Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 1 

CHAPTER 1—PURPOSE AND NEED 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States, Jackson Field Office (JFO) has initiated the 

planning process to develop a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for public lands and mineral estate 

dispersed across the states of Alabama and Mississippi. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is 

being prepared as part of this project. The State of Mississippi is a cooperating agency, as defined by the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) regulations implementing the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), for this RMP. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

Until now, BLM resource management in the States of Alabama and Mississippi has been governed by 

project-specific planning analyses and environmental assessments (EAs); however, preparing separate 

project-specific documents whenever BLM receives external proposals has been inefficient, costly, and 

has delayed decision making on industry-driven requests to lease Federal minerals and land tenure 

adjustments where BLM retains surface management responsibilities. The planning criteria identified in 

Section 1.3.2 sets out BLM’s primary responsibilities in Alabama and Mississippi, which is to make 

minerals available for leasing, where appropriate, and to make land tenure adjustments according to the 

criteria found in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA; 43 United States Code 

[USC] 1711-1712). 

By preparing a single land use plan for both States, BLM will be able to respond to mineral leasing 

proposals and deal efficiently with the long-term management of its scattered lands. The Alabama and 

Mississippi RMP will provide the JFO with a comprehensive framework for managing BLMadministered land and minerals within these States. Completion of the RMP will meet the mandate of 

FLPMA that public lands be managed for multiple use and sustained yield under an approved RMP. 

Preparation of the RMP will also fulfill BLM’s responsibilities for public involvement and environmental 

impact analysis under NEPA. NEPA requires Federal agencies to prepare an EIS for any Federal action 

that could significantly affect the human environment. Preparation and adoption of an RMP constitutes 

such an action. The EIS prepared in conjunction with this Draft RMP serves to analyze proposed actions 

and decisions affecting BLM-administered land in the planning area. 

A primary goal of the RMP is to develop management practices, including stipulations, to ensure longterm sustainability of a healthy and productive landscape. An RMP is a set of comprehensive, long-range 

decisions concerning the use and management of resources administered by BLM. In general, the RMP 

will serve two purposes: (1) provide an overview of goals, resource condition objectives, and needs 

associated with public lands management and (2) resolve multiple use conflicts or issues. When the RMP 

is approved, its management decisions will remain in effect until the RMP is amended, revised, or 

replaced by a new plan. The life of the RMP is expected to be 10 to 20 years. 

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA 

This Draft RMP-EIS covers all the public lands resources administered by BLM in the States of Alabama 

and Mississippi. Within the two States combined, BLM administers approximately 333 acres of public 

land surface and mineral estate and 704,850 acres of Federal minerals where the surface estate is in nonAlabama and Mississippi RMP 1-1 
Chapter 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

Federal ownership. BLM also has responsibility for 126,570 acres of mineral estate where the surface is 

managed by other Federal agencies (excluding BLM and U. S. Forest Service [USFS]). On these lands, 

leasing of Federal minerals is subject to management as directed by the surface managing agency, and the 

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

responsibility of 1,640,621 acres of mineral estate where the surface is managed by USFS. However, the 

RMP will not make decisions on oil and gas leasing of national forest acreage because by regulation, 

USFS is responsible for land use planning decisions on oil and gas leasing. For the purposes of this 

document, RMP mineral leasing decisions will apply to “BLM-administered non-USFS Federal mineral 

ownership (FMO),” which refers to BLM-administered Federal minerals where the surface estate is in 

non-Federal ownership and Federal agencies excluding USFS. 

Within the two States, there are also 8,077 acres of lands with uncertain title. These are public domain 

lands according to General Land Office records, but may have private claims of ownership. The RMP will 

not make management decisions on these lands per se; however, these lands, which are listed in Appendix 

B, will be available for disposal to qualified applicants under the Color-of-Title Act. The above categories 

of BLM-administered land ownership that will be covered by this RMP are listed and described in Table 

1-1 for Alabama and Table 1-2 for Mississippi. 

Table 1-1. Land and Mineral Ownership and Administrative Jurisdictions 

within the RMP Planning Area in Alabama 

Jurisdiction Acreage1 

Areas in Alabama covered by the Alabama and Mississippi RMP-EIS 

A. BLM surface land—Federal minerals2 159 

B. Non-Federal surface land—Federal minerals

3 303,440 

C. Federal agency (other than BLM or USFS) surface land—Federal minerals

4 10,220 

Total BLM-administered Federal land surface to be covered by RMP decisions 159 

Total BLM-administered Federal mineral estate to be covered by RMP decisions 313,819 

D. Lands of uncertain title5 3,057 

Areas in Alabama not covered by the Alabama and Mississippi RMP-EIS 

E. USFS land-Federal minerals

6 585,394 

1 Where one or more mineral resource categories are Federally-owned, the acreage is listed as if all minerals are Federallyowned. Where mixed minerals ownership occurs (for example, privately owned coal interest overlapping with Federallyowned oil and gas interest), minerals planning and management decisions in the RMP will pertain only to the Federallyowned mineral interests. Federal mineral acreage is derived from BLM data of current and former oil and gas leases. Data 

includes lands described by aliquot parts, metes and bounds, or lot number. In the case of metes and bounds and lot 

number descriptions, the acreage reflects that of the entire section associated with the description, otherwise known as 

2 

"nominal acreage." 

In those areas where the Federal land surface and Federal mineral estate are both administered by BLM, the RMP 

decisions will cover both the land surface and the mineral estate. 

3 In those areas where (1) the land surface is privately owned or owned by a non-Federal government jurisdiction and (2) the 

minerals are Federally owned, the RMP decisions will cover only the BLM-administered Federal mineral estate. Although 

the land and resource uses and values on the non-Federal surface will be taken into account and will affect development of 

4 

the Federal mineral management decisions, these decisions will pertain only to the Federally owned minerals. 

In those areas where (1) the Federal land surface is administered by a Federal agency other than BLM or USFS, including 

the Department of Defense and U. S. Army Corp of Engineers and (2) the Federal mineral estate is administered by BLM, 

the land surface planning and management decisions are the responsibility of the other Federal surface managing agency, 

lease of the Federal minerals is subject to management as directed by the surface managing agency. These are lands that 

were either acquired by a Federal agency, or were withdrawn from the public domain; withdrawn lands are listed in 

Appendix I. RMP decisions for these lands will pertain only to BLM’s role in administering the Federal minerals. 

5 These are public domain lands according to General Land Office records, but may have private claims of ownership. The 

RMP will not make decisions on these lands per se; however, these lands, which are listed in Appendix B, will be available 

for disposal to qualified applicants under the Color-of-Title Act. 

6 In those areas where (1) the Federal land surface is administered by the USFS, and (2) planning decisions for surface 

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

Jurisdiction Acreage1 

management and for mineral leasing, pursuant to the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 and 

Federal regulation (36 CFR 228.102), are the responsibility of USFS, and (3) BLM has responsibility for issuing and 

administering mineral leases; the RMP will not include management decisions for the Federal minerals on these lands, and 

BLM will carry out its minerals management responsibilities under the guidance of USFS land use plans. At the same time, 

surface and minerals management actions and development activities anticipated on these lands will be taken into account 

for purposes of cumulative impact analysis. 

Table 1-2. Land and Mineral Ownership and Administrative Jurisdictions 

within the RMP Planning Area in Mississippi 

Jurisdiction Acreage1 

Areas in Mississippi covered by the Alabama and Mississippi RMP-EIS 

A. BLM surface land-Federal minerals

2 174 

B. Non-Federal land-Federal minerals

3 401,410 

C. Federal agency (other than BLM or USFS) surface land / Federal minerals

4 116,350 

Total BLM-administered Federal land surface to be covered by RMP decisions 174 

Total BLM-administered Federal mineral estate to be covered by RMP 

decisions 517,934 

D. Lands of uncertain title5 5,020 

Areas in Mississippi not covered by the Alabama and Mississippi RMP-EIS 

E. USFS land-Federal minerals

6 1,055,227 

1 Where one or more mineral resource categories are Federally-owned, the acreage is listed as if all minerals are Federallyowned. Where mixed mineral ownership occurs (for example, privately owned coal interest overlapping with Federally -

owned oil and gas interest), minerals planning and management decisions in the RMP will pertain only to the Federallyowned mineral interest. Federal mineral acreage is derived from BLM data of current and former oil and gas leases. Data 

includes lands described by aliquot parts, metes and bounds, or lot number. In the case of metes and bounds and lot 

number descriptions, the acreage reflects that of the entire section associated with the description, otherwise known as 

"nominal acreage." 

2 This is a tract of land in Hancock County where the mineral estate is Federally owned and the surface is currently owned by 

the University of Mississippi. The tract was conveyed to the university in 1961, under the authority of the Recreation and 

Public Purposes Act of 1926, for recreational and research site purposes. The patent contains a clause stating that 

ownership of the surface estate shall revert to the United States if the land is devoted to a use other than that for which the 

land was conveyed. It is expected that the university will relinquish this tract and that title will revert to the United States. In 

anticipation of the title transfer, this tract will be considered BLM-managed surface estate for land use planning purposes; 

therefore, the RMP decisions will cover both the land surface and the mineral estate. 

3 In those areas where (1) the land surface is privately owned or owned by a non-Federal government jurisdiction and (2) the 

minerals are Federally owned, the RMP decisions will cover only the BLM-administered Federal mineral estate. Although 

the land and resource uses and values on the non-Federal surface will be taken into account and will affect development of 

the Federal mineral management decisions, these decisions will pertain only to the Federally owned minerals. 

4 In those areas where (1) the Federal land surface is administered by a Federal agency other than BLM or USFS, including 

the Department of Defense and U. S. Army Corp of Engineers and (2) the Federal mineral estate is administered by BLM, 

the land surface planning and management decisions are the responsibility of the other Federal surface managing agency, 

and lease of the Federal minerals is subject to management as directed by the surface managing agency. These are lands 

that were either acquired by a Federal agency, or were withdrawn from the public domain. Withdrawn lands are listed in 

Appendix I. RMP decisions for these lands will pertain only to BLM’s role in administering the Federal minerals. 

5 These are public domain lands according to General Land Office records, but may have private claims of ownership. The 

RMP will not make decisions on these lands per se; however, these lands, which are listed in Appendix B, will be available 

for disposal to qualified applicants under the Color-of-Title Act. 

6 In those areas where (1) the Federal land surface is administered by the USFS, and (2) planning decisions for surface 

management and for mineral leasing, pursuant to the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 and 

Federal regulation (36 CFR 228.102), are the responsibility of USFS, and (3) BLM has responsibility for issuing and 

administering mineral leases; the RMP will not include management decisions for the Federal minerals on these lands, and 

BLM will carry out its minerals management responsibilities under the guidance of USFS land use plans. At the same time, 

surface and minerals management actions and development activities anticipated on these lands will be taken into account 

for purposes of cumulative impact analysis. 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 1-3 
Chapter 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

1-4 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 1-5 
Chapter 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

1.4 PLANNING ISSUES 

In addition to the planning issues identified below, the Draft RMP-EIS includes decisions on a wide range 

of other resource management concerns, including cultural resources, lands and realty, minerals, 

recreation, socioeconomics, soil resources, water resources, vegetative communities, and fish and wildlife 

habitat, as identified in the July 12, 2002, Federal Register notice. 

1.4.1 Mineral (Oil, Gas, and Coal) Leasing 

There is a potential for continued mineral development of BLM-administered FMO in both Alabama and 

Mississippi. In some cases, there could be potential for impacts on sensitive resources or conflicts with 

other uses. These impacts and conflicts need to be considered when making decisions on the availability 

of non-USFS FMO for development. The RMP addresses mineral leasing by offering a variety of 

alternative solutions, as described in Chapter 2. 

1.4.2 Land Ownership Adjustments 

BLM-administered lands in both Alabama and Mississippi are relatively small, isolated parcels. Some of 

the parcels could have natural resources of significant value to the public and could be suitable for 

management by BLM or other agencies. Other parcels could be suitable for disposal. The RMP addresses 

land ownership adjustments by offering a variety of alternative solutions, as described in Chapter 2. 

1.5 PLANNING CRITERIA 

Planning criteria are constraints or ground rules that guide development of BLM land use plans. These 

criteria ensure the planning team focuses on relevant uses and collects applicable data for analysis, and 

the criteria include applicable Federal laws, regulations, executive orders, and policies. As identified in 

the Federal Register on July 12, 2002, the following criteria were developed to guide the preparation of 

the RMP: 

1. Land use planning and environmental analysis will be conducted in accordance with laws, 

regulations, executive orders, and manuals. Planning will be conducted for BLMadministered lands (tracts) and minerals (BLM-administered non-USFS FMO). 

2. Surface tracts will be mapped and identified by legal description. Land use policy will be 

established for BLM-administered lands identified after the RMP is completed. 

3. A reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFDS) will be prepared for the future 

leasing (and development) of fluid minerals under split-estate lands (e.g., non-BLM surface 

and BLM minerals). The RFDS will be developed on a regional (county) basis. Areas of high, 

moderate, and low oil and gas potential will be identified (mapped) for each State. 

4. Areas with the potential for non-energy solid mineral leasing (e.g., phosphates, sodium) will 

be evaluated for inclusion in the RMP. 

5. Resource data needed to evaluate the impacts of future (foreseeable) mineral development 

will be collected on a regional basis. 

6. The planning team will work cooperatively with Federal, State, county, and local 

governments and agencies; tribal governments; groups and organizations; and individuals. 

1-6 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 1 

Based on further analysis these criteria have been revised as follows: 

1. Land use planning and environmental analysis will be conducted in accordance with laws, 

regulations, executive orders, and manuals. Planning will be conducted for BLMadministered lands (tracts) and minerals (BLM-administered non-USFS FMO). 

2. Surface tracts will be mapped and identified by legal description. Lands of uncertain title will 

be listed. These lands could potentially be available for disposal under the Color-of-Title Act. 

3. An RFDS will be prepared for the future leasing (and development) of oil and gas. The RFDS 

will be developed on a statewide basis. Areas of high, moderate, and low oil and gas potential 

will be identified (mapped) for each State. 

4. The evaluation of lands based on their suitability for further coal leasing consideration will be 

limited to underground mining of non-USFS FMO in the Warrior Basin in Alabama. 

5. Areas with the potential for non-energy solid mineral leasing (e.g., phosphates, sodium) were 

evaluated for inclusion in the RMP. No potential was identified for development of these 

minerals on non-USFS FMO; therefore, non-energy solid mineral leasing is not addressed. 

6. Resource data needed to evaluate the impacts of future (foreseeable) mineral development 

will be collected on a statewide basis. 

7. The planning team will work cooperatively with Federal, State, county, and local 

governments and agencies; tribal governments; groups and organizations; and individuals. 

1.6 OVERVIEW OF THE PLANNING PROCESS 

The BLM planning process is detailed in the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1), which 

provides guidance to BLM employees for implementing the BLM land use planning requirements 

established by Section 202 of the FLPMA and the regulations in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

1610. The process for preparing an EIS is determined by Federal regulations implementing NEPA (40 

CFR 1500-1508). The major steps in the BLM planning process are shown in Figure 1-1 and are further 

described below. 

• Preparation Plan. BLM developed a preparation plan to outline anticipated planning issues and 

management concerns, preliminary planning criteria, data needs, process participants, plan 

format, schedule, and public involvement. 

• Notice of Intent. BLM published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on July 12, 

2002, to announce its intention to prepare an RMP and EIS. The NOI also solicited coal 

information for BLM-administered coal in Alabama and Mississippi and identified planning 

criteria to guide the preparation of the RMP. 

• Scoping Period. Public scoping was conducted from June through September 2002. The 

objectives of scoping were to involve the public in the planning process and to comply with 

FLPMA and NEPA. Scoping is a process of soliciting public input and identifying concerns 

regarding management of public lands and BLM-administered non-USFS FMO in the planning 

area. Scoping consisted of public notification through the Federal Register (i.e., publication of 

the NOI) and by letter and e-mail. Letters of invitation to participate as cooperating agencies were 

sent to government agencies in Alabama and Mississippi. BLM also notified local, State, and 

Federal agencies and Native American tribes during this period. 

• Analysis of Management Situation. As part of preparing this Draft RMP-EIS, BLM analyzed 

the resource conditions, capabilities, and effects of current management for use as a reference 

throughout the planning process. As contained in Chapter 3 of the Draft RMP-EIS, this analysis 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 1-7 
Chapter 1 

included a description of the physical and 

biological characteristics and condition of the 

resources within the planning area and how they 

are being used and/or protected. 

• Draft RMP-EIS. This Draft RMP-EIS considers 

public and agency comments received during the 

scoping period, includes a description of 

alternatives and the affected environment, and 

offers an assessment of potential impacts from 

implementing the alternatives. A Notice of 

Availability (NOA) for the Draft RMP-EIS will 

be published in the Federal Register. 

• Comment Period and Public Meetings. The 

public and local, State, and Federal agencies and 

Native American tribes may review and comment 

on the Draft RMP-EIS during a 90-day comment 

period, beginning the date the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) publishes their NOA in 

the Federal Register. BLM will hold public 

meetings, as necessary, to receive comments 

from the public. Opportunities for public 

involvement are further described in Chapter 5, 

Consultation and Coordination. 

• Proposed RMP and Final EIS. The purpose of 

the Proposed RMP-Final EIS is for BLM to 

assess, consider, and respond to public and 

agency comments received on the Draft RMPEIS. An NOA will be published in the Federal 

Register by BLM when the Proposed RMP-Final 

EIS becomes available. A 30-day public protest 

period, beginning the date the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) publishes their NOA in 

the Federal Register, will follow the release of 

the Proposed RMP-Final EIS. A 60-day 

Governor’s consistency review will also occur at 

this time. 

• Biological Assessment (BA). Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U. S.C. 

Section 1536(a)(2)) requires all Federal agencies 

to determine whether their actions may affect 

listed or proposed species and designated and 

proposed critical habitat. A BA is prepared for 

the purpose of analyzing the potential effects of 

the project on Federally-listed species and critical 

habitat in order to establish and justify an “effect 

determination.” The BA is reviewed by the U. S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the 

ESA Section 7 consultation requirements. 

Draft EIS – August 2007 

Figure 1-1. RMP-EIS Process 

Notice of Intent 

Published in Federal Register on July 12, 2002 

Scoping Period 

(June–September 2002) 

Planning Issues and Criteria Development 

Ensure that decisions address pertinent issues 

Data Collection 

Alternatives Formulation 

Develop range of reasonable management alternatives 

Alternatives Assessment 

Analyze environmental effects 

Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

• Consider and respond to public comments on Draft 

RMP-EIS 

• Prepare Biological Assessment under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act 

• File Final EIS with EPA for NOA 

• Publish BLM NOA 

• 30-day Public Protest 

• 60-day Governor’s Consistency Review 

Record of Decision—Approved RMP 

Implement, monitor, and evaluate plan decisions 

Draft RMP-EIS 

Analyze a Preferred Alternative 

• File Draft EIS with the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) for Notice of Availability (NOA) 

• Publish Bureau of Land Management (BLM) NOA 

• 90-day public comment period 

Preparation Plan

Completed in September 2001. Outline anticipated 

planning issues, preliminary planning criteria, data needs, 

plan format, schedule, and public involvement. 

Analysis of Management Situation 

Analyze resource conditions, capabilities, and effects of 

current management 

1-8 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 1 

• Record of Decision. The Record of Decision (ROD) is a separate and concise public record that 

clearly identifies and describes the approved RMP and links BLM’s decision to the analysis 

presented in the EIS. The ROD addresses how environmental impacts and other factors were 

considered in the decision making process. 

This Draft RMP-EIS provides a comprehensive evaluation of BLM’s potential management and land 

tenure adjustment actions for public lands in Alabama and Mississippi and their natural resources. A 

comprehensive RMP-EIS that includes all of BLM’s management programs is needed to address potential 

conflict among interrelated management actions. This EIS also allows for tiering (40 CFR 1505.28) 

subsequent activity or project-specific EISs or EAs conducted on public lands within Alabama and 

Mississippi. Subsequent lower-level EISs or EAs will reference and adopt relevant information and goals 

from this broader, two-State RMP-EIS as formal NEPA documentation, thereby avoiding duplication of 

effort and reducing costs associated with completing future NEPA analyses. 

1.7 READER’S GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 

This Draft RMP-EIS is organized according to BLM’s land use planning guidance (H-1610-1 and 43 CFR 

1601 et seq.), the BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1), CEQ guidelines, and Federal regulations 

implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508). This Draft RMP-EIS has been developed to address 

issues, concerns, and conflicts within the planning area and to provide guidance for management of BLMadministered lands in both States. It contains the following major chapter headings and information: 

Chapter 1—Purpose and Need. Contains background and introductory material such as the purpose and 

need for the Draft RMP-EIS and the BLM planning process. 

Chapter 2—Alternatives. Identifies BLM-administered surface tracts and non-USFS FMO and describes 

alternative development and management guidance common to all alternatives. The chapter presents 

specific management actions proposed under the alternatives and a comparative summary of the impacts 

of the alternatives that have been analyzed in detail. It also identifies the Preferred Alternative. 

Chapter 3—Affected Environment. Describes the affected environment, focusing on the existing 

environmental conditions that would be affected by implementation of the alternatives. 

Chapter 4—Environmental Consequences. Describes the impacts of the alternatives. This section 

forms the scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of impacts presented in Chapter 2. 

Chapter 5—Consultation and Coordination. Describes the overall EIS scoping process and other 

agency consultation and public involvement activities. A list of agencies, organizations, and individuals 

who were sent the Draft EIS is also presented. 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Provides an alphabetized list of abbreviations and acronyms used 

in this Draft RMP-EIS. 

Glossary. Provides definitions of terms used in this Draft RMP-EIS. 

References. Provides information for all references cited, most of which are available to the public at 

libraries or on the Internet. Many of the documents cited are available for public review at JFO. 

Appendices. Provide additional supporting information as follows— 

• Appendix A—Recreation and Public Purposes Act Lands 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 1-9 
Chapter 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

• Appendix B—Lands of Uncertain Title 

• Appendix C—Relevant Statutes, Regulations, Orders, and Guidelines 

• Appendix D—Proposed Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices 

• Appendix E—Special Status Species in Alabama and Mississippi 

• Appendix F—Soils 

• Appendix G—Socioeconomic Figures 

• Appendix H—Water Resources 

• Appendix I—Withdrawn Lands. 

• Appendix J—Summary of the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario 

1.8 TOPICS NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

PLAN 

Laws, regulations, policies, and executive orders require specific resource topics be examined during the 

NEPA process. In some instances, initial evaluation reveals topics that are not relevant to the planning 

area or do not require further analysis. These topics that are not addressed in this RMP are listed below. 

Native American Concerns. Sites of concern to Native Americans are not known to occur on BLM 

administered surface lands or FMO in Alabama and Mississippi. Known sites, such as Nanih Waya in 

Mississippi and Hickory Ground in Alabama, would not be affected by any of the alternatives considered 

in this plan. Therefore, Native American concerns are not analyzed in detail. 

BLM will continue consultation and coordination to identify and consider Native American concerns 

where future actions might affect cultural or religious values. Consultation with Federally-recognized 

tribes would take place in accordance with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments, and would occur before planned excavations or undertakings on 

BLM-administered lands and FMO in compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). BLM would protect and preserve Native American religious and cultural 

rights and practices on Federal lands in accordance with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 

1978(AIRFA). 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). There are no designated ACECs within the scope 

of this plan and no ACECs were proposed internally or externally for designation. 

Wilderness. There are no designated or proposed wilderness areas on lands administered by BLM in the 

planning area. 

Minerals Underlying USFS Lands. BLM has the responsibility for lease issuance and post lease 

administration of 1,640,621 acres of mineral estate where the surface is managed by USFS. However, the 

RMP will not make decisions on oil and gas leasing of national forest acreage because the Federal 

Onshore Oil and Gas Reform Act of 1987 requires the USFS to conduct a leasing analysis to make land 

use planning decisions on oil and gas leasing. This legal requirement does not apply to other Federal 

surface management agencies. For the purposes of this document, RMP decisions will apply to “BLMadministered non-USFS FMO,” which refers to BLM-administered Federal minerals where the surface 

estate is in non-Federal ownership and Federal agencies excluding USFS. 

Locatable and Salable Minerals. There is no reasonable foreseeable development for locatable and 

salable resources; therefore, such resources in Alabama and Mississippi are not discussed herein. Types of 

locatable minerals include gold, silver, and copper. Examples of salable minerals include stone, sand, and 

gravel. 

1-10 Alabama and Mississippi RMP