMO in Mississippi is expected to result in the direct loss of 55 acres. Based on previous oil and gas activity, the Federally listed species most likely to be affected are gopher tortoise, red-cockaded woodpecker, and black pine snake in the East Gulf Coastal Plain, and bald eagles associated with reservoirs and rivers in the northern portion of the state. Drilling in coastal areas would affect the 18 special status species that are associated with coastal marshes and maritime scrub and woodlands, including brown pelican, Wilson’s plover, Mississippi diamondback terrapin and saltmarsh topminnow. Section 7 consultations with the USFWS would be required prior to BLM permitting any action that could adversely affect these Federally listed species or designated habitat, and subsequent actions would comply with the conditions established by any subsequent BOs. 

Although the number of wells (10) and acres disturbed (55) would remain the same under this alternative, lease stipulations would shift surface disturbing activities away from sensitive habitats with potential to support special status species. In most cases, this is accomplished with NSO buffers or seasonal restrictions. These stipulations could be applied to 184,192 acres or about 36 percent of the non-USFS FMO in Mississippi. 

The number of wells (10) and acres disturbed (55) wounder this alternative and impacts would be the same the aquatic and wetland buffer would be reduced to 2slopes exceed 10 percent, the buffer could be extendprovide adequate protection. In most cases, this buffeconstruction activities from increasing the sedimentatand wetlands. The 600-foot no lease area along the cwith a NSO buffer. Although no surface disturbance wUSFS FMO or BLM surface tracts within this buffer, oto target these Federal minerals would be permitted. 

2-62 Al
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

Wildland Fire and Ecology 

Fire response and fuel treatments would apply to the 174 acres of BLM-administered surface land. Suppressing all wildland fires, unlesspecific plan determines otherwise, would minimize immediate threats and damage to life, public safety, and developments in the WUI values. Allowing prescribed burning on a case-by-case basis would allow for a reduction in hazardous fuel conditions, improving ability while maintaining disturbance levels to which vegetation communities have adapted. Allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives and habitat improvements under standard management common to all alternatives would maintain natural fuel conditions across the surface tract. This would maintain natural disturbance regimes and decrease the frequency and intensity of wildland fires and allow fires to be more easily controlled. Dispersed recreation use would introduce additional ignition sources through human use of natural environments, which could increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. This would be more prevalent in areas that are more accessible. While ROW actions could increase suppression costs, the aspects of ROW related to vegetation clearing and the potential for increased accessibility could reduce suppression costs. 

Vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat management actions, such as removing invasive species and conducting prescribed fire, on the surface tract would reduce the potential for changes in the marsh vegetation communities. The natural fire regimes would be maintained. The potential for increased wildland fire occurrence would decrease compared to Alternative 1 because travel on the Hancock County tract would be limited to boating, decreasing accessibility to these areas and reducing the potential for additional ignition sources through increased human use. 

Impacts from and fish and managemensame as AlteImpacts from and travel mwould be the If tracts were Federal ownfor suppresseliminated, dcosts in wild

Development of 10 oil and gas wells introduces additional ignitions sources throughout the non-USFS FMO, increasing the potential of wildland fire occurrence and introducing infrastructure that requires protection in wildland fire events. Disturbance associated with development could provide increased accessibility for fire suppression and 

Impacts from minerals management would be the same as Alternative 1, except impacts would not occur on the 184,192 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (63,004 acres). 

Impacts from minerals management would be the samexcept impacts would not occur on the 92,269 acres areas where development would be precluded (63,00

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Chapter 2 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

provide fuel breaks. These impacts would not occur on the 63,004 acres closed to oil and gas development. 

Cultural Resources 

BLM would continue to protect cultural resources from disturbance, damage, or loss from authorized uses through project avoidance or data recovery if necessary. As inventories are conducted, more cultural sites would be identified. Inventories and adherence to law, regprotect most cultural sites; however, inadvertent damage of undiscovered sites would remain a possibility. Dispersed recreation and standard vegetation treatments could result in inadvertent damage to cultural resources. Ground-disturbing activities associated with ROW construction and maintenance could inadvertently damage cultural resources. Retaining surface tract in Federal ownership (whether BLM administered or USFWS administered) would provide protection of cultural resource sites and preserve the setting of sites. 

Vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat management would increase impacts to cultural resources due to implementing vegetation treatments to reduce invasive species and improve habitat. Limiting motorized vehicle use on the surface tract to boating would increase protection of cultural sites. Impacts from retaining surface tract in Federal ownership and pursuing partnerships would be the same as Alternative 1. Managing the Hancock County tract as an avoidance area for ROW would reduce the potential for impacts to cultural sites. 

Impacts from and fish and managemensame as AlteImpacts from and travel mwould be the Making the Havailable for ownership wmanagemenhave impactcontained prpotentially eof Historic Psites. DisposFederal ownprotection of under Federmanagemenincrease the previously uresources. 

Cultural resources on 63,004 nonUSFS FMO acres closed to oil and gas leasing would be protected from oil and gas development. 

Cultural resources on 63,004 nonUSFS FMO acres closed to oil and gas leasing would be protected from oil and gas development, as would cultural sites on 184,192 non-USFS FMO acres managed for NSO. 

Impacts to cultural resources from management of nothe same as Alternative 2, except 359,640 acres wouto leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditCSU, 92,269 acres as NSO, and 63,004 acres as clo

2-64 Al
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

Visual Resources 

Allowing recreation activities including motorized vehicle use on the surface tract could result in decreased visual quality over time. If new ROW were approved on the Hancock County tract, visual quality would be diminished. 

Actions to improve vegetation communities and wildlife habitat would temporarily diminish visual quality; however, visual quality would be improved in the long term. Limiting motorized vehicle use on the surface tract to boating could diminish impacts described in Alternative 1. Managing the Hancock County tract as an avoidance area for ROW would help to retain visual quality within the area by reducing the potential for development activities to occur in these areas. 

Impacts from and travel mwould be the Making the Havailable for ownership wmanagemendiminish visusubsequentl

Mineral exploration and development on non-USFS FMO tracts (517,934 acres) would result in impacts to visual resources on 55 acres from 10 wells. Removal of vegetation and construction of wells and well pads and introduction of other equipment would decrease visual quality. Impacts from these activities would not be anticipated on 63,004 acres closed to leasing. 

Since approximately 55 acres of vegetation removal and construction activities would result from the development of 10 oil and gas wells (as with Alternative 1), impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. Stipulations applied under this alternative could protect visual resources on the 184,192 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (63,004 acres). 

Since approximately 55 acres of vegetation removal awould result from the development of 10 oil and gas w1), impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. Stipualternative could preclude oil and gas development thresources on the 92,269 acres managed as NSO and development would be precluded (63,004 acres). 

Minerals 

No impacts to oil and gas development would be anticipated from management of surface tract. This alternative would have the least restrictions on oil and gas exploration and development, with approximately 88 percent (454,930 acres) of nonUSFS FMO open to leasing, subject to the standard lease terms and conditions. The remaining 63,004 acres (approximately 12 percent) would be closed to leasing due to restrictions placed by other Federal surface management agencies. Oil and gas leasing stipulations would support development of the anticipated 10 wells on non-USFS FMO over the next 20 years. 

Applying the conservation measures as lease stipulations and BMPs (Appendix D) could also increase exploration and development costs. This alternative would be the most restrictive on oil and gas exploration and development, with approximately 37 percent (184,192 acres) of nonUSFS FMO open to leasing, subject to major constraints and approximately 12 percent (63,004 acres) closed to leasing. The remaining 270,615 acres would be open to leasing, subject to the standard lease terms and conditions 

Applying the conservation measures as lease stipulat(Appendix D) could also increase exploration and devCompared to Alternative 2, lease stipulations would bthis alternative, with approximately 18 percent (92,26FMO open to leasing, subject to major constraints anpercent (63,004 acres) closed to leasing. The remainbe open to leasing, subject to the standard lease termpercent of non-USFS FMO) or open to leasing, subje(less than one percent of non-USFS FMO). Oil and gwould support development of the anticipated 10 welover the next 20 years. 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Chapter 2 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

(51 percent of non-USFS FMO) or open to leasing, subject to minor constraints (less than one percent of non-USFS FMO). Oil and gas leasing stipulations would support development of the anticipated 10 wells on non-USFS FMO over the next 20 years. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Allowing recreation activities including motorized vehicle use on the Hancock County tract would maintain existing recreation and travel opportunities. However, allowing motorized travel could result in conflicts between motorized recreationists and recreationists seeking a more natural setting or experience. The Hancock County tract would continue to be owned and managed by the University of Mississippi under an R&PP patent for the purposes of the R&PP patent, which would maintain access to recreational activity. If a new road or utility ROW were authorized on the Hancock County tract the largely natural recreational experiences available would be diminished. 

Actions to improve vegetation communities and wildlife habitat would temporarily diminish or eliminate the recreation experience. The recreation experience would be improved in the long term. Continuing to allow recreation use on the surface tract would result in impacts similar to those described under Alternative 1. However, since motorized vehicle use would be limited to boating, more non-motorized recreation opportunities would be increased while there could be a loss of motorized recreation opportunities. Impacts from retaining the Hancock County tract in Federal ownership would be the same as in Alternative 1. Managing the Hancock County tract as an avoidance area for ROW would retain the recreation experience in the undeveloped wetland setting. 

Impacts from and fish and managemensame as AlteImpacts from and travel mwould be the Making the Havailable for ownership wmanagemenresult in redurecreational disposal, the unavailable f

Since approximately 55 acres of vegetation removal and construction activities would result from the development of 10 oil and gas wells on non-USFS FMO there could be a decrease in nature-based recreational opportunities due to conflicts with the developments. However, stipulations could indirectly 

Since approximately 55 acres of vegetation removal and construction activities would result from the development of 10 oil and gas wells (as with Alternative 1), impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. Stipulations applied under this alternative could protect the recreational resources on the 

Since approximately 55 acres of vegetation removal awould result from the development of 10 oil and gas w1), impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. Stipualternative could indirectly protect the recreational resacres managed as NSO and in areas where developm(63,004 acres). 

2-66 Al
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

protect the recreational resources in areas where development would be precluded (63,004 acres). 

184,192 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (63,004 acres). 

Lands and Realty 

The 174-acre Hancock County tract would remain open to ROW applications; therefore, no impacts would be anticipated. Retaining the Hancock County tract under BLM administration would not allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or non-Federal ownership. 

The 174-acre Hancock County tract would be managed as an avoidance area for ROW. This could impose design and siting requirements and associated costs on new ROW. There would be an increased potential for requests for new ROW to be denied. Retaining the Hancock County tract under BLM administration and pursuing partnerships with other agencies and organizations could allow for management opportunities for other agencies and organizations, but would not allow for non-Federal ownership opportunities. 

ROW managassociated imrealty would Alternative 2The 174-acrwould be avFederal owncovenants. Topportunities agency or nowithout specuse of the trawould not be jeopardize Fdesignated ccould limit so

Social and Economic 

Recreation and travel, fish and wildlife habitat, and vegetative communities management actions would not cause changes in the economic characteristics (employment, income, and industries) or quality of social assets (housing, education, values and attitudes). Under this alternative, the Hancock County tract would remain in Federal ownership. Lands and realty management actions would not cause changes in the economic characteristics (employment, income, and industries) as there are very little changes anticipated under this alternative. Quality of social assets (demographics, housing, cost of 

This alternative includes the removal of invasive species on the Hancock County tract. Impacts from these actions on the socioeconomic indicators would not be anticipated from these types of vegetation management actions. Stakeholders who value the protection of native vegetation and habitats will likely prefer this alternative over the other alternatives. Impacts to social and economic conditions would not be anticipated from recreation and wildlife management actions as there are very little anticipated changes in these actions. Impacts from lands and realty would be the same as those under Alternative 1. 

Recreation, managemencause changcharacteristiand industrieassets (housand attitudesUnder AlternCounty tract disposal from without condand use aftedevelopmenthese properthe property counties wouthe Federal Taxes, econ

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Chapter 2 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

living, education) in Hancock County are not likely to be affected by retaining these lands in Federal ownership. Some stakeholders would be impacted by these decisions. 

Hancock Coalso possible developmenslightly increincome in thindicators, seducation, aexpected to minimal devwho feel thaownership is preservationvalues will likimpacted by stakeholders developmenbetter use of tract would lalternative. 

Since only 10 fluid mineral wells would likely be drilled with standard lease terms and conditions over the 20-year planning period, there would be minimal economic impacts from these activities. Social characteristics such as housing, education, and cost of living would not be anticipated to change as a result of this activity. Stakeholders who believe that oil and gas activity should be constrained to protect wetlands and aquatic habitat would likely feel that this alternative does not do enough to ensure protection of these types of resources. Additionally, oil and gas industry stakeholders as well as others who value maintaining access to Federal minerals for oil and gas development will likely prefer this alternative over the other alternatives. 

The same number of wells and acres of surface disturbance is anticipated under this alternative. Therefore similar socioeconomic impacts will be experienced as those identified under Alternative 1. However, this alternative provides for the greatest number of lease constraints and conditions, including stipulations for well pad distance to wetland and aquatic resources at the Hancock County tract. Therefore, stakeholders who believe that oil and gas leasing conditions should be imposed on development and production to mitigate environmental impacts would prefer this alternative to other alternatives. Since industry costs and availability for well pad locations will likely decrease under this alternative, the oil and gas industry and other stakeholders who believe in Federal 

The same number of wells and acres of surface distuunder this alternative. Therefore similar socioeconomexperienced as those identified under Alternative 1. Hprovides conditions on oil and gas leasing of these mstipulations for well pad distance to wetland and aquaconditions are less restrictive than those under Alternrestrictive than the standard lease terms under Alternstakeholders who believe that oil and gas leasing conimposed on development and production to mitigate ewould likely prefer this alternative to Alternative 1. Sinavailability for well pad locations will likely decrease uand gas industry and other stakeholders who believe access to mineral development will prefer Alternative 

2-68 Al
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Preferred) A

access to mineral development will least prefer this alternative. 

No impacts to EJ populations are anticipated to occur; further evaluation is warranted at project implementation. 

Hazardous Materials 

BLM-authorized activities on surface tracts and non-USFS FMO could include hazardous materials, substances, and waste (including sand spills). These activities are conducted in compliance with 29 CFR 1910, 49 CFR 100-185, 40 CFR 100-400, CERCLA, RCRA, SAR

other Federal and State regulations and policies regarding hazardous materials management. Therefore, if any releases were to occuraddressed in accordance with regulation. 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

This page intentionally left blank.

2-70 Alabama and Mississippi RMP