BLM/ES/PL-07/001+1610 

Mission Statement 

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, 

diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of 

present and future generations. 

Cover Photos: Top Left – Point Clear Island, Hancock County, Mississippi; Top Right – Hanging Moss at Big 

Rock Island, Mitchell Lake Alabama; Middle Right – Fowl River Tract, Mobile County, Alabama; Bottom Left – 

Fort Morgan Beach Tract, Baldwin County, Alabama; and Bottom Right – Oil rig on Federal lease. 
United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Eastern States 

Jackson Field Office 

411 Briarwood Drive, Suite 404 

Jackson, Mississippi 39206 

http://www.es.blm.gov/AL MS RMP

In Reply Refer To: 

1610 (020) 

Dear Reader: 

Attached for your review and comment is the Alabama and Mississippi Draft Resource Management Plan 

(RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Eastern States, Jackson Field Office (JFO). The 

BLM published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register to prepare this RMP-EIS on July 12, 2002. An 

official scoping period began with this publication and ran through September 2002. Letters were sent to 

Alabama and Mississippi State agencies, county supervisors and commissioners, and the governors of 

both States to inform them of the planning process. The State of Mississippi accepted the invitation to 

become an official cooperating agency. 

The alternative resource management plans described in this document have been designed to resolve 

land management issues that were identified through the planning process and to provide a basis for 

comparison of the impacts associated with each alternative. Analyses of the environmental consequences 

of implementing each of the alternatives are also included in the document. The final decision and 

Proposed RMP may be one of the alternatives in its entirety or a combination of various actions contained 

in more than one of the alternatives described in this Draft RMP-EIS. 

We invite your comments on the content of this document. A 90-day comment period will begin with the 

date the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the filing of this Draft RMP-EIS in the 

Federal Register. We are particularly interested in comments that address one or more of the following: 1) 

possible flaws in the analysis; 2) new information that would have a bearing on the analysis; and 3) needs 

for clarification. Please send your written comments to: 

Gary Taylor 

BLM Planning Coordinator 

411 Briarwood Drive, Suite 404 

Jackson, Mississippi 39206 

Comments, including the names and street addresses of respondents, will be made available for review by 

the public at the address listed above during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), Monday 

through Friday, except holidays, and will be published as part of the Proposed RMP and Final EIS. 

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in 

your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment – including your personal identifying 

information – may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 

able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses and from individuals representing, or who 

are officials of, organizations or businesses will be made available for public inspection in their entirety. 

Comments on the Draft RMP-EIS will be fully considered and evaluated in development of the Proposed 

RMP and Final EIS. Through your participation in this effort, we can move forward together toward a 

common goal of improved public land management in Mississippi and Alabama. 
Please retain this copy of the Draft RMP-EIS for future reference, as the Proposed RMP and Final EIS 

may be published in abbreviated format. A copy of this Draft RMP-EIS has been sent to affected Federal, 

State, and local government agencies and to those persons who indicated they wished to receive a copy. 

The Draft RMP-EIS can be downloaded from the RMP website at http://www.es.blm.gov/AL_MS_RMP. 

Copies of the Draft RMP-EIS are available for public inspection at the following BLM locations: 

Bureau of Land Management 

Eastern States Office 

7450 Boston Boulevard 

Springfield, Virginia 22153 

Bureau of Land Management 

Jackson Field Office 

411 Briarwood Drive, Suite 404 

Jackson, Mississippi 39206 

Public participation is important for the successful development of these plans. We ask for your 

thoughtful evaluation and comments. 

Sincerely, 

Alan Barron Bail 

Acting State Director 
Alabama and Mississippi 

Draft Resource Management Plan 

and Environmental Impact 

Statement

for 

Public Lands Administered 

by the 

Bureau of Land Management 

Eastern States 

Jackson Field Office 

Prepared by 

United States Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Eastern States 

Jackson Field Office 

In cooperation with 

The State of Mississippi 

August 2007 
This page intentionally left blank.
Draft EIS – August 2007 Abstract 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP i 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR 

THE ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Type of Action: Administrative 

Jurisdiction: Portions of the States of Mississippi and Alabama 

Abstract: This Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

describes and analyzes a reasonable range of management alternatives for the public lands and resources 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management (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 non-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]). 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. BLM has 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. 

Four alternatives are analyzed in detail, including the Preferred Alternative. The management 

prescriptions of the four alternatives would guide management of BLM-administered lands (referred to as 

surface tracts) and non-USFS FMO in Alabama and Mississippi. The management alternatives evaluated 

in this Draft RMP-EIS were developed to meet management goals and 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. 

Comments on this Draft RMP-EIS will be accepted for 90 days following the date that the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the notice of filing this Draft EIS in the Federal Register. Further 

information regarding this Draft EIS can be obtained from: 

Gary Taylor 

BLM Planning Coordinator 

411 Briarwood Drive, Suite 404 

Jackson, Mississippi 39206 
Abstract Draft EIS – August 2007 

ii Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

This page intentionally left blank.
Draft EIS – August 2007 Table of Contents 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................ES-1 

CHAPTER 1 —PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................................................. 1-1 

1.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN ................................................................................................. 1-1 

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA ........................................................................................... 1-1 

1.4 PLANNING ISSUES .................................................................................................................................. 1-6 

1.4.1 Mineral (Oil, Gas, and Coal) Leasing................................................................................................. 1-6 

1.4.2 Land Ownership Adjustments ............................................................................................................ 1-6 

1.5 PLANNING CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................. 1-6 

1.6 OVERVIEW OF THE PLANNING PROCESS ......................................................................................... 1-7 

1.7 READER’S GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT ............................................................................................ 1-9 

1.8 TOPICS NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.......................................1-10 

CHAPTER 2 —ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1.1 How to Read This Chapter ................................................................................................................. 2-1 

2.2 ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS ............................................................................................................. 2-1 

2.3 STANDARD MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES ................................................ 2-2 

2.3.1 Air Quality.......................................................................................................................................... 2-2 

2.3.2 Soil Resources.................................................................................................................................... 2-3 

2.3.3 Unique and Prime Farmland............................................................................................................... 2-3 

2.3.4 Water Resources................................................................................................................................. 2-3 

2.3.5 Vegetative Communities .................................................................................................................... 2-4 

2.3.6 Fish and Wildlife................................................................................................................................ 2-4 

2.3.7 Special Status Species ........................................................................................................................ 2-4 

2.3.8 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management........................................................................................... 2-4 

2.3.9 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................. 2-5 

2.3.10 Paleontological Resources.................................................................................................................. 2-5 

2.3.11 Visual Resources ................................................................................................................................ 2-5 

2.3.12 Minerals.............................................................................................................................................. 2-5 

2.3.13 Recreation........................................................................................................................................... 2-6 

2.3.14 Lands and Realty................................................................................................................................ 2-6 

2.3.15 Hazardous Materials........................................................................................................................... 2-7 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL............................................................................................ 2-8 

2.4.1 Management of Non-Forest Service Federal Mineral Ownership...................................................... 2-9 

2.4.2 Management of Surface Tracts..........................................................................................................2-17 

CHAPTER 3 —AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT....................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1.1 How to Read This Chapter ................................................................................................................. 3-1 

3.2 ALABAMA STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE .............................................................................................. 3-1 

3.2.1 Air Quality.......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.2.2 Soil Resources.................................................................................................................................... 3-3 

3.2.3 Water Resources................................................................................................................................. 3-4 

3.2.4 Vegetative Communities .................................................................................................................... 3-6 

3.2.5 Fish and Wildlife................................................................................................................................ 3-8 

3.2.6 Special Status Species ........................................................................................................................ 3-8 

3.2.7 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management..........................................................................................3-23 
Table of Contents Draft EIS – August 2007 

iv Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

3.2.8 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................3-24 

3.2.9 Visual Resources ...............................................................................................................................3-28 

3.2.10 Minerals.............................................................................................................................................3-29 

3.2.11 Recreation and Travel Management..................................................................................................3-35 

3.2.12 Lands and Realty...............................................................................................................................3-36 

3.2.13 Social and Economic .........................................................................................................................3-36 

3.2.14 Hazardous Materials..........................................................................................................................3-40 

3.3 ALABAMA SURFACE TRACT DESCRIPTION....................................................................................3-41 

3.3.1 Coosa River Tracts ............................................................................................................................3-42 

3.3.2 Fort Morgan Beach Tracts.................................................................................................................3-44 

3.3.3 Fort Morgan Highway Tracts ............................................................................................................3-46 

3.3.4 Fowl River Tract ...............................................................................................................................3-48 

3.3.5 Geneva Tract .....................................................................................................................................3-50 

3.3.6 Jordan Lake Tract..............................................................................................................................3-51 

3.4 MISSISSIPPI STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE ...........................................................................................3-53 

3.4.1 Air Quality.........................................................................................................................................3-53 

3.4.2 Soil Resources...................................................................................................................................3-54 

3.4.3 Water Resources................................................................................................................................3-55 

3.4.4 Vegetative Communities ...................................................................................................................3-59 

3.4.5 Fish and Wildlife...............................................................................................................................3-60 

3.4.6 Special Status Species .......................................................................................................................3-61 

3.4.7 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management..........................................................................................3-71 

3.4.8 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................3-72 

3.4.9 Visual Resources ...............................................................................................................................3-74 

3.4.10 Minerals.............................................................................................................................................3-75 

3.4.11 Recreation and Travel Management..................................................................................................3-76 

3.4.12 Lands and Realty...............................................................................................................................3-77 

3.4.13 Social and Economic .........................................................................................................................3-78 

3.4.14 Hazardous Materials..........................................................................................................................3-82 

3.5 MISSISSIPPI SURFACE TRACT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................3-83

3.5.1 Hancock County Tract.......................................................................................................................3-83 

CHAPTER 4 —ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1.1 How to Read This Chapter ................................................................................................................. 4-1 

4.1.2 Approach to the Analysis ................................................................................................................... 4-2 

Types of Effects ............................................................................................................................................................. 4-2 

4.1.3 Availability of Data and Incomplete Information .............................................................................. 4-3 

4.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS FROM BLM MANAGEMENT ACTIONS IN ALABAMA ....... 4-4 

4.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)................................................................................................................... 4-4 

Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4-4 

Soil Resources................................................................................................................................................................ 4-6 

Water Resources ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-7 

Vegetative Communities................................................................................................................................................ 4-9 

Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-10 

Special Status Species.................................................................................................................................................. 4-12 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management..................................................................................................................... 4-15 

Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 4-16 

Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-18 

Minerals ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-19 

Recreation and Travel Management ............................................................................................................................ 4-20 

Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-21 

Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................... 4-21 

Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................................................... 4-23 

4.2.2 Alternative 2......................................................................................................................................4-24 

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 4-24 

Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................................................. 4-24 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Table of Contents 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP v 

Water Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-25 

Vegetative Communities.............................................................................................................................................. 4-26 

Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-27 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management..................................................................................................................... 4-30 

Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 4-31 

Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-33 

Minerals ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-33 

Recreation and Travel Management ............................................................................................................................ 4-34 

Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-35 

Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................... 4-35 

Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................................................... 4-36 

4.2.3 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative).................................................................................................4-37 

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 4-37 

Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................................................. 4-37 

Water Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-38 

Vegetative Communities.............................................................................................................................................. 4-39 

Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-40 

Special Status Species.................................................................................................................................................. 4-40 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management..................................................................................................................... 4-41 

Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 4-42 

Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-43 

Minerals ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-43 

Recreation and Travel Management ............................................................................................................................ 4-44 

Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-45 

Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................... 4-45 

Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................................................... 4-46 

4.2.4 Alternative 4......................................................................................................................................4-47 

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 4-47 

Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................................................. 4-47 

Water Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-48 

Vegetative Communities.............................................................................................................................................. 4-49 

Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-50 

Special Status Species.................................................................................................................................................. 4-51 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management..................................................................................................................... 4-52 

Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 4-52 

Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-53 

Minerals ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-54 

Recreation and Travel Management ............................................................................................................................ 4-55 

Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-55 

Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................... 4-56 

Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................................................... 4-56 

4.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS FROM BLM MANAGEMENT ACTIONS IN MISSISSIPPI ....4-57 

4.3.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)..................................................................................................................4-57 

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 4-57 

Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................................................. 4-58 

Water Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-59 

Vegetative Communities.............................................................................................................................................. 4-61 

Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-62 

Special Status Species.................................................................................................................................................. 4-64 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management..................................................................................................................... 4-66 

Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 4-67 

Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-69 

Minerals ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-70 

Recreation and Travel Management ............................................................................................................................ 4-71 

Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-72 

Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................... 4-72 

Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................................................... 4-73 

4.3.2 Alternative 2......................................................................................................................................4-74 

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 4-74 

Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................................................. 4-74 

Water Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-75 

Vegetative Communities.............................................................................................................................................. 4-76 
Table of Contents Draft EIS – August 2007 

vi Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-77 

Special Status Species.................................................................................................................................................. 4-77 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management..................................................................................................................... 4-79 

Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 4-80 

Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-81 

Minerals ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-82 

Recreation and Travel Management ............................................................................................................................ 4-82 

Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-83 

Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................... 4-83 

Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................................................... 4-84 

4.3.3 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative).................................................................................................4-85 

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 4-85 

Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................................................. 4-85 

Water Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-86 

Vegetative Communities.............................................................................................................................................. 4-86 

Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-87 

Special Status Species.................................................................................................................................................. 4-88 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management..................................................................................................................... 4-89 

Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 4-89 

Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-90 

Minerals ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-90 

Recreation and Travel Management ............................................................................................................................ 4-91 

Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-92 

Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................... 4-92 

Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................................................... 4-92 

4.3.4 Alternative 4......................................................................................................................................4-93 

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 4-93 

Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................................................. 4-93 

Water Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-94 

Vegetative Communities.............................................................................................................................................. 4-95 

Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-96 

Special Status Species.................................................................................................................................................. 4-96 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management..................................................................................................................... 4-97 

Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 4-98 

Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-99 

Minerals ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-99 

Recreation and Travel Management .......................................................................................................................... 4-100 

Lands and Realty........................................................................................................................................................ 4-101 

Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................. 4-101 

Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................................................. 4-101 

4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .....................................................................................................................4-102 

4.4.1 Cumulative Impacts from BLM Management Actions in Alabama................................................4-105 

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................. 4-105 

Soil Resources............................................................................................................................................................ 4-106 

Water Resources ........................................................................................................................................................ 4-106 

Vegetative Communities............................................................................................................................................ 4-107 

Fish and Wildlife........................................................................................................................................................ 4-107 

Special Status Species................................................................................................................................................ 4-108 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management................................................................................................................... 4-109 

Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................................................... 4-110 

Visual Resources........................................................................................................................................................ 4-111 

Minerals ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4-111 

Recreation and Travel Management .......................................................................................................................... 4-111 

Lands and Realty........................................................................................................................................................ 4-112 

Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................. 4-112 

Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................................................. 4-113 

4.4.2 Cumulative Impacts from BLM Management Actions in Mississippi ............................................4-114 

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................. 4-114 

Soil Resources............................................................................................................................................................ 4-114 

Water Resources ........................................................................................................................................................ 4-115 

Vegetative Communities............................................................................................................................................ 4-115 

Fish and Wildlife........................................................................................................................................................ 4-116 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Table of Contents 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP vii 

Special Status Species................................................................................................................................................ 4-116 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management................................................................................................................... 4-118 

Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................................................... 4-119 

Visual Resources........................................................................................................................................................ 4-120 

Minerals ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4-120 

Recreation and Travel Management .......................................................................................................................... 4-120 

Lands and Realty........................................................................................................................................................ 4-121 

Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................. 4-121 

Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................................................. 4-122 

CHAPTER 5 —CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................................. 5-1 

5.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS............................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.2 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION............................................................................................. 5-1 

5.2.1 Other Federal Agency Consultation ................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.2.2 State and Local Agency Consultation ................................................................................................ 5-2 

5.2.3 Native American Consultation ........................................................................................................... 5-2 

5.3 PUBLIC SCOPING..................................................................................................................................... 5-3 

5.4 PROJECT WEB SITE................................................................................................................................. 5-3 

5.5 DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNING CRITERIA......................................................................................... 5-4 

5.6 FUTURE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ....................................................................................................... 5-4 

5.7 DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT RMP-EIS .................................................................................................... 5-4 

5.7.1 Federal Agencies ................................................................................................................................ 5-4 

5.7.2 Alabama State Agencies..................................................................................................................... 5-4 

5.7.3 Mississippi State Agencies................................................................................................................. 5-5 

5.7.4 Local Governments ............................................................................................................................ 5-5 

5.7.5 Native American Tribes ..................................................................................................................... 5-5 

5.7.6 U. S. Senate ........................................................................................................................................ 5-6 

5.7.7 U. S. House of Representatives .......................................................................................................... 5-6 

5.7.8 Organizations/Industry ....................................................................................................................... 5-6 

5.8 LIST OF PREPARERS............................................................................................................................... 5-7 

5.8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 5-7 

ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................................ACRONYMS-1 

GLOSSARY............................................................................................................................................GLOSSARY-1 

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................REFERENCES-1 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Recreation and Public Purposes Act Lands 

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 
Table of Contents Draft EIS – August 2007 

viii Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

LIST OF TABLES 

CHAPTER 1 — PURPOSE AND NEED 

Table 1-1. Land and Mineral Ownership and Administrative Jurisdictions within the RMP 

Planning Area in Alabama .................................................................................................................1-2 

Table 1-2. Land and Mineral Ownership and Administrative Jurisdictions within the RMP 

Planning Area in Mississippi .............................................................................................................1-3 

CHAPTER 2 — ALTERNATIVES 

Table 2-1. Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in Alabama by Alternative..................................................2-10 

Table 2-2. Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in Mississippi by Alternative ..............................................2-11 

Table 2-3. Leasing Stipulations in Alabama by Alternative....................................................................2-11 

Table 2-4. Leasing Stipulations in Mississippi by Alternative ................................................................2-14 

Table 2-5. Surface Tracts in Alabama and Mississippi............................................................................2-17 

Table 2-6. Alternatives for Coosa River Tracts .......................................................................................2-19 

Table 2-7. Alternatives for Fort Morgan Beach Tracts............................................................................2-24 

Table 2-8. Alternatives for Fort Morgan Highway Tracts .......................................................................2-27 

Table 2-9. Alternatives for Fowl River Tract ..........................................................................................2-30 

Table 2-10. Alternatives for Geneva Tract ..............................................................................................2-33 

Table 2-11. Alternatives for Jordan Lake Tract.......................................................................................2-36 

Table 2-12. Alternatives for Hancock County, Mississippi, Tract ..........................................................2-39 

Table 2-13. Comparison of Impacts For Alabama...................................................................................2-42 

Table 2-14. Comparison of Impacts For Mississippi...............................................................................2-57 

CHAPTER 3 — AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Table 3-1. Recent Highest Ambient Air Quality Measurements in Alabama............................................3-2 

Table 3-2. Federally-listed Mussel Species in Alabama..........................................................................3-16 

Table 3-3. Federally-listed Aquatic Snail Species in Alabama................................................................3-19 

Table 3-4. DOI and USDA Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for Alabama.........................................3-24 

Table 3-5. Prehistoric Periods Present in Southeastern United States .....................................................3-24 

Table 3-6. Cultural Sites on BLM Surface and non-USFS FMO Tracts in Alabama..............................3-28 

Table 3-7. BLM-administered Federal Mineral Ownership by Surface Ownership in Alabama ............3-29 

Table 3-8. BLM-administered non-USFS Federal Mineral Ownership by Surface 

Management Agency in Alabama..........................................................................................3-35 

Table 3-9. Soil Classification for the Fort Morgan Beach Tracts ............................................................3-44

Table 3-10. Soil Classification for the Fort Morgan Highway Tracts .....................................................3-46 

Table 3-11. Soil Classification for the Fowl River Tract.........................................................................3-48 

Table 3-12. Recent Highest Ambient Air Quality Measurements in Mississippi....................................3-53 

Table 3-13. Federally and State-listed Mussel Species in Mississippi ....................................................3-69 

Table 3-14. DOI and USDA Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for Mississippi...................................3-71 

Table 3-15. Cultural Sites on BLM Surface and Non-USFS FMO Tracts in Mississippi .......................3-73 

Table 3-16. BLM-administered Federal Mineral Ownership by Surface Ownership..............................3-75 

Table 3-17. BLM-administered non-USFS Federal Mineral Ownership by Surface 

Management Agency in Mississippi ......................................................................................3-77 

Table 3-18. Employment by Industry, 2000 – 2005 ................................................................................3-78 

Table 3-19. Poorest Counties in Mississippi............................................................................................3-81 

Table 3-20. Mississippi Counties with Black or African American Populations, 2000 ..........................3-82 

Table 3-21. Soil Classification for the Hancock County Tract................................................................3-84 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Table of Contents 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP ix 

CHAPTER 4 — ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Table 4-1. Types of Impacts ......................................................................................................................4-2 

Table 4-2. Maximum Potential Oil and Gas Air Emissions for BLM and Non-BLM Activities in 

Alabama ...................................................................................................................................4-5 

Table 4-3. Maximum Potential Coal Mining Air Emissions for BLM and Non-BLM Activities in 

Alabama ...................................................................................................................................4-5 

Table 4-4. Maximum Potential Oil and Gas Air Emissions for BLM and Non-BLM Activities in 

Mississippi .............................................................................................................................4-58 

Table 4-5. Future Anticipated Well Development In Alabama .............................................................4-102 

Table 4-6. Future Anticipated Well Development In Mississippi .........................................................4-103 

Table 4-7. DOI and USDA Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for Alabama.......................................4-103 

Table 4-8. DOI and USDA Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for Mississippi...................................4-104 

Table 4-9. Developed Surface Area of Non-Federal and Federal Land and Water Areas, 

By State and Year ................................................................................................................4-104 

Table 4-10. Comparison of Potential BLM Emissions with Cumulative Emissions for Alabama ........4-105 

Table 4-11. Comparison of Potential BLM Emissions with Cumulative Emissions for Mississippi ....4-114 

CHAPTER 5 — CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

Table 5-1. BLM Preparers .........................................................................................................................5-7 

Table 5-2. Booz Allen Hamilton Preparers................................................................................................5-8 

LIST OF FIGURES 

CHAPTER 1 — PURPOSE AND NEED 

Figure 1-1. RMP-EIS Process....................................................................................................................1-8 

LIST OF MAPS 

Map 1-1. Federal Lands and Mineral Ownership in Alabama...................................................................1-4 

Map 1-2. Federal Lands and Mineral Ownership in Mississippi ...............................................................1-5 

Map 2-1a. Coosa River Tracts .................................................................................................................2-21 

Map 2-1b. Coosa River Tracts .................................................................................................................2-22 

Map 2-1c. Coosa River Tracts .................................................................................................................2-23 

Map 2-2. Fort Morgan Beach Tracts........................................................................................................2-26 

Map 2-3. Fort Morgan Highway Tracts...................................................................................................2-29 

Map 2-4. Fowl River Tract ......................................................................................................................2-32 

Map 2-5. Geneva Tract ............................................................................................................................2-35 

Map 2-6. Jordan Lake Tract.....................................................................................................................2-38 

Map 2-7. Hancock County, Mississippi Tract .........................................................................................2-41 

Map 3-1. Major Drainage Basins of Alabama ...........................................................................................3-5 

Map 3-2. Oil and Gas Production ............................................................................................................3-31 

Map 3-3. Federal Coal Ownership within Coal Development Potential Areas .......................................3-34 

Map 3-4. Major Drainage Basins of Mississippi .....................................................................................3-56 

Map 3-5. Primary Groundwater Recharge Zones in Mississippi.............................................................3-58
Table of Contents Draft EIS – August 2007 

x Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

This page intentionally left blank.
Draft EIS – August 2007 Executive Summary 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION

This Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes and 

analyzes a reasonable range of management alternatives for the public lands and resources administered 

by the Bureau of Land Management (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 non-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, oil and gas 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 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 

“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. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAFT RMP-EIS ALTERNATIVES

Four alternatives are analyzed in detail, including the Preferred Alternative. The management 

prescriptions of the four alternatives described in Chapter 2 would guide management of BLMadministered lands (referred to as surface tracts) and non-U.S. Forest Service Federal mineral ownership 

(non-USFS FMO) in Alabama and Mississippi. 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-EIS were developed to meet management goals and 

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. 

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

and resources. 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. 
Executive Summary Draft EIS – August 2007 

ES-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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 walk-overs 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), and 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 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 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Executive Summary 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP ES-3 

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, but 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. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The environmental consequences that could result from the management prescriptions of the four 

alternatives are described in Chapter 4 and are summarized and compared in Table 2-13, Comparison of 

Impacts for Alabama and Table 2-14, Comparison of Impacts for Mississippi. These potential 

consequences are discussed for each resource program, providing an analysis of environmental effects 

resulting from management of all resources and resource uses. This includes an analysis of cumulative 

effects, which are defined as the impacts that result from the incremental impact of an action when added 

to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Consultation, coordination and public involvement were undertaken by BLM throughout the process of 

developing this Draft RMP-EIS. Consultation, coordination, and public involvement in preparing this 

Draft RMP-EIS have been accomplished through public and informal meetings, individual contacts, 

bulletins, news releases, and Federal Register notices. 

BLM consulted and coordinated with federal and state agencies and Native American tribes in developing 

this Draft RMP-EIS. Specifically, BLM has coordinated with the USFWS to obtain a species list and 

develop best management practices and oil and gas leasing stipulations for the alternatives. BLM 

coordinated on the state level by contacting Alabama and Mississippi State agencies, county supervisors 

and commissioners, and the governors of both States to inform them of the RMP planning process. In 

addition, BLM contacted appropriate Native American tribes, inviting them to participate in the Alabama 
Executive Summary Draft EIS – August 2007 

ES-4 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

and Mississippi RMP-EIS development process, and offered to meet with tribal leaders or representatives 

in person to discuss issues, concerns, and questions they might have. 

Public Involvement 

Public participation in the RMP-EIS process includes a variety of efforts to identify and address public 

concerns and needs. The public involvement process assists the agencies in broadening the information 

base for decision-making, informing the public about the RMP-EIS and the potential impacts associated 

with various management decisions, and ensuring that public needs and viewpoints are understood by the 

agency. 

A public workshop (with an emphasis on BLM tracts in Baldwin County, Alabama) was held in Gulf 

Shores, Alabama, on September 2, 2004, to solicit additional comments for developing alternatives. The 

workshop was conducted in an open house format, with resource stations and BLM staff available for 

individual discussions. Eight participants attended the workshop, including representatives from the 

Alabama State Lands Division. Information meetings with Baldwin County also took place during this 

period. Although BLM provided a deadline of November 30, 2004 to receive information and input via 

mail, e-mail, or the project Web site, none was submitted; however, BLM accepted input from the public 

and interested agencies throughout the planning process. Comment letters that were submitted after the 

November deadline dealt primarily with the Baldwin County land tracts and how they should be managed 

by BLM. All comments were collected, analyzed, and included in the project administrative record. 

Cooperating Agencies 

The primary role of cooperating agencies (also referred to as cooperators) is to provide special expertise 

and/or assistance to the lead agency throughout the RMP-EIS process. Cooperator roles include 

participation in the scoping process, provision of information and assistance to the lead agency, review of 

draft information, and provision of overall advice during the planning process. 

Letters were sent to the States of Alabama and Mississippi requesting their involvement in the planning 

process as cooperating agencies. The State of Mississippi accepted the invitation to become an official 

cooperating agency. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 1-1 

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 non-
Chapter 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

1-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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 minerals3 303,440 

 C. Federal agency (other than BLM or USFS) surface land—Federal minerals4 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 minerals6 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 

"nominal acreage." 

2 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 

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, 

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 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 1-3 

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 minerals2 174 

 B. Non-Federal land-Federal minerals3 401,410 

 C. Federal agency (other than BLM or USFS) surface land / Federal minerals4 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 minerals6 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. 
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 

1-6 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 1-7 

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 
Chapter 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

1-8 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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 

Figure 1-1. RMP-EIS Process

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

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 Chapter 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 1-9 

• 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 
Chapter 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

1-10 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

• 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. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-1 

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 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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); 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-3 

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 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-4 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-5 

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) 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-6 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-7 

(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 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-8 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-9 

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. 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-10 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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 

Oil and Gas 

Leasing 

Category 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

(Acres) 

Alternative 2 

(Acres) 

Alternative 3 

(Preferred) 

(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 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-11 

Oil and Gas 

Leasing 

Category 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

(Acres) 

Alternative 2 

(Acres) 

Alternative 3 

(Preferred) 

(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 

Oil and Gas 

Leasing 

Category 

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 

(Acres) 

Alternative 2 

(Acres) 

Alternative 3 

(Preferred) 

(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 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-12 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-13 

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 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-14 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-15 

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 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-16 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-17 

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. 

c 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 

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

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 

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

Prince Island 12.74 Talladega T. 20S, R. 2E, Sec. 13, Lot 1 

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

Total Acreage of Tract Group 42.14 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-18 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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 

T. 9S, R. 1E, Sec. 25, Lot 5 Fort Morgan Highway Tract 20.16 Baldwin 

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

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

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

Fort Morgan Highway Tract 12.24 Baldwin 

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 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-19 

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 

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. 

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 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). 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-20 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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.
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 

2-24 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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 

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 

proposed. 

Control invasive species through hand pulling, 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. 

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 

Construct protective two dune walk-over structures 

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

enhance and protect existing dune habitat. 

Reintroduce Alabama beach mice in suitable 

unoccupied habitat. 

No specific actions are 

proposed. 

Monitor sea turtle nesting and mark active nests for 

protection to maximize nestling survivorship. 

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 

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. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-25 

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 compatible with habitat management 

including use of the beach and saltwater fishing. 

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 

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) 

(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 remain open to 

ROW applications. 

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. 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

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

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-27 

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 

Remove invasive species such as cogon grass and 

Chinese tallow using an integrated program of hand No specific actions removal and selective, hand application of herbicide. proposed. 

Establish baseline inventories of special status plant 

species. 

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 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. 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-28 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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.
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

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

2-30 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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 

Remove invasive species such as mimosa (Albizia 

julibrissin Durazz L.) by hand and with selective, hand No specific actions application of herbicide. proposed. 

Establish baseline inventories to monitor plant 

communities. 

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 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. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-31 

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.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

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

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-33 

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. 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-34 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

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

2-36 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-37 

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.
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

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

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-39 

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. 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-40 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 2-41 
Chapter 2 

2-42 Al

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 deterioraManagement actions on the surface tracts (159 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 tracts (159 

acres), including vegetation and fish and wildlife habitat treatments, these 

actions would not be anticipated to deteriorate air quality conditions. Since the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva 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 emissions associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. 

Impacts wouAlternative 1Coosa RiverFowl River, atotal of 114 asurface ownavoidance adecreased passociated wcompared 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 eff

Potential oil and gas development on some non-USFS FMO tracts would be in close proximity to the Sipsey Wilderness and the Birmin

area. 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 
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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. 
Chapter 2 

2-44 Al

Alternative 1 

(No Action) 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 flows. Since the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva 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. No coastal wetland habitats or water bodies occur on or adjacent to the Fort Morgan Highway tracts. Development of additional transportation routes and ROW on the Jordan Lake tract could contribute to the already degrading water quality of the Coosa River. 

Impacts wouAlternative 1Coosa RiverFowl River, atotal of 114 asurface ownavoidance adecreased pwater resourROW develoAlternative 1

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 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-USFS FMO 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 thAppendix D would increase the area where seasonaland NSO (43,239 acres) restrictions would be implemreduce disturbance to water resources within the protalternative, 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 poccur. 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. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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 pote

contamination. 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. 
Chapter 2 

2-46 Al

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 
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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
Chapter 2 

2-48 Al

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 buffe

construction 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 m

public 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. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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 
Chapter 2 

2-50 Al

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. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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
Chapter 2 

2-52 Al

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 
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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
Chapter 2 

2-54 Al

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 
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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. 
Chapter 2 

2-56 Al

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, Sup

Reauthorization 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. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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. 
Chapter 2 

2-58 Al

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
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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
Chapter 2 

2-60 Al

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. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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
Chapter 2 

2-62 Al

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) wo

under 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. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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
Chapter 2 

2-64 Al

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
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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 a

would 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. 
Chapter 2 

2-66 Al

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 a

would result from the development of 10 oil and gas w1), impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. Stipualternative could indirectly protect the recreational res

acres managed as NSO and in areas where developm(63,004 acres). 
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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
Chapter 2 

2-68 Al

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 
Draft EIS – August 2007 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

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 occur

addressed in accordance with regulation. 
Chapter 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

2-70 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

This page intentionally left blank.
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-1 

CHAPTER 3—AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the existing physical, biological, cultural, social, and economic characteristics 

within the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) planning area in the States of Alabama and Mississippi. 

Management of resources and resource uses on public lands and minerals administered by the BLM is 

directed by a variety of laws, regulations, policies, and other requirements (as specified in Appendix C). 

By describing existing conditions for resource programs in the planning area, this chapter serves as the 

baseline against which the impacts of the different alternatives are analyzed and compared. 

3.1.1 How to Read This Chapter 

This chapter is divided into four sections: 

• Introduction (Section 3.1)—This section presents an overview of the chapter and provides 

direction on How to Read This Chapter (Section 3.1.1). 

• Alabama Statewide Perspective (Section 3.2)—Oil and gas leasing of BLM-administered 

non-United States Forest Service (USFS) Federal mineral ownership (FMO) could occur 

anywhere in the State; therefore, a statewide perspective is needed to cover the full geographic 

range for the environmental baseline. This statewide discussion is organized by resource 

according to the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1). 

• Alabama Surface tract Description (Section 3.3)—This section provides available information 

specific to each of the surface tracts in Alabama: the Coosa River tracts, Fort Morgan Beach 

tracts, Fort Morgan Highway tracts, Fowl River tract, Geneva tract, and Jordan Lake tract (as 

described in Chapter 2). 

• Mississippi Statewide Perspective (Section 3.4)—Oil and gas leasing of BLM-administered 

non-USFS FMO could occur anywhere in the State; therefore, a statewide perspective is needed 

to cover the full geographic range for the environmental baseline. This statewide discussion is 

organized by resource according to the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1). 

• Mississippi Surface tract Description (Section 3.5)—This section provides available 

information specific to the Hancock County tract in Mississippi (as described in Chapter 2). 

3.2 ALABAMA STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

3.2.1 Air Quality 

Alabama is located in a humid, subtropical climatic region characterized by temperate winters; long, hot 

summers; and an evenly distributed annual rainfall. The region, however, is subject to periods of drought 

and flood—its climatic conditions are rarely average. A feast-or-famine situation attributed to weather 

conditions is typically expected as the climate delivers energy and moisture in subtropical latitudes 

between a large landmass to the north and the Gulf of Mexico to the south (Southeastern Regional 

Climate Center 2005). 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Typical mean annual temperatures range from 60°F in the north to 70°F along the coast. Temperatures 

regularly exceed 100°F at many places in Alabama and drop to zero or lower about once a year. Freezing 

temperatures reach the gulf coast almost every winter. Normal precipitation ranges from 50 to 65 inches 

across the State (NOAA 2007a). 

Air Quality Meteorology 

Surface wind speeds are variable depending on terrain and proximity to the coast. Average wind speeds 

vary from 6 to 10 miles per hour in most locations and follow water drainage features of the land or are 

driven by sea breezes. Dispersion can also be related to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) Stagnation Index, which primarily focuses on ozone (NOAA 2005). On the basis 

of this index, Alabama was prone to air stagnation for 25 to 50 percent of the days from May through 

September of 2002 – 2004. This dispersion index compares moderately to other areas in the country. 

Baseline Air Quality 

Ambient Air Quality. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established ambient air quality 

standards for criteria pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The ambient air 

quality measurements in Alabama for sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide 

(CO), ozone (O3), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are shown in Table 3-1. Ambient air quality 

measurements made by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) indicate that 

ambient air quality is within the standards, except for carbon monoxide, particulates, and ozone in 

Birmingham, Alabama (Shelby and Jefferson Counties), and particulates in Russell County (near 

Columbus, Georgia). Ozone is formed from the chemical reactions of nitrogen oxides, volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), and sunlight. Several Alabama locations exceed the ambient air quality standards. 

Table 3-1. Recent Highest Ambient Air Quality Measurements in Alabama1, 2

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 

Highest 

Measured 

Value (ppm3) 

Location 

National Ambient 

Air Quality 

Standard (ppm3) 

1 year 0.004 Jefferson County 0.03 

SO2 24 hours 0.020 Jefferson County 0.14 

3 hours 0.046 Jefferson County 0.50 

NO2 1 year 0.008 Helena 0.053 

8 hours 25.1 North Birmingham 9 

CO 

1 hour 36.9 North Birmingham 35 

8 hours 0.102 Shelby County 0.080 

O3

1 hour 0.140 Arrant City 0.120 

1 year 38 μg/m3 Birmingham 50 μg/m3

PM10

24 hours 185 μg/m3 Birmingham 150 μg/m3

1 year 21.5 μg/m3 Jefferson County 15 μg/m3

PM2.5

24 hours 57 μg/m3

 Wylam 65 μg/m3

1 ADEM Annual Air Quality Report 2001 (ADEM 2002). 

2 Three-year averages for 1999 through 2003 found at www.adem.state.us/AirDivision/AirDivision.htm (ADEM 2005). 

3 ppm = parts per million 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-3 

Visibility and Atmospheric Deposition. Visibility and atmospheric deposition measurements are not 

available for Alabama. 

Area Air Quality Designations 

Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) of areas meeting the ambient air quality standards are 

divided into the following three categories—Class I for areas of restricted growth, Class II for areas of 

moderate growth, and Class III for industrialized areas (Clean Air Act of 1977, as amended). All of 

Alabama is designated as PSD Class II, except for the Sipsey Wilderness in northwest Alabama, which is 

Class I, and the areas listed previously that did not meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and are unclassified. Other Class I areas (within 100 kilometers of the potential development 

activities) include the Breton National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) off the coast of Louisiana, St. Marks 

NWR in the Florida Panhandle (each managed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]), Cohutta 

Wilderness Area in northern Georgia, and Bradwell Bay Wilderness Area in the Florida Panhandle (each 

managed by USFS). 

3.2.2 Soil Resources 

Physiographic Regions and Soil Types 

Alabama can be divided into four major physiographic regions—Coastal Plain, Piedmont, Valley and 

Ridge, and Appalachian Plateau (Highland Rim and Cumberland Plateau). Each physiographic region is 

described in Appendix F. 

Soil formation and character are all determined by parent material, surface slope, climate, biological 

activity, and time. Because Alabama is located within the humid subtropics, its soils are transitional 

between the cool climatic regions and the tropics. Podzolization, a soil-forming process of humid cool 

climates, and laterization, a soil-forming process of lowland tropics, are represented by the red and yellow 

podzolic soils and reddish-brown lateritic soils in Alabama. The State has seven major soil areas, 

including limestone valleys and uplands, Appalachian Plateau, Piedmont Plateau, prairies, coastal plains, 

major flood plains and terraces, coastal marshes, and beaches (Mitchell 2004). A brief description of the 

major parent soil units and their locations in Alabama is provided in Appendix F. 

The characteristics of soils in BLM-administered non-USFS FMO areas are described in Appendix F. 

Prime and Unique Farmlands 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires the identification of proposed actions that would affect any 

lands classified as prime and unique farmlands. The U. S. Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) administers this act to preserve farmland. 

Prime farmland is defined as having the availability and best combination of physical and chemical 

characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Its soil quality, growing season, 

and moisture supply can produce economically sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed 

according to acceptable farming methods, including water management. In general, prime farmlands have 

an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and 

growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no rocks. 

The land is permeable to water and air. Prime farmlands are not excessively erodible or saturated with 

water for a long period of time, and they neither flood nor require protection from flooding. 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-4 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Prime farmlands occur in dispersed areas across Alabama. Counties in Alabama with areas having high 

potential for oil and gas or coal development likely include soil units that have been identified as prime 

farmland by NRCS. Appendix F includes prime farmland classification information that is available for 

soils within non-USFS FMO. 

3.2.3 Water Resources 

Surface Water 

Alabama is divided into 14 major river basins containing 77,272 miles of rivers and streams (47,072 

miles of perennial rivers and streams and approximately 30,200 miles of intermittent streams). These 14 

basins are the Tennessee, Upper Tombigbee, Lower Tombigbee, Black Warrior, Coosa, Cahaba, 

Tallapoosa, Chattahoochee, Choctawhatchee, Chipola, Perdido-Escambia, Alabama, Mobile, and 

Escatawpa River Basins (ADEM 2004) (Map 3-1). Appendix H briefly describes each major river basin. 

Alabama has ponds, lakes, and reservoirs in excess of 490,472 acres. Freshwater wetlands occupy an 

estimated 3.6 million acres (ADEM 2004). 

Alabama’s surface water is generally of high quality. An indication of full-use support (i.e., meeting 

established water quality criteria for its designated use classification) of rivers and streams can be found 

in Alabama’s Final 2004 §303(d) List, as presented in ADEM 2004. As of 2004, Alabama has a high 

percentage of full-use support for rivers and streams. 

Similarly, Alabama’s publicly accessible lakes and reservoirs have 82.6 percent full-support status. 

However, much of the nonsupport acreage is related to historical, as well as recent, polychlorinated 

biphenyl (PCB) contamination (primarily from industrial point sources in the Upper Coosa River) and 

eutrophic conditions in the Coosa River Basin reservoirs. Naturally higher nutrients in Coosa River Basin 

soils largely dictate the eutrophic conditions of the basin’s reservoirs (ADEM 2004). Several lakes and 

reservoirs are considered to be degrading in the Coosa River Basin, including the Neely Henry, Logan 

Martin, Lay, Mitchell, and Jordan. These reservoirs are characterized by increases in nutrient 

concentrations; implementation of fish tissue consumption advisories; increases in undesirable algal 

species; and violations of water quality standards, or a combination thereof (ADEM 2003). Several of 

BLM’s Coosa River tracts (Foshee Island, Little Rock Island, Big Rock Island, and Gilchrist Island) are 

within Mitchell Lake. One of BLM’s Coosa River (Jordan Lake) surface tracts is located approximately 

10 river miles upstream from Jordan Lake and about 5.5 miles downstream from Mitchell Lake. The 

Coosa River tract at Smith Island is located about 10 miles upstream from Lay Lake. The Coosa River 

tract at Prince Island is located approximately 11 river miles upstream from Lay Lake. 

About 25 river miles in Alabama are within BLM-administered non-USFS FMO areas. Eight river miles 

flow over areas with potentially high mineral development prospects. Oil and gas leases exist on a total of 

about 0.6 river miles. The Cahaba River Basin is of particular interest, as there are nine leases in this area 

and there is renewed interest in coalbed methane natural gas production. Approximately 2,060 lake acres 

occur within non-USFS FMO areas. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data are limited for Alabama. 

Because of the lack of available digital data for freshwater wetlands in Alabama, non-USFS FMO acreage 

within freshwater wetland areas in the State could not be estimated. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-5 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-6 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Ground Water 

Alabama has 19 major aquifers and aquifer systems that supply drinking water to about 44 percent of the 

State’s total population using a public water supply (an additional 6 percent use private wells) (ADEM 

2003). The lack of chronic pollutants in public water supply ground water sources is a good indication of 

Alabama’s high quality ground water and effective resource management (ADEM 2004). 

Precipitation is the sole source of water for the ground water system, but only a small part of the annual 

precipitation actually recharges the ground water system. Because the recharge of aquifers entirely 

depends on precipitation, natural ground water levels in Alabama follow the same pattern of seasonal 

fluctuation as precipitation (USGS 2003). Information on major ground water recharge zones in Alabama 

was not available for evaluation relative to non-USFS FMO. 

Coastal Zone 

The National Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program is a voluntary partnership between the Federal 

government and U. S. coastal states and territories authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 

1972. The Coastal Programs Division, within NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource 

Management, administers the program at the Federal level and works with State CZM partners. 

Alabama’s Coastal Area Management Program (ACAMP) was approved and has been in effect since 

1979. The program regulates various activities on coastal lands and waters seaward of the continuous 

10-foot contour in Baldwin and Mobile Counties of Alabama. The Fort Morgan Beach and Highway 

tracts in Baldwin County in addition to BLM-administered non-USFS FMO fall within the ACAMP. 

Alabama’s coastal wetlands are estimated at 27,600 acres (NWI estimates, as presented in ADEM 2004). 

Coastal Alabama also has an estimated 610 square miles of estuaries and a coastal shoreline that is 337 

miles long (including Mobile Bay and island shorelines) (ADEM 2004). 

EPA has identified the Mobile Bay coastal drainage as a wetland restoration priority area. EPA’s Gulf of 

Mexico program has also identified the Mobile Bay area as a priority for water quality and habitat 

improvement projects (ADEM 2004). In 2000, ADEM’s coastal programs received a wetlands restoration 

grant to implement restoration strategies and address State lands within ADEM’s Alabama Coastal 

Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program’s (ACNPCP) management area, which includes all of Mobile 

and Baldwin Counties. The project has targeted restoration and protection of priority tracts in the 

approximately 5,000 acres of wetlands in Baldwin County. ADEM identified the Bon Secour Bay and 

Fort Morgan Peninsula as priority candidate wetlands restoration sites (ADEM 2004). USFWS is the 

technical adviser to projects conducted under the wetlands restoration grant. 

Wetland types in Baldwin County include riverine (overbank flooding of associated rivers and streams); 

fringe (shoreline of coastal ecosystems, marshes); flat (wet pine flats, pine savannas, and pitcher-plant 

bogs); and depressional (ponds, interdunal swales) (ADEM 2004). On the basis of a rough geospatial 

analysis, about 5,850 acres of BLM-administered non-USFS FMO are within coastal wetland areas in 

Alabama. 

3.2.4 Vegetative Communities 

For this planning effort, Gap Analysis Program (GAP) was used to delineate land cover types on nonUSFS FMO in Alabama. This land cover map is based on Landsat-7 satellite imagery using the National 

Land Cover Data (NLCD), which includes 21 very broad land cover classifications. The decision to use 

this data set was based on its statewide application and availability in a geographical information system 

format at the time this planning effort was initiated. Analysis of the GAP land cover map resulted in the 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-7 

identification of seven dominant cover types on non-USFS FMO lands in Alabama. These cover types 

include deciduous (25 percent); mixed (23 percent); evergreen (19 percent); wetland forest/shrubland (10 

percent); pasture/hay (8 percent); row/crops (5 percent); and open water (2 percent). Less dominant cover 

types (approximately 8 percent) are not discussed further. The following brief discussions provide an 

overview of the cover types found on non-USFS FMO in Alabama. 

• Deciduous (25 percent)—This classification is dominated by trees, of which 75 percent or more 

are hardwoods. Common trees in these areas include a wide variety of oak (Quercus spp.) and 

hickory (Carya spp.) species; red maple (Acer rubrum); ash (Fraxinus spp.); hackberry (Celtis 

laevigata); yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera); beech (Fagus grandifolia); elm (Ulmus spp.); 

sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua); persimmon (Diospyros virginiana); and black cherry 

(Prunus serotina). 

• Mixed (23 percent)—This classification delineates areas where neither hardwood nor pine 

species represent more than 75 percent of the cover. These mixed hardwood/pine areas are 

typically dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda); longleaf pine (Pinus palustris); slash pine (Pinus 

elliottii); or shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), with a wide variety of oak and hickory species, plus 

hackberry, elm, sweetgum, common persimmon, and yellow poplar. 

• Evergreen (19 percent)—This classification delineates areas where 75 percent or more of the 

tree species are evergreen. In Alabama, the dominant pine species are loblolly, longleaf pine, 

slash pine, and shortleaf pine. This classification includes commercial pine plantations, which 

according to the Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) comprised 24 

percent of the forested acreage in Alabama in 2000. Loblolly is the most commonly planted pine 

species. An additional species, sand pine (Pinus clausa) dominates a narrow band of scrub 

habitats behind the coastal dune systems along the Gulf of Mexico. 

• Wetland Forest/Shrubland (10 percent)—This classification comprises areas in which forest or 

shrubland vegetation accounts for 25 to 100 percent of the cover and the soil or substrate is 

periodically saturated or covered with water. These encompass diverse communities ranging from 

forested wetlands, bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) swamps, to bogs and coastal marshes. 

Dominant species in seasonally flooded forests are sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), sweetgum, 

wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), various oaks, and titi (Cyrilla racemiflora). Typical wetland or bog 

species include pitcher plants, various rushes, sedges, arrowhead, and St. John’s wort (Hypericum

spp.). Typical species of coastal wetlands and marshes include sawgrass (Cladium spp.), black 

needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) and bulrush (Scirpus spp.).

• Pasture/Hay (8 percent)—Vegetation in this community is composed of introduced grasses, 

legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock grazing or the production of hay crops. 

• Row/Crops (5 percent)—This classification includes areas being actively cultivated. 

• Open Water (2 percent)—This classification includes areas with less than 25 percent cover of 

vegetation/land cover. 

Alabama Invasive/Exotic Species 

The Alabama Invasive Plant Council lists 45 invasive plants as occurring in the State. The top ten include 

Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera); Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense); multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora); 

tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum); Japanese climbing fern (Lygodium japonicum); kudzu (Pueraria 

montana var. lobata); cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica); hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata); alligator weed 

(Alternanthera philoxeroides); and Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spictum). The most likely to be 

encountered on non-USFS FMO are Chinese tallow, Chinese privet, and cogon grass. Cogon grass, in 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-8 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

particular, has the potential to affect future land use practices because of its ability to alter natural fire 

regimes, its thick growth habit that excludes other vegetation and the difficulty to control it. Chinese 

privet is a common invasive plant that occurs along edges and disturbed sites. Chinese tallow tree is often 

found near or in wetlands, and along fence rows and roads. 

3.2.5 Fish and Wildlife 

Game Species 

Alabama’s major game species include whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern turkey (Meleagris 

gallapavo silvestris), mourning dove, northern bobwhite quail, squirrel and waterfowl species. Alabama 

held its first alligator hunt since the recovery of the species in 2006. The whitetail deer population in 

Alabama was estimated at 1.75 million in 2000, up from an estimated 2,000 in the early 1900s, due in part 

to major restocking efforts during the 1950s and 1960s. The Alabama Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 

Division estimates the current population of eastern wild turkey at 350,000. Turkey prefer hardwood and 

mixed pine-hardwood forestlands interspersed with open areas in both upland and bottomland regions. 

Mourning doves are common throughout the State on farms, and in towns, woodlots, agricultural fields, 

and grasslands. Quail occurrence is incidental across the State, generally associated with abandoned 

weedy fields and open pinelands or savanna with extensive groundcover of forbs, native grasses, and 

scattered brush thickets. Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and fox squirrel are both found statewide. 

The gray squirrel is common in hardwood forests, mixed forests, and urban areas. The less common fox 

squirrel favors mature deciduous and pine-oak woodlands, but also occurs at forest edges and in riparian 

woodlands. Twenty-six species of ducks are found in the coastal and inland waters of Alabama. The wood 

duck (Aix sponsa) and the hooded merganser (Mergus cucullatus) occur Statewide throughout the year 

and breed extensively in Alabama. As part of the Mississippi Flyway Alabama provides important winter 

habitat for waterfowl that are produced in the Prairie Pothole Region and Great Lakes States. Alabama 

provides varied and abundant sport fishery with 26 game species. Reservoirs, ponds, lakes and swamps 

throughout the State provide important habitats for sport fishes. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds 

The Alabama Ornithological Society State list includes 420 species of birds known to occur in the State. 

A total of 178 species are known to breed in Alabama, including 158 species that regularly breed in the 

State. Additionally, 174 species regularly winter in and 80 species migrate through Alabama. This list 

also contains 38 accidental, three extinct, two extirpated (no longer occurring in Alabama, but may occur 

in other States), and four exotic (non-native) species. Maritime forests and shrub lands along coastal 

Alabama provide important staging areas for migrating songbirds and hawks, and are critical when 

weather in inclement or when exhausted birds make landfall. 

3.2.6 Special Status Species 

For the purposes of this document, special status species are defined as all Federally- 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. 

The USFWS currently lists 130 Federally-listed species which historically or currently occur in Alabama. 

The Alabama Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) inventory lists 712 species ranked as either critically 

imperiled (S-1) or imperiled (S-2) being tracked in the State in 2006. A complete list of S-1 and S-2 

species being tracked by ANHP is included in Appendix E. Much of the following discussions are based 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-9 

on the Alabama CWCS, which includes a complete list of the wildlife species of conservation concern in 

the State. 

This discussion of special status species takes a statewide perspective, even though management of 

BLM’s scattered surface acreage and oil and gas development would probably directly affect less than 

264 acres in total. Oil and gas leasing of non-USFS FMO in particular could occur anywhere in the State, 

and future oil and gas development has the potential to affect aquatic systems downstream from locations 

substantially increasing the area potentially affected. Therefore, a statewide perspective is needed to cover 

the full geographic range of potential impacts. 

Overview 

The high number of special status species in Alabama is a factor of the State’s exceptional biodiversity, 

high rate of endemism, and a history of impacting land uses in the State. Physiographically, the State 

crosses five provinces: Interior Plateau, Southwestern Appalachians, Ridge and Valley, Piedmont and 

East Gulf Coastal Plain, and is situated at the periphery of many species’ ranges (see Section 3.4.2). It is 

also a well-known global hotspot for aquatic biodiversity. Alabama surpasses all eastern States in plant 

and animal diversity, ranking fifth in the nation after California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico 

(ANHP 2003). Alabama ranks first in the nation in freshwater species diversity. Of the 307 species of 

freshwater mussels recorded in the nation, 180 have been recorded in Alabama. The Nature Conservancy 

has ranked the Tennessee River and the Mobile River, including its major tributaries, the first and second 

most biologically diverse rivers in the country. 

This diverse fauna is affected by a history of impacting land uses. Most of Alabama’s larger rivers are 

impounded for navigation, hydropower, and flood control, resulting in the loss of many aquatic species 

during this century. The Black Warrior River Basin is the largest coal-producing area in the South and 

coalbed methane production is among the highest in the nation (Alabama Oil and Gas Board), and the 

river system has been degraded by past coal mining, gas development and other uses. Throughout the 

State, aquatic systems have been adversely affected by intensive silviculture and urbanization. Longleaf 

pine, once the State’s most abundant tree (Harper 1928), was reduced to 732,800 acres by 2000 (Hartsell 

and Brown 2002). In the Southeast, longleaf pine forests now exist on only 3 percent of their previous 

range (Frost 1993). Throughout much of its range, these longleaf sites have been converted to loblolly 

pine or slash pine for commercial production and/or degraded by the absence of fire, to the detriment of 

many terrestrial species associated with this once widespread habitat. These factors have contributed to 

Alabama having more wildlife species at risk than any State east of the Colorado River. Only Hawaii, 

California, and Nevada have more imperiled species, and only Hawaii has lost more species to extinction 

(Stein 2002). At least 108 animal species: 47 mussels, 44 aquatic snails, 11 fishes, five birds, and four 

mammals have been extirpated in the State (Alabama CWCS). Of the 117 Federally-listed species in 

Alabama, 70 percent are associated with freshwater aquatic or wetland habitats. 

There is non-USFS FMO in both major oil and gas producing regions of Alabama: the Black Warrior 

River Basin Region and the Southwest Alabama Region, and both of these regions have substantial 

special status species issues. The Black Warrior River Region includes the Black Warrior and Tombigbee 

Rivers and the upper portions of the Cahaba River, all part of the Mobile River basin. Forty-two fish 

species have been identified as endemic to the basin, and according to the Alabama Natural Heritage 2006 

Tracking List, there are now 35 aquatic species either Federally-listed or considered imperiled or 

critically imperiled in the Black Warrior basin alone. The Southwest Alabama Region includes the 

Conecuh, Mobile, Escatawpa, Perdido, and Blackwater River basins. These basins support 26 special 

status aquatic animal species, including the Federally-listed Alabama sturgeon and Gulf sturgeon. 

Uplands in this area contain almost 90 percent of the longleaf pine acreage, both natural and planted, 

remaining in the State (Hartsell and Brown 2002). Eighteen special status species are associated with this 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-10 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

once widespread habitat (Alabama CWCS), including keystone species such as the red-cockaded 

woodpecker and gopher tortoise. Coastal areas in Mobile and Baldwin counties support ten special status 

species, including critical habitat for Alabama beach mouse, nesting habitat for loggerhead sea turtle, and 

critical habitat for wintering piping plover. 

Outside of these producing oil and gas regions, there is non-USFS FMO in all but ten southeastern 

counties in Alabama. Future development in these areas could occur in response to new finds or new 

technology that makes recovery of the oil/gas more economical. For instance, recently there have been 

new wells drilled on private minerals in St. Clair and Etowah Counties. These counties are located in the 

Coosa River Basin, the largest and most biologically diverse portion of the Mobile River Basin, with 39 

special status species. Nine of these are considered to be extirpated from this river basin and an additional 

four are considered to be extirpated from the State. 

On non-USFS FMO across the State there are a number of small, often isolated high-value habitats that 

support special status species. These include many wetland communities such as bogs, seeps, and 

swamps, prairie and glade openings and karst habitats. BLM-administered non-USFS FMO has been 

estimated to include 38,898 acres of shrub and forested wetlands at least periodically inundated. There are 

12 special status amphibians found in the State that utilize these habitats. There are also a number of plant 

species restricted to these habitats, including the green pitcher plant and white fringeless orchid, both 

candidates for Federal listing. Glades, in the northeastern half of the State and prairies in the “Black Belt” 

areas are scarce in this forest dominated State and tend to support rare assemblages of plants. Karst areas 

in the northeastern portion of the State support a high number of endemic species. In Jackson County, 

caves support 24 species found nowhere else and caves in Morgan and Madison counties are designated 

as National Natural Landmarks. 

Species Accounts 

The following Federally-listed or candidate species are known to occur or to have potential to occur on 

BLM non-USFS FMO. There are currently no species proposed for Federal listing in Alabama 

(Natureserve 2006). A list of species ranked by ANHP as critically imperiled (S-1) or imperiled (S-2) is 

provided in Appendix E. 

Mammals 

Gray myotis (Myotis grisescens), Federally-listed as endangered 

Gray myotis roost almost exclusively in caves, generally utilizing different caves for summer and winter 

hibernaculum. Bats may migrate hundreds of kilometers between summer and winters caves. Only a very 

limited number of caves meet the thresholds for temperature, humidity, and isolation. Most records in 

Alabama are from near the Tennessee River and there are small populations in the central and southern 

parts of the State. Water courses and associated forested riparian corridors are important foraging areas 

for gray myotis. 

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), Federally-listed as endangered 

Indiana bat hibernates in caves, typically limestone with pools where the mean midwinter temperature is 

4-8 degrees Celsius. In Alabama, suitable caves are utilized by bats migrating hundreds of kilometers 

from breeding grounds in more northern States. Indiana bat records are primarily from the northern third 

of the State, particularly the Bankhead National Forest and in the karst region of extreme south-central 

portion of the State in Jackson County. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-11 

Alabama beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates), Federallylisted as endangered and ranked 

The Alabama beach mouse is restricted to coastal dunes and scrub/shrub habitats along the Fort Morgan 

Peninsula in Baldwin County. Although the highest population numbers occur in primary dunes, higher 

secondary dunes and scrub habitats, which are less likely to be inundated, provide crucial habitat from 

which mice can recolonize after major storm events. All of the BLM-administered beach tracts in 

Baldwin County are within the designated critical habitat. On January 30, 2007, the Alabama beach 

mouse critical habitat was revised to include addition areas north of the coastal dunes. All of the BLMadministered highway tracts are now within areas designated as critical habitat for Alabama beach mouse. 

Approximately 365 acres of non-USFS FMO are within designated critical habitat. 

Birds 

Piping plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), Atlantic Coast and Great Plains 

populations listed as Federally-threatened and Great Lakes populations 

listed as Federally-endangered 

All three populations of piping plover winter along the south Atlantic and Gulf coasts where they are 

classified as threatened. On July 3, 2001, USFWS designated 165,211 acres along 1,798 miles of 

coastline in eight southern States as critical habitat for the wintering population of piping plover. This 

included several barrier islands and the western tip of the Fort Morgan Peninsula. Piping plover can be 

present in Alabama from August to May, but numbers peak during the winter months. 

Wood stork (Mycteria americana), Federally-listed as endangered 

The wetlands of the Coastal Plain of Alabama provide important foraging habitat for wood storks that 

disperse from breeding areas in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina in late summer and early fall. There 

are no recent breeding records in Alabama, although wood storks may breed in remote swamps of the 

State (Imhof 1976). Primarily, habitats are marshes, swamps, lagoons, ponds, and flooded fields and 

ditches. During extended drought, depressions in marshes and brackish wetlands have increased 

importance. 

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Federally-listed as 

endangered 

Red-cockaded woodpeckers are found in open, mature, old-growth pine woodlands and savannahs. Cavity 

trees are pines generally over 60 years old, located in open stands with little or no hardwood midstory and 

few or no overstory hardwoods. Hardwood encroachment resulting from fire suppression can result in 

cluster abandonment. Potentially suitable foraging habitat is located within 0.5 miles of nesting habitat 

and contains at least 50 percent pines which are 30 years or older. 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Federally-listed as threatened, 

proposed for delisting 

Bald eagles are found throughout the State primarily along rivers and large bodies of water. Alabama 

supports an influx of wintering eagles. A January survey of bald eagles in Alabama has averaged about 

100 – 150 birds in recent years. Concentrations occur on Pickwick Lake near Waterloo and Guntersville 

Lake near Guntersville State Park. A breeding population of bald eagles has been reestablished in the 

State. The Alabama Restoration Project hacked 91 juvenile bald eagles in the State from 1985 – 1991. In 

2006, 100 nests were being monitored in the State. 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-12 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Reptiles 

Flattened musk turtle (Sternotherus depressus), Federally-listed as 

threatened 

The flattened musk turtle is endemic to Alabama, and restricted to Black Warrior River watershed where 

it is found in medium-sized creeks to larger streams and even impoundments. Optimal stream habitat 

consists of a drainage at least 80.5 square kilometers (50 square miles); alternating pools and riffles, with 

pools at least 3-4.5 feet deep; an abundance of submerged boulders and rocks, with crevices; an abundant 

molluscan and benthic invertebrate fauna; a low silt load; and clean water (Mount 1981a). Streams with a 

predominant sandy substrate are also suitable as long as adequate boulder and crevice refugia are present 

(Ernst et al. 1989). 

Alabama red-belly turtle (Pseudemys alabamensis), Federally-listed as 

endangered 

The Alabama red-belly turtle is restricted to the Mobile-Tensaw River Delta in Mobile and Baldwin 

Counties adjacent to Mobile Bay. They are rarely found north of Interstate 65. Systematic sampling of 

major tributaries in coastal Alabama have shown them to be present in major rivers and tributaries of the 

Mobile Bay, Bayou La Batre, Fowl, Dog, Fish, Magnolia, and Bon Secour Rivers. Specimens have also 

been recorded from Daphne and Point Clear, Alabama. Alabama red-bellied turtles are found in shallow 

vegetated backwaters of freshwater streams, rivers, bays, and bayous in or adjacent to Mobile Bay. 

Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), population west of the Mobile 

and Tombigbee Rivers is Federally-listed as threatened 

In Alabama, gopher tortoise populations usually occur below the Fall line in the Southern Pine Plains and 

Buhrstone/Lime Hills ecoregions. Small populations are found along alluvial sandy ridges that occur 

along south Alabama waterways. In Alabama, gopher tortoises are protected by Federal and State laws 

and found in the following counties: Choctaw, Washington, Mobile, Baldwin, Barbour, Bullock, Butler, 

Clarke, Crenshaw, Coffee, Conecuh, Covington, Dale, Escambia, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Monroe, 

Montgomery, Pike, and Wilcox. Small populations occur in Autauga and Macon counties where they 

were introduced by man. The largest populations occur in dry, deep sandy soils where the overhead 

canopy is open. The best populations in Alabama are found in longleaf pine-scrub oak-wiregrass sand 

hills that are frequently burned. The more loamy soils found in the longleaf-wiregrass flatwoods support 

small scattered populations. Clear cuts created by timber operations where gophers occur will support the 

tortoise for the first few years, but will be abandoned as the canopy closes, usually causing the tortoises to 

move to the edges of the woodland roads. Pine plantations that are managed for open canopy by thinning 

and burning will provide the minimum requirements to support a tortoise population. Dense hardwood 

and unburned pine/hardwood habitats are unsuitable for tortoise populations. Agricultural fields and 

wildlife food plots will support some individuals but are considered marginal habitat. Tortoises found in 

these habitats are usually found on the field edges and fence lines where they are not disturbed by annual 

plantings. Loss of habitat and historic over hunting have caused a large statewide decline of tortoise 

populations. There are very few public places that have tortoise populations in Alabama and only the 

Conecuh National Forest and Fort Rucker Military Base have more than 100 individuals. Research has 

shown that gopher tortoises move up to 600 feet between burrows for breeding purposes and two or more 

burrows within 600 feet of each other can be defined as a population (McDearman personal 

communication). 

Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi), Federally-listed as threatened 

The historical range of the eastern indigo snake was from the east coast of South Carolina through 

southern Georgia, Florida, into south Alabama, and southwest Mississippi, and is often associated with 

gopher tortoises. Particularly outside of southern Florida, gopher tortoise burrows provide important 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-13 

refugia from temperature extremes. Naturally occurring populations are now found only in southern 

Georgia and Florida. Indigo snakes were historically found in the lower coastal plain along with the 

burrowing gopher tortoise. In the 1980s indigo snakes were reintroduced in its historical range within the 

State, including releases in Autuaga, Baldwin, Bullock, Covington, Escambia, Mobile, and Washington 

counties. There have been subsequent sightings. 

Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi), Candidate for Federal 

listing 

Black pine snakes are endemic to the upland longleaf pine forests that once covered the southeastern 

United States. Habitat consists of sandy, well-drained soils with an overstory of longleaf pine, a fire 

suppressed mid-story, and dense herbaceous ground cover. In Alabama, there are recorded sightings in 

Mobile County. 

Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), Federally-listed as threatened 

The most common nesting sea turtle in Alabama, loggerheads nest on open sandy beaches above the hightide mark, seaward of well-developed dunes from the Florida border to Dauphin Island, with the majority 

nesting between Fort Morgan and Gulf Shores. Nesting normally occurs from early May through August, 

with the majority of nests being laid during June and July. Females lay three to five nests, and sometimes 

more, during a single nesting season. The eggs incubate approximately two months before hatching 

sometime between late June and mid-November. 

Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), Federally-listed as threatened 

Green sea turtles are rarely seen in Alabama. There have been two recent nesting records in the State. 

Small numbers of this herbivorous species, most often subadults, occur in State waters, but feeding areas 

of submerged grass beds are limited in Alabama. 

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), Federally-listed as 

endangered 

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle is an occasional visitor to Alabama waters, where it is sometimes caught in 

shrimp nets. Although virtually the entire population nests in Mexico and southern Texas, at least two 

nests have been documented in Alabama. 

Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), Federally-listed as 

endangered 

Leatherback sea turtle is an occasional visitor to Alabama waters, but not known to nest in the State. 

Amphibians 

Mississippi gopher frog (Rana sevosa), Federally-listed as endangered 

This species is currently known from a single population in Mississippi, but it has also been recorded 

from Gulf Coast Flatwoods of Alabama (at the mouth of Dog River). It is highly terrestrial. Breeding 

occurs late January to March in open temporary ponds. Habitat includes both upland sandy habitats 

historically forested with longleaf pine and isolated temporary wetland breeding sites imbedded within 

this forested landscape. 

Flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum), Federally-listed as 

threatened 

Flatwoods salamander’s historic distribution in Alabama was confined to southernmost tier of counties 

(Mobile, Baldwin, Escambia, Covington, Geneva, and Houston). The most recent records are from 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-14 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Covington and Houston Counties, 1980 and 1981, respectively. The species has not been recorded in over 

two decades, despite surveys from 1992 to 1995. Characteristic habitat is pine flatwoods, where larvae 

utilize shallow pondcypress or blackgum ponds, marshy pasture ponds, roadside ditches, or small, 

shallow borrow pits. 

Red Hills salamander (Phaeognathus hubrichti), Federally-listed as 

threatened 

This salamander is irregularly distributed within a narrow belt of two geological formations (Tallahatta 

and Hatchetigbee) in parts of five counties (Crenshaw, Butler, Covington, Conecuh, and Monroe) in the 

Red Hills (Schwaner and Mount 1970, Mount 1975). Characteristic habitat is on steep slopes (especially 

north-facing) of ravines and bluffs dominated by hardwood trees such as magnolias, American beech, 

tuliptree, oaks, and hickories. Older-growth timber is preferred. Complete removal of forest canopy in 

most cases results in extirpation of a resident population. 

Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis), a candidate for Federal 

listing 

The Black Warrior waterdog inhabits streams above the Fall Line within the Black Warrior River Basin in 

Alabama. Currently, the species is known from 14 sites in 5 counties: Blount, Marshall, Tuscaloosa, 

Walker, and Winston. Within these counties, occupied river systems including the North River, Locust 

Fork, and Mulberry Fork are all on the EPA’s list of impaired waters. Black Warrior waterdogs are 

associated with clay substrates lacking silt. Stream depths range from 3.3 to 13.1 feet and contain large 

leaf packs supporting mayfly and caddis fly larvae. 

Fish 

Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus dosotoi), Federally-listed as 

threatened 

Adult Gulf sturgeons migrate into large river systems between late March and early April to spawn, 

sometimes moving as much as 140 miles upstream. Adults and subadults return to the Gulf of Mexico in 

late fall. The young generally stay in the river mouth through winter and spring. Critical habitat has been 

designated in Alabama and includes reaches of the Escambia/Conecuh River system in Escambia, 

Conecuh and Covington Counties, and the Choctawhatchee River in Geneva County. 

Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi), Federally-listed as 

endangered 

The Alabama sturgeon is now restricted to a 130-mile reach of the Alabama River below Miller’s Ferry 

Lock and Dam. The Alabama sturgeon currently inhabits only about 15 percent of its historic range which 

originally included about 1,000 miles of the Mobile River system in Alabama (Black Warrior, 

Tombigbee, Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa, Mobile, Tensaw, and Cahaba Rivers) and Mississippi 

(Tombigbee River). 

Blue shiner (Cyprinella caerulea), Federally-listed as threatened 

In Alabama, the blue shiner occurs in Weogufka Creek in Coosa County; Choccolocco Creek, and the 

lower reach of Shoal Creek in Calhoun County; and Little River in Cherokee County. The blue shiner 

prefers a sand or sand and gravel substrate sometimes with cobble, low to moderate velocity current, and 

a depth of about 0.15 to 1 meters. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-15 

Palezone shiner (Notropis albizonatus), Federally-listed as endangered 

Palezone shiner habitat is described as upland large creeks and small rivers with permanent flow, in runs 

and flowing upper portions of pools over clean substrates of bedrock, cobble, and gravel mixed with clean 

sand. The currently documented range includes two widely disjunct populations, one of which is a 25-km 

reach of the Paint Rock River in Jackson County, Alabama. The other population is found in portions of 

the Cumberland and Tennessee River systems in Kentucky and Tennessee. 

Cahaba shiner (Notropis cahabae), Federally-listed as endangered 

The stronghold for the species is limited to about 15 river miles between the Fall Line and Piper Bridge in 

Bibb County, Alabama. The species occurs in large shoal areas of the main channel of the Cahaba River, 

particularly in the quieter water less than 1.64 feet deep just below swift riffle areas. The species prefers 

patches of sandy substrate at the edge of or scattered throughout gravel beds or downstream of larger 

rocks and boulders. This shiner probably requires a river with sufficient small crustaceans, insect larvae, 

and algae for food, similar to its close relative, the mimic shiner. 

Alabama cavefish (Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni), Federally-listed as 

endangered 

The Alabama cavefish is known only from the type locality, Key Cave in Lauderdale County, Alabama. 

Pygmy sculpin (Cottus paulus), Federally-listed as threatened 

The pygmy sculpin is an Alabama endemic known from Coldwater Spring and its adjacent downstream 

spring run, a tributary to Choccolocco Creek in Calhoun County. 

Slackwater darter (Etheostoma boschungi), Federally-listed as threatened 

The slackwater darter is know from disjunct populations in the Cypress Creek, Swan Creek, upper Shoal 

Creek, and Flint River systems in north Alabama and south-central Tennessee, and from the headwaters 

of the Buffalo River in Tennessee. 

Vermillion darter (Etheostoma chermocki), Federally-listed as endangered 

The vermillion darter is limited in distribution to upper Turkey Creek, a tributary to the Locust Fork of 

the Black Warrior River system in Jefferson County, Alabama. The vermilion darter occurs in moderateto-swift currents in streams of alternating riffles and pools. 

Watercress darter (Etheostoma nuchale), Federally-listed as endangered 

The watercress darter is only known to occur in three springs in Jefferson County. A new population has 

been successfully established by transplanting individuals from Roebuck Springs to Tapawingo Springs, a 

tributary of Turkey Creek. 

Boulder darter (Etheostoma wapiti), Federally-listed as endangered 

Boulder darters currently occur in the Elk River system in Giles and Lincoln Counties, Tennessee, and 

Limestone County, Alabama. In 1993, in an effort to reestablish the species within its historic range, 

boulder darters were released at three locations in the Elk River, all upstream of Alabama Highway 127 in 

Limestone County. 

Rush darter (Etheostoma phytophilum), a candidate for Federal listing 

The rush darter is endemic to upland portions of the Black Warrior River system in Alabama where it 

occurs in shallow headwater streams. This species is uncommon and sporadic within its range, as it favors 

shallow, flowing water in spring runs and spring-associated streams with emergent vegetation. Only three 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-16 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

disjunct populations are known: one in the Clear Creek system in Winston County, one in spring-fed 

tributaries of Turkey Creek in Jefferson County; and one population in Little Cove Creek in Etowah 

County. 

Goldline darter (Percina aurolineata), Federally-listed as threatened 

The goldline darter continues to exist in fragmented populations in the Coosawattee River, Georgia, in 

about 7 miles of the Little Cahaba River, and in 27 miles of the 49 miles of historic range in the Cahaba 

River, Alabama. This species prefers moderate to swift currents and water depths greater than two feet. It 

is found over sand or gravel substrata interspersed among cobble and small boulders. 

Snail darter (Percina tanasi), Federally-listed as threatened 

The snail darter is presently known from only six Tennessee River tributaries and from the main stem of 

the Tennessee River near the mouth of three tributaries. In Alabama, the snail darter is restricted to the 

Paint Rock River in Jackson and Madison Counties. This species prefers two types of habitat: relatively 

shallow gravel shoal areas with moderate to swift current; and deep slackwater pools in large streams and 

rivers. 

Mussels 

The following mussel species in Alabama are Federally-listed as endangered, threatened, or are 

candidates for Federal listing. Most of these species require flowing water, over clean, stable sand and 

gravel. Pollution, construction of dams and impounding of major rivers, such as the Tennessee, Coosa, 

Black Warrior and Alabama, and dredging and channelization have resulted in the declines and 

extirpation of many mussel species in Alabama. The occurrence records below were based on historic and 

current records from Nature Serve (2006). 

Table 3-2. Federally-listed Mussel Species in Alabama 

Federally-listed Mussel Species in Alabama Federal 

Status* County Occurrence Records 

Acornshell, southern (Epioblasma othcaloogensis) 

probably extirpated

E* Bibb, Cherokee, Etowah, 

St. Clair, and Shelby 

Bean, Choctaw (Villosa choctawensis) C 

Barbour, Bullock, Coffee, Covington, 

Dale, Geneva, Henry, Houston and Pike 

Counties. 

Blossom, turgid (pearlymussel) (Epioblasma turgidula) 

probably extinct

E Colbert, Franklin, and Lauderdale 

Counties 

Blossom, yellow (pearlymussel) (Epioblasma florentina

florentina) 

probably extirpated 

E Lauderdale and Colbert Counties 

Catspaw (Epioblasma obliquata obliquata) 

probably extirpated E NA ( Muscle Shoals) 

Clubshell, black (=Curtus' mussel) (Pleurobema curtum) 

probably extirpated E NA (Tombigbee River) 

Clubshell, ovate (Pleurobema perovatum) E* 

Blount, Greene, Fayette, Lee, Lamar, 

Lee, Etowah, Macon, Pickens, St. Clair, 

Sumter, Tuscaloosa, Walker, and 

Winston Counties 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-17 

Federally-listed Mussel Species in Alabama Federal 

Status* County Occurrence Records 

Clubshell, southern (Pleurobema decisum) E* 

Cherokee, Dallas, Etowah, Fayette, 

Greene, Lamar, Pickens, St. Clair, and 

Tuscaloosa Counties 

Combshell, Cumberlandian (Epioblasma brevidens) E* Colbert and Etowah Counties 

Combshell, southern (=penitent mussel) (Epioblasma 

penita) E Etowah, Lamar, and Marion Counties 

Combshell, upland (Epioblasma metastriata) 

probably extirpated E* Bibb, Shelby, and Jefferson Counties 

Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria) E Colbert, Lauderdale and Marshall 

Counties 

Heelsplitter, Alabama (=inflated) (Potamilus inflatus) T 

Baldwin, Bibb, Choctaw, Clarke, 

Greene, Hale, Marengo, Pickens, 

Sumter, Tuscaloosa, and Washington 

Counties 

Kidneyshell, triangular (Ptychobranchus greenii) E* 

Blount, Cherokee, Cullman, Etowah, 

Jefferson, Lawrence, St. Clair, Walker, 

and Winston Counties 

Kidneyshell, Southern (Ptychobranchus jonesi) C Barbour and Coffee Counties 

Lampmussel, Alabama (Lampsilis virescens) E Jackson County 

Lilliput, pale (pearlymussel) (Toxolasma cylindrellus) E Jackson County 

Moccasinshell, Alabama (Medionidus acutissimus) T* 

Cherokee, Etowah, Greene, Lamar, 

Lawrence, Pickens, St. Clair, Shelby, 

and Winston Counties 

Moccasinshell, Coosa (Medionidus parvulus) E* Cherokee, Talladega, and Winston 

Counties 

Moccasinshell, Gulf (Medionidus penicillatus) 

Probably extirpated E NA ( Chattahoochee River drainage) 

Monkeyface, Cumberland (pearlymussel) (Quadrula 

intermedia) E Limestone County 

Mucket, orange-nacre (Hamiota (Lampsilis) perovalis) T* 

Bibb, Fayette, Greene, Jefferson, 

Lamar, Lawrence, Pickens, Shelby, 

Tuscaloosa, and Winston Counties 

Mucket, pink (pearlymussel) (Lampsilis abrupta) E 

Colbert, Jackson, Madison, Morgan, 

Marshall, Lauderdale, Lawrence, and 

Limestone Counties 

Oyster mussel, (Epioblasma capsaeformis) E* NA ( Tennessee and Cumberland river 

drainages) 

Pearlshell, Alabama (Margaritifera marrianae) C Conecuh and Crenshaw Counties 

Pearlymussel, cracking (Hemistena lata) E Colbert and Lauderdale Counties 

Pearlymussel, dromedary (Dromus dromas) 

probably extirpated, possible reintroduction E Colbert and Lauderdale Counties 

Pearlymussel, littlewing (Pegias fabula) 

probably extirpated E Lauderdale County 

Pearlymussel, slabside (Lexingtonia dolabelloides) C Colbert, Jackson, Madison, and 

Marshall Counties 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-18 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Federally-listed Mussel Species in Alabama Federal 

Status* County Occurrence Records 

Pigtoe, dark (Pleurobema furvum) E* Fayette, Lawrence, Tuscaloosa, 

Winston, and Jefferson Counties 

Pigtoe, fine-rayed (Fusconaia cuneolus) E Jackson, Marshall, and Madison 

Counties 

Pigtoe, flat (=Marshall's mussel) (Pleurobema marshalli) 

probably extirpated E Greene and Sumter Counties 

Pigtoe, fuzzy (Pleurobema strodeanum) C 

Barbour, Bullock, Coffee, Conecuh, 

Dale, Escambia, Geneva, Henry, and 

Pike Counties 

Pigtoe, oval (Pleurobema pyriforme) E Houston County 

Pigtoe, heavy (=Judge Tait's mussel) (Pleurobema 

taitianum) E 

Baldwin, Clarke, Dallas, Greene, 

Monroe, Sumter, Pickens, and Wilcox 

Counties 

Pigtoe, rough (Pleurobema plenum) E 

Colbert, Lauderdale, Madison, Morgan, 

Marshall, Lawrence, and Limestone 

Counties 

Pigtoe, shiny (Fusconaia cor (=edgariana)) E Jackson, Marshall, and Madison 

Counties 

Pigtoe, southern (Pleurobema georgianum) E* Cleburne County 

Pimpleback, orangefoot (pearlymussel) (Plethobasus 

cooperianus) E Madison and Marshall Counties 

Pink, ring (mussel) (Obovaria retusa) E Colbert and Lauderdale Counties 

Pocketbook, finelined (Hamiota (=Lampsilis) altilis) T* 

Blount, Calhoun, Cherokee, Elmore, 

Etowah, Macon, Shelby, St. Clair, 

Talladega, Lawrence, Walker, Winston, 

Dekalb, Lee, Dallas, Clay, Bibb, 

Jefferson, Tuscaloosa, Fayette, 

Tallapoosa, and Cullman Counties 

Pocketbook, shinyrayed (Hamiota (Lampsilis) 

subangulata) E Russell County 

Purple bankclimber (Plectomerus (=Elliptoideus) 

sloatianus) T NA (Chattahoochee River) 

Sandshell, southern (Lampsilis australis) C Barbour, Coffee, Covington, Dale, 

Geneva, Henry and Pike Counties 

Stirrupshell (Quadrula stapes) 

probably extinct E Pickens County 

Wartyback, white (pearlymussel) (Plethobasus 

cicatricosus) E Colbert and Lauderdale Counties 

Note: E=Endangered, C=Candidate, and T=Threatened 

*Denotes species with designated critical habitat in Alabama 

Aquatic Snails 

The following Federally-listed snails utilize many of the same riverine habitats discussed above under 

Mussels and have been affected by many of the same land use practices including impoundments and the 

general deterioration of water quality from siltation and other pollutants contributed by past mining 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-19 

activities, poor land-use practices, and waste discharges. Seven of these aquatic snails are endemic to the 

Mobile River Basin, where they inhabit shoals, rapids, and riffles of large streams and rivers above the 

Fall Line. All have disappeared from more than 90 percent of their historic ranges. 

Table 3-3. Federally-listed Aquatic Snail Species in Alabama 

Federally-listed Aquatic Snail Species in Alabama Federal 

Status County Occurrence Records 

Armored snail (Pyrgulopsis pachyta), Federally-listed as 

endangered E Limestone County 

Cylindrical lioplax (Lioplax cyclostomaformis), Federallylisted as endangered E Bibb and Shelby Counties 

Flat pebblesnail (Lepyrium showalteri) E Bibb and Shelby Counties 

Lacy elimia (Elimia renetella) T Talladega County 

Painted rocksnail (Leptoxis taeniata) T Calhoun, Chilton, Shelby, and 

Talladega Counties 

Plicate rocksnail (Leptoxis plicata) E Blount and Jefferson Counties. 

Round rocksnail (Leptoxis ampla), Federally-listed as 

threatened T Bibb and Shelby Counties 

Slender campeloma (Campeloma decampi) E Limestone County 

Tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica), Federally-listed as 

endangered E Calhoun, Coosa, Elmore, Shelby, St. Clair, and Talladega Counties 

Note: E=Endangered, C=Candidate, and T=Threatened 

Crayfish 

Although there are no Federally-listed crayfish in Alabama, the state is home to 83 species of crayfish, 

more species than any other state. Twenty are listed as critically imperiled (S-1) or imperiled (S-2) by 

ANHP. 

Cave Shrimp 

Alabama Cave Shrimp (Palaemonia alabamae), Federally-listed as 

endangered 

This freshwater shrimp is known from only two caves in Madison County. 

Insects 

Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii), Federally-listed 

as endangered 

There are recent isolated records of this butterfly in calcareous wetlands dominated by sedges and eastern 

redcedar. 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-20 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Plants 

Alabama canebrake pitcher plant (Sarracenia rubra ssp. alabamensi), 

Federally-listed as endangered 

This pitcher plant is found in sand hills, swamps, and sloping bogs along the Fall Line Hills in saturated, 

deep peaty sands or clay soils. This species is now restricted to three counties: Autauga, Chilton, and 

Elmore in Alabama. One of the largest populations is located in the Roberta Case Pine Hills Preserve in 

Autauga County managed by The Nature Conservancy. 

Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana), Federally-listed as threatened 

Price’s potato bean is an herbaceous twining perennial vine typically located under mixed hardwoods or 

in associated forest clearings, often where bluffs or ravine slopes meet creek or river bottoms. Soils are 

generally well-drained and loamy, formed on alluvium or over calcareous boulders. Several populations 

extend onto road or powerline rights-of-way (ROW). Three extant populations are known from Alabama 

in Madison, Autsuga, and Marshall Counties. Two of the populations are located along the floodplain of 

the Alabama River. 

American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana), Federally-listed as 

endangered 

American chaffseed is a perennial member of the figwort family found in acidic, sandy or peaty soils in 

open pine flatwoods, pitch pine lowland forests, seepage bogs, palustrine pine savannahs, and other grassand sedge-dominated plant communities. It frequently grows in ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands 

and xeric sandy soils. In these situations, individuals sometimes extend well into the drier communities, 

but seldom into the areas that support species characteristic of wetter soils. Surrounding plant 

communities are typically species-rich. There are historic records in Baldwin and Geneva Counties in 

Alabama. 

Panhandle lily (Lillium iridollae), a candidate for Federal listing 

In the Gulf Coastal Plain of Florida and Alabama, this species inhabits baygalls, wet flatwoods, seepage 

slopes, and the edges of bottomland forests. It is typically found in sandy peat or loamy soils which are 

saturated for at least part of the year and include soils classified as Bibb-Kinston-Johns complex, 

Dorovan-Pamlico complex, Lynchburg fine sandy loam, and Rutledge loamy sand. The sites are open to 

full sun or filtered light. This species often occurs in the ecotone between the more open pine/wiregrass 

uplands, or along the stream corridor itself. In Alabama there are records from Baldwin, Covington, and 

Escambia Counties. 

Mohr’s Barbara buttons (Marshallia mohrii), Federally-listed as threatened 

This aster is found in moist to wet prairie-like openings in pine woodlands, along shale-bedded streams, 

and in meadows. Other populations are located in swales on roadside ROW and in Ketona dolomite 

glades. It prefers full sunlight or partial shade. The soils are sandy clays, which are alkaline, high in 

organic matter and seasonally wet. Common associates include various grasses, sedges, and prairie 

species. In Alabama, there are records in Bibb, Calhoun, Cherokee, and Walker Counties. 

Tennessee yellow-eyed grass (Xyris tennesseensis), Federally-listed as 

endangered 

Although Xyris species are usually found on acidic soils, X. tennesseensis is restricted to basic or neutral 

soils that thinly cover calcareous substrates with year-round seepage or mineral-rich water flow. This 

species is found in open or thin canopy woods in gravelly seep-slopes or gravelly bars and banks of small 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-21 

streams, springs, and ditches. In Alabama there are records from Bibb, Calhoun, Franklin, and Shelby 

Counties. 

Georgia rockcress (Arabis georgiana), a candidate for Federal listing 

Typically found in shallow soil accumulations on rocky bluffs, ecotones of gently sloping rock outcrops, 

outcrops along rivers, and sandy loam along eroding riverbanks. It is occasionally found in adjacent mesic 

woods, but it will not persist in heavily shaded conditions. In Alabama, there are records from Bibb, 

Elmore, and Wilcox Counties. 

Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgiana), a candidate for Federal listing 

This aster prefers dry open woods, roadsides, and other openings. In Alabama, there are records in Bibb, 

Blount, Etowah, Shelby, St. Clair, and Tuscaloosa Counties. 

White fringeless orchid (Platanthera integrilabia), a candidate for Federal 

listing 

White fringeless orchid is generally found in wet, flat, boggy areas at the head of streams or seepage 

slopes. The species is often found in acidic muck or sand, and in partially, but not fully shaded areas. In 

Alabama, there are records in Calhoun, Cleburne, Jackson, Marion, Tuscaloosa, and Winston Counties. 

Alabama leather flower (Clematis socialis), Federally-listed as endangered 

The Alabama leather flower is an erect, non-viney perennial herb known from only five sites in northeast 

Alabama and one in northwest Georgia. One population is protected on The Nature Conservancy’s Dry 

Creek Preserve in St. Clair County. Locations are described as having silt and clay of alluvial, grass-sedge 

openings extending into the adjacent hardwood edge. 

Kral’s water plantain (Sagittaria secundifolia), Federally-listed as 

threatened 

Kral’s water plantain typically occurs on frequently exposed shoals or rooted among loose boulders in 

quiet pools up to 3.2 feet or 1 meter in depth. In Alabama, this aquatic perennial is known to occur in only 

12 sites scattered along 25 miles of the Little River drainage system in Dekalb and Cherokee Counties. 

Whorled sunflower (Helianthus verticullatus), a candidate for Federal listing 

The whorled sunflower is restricted to remnant prairie habitat. In Alabama, there are records in Cherokee 

County. 

Leafy prairie-clover (Dalea foliosa), Federally-listed as endangered 

Leafy prairie-clover is a perennial herb found in open, thin-soiled limestone glades and limestone barrens. 

In Alabama there are records in Colbert, Franklin, Lawrence, and Morgan Counties. 

Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis), Federally-listed as threatened 

Louisiana quillwort appears to be restricted to shallow blackwater streams in riparian woodland and 

bayhead forest areas of pine flatwoods. The plants are found on stable sand and gravel bars, moist 

overflow channels with silty sand substrates, and on low, sloping banks near and below water level. In 

Alabama, there are records from Conecuh and Monroe Counties. 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-22 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), Federally-listed as endangered 

Pondberry habitat is characterized as seasonally flooded wetlands, such as floodplain hardwood forests 

and forested swales, usually in shade, but tolerates full sun. In Alabama, there are 2004 records in 

Covington County. 

Harperella (Ptillimnium nodosum), Federally-listed as endangered 

Harperella is an annual that typically occurs in two habitat types: rocky or gravelly shoals of clear, swiftflowing streams, usually in microsites that are sheltered from rapidly moving water; and the edges of 

intermittent pineland ponds or low, wet savannah meadows on the Coastal Plain. In Alabama, there are 

records from Cherokee and Dekalb Counties. On non-USFS FMO, there are 642 acres of potential habitat 

within 200 meters of known occurrences. 

Lyrate bladder-pod (Lesquerella lyrata), Federally-listed as threatened 

Lyrate bladder-pod is found in red soils, limestone outcroppings, disturbed cedar glades and glade-like 

areas, including open pastures, cultivated fields, and roadsides in calcareous areas. In Alabama, there are 

records in Colbert, Franklin, and, Lawrence Counties. 

Gentian pinkroot (Spigelia gentianoides var. entianoides), Federally-listed 

as endangered 

Gentian pinkroot is a herbaceous perennial found in sandy or dry-mesic pine-oak woods or in longleaf 

pine-oak woods with a sparse herbaceous element, including wiregrass (Aristida stricta). It is known only 

from Bibb County. 

Relict trillium (Trillium reliquum), Federally-listed as endangered 

Relict trillium is a species of mesic hardwood forests. The forests can be on slopes of various aspects and 

inclinations or on bottomlands and floodplains. Soils and subsoils range from rocky clays to alluvial 

sands; all soils have high organic matter content in the top level. In Alabama, there are records from 

Bullock, Henry, and Lee Counties. 

Morefield’s leather-flower (Clematis morefieldii), Federally-listed as 

endangered 

Morefield's leather flower is a perennial vine found in basic clay-loam soils in rocky limestone woods on 

the south and southwest facing slopes of mountains. It is currently known from only five locations in 

Madison County. 

American hart’s-tongue fern (Phyllitis scolopendrium var. americana), 

Federally-listed as threatened 

This species is typically found in areas with shady, moist areas and in dolomitic limestone. The two 

populations known in Alabama are associated with caves. One population occurs in a Jackson County 

sinkhole on lands managed as a NWR. The other population is in Morgan County, in the privately owned 

pit entrance to a limestone cave. 

Fleshyfruit gladecress (Leavenworthia crassa), candidate for Federal listing 

The fleshyfruit gladcress occurs in limestone cedar glades, as well as disturbed roadsides, pastures, 

cultivated fields, and old fields. In Alabama, there are records from Lauderdale, Lawrence, and Morgan 

Counties. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-23 

Green pitcher plant (Sarracenia oreophila), candidate for Federal listing 

Green pitcher plants are found in seepage bogs, sandstone streambanks, and mixed oak or pine flatwoods, 

where soils are sandy and highly acidic. In Alabama, records are from the northeastern counties of 

Jackson, Marshall, Dekalb, Cherokee, and Etowah Counties. There are confirmed records of green pitcher 

plant on 635 acres of non-USFS FMO in Cherokee, DeKalb, and Etowah Counties and an additional 646 

acres of non-USFS FMO within 200 meters of known occurrences. 

3.2.7 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

There are two wildfire seasons each year in southeastern States. The first wildfire season usually begins in 

late October with the first frost and hardwood leaf drop and runs through December. The second wildfire 

season usually begins in February and runs to mid-April or until spring green-up. These seasons vary 

from year to year, depending on rainfall, wind, and other weather factors. Wildfires in the South are 

normally not as large as those that occur in the West because of aggressive initial fire control. However, 

wildfires in the South cause extensive damage and can be an avenue for decay in individual trees, 

weakening them and making them susceptible to insect disease and infestation (Southern Group of State 

Foresters 2004). 

Alabama’s forests and associated species are adapted to regular wildland fire. However, changing land 

use practices, urban sprawl, land fragmentation, natural disasters such as hurricanes, increasing land 

values, population increases, and the transition from urban to rural populations results in a build up of 

fuels and a need to increase fuels management and wildland fire activities (Southern Group of State 

Foresters 2004). Through the course of an average year in Alabama, there are 4,000 individual wildland 

fires that burn 40,000 acres (Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). The average wildfire size is 

approximately 12 acres per fire (AFC 2004). Escaped fires from debris burning and arson are major 

causes of wildland fire, though lightening accounts for approximately 7 percent of wildfires (Southern 

Group of State Foresters 2004). “Each year Alabama wildfires damage or destroy 46 homes, 114 

structures, and 1,100 vehicles” (Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). A rapidly expanding population 

has led to large and expanding areas of wildland-urban interface (WUI) across the State, with an 

estimated 1,350 WUI communities with potential wildland fire damage risk (Southern Group of State 

Foresters 2004). 

The Alabama Forestry Commission (AFC) is responsible for suppression of all wildland fires in the State, 

except on lands under Federal ownership (Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). This includes 

suppression of wildland fires on nearly 28 million of the 32 million acres in Alabama and 23 million acres 

of forestland. These suppression activities apply to State and private forested acres plus other vegetated 

areas, such as farms and pastures. On Federally managed lands (5% of the forestland base), the AFC has 

mutual aid agreements to support Federal wildland fire suppression efforts. 

Since forestlands and species in Alabama are adapted to regular disturbance by wildland fires to maintain 

forest health, but suppression activities limit the role of natural wildland fires, managed fuel treatments 

are needed to maintain forest health. Table 3-4 shows the fuels treatments completed in Alabama by 

Department of the Interior agencies and USFS. The BLM did not conduct any fuels treatments in 

Alabama over these four years. Over 98 percent of these treatments were completed by the USFS using 

prescribed fires approximately 90 percent of the time. Over 97 percent of Federal fuels treatments were 

applied in WUI areas. 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-24 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Table 3-4. DOI and USDA Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for Alabama (Acres) 

Wildland-Urban Interface Other Year 

Fire Mechanical Total Fire Mechanical Total 

Total 

2006 69,112 3,602 72,714 3,529 5,190 8,719 81,433 

2005 84,804 12,313 97,117 157 282 439 97,556 

2004 82,391 6,336 88,727 0 0 0 88,727 

2003 76,884 16 76,900 0 0 0 76,900 

Source: http://www.fireplan.gov/overview/States/al.html, accessed March 2, 2007 

Fuels treatments, including prescribed fire, are also implemented by the AFC on the private and Stateowned forests. In addition, the AFC provides training and permitting to ensure that fuels treatments in 

these areas, and prescribed fire in particular, are completed in a manner that protects firefighter and public 

safety, as well as capital improvements and natural resources. 

3.2.8 Cultural Resources 

The Alabama surface and non-USFS FMO tracts have not been fully surveyed for cultural resources. 

Surveys that have been conducted are usually initiated by project proponents on a project-specific basis, 

such as for oil and gas, coal mining, transportation, or water projects, to comply with the requirements of 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), outlined in 36 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to identify prehistoric and historic 

properties potentially affected by an undertaking; assess the effects of the undertaking; consult with 

appropriate entities; and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects to the property. 

A cultural resources literature and records search was conducted for BLM surface and non-USFS FMO 

tracts in the State of Alabama. The results of the research are presented in an overview (Panamerican 

Consultants, Inc. 2005a) on file at the BLM office in Jackson. The following cultural resource 

information was taken from Panamerican Consultants, Inc. (2005a), unless otherwise noted. 

Prehistory 

A variety of cultural resource site types attributed to a range of culturally distinct chronological periods 

ranging from more than 10,000 years ago to the present day has been recorded in the southeastern United 

States. The cultural time periods represented include Paleoindian, Archaic, Gulf Formational, Woodland, 

Mississippian, and Protohistoric. Descriptions of the prehistoric periods and general types of cultural 

materials associated with each one are provided in Table 3-5 below. Cultural resources from any of these 

time periods may be present on BLM-administered surface and non-USFS FMO tracts. 

Table 3-5. Prehistoric Periods Present in Southeastern United States 

Cultural Time 

Period 

Time Frame 

(Years Before 

Present [B.P.]) 

Characteristics 

PALEOINDIAN 12,500 – 10,000 Specialized nomadic hunters of now-extinct megafauna. 

Early Paleoindian 12,500 – 10,900 Fluted lanceolate points resembling western Clovis forms. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-25 

Cultural Time 

Period 

Time Frame 

(Years Before 

Present [B.P.]) 

Characteristics 

Middle Paleoindian 10,900 – 10,500 

Fluted and unfluted points with broad blades and 

constricted hafts, such as Cumberland, Suwannee, 

Simpson, Quad, and Beaver Lake. 

Late Paleoindian 10,500 – 10,000 Resharpened lanceolate corner- and side-notched forms, 

such as Dalton, San Patrice, and Bolen. 

ARCHAIC 10,000 – 3,000 

Marked by a shift in lifeways indicated by development of a 

more complex material culture, nomadism giving way to 

more sedentism, localized habitat exploitation, and 

dramatic population increase. Many tool forms appeared 

for the first time during this stage. 

Early Archaic 10,000 – 8,000 

A directional shift from highly curated tool forms associated 

with Paleoindian sites to highly expedient forms linked to 

Early Archaic corner-notched assemblages. An increase in 

residential mobility, as indicated by greater numbers of 

expedient tools in Early Archaic assemblages. 

Middle Archaic 8,000 – 5,000 Demarcated by the appearance of stemmed bifaces. 

Late Archaic 5,000 – 3,050 

Increased sedentism and a practice of a dichotomous 

pattern of resource exploitation that shifted between 

riverine and uplands locations. 

GULF FORMATIONAL 4,000 – 1,850 

Primarily recognized as an intermediate stage of social and 

economic change. The rise and development of baked clay 

ceramic technology during which Archaic peoples learned 

the manufacture of stone and ceramic vessels. 

Middle Gulf 

Formational 3,200 – 2,500 Characterized by fiber-tempered plain and punctate wares. 

Late Gulf Formational 2,500 – 2,100 Represented by disappearance of fiber-tempered ceramics 

and the rise of more decorative ceramic series. 

WOODLAND 2,600 – 850 

Marked by the advent of cord-marked, fabric-impressed, 

and stamped pottery, construction of burial mounds, and 

increased reliance on domesticated cultigens. The bow 

and arrow was introduced. 

Early Woodland 2,950 – 2,050 

Three phases including the Kellog phase (sand-tempering 

fabric-impressed pottery types), Dry Branch phase (sandtempered incised, punctated, and pinch pottery types), and 

Cedar Bluff phase (limestone-tempered fabric-impressed 

pottery). 

Middle Woodland 2,150 – 1,550 

Diversity in style and manufacture of pottery increased 

markedly. There was also an increase in burial mound 

construction, shared artifacts, and iconography, suggesting 

that a wide trade interaction continued across the United 

States. 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-26 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Cultural Time 

Period 

Time Frame 

(Years Before 

Present [B.P.]) 

Characteristics 

Late Woodland 1,550 – 950 

A period of cultural decline related to turmoil across much 

of the East; however, this was not the case in every region 

of the Southeast. Some diffusion of exotic and decorative 

motifs on pottery, and mound construction continued to 

play a crucial role in some regions of the eastern United 

States. Population growth exploded early in this period; 

consequently, small communities and households were 

widely scattered across the landscape. The increase in 

population stress, particularly over food resources, and 

increased use of the bow and arrow heightened warfare. 

MISSISSIPPIAN 1,050 – 450 

Complex sociopolitical organizations (chiefdoms) marked 

by the development of institutional inequality. Large 

fortified settlements and civic-ceremonial centers 

distinguished by elaborate temple mounds were 

widespread phenomena during the Mississippian period. 

Early Mississippian 1,050 – 750 A very complex society and diversity varied greatly 

throughout the Southeast. 

Mature Mississippian 750 – 450 A very complex society and diversity varied greatly 

throughout the Southeast. 

PROTOHISTORIC 400 – 235 

Defined in the southeastern United States as the era of 

transition from occupation of the region by preliterate 

societies to occupation by literate societies. Widespread 

destruction of Indian villages and fields and introduction of 

previously absent Euro-Asian diseases caused massive 

demographic upheaval. Trade and political networks were 

altered or broken down, and whole populations relocated 

or were devastated by illness. 

Source: Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 2005a, 2005b. 

History 

A wealth of Alabama history is associated with American Indian inhabitants, European exploration, 

multiple battles, and the evolution of southern culture. The events discussed below provide the context 

and relative importance of the cultural site types that may be encountered on BLM-administered surface 

and non-USFS FMO tracts. 

From the 16th to the 19th century, Spain, France, and England fought for domination and possession of 

the territories and resources in the southeastern United States. Led by Hernando De Soto, Spanish 

explorers in search of gold were the first Europeans to reach this territory in 1539. During the Pontotoc 

Battle of 1541, many members of De Soto’s expedition were killed in an attack by the Chickasaw Indians. 

An initial settlement in the Mobile Bay area by Spanish colonists from Mexico was abandoned in 1559, 

and Spain made no further effort to settle the area. The French were the first to successfully colonize 

Alabama. Early settlements were fortified trading posts along major rivers. French influence waned as the 

American Indians began to favor British traders from the Carolinas and Georgia. Great Britain and France 

fought a series of wars, climaxing with the French and Indian War (1754 – 1763). By the terms of the 

treaty ending the war, France ceded its North American lands to England. Britain created Reservation 

Lands for the American Indians in portions of the southeastern States. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-27 

American Indians had low immunity to new diseases brought by Europeans. By the 18th century, their 

numbers had been reduced and many tribes approached extinction (Dobyns 1983; Milner 1980; 

Ramenofsky 1987). Most of the survivors in present-day Alabama were members of four major Indian 

nations—the Creek, the Cherokee, the Chickasaw, and the Choctaw. The Cherokee Indians inhabited the 

northeastern corner, and the Chickasaw Indians claimed the northwestern corner of the State. The 

Choctaw Indians lived in the west-central portion, and the Creek Indians occupied the east-central and 

southern portions of the State. 

In the language of the local Creek Indians, the word Alabama means “tribal town.” The American 

Revolution (1775 – 1783) had a profound effect on Alabama and American Indians, as did the Louisiana 

Purchase, the War of 1812, and Creek War. Until 1817, Alabama was a part of the Mississippi Territory, 

but in 1819, it became the 22nd State to enter the Union. From 1829 – 1837, the remaining Indian nations 

were forced to give up their lands and were moved west of the Mississippi. From the early 19th century, 

Alabama’s economy was dominated by cotton. The highly productive regions of the State, namely the 

Black Belt region and the Tennessee Valley, soon brought a shift from independent, small farms to large 

plantations. Slavery was vital to the growth and production of cotton and became a contentious issue in 

Alabama and the other States. The pro-slavery States began to move toward secession from the Union, 

and in 1861, Alabama also voted to secede (Butterworth 1959). The people of Alabama played a major 

role in the Civil War; multiple battles were fought on State soil; and Montgomery was the first capital of 

the Confederacy, which was later moved to Virginia. In 1865, the Civil War ended and slaves were 

emancipated. Sharecropping and tenant farming became the common mode of farming. 

In the late 1870s, railroads were built and cities that focused on the steel and iron industry emerged in 

north and north-central Alabama. Boll weevil damage to cotton crops in 1915 and exorbitant shipping 

charges caused farmers to concentrate on raising livestock and crops other than cotton. Coal mining also 

increased and brought new industry and economic opportunities to relatively poor regions of the State. In 

the 1930s, low-cost power provided by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) encouraged industrial 

development and provided some rural residents with electricity for the first time. Alabama industry and 

farming further prospered under the demands of World War II (Rogers 1994). Alabama retained 

segregation as a policy until the civil rights movement from the 1950s through 1960s. Many of the major 

events and court cases that defined the modern civil rights movement in the United States took place in 

Alabama, including equal access for black americans to public and private transportation, schools, voting 

booths, economic opportunities, and housing. Manufacturing remained the dominant economic sector 

through the 1990s. Alabama’s gross product also received significant contributions from the government 

and service sectors. 

Cultural Resource Sites 

Prehistoric or historic cultural resource sites, structures, or objects listed on or eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are protected and managed as directed by 36 CFR 800. A 

resource is considered eligible for listing in NRHP if it is at least 50 years old, unless of exceptional 

historical significance; retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and 

association; and has one or more of the following characteristics: 

• Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history 

• Associated with the lives of persons significant in its past 

• Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction 

• Represents the work of a master, has high artistic values, or represents a significant and 

distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction 

• Yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (36 CFR 60.4). 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-28 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Cultural resources found ineligible for the NRHP require no further archaeological work and are not 

protected by law. Sites identified as undetermined or unknown need additional work to determine the 

site’s eligibility. 

Under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA; 16 United States Code [USC] Section 

470hh), the nature and location of any archaeological resource cannot be disclosed to the public unless the 

Federal land manager determines that such disclosure would provide further protection and there is no 

risk of harm to the site. To adequately address the existing condition of these resources while protecting 

their importance, only the general types of resources are discussed herein. 

Records were searched for 2,847 non-USFS FMO tracts in Alabama. The records revealed 1,348 cultural 

sites within the BLM-administered non-USFS FMO tracts, of which 315 were considered eligible for 

NRHP. Components of these sites ranged from Paleoindian to 20th-century historic. Most of the tracts 

have never been surveyed. There is a high potential for finding additional archaeological sites. 

Records were searched for scattered BLM surface tracts in Alabama. None of the BLM surface tracts 

contain previously recorded NRHP properties. Thirteen sites were recorded within one-half mile of the 

BLM surface tracts and could provide information on the potential for occurrence sites on adjacent BLM 

surface tracts; however, these sites are not and will not be affected by BLM activities and management. 

Identified cultural sites are summarized in Table 3-6. 

Table 3-6. Cultural Sites on BLM Surface and non-USFS FMO Tracts in Alabama 

NRHP Status 

Tract Type Total Sites Potentially Eligible/ 

Eligible Ineligible Undetermined/ Unknown 

Non-USFS FMO 

Tracts 1,348 315 669 364 

Surface Tracts1 0 0 0 0 

Areas Adjacent to 

Surface Tracts2 13 0 13 0 

1 Sites located on surface, belong to surface owner. 

2 Reflects sites within one-half mile of the surface tract boundaries. 

3.2.9 Visual Resources 

Visual resources consist of the natural and manmade features that contribute to a particular environment’s 

aesthetics. These features may be natural (e.g., canyon views) or manmade (e.g., city skyline). Together, 

they form the overall impression of an area referred to as the landscape character. Visual resources also 

have a social setting, which includes public values, awareness, and concern about visual quality. Visual 

Resource Management (VRM) classifications are established for public lands so that visual resource 

values can be maintained through informed management decisions. 

The visual resource inventory process contained in BLM Handbook H-8410-1 provides BLM managers 

guidance for determining visual values. The inventory consists of scenic quality evaluation, sensitivitylevel analysis, and delineation of distance zones. Based on these three factors, BLM-administered lands 

are placed into one of four visual resource inventory classes. These inventory classes represent the 

relative value of the visual resource: Classes I and II are the most valued, Class III represents a moderate 

value, and Class IV has the least value. Management objectives have been assigned to each class. An area 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-29 

may be inventoried as VRM Class III, but a decision may be made to manage it as VRM Class IV, or vice 

versa. Cultural modifications may detract from the scenery, complement it, or improve the overall scenic 

quality of an area. Cultural modifications in landform/water and vegetation values and addition of 

structures will be considered in examining proposed resource management actions. 

The following VRM Class objectives from BLM Handbook H-8410-1 have been amended for the purpose 

of developing and implementing this resource management plan (RMP). Amendments incorporate the 

visual resource values provided by existing cultural features that are significant to the character of the 

landscape in Alabama and Mississippi. 

• VRM Class I Objective: The objective of this class is to preserve the existing natural and 

cultural character of the landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it 

does not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be very low and must not detract from the existing landscape character. 

• VRM Class II Objective: The objective of this class is to retain the existing natural and cultural 

character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic should be low. Management 

activities may be visible but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes 

must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural 

and/or cultural features of the characteristic landscape. 

• VRM Class III Objective: The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing natural 

and cultural character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should 

be moderate. Management activities may be visible but should not dominate the view of the 

casual observer. Changes should blend with the natural environment. 

• VRM Class IV Objective: The objective of this class is to provide for management activities 

that require significant modification of the existing landscape or the existing character of the 

natural and cultural landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. 

These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of the casual 

observer’s attention; however, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these 

activities through selective location, minimal disturbance, and repetition of basic elements. 

3.2.10 Minerals 

There are 313,819 acres of non-USFS FMO in Alabama that underlie various surface ownership. Surface 

owners include BLM, the Department of Defense (DoD), USFWS, National Park Service (NPS), and 

other Federal agencies. Table 3-7 shows BLM-administered FMO by surface ownership in Alabama. 

Table 3-7. BLM-administered Federal Mineral Ownership by Surface Ownership in 

Alabama 

Surface Owners Federal Mineral Ownership (Acres) 

BLM 159 

DoD 1,495 

NPS 3,300 

USFWS 3,384 

Other Federal Agencies 2,041 

Non-Federal surface 303,440 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-30 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Surface Owners Federal Mineral Ownership (Acres) 

TOTAL non-USFS FMO 313,819 

USFS 585,394 

TOTAL FMO (included USFS FMO) 899,213 

Minerals—Oil and Gas 

Oil and gas exploration began in Alabama in 1884 with the drilling of the Trowbridge #1 well near 

Bladen Springs in Choctaw County. This first well was a dry hole with a depth of 1,345 feet. Eighteen 

years later (1902), the New York–Alabama Oil Company discovered the Huntsville Gas Field, which 

started the commercial extraction of oil and gas in the southeastern States. As of April 2005, there were 

31 active oil and gas wells on BLM-administered non-USFS FMO according to data from the Automated 

Fluid Mineral Management System. 

According to available data from the Alabama Oil and Gas Board on Alabama oil and gas production 

from 1992 to 2002, oil production steadily decreased from 19,328,444 barrels to 8,631,227 barrels. 

During the same period, gas production increased from 336,129,406 thousand cubic feet (mcf) in 1992 to 

388,631,710 mcf in 2002. Gas production peaked in 1995 at 438,838,497 mcf. As of April 2005, 136 

Federal leases are authorized in Alabama. There area 30 existing leases on non-USFS FMO and 106 

existing leases on USFS FMO. 

Map 3-2 shows counties in Alabama with historical oil and gas production. Reasonable foreseeable 

development is anticipated in the areas of historical oil and gas production (BLM 2004). The areas of 

historical production are the Warrior Basin and the southern Alabama Basin. BLM projects that 20 wells 

accessing non-USFS FMO in Alabama would be drilled over the next 20 years (BLM 2004). 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-31 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-32 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Warrior Basin1

The roughly triangle-shaped Warrior Basin covers approximately 35,000 square miles in parts of 

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The northern boundary of the Warrior Basin is 

formed by the Ozark Uplift to the northwest and the Nashville Dome to the northeast. To the east and 

southeast, the basin is bound by the Appalachian system, and the Ouachita Fold and thrust belt bound the 

basin on the west and southwest. 

Most of the oil and gas production is from the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian strata. The basin has a 

variety of trapping mechanisms with possibilities for multiple pay zones, which has led to a success rate 

of more than 50 percent. The Carter Sandstone of the Parkwood Formation is the most prolific oil- and 

gas-producing reservoir; however, a considerable amount of petroleum is produced from the Chandler and 

Nason Sandstones of the Pottsville Formation. 

The major targets for coalbed natural gas production are the major coal groups in the Warrior Coal Field. 

These groups are the Black Creek, Mary Lee, and Pratt coal groups. However, all the coals can be 

potential sources of coalbed natural gas (BLM 2004). Most of the coalbed natural gas wells in this area 

are producing from coals between 15 to 25 feet thick and at depths between 500 and 3,000 feet. The 

median product per well is 82 mcf per day. 

Southern Alabama Basin 

These lands are in an area dominated by the Gulf Coast geosyncline. This large basin was formed in the 

Jurassic period with a southward downwarping. The basin has accumulated sedimentary deposits as much 

as 30,000 feet thick. Zones of faults parallel the basin hinge line and can trap hydrocarbons (Murray 

1964). Other structural features, such as small basement highs, also trap hydrocarbons. 

The deposits in the major geologic units of southern Alabama mainly consist of alternating layers of sand 

and clay, with occasional beds of carbonates and anhydrite. Permeable horizons exist in all formations, 

and oil and gas are produced from each horizon in the region, with the Haynesville, Smackover, and 

Norphlet Formations having more importance (Cate 1982; Poe 1979; May 1974; Moore 1971; Dinkins 

1968). 

Leasable Minerals—Coal 

There are three major coal fields in Alabama—the Coosa Coal Field, Cahaba Coal Field, and Warrior 

Coal Field. Farthest to the southeast, the Coosa Coal Field covers approximately 134,400 acres in 

Jefferson, Shelby, and St. Clair Counties in an elongated syncline along the trend of the Appalachian 

Mountains. Southwest of the Coosa Field and separated by the Cahaba Valley, the Cahaba Field includes 

approximately 230,400 acres of Bibb, Shelby, St. Clair, and Jefferson Counties. The largest of the three 

coal fields in Alabama, the Warrior Coal Field, includes approximately 2,324,470 acres in Walker, 

Fayette, Jefferson, and Tuscaloosa counties. 

Consideration of Alabama coal leasing in this RMP is limited to the Warrior Coal Field. Coal leasing 

potential within the planning area is limited to the Warrior Basin in Alabama because of the distinctive 

presence of the appropriate geological conditions (e.g., continuity of coal beds, thickness of coal, quality 

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

for development of coal resources. Non-USFS FMO available for coal leasing is located in Walker, 

Fayette, Jefferson, and Tuscaloosa counties. 

 

1 The term Warrior Basin is a geologic province. The Black Warrior Basin is the drainage area of the Black Warrior River. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-33 

Within the Warrior Coal Field, BLM retains 70,610 acres of coal mineral rights, 45,950 acres of which 

have been identified as high potential for development in the reasonably foreseeable development 

scenario (RFDS). It is anticipated 9,000 acres of new Federal coal leases and 18.8 million tons of Federal 

coal would be produced (an average of 1.9 million tons per year) as part of existing underground mines 

with no new surface disturbance. This field includes two regions, the Plateau coal region and Warrior coal 

basin (Map 3-3). The Plateau coal region is composed of several coal-bearing areas in the upland regions 

of northeastern Alabama. Federal coal ownership in the Plateau coal region is limited to the Talladega 

National Forest. The Plateau coal region is the largest of the Alabama coal fields covering an area greater 

than all the other coal fields combined (2,880,0000 acres). The Warrior Basin is the most productive and 

covers 2,240,000 acres in Tuscaloosa, Jefferson, Lamar, Marion, Winston, Fayette, Cullman, Blount, and 

Walker Counties. These coalbeds in the Plateau coal region and the Warrior coal basin are the major 

targets for the recovery of coalbed natural gas in the area, but all the coals can be sources of potential 

coalbed natural gas reserves (BLM 2004). There is no BLM-administered surface in the Warrior coal 

basin. The Warrior coal basin contains more than 20 coalbeds, some of which are known to extend into 

the BLM-administered non-USFS FMO of Mississippi. Most coal in the Warrior Basin is high-volatile 

“A” bituminous. Coal thickness generally varies from a few inches to about 75 inches with ash content 

ranging between 3 and 15 percent, and the sulfur from 1.1 to 3 percent. The thickest and most 

economically valuable coals within the Warrior coal basin are located in Tuscaloosa, Walker, Fayette, and 

Jefferson 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. However, because of the depth of the mines and 

the availability of other easily obtainable resources such as oil and gas, much of the coal resources within 

the Warrior Coal Field have yet to be developed (Tew and Mancini 1986). On the basis of current 

information on and availability of other fuel resources, coal development will likely continue at the 

current rate. 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-34 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-35 

3.2.11 Recreation and Travel Management 

Recreation encompasses various human activities that affect and are affected by resources and other 

resource uses. Dispersed recreation is characterized by unstructured activities that are not confined to 

specific locations (such as developed recreation sites). Dispersed recreation can involve various activities, 

which on the Alabama surface tracts can include the following: 

• Saltwater beach activities 

• Hunting 

• Fishing 

• Bicycle riding 

• Horseback riding 

• Nature study 

• Boating 

• Picnicking 

• Freshwater swimming 

• Hiking 

• Rock climbing 

The BLM-administered non-USFS FMO includes the mineral estate where the surface is managed by 

another Federal surface management agency. These properties and installations managed by other Federal 

agencies as well as non-Federal agencies such as private, State, or county are summarized in Table 3-8 

and shown on Map 1-1 and Map 1-2. 

For those tracts where the surface is managed by other surface management agencies and where public 

access for recreation and oil and gas leasing are permitted, recreation experiences and resulting benefits 

could be affected by BLM-allowable uses and management actions proposed in this RMP. Information on 

public recreation and minerals leasing on other Federal surface management agencies is shown in Table 

3-8. 

Table 3-8. BLM-administered non-USFS Federal Mineral Ownership1 by Surface 

Management Agency in Alabama 

Surface 

Management 

Agency 

Installations/Areas 

Public Access 

for Recreation 

(Yes/No)2

Mineral Leasing 

(Open/Closed)2

Bon Secour NWR Yes Closed 

USFWS 

Wheeler NWR Yes Closed 

Barin Field (Navy) ND Open 

Summerdale Outlying Landing Field (Navy) ND Open 

Silverhill Outlying Landing Field (Navy) ND Open 

Fort Rucker Military Reservation (Army) Yes Open 

Fort McClellan Military Reservation (Army, 

Closed) Yes Open 

Anniston Army Depot (Army) No Open 

Redstone Arsenal (Army) No Open

DoD 

Lake Tholocco (Army Corps of Engineers) Yes Open 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-36 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Surface 

Management 

Agency 

Installations/Areas 

Public Access 

for Recreation 

(Yes/No)2

Mineral Leasing 

(Open/Closed)2

Coffeeville Lake (Army Corps of Engineers) Yes Open 

William Dannelly Reservoir (Army Corps of 

Engineers) Yes Open 

Maxwell Air Force Base (Air Force) No Closed 

NPS Little River Canyon Preserve Yes Closed 

Other Areas Managed by Other Federal Agencies No Varies 

ND means no information was available from the surface managing agency. 

1 Does not reflect BLM FMO for BLM surface tracts (159 acres). 

2 Closed means closed to new leases. Existing leases could be present on areas currently closed. 

BLM administration of travel resources in Alabama is limited to access routes and associated 

access/maintenance routes for ROW such as transmission lines. Public travel routes are administered and 

maintained by other Federal, State, and local agencies. Some surface tracts are adjacent to these travel 

routes. Information on tract-specific travel resources are contained in Section 3.3. 

3.2.12 Lands and Realty 

The goals of the lands and realty program are to manage the public lands to support the goals and 

objectives of other resource programs, provide for uses of public lands in accordance with regulations and 

compatibility with other resources, and improve management of the public lands through land tenure 

adjustments. The lands and realty program is a support program to all other resources to help ensure that 

BLM-administered lands are managed to benefit the public. Current conditions of lands and realty on the 

BLM-administered surface tracts is discussed in Section 3.3. 

3.2.13 Social and Economic 

The affected environment in Alabama centers on the counties in the coal region where energy minerals 

development could occur. Over the last 10 to 20 years, oil and gas development has occurred primarily in 

the counties with high potential for coal (BLM 2004). Therefore, the socioeconomic description is limited 

to the counties with high potential for coal: Tuscaloosa, Walker, Fayette, and Jefferson Counties. 

Demographic, economic, and service data were collected from the U. S. Census, Bureau of Economic 

Analysis (BEA), and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) from 1990 to 2002. 

Economic Characteristics 

Household and Personal Income 

Median household income information for the four-county study area was obtained from the U. S. Census 

Bureau. In 2003, Jefferson County’s median household income of $38,558 is slightly higher than the 

median household income estimated for Alabama, which is $36,131. The median household incomes for 

Fayette, Walker and Tuscaloosa Counties ($30,133, $31,201, and $35,192 respectively) are slightly lower 

than Jefferson County and the State in 2003. 

Information on per capita income was obtained from BEA. Jefferson and Tuscaloosa Counties reported 

higher per capita incomes ($36,041 and $28,833, respectively) than Walker and Fayette Counties 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-37 

($24,734 and $22,073, respectively) for 2004. Jefferson and Tuscaloosa Counties’ per capita incomes are 

higher than those of the State ($27,695) for 2004. Trend information on per capita income was also 

obtained from BEA and adjusted for inflation (Figure G-5). Jefferson County’s per capita income 

averaged $33,065 over the 15-year period and has been consistently higher than the State average 

($26,594). Over this same time period, the average per capita income for Tuscaloosa County ($27,136) 

has been similar to the State average, while Walker and Fayette Counties have had lower average per 

capita income ($24,221 and $21,902, respectively) than the State average. 

Employment and Compensation 

Information on employment by industry for the study area was obtained from BEA and U. S. Census 

County Business Patterns.2 There were 610,890 estimated jobs in the study area in 2004, which represent 

24.9 percent of the Alabama labor force. The 610,890 jobs were distributed among the industries shown 

in Figure G-7. Government and government enterprises (15.1 percent) composed the largest percentage of 

jobs. Retail trade (12.0 percent), health care (9.7 percent), and manufacturing (7.5 percent) were the next 

largest employers. 

Unemployment trends information for the non-USFS FMO study area and the State of Alabama was 

obtained from BLS and are summarized in Figure G-4. The unemployment rates in Tuscaloosa and 

Jefferson Counties have remained below the State unemployment rate from 1990 to 2005. Walker and 

Fayette Counties unemployment rates were generally higher than the State’s rate for the same time period. 

Overall, the unemployment trends of the four counties generally mirror the trend of the State, although 

Fayette County unemployment trends have greater magnitude in their movements. 

In the four county study area, BLM administers the leasing of coal resources, allowing for the production 

of 1.9 millions tons of coal per year from these BLM minerals. In Alabama, mining (non oil and gas) 

accounts for approximately 6,773 employees and employee compensation of $482,361,000 (BEA, 2005). 

Currently coal produced from BLM-administered minerals accounts for approximately 10 percent of the 

total amount of coal produced in the State, 19.5 million tons of coal (Energy Information Agency, 1999). 

If 10 percent of this employment and employee compensation can be attributed to BLM-administered 

minerals, this activity provides for 677 employees in mining, with total mining employee compensation 

of $48,236,100. The average annual employee compensation for these workers is $71,218, compared with 

average annual compensation from all industries in the State of $34,877 (BEA, 2005). Mining in the fourcounty study area likely provides fiscal revenues to local and state governments, supporting community 

and emergency services, schools and infrastructure. 

Oil and gas also provides employment and income within the four study county area. However, over the 

past 20 years, BLM has permitted 17 wells of a total of 8,068 wells permitted within the state. Therefore, 

although these BLM-administered oil and gas resources do contribute to employment and earnings in this 

area, it is a fairly small amount. 

Social Characteristics 

Demographics 

Population trend data were obtained from BEA. Data for the non-USFS FMO study area between 1990 

and 2004 are summarized in Figure G-1 (Appendix G). Total population in the combined study area in 

2004 was 913,707 and comprised 20.2 percent of the population of Alabama. Jefferson County’s 

 

2 U. S. Census County Business Patterns data was used to estimate employment by industry data that were not disclosed by the 

BEA. 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-38 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

population was the largest in 2004 with 658,468 residents. For the same year, Tuscaloosa County 

(167,178), Walker County (69,876), and Fayette County (18,185) populations were considerably smaller. 

All four counties experienced small population growth over the 15-year period. The total population in 

the combined study area increased by 2.8 percent from 888,982 in 1990 to 913,707 in 2002. The median 

age of the combined study area population in 2000 was estimated to be 35.6—slightly lower than the 

State median of 35.8 (U. S. Census 2000). 

Housing 

The average number of people per household in Walker County (2.46), Jefferson County (2.45), Fayette 

County (2.42), and Tuscaloosa County (2.42) are similar. The average number of people per family in 

Jefferson County (3.04), Tuscaloosa County (3.00), Walker County (2.93), and Fayette County (2.92) are 

also similar (BEA 2000). In the study area, 91 percent of the 363,639 housing units were occupied in 

2000. Homeowners occupied 67 percent of the total housing units. 

All four counties in the study area have low homeowner vacancy rates—1.9 percent in Jefferson County, 

1.8 percent in Walker County, and 1.7 percent in Fayette and Tuscaloosa Counties. Rental vacancy rates 

are somewhat higher—14.1 percent in Walker County, 12.3 percent in Tuscaloosa County, 11.1 percent 

in Fayette County, and 10.2 percent in Jefferson County (U. S. Census 2000). The median value of 

owner-occupied housing units for Tuscaloosa and Jefferson counties ($106,600 and $90,700, 

respectively) were higher than the State median ($85,100). Walker and Fayette counties median value of 

owner-occupied housing units ($66,700 and $64,100, respectively) were lower than the State’s median 

(U. S. Census 2000). 

Educational Attainment 

Educational attainment of the population that is 25 years of age and older varies between the four counties 

in the study area. In Jefferson County, 80.9 percent of the population has graduated high school or higher 

and 24.6 percent hold a bachelor’s degree or higher (U. S. Census 2000). Tuscaloosa County has a similar 

populace, with 78.8 percent graduating high school or higher and 24.0 percent with a bachelor’s degree or 

higher. The percentage of the population graduating from high school or higher for Walker and Fayette 

Counties is 67.2 percent and 66.1 percent, respectively, and those having a bachelor’s degree or higher is 

9.1 percent and 9.2 percent, respectively. The educational attainment in figures in Walker and Fayette 

Counties are lower than those in Jefferson and Tuscaloosa Counties. 

Attitudes and Beliefs of Alabama Stakeholders 

In Alabama, the BLM has responsibility for a number of issues and decisions that could be important to 

stakeholders and their beliefs, including Federal land disposal, mineral development, including coal and 

oil and gas. This section will briefly describe stakeholders' attitudes and beliefs related to these specific 

issues to provide a social context for these decisions. 

Public lands are important in providing a natural resource base for economic activities. Oil and gas, as 

well as coal, development will be supported by some stakeholders and not by others. Stakeholders who 

support mineral development believe that domestic production of resources provides products on which 

the public relies heavily, generating economic and social benefits. Without the availability and access for 

development of these resources, stakeholders feel that many adverse impacts could occur, including trade 

gaps, increasing prices, and strategic vulnerabilities. Additionally, the mineral industries have contributed 

to the tax base of both counties and the State, providing funds for local, regional, and State governments, 

infrastructure, schools, and other community services. Many people believe that this funding is vital to the 

economy of Alabama Counties and the State. Some stakeholders will support these mining activities due 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-39 

to the economic benefits in income, jobs, and government revenues, while others will be concerned that 

the economic benefit may not offset the risks to environmental and water resources from the activity. 

Conservation-focused stakeholders may not support mineral development or might support conditions and 

stipulations on development and production to reduce negative impacts to the surface and subsurface. 

These environmental stakeholders are concerned about erosion and water quality impacts associated with 

road and wellpad construction as well as water disposal in the production process. Some stakeholders 

believe that the potential long-term environmental risks of development are considerable compared to the 

short-term benefit of the resource extracted. Additionally, these types of stakeholders believe that mineral 

development impacts such as increased road building, associated road traffic, dust, and noise add to the 

negative impacts associated with this type of development. 

Public land disposal may also be a contentious issue with the public. The BLM in Alabama manages a 

number of pocket properties scattered across the State, totaling 159 acres. Preservation-oriented 

stakeholders are concerned about protecting open spaces and limiting development on these lands, often 

to maintain a quality of life that the property provides. For example, quality of life attributes could 

include recreation, such as bird-watching or walking, solitude, and the knowledge that the property 

provides important wildlife habitat. Therefore, these types of stakeholders believe that keeping the surface 

lands in Federal ownership is preferable or selling these lands to organizations interested in preserving the 

lands. Developers might be interested in purchasing these lands for their economic value due to their 

location on the coast if the lands are buildable. Additionally, some people may feel that disposing of 

Federal lands provides important fiscal revenues as private property taxes can be collected. 

Environmental Justice 

Environmental justice is another component of the community that considers minority or low-income 

populations to determine whether or not any of the proposed alternatives have a disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effect on those populations. Environmental justice analysis is 

conducted in compliance with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. On the basis of Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) guidance, minority populations should be identified where (a) the minority population of the area 

exceeds 50 percent; or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is significantly greater 

than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic 

analysis.3

 Low-income populations are defined as those below the Federal poverty thresholds. Those 

populations are identified using statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of Census—$17,463 for a 

family of four (U. S. Census 2000). EPA identifies a low-income community as an area with a 

significantly greater population of low-income families than a statistical reference area.4

 For the purposes 

of this socioeconomic analysis, low-income population areas will be defined as an area where the lowincome population exceeds 20 percent poverty or if isolated pockets of large low-income populations are 

present. 

The poverty levels in three of the four counties (Fayette, Tuscaloosa, and Walker Counties) are higher 

than the Statewide estimate of 16.1 percent, as summarized in Figure G-2. Fayette County has the largest 

percentage of the population below the poverty level (17.3 percent). Jefferson County has the smallest 

percentage of the population below the poverty level (14.8 percent). The poverty levels in all four 

counties are below the set threshold of 20 percent for low-income populations, and therefore do not 

 

3 Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act, 1997. 

4 Environmental Protection Agency, Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s NEPA 

Compliance Analysis, 1998. 
Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-40 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

represent environmental justice populations. In comparison, in 2004, there were 19 of a total of 67 

counties in Alabama that had populations that were greater than 20 percent in poverty status. 

The ethnicity data for the study area in Figure G-3 were also obtained from the U. S. Census Bureau. The 

four-county study area is predominantly white (62.4 percent). The remaining race distribution in the study 

area includes Black or African American (34.3 percent), Hispanic or Latino (1.4 percent), Asian (0.8 

percent), two or more races (0.7 percent), American Indian or Native Alaskan (0.2 percent), other race 

(0.1 percent), and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (0.0 percent). The ethnic representation in the 

study area is similar to race distribution for the State, but has higher Black or African American estimates. 

The overall percentages of minority populations in Walker County (8.3 percent) and Fayette County (13.5 

percent) are lower than the minority percentage for Alabama (29.7 percent), whereas the minority 

percentages for Tuscaloosa County (32.5 percent) and Jefferson County (42.6 percent) are higher than the 

State’s percentage. However, the minority percentages for all four counties are below the CEQ threshold 

of 50 percent and not significantly higher than the State average of 29.7 percent. 

3.2.14 Hazardous Materials 

BLM-administered public lands and minerals provide opportunities for a variety of commercial uses in 

addition to resource management. Both activities can lead to releases of hazardous substances and 

creation of hazardous waste sites. The BLM engages in hazardous material emergency response actions, 

site evaluations, and prioritization of cleanups in accordance with laws and regulations. This involves 

working with the EPA, State environmental quality departments, counties, and potentially responsible 

parties (both public and private) to fund and expedite the cleanup of hazardous sites. Those sites that are 

an imminent threat to public health and safety, as well as those sites that are under a consent order and 

can therefore generate penalties and fines, are a priority for the Bureau. There are no known hazardous, 

toxic, or unapproved solid waste sites on public lands within the planning area. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-41 

3.3 ALABAMA SURFACE TRACT DESCRIPTION

The surface tract descriptions in this section include available detail on each of the surface tract groupings 

described in Chapter 2. General information and tract-specific information on soil resources, water 

resources, vegetative communities, fish and wildlife, special status species, cultural resources, visual 

resources, recreation and travel management, and lands and realty are provided for each tract grouping. 

Air quality, wildland fire ecology and management, minerals, and social and economic conditions are 

discussed in Section 3.2 

General. This section provides basic location and size of the surface tracts, as well as available 

background information. 

Soil Resources. This section provides a table of the soils present at the tracts, the erosion hazard potential 

as indicated by NRCS, and the presence of prime or unique farmlands (defined in Section 3.2.2). 

Water Resources. This section describes which drainage basin the surface tract is within. 

Vegetative Communities. This section summarizes the vegetative communities related to the tracts. An 

analysis of the available GAP data was used to delineate the vegetative communities on the surface tracts. 

The GAP is coordinated by the Biological Resources Division of the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

Fish and Wildlife. This section summarizes the fish and wildlife species associated with the tracts. GAP 

provides geographic information on the status and location of species and their habitat. The GAP is 

coordinated by the Biological Resources Division of USGS.

Special Status Species. This section summarizes the special status species associated with the tracts. 

GAP provides geographic information on the status and location of species and their habitat. The GAP is 

coordinated by the Biological Resources Division of USGS. Available special status species occurrences 

on the tracts are discussed. Appendix E provides additional information on special status species in the 

areas around the surface tracts. 

Cultural Resources. This section summarizes the known sites and cultural resources survey information 

for the surface tracts. 

Visual Resources. This section addresses the visual setting of BLM-administered surface tracts. The 

surface tracts are not currently classified according to a VRM system. VRM Classifications are described 

in Section 3.2.9. The surface tracts in Alabama have not been inventoried for VRM classification. 

Recreation and Travel Management. This section addresses the existing recreational and travel 

management activities on BLM-administered surface tracts. 

Lands and Realty. This section addresses the lands and realty actions associated with surface tracts, 

including withdrawals, disposals, and ROW actions.
Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-42 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

3.3.1 Coosa River Tracts 

General 

The Coosa River tracts are 12 island tracts totaling approximately 42 acres in Calhoun, Coosa, Shelby, 

and Talladega Counties. These tracts are Federally-owned, surveyed islands that have never been patented 

to private ownership. The islands range from water level to only a few feet above water level. 

Soil Resources 

There is no soil classification for this tract. The tracts are characterized as vegetated islands in the middle 

of the Coosa River. 

Water Resources 

All the Coosa River tracts are located within the Coosa River drainage basin. 

Vegetative Communities 

The Coosa River islands are located in areas inundated by a series of three dams constructed along the 

Coosa River between 1914 and the 1960s. The larger islands reflect the vegetation communities found in 

adjacent areas, primarily dry hardwood forest, with pine interspersed in the interior on the larger islands, 

in Lake Mitchell. On these islands, the hardwood component tends to be more diverse around the lower 

elevations of the islands and includes hickory (Carya spp.); common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana); 

sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua); southern hackberry (Celtis occidentalis); eastern sycamore 

(Platanus occidentalis); southern red oak (Quercus falcata); water oak (Quercus nigra); and loblolly pine 

(Pinus taedai). The interior of the islands are generally dominated by larger water oak and loblolly pine 

with diameters up to 24 inches and 70-80 inches tall. The understory is relatively clear with young red 

maple (Acer rubrum); common wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera); blueberry (Vaccinium spp.); American 

beautyberry (Callicarpa americana); and bracken (Pteridium aquiline). There are some burn scars on 

larger pine, indicating past burns on some of the islands. Big Rock Island in Mitchell Lake rises 

approximately 120 feet above the lake and as its name denotes has sheer rock faces around much of the 

island, with seepage areas, ferns, and Spanish moss draping these areas. Smith and Prince Islands above 

Mitchell Lake tend to be flatter, lower, and dominated by mature water oak, with the additional species 

such as silver maple (Acer saccharinum), ashleaf maple (Acer negundo), and southern catalpa (Catalpa 

bignonoides). The leading edges of the smaller islands in the main river channel show signs of eroding, 

with downed trees and bare soils. The most northerly of the Coosa River tracts in Calhoun County was 

not visited, but from aerial photos it appears to be a sandbar with little or no vegetation. 

Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and mimosa tree (Albizia 

julibrissin) are present on most of the islands. Chinese privet occurs on the edges of the flatter islands 

north of Mitchell Lake and particularly frequently on the eroding leading edges of some islands. The 

Alabama Power Company treats aquatic invasive plant species throughout much of Coosa River. In 2002, 

over 200 acres were treated for emergent and submersed aquatic invasives in Lay, Jordon/Bouldin, and 

Mitchell Lakes, including alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeriodes), floating water hyacinth 

(Eichhornia crassipes), parrot-feather (Myriophyllum aquatica), and spinyleaf naiad (Najas minor) 

(http://www.southerncompany.com/alpower/hydro/pdfs/E7_Issue_Recommendations.pdf). 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-43 

Fish and Wildlife 

The Coosa River islands provide a variety of shoreline habitats for resident and migratory wading birds, 

including great blue heron, black-crowned night heron, and little blue heron. The wetland and upland 

habitats on the islands provide nesting habitat for neotropical migrants, such as prothonotary warbler, 

summer tanager and solitary vireo, and year-round residents such as belted kingfisher, rufous-sided 

towhee, Carolina wren, and downy woodpecker. Typical reptiles include midland water snake (Nerodia 

sipedon pleuralis) and common five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus). Those tracts outside of Mitchell 

Lake, particularly the Calhoun County tract, could provide basking areas and even nesting sites for river 

turtles. Typical mammals would include otter (Lutra canadensis), mink (Mustela vison), and raccoon 

(Procyon lotor), while armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) are common in the upland areas of larger 

islands. 

Special Status Species 

A bald eagle nest was located on these islands in 2005. Most of the larger islands support suitable nest 

trees and roosting habitat, and the Coosa River provides optimal foraging habitat. The islands do not 

provide suitable nesting habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker, although some of the larger islands provide 

marginally suitable foraging habitat. 

There are no known records of Federally-listed plants on the Coosa River islands; however, there have 

been no surveys of the tracts. 

Cultural Resources 

The Coosa River tracts have not been surveyed. However, two cultural sites are located within one-half 

mile of four tracts—the single tract in Calhoun County and three tracts in Talladega County. 

Visual Resources 

The islands that make up the Coosa River tracts are visible from the shore; there is little or no 

development or other human activity on the shores opposite the islands, except for residences opposite 

Prince Island. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

The Coosa River tracts are used for dispersed recreation. Opportunities for recreation on the islands, 

however, are limited by their small size and the fact that they are only accessible through travel by water. 

Fishing, picnicking, rest stops of boaters and canoeists, and wildlife observation are examples of 

recreation opportunities on the islands. 

Although use on the islands is limited, they are identified as supporting water-based recreation 

opportunities by the Coosa River Recreation Plan (Alabama Power Co. 2005). The lakes that surround 

these islands (Mitchell Lake, Lay Lake, and H. Neely Henry Lake) are all popular for recreation activities 

such as boat fishing, pleasure boating, swimming, and picnicking. In 2000, these three developments 

combined to support 1,134,400 recreation days. Boat fishing was by far the most popular activity with 

989,100 recreation days. Lay Lake hosted the 2007 Bassmasters Classic fishing tournament, and smaller 

tournaments are regularly held on these lakes. 
Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-44 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Lands and Realty 

All of the Coosa River Islands are within areas impounded for hydroelectric purposes. Big Rock Island, 

Little Rock Island, and the Foshee Islands are in Mitchell Lake; Smith Island and Prince Island are in Lay 

Lake; and the unnamed island is within H. Neely Henry Lake. These projects are licensed under the 

authority of the Federal Water Power Act of 1920, which created the Federal Power Commission (FPC), 

now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Mitchell Dam was originally licensed as 

Project No. 82, and Lay Dam and H. Neely Henry Dam were included in Project No. 2146. Now, these 

projects are combined for licensing purposes as Project No. 2146-111. 

Public domain lands within project areas were withdrawn for water power purposes. After projects were 

completed FPC often relinquished the withdrawal of the lands no longer needed for project purposes. In 

the case of the Coosa River Islands, this generally included relinquishment of the land above the water 

level. For example, in 1955 the land withdrawn for the Mitchell Dam (Project No. 82) was modified to 

include only the land below the 360 foot elevation contour. 

There are historical records of application to acquire some of the Coosa River Islands. In 1959, for 

example, the State of Alabama Department of Conservation applied for Big Rock Island, Little Rock 

Island, and the Foshee Islands under the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, but the application 

was later withdrawn. In addition, several color-of-title applications were submitted in the 1950s, but all 

were rejected. 

There are no BLM-authorized ROW or other uses on the Coosa River Islands. A power line, however, 

crosses the southern end of Prince Island (with no ground supports on the island). 

3.3.2 Fort Morgan Beach Tracts 

General 

Seven tracts in Baldwin County totaling 28.7 acres comprise the Fort Morgan Beach tracts. These tracts 

provide access recreation activities on the gulf and its beaches, which were severely damaged by 

Hurricane Ivan in 2004. Boardwalks partially destroyed by Ivan may be rebuilt. These tracts fall within 

the CZM Program. 

Soil Resources 

The soil classification for this tract is displayed in Table 3-9. 

Table 3-9. Soil Classification for the Fort Morgan Beach Tracts 

Soil Type Description Erosion Hazard Prime Farmland 

Coastal beaches 

Moderately deep and poorly drained to 

excessively drained soils that border 

saltwater and freshwater lakes 

None No 

Water Resources 

The Fort Morgan Beach tracts are located within the Mobile River drainage basin. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-45 

Vegetative Communities 

The Fort Morgan Beach tracts border the Gulf of Mexico and include back beach, primary dunes, and in 

some cases extend landward sufficiently to encompass secondary dunes. Throughout these tracts, the 

dominant species is sea oats (Uniola paniculata). Other species characteristic of this habitat include 

marsh-elder (Iva frutescens), and Gulf bluestem (Schizachyrium maritimum), sandhill rosemary 

(Ceratiola ericoides), woody goldenrod (Chrysoma pauciflosculosa), beach sand-squares (Paronychia 

erecta), and Gulf rockrose (Helianthemum arenicola). These tracts, along with the rest of the Fort Morgan 

peninsula, were heavily impacted by Hurricane Ivan in 2004, when storm surges inundated much of the 

peninsula. Coastal dunes throughout this area were destroyed and dune vegetation was obliterated. These 

dunes are dynamic systems adapted to these storm cycles. Since Hurricane Ivan and other major storms 

that hit this coastline in 2005, these dunes have continued to accrete, accelerated by pioneering sea oats. 

There are no known exotic plant species identified on the Fort Morgan Beach tracts. 

Fish and Wildlife 

The coastal dunes and back beach areas of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts provide important foraging 

habitat for a host of shorebirds, gulls, terns and others, such as Wilson’s plover, willet, sanderling, shortbilled dowitcher, ring-billed gull, royal tern, and black skimmer. Feral and domestic cats are a 

management concern in this area because of predation on beach mice and nesting shorebirds. 

Special Status Species 

All of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts are designated critical habitat for Alabama beach mouse and contain 

primary dunes, the preferred habitat for this species. Populations are recovering after Hurricane Ivan 

inundated much of this area in 2004, and Alabama beach mouse was found on BLM beach tracts in early 

February 2007 (Matt Falcey, personal communication). The tracts also provide nesting habitat for 

loggerhead sea turtle, and potentially green sea turtle and Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle. The adjacent Bon 

Secour NWR has documented loggerhead nests to be 4.5 to 5 nests per mile, higher than many areas 

along the Gulf Coast (USFWS 2004). The tracts also provide habitat for wintering piping plover, likely a 

mixture of the threatened Atlantic Coast and endangered Great Lakes populations, although the 

designated critical habitat for wintering piping plover at Fort Morgan is west of the BLM tracts. Snowy 

plover, Wilson’s plover, and American oystercatcher are known to nest on the refuge. There are no 

known records of Federally-listed plants on these tracts. 

Cultural Resources 

The Fort Morgan Beach tracts have been surveyed. Four cultural sites are located within one-half mile of 

three of the beach tracts. 

Visual Resources 

Visual features of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts include sand dunes, beach and open sea, mixed 

vegetation, boardwalks, and adjacent residential and other development. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

The Fort Morgan Beach tracts provide access for recreational use of the beach, including saltwater 

fishing. There are no developments on the tracts, but some parking is available on adjacent roadways. In 

2004, the vast majority of recreational use of similar tracts on the nearby Bon Secour NWR was classified 
Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-46 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

as either beach/water use or saltwater fishing. There were a total of 53,395 visits for these two activities 

with 32,721 of the visits by residents, defined as people living within 30 miles. 

Lands and Realty 

In the early 1950s, much of the remaining public domain land on the Fort Morgan Peninsula was 

classified (by Alabama Small tract Classification Orders No. 1 and 2) for disposal pursuant to the Small 

tract Act of 1938. This land was subdivided into about 190 lots ranging in size from 0.72 to 2.61 acres. 

By 1960, the BLM had sold most of the lots, many to World War II veterans who were given a statutory 

preference. 

The lots identified in this document as the Fort Morgan Beach tracts were not classified for disposal, and 

were specifically “set aside” by the classification orders “and reserved as recreation areas for use by the 

general public.” The classification orders also reserved “a 33-foot ROW for roads and public utilities” on 

the border of each lot. The legacy of the Small tract Act is still evident in the land use patterns in the area 

immediately surrounding the Fort Morgan Beach tracts. Other than the ROW reserved by the small tract 

classifications, there are no authorized uses on the Fort Morgan Beach tracts. 

3.3.3 Fort Morgan Highway Tracts 

General 

The Fort Morgan Highway tracts are located in Baldwin County along the Dixie-Graves Highway 

(SH 180), which provides access to the end of the Fort Morgan Peninsula. There are five tracts totaling 

approximately 41 acres within this tract group. High-density development and highway expansion near 

these tracts could be planned for the future. 

Soil Resources 

The soil classification for the tracts is provided in Table 3-10. 

Table 3-10. Soil Classification for the Fort Morgan Highway Tracts 

Soil Type Description Erosion Hazard Prime Farmland 

Leon sand 

Deep, poorly drained, nearly level soils 

on uplands; sandy surface layers and 

sandy and loamy subsoils 

Slight No 

St. Lucie sand, 0 to 5 

percent slopes 

Deep, excessively drained, nearly level 

to steep soils on undulating ridges and 

short side slopes on uplands; sandy 

surface layers and underlying material 

Very Severe No 

St. Lucie–Leon–Muck 

complex 

Deep, poorly drained, nearly level soils 

on uplands; sandy surface layers and 

sandy loamy subsoils 

None to Severe, 

depending on 

water saturation 

No 

Water Resources 

The Fort Morgan Highway tracts are located within the Mobile River drainage basin. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-47 

Vegetative Communities 

The narrow Fort Morgan Highway tracts are dominated by a sand pine/oak scrub plant community with 

scattered clusters of slash pine. Pine coverage is generally 10 to15 percent and trees are generally 5 to 10 

inches diameter at breast height. In the more xeric sites, the shrub layer is dominated by 8 to 12 feet tall 

scrub oak species, including scrub live oak (Quercus geminata) and myrtle oak (Quercus myrtifolia). 

Other understory species include rosemary (Conradina canescens), gopher apple (Licania michauxii), St. 

John’s wort (Hypericum crux-andreae), and saw palmetto (Serenoa repens). Reindeer lichen (Cladonia 

rangifera) and British soldier (Cladonia cristella) occur as a groundcover in protected areas of the scrub. 

These highway tracts were inundated by Hurricane Ivan’s storm surge in the fall of 2004. Although direct 

damage from wind was minimal, low areas where brackish waters stood for extended periods resulted in 

die-offs of pine and saw palmetto. A 30 foot utility corridor has been cleared on the southern edge of the 

tracts and contains more ruderal species, including blackberry/dewberry (Rubus spp.), groundsel-tree 

(Baccharis halimfolia), and common wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). 

In Lot 5 and 15, there are a small series of isolated wetlands dominated by sawgrass (Cladium 

jamaicense) with scattered patches of needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) and fringed by saw palmetto 

(Serenoa repens). Wild hibiscus (Hibiscus grandiflora), arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia), and titi 

(Cyrilla racemiflora) are also common in these low lying areas. Both of these tracts show evidence of a 

previous burn. 

Cogon grass (Imperata cylindrical) and Chinese tallow both occur sporadically along disturbed edges of 

the Fort Morgan Highway tracts. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Fort Morgan Peninsula, and the Bon Secour NWR in particular, provide the best remaining stopover and 

staging habitats for neotropical migratory songbirds along the Alabama coastline. In addition, the area is 

famous for its fall hawk migration. Over 370 species of birds have been identified at the Bon Secour 

NWR during migration seasons (USFWS 2007). Both the Bon Secour NWR and the nearby Fort Morgan 

State Park are designated Globally Important Bird Areas by the American Bird Conservancy. Several 

locations on the Fort Morgan Peninsula are listed on the Alabama Coastal Birding Trail, including several 

close to BLM tracts. 

Wetlands on Lots 5 and 15 of the Fort Morgan Highway tracts provide habitat for reptiles, amphibians, 

wading birds, and furbearers such as muskrat, mink, raccoon, and rabbit. The refuge has documented at 

least 15 species of turtles, 9 species of lizards, more than 30 species of snakes, and the American alligator 

(Alligator mississippiensis) in the area. 

Special Status Species 

The original critical habitat designation for Alabama beach mouse was recently modified to include the 

higher elevation scrub habitats determined to be important for the mouse during and after hurricane 

events (Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 21, Wednesday, February 1, 2006). This expanded critical habitat 

includes all of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts. 

Cultural Resources 

The Fort Morgan Highway tracts have been surveyed. Four cultural sites are located within one-half mile 

of five of the highway tracts. 
Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-48 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Visual Resources 

The Fort Morgan Highway tracts are forested with pine and scrub vegetation and are generally flat. The 

visual setting is dominated by human activity. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Recreation use on the Highway tracts is primarily associated with Highway 180 and the parkway corridor, 

which is designated as part the Alabama Scenic Byway. Activities along the highway corridor include 

driving and sightseeing, bicycling, and hiking. Several hiking trails on the Bon Secour NWR can be 

accessed from the parkway corridor. Historic Fort Morgan State Park at the end of the peninsula is a 

popular destination. 

Lands and Realty 

The Fort Morgan Highway tracts are within the same small tract area as the Fort Morgan Beach tracts. 

The plats of survey for the small tract area, however, made separate lots of the public domain lands within 

the 330-foot wide Dixie Graves Parkway. These lots are referred to in this document as the Fort Morgan 

Highway tracts, and were exempted from disposal by the small tract classification orders. While the BLM 

plats of survey identified the parkway as separate lots, there is no record that BLM granted any ROW or 

other authorized uses within the parkway lots. 

3.3.4 Fowl River Tract 

General 

There is no legal vehicle access to this 41.73-acre tract in Mobile County. Adjacent land is privately 

owned. Bellingrath Gardens, a 65-acre estate with formal gardens, is located just north and the Dauphin 

Island is to the south. There are some adjacent homes, and a Shell oil refinery is located across the river 

about one-half mile east of the tract and homes are adjacent to the tract. 

Soil Resources 

The soil classification for this tract is provided in Table 3-11. 

Table 3-11. Soil Classification for the Fowl River Tract 

Soil Type Description Erosion Hazard Prime 

Farmland 

Bayou-Escambia 

association, gently 

undulating 

Deep, moderately well-drained, nearly level 

soils on uplands and stream terraces; loamy 

and sandy surface layers and loamy subsoils 

low in clay 

Slight No 

Lafitte muck, 0 to 1 

percent slopes 

Level, very poorly drained, moderately, and 

rapidly permeable soils; in brackish marshes 

adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico 

Slight No 

Pactolus loamy sand, 

0 to 2 percent slopes 

Deep, moderately well-drained, and 

somewhat poorly drained, nearly level to 

gently sloping soils on uplands; sandy 

throughout 

Moderate No 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-49 

Water Resources 

The Fowl River tract is located within the Mobile River drainage basin. 

Vegetative Communities 

This tract is located on the western bank of the Fowl River and contains four wetland plant communities. 

These include an emergent wetland composed of black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) and a scrubshrub wetland dominated by black titi (Clitftonia monophylla), inkberry (Ilex glaba), common wax myrtle 

(Myrica cerifera), fetter-bush (Lyona lucida), and several species of pitcher plants and ferns. Portions of 

the tract are a seasonally flooded, hardwood-pine forest composed of sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia 

virginiana), sweetgum, loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), Florida maple (Acer barbatum), various oak 

species, such as water oak, laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and 

saw palmetto (Serona repens), with grasses as the principal ground covers. A fourth type is a slash pine 

flatwoods with dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), gallberry (Ilex coriacea), and saw palmetto. 

This tract was not surveyed for exotic/invasive plant species, but Chinese privet, tallow tree, mimosa, and 

Japanese honeysuckle occur in the area. 

Fish and Wildlife 

This wetland tract provides habitat for a variety of species in association with the adjacent river, wetland 

habitats, and flatwoods. The tract provides suitable foraging habitat for wading birds such as the great 

blue heron, black-crowned night heron, and snowy egret. The wetland habitats provide foraging and 

nesting habitat for both resident and neotropical migratory songbirds. Southern water snake (Nerodia 

fasciata), cottonmouth water moccasin (Agkistrodon piscivorus) are likely common on the tracts. 

Mammals are expected to include river otter (Lutra canadensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), mink (Mustela 

vison), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). 

Special Status Species 

This tract could provide habitat for the endangered red-belly turtle (Pseudemys alabamensis). There are 

no known records of Federally-listed plants on this tract. 

Cultural Resources 

The Fowl River tract was surveyed for cultural resources in 1983 (Jackson Field Office files). No cultural 

artifacts were found during shovel testing. One cultural site is located within one-half mile of the tract. 

Visual Resources 

The geography of the Fowl River tract is low lying and consists of several types of wetlands and 

associated forest and scrub vegetation. The visual setting is low-lying wetlands with relatively dense 

vegetation and some human activity. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

The Fowl River tract lies on the western side of the Fowl River. A portion of the tract is a wetland and is 

intermittently flooded. The tract may be accessed from the river, but there is no terrestrial access for the 

general public. Neither Delchamps Road, which formerly crossed the southern end of the tract, nor the 
Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-50 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

power line ROW, provide public access. The tract is likely used by local residents for dispersed recreation 

such as fishing, canoeing, and kayaking. 

In the 1960s, the tract was proposed as a recreation site and was transferred to the Alabama Department 

of Conservation for recreation purposes. The tract reverted to BLM, however, because development as a 

recreation site proved to be infeasible. 

Lands and Realty 

On April 7, 1964, the Fowl River tract was patented to the State of Alabama, Department of Conservation 

for recreation purposes, under the R&PP Act. Under the terms of the patent, the site was required to be 

developed as a public recreation site. On October 8, 1976, the title to the tract was revested in the United 

States because the planned development had not occurred. 

In 1983, BLM proposed the Fowl River tract for sale, but the tract did not sell. The fact that the sale was 

subject to a “covenant running with the land” to restrict use in floodplains may have been a contributing 

factor to the fact that the tract was not sold. 

In 1990, BLM granted a power line ROW across the tract, running from west to east in the southern 

portion (lot 5) of the tract. There are no other BLM ROW or use authorizations on the tract. 

3.3.5 Geneva Tract 

General 

The Geneva County tract consists of an approximately 1-acre sandbar in the bend of Choctawhatchee 

River (near the Florida State line). 

Soil Resources 

The is no soil classification for this tract. It is a sandbar adjacent to the river. 

Water Resources 

The Geneva tract is located within the Choctawhatchee River drainage basin. 

Vegetative Communities 

This very small (0.95 acres) tract is located on a bend on the East Fork of the Choctawhatchee River. As 

mapped, this tract is primarily a sandbar or open water. A 1997 aerial photo of the area shows the area 

dominated by pine, including a clear-cut on the opposite side of the river. 

There are no exotic invasive plant species known to occur on the tract at this time. 

Fish and Wildlife 

This tract is likely used by wading birds and nesting river turtles. 

Special Status Species 

This portion of the Choctawhatchee River has been designated as critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-51 

Cultural Resources 

The Geneva tract has not been surveyed. Three cultural sites are located within one-half mile of the tract. 

Visual Resources 

The visual setting of the Geneva tract is a river sandbar adjacent to dense forest vegetation. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Because the Geneva County tract is remote and inaccessible, its value for public recreation is very 

limited. Any recreational use would probably be related to the use of the river and include activities such 

as canoeing, kayaking, and fishing. 

Lands and Realty 

According to subdivision of sections by a survey approved December 9, 1890, the Geneva County tract is 

identified as lot 4 in the northeast corner of section 22, west of the Choctawhatchee River. It is apparent 

that change of the river’s course has affected the boundaries of lot 4, which now may be at least partially 

in the channel of the river. There are no approved use authorizations on this tract, and no requests are 

expected. 

3.3.6 Jordan Lake Tract 

General 

This 4.3-acre tract, located in Chilton County on the Coosa River below the Mitchell Dam (on the bank of 

Jordan Lake), is a steep, rocky slope with mixed hardwoods. The Coosa River Wildlife Management Area 

is located to the north and east of the tract. 

Soil Resources 

There is no soil classification for this tract. It is characterized as a rocky steep slope adjacent to the lake. 

Water Resources 

The Jordan Lake tract is located within the Coosa River drainage basin. 

Vegetative Communities 

The Jordon Lake tract is a very narrow strip of land on the west bank of Jordon Lake. North of State 

Highway 22, the steep shoreline is dominated by hardwoods, typically hickory, persimmon, sweetgum, 

hackberry, sycamore, southern red oak, water oak, and scattered loblolly pine. South of the highway, the 

tract is flatter with mature trees and little understory. 

Fish and Wildlife 

General wildlife use is similar to the Coosa Island tracts discussed above. The presence of multiple 

campsites in the area limits use of the area by more reclusive species. 
Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-52 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Special Status Species 

There are no records of Federally-listed plants or animals on this tract. 

Cultural Resources 

The Jordan Lake tract has been surveyed. Three cultural sites are located within one-half mile of the tract. 

Visual Resources 

The Jordan Lake tract sits high above the river and is visible from the highway as well as the homes 

across the river. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

This long, narrow tract is bisected by State Highway 22. The recreation opportunity of the Jordan Lake 

tract is primarily as an access to Jordan Lake for swimming and fishing. Due to the tract’s location and 

size, however, its value as a public recreation site is very limited. The owners of the adjacent small tracts 

and their guests undoubtedly use the tract for travel access to the lake. 

In 1966, the tract was transferred to Chilton County under the R&PP Act to be used for recreational 

purposes. Because of difficulty in managing the tract for recreation, the County filed a quitclaim deed in 

2000 to revert the tract to the United States. 

Lands and Realty 

The Jordan Lake tract is an extremely narrow strip of land on the west side of Jordan Lake. This narrow 

strip was created by a peculiar set of circumstances. The fractional portion of section 14, west of the 

Coosa River, was withdrawn from the public domain by Power Site Classification No. 7, Alabama No. 1, 

approved July 30, 1921, (FPC Project 82). When the FPC relinquished withdrawal of lands above the 

290-foot contour, BLM completed a resurvey in 1956 to subdivide the lands for disposal. The Jordan 

Lake tract (lot 1), because it was still withdrawn, had to be separated from the lands that were to be 

disposed. A 16.16-acre portion south of State Highway 22 was subdivided into 10 lots and classified for 

disposal under the Small tract Act of 1938. By 1960, all of the small tracts had sold, and several small 

houses, or fishing camps, were built on these lots adjacent to the BLM Jordan Lake tract. 

By 1966, the FPC allowed the BLM to convey the Jordan Lake tract to Chilton County, Alabama, subject 

to a reservation under Section 24 of the Water Power Act. The Jordan Lake tract was patented to Chilton 

County under the R&PP Act to be used for recreational purposes only and subject to reversion to the 

United States. The reversionary clause was invoked on April 17, 2000 when Chilton County filed a 

quitclaim deed to re-convey the tract back to the United States. 

The ROW for State Highway 22 was granted as a Federal Aid Highway under the Act of November 9, 

1921 (42 Stat. 212). This highway crosses the narrow Jordan Lake tract (less than 100 feet wide at this 

point) at west side of the bridge that crosses the lake. There are no other ROW or authorized uses on the 

Jordan Lake tract. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-53 

3.4 MISSISSIPPI STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE

3.4.1 Air Quality 

Mississippi has a humid, subtropical climate characterized by temperate winters; long, hot summers; and 

an evenly distributed annual rainfall. The region is subject to periods of drought and flood, and the 

climatic conditions are rarely average. A feast-or-famine situation attributed to weather conditions is 

typically expected as the climate delivers energy and moisture in subtropical latitudes between a large 

landmass to the north and the Gulf of Mexico to the south (SERCC 2005). 

Normal mean annual temperatures range from about 60°F in the north to 70°F along the coast. 

Temperatures regularly exceed 100°F throughout Mississippi and drop to zero or lower an average of 

once a year. Freezing temperatures reach the Gulf Coast almost every winter. Normal precipitation ranges 

from about 50 to 65 inches across the State from north to south (NOAA 2007a). 

Air Quality Meteorology 

Surface wind speeds vary depending on terrain and proximity to the coast. Average wind speeds vary 

from 6 to 10 miles per hour in most locations and follow water drainage features of the land or are driven 

by sea breezes. Dispersion can also be related to the NOAA Stagnation Index, which primarily focuses on 

ozone (NOAA 2005). On the basis of this index, Mississippi was prone to air stagnation on 25 to 50 

percent of the days from May through September from 2002 – 2004. This dispersion index compares 

moderately to other areas in the country. 

Baseline Air Quality 

Ambient Air Quality. EPA has established ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants 

considered harmful to public health and the environment. The ambient air quality measurements in 

Mississippi for SO2, NO2, CO, O3, and PM10 and PM2.5 are shown in Table 3-12. Ambient air quality 

measurements made by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) indicate that 

ambient air quality is within standards. Ozone is formed from the chemical reactions of nitrogen oxides, 

VOCs, and sunlight. No exceedances of ambient air quality standards are noted. 

Table 3-12. Recent Highest Ambient Air Quality Measurements in Mississippi1, 2

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 

Highest 

Measured 

Value 

(ppm3) 

Location 

National Ambient 

Air Quality 

Standard (ppm3) 

1 year 0.002 Pascagoula 0.03 

SO2 24 hours 0.019 Pascagoula 0.14 

3 hours 0.035 Pascagoula 0.50 

NO2 1 year 0.004 Hancock County 0.053 

8 hours 3.9 Jackson 9.0 

CO 

1 hour 5.0 Jackson 35.0 

8 hours 0.096 Hancock County 0.080 

O3

1 hour 0.112 Hancock County 0.120 
Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-54 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 

Highest 

Measured 

Value 

(ppm3) 

Location 

National Ambient 

Air Quality 

Standard (ppm3) 

1 year 18.0 Jackson County 50.0 μg/m3 PM10

24 hours 41.0 Jackson County 150.0 μg/m3 

1 year 13.6 Hattiesburg 15.0 μg/m3 PM2.5

24 hours 36.2 Hattiesburg 65.0 μg/m3 

1 MDEQ Annual Data Summary 2003 (MDEQ 2004). 

2 One-year maximum—this is not technically a violation until the fourth-highest value exceeds the design value of 0.085 ppm. 

3 ppm = parts per mjllion 

Visibility and Atmospheric Deposition. Visibility and atmospheric deposition measurements are not 

available for Mississippi. 

Area Air Quality Designations 

PSD of areas meeting the ambient air quality standards are divided into three categories: Class I for areas 

of restricted growth, Class II for areas of moderate growth, and Class III for industrialized areas (Clean 

Air Act of 1977, as amended). All of Mississippi is designated as PSD Class II. 

In addition to this area designation for the entire State, other nearby Class I areas (within 100 kilometers 

of the potential development activities) include the Breton NWR off the coast of Louisiana (managed by 

USFWS) and the Sipsey Wilderness Area in northwestern Alabama. 

3.4.2 Soil Resources 

Physiographic Regions and Soil Types 

The State of Mississippi is located entirely within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province (Fenneman 

1938). Most of the State is located within the East Gulf Coastal Plain section of the province, and the 

remainder is found within the Mississippi Alluvial Plain section. Within the East Gulf Coastal Plain, the 

physiography is characterized by a distinctive series of belts that largely reflect the underlying geology. 

Nine of the 10 physiographic regions are belts of the East Gulf Coastal Plain—Loess Hills, Flatwoods, 

Pontotoc Ridge, Black Prairie, Tombigbee Hills, Jackson Prairie, Longleaf Pine Belt, Coastal Pine 

Meadows, and North Central Hills. The 10th physiographic region is the Yazoo Basin, which is part of 

the Mississippi Alluvial Plain. 

Eight of the 12 soil orders (broad soil groups) recognized in the United States are found in Mississippi, 

which has great soil diversity (Pettry 2004). Soils in Mississippi are largely correlated with the State’s 

topographic regions; due in part, to effects that parent material and relief have on the soil formation 

process. 

From an agricultural perspective, the two most productive soil areas of Mississippi are the Mississippi 

Delta (the Yazoo Basin physiographic region) and the Blackland Prairies (the Jackson Prairie and 

Blackbelt Prairie physiographic regions). Appendix F briefly describes the major parent soil units and 

their locations. 

The characteristics of soils in BLM-administered non-USFS FMO areas are described in Appendix F. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-55 

Prime and Unique Farmlands 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires the identification of proposed actions that would affect any 

lands classified as prime and unique farmlands. NRCS administers this act to preserve farmland. 

Prime farmland is defined as having the availability and best combination of physical and chemical 

characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Its soil quality, growing season, 

and moisture supply can produce economically sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed 

according to acceptable farming methods, including water management. In general, prime farmlands have 

an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and 

growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no rocks. 

The land is permeable to water and air. Prime farmlands are not excessively erodible or saturated with 

water for a long period of time, and they neither flood nor require protection from flooding. 

Prime farmlands occur throughout most of Mississippi. Counties in Mississippi with oil and gas 

development likely include soil units that have been identified as prime farmland by NRCS. Appendix F 

includes prime farmland classification information that is available for soils within non-USFS FMO. 

3.4.3 Water Resources 

Surface Water 

The surface waters of the State of Mississippi are divided into 10 major drainage areas or river basins—

the Big Black River Basin, Coastal Streams Basin, Mississippi River Basin, North Independent Streams 

Basin, Pascagoula River Basin, Pearl River Basin, South Independent Streams Basin, Tennessee River 

Basin, Tombigbee River Basin, and Yazoo River Basin (Map 3-4). Appendix H briefly describes each of 

these major river basins. 

Wetlands occupy an estimated 4 million acres in Mississippi. Since the 1800s, almost 6 million acres of 

wetlands (including 10,000 acres of coastal wetlands) have been lost. Historically, loss was mainly the 

result of converting wetlands to agricultural lands. Today, wetland loss is primarily associated with 

residential and commercial development (MDEQ 2005). 

The surface water quality of most of Mississippi’s approximately 84,000 miles of rivers fully or partially 

supports designated uses. The major cause of impaired water quality is nonpoint agricultural runoff. 

Minor causes are industrial and municipal point-source discharges and runoff from nonagricultural 

nonpoint sources (USGS 2003b). 

About 47 river miles are within BLM-administered non-USFS FMO areas in Mississippi. Oil and gas 

leases exist on about 0.6 river mile. About 32,000 lake acres occur within non-USFS FMO areas. NWI 

data are limited for Mississippi. Because available digital data for freshwater wetlands in Mississippi is 

lacking, the non-USFS FMO acreage in freshwater wetland areas in Mississippi could not be estimated. 
Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-56 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-57 

Ground Water 

Mississippi has 15 major aquifers that provide 80 percent of its public water supply for domestic and 

commercial, industrial, mining, thermoelectric power, and agricultural users (USGS 1998). Only two 

municipalities, Jackson and Tupelo, receive some public water from surface water sources. Mississippi 

has an abundant supply of ground water, which at some locations occurs at depths exceeding 3,000 feet 

(USGS 1998). 

Ground water withdrawals are concentrated in the urbanized and industrialized areas of Mississippi and in 

the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain in northwestern Mississippi, where large withdrawals are made for 

crop irrigation and catfish production. These withdrawals have resulted in significant, long-term declines 

in water levels in some areas. Declining ground water levels and the ability of the aquifers to meet the 

increasing demand for water continue to be an important water resources concern in the State. For 

example, in central Mississippi, Cockfield and Sparta are two major aquifers. Water levels in the 

Cockfield Formation have slightly decreased at selected sites, whereas levels in a few wells near pumping 

centers have decreased by 1 to 4 feet. Some wells screened in the Sparta Sand indicated declines of 2 to 6 

feet (USGS 2003b). 

Precipitation is the ultimate source of water that recharges the major aquifers in Mississippi. Studies show 

that less than 50 percent of the annual precipitation ends up in stream runoff. Only a small amount of 

water recharges aquifers that are either exposed or buried to shallow depths, and an even smaller amount 

percolates downward and enters the deep-flow system (USGS 1998). 

Map 3-5 presents the areas that are primary ground water recharge zones in Mississippi. On the basis of a 

rough geospatial analysis, 4,470 acres of non-USFS FMO occur in primary ground water recharge zones 

(defined as recharge greater than 3 inches per year). 
Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-58 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-59 

Coastal Zone 

The National CZM Program is a voluntary partnership between the Federal government and U. S. coastal 

states and territories authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The Coastal Programs 

Division, within NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, administers the program 

at the Federal level and works with State CZM partners. Mississippi CZM Program (MSCZMP) focuses 

primarily upon coastal wetlands below the watermark of the ordinary high tide and adjacent wetlands. 

The Hancock County tracts, in addition to BLM-administered non-USFS FMO, fall within the MSCZMP. 

The Mississippi Gulf Coast encompasses 370 miles of shoreline and nearly 56,000 acres of emergent 

wetlands. The coastal wetlands habitat of Mississippi is among the most ecologically diverse systems in 

the country. This system provides for ecological functions such as pollution filtering, sediment trapping, 

and flood control and is an important nursery area that increases the productivity of an abundant fishery 

resource. These ecological functions also provide economic benefits through commercial and recreational 

fisheries, hunting, trapping, and many other forms of recreation and commerce (MPA 2005). The 

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (DMR) is preparing a Comprehensive Resource 

Management Plan (CRMP) that will include management and protection applications for coastal wetlands 

and marine resources in the six coastal counties of Mississippi (including Hancock County, where a BLM 

surface tract is located) by coordinating agency efforts, developing the necessary partnerships among 

public and private entities, and integrating wetlands protection and management into the lifestyle of the 

coastal community. The Mississippi CRMP was unavailable for reference in this plan. 

On the basis of the rough geospatial analysis, about 32,440 acres of BLM-administered non-USFS FMO 

are within Mississippi coastal wetlands. However, about 24,000 of these acres are within 10 miles of the 

Stennis Space Center, one of NASA’s primary centers for rocket propulsion testing, and are not likely to 

be developed. Of about 8,380 acres of non-USFS FMO in wetlands, 990 acres are in high-potential areas 

for future mineral development. 

3.4.4 Vegetative Communities 

For this planning effort, GAP was used to delineate land cover types on non-USFS FMO in Mississippi. 

This land cover map is based on Landsat-7 satellite imagery using the NLCD, which includes 21 very 

broad land cover classifications. The decision to use this data set was based on its statewide application 

and availability in a geographical information system format at the time this planning effort was initiated. 

Analysis of the GAP land cover map resulted in the identification of eight dominant cover types on nonUSFS FMO lands in Mississippi. The dominant vegetation cover types on non-USFS FMO within 

Mississippi include evergreen forest/woodland (23 percent); wetland forest/shrubland (14 percent); 

deciduous forest/woodland (11 percent); row/crops (10 percent); grassland/herbaceous (9 percent); open 

water (9 percent); pasture/hay (6 percent); and mixed forest/woodland (4 percent). Several less dominant 

communities (14 percent) are not discussed herein. A brief description of each community follows. 

• Evergreen Forests/Woodlands (23 percent)—This classification delineates areas where 75 

percent or more of the tree species are evergreen. In Mississippi, the dominant pine species are 

loblolly, longleaf, slash, and shortleaf. This classification includes commercial pine plantations, 

where loblolly is the most commonly planted pine species. An additional species, sand pine, 

dominates a narrow band of scrub habitats behind the coastal dune systems along the Gulf of 

Mexico. 

• Wetland Forest/Shrubland (14 percent)—This classification is dominated by bottomland 

hardwood vegetation that is periodically inundated by water and encompasses diverse 

communities ranging from forested swamps and bogs to coastal marshes. Common vegetation in 
Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-60 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

seasonally flooded forests are sweet bay, southern magnolia, sweetgum, wax myrtle, various 

oaks, and titi. Typical wetland or bog species include pitcher plants, various rushes, sedges, 

arrowhead, and St. John’s wort. Typical species of coastal marshes include sawgrass, needlerush, 

and bulrush 

• Deciduous Forests/Woodlands (11 percent)— This classification is dominated by trees of 

which 75 percent or more are hardwoods. Common trees in these areas include a wide variety of 

oak and hickory species, maple, ash, hackberry, yellow poplar, beech, elm, sweetgum, 

persimmon, and cherry. 

• Row/Crops (10 percent)—This classification includes areas being actively cultivated. 

• Grassland/Herbaceous (9 percent)—Grassland/herbaceous communities are composed of dry 

systems dominated by low herbaceous vegetation and are absent of woodlands. 

• Open Water (9 percent)—This classification denotes water and does not support terrestrial 

vegetation species. 

• Pasture/Hay (6 percent)—Vegetation in this community is largely composed of introduced 

grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock grazing or the production of hay 

crops. 

• Mixed Forests/Woodlands (4 percent)—This classification delineates areas where neither 

hardwood nor pine species represent more than 75 percent of the cover. These mixed 

hardwood/pine areas are typically dominated by loblolly, shortleaf, slash, and/or longleaf pine, 

with a wide variety of oak and hickory species, plus hackberry, elm, sweetgum, persimmon, and 

yellow poplar. 

Mississippi Invasive/Exotic Species 

The Mississippi Exotic Pest Plant Council lists the top ten worst invasive plants as tallowtree (Triadica 

sebifera); Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense); Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica); tropical soda 

apple (Solanum viarum); purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria); kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata); 

cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica); Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense); water hyacinth (Eichornia 

crassipes); alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides); and Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spictum). 

To date, Chinese tallow, Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, and cogon grass have been the 

most frequent exotic species occurring on BLM non-USFS FMO. Cogon grass, in particular, has the 

potential to affect future land use practices because of its ability to alter natural fire regimes, its thick 

growth habit that excludes other vegetation, and the difficulty to control it. Chinese privet is a common 

invasive along edges and disturbed sites throughout the State. Chinese tallow tree is often found near 

wetlands and disturbed areas including fence rows and roads. 

3.4.5 Fish and Wildlife 

Game Species 

Mississippi has abundant and diverse game populations actively managed across the State. The State 

supports the highest white-tailed deer density in the nation with the population estimated at 1.75 million. 

The wild turkey population is estimated at 300,000. Both species were brought back by extensive 

restocking efforts during the 1950s and 1960s. Mourning dove is common throughout farms, woodlots, 

agricultural fields, and grasslands. Small game species include rabbit, gray squirrel, and fox squirrel. 

Naturalized populations of wild hog are now found in at least 65 of Mississippi’s 82 counties. Mississippi 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-61 

is part of the Mississippi Flyway; reservoirs, ponds and swamps across the State provide important winter 

habitat for waterfowl that are produced in the Prairie Pothole Region and Great Lakes States. In most 

years, Mississippi winters significant numbers of mallards and wood ducks across the State. Historically, 

flooded forests in the Delta region of northwestern Mississippi provided reliable, high-quality habitat for 

millions of mallards, wood ducks, and other waterfowl. This region is the focus of major waterfowl 

conservation efforts, including the Lower Mississippi Joint Venture program. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds 

According to the Mississippi Ornithological Society, 396 bird species have been seen in Mississippi. The 

State is an important migration route for many migratory songbirds. The Mississippi Gulf Coast is a key 

staging area for migrants as they replenish fat reserves for the trans-Gulf flight during the fall and 

provides the first landfall for tired migrants during spring migrations. 

3.4.6 Special Status Species 

For the purposes of this document special status species are defined as all Federal and State-listed, species 

occurring in the State, species proposed or candidates for Federal or State listing, and those species 

identified by BLM as sensitive species. BLM Eastern State’s 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. The USFWS lists 37 Federally-listed species which currently or historically 

occurred in Mississippi. The Mississippi Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) inventory lists 339 species 

ranked as either critically imperiled (S-1) or imperiled (S-2) in the State. A list of S-1 and S-2 species 

being tracked by MNHP is included in Appendix E. A complete list of the wildlife species of 

conservation concern in the State is available in the Mississippi CWCS. 

This discussion of special status species takes a statewide perspective, even though management of 

BLM’s scattered surface acreage and oil and gas development would probably directly affect less than 

229 acres in total. Oil and gas leasing of non-USFS FMO in particular could occur anywhere in the State, 

and future oil and gas development has the potential to affect aquatic systems downstream from locations 

substantially increasing the area potentially affected. Therefore, a statewide perspective is needed to cover 

the full geographic range of potential impacts. 

Overview 

The State of Mississippi covers four ecoregions: the East Gulf Coastal Plain, the Upper East Gulf Coastal 

Plain, the Mississippi Alluvial Plain, and the Northern Gulf Coastal Plain (see Section 3.4.2). The 

following discussions highlight the special status issues in each of these ecoregions. 

The East Gulf Coastal Plain is one of the most biologically rich ecoregions in the country. Many of the 

special status species in this area are associated with the vast longleaf pine forests and embedded wetland 

bogs that once stretched across much of the southern United States. Longleaf forests are now found on 

about three percent of the original acreage, much of it converted to commercial pine plantations for 

loblolly and slash pine. What acreage remains is often degraded by exclusion from the frequent fires that 

historically maintained this system and by habitat fragmentation. Species endemic to the ecoregion, many 

of which were never common, have been further imperiled by these changes (Mississippi CWCS). 

Keystone species in this habitat are the red-cockaded woodpecker and gopher tortoise, both Federally and 

State-listed. Others include the highly restricted Mississippi gopher frog found only in a handful of ponds 

in Harrison and Jackson counties. 
Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-62 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Wet savannas in the East Gulf Coastal Plain are estimated to be reduced to less than five percent of their 

original acreage (Mississippi CWCS). Most of the largest patches of this habitat are located in the 

Sandhill Crane NWR. This region’s pitcher bogs and pine seeps support an exceptionally diverse flora 

and endemic crawfish species, including one Federally-listed crayfish and six other crayfish listed as 

imperiled or critically imperiled. 

Two large and biologically important rivers systems flow through this portion of the East Gulf Coastal 

Plain: the Pearl River and the Pascagoula River. Both are considered vulnerable (Mississippi CWCS). 

The lower Pearl River is affected by impoundment at the Ross Barnett Reservoir, as well as 

channelization and increased sediments from surrounding land uses. The Pascagoula is America’s longest 

unencumbered river and one of the most intact in the southeast (Mississippi CWCS). These river systems 

support 13 Federally or State-listed species, and 19 other special status species, mostly fish and mussels. 

The rivers and major tributaries are designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon. 

The Mississippi River Alluvial Plain bordered by the Mississippi River on the west is dominated by 

bottomland hardwood forests. These rich frequently flooded forests and associated habitats support over 

240 fish species, 45 species of reptiles and amphibians, and 37 species of mussels. In addition, 50 species 

of mammals and approximately 60 percent of all bird species in the contiguous United States currently 

utilize this ecoregion (Mississippi CWCS). This area is important to the recovery of the endangered 

Louisiana black bear, and recently supported one of the two litters recorded in the State in over 30 years. 

Old-growth hardwoods are crucial habitat for 11 of 18 bat species in the southeast (Mississippi CWCS). 

At least four Federally-listed species and seven other special status species occur in this area. 

The Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain in Mississippi ranges from the northern edge of the longleaf pine 

forests grading to the north through oak-hickory-pine forests to oak-hickory forests. Many of the most 

vulnerable special status species occurring in this area are associated with the river systems, wetland 

habitats and prairie opening scattered through Jackson and larger Black Belts. This region supports a large 

number of endemic crayfish, mussel species, and fish. Key rivers include the Tombigbee, Yazoo, and Big 

Black Rivers, all of which have been substantially altered by impoundments and channelization. 

Tributaries and streams in this area have been subjected to increased sedimentation from agricultural and 

forestry. The Mississippi CWCS lists 45 crayfish, fish and mussel special status species as critically 

imperiled (S-1) or imperiled (S-2) in the Tombigbee River system, this in addition to thirteen Federallylisted species. Six of these mussel species in Tombigbee are presumed or expected to be extirpated from 

the State. Karst areas in Mississippi are primarily associated with the “Vicksburg Group” of soils in 

Clark, Jasper, and Wayne counties in east central Mississippi, and Union and Tishomingo counties. About 

65 caves covering less than 100 acres support several special status species, including cave salamander, 

spring salamander, and many of the State’s bat species. 

The Mississippi Northern Gulf Coastal Plain includes barrier islands with beaches, coastal marshes, 

and maritime scrub and woodlands. At the coastline, these habitats grade through salt marshes to 

productive estuaries (Mississippi CWCS). Mississippi has established an 83,000-acre coastal preserve 

system to protect and enhance coastal wetlands and barrier islands. The system is dominated by coastal 

wetlands that support a number of special status shorebirds, including the piping plover, American 

oystercatcher, and Wilson’s plover; wading birds, such as reddish egret and white ibis; and others such as 

the brown pelican. They also support the Mississippi diamondback terrapin. Natural beaches in the State 

tend to be mud shores often associated with the estuaries of larger rivers and provide important foraging 

areas for wading birds and shorebirds. Maritime woodlands dominated by live oak, laurel oak, and saw 

palmetto provide crucial staging areas for neotropical migrants to rest and build or replenish fat reserves, 

particularly during inclement weather and for exhausted birds making landfall. This habitat is considered 

critically imperiled due to its extreme rarity and because of the threats of urbanization and exotic weeds. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-63 

Species Accounts 

The following Federally-listed or candidate species are known to occur or to have potential to occur on 

BLM non-USFS FMO (Natureserve 2006). A list of species ranked by MNHP as critically imperiled (S1) or imperiled (S-2) is provided in Appendix E. 

Mammals 

Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus), Federally-listed as 

endangered, State-listed as endangered 

The Louisiana black bear prefers forested areas with dense understory vegetation, particularly bottomland 

hardwoods which include hard and soft mast, escape cover, denning sites, corridor habitat, and distance 

from humans. Escape cover is especially critical for bears that live in fragmented habitat and close to 

humans. Access to a variety of habitat is consistent with the black bear’s need for a seasonal assortment 

of foods during the year. Louisiana black bears have been known to travel long distances in search of 

food, habitat, and mates. Modification and loss of habitat are the primary reasons for the decline of the 

black bear (USFWS 1995). There are an estimated 50 Louisiana black bears in Mississippi. Recent litters 

in Washington County and in the Mississippi Delta are the first recorded in 30 years. 

Gray myotis (Myotis grisescens), Federally-listed as endangered, Statelisted as endangered 

Gray myotis roost almost exclusively in caves, generally utilizing different caves for summer and winter 

hibernaculum. Gray bats were last documented in Mississippi in 1967 in the northeastern corner of 

Tishomingo County. A male was found on private property in Tishomingo County on September 20, 

2004. The location is approximately 90 km southwest of the closest known gray bat maternal colony, 

located at Blowing Springs Cave, Alabama (Sherman and Martin 2006). 

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), Federally-listed as endangered, State-listed as 

endangered 

Indiana bat hibernates in caves, typically limestone with pools where the mean midwinter temperature is 4 

– 8 degrees Celsius. During the summer, their habitat consists of wooded or semiwooded areas, often but 

not always along streams. Indiana bats roost in hollow trees or under loose bark during the summer, 

including the season for rearing their young. Foraging habitats include riparian areas, upland forests, 

ponds, and fields (Menzel et al. 2001). There are no known hibernacula in Mississippi, but there is 

potential for this species to occur in Tishomingo County, utilizing summer habitats. 

Birds 

Southeastern snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus tenuirostris), Statelisted as endangered 

This species occurs year round on the coastal beaches, dry mud or salt flats, sandy shores of rivers, lakes, 

and ponds. The species nest on ground on broad open beaches or salt or dry mud flats, where vegetation is 

sparse or absent (small clumps of vegetation are used for cover by chicks); nests are found beside or 

under objects or in the open. 

Interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos), Federally and State-listed 

as endangered

This population is Federally-listed where it occurs along sand bars and beaches along the Mississippi 

River. 
Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-64 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Mississippi sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pulla), Federally-listed as 

endangered, State-listed as endangered 

This non-migrating subspecies is currently restricted to an area in southern Jackson County, Mississippi, 

extending from the Pascagoula River west to the Jackson County line, south to Simmons Bayou, north 

latitude about four miles north of Vancleave; part of this area is within the Mississippi Sandhill Crane 

NWR. Typical habitat is open savannas, swamp edges, young pine plantations, and wetlands along edges 

of pine forests; associated trees and shrubs include longleaf pine, slash pine, bald cypress, gallberry, wax 

myrtle, black gum, sweet bay, and yaupon. 

Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), State-listed as endangered 

An extremely rare bird east of the Mississippi River, Bewick’s wrens are seen occasionally in Mississippi 

during the winter, rarely breeding in the State. 

Piping plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), Atlantic Coast and Great Plains 

populations listed as Federally-threatened and Great Lakes populations 

listed as Federally-endangered, State-listed as endangered 

All three populations of piping plover winter along the south Atlantic and Gulf coasts where they are 

classified as threatened. On July 3, 2001, USFWS designated 165,211 acres along 1,798 miles of 

coastline in eight southern States as critical habitat for the wintering population of piping plover. This 

includes much of the Mississippi coastline. Wintering birds are present from August to May, but numbers 

peak during the winter months. 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Federally-listed as threatened, 

proposed for delisting, State-listed as endangered 

Bald eagles are found throughout the State primarily along larger rivers and numerous reservoirs. In 2006, 

there were 31 active nests in the State being monitored with up to 62 chicks, and the possibility of 13 

additional nests (Nick Winstead, personal communication). 

Wood stork (Mycteria americana), Federally-listed as endangered, Statelisted as endangered 

The wetlands of the Coastal Plain of Mississippi provide important foraging habitat for wood storks that 

disperse from breeding areas in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina in late summer and early fall. 

Primarily habitats are marshes, swamps, lagoons, ponds, and flooded fields and ditches. During extended 

drought, depressions in marshes and brackish wetlands have increased importance. In Mississippi, wood 

storks occur primarily in the coastal counties, including Hancock, Jackson, and Harrison Counties. 

Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), Federally-listed as endangered, 

although under status review for delisting (Federal Register, May 24, 2006), 

State-listed as endangered 

The brown pelican is a coastal species that makes extensive use of sand spits, offshore sand bars, and 

islets for nocturnal roosting and daily loafing, especially by nonbreeders and during the non-nesting 

season. Dry roosting sites are essential. Some roosting sites eventually may become nesting areas. 

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Federally-listed as 

endangered, State-listed as endangered 

Red-cockaded woodpeckers require open pine woodlands and savannahs with large old pines for nesting 

and roosting habitat. Large old pines are required as cavity trees and are typically in open stands with 

little or no hardwood midstory and few or no overstory hardwoods. Hardwood encroachment resulting 

from fire suppression is a well-known cause of cluster abandonment. Suitable foraging habitat typically 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-65 

consists of mature pines with an open canopy, low densities of small pines, little or no hardwood or pine 

midstory, few or no overstory hardwoods, and abundant native bunchgrass, and forb groundcovers. The 

Federal threshold for minimally suitable foraging habitat is stands of at least 50 percent pine where the 

dominant trees are pines over 30 years of age. Minimum criteria for nesting habitat is pines, 60 years or 

older, which may be dispersed among younger stands, located within 0.5 miles of suitable foraging 

habitat. 

Reptiles 

Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi), a Federal candidate for 

listing, State-listed as endangered 

Black pine snake habitat is characterized as sandy, well-drained soils with an overstory of longleaf pine, a 

fire-suppressed mid-story, and dense herbaceous ground cover. In Mississippi, there are recent records in 

nine out of 14 counties with historic records (Forrest, George, Harrison, Jones, Marion, Pearl River, 

Perry, Stone, and Wayne). The distribution of populations within these counties has become highly 

restricted due to the fragmentation of the remaining longleaf pine habitat. In seven of the nine occupied 

Mississippi counties, populations of black pine snakes are concentrated in the DeSoto National Forest. In 

the remaining occupied Mississippi counties, one population is known from the Marion County Wildlife 

Management Area and one occurs on private land. 

Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), Federally-listed as threatened and 

State-listed as endangered 

The most common nesting sea turtle in Mississippi, loggerheads nest on open sandy beaches above hightide mark, seaward of well-developed dunes primarily on barrier islands. Nesting normally occurs from 

early May through August, with the majority of nests being laid during June and July. Females lay three 

to five nests, and sometimes more, during a single nesting season. The eggs incubate approximately two 

months before hatching sometime between late June and mid-November. 

Rainbow snake (Farancia erytrogramma) State-listed as endangered 

This snake lives primarily in or near rivers, creeks, swamps, springs, and open marshes, including 

brackish tidal areas; in some areas hibernation occurs in uplands near water. In Mississippi there are 

records for this snake in Forrest, Hancock, Jackson, and Lamar Counties. 

Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), Federally-listed as threatened, 

State-listed as endangered 

In Mississippi, gopher tortoise populations are restricted to the well-drained sandy soil that once 

supported the vast longleaf forests across the State and much of the southeast. These habitats limit the 

tortoise's range in Mississippi to the lower 14 counties of the State. Research has shown that gopher 

tortoises move up to 600 feet between burrows for breeding purposes and two or more burrows within 

600 feet of each other can be defined as a population (McDearman, personal communication) 

Yellow-blotched map turtle (Graptemys flavimaculata), Federally-listed as 

threatened, State-listed as endangered 

The yellow-blotched map turtle is found only in the Pascagoula River system, including its tributaries: the 

Leaf, Chickasawhay, and Escatawpa Rivers in southern Mississippi. 
Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-66 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Black-knobbed map turtle (Graptemys nigrinoda), State-listed as 

endangered 

Black-knobbed map turtle habitat consists of rivers and streams with moderate current, sand or clay 

bottom, and logs and other basking sites in northeastern Mississippi in Clay, Lowndes, and Monroe 

Counties. 

Ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculifera), Federally-listed as threatened, 

State-listed as endangered 

Typical habitat is medium size streams and rivers with moderate to fast current, numerous basking logs, 

nearby sand and gravel bars, and channel wide enough to allow sun to reach basking logs from 10:00 a.m. 

to 4:00 p.m. (McCoy and Vogt 1980, Dickerson and Reine 1996). This species requires high water quality 

to support main food sources. Eggs are laid in nests dug in sandy beaches or gravel bars. In Mississippi, 

the ringed map turtle is found in the Pearl River system from the vicinity of Philadelphia, Neshoba 

County, downstream in the Pearl (including Ross Barnett Reservoir) and West Pearl rivers to near the 

town of Pearl River. Distribution includes habitats in Copiah, Hinds, Lawrence, Leake, Madison, Marion, 

Neshoba, Pearl River, Rankin, Scott, and Simpson Counties. 

Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), Federally-listed at threatened, Statelisted as endangered 

The green sea turtle may be an occasional visitor to Mississippi waters, but is not known to nest in the 

State. 

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), Federally-listed at 

endangered, State-listed as endangered 

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle is an occasional visitor to Mississippi waters, where it is sometimes caught in 

shrimp nets. Almost the entire population nests in Mexico and southern Texas. 

Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), Federally-listed at 

endangered, State-listed as endangered 

The leatherback sea turtle is an occasional visitor to Mississippi waters, but not known to nest in the 

State. 

Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi), Federally-listed as threatened, 

State-listed as endangered 

The historical range of the eastern indigo snake was from the east coast of South Carolina through 

southern Georgia, Florida, into south Alabama and southwest Mississippi, often associated with gopher 

tortoises. Particularly outside of southern Florida, gopher tortoise burrows provide important refugia from 

temperature extremes. Naturally occurring populations are now found only in southern Georgia and 

Florida. Indigo snakes were historically found in the lower coastal plain along with the burrowing gopher 

tortoise. This species is very rare and possibly extirpated in Mississippi. 

Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), Federally-listed as 

endangered, State-listed as endangered 

Hawksbill sea turtles may be an occasional visitor to Mississippi waters, but are not known to nest in the 

State. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-67 

Southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus), State-listed as endangered 

Historically this snake occurred in open, xeric habitats with well-drained, sandy soils in the Coastal Plain 

from eastern North Carolina to southern Florida, west to southeastern Mississippi. It is now presumed to 

be extirpated in Mississippi and possibly extirpated in Alabama. 

Amphibians 

One toed amphiuma (Amphiuma pholeter), State-listed as endangered 

This species is found in deep, organic, liquid muck in alluvial swamps of low-gradient 2nd or 3rd order 

streams, spring runs, and occasionally floodplain swampy terrace streams. There are records from Jackson 

County in Mississippi. 

Mississippi gopher frog (Rana sevosa), Federally-listed as endangered, 

State-listed as endangered 

This species once existed in the longleaf pine forests of the lower coastal plain from east of the 

Mississippi River in Louisiana to the Mobile River delta in Alabama. It has not been seen in Louisiana 

since 1967 or in Alabama since 1922. It is currently known to exist in three limited locations. The largest 

and best known population is at Glen’s Pond located in Harrison County, Mississippi on the De Soto 

National Forest. Two other occupied ponds were found in 2004; one pond is owned by the State of 

Mississippi and the other on private land in Jackson County. 

Green salamander (Aneides aeneus), State-listed as endangered 

This salamander is limited to northeastern Mississippi with records from Tishomingo County. It prefers 

damp (but not wet) crevices in shaded rock outcrops and ledges. It sometimes reaches high population 

densities in logged areas where tree tops are left. 

Cave salamander (Eurycea lucifuga), State-listed as endangered 

This salamander is found in caves (usually limestone); also rocky streams and springs, and wooded areas 

and fields, usually near caves or limestone outcrops in northern Mississippi. There are records from 

Tishomingo County. 

Spring salamander (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus) State-listed as endangered 

This salamander is found in small, clear upland streams; clear springs; caves; shaded seepages; 

occasionally in swamps and lake margins, sometimes also in forested wet areas away from streams, 

especially during rainy periods. There are records of this salamander from Tishomingo County. 

Fish 

Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), Federally-listed as 

threatened, State-listed as endangered 

Adult Gulf sturgeon migrate into large river systems between late March and early April to spawn, 

sometimes moving as much as 140 miles upstream. Adults and subadults return to the Gulf of Mexico in 

late fall. The young generally stay in the river mouth through winter and spring. Critical habitat has been 

designated and in Mississippi includes the Pearl and Pascagoula Rivers and their major tributaries. 
Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-68 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), Federally-listed as endangered, 

State-listed as endangered 

The pallid sturgeon is a species of large, turbid, free-flowing rivers; occurs in strong current over firm 

gravel or sandy substrate. In Mississippi, records are from the Mississippi River and Sunflower 

River/Yazoo Rivers. 

Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi), Federally-listed as 

endangered, State-listed as endangered 

The Alabama sturgeon was found historically throughout the Mobile River basin in Mississippi and 

Alabama. It is now restricted to a 216 km (130 mi) reach of the Alabama River in Alabama. 

Crystal darter (Crystallaria asprella), State-listed as endangered 

The crystal darter is found in large creeks and rivers with extensive clean sand and gravel raceways. In 

Mississippi, crystal darters may be extirpated from the Tombigbee River, as they have not been collected 

since shortly after it was completed. There are other records from Pearl River system and Bayou Pierre. 

Bayou darter (Etheostoma rubrum), Federally-listed as threatened, Statelisted as endangered 

The bayou darter distribution is very localized and found in Bayou Pierre and its tributaries in Copiah 

County. The largest concentrations occur in sections of Bayou Pierre and Foster Creek, north of State 

Highway 548. Bayou darter prefers stable, moderately swift riffles of large gravel and rock in creeks and 

small to medium rivers. 

Ironcolor shiner (Notropis chalybaeus), State-listed as endangered

This shiner occurs in low gradient coastal streams along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. In Mississippi, 

surveys in 1995 – 1996 did not find any ironcolor shiners at 15 historic locations. During this survey, a 

new locality was recorded in extreme southeastern Mississippi in the Escatawapa River (Albanese and 

Slack 1998). 

Frecklebelly madtom (Noturus munitus), State-listed as endangered 

This fish occurs chiefly in rocky riffles in medium to large rivers. In Mississippi the current range is 

restricted to the Tombigbee and Pearl River systems. 

Greenside darter (Etheostoma blennioides), State-listed as endangered 

Habitat preferences are variable; often in medium-sized to large creeks and small to medium rivers with 

gravel- or rubble-strewn riffles, although they also occur in silt-free, shallow bedrock pools with steady 

current, and sometimes inhabit relatively quiet lake shores. In Mississippi, records are from the 

northeastern corner of the State in Tishomingo County. 

Saltmarsh topminnow (Fundulus jenkinsi) Federal candidate for listing 

This coastal species is found in cord grass marshes. During a recent survey, 90 percent of the saltmarsh 

topminnow were found in water with ≤ 12% salinity. In Mississippi, there are scattered records along the 

coast, including the Simmons Bay, Old Fort Bayou, Biloxi Bay, and Bay St. Louis. 

Bigeye shiner (Notropis boops), State-listed as endangered 

This fish is generally confined to upland streams in the Mississippi River basin from the Tennessee and 

Ohio River basins west to Missouri and Arkansas. In Mississippi, there are records from the Tennessee 

River system in the northeastern portion of the State. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-69 

Slenderhead darter (Percina phoxocephala), State-listed as endangered

This species is found in runs and riffles of creeks and small to medium rivers with moderate to strong 

flow and gravel, rubble, or bedrock substrate. In Mississippi, records are from Tishomingo County in the 

northeast corner of the State. 

Suckermouth minnow (Phenacobius mirabilis) State-listed as endangered 

This bottom-feeding minnow is found in low-gradient and moderate-gradient rivers and large creeks. In 

Mississippi, there are records in Tishomingo County. 

Southern redbelly dace (Phoxinus erythrogaster) State-listed as 

endangered 

This dace is generally found in headwater streams and upland creeks. In Mississippi, there are records 

from Tallahatchie, Tishomingo, Warren, Wilkinson, and Yazoo Counties. 

Slender madtom (Noturus exilis) State-listed as endangered 

This species uses a wide range of depths and current velocities. In Mississippi, there are records from 

Tishomingo County. 

Mussels 

The following mussel species are Federally or State-listed in Mississippi. 

Table 3-13. Federally and State-listed Mussel Species in Mississippi 

Federally and State-listed Mussel 

Species in Mississippi 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status County Occurrence Records 

Alabama moccasinshell (Medionidus 

acutissimus) T E Lowndes and Monroe Counties 

Black clubshell (Pleurobema curtum) E E Monroe County 

Delicate spike (Elliptio arctata) E George, Leake, Lowndes, Monroe and 

Simpson Counties 

Fat pocketbook (Potamilus (=Proptera) caprax) E E Adams, Issaquena and Jefferson 

Counties 

Flat pigtoe (Pleurobema marshalli) E E Lowndes County 

Heavy pigtoe (Pleurobema taitianum) E E Lowndes and Itawamba Counties 

Inflated heelsplitter (Potamilus inflatus) 

likely extirpated from the State T E NA (Pearl and Tombigbee Rivers) 

Kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus fasciolaris) E Tishomingo County 

Monkeyface (Quadrula metanevra) E Clay, Lowndes and Monroe Counties. 

Orange-nacre mucket (Lampsilis perovalis) T E Itawamba, Lowndes and Monroe 

Counties 

Ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum) E E Clay, Itawamba, Lowndes and Monroe 

Counties 

Pyramid pigtoe (Pleurobema rubrum) E 

Coahoma, Hinds, Humphreys, 

Sunflower, Warren, and Washington 

Counties 

Sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphus) E Sunflower County 
Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-70 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Federally and State-listed Mussel 

Species in Mississippi 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status County Occurrence Records 

Slabside pearlymussel (Lexingtonia

dolabelloides) E NA (Lake Pontchartrain) 

Snuffbox (Epilblasma triquetra) E Tishomingo County 

Southern clubshell (Pleurobema decisum) E E Clay, Itawamba, Lowndes and Monroe 

Counties 

Southern combshell (Epioblasma penita) E E Clay, Itawamba, Lowndes and Monroe 

Counties 

Spike (Elliptio dilatata) E Benton and Sunflower Counties 

Stirrupshell (Quadrula stapes) E E Lowndes County 

Crayfish 

Camp Shelby burrowing crawfish (Fallicambarus gordoni), a Federal 

candidate for listing, State-listed as endangered 

This crayfish is restricted to bogs in pitcher plant wetlands in the Leaf River watershed, in the DeSoto 

National Forest in Perry County, Mississippi. 

Plants 

Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis), Federally-listed as threatened 

Louisiana quillwort is restricted to shallow blackwater streams in riparian woodland and bayhead forest 

areas of pine flatwoods. The plants are found on stable sand and gravel bars, moist overflow channels 

with silty sand substrates, and on low, sloping banks near and below water level. In Mississippi, there are 

records from Jackson and Perry Counties. 

Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), Federally-listed as endangered

Pondberry habitat is characterized as seasonally flooded wetlands, such as floodplain hardwood forests 

and forested swales. Pondberry is usually found in shade, but tolerates full sun. In Mississippi, there are 

records of approximately 204 colonies, primarily in the Delta National Forest (192 colonies in the Delta 

National Forest and 12 colonies on private lands approximately 65 miles north of the Forest) (GSRC 

2002). 

Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana), Federally-listed as threatened 

Price’s potato bean is an herbaceous twining perennial vine typically located under mixed hardwoods or 

in associated forest clearings, often where bluffs or ravine slopes meet creek or river bottoms. Soils are 

generally well-drained and loamy, formed on alluvium or over calcareous boulders. Several populations 

extend onto road or powerline ROWs. There are four populations in Mississippi located in three counties: 

Clay, Oktibbeha, and Lee (Norquist 1990). 

American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana), Federally-listed as 

endangered 

American chaffseed is a perennial member of the figwort family found in acidic, sandy or peaty soils in 

open pine flatwoods, pitch pine lowland forests, seepage bogs, palustrine pine savannahs, and other grassand sedge-dominated plant communities. It frequently grows in ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands 

and xeric sandy soils. In these situations, individuals sometimes extend well into the drier communities, 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-71 

but seldom into the areas that support species characteristic of wetter soils. Surrounding plant 

communities are typically rich in species diversity. There are historic records from Jackson County. 

3.4.7 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

Characteristics of wildfire in southeastern States are discussed in Section 3.2.7, however, the southern 

one-third of Mississippi generally tends to have the most wildland fire activity (Southern Group of State 

Foresters 2004). Mississippi’s forests and associated species are adapted to regular wildland fire. 

However, changing land use practices, urban sprawl, land fragmentation, natural disasters such as 

hurricanes, increasing land values, population increases, and the transition from urban to rural populations 

results in a build-up of fuels and a need to increase fuels management and wildland fire activities 

(Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). Through the course of an average year in Mississippi, there are 

3,635 individual wildland fires that burn 47,597 acres per year over the last five years (fiscal years 2000–

2004) (MFC 2004). The average wildfire size is approximately 10 acres per fire (MFC 2004). 

Although Mississippi has WUI areas across the State, relatively few homes and structures are lost to 

wildland fires annually. An average of 12 homes and eight other structures are lost each year to wildland 

fires. There are usually 15 vehicles damaged or destroyed by wildland fire each year (Southern Group of 

State Foresters 2004). 

The Mississippi Forestry Commission (MFC) is responsible for protecting 14.8 million acres of private 

non-industrial forestland within the State (Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). MFC provides forest 

protection through the placement of county fire crews and by working closely with Federal agencies 

through cooperative agreements and Memoranda of Understanding MOUs (Southern Group of State 

Foresters 2004). On Federally managed lands (9.8% of the forestland base), the MFC has mutual aid 

agreements to support Federal wildland fire suppression efforts. Timber companies suppress wildland 

fires on their property and at times assist in suppression efforts on private lands (Southern Group of State 

Foresters 2004). 

Since forestlands and species in Mississippi are adapted to regular disturbance by wildland fires to 

maintain forest health, but suppression activities limit the role of natural wildland fires, managed fuel 

treatments are needed to maintain forest health. Table 3-14 shows the fuels treatments completed in 

Mississippi by Department of the Interior agencies and USFS. The BLM did not conduct any fuels 

treatments in Mississippi over these four years. Over 95 percent of these treatments were completed by 

the USFS using prescribed fires approximately 80 percent of the time. Over 96 percent of Federal fuels 

treatments were applied in WUI areas. 

Table 3-14. DOI and USDA Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for Mississippi (Acres) 

Wildland-Urban Interface Other Year 

Fire Mechanical Total Fire Mechanical Total 

Total 

2006 101,385 117,052 218,437 2,847 846 3,693 222,130 

2005 256,138 18,879 275,017 10,312 27 10,339 285,356 

2004 251,924 10,496 262,420 16,820 672 17,492 279,912 

2003 264,855 605 265,460 6,598 466 7,064 272,524 

Source: http://www.fireplan.gov/overview/States/ms.html, accessed March 2, 2007 
Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-72 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Fuels treatments, including prescribed fire, are also implemented by the MFC on the private and Stateowned forests. In addition, the MFC provides training and permitting to ensure that fuels treatments in 

these areas, and prescribed fire in particular, are completed in a manner that maintains protects firefighter 

and public safety, as well as capital improvements and natural resources. 

3.4.8 Cultural Resources 

Mississippi surface and non-USFS FMO tracts have not been fully surveyed for cultural resources. The 

surveys that have been conducted were usually initiated by project proponents on a project-specific basis, 

such as for oil and gas, coal mining, transportation, or water projects, to comply with the requirements of 

Section 106 of NHPA, 36 CFR Part 800, described in Section 3.2.8. 

A cultural resources literature and records search was conducted for BLM surface and non-USFS FMO 

tracts in the State of Mississippi. The results of the research are presented in an overview (Panamerican 

Consultants, Inc. 2005a) that is on file at the BLM office in Jackson. The following cultural resource 

information was taken from Panamerican Consultants Inc. (2005b), unless otherwise noted. Descriptions 

of the prehistoric periods are provided in Table 3-5. Cultural resources from any of these time periods 

may be present on BLM-administered surface and non-USFS FMO. 

Prehistory 

A variety of cultural resource site types attributed to a range of culturally distinct chronological periods 

from 10,000-plus years ago to the present day have been recorded in the Southeast. The cultural periods 

represented include Paleoindian, Archaic, Gulf Formational, Woodland, Mississippian, and Protohistoric. 

Descriptions of the prehistoric periods and general types of cultural materials associated with each one are 

provided in Table 3-5 in Section 3.2.8. 

History 

A wealth of Mississippi history is associated with American Indian inhabitants, European exploration, 

multiple battles, and the evolution of southern culture. These events, discussed below, provide the context 

and relative importance of the cultural site types that may be encountered on BLM-administered surface 

and non-USFS FMO. 

From the 16th to the 19th century, Spain, France, and England fought for domination and possession of 

the territories and resources in the southeastern United States. European exploration of this area was 

discussed in Section 3.2.8. Mississippi was home to many American Indian groups during this time, but 

European disease epidemics and Chickasaw slave raids greatly reduced their populations (Galloway 

1995). The three best known American Indian groups in Mississippi are the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and 

Natchez (Cushman 1899). The Choctaw, who had the largest population, occupied most of southeastern 

Mississippi and a portion of western Alabama. The Chickasaw occupied the northeastern section of 

Mississippi and claimed western Tennessee as a hunting ground. The Natchez occupied the loess bluffs 

overlooking the Mississippi River in southwestern Mississippi. If any cultural material potentially tied to 

these Indian Nations is encountered, Federally-recognized Native American tribes will need to be 

consulted before any undertaking, as discussed in Section 3.2.8. 

After the American Revolution, the lands east of the Mississippi River became part of the United States. 

The Mississippi Territory was created in 1798, and Mississippi became a State in 1817 (Bettersworth 

1959; Haynes 1973). The largest population growth and county organization in Mississippi history 

occurred between 1832 and 1854 (Gonzales 1973). Numerous railroads were chartered, seagoing 

steamboats came upriver to Natchez, and many domestic travel improvements were made. Land 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-73 

development, the rise of cotton as a major cash crop, and easier means of transporting goods contributed 

to the State’s growing prosperity. Slavery played a vital role in the growth and production of cotton and 

became a contentious issue in Mississippi and the other States. The pro-slavery States began to move 

toward secession from the Union, and in 1861, Mississippi voted to secede (Bettersworth 1959). The 

Mississippi River was of great importance to the Union because it kept the Midwest commerce moving 

and was a major focus for northern generals during the Civil War. In 1865, the war ended and the slaves 

were emancipated, which dramatically affected southern agriculture and economics. Sharecropping and 

tenant farming became the common mode of farming after the abolition of slavery 

In the late 1800s, manufacturing in the State was in the form of textile mills. The lumber industry became 

a growing economic force, as did the cottonseed and fertilizer industries (Bettersworth 1959). 

Mississippi’s centennial celebration was overshadowed by the entry of the United States into World 

War I. Camp Shelby, near Hattiesburg, was made a major training camp. One of the few air bases in the 

country was located near the town of Columbus (Bettersworth 1959). Following World War I, the 

Mississippi River Flood of 1927 covered nearly half of the delta with 30 feet of water for months (Barry 

1998; Bettersworth 1959). Nearly 300,000 black americans migrated to northern cities as a result of this 

flood. Another result was the creation of several large flood-control steps by the U. S. Army Corps of 

Engineers in Vicksburg (Barry 1998). The Depression followed the flood and Mississippi’s economy was 

once again shattered (Emmerich 1973). World War II and military mobilization brought significant 

change to the State’s economy. 

Cultural Sites 

As discussed in Section 3.2.8, prehistoric or historic cultural resource sites, structures, or objects listed on 

or eligible for listing on NRHP are protected and managed as directed by 36 CFR 800. Cultural resources 

found ineligible for NRHP require no further archaeological work and are not protected by law. Sites are 

identified as undetermined/unknown when additional work is required to determine the site’s eligibility. 

The nature and location of any archaeological resources are protected under ARPA (also discussed in 

Section 3.2.8. 

Records were searched for 3,698 non-USFS FMO tracts in Mississippi. The records revealed 601 sites, of 

which 28 sites were considered eligible for NRHP. Most of the tracts have never been surveyed, and there 

is a high potential for finding additional archaeological sites. There are two sites listed on NRHP that are 

located near BLM-administered non-USFS FMO tracts. 

Records were searched for the BLM surface tract in Mississippi, which cover 174 acres in Hancock 

County. This tract does not contain any previously recorded sites; however, there are three cultural sites 

recorded within one-half mile of the tract. There are 20 NRHP-listed properties in Hancock County 

(NRHP 2004), but only one NRHP-listed archaeological site is located within 800 meters of the tract. 

Cultural sites on adjacent lands could provide information on the potential for the occurrence and types of 

sites that could be discovered on the BLM surface tracts; however, these sites are not affected by BLM 

activities and management. Table 3-15 summarizes the cultural sites identified. 

Table 3-15. Cultural Sites on BLM Surface and Non-USFS FMO Tracts in Mississippi 

NRHP Status 

tract Type Total Sites Potentially Eligible/ 

Eligible Not Eligible Undetermined/Unknown 

Non-USFS FMO 

Tracts 601 28 173 400 
Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-74 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

NRHP Status 

tract Type Total Sites Potentially Eligible/ 

Eligible Not Eligible Undetermined/Unknown 

Hancock County 

Surface Tract 0 0 0 0 

Areas Adjacent to the 

Surface Tract1 3 3 0 0 

1 One NRHP-listed archaeological site is located within 800 meters of the surface tract. 

3.4.9 Visual Resources 

Visual resources consist of the natural and manmade features that contribute to a particular environment’s 

aesthetics. These features may be natural (e.g., canyon views) or manmade (e.g., city skyline). Together, 

they form the overall impression of an area referred to as the landscape character. Visual resources also 

have a social setting, which includes public values, awareness, and concern about visual quality. VRM 

classifications are established for public lands so that visual resource values can be maintained through 

informed management decisions. 

The visual resource inventory process contained in BLM Handbook H-8410-1 provides BLM managers 

guidance for determining visual values. The inventory consists of scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity 

level analysis, and delineation of distance zones. Based on these three factors, BLM-administered lands 

are placed into one of four visual resource inventory classes. These inventory classes represent the 

relative value of the visual resource: Classes I and II are the most valued, Class III represents a moderate 

value, and Class IV has the least value. Management objectives have been assigned to each class. An area 

may be inventoried as VRM Class III, but a decision may be made to manage it as VRM Class IV, or vice 

versa. Cultural modifications may detract from the scenery, complement it, or improve the overall scenic 

quality of an area. Cultural modifications in landform/water and vegetation values and addition of 

structures will be considered in examining proposed resource management actions. 

The following VRM Class definitions from BLM Handbook H-8410-1 have been amended for the 

purpose of developing and implementing this RMP. Amendments incorporate the visual resource values 

provided by existing cultural features that are significant to the character of the landscape in Mississippi. 

• VRM Class I Objective: The objective of this class is to preserve the existing natural and 

cultural character of the landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it 

does not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be very low and must not detract from the existing landscape character. 

• VRM Class II Objective: The objective of this class is to retain the existing natural and cultural 

character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic should be low. Management 

activities may be visible but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes 

must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural 

and/or cultural features of the characteristic landscape. 

• VRM Class III Objective: The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing natural 

and cultural character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should 

be moderate. Management activities may be visible but should not dominate the view of the 

casual observer. Changes should blend with the natural environment. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-75 

• VRM Class IV Objective: The objective of this class is to provide for management activities 

that require significant modification of the existing landscape or the existing character of the 

natural and cultural landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. 

These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of the casual 

observer’s attention; however, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these 

activities through selective location, minimal disturbance, and repetition of basic elements. 

3.4.10 Minerals 

There are 517,934 acres of BLM-administered non-USFS FMO in Mississippi that underlie various 

surface ownership. Surface owners include BLM, DoD, NPS, USFWS, and other Federal agencies. Table 

3-16 shows BLM-administered FMO by surface ownership in Mississippi. 

Table 3-16. BLM-administered Federal Mineral Ownership by Surface Ownership 

Surface Ownership Federal Mineral Ownership in Mississippi (Acres) 

BLM 174 

DoD 40,580 

NPS 2,797 

USFWS 60,207 

Other Federal Agencies 12,766 

Non-Federal surface 401,410 

TOTAL non-USFS FMO 517,934 

USFS 1,055,227 

TOTAL FMO (includes USFS) 1,573,161 

Minerals—Oil and Gas 

The first oil and gas exploration in Mississippi was undertaken in 1903. The Alabama-Mississippi 

Investment and Development Company in Enterprise, Mississippi, drilled the first well just east of 

Enterprise in Clarke County. It was a dry hole that was drilled to 1,842 feet. The first commercial 

discovery occurred near Amory, Mississippi, in Monroe County in October 1926, when gas flowed from 

the 2,404-foot Amory Petroleum Company Carter Oil #1 well. As of April 2005, there are 27 active oil 

and gas wells on BLM non-USFS FMO according to data from the Automated Fluid Mineral 

Management System. 

Mississippi oil and gas production data from the Mississippi Oil and Gas Board were available for the 

period 1951 – 2004. The number of wells increased from 1,780 in 1951 to 4,307 in 2003. The number of 

wells peaked at 4,530 wells in 1990. Oil production decreased from 27,494,492 barrels in 1990 to 

17,238,528 barrels in 2004. Oil production was at its lowest in 2004 and peaked at 65,119,072 barrels in 

1970. Gas production decreased from 200,980,232 mcf in 1990 to 174,438,213 mcf in 2004. As of April 

2005, 1,223 Federal leases are authorized in Mississippi. There are 42 existing leases on non-USFS FMO 

and 1,181 leases on USFS FMO. 

Map 3-1 shows counties in Mississippi with historical oil and gas production. Reasonable foreseeable 

development is anticipated in the areas of historical oil and gas production (BLM 2004). The areas of 
Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-76 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

historical production are the salt basin and the coastal plain. BLM projects that 10 wells accessing 

non-USFS FMO in Mississippi will be drilled over the next 20 years (BLM 2004). 

Salt Basin 

The salt basin is part of the Gulf Coast geosyncline that contains more than 50 piercement-type salt 

domes (Spiers and Gandl 1980). The individual salt domes evolved from the uprising of salt from the 

extensive Jurassic Louann Salt Formation through the overlying sediments. These piercement structures 

have deformed the younger units. Oil and gas have been found on the dome flanks in the past 20 years. 

The oldest rocks in the area penetrated by drilling are those of the Louann Salt. The salt is overlaid by 

Upper Jurassic sandstones, followed by a thick sequence of cretaceous deposits, which consist primarily 

of sandstone, limestone, and shale. The Cretaceous deposits are overlain by Tertiary deltaic deposits and 

alluvium of Quaternary or Recent age. 

Coastal Plain 

The coastal plain is a continuation of the same feature in the southern Alabama Basin. These lands are in 

an area dominated by the Gulf Coast geosyncline. This large basin formed in the Jurassic period with a 

southward downwarping. The basin has accumulated sedimentary deposits as thick as 30,000 feet. Fault 

zones parallel the basi hingeline and can trap hydrocarbons (Murray 1964). Other structural features, such 

as small basement highs, also trap hydrocarbons in this area. 

The deposits in the major geologic units mainly consist of alternating layers of sand and clay, with 

occasional beds of carbonates and anhydrite. Permeable horizons exist in all formations, and oil and gas 

are produced from each horizon in the region, with the Haynesville, Smackover, and Norphlet Formations 

being important (Cate 1982; Poe 1979; May 1974; Moore 1971; Dinkins 1968). 

Leasable Minerals – Coal 

Coal resources in Mississippi are not described because consideration of coal leasing in this Draft RMPEIS is limited to the Warrior coal basin in Alabama. Development of Federal coal resources in 

Mississippi over the next 20 years is not economically viable because of the depth to the coal. 

3.4.11 Recreation and Travel Management 

Recreation encompasses various human activities that affect and are affected by resources and other 

resource uses. Dispersed recreation is characterized by unstructured activities that are not confined to 

specific locations (such as developed recreation sites). Dispersed recreation can involve various activities, 

which on the Mississippi surface tract can include saltwater marsh activities such as hunting, fishing, 

nature study, and boating. 

There are no roads on the Hancock County tract. The only effective means of transportation is by 

watercraft. 

The BLM-administered non-USFS FMO includes the mineral estate where the surface is managed by 

another Federal surface management agency. These properties and installations managed by other Federal 

agencies as well non-Federal agencies such as private, State, or county are summarized in Table 3-17 and 

shown on Map 1-1 and Map 1-2. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-77 

For those tracts where the surface is managed by other surface management agency, and where public 

access for recreation and oil and gas leasing are permitted, recreation experiences and resulting benefits 

could be affected by BLM management actions. Information on public recreation and minerals leasing on 

other Federal surface management agencies is listed in Table 3-17. 

Table 3-17. BLM-administered non-USFS Federal Mineral Ownership1 by Surface 

Management Agency in Mississippi 

Surface 

Management 

Agency 

Installations/Areas 

Public Access 

for Recreation 

(Yes/No)2

Mineral Leasing 

(Open/Closed)2

Grand Bay NWR Yes Closed 

Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR No Closed 

Bogue Chitto NWR Yes Closed 

Panther Swamp NWR Yes Closed 

Hillside NWR Yes Closed 

USFWS 

Noxubee NWR Yes Closed 

Meridian Naval Air Station (Navy) ND Open 

Alpha Naval Auxiliary Station (Navy) ND Open 

Multipurpose Target Range (Navy) ND Open 

Aliceville Lake (Army Corps of Engineers) Yes Open 

Columbus Lake (Army Corps of Engineers) Yes Open 

Aberdeen Lake (Army Corps of Engineers) Yes Open 

Grenada Lake (Army Corps of Engineers) Yes Open 

Enid Lake (Army Corps of Engineers) Yes Open 

DoD 

Sardis Lake (Army Corps of Engineers) Yes Open 

Vicksburg National Military Park Yes Closed 

Natchez-Trace National Parkway Yes Closed 

Gulf Island National Seashore Yes Closed 

NPS 

Other small NPS sites Yes Closed 

Other Areas Managed by Other Federal Agencies No Varies 

ND means no information was available from the surface managing agency. 

1 Does not reflect BLM FMO for BLM surface tracts (174 acres). 

2 Closed means closed to new leases. Existing leases could be present on areas currently closed. 

BLM administration of travel resources in Mississippi is limited to access routes associated 

access/maintenance routes for ROW such as transmission lines. Public travel routes are administered and 

maintained by other Federal, State, and local agencies. Information on tract-specific travel resources are 

contained in Section 3.5. 

3.4.12 Lands and Realty 

The goals of the lands and realty program are to manage the public lands to support the goals and 

objectives of other resource programs, provide for uses of public lands in accordance with regulations and 
Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-78 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

compatibility with other resources, and improve management of the public lands through land tenure 

adjustments. The lands and realty program is a support program to all other resources to help ensure that 

BLM-administered lands are managed to benefit the public. Current conditions of lands and realty on the 

BLM-administered surface tracts is discussed in Section 3.5. 

3.4.13 Social and Economic 

BLM surface lands for this planning effort in Mississippi are located in an isolated section of Hancock 

County. BLM-managed non-USFS FMO is scattered throughout the State. Thus, the description of 

affected environment for Mississippi will focus on general socioeconomic information for the State, in 

addition to descriptions of notable statistics in counties within the State. 

Economic Characteristics 

Household and Personal Income 

Median household income for Mississippi was $32,397 in 2003 (U. S. Census Bureau). Information on 

per capita income was obtained from U. S. Census Bureau and indicates that average per capita income 

reported for 2004 in Mississippi is $24,518. Gross State Product in 2003 was $72 billion (BEA). In 2005, 

Mississippi ranked 50th in the United States in per capita income (including the District of Columbia). 

According to BEA, Mississippi per capita income is 71 percent of the national average of $36,608 

(2006$). 

Some of the nation's poorest counties are located in Mississippi, with approximately 13 counties that are 

within the 100 poorest counties in the nation in terms of per capita income. The counties and their 

associated average per capita income are located in Figure G-7. These counties are located primarily 

along the western border of the State. In contrast, Mississippi does not have any counties that are within 

the wealthiest 100 counties in the nation. Rankin County, encompassing many of the suburbs of Jackson, 

has the highest per capita income of $30,849 in 2006$. 

Employment and Compensation 

Employment for the State was 1.5 million in 2005 (BLS). Figure F-8 summarizes the employment by 

industry for 2005. In 2005, there were three large employers in Mississippi: government (18%), 

manufacturing (12%), and retail trade (11%), comprising 41 percent of the total employment for the State. 

Other industries in the State include healthcare, accommodation and food service, and construction. Table 

3-18 summarizes the employment by industry between 2000 and 2005. 

Table 3-18. Employment by Industry, 2000 – 2005 

Industries 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Percent 

Change

2000-

2005 

Retail Trade 171,882 171,104 170,592 172,291 172,384 174,166 -1 

Transportation 51,141 50,901 49,587 49,506 48,992 50,193 2 

Finance and 

Insurance 47,734 47,357 47,282 47,530 47,128 47,986 -1 

Real Estate 38,092 35,730 32,986 32,833 32,070 32,089 19 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-79 

Industries 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

Percent 

Change

2000-

2005 

Professional 

Services 56,268 52,825 50,148 48,683 48,081 46,980 20 

Administrative and 

Waste Services 68,605 63,810 59,262 57,212 54,206 57,252 20 

Health Care 124,422 122,515 120,171 116,127 111,908 108,386 15 

Accommodation and 

Food Services 118,503 119,166 117,468 114,441 106,631 106,168 12 

Other Services 84,969 84,979 80,702 80,009 76,930 75,441 13 

Government 277,404 281,982 281,442 277,815 275,254 273,722 1 

Farming 50,367 50,874 51,031 53,668 53,062 54,955 -8 

Construction 90,915 85,724 85,348 86,899 86,020 88,129 3 

Manufacturing 183,425 184,519 183,613 192,715 205,517 224,759 -18 

Wholesale Trade 39,751 39,250 38,667 38,814 39,102 41,262 -4 

Other 101,789 102,410 102,265 104,382 112,102 111,184 -8 

Total Employment 1,505,277 1,493,146 1,470,564 1,472,925 1,469,614 1,492,672 6 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Government, retail trade, and construction industries have remained relatively stable over the past several 

years, while the manufacturing industry has decreased its employment in the State by 18 percent and the 

health care and accommodation and food services industries have increased employment by 15 and 12 

percent, respectively. 

The unemployment rate in Mississippi has been consistently above the national average, as depicted in 

Figure G-9. The employment rate peaked to 8.8 percent in 2005, likely as a result of the devastation of 

Hurricane Katrina. Figure G-10 shows a map of Mississippi unemployment rates by county and indicates 

that the highest unemployment rates are in Jefferson, Sharkey, Humpreys, Holmes, and Noxubee 

Counties. 

Oil and gas also provides employment and income within the State. However, over the past 20 years, 

BLM has permitted 7 wells of a total of 7,362 wells permitted within the state. Therefore, although these 

BLM-administered oil and gas resources do contribute to employment and earnings in this area, it is a 

fairly small amount. 

Social Characteristics 

Demographics 

Population trend data were obtained from the Census Bureau. Figure G-11 (Appendix G) shows the 

State's population trend between 2000 and 2005, a percentage change of three percent over the six-year 

time period. The densest counties include Hinds and Rankin, both comprising the Jackson metropolitan 

area, as well as Harrison and Jackson Counties, on the southeastern coast. DeSoto County, comprising the 

suburbs of Memphis, Tennessee, also has a relatively dense population. Counties that have fairly low 

population densities relative to the other counties in the State include Webster, Choctow, Quitman, 

Franklin, Jefferson, Issaquena, and Benton. Counties experiencing very high growth rates between 2000 
Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-80 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

and 2005 include DeSoto (26%), Lamar (13%), and Rankin (13%). On the other hand, Issaquena and 

Sharkey Counties are decreasing in population—15 and 9 percent, respectively. The median age of the 

State population in 2000 was estimated to be 33.8, which is slightly lower than the nation's median of 

35.3 (U. S. Census 2000). 

Housing 

In the State, 90.1 percent of the 1.1 million housing units were occupied in 2000. Homeowners inhabited 

72.3 percent of the total occupied housing units. The State has a low homeowner vacancy rate, 1.6 

percent, indicating that most of the owner-occupied homes in Mississippi are occupied by owners and are 

not second homes. The average household size for owner-occupied units is 2.67 people, as compared to 

2.52 for rental-occupied units (U. S. Census Bureau 2000). In 2000, the median value of a housing unit 

was $71,400, 59 percent of the national median value of $119,600. Although the personal income is less 

than the national average (71%), the cost of housing is significantly lower (59%), indicating that the cost 

of living in Mississippi is likely lower than the nation, on average. 

Education 

Of the State's population above age 25, 72.9 percent has graduated from high school and 16.9 percent 

hold a bachelor’s degree (U. S. Census 2000). This is lower than the national average for high school 

graduates (80.4%) and bachelor’s degree (24.4%). Ninety-six percent of the State’s population speaks 

English at home. 

Attitudes and Beliefs of Mississippi Stakeholders 

In Mississippi, BLM has responsibility for a number of issues and decisions that could be important to 

stakeholders and their beliefs, including Federal land disposal and oil and gas development. This section 

will briefly describe stakeholders’ attitudes and beliefs related to these specific issues to provide a social 

context for these decisions. 

Public lands are important in providing a natural resource base for economic activities. The potential 

additional oil and gas development will be supported by some stakeholders and not by others. 

Stakeholders who support oil and gas development believe that domestic production of resources will 

reduce the nation's dependency on foreign oil and gas sources and potentially affect prices. Additionally, 

the oil and gas industry has contributed to the tax base of both counties and the State, providing funds for 

local, regional, and State governments, infrastructure, schools, and other community services. Many 

people believe that this funding is vital to the economy of Mississippi Counties and the State. 

Conservation-focused stakeholders may not support oil and gas development or might support conditions 

and stipulations on development and production to reduce negative impacts to the surface and subsurface. 

These environmental stakeholders are concerned about erosion and water quality impacts associated with 

road and wellpad construction and water disposal in the production process. Some stakeholders believe 

that the potential long-term environmental risks of development are considerable compared to the shortterm benefit of the resource extracted. Additionally, these types of stakeholders believe that oil and gas 

impacts such as increased road building, associated road traffic, dust, and noise add to the negative 

impacts associated with this type of development. 

Public land disposal may also be a contentious issue with the public. The BLM in Mississippi manages 

one pocket property, the Hancock County tract, located on the southern coast of Mississippi. 

Preservation-oriented stakeholders are concerned about protecting open spaces and limiting development 

on these lands, often to maintain a quality of life that the property provides. For example, quality of life 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-81 

attributes could include recreation, such as bird-watching or walking, solitude, and the knowledge that the 

property provides important wildlife habitat. Therefore, these types of stakeholders believe that keeping 

the surface lands in Federal ownership is preferable or selling these lands to organizations interested in 

preserving the lands. Developers might be interested in purchasing these lands for their economic value 

due to their location on the coast if the lands are buildable. Additionally, some people may feel that 

disposing of Federal lands provide fiscal revenues as private property taxes can be collected. 

Environmental Justice 

The environmental justice purpose and threshold criteria are provided in Section 3.2.13. 

Poverty level estimates for the State were estimated to be 19.9 percent, compared to the national average 

of 12.5 percent, as shown in Figure G-12 The poverty levels in the State are below the set threshold of 20 

percent for low-income populations. Table 3-19 shows the 10 poorest counties in Mississippi and the 

associated percentage of the population below poverty, located primarily along the western border of the 

State. 

Table 3-19. Poorest Counties in Mississippi 

Counties Percent of Population Below Poverty 

Wilkinson County 28.1 

Jefferson County 28.2 

Coahoma County 28.4 

Washington County 28.5 

Leflore County 29.5 

Sharkey County 29.5 

Issaquena County 29.6 

Humphreys County 30.2 

Sunflower County 30.5 

Holmes County 32.4 

Source: Bureau of Census, 2000

Ethnicity information for the State was obtained from the U. S. Census Bureau and is summarized in 

Figure G-13. In 2005, the State was predominantly Caucasian (61.2 percent). The remaining race 

distribution is Black or African American (36.9 percent); Hispanic or Latino (1.7 percent); Asian (0.7 

percent); two or more races (0.6 percent); American Indian or Native Alaskan (0.4 percent); and Native 

Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (0 percent). The ethnic representation in Mississippi indicates than on 

average Mississippi has fewer minorities than the rest of the nation. There are obvious variations in 

ethnicity across the State. In 2000, 24 of the 82 counties in Mississippi have Black or African American 

populations of greater than 50 percent (Bureau of Census, 2000). Sixteen counties in Mississippi have 

Blacks or African Americans representing 60 percent or greater of the population. These 16 counties and 

the percentage of Black and African Americans are shown in Table 3-20. 
Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-82 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Table 3-20. Mississippi Counties with Black or African American Populations, 2000 

Counties Percent of County Representing Black or African 

American Ethnicity 

Bolivar 65.1 

Claiborn 84.1 

Coahoma 69.2 

Hinds 61.1 

Holmes 78.7 

Humphreys 71.5 

Issaquena 62.8 

Jefferson 86.5 

Leflore 67.6 

Noxubee 69.3 

Quitman 68.8 

Sharkey 69.3 

Sunflower 69.9 

Tunica 70.2 

Washington 64.6 

Wilkinson 68.2 

Source: Bureau of Census, 2000

3.4.14 Hazardous Materials 

BLM-administered public lands and minerals provide opportunities for a variety of commercial uses in 

addition to resource management. Both activities can lead to releases of hazardous substances and 

creation of hazardous waste sites. The BLM engages in hazardous material emergency response actions, 

site evaluations, and prioritization of cleanups in accordance with laws and regulations. This involves 

working with the EPA, State environmental quality departments, counties, and potentially responsible 

parties (both public and private) to fund and expedite the cleanup of hazardous sites. Those sites that are 

an imminent threat to public health and safety, as well as those sites that are under a consent order and 

can therefore generate penalties and fines, are a priority for the Bureau. There are no known hazardous, 

toxic, or unapproved solid waste sites on public lands within the planning area. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Mississippi Surface Tract Description 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-83 

3.5 MISSISSIPPI SURFACE TRACT DESCRIPTION

The surface tract descriptions in this section include available detail on the Hancock County tract 

described in Chapter 2. General information and tract-specific information on soil resources, water 

resources, vegetative communities, fish and wildlife, special status species, cultural resources, visual 

resources, recreation and travel management, and lands and realty are provided. Air quality, wildland fire 

ecology and management, minerals, and social and economic conditions are discussed in Section 3.4. 

General. This section provides basic location and size of the surface tract, as well as available 

background information. 

Soil Resources. This section provides a table of the soils present at the tract, the erosion hazard potential 

as indicated by NRCS, and the presence of prime or unique farmlands (defined in Section 3.4.2). 

Water Resources. This section describes which drainage basin the surface tract is within. 

Vegetative Communities. This section summarizes the vegetative communities related to the tract. An 

analysis of the available GAP data was used to delineate the vegetative communities on the surface tracts. 

The GAP is coordinated by the Biological Resources Division of USGS. 

Fish and Wildlife. This section summarizes the fish and wildlife species associated with the tract. GAP 

provides geographic information on the status and location of species and their habitat. The GAP is 

coordinated by the Biological Resources Division of USGS.

Special Status Species. This section summarizes the special status species associated with the tract. GAP 

provides geographic information on the status and location of species and their habitat. The GAP is 

coordinated by the Biological Resources Division of USGS. Available special status species occurrences 

on the tracts are discussed. Appendix E provides additional information on special status species in the 

areas around the surface tract. 

Cultural Resources. This section summarizes the known sites and cultural resources survey information 

for the surface tract. 

Visual Resources. This section addresses the visual setting of the surface tract. The surface tract is 

currently classified according to a VRM system. VRM Classifications are described in Section 3.4.9. The 

Hancock County tract has not been inventoried for VRM classification. 

Recreation and Travel Management. This section addresses the existing recreational and travel 

management activities on the surface tract. 

Lands and Realty. This section addresses the lands and realty actions associated with the surface tract, 

including withdrawals, disposals, and ROW actions.

3.5.1 Hancock County Tract 

General 

One tract comprising about 174 acres in Hancock County, Mississippi, was patented to the University of 

Mississippi in 1961 under the R&PP Act; however, the patent contains a reversionary clause. This Draft 
Chapter 3-Mississippi Surface Tract Description Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-84 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

RMP-EIS provides for management of these tracts should the patent be revoked and the tracts returned to 

BLM administration. 

Soil Resources 

The soil classification for the Hancock County tract is provided in Table 3-21. 

Table 3-21. Soil Classification for the Hancock County Tract 

Soil Type Description Erosion Hazard Prime 

Farmland 

Eustis loamy fine sand, 

2 to 5 percent slope 

Somewhat excessively drained soils, 

nearly level to steep areas of coastal plain; 

surface and subsurface consisting of 

sands and subsoils consisting of a fine 

loamy sand 

Slight No 

Handsboro association Very poorly drained soils in tidal marshes; 

surface layers of mucky silt loam None No 

Water Resources 

The Hancock County tract is located within the Coastal Streams drainage basin. 

Vegetative Communities 

The 174-acre Hancock County tract is located in the Hancock Marshes Coastal Preserve, part of a Statedesignated 83,000-acre estuarine preserve system bordering the Mississippi Sound from the Pearl River to 

Point Clear. The 13,570-acre Hancock County Marshes unit protects the second largest continuous marsh 

area in the State. These coastal marshes include several low ridges and small hammocks, the most 

prominent in this unit being Point Clear Island and Campbell Island. These elevated sandy areas have 

characteristics similar to the barrier islands and include forested areas supporting slash pine with redcedar 

and sand live oak (Quercus geminata). The BLM tract is located in the center of the preserve and is 

bordered by Bryan Bayou to the north. The very southeastern corner of the tract includes a portion of 

Point Clear Island. The bulk of the tract is part of a needlerush marsh that dominates the area between 

Bayou Caddy/Bryan Bayou and Point Clear Island. Hurricane Katrina deposited substantial amounts of 

flotsam in some areas of the marshes. 

No exotic invasive species are known to occur on this tract, but cogon grass and torpedo grass are a 

concern in the area of Point Clear Island. 

Fish and Wildlife 

The marsh area is well known for an abundance of waterfowl and wading birds, including white-faced 

ibis and black-crowned night heron. Swallowtail kite numbers are high during the summer months. 

Special Status Species 

The special status species utilizing the Hancock County Marshes include mottled duck (Anas fulvigula); 

royal tern (Sterna maxima); Mississippi diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin pilea); Gulf salt 

snake (Nerodia clarkii clardii); brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis); least tern (Serna antillanum); 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 3-Mississippi Surface Tract Description 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 3-85 

American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates); and gull-billed tern (Sterna nilotica). The islands of this 

marsh support several rare plant species including the tiny-leaved buckthorn (Sageretia minutiflora), 

which in this area is restricted to rare shell middens. 

Cultural Resources 

The Hancock County tract has not been surveyed. However, three cultural sites are recorded within onehalf mile of the tracts. 

Visual Resources 

The Hancock County tract is remote and not visible from residential or other types of development. The 

visual character is low-lying wetlands with relatively dense vegetation and limited human activity. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

The Hancock County tract is patented to the University of Mississippi for the purposes of research and 

recreation. The tract is used for dispersed recreation, but it is primarily wetland and is not easily 

accessible to the public. Travel to the area is generally by boaters and anglers on an occasional and 

seasonal basis for fishing and waterfowl hunting. 

Lands and Realty 

The Hancock County tract was patented to the University of Mississippi in 1961, under the authority of 

the R&PP Act. The tract is still owned by the University. Under terms of the patent, the tract is to be used 

only for recreational and research site purposes. The patent contains a clause stating that ownership of the 

surface estate will 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 is being considered BLM-managed surface 

estate for land use planning purposes. There are no ROW on the tract, and no request for ROW or other 

uses are expected in this relatively remote area. 
Chapter 3-Mississippi Surface Tract Description Draft EIS – August 2007 

3-86 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

This page intentionally left blank.
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Introduction 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-1 

CHAPTER 4—ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter evaluates potential environmental impacts that could occur from implementing management 

actions included in each of the alternatives discussed in Chapter 2 for Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM)-administered surface tracts and non-U.S. Forest Service (non-USFS) Federal mineral ownership 

(FMO) in Alabama and Mississippi1. Potential impacts considered in this chapter include ecological (such 

as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected 

ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, and health (40 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR] §1508.8) impacts. The baseline used for determining the potential impacts is the current resource 

condition described in Chapter 3. Resources are discussed in the same order that they are presented in 

Chapter 3. 

The analysis focuses on impacts that could eventually result in on-the-ground changes by planning for 

uses on surface and non-USFS FMO tracts over the next 20-years. Some BLM management actions may 

affect only certain resources and only under certain alternatives. Some impacts may be from actions that 

are common to all alternatives. If an activity or action is not addressed in a given section, no impacts are 

expected or the impact is expected to be minimal. 

4.1.1 How to Read This Chapter 

This chapter is divided into four sections: 

• Introduction (Section 4.1)—This section provides direction on How to Read This Chapter 

(Section 4.1.1), presents the approach to the analysis including types of effects (Section 4.1.2), 

and discusses availability of data and incomplete information (Section 4.1.3). 

• Direct and Indirect Impacts from BLM Management Actions in Alabama (Section 4.2)— 

This section discusses potential impacts anticipated from implementation of management actions 

under each alternative for the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl 

River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts in Alabama and 313,819 acres of non-USFS FMO in 57 

Alabama counties, mostly composed of split-estate. 

• Direct and Indirect Impacts from BLM Management Actions in Mississippi (Section 4.3)—

This section discusses the potential impacts anticipated from implementation of the management 

actions under each alternative for the Hancock County tract in Mississippi and for non-USFS 

FMO on about 517,934 acres in 79 Mississippi counties, mostly composed of split-estate. Impacts 

from the allowable uses and management actions proposed for the Hancock County Tract are 

analyzed if the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) patent held by the University of 

Mississippi were to revert to BLM. 

 

1 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. 
Chapter 4-Introduction Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

• Cumulative Impacts (Section 4.4) —This section discusses the potential cumulative impacts 

anticipated from implementation of the BLM management actions proposed for Alabama and 

Mississippi in the context of other actions occurring across the State, including other Federal 

agency and non-Federal actions. 

4.1.2 Approach to the Analysis 

This section provides the basic framework used in the impacts analysis. Definitions of types of effects and 

terminology, general types of impacts analyzed for each resource, analytical assumptions, and cumulative 

projects and activities considered in the analysis are further discussed in the following subsections. 

Types of Effects 

The analysis of the alternatives focused on identifying types of impacts and estimating their potential 

significance. Throughout this chapter, the terms “impact” and “effect” are synonymous. Although impacts 

may be perceived as positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse), those determinations are left for the 

reader of this document to make. An overview of impacts is presented in Table 4-1. 

Table 4-1. Types of Impacts 

Type Description 

Direct Impacts 

These are effects caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. For 

example, elimination of original land use through erection of a structure. Direct 

impacts may cause indirect impacts, such as ground disturbance resulting in 

resuspension of dust. 

Indirect Impacts 

These are effects that are caused by the action but occur later in time or are further 

removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable and related to the action by 

a chain of cause-and-effects. Indirect impacts may reach beyond the natural and 

physical environment (e.g., environmental impact) to include growth-inducing effects 

and other effects related to induced changes to resource users (e.g., social impact). 

Cumulative Impacts 

These are effects that result from the incremental impact of the action when it is 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless 

of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant 

actions that take place over time. 

For ease of reading, impacts presented are direct, broad (occurring within the larger planning area), and 

long term, unless otherwise noted as indirect, localized, or short term/temporary. Potential significant 

impacts are identified as they arise, and analysis of why an impact is considered significant is explained. 

The concept of significance requires consideration of the context, intensity, and duration of the impact. 

Context relates to environmental circumstances at the location of the impact and in the immediate 

vicinity, as well as the interests that are potentially affected. Intensity refers to the severity or extent of the 

impact or magnitude of change from existing conditions. Duration refers to the permanence and longevity 

of the impacts, which is depicted as short term or long term. Short term is defined as anticipated to begin 

and end within the first five years after the action is implemented. Long term is defined as lasting beyond 

five years to the end of or beyond the 20-year planning time frame addressed in the Resource 

Management Plan (RMP). 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Introduction 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-3 

4.1.3 Availability of Data and Incomplete Information 

As is typical in programmatic planning efforts, site-specific data is used to the extent possible and may 

not be entirely available. The best available information that is pertinent to management actions was used 

in developing the RMP and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Considerable effort has been taken to 

acquire and convert resource data into digital format for use in the plan—both from BLM sources and 

from outside sources, such as the Natural Heritage Program and the National Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS). 

Certain information was unavailable for use in developing this plan, usually because inventories were not 

conducted or complete. Some of the major types of unavailable data include: Native American traditional 

use areas; cultural surveys; data collection of visitor use trends; visual resource inventory (VRI); field 

inventory of soils and water conditions; and field inventory of wildlife, vegetation, and special status 

species. 

As a result, some impacts cannot be quantified given the proposed management actions. Where this gap 

occurs, impacts are projected in qualitative terms or, in some instances, are described as unknown. 

Subsequent project-level analysis will provide the opportunity to collect and examine site-specific 

inventory data required to determine appropriate application of RMP-level guidance. In addition, ongoing 

inventory efforts by BLM and other agencies within the planning area would be used to continue to 

update and refine information used to implement this plan. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-4 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

4.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS FROM BLM MANAGEMENT 

ACTIONS IN ALABAMA

This section discusses potential impacts anticipated from implementation of management actions under 

each alternative for the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, Geneva, 

and Jordan Lake tracts in Alabama and 313,819 acres of non-USFS FMO in 57 Alabama counties, mostly 

composed of split-estate. 

The section is organized by alternative, and then by resource. Under each resource, each management 

action is discussed, including: vegetative communities; fish and wildlife habitat; minerals; recreation and 

travel; and lands and realty. A discussion of cumulative impacts for each resource is contained in Section 

4.4.1. 

4.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Air Quality 

Under this alternative, there is a potential for wildfire which could lead to air emissions. Since all fires 

would be suppressed, these occurrences would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to 

individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would deteriorate air quality conditions. Prescribed burning 

conducted to meet vegetation resource objectives would be short term and localized and not be 

anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed 

under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and 

protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of 

prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would deteriorate air quality conditions. Prescribed burning 

conducted to meet habitat objectives would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to 

individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Combustion processes, construction activities, and vehicle travel associated with potential oil and gas 

development and coal mining produce air emissions. Estimated emissions from the development of 20 

wells over the next 20 years on BLM-administered non-USFS FMO would produce considerably less 

emissions than the combined emissions from total planned oil and gas developments in the State 

(presented in Table 4-2). Those emissions would likely occur over a dispersed geographic area and would 

therefore not cause any noticeable or measurable effect. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-5 

Potential oil and gas leasing on BLM-administered non-USFS FMO are in close proximity to the Sipsey 

Wilderness and the Birmingham nonattainment area. These emissions could potentially deteriorate 

wilderness air quality values and jeopardize ambient air quality attainment. Since emissions would be 

dispersed over a large geographic area, air quality impacts would not be anticipated. 

On the basis of a conservative estimate, it is anticipated that 1.9 million tons of Federal coal would be 

produced annually over the next 20 years (BLM 2005b). The results are shown in Table 4-3. Since the 

analysis is qualitative and coal production data are limited throughout the State, a comparison with best 

available data from the Warrior Basin is provided. As shown in Table 4-3, BLM proposed coal mining 

activities are less in comparison to the Warrior Basin activities and will therefore produce much less 

emissions.

Table 4-2. Maximum Potential Oil and Gas Air Emissions for BLM and Non-BLM 

Activities in Alabama (tons per year)1, 2

Emission Type/Pollutant 

Well Locations Nitrogen 

Oxides 

(NOx) 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

(SO2) 

Particulate 

Matter 

(PM10) 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

(CO) 

Volatile 

Organic 

Compounds

(VOC) 

BLM-Administered non-USFS 

FMO Estate in Alabama 110 1.7 35.1 111 67.1 

Other Mineral Estate Across 

Alabama 21,460 332 6,815 21,761 13,947 

1. Using conservative assumptions typical of liquid mineral wells on BLM lands. 

2. Assumption that 25 percent of wells are conventional natural gas wells and 75 percent wells are coal-bed natural gas wells 

(BLM 2005a). 

Table 4-3. Maximum Potential Coal Mining Air Emissions for BLM and Non-BLM 

Activities in Alabama (tons per year) 1, 2

Emission Type/Pollutant Mine Locations 

NOx SO2 PM10 CO VOC 

BLM-Administered non-USFS 

FMO Estate in Alabama 61.2 6.8 48.6 108.0 5.7 

Warrior Basin 684 76 5,433 1,207 64 

1. Using EPA-approved emissions factors and conservative assumptions typical of western surface mines, because emission 

factors do not exist for eastern surface mining. Assumption that all emissions eventually are introduced into the environment 

(EPA 1995 and BLM 2004). 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Short term, localized increases in dust and emissions could potentially occur from recreation activities 

and travel on unpaved roads. Given the small amount and scattered nature of surface ownership, these 

activities would not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-6 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Short term, localized increases in dust and emissions would occur from use of trucks and heavy 

equipment (bulldozers, etc.) in rights-of-way (ROW) development. These actions would be conducted in 

accordance with the Alabama State Implementation Plan (SIP) and local dust control regulations; 

however, given the small amount and scattered nature of surface ownership, lands and realty management 

actions would not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions or violate air quality 

standards or regulations. 

Soil Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in disturbance or loss of soils. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed 

under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and 

protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of 

prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in disturbance or loss of soils. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Mineral exploration, development, and operations on non-USFS FMO would include ground-disturbing 

and potential contaminant-introducing activities that could impact soils. Oil and gas development 

operations—specifically, construction of drilling pads, reserve pits, and access roads—would disturb 

topsoils and alter surface soil characteristics, which could result in both a slight decline in soil 

productivity and an increase in surface runoff. Shallow coalbed methane wells generally require small 1-2 

acre well pads. Because much of the Black Warrior River Basin has very rolling terrain up to 3 acres 

could be needed to construct a suitably flat drill pad. Cut and fill areas to support these pads and access 

routes can contribute to local soil erosion, especially when heavy or persistent rains typical of this region 

exacerbate the situation. Ground disturbing activities in areas where the soils are classified as no or slight 

to moderate erosion hazard not generally accelerate soil erosion. Since future coal development is 

anticipated to be subsurface and use existing infrastructure, these activities would not disturb the soils on 

the surface. 

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 20 wells to 

be developed on non-USFS FMO in Alabama over the next 20-years would disturb approximately 105 

acres. Both Federal and State laws would require the reclamation of mined lands concurrently with 

mining operations; therefore, the required reclamation 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. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-7 

In few locations there are prime or unique farmlands on non-Forest Service FMO. Though not likely, it is 

possible that some of the 105 acres of soil disturbance could be on prime or unique farmland. In the event 

development is proposed in such an area, BLM would implement appropriate mitigation measures to 

avoid or minimize impacts as described in section 2.3.3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Allowing recreation activities, including motorized vehicle use on the surface tracts, could result in short 

term and site-specific increases in erosion. Given the limited interest in recreation and travel on the 

surface tracts, any potential effects would be minor and localized. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

If construction were to occur in new or existing ROWs, soils could be impacted by 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 if roads or 

structures were constructed on the tracts, but would be localized. 

Water Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to water quality. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed 

under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and 

protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of 

prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to water quality. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

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. Both Federal and State laws would require the reclamation of mined lands concurrently with 

mining operations; therefore, the required reclamation and the minimal surface that might be disturbed 

would result in only localized effects on water resources. 

Mineral exploration, development, and operations would include ground-disturbing activities that increase 

surface run-off, which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases water quality. These activities 

could also introduce hazardous waste or result in accidental spills that could also deteriorate surface water 

quality. Leakage of drill fluids, hazardous waste spills, or leakage from reserve pits could be introduced 

into the ground water as well. Although Federal, State and local regulations would require site 

characterization and corrective action for hazardous waste and spills, impacts to the water quality could 

be localized but long term and especially affect nonflowing waterbodies (e.g., small ponds or wetlands) 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-8 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

and ground water resources. Additionally, access roads and well pads can alter the local hydrology 

reducing surface flow to mesic areas and diverting or degrading surface water. Installation of culverts and 

diverting existing drainages around well pads help to maintain existing hydrologic systems, but the 

disturbance causes local sedimentation and can retard sheet flow. 

The preferred method of disposal of water produced from oil and gas production would be underground 

injection. Reinjection of produced water would prevent impacts to surface water quality; however, a 

critical aspect of underground injection is finding a permanent formation with a concentration of total 

dissolved solids (TDS) greater than 10,000 mg/L (Geological Survey of Alabama [GSA] 2005). At 

present, stream discharge is the most common method of water disposal produced from oil and gas 

production in the Warrior Basin.2.Although the surface discharge of produced water into water systems 

could potentially increase the salinity of surface waters and increase flow rates, result in increased soil 

erosion, operators must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

(administered by Alabama Department of Environmental Management [ADEM]) to discharge produced 

water into streams in Alabama. The type of permit currently offered is a Tier II permit. This permit 

requires the monitoring of water quality in streams and limits instream TDS concentrations to 230 mg/L 

(GSA 2005). 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 non-USFS FMO would be minimized. Also, methods of disposing produced water, 

other than by reinjection, would be considered but would require preparation of additional National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) analysis that would identify conditions of approval (COAs) or 

best management practices (BMPs) to alleviate the potential for extensive harm to water quality. 

Impacts on groundwater from coal mining operations would also occur. Approximately 9,000 acres of 

new coal leases in the Warrior Basin coal field would yield an estimated average of 1.9 million tons of 

coal per year over the next 20-years. Coal development in the Warrior Basin would involve mining of 

existing underground coal mines, which would further increase the potential for groundwater 

contamination. Migration of contaminants into the surrounding soils and aquifers could degrade 

groundwater quality and thereby affect wells and springs that may serve household and domestic uses. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Managing the surface tracts as open to recreation and motorized vehicle 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. Given the limited interest in recreation and travel on the surface tracts, any 

potential effects would be minor and localized. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

If construction were to occur in new or existing ROWs, vegetation-clearing activities and construction 

ground disturbance would increase soil 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 if roads or structures were constructed on the tracts, 

but would be localized. 

 

2 The term Warrior Basin is a geologic province. The Black Warrior Basin is the drainage area of the Black Warrior River. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-9 

Vegetative Communities 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives 

would be allowed; however, 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. Chinese privet is 

present and likely to continue to spread on the Coosa River tracts. The Fort Morgan highway tracts are 

vulnerable to both Cogon grass and Chinese tallow. Cogon grass in particular, once established, would 

displace native herbaceous plant species and ultimately could reduce some shrub and tree components by 

increasing the frequency of wild fires and crowding out seedlings. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State 

wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and 

wetland enhancements, would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed 

could result in the same impacts discussed under impacts from vegetative communities management 

actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts to vegetation from oil and gas development in Alabama are dependent on the location and design 

of well pads, roads, and production facilities. Since 1983, all of the wells drilled on non-USFS FMO in 

Alabama have been in the Black Warrior River Basin, almost all in Tuscaloosa County. Typically 

vegetation in this area is dominated by oak/hickory/pine forests, much of it secondary growth managed as 

commercial timberlands. Older growth is most often found in steeper more protected terrain, areas that 

could harbor mesic forests. Shallow coalbed methane wells generally require small 1-2 acre well pads. 

Because much of the Black Warrior River Basin has very rolling terrain, up to three acres can be needed 

to construct a suitably flat drill pad. Cut and fill areas can contribute to local erosion and heavy or 

persistent rains typical of this region exacerbate the situation. This erosion can degrade the adjacent 

vegetation communities by burying herbaceous growth and stressing or killing trees by burying surface 

roots. Some sites require the installation of erosion blankets on slopes over 3:1, particularly if an adequate 

cover planting cannot be established or the well pad is close to or above a creek, river, or wetland. 

During a routine well pad installation, saleable timber would be removed from the site if logs are 

commercially viable, but otherwise it is cut and left on-site. Vegetation debris piles are stored along the 

edges of the construction site and may be buried onsite, burned, or left in place after drilling operations 

are completed. Vegetation debris is not permitted in the reserve pit, as it can disrupt future monitoring. 

During interim reclamation, the reserve pit area is graded and the surface is fertilized, seeded, and 

mulched. Although the operators are encouraged to use native seed, the final mix and tree planting is 

approved by the private landowner or surface managing agency. By policy, BLM excludes invasive 

species, although non-native grasses, particularly annual rye, Bahia and Bermuda grass are used to 

establish a quick cover on disturbed slopes. These sites typically progress through “old field” stage as 

opportunistic pioneer plant species become established. Within a few years, young sapling pine and 

hardwoods become established. Faster-growing pines generally dominate the site until gradually 

overtaken by longer-lived hardwoods. It may take 100 years or more to reestablish hardwood forests with 

similar structure and even longer before species diversity returns to near pre-disturbance levels. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-10 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Surface-disturbing activities have the potential to introduce or promote the spread of invasive, exotic 

plant species. Impacts are dependent on the species planted during restoration activities and the 

management of the site during and following restoration. Restoration activities typically include seeding 

non-native grasses, such as annual rye (during the winter months) and Bahia or Bermuda grass (during the 

summer months) to provide a quick cover for disturbed soils. Including native species in the mix 

increases diversity and provides a more natural structure. If these areas are mowed following 

abandonment, these non-native grasses are expected to persist and dominate the site; however, if the sites 

are replanted in pine or left unmowed, the areas can be expected to progress through old field type growth 

which is dominated by opportunistic native and non-native species alike. Ultimately, both Bahia and 

Bermuda grass are expected to become shaded out as a tree or heavy shrub layer becomes established. 

Japanese honeysuckle and Chinese privet can both persist in shaded situations. 

Throughout the State, some plant communities, embedded in the larger forested landscape, are 

particularly sensitive to disruption and are difficult to restore after surface-disturbing activities. Many of 

these are restricted to a narrow range of soil types such as glades and prairies; others are sensitive to 

changes in hydrography, such as bogs, forested wetlands, and seepage slope communities. Construction 

activities in these plant communities generally alter the site sufficiently to preclude the reestablishment of 

these communities in the foreseeable future. Also, because of the limited acreage of these vegetation 

communities, loss of even the small acreages from BLM-permitted oil and gas activities has a 

disproportionate effect on the plant diversity in an area. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

The coastal dune habitat associated with the Fort Morgan Beach and Highway tracts could experience 

localized vegetation damage as a result of public foot traffic at traditional beach access points at Veterans 

Road and Mobile Road. Repetitive use erodes the dunes and keeps dune vegetation from becoming 

established, excluding use by Alabama beach mouse. 

At the Coosa River, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts, which contain sensitive wetland and riverine habitat. 

Dispersed recreational use is primarily boat related and is not expected to have substantial impacts on 

vegetation. Heavier recreation use on the southern portion of the Jordan Lake tract occurs as a result of 

the adjacent camps and keeps shrubs and forbs from establishing a natural riparian zone along this portion 

of Jordon Lake. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

New ROWs for access roads and utilities could occur on the Fort Morgan Highway or Beach tracts, where 

new disturbance is likely to total less than an acre. This is most likely to occur in upland scrub or 

flatwood communities. In addition, maintenance activities in existing ROW are likely to keep native plant 

communities from establishing a shrub or tree component and would foster the spread of invasive, exotic 

plant species, particularly cogon grass and Chinese tallow, both of which occur on or near the BLM 

highway tracts. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No vegetative communities management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives 

would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in habitat 

degradation on any of the BLM surface tracts. The maritime forests, scrubs, and flatwoods on the Fort 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-11 

Morgan Highway tracts are particularly vulnerable to cogon grass and Chinese tallow. Cogon grass could 

displace native grasses and forbs that provide foraging habitat for migratory and resident birds and would 

increase susceptibility of coastal scrub habitats to wildfire. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State 

wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and 

wetland enhancements, would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed 

could result in the same impacts discussed under impacts from vegetative communities management 

actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Oil and gas development on non-USFS FMO is expected to result in the disturbance of 105 acres. Impacts 

would include the direct loss of habitat from the construction of drilling pads, production facilities, 

pipelines and roads, from degradation of nearby aquatic or wetland habitats through sedimentation or 

changes in hydrology, and from the surface discharge of water produced from coalbed methane wells. 

These impacts could occur in any of the oil and gas potential areas in the State, but have in the past been 

concentrated in Jefferson and Walker Counties in the Black Warrior River Basin. Wherever wells are 

constructed, impacts to general wildlife are dependent on the well pad location, design, and need for 

additional access roads. 

Impacts to many wildlife species from oil and gas development are localized and temporary. Most 

common game species and other mobile wildlife species avoid the well pad areas during construction. 

Less mobile species are directly impacted and during the spring and early summer; this can include 

nesting neotropical birds. Habitat generalists, including most game species, tend to return to surrounding 

habitats after the well is completed and construction activities have ceased; however, construction in 

high-value habitats or in areas with more narrowly adapted wildlife species can alter the overall species 

diversity. Wells and roads in areas of contiguous forests increase habitat fragmentation, reducing the 

suitability of the area for interior nesting birds and making nests more susceptible to predation and 

parasitism. Older-growth forests which provide habitat for interior forest nesting birds and a wider 

diversity of amphibians and reptiles are often located in riparian/wetland zones left as buffers during 

logging operations or in steeper, less accessible slopes. 

Oil and gas drilling continues for 24 hours a day until the well is completed. During this time most 

wildlife, including waterfowl and many song-birds, are expected to avoid the immediate area; however, 

once drilling is completed, reserve pits with water can become a hazard for waterfowl and other birds 

which can become soiled by drilling fluids. If the well is put into production, there is documentation that 

birds and bats may use open vent stacks for roosting or perching. Once in these stacks, animals can 

become trapped or asphyxiated. While much of the work documenting this problem has occurred in 

western States, the situation in Alabama is expected to be similar. 

Access roads and well pads can alter the local hydrography and reduce surface flow to mesic areas and 

divert or degrade surface water supporting wetland habitats. Installation of culverts and diversion of 

existing drainages around well pads help maintain existing hydrologic systems, but the disturbance causes 

local sedimentation and can retard sheet flow to wetland habitats. Amphibians and many reptiles 

associated with wetland communities are vulnerable to disturbance, as they are not highly mobile and 

tend to have narrow habitat requirements. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-12 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

For impacts from disposal of coal-bed methane produced waters see the special status species discussion. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

The coastal dune habitat associated with the Fort Morgan Beach and Highway tracts could experience 

localized vegetation damage and habitat loss as a result of frequent dispersed recreation use and lack of 

active recreation management. Noise and human presence associated with beach recreation could displace 

foraging shore-birds and result in reduced nesting efforts or success by beach nesting birds. Dispersed 

recreation use currently occurs on the Coosa River, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts, which contain 

sensitive wetland and riverine habitat. If recreation use became more frequent on these tracts in the long 

term, species susceptible to disturbance could be affected (such as freshwater snails, mussels, turtles, 

amphibians, migratory and shore-birds, and nesting species, as well as terrestrial wildlife, avifauna, and 

aquatic species). Recreational fishing on the Jordan Lake tract could result in surface disturbance 

resulting in damage to riparian/wetland areas and trampling of the understory that could further disturb 

riparian/wetland and aquatic species in the adjacent river. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

New or expanded ROW on the Fort Morgan Highway tracts are anticipated to result in less than an acre 

of new disturbance. This acreage is expected to be near or on existing maintained ROW, and is likely to 

occur in coastal scrub habitats. This activity could be particularly disruptive during spring and fall 

migrations, when this narrow band of vegetation can support high numbers of migrating song-birds. 

Special Status Species 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives 

would be allowed; however, 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. 

Under this alternative, BLM would not actively promote the restoration of coastal dunes following 

damage by major storm events, which would promote sand deposition and facilitate the return of habitat 

conditions suitable for Alabama beach mouse. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State 

wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and 

wetland enhancements, would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed 

could result in the same impacts discussed under impacts from vegetative communities management 

actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Oil and gas development on non-USFS FMO in Alabama is expected to result in the disturbance of 105 

acres, any of which could occur in habitats supporting special status species. Historically, oil and gas 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-13 

drilling on non-USFS FMO has occurred in the Black Warrior River Basin, but drilling on non-USFS 

FMO could occur anywhere in the State (outside of the ten southeastern counties that do not contain nonUSFS FMO). Development interests are prompted by new oil and gas finds in the State, improvements in 

drilling and extraction technologies, and high prices. Because of this, there is some potential to impact 

almost any of the special status species in the State. Impacts to special status species could include the 

direct loss of habitat from the construction of drilling pads, production facilities, pipelines and roads, from 

degradation of nearby aquatic or wetland habitats through contamination, sedimentation or changes in 

hydrology, and from the surface discharge of water produced from coalbed methane wells. The following 

discussion focuses on the potential for these activities to affect habitats that support the majority of the 

State’s special status species. In addition, individual species with established management guidelines, 

such as gopher tortoise, red-cockaded woodpecker, and bald eagle are also discussed. No development is 

anticipated on the BLM surface tracts, many of which support Federally-listed species and contain 

designated critical habitat; however, the non-USFS FMO under those tracts could be developed through 

directional drilling. 

Given the high number and wide distribution of special status species in aquatic and wetland habitats in 

Alabama, all oil and gas activity near rivers, creeks, or wetland habitats has a high potential of affecting 

special status species in the immediate area or downstream of the disturbance. Impacts to aquatic and 

wetland habitats would occur through degradation of water quality through increased sedimentation or 

turbidity, contamination, direct loss of habitat, and changes in local hydrography. Disposal of water 

produced by coal-bed methane wells in the Black Warrior River basin also has the potential to affect 

special status species by increasing salinity and introducing other contaminants. Some special status 

species cannot tolerate increases in human activity, and could be impacted directly by increases in vehicle 

activity and construction activities. 

Sedimentation and increased turbidity are a current threat to most of Alabama’s mussels and special status 

fish species. Increases in sedimentation to streams and wetlands by oil and gas development are a factor 

of well pad design, erodibility of the soils, proximity of the disturbance, slope, and the intervening 

vegetation. The potential for sedimentation increases with prolonged or heavy rains that are typical in this 

area. Before protective plant covers have been established cut and fill slopes are particularly vulnerable to 

erosion. Intact vegetation along riparian/wetland zones and around wetlands can substantially buffer these 

areas. Research has shown that a minimum of a thirty-foot buffer of vegetation is needed to control 

sediments and maintain stream temperature; however, 100-foot buffers may be needed to protect stream 

invertebrates, and 1,000-feet or more may be needed to protect some amphibians, reptiles, and forestinterior birds (Wenger 1999). Sediments deposited in intermittent drainages and headwater streams would 

be transported downstream during periods of high water, increasing turbidity and burying aquatic 

invertebrates in higher order streams. 

Filling wetlands, including bogs, seepage slopes, wet flatwoods, and forested swamps generally alters the 

site sufficiently to preclude the reestablishment of these communities in the foreseeable future, and could 

result in direct habitat loss for a wide variety of special status species which use these habitats. Because 

so many of these species have limited ranges, the list of species potentially affected would vary by 

location. Generally, because of the limited acreage of these vegetation communities, loss from even the 

small amount of disturbance associated with BLM-permitted oil and gas activities has the potential to 

destroy or degrade habitat for special status species. For instance, there are up to 12 special status crayfish 

across the State that are vulnerable to habitat disturbance in bogs and wet flatwoods. Henslow’s sparrow 

wintering habitat and breeding habitat for Bachman’s sparrow could be lost by construction in or near 

grassy bogs or wet flatwoods. Construction activities, and particularly linear disturbances related to new 

roads and pipelines, can disrupt the local hydrography supporting seepage slopes or sheet flow to bogs 

and swamps degrading these habitats. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-14 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

In the Black Warrior River Basin, water produced from coal-bed methane wells is typically disposed of 

through surface discharge. The chemical makeup of produced waters can vary by well with salinity, 

measured as TDS, being the most limiting factor. TDS in the Black Warrior Basin varies from less than 

1,000 mg/L to more than 43,000 mg/L (U. S. Department of Energy 2003). Produced water is stored in 

ponds to precipitate out metals and to lower pH prior to discharge. NPDES permits issued by the State 

limit in-stream TDS concentrations to 230 mg/L. This threshold is approved by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) for general wildlife habitat and is met by discharging into rivers with sufficient 

flow to dilute and meet the in-stream thresholds. NPDES permits require monitoring of pH, iron, 

manganese, biochemical oxygen demand, oil and grease, and dissolved oxygen; additional monitoring 

requirements for conductivity, chlorides, and effluent toxicity are included. Dischargers are required to 

install a diffuser on the end of their discharge pipes to minimize scouring and are required to implement a 

BMP plan. Other elements, such as trace amounts of metals, are not routinely monitored under NPDES 

permits. Thresholds for most mussels have not been studied and there is concern that the existing 

thresholds may not be sufficient to protect these bottom dwelling species. 

Karst formations support cave habitats with high numbers of special status species, including many 

endemic crayfish, salamanders, and bats and are particularly sensitive to oil and gas development. In 

caves, even minor alterations in temperature, humidity, and water quality or quantity can result in 

irreversible impacts. Caves by their nature are isolated and support highly endemic faunas often with 

extremely narrow habitat requirements. Wells drilled through cave/karst resources can result in 

contaminants, such as drilling fluids and cements, draining into the cave/karst system. Karst habitats can 

be degraded by hydrocarbons from spills or leaks from well casings, storage tanks, reserve pits, pipelines, 

and production facilities that may enter into the cave/karst systems. Additionally, cementing operations 

could affect portions of underground drainage systems by restricting groundwater flow and introducing 

pollutants into karst systems. Other possible impacts are vented or escaped gases collecting in sinkholes 

and caves. These gases can cause a die-off of plant and animal life that use the special habitat created by 

the microclimate of the cave entrances or sinkhole. 

Along the Alabama coast, there are 365 acres of non-USFS FMO within the designated critical habitat for 

Alabama beach mouse. Portions of this acreage also contain coastal beaches used by nesting loggerhead 

sea turtles and potentially by green sea turtle and Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle, as well as piping plover, 

snowy plover, and Wilson’s plover. Any disturbance of the surface from oil and gas development in this 

area is likely to adversely affect Federally-listed species. Section 7 consultations with the U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) would be required prior to BLM permitting any action that could adversely 

affect these Federally-listed species or designated habitat. Subsequent actions would comply with the 

conditions established by any subsequent biological opinions (BOs). Although it is unlikely that oil and 

gas development would occur on the BLM surface tracts, non-USFS FMO could be used to consolidate 

acreage to meet State spacing requirements, prompting oil and gas activity in suitable or occupied habitat 

Alabama beach mouse and nesting sea turtle habitat. 

In the coastal plain areas, gopher tortoise could be affected by oil and gas activity in upland habitats. 

Tortoises could be impacted by the loss or damage to burrows, destruction of foraging habitat, and 

tortoises could be killed during construction or by service vehicles. Construction activities and roads 

within 600-feet of burrows could isolate individuals and reduce reproductive potential within a 

population. In many cases, the presence of gopher tortoises indicates that habitat is suitable for a host of 

species associated with dry longleaf pine forests, including the black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus 

lodingi). 

Red-cockaded woodpecker could be affected by oil and gas development on 888 acres of non-USFS 

FMO. Red-cockaded woodpeckers could be affected by the loss of nesting habitat within existing clusters 

and the loss of current or potential foraging habitat within 0.5 miles of existing clusters, particularly on 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-15 

non-USFS FMO near the Talladega and Conecuh National Forests, which support most of the State’s 

population. 

Throughout the State, breeding and wintering bald eagles could be affected by drilling near large rivers or 

reservoirs. Bald eagles are particularly sensitive when courting, nesting, and fledging young. In Alabama 

this typically occurs between December 1 and August 1. Construction activities within 1.5 miles of nest 

sites could result in nest abandonment depending on factors such as visibility and tolerance of individual 

pairs. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

The coastal dune habitat associated with the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would continue to be trampled at 

traditional beach access points as Veterans Road and Mobile Street, damaging habitat for the Alabama 

beach mouse. Recreational use can flush foraging shore-birds and result in reduced nesting efforts or 

success by beach-nesting birds. Unmanaged recreational use of beaches could also hamper or deter 

nesting attempts by sea turtles and interfere with incubating egg clutches and the sea approach of 

hatchlings (National Marine Fisheries Service and USFWS 1991). The Fort Morgan Highway tracts, also 

designated as critical habitat, could experience loss or damage to vegetation as a result of continuing to be 

managed as open to recreation use. Dispersed recreation use of the Coosa River tracts has the potential to 

cause bald eagles to abandon nest sites. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

New ROWs for access roads and utilities could occur on the Fort Morgan Highway or Beach tracts, where 

new disturbance is likely to total less than an acre. These tracts are designated critical habitat for Alabama 

beach mouse. Any surface disturbance, mowing, or other vegetation management activities could 

adversely affect the Alabama beach mouse, destroying burrows or removing plants that could provide a 

seed source. Because these tracts are within designated critical habitat for Alabama beach mouse, 

plantings to stabilize disturbed soils would be limited to locally occurring native species. 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

Suppressing all wildland fires, unless an in-place site-specific plan determines otherwise, would minimize 

immediate threats and damage to life, public safety, and developments in the wildland-urban interface 

(WUI) and to natural resource values. Allowing prescribed burning on a case-by-case basis would allow 

for a reduction in hazardous fuel conditions, improving ability to suppress wildfires while maintaining 

disturbance levels to which vegetation communities have adapted. Fire response and fuels treatments 

would apply to the 159 acres of BLM-administered surface land. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Although no specific vegetative communities actions are proposed, allowing vegetation manipulation to 

meet resources objectives under standard management common to all alternatives would serve to decrease 

vegetation density and cover (fuel load) and maintain natural fuel conditions across the surface tracts. 

This would maintain natural disturbance regimes which would be easier to manage through prescribed 

fire or other treatments. This would also decrease the frequency and intensity of wildland fires and allow 

fires to be more easily controlled, better protecting life, public safety, and property and resource values. 

However, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in invasions and fuel 

accumulations that would increase the frequency and intensity of wildland fires. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-16 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat 

improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive 

plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would result in similar impacts as 

discussed under impacts from vegetative communities management actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Minerals development activities would introduce additional ignition sources throughout the non-USFS 

FMO, increasing the potential of wildland fire occurrence. Disturbance of 105 acres associated with the 

development of 20 wells on non-USFS FMO could provide increased accessibility for fire suppression 

equipment, and provide fuel breaks in the case of wildland fire events. In addition, the infrastructure 

associated with the 20 new wells would require protection in wildland fire events. Impacts from mineral 

development activities would not occur on the 8,179 acres closed to oil and gas development. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Continuing to manage the surface tracts as open to recreation use would allow for dispersed recreation 

use, which could introduce additional ignition sources and increase the probability of wildland fire 

occurrence. This would be more prevalent in areas that are more accessible. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Development of above-ground ROWs on the surface tracts, which would be managed as open to ROW 

development, would require additional efforts by firefighters to protect these areas in wildland fire events. 

Development of ROWs would also result in clearing vegetation to make way for linear features such as 

roads, pipelines, and transmission lines. ROWs could provide fuel breaks, which could help prevent the 

spread of wildland fires. ROWs could also provide firefighters with increased accessibility for fire 

suppression equipment. While more ROWs could increase suppression costs, the aspects of ROW 

development related to vegetation clearing and the potential for increased accessibility could reduce 

suppression costs. 

Cultural Resources 

Management of cultural resources provides protection from the potentially damaging effects of surfacedisturbing activities through implementation of existing laws and policy, such as Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA). Federal undertakings typically require cultural resource inventories that would result in the 

identification of cultural resource sites and determination of eligibility to the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP). The cultural resources data acquired through inventories and evaluations would increase 

knowledge of cultural resources on BLM-administered lands and minerals in the State. Following sitespecific inventories, mitigation measures would be prescribed as necessary for eligible properties. Any 

cultural sites discovered may be considered for further evaluation to assess its eligibility for listing on the 

NRHP. Through this process, significant impacts on cultural sites eligible for the NRHP would be 

avoided or mitigated. Avoidance is BLM’s preferred measure to eliminate potential adverse effects. 

Avoidance preserves the cultural resource in place. If this is not possible under reasonable circumstances, 

scientifically valid excavation and data recovery is an alternative mitigation method. Scientifically valid 

excavation would be used as a final measure, and the extent of excavation would be determined through 

BLM consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Tribes. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-17 

Data recovery preserves as much of the cultural record as possible through archaeological methods. Any 

mitigation effort requiring archaeological data recovery is subject to the terms outlined in a Data 

Recovery Plan and documented through a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the 

SHPO, tribes, and other consulting parties. While data recovery preserves as much data as possible, the 

excavated portions of the property would be lost or damaged. Removing cultural resources from a site 

using current scientific methods also reduces future scientific value if more accurate methods of analysis 

are developed. Mitigation through data recovery also reduces or eliminates other uses of cultural 

resources sites, such as traditional, public, conservation, or experimental use. The inventory and 

avoidance procedures conducted in conjunction with surface-disturbing actions would protect most 

cultural resources from significant impacts. 

Despite the best efforts to identify all cultural resources, there remains a potential for inadvertent impacts 

to previously undiscovered sites, especially buried sites with no surface indications. Following discovery 

of cultural resources, activities would stop to allow for mitigation to minimize further damage to cultural 

resources. There is a set process through Section 106 for identifying, evaluating, and treating the effects 

of inadvertent discoveries to reduce potential impacts from these discoveries. 

Wildfire and prescribed fire could impact cultural resource sites, including the eligibility characteristics of 

sites that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. Impacts would be limited to the Coosa River 

tracts, as the Geneva tract contains small amounts of vegetation that maintains foliage yearlong. The other 

tracts have been inventoried for cultural resources and no sites were identified. 

Prehistoric and historic resources potentially affected by wildfire may be inorganic or organic. Generally 

speaking, organic materials are more at risk as they tend to burn or alter at lower temperatures than 

inorganic materials. Wildfire impacts on inorganic cultural resources include fracturing, shattering, and 

changes in color and internal luster, which might reduce an artifact’s ability to render information about 

the past. As a general rule, fire would not affect buried cultural materials. Studies show that even a few 

centimeters of soil cover (four inches) are sufficient to protect cultural materials (Oster N.D.). Wildfires 

that burn hot and fast through a site may have less of an effect on certain types of cultural materials than 

fires that smolder in the duff or burn for a long time period, allowing heat from the fire to penetrate the 

surface. In addition, heat from wildland fires could change the physical nature of the ground, making it 

harder to identify cultural resources. The isolated nature of vegetation on the Coosa River tracts would 

limit the potential for ignition or spread of wildland fire, and decrease the potential impacts to cultural 

resources. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would require cultural resource clearances before any 

activities were to occur; therefore, impacts would not be anticipated. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat 

improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive 

plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would require cultural resource 

clearances before any activities were to occur; therefore, impacts would not be anticipated. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-18 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Cultural resources on 305,640 acres of non-USFS FMO in Alabama managed as open to leasing subject 

to standard lease terms and conditions could be impacted by oil and gas development. Based on the RFD, 

oil and gas developments within these areas would impact 105 acres through the development of 20 wells 

over 20 years. Development on these acres would typically be subject to Class III cultural resource 

inventories and evaluation on a project-by-project basis prior to allowing disturbance. This would result 

in the identification and potential excavation of cultural sites. Cultural sites on 8,179 acres closed to 

leasing would be protected from oil and gas development. 

Sixty-eight known cultural resources sites exist within non-USFS FMO in the coal potential area and 66 

known sites are within one-half mile of the tracts. 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 surface disturbance; 

therefore, no impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated from coal development. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation activities on the surface tracts could result in inadvertent damage and vandalism to cultural 

sites on tracts that contain cultural resources. Although the tracts are not anticipated to be used 

extensively for recreation, many surface tracts are located in rivers, wetlands, and beach areas that are 

desirable locations for recreation and there is a high potential for cultural resources to be found. Impacts 

from travel management actions would not be anticipated, because the Coosa River and Geneva tracts that 

have not been surveyed for cultural resources are only accessible by boat and no cultural resources were 

found on all other tracts have been surveyed. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Ground-disturbing activities associated with ROW construction and maintenance could impact cultural 

resources. If a permitted ROW for an access road, utility tower, or bridge pier were approved on a surface 

tract, an appropriate level of cultural resource survey would need to be conducted. Approved activities in 

areas not previously surveyed would be subject to a ground survey and consultation requirements with the 

SHPO under NHPA Section 106 regulations prior to construction. 

A cultural resource survey would also be required if existing ROWs on the Fort Morgan Highway and 

Jordan Lake tracts were expanded or modified. Construction projects could result in inadvertent damage 

if cultural resources that were undetected during surveys were unearthed during ground-disturbing 

activities. Following discovery of cultural resources, activities would stop in accordance with the ROW 

grant which would minimize further damage to cultural resources. Therefore, impacts to cultural 

resources would be anticipated to be minimal. 

Visual Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to visual quality. Although visual quality 

would deteriorate in the short term, visual quality would improve in the long term once vegetation has 

reestablished to meet VRM class objectives. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-19 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed 

under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and 

protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of 

prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to visual quality. Although visual quality 

would deteriorate in the short term, visual quality would improve in the long term once vegetation has 

reestablished to meet VRM class objectives. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Mineral exploration and development on non-USFS FMO tracts (313,819 acres) would result in impacts 

to visual resources on 105 acres from 20 wells. Removal of vegetation and construction of wells and well 

pads and introduction of other equipment would decrease visual quality. BLM doesn’t manage the surface 

for non-USFS FMO tracts; however, BLM can place COAs or best practices to minimize impacts to 

visual resources as needed. Impacts would not be anticipated on the 8,179 non-USFS FMO acres closed 

to leasing. Since no mineral development activities would occur on the surface tracts, there would be no 

violations of VRM class objectives. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Allowing recreation activities and motorized vehicle use on the surface tracts could result in decreased 

visual quality over time from changes to existing natural or manmade landforms and scenic vistas through 

vegetation and soil loss, particularly on tracts that are in undeveloped areas. Since the surface tracts are 

not anticipated to be used extensively for recreation and travel, these impacts would be minimal. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

If the existing ROWs that bisect the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts were expanded or 

otherwise modified, visual quality would be diminished. No existing utility and road ROWs exist on the 

Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Geneva, and Fowl River tracts. If a new road or utility ROW were 

authorized on these tracts, visual quality would be diminished if the ROW were to dominate the view of 

the casual observer. 

Minerals 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Under this alternative, 305,640 non-USFS FMO acres would be open to leasing, subject to standard lease 

terms and conditions; 8,179 non-USFS FMO acres would be closed to leasing due to restrictions placed 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-20 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

by other Federal surface management agencies. No impacts to oil and gas minerals exploration and 

development would be anticipated from management of non-USFS FMO tracts. 

No impacts to coal leasing and development in the Warrior Basin would be anticipated. Coal production 

would continue at historical rates. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Lands and realty management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. BLM would only dispose of non-USFS FMO with no 

suspected value and, therefore, there would be no loss of opportunity. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to recreation. Recreationists could be 

displaced from vegetation treatment areas until revegetation occurs; however, the vegetation treatments 

would benefit recreationists by improving the long-term aesthetics of an area. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat 

improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive 

plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve 

ground disturbing activities of a severity or extent that result in impacts to recreation. Recreationists could 

be displaced from protected areas or treated areas until revegetation occurs; however, the habitat 

improvements and protections would benefit recreationists by improving the long term aesthetics and 

wildlife viewing of an area. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Oil and gas development on non-USFS FMO tracts with surface management by other Federal agencies 

that are open to the public for recreation, as identified in Table 3-17, could be affected by the leasing of 

Federal minerals by BLM. Those areas or installations not open to recreation or leasing would not be 

affected, including National Park Service (NPS) and USFWS lands. Oil and gas development could 

provide additional opportunities for travel due to the construction of access roads. 

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 or in areas where the public were 

excluded. Mineral leasing in recreational areas could result in the removal of vegetation; construction of 

access roads, well pads, and other infrastructure; introduction of drilling equipment; and associated noise 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-21 

and dust emissions. Effects would include a less-enjoyable recreational environment, though travel 

management opportunities could improve due to the construction of access roads. Stipulations applied 

under this alternative by other surface managing agencies could indirectly protect the recreational 

resources in areas where development would be precluded (8,179 acres). 

Since future coal development is anticipated to occur at underground sites without additional 

infrastructure, additional impacts to recreation would not be anticipated. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Allowing recreation activities and motorized vehicle use on the surface tracts would maintain existing 

recreation and travel opportunities. Allowing motorized travel uses on all surface tracts could result in 

conflicts between motorized recreationists and recreationists seeking a more natural setting or experience. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Although Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would be transferred to the USFWS, these lots 

would remain within the boundaries of the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (where they are 

currently, but are not managed by the USFWS). After transfer, these lots would be managed according to 

their Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Since all surface tracts would remain in Federal ownership, 

access to recreation activity in a generally undeveloped setting would be maintained. 

If existing utility and road ROWs that bisect the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts were 

expanded or otherwise modified, the recreation experience could be diminished as a result of construction 

activity, ground disturbance, and introduction of new infrastructure. No existing utility and road ROWs 

exist on the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Geneva, and Fowl River tracts. If a new road or utility 

ROW were authorized on these tracts, the recreation experience could be diminished as a result of 

construction activity, ground disturbance, and introduction of new infrastructure. These actions could 

provide additional opportunities for travel due to the construction of access roads. 

Lands and Realty 

Lands and realty is a resource use rather than an environmental component and impacts on lands and 

realty are a direct result of their management. Therefore, the following discussion is limited to impacts 

from lands and realty management actions for the 159 acres of BLM-administered surface ownership in 

Alabama. Impacts from disposal of FMO is discussed under impacts to Minerals from Lands and Realty 

actions. 

Under Alternative 1, all 159 acres of the surface tracts in Alabama would remain open to ROW 

applications; therefore, no impacts would be anticipated to lands and realty actions. Retaining the surface 

tracts under BLM administration would not allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or nonFederal ownership. Transferring Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts to the USFWS as part of 

the Bon Secour NWR would facilitate Federal management of the lots. 

Social and Economic 

Definitions and descriptions of potential Environmental Justice populations, including low income and 

ethnicity statistics were provided in Section 3.2.13. Since this four-county study area where mineral 

development is anticipated does not encompass Environmental Justice populations as defined, there 

would likely be no disproportionate effect on those populations under each alternative. Since the specific 

location of the oil and gas development is yet to be determined, Environmental Justice population 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-22 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

locations should be further considered at the implementation level to minimize the potential for 

disproportionate impacts to Environmental Justice populations and to identify any possible mitigation 

measures that may be required to reduce impacts (for example, dust, noise, traffic, ground water quality) 

to these populations. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Impacts to social and economic conditions would not be anticipated from vegetative communities 

management actions, since no actions are proposed under this alternative. Under standard management 

common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives would not be 

anticipated to be of an extent that would result in impacts to economic or social conditions. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Impacts to social and economic conditions would not be anticipated from fish and wildlife habitat 

management actions, since no actions are proposed under this alternative. Under standard management 

common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife 

conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland 

enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing activities of a severity or extent that 

would result in impacts to economic or social conditions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Since only 20 fluid mineral wells would likely be drilled with standard lease terms and conditions over 

the next 20-years, there would be minimal economic impacts from these activities. This type of BLM 

mineral development is consistent with the development that occurred in the past, including 17 

applications for permits to drill between 1983 and 2004. Therefore, there would be minimal changes. The 

potential minimal changes include a slight increase in employment or income. Social indicators such as 

housing, education, and cost of living would not be anticipated to change under this alternative from oil 

and gas activities. 

With continued development of oil and gas resources, 105 acres of surface disturbance are anticipated for 

well pads, roads, and pipeline over the next 20 years. Disturbances from oil and gas development could 

potentially include slight increases in air emissions from construction of well pads and roads, noise from 

construction activities and trucking, contamination of soils and vegetation, habitat impacts, and 

groundwater contamination. Stakeholders who believe oil and gas activity should be constrained with 

conditions and stipulations 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, would likely prefer this alternative over the others. 

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 coal development over the last 10 years. Currently coal produced from 

BLM-administered minerals accounts for approximately 10 percent of the total amount of coal produced 

in the State, 19.5 million tons of coal (Energy Information Agency 1999). In Alabama, mining (non oil 

and gas) accounts for approximately 6,773 employees and employee compensation of $482,361,000 

(Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA] 2005). If 10 percent of this employment and employee 

compensation can be attributed to BLM-administered minerals, this activity provides for 677 employees 

in mining, with total mining employee compensation of $48,236,100. The average annual employee 

compensation for these workers is $71,218, compared with average annual compensation from all 

industries in the State of $34,877 (BEA 2005). Mining in the four-county study area where mineral 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-23 

development is possible likely provides fiscal revenues to local and State governments, supporting 

community and emergency services, school, and infrastructure. Impacts on stakeholder groups from 

mining activities are likely similar to those stated in the previous paragraph concerning socioeconomic oil 

and gas impacts. Some stakeholders will support these mining activities due to the economic benefits in 

income, jobs, and government revenues, while others will be concerned that the economic benefit may not 

offset the risks to environmental and water resources from the activity. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions would not cause changes in the economic characteristics 

(employment, income, and industries) or quality of social assets (housing, education, values, and 

attitudes) in the four-county study area where mineral development is possible as there are no anticipated 

changes in recreation and travel management actions under this alternative. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

All BLM lands under this alternative would remain in Federal ownership. Additionally, new ROW may 

be developed on the surface tracts. 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 living, education) in local 

communities linked with the remote and scattered BLM surface tracts are not likely to be affected by 

retaining these lands in Federal ownership. Stakeholders who would like to see these BLM surface tracts 

sold to either private developers or non-profit organizations for a change in management and use would 

be adversely impacted by this alternative, while those stakeholders who believe that retention of the 

Federal lands is important to maintain open space and current management would feel this alternative is 

consistent with their values. 

Hazardous Materials 

BLM-authorized activities on surface tracts and non-USFS FMO could include the use of hazardous 

materials, substances, and waste (including storage, transportation, and spills). Such activities include oil 

and gas development, coal development, and application of pesticides to improve vegetative communities 

and wildlife habitat. These activities are conducted in compliance with 29 CFR 1910, 49 CFR 100-185, 

40 CFR 100-400, Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act (SARA), 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA) and other Federal and State 

regulations and policies regarding hazardous materials management. Therefore, if a release were to occur, 

it would be immediately addressed and remediated in accordance with regulation. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-24 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

4.2.2 Alternative 2 

Air Quality 

Under this alternative, there is a potential for wildfire which could lead to air emissions. Since all fires 

would be suppressed, these occurrences would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to 

individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetation treatments, including prescribed fire, and associated use of trucks and heavy equipment would 

cause short term, localized increases in dust and emissions. Given the small amount and scattered nature 

of surface ownership, these activities would not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality 

conditions. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Use of trucks and heavy equipment associated with proposed fish and wildlife habitat improvements, such 

as constructing dune walk-overs on the Fort Morgan Beach tract, and conducting prescribed burns to 

improve habitat on the Fort Morgan Highway tract would cause short term, localized increases in dust and 

emissions. Given the small amount and scattered nature of surface ownership, these activities would not 

be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Anticipated levels of oil and gas (20 wells over the next 20 years) and coal development (1.9 million tons 

produced annually over the next 20 years) and associated air emissions would be the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Motorized travel would be closed or limited to designated routes on all tracts under this alternative. 

However, the level of activity contributing to emissions and associated air quality impacts would not be 

anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not anticipated to be used 

extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

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

percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) would be managed as ROW avoidance areas, there would 

be less potential for emissions associated with the use of trucks and heavy equipment (bulldozers, etc.) for 

ROW development compared to Alternative 1. Impacts from potential ROW development on the Jordan 

Lake and Fort Morgan Highway tracts would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Soil Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions, such as removing invasive species and conducting 

prescribed fire, on surface tracts 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 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-25 

damage by major storms. Over the long term, improving vegetation communities would reduce erosion 

and overland flows. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Impacts from fish and wildlife habitat management actions would be similar to Alternative 1. In addition, 

there would be minimal short term soil disturbance from the construction of dune walk-overs on the Fort 

Morgan Beach tracts and conducting prescribed burns to improve habitat on the Fort Morgan Highway 

tracts. These soils are not prone to compaction and the construction is not expected to alter the soil 

horizons in the long term. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

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, 

controlled surface use (CSU) (91,702 acres), and no surface occupancy (NSO) (94,589 acres) restrictions 

would be implemented, which reduces disturbance to soils within the protected areas. Impacts to prime or 

unique farmlands would be the same as described for Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Motorized travel would be closed or limited to designated routes on all tracts under this alternative. 

However, the level of activity that could increase erosion and associated impacts to soils would not be 

anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not anticipated to be used 

extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

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

percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) would be managed as ROW avoidance areas, there would 

be less potential for ground disturbance and increased erosion associated with ROW development 

compared to Alternative 1. Impacts from potential ROW development on the Jordan Lake and Fort 

Morgan Highway tracts would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Water Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions, such as removing invasive species and conducting 

prescribed fire, on surface tracts would increase site-specific 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 flows. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions, such as constructing dune walk-overs on the Fort Morgan 

Beach tracts and conducting prescribed burns to improve habitat on the Fort Morgan Highway tracts, 

could increase erosion and run-off, which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases water 

quality in the short term. Over the long term, improving and protecting fish and wildlife habitats would 

reduce erosion and overland flows. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-26 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

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-USFS FMO 

available for leasing in Alabama. This buffer is expected to prevent construction activities from 

increasing the sedimentation of local drainages and wetlands. 

Impacts from coal mining would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Motorized travel would be closed or limited to designated routes on all tracts under this alternative. 

However, the level of activity that could impact water resources would not be anticipated to change 

compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not anticipated to be used extensively for recreation or 

travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

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

percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) would be managed as ROW avoidance areas, there would 

be less potential for ground disturbance and impacts to water resources associated with ROW 

development compared to Alternative 1. No coastal wetland habitats or water bodies occur on or adjacent 

to the Fort Morgan Highway tracts. Development of additional transportation routes and ROWs on the 

Jordan Lake tract could contribute to the already degrading water quality of the Coosa River, located 

adjacent to the tract, as well as Jordan Lake, located about 10 miles downstream. Impacts contributing to 

decreased water quality could result from decreased soil stability and increased surface runoff caused by 

vegetation-clearing activities and construction ground disturbance. 

Vegetative Communities 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Early detection and removal of exotic plant species from the Fowl River and Coosa River tracts would 

safeguard the wetland emergent vegetation and wet flatwoods communities on this tract. On the 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. Selective hand spraying of Cogon grass 

may be required where it is established. More active management of vegetation communities would 

provide better vegetation composition on all surface tracts than under Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

For the Fort Morgan Beach tracts, the construction of dune walk-overs would funnel foot traffic across 

sensitive dune habitats and allow sand to accrete and native dune vegetation to re-establish. On the Fort 

Morgan Highway tracts, forbs and native grasses would benefit from periodic prescribed burns of wet 

flatwoods and wetlands conducted in coordination with the Bon Secour NWR. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-27 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts to vegetation would be similar to Alternative 1; however, under this alternative oil and gas 

activities would be excluded from a 1,000-foot buffer around wetlands and aquatic habitats, karst areas, 

shoreline habitats, and habitats like naturally occurring prairies and glades with special status species. 

Buffering these areas would provide additional protection for high value plant communities from 

potential sedimentation or contamination from surface runoff or inadvertent leaching from the reserve pit. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Impacts from managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts as open 

to recreation could result in similar impacts as in Alternative 1. Two dune walk-overs constructed at 

Veterans Road and Mobile Road would funnel visitors across sensitive dune habitat, allowing dune 

vegetation to reestablish at these traditional access points. Plantings of native coastal dune vegetation 

would restore several acres of dunes trampled at these beach access points. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

All surface tracts except the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts would be managed as ROW 

avoidance areas. No new disturbance would be allowed in the existing ROW corridors on the Fort 

Morgan Highway tracts; however, maintenance activities would be permitted. These existing utility 

ROWs have been repeatedly disturbed and maintained in an early seral stage dominated by grasses and 

herbaceous growth. The continued maintenance of these utility corridors prevents the establishment of the 

scrub vegetation characteristic of this elevation. In addition, these disturbed sites are prone to the 

establishment of exotic, invasive plant species, particularly cogon grass and Chinese tallow which are 

common along the Highway 180 corridor. Cogon grass is very difficult to eradicate, and establishes dense 

stands that displace native vegetation communities. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Dune restoration activities, such as planting sea oats and other dune stabilizing natives at Fort Morgan 

would benefit a wide variety of shore-birds by providing additional areas for loafing and potential nesting 

sites. At all sites, wildlife would benefit from removal of exotic invasive plant species. Early detection 

and removal reduces the overall impact to wildlife species by limiting the amount of change to the habitat 

structure that can occur when large woody invasives are removed, and by eliminating or reducing the 

amount of herbicide needed to control herbaceous invasives. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Many of the benefits discussed under the special status species and vegetation impacts sections would 

also benefit general wildlife values. At the Fort Morgan Beach tracts, dune nesting shore-birds would 

benefit from actions to enhance and protect coastal dunes. The construction of dune walk-overs on the 

Fort Morgan Beach tracts would protect sensitive dune habitats from foot traffic and allow additional 

habitat to develop at these traditional public access points. Shorebirds benefit from funneling foot traffic 

across these sensitive habitats by reducing human intrusions on loafing and nesting areas. On all tracts, 

wildlife would benefit from early detection and removal of exotic invasive weed species, which once 

established can substantially alter habitats. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-28 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

General impacts to wildlife are expected to be the same as Alternative 1; however, under this alternative 

oil and gas activities would be excluded from high value wildlife habitats. This includes a 1,000-foot 

buffer around wetlands and aquatic habitats, avoidance of karst areas, shoreline habitats and habitats like 

naturally occurring prairies and glades with special status species. 

BMPs would be applied under this alternative to reduce potential impacts to bats, song-birds, and 

waterfowl. Reserve pits still containing water 10 days after a well is completed would be netted to 

exclude migratory birds. Other approved methods could also be used to exclude birds. Open vent 

equipment, such as heater-treaters, separators, and dehydration units would be covered with anti-perching 

cones to exclude cavity nesting birds and bats. Any powerlines would be built using approved raptor safe 

designs to prevent electrocution. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Limiting vehicle access to existing roads and authorized ROW would eliminate new use patterns from 

developing which could degrade habitats on BLM surface tracts. This would particularly benefit the Fort 

Morgan Beach tracts where even occasional vehicle use would damage dunes and destroy dune stabilizing 

vegetation. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

All surface tracts except the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts would be managed as ROW 

avoidance areas. No new disturbance would be allowed in the existing ROW corridors on the Fort 

Morgan Highway tracts; however, maintenance activities would be permitted. These existing utility 

ROWs have been repeatedly disturbed and maintained in an early seral stage dominated by grasses and 

herbaceous growth. The continued maintenance of these utility corridors prevents the establishment of the 

scrub vegetation characteristic of this elevation. In addition, these disturbed sites are prone to the 

establishment of exotic, invasive plant species, particularly cogon grass and Chinese tallow which are 

common along the Highway 180 corridor. Cogon grass is very difficult to eradicate, and establishes dense 

stands that displace native vegetation communities. Maintenance activities, as well as invasive exotic 

species in the utility corridors, would deteriorate wildlife habitat. 

Special Status Species 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

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. Selective hand spraying of herbaceous 

growth, especially cogon grass, may be required where it has become established. Early detection and 

control of invasive plant species would reduce the amount of native vegetation displaced and minimize 

changes to structure that occurs when large amounts of invasive woody material is removed. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Alabama beach mouse and nesting shore-birds at the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would benefit from the 

installation of two dune walk-overs that would eliminate damaging foot traffic, and allow dunes and 

vegetation to recover at traditional public access areas at Veterans Road and Mobile Road. Prescribed fire 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-29 

could be used to increase herbaceous species in flatwoods or wetlands on the Fort Morgan highway tracts. 

These burns would be conducted only in conjunction with prescribed burns on adjacent lands managed by 

the Bon Secour NWR to benefit endemic species. These actions would improve habitat for special status 

species. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Although the number of wells (20) and acres disturbed (105) would remain the same under this alternative 

as compared to Alternative 1, lease stipulations would shift surface-disturbing activities away from 

sensitive habitats with potential to support special status species. This is accomplished with NSO buffers 

or seasonal restrictions. 

To protect special status species occurring in aquatic or wetland habitats, all oil and gas development 

activities would be excluded from a 1,000-foot buffer around these habitats. In areas with slopes less than 

10 percent, the 1,000-foot buffer could be reduced to a minimum of 100-feet if the adjacent waterway or 

wetlands have been surveyed and no special status species occur within 100-yards upstream and 300-

yards downstream of the site. This stipulation could be applied to an estimated 90,930 acres or 29 percent 

of the non-USFS FMO 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. 

A 250-foot NSO buffer around known caves, fractures, and sinkholes would reduce the chances of 

drilling through karst formations, providing protection for cave endemics, such as Alabama cave shrimp, 

Alabama cave fish, gray myotis, Indiana bat, and others. Some potential remains for inadvertently drilling 

through unknown karst formations and damaging connected cave habitats through introduction of lost 

drilling fluids and muds, altering temperature and moisture regimes and modifying the hydrology 

supporting the karst system. The 3,044 acres of FMO within 0.5 miles of caves known to be occupied by 

gray myotis or Indiana bat would be excluded from surface occupancy, protecting these species and their 

habitats from disturbance associated with oil and gas activity. 

Under this alternative, the 365 acres of non-USFS FMO associated with suitable and designated 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. 

Areas with suitable soils and at least 10 percent open pine forest in southern Alabama counties, including 

Choctaw, Washington, Mobile, Baldwin, Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Clarke, Crenshaw, Coffee, Conecuh, 

Covington, Dale, Escambia, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Monroe, Montgomery, Pike, and Wilcox counties 

would require a survey for gopher tortoises prior to any surface-disturbing activities. No disturbance 

would be permitted within 600-feet of a gopher tortoise burrow. This buffer is expected to protect any 

breeding populations of gopher tortoise and maintain habitat for associated species including black pine 

snake. It would also protect habitat values in areas suitable for eastern indigo snake. 

Under this alternative, NSO would be permitted within 0.5 miles of a red-cockaded woodpecker cluster. 

This stipulation would be applied to 888 acres of FMO within known clusters, and would be applied as 

needed to potential or occupied habitat identified during site assessments conducted prior to leasing. This 

buffer is expected to contain all foraging habitat required to maintain the red-cockaded woodpecker 

cluster. There are options for oil and gas activity to occur within suitable foraging habitat, if the foraging 

requirements for the cluster are met elsewhere, for example clusters maintained on National Forests. This 

exception would require a concurrence from the USFWS and the State of Alabama. A concurrence would 

cause disturbance within the suitable foraging habitat, but if granted would not be anticipated to affect 

local populations. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-30 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Under this alternative, NSO would be permitted within 1,500-feet of a bald eagle nest and/or communal 

roost site, and no surface-disturbing activities would be permitted within 1.5 mile of bald eagle nests 

during the nesting season from December 1 through August 1. This stipulation is expected to avoid 

potential impacts to bald eagles. This buffer may be modified as needed in the future to comply with the 

most current Federal guidelines. The no surface occupancy stipulation could apply to an estimated 30 

acres of FMO within 1,500 feet of known bald eagle nests, and the seasonal restriction would apply to an 

estimated 848 acres of FMO within 1.5 miles of known bald eagle nests. These stipulations could be 

applied to additional acreage, if new nests or communal roosts are identified during site assessments 

conducted prior to leasing. 

Leases containing potential habitat for specials status plant species, including Federally-listed and 

candidate species, as well as those ranked as critically imperiled (S-1) and imperiled (S-2) by the 

Alabama Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) would require botanical surveys prior to surface-disturbing 

activities. Operations would be excluded from areas supporting these special status plant species. This 

stipulation is expected to protect most naturally occurring glades, prairies, and other habitats which 

support special status plant species. This stipulation is estimated to apply to 103 acres of FMO. This is 

based on known occurrences of special status plants on FMO, and because most of the private land 

overlaying FMO has not been inventoried for special status plants, this stipulation is expected to be 

applied more broadly at the lease stage based on site assessments conducted prior to leasing. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Closing tracts to motorized use or restricting public vehicle use to designated roads and authorized ROWs 

(depending on tract) would prevent habitat damage to occupied Alabama beach mouse habitat, as well as 

sea turtle nesting habitat and important shore bird loafing and foraging areas. These closures or 

restrictions would be consistent with Florida Department of Environmental Management requirements 

that requires permits for use of vehicles on State beaches, and would allow BLM to sign and more 

effectively enforce vehicle closures and restrictions. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Under this alternative, two Fort Morgan Beach tract lots (Lots 73 and 74) would be transferred to USFWS 

for inclusion in the Bon Secour NWR. No new disturbance would be allowed for ROWs on BLM surface 

tracts. This would include the existing ROW corridors on the Fort Morgan Highway tracts, which are 

designated as critical habitat for Alabama beach mouse, although maintenance of these existing ROWs 

would be permitted. The existing utility ROWs on the Fort Morgan Beach tracts have been repeatedly 

disturbed and maintained in an early seral stage dominated by grasses and herbaceous growth. The 

continued maintenance of these utility corridors prevents the establishment of the scrub vegetation 

characteristic of this elevation. In addition, these disturbed sites are prone to the establishment of exotic, 

invasive plant species, particularly cogon grass and Chinese tallow which are common along the Highway 

180 corridor. Cogon grass is very difficult to eradicate and establishes dense stands that displace native 

vegetation communities. Maintenance activities may introduce additional invasive exotic species in the 

utility corridors, which would adversely affect Alabama beach mouse critical habitat. Additional work 

may be needed to assess the role modified areas play in Alabama beach mouse habitat and to determine 

BMPs regarding the maintenance of this ROW corridor. 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

Impacts from suppressing all wildland fires and allowing prescribed burning on a case-by-case basis 

would be the same as Alternative 1. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-31 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions, such as removing invasive species and conducting 

prescribed fire, on 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. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions, such as conducting prescribed burns to improve habitat, 

would reduce the potential for changes in the vegetation communities from invasive species. Treatments 

to improve habitat conditions would maintain or restore natural fire regimes through removal of decadent 

vegetation or invasive species. This would improve the ability to manage wildland fire in its natural role 

through application of prescribed fires. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts to wildland fire ecology and management from anticipated oil and gas development and 

associated disturbance of 105 acres would be the same as Alternative 1; however, impacts would not 

occur on the closed (8,297 acres) and NSO (94,589 acres) areas created through applying the stipulations 

in Appendix D. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

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 designated routes. This would 

decrease the ease of accessibility to these areas and reduce the potential for additional ignition sources 

through increased human use. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

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. This 

would also decrease infrastructure needing protection, but would also decrease improvements in 

accessibility to fires and providing fire-breaks on these tracts. Impacts from potential ROW development 

on the Jordan Lake and Fort Morgan Highway tracts would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Cultural Resources 

Impacts from cultural resources management and wildland fire management actions would be the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions, such as removing invasive species and conducting 

prescribed fire, on surface tracts would increase ground disturbance and associated potential impacts to 

cultural resources. Activities to control noxious and invasive plant species on the Coosa River and 

Geneva tracts could result in surface and shallow subsurface disturbance, which could introduce organic 

materials to lower soil layers, contaminating shallow subsurface cultural resource sites containing early 

historic or prehistoric datable organics. Surface and shallow subsurface effects could also include 

horizontal and vertical displacement of the upper portion of soils which could compromise depositional 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-32 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

context and integrity, and causing artifact damage. Surveys completed prior to treatments would result in 

the identification of cultural sites. Weed control with non-disturbing methods would have no impacts. 

There would be no impact to cultural resources on the Fort Morgan Beach Tracts, Fort Morgan Highway 

Tracts, Fowl River Tract, and Jordan Lake Tract as these areas have been inventoried and do not contain 

cultural sites. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions, such as conducting prescribed burns, would increase 

ground disturbance and associated potential impacts to cultural resources similar to that discussed under 

Impacts from Vegetative Management Actions. Wildlife habitat manipulation would require cultural 

resource inventories and clearance prior to ground disturbance to identify the presence of any cultural 

sites and avoid or mitigate any potential damage. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Cultural resource impacts could occur from managing 119,231 acres of non-USFS FMO as open to 

leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions and 91,702 acres of non-USFS FMO as CSU. 

Based on the RFD, oil and gas developments within these areas would impact 105 acres through the 

development of 20 wells over 20 years. Development on these acres would typically be subject to Class 

III cultural resource inventories and evaluation on a project-by-project basis prior to allowing disturbance, 

resulting in the identification and potential excavation of cultural sites. Stipulations and BMPs applied 

under this alternative would protect and preserve cultural resources on the 94,589 acres managed as NSO 

and in areas where surface disturbance would be precluded (8,297 acres). 

Impacts to cultural resources from coal development would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Although surface tracts would be closed or limited to motorized use under this alternative, the level of 

activity that could impact cultural resources would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 

since these tracts are not anticipated to be used extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

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

percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) would be managed as ROW avoidance areas, there would 

be less potential for ground disturbance and impacts to cultural resources associated with ROW 

development compared to Alternative 1. If a ROW were proposed on the Fort Morgan Highway and 

Jordan Lake tracts, an appropriate level of cultural resource survey and consultation with the SHPO under 

NHPA Section 106 regulations would need to be conducted prior to approval. A cultural resource survey 

would also be required if existing ROWs on the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts were 

expanded or modified. Construction projects could result in inadvertent damage if cultural resources that 

were undetected during surveys were unearthed during ground-disturbing activities. Following discovery 

of cultural resources, activities would stop in accordance with terms and conditions in the ROW grant 

which would minimize further damage to cultural resources. Collocating ROWs where possible would 

reduce the amount of surface disturbance and potential for inadvertent damage. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-33 

Visual Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Undertaking actions to improve vegetation communities, such as removing invasive species, on the 

surface tracts would temporarily diminish visual quality. Visual quality would be improved in the long 

term as the condition of vegetation communities improve to meet VRM class objectives. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Undertaking actions to improve fish and wildlife habitat on the surface tracts, such as prescribed burning, 

would temporarily diminish visual quality. Visual quality would be improved in the long term as wildliferelated recreation and habitat conditions were improved to meet VRM class objectives. 

Constructing dune walk-over structures and installing sand fencing to enhance and protect existing dune 

habitat on the Fort Morgan Beach tract would introduce developments in previously undeveloped areas 

and thereby diminish visual quality if the developments were to dominate the view of the casual observer. 

Any potential impacts could be mitigated through careful placement in low-lying areas and applying 

treatments to blend any structures in with the natural setting. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Since approximately 105 acres of vegetation removal and construction activities would result from the 

development of 20 oil and gas wells (as with Alternative 1), impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Stipulations applied under this alternative could indirectly protect visual resources on the 94,589 acres 

managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (8,297 acres). Since no mineral 

development activities would occur on the surface tracts, there would be no violations of VRM class 

objectives. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Continuing to allow recreation use on the surface tracts would result in impacts similar to those described 

under Alternative 1. Since the tracts would be managed as limited or closed to motorized vehicle use, 

impacts to visual quality would be reduced as there would be less potential for vegetation and soil 

removal from these activities. Furthermore, because the surface tracts are not currently used extensively 

for recreation, anticipated impacts would be minimal. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a total of 114 acres or 71 

percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) as ROW avoidance areas would retain the visual quality on 

these tracts since ROWs would not be approved on the tract unless it met resource objectives. Making the 

Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts available for ROWs could further diminish visual resource 

qualities if the ROWs were to dominate the view of the casual observer; however, collocating ROWs 

could reduce the extent of impacts to visual quality. 

Minerals 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-34 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Applying the lease stipulations and BMPs in Appendix D could restrict or preclude oil and gas 

development and exploration. Impacts would not be anticipated on approximately 119,231 acres open to 

leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions. Managing approximately 91,702 acres as open to 

leasing, subject to minor constraints and 94,589 acres as open to leasing, subject to major constraints 

would allow for recovery of resources and could increase development costs. Allowing for exceptions, 

waivers, and modifications to these stipulations could create opportunities for the discovery of new oil 

and gas resources. Closing 8,297 acres to oil and gas leasing would preclude oil and gas development and 

exploration in these areas. 

Impacts to coal leasing and development would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Lands and realty management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Undertaking actions to improve vegetation communities, such as removing invasive species, on the 

surface tracts would temporarily diminish the recreation experience since recreationists could be 

displaced from vegetation treatment areas until revegetation occurs. The recreation experience would be 

improved in the long term as the condition of vegetation communities improve by improving the longterm aesthetics of an area. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Undertaking actions to improve wildlife habitat on the surface tracts, such as prescribed burning, would 

temporarily diminish the recreation experience since recreationists could be displaced from protected 

areas or treated areas until revegetation occurs. The recreation experience would be improved in the long 

term as wildlife-related recreation and habitat conditions are improved by improving the long term 

aesthetics and wildlife viewing of an area. 

Constructing dune walk-over structures and installing sand fencing to enhance and protect existing dune 

habitat on the Fort Morgan Beach tract would enhance the recreation experience. Installing walk-overs 

and fencing would introduce developments in previously undeveloped areas, it would also introduce 

intrusions to the natural setting. While this could reduce some recreationists experience, these facilities 

are generally accepted by the public. Any potential impacts could be mitigated through applying 

treatments to blend any structures in with the natural setting. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-35 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

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 (as with Alternative 1), impacts would be the 

same as Alternative 1. Stipulations applied under this alternative could indirectly protect the recreational 

opportunities on the 94,589 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded 

(8,297 acres) by precluding ground disturbance and infrastructure associated with oil and gas 

development. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Continuing to allow recreation use on the surface tracts would result in impacts similar to those described 

under Alternative 1. Since motorized vehicle use would be limited or closed on the surface tracts, more 

non-motorized recreation opportunities would increase while there could be a loss of travel opportunities. 

Since surface tracts are not currently used extensively for motorized travel, the anticipated impact would 

be minimal. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Impacts from the transfer of Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts to the USFWS would be the 

same as Alternative 1. Managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a 

total of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) as ROW avoidance areas would 

retain the recreation experience on these tracts. Making the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts 

available for ROWs could diminish the quality of the recreation experience. These actions could provide 

additional opportunities for travel due to the construction of access roads. 

Lands and Realty 

Under Alternative 2, the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a total of 114 

acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) would be managed as avoidance areas for ROW. 

This 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 (by allowing pipelines 

and transmission lines), and minimize additional costs; however, new ROW would be restricted to the 

existing ROW corridor on the Fort Morgan Highway tract and ROW would be co-located if possible on 

the Jordan Lake tract. This would affect desired placement of facilities on these tracts. 

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. Partnerships would allow for more efficient and 

comprehensive resource management of the surface tracts. 

Social and Economic 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

This alternative includes the removal of invasive species on three BLM land tracts and the planting of 

dune vegetation on the Fort Morgan Beach tract. Impacts from these actions on the economic indicators 

would not be anticipated from these types of vegetation management actions. Stakeholders who value 

access may be impacted by restrictions to the Fort Morgan Beach tracts from planting activities. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-36 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Impacts to social and economic conditions from fish and wildlife habitat management actions would be 

the same as impacts identified from Vegetative Communities management actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

The same number of wells and acres of surface disturbance as Alternative 1 are anticipated under this 

alternative. This alternative would apply leasing stipulations to protect sensitive species and their habitats, 

including buffers for wetland and aquatic resources. Relative to Alternative 1, the exploration and 

development costs could increase while the availability for locations for well pads could decrease. This 

alternative would also provide for the greatest amount of protection for wetland resources. Since the 

number of wells anticipated is small relative to total wells in the area, there would be minimal changes, 

with possibly slight increases in employment or income (and the same as Alternative 1). Social indicators 

such as housing, education, and cost of living would not be anticipated to change under this alternative. 

Similar disturbances from oil and gas development would occur as compared to Alternative 1, although 

potential impacts to wetlands, soils, vegetation, habitat, and wildlife would be anticipated to be reduced 

under this alternative due to the implementation of seasonal, NSO, CSU stipulations. Oil and gas 

development and production can have implications for visual and scenic qualities as well as property 

values, as described under Alternative 1. These impacts are likely less than those under Alternative 1, as 

there are more conditions and constraints on well-pad locations under Alternative 2.Industry costs and 

availability for well pad locations would likely increase under this alternative, which would result in 

adverse impacts for the oil and gas industry. 

Under this alternative, impacts would be the same as Alternative 1 for coal development. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Under this alternative, surface tracts would be open to recreational use, but designated as limited for 

OHVs, and vehicle use is only allowed on public roads and authorized ROW. Social and economic 

conditions would be similar to Alternative 1 since minimal changes in recreation and travel management 

are anticipated. However, OHV users would likely be adversely impacted if trails and roads are closed to 

this type of motorized use. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Although the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts would be managed as 

ROW avoidance areas, impacts to social and economic conditions would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Hazardous Materials 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-37 

4.2.3 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) 

Air Quality 

Under this alternative, there is a potential for wildfire which could lead to air emissions. Since all fires 

would be suppressed, these occurrences would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to 

individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Anticipated levels of oil and gas and coal development and associated air emissions would be the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Although surface tracts would be closed or limited to motorized use under this alternative, the level of 

activity contributing to emissions would not change compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not 

used extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

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

percent of BLM surface ownership in Alabama) would be managed as ROW avoidance areas, there would 

be less potential for emissions associated with the use of trucks and heavy equipment (bulldozers, etc.) for 

ROW development compared to Alternative 1. Impacts from potential ROW development on the Jordan 

Lake and Fort Morgan Highway tracts would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Soil Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

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 

(117,506 acres), and NSO (43,239 acres) restrictions would be implemented, which would reduce 

disturbance to soils within the protected areas. Under this alternative, the NSO area around aquatic 

habitats identified in Alternative 2 would be reduced to 250-feet, which would reduce protections to soils 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-38 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

within these areas as compared to Alternative 2. In most cases, this buffer is expected to prevent 

construction activities from increasing erosion to the point that sedimentation of local drainages and 

wetlands increases. In areas with slopes over 25 percent, additional measures may be needed to stabilize 

disturbed soils. Impacts to prime or unique farmlands would be the same as described for Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Although surface tracts would be closed or limited to motorized use under this alternative, the level of 

activity and associated impacts to soil resources would not be anticipated to change compared to 

Alternative 1 since these tracts are not used extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Disposing the surface tracts 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 would limit or restrict activities that impact soils. Although development once the tracts are 

disposed could result in soil impacts from vegetation-clearing activities and construction ground 

disturbance, limitations for habitat protection and resource management would be likely to reduce the 

potential for erosion or loss in soil productivity. The effects from ground disturbance during construction, 

vegetation treatments, or habitat improvements would be short term. If permanent roads or structures are 

constructed on the tracts, the effects would be long term but localized. 

ROW management actions and associated impacts to soils would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Water Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

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 

(117,506 acres), and NSO (43,239 acres) restrictions would be implemented, which would reduce 

disturbance to water resources within the protected areas. Under this alternative, the NSO area around 

aquatic habitats identified in Alternative 2 would be reduced to 250-feet, which would allow development 

to occur in close proximity to water resources and the potential for impacts to occur. In most cases, this 

buffer is expected to prevent construction activities from increasing the sedimentation of local drainages 

and wetlands. In areas with slopes over 25 percent, additional measures may be needed to stabilize 

disturbed soils above wetlands or aquatic habitats to the point they aren’t impacted by increased 

sedimentation. 

Impacts from coal mining would be the same as Alternative 1. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-39 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Although surface tracts would be closed or limited to motorized use under this alternative, the level of 

activity and associated impacts to water resources would not be anticipated to change compared to 

Alternative 1 since these tracts are not used extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Disposing the surface tracts 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 would limit or restrict activities that impact water resources. Although development of the 

tracts could involve vegetation-clearing activities and construction ground disturbance that could increase 

surface runoff and degrade water quality, limitations for habitat protection and resource management 

would be likely to reduce the potential for these impacts. The effects from ground disturbance during 

construction, vegetation treatments, or habitat improvements would be short term. If permanent roads or 

structures are constructed on the tracts, the effects would be long term but localized. 

ROW management actions and associated impacts to water resources would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Vegetative Communities 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Under this alternative oil and gas development would be excluded from a 250 foot buffer around wetland 

and aquatic habitats and could be extended up to 600 feet where slopes exceed 10 percent. This buffer 

could be reduced to 100 feet where slopes are less than 10 percent, where there are no special status 

species issues. This buffer is expected to be adequate to protect most riparian zones and wetland habitats. 

It is estimated that this stipulation would apply to 38,111 acres or about 12 percent of the FMO, versus 

90,930 or approximately 29 percent of the FMO in Alabama. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Impacts from ROWs would be the same as Alternative 2. Under this alternative the Fort Morgan, Fowl 

River, and Coosa River tracts would be available for transfer to other agencies or groups, but future 

management would be constrained by the management objectives outlined in this plan. All of the Fort 

Morgan Beach and Highway tracts would be transferred to the Bon Secour NWR, and would be managed 

as part of that refuge. Geneva County and Jordan Lake tracts would be available for transfer out of 

Federal ownership. Impacts to vegetation on the Fort Morgan, Fowl River, and Coosa River tracts would 

be the same as Alternative 2. The sale of the Geneva County tract is not expected to change the current 

uses and no impacts to vegetation are anticipated. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-40 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Fish and Wildlife 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts would be similar to those discussed under special status species. The acreage disturbed would be 

same and wells would be shifted away from sensitive habitats, although under this alternative the buffer 

would be reduced to 250-feet, with the option of increasing it to 600-feet where needed because of steep 

slopes or erosive soils. The buffer could be reduced to 100-feet where slopes are less than 10 percent and 

there are no special status species issues. These buffers are expected to be sufficient for most wildlife 

species, using wetland and aquatic habitats, but interior forest nesting birds and some amphibians and 

reptiles may be impacted by this reduced buffer through habitat disturbance. Karst habitats and most 

naturally occurring prairies and glades would be protected under this alternative. 

Under this alternative, the coastal no lease areas would be replaced with a NSO buffer. This change has 

some potential to promote offsite drilling. Disturbance of maritime habitats would contribute to the loss 

of important foraging habitats for migrating song-birds and shore-birds nesting in nearby dunes. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Impacts from ROWs would be the same as Alternative 2. No impacts to wildlife are anticipated from the 

disposal of the Geneva County tract because no land use changes are expected. 

Special Status Species 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

The number of wells (20) and acres disturbed (105) would remain the same under this alternative and 

impacts would be the same as Alternative 2, except in the following situations. 

The aquatic and wetland buffer would be reduced to 250-feet. In areas where slopes exceed 10 percent, 

the buffer could be extended up to 600-feet to provide adequate protection. In areas with slopes less than 

10 percent, the 250-foot buffer could be reduced to a minimum of 100-feet, if the adjacent waterway or 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-41 

wetlands have been surveyed and no special status species occur within 100-yards upstream and 300-

yards downstream of the site. This stipulation could be applied to an estimated 38,111 acres or 12 percent 

of the non-USFS FMO 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. In areas with 

slopes over 25 percent, additional measures may be needed to stabilize disturbed soils above wetlands or 

aquatic habitats. 

Under this alternative, the coastal no lease areas would be replaced with a NSO buffer. This change could 

affect nesting sea turtles, piping plover, and critical habitat for Alabama beach mouse, including adjacent 

upland scrub habitats. Although no surface disturbance would occur on non-USFS FMO or BLM surface 

tracts, offsite directional drilling to target these Federal minerals would be permitted under this 

alternative. Any directional wells targeting non-USFS FMO that may affect Federally-listed species or 

critical habitat would require coordination with the USFWS. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Impacts from ROW would be the same as Alternative 2. Under this alternative, the Fort Morgan, Fowl 

River, and Coosa River tracts would be available for transfer to other agencies or groups, but future 

management would be constrained by the management objectives outlined in this plan. All of the Fort 

Morgan Beach and Highway tracts would be transferred to the Bon Secour NWR and would be managed 

as part of that refuge. Alabama beach mouse, piping plover, and snowy plover would benefit from the 

same activities discussed under Alternative 2. 

Under this alternative, the Geneva and Jordan Lake tracts would be transferred out of Federal ownership. 

This tract is adjacent to Gulf sturgeon critical habitat, but no changes of use are anticipated. At the Jordan 

Lake tract, there may be opportunities to construct boat docks or other lake access facilities, but the tract 

may be too narrow to prompt the construction of additional camps. In both cases the overall use pattern is 

not expected to change and no adverse effects to special status species anticipated. 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

Impacts from suppressing all wildland fires and allowing prescribed burning on a case-by-case basis 

would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts to wildland fire ecology and management from anticipated oil and gas development and 

associated disturbance of 105 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. Impacts would not occur on the 

closed (8,179 acres) and NSO (43,239 acres) areas created through applying the stipulations in Appendix 

D. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-42 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Cultural Resources 

Impacts from cultural resources management and wildland fire management actions would be the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts to cultural resources from management of non-USFS FMO would be the same as Alternative 2, 

except 144,895 acres would be managed as open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions, 

117,506 acres as CSU, 43,239 acres as NSO, and 8,179 acres as closed. The 105 acres of disturbance 

resulting from the anticipated 20 wells could impact cultural resources within areas managed as open to 

leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions or CSU. Impacts to cultural resources are not 

anticipated in areas managed as NSO or closed since surface disturbance would be precluded. 

Impacts to cultural resources from coal development would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Although surface tracts would be closed or limited to motorized use under this alternative, the level of 

activity and associated impacts to cultural resources would not be anticipated to change compared to 

Alternative 1 since these tracts are not used extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Making the surface tracts available for disposal could result in the removal of cultural properties from 

Federal ownership and the associated protection by laws, regulations, and policies. Before any transfer of 

management responsibilities or ownership, an appropriate level of cultural resource survey and 

consultation with the SHPO under NHPA Section 106 regulations would need to be conducted. Disposing 

the property from Federal ownership would remove protection of any cultural resources under Federal 

law; however, by applying conditions and restrictive covenants on management and use after disposal, 

damage to previously undetected cultural resources could be mitigated. 

Management actions and impacts associated with ROW development would be the same as Alternative 2. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-43 

Visual Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Since approximately 105 acres of vegetation removal and construction activities would result from the 

development of 20 oil and gas wells (as with Alternative 1), impacts would be similar to Alternative 1. 

Stipulations applied under this alternative could preclude oil and gas development thereby protecting 

visual resources on the 43,239 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be 

precluded (8,179 acres). Since no mineral development activities would occur on the surface tracts, there 

would be no violations of VRM class objectives. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts to visual resources would be the same 

as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

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, specified 

conditions on management and use after disposal to meet resource objectives would protect visual quality. 

ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Minerals 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Applying the lease stipulations and BMPs in Appendix D could restrict or preclude oil and gas 

development and exploration. Under this alternative, the NSO area around aquatic habitats identified in 

Alternative 2 would be reduced to 250 feet and the no lease stipulation for Alabama beach mouse habitat 

would be NSO. Impacts would not be anticipated on approximately 144,895 acres open to leasing subject 

to standard lease terms and conditions. Managing approximately 117,506 acres as open to leasing, subject 

to minor constraints and 43,239 acres as open to leasing, subject to major constraints could increase 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-44 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

development costs. Allowing for exceptions, waivers, and modifications to these stipulations could create 

opportunities for the discovery of new oil and gas resources. 

Impacts to coal leasing and development would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Lands and realty management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts to recreation and travel would be the 

same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife management actions and associated impacts to recreation and travel would be the same 

as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Since approximately 105 acres of vegetation removal and construction activities would result from the 

development of 20 oil and gas wells (as with Alternative 1), impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Stipulations applied under this alternative could indirectly protect the recreational opportunities on the 

43,239 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (8,179 acres) by 

eliminating associated ground disturbances, noise, and infrastructure. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Impacts from the transfer of Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts to the USFWS would be the 

same as 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, specified conditions on management and use after disposal to meet resource 

objectives could protect recreational settings, although access could be reduced if not specifically 

included in the conditions for use or restrictive covenants. 

ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-45 

Lands and Realty 

ROW management actions and associated impacts to lands and realty would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Under Alternative 3, the Coosa River and Fowl River 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. 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 (including Lots 73 and 74) 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 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 non-Federal ownership without specified conditions on future 

use of the tracts. 

Social and Economic 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts to social and economic conditions 

would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Impacts to social and economic conditions from fish and wildlife habitat management actions would be 

the same as impacts identified from vegetative communities management actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

The same number of wells and acres of surface disturbance as Alternative 1 is anticipated under this 

alternative; however, this alternative places leasing stipulations to protect sensitive species and their 

habitats, including buffers for wetland and aquatic resources. Relative to Alternative 1, the exploration 

and development costs could increase while the availability for locations of well pads could decrease, 

which would result in adverse impacts to the oil and gas industry. Since the number of wells anticipated is 

small relative to total wells in the area, there would be minimal social and economic changes, possibly 

slight increases in employment or income, as compared with the current situation. Oil and gas 

development and production can have implications for visual and scenic qualities as well as property 

values. These impacts are likely less than those under Alternative 1, as there are more conditions and 

constraints on well-pad locations under Alternative 3. Social indicators such as housing, education, and 

cost of living would not be anticipated to change under this alternative. 

Under Alternative 3, impacts would be the same as Alternative 1 for coal development. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Under Alternative 3, socioeconomic impacts would be the same as those identified under Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Under Alternative 3, Lots 73 and 74 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. Although development could be allowed on these properties, it would be limited or restricted 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-46 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

to activities that are consistent with prescribed resource management objectives. Since the types of 

activities on these lands are not likely to considerably change, there would be minimal impact to social 

and economic conditions under this alternative. 

Hazardous Materials 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-47 

4.2.4 Alternative 4 

Air Quality 

Under this alternative, there is a potential for wildfire which could lead to air emissions. Since all fires 

would be suppressed, these occurrences would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to 

individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would deteriorate air quality conditions. Prescribed burning 

conducted to meet vegetation resource objectives would be short term and localized and not be 

anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed 

under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and 

protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of 

prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would deteriorate air quality conditions. Prescribed burning 

conducted to meet habitat objectives would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to 

individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Anticipated levels of oil and gas and coal development and associated air emissions would be the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Although surface tracts would be closed or limited to motorized use under this alternative, the level of 

activity contributing to emissions would not change compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not 

used extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

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

percent of BLM surface ownership in Alabama) would be managed as ROW avoidance areas, there would 

be less potential for emissions associated with the use of trucks and heavy equipment (bulldozers, etc.) for 

ROW development compared to Alternative 1. Impacts from potential ROW development on the Jordan 

Lake and Fort Morgan Highway tracts would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Soil Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-48 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in disturbance or loss of soils. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed 

under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and 

protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of 

prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in disturbance or loss of soils. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts to soil resources from minerals management, including oil and gas and coal development, would 

be the same as Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Although surface tracts would be closed or limited to motorized use under this alternative, the level of 

activity that could impact soil resources would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 

since these tracts are not used extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Disposing the tracts from Federal ownership with no restrictive covenants could increase chances for 

subsequent development and associated impacts to soil resources. This could result in impacts to soils 

from vegetation-clearing activities and construction ground disturbance, which could increase surface 

runoff and erosion. The effects from ground disturbance during construction, vegetation treatments, or 

habitat improvements would be short term. If permanent roads or structures are constructed on the tracts, 

the effects would be long term but localized. 

ROW management actions and associated impacts to soil resources would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Water Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to water quality. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed 

under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and 

protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of 

prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to water quality. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-49 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts to water resources from minerals management, including oil and gas and coal development, 

would be the same as Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Although surface tracts would be closed or limited to motorized use under this alternative, the level of 

activity that could impact water resources would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 

since these tracts are not used extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Disposing the tracts from Federal ownership with no restrictive covenants could increase chances for 

subsequent development and associated impacts to water resources, as described under the impacts to soil 

resources section. 

ROW management actions and associated impacts to water resources would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Vegetative Communities 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives 

would be allowed; however, 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. Chinese privet is 

likely to continue to spread on the Coosa River tracts, and the Fort Morgan highway tracts are vulnerable 

to both Cogon grass and Chinese tallow. Cogon grass in particular, once established, would displace 

native herbaceous plant species and ultimately could reduce some shrub and tree components by 

increasing the frequency of wild fires and crowding out seedlings. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State 

wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and 

wetland enhancements, would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed 

could result in the same impacts discussed under impacts from vegetative communities management 

actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts from minerals management, including oil and gas and coal development, would be the same as 

Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-50 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Following disposal, it is assumed that the Fort Morgan and Fowl River tracts would be developed for 

residential or recreational use, and that recreational facilities would be constructed on the Coosa River 

and Jordan Lake tracts. It is expected that there would be some short term and long term loss of 

vegetation at all of these sites depending on the extent of the development as a result of vegetation 

removal, conversion to development, and introduction of invasive species. No impacts to vegetation are 

anticipated at the Geneva County tract as changes of use are not anticipated. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No vegetative communities management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives 

would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in habitat 

degradation on any of the BLM surface tracts. The maritime forests, scrubs, and flatwoods on the Fort 

Morgan Highway tracts are particularly vulnerable to Cogon grass and Chinese tallow. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State 

wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and 

wetland enhancements, would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed 

could result in the same impacts discussed under impacts from vegetative communities management 

actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts from minerals management, including oil and gas and coal development, would be the same as 

Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Impacts from ROW actions would be similar to Alternative 2. After transfer to private ownership, the Fort 

Morgan and Fowl River tracts are expected to be developed for residential and recreational use. At Fort 

Morgan, private development of the beach tracts could result in the loss of up to 28.7 acres of habitat for 

nesting and wintering shorebirds. Additional development of the Fort Morgan highway tracts could result 

in the loss of up to 41.28 acres of maritime forest, scrub and wetland habitats. These tracts are part of a 

narrow band of habitat that provides crucial refuge for migrating songbirds, as well as resident wading 

birds, song birds and a wide variety of reptiles and amphibians, including alligators and up to eight native 

frog species. 

Development of the Fowl River tract would likely result in the loss of wetland habitats and increased 

public use that would exclude more secretive wildlife, including many species of wading birds. 

Recreational development of the Jordon Lake and Coosa River tracts is not expected to alter species 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-51 

diversity or patterns of use at those tracts since the Jordan Lake tract is already developed for recreation 

and the Coosa River tracts are generally inaccessible islands. 

Special Status Species 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives 

would be allowed; however, 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. 

Under this alternative, BLM would not actively promote the restoration of coastal dunes through 

plantings/sand fence installation projects following damage by major storm events. These dune 

restoration projects promote sand deposition and facilitate the return of habitat conditions suitable for 

Alabama beach mouse. Without these projects it is likely to take longer for sand to accumulate and for 

dune vegetation to become re-established, postponing the reestablishment of Alabama beach mouse 

populations after catastrophic events. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State 

wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and 

wetland enhancements, would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed 

could result in the same impacts discussed under impacts from vegetative communities management 

actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts from minerals management, including oil and gas and coal development, would be the same as 

Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

The transfer of the BLM surface tracts to private ownership is likely to result in loss of habitat for the 

Alabama beach mouse, piping plover, snowy plover, and bald eagle, as well as potential habitat for 

Alabama red-belly turtle. Any development of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would result in the direct 

loss of occupied critical habitat for the Alabama beach mouse. Development of the highway tracts are 

likely to result in the loss of important scrub habitats designated as critical habitat. Because the Fort 

Morgan Beach and Highway tracts are designated critical habitat, USFWS would have to authorize a 

taking permit through the Section 7 process of the Endangered Species Act to before such transfers could 

be approved. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-52 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Recreational development of the Coosa River tracts could result in abandonment of the existing bald 

eagle nest and exclude future nesting, depending on the location of facilities and intensity of public use. 

No impacts to special status species are expected as a result of anticipated development on the Fowl 

River, Jordon Lake or Geneva County tracts. At Fowl River, it is unlikely that any future development of 

the site would substantially alter the wetland characteristics of the site and render it unsuitable for redbelly turtle. The Jordon Lake tract does support any known populations of special status species. No 

development is expected to occur on the Geneva County tract, which is adjacent to critical habitat for the 

Gulf sturgeon. 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

Impacts from suppressing all wildland fires and allowing prescribed burning on a case-by-case basis 

would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Although no specific vegetative communities actions are proposed, allowing vegetation manipulation to 

meet resources objectives under standard management common to all alternatives would serve to decrease 

vegetation density and cover (fuel load) and maintain natural fuel conditions across the surface tracts. 

This would maintain natural disturbance regimes which would be easier to manage through prescribed 

fire or other treatments. This would also decrease the frequency and intensity of wildland fires and allow 

fires to be more easily controlled, better protecting life, public safety, and property and resource values. 

However, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in invasions and fuel 

accumulations that would increase the frequency and intensity of wildland fires. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed under this alternative, therefore no 

impacts would be anticipated. Under standard management common to all alternatives, providing habitat 

improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive 

plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would result in impacts similar to those 

discussed under impacts from vegetative communities management actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Minerals management actions and associated impacts to wildland fire ecology and management would be 

the same as Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Impacts to wildland fire ecology and management from recreation and travel management actions would 

be the same as Alternative 2 because travel designations would be the same for this alternative. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Cultural Resources 

Impacts from cultural resources management and wildland fire management actions would be the same as 

Alternative 1. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-53 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would require cultural resource clearances before activity were 

to occur; therefore, impacts would not be anticipated. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed 

under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and 

protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of 

prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would require cultural resource clearances before activity 

were to occur; therefore, impacts would not be anticipated. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts to cultural resources from minerals management, including oil and gas and coal development, 

would be the same as Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Although surface tracts would be closed or limited to motorized use under this alternative, the level of 

activity and associated potential impacts to cultural resources would not be anticipated to change 

compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not used extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Making the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach (Lots 13, 14, 24, 54 and 55), Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl 

River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts available for disposal could result in the removal of cultural 

properties from Federal ownership and the associated protection by laws, regulations, and policies. Before 

any transfer of management responsibilities or ownership, an appropriate level of cultural resource survey 

and consultation with the SHPO under NHPA Section 106 regulations would need to be conducted. 

Disposing the property from Federal ownership would remove protection of any cultural resources under 

Federal law. Disposing the tracts without any specified management or use would increase the potential 

for damage or loss of previously undetected cultural resources after the transfer. 

Management actions and impacts associated with ROW development would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Visual Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to visual quality. Although visual quality 

would deteriorate in the short term, visual quality would improve in the long term once vegetation has 

reestablished to meet VRM class objectives. 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-54 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed 

under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and 

protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of 

prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to visual quality. Although visual quality 

would deteriorate in the short term, visual quality would improve in the long term once vegetation has 

reestablished to meet VRM class objectives. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Minerals management, including oil and gas and coal development, and associated impacts to visual 

resources would be the same as Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel managements actions and associated impacts to visual resources would be the same 

as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Making the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach (Lots 13, 14, 24, 54, and 55), Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl 

River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts available for disposal from Federal ownership without conditions 

could result in changes to existing natural or manmade landforms, which would diminish visual quality if 

the use were to dominate the view of the casual observer. Following disposal, private development 

actions could create visually intrusive development. 

ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Minerals 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Mineral management actions for oil and gas and coal and associated impacts would be the same as 

Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-55 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Lands and realty management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to recreation. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat 

improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive 

plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve 

ground disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to recreation. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Minerals management actions and associated impacts to recreation and travel would be the same as 

Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Impacts from the transfer of Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts to the USFWS would be the 

same as Alternative 1. Making the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach (Lots 13, 14, 24, 54, and 55), Fort 

Morgan Highway, Fowl River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts available for disposal from Federal 

ownership without conditions could result in reduced access for recreation and travel opportunities. 

Following disposal, tracts could be made unavailable for public recreation and inaccessible to travel. 

ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Lands and Realty 

ROW management actions and associated impacts to lands and realty would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Transferring Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts to the USFWS as part of the Bon Secour 

NWR would facilitate Federal management of the lots. Under Alternative 4, the Coosa River, Fort 

Morgan Beach, Fort Morgan Highway, and Fowl River tracts would be available for disposal from 

Federal ownership with no restrictive covenants. This would allow for opportunities for other Federal 

agency or non-Federal ownership without specified conditions on future use of the tracts; however, 

disposal would not be allowed if it would jeopardize Federally-listed species or designated critical habitat, 

which could limit some disposals. The Geneva and Jordan Lake tracts would be available for disposal 
Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-56 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

from Federal ownership, which would allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or non-Federal 

ownership without specified conditions on future use of the tracts. 

Social and Economic 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Impacts to social and economic conditions would not be anticipated from vegetative communities 

management actions since no actions are proposed under this alternative. Standard management actions 

common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation manipulation to meet resource objectives, 

would not be anticipated to be of an extent that would result in impacts to economic or social conditions. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Impacts to social and economic conditions would not be anticipated from fish and wildlife habitat 

management actions since no actions are anticipated. Standard management actions common to all 

alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation 

strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, 

would not be anticipated to be of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to economic or social 

conditions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Minerals management actions, including oil and gas and coal development, and associated impacts to 

social and economic conditions would be the same as Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Under Alternative 4, socioeconomic impacts would be the same as those identified under Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Under Alternative 4, Lots 73 and 74 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 without conditions on management and use after disposal. This could result in reduced access 

for recreational activities on these lands and changes to the existing natural landscape. Additionally, 

private recreational or residential development could impact visual resources, habitat quality, and wildlife 

populations. Since development could be allowed on these properties, it is possible that the property tax 

revenues to the local counties would increase more than the Federal Payments in Lieu of Taxes, 

economically benefiting the counties and the State. It is possible that the private development of these 

tracts could slightly increase employment and income in these areas. Social indicators, such as housing, 

education, and cost of living are not expected to be influenced by the minimal development. 

Hazardous Materials 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-57 

4.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS FROM BLM MANAGEMENT 

ACTIONS IN MISSISSIPPI

This section discusses the potential impacts anticipated from implementation of the management actions 

under each alternative for the Hancock County tract in Mississippi and for non-USFS FMO on about 

517,934 acres in 79 Mississippi counties. Impacts from the allowable uses and management actions 

proposed for the Hancock County Tract are analyzed if the R&PP patent held by the University of 

Mississippi were to revert to BLM. 

This section is organized by alternative, then by resource. Under each resource, each management action 

is discussed, including: vegetative communities; fish and wildlife habitat; minerals; recreation and travel 

management; and lands and realty. A discussion of cumulative impacts for each resource is contained in 

Section 4.4.2. 

4.3.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Air Quality 

Under this alternative, there is a potential for wildfire which could lead to air emissions. Since all fires 

would be suppressed, these occurrences would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to 

individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would deteriorate air quality conditions. Prescribed burning 

conducted to meet vegetation resource objectives would be short term and localized and not be 

anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed 

under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and 

protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of 

prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would deteriorate air quality conditions. Prescribed burning 

conducted to meet habitat objectives would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to 

individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Combustion processes, construction activities, and vehicle travel associated with potential oil and gas 

development produce air emissions. Estimated emissions from the development of 10 wells over the next 

20 years on BLM-administered non-USFS FMO would produce considerably less emissions than the total 

planned oil and gas developments in the State (presented in Table 4-4). Those emissions would likely 

occur over a dispersed geographic area and would not cause any noticeable or measurable effect. 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-58 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Potential oil and gas leasing on BLM-administered non-USFS FMO is in close proximity to the Sispsy 

Wilderness in Alabama and the Breton NWR in Louisiana. These emissions could potentially deteriorate 

wilderness air quality values and ambient air quality attainment. Since emissions would be dispersed over 

a large geographic area, air quality impacts would not be anticipated. 

Table 4-4. Maximum Potential Oil and Gas Air Emissions for BLM and Non-BLM 

Activities in Mississippi (tons per year)1, 2

Emission Type/Pollutant Well Locations 

NOx SO2 PM10 CO VOC 

BLM-Administered non-USFS 

FMO Estate in Mississippi 27.5 0.3 7.8 32.9 27.5 

Other Mineral Estate Across 

Mississippi 33,028 360 9,368 39,513 33,028 

1. Using conservative assumptions typical of liquid mineral wells on BLM land. 

2. Assumption that all wells are conventional natural gas wells (BLM 2005a). 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Short term, localized increases in dust and emissions could potentially occur from recreation activities 

and motorized travel. Given the small amount and marsh nature of the Hancock County tract, these 

activities would not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Short term, localized increases in dust and emissions would occur from use of trucks and heavy 

equipment (bulldozers, etc.) in ROW development. These actions would be conducted in accordance with 

the Mississippi SIP and local dust control regulations and, given the small amount and marsh nature of 

the Hancock County tract, would not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions or 

violate air quality standards or regulations. 

Soil Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in disturbance or loss of soils. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed under this alternative; therefore, 

there would be no impacts to soil resources. Under standard management common to all alternatives, 

providing habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including 

control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be 

anticipated to involve ground disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in disturbance 

or loss of soils. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-59 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Mineral exploration, development, and operations on non-USFS FMO would include ground-disturbing 

and potential contaminant-introducing activities that could impact soils. Oil and gas development 

operations—specifically, construction of drilling pads, reserve pits, and access roads—would disturb 

topsoils and alter surface soil characteristics, which could result in both a slight decline in soil 

productivity and an increase in surface runoff. Increases in erosion and loss of soils due to oil and gas 

development are a factor of well pad design, slope, erodibility of the soils, proximity of the disturbance, 

and the intervening vegetation. The potential for erosion increases with prolonged or heavy rains that are 

typical in this area. Cut and fill slopes are particularly vulnerable before protective plant covers have been 

established. 

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 10 wells to 

be developed on non-USFS FMO in Alabama over the next 20-years would disturb approximately 55 

acres. Both Federal and State laws would require the reclamation of mined lands concurrently with 

mining operations; therefore, the required reclamation and the minimal surface that might be disturbed 

would result in only localized effects on soils. Operation of the oil and gas wells could also affect the 

surrounding soils by potential contamination from accidental spills or improper management of hazardous 

materials or waste. Federal, State, and local regulations would require site characterization and corrective 

action that would restore soil integrity and productivity. 

In few locations there are prime or unique farmlands on non-Forest Service FMO. Though not likely, it is 

possible that some of the 105 acres of soil disturbance could be on prime or unique farmland. In the event 

development is proposed in such an area, BLM would implement appropriate mitigation measures to 

avoid or minimize impacts as described in section 2.3.3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Allowing recreation activities, including motorized vehicle use on the Hancock County tract, could result 

in short term and site-specific increases in erosion; however, given the limited interest in recreation and 

travel on the tract, any potential effects would be minor and localized. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

If new ROW construction were to occur, soils could be impacted by 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 if roads or structures 

were constructed on the tracts, but would be localized. 

Water Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to water quality. 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-60 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed 

under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and 

protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of 

prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to water quality. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

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. Increases in sedimentation to streams and wetlands by oil and gas development 

are a factor of well pad design, slope, erodibility of the soils, proximity of the disturbance, and the 

vegetation composition. The potential for sedimentation increases with prolonged or heavy rains that are 

typical in this area. Sediments deposited in intermittent drainages during construction can be transported 

downstream during periods of high water, increasing turbidity in higher order streams and potentially 

affecting water quality substantial distances from the construction site. Both Federal and State laws would 

require the reclamation of mined lands concurrently with mining operations; therefore, the required 

reclamation and the minimal surface that might be disturbed would result in only localized effects on 

water resources. 

Mineral exploration, development, and operations would include ground-disturbing activities that increase 

surface run-off, which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases water quality. These activities 

could also introduce hazardous waste or result in accidental spills that could also deteriorate surface water 

quality. Leakage of drill fluids, hazardous waste spills, or leakage from reserve pits could be introduced 

into the ground water as well. Although Federal, State and local regulations would require site 

characterization and corrective action for hazardous waste and spills, impacts to the water quality could 

be localized but long term, especially affecting nonflowing waterbodies (e.g., small ponds or wetlands) 

and ground water resources. Additionally, access roads and well pads could alter the local hydrology 

reducing surface flow to mesic areas and diverting or degrading surface water. Installation of culverts and 

diverting existing drainages around well pads help to maintain existing hydrologic systems, but the 

disturbance causes local sedimentation and could retard sheet flow. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Managing the surface tracts as open to recreation and motorized vehicle 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; however, given the limited interest in recreation and travel on the Hancock 

County tract, any potential effects would be minor and localized. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

If new ROW construction were to occur on the Hancock County tract, vegetation-clearing activities and 

construction ground disturbance could increase soil erosion and surface run-off, which increase 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. 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. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-61 

Vegetative Communities 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives 

would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed 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 these maritime 

habitats by displacing native species and increasing the susceptibility to wildfire. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State 

wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and 

wetland enhancements, would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed 

could result in the same impacts discussed under impacts from vegetative communities management 

actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Oil and gas development is expected to disturb 55 acres of vegetation under this alternative. The effect 

this disturbance would have on vegetation would be dependent on the location and design of well pads, 

roads and production facilities. In recent years, most wells on non-USFS FMO have been located in the 

Maxie Field in Forrest County. Typically, the vegetation most likely to be affected in this area is pine 

plantations or commercial pine forests, often loblolly pine. Understory species vary depending on how the 

stand has been managed. Once young pine plantations shade out “old field growth” at about 10 to 15 

years of age, the midstory and ground cover are generally very limited. After thinning, shrubs and young 

hardwoods become established. Use of prescribed fire in these stands favors an increase in grasses and 

native forbs. 

During a routine well pad installation, saleable timber would be removed from the site, if the stand is 

commercially viable, but is otherwise cut and left onsite. Vegetation debris piles are stored along the 

edges of the construction site and may be buried onsite, burned, or left in place after drilling operations 

are completed. Vegetation debris is not permitted in the reserve pit, as it can disrupt any future monitoring 

of the pit contents. 

During interim reclamation, the reserve pit area is graded and the surface fertilized, seeded, and mulched. 

Although the operators are encouraged to use native seed, the final mix and tree planting is approved by 

the private landowner or surface managing agency. BLM, by policy, excludes invasive species, although 

non-native grasses, particularly annual rye (during the winter months) and Bahia or Bermuda grass 

(during the summer months) are often used to provide a quick cover for disturbed soils. These sites 

typically progress through “old field” stage as opportunistic pioneer plant species become established. 

Within a few years young sapling pine and hardwoods become established. Faster growing pines 

generally dominate the site for several decades. Outside of the pine belt, pines would gradually overtaken 

by longer lived hardwoods. In areas where mature hardwood forests are removed, it may take 100 years 

or more to reestablish hardwood forests with similar structure and even longer before species diversity 

returns to near pre-disturbance levels. 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-62 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Surface disturbing activities have the potential to introduce or promote the spread of invasive, exotic plant 

species. Impacts are dependent on the species planted during restoration activities and the management of 

the site during and following restoration. Cogon grass is a particular concern because it is very difficult to 

control and because of its ability to degrade native plant communities and commercial forests. Cogon 

grass displaces native species and can crowd out pine seedlings and increase susceptibility to wildfire. 

Including native species in the mix increases diversity and provides a more natural structure. If these 

areas are mowed following abandonment, these non-native grasses are expected to persist and dominate 

the site. If, however, the sites are replanted in pine or left unmowed, the areas would progress through old 

field type growth which is dominated by opportunistic native and non-native species alike. Ultimately, 

both Bahia and Bermuda grass are expected to become shaded out as a tree or heavy shrub layer becomes 

established. Japanese honeysuckle and Chinese privet can both persist in shaded situations. 

Throughout the State, some plant communities, embedded in the larger forested landscape, are 

particularly sensitive to disruption and are difficult to restore after surface disturbing activities. Many of 

these are restricted to a narrow range of soil types, such as glades and prairies; others are sensitive to 

changes in hydrography, such as bogs, forested wetlands, and seepage slope communities. Construction 

activities in or near these plant communities can alter the site sufficiently to preclude the reestablishment 

of these communities in the foreseeable future. Also, because of the limited acreage of these vegetation 

communities, loss of even the small acreages from BLM permitted oil and gas activities has a 

disproportionate effect on the plant diversity in an area. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

The Hancock County tract would be open to recreation. Although the Hancock County tract is accessible 

only by boat, the site would remain open for vehicle use. In the unlikely event that four-wheelers were 

transported to Point Clear Island, substantial damage could be done on this sensitive barrier island in a 

very short time. Repetitive use on these sandy soils would damage herbaceous growth and young shrubs 

and could introduce or promote the spread of exotic plants, particularly Chinese tallow and Cogon grass. 

Repetitive use on Point Clear would substantially degrade the maritime forest, a critically imperiled plant 

community in Mississippi. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

The Hancock County tract would remain open to ROW applications. Any ROW development could 

damage sensitive maritime forests and scrubs through ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and 

introduction of invasive species. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives 

would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed could degrade habitats for 

migratory birds and other wildlife on Point Clear Island by displacing native vegetation and increasing 

susceptibility to wildfire. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State 

wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-63 

wetland enhancements, would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed 

could result in the same impacts discussed under impacts from vegetative communities management 

actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Oil and gas development on non-USFS FMO is expected to result in the loss of 55 acres of habitat. The 

effect on general wildlife resources are dependent on the well pad location, design, and need for 

additional access roads. Impacts would include the direct loss of habitat from the construction of drilling 

pads, production facilities, pipelines and roads, and from degradation of nearby aquatic or wetland 

habitats through sedimentation or changes in hydrology. These impacts could occur in anywhere on nonUSFS FMO in the State, but have in the past occurred primarily in Forrest County. Impacts to many 

wildlife species from oil and gas development are localized and temporary. Most common game species 

and other mobile wildlife species avoid the well pad areas during construction. Less mobile species are 

directly impacted, and during the spring and early summer this can include nesting neotropical birds. 

Habitat generalists, including most game species, tend to return to surrounding habitats after the well is 

completed and construction activities have ceased. However, construction in high value habitats or in 

areas with more narrowly adapted wildlife species can alter the overall species diversity. Wells and roads 

in areas of contiguous forests increase habitat fragmentation, reducing the suitability of the area for 

interior nesting birds and making nests more susceptible to predation and parasitism. Older growth 

forests, which provide habitat for interior forest nesting birds and a wider diversity of amphibians and 

reptiles are often located in riparian/ wetland zones. These areas have been set aside as buffers during 

logging operations or in steeper, less accessible slopes. 

Oil and gas drilling continues for 24 hours a day until the well is completed, during this time most 

wildlife including waterfowl and many song-birds are expected to avoid the immediate area. However, 

once drilling is completed reserve pits with water can become a hazard for waterfowl and other birds, 

which can become soiled by drilling fluids. If the well is put into production, there is documentation of 

birds and bats may use open vent stacks for roosting or perching. Once in these stacks animals can 

become trapped or asphyxiated. While much of the work documenting this problem has occurred in 

western States, the situation in Mississippi is expected to be similar. 

Access roads and well pads can alter the local hydrography reducing surface flow to mesic areas and 

diverting or degrading surface water supporting wetland habitats. Installation of culverts and diverting 

existing drainages around well pads help to maintain existing hydrologic systems, but the disturbance 

causes local sedimentation and can retard sheet flow to wetland habitats. Amphibians and many reptiles 

associated with wetland communities are vulnerable to disturbance, as they are not highly mobile and 

tend to have narrow habitat requirements. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Point Clear and the surrounding marshes provide secluded areas for nesting shore-birds, wading-birds and 

song-birds. Although unlikely, the use of any vehicles, such as four-wheelers, during the spring and 

summer months is expected to increase nest/chick abandonment and could result in the loss of ground 

nesting bird nests. During the rest of the year, vehicle use is likely to flush foraging and loafing wading 

and shore-birds and could reduce their use of this critically imperiled plant community. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

The Hancock County tract would remain open to ROW applications. Any ROW development could 

damage sensitive maritime forests and scrubs through ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-64 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

introduction of invasive species, which a variety of wildlife species are dependant on. Depending on the 

time of year, development activities could cause nesting shore-birds to abandon nests and could change 

use patterns of foraging shore-birds. 

Special Status Species 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives 

would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed 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. Dense stands of cogon grass 

would displace native vegetation and could make the island and adjacent marshes more vulnerable to 

frequent wildfires. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State 

wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and 

wetland enhancements, would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed 

could result in the same impacts discussed under impacts from vegetative communities management 

actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Oil and gas development on non-USFS 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 could occur 

outside of these areas and there is some potential to affect small acreages supporting special status species 

anywhere in the State, outside of three northwestern counties do not contain non-USFS FMO – Coahoma, 

DeSoto, and Sunflower. There is potential Statewide to affect Federal and State-listed aquatic species. 

Gopher tortoise could be impacted by oil and gas activity in upland areas of the East Gulf Coastal Plain 

where forest practices on private lands have maintained at least a marginally suitable habitat. Foraging 

habitat for tortoise could also be affected on non-USFS FMO associated with private in holdings in the 

Chickasawhay, DeSoto and Homochitto National Forests, which support substantial tortoise populations. 

During construction of wells pads, access roads, and production facilities, gopher tortoises could be 

impacted by the loss or damage to burrows, destruction of foraging habitat, or killed during construction 

or by service vehicles. Construction activities and roads within 600-feet of burrows could isolate 

individuals and reduce reproductive potential within a population. In many cases, the presence of gopher 

tortoises indicates that habitat is suitable for a host of species associated with dry longleaf pine forests, 

many of them special status species, such as the black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi), 

which could also be impacted by oil and gas activities. 

Red-cockaded woodpecker could be affected by oil and gas development through the loss of nesting 

habitat within existing clusters and through the loss of current or potential foraging habitat within 0.5 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-65 

miles of existing clusters. Non-USFS FMO in areas supporting red-cockaded woodpecker is generally 

privately owned and often managed for commercial timber production. Harvest rotations on these 

properties are typically too short to sustain suitable nesting habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers; 

however, there is potential to impact suitable foraging habitat, particularly on non-USFS FMO near the 

Chickasawhay, DeSoto, and Homochitto National Forests or Noxubee NWR, areas that support most of 

the State’s population. This stipulation would be applied to the estimated 11,710 acres of non-USFS FMO 

within 0.5 miles of known red-cockaded woodpecker clusters. 

Throughout the State, breeding and wintering bald eagles could be affected by drilling near large rivers or 

reservoirs. Bald eagles are particularly sensitive during courting, nesting, and fledging young; in Alabama 

this typically occurs between December 1 and August 1. Construction activities within 1.5 miles of nest 

sites could result in nest abandonment depending on factors such as visibility and tolerance of individual 

pairs. 

Throughout the State, oil and gas development has the potential to impact aquatic and wetland habitats. 

This could result in degradation of water quality through contamination and increased sedimentation, 

direct loss of habitat, and changes in the local hydrography supporting these systems. Increases in 

sedimentation to streams and wetlands by oil and gas development are a factor of well pad design, slope, 

erodibility of the soils, proximity of the disturbance, and the intervening vegetation. The potential for 

sedimentation increases with prolonged or heavy rains that are typical in this area. Cut and fill slopes are 

particularly vulnerable before protective plant covers have been established. While intact vegetation along 

riparian/wetland zones and around wetlands can substantially buffer these areas, the steepness of the 

intervening slopes, particularly over 25 percent can reduce the effectiveness of buffers. Research has 

shown that a minimum of a 30-foot buffer of vegetation is needed to control sediments; however, 

construction activities within 100-feet can reduce stream invertebrates, and 1,000-feet or more may be 

needed to protect some amphibians, reptiles and forest interior birds (Wenger 1999). Sediments deposited 

in intermittent drainages during construction can be transported downstream during periods of high water, 

increasing turbidity and burying aquatic invertebrates in higher order streams and potentially affecting 

special status species substantial distances from the construction site, including Louisiana quillwort 

(Isoetes louisianensis), listed as Federally endangered. 

Filling wetlands, including bogs, seepage slopes, wet flatwoods, and forested swamps, generally alters the 

site sufficiently to preclude the reestablishment of these communities in the foreseeable future, and could 

result in direct habitat loss for a wide variety of special status species. Because of the limited acreage of 

these vegetation communities, loss of even the small acreages associated with BLM permitted oil and gas 

activities has a high potential of destroying or degrading habitat for special status species. Many of these 

species have limited ranges, so the list of species potentially affected varies by location. For example, the 

Mississippi Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) notes 14 special status species are 

associated with pines seeps and pitcher plant bogs, including eight special status crayfish, five of which 

are endemic. Henslow’s sparrow wintering habitat and breeding habitat for Bachman’s sparrow could be 

lost by construction in or near grassy bogs or wet flatwoods. Construction activities, and particularly 

linear disturbances related to new roads and pipelines, can disrupt the local hydrography supporting 

seepage slopes or sheet flow to bogs and swamps degrading these habitats. 

There are estimated to be 65 caves in Mississippi located in the northeast corner and east central portions 

of the State. Caves by their nature are isolated and support highly endemic faunas often with extremely 

narrow habitat requirements. In Mississippi, this includes two State-listed salamanders and a number of 

bat species. Although the potential to affect these areas is low, caves are particularly sensitive to oil and 

gas development. Even minor alterations in temperature, humidity, and water quality or water quantity 

can result in irreversible impacts. Drilling through cave/karst resources can result in contaminants, such as 

drilling fluids and cements, draining into the cave/karst system. Karst habitats can be degraded by 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-66 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

hydrocarbons from spills or leaks from well casings, storage tanks, reserve pits, pipelines, and production 

facilities that may enter into the cave/karst systems. Additionally, cementing operations could affect 

portions of underground drainage systems by restricting groundwater flow and introducing pollutants into 

karst systems. 

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. At least one special status plant species, tiny-leaved buckthorn 

(Sageretia minutiflora), occurs on coastal shell mounds in this area, but the potential for oil and gas wells 

being located on non-USFS FMO in these areas is low. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Because this tract is not accessible by road, few impacts are anticipated by designating the tract open to 

recreation and vehicles; however, use of four-wheelers on remote upland areas, such as Point Clear 

Island, could damage sensitive maritime forests and scrubs. Depending on the time of year, any vehicle 

use could cause nesting shore-birds to abandon nests and could change use patterns of foraging shorebirds, like piping plover, snowy plover, and American oystercatcher. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

The Hancock County tract would remain open to ROW applications. Any ROW development could 

damage sensitive maritime forests and scrubs through ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and 

introduction of invasive species. Depending on the time of year, development activities could cause 

nesting shore-birds to abandon nests and could change use patterns of foraging shore-birds, like piping 

plover, snowy plover, and American oystercatcher or damage their habitats. 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

Suppressing all wildland fires, unless an in-place site-specific plan determines otherwise, would minimize 

immediate threats and damage to life, public safety, and developments in the WUI and to natural resource 

values. Allowing prescribed burning on a case-by-case basis would allow for a reduction in hazardous 

fuel conditions, improving ability to suppress wildfires while maintaining disturbance levels to which 

vegetation communities have adapted. Fire response and fuel treatments would apply to the 174 acres of 

BLM-administered surface land. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Although no specific vegetative communities actions are proposed, allowing vegetation manipulation to 

meet resources objectives under standard management common to all alternatives would generally serve 

to decrease vegetation density and cover (fuel load) and maintain natural fuel conditions across the 

Hancock County tract. This would maintain natural disturbance regimes which would be easier to manage 

through prescribed fire or other treatments. This would also decrease the frequency and intensity of 

wildland fires and allow fires to be more easily controlled, better protecting life, public safety, and 

property and resource values. However, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in 

invasions and fuel accumulations that would increase the frequency and intensity of wildland fires. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat 

improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-67 

plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would result in impacts similar to those 

discussed under impacts from vegetative communities management actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Minerals development activities would introduce additional ignition sources throughout the non-USFS 

FMO, increasing the potential of wildland fire occurrence. Disturbance of 55 acres associated with 

development of 10 wells on non-USFS FMO could provide increased accessibility for fire suppression 

equipment, and provide fuel breaks in the case of wildland fire events. In addition, the infrastructure 

associated with the 10 new wells would require protection in wildland fire events. Impacts from mineral 

development activities would not occur on the 63,004 acres closed to oil and gas development. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Continuing to manage the Hancock County tract as open to recreation use would allow for dispersed 

recreation use, which could introduce additional ignition sources and increase the probability of wildland 

fire occurrence. This would be more prevalent in areas of the tract that are more easily accessible. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Managing the Hancock County surface tract as open for ROW applications could result in the 

development of ROWs. Development of above-ground ROWs on the Hancock County tract would require 

additional efforts by firefighters to protect these areas in wildland fire events. Development of ROWs 

would also result in clearing vegetation to make way for linear features. ROWs could provide fuel breaks, 

which could help prevent the spread of wildland fires. ROWs could also provide firefighters with 

increased accessibility for fire suppression equipment. While more ROWs could increase suppression 

costs, the aspects of ROW development related to vegetation clearing and the potential for increased 

accessibility could reduce suppression costs. 

Cultural Resources 

Management of cultural resources provides protection from the potentially damaging effects of surface 

disturbing activities through implementation of existing laws and policy, such as Section 106 of the 

NHPA and FLPMA. Federal undertakings typically require cultural resource inventories that would result 

in the identification of cultural resource sites and determination of eligibility to the NRHP. The cultural 

resources data acquired through inventories and evaluations would increase knowledge of cultural 

resources on BLM-administered lands and minerals in the State. Following site-specific inventories, 

mitigation measures would be prescribed as necessary for eligible properties. Any cultural sites 

discovered may be considered for further evaluation to assess its eligibility for listing on the NRHP. 

Through this process, significant impacts on cultural sites eligible for the NRHP would be avoided or 

mitigated. Avoidance is BLM’s preferred measure to eliminate potential adverse effects. Avoidance 

preserves the cultural resource in place. If this is not possible under reasonable circumstances, 

scientifically valid excavation and data recovery is an alternative mitigation method. Scientifically valid 

excavation would be used as a final measure, and the extent of excavation would be determined through 

BLM consultation with the SHPO and Tribes. 

Data recovery preserves as much of the cultural record as possible through archaeological methods. Any 

mitigation effort requiring archaeological data recovery is subject to the terms outlined in a Data 

Recovery Plan and documented through a signed MOU with the SHPO, tribes, and other consulting 

parties. While data recovery preserves as much data as possible, the excavated portions of the property 

would be lost or damaged. Removing cultural resources from a site using current scientific methods also 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-68 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

reduces future scientific value if more accurate methods of analysis are developed. Mitigation through 

data recovery also reduces or eliminates other uses of cultural resources sites, such as traditional, public, 

conservation, or experimental use. The standard inventory and avoidance procedures conducted in 

conjunction with surface-disturbing actions would protect most cultural resources from significant 

impacts. 

Despite the best efforts to identify all cultural resources, there remains a potential for inadvertent impacts 

to previously undiscovered sites, especially buried sites with no surface indications. There is a set process 

through Section 106 for identifying, evaluating, and treating the effects of inadvertent discoveries, 

reducing potential impacts from these discoveries. 

Wildfire, wildfire suppression efforts, and prescribed fire could impact cultural resource sites within the 

Hancock County tract, including the eligibility characteristics of sites that are listed or eligible for listing 

on the NRHP. Impacts from wildland fire vary, depending on the temperature and duration of exposure to 

heat. Generally, higher temperatures and/or longer duration of exposure to heat increases the potential for 

damage to cultural resources. The nature of wetland vegetation in this tract would result in low intensity 

wildland fires. Prehistoric and historic resources potentially affected by wildfire may be inorganic (e.g., 

lithic/rock, ceramics, cans, glass) or organic (e.g., textiles, leathern works, wooden structures). Generally 

speaking, organic materials are more at risk as they tend to burn or alter at lower temperatures than 

inorganic items. Wildfire impacts on inorganic cultural resources include fracturing, shattering, and 

changes in color and internal luster, which might reduce an artifact’s ability to render information about 

the past. As a general rule, fire would not affect buried cultural materials. Studies show that even a few 

centimeters of soil cover (four inches) is sufficient to protect cultural materials (Oster n.d.). Wildfires that 

burn hot and fast through a site may have less of an effect on certain types of cultural materials than fires 

that smolder in the duff or burn for a long time period, allowing heat from the fire to penetrate the surface. 

In addition, heat from wildland fires could change the physical nature of the ground, making it harder to 

identify cultural resources. 

Often, cultural resources are more at risk of impact due to fire suppression activities than from wildland 

fire. Potential impacts from the use of retardants would include rapid cooling and subsequent damage 

(e.g., breakage, spalling, corrosion, staining, rusting) to archaeological materials. Discoloration or 

warping of metallic surfaces could also occur. Consultation with a cultural resource specialist during 

suppression activities in areas containing sensitive cultural resources would help to minimize impacts. 

Prescribed fire typically burns at a lower temperature and duration than wildfire events, so potential 

impacts would be less severe than unmanaged wildland fire. Prescribed fire events are managed to obtain 

a smaller, more manageable, and less intense planned burn. The potential impacts from prescribed fires 

would typically have less long term impacts than those from an unmanaged wildland fire event. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would require cultural resource clearances before any 

activities were to occur; therefore, impacts would not be anticipated. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat 

improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-69 

plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would require cultural resources 

clearances before any activities were to occur; therefore, impacts would not be anticipated. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Cultural resources on 454,930 acres of non-USFS FMO in Mississippi as open to leasing subject to 

standard lease terms and conditions could be impacted by oil and gas development. Based on the RFD, oil 

and gas developments within these areas would impact 55 acres through the development of 10 wells over 

20 years. Development on these acres would typically be subject to Class III cultural resource inventories 

and evaluation on a project-by-project basis prior to allowing disturbance, resulting in the identification 

and potential excavation of cultural sites. Cultural sites on 63,004 acres closed to leasing would be 

protected from oil and gas development. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation activities on the Hancock County tract, including motorized vehicle use, could result in 

inadvertent damage and vandalism to previously undetected cultural sites. Although the tract would not 

be used extensively for recreation, the tract is located in wetlands with a high potential for cultural 

resources to occur, which could increase the potential for inadvertent damage and vandalism. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Ground-disturbing activities associated with ROW construction and maintenance could inadvertently 

damage cultural resources. Because the Hancock County tract has not been previously surveyed, 

approved activities would be subject to a ground survey and consultation requirements with SHPO under 

NHPA Section 106 regulations before construction. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources would be 

anticipated to be minimal. 

Visual Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to visual quality. Although visual quality 

would deteriorate in the short term, visual quality would improve in the long term once vegetation has 

reestablished to meet VRM class objectives. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed 

under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and 

protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of 

prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to visual quality. Although visual quality 

would deteriorate in the short term, visual quality would improve in the long term once vegetation has 

reestablished to meet VRM class objectives. 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-70 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

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. BLM doesn’t manage the surface 

for non-USFS FMO tracts; however, BLM can place COAs or best practices to minimize impacts to 

visual resources as needed. Impacts from these activities would not be anticipated on 63,004 non-USFS 

FMO acres closed to leasing. Since no mineral development activities would occur on the surface tracts, 

there would be no violations of VRM class objectives. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Allowing recreation activities, including motorized vehicle use, on the Hancock County tract could result 

in decreased visual quality over time from changes to existing natural or manmade landforms and scenic 

vistas through vegetation and soil loss, particularly on tracts that are in undeveloped areas. Since the 

surface tracts would not be used extensively for recreation, these impacts are anticipated to be minimal. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

If a new ROW were authorized on the currently undeveloped Hancock County tract, visual quality would 

be diminished if the ROW were to dominate the view of the casual observer. 

Minerals 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Under this alternative, 454,930 acres of non-USFS FMO would be open to leasing, subject to standard 

lease terms and conditions; 63,004 acres of non-USFS FMO would be closed to leasing. No impacts to oil 

and gas minerals exploration and development would be anticipated from management of non-USFS 

FMO tracts. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Lands and realty management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. BLM would only dispose of non-USFS FMO with no 

suspected value and, therefore, there would be no loss of opportunity. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-71 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to recreation. Recreationists could be 

displaced from vegetation treatment areas until revegetation occurs; however, the vegetation treatments 

would benefit recreationists by improving the long-term aesthetics of an area. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat 

improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive 

plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve 

ground disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to recreation. 

Recreationists could be displaced from protected areas or treated areas until revegetation occurs; however, 

the habitat improvements and protections would benefit recreationists by improving the long term 

aesthetics and wildlife viewing of an area. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Oil and gas development on non-USFS FMO tracts with surface management by other Federal agencies 

that are open to the public for recreation, as identified in Table 3-17, could be impacted by the leasing of 

Federal minerals by BLM or in areas where the public were excluded. Those areas and installations not 

open to recreation or leasing, which include NPS and USFWS lands, would not be affected. 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. Mineral leasing in recreational areas 

could result in the removal of vegetation; construction of access roads, well pads, and other infrastructure; 

drilling equipment; and associated noise and dust emissions. Impacts from these activities would include 

decreased quality of the recreational experience of the non-USFS FMO tracts; however, stipulations 

applied under this alternative by other surface managing agencies could indirectly protect the recreational 

resources in areas where development would be precluded (63,004 acres). Oil and gas development could 

provide additional opportunities for travel due to the construction of access roads. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

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. 

Since the tract is not currently used extensively for recreation or travel, these impacts are anticipated to be 

minimal. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

If a new road or utility ROW were authorized on currently undeveloped Hancock County tract, the largely 

natural recreational experiences available would be diminished as a result of construction activity, ground 

disturbance, and introduction of new infrastructure; however, these actions could provide additional 

opportunities for travel due to the construction of access roads. 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-72 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Lands and Realty 

Lands and realty is a resource use rather than an environmental component and impacts on lands and 

realty are a direct result of their management. Therefore, the following discussion is limited to impacts 

from lands and realty management actions for the 174 acres of BLM-administered surface ownership in 

Hancock County, Mississippi. Impacts from disposal of FMO is discussed under impacts to Minerals 

from Lands and Realty actions. 

Under Alternative 1, the 174-acre Hancock County tract would remain open to ROW applications; 

therefore, no impacts would be anticipated to lands and realty actions. Retaining the Hancock County 

tract under BLM administration would not allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or nonFederal ownership. 

Social and Economic 

Definitions and descriptions of potential Environmental Justice populations, including low income and 

ethnicity statistics, were provided in Section 3.4.13. Since the locations of specific BLM oil and gas 

activities could not be specifically identified, the Environmental Justice analysis identified low-income 

populations and high minority populations in counties across the State. Environmental Justice population 

locations should be further considered at the implementation level to minimize the potential for 

disproportionate impacts to Environmental Justice populations and to identify any possible mitigation 

measures that may be required to reduce impacts (for example, dust, noise, traffic, ground water quality) 

to these populations. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Impacts to social and economic conditions would not be anticipated from vegetative communities 

management actions under this alternative. The proposed standard management actions common to all 

alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to 

be of an extent that would result in impacts to economic or social conditions. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Impacts to social and economic conditions would not be anticipated from fish and wildlife habitat 

management actions since no actions are anticipated. The proposed standard management actions 

common to all alternatives would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife 

conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland 

enhancements, which would not be anticipated to be of an extent that would result in impacts to economic 

or social conditions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Since only 10 fluid mineral wells (with standard lease terms and conditions) would likely be drilled over 

the next 20-years, there would be minimal economic impacts from these activities. This type of BLM 

mineral development is consistent with the development that occurred in the past, including seven 

applications for permits to drill between 1983 and 2004. Therefore, there would be minimal, yet slight 

increases in employment or income. For example, over the past 20 years, there have been 7,632 wells 

drilled and completed (382 wells drilled per year), with a five year annual employment average of 3,089 

employees in the support sector for mining and oil and gas. If we assume that most of this support goes to 

the drilling and development of the oil and gas wells, there are approximately 8 employees (3089/382) 

supported annually per well drilled on the BLM-administered minerals. Therefore, over the next 20 years, 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-73 

an additional 10 BLM-administered wells will contribute to the employment of 80 people in these support 

industries. Social impacts, such as housing, education, and cost of living, would not be anticipated to 

change as a result of this activity. 

Oil and gas development and production can have implications for visual and scenic qualities as well as 

property values. Although the BLM does not own much of the surface land in Alabama on which wells 

will be drilled, the permitting of these split estate lands could impact a number of socioeconomic factors. 

The recreation literature indicates that visitors are likely to pay to view less development or development 

infrastructure in their recreation experience (Brookshire et al, 1979; Boyle and Bishop, 1984). Since the 

FMO-administered wells are mostly located on private or State lands, there could be visual impacts but 

they would likely be borne by residents, not visitors. Additionally, decreases in property values have been 

associated with the drilling phase (more dramatic) as well as the existence of operating wells (BBC 

Research and Consulting, 2001; 2006). Because these socioeconomic impacts are associated with mineral 

development, these impacts are likely greatest under Alternative 1, where standard lease conditions apply 

as compared to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, where there are more conditions and constraints on well-pad 

locations. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

The BLM surface tract is open to dispersed recreational use, including hunting, fishing, hiking, and nature 

study, and no construction of recreational facilities is expected. Recreation and travel management actions 

provide for quality of life benefits (i.e., recreation, solitude, open space, scenic values) to local residents 

and visitors, which are often difficult to quantify. These types of limited recreation and travel 

management actions do not provide significant economic benefits in terms of employment and income 

and will not affect social assets, such as housing, education, and crime rates, in the area. Under 

Alternative 1, these types of socioeconomic impacts are assumed to continue. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Under Alternative 1, 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 living, education) in Hancock County are not likely to be affected by 

retaining these lands in Federal ownership. 

Hazardous Materials 

BLM-authorized activities on surface tracts and non-USFS FMO could include the use of hazardous 

materials, substances, and waste (including storage, transportation, and spills). Such activities include oil 

and gas development, coal development, and application of pesticides to improve vegetative communities 

and wildlife habitat. These activities are conducted in compliance with 29 CFR 1910, 49 CFR 100-185, 

40 CFR 100-400, CERCLA, RCRA, SARA, TSCA, and CWA and other Federal and State regulations 

and policies regarding hazardous materials management. Therefore, if a release were to occur, it would be 

immediately addressed and remediated in accordance with regulation. 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-74 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

4.3.2 Alternative 2 

Air Quality 

Under this alternative, there is a potential for wildfire which could lead to air emissions; however, since 

all fires would be suppressed, these occurrences would be short term and localized and not be anticipated 

to individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Undertaking actions to remove invasive plant species on the Hancock County tract and associated use of 

trucks and heavy equipment would cause short term, localized increases in dust and emissions. Given the 

small amount and remote nature of surface ownership, these activities would not be anticipated to 

individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Conducting prescribed burns to improve habitat on the Hancock County tract would cause short term, 

localized increases in dust and emissions. Given the small amount and remote nature of the tract, these 

activities would not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated air emissions would be the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Although the tract would be limited to motorized boating, impacts would be the same as Alternative 1 

since this tract is not anticipated to be used extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in 

Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for emissions 

associated with the use of trucks and heavy equipment (bulldozers, etc.) for ROW development compared 

to Alternative 1. 

Soil Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Undertaking actions to remove invasive plant species on the Hancock County tract could increase sitespecific erosion in the short term. Over the long term, improving vegetation communities would reduce 

erosion and overland flows. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Impacts from fish and wildlife habitat management actions would be similar to Alternative 1. In addition, 

conducting prescribed burns to improve habitat on the Hancock County tract could increase site-specific 

erosion in the short term. Over the long term, improving marsh health would reduce erosion. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-75 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

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. Impacts to prime or unique farmlands would be the same as described for 

Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Motorized travel would be closed or limited to designated routes on all tracts under this alternative. 

However, the level of activity that could increase erosion and associated impacts to soils would not be 

anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not anticipated to be used 

extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in 

Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for impacts to 

soils associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. 

Water Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Undertaking actions to remove invasive plant species on the Hancock County tract could increase sitespecific erosion, which 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. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Conducting prescribed burns to improve habitat on the Hancock County tract would increase erosion and 

run-off, which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases water quality in the short term. Over 

the long term, improving and protecting fish and wildlife habitats would reduce erosion and overland 

flows. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

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 disturbance to water resources within the protected areas. This 

stipulation could be applied to an estimated 168,383 acres or 33 percent of the non-USFS FMO available 

for leasing in Mississippi. This buffer is expected to prevent construction activities from increasing the 

sedimentation of local drainages and wetlands. 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-76 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Motorized travel would be closed or limited to designated routes on all tracts under this alternative. 

However, the level of activity that could affect water resources would not be anticipated to change 

compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not anticipated to be used extensively for recreation or 

travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in 

Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for impacts to 

water resources associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. 

Vegetative Communities 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

The Hancock County tract would benefit from removal of woody exotic, invasive species such as Chinese 

tallow and Chinese privet which would be removed by hand, and stump treated with approved herbicides. 

Selective hand spraying of Cogon grass may be required where it is established. Any removal and 

treatment of exotic invasive plants on this tract would be coordinated with the Hancock County Marshes 

staff and/or The Nature Conservancy to improve removal of invasive species and minimize impacts to the 

marshes. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Natural fire is infrequent in these coastal marshes, and the use of prescribed fires is expected to be 

infrequent and closely coordinated as part of an overall fire plan for the Hancock County Marshes 

Preserve. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts to vegetation would be similar to Alternative 1; however, under this alternative oil and gas 

activities would be excluded from a 1,000-foot buffer around wetlands and aquatic habitats, karst areas, 

shoreline habitats, and habitats like naturally occurring prairies and glades with special status species. 

This alternative provides additional protection for riparian/wetland areas and reduces the potential for 

contaminants to leach into wetland communities. Impact to exotic invasive plant species would be the 

same as in Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Limiting the Hancock County Marshes tract to motorized boating would prevent damage to vegetative 

communities by reducing travel and access to recreation opportunities. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in 

Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for impacts to 

vegetative communities associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-77 

Fish and Wildlife 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Wildlife would benefit from control of invasive exotic plant species, which could substantially alter 

upland areas on Point Clear Island. Invasive species control would foster native vegetation and habitats 

that support wildlife species. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

There may be some benefits to wildlife by burning heavy mats of flotsam left by Hurricane Katrina, 

where it is hampering restoration of marsh and upland habitats. This would foster native vegetation and 

habitats that support wildlife species. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

General impacts to wildlife are expected to be similar to Alternative 1; however, under this alternative, oil 

and gas activities would be excluded from higher value wildlife habitats, including a 1,000-foot buffer 

around wetlands and aquatic habitats, shoreline habitats, and habitats like naturally occurring prairies and 

glades with special status species. 

BMPs would be applied under this alternative to reduce impacts to bats, song-birds and waterfowl. All 

pits containing water ten days after a well is completed would be netted to exclude migratory birds. Other 

approved methods could also be used to exclude birds. Open vent equipment, such as heater-treaters, 

separators, and dehydration units will be covered with anti-perching cones to exclude cavity nesting birds 

and bats. Any powerlines would be built using approved raptor safe designs to prevent electrocution 

hazards. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Designating the Hancock County tract as limited to motorized boating would benefit wildlife using these 

remote marshes and the uplands on Point Clear Island by limiting disturbance to species and their 

habitats. Any vehicle use on the narrow sand islands would flush foraging and loafing shore-birds, and 

could cause abandonment of nests. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in 

Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for impacts to 

fish and wildlife associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. 

Special Status Species 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Removing exotic invasive plant species, particularly cogon grass, could improve habitat conditions for the 

tiny-leaved buckthorn and Mississippi diamondback terrapin. Early detection and control of invasive 

plant species would reduce the amount of native vegetation displaced and minimize changes to structure 

that occurs when large amounts of invasive woody material is removed. 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-78 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Prescribed burns could be used to remove wood debris and flotsam left from Hurricane Katrina that create 

hazards for wildlife and degrade marshes. Since natural fire is infrequent in these coastal marshes, the use 

of prescribed fires is expected to be infrequent to mimic natural conditions and closely coordinated as part 

of an overall fire plan for the Hancock County Marshes Preserve. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Although the number of wells (10) and acres disturbed (55) would remain the same under this alternative 

as compared to Alternative 1, lease stipulations would shift surface-disturbing activities away from 

sensitive habitats with potential to support special status species. This is accomplished with NSO buffers 

or seasonal restrictions. These stipulations could be applied to 211,605 acres or about 41 percent of the 

non-USFS FMO in Mississippi. 

To protect special status species occurring in aquatic or wetland habitats, all oil and gas development 

activities would be excluded from a 1,000-foot buffer around these habitats. In areas where slopes exceed 

10 percent, the buffer could be extended up to 600-feet to provide adequate protection. In areas with 

slopes less than 10 percent, the 250-foot buffer could be reduced to a minimum of 100-feet, if the adjacent 

waterway or wetlands have been surveyed and no special status species occur within 100-yards upstream 

and 300-yards downstream of the site. This stipulation could be applied to an estimated 168,383 acres or 

about 33 percent of the non-USFS FMO available for leasing in Mississippi. In most cases, this buffer is 

expected to prevent construction activities from increasing the sedimentation of local drainages and 

wetlands. In areas with slopes over 25 percent, additional measures may be needed to stabilize disturbed 

soils above wetlands or aquatic habitats. 

A 250-foot buffer around known caves, fractures, and sinkholes would reduce the chances of drilling 

through karst formations, providing protection for cave endemics, such as cave salamander and spring 

salamander. Some potential remains for inadvertently drilling through unknown karst formations and 

damaging connected cave habitats through introduction of lost drilling fluids and muds, altering 

temperature and moisture regimes, and modifying the hydrology supporting the karst systems. This 

habitat is extremely limited in Mississippi; less than 100 acres according the Mississippi CWCS, so 

potential for impacting these areas in Mississippi is low. 

Under this alternative, NSO stipulations would be applied to coastal shorelines. This buffer would be 

applied to 4,237 acres of non-USFS FMO in Mississippi located within 100 feet of mean high tide. 

Wintering piping plover, snowy plover, brown pelican, least tern, and Mississippi diamondback terrapin 

are among the many coastal species that would benefit from this buffer. Offsite directional drilling to 

target these Federal minerals would be permitted under this alternative. Any directional wells that may 

affect Federally-listed species or critical habitat would require coordination with the USFWS. 

Areas with suitable soils and at least 10 percent open pine forest in southern Mississippi counties would 

require a survey for gopher tortoises prior to any surface-disturbing activities. No disturbance would be 

permitted within 600-feet of a gopher tortoise burrow. This buffer is expected to protect any breeding 

populations of gopher tortoise and maintain habitat for associated species including black pine snake. It 

would also protect habitat values in areas suitable for eastern indigo snake and mimic glass snake. 

Under this alternative, NSO would be permitted within 0.5 miles of a red-cockaded woodpecker cluster. 

This stipulation could be applied to 11,710 acres of non-USFS FMO within 0.5 miles of known clusters 

and could be applied to additional areas as needed to protect new clusters or potential habitat identified 

during site assessments prior to leasing. This buffer is expected to contain all foraging habitat required to 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-79 

maintain the red-cockaded woodpecker cluster. There are options for oil and gas activity to occur within 

suitable foraging habitat if the foraging requirements for the cluster are met elsewhere, for example, 

clusters maintained on National Forests. This exception would require a concurrence from the USFWS 

and the State of Mississippi. A concurrence would cause disturbance within the suitable foraging habitat, 

but if granted would not be anticipated to affect local populations. 

Under this alternative, NSO would be permitted with 1,500-feet of a bald eagle nest and/or communal 

roost site, and no surface-disturbing activities would be permitted within 1.5 miles during the nesting 

season from December 1 through August 1. This buffer complies with the current Federal guidelines for 

bald eagle protection. Based on the known nest sites in Mississippi, this stipulation could be applied to 

1,089 acres of non-USFS FMO. Oil and gas activity complying with these parameters is not expected to 

adversely affect bald eagles. New protocols have been drafted that reflect the ongoing recovery of this 

species. When finalized, the new guidelines would reduce the buffer to 660-feet for construction 

activities, although existing activities could be conducted within 330-feet of the nest outside of a more 

refined nesting season (December 15 through June 30). 

Leases containing potential habitat for special status plant species, including Federally-listed and 

candidate species as well as those ranked as critically imperiled (S-1) and imperiled (S-2) by the 

Mississippi Natural Heritage Program (MNHP), would require botanical surveys prior to surfacedisturbing activities. Operations would be excluded from areas supporting these special status plant 

species. This stipulation is expected to protect most naturally occurring glades, prairies, and other habitats 

which support special status plant species. The potential acreage affected by this stipulation is not 

available. This stipulation would be applied on a case-by-case basis based on site inspections conducted 

prior to leasing. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Limiting the Hancock County Marshes tract to motorized boating would prevent damage to sensitive 

coastal habitats for tiny-leaved buckthorn and Mississippi diamondback by limiting disturbance to species 

and their habitats. It would also retain the secluded nature of this barrier island and allow for undisturbed 

nesting and foraging of special status shorebirds, including royal tern. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in 

Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for impacts to 

special status species associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

Impacts from suppressing all wildland fires and allowing prescribed burning on a case-by-case basis 

would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Undertaking actions to remove invasive plant species on the Hancock County tract would reduce the 

potential for changes in the marsh 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, as necessary. Undesired wildfires in the marsh 

vegetation communities that are within their natural fire regimes would also be safer and less expensive to 

suppress. 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-80 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Conducting prescribed burns to improve habitat on the Hancock County tract would promote marsh 

health and allow for the reintroduction of wildland fire as a natural process and maintain or restore the 

natural fire regimes. Undesired wildfires in the marsh vegetation communities that are within their natural 

fire regimes would also be safer and less expensive to suppress. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts to wildland fire ecology and management from anticipated oil and gas development and 

associated disturbance of 55 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. Impacts would not occur on the 

closed (63,004 acres) and NSO (184,192 acres) areas created through applying the stipulations in 

Appendix D. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

The Hancock County tract would be limited to motorized boating under this alternative. The potential for 

increased wildland fire occurrence would similar to Alternative 1 because the potential for travel ignition 

sources through human use is very low. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

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 wildfire impacts 

associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. This would also decrease infrastructure 

needing protection, but would also decrease improvements in accessibility to fires and providing firebreaks on these tracts. 

Cultural Resources 

Impacts from cultural resources management and wildland fire management actions would be the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Undertaking actions to remove invasive plant species on the Hancock County tract would increase the 

potential for damage to cultural resource sites. Mechanical treatments are more likely to impact cultural 

resources than low intensity treatments such as chemical treatments or hand treatments. Vegetative 

communities management actions would require cultural resource inventories and clearance prior to 

ground disturbance to identify the presence of any cultural sites and avoid or mitigate any potential 

damage. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Conducting prescribed burns to improve habitat on the Hancock County tract would increase ground 

disturbance and associated potential impacts to cultural resources. Wildlife habitat manipulation would 

require cultural resource inventories and clearance prior to ground disturbance to identify the presence of 

any cultural sites and avoid or mitigate any potential damage. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-81 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Cultural resources could be impacted by managing 270,615 acres of non-USFS FMO as open to leasing 

subject to standard lease terms and conditions and 123 acres of non-USFS FMO as CSU. Based on the 

RFD, oil and gas developments within these areas would impact 55 acres through the development of 10 

wells over 20 years. Development on these acres would typically be subject to Class III cultural resource 

inventories and evaluation on a project-by-project basis prior to allowing disturbance, resulting in the 

identification and potential excavation of cultural sites. Stipulations and BMPs applied under this 

alternative would protect and preserve cultural resources on the 184,192 acres managed as NSO and in 

areas where surface disturbance would be precluded (63,004 acres). 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Although the tract would be limited to motorized boating under this alternative, the level of activity that 

could impact cultural resources would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since the 

tract is not anticipated to be used extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Managing the Hancock County tract as a ROW avoidance area would reduce the potential for ground 

disturbance and potential impacts to cultural resources associated with ROW development compared to 

Alternative 1. Construction of development within a ROW could result in inadvertent damage if cultural 

resources that were undetected during surveys were unearthed during ground-disturbing activities. 

Following discovery of cultural resources, activities would stop in accordance with terms and conditions 

in the ROW grant which would minimize further damage to cultural resources. 

Visual Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Undertaking actions to improve vegetation communities, such as removing invasive species, on the 

Hancock County tract would temporarily diminish visual quality. Visual quality would be improved in the 

long term as the condition of vegetation communities improve to meet VRM class objectives. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Undertaking actions to improve fish and wildlife habitat on the Hancock County tract, such as prescribed 

burning, would temporarily diminish visual quality if the developments were to dominate the view of the 

casual observer. Visual quality would be improved in the long term as wildlife-related recreation and 

habitat conditions were improved. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

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). 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Continuing to allow recreation use on the Hancock County tract would result in impacts similar to those 

described under Alternative 1. Since the tract would be managed as limited to motorized boating, impacts 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-82 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

to visual quality would be diminished as there would be less potential for vegetation and soil removal 

from these activities. Furthermore, because the tract is not currently used extensively for recreation, this 

impact would be minimal. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Managing the Hancock County tract as a ROW avoidance area would retain the visual quality in the 

undeveloped wetland setting since ROWs would not be approved on the tract unless it met resource 

objectives. 

Minerals 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Applying the lease stipulations and BMPs in Appendix D could restrict or preclude oil and gas 

development and exploration. Impacts would not be anticipated on approximately 270,615 acres open to 

leasing, subject to standard lease terms and conditions. Managing approximately 123 acres as open to 

leasing, subject to minor constraints and 184,192 acres as open to leasing, subject to major constraints 

could increase development costs. Closing 63,004 acres to leasing would not affect oil and gas leasing 

because approximately five percent of the closed areas would be in areas of historical oil and gas 

production. Allowing for exceptions, waivers, and modifications to these stipulations could create 

opportunities for the discovery of new oil and gas resources. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Lands and realty management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Undertaking actions to improve vegetation communities, such as removing invasive species, on the 

Hancock County tract would temporarily diminish the recreation experience or eliminate the recreation 

opportunity since recreationists could be displaced from vegetation treatment areas until revegetation 

occurs. The recreation experience and opportunity would be improved in the long term as the condition of 

vegetation communities improve by improving the long-term aesthetics of an area. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-83 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Undertaking actions to improve wildlife habitat on the Hancock County tract, such as prescribed burning, 

would temporarily diminish or eliminate the recreation experience and opportunities for travel since 

recreationists could be displaced from protected areas or treated areas until revegetation occurs. The 

recreation experience would be improved in the long term as wildlife-related recreation and habitat 

conditions are improved by improving the long term aesthetics and wildlife viewing of an area. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

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 opportunities on the 184,192 

acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (63,004 acres) by precluding 

ground disturbance and infrastructure associated with oil and gas development. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Continuing to allow recreation use on the Hancock County tract would result in impacts similar to those 

described under Alternative 1. Since motorized vehicle use would be limited to motorized boating, 

motorized recreationists opportunities would be maintained. Since the tract is not currently used 

extensively for recreation or motorized travel, this anticipated impact would be minimal. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Managing the Hancock County tract as a ROW avoidance area would retain the recreation experience in 

the undeveloped wetland setting since ROWs would not be approved on the tract unless it met resource 

objectives. 

Lands and Realty 

Under Alternative 2, the 174-acre Hancock County tract would be managed as a ROW avoidance area. 

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 if the ROW did not meet resource objectives 

of the tract. 

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. Partnerships would allow for 

more efficient and comprehensive resource management of the surface tracts. 

Social and Economic 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

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 vegetative 

communities management actions. 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-84 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Impacts to social and economic conditions from fish and wildlife habitat management actions would be 

the same as impacts identified from vegetative communities management actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

The same number of wells and acres of surface disturbance is anticipated under this alternative; however, 

this alternative would apply leasing stipulations to protect sensitive species and their habitats, including 

buffers for wetland and aquatic resources. Relative to Alternative 1, the exploration and development 

costs could increase while the availability for locations for well pads could decrease. This alternative 

would also provide for the greatest amount of protection for wetland resources. Since the number of wells 

anticipated is small relative to total wells in the area, there would be minimal changes as compared with 

the current situation, possibly slight increases in employment or income (and the same as Alternative 1). 

Social indicators such as housing, education, and cost of living would not be anticipated to change under 

this alternative. 

Similar disturbances from oil and gas development would occur as compared to Alternative 1, although 

potential impacts to wetlands, soils, vegetation, habitat, and wildlife would be anticipated to be reduced 

under this alternative due to the implementation of NSO conditions on oil and gas leasing. Oil and gas 

development and production can have implications for visual and scenic qualities as well as property 

values. These impacts are likely less than those under Alternative 1, as there are more conditions and 

constraints on well-pad locations under Alternative 2. Industry costs and availability for well pad 

locations would likely increase under this alternative, which would result in adverse impacts for the oil 

and gas industry. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Under this alternative, the surface tract would be open to recreational use, but designated as limited to 

motorized boating. Social and economic conditions would be similar to Alternative 1 since minimal 

changes in recreation and travel management are anticipated. However, OHV users would likely be 

adversely impacted since the tract would not be available for this type of motorized use. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

ROW management actions and associated impacts to social and economic conditions would be the same 

as Alternative 1. 

Hazardous Materials 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 3 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-85 

4.3.3 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) 

Air Quality 

Under this alternative, there is a potential for wildfire which could lead to air emissions. Since all fires 

would be suppressed, these occurrences would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to 

individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated air emissions would be the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Soil Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

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 

(3,021 acres), and NSO (92,269 acres) restrictions would be implemented, which would reduce 

disturbance to soils within the protected areas. Under this alternative, the NSO area around aquatic 

habitats identified in Alternative 2 would be reduced to 250-feet, which would reduce protections to soils 

within these areas as compared to Alternative 2. Impacts to prime or unique farmlands would be the same 

as described for Alternative 1. 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 3 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-86 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Although travel management would be limited to motorized boating under this alternative, the level of 

activity that could increase erosion would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since 

these tracts are not used extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in 

Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for impacts to 

soils associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. 

Water Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

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 

(3,021 acres), and NSO (92,269 acres) restrictions would be implemented, which would reduce 

disturbance to water resources within the protected areas. Under this alternative, the NSO area around 

aquatic habitats identified in Alternative 2 would be reduced to 250-feet, which would allow development 

to occur in close proximity to water resources and the potential for impacts to water resources to occur. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Although travel management would be limited to motorized boating under this alternative, the level of 

activity that could impact water resources would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1. 

Therefore, the impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

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 impacts to water 

resources associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. 

Vegetative Communities 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 3 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-87 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts to vegetation would be similar to Alternative 1; however, under this alternative, oil and gas 

activities would be excluded from a 250-foot buffer around wetlands and aquatic habitats, karst areas, 

shoreline habitats and habitats like naturally occurring prairies and glades with special status species. 

There is the option of increasing the buffer to 600-feet where needed because of slopes over 10 percent or 

erosive soils. The buffer under this alternative is expected to be sufficient to protect wetland and riparian 

vegetation and most naturally occurring glades and prairies. Impacts to exotic invasive plant species 

would be the same as in Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Under this alternative, the Hancock County tract would be available for disposal; however, future 

management of the tract would be constrained to meet the same resource objectives as under Alternative 2 

and so impacts to vegetative communities are not anticipated. 

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in 

Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for impacts to 

vegetative communities associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts would be similar to those discussed under Special Status Species. The acreage disturbed (55) 

would be same, but wells would be shifted away from sensitive habitats. Under this alternative, the buffer 

would be reduced to 250-feet, with the option of increasing it to 600-feet where needed because of steep 

slopes or erosive soils. The buffer could be reduced to 100-feet where slopes are less than 10 percent and 

there are no Special Status Species issues. These buffers are expected to be sufficient for most wildlife 

species, utilizing wetland and aquatic habitats, but interior forest nesting birds and some amphibians and 

reptiles that range farther from the riparian/wetland zone would be adversely impacted by this reduced 

buffer through habitat disturbance. Karst habitats and most naturally occurring prairies and glades would 

be protected under this alternative. 

Under this alternative, the coastal no lease areas, including sea turtle nesting habitat and shorelines 

suitable for least tern, piping plover, and snowy plover would be replaced with an NSO buffer. This 

change has some potential to promote offsite drilling. Loss of even small acreages of maritime forests or 

shrub lands would result in the loss of important foraging habitats for migrating song-birds, wading-birds 

and shore-birds, as well as other species associated with these critically imperiled habitats. 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 3 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-88 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Under this alternative, the Hancock County tract would be available for disposal; however, future 

management of the tract would be constrained to meet the same resource objectives as under Alternative 2 

and so impacts to fish and wildlife are not anticipated. 

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in 

Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for impacts to 

fish and wildlife associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. 

Special Status Species 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

The number of wells (10) and acres disturbed (55) would remain the same under this alternative and 

impacts would be the same as Alternative 2, except in the following situations. The aquatic and wetland 

buffer would be reduced to 250-feet. In areas where slopes exceed 10 percent, the buffer could be 

extended up to 600-feet to provide adequate protection. In areas with slopes less than 10 percent, the 250-

foot buffer could be reduced to a minimum of 100-feet, if the adjacent waterway or wetlands have been 

surveyed and no special status species occur within 100-yards upstream and 300-yards downstream of the 

site. This stipulation could be applied to an estimated 68,656 acres or 13 percent of the non-USFS FMO 

available for leasing in Mississippi. In most cases, this buffer is expected to prevent construction activities 

from increasing the sedimentation of local drainages and wetlands. In areas with slopes over 25 percent, 

additional measures may be needed to stabilize disturbed soils above wetlands or aquatic habitats. 

Under this alternative, the no lease area along the coast would be replaced with a NSO buffer. Although 

no surface disturbance would occur on non-USFS FMO or BLM surface tracts within this buffer, offsite 

directional drilling to target these Federal minerals would be permitted under this alternative. Any 

directional drilling targeting non-USFS FMO may affect Federally- or State-listed species using this 

coastal area, including piping plover, snowy plover, Wilson’s plover and American oystercatcher. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in 

Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for impacts to 

special status species associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 3 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-89 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

Impacts from suppressing all wildland fires and allowing prescribed burning on a case-by-case basis 

would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts to wildland fire ecology and management from anticipated oil and gas development and 

associated disturbance of 55 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. Impacts would not occur on the 

closed (63,004 acres) and NSO (92,269 acres) areas created through applying the stipulations in Appendix 

D. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Cultural Resources 

Impacts from cultural resources management and wildland fire management actions would be the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts to cultural resources from management of non-USFS FMO would be the same as Alternative 2, 

except 259,640 acres would be managed as open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions, 

3,021 acres as CSU, 92,269 acres as NSO, and 63,004 acres as closed. The 55 acres of disturbance 

resulting from the anticipated 10 wells could impact cultural resources within areas managed as open to 

leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions or CSU. Impacts to cultural resources are not 

anticipated in areas managed as NSO or closed since surface disturbance would be precluded. 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 3 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-90 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Although the Hancock County tract would be managed as limited to motorized boating under this 

alternative, the level of activity and associated impacts to cultural resources would not be anticipated to 

change compared to Alternative 1 since the tract is not used extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Management actions and impacts associated with ROW development would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Visual Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

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 similar to Alternative 1. 

Stipulations applied under this alternative could preclude oil and gas development thereby protecting 

visual resources on the 92,269 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be 

precluded (63,004 acres). Since no mineral development activities would occur on the surface tracts, there 

would be no violations of VRM class objectives. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel managements actions and associated impacts to visual resources would be the same 

as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Minerals 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 3 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-91 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Applying the lease stipulations and BMPs in Appendix D could restrict or preclude oil and gas 

development and exploration. Under this alternative, the NSO area around aquatic habitats identified in 

Alternative 2 would be reduced to 250 feet and the no lease stipulation for Alabama beach mouse habitat 

would be NSO. Impacts would not be anticipated on approximately 259,640 acres open to leasing, subject 

to standard lease terms and conditions. Managing approximately 3,021 acres as open to leasing, subject to 

minor constraints and 92,269 acres as open to leasing, subject to major constraints could increase 

development costs. Closing 63,004 acres to leasing would not affect oil and gas leasing because 

approximately five percent of the closed areas would be in areas of historical oil and gas production. 

Allowing for exceptions, waivers, and modifications to these stipulations (Appendix D) could create 

opportunities for the discovery of new oil and gas resources. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Lands and realty management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts to recreation and travel would be the 

same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife management actions and associated impacts to recreation and travel would be the same 

as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

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 indirectly protect the recreational opportunities on the 

92,269 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (63,004 acres) by 

eliminating associated ground disturbances, noise, and infrastructure. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

ROW management actions and associated impacts to recreation and travel would be the same as 

Alternative 2. 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 3 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-92 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Lands and Realty 

Lands and realty management actions and associated impacts to lands and realty would be the same as 

Alternative 2. 

Social and Economic 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts to social and economic conditions 

would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Impacts to social and economic conditions from fish and wildlife habitat management actions would be 

the same as impacts identified from vegetative communities management actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

The same number of wells and acres of surface disturbance as Alternative 1 is anticipated under this 

alternative; however, this alternative applies leasing stipulations to protect sensitive species and their 

habitats, including buffers for wetland and aquatic resources. Relative to Alternative 1, the exploration 

and development costs could increase while the availability for locations of well pads could decrease, 

resulting in adverse impacts to the oil and gas industry. Since the number of wells anticipated is small 

relative to total wells in the area, there would be minimal social and economic changes, possibly slight 

increases in employment or income, as compared with the current situation. Oil and gas development and 

production can have implications for visual and scenic qualities as well as property values. These impacts 

are likely less than those under Alternative 1, as there are more conditions and constraints on well-pad 

locations under Alternative 3. Social indicators such as housing, education, and cost of living would not 

be anticipated to change under this alternative. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Under Alternative 3, socioeconomic impacts would be the same as those identified under Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

ROW management actions and associated impacts to social and economic conditions would be the same 

as Alternative 1. 

Hazardous Materials 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 4 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-93 

4.3.4 Alternative 4 

Air Quality 

Under this alternative, there is a potential for wildfire which could lead to air emissions. Since all fires 

would be suppressed, these occurrences would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to 

individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would deteriorate air quality conditions. Prescribed burning 

conducted to meet vegetation resource objectives would be short term and localized and not be 

anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat 

improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive 

plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve 

ground disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would deteriorate air quality conditions. Prescribed 

burning conducted to meet habitat objectives would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to 

individually deteriorate air quality conditions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated air emissions would be the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Soil Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in disturbance or loss of soils. 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 4 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-94 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed 

under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and 

protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of 

prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in disturbance or loss of soils. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts to soil resources from oil and gas development would be the same as Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Although the Hancock County tract would be limited to motorized boating under this alternative, the level 

of activity that increase erosion would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since the 

tract is not used extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Disposing the tract from Federal ownership with no restrictive covenants could increase chances for 

subsequent development and associated impacts to soil resources. However, given this tract’s remoteness 

and location in the Hancock County Marshes Coastal Preserve, development would not be anticipated. 

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in 

Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for impacts to 

soils associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. 

Water Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to water quality. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed 

under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and 

protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of 

prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to water quality. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Impacts to water resources from minerals management, including oil and gas and coal development, 

would be the same as Alternative 3. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 4 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-95 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Although the Hancock County tract would be limited to motorized boating under this alternative, the level 

of activity that impact water resources would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since 

the tract is not used extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Disposing the tract from Federal ownership with no restrictive covenants could increase chances for 

subsequent development and associated impacts to water resources. However, given this tract’s 

remoteness and location in the Hancock County Marshes Coastal Preserve, development would not be 

anticipated. 

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in 

Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for impacts to 

water resources associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. 

Vegetative Communities 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives 

would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed 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 vegetative 

communities. Dense stands of cogon grass would displace native vegetation and could make the island 

and adjacent marshes more vulnerable to frequent wildfires. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State 

wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and 

wetland enhancements, would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed 

could result in the same impacts discussed under impacts from vegetative communities management 

actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Minerals management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Disposing the tract from Federal ownership with no restrictive covenants could increase chances for 

subsequent development and associated impacts to vegetative communities. However, given this tract’s 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 4 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-96 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

remoteness and location in the Hancock County Marshes Coastal Preserve, development would not be 

anticipated. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives 

would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in habitat 

degradation on any of the BLM surface tracts. The Hancock County tract located on Point Clear Island is 

particularly vulnerable to Cogon grass and Chinese tallow. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State 

wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and 

wetland enhancements, would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed 

could result in the same impacts discussed under impacts from vegetative communities management 

actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Minerals management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Disposing the tract from Federal ownership with no restrictive covenants could increase chances for 

subsequent development and associated impacts to vegetative communities. However, given this tract’s 

remoteness and location in the Hancock County Marshes Coastal Preserve, development would not be 

anticipated. Management of wildlife values is expected to continue in coordination with the Mississippi 

Coastal Preserve System. 

Special Status Species 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives 

would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed 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. Dense stands of cogon grass 

would displace native vegetation and could make the island and adjacent marshes more vulnerable to 

frequent wildfires. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 4 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-97 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard 

management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State 

wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and 

wetland enhancements, would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed 

could result in the same impacts discussed under impacts from vegetative communities management 

actions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Minerals management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Under this alternative, the Hancock County tract would be available for disposal from Federal ownership. 

The effect this has on special status species is not known. Its location at the center of the Hancock County 

Marsh Preserve and the presence of extensive wetlands would make development of the tract difficult. It 

is likely that special status species would continue to benefit from the tract being managed in coordination 

with the Mississippi Coastal Preserve System. 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

Impacts from suppressing all wildland fires and allowing prescribed burning on a case-by-case basis 

would be the same as Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Although no specific vegetative communities actions are proposed, allowing vegetation manipulation to 

meet resources objectives under standard management common to all alternatives would generally serve 

to decrease vegetation density and cover (fuel load) and maintain natural fuel conditions across the 

Hancock County tract. This would maintain natural disturbance regimes which would be easier to manage 

through prescribed fire or other treatments. This would also decrease the frequency and intensity of 

wildland fires and allow fires to be more easily controlled, better protecting life, public safety, and 

property and resource values. However, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in 

invasions and fuel accumulations that would increase the frequency and intensity of wildland fires. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed under this alternative, therefore no 

impacts would be anticipated. Under standard management common to all alternatives, providing habitat 

improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive 

plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would result in impacts similar to those 

discussed under impacts from vegetative communities management actions. 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 4 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-98 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Minerals management actions and associated impacts to wildland fire ecology and management would be 

the same as Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Impacts to wildland fire ecology and management from recreation and travel management actions would 

be the same as Alternative 2 because travel designations would be the same for this alternative. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Cultural Resources 

Impacts from cultural resources management and wildland fire management actions would be the same as 

Alternative 1. 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would require cultural resource clearances before activity were 

to occur; therefore, impacts would not be anticipated. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed 

under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and 

protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of 

prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would require cultural resource clearances before activity 

were to occur; therefore, impacts would not be anticipated. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Minerals management action and associated impacts to cultural resources would be the same as 

Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Although the Hancock County tract would be limited to motorized boating under this alternative, the level 

of activity and associated potential impacts to cultural resources would not be anticipated to change 

compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not used extensively for recreation or travel. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Making the Hancock County tract available for disposal without any specified management or use 

conditions could have impacts if the property contained previously undetected, potentially eligible NRHP 

cultural sites. Disposing the property from Federal ownership would remove the protection of any cultural 

resources under Federal law, and not applying management or use conditions would increase the potential 

for damage of previously undetected cultural resources. Before any transfer of management 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 4 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-99 

responsibilities or ownership, a cultural resource survey and consultation with SHPO under NHPA 

Section 106 regulations would be required, mitigating this impact. 

Management actions and impacts associated with ROW development would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Visual Resources 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to visual quality. Although visual quality 

would deteriorate in the short term, visual quality would improve in the long term once vegetation has 

reestablished to meet VRM class objectives. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed 

under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and 

protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of 

prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to visual quality. Although visual quality 

would deteriorate in the short term, visual quality would improve in the long term once vegetation has 

reestablished to meet VRM class objectives. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Minerals management actions and associated impacts to visual resources would be the same as 

Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel managements actions and associated impacts to visual resources would be the same 

as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Making the Hancock County tracts available for disposal from Federal ownership without any specified 

management or use conditions if the R&PP were revoked could result in changes to the existing natural or 

manmade landforms, which would diminish visual quality if the use were to dominate the view of the 

casual observer. Following disposal, private development actions could create visually intrusive 

development. 

ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Minerals 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Vegetative communities management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 
Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 4 Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-100 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Fish and wildlife management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Mineral management actions for oil and gas and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Lands and realty management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and 

exploration, therefore impacts are not anticipated. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation 

manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground disturbing 

activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to recreation. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions 

proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat 

improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive 

plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve 

ground disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to recreation. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Minerals management actions and associated impacts to recreation and travel would be the same as 

Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Making the Hancock County tract available for disposal from Federal ownership without any specified 

management or use conditions if the R&PP were revoked could result in reduced access for recreation and 

travel opportunities. Following disposal, the tract could be made unavailable for public recreation and 

become inaccessible. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 4 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-101 

Lands and Realty 

ROW management actions and associated impacts to lands and realty would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Under Alternative 4, the 174-acre Hancock County tract would be available for disposal from Federal 

ownership with no restrictive covenants. This would allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or 

non-Federal ownership without specified conditions on future use of the tract; however, disposal would 

not be allowed if it would jeopardize Federally-listed species or designated critical habitat, which could 

limit some disposals. 

Social and Economic 

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions 

Impacts to social and economic conditions would not be anticipated from vegetative communities 

management actions since no actions are proposed under this alternative. Standard management actions 

common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation manipulation to meet resource objectives, 

would not be anticipated to be of an extent that would result in impacts to economic or social conditions. 

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions 

Impacts to social and economic conditions would not be anticipated from fish and wildlife habitat 

management actions since no actions are anticipated. Standard management actions common to all 

alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation 

strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, 

would not be anticipated to be of an extent that would result in impacts to economic or social conditions. 

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions 

Minerals management actions and the associated impacts to social and economic conditions would be the 

same as those under Alternative 3. 

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions 

Under Alternative 4, socioeconomic impacts would be the same as those identified under Alternative 2. 

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions 

Under Alternative 4, the Hancock County land tract would be available for disposal from Federal 

ownership without conditions on management and use after disposal. This could result in reduced access 

for recreational opportunities on these lands. Since development could be allowed on these properties, it 

is possible that the property tax revenues to the local counties would increase more than the Federal 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes, economically benefiting Hancock County and the State. It is possible that the 

private development of these tracts could slightly increase employment and income in these areas. Social 

indicators, such as housing, education, and cost of living are not expected to be influenced by the minimal 

development. 

Hazardous Materials 

Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. 
Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-102 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts analysis considers the alternatives in the context of the broader human 

environment—specifically, actions that occur outside the scope and geographic area covered by the RMPEIS. The following factors are considered in the cumulative impact assessment: Federal, non-Federal, and 

private actions; the potential for synergistic effects or synergistic interaction among or between effects; 

the potential for effects to cross political and administrative boundaries; other spatial and temporal 

characteristics of each affected resource; and the comparative scale of cumulative impacts across 

alternatives. 

Past, present, and potential future actions are considered in the analysis to identify whether the 

environment has been degraded or enhanced, and to what extent; whether ongoing activities are causing 

impacts; and trends for activities and impacts in the area. Projects and activities are evaluated on the basis 

of proximity, connection to the same environmental systems, potential for subsequent impacts or activity, 

similar impacts, the likelihood a project will occur, and whether the project is reasonably foreseeable. 

Projects and activities considered in the cumulative analysis were identified through discussions with 

agency officials and review of publicly available materials and Web sites. The following projects and 

activities were identified: 

• Mineral Development: Between 1983 and 2004, 8,068 wells have been completed in Alabama. 

Of those, 17 wells were drilled to BLM-administered non-USFS FMO. BLM currently oversees 

30 active leases on BLM-administered non-USFS FMO and 106 active leases on USFS FMO in 

Alabama. An estimated 20 wells (105 acres of surface disturbance) could be developed on nonUSFS BLM-administered FMO lands in Alabama over the next 20 years. An estimated 4,000 

wells (20,811 acres of surface disturbance) could be developed on non-Federal and USFS lands in 

Alabama over the next 20 years. Future anticipated well development in Alabama is shown in 

Table 4-5.

Table 4-5. Future Anticipated Well Development In Alabama 

Federal 

(non-USFS) 

Federal 

(USFS) Non-Federal Total 

Number of 

Wells 20 12 3,988 4,020 

Total Acres of 

Surface 

Disturbance 

105 61 20,750 20,916 

Between 1983 and 2004, 7,362 wells have been completed in Mississippi. Of those, seven wells 

were drilled to BLM-administered non-USFS FMO, two of which were drilled from other Federal 

agency surface ownership and five from non-Federal surface ownership. BLM currently oversees 

42 active leases on BLM-administered non-USFS FMO and 1,181 active leases on USFS FMO in 

Mississippi. An estimated 10 wells (55 acres of surface disturbance) could be developed on nonUSFS BLM-administered FMO lands in Mississippi over the next 20 years. An estimated 12,000 

wells (59,745 acres of surface disturbance) could be developed on non-Federal and USFS lands in 

Mississippi over the next 20 years. Future anticipated well development in Mississippi is shown 

in Table 4-6. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-103 

Table 4-6. Future Anticipated Well Development In Mississippi 

Federal 

(non-USFS) 

Federal 

(USFS) Non-Federal Total 

Number of 

Wells 10 350 11,650 12,010 

Total Acres of 

Surface 

Disturbance 

55 1,925 57,820 59,800 

• Coal development. For the purposes of this analysis, new Federal coal leases of 9,000 acres 

could be anticipated. Approximately 37.6 million tons of Federal coal would be produced over 

the next 20 years (avg. 1.9 tons/yr.) as part of pre-existing underground mines with no new 

surface disturbance. 

• Potential development after disposal of the surface tracts. For the purposes of the cumulative 

impact analysis, assumptions were made as to the potential development of the surface tracts 

following disposal for Alternatives 3 and 4.

Under Alternative 3, the Jordan Lake tract would likely be developed as a recreation camp 

following disposal. No development would be expected following disposal of the Geneva County 

tract. 

Under Alternative 4, the Fort Morgan Beach, Fort Morgan Highway, and Fowl River tracts would 

be developed for residential or recreational use. The Coosa River and Jordan Lake tracts would be 

developed as recreation camps following disposal. No development would be expected following 

disposal of the Geneva County tract. 

Under Alternatives 3 and 4, the Hancock Country tract in Mississippi would continue to be used 

for recreation and research site purposes with no expected development. 

• Fuels Treatments. Table 4-7 shows the fuels treatments completed in Alabama by Department of 

the Interior agencies and USFS. The BLM did not conduct any fuels treatments in Alabama over 

these four years. Over 98 percent of these treatments were completed by the USFS using 

prescribed fires approximately 90 percent of the time; the remainder were completed with 

mechanical treatments. Over 97 percent of Federal fuels treatments were applied in WUI areas. 

Table 4-7. DOI and USDA Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for Alabama (Acres) 

Wildland-Urban Interface Other Year 

Fire Mechanical Total Fire Mechanical Total 

Total 

2006 69,112 3,602 72,714 3,529 5,190 8,719 81,433 

2005 84,804 12,313 97,117 157 282 439 97,556 

2004 82,391 6,336 88,727 0 0 0 88,727 

2003 76,884 16 76,900 0 0 0 76,900 

Source: http://www.fireplan.gov/overview/States/al.html, accessed March 2, 2007 

Table 4-8 shows the fuels treatments completed in Mississippi by Department of the Interior 

agencies and USFS. The BLM did not conduct any fuels treatments in Mississippi over these four 
Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-104 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

years. Over 95 percent of these treatments were completed by the USFS using prescribed fires 

approximately 80 percent of the time; the remainder were completed with mechanical treatments. 

Over 96 percent of Federal fuels treatments were applied in WUI areas. 

Table 4-8. DOI and USDA Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for Mississippi (Acres) 

Wildland-Urban Interface Other Year 

Fire Mechanical Total Fire Mechanical Total 

Total 

2006 101,385 117,052 218,437 2,847 846 3,693 222,130 

2005 256,138 18,879 275,017 10,312 27 10,339 285,356 

2004 251,924 10,496 262,420 16,820 672 17,492 279,912 

2003 264,855 605 265,460 6,598 466 7,064 272,524 

Source: http://www.fireplan.gov/overview/States/ms.html, accessed March 2, 2007 

• Soil disturbance and vegetation loss from construction projects. Other construction projects 

across the State including private development and transportation projects create soil disturbance 

and vegetation loss. The 1997 and 2003 National Resources Inventories (NRIs) provide for 

estimates of land use conversion over time. Surface disturbance for oil and gas development 

would be comparable to the NRI category of “Developed Land.” Comparison with the NRI data 

will put the proposed actions of the AL-MS RMP (e.g. the oil and gas RFD) in context for 

cumulative impact analysis. The information from the 1997 NRI (including data for the period 

1982-1997) and the 2003 NRI is briefly described below and is shown in Table 4-9. The increase 

in developed land over time can be seen by scanning down the “Developed” land column. 

The 1997 NRI data indicates that the acres of developed land in Alabama increased by 635,700 

acres from 1982 to 1997, an average of 42,380 acres per year. The 2003 NRI shows that 

Developed Land increased to 2,273,900 acres in Alabama by 2003. This is an increase of 471,600 

acres for the 6-year period 1997-2003, an annual average of 78,600 acres. 

The 1997 NRI data indicates that the acres of developed land in Mississippi increased by 353,800 

acres from1982-1997, an average of 23,587 acres per year. The 2003 NRI shows that Developed 

Land increased to 1,676,300 acres in Mississippi by 2003. This is an increase of 202,300 acres for 

the 6-year period 1997-2003, an annual average of 33,717 acres. 

Table 4-9. Developed Surface Area of Non-Federal and Federal Land and Water Areas, By 

State and Year (Data per 1,000 acres)

Non-Federal land 

State Year Federal 

land 

Water 

areas Developed Rural Total 

Total 

Surface 

Area 

1982 949.3 1,166.8 1,616.6 29,691.1 31,307.7 33,423.8 

1987 950.1 1,181.4 1,807.2 29,485.1 31,292.3 33,423.8 

1992 970.0 1,201.0 1,937.0 29,315.8 31,252.8 33,423.8 

1997 997.9 1,223.2 2,252.3 28,950.4 31,202.7 33,423.8 

Alabama 

2003 997.9 1,281.4 2,723.9 28,420.6 31,144.5 33,423.8 

Mississippi 1982 1,634.6 720.5 1,120.2 27,052.0 28,172.2 30,527.3 

1987 1,673.5 791.4 1,193.1 26,869.3 28,062.4 30,527.3 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-105 

Non-Federal land 

State Year Federal 

land 

Water 

areas Developed Rural Total 

Total 

Surface 

Area 

1992 1,751.9 829.8 1,267.6 26,678.0 27,945.6 30,527.3 

1997 1,769.7 855.0 1,474.0 26,428.6 27,902.6 30,527.3 

2003 1,794.8 884.3 1,676.3 26,171.9 27,848.2 30,527.3 

Notes: The following are definitions from the NRI: 

Developed land. A combination of land cover/use categories, Large urban and built-up areas, Small built-up areas, and Rural 

transportation land. 

Large urban and built-up areas. A Land cover/use category composed of developed tracts of at least 10 acres—meeting the 

definition of Urban and built-up areas. 

Rural transportation land. A Land cover/use category which consists of all highways, roads, railroads and associated ROW 

outside urban and built-up areas; also includes private roads to farmsteads or ranch headquarters, logging roads, and other 

private roads (field lanes are not included). 

Small built-up areas. A Land cover/use category consisting of developed land units of 0.25 to 10 acres, which meet the definition of 

Urban and built-up areas. 

Urban and built-up areas. A Land cover/use category consisting of residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional land; 

construction sites; public administrative sites; railroad yards; cemeteries; airports; golf courses; sanitary landfills; sewage

treatment plants; water control structures and spillways; other land used for such purposes; small parks (less than 10 acres) 

within urban and built-up areas; and highways, railroads, and other transportation facilities if they are surrounded by urban 

areas. Also included are tracts of less than 10 acres that do not meet the above definition but are completely surrounded by 

Urban and built-up land. Two size categories are recognized in the NRI: areas of 0.25 acre to 10 acres, and areas of at least 

10 acres. 

Sources: USDA, 2000; USDA, 2007. 

4.4.1 Cumulative Impacts from BLM Management Actions in 

Alabama 

Air Quality 

The cumulative impacts of air quality are evaluated by comparing the BLM site emissions with 

regionwide emissions. For the State of Alabama, comprehensive emissions are only available for NOX, 

CO, and VOCs in the major urbanized areas. These emissions can be obtained from the ADEM. Using the 

best available information from ADEM, Table 4-10 shows a comparison between the Birmingham Non 

Attainment Area and the BLM induced emissions. Based on this data, emissions from activities 

associated with potential oil and gas development and minerals mining on BLM-administered non-USFS 

FMO tracts proposed in this RMP would not considerably contribute to cumulative air quality emissions 

within the region (presented in Table 4-10). Over the next 20 years, emissions from 20 wells would 

comprise less than 1 percent of the emissions associated with the estimated 4,000 wells that could be 

developed on non-Federal and USFS lands in Alabama. These impacts would be the same for all 

alternatives. 

Table 4-10. Comparison of Potential BLM Emissions with Cumulative Emissions for 

Alabama (tons per year) 1, 2

Emission Type/Pollutant Well and Mine Locations 

NOx CO VOC 

BLM-Administered FMO Estate 

in Alabama 171 219 73 

Birmingham NAA 578,799 2,902,972 448,946 

1. Compared with best available 2002 data from the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM 2005). 

2. A combination of oil and gas and coal mining. 
Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-106 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Soil Resources 

In Alabama, the disturbance of a maximum of 105 acres from oil and gas development across the State of 

Alabama comprises less than one percent of the 20,811 acres of surface disturbance anticipated from oil 

and gas development on non-Federal and USFS lands over the next 20 years. Although more than 8,000 

wells have been completed in Alabama since 1983, the minimal number of 20 additional wells identified 

in the reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFDS) would have no long-term impacts to soil 

productivity and therefore would not contribute to significant cumulative effects. These impacts would be 

the same for all alternatives. 

Possible soil impacts associated with vegetative communities, fish and wildlife habitat, and lands and 

realty management actions including ROW development and potential development after disposal on the 

159 acres of surface tracts comprises less than one percent of the 78,600 acres disturbed annually (1997-

2003) from other construction projects across the State including private development and transportation 

projects (as estimated by the NRI data). There would be more potential for soil disturbance impacts 

associated with vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat management actions proposed under 

Alternatives 2 and 3 as opposed to Alternatives 1 and 4 that do not propose any actions beyond standard 

management common to all alternatives. There would be more potential for soil disturbance impacts 

associated with ROW management actions under Alternative 1, which allows ROW development on all 

surface tracts, than Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, which designates 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface 

ownership in Alabama as ROW avoidance areas. There would be more potential for soil disturbance 

impacts associated with potential development after disposal without conditions under Alternative 4 than 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, which either retains the tracts (Alternatives 1 and 2) or places restrictive 

covenants on the use after disposal (Alternative 3). 

Water Resources 

Water resources located on or adjacent to Alabama surface tracts could experience change as a result of 

mineral exploration and development or construction activities. However, the BMPs and stipulations 

identified in Appendix D would minimize irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources and 

unavoidable adverse impacts. Impacts to water quality associated with possible ROW development and 

the disturbance of a maximum of 105 acres from oil and gas development across the State of Alabama 

comprises less than one percent of the 20,811 acres of surface disturbance anticipated from oil and gas 

development on non-Federal agency and USFS lands would not contribute to significant cumulative 

impacts to water resources within the State of Alabama. Although more than 8,000 wells have been 

completed in Alabama since 1983, the minimal number of 20 additional wells identified in the RFDS 

would have no long-term impacts to soil stability or water quality and would limit the likelihood of 

leakage of drill fluids, hazardous waste spills, or leakage from reserve pits (if established) that could 

impact surface water and groundwater quality. Thus, significant cumulative impacts would not be 

anticipated. Potential development after disposal on the 159 acres of surface tracts comprises less than 

one percent of the 78,600 acres disturbed annually (1997-2003) from other construction projects across 

the State including private development and transportation projects (as estimated by the NRI data). 

Coal mining activities within the Warrior Basin would be expanded to include 9,000 acres of new coal 

leases that would yield an estimated average of 1.9 million tons of coal per year over the next 20-years. 

Although this increased mining would be limited to existing underground coal mines, the potential for 

groundwater contamination would cumulatively increase as a result of the increased mining activities. 

Migration of contaminants into the surrounding soils and aquifers could degrade groundwater quality and 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-107 

thereby affect wells and springs that may serve household and domestic uses. These impacts would be the 

same for all alternatives. 

Vegetative Communities 

The continuation of mineral development (totaling approximately 4,000 wells with 20,811 acres of 

surface disturbance) and soil disturbance and vegetation loss from other construction projects in the State 

(approximately 78,600 acres of surface disturbance annually) has a high potential of affecting vegetative 

communities, such as glades and prairies, that are sensitive to disruption and difficult to restore after 

surface disturbing activities. These activities also have the potential to introduce and promote the spread 

of invasive, exotic plant species. 

Throughout the State, some vegetative communities, embedded in the larger forested landscape, are 

particularly sensitive to disruption and are difficult to restore after surface-disturbing activities. Many of 

these are restricted to a narrow range of soil types such as glades and prairies; others are sensitive to 

changes in hydrography, such as bogs, forested wetlands and seepage slope communities. Construction 

activities in these plant communities generally alter the site sufficiently to preclude the reestablishment of 

these communities in the foreseeable future. Also, because of the limited acreage of these vegetative 

communities, loss of even small acreages has a disproportionate effect on the plant diversity in an area. 

Surface disturbing activities have the potential to introduce or promote the spread of invasive, exotic plant 

species. Impacts are dependent on the species planted during restoration activities and the management of 

the site during and following restoration. Restoration activities typically include seeding non-native 

grasses, such as annual rye (during the winter months) and Bahia or Bermuda grass (during the summer 

months) to provide a quick cover for disturbed soils. Including native species in the mix increases 

diversity and provides a more natural structure. If these areas are mowed following abandonment, these 

non-native grasses are expected to persist and dominate the site. If, however, the sites are replanted in 

pine or left unmowed, the areas can be expected to progress through old field type growth which is 

dominated by opportunistic native and non-native species alike. Ultimately, both Bahia and Bermuda 

grass are expected to become shaded out as a tree or heavy shrub layer becomes established. Japanese 

honeysuckle and Chinese privet can both persist in shaded situations. 

Although effects to vegetative communities from surface disturbing activities and the introduction of 

invasive, exotic plant species would likely occur as a result of the reasonably foreseeable actions 

identified for this analysis, BLM activities would have a minimal contribution to these effects on plant 

communities due to the small amount of acreage that would be disturbed under BLM management 

alternatives and BLM policies on BMPs for mineral development reclamation and control of noxious, 

exotic species. 

Fish and Wildlife 

The continuation of mineral development (totaling approximately 4,000 wells with 20,811 acres of 

surface disturbance) and soil disturbance and vegetation loss from other construction projects across the 

State (approximately 78,600 acres of surface disturbance annually) has a high potential of affecting 

wildlife and associated habitat through displacement, habitat degradation, and direct habitat loss. 

Impacts to many wildlife species from oil and gas development are localized and temporary. Most 

common game species and other mobile wildlife species avoid the well pad areas during construction and 

maintenance. Less mobile species are directly impacted and during the spring and early summer; this can 

include nesting neotropical birds. Habitat generalists, including most game species, tend to return to 

surrounding habitats after the well is completed and construction and maintenance activities have ceased. 
Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-108 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Intermittent maintenance and inspection activities conducted on the established pad for the life of the well 

are not expected to alter the overall use of the area by wildlife. However, construction in high value 

habitats or in areas with more narrowly adapted wildlife species can alter the overall species diversity. 

Wells and roads in areas of contiguous forests increase habitat fragmentation, reducing the suitability of 

the area for interior nesting birds and making nests more susceptible to predation and parasitism. Older 

growth forests which provide habitat for interior forest nesting birds and a wider diversity of amphibians 

and reptiles are often located in riparian zones left as buffers during logging operations or in steeper, less 

accessible slopes. 

Oil and gas drilling continues for 24 hours a day until the well is completed. During this time, most 

wildlife including waterfowl and many songbirds are expected to avoid the immediate area. However, 

once drilling is completed, reserve pits with water (which can become soiled by drilling fluids) can 

become a hazard for waterfowl and other birds. If the well is put into production, there is documentation 

of birds and bats using open vent stacks for roosting or perching. Once in these stacks, animals can 

become trapped or asphyxiated. While much of the work documenting this problem has occurred in 

western States, the situation in Alabama is expected to be similar. 

Roads and other construction projects across the State can alter the local hydrography reducing surface 

flow to mesic areas and diverting or degrading surface water supporting wetland habitats. Installation of 

culverts and diverting existing drainages help to maintain existing hydrologic systems, but the disturbance 

causes local sedimentation and can retard sheet flow to wetland habitats. Amphibians and many reptiles 

associated with wetland communities are vulnerable to disturbance, as they are not highly mobile and 

tend to have narrow habitat requirements. 

Impacts would also include the direct loss of habitat from the general construction projects, including 

private development and transportation projects, from degradation of nearby aquatic or wetland habitats 

through sedimentation or changes in hydrology. 

Although significant habitat degradation and loss would likely occur as a result of the reasonably 

foreseeable actions identified for this analysis, BLM activities would have a minimal contribution to these 

effects on wildlife due to management protection provided under all alternatives, with Alternatives 2, 3, 

and 4 providing more stringent protection than Alternative 1. In the long term, depending on the location 

and intensity of construction and minerals development, it is likely that public lands containing viable 

habitats for wildlife would continue to be utilized by these species. 

Special Status Species 

Given the high number and dispersed distribution of special status species in aquatic and wetland habitats 

in Alabama, the continuation of mineral development (totaling approximately 4,000 wells with 20,811 

acres of surface disturbance) and soil disturbance and vegetation loss from other construction projects 

across the State (approximately 78,600 acres of surface disturbance annually) near rivers, creeks, or 

wetland habitats has a high potential of affecting special status species in the immediate area or 

downstream of the disturbance. 

Impacts to aquatic and wetland habitats would occur through degradation of water quality through 

increased sedimentation or turbidity, contamination, direct loss of habitat, and changes in local 

hydrography. Sedimentation and increased turbidity is listed as a current threat to most of Alabama’s 

mussels and special status fish species. The potential for sedimentation increases with prolonged or heavy 

rains that are typical in this area. Cut and fill slopes associated with other construction projects across the 

State are particularly vulnerable before protective plant covers have been established. Intact vegetation 

along riparian zones and around wetlands could substantially buffer these areas. Sediments deposited in 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-109 

intermittent drainages and headwater streams would be transported downstream during periods of high 

water, increasing turbidity and burying aquatic invertebrates in higher order streams. 

Filling wetlands, including bogs, seepage slopes, wet flatwoods, and forested swamps for construction 

and maintenance of well pads for oil and gas development and/or other construction projects across the 

State generally alters the site sufficiently to preclude the reestablishment of these communities in the 

foreseeable future, and could result in direct habitat loss for a wide variety of special status species which 

use these habitats. Because so many of these species have limited ranges, the list of species potentially 

affected varies by location. Generally, because of the limited acreage of these vegetation communities, 

loss from even the small amount of disturbance has the potential of destroying or degrading habitat for 

special status species. Construction and maintenance activities and other construction projects across the 

State could disrupt the local hydrography supporting seepage slopes or sheet flow to bogs and swamps 

degrading these habitats. 

Karst formations support cave habitats with high numbers of special status species, including many 

endemic crayfish, salamanders, and bats and are particularly sensitive to oil and gas development. In 

caves, even minor alterations in temperature, humidity, and water quality or water quantity could result in 

irreversible impacts. Caves by their nature are isolated and support highly endemic faunas often with 

extremely narrow habitat requirements. Wells drilled through cave/karst resources could result in 

contaminants, such as drilling fluids and cements, draining into the cave/karst system. Karst habitats 

could be degraded by hydrocarbons from spills or leaks from well casings, storage tanks, reserve pits, 

pipelines, and production facilities that may enter into the cave/karst systems. Additionally, cementing 

operations could affect portions of underground drainage systems by restricting groundwater flow and 

introducing pollutants into karst systems. Other possible impacts are vented or escaped gases collecting in 

sinkholes and caves. These gases could cause a die-off of plant and animal life that use the special habitat 

created by the microclimate of the cave entrances or sinkhole. 

Although significant habitat degradation and loss would likely occur as a result of the reasonably 

foreseeable actions identified for this analysis, BLM activities would have a minimal contribution to these 

effects on special status species due to the minimal numbers of oil and gas development anticipated (20 

wells) and management protection provided for these species under all alternatives, with Alternatives 2, 3, 

and 4 providing more stringent protection than Alternative 1. BLM would also be required to consult with 

USFWS to identify and establish specific conservation actions that could be taken to mitigate the 

potential effects of land management activities. 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

In addition to the ignition sources associated with development of 20 new oil and gas wells noted in the 

impact analysis, there are over 8,000 existing oil and gas wells throughout Alabama. An additional 4,000 

oil and gas wells would be developed on non-Federal and USFS FMO over the next 20 years. 

Cumulatively, the potential increases in wildland fires from the addition of 20 wells compared to 12,000 

existing and potential wells would not significantly increase the risk of fire in Alabama. Likewise, the 

infrastructure associated with oil and gas or ROW developments would no significantly improve access or 

provide fuels breaks compared to the cumulative developments and current rate of 78,600 acres of land 

developed annually (1997-2003) in Alabama. 

The cumulative effect of proposed vegetation treatments on the 159 acres of surface tracts would be in 

addition to 86,154 acres of vegetation treatments by other Federal agencies, as well as prescribed burns 

performed by State and local agencies and private or corporate forestry operations. The proposed 

treatments would help maintain or restore small areas to their natural regimes, as well as improve the 
Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-110 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

ability to protect WUI areas from wildfire. Cumulatively, the implementation of all these treatments 

would reduce the cost of suppressing wildfires. 

Cultural Resources 

While cultural resources on USFS FMO and non-USFS FMO enjoy legal protection, similar protection 

from surface disturbing activities does not apply to cultural resources from private actions on private 

lands. Oil and gas development in areas with private surface and FMO still require compliance with 

cultural resource laws. However, oil and gas development in areas of private surface and private mineral 

ownership, or non-mineral developments in areas with private surface FMO, could result in cumulative 

impacts to cultural resources throughout Alabama. This could result in unmitigated damage and loss of 

cultural sites and artifacts in areas of private surface and mineral ownership where oil and gas wells are 

developed. Cumulatively, Alternative 2 provides the greatest level of protection from cumulative impacts 

due to the largest number of closed and NSO acres. Alternatives 3 and 4 provide the next greatest level of 

protection. In these areas, the potential for inadvertent damage and loss of cultural resources is the lowest. 

An additional 105 acres associated with development of 20 wells on non-USFS FMO and 20,811 acres 

associated with development of an estimated 4,000 additional wells on non-Federal mineral estate and 

USFS FMO would be added to the existing disturbance from development of over 8,000 oil and gas wells 

in Alabama over the past twenty years. Acreage developed on USFS FMO would receive protections 

from Federal law, regulation, and policy. Developments in those areas would be required to comply with 

NHPA and Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) in inventorying areas and determining 

eligibility of sites for the NRHP. Additional developments on USFS FMO would result in the 

identification of more cultural sites during inventories. Excavation of sites as part of mitigating impacts 

from development on USFS FMO would enable scientific retrieval and study of cultural resources, using 

today’s technology and methodology. While data recovery preserves as much data as possible, the 

excavated portions of the property would be lost or damaged. Removing cultural resources from a site 

using current scientific methods also reduces future scientific value if more accurate methods of analysis 

are developed. 

Combined with disturbance from mineral development, other Federal agencies perform over 86,000 acres 

of vegetation treatments throughout Alabama annually. Approximately 92 percent of the treated acres 

(79,219 acres) would be treated by prescribed fire. Additional acreages would be treated by State and 

local agencies and private individuals. Treatments by Federal agencies would require cultural inventories 

prior to implementation, identifying and protecting cultural sites. However, treatments by State and local 

agencies and private individuals could impact cultural resources through burning and suppression efforts. 

Cumulatively, the alternatives would have little effect on these impacts as the levels of treatment and 

BLM surface acreage are very small in comparison, although Alternatives 3 and 4 would have the greatest 

cumulative effect as it proposes the greatest levels of vegetation treatment to support other resources. 

Development of BLM surface tracts would not be permitted until disposal, which would only occur under 

Alternatives 3 and 4. Protection measures in Alternative 3 would protect cultural resource sites from 

damage or loss. However, under Alternative 4 it is assumed that the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, 

Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, and Jordan Lake tracts would all be developed. All the tracts except 

the Coosa River tracts have been inventoried, so potential impacts would be limited to those 42 acres. 

Following disposal, developments on these tracts would no longer require cultural inventories or 

mitigation, which could result in the damage or loss of cultural sites. Cumulatively, this would be in 

addition to an approximate 78,600 acres of development per year on private land, which could similarly 

impact cultural sites. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-111 

The number of sites anticipated to be cumulatively damaged resulting from actions proposed in this RMP 

combined with other cumulative projects and activities is unknown because most areas have not been 

surveyed for cultural resources. 

Visual Resources 

Cumulative impacts on visual resources would occur primarily from activities that affect the visual 

quality of the area. Such impacts would result from mineral development activities, ROW development, 

increased recreational activity, and actions associated with management of vegetative communities and 

fish and wildlife habitat. Surface disturbing activities associated with mineral development and ROWs 

would create visual intrusions that could alter the landscape setting and degrade visual quality. The 

possible ROW development and disturbance of a maximum of 105 acres from oil and gas development 

across the State of Alabama comprises less than one percent of the 20,811 acres of surface disturbance 

anticipated from oil and gas development on non-Federal and USFS lands. Although more than 8,000 

wells have been completed in Alabama since 1983, the minimal number of 20 additional wells identified 

in the RFDS would not significantly diminish visual quality. Closing or limiting areas to motorized 

recreation uses and implementing restrictions designed to protect sensitive resources would help to 

maintain the visual quality in restricted areas. Efforts to maintain and improve vegetative communities 

and fish and wildlife habitat would indirectly enhance visual quality through improvement of the visual 

landscape. 

Cumulative impacts would be similar among the four alternatives, as the same level of development is 

expected under all alternatives. However, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 provide for specific actions to improve 

vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat, thereby enhancing visual quality. In addition, 

implementing an NSO stipulation within 1,000 feet of aquatic habitats under Alternative 2 would preserve 

the visual quality within these areas. Impacts would likely be greatest under Alternative 4, as 

development of the tract is expected to occur subsequent to disposal, which would add to the visual 

intrusions of development on adjacent lands for some tracts, such as the Fort Morgan tracts. 

Minerals 

In Alabama, no cumulative impacts would be anticipated to minerals exploration and development as a 

result of BLM-administered surface tract and non-USFS FMO land use allocations and management 

actions since the RMP would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration. An 

irretrievable commitment of oil and gas and coal would result from mineral extraction via 20 wells 

developed over the next 20 years in Alabama and continued leasing of 1.9 tons of coal per year over the 

next 20 years (37.6 million tons of Federal coal) on non-USFS FMO in the Warrior Basin. These impacts 

would be the same for all alternatives. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Most of Alabama is not managed by the Federal government, and recreation and travel opportunities are 

often dependant on whether the private landowner allows access or travel access the private surface. 

Therefore, maintaining Federal ownership of public lands under Alternatives 1 and 2 would maintain 

limited opportunities for public recreation and travel. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, opportunities for travel 

and recreation could be precluded after disposal, cumulatively adding to the current restrictions on private 

lands throughout the State. Although BLM management actions and disposal actions under the 

alternatives could have localized impacts to recreation experience and travel opportunities, no significant 

cumulative impacts would be anticipated because of the small size and scattered nature of BLMadministered surface tracts. Much of the access to the scattered BLM tracts is controlled by other surface 

owners. Cumulative projects and activities (continued mineral development and other construction 
Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-112 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

projects) could lead to more travel opportunities associated with increased route construction to support 

mineral development, but there would also be a reduction in primitive/non-motorized recreation 

opportunities. Minerals development on non-USFS FMO lands open to recreation and leasing could result 

in unavoidable adverse impacts to recreation through detracting from the recreational setting. Mineral 

exploration and development activities would have short term effects on the quality of the setting because 

of drilling equipment and long term impacts from road construction and vegetation removal. 

Development assumed to occur on disposed tracts under Alternative 4 could change the recreation 

opportunities from dispersed in nature to more developed on the Coosa River, Jordan Lake, Fort Morgan 

Beach and Highway and Fowl River tracts. In these areas, recreational developments would reduce 

opportunities for dispersed recreation, as well as reducing travel in these areas of private development. 

Under Alternative 3, this impact would be limited to the Jordan Lake tract. 

Lands and Realty 

Increasing development leads to a greater demand for lands and realty actions, creating the need for 

additional ROWs for roads, pipelines and powerlines. Restrictions on ROWs under Alternatives 2, 3, and 

4 would have a negligible cumulative effect by reducing routing options and possibly increasing 

construction costs for ROW development since there is only 159 acres of BLM administered lands 

scattered across the State. Increasing development also leads to a greater demand for additional available 

land. 

Social and Economic 

BLM-administered minerals comprise a very small proportion of oil and gas development in Alabama. 

Twenty new oil and gas wells in Alabama constitute less than one percent, 0.5 percent, of the 4,000 

anticipated oil and gas wells on USFS and non-Federal agencies lands. Historically, BLM has permitted 

17 wells on BLM-administered FMO in Alabama, representing 0.2 percent of the 8,068 total wells 

permitted over the past 20 years. In Alabama, with the anticipated well projections, BLM FMO would 

represent slightly more of the total wells, compared to the previous 20 years; however, the BLMadministered FMO wells are half of one percent and still relatively a very small percentage. 

Overall, the rate of oil and gas development in Alabama is expected to decrease, from 8,068 wells 

(average of 403 wells per year) to 4,000 anticipated over the next 20 years (average of 200 wells per 

year). This is a decrease in oil and gas development by 50 percent (from the last 20 years to the next 20 

years). 

Many of the cumulative socioeconomic impacts associated with oil and gas development are already 

occurring in the region and would be perpetuated in the future. For instance, oil and gas activity is 

generating employment opportunities and labor earnings for communities that support these types of 

activities. However, the employment and income from BLM-administered oil and gas is likely very low 

since it represents such a small proportion of the total development and production in Alabama. Overall, 

however, with slight decreases in oil and gas development expected to occur across the State, there would 

be decreases in tax revenue to local, State and federal government entities. With the decreases in overall 

oil and gas development in the State, socioeconomic characteristics and trends, such as infrastructure and 

community services, may be slightly decreasing as a result of decreasing fiscal revenues that often 

support these types of services within the State. 

In general, the pace and timing of mineral development activities is dependent on a variety of factors 

beyond the management decisions of BLM. This includes national and international energy demand and 

prices, production factors within the planning area and business strategies of operators. Because the pace 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-113 

of development in the planning area is only an estimate, actual cumulative impacts may vary if the oil and 

gas activity across the State changes over the planning period. 

Coal development is expected to only occur on the Alabama BLM-administered minerals, with potential 

development of 1.9 million tons of coal produced per year, in essence an extension of the BLM coal 

production rates which have occurred in the past 10 years. The existing two leases are expected to be 

mined out, while new development could occur on four additional leases. In 1999, the 1.9 million tons of 

coal produced from BLM-administered minerals represented 9.7 percent of the coal produced in Alabama 

of 19.5 million tons (Energy Information Agency). Between 1990 and 1999, coal production in the State 

decreased by an average annual rate of 4.3 percent. If this decreasing production continues in the future, 

coal production from BLM-administered minerals would likely represent a larger portion of the total coal 

produced from the State. Coal production supports employment and employee compensation in the State 

(677 employees and $48 million in employee compensation); with decreasing production across Alabama, 

it is likely that overall, employment and earnings are also decreasing in the coal mining industry and in 

industries that support coal mining. This also suggests that royalty revenues from BLM-administered coal 

mining may be increasing as a proportion of total coal mining, which could influence the relocation of 

industries that support coal development closer to these BLM-administered minerals. There are likely 

some slight fiscal revenue declines since the production levels are decreasing across the State, which 

could also have impacts for infrastructure, social services, school funding, and other related government 

services. 

A number of the alternatives in this Draft RMP-EIS consider Federal disposal of various tracts of surface 

lands. Under Alternative 4, there are three tracts (Fort Morgan Beach, Fort Morgan Highway, and Fowl 

River) available for recreational or residential development in Alabama comprising 117 acres, while one 

additional tract (Jordan Lake) could be developed as recreational camps (4 acres). In total, 121 acres 

could potentially be developed for recreational or residential use in Alabama. The State of Alabama 

comprises 33.5 million acres of surface land, of which BLM manages 159 acres (less than one percent) 

and the USFS manages 667,000 acres (2 percent). The disposal of these 159 acres and subsequent 

development of 117 acres of surface lands is not likely to have cumulative socioeconomic impacts as the 

disposal acres represent such a small portion of BLM lands, Federal lands, and private lands within the 

State. For the socioeconomic impacts of the individual alternatives, please see section 4.2. 

Environmental Justice 

There were no Environmental Justice populations identified within the four-county area where mineral 

development is anticipated in Alabama. Therefore, there would be no anticipated cumulative impacts on 

these populations. Since the additional expected oil and gas activity locations for the BLM-administered 

FMO have not been specified, impacts to these to these populations should be considered at the time of 

implementation. 

Hazardous Materials 

BLM-authorized activities on surface tracts and non-USFS FMO could include use of hazardous 

materials, substances, and waste (including storage, transportation, and spills). Such activities include oil 

and gas development, coal development, and application of pesticides to improve vegetative communities 

and wildlife habitat. These activities are conducted in compliance with 29 CFR 1910, 49 CFR 100-185, 

40 CFR 100-400, CERCLA, RCRA, SARA, TSCA, and the CWA and other Federal and State regulations 

and policies regarding hazardous materials management. Therefore, if any releases were to occur, it 

would be immediately addressed and remediated in accordance with regulation and cumulative impacts 

are not anticipated. Contribution of hazardous materials, substances, and waste could occur from other 

sources on adjacent lands that could lead to cumulative impacts on BLM lands. 
Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-114 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

4.4.2 Cumulative Impacts from BLM Management Actions in 

Mississippi 

Air Quality 

The cumulative impacts of air quality are evaluated by comparing the BLM site emissions with 

regionwide emissions. For the State of Mississippi, comprehensive emissions are only available for NOX, 

CO, and VOCs. These emissions can be obtained from the Mississippi Department of Environmental 

Quality (MDEQ). Using the best available data from MDEQ, Table 4-11 shows a comparison between the 

Statewide sources and the BLM induced emissions. Based on this data, emissions from activities 

associated with potential oil and gas development and minerals mining on BLM-administered non-USFS 

FMO tracts proposed in this RMP would not considerably contribute to cumulative air quality emissions 

within the region (presented in Table 4-11). Over the next 20 years, emissions from 10 wells would 

comprise less than 1 percent of the emissions associated with the estimated 12,000 wells that could be 

developed on non-Federal and USFS lands in Alabama. These impacts would be the same for all 

alternatives. 

Table 4-11. Comparison of Potential BLM Emissions with Cumulative Emissions for 

Mississippi (tons per year) 1, 2 

Emission Type/Pollutant Well and Mine Locations 

NOx CO VOC 

BLM-Administered FMO Estate 

in Mississippi 89 141 23 

Other Mineral Estate Across 

Mississippi 295,456 1,301,914 272,897 

1. Compared to best available 2002 data from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ, 2005). 

2. Combination of oil and gas and coal mining. 

Soil Resources 

In Mississippi, the disturbance of a maximum of 55 acres from oil and gas development across the State 

of Mississippi comprises less than one percent of the 59,745 acres of surface disturbance anticipated from 

oil and gas development on non-Federal and USFS lands over the next 20 years. Although more than 

7,000 wells have been completed in Mississippi since 1983, the minimal number of 10 additional wells 

identified in the RFDS would have no long-term impacts to soil productivity and therefore would not 

contribute to significant cumulative effects. These impacts would be the same for all alternatives. 

Possible soil impacts associated with vegetative communities, fish and wildlife habitat, and lands and 

realty management actions including ROW development and potential development after disposal on the 

174-acre Hancock County tract comprises less than one percent of the 33,717 acres disturbed annually 

(1997-2003) from other construction projects across the State including private development and 

transportation projects (as estimated by the NRI data). There would be more potential for soil disturbance 

impacts associated with vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat management actions 

proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 as opposed to Alternatives 1 and 4 that do not propose any actions 

beyond standard management common to all alternatives. There would be more potential for soil 

disturbance impacts associated with ROW management actions under Alternative 1, which allows ROW 

development on the Hancock County tract, than Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, which designates the tract as a 

ROW avoidance area. The potential for soil disturbance impacts associated with lands and realty disposal 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-115 

actions would be the same under all alternatives, since the Hancock Country tract would continue to be 

used for recreation and research site purposes with no expected development. 

Water Resources 

The emergent wetlands that comprise the Hancock County tract would change as a result of mineral 

exploration and development or construction activities. However, BMPs and stipulations identified in 

Appendix D would minimize irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources and unavoidable 

adverse impacts. Also, the disturbance of a maximum of 55 acres from oil and gas development across the 

State of Mississippi comprises less than one percent of the 59,745 acres of surface disturbance anticipated 

from oil and gas development on non-Federal and USFS lands. Although more than 7,000 wells have 

been completed in Mississippi since 1983, the minimal additional 10 wells identified in RFDS would 

have no long-term impacts to water resources and, therefore, would not contribute to cumulative effects. 

These impacts would be the same for all alternatives. 

Vegetative Communities 

The continuation of mineral development (totaling approximately 12,000 wells with 59,745 acres of 

surface disturbance) and soil disturbance and vegetation loss from other construction projects across the 

State (approximately 33,717 acres of surface disturbance annually) has a high potential of affecting plant 

communities, such as glades and prairies, that are sensitive to disruption and difficult to restore after 

surface disturbing activities. These activities also have the potential to introduce and promote the spread 

of invasive, exotic plant species. 

Throughout the State, some plant communities, embedded in the larger forested landscape, are 

particularly sensitive to disruption and are difficult to restore after surface disturbing activities. Many of 

these are restricted to a narrow range of soil types such as glades and prairies; others are sensitive to 

changes in hydrography, such as bogs, forested wetlands, and seepage slope communities. Construction 

activities in these plant communities generally alter the site sufficiently to preclude the reestablishment of 

these communities in the foreseeable future. Also, because of the limited acreage of these vegetation 

communities, loss of even small acreages has a disproportionate effect on the plant diversity in an area. 

Surface disturbing activities have the potential to introduce or promote the spread of invasive, exotic plant 

species. Impacts are dependent on the species planted during restoration activities and the management of 

the site during and following restoration. Restoration activities typically include seeding non-native 

grasses, such as annual rye (during the winter months) and Bahia or Bermuda grass (during the summer 

months) to provide a quick cover for disturbed soils. Including native species in the mix increases 

diversity and provides a more natural structure. If these areas are mowed following abandonment, these 

non-native grasses are expected to persist and dominate the site. If, however, the sites are replanted in 

pine, or left unmowed the areas can be expected to progress through old field type growth which is 

dominated by opportunistic native and non-native species alike. Ultimately, both Bahia and Bermuda 

grass are expected to become shaded out as a tree or heavy shrub layer becomes established. Japanese 

honeysuckle and Chinese privet can both persist in shaded situations. 

Although effects to vegetative communities from surface disturbing activities and the introduction of 

invasive, exotic plant species would likely occur as a result of the reasonably foreseeable actions 

identified for this analysis, BLM activities would have a minimal contribution to these effects on plant 

communities due to the small amount of acreage that would be disturbed under BLM management 

alternatives and BLM policies on BMPs for mineral development reclamation and control of noxious, 

exotic species. 
Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-116 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Fish and Wildlife 

The continuation of mineral development (totaling approximately 12,000 wells with 59,745 acres of 

surface disturbance) and soil disturbance and vegetation loss from other construction projects across the 

State (approximately 33,717 acres of surface disturbance annually) has a high potential of affecting fish 

and wildlife and associated habitat through displacement, habitat degradation, and direct habitat loss. 

Impacts to many wildlife species from oil and gas development are localized and temporary. Most 

common game species and other mobile wildlife species avoid the well pad areas during construction and 

maintenance. Less mobile species are directly impacted and during the spring and early summer; this can 

include nesting neotropical birds. Habitat generalists, including most game species, tend to return to 

surrounding habitats after the well is completed and construction and maintenance activities have ceased. 

Intermittent maintenance and inspection activities conducted on the established pad for the life of the well 

are not expected to alter the overall use of the area by wildlife. However, construction in high value 

habitats or in areas with more narrowly adapted wildlife species can alter the overall species diversity. 

Wells and roads in areas of contiguous forests increase habitat fragmentation, reducing the suitability of 

the area for interior nesting birds and making nests more susceptible to predation and parasitism. Older 

growth forests which provide habitat for interior forest nesting birds and a wider diversity of amphibians 

and reptiles are often located in riparian zones left as buffers during logging operations or in steeper, less 

accessible slopes. 

Oil and gas drilling continues for 24 hours a day until the well is completed. During this time, most 

wildlife, including waterfowl and many song-birds, are expected to avoid the immediate area. However, 

once drilling is completed, reserve pits with water (which can become soiled by drilling fluids) can 

become a hazard for waterfowl and other birds. If the well is put into production, there is documentation 

of birds and bats using open vent stacks for roosting or perching. Once in these stacks animals can 

become trapped or asphyxiated. While much of the work documenting this problem has occurred in 

western states, the situation in Mississippi is expected to be similar. 

Roads and other construction projects across the State can alter the local hydrography reducing surface 

flow to mesic areas and diverting or degrading surface water supporting wetland habitats. Installation of 

culverts and diverting existing drainages help to maintain existing hydrologic systems, but the disturbance 

causes local sedimentation and can retard sheet flow to wetland habitats. Amphibians and many reptiles 

associated with wetland communities are vulnerable to disturbance, as they are not highly mobile and 

tend to have narrow habitat requirements. 

Impacts would also include the direct loss of habitat from the general construction projects, including 

private development and transportation projects, from degradation of nearby aquatic or wetland habitats 

through sedimentation or changes in hydrology. 

Although significant habitat degradation and loss would likely occur as a result of the reasonably 

foreseeable actions identified for this analysis, BLM activities would have a minimal contribution to these 

effects on wildlife due to management protection provided under all alternatives, with Alternatives 2, 3, 

and 4 providing more stringent protection than Alternative 1. In the long term, depending on the location 

and intensity of construction and minerals development, it is likely that public lands containing viable 

habitats for wildlife would continue to be utilized by these species. 

Special Status Species 

The continuation of mineral development (totaling approximately 12,000 wells with 59,745 acres of 

surface disturbance) and soil disturbance and vegetation loss from other construction projects across the 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-117 

State (approximately 33,717 acres of surface disturbance annually) has a high potential of affecting 

special status species through habitat loss or degradation and species displacement. 

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. There is some potential to affect the small acreages supporting special 

status species anywhere in the State and a potential statewide to affect Federal- and State-listed aquatic 

species. 

Gopher tortoise could be impacted by surface disturbing activities, including mineral exploration and 

development and other construction projects across the State, in upland areas of the East Gulf Coastal 

Plain where forest practices on private lands have maintained at least marginally suitable habitat. 

Foraging habitat for tortoise could also be affected on non-USFS FMO associated with private inholdings 

in the Chickasawhay, DeSoto and Homochitto National Forests, which support substantial tortoise 

populations. During general construction projects across the State, including private development and 

transportation projects, and construction of wells pads, access roads, and production facilities, gopher 

tortoises could be impacted by the loss or damage to burrows, destruction of foraging habitat, or killed 

during construction or by service vehicles. Construction activities and roads within 600-feet of burrows 

could isolate individuals and reduce reproductive potential within a population. In many cases, the 

presence of gopher tortoises indicates that habitat is suitable for a host of species associated with dry 

longleaf pine forests, many of them special status species, such as the black pine snake (Pituophis 

melanoleucus lodingi), which could also be impacted by activities. 

Red-cockaded woodpecker could be affected by oil and gas development and other general construction 

projects across the State, including private development and transportation projects, through the loss of 

nesting habitat within existing clusters, and through the loss of current or potential foraging habitat within 

0.5 miles of existing clusters. Non-USFS FMO in areas supporting red-cockaded woodpecker is generally 

privately owned and often managed for commercial timber production. Harvest rotations on these 

properties are typically too short to sustain suitable nesting habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers, 

however there is potential to impact suitable foraging habitat, particularly on non-USFS FMO near the 

Chickasawhay, DeSoto, Homochitto National Forests, or Noxubee NWR, areas that support most of the 

State’s population. 

Throughout the State, breeding and wintering bald eagles could be affected by drilling and other general 

construction projects across the State, including private development and transportation projects, near 

large rivers or reservoirs. Bald eagles are particularly sensitive during courting, nesting, and fledging 

young; in Alabama this typically occurs between December 1 and August 1. Construction activities 

within 1.5 miles of nest sites could result in nest abandonment depending on factors such as visibility and 

tolerance of individual pairs. 

Throughout the State, oil and gas development and other general construction projects, including private 

development and transportation projects, has the potential to impact aquatic and wetland habitats. These 

could result in degradation of water quality through contamination and increased sedimentation, direct 

loss of habitat, and changes in the local hydrography supporting these systems. Increases in sedimentation 

to streams and wetlands by oil and gas development are a factor of well pad design, slope, erodibility of 

the soils, proximity of the disturbance, and the intervening vegetation. The potential for sedimentation 

increases with prolonged or heavy rains that are typical in this area. Cut and fill slopes associated with 

other construction projects across the State are particularly vulnerable before protective plant covers have 

been established. While intact vegetation along riparian zones and around wetlands could substantially 

buffer these areas, the steepness of the intervening slopes, particularly over 25 percent can reduce the 

effectiveness of buffers. Research has shown that a minimum of a 30-foot buffer of vegetation is needed 
Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-118 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

to control sediments. However, construction activities within 100-feet can reduce stream invertebrates, 

and 1,000-feet or more may be needed to protect some amphibians, reptiles and forest interior birds 

(Wenger 1999). Sediments deposited in intermittent drainages during construction can be transported 

downstream during periods of high water, increasing turbidity and burying aquatic invertebrates in higher 

order streams and potentially affecting special status species substantial distances from the construction 

site, including Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis), listed as Federally endangered. 

Filling wetlands, including bogs, seepage slopes, wet flatwoods, and forested swamps for construction 

and maintenance of well pads for oil and gas development and/or other construction projects across the 

State generally alters the site sufficiently to preclude the reestablishment of these communities in the 

foreseeable future, and could result in direct habitat loss for a wide variety of special status species. 

Because of the limited acreage of these vegetation communities, loss of even the small acreages has a 

high potential of destroying or degrading habitat for special status species. Many of these species have 

limited ranges so the list of species potentially affected varies by location. For example, the Mississippi 

CWCS notes 14 special status species are associated with pines seeps and pitcher plant bogs, including 

eight special status crayfish, five of which are endemic. Henslow’s sparrow wintering habitat and 

breeding habitat for Bachman’s sparrow could be lost by construction in or near grassy bogs or wet 

flatwoods. Construction and maintenance activities and other construction projects across the State could 

disrupt the local hydrography supporting seepage slopes or sheetflow to bogs and swamps degrading 

these habitats. 

There are estimated to be 65 caves in Mississippi located in the northeast corner and east central portions 

of the State. Caves by their nature are isolated and support highly endemic faunas often with extremely 

narrow habitat requirements. In Mississippi, this includes two State-listed salamanders and a number of 

bat species. Although the potential to affect these areas is low, caves are particularly sensitive to oil and 

gas development. Even minor alterations in temperature, humidity and water quality or water quantity 

could result in irreversible impacts. Drilling through cave/karst resources could result in contaminants, 

such as drilling fluids and cements, draining into the cave/karst system. Karst habitats could be degraded 

by hydrocarbons from spills or leaks from well casings, storage tanks, reserve pits, pipelines, and 

production facilities that may enter into the cave/karst systems. Additionally, cementing operations could 

affect portions of underground drainage systems by restricting groundwater flow and introducing 

pollutants into karst systems. 

Construction in coastal areas could 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. Impacts would occur from direct habitat loss, 

destruction of foraging and nesting habitat, and habitat abandonment. 

Although significant habitat degradation and loss would likely occur as a result of the reasonably 

foreseeable actions identified for this analysis, BLM activities would have a minimal contribution to these 

effects on special status species due to the minimal numbers of oil and gas development anticipated (10 

wells) and management protection provided for these species under all alternatives, with Alternatives 2, 3, 

and 4 providing more stringent protection than Alternative 1. BLM would also be required to consult with 

USFWS to identify and establish specific conservation actions that can be taken to mitigate the potential 

effects of land management activities. 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management 

In addition to the ignition sources associated with development of 10 new oil and gas wells noted in the 

impact analysis, there are over 7,362 existing oil and gas wells throughout Mississippi. An additional 

12,000 oil and gas wells would be developed on non-Federal and USFS FMO over the next 20 years. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-119 

Cumulatively, the potential increases in wildland fires from the addition of 10 wells compared to 19,362 

existing and potential wells would not significantly increase the risk of fire in Mississippi. Likewise, the 

infrastructure associated with oil and gas or ROW developments would not significantly improve access 

or provide fuels breaks compared to the cumulative developments and current (1997-2003) rate of 33,717 

acres of land developed annually in Mississippi. 

The cumulative effect of proposed vegetation treatments on the 174 acres of the Hancock County surface 

tract would be in addition to 264,981 acres of vegetation treatments by other Federal agencies, as well as 

prescribed burns performed by State and local agencies and private or corporate forestry operations. The 

proposed treatments would help maintain or restore small areas to their natural regimes, as well as 

improve the ability to protect WUI areas from wildfire. Cumulatively, the implementation of all these 

treatments would reduce the cost of suppressing wildfires. 

Cultural Resources 

As noted in the Alabama cumulative impacts, cultural resources on private surface do not enjoy the same 

legal protections as sites on USFS FMO and non-USFS FMO. As such, oil and gas development in areas 

of private surface and private mineral ownership, or non-mineral developments in areas with private 

surface and FMO, could result in cumulative impacts to cultural resources throughout Mississippi. This 

could result in unmitigated damage and loss of cultural sites and artifacts in areas of private surface and 

mineral ownership where oil and gas wells are developed. Cumulatively, Alternative 2 provides the 

greatest level of protection from cumulative impacts due to the largest number of closed and NSO acres. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 provide the next greatest level of protection. In these areas, the potential for 

inadvertent damage and loss of cultural resources is the lowest. 

An additional 55 acres associated with development of 10 wells on non-USFS FMO and 59,745 acres 

associated with development of an estimated 12,000 additional wells on non-Federal mineral estate and 

USFS FMO would be added to the existing disturbance from development of over 7,000 oil and gas wells 

in Alabama over the past twenty years. Acreage developed on USFS FMO would receive protections 

from Federal law, regulation, and policy. Developments in those areas would be required to comply with 

NHPA and ARPA in inventorying areas and determining eligibility of sites for the NRHP. Additional 

developments on USFS FMO would result in the identification of more cultural sites during inventories. 

Excavation of sites as part of mitigating impacts from development on USFS FMO would enable 

scientific retrieval and study of cultural resources, using today’s technology and methodology. While data 

recovery preserves as much data as possible, the excavated portions of the property would be lost or 

damaged. Removing cultural resources from a site using current scientific methods also reduces future 

scientific value if more accurate methods of analysis are developed. 

Combined with disturbance from mineral development, other Federal agencies perform approximately 

227,720 acres of vegetation treatments throughout Mississippi annually. Approximately 86 percent of the 

treated acres (227,720 acres) would be treated by prescribed fire. Additional acreages would be treated by 

State and local agencies and private individuals. Treatments by Federal agencies would require cultural 

inventories prior to implementation, identifying and protecting cultural sites. However, treatments by 

State and local agencies and private individuals could impact cultural resources through burning and 

suppression efforts. Cumulatively, the alternatives would have little effect on these impacts as the levels 

of treatment and BLM surface acreage are very small in comparison, although Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

have the greatest cumulative effect as it proposes the greatest levels of vegetation treatment to support 

other resources. 

Development throughout Mississippi disturbs approximately 33,717 acres annually. Disposal and 

development of the BLM surface tract in Hancock County would only be permitted in Alternative 4, 
Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-120 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

although it would have to be managed in a manner to protect Federally listed species and associated 

wetland/aquatic habitat. The potential to disturb, damage or lose cultural resources would be low in these 

instances, but there would be no protections specifically for cultural resources if transferred from Federal 

ownership. Cumulatively, however, management of a disposed Hancock County tract would not result in 

significant additions to the annual disturbances throughout Mississippi. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would 

protect any cultural sites in the Hancock County tract. 

The number of sites anticipated to be cumulatively damaged resulting from actions proposed in this RMP 

combined with other cumulative projects and activities is unknown because most areas have not been 

surveyed for cultural resources. 

Visual Resources 

Cumulative impacts on visual resources would occur primarily from activities that affect the visual 

quality of the area. Such impacts would result from mineral development activities, ROW development, 

increased recreational activity, and actions associated with management of vegetative communities and 

fish and wildlife habitat. Surface disturbing activities associated with mineral and ROW development 

would create visual intrusions that could alter the landscape setting and degrade visual quality. The 

disturbance of a maximum of 55 acres across 517,934 acres of Mississippi FMO and possible ROW 

development as a result of management actions would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts. 

Although more than 7,000 wells have been completed in Mississippi since 1983, the minimal number of 

10 additional wells identified in the RFDS would not significantly diminish visual quality. Closing or 

limiting areas to motorized recreation uses and implementing restrictions designed to protect sensitive 

resources would help to maintain the visual quality in restricted areas. Efforts to maintain and improve 

vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat would indirectly enhance visual quality through 

improvement of the visual landscape. 

Cumulative impacts would be similar among the four alternatives, as the same level of development is 

expected under any of the alternatives. However, Alternatives 2 and 3 provide for specific actions to 

improve vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat, thereby enhancing visual quality. In 

addition, implementing an NSO stipulation within 1,000 feet of aquatic habitats under Alternative 2 

would preserve the visual quality within these areas. No visual impacts are anticipated under all 

alternatives from lands and realty disposal actions since the Hancock Country tract would continue to be 

used for recreation and research site purposes with no expected development. Given the remote marsh 

nature of the tract, any development on adjacent lands would be minimal and the disposal would not 

cumulatively contribute to land development in the area. 

Minerals 

In Mississippi, no cumulative impacts would be anticipated to minerals exploration and development as a 

result of BLM-administered surface tract and non-USFS FMO land use allocations and management 

actions since the RMP would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration. In addition, 

an irretrievable commitment of oil and gas would occur from mineral extraction from 10 wells developed 

over the next 20 years in Mississippi. These impacts would be the same for all alternatives. 

Recreation and Travel Management 

Most of Mississippi is not managed by the Federal government, and recreation and travel opportunities 

are often dependant on whether the private landowner allows access or travel access the private surface. 

Therefore, maintaining Federal ownership of public lands under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would maintain 

limited opportunities for public recreation and travel. Under Alternative 4, opportunities for travel and 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 4-121 

recreation could be precluded after disposal, cumulatively adding to the current restrictions on private 

lands throughout the State. Although BLM management actions and disposal actions under the 

alternatives could have localized impacts to recreation experience and travel opportunities, no significant 

cumulative impacts would be anticipated because of the small size of the BLM-administered surface tract. 

Cumulative projects and activities (continued mineral development and other construction projects) could 

lead to more travel opportunities associated with increased route construction to support mineral 

development, but there would also be a reduction in primitive/non-motorized recreation opportunities. 

Minerals development on non-USFS FMO lands open to recreation and leasing would result in 

unavoidable adverse impacts to recreation through detracting from the recreational setting. Mineral 

exploration and development activities could have short term effects on the quality of the setting because 

of drilling equipment and long term impacts from road construction and vegetation removal. 

Lands and Realty 

Increasing development leads to a greater demand for lands and realty actions, creating the need for 

additional ROWs for roads, pipelines and powerlines. Restrictions on ROWs under Alternatives 2, 3, and 

4 would have a negligible cumulative effect by reducing routing options and possibly increasing 

construction costs for ROW development since there is only 174 acres of BLM administered lands 

scattered across the State. Increasing development also leads to a greater demand for additional available 

land. 

Social and Economic 

The greatest potential for cumulative socioeconomic impacts is associated with increasing oil and gas 

development throughout Mississippi. The following information indicates that overall Mississippi is 

expected to experience an increase in oil and gas development of 63 percent (between the last 20 years 

and the next 20 years). Overall, there were 7,362 wells permitted over the past 20 years (average of 368 

wells per year) to an anticipated 12,000 total wells over the next 20 years (average of 600 wells per year). 

In Mississippi, the estimated development of 10 new oil and gas wells from the BLM-administered FMO 

constitute less than a tenth of one percent (0.08 percent) of the total wells projected for the State over the 

20 year planning period. Historically, the BLM-administered wells in Mississippi have comprised about 

the same percentage (0.09 percent), indicating a relatively constant although very small proportion of oil 

and gas development over time. Since the BLM-administered FMO oil and gas wells comprise so little of 

the total wells in the Mississippi, there are very little cumulative socioeconomic impacts that could be 

attributed with this anticipated BLM development. 

Many of the cumulative socioeconomic impacts associated with oil and gas development are already 

occurring in the State and would be perpetuated in the future. For instance, oil and gas activity is 

generating employment opportunities and labor earnings for communities that support these types of 

activities. However, the employment and income from BLM-administered oil and gas is likely very low 

since it represents such a small proportion of the total development and production in Mississippi. With 

the increases in overall oil and gas development, socioeconomic characteristics and trends, such as 

infrastructure and community services, may be slightly increasing and better funded as fiscal revenues 

often support these types of services within the State. 

The pace and timing of mineral development activities is dependent on a variety of factors beyond the 

management decisions of BLM. This includes national and international energy demand and prices, 

production factors within the planning area, and business strategies of operators. Because the pace of 

development in the planning area is only an estimate, actual cumulative impacts may vary if the oil and 

gas activity across the two states changes over the planning period. 
Chapter 4-Cumulative Impacts Draft EIS – August 2007 

4-122 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Alternative 4 in this Draft RMP-EIS considers Federal disposal of the 174-acre Hancock County tract and 

this tract is likely to be used for recreation and research site purposes, with limited to no development 

occurring. The disposal of this tract of land would not likely have cumulative socioeconomic impacts as 

the acres represent such a small portion of total lands within the State, and the general management of the 

lands is not expected to change. For the socioeconomic impacts of the individual alternatives, please see 

Section 4.13. 

Environmental Justice 

Since the additional expected oil and gas activity locations for the BLM-administered non-USFS FMO 

have not been specified, impacts to these to these populations should be considered at the time of 

implementation. For Mississippi, Section 3.4.13 in Chapter 3 indicates the counties that comprise the 

largest low-income and minority populations. Once oil and gas development locations have been 

specified, Environmental Justice population locations should be revisited to assess any potential 

cumulative impacts to these populations. 

Hazardous Materials 

BLM-authorized activities on surface tracts and non-USFS FMO could include use of hazardous 

materials, substances, and waste (including storage, transportation, and spills). Such activities include oil 

and gas development, coal development, and application of pesticides to improve vegetative communities 

and wildlife habitat. These activities are conducted in compliance with 29 CFR 1910, 49 CFR 100-185, 

40 CFR 100-400, CERCLA, RCRA, SARA, TSCA, and the CWA and other Federal and State regulations 

and policies regarding hazardous materials management. Therefore, if any releases were to occur, it 

would be immediately addressed and remediated in accordance with regulation and cumulative impacts 

are not anticipated. Contribution of hazardous materials, substances, and waste could occur from other 

sources on adjacent lands that could lead to cumulative impacts on BLM lands. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 5 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 5-1 

CHAPTER 5—CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

5.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS

Consultation, coordination, and public involvement in preparing this Draft Resource Management Plan 

(RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) have been accomplished through public and informal 

meetings, individual contacts, bulletins, news releases, and Federal Register notices. 

Public involvement is mandated by several federal regulations and guidelines, including the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and 

guidelines from the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). In addition, the public 

participation process is outlined in the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1). 

5.2 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

This section documents the consultation and coordination efforts undertaken by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) throughout the process of developing this Draft RMP-EIS. Because of jurisdictional 

responsibilities, BLM is required to consult with certain Federal, Native American, and State agencies 

and entities (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §1502.25) during the NEPA decision-making 

process. BLM is also directed to integrate NEPA requirements with other environmental review and 

consultation requirements to reduce paperwork and delays (40 CFR §1500.4-5). 

Title II, Section 202 of FLPMA directs BLM to coordinate planning efforts with Native American tribes 

and Federal, State, and local government agencies as part of its land use planning process. 

5.2.1 Other Federal Agency Consultation 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) requires Federal agencies (such as BLM) to 

address impacts on species listed under ESA through consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS). Consultations begin informally when a Federal agency requests a list of species under 

ESA. If a listed species exists in the area being assessed, BLM may prepare a biological assessment (BA). 

The initial determination of effect is made by the lead agency, in this case BLM (50 CFR Part 420). If the 

BA determines that the proposed action may adversely affect a listed species or its habitat, BLM must 

enter formal consultation with USFWS, which then prepares a biological opinion (BO) that determines 

whether or not the preferred alternative would adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. Although 

the BO is based on information provided in the BA, it may concur with or dispute the determination of 

impact. The process of formal and informal consultation with USFWS ensures BLM actions conserve 

listed species and their critical habitat. 

BLM has coordinated with the USFWS throughout the planning process to obtain a species list and 

develop best management practices (BMPs) and oil and gas leasing stipulations for the alternatives. BLM 

will consult with USFWS on the Proposed RMP and Final EIS. The goal is to not jeopardize the 

continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat, and where 

possible, to minimize the potential to adversely affect Federally-listed species. 
Chapter 5 Draft EIS – August 2007 

5-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

5.2.2 State and Local Agency Consultation 

Letters were sent to Alabama and Mississippi State agencies, county supervisors and commissioners, and 

the governors of both States to inform them of the RMP planning process. The States of Alabama and 

Mississippi were requested to be involved in the planning process as cooperating agencies. Only the State 

of Mississippi accepted the invitation to become an official cooperating agency. 

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (16 United States Code [USC] 

470), expands protection of historic and archeological properties to include those of national, state, and 

local significance. NHPA (in Section 106) requires Federal agencies to consult with the State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO), and sometimes with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

concerning the potential effects of agency actions on properties listed on or eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The SHPO is also sometimes consulted concerning applicable 

methods for determining whether or not there are NRHP-eligible properties in the area of potential effect 

of an agency undertaking, whether properties are eligible, and appropriate mitigation measures. 

The SHPOs for both Mississippi and Alabama were informally contacted concerning potential effects to 

properties that are listed on or eligible for the NRHP. However, formal consultation has not yet occurred 

and will occur during the preparation of the Proposed RMP and Final EIS. 

5.2.3 Native American Consultation 

BLM provides government officials of Federally recognized tribes opportunities to comment on and 

participate in the development of the RMP. BLM considers comments, notifies consulted tribes of final 

decisions, and informs them of how their comments were addressed in those decisions. Land use plans 

and coordination activities must address consistency with tribal plans (Section 202(c)(9) of the FLPMA) 

and protection of treaty rights and comply with the following statutes and executive orders: 

• Section 101(d)(6) of the NHPA requires BLM to consult with Native American tribes when 

historic properties of traditional religious or cultural importance to a tribe would be affected by 

BLM decision-making. 

• The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) requires BLM to protect and preserve 

the freedom of American Indians and Alaska Natives to exercise their traditional religions, 

including access to sites and freedom to worship through ceremonial and traditional rites. 

• Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) requires BLM to accommodate access to and use 

of sacred sites and to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of sacred sites to the extent 

practicable, as permitted by law and consistent with essential agency functions. 

• Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) requires BLM to take into account relevant 

CEQ guidelines and Department of the Interior policies and goals. 

Specific guidance on Native American consultation is outlined in BLM Manual 8120 and BLM 

Handbook H-8120-1. 

Land use plans and accompanying EISs must identify potential effects on Indian trust resources, trust 

assets, or tribal health and safety. Any effect must be explicitly identified and documented in the land use 

plan. 

BLM contacted appropriate Native American tribes (see page 5-5 for a list of tribes contacted), inviting 

them to participate in the Alabama and Mississippi RMP-EIS development process, and offered to meet 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 5 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 5-3 

with tribal leaders or representatives in person to discuss issues, concerns, and questions they might have. 

The tribes contacted did not express interest is participating in meetings regarding the RMP-EIS nor 

becoming cooperating agencies. 

5.3 PUBLIC SCOPING

Scoping is an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed in the planning 

process, as defined by 40 CFR Parts 1500 et seq. Scoping serves to solicit agency and public input on 

planning issues and criteria, areas of concern, and ideas and proposals for long-term management. 

Scoping provides a formal mechanism for engaging the public in identifying key planning and land 

management issues. 

The official scoping period started with publication of the notice of intent (NOI) in the Federal Register

on July 12, 2002, and ran through September 2002. The NOI announced BLM’s intent to prepare an RMP 

for Alabama and Mississippi, called for coal information, and invited the public to participate in 

identification of issues and review of planning criteria. 

Letters were sent to Alabama and Mississippi state agencies, county supervisors and commissioners, and 

the governors of both states to inform them of the planning process. Letters were also sent to several coal 

companies to inform them of the planning process and solicit coal data. Individuals were encouraged to 

submit e-mail or hardcopy comments to the BLM Jackson Field Office. 

One e-mail with comments was submitted during the scoping period. Comments addressed a variety of 

issues, such as the need to have adequate, site-specific data on threatened, endangered, and candidate 

species in the planning area, data on soils and aquatic species, and an accurate impact assessment of 

minerals development on recreation (BLM 2002). 

A public workshop (with an emphasis on BLM tracts in Baldwin County, Alabama) was held in Gulf 

Shores, Alabama, on September 2, 2004, to solicit additional comments for developing alternatives. The 

workshop was conducted in an open house format, with resource stations and BLM staff available for 

individual discussions. Eight participants attended the workshop, including representatives from the 

Alabama State Lands Division. Information meetings with Baldwin County also took place during this 

period. Although BLM provided a deadline of November 30, 2004, to receive information and input via 

mail, e-mail, or the project Web site, none was submitted; however, BLM accepted input from the public 

and interested agencies throughout the planning process. Comment letters that were submitted after the 

November deadline dealt primarily with the Baldwin County land tracts and how they should be managed 

by BLM. All comments were collected, analyzed, and included in the project administrative record. 

5.4 PROJECT WEB SITE

A project Web site was designed to provide the public with information on planning issues and the overall 

planning process, as well as the opportunity to submit input directly to BLM. The project Web site, 

www.es.blm.gov/AL_MS_RMP, became publicly accessible in August 2004 and featured information on 

resource and planning issues associated with the Alabama and Mississippi RMP. Information included 

Federal Register notices, planning bulletins, survey plats of BLM-administered public lands on Ft. 

Morgan Peninsula, a map of the planning area, a form allowing users to add their names to the project 

mailing list, and a form for users to submit input as part of the alternatives development process. 
Chapter 5 Draft EIS – August 2007 

5-4 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

5.5 DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNING CRITERIA

The NOI also announced preliminary planning criteria—the framework of laws, regulations, policies, and 

guidance within which a resource management plan must be developed. Comments on the planning 

criteria were solicited during the scoping period. No comments were received; therefore, planning criteria 

presented in the NOI became final. 

5.6 FUTURE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Upon distribution of the Draft RMP-EIS, public meetings will be held, and mailed, hand-delivered, or emailed comments will be accepted during the 90-day review period. 

Following review of the Draft RMP-EIS, comments will be considered in preparation of a Proposed RMP 

and Final EIS to be released for a 30-day protest period. The Proposed RMP will also be sent to the 

governors of Alabama and Mississippi for a 60-day review for consistency with state or local plans, 

policies, and programs (43 CFR 1610.3-2). Finally, the Approved RMP/Record of Decision (ROD) will 

be prepared after any protests and inconsistencies have been resolved (43 CFR 1610.5-2). 

5.7 DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT RMP-EIS 

Copies of the Draft RMP-EIS will be made available for public review at local libraries and other 

information repositories throughout the States of Alabama and Mississippi, as well as the Jackson Field 

Office and BLM-Eastern States Office. Prior to publication of the Draft RMP-EIS, a postcard announcing 

the anticipated date of its availability and how to request a hardcopy will be sent to everyone on the 

project mailing list. The Draft RMP-EIS will also be available in CD-ROM and can be viewed and 

downloaded from the project Web site (www.es.blm.gov/AL_MS_RMP). The following agencies and 

organizations have been asked to review the document: 

5.7.1 Federal Agencies 

• Army Corp of Engineers, Mobile District 

• Army Corp of Engineers, Vicksburg District 

• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, National Forests in Alabama 

• USDA Forest Service, National Forests in Mississippi 

• USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service – Alabama 

• USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service – Mississippi 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Office, Daphne, Alabama 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Office, Vicksburg, Mississippi 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta Regional Office 

• Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge 

• National Park Service units in Mississippi 

• National Park Service units in Alabama 

• National Park Service, Atlanta Regional Office 

• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Atlanta Regional Office 

5.7.2 Alabama State Agencies 

• Alabama Forestry Commission 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 5 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 5-5 

• Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

• Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

• Alabama Indian Affairs Commission 

• Alabama State Historic Preservation Officer 

• Alabama Natural Heritage Program 

• Alabama State Parks Division 

• Alabama State Lands Division 

• State Oil and Gas Board 

• Geological Survey of Alabama 

5.7.3 Mississippi State Agencies 

• Mississippi Development Authority 

• Mississippi Department of Archives and History 

• Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

• Mississippi State Historic Preservation Officer 

• Mississippi Forestry Commission 

• Mississippi Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks 

• Mississippi Natural Heritage Commission 

5.7.4 Local Governments 

Alabama 

• All County Governments 

• City of Bay Minette 

• City of Daphne 

• City of Elberta 

• City of Fairhope 

• City of Foley 

• City of Gulf Shores 

• City of Loxley 

• City of Mobile 

• City of Orange Beach 

• City of Silverhill 

• City of Spanish Fort 

• City of Summerdale 

• City of Robertsdale 

Mississippi 

• All County Governments 

• City of Bay St. Louis 

• City of Waveland 

• City of Diamondhead 

• City of Kiln 

5.7.5 Native American Tribes 

• Tunica-Biloxi Tribe 

• Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 

• Poarch Creek Indians 

• Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

• Oklahoma Indians whose homeland was in parts of Mississippi and Alabama 

• Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma 

• Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 

• United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians 

• Chickasaw Nation, 
Chapter 5 Draft EIS – August 2007 

5-6 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

• Muscogee (Creek) Nation 

5.7.6 U. S. Senate 

• Hon. Jeff Sessions (Alabama) 

• Hon. Richard Shelby (Alabama) 

• Hon. Thad Cochran (Mississippi) 

• Hon. Trent Lott (Mississippi) 

5.7.7 U. S. House of Representatives 

• Hon. Jo Bonner; Alabama 1st

• Hon. Terry Everett; Alabama 2nd

• Hon. Mike Rogers; Alabama 3rd

• Hon. Robert B. Aderholt, Alabama 4th

• Hon. Robert E. Cramer, Alabama 5th

• Hon. Spencer Bachus, Alabama 6th

• Hon. Artur Davis, Alabama 7th

• Hon. Roger F. Wicker, Mississippi 1st

• Hon. Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi 2nd

• Hon. Charles W. Pickering, Mississippi 3rd

• Hon. Gene Taylor, Mississippi 4th

5.7.8 Organizations/Industry 

• Dauphin Island Park and Beach Board 

• Blakeley Historic State Park 

• The Islander 

• Weeks Bay Reserve 

• South Alabama Sewer Service 

• Dauphin Island Sea Lab 

• The Noel Company 

• Dauphin Island Sea Lab 

• University of South Alabama 

• Chickasabogue Park 

• Colonial Bank Centre 

• MS/AL Sea Grant Consortium 

• Mobile Bay National Estuary Program 

• Auburn Marine Extension Center 

• Martinique on the Gulf 

• The Beach Club 

• Gulf Shores Plantation 

• Alabama Coastal Foundation 

• Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture 

• Coastcom of Mississippi LLC 

• Bubba’s Beach House LLC 

• The Stirling Family Limited Partnership 

• Kelley Bros 

• J R J TARA INC 

• Fort Morgan Volunteer Fire Department 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 5 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 5-7 

• R & S LLC 

• Wolford Brothers Leasing LLC 

• Alabama Power Company 

• University of Mississippi 

• Mississippi Nature Conservancy 

5.8 LIST OF PREPARERS

5.8.1 Introduction 

The Alabama and Mississippi Draft RMP-EIS was prepared by a team of specialists from the Jackson 

Field Office and a contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, with support from and review by the BLM-Eastern 

States Office and BLM Washington Office. 

As required by NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.17), this section lists the people who were primarily 

responsible for preparing this EIS and presents their qualifications. Booz Allen Hamilton, a contractor 

selected to prepare the EIS as directed by BLM, in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.5(c), has certified that it 

does not have any financial or other interest in the decisions to be made pursuant to this EIS. In addition 

to being responsible for the projects and areas listed, many BLM employees also contributed substantial 

time consulting with other agency personnel in preparing this EIS (see Section 5.7). 

Table 5-1. BLM Preparers 

Contributor Project Role Qualifications 

Ken Adams Geologist B.S., Geology, University of Florida 

Years of experience: 28 

Shayne Banks Public Affairs Specialist B.A., History, Mississippi State University 

Years of experience: 16 

Bruce Dawson Field Office Manager 

M.S., Natural Resources Management, Humbolt State 

University 

Years of experience: 28 

Stuart Grange Mining Engineer 

B.S., Mining Engineering, University of Utah 

M.B.A., University of Nevada, Reno 

Years of experience: 17 

Brian Kennedy 

Physical Scientist 

(Geographic Information 

System (GIS) Assistance) 

B.S., Geographic Information Technology, University of 

Southern Mississippi 

Years of experience: 5 

Judith Pace Archaeologist 

B.A., History and Anthropology, University of 

Mississippi, Oxford 

M.A., Anthropology, University of Mississippi, Oxford 

Years of experience: 20 

Bob Schoolar GIS Specialist B.S., Geophysical Science, Old Dominion University 

Years of experience: 30 

Gary Taylor 

Planning and Environmental 

Coordinator 

(BLM Contracting Officer 

Representative) 

M.A., Management, Webster University 

Years of experience: 5 
Chapter 5 Draft EIS – August 2007 

5-8 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Contributor Project Role Qualifications 

Mary Weaver Realty Specialist 

B.S., Business Administration, Florida State University 

(3.5 years) Business, University of Maryland 

Years of experience: 31 

Duane Winters Project Manager 

M.S., Forest Hydrology, University of Missouri, 

Columbia 

Years of experience: 28 

Faye Winters Wildlife Management 

Biologist 

B.A., Biology, William Woods College 

Years of experience: 29 

Table 5-2. Booz Allen Hamilton Preparers 

Contributor Project Role Qualifications 

Erik Anderson Assistant Project Manager, 

Minerals/Geology Specialist 

B.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State 

University 

M.S., Environmental Policy and Management, University 

of Denver (pursuing) 

Years of experience: 8 

Dean Bibles Public Lands Advisor B.S., Range Management, Texas A&M University 

Years of experience: 45 

Quincy Bahr Natural and Cultural 

Resource Specialist 

B.S., Natural Resources Management & Planning, 

University of Utah 

Years of experience: 8 

Michael Ghazizadeh 

Minerals Specialist (Coal 

Screening Report 

development) 

B.S., Geology, University of Isfahan 

M.S., Geology, Northeast Louisiana University 

PhD., Geology, University of Tennessee 

Years of experience: 20 

Joel Hanson GIS and Mapping Specialist 

B.S., Geography and Environmental Studies, University 

of Colorado 

M.A.S., Environmental Information Management 

(pursuing), University of Denver 

Years of experience: 4 

Chris Keefe NEPA Specialist, Technical 

Review, Soils Sections 

B.S., Biology, University of Nebraska 

Years of experience: 14 

Bryan Klyse Natural Resource Specialist 

B.A., Social Science (Environment), San Diego State 

University 

M.E.S.M., Environmental Science and Management, 

University of California, Santa Barbara 

Years of experience: 7 

Melanie Martin 

Project Manager, NEPA 

Lead, Alternatives 

Development, Technical 

Review, Natural Resource 

Specialist 

B.S.A, Environmental Protection, West Virginia 

University 

M.S., Natural Resource Management, University of 

Denver 

Years of experience: 8 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Chapter 5 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP 5-9 

Contributor Project Role Qualifications 

Pamela Middleton Natural Resource Specialist 

B.A., Biology (Botany emphasis) Minor in Environmental 

Studies and Planning, Sonoma State University 

M.A.S., Environmental Policy and Management, 

University of Denver 

Years of experience: 7 

Amanda Pryor NEPA Specialist, Technical 

Review 

B.A., Biology, Baylor University, Texas 

M.S., Environmental Biology, Baylor University, Texas 

Years of experience: 10 

Jason Smiley GIS and Mapping Specialist B.S.E.D., Park Administration 

M.S., Geography 

Mike Sumner Document Preparation 

B.S., Recreation Resource Management , Utah State 

University 

Years of experience: 7 
Chapter 5 Draft EIS – August 2007 

5-10 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

This page intentionally left blank.
Draft EIS – August 2007 Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP Acronyms-1 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

ACAMP Alabama Coastal Area Management Program 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

ACNPCP Alabama Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program 

ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

AFC Alabama Forestry Commission 

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

ANHP Alabama Natural Heritage Program 

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

BA Biological Assessment 

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BO Biological Opinion 

B.P. Before Present 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

COA Condition of Approval 

CRMP Comprehensive Resource Management Plan 

CSU Controlled Surface Use 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

CZM Coastal Zone Management 

DMR Department of Marine Resources 

DoD Department of Defense 

EA Environmental Analysis 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

FMO Federal Mineral Ownership 

FPC Federal Power Commission 

FRL Fractional 

GAP Gap Analysis Program 

GIS Geographic Information Systems 

GSA Geological Survey of Alabama 

JFO Jackson Field Office (BLM) 

LBA Lease by Application 

mcf thousand cubic feet 

MDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

MFC Mississippi Forestry Commission 

MNHP Mississippi Natural Heritage Program 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MSCZMP Mississippi Coastal Zone Management Program 
Abbreviations and Acronyms Draft EIS – August 2007 

Acronyms-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

NLCD National Land Cover Data 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

NOX Nitrogen Oxides 

NOA Notice of Availability 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS National Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRI National Resources Inventory 

NSO No Surface Occupancy 

NWI National Wetland Inventory 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

O3 Ozone 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl 

PM2.5 Particulate Matter (less than 2.5 microns in diameter) 

PM10 Particulate Matter (less than 10 microns in diameter) 

ppm parts per million 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RFDS Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROW Right-of-Way 

ROWs Rights-of-Way 

S-1 BLM Eastern States Sensitive Species Designated as “Critically Imperiled” 

S-2 BLM Eastern States Sensitive Species Designated as “Imperiled” 

SARA Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIP State Implementation Plan (Air Quality) 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area 

TDS Total Dissolved Solids 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority 

USC United States Code 

USFS U. S. Forest Service 

USFWS U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U. S. Geological Survey 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WUI Wildland-Urban Interface 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Glossary 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP Glossary-1 

GLOSSARY 

Activity Plan. A site-specific plan for the management of one or more resources, e.g., allotment 

management plan or habitat management plan. Activity plans provide the additional detail necessary to 

implement decisions made in the Resource Management Plan. 

Administrative Use. Official use related to management and resources of the public lands by Federal, 

State or local governments or non-official use sanctioned by an appropriate authorization instrument, 

such as right-of-way, permit, lease, or maintenance agreement. 

Aquifer. A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that contains sufficient 

saturated, permeable material to be able to yield significant quantities of water to wells and springs. 

Archaeological Site. Geographic locale containing structures, artifacts, material remains, and/or other 

evidence(s) of past human activity. 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). An area within the pubic lands where special 

management attention is required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, 

cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect 

life and safety from natural hazards. 

Attainment Area. Any area not meeting Ambient Air Quality Standards and designated as such by 17-

275.410 F.A.C. 

Candidate Species. Candidate species are any species not yet officially listed, but which are undergoing 

a status review or are proposed for listing according to Federal Register notices published by the 

Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce. 

Closed. Designated areas, routes, roads and trails where OHV use is permanently or temporarily 

prohibited. Use by emergency vehicles is allowed. 

Collocate. To set side-by-side. 

Controlled Surface Use (CSU). A fluid minerals leasing constraint under which use and occupancy is 

allowed (unless restricted by another stipulation), but identified resource values require special 

operational limitations that may modify lease rights. 

Critical Habitat. Any habitat, which if lost, would appreciably decrease the likelihood of the survival 

and recovery of a threatened or endangered species, or a distinct segment of its population. Critical 

habitat may represent any portion of the present habitat of a listed species and may include additional 

areas for reasonable population expansion. Critical habitat must be officially designated by the USFWS 

or the National Marine Fisheries Services. 

Cultural Resource. The fragile and nonrenewable remains of human activity, occupation, or endeavor 

reflected in districts, sites, structures, buildings, objects, artifacts, ruins, works of art, architecture, and 

natural features that were of importance in human events. These resources consist of (1) physical 

remains, (2) areas where significant human events occurred even though evidence of the event no 

longer remains, and (3) the environment immediately surrounding the resource. 
Glossary Draft EIS – August 2007 

Glossary-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Cumulative Impact. The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 

Disposal. Transfer of ownership of a tract of public land from the United States to another party. 

Dune Walkover. A raised walkway constructed for the purpose of protecting the beach and dune system 

between mean high tide and the construction control line from damage that may result from anticipated 

pedestrian traffic to the beach and which is no more than six feet in width, constructed without roof or 

walls, elevated at least one foot above the dune, and extends seaward of the seaward vegetation line. 

Endangered Species. Any species formally recognized by the USFWS as in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

Endangered Species. Any species formally recognized by the USFWS as in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). A public lands unit identified in land use plans 

containing all acreage not identified as an Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). Recreation 

Management Actions within an ERMA are limited to only those of a custodial nature. 

Fault traps. An oil or gas trap in which the closure results from the presence of one or more faults. 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Public Law 94-579, which gives the 

BLM legal authority to establish public land policy, to establish guidelines for administering such 

policy, and to provide for the management, protection, development, and enhancement of public land. 

Federal Mineral Ownership (FMO). Lands on which either the entire mineral estate or certain mineral 

rights are owned by the federal government. 

Flooding. The temporary covering of the soil surface by water from any source. Shallow water standing 

during or shortly following rain is excluded from the definition of flooding. Marshes and swamps are 

excluded from the definition of flooding because water is more than a temporary covering. 

Groundwater. Water within the earth that supplies wells and springs. 

Habitat. A specific set of physical conditions that surround a single species, a group of species, or a large 

community. In wildlife management, the major components of habitat are considered to be food, water, 

cover, and living space. 

Herbaceous. A plant with little or no woody tissue that dies back at the end of the growing season. 

Historic. Refers to period wherein non-Native cultural activities, based primarily upon European roots, 

take place and having no origin in traditional Native American culture(s). 

Hydrocarbons. Organic chemical compounds of hydrogen and carbon atoms that form the basis of all 

petroleum products, including oil and gas. 

Interdisciplinary. Characterized by interactive participation or cooperation of two or more disciplines or 

fields of study. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Glossary 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP Glossary-3 

Intermittent Stream. A stream that does not flow year round but has some association with ground water 

for surface or subsurface flows. 

Leasable Minerals. Those minerals or materials that can be leased. 

Lease (Mineral). A contract between an owner of mineral rights and another, granting the latter the right 

to search for and produce gas, hydrocarbons, or other mineral substances upon payment of an agreedupon rental and royalties based on production. 

Lease Notice. Provides more detailed information concerning limitations that already exist in law, lease 

terms, regulations, or operational orders. A lease notice also addresses special items the lessee would 

consider when planning operations, but does not impose new or additional restrictions. 

Lease Stipulation. A modification of the terms and conditions on a standard lease form at the time of the 

lease sale. (See also No Surface Occupancy, Controlled Surface Use and Seasonal Limitation.) 

Limited OHV area. An area restricted at certain times, in certain areas, and(or) to certain vehicular use. 

These restrictions may be of any type, but can generally be accommodated within the following type of 

categories: Numbers of vehicles; types of vehicles; time or season of vehicle use; permitted use only; 

use on existing roads and trails; use on designated roads and trails; and other restrictions (from BLM 

National Management Strategy for OHV Use on Public Lands).

Locatable Minerals. Minerals or materials subject to disposal and development through the Mining Law 

of 1872, (as amended). Generally includes metallic minerals such as gold and silver and other materials 

not subject to lease or sale (such as some bentonites, limestone, talc, and some zeolites). 

Mesic. Related to conditions of moderate moisture or water supply. Used to describe organisms 

occupying moist habitats. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Public Law 91-190, which established 

environmental policy for the nation. Among other items, NEPA requires federal agencies to consider 

environmental values in decision-making processes. 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A register of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and 

objects, significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture, established by the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO). A fluid minerals leasing constraint that prohibits occupancy or 

disturbance on all or part of the lease surface to protect special values or uses. Lessees may exploit the 

fluid mineral resources under the leases restricted by this constraint through use of directional drilling 

from sites outside the NSO area. 

Non-attainment Area. Any area not meeting Ambient Air Quality Standards and designated as such by 

17-275.410 F.A.C. 

Occurrence. A specific record of a single or group of plant or animal species. 

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV). This term replaces “off-road vehicle (ORV)”, and means any motorized 

vehicle capable of or designed for travel on or immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain. 
Glossary Draft EIS – August 2007 

Glossary-4 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Open. Designated areas, routes, roads, and trails where unrestricted OHV use may occur (subject to 

operating regulations and vehicle standards set forth in BLM Manuals 8341 and 8343 and 161.053 and 

161.58 F.A.C.). 

Prehistoric. Refers to period wherein Native American cultural activities took place which were not yet 

influenced by contact with historic non-native cultures. 

Prime Farmland. Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical 

characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and is available for these uses 

(the land could be cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forest land, or other land, but not urban built-up 

land or water). 

Public Domain. Public lands which were originally (that is upon the admittance of a state to the United 

States) owned the federal government and have since that time remained in continuous federal 

ownership. 

Public Domain Leases. Federal mineral leases of mineral interests which were originally (that is upon 

the admittance of a state to the United States) owned the federal government and have since that time 

remained in continuous federal ownership. 

Public Lands. Any land and interest in land owned by the United States that are administered by the 

Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, without regard to how the United 

States acquired ownership, except for (1) lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf, and (2) lands 

held for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos. Includes public domain and acquired lands.

Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD). A description of anticipated future development of 

minerals or other resources, used as a basis for assessing the environmental impacts of RMP decisions. 

Reserved Lands. Federal lands that are dedicated or set aside for a specific public purpose or program 

and that are, therefore, generally not subject to disposition under the operation of all of the public land 

laws. (See also Withdrawal.) 

Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP). Refers to both the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 U. 

S.C. 869(a)) and the uses to be made of public land transferred under the act. The objective of the 

R&PP Act is to meet the needs of state and local government agencies and nonprofit organizations by 

leasing or conveying public land required for recreation and public purposes uses. Examples of uses 

made of R&PP lands are parks, schools, religious facilities, and camps for youth groups. Transfer of 

land ownership under the provisions of R&PP Act is referred to as R&PP conveyance. 

Right-of-Way. The public or federal land authorized to be used or occupied pursuant to a right-of-way 

grant. 

Right-of-Way Grant. A document authorizing the use of public or federal lands for the construction, 

operation, maintenance, and termination of a project (e.g., utility line, road). 

Riparian. Situated on or pertaining to the bank of a river, stream, or other body of water. Normally used 

to refer to the plants of all types that grow rooted in the water table of streams, ponds, and springs. 

Riparian Area. Riparian areas are a form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands 

and upland areas. These areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Glossary 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP Glossary-5 

surface or subsurface water influence. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do 

not exhibit the presence of vegetation dependent upon free water in the soil. 

Salable Minerals. Minerals that may be sold under the Material Sale Act of 1947, as amended. Included 

are common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, and clay. 

Scoping Process. An early and public process for determining the nature, significance, and range of 

issues to be addressed related to a proposed action. 

Seasonal Limitation. A fluid minerals leasing constraint that prohibits surface use during specified time 

periods to protect identified resource values. The constraint does not apply to the operation and 

maintenance of production facilities unless analysis demonstrates that such constraints are needed and 

that less stringent, project- specific constraints would be insufficient. 

Sensitive Species. See Special Status Species. 

Significance. A high degree of importance as indicated by either quantitative measurements or qualitative 

judgments. Significance may be determined by evaluating characteristics pertaining to location extent, 

consequences, and duration. 

Soil Association. A mapping unit used on general soil maps in which two or more defined taxonomic 

units occurring together in a characteristic pattern are combined because the scale of the map or the 

purpose for which it is being made does not require delineation of the individual soils. 

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA). An area where special management or intensive 

recreation management is needed. Recreation activity plans are required, and greater managerial 

investment in facilities or supervision can be anticipated. 

Special Status Species. 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. 

Species of Concern. Species that are not yet listed as endangered or threatened, but that are undergoing a 

status review. This may include species whose populations are consistently and widely dispersed or 

whose ranges are restricted to a few localities, so that any major habitat change could lead to extinction. 

A species that is particularly sensitive to some external disturbance factors. 

Split-Estate Lands. A given land area where the surface and mineral estates are in different ownerships. 

Most often split-estate areas occur where the surface is owned by private individuals, corporations, or 

groups or by state or local government, and the minerals are federally owned. 

Surface Managing Agency. An agency of the federal government which has the primary responsibility 

for management of a particular are of land, such as the Forest Service, National Park Service, the Navy, 

Air Force, or the BLM. 

Surficial. Pertaining to or lying in or on a surface; the surface of the earth; e.g. “surficial weathering” of a 

rock, or a “surficial structure” formed by creep. 

Surficial Aquifer. These aquifers consist of sand and shell deposits with uppermost layers contiguous 

with the land surface. 
Glossary Draft EIS – August 2007 

Glossary-6 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Threatened Species. Any species formally recognized by the USFWS as likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

Unique Farmland. Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of 

specific high value food and other fiber crops. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, 

growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high quality and/or 

high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. 

Examples of such crops are citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, fruit, and vegetables. 

Valid Existing Rights. Legal “rights” or interest that are associated to a land or mineral estate and that 

cannot be divested from the estate until that interest expires or is relinquished. Lands within the 

decision area are subject to various authorizations, some giving “rights” to the holders and some of 

which could be construed as providing valid, but lesser, interests. Valid existing rights are established 

by various laws, leases, and filings under Federal law. 

Mineral: Authorizations for activities on existing mineral leases and mining claims are governed by valid 

existing rights. Valid existing rights vary from case to case with respect to oil and gas leases, mineral 

leases, and mining claims, but generally involve rights to explore, develop, and produce within the 

constraints of laws, regulations, and policies at the time the lease/claim was established or authorized. 

Non-Mineral: There are other situations, unrelated to minerals, in which BLM has authorized some use of 

public land or has conveyed some limited interest in public land. The authorization may be valid and 

existing and may convey some “right” or interest. Many rights of way, easements, and leases granted on 

public land are this type of valid existing right. These types vary from case to case, but the details of 

each one are specified in the authorizing document. Valid and existing authorizations of this type would 

continue to be allowed subject to the terms and conditions of the authorizing document. 

Access: The presence of non-federal land within the decision area has implications for valid existing 

rights because owners of non-Federal land surrounded by public land are entitled to reasonable access 

to their land. Reasonable access is defined as access that the Secretary of the Interior deems adequate to 

secure the owner reasonable use and enjoyment of the non-Federal land. Such access is subject to rules 

and regulations governing the administration of public land. In determining reasonable access, the BLM 

has discretion to evaluate and would consider such things as proposed construction methods and 

location, reasonable alternatives, and reasonable terms and conditions as are necessary to protect the 

public interest and resources of the decision area. 

Other: There are a variety of other land use authorizations that do not involve the granting of legal 

“rights” or interests. Outfitter and guide permits are an example. These permits authorize certain uses of 

public land for a specified time, under certain conditions, without conveying a right, title, or interest in 

the land or resources used. If at any time it is determined that an outfitter and guide permit, other such 

permit, or any activities under those permits, are not consistent with the approved Resource 

Management Plan, then the authorization would be adjusted, mitigated, or revoked where legally 

possible. Grazing permits are also in this category. Grazing permits or leases convey no right, title, or 

interest in the land or resources used. Other applicable laws and regulations govern changes to existing 

grazing permits and levels of livestock grazing. 

Visual Resource Management (VRM). The planning, designing, and implementation of management 

objectives for maintaining scenic value and visual quality on public lands. 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classes. Visual resource management classes define the degree 

of acceptable visual change within a characteristic landscape. A class is based on the physical and 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Glossary 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP Glossary-7 

sociological characteristics of any given homogeneous area and serves as a management objective. 

There are four classes. Each class has an objective which prescribes the amount of change allowed in 

the characteristic landscape, as described below: 

Class I: The objective for VRM Class I is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. 

This class provides for natural ecological changes; it does not preclude very limited 

management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low 

and must not attract attention, 

Class II: The objective for VRM Class II is to retain the existing character of the landscape. 

The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may 

be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the 

basic elements of form, line, color and texture found in the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape, 

Class III: The objective for VRM Class III is to partially retain the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. 

Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual 

observer. Any changes should repeat the basic elements of form, line, color and texture found 

in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape, and 

Class IV: The objective for VRM Class IV is to provide for management activities which 

require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to 

the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view 

and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to 

minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and 

repeating the basic elements of form, line, color and texture found in the predominant natural 

features of the characteristic landscape. 

Warrior Basin. A geologic province comprising parts of the states of Alabama, Mississippi and 

Tennessee, including areas of potential coal and coalbed methane production. 

Black Warrior Basin. The drainage area of the Black Warrior River. 

Wetlands. Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration 

sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation 

typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. 

Withdrawal. Removal or withholding an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry, 

under some or all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in 

order to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the area for a particular public purpose or 

program; or transferring jurisdiction over an area of Federal land, other than “property” governed by the 

Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 472) from one department, 

bureau or agency to another department, bureau or agency (from FLPMA, Title 43 Chapter 35 

Subchapter I 1702[j]). 

Woodland. Forest land on which trees are present but form only an open canopy, the intervening areas 

being occupied by lower vegetation. Forest lands which produce or are capable of producing no more 

than 20 cubic feet per acre per year of commercially important tree species. 
Glossary Draft EIS – August 2007 

Glossary-8 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

This page intentionally left blank.
Draft EIS – August 2007 References 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP References-1 

REFERENCES 

Alabama Department of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy, 

Alabama Forestry Commission. (2004). 2004 Annual Report. 

Alabama Power Company. 2005. Coosa River Project, FERC Project No. 2146, 082, & 628, Prepared by 

E/PRO, Engineering and Environmental Consulting, LLC, July 8, 2005 

Alabama Watchable Wildlife, Official Web site of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources©2008 Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources | 64 N. Union 

Street, Suite 468 - Montgomery, Alabama 36130 

Albanese, B., and W. T. Slack. 1998. Status of the ironcolor shiner, Notropis chalybaeus, in Mississippi. 

Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings (37):1-6. Becker, G.C. 1983, Fishes of Wisconsin. 

University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 1052 pp. 

Albanese, B., and W.T. Slack. 1998. Status of the ironcolor shiner, Notropis chalybaeus, in Mississippi. 

Southeastern Fishes Council Proceedings (37):1-6. Becker, G.C. 1983, Fishes of Wisconsin. 

University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 1052 pp. 

Allrefer.com 2005. Allrefer.com Reference. http://reference.allrefer.com/gazetteer/C/C06888-chipolariver.html. Accessed 6/7/05. 

Avers, Peter E. and Henry W. McNab. 1994. Ecological Subregions of the United States. U. S. Forest 

Service. Retrieved on April 21, 2005 from http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/index.html 

Bettersworth, John K.1959.Mississippi: A History. The Steck Company, Austin, Texas. 

Braun, E.L.1950. Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. The Free Press. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U. S. Department of Commerce. 2002. Regional Economic 

Information System (REIS CD-ROM) Table CA30. Retrieved 2005. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), U. S. Department of Labor. 2005. Consumer Price Index. 

http://www.stats.bls.gov/cpi. Accessed 4/26/2005. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), U. S. Department of Labor. 2005. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. 

http://stats.bls.gov/lau/home.htm. Accessed 4/28/2005. 

Bureau of Land Management. Alabama Multiple Use Plan, Phase III; Land Report and Environmental 

Assessment for Proposed sale of Five Parcels of Public Domain Lands Located in Madison and 

Mobile Counties, Alabama. Tuscaloosa Project Office, eastern States Office. May, 20, 1983. 

Caudill, James, Ph.D. and Henderson, Erin, 2005. Banking on the Future: The Economic Benefits to 

Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation Division of Economics, U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, September 2005. 
References Draft EIS – August 2007 

References-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Census Bureau, U. S. Department of Commerce. 2000. Quick Tables – American Fact Finder DP1 - 4. 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTGeoSearchByListServlet?ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&_

lang=en&_ts=140615992797. Accessed 4/26/05. 

Cushman, H.B. 1899. History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Natchez Indians. University of Oklahoma 

Press Reprint (1999). 

Dobyns, Henry F. 1983. Their Number Become Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in 

Eastern North America. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 

Emmerich, J. Oliver. 1973. Collapse and Recovery. In A History of Mississippi, Volume II, edited by 

Richard Aubrey McLemore, pp. 97-119. University and College Press of Mississippi, 

Hattiesburg. 

Endangered, Threatened, & Rare Plant Species of the Southeastern United States. 

http://www.gsrcorp.com/tes/LIME7/LIME7_text.html 

Environmental Defense, retrieved April 8, 2005 from www.environmentaldefense.com 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. U. S. EPA Office of Water. 

http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/. Accessed 6/15/05. 

Fenneman, N.M. 1938. The Physiography of the Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill, New York. 

Galloway, P. 1995. Choctaw Genesis 1500-1700. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 

Geologic Survey of Alabama (GSA). 2005. Coalbed Methane in Alabama: An Overview. Accessed online 

at http://www.gsa.state.al.us/gsa/ on July 20, 2005. 

Gonzales, John Edmond. 1973. Flush Times, Depression, War, and Compromise. In A History of 

Mississippi, Volume I, edited by Richard Aubrey McLemore, pp. 284-309. University and 

College Press of Mississippi, Hattiesburg. 

Gulf South Research Corporation (GSRC) 2002. Pondberry; Lindera melissifolia, Website: 

http://www.gsrcorp.com/tes/LIME7/LIME7_text.html, Accessed February 2007. 

Haynes, Robert V. 1973. The Road to Statehood. In A History of Mississippi, Volume I, edited by 

Richard Aubrey McLemore, pp. 217-250. University and College Press of Mississippi, 

Hattiesburg. 

Henriette I. Jager, James A. Chandler, Kenneth B. Lepla & Webb Van Winkle. A Theoretical Study of 

River Fragmentation and its Impact On White Sturgeon. Retrieved from: 

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/~zij/mypubs/sturgeon/EBFFrag01.pdf 

Jackson, Paul D. A Cultural Resources Literature and Records Search for Bureau of Land Management 

Surface and Mineral Tracts in Alabama. Panamerican Consultants, Inc. February 15, 2005. 

Küchler, A. W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States: a map and manual. 

American Geographical Society Special Publ. 36. Princeton Polychrome Press, Princeton, NJ. 

116 pp. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 References 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP References-3 

Landers, J.L.1980. Recent Research on the Gopher Tortoise and Its Implications. Pages 8-14 in R Franz 

and R.J. Bryant (eds.). Proc 1st Ann. Mtg., Gopher Tortoise Council p. 80. 

Marine Protected Areas of the United States (MPA). 2005. Description of Mississippi Marine Managed 

Areas (MMA). Available online at http://mpa.gov/mpa_programs/states/mississippi.html. 

Accessed April 30, 2005. 

Milner, George R. 1980. Epidemic Disease in the Precontact Southeast: A Reappraisal. Midcontinental 

Journal of Archaeology 5(1):39-56.Ramenofsky 1987. 

Mississippi Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, 

Mitchell, Charles C. 2004. Map entitled “Soil Areas of Alabama.” July 1990. Alabama Cooperative 

Extension System. Website accessed on November 2, 2004 at 

http://www.aces.edu/department/grain/ANR340.htm 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2007a http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/ 

climatenormals/clim60/states/Clim_AL_01.pdf 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2007b http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/ 

climatenormals/clim60/states/Clim_MS_01.pdf 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2005. Stagnation web page: 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/stagnation/stagnation.pl 

National Park Service. 2004. Little River Canyon National Preserve. Retrieved from; 

http://www.nps.gov/liri/Natural/Animals/Animals.htm.Last updated March 2004.

National Park Service. 2005. http://www.nps.gov/liri/Cultural/Cultural.htm. Little River Canyon Preserve 

web page, visited April 25, 2005. 

National Register of Historic Places. 2004. 

National Research Council. 2002. Riparian Areas, Functions and Strategies for Management. National 

Academy Press, Washington D.C. 

NatureServe Explorer. 2005. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer were updated to be current with 

NatureServe's central databases as of February 2005. Note: This report was printed on June 9, 

2005. 

NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 6.1. 

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: 

February 25, 2007 ). 

Office of Surface Mining, 2002. Permitting Hydrology, A Technical Reference Document for 

Determination of Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) and Cumulative Hydrologic Impact 

Assessments (CHIA) - Baseline Data. Accessed online February 15, 2005 via 

http://www.osmre.gov/hydrologicinformation.htm 

Oster, E. No Date. The Effects of Fire on Subsurface Archeological Materials (DRAFT). In Wildland Fire 

in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Cultural Resources and Archeology. Kevin C. Ryan and Anne 
References Draft EIS – August 2007 

References-4 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Trinkle Jones, Editors. Rainbow Series, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest 

Service. In press. 

Outdoor Alabama. 2005. http://www.outdooralabama.com/watchable-wildlife/birding-wildlife/ 

Panamerican Consultants Inc., 2005a. A Cultural Resources Literature and Records Search for Bureau of 

Land Management Surface and Mineral Ownership Tracts in Alabama. 

Panamerican Consultants Inc., 2005b. A Cultural Resources Literature and Records Search for Bureau of 

Land Management Surface and Mineral Ownership Tracts in Mississippi. 

Pettry, D.E. 2004 Soil Surveys in Mississippi. http://msucares.com/pubs/infosheets/i1334.htm. 

Mississippi State University. 

Rankin, Taylor H. and D.E. Davis. 1971. Woody Vegetation in the Black Belt Prairie of Montgomery 

County, Alabama, in 1845-46. Ecology, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jul., 1971), pp. 716-719. 

Readers Digest, North American Wildlife. 1982. Pleasantville, New York. 

Recovery Plan for U. S. Population of Loggerhead Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Washington, D.C. 

River of Alabama.2005. Retrieved from http://www.riversofalabama.org/Choctawhatchee/ 

CW_Species_Diversity.htm. 6/7/05. 

Rivers of Alabama 2005. Alabama Water Watch Association. http://www.riversofalabama.org/. Accessed 

6/6/05. 

Rogers, William Warren, Robert David Ward, Leah Rawl Atkins, and Wayne Flynt. 1994. Alabama The 

History of a Deep South State. Published by The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and 

London. 

Sharitz, Rebecca R.; Mitsch, William J. 1993. Southern floodplain forests. In: Martin, William H.; Boyce, 

Stephen G.; Echternacht, Arthur C., eds. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: Lowland 

terrestrial communities. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc: 311-372. 

Sherman A. R. and C. O. Martin 2006. Rediscrovery of the gray bat (Myotis greisescens) in northeastern 

Mississippi. The Southwestern Naturalist: Vol. 51, No. 3 pp. 418–420. 

Southern Group of State Foresters. 2004. Fire in the South: A Report by the Southern Group of State 

Foresters, pp 17. 

State of Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). 2004. Alabama’s 2004 Integrated 

Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment (§305[b]) Report. 

State of Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). 2002. Annual Air Quality Report 

2001. 

State of Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). 2003. Alabama Nonpoint Source 

Management Program. Updated August. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 References 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP References-5 

State of Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). 2004. Alabama Wetlands 

Committee. Retrieved from http://www.samford.edu/schools/artsci/biology/wetlands/basics/ 

importance.html, last updated August 2004. 

State of Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). 2005. Ozone summary found on 

http://www.adem.state.us/AirDivision/AirDivision.htm 

State of Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) [and Florida Natural Areas Inventory]. 1990 

(February). Guide to Natural Communities of Florida. 

State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2004a. State of Mississippi, Water 

Quality Assessment, 2004 Section 305(b) Report Addendum. May. 

State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2004b. Annual Data Summary 2003. 

State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2004c. Mississippi Forestry 

Commission. 2004. Statewide Five-Year Wildfire Summary by Month. Retrieved July 21, 2005 

from http://www.mfc.state.ms.us/pdf/04firesum.pdf 

State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 2005. Available online at 

http://www.deq.state.ms.us. Accessed April 30, 2005. 

State of Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (DMR). 2005. Description of Gulf Ecological 

Management Sites (GEMS). Available online at http://www.dmr.state.ms.us/CoastalEcology/GEMS/Gems-Home.htm. Accessed April 30, 2005. 

State of South Carolina. Southeast Regional Climatic Center (SERCC). 2005. http://www.dnr.state.sc.us/ 

water/climate/sercc/index.html, which includes http://www.dnr.state.sc.us/water/climate/sercc/ 

climateinfo/historical/historical_al.html 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). 2005. http://www.tva.gov/. Accessed 6/13/05. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2003. Handbook on Coal Bed Methane Produced Water: Management and 

Beneficial Use Alternatives. July 2003, prepared by ALL Consulting Tulsa, Oklahoma for 

Ground Water Protection Research Foundation U.S. Department of Energy National Petroleum 

Technology Office 

U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the 

Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region: third revision. 10 pp. 

U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded 

woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 

296 pp. 

U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge 

Draft Comprehensive Plan and Environmental Assessment, December 2004. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. http://endangered.fws.gov/i/c/sac2s/html. Accessed February 2007. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. http://endangered.fws.gov/i/d/sad0d.html. Accessed February 

2007. 
References Draft EIS – August 2007 

References-6 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Recovery Plan for Chotawhatchee, Perdido Key and Alabama 

Beach Mouse. Atlanta, Georgia. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Recovery Plan for Adios oriceana. Jackson, Mississippi. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995a. Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995b. USFWS and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1995. 

Gulf Sturgeon Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 170 pp. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995c. Blue Shiver Recovery Plan. Jackson, Mississippi. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Draft Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist) Revised Recovery Plan. Fort 

Snelling, Minnesota. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan. Atlanta, 

Georgia. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003a. Freshwater Mussels of the Upper Mississippi River System. 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/mussel/current_threats.html. Last Updated September 30, 2003. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003b. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides 

borealis): second revision. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. www.fws.gov. Accessed April 21, 2005. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. USFWS and Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge. Bon Secour 

National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 2005. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Friends of the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, website: 

http://www.fws.gov/bonsecour/friends.htm, March 2007. 

U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Arkansas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi. HA 730-F. 

U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. Water Resources Data, Alabama, Water Year 2003. Water-Data 

Report AL-03-1. 

U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003a. Water Resources Data, Alabama, Water Year 2003. Water-Data 

Report AL-03-1. 

U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003b. Water Resources Data, Mississippi, Water Year 2003. WaterData Report MS-03-1. 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and United States Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006. Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development, Gold Book. Fourth Edition 

Wenger, Seth, 1999. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent and 

Vegetation. Office of Public Service & Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, 

Athens, Georgia. Available at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache: 
Draft EIS – August 2007 References 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP References-7 

XcPi8VTVcnAJ:www.bozeman.net/planning/Zoning/Res_links/buffer_litreview.pdf+author:%22

Wenger%22+intitle:%22A+Review+of+the+Scientific+Literature+on+Riparian+Buffer+..%22+ 

World Wildlife Fund Scientific Report, 2001. Retrieved from www.worldwildlife.org. 
References Draft EIS – August 2007 

References-8 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

This page intentionally left blank.
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix A-Recreation and Public Purposes Act Lands 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP A-1 

APPENDIX A—RECREATION AND PUBLIC 

PURPOSES ACT LANDS 

The following tracts in Alabama and Mississippi are leased under the Recreation and Public Purposes 

(R&PP) Act of 1926 [(43 U.S.C. 869(a)]. The objective of the R&PP Act is to meet the needs of State and 

local government agencies and nonprofit organizations by leasing or conveying public land required for 

recreation and public purpose uses. Examples of uses made of R&PP lands are parks and greenbelts, 

sanitary landfills, schools, religious facilities, and camps for youth groups. The R&PP Act provides 

substantial cost-benefits for land acquisition and provides for recreation facilities or historical monuments 

at no cost. 

Table A-1. R&PP Lands in Alabama 

Name/County Legal Description File Number Acres

Chilton County Board of County 

Commissioners 

Wilderness Park 

St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 23 N., R. 15 E., 

Sec. 12, NE 

AL-BLM-75393 86.10 

Chilton County Board of County 

Commissioners 

Minoka Park 

St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 24 N., R. 13 E., 

Sec., Fractional (FRL) NW 

AL-ES-000327 160.00 

City of Tuscaloosa 

Tuscaloosa County 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 20 S., R. 10 W., 

Sec. 12, FRL SENE 

AL-ES-004206 40.00 

State of Alabama Department of 

Natural Resources 

St. Stephens Meridian 

Cleburne County: 

T. 17 S., R. 8 E., 

Sec. 34, NE, SW, S2NW; 

Shelby County: 

T. 19 S., R. 2 W., 

Sec. 26, S2SE; 

Sec. 34, SESE; 

T. 20 S., R. 2 W, 

Sec. 4, SE; 

Sec. 8, E2SE 

AL-GLO-005700 

399.40 

79.84 

40.24 

160.33 

79.88 
Appendix A-Recreation and Public Purposes Act Lands Draft EIS – August 2007 

A-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Name/County Legal Description File Number Acres

State of Alabama 

Huntsville Meridian 

Cherokee County: 

T. 8 S., R. 9 E., 

Sec. 1, Lots 1-4; 

Sec. 2, Lots 1-3; 

Sec. 10, Lots 1, 2; 

Sec. 11, Lots 1-6; 

Sec. 12, Lot 1; 

Sec. 14, Lots 1-3; 

Sec. 15, Lots 1-4; 

Sec. 22, Lots 1-4; 

Sec. 23, Lots 1-4; 

Sec. 26, Lots 1, 2; 

Sec. 27, FRL E2NE; 

Sec. 27, Lots 1-5; 

Sec. 28, Lot 1; 

Sec. 33, Lots 1-4; 

Sec. 34, Lots 1-2 

Dekalb County: 

T. 8 S., R. 9 E., 

Sec. 1, Lots 1-4; 

Sec. 2, Lots 1-3; 

Sec. 10, Lots 1, 2; 

Sec. 11, Lots 1-6; 

Sec. 15, Lots 1-4; 

AL-GLO-006108 

1,625.19 

Total 2,670.98 

Table A-2. R&PP Lands in Mississippi 

Agency/Use Legal Description Serial/PLO 

No. Acres 

City of Pascagoula 

Jackson County 

St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 9 S., R. 6 W., 

Sec. 3, Lot 1; 

Sec. 4, Lot 1 

MS-ES-035036 48.92 

University of Mississippi 

Hancock County 

St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 9 S., R. 15 W., 

Sec. 24, NWSW, N2SWSW, 

SWSWSW, W2W2SESWSW; 

Sec. 25, SESE, Lots 2-5; 

T. 9 S., R. 16 W., 

Sec. 35, Lot 2 

MS-BLM-045650 

274.89 

Total 323.81 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix B-Lands of Uncertain Title 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP B-1 

APPENDIX B—LANDS OF UNCERTAIN TITLE 

For some tracts of land the title is clouded. These tracts are claimed by private owners, but government 

land records show that they were never transferred from federal ownership. Claimants may apply for 

transfer of these tracts under the Color-of-Title Act and, if qualified, purchase the tracts to obtain title. 

Color-of-Title Act cases will be processed on a case-by-case basis. The following tables list tracts in 

Alabama and Mississippi that appear to be of uncertain title. 

Table B-1. Lands of Uncertain Title in Alabama 

County Legal Description Acres 

Baldwin St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 8 S., R. 3 E., Sec 5, Fractional (FRL) Sec 13.96 

Barbour St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 11 N., R. 24 E., Sec 27, W2NE 80.00 

Calhoun 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 13 S., R. 9 E., Sec 28 SE 

T. 14 S., R. 5 E., Sec 13, LOT 1 

T. 14 S., R. 6 E., Sec 18, LOT 1, LOT 2 

 Sec 19, LOT 2, LOT 3 

T. 14 S., R. 9 E., Sec 6, SWSE 

160.40 

0.04 

0.38, 1.32, 

0.19, 0.46 

40.00 

Cherokee 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 8 S., R. 9 E., Sec. 33, SENW 

T. 9 S., R. 11 E., Sec. 31, LOT 1 

 Sec. 32, LOT 2 

T. 10 S., R. 8 E., Sec. 32, LOT 1 

 Sec. 33, LOT 1 

40.00 

11.97 

1.82 

0.24 

1.36 

Choctaw St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 15 N., R. 1 W., Sec. 27, SWSE 38.89 

Clarke 

St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 5 N., R. 5 E., Sec 4 E2NE 

T. 12 N., R. 2 E., Sec. 32, SWNE 

80.00 

39.95 

Clay Huntsville Meridian 

T. 22 S., R. 5 E., Sec 6, E2SW, SENW, 80.00, 39.40 

Cleburne Huntsville Meridian 

T. 17 S., R. 8 E., Sec. 34, NE, SW, S2NW 160,00, 160.00, 

79.40 

Coosa St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 22 N., R. 16 E., Sec. 5, LOT A, LOT B, LOT C 51.75, 34.00, 

36.60 

Etowah 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 11 S., R. 7 E., Sec. 2, LOT 1 

 Sec. 11, LOT 1 

 Sec. 22, LOT 1 

 Sec. 36, LOT 1 

4.20 

2.98 

2.33 

3.60 
Appendix B-Lands of Uncertain Title Draft EIS – August 2007 

B-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

County Legal Description Acres 

Franklin 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 7 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 6, SESW 40.00 

Hale St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 20 N., R. 3 E., Sec. 5, LOT C, LOT F 68.00, 108.00 

Lamar 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 15 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 14, NWSW 

 Sec. 15, NESE 

T. 15 S., R. 16 W., Sec. 14, SENE 

T. 16 S., R. 16 W., Sec. 18, FRL Sec 

 Sec. 20, NWNE 

T. 17 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 17, NESW 

40.96 

39.84 

40.05 

17.15 

39.95 

40.98 

Lauderdale 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 3 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 5, W2SE 80.00 

Lowndes St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 12 N., R. 12 E., Sec. 12, NESE 40.00 

Marengo 

St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 13 N., R. 2 E., Sec. 2, SESE 

 Sec. 12, W2NE, E2NW 

 Sec. 18, E2NE 

 Sec. 20, SESE 

T. 13 N., R. 4 E., Sec. 3, NWNE 

T. 14 N., R. 2 E., Sec. 25, E2SW 

 Sec. 31, S2NE, S2NENE, NESE 

 Sec. 32, NESE 

40.31 

80.00, 79.25 

71.88 

40.31 

40.00 

80.02 

80.00, 19.83, 

40.00 

40.05 

Mobile St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 4 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 12, SENE 40.00 

Monroe 

St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 5 N., R. 5 E., Sec. 4, E2NE 

T. 9 N., R. 10 E., Sec. 29, W2NW 

80.00 

80.02 

Morgan 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 7 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 6, SESW 

T. 8 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 26, S2NW 

40.00 

80.00 

St. Clair Huntsville Meridian 

T. 18 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 5, S2NENE 80.00 

Shelby 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 21 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 6, LOT 1 

 Sec. 7, LOT 1, LOT 2, LOT 3, LOT 4, LOT 5 

Sec. 8, LOT 1, LOT 2 

0.20 

1.00, 0.70, 

1.80, 0.09, 2.14 

0.04, 0.50 

Sumter Huntsville Meridian 

T. 20 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 33 160.00 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix B-Lands of Uncertain Title 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP B-3 

County Legal Description Acres 

Talladega 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 18 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 26, NWSE 

T. 18 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 5, S2NE 

40.00 

80.00 

Winston 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 10 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 26, NENE 40.00 

Table B-2. Lands of Uncertain Title in Mississippi 

County Legal Description Acres 

Carroll Choctaw Meridian 

T. 21 N., R. 2 E., Sec 19, LOT 13 3.00 

Clairborne 

Washington Meridian 

T. 11 N., R. 3 E., Sec. 16, LOT 1 

T. 12 N., R. 1 E., Sec. 2, FRL Sec 

T. 12 N., R. 2 E., Sec. 27, FRL Sec 

T. 12 N., R. 3 E., Sec. 3, LOT 7 

 Sec. 4, LOT 8 

T. 13 N., R. 3 E., Sec. 55, FRL Sec 

T. 13 N., R. 4 E., Sec. 64, W2SE 

150.15 

313.00 

29.43 

24.00 

15.00 

184.19 

82.23 

Copiah 

Washington Meridian 

T. 9 N., R. 8 E., Sec. 28 or 33, W2NW 

T. 9 N., R. 9 E., Sec 4 

80.00 

40.00 

Covington St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 8 N., R. 14 W., Sec. 4, NENE 40.75 

Franklin 

Washington Meridian 

T. 5 N., R. 4 E., Sec. 36, NW 

T. 6 N., R. 2 E., Sec. 35, NENW 

T. 6 N., R. 3 E., Sec. 15, NENE 

160.00 

40.00 

41.07 

Green St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 4 N., R. 7 W., Sec. 5, NENE 38.75 

Grenada Choctaw Meridian 

T. 22 N., R. 6 E., Sec 19, NESE 40.00 

Holmes 

Choctaw Meridian 

T. 15 N., R. 3 E., Sec. 9, S2 

 Sec. 15, LOT 19 

 Sec. 25, SWSW 

 Sec. 36, NWNW 

T. 16 N., R. 3 E., Sec. 25, NWNW 

318.20 

39.36 

40.00 

40.00 

35.02 

Jefferson Washington Meridian 

T. 8 N., R. 1 E., Sec. 54, LOT 1, LOT 2, LOT 3 91.05, 130.23, 

136.54 

Jones St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 8 N., R. 14 W., Sec. 4, NENE 40.75 
Appendix B-Lands of Uncertain Title Draft EIS – August 2007 

B-4 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

County Legal Description Acres 

Kemper 

Choctaw Meridian 

T. 10 N., R. 16 E., Sec. 1, SWSE, SESW 38.11, 38.11 

Lauderdale 

Choctaw Meridian 

T. 5 N., R. 18 E., Sec. 27, NWSE 

T. 8 N., R. 18 E., Sec. 19, SWSE 

 Sec. 22, NESE 

40.08 

39.59 

40.00 

Lawrence Washington Meridian 

T. 9 N., R. 10 E., Sec. 26, E2SE 80.00 

Lowndes 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 17 S., R. 19 W., Sec. 14, FRL Sec. 52.25 

Montgomery 

Choctaw Meridian 

T. 19 N., R. 7 E., Sec. 30, E2NW, SWNE 119.77 

Neshoba 

Choctaw Meridian 

T. 12 N., R. 10 E., Sec. 18, NENE 

T. 12 N., R. 12 E., Sec. 19, SWNW 

39.93 

40.00 

Newton 

Choctaw Meridian 

T. 6 N., R. 12 E., Sec. 10, All 

 Sec. 21, SENE 

639.90 

40.00 

Quitman 

Choctaw Meridian 

T. 27 N., R. 1 E., Sec. 13, W2SW 80.00 

Rankin 

Choctaw Meridian 

T. 4 N., R. 4 E., Sec. 27, NENE 40.00 

Scott 

Choctaw Meridian 

T. 7 N., R. 9 E., Sec. 5, E2SE 

 Sec. 6, SENE 

85.43 

40.00 

Smith 

Choctaw Meridian 

T. 4 N., R. 6 E., Sec. 9, LOT 14 

T. 2 N., R. 9 E., Sec. 14 SENW 

40.10 

40.00 

Tallahatchie 

Choctaw Meridian 

T. 23 N., R. 3 E., Sec. 8, LOT 2 

T. 26 N., R. 3 E., Sec. 23, NE, SENW, SWNW 

12.69 

160.00, 40.00, 

37.00 

Walthall Washington Meridian 

T. 3 N., R. 11 E., Sec. 18, S2SE 80.00 

Warren 

Washington Meridian 

T. 13 N., R. 2 E., Sec. 17 FRL Sec. 

T. 14 N., R. 1 E., Sec. 30 FRL Sec. (island) 

T. 14 N., R. 3 E., Sec. 12, NW 

 Sec. 18, SE 

 Sec. 27, W2 

 Sec. 31,NW 

40.00 

69.92 

155.50 

155.50 

318.15 

153.04 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix B-Lands of Uncertain Title 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP B-5 

County Legal Description Acres 

Wayne St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 10 N., R. 8 W., Sec. 35, LOT 6 16.00 

Wilkinson 

Washington Meridian 

T. 2 N., R. 4 W., Sec. 33, FRL Sec. 

T. 3 N., R. 1 E., Sec. 14, SENE 

2.50 

40.00 

Yalobusha 

Choctaw Meridian 

T. 24 N., R. 6 E., Sec.15, W2NW 80.74 
Appendix B-Lands of Uncertain Title Draft EIS – August 2007 

B-6 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

This page intentionally left blank.
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix C-Relevant Statutes, Regulations, Orders, and Guidelines 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP C-1 

APPENDIX C—RELEVANT STATUTES, 

REGULATIONS, ORDERS, AND GUIDELINES 

The following list is representative of applicable statutes, regulations, orders, and guidelines applicable to 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource Management Plant (RMP) and Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) process. This list is not meant to be all inclusive. 

LAW

• Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, 43 U.S.C 1701 et. 

seq., provides authority for BLM land use planning. Regulatory guidance is at 43 CFR 1600 et 

seq. The RMP process is in 43 CFR 1610.4. 

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. Bureau 

guidance on NEPA process is in the Bureau Manual 1790 and Manual Handbook H-1790-1. 

Other guidance is the, “Overview of BLM’s NEPA Process” from Course #1620-02, and Council 

on Environmental Quality’s “40 NEPA Questions,” March 16, 1981. 

• Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

• Antiquities Act of 1906, as amended, 16, U.S.C 431-433 

• National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. 

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1996 et seq. 

• Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) of 1926, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 869 et seq. 

• Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 201(a)(3)(A)(i). 

• Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. 

• Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq. 

• Mineral Leasing Act of 1942 (for acquired lands) 

• Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq. 

• General Mining Law of 1872, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 21 et seq. 

• Mining and Mineral Policy At of 1970, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 21(a) 

• Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1978, as amended, 42 U.S.C 1996 et seq. 

• Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1979, as amended, 16 U.S.C 715 et seq. 

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, as amended, 25 

U.S.C 3001 et seq. 

• Energy Policy and Conservation Act Reauthorization of 2000, as amended, P.L. 106-469. Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 

• Clean Air Act of 1963, as amended 

• Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

• Clean Water Act of 1987, as amended 

• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

• Color of Title Act of 1928 

• Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926 

• Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 

• National Ambient Air Quality Standards of 1990 

EXECUTIVE AND SECRETARIAL ORDERS

• Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations) 

• Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) 
Appendix C-Relevant Statutes, Regulations, Orders, and Guidelines Draft EIS – August 2007 

C-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

• Executive Order 13084 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) 

• Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) 

• Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) 

• Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) 

• Secretarial Order 3175 (Incorporated into Departmental Manual at 512 DM 2) 

• Secretarial Order 3206 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and 

the Endangered Species Act) 

• Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Birds) 

• Executive Order 11514 (Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality) 

• Executive Order 11738 (Administration of the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act with Respect to Federal Contracts, Grants, or Loans) 

• Executive Order 12088 (Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUAL

• DM 516 National Environmental Policy Act Revised Implementing Procedures, Published March 

8, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 45) [Page 10865-10887]. 

BLM MANUAL AND HANDBOOK GUIDANCE

• Planning guidance for implementing Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 is in 

BLM Manual Sections 1601 & 1613 and Manual Handbooks H-1601 and H-1624-1. BLM 

planning regulations are located at 43 CFR 1600. Appendix C of H-1601-1 contains program and 

resource-specific guidance for analysis and decisions. 

• National Environmental Policy Act. The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) NEPA 

regulations is located at 40 CFR. 1500-1508. Bureau guidance on NEPA is in Manual 1790 and 

Manual Handbook H-1790-1. Other useful guidance is the Course Book, “Overview of BLM’s 

NEPA Process” from course #1620-02 and the CEQ’s “40 NEPA Questions,” March 16, 1981. 

• BLM Manual 6480 – Consultation requirements and consideration of Endangered and Special 

Status Species in the land use planning process. 

• BLM Manual 8120 & 8160 and BLM Handbook -8160-1 – Cultural Resources and Native 

American Consultation Guidance for Land Use Planning. 

• BLM Manual 8300 and BLM Handbook H-8410-1 – Planning Guidance Related to Recreation 

Activities. 

• BLM Manuals 6500 and 6720 – Consideration of Wildlife and Fisheries Management. 

• BLM H-1553-1 – Publication Standards Manual Handbook 

INFORMATION BULLETINS (IB) AND INSTRUCTION MEMORANDA (IM)

• Washington Office IB No. 2002-056 – Guidance on the “recommended Formats for Land Use 

Plans, Records of Decision, and Their Supporting Environmental Impact Statements.” 

• Washington Office IB-2003-058 – Basic guidance on initial steps in the land use planning process 

• Washington Office IB-2003-074 – Sampling Filing Plan for land use plan records. 

• Washington Office IB-2003-020 – Scoping Report Format Report guidance. 

• Washington Office IB-2002-101 – Additional guidance on Cultural Resources Consideration in 

Planning. 

• Washington Office IM-2002-164 – Guidance on Environmental Justice in Planning. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix C-Relevant Statutes, Regulations, Orders, and Guidelines 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP C-3 

• Washington Office IM-2002-167 and Manual Handbook H-1601-1, Appendix D – Additional 

guidance on the treatment of Socioeconomic issues in Land Use Plans. 

• Washington Office IM-2003-137 – Additional guidance on integrating the Energy Policy 

Conservation Act inventories into Land Use Planning. 

• Washington Office IM-2002-100 – The Bureau’s procedures for internal review of preliminary 

documents. 

• Washington Office IM-2003-025 – Bureau Printing Standards. 

• Washington Office IM-2002-080 – Guidance on Comment Content Analysis. 

• Washington Office IM-2003-070 – BLM Land Use Plan Protest Procedures. 

• Washington Office IM-2002-202 – E-government Considerations. 

• Washington Office IM-2002-203 and IM-2002-149 – Cooperating Agencies in Land Use 

Planning. 

• Washington Office IM-2001-202 – Interim Guidance for Data Management in Land Use 

Planning. 
Appendix C-Relevant Statutes, Regulations, Orders, and Guidelines Draft EIS – August 2007 

C-4 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

This page intentionally left blank.
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix D-Proposed Conservation Measures and BMPs 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP D-1 

APPENDIX D—PROPOSED CONSERVATION 

MEASURES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

INTRODUCTION

This appendix describes conservation measures to reduce adverse affects caused by surface-disturbing or 

disruptive activities that are proposed under the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4). The 

information contained in this appendix would not apply to Alternative 1 (No Action). Most measures are 

specifically designed to protect sensitive wildlife species and habitats. While these measures are presented 

primarily as lease stipulations and Best Management Practices for oil and gas operations, they would also 

be applied to other actions permitted or undertaken by BLM. 

ALTERNATIVE 3 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) AND ALTERNATIVE 4 

Proposed Stipulations 

Three types of lease stipulations would be applied, defined as follows: 

• No Surface Occupancy (NSO) – A constraint that prohibits occupancy or disturbance on all or 

part of a lease surface to protect special values or uses. Lessees may exploit the fluid mineral 

resources under the lease surface through use of directional drilling from outside of the NSO area. 

• Controlled Surface Use (CSU) – A constraint under which use and occupancy is allowed (unless 

restricted by another stipulation), but identified resource values require special operational 

limitations that may modify lease rights. 

• Seasonal (Timing Limitation) – A constraint that prohibits surface use during specified time 

periods to protect identified resource values. 

For each stipulation there are provisions for waiver, modification and exception. A waiver is a permanent 

exemption to the stipulation. A modification is a change to the provisions of the stipulation either 

temporarily or for the term of the lease. An exception is a one-time exemption to the stipulations 

determined on a case-by-case basis. For Federally-listed species, waiver, modification and exception will 

normally require coordination and possible formal consultation with the USFWS. 

Bald eagle 

Stipulation (NSO): No surface occupancy or disturbance will be permitted within a 1,500-foot buffer 

zone around active or inactive bald eagle nests and communal roost sites (primary zone). 

Objective: To avoid impact to nesting eagles, including important courtship and nesting 

behavior, egg laying and incubation, and feeding and fledging activity. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator agrees to implement measures developed 

in consultation with USFWS and appropriate state agencies. 

Modification: This stipulation may be modified to remain consistent with federal or state 

guidelines, or if a portion of the stipulated area is no longer within the 1,500-foot buffer zone. 
Appendix D-Proposed Conservation Measures and BMPs Draft EIS – August 2007 

D-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if no suitable nest sites are within 1,500 feet of any 

portion of the leased tract, or if the nest site has not been used for at least 5 years. 

Stipulation (Controlled Surface Use): BLM permitted projects will not remove trees suitable for nesting 

within a 1.5 mile buffer zone around active or inactive bald eagle nests and communal roost sites 

(secondary zone). 

Objective: To protect foraging habitat, promote nest fidelity, and maintain habitat integrity 

around bald eagle nests and communal roosting sites. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator agrees to implement measures developed 

in consultation with USFWS and in coordination with state agencies. 

Modification: This stipulation may be modified to remain consistent with federal and state 

guidelines, or if a portion of the stipulated area is no longer be within the 1.5 mile buffer zone. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if no nest or communal roosting site can be identified 

within 1.5 miles of the leased tract, or if the applicant can document that the no sites have been 

used by bald eagles for five consecutive years. 

Stipulation (Timing): Surface-disturbing and other activities that are potentially disruptive to nesting 

bald eagles are prohibited within 1.5 miles from a bald eagle nest or communal roosting site between 

December 1 and August 1. 

Objective: To protect foraging habitat, promote nest fidelity, and maintain habitat integrity 

around bald eagle nest and roosting sites. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator agrees to implement measures developed 

in consultation with USFWS and in coordination with state agencies. 

Modification: This stipulation may be modified to remain consistent with federal and state 

guidelines, or if a portion of the stipulated area is no longer within the 1.5 mile buffer zone. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if no nest site can be identified within 1.5 miles of any 

portion of the leased tract, or if the applicant can document that the no sites have been used by 

bald eagles for five consecutive years. 

Red-cockaded woodpecker 

Stipulation (NSO): No surface occupancy or disturbance within one-half mile of a red-cockaded 

woodpecker cluster, defined as the area containing all active and inactive cavity trees, plus a 200-foot 

buffer zone surrounding that area. Vehicle use is prohibited within a cluster except for through-travel on 

existing, maintained, paved roads. 

Objective: To protect red-cockaded woodpecker nest sites from disturbance and habitat 

degradation. 

Exception: An exception may be granted to allow surface occupancy within one-half mile of a 

cluster if the operator agrees to measures developed in consultation with USFWS and in 

coordination with state agencies. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix D-Proposed Conservation Measures and BMPs 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP D-3 

Modification: This stipulation may be modified if a portion of the stipulated area no longer 

within the one-half mile buffer zone. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if no cluster can be identified within one-half mile of the 

leased tract. 

Sea Turtles 

(Green sea turtle, Hawksbill sea turtle, Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle, Leatherback sea turtle, and Loggerhead 

sea turtle) 

Stipulation (NSO): No surface occupancy or disturbance is permitted in suitable sea turtle nesting 

habitat. 

Objective: To protect sea turtle nesting habitat. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator agrees to implement measures developed 

in consultation with USFWS and coordination with state agencies. 

Modification: This stipulation may be modified if a portion of the stipulated area is no longer 

suitable sea turtle nesting habitat.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if it is determined that none of the leased area is suitable 

sea turtle nesting habitat. 

Gopher tortoise, eastern indigo snake, and black pine snake 

Stipulation (Controlled Surface Use): BLM-approved surveys will be required in all suitable gopher 

tortoise habitat where the tortoise is listed, including: Choctaw, Washington, Sumter, and Mobile counties 

in Alabama; and Clarke, Covington, Forrest, George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Jones, Lamar, 

Marion, Pearl River, Perry, Stone, Walthall, and Wayne Counties in Mississippi. No surface disturbance 

or activity is permitted within 600 feet of a gopher tortoise burrow. 

Suitable habitat includes areas with deep, well-drained sandy soils, especially the following USDANRCS soil series and 10% or more open pine forests (historically longleaf pine) or savannas with an open 

understory with grass and forb groundcover open areas. Suitable soils include Alaga, Bigbee, Eustis, 

Lakeland, Waldley or Troup, McLaurin, Benndale, Heidel, Bama, Smithdale, Ruston, Lucedale, Lucy, 

Shuguta, Baxterville, Malbis, Poarch, Saucier, Susquehanna, Boswell, Lorman, Freestone, Freest, Prentis, 

Savannah, Basin, and Petal. 

Objective: To protect gopher tortoise habitat. 

Exception: Exceptions may be granted if the proponent agrees to implement measures developed 

in consultation with USFWS and coordination with state agencies. 

Modification: This stipulation may be modified if suitable gopher tortoise habitat does not exist 

on the stipulated area and that area does not provide forage habitat for adjacent tortoise 

populations. Survey requirements may be modified if current tortoise surveys of the tract are 

approved by BLM and USFWS. 
Appendix D-Proposed Conservation Measures and BMPs Draft EIS – August 2007 

D-4 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if suitable gopher tortoise habitat does not exist on the 

tract and the tract does not provide forage habitat for gopher tortoises in adjacent areas. 

Alabama beach mouse 

Stipulation (NSO): No surface occupancy or disturbance will be permitted within suitable Alabama 

beach mouse habitat or its federally designated critical habitat. 

Objective: To avoid impacts to Alabama beach mouse suitable habitat and designated critical 

habitat. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if measures are developed and implemented in 

consultation with USFWS to avoid potential take of the species. These measures must also be 

coordinated with state agencies. 

Modification: This stipulation may be modified if a portion of the stipulated area is found to no 

longer be suitable Alabama beach mouse habitat.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if it is determined that none of the leased area is suitable 

Alabama beach mouse habitat. 

Gray bat, Indiana bat, Alabama cave shrimp and Alabama cave fish 

Stipulation (NSO): No surface occupancy or disturbance permitted within 250 feet of caves, fractures, 

large sinkholes, and perennial or intermittent streams in or adjacent to counties with documented gray or 

Indiana bat populations. 

Objective: To prevent any impact to hydrologic networks connected to cave habitats and to 

protect flight paths and food sources for the bat. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator agrees to implement measures developed 

in coordination with USFWS and appropriate state agencies. Formal consultation with USFWS 

may be required if determined necessary to protect species and associated habitat. 

Modification: This stipulation may be modified if a portion of the stipulated area is found to no 

longer be within the buffer zone.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if no portion of the leased area is within the 250 foot 

buffer zone. 

Stipulation (NSO): No surface occupancy or disturbance is permitted within 0.5 miles of an Indiana or 

gray bat summer roost or gray bat wintering cave hibernacula. 

Objective: To prevent fatal disturbance during summer nursery roosting or winter hibernation. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator agrees to implement measures developed 

in coordination with USFWS and appropriate state agencies. Formal consultation with USFWS 

may be required if determined necessary to protect species and associated habitat. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix D-Proposed Conservation Measures and BMPs 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP D-5 

Modification: This stipulation may be modified if the project does not adversely affect Indiana or 

gray bat hibernacula with concurrence from Fish and Wildlife Service and the appropriate state 

agencies. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the lease is not within 0.5 miles of an Indiana or gray 

bat hibernacula.

Stipulation (Controlled Surface Use): Within 1.5 miles of an Indiana or gray bat hibernacula a BLM 

permitted action will not remove shagbark hickory trees or snags. 

Objective: To prevent fatal disturbance during summer nursery roosting or winter hibernation. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator agrees to implement measures developed 

in coordination with USFWS and appropriate state agencies. Formal consultation with USFWS 

may be required if determined necessary to protect species and associated habitat. 

Modification: None. 

Waiver: None.

Stipulation (Controlled Surface Use): Injection or disposal of produced water or water withdrawal will 

not be allowed into identified karstic habitat or any hydrologic network connected to caves used by the 

bats or other listed cave species. 

Objective: To prevent any impact to hydrologic networks connected to bat caves and flight paths, 

to protect food sources for the bat. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator agrees to implement measures developed 

in coordination with USFWS and appropriate state agencies. Formal consultation with USFWS 

may be required if determined necessary to protect species and associated habitat. 

Modification: The stipulation may be modified if a portion of the stipulated area is not in karstic 

habitat or a hydrologic network connected to caves used by the bats.

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if none of the lease area is karstic habitat or is not 

hydrologically connected to caves used by the bats. 

Freshwater Aquatic Habitat 

(Habitat for Special Status Species including: Alabama redbelly turtle, flattened musk turtle, yellowblotched turtle, ringed map turtle, blue shiner Gulf sturgeon, slack water darter, Sensitive Clam and Snail 

Species: ovate clubshell, southern clubshell, fine-lined pocketbook, and Tolutoma Snail, and Wood Stork) 

Stipulation (NSO): No surface occupancy or disturbance, including discharges, are permitted within 250 

feet of a 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. If the slope exceeds 10%, the buffer may be extended up to 600 feet to 

provide adequate protection for aquatic habitats and associated species.

Objective: To protect water quality of watersheds and natural stream substrate and morphology 

and to avoid potential impacts to federal and state-listed aquatic species. 
Appendix D-Proposed Conservation Measures and BMPs Draft EIS – August 2007 

D-6 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator agrees to 1) span creeks and floodplains 

by attaching pipelines to bridges or 2) directionally drill under creeks, rivers, and other waters 

supporting listed species, 3) implement other measures developed in consultation with USFWS 

and coordination with state agencies. 

Modification: The buffer may be reduced if the adjacent waterway has been surveyed for 100 

yards upstream and 300 yards downstream of the site, and results document the lack of 

suitable/occupied habitat for special status species within the mixing zone downstream of the 

project, as determined by BLM and USFWS. 

Waiver: The stipulations may be waived if it is determined that the lease area has no 

hydrological connection to habitat of sensitive aquatic species. 

Louisiana black bear 

Stipulation: 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. 

Objective: To protect Louisiana black bear denning and foraging habitat. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator agrees to implement measures developed 

in coordination with USFWS and appropriate state agencies. 

Modification: Temporary surface use may be permitted if the USFWS concurs that the action 

would not adversely affect Louisiana black bear or suitable habitat. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the tract does not contain suitable Louisiana black 

bear habitat. 

Piping plover, least tern 

Stipulation: No surface disturbance in piping plover and least tern habitat from the debris rack line to the 

low tide line of coastal beaches. 

Objective: To protect wintering piping plover and least terns. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator agrees to implement measures which 

have been developed in consultation with the USFWS and in coordination with State agencies. 

Modification: Temporary surface use may be permitted if the USFWS concurs that the action 

would not adversely affect piping plover or least tern or suitable habitat. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if the tract does not contain suitable piping plover or 

least tern habitat. 

Sensitive Plant Species 

(Including Alabama canebrake pitcher plant, green pitcher plant, Alabama leather flower, Eggert’s 

sunflower, Kral’s water plantain, Mohr’s Barbara’s buttons, Morefield’s leather flower, Price’s potato 

bean, and harperella) 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix D-Proposed Conservation Measures and BMPs 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP D-7 

Stipulation (Controlled Surface Use): All suitable special status plant species habitat will be identified 

during environmental review of any proposed surface use activity. If field examination indicates that 

habitat of one or more of these species is present, BLM will require a survey by a qualified botanist for 

special status plants during time periods appropriate to each species. Operations will not be allowed in 

areas where sensitive plants would be affected. 

Objective: To protect threatened, endangered, candidate, proposed, and BLM Sensitive Plant 

Species. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator agrees to implement measures developed 

in consultation with USFWS and coordination with state agencies. 

Modification: The stipulation may be modified if it is determined that a portion of the lease area 

does not support sensitive plant species. 

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if it is determined that the lease area does not support 

sensitive plant species. 

Hancock County Marshes 

Stipulation (NSO): No surface occupancy will be permitted within the component of the Mississippi 

Coastal Preserve System (MCPS) designated as Hancock County Marshes. 

Objective: To promote the preservation marshes habitat the preserve, including the following 

ecological communities expected or known to occur: estuarine subtidal, 1) large tidal creek; 

estuarine intertidal, 1) sand shore 2) mesohaline marsh 3) oligohaline marsh; and other shell 

middens. 

Objective: For the protection of coastal marshes within this state-designated preserve. 

Exception: An exception may be allowed if, in consultation with the State agency responsible for 

the MCPS, it is determined that potential affects of the proposal would be adequately mitigated. 

Modification: The stipulation may be modified if a portion of the leased area is no longer 

identified as part of the MCPS. 

Waiver: The stipulation may be waived if the leased area is no longer identified as part of the 

MCPS. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are mitigation measures applied on a site-specific basis to reduce, 

prevent, or avoid adverse impacts. They may be incorporated as designs features when actions are 

proposed or may be attached as conditions of approval for BLM permitted actions Applications for Permit 

to Drill (APDs) for oil and gas. 

The BMPs described below will be considered mandatory in Alternatives B and C, and will be applied to 

oil and gas operations on new and existing leases. Note that the objective of each BMP is to reduce 

adverse impacts to specific resources, and that there is some flexibility in implementation. The degree of 

flexibility will vary. Application of BMPs where there is potential to affect Federally listed, proposed or 
Appendix D-Proposed Conservation Measures and BMPs Draft EIS – August 2007 

D-8 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

candidate species or designated critical habitat will normally require coordination and possible formal 

consultation with the USFWS. Examples of national environmental BMPs are listed below, and other 

BMPs that could be applied during site specific evaluation 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. 

• Interim reclamation of the well and access road. 

• Painting of all facilities to blend into the background. 

• Design and construct all new roads to a safe and appropriate standard, “no higher than necessary” 

to accommodate intended vehicular use. 

• Final reclamation of all disturbed areas, including access roads, to the original or similar contour. 

• Raptor perch avoidance devices on powerlines. 

• Burial of powerlines and flow lines in or immediately adjacent to the access roads. 

• Centralized production facilities. 

• The use of submersible pumps where feasible. 

• Below ground wellheads where feasible. 

• Multiple wells from a single well pad where feasible. 

• Noise reduction techniques to reduce noise from compressors or other motorized equipment. 

• Seasonal restrictions on public vehicular access where there are wildlife conflict or road 

damage/maintenance issues. 

• Avoidance of production facilities on hilltops and ridgelines. 

Disposal of Produced Water 

Objective: To protect aquatic habitats for and to avoid potential impacts to special status fish, 

mussels, turtles, snails, plants, and migratory birds. 

The preferred method for disposal of produced water will be disposed of through reinjection to a 

permeable formation with total dissolved solids (TDS) content higher than 10,000 mg/L* where the 

aquifer is not hydrologically connected to caves, wetlands, or surface water. If reinjection is not 

practicable, closed-containment treatment systems should be used to contain and treat produced water for 

those contaminants and for sediments exceeding State standards or EPA criteria. Salt content of any 

surface ponds for produced water, pigging pits, or other fluids must be less than 7500 μS/cm*. If surface 

pond salt content is greater than 7500 μS/cm or other bird toxicity is present or surface exhibits sheen, the 

ponds must be netted, covered with floating balls, or other methods used to exclude migratory birds 

Produced waters may be released into an impounded reservoir if there is documentation that the discharge 

site and affected waters do not support special status species, are not designated critical habitat, and State 

and Federal water quality standards/criteria are met. 

Produced waters may be released into a stream/river, if the discharge site and affected waters have been 

recently surveyed and lacks special status species, or the applicant conducts approved surveys 

documenting the absence of special status species and State and Federal water quality standards/criteria 

are met. Applicant should be aware that some species can only be surveyed during certain times of year. 

Produced waters may be released into a stream/river if the applicant can document that the produced 

waters would not adversely affect special status species. Water quality tests would be conducted on 

stream segment(s) or other locations proposed as discharge points, volumes to be released, and any 

settling ponds or other treatments proposed to improve wastewater quality. The water quality test data, 

any monitoring proposed, and other available information on general CBM effluent characteristics (from 

published or unpublished literature) shall be reviewed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Information on 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix D-Proposed Conservation Measures and BMPs 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP D-9 

timing of the releases in relation to low water and other planned BMPs would also be required. Testing 

would include analysis of the discharge site and affected waters for COD, conductivity, TSS, As, Hg, Se, 

and PAHs. Dissolved oxygen and ammonia standards/criteria must be met in bottom waters if they 

support listed benthic or epibenthic species. If a special status species has been documented to be more 

sensitive than State/Federal standards/criteria, site-specific standards for that species may be imposed. 

Calculations would be based on State standards (or Federal CCC criteria for protection of freshwater 

aquatic life when the State has not determined a standard for these parameters). 

Invasive and Non-Native Species 

Objective: To discourage the spread of invasive, non-native plants. 

Use of native and/or non-invasive cover plants in seeding mixtures will be encouraged to stabilize 

disturbed areas and during restoration activities. In the case of split-estate land final seed mixtures will be 

formulated in consultation with the private landowner. 

Migratory Birds and Federally Listed Wildlife 

Objective: To protect perch and roosting sites and terrestrial habitats for and to avoid potential impacts to 

migratory birds and federally listed wildlife. 

Any reserve pit not closed within 10 days after a well is completed and which contains water must be 

netted, covered with floating balls, or use other methods to exclude migratory birds. 

Maximum design speed on all operator-constructed and maintained (non-public) roads shall not exceed 

25 miles per hour to minimize the chance of a collision with migratory birds or other listed wildlife 

species.

All power lines would be built to protect raptors and other migratory birds, including bald eagles, from 

accidental electrocution using methods detailed by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (1996)*.

* Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1996. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on 

Power Lines - The State of the Art in 1996. Edison Electric Institute and the Raptor 

Research Foundation. Washington, D.C. 

Perching and Nesting Birds and Bats 

Objective: To prevent birds and bats from entering or nesting in or on open vent stack equipment.

Open vent stack equipment, such as heater-treaters, separators, and dehydrator units, will be designed and 

constructed to prevent birds and bats from entering or nesting in or on such units, and to the extent 

practical, to discourage birds from perching on the stacks. Installing cone-shaped mesh covers on all open 

vents is one suggested method. Flat mesh covers are not expected to discourage perching and will not be 

acceptable. 

Pesticide Application 

Objective: To protect the water quality of watersheds and natural stream substrate and 

morphology supporting special status species and their host species. 
Appendix D-Proposed Conservation Measures and BMPs Draft EIS – August 2007 

D-10 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Any ground application of herbicides or other pesticides, sterilants, or adjuvants within 150’ of listed 

species or habitat, will require site specific control measures developed in coordination or formal 

consultation with the USFWS. No aerial application of herbicides or pesticides will be permitted. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 

The lease stipulations and BMPs implemented under Alternative 2 would be the same as those discussed 

above for Alternatives 3 and 4, except for the following: 

Alabama Beach Mouse: Suitable Alabama beach mouse habitat or its federally designated critical 

habitat would be unavailable for lease. 

Freshwater Aquatic Habitat: No surface occupancy or disturbance, including discharges, are permitted 

within 1,000 feet of a 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. 

Objective: To protect water quality of watersheds and natural stream substrate and morphology 

and to avoid potential impacts to federal and state-listed aquatic species. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator agrees to 1) span creeks and floodplains 

by attaching pipelines to bridges or 2) directionally drill under creeks, rivers, and other waters 

supporting listed species, 3) implement other measures developed in consultation with USFWS 

and coordination with state agencies. 

Modification: The buffer may be reduced if the adjacent waterway has been surveyed for 100 

yards upstream and 300 yards downstream of the site, and results document the lack of 

suitable/occupied habitat for special status species within the mixing zone downstream of the 

project, as determined by BLM and USFWS. 

Waiver: The stipulations may be waived if it is determined that the lease area has no 

hydrological connection to habitat of sensitive aquatic species. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-1 

APPENDIX E—SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN 

ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI 

This appendix provides information on special status species in the States of Alabama and Mississippi. 

E.1. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided species lists for Alabama and Mississippi. These lists are 

presented in the following sections. 

E.1.1. Federally Protected Species In Alabama 

There are 130 Federally protected species in Alabama as of October 27, 2005. Species in the following 

sections are coded as follows: 

• E Endangered 

• T Threatened 

• EXPN Experimental Population, Non-essential 

• SC Species of Concern 

• S/A Similarity of Appearance 

• PE Proposed Endangered 

• PT Proposed Threatened 

• C Candidate Taxon, Ready for Proposal 

• CH Designated Critical Habitat 

• CH* Indicates Critical Habitat in AL 

E.1.1.1. Mammals 

E ............Bat, gray (Myotis grisescens) 

E-CH......Bat, Indiana (Myotis sodalis) 

E in MS ..Bear, Louisiana black (Ursus americanus luteolus) S. AL bears are FL subspecies 

E.............Manatee, Florida (Trichechus manatus) listed in FL, GA 

E-CH*....Mouse, Alabama beach (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) 

E-CH*....Mouse, Perdido Key beach (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis) 

E.1.1.2. Birds 

E.............Crane, Mississippi sandhill (Grus canadensis pulla) listed in MS 

EXPN .....Crane, Whooping (Grus americana)

T.............Eagle, bald (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E in MS ..Pelican, brown (Pelecanus occidentalis) delisted 1985 in AL, FL, Atlantic Coast 

T-CH*....Plover, piping (Charadrius melodus) 

E.............Stork, wood (Mycteria americana) 

E.............Tern, least (Sterna antillarum) listed in MS and TN

E.............Woodpecker, red-cockaded (Picoides borealis)
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

E.1.1.3. Reptiles 

T.............Sea turtle, green (Chelonia mydas) 

E.............Sea turtle, hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) 

E.............Sea turtle, Kemp’s (=Atlantic) ridley (Lepidochelys kempii)

E.............Sea turtle, leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea)

T.............Sea turtle, loggerhead (Caretta caretta)

T.............Snake, eastern indigo (Drymarchon corais couperi) 

C.............Snake, black pine (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi) 

T.............Tortoise, gopher (Gopherus polyphemus) listed in Choctaw, Washington, Mobile counties only 

E.............Turtle, Alabama redbelly (Pseudemys alabamensis)

T.............Turtle, flattened musk (Sternotherus depressus) 

T.............Turtle, ringed map (=sawback) (Graptemys oculifera) listed in MS 

T.............Turtle, yellow-blotched map (=sawback) (Graptemys flavimaculata) listed in MS 

E.1.1.4. Amphibians 

PE...........Gopher Frog, Dusky (Rana sevosa) MS only (Rana capito) in AL not listed

T.............Salamander, Red Hills (Phaeognathus hubrichti) 

T.............Salamander, Flatwoods (Phaeognathus cingulatum) not seen for decades 

C.............Waterdog, Black Warrior (Necturus alabamensis) 

E.1.1.5. Snails 

T.............Elimia (snail), lacy (Elimia crenatella)

E.............Lioplax (snail), cylindrical (Lioplax cyclostomaformis)

E.............Pebblesnail, flat (Lepyrium showalteri) 

E.............Riversnail, Anthony’s (Athearnia anthonyi) NEP below Wilson Dam 

T.............Rocksnail, painted (Leptoxis taeniata)

E.............Rocksnail, plicate (Leptoxis plicata) 

T.............Rocksnail, round (Leptoxis ampla)

E.............Snail, tulotoma (=Alabama live-bearing) (Tulotoma magnifica)

E.............Armored snail (Marstonia [=Pyrgulopsis] pachyta) 

E.............Slender campeloma (Campeloma decampi) 

E.1.1.6. Mussels 

E-CH*....Acornshell, southern (Epioblasma othcaloogensis) probably extirpated

C.............Bean, Choctaw (Villosa choctawensis) 

E.............Blossom, turgid (pearlymussel) (Epioblasma turgidula) probably extinct

E.............Blossom, yellow (pearlymussel) (Epioblasma florentina florentina) probably extirpated 

E.............Catspaw (Epioblasma obliquata obliquata) probably extirpated

E.............Clubshell, black (=Curtus’ mussel) (Pleurobema curtum) probably extirpated

E-CH*....Clubshell, ovate (Pleurobema perovatum) 

E-CH*....Clubshell, southern (Pleurobema decisum)

E-CH*....Combshell, Cumberlandian (Epioblasma brevidens) CH in Bear Creek 

E.............Combshell, southern (=penitent mussel) (Epioblasma penita)

E-CH*....Combshell, upland (Epioblasma metastriata) probably extirpated

E.............Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria) 

T.............Heelsplitter, Alabama (=inflated) (Potamilus inflatus)
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-3 

E-CH*....Kidneyshell, triangular (Ptychobranchus greenii) may be split into 2 species, watch for details 

C.............Kidneyshell, Southern (Ptychobranchus jonesi) 

E.............Lampmussel, Alabama (Lampsilis virescens) 

E.............Lilliput, pale (pearlymussel) (Toxolasma cylindrellus)

T-CH*....Moccasinshell, Alabama (Medionidus acutissimus)

E-CH*....Moccasinshell, Coosa (Medionidus parvulus)

E.............Moccasinshell, Gulf (Medionidus penicillatus) 

E.............Monkeyface, Cumberland (pearlymussel) (Quadrula intermedia)

T-CH*....Mucket, orange-nacre (Hamiota [Lampsilis] perovalis) 

E.............Mucket, pink (pearlymussel) (Lampsilis abrupta)

E-CH*....Oyster Mussel (Epioblasma capsaeformis) NEP in AL below Wilson Dam, CH in Bear Creek 

C.............Pearlshell, Alabama (Margaritifera marrianae) 

E.............Pearlymussel, cracking (Hemistena lata) 

E.............Pearlymussel, dromedary (Dromus dromas) probably extirpated

E.............Pearlymussel, littlewing (Pegias fabula) probably extirpated

C.............Pearlymussel, slabside (Pleuronaia [Lexingtonia] dolabelloides) 

E-CH*....Pigtoe, dark (Pleurobema furvum) 

E.............Pigtoe, fine-rayed (Fusconaia cuneolus) 

E.............Pigtoe, flat (=Marshall’s mussel) (Pleurobema marshalli) probably extirpated

C.............Pigtoe, fuzzy (Pleurobema strodeanum) 

E.............Pigtoe, oval (Pleurobema pyriforme) 

E.............Pigtoe, heavy (=Judge Tait’s mussel) (Pleurobema taitianum)

E.............Pigtoe, rough (Pleurobema plenum) 

E.............Pigtoe, shiny (Fusconaia cor [=edgariana]) 

E-CH*....Pigtoe, southern (Pleurobema georgianum) 

E.............Pimpleback, orangefoot (pearlymussel) (Plethobasus cooperianus)

E.............Pink, ring (mussel) (Obovaria retusa)

T-CH*....Pocketbook, finelined (Hamiota [=Lampsilis] altilis) 

E.............Pocketbook, shinyrayed (Hamiota [Lampsilis] subangulata) 

T.............Purple Bankclimber (Plectomerus [=Elliptoideus] sloatianus) 

C.............Sandshell, southern (Lampsilis australis) 

E.............Stirrupshell (Quadrula stapes) probably extinct

E.............Wartyback, white (pearlymussel) (Plethobasus cicatricosus)

E.1.1.7. Crustaceans 

E.............Shrimp, Alabama cave (Palaemonias alabamae) 

E.1.1.8. Fish 

E-CH*....Cavefish, Alabama (Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni) 

T-CH......Chub, spotfin (Erimonax monachus); (= Cyprinella [=Hybopsis] monacha) 

E.............Darter, boulder (=Elk River) (Etheostoma wapiti) 

T.............Darter, goldline (Percina aurolineata) 

C.............Darter, Rush (Etheostoma phytophylum) 

E.............Darter, Vermilion (Etheostoma chermocki) 

T-CH*....Darter, slackwater (Etheostoma boschungi) CH in Cypress Creek & tributaries 

T.............Darter, snail (Percina tanasi) 

E.............Darter, watercress (Etheostoma nuchale) 

T.............Sculpin, pygmy (Cottus pygmaeus) 

T.............Shiner, blue (Cyprinella [=Notropis] caerulea) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-4 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

E.............Shiner, Cahaba (Notropis cahabae) 

E.............Shiner, Palezone (Notropis albizonatus) 

E.............Sturgeon, Alabama (Scaphirhyncus suttkusi) 

T-CH*....Sturgeon, Gulf (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

E.1.1.9. Plants 

T.............Little amphianthus (Amphianthus pusillus) 

T.............Price’s potato-bean (Apios priceana) 

T.............Braun’s rock cress (Arabis perstellata) no records in Daphne AL GIS 

E.............Morefield’s leather-flower (Clematis morefieldii) 

E.............Alabama leather-flower (Clematis socialis) 

E.............Leafy prairie-clover (Dalea [=Petalostemum] foliosa) 

C.............Whorled sunflower (Helianthus verticillatus) 

T.............Lyrate bladderpod (Lesquerella lyrata) 

C.............Panhandle lily (Lilium iridollae) 

E.............Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) not known in AL when listed throughout range 

T.............Mohr’s Barbara’s buttons (Marshallia mohrii) 

C.............White fringless orchid (Platanthera integrilabia) 

E.............Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum [=fluviatile]) 

T.............Kral’s water-plantain (Sagittaria secundifolia) = Little River Arrowhead 

E.............Green pitcher-plant (Sarracenia oreophila) 

E.............Alabama canebrake pitcher-plant (Sarracenia rubra ssp. alabamensis) 

E.............American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) 

E.............Gentian pinkroot (Spigelia gentianoides) var. alabamensis in Bibb Cty not protected by ESA 

E.............Relict trillium (Trillium reliquum) 

E.............Tennessee yellow-eyed grass (Xyris tennesseensis) 

C.............Georgia Rockcress (Arabis georgiana) 

C.............Georgia aster (Aster georgiana) 

C.............Fleshyfruit gladecress (Leavenworthia crassa) see TVAGIS dataset 

E.1.1.10. Ferns and Allies 

T.............American hart’s-tongue fern (Asplenium scolopendrium var. americanum) 

E.............Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) 

T.............Alabama streak-sorus fern (Thelypteris pilosa var. alabamensis) 

E.1.1.11. Insects 

E.............Butterfly, Mitchell’s Satyr (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) AL not in listed range but found 

here 

E.............Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly (Sematochlora hineana) recorded once’78, no surveys since 

E.1.2. Federally Protected Species List for Mississippi 

There are 37 Federally protected species in Mississippi as of December 2000. This list does not include 

the five endangered whale species that may occasionally be found in Mississippi coastal waters. Species 

in the following sections are coded as follows: 

• E Endangered 

• T Threatened 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-5 

In addition, these species are exceptions to those listed in the following sections: 

• Protected Species due to Similarity of Appearance (look similar to federally listed species): 

− American Alligator 

− American Black Bear 

• Extirpated Species (Once lived in Mississippi but are no longer found here): 

− Alabama Sturgeon 

− American Burying Beetle 

− Bachman’s Warbler 

− Florida Panther 

− Ivory-billed Woodpecker 

− Red Wolf 

• Extinct Species (Gone forever from Mississippi and the world): 

− Carolina Parakeet 

− Passenger Pigeon 

• Recovered Species (Populations increased so that the species is no longer in danger of going 

extinct and has been removed from the Endangered Species List): 

− Peregrine Falcon, August 1995 

E.1.2.1. Mammals 

E.............Bat, gray (Myotis grisescens) 

E.............Bat, Indiana (Myotis sodalis) 

T.............Bear, Louisiana Black (Ursus americanus luteolus) 

E.............Manatee, West Indian (Trichechus manatus) 

E.1.2.2. Birds 

E.............Crane, Mississippi Sandhill (Grus canadensis pulla) 

T.............Eagle, Bald (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), proposed for delisting 2001 

E.............Pelican, Brown (Pelecanus occidentalis) 

T.............Plover, Piping (Charadrius melodus) 

E.............Tern, Least (interior population) (Sterna antillarum) 

E.............Woodpecker, Red-cockaded (Picoides borealis) 

E.1.2.3. Reptiles 

T.............Sea Turtle, Green (Chelonia mydas) 

E.............Sea Turtle, Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) 

E.............Sea Turtle, Kemp’s Ridley (=Atlantic) (Lepidochelys kempii) 

E.............Sea Turtle, Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) 

T.............Sea Turtle, Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) 

T.............Snake, Eastern Indigo (Drymarchon corais couperi) 

T.............Turtle, Ringed Map (=sawback) (Graptemys oculifera) 

T.............Turtle, Yellow-blotched (=sawback) (Graptemys flavimaculatata) 

T.............Tortoise, Gopher (Gopherus polyphemus) 

E.1.2.4. Fish 

T.............Darter, Bayou (Etheostoma rubrum) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-6 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

T.............Sturgeon, Gulf (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

E.............Sturgeon, Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) 

E.1.2.5. Mussels 

E.............Clubshell, Black (Pleurobema curtum) 

E.............Clubshell, Ovate (Pleurobema perovatum) 

E.............Clubshell, Southern (Pleurobema decisum) 

E.............Combshell, Southern (Epioblasma penita) 

T.............Heelsplitter, Inflated (Potamilus inflatus) 

T.............Moccasinshell, Alabama (Medionidus acutissimus) 

T.............Mucket, Orange-nacre (Lampsilis perovalis) 

E.............Pigtoe, flat (Pleurobema marshalli) 

E.............Pigtoe, heavy (Pleurobema taitianum) 

E.............Pocketbook, Fat (Potamilus [=Proptera] caprax) 

E.............Stirrupshell (Quadrula stapes) 

E.1.2.6. Plants 

E.............American Chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) 

E.............Louisiana Quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) 

T.............Price’s Potato-bean (Apios priceana) 

E.............Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) 

E.1.3. Federally Protected Species in Alabama By County 

There following sections present the occurrence of Federally protected species in Alabama by county. 

However, bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) and 

American peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum) may occur in any county, if suitable habitat exists. 

Species in the following sections are coded as follows: 

• E Endangered Species 

• T Threatened Species 

• C Candidate Species 

• CH Critical Habitat Designated 

• (P) Historical Record and/or Possible Occurrence in County 

• PE Proposed Endangered 

• PT Proposed Threatened 

E.1.3.1. Autauga 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

E.............Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) 

E.............Alabama canebrake pitcher plant (Sarracenia rubra ssp.alabamensis) 

T.............Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana) 

E.1.3.2. Baldwin 

E.............West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) 

ECH .......Alabama beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-7 

ECH .......Perdido Key beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus trissylepsis) 

C.............Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

E.............Least tern (Sterna antillarum) 

TPCH .....Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

T.............Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) (P) 

E.............Alabama red-bellied turtle (Pseudemys alabamensis) 

T.............Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 

E.............Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) 

T.............Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) (P) 

T.............Flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) (P) 

E.............Heavy pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema taitianum) 

T.............Inflated heelsplitter mussel (Potamilus inflatus) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

E.............Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) 

E.............American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) 

C.............Panhandle lily (Lillium iridollae) 

E.1.3.3. Barbour 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

T.............Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.1.3.4. Bibb 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

E.............Cylindrical lioplax snail (Lioplax cyclostomaformis)

E.............Flat pebblesnail (Lepyrium showalteri) 

T.............Round rocksnail (Leptoxis ampla)

T.............Orange-nacre mucket mussel (Lampsilis perovalis)

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis)

E.............Triangular kidneyshell mussel (Ptychobranchus greenii)

E.............Cahaba shiner (Notropis cahabae) 

T.............Goldline darter (Percina aurolineata) 

T.............Mohr’s Barbara’s buttons (Marshallia mohrii)

E.............Tennessee yellow-eyed grass (Xyris tennesseensis)

C.............Georgia rockcress (Arabis georgiana)

E.............Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) 

E.1.3.5. Blount 

T.............Flattened musk turtle (Sternotherus depressus) 

C.............Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis) 

E.............Plicate rocksnail (Leptoxis plicata) 

E.............Triangular kidneyshell mussel (Ptychobranchus greenii) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

T.............Orange-nacre mucket mussel (Lampsilis perovalis) 

E.............Ovate clubshell mussel (Pleurobema perovatum) 

E.............Cahaba shiner (Notropis cahabae) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-8 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

T.............Eggert’s sunflower (Helianthus eggertii) 

C.............Georgia aster (Aster georgianus) 

E.1.3.6. Bullock 

E.............Red cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

E.............Relict trillium (Trillium reliquum) 

E.1.3.7. Butler 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

T.............Red hills salamander (Phaeognathus hubrichti) 

E.1.3.8. Calhoun 

E.............Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

E.............Tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica) 

T.............Painted rocksnail (Leptoxis taeniata) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

E.............Southern pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema georgianum) 

E.............Triangular kidneyshell mussel (Ptychobranchus greenii) 

E.............Southern clubshell mussel (Pleurobema decisum) 

E.............Tennessee yellow-eyed grass (Xyris tennesseensis) 

T.............Mohr’s Barbara’s buttons (Marshallia mohrii) 

C.............White fringeless orchid (Platanthera integrilabia) 

E.1.3.9. Chambers 

T.............Little amphianthus (Amphianthus pusillus) 

E.1.3.10. Cherokee 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Coosa moccasinshell mussel (Medionidus parvulus) 

E.............Triangular kidneyshell mussel (Ptychobranchus greenii) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

E.............Ovate clubshell mussel (Pleurobema perovatum) 

E.............Southern clubshell mussel (Pleurobema decisum) 

T.............Blue shiner (Cyprinella caerulea) 

E.............Green pitcher plant (Sarracenia oreophila) 

E.............Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) 

T.............Mohr’s Barbara’s buttons (Marshallia mohrii) 

E.............Alabama leather flower (Clematis socialis) 

T.............Kral’s water-plantain (Sagittaria secundifolia) 

C.............Whorled sunflower (Helianthus verticillatus) 

E.1.3.11. Chilton 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-9 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

T.............Painted rocksnail (Leptoxis taeniata) 

E.............Alabama canebrake pitcher plant (Sarracenia rubra ssp.alabamensis) 

E.1.3.12. Choctaw 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

T.............Inflated heelsplitter mussel (Potamilus inflatus) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

E.1.3.13. Clarke 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

C.............Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi) 

T.............Inflated heelsplitter mussel (Potamilus inflatus) 

E.............Heavy pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema taitianum) (P) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

E.............Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) 

E.1.3.14. Clay 

E.............Tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica) 

E.............Southern pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema georgianum) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

T.............Blue shiner (Cyprinella caerulea) 

C.............Georgia aster (Aster georgianus) 

C.............White fringeless orchid (Platanthera integrilabia) 

E.1.3.15. Cleburne 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

E.............Southern pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema georgianum) 

E.............Southern clubshell mussel (Pleurobema decisum) 

E.............Triangular kidneyshell mussel (Ptychobranchus greenii) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook (Lampsilis altilis) 

C.............White fringeless orchid (Platanthera integrilabia) 

E.1.3.16. Coffee 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

E.1.3.17. Colbert 

E.............Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

E.............Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) (P) 

E.............Anthony’s riversnail (Athearnia anthonyi) 

E.............Pink mucket pearly mussel (Lampsilis abrupta) 

E.............White warty-back pearly mussel (Plethobasus cicatricosus) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-10 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

E.............Rough pigtoe pearly mussel (Pleurobema plenum) 

E.............Cumberlandian combshell mussel (Epioblasma brevidens) 

E.............Ring pink mussel (Obovaria retusa) 

E.............Turgid blossom pearlymussel (Epioblasma turgidula) 

E.............Cracking pearlymussel (Hemistena lata) 

C.............Slabside pearlymussel (Lexingtonia dolabelloides) 

E.............Fanshell mussel (Cyprogenia stegaria) 

E.............Alabama cave shrimp (Palaemonias alabamae) 

E.............Spotfin chub (Cyprinella (=Hybopsis) monacha) 

T.............Lyrate bladder-pod (Lesquerella lyrata) 

T.............Eggert’s sunflower (Helianthus eggertii) (P) 

E.............Leafy prairie-clover (Dalea foliosa) 

E.1.3.18. Conecuh 

E.............Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

T.............Red hills salamander (Phaeognathus hubrichti) 

C.............Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

E.............Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) 

E.1.3.19. Coosa 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

E.............Southern pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema georgianum) 

T.............Blue shiner (Cyprinella caerulea) 

T.............Kral’s water-plantain (Sagittaria secundifolia) 

E.1.3.20. Covington 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

T.............Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) (P) 

T.............Red hills salamander (Phaeognathus hubrichti) 

T.............Flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) (P) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

E.............Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) 

T.............Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) (P) 

E.1.3.21. Crenshaw

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana)

T.............Red hills salamander (Phaeognathus hubrichti) 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-11 

E.1.3.22. Cullman 

T.............Flattened musk turtle (Sternotherus depressus) 

C.............Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis) 

E.............Ovate clubshell mussel (Pleurobema perovatum) 

E.............Triangular kidneyshell mussel (Ptychobranchus greenii) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

E.1.3.23. Dale 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

E.1.3.24. Dallas 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

E.............Southern clubshell mussel (Leurobema decisum) 

E.............Heavy pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema taitianum) 

T.............Orange-nacre mucket mussel (Lampsilis perovalis) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

E.............Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) 

E.1.3.25. DeKalb 

E.............Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

E.............Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) (P) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

T.............Blue shiner (Cyprinella caerulea) 

T.............Kral’s water-plantain (Sagittaria secundifolia) 

E.............Green pitcher plant (Sarracenia oreophila) 

E.............Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) 

T.............Eggert’s sunflower (Helianthus eggertii) (P) 

E.1.3.26. Elmore 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica) 

E.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

E.............Alabama canebrake pitcher plant (Sarracenia rubra ssp.alabamensis) 

C.............Georgia rockcress (Arabis georgiana) 

E.1.3.27. Escambia 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

E.1.3.28. Etowah 

T.............Flattened musk turtle (Sternotherus depressus) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-12 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

E.............Southern clubshell mussel (Pleurobema decisum) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

E.............Triangular kidneyshell mussel (Ptychobranchus greenii) 

E.............Southern pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema georgianum) 

E.............Ovate clubshell mussel (Pleurobema perovatum) 

C.............Rush darter (Etheostoma phytophilum) 

T.............Mohr’s Barbara’s buttons (Marshallia mohrii) 

E.............Green pitcher plant (Sarracenia oreophila) 

E.............Alabama leather flower (Clematis socialis) 

E.1.3.29. Fayette 

T.............Orange-nacre mucket mussel (Lampsilis perovalis) 

E.............Dark pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema furvum) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

E.1.3.30. Franklin 

E.............Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

C.............Slabside pearlymussel (Lexingtonia dolabelloides) 

E.............Cumberlandian combshell mussel (Epioblasma brevidens) 

T.............Lyrate bladder-pod (Lesquerella lyrata) 

E.............Leafy prairie clover (Dalea foliosa) 

E.............Tennessee yellow-eyed grass (Xyris tennesseensis) 

T.............Eggert’s sunflower (Helianthus eggertii) 

E.1.3.31. Geneva 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

E.............Gentian pinkroot (Spigelia gentianoides var. gentianoides) 

E.1.3.32. Greene 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

T.............Orange-nacre mucket mussel (Lampsilis perovalis) 

T.............Alabama moccasinshell mussel (Medionidus acutissimus) 

E.............Southern clubshell mussel (Pleurobema decisum) 

E.............Ovate clubshell mussel (Pleurobema perovatum) 

E.............Heavy pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema taitianum) 

T.............Inflated heelsplitter mussel (Potamilus inflatus) 

E.............Stirrup shell mussel (Quadrula stapes) 

E.............Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) 

E.1.3.33. Hale 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

T.............Inflated heelsplitter mussel (Potamilus inflatus) 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-13 

E.1.3.34. Henry 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

E.............Relict trillium (Trillium reliquum) 

E.1.3.35. Houston 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

T.............Flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) (P) 

E.............Gulf moccasinshell mussel (Medionidus penicillatus) 

E.............Oval pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema pyriforme) 

E.1.3.36. Jackson 

E.............Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

E.............Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Anthony’s riversnail (Athearnia anthonyi) 

E.............Shiny pigtoe pearly mussel (Fusconaia cor [edgariana]) 

E.............Pink mucket pearly mussel (Lampsilis abrupta) 

E.............Alabama lamp pearly mussel (Lampsilis virescens) 

E.............Pale lilliput pearly mussel (Toxolasma cylindrellus) 

E.............Fine-rayed pigtoe mussel (Fusconaia cuneolus) 

C.............Slabside pearlymussel (Lexingtonia dolabelloides) 

E.............Palezone shiner (Notropis albizonatus) 

E.............Green pitcher plant (Sarracenia oreophila) 

T.............American hart’s-tongue fern (Phyllitis scolopendrium var.americana) 

T.............Eggert’s sunflower (Helianthus eggertii) (P) 

T.............Price’s potato-bean (Apios priceana) 

C.............White fringeless orchid (Platanthera integrilabia) 

E.............Hine’s emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana) (P) 

E.1.3.37. Jefferson 

T.............Flattened musk turtle (Sternotherus depressus) 

C.............Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis) 

E.............Plicate rocksnail (Leptoxis plicata) 

E.............Upland combshell mussel (Epioblasma metastriata) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

E.............Triangular kidneyshell mussel (Ptychobranchus greenii) 

T.............Orange-nacre mucket mussel (Lampsilis perovalis) 

E.............Watercress darter (Etheostoma nuchale) 

E.............Cahaba shiner (Notropis cahabae) 

T.............Goldline darter (Percina aurolineata) 

C.............Rush darter (Etheostoma phytophilum) 

PE...........Vermilion darter (Etheostoma chermocki) 

E.............Leafy prairie-clover (Dalea foliosa) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-14 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

E.1.3.38. Lamar 

E.............Southern combshell mussel (Epioblasma penita) 

E.............Southern clubshell mussel (Pleurobema decisum) 

E.............Ovate clubshell mussel (Pleurobema perovatum) 

T.............Orange-nacre mucket mussel (Lampsilis perovalis) 

T.............Alabama moccasinshell mussel (Medionidus acutissimus) 

E.1.3.39. Lauderdale 

E.............Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

E.............Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) (P) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Anthony’s riversnail (Athearnia anthonyi) 

E.............Ring pink mussel (Obovaria retusa) 

E.............Turgid blossom pearlymussel (Epioblasma turgidula) 

E.............Cracking pearlymussel (Hemistena lata) 

E.............Pink mucket pearly mussel (Lampsilis abrupta) 

E.............White warty-back pearly mussel (Plethobasus cicatricosus) 

E.............Rough pigtoe pearly mussel (Pleurobema plenum) 

E.............Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria)

TCH .......Slackwater darter (Etheostoma boschungi) 

ECH .......Alabama cavefish (Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni) 

E.............Spotfin chub (Cyprinella [=Hybopsis] monacha) 

T.............Eggert’s sunflower (Helianthus eggertii) (P) 

C.............Fleshyfruit gladecress (Leavenworthia crassa) 

C.............Georgia rockcress (Arabis georgiana) 

E.1.3.40. Lawrence 

E.............Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

E.............Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Pink mucket pearly mussel (Lampsilis abrupta) 

T.............Alabama moccasinshell mussel (Medionidus acutissimus) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

T.............Orange-nacre mucket mussel (Lampsilis perovalis) 

E.............Dark pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema furvum) 

E.............Triangular kidneyshell mussel (Ptychobranchus greenii) 

E.............Rough pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema plenum) 

E.............Leafy prairie clover (Dalea foliosa) 

T.............Lyrate bladder-pod (Lesquerella lyrata) 

T.............Eggert’s sunflower (Helianthus eggertii) (P) 

C.............Fleshyfruit gladecress (Leavenworthia crassa) 

E.1.3.41. Lee 

E.............Ovate clubshell mussel (Pleurobema perovatum) 

T.............Purple bankclimber (Eliptoideus sloatianus) 

E.............Southern clubshell mussel (Pleurobema decisum) 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-15 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis)

E.............Relict trillium (Trillium reliquum) 

E.1.3.42. Limestone 

E.............Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

E.............Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) (P) 

E.............Anthony’s riversnail (Athearnia anthonyi) 

E.............Slender campeloma snail (Campeloma decampi) 

E.............Armored snail (Pyrgulopsis pachyta) 

E.............Pink mucket pearly mussel (Lampsilis abrupta) 

E.............Rough pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema plenum) 

E.............Cumberland monkeyface mussel (Quadrula intermedia) 

E.............Cracking pearlymussel (Hemistena lata) 

E.............Ring pink mussel (Obovaria retusa) 

T.............Slackwater darter (Etheostoma boschungi) 

E.............Boulder darter (Etheostoma wapiti) 

T.............Eggert’s sunflower (Helianthus eggertii) (P) 

E.1.3.43. Lowndes 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) 

E.1.3.44. Macon 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

E.............Southern clubshell mussel (Pleurobema decisum) 

E.............Ovate clubshell mussel (Pleurobema perovatum) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

E.1.3.45. Madison 

E.............Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

E.............Slender campeloma snail (Campeloma decampi) 

E.............Pink mucket pearly mussel (Lampsilis abrupta) 

E.............Shiny pigtoe pearly mussel (Fusconaia cor [edgariana]) 

E.............Fine-rayed pigtoe mussel (Fusconaia cuneolus) 

E.............Rough pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema plenum) 

C.............Slabside pearlymussel (Lexingtonia dolabelloides) 

E.............Alabama cave shrimp (Palaemonias alabamae) 

T.............Slackwater darter (Etheostoma boschungi) 

E.............Snail darter (Percina tanasi) 

T.............Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana) 

E.............Morefield’s leather flower (Clematis morefieldii) 

T.............Eggert’s sunflower (Helianthus eggertii) (P) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-16 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

E.1.3.46. Marengo 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

T.............Inflated heelsplitter mussel (Potamilus inflatus) 

E.1.3.47. Marion 

T.............Orange-nacre mucket mussel (Lampsilis perovalis) 

E.............Southern combshell mussel (Epioblasma penita) 

C.............White fringeless orchid (Platanthera integrilabia) 

E.1.3.48. Marshall 

E.............Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

E.............Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

T.............Flattened musk turtle (Sternotherus depressus) 

E.............Pink mucket pearly mussel (Lampsilis abrupta) 

E.............Shiny pigtoe pearly mussel (Fusconaia cor [edgariana]) 

E.............Fine-rayed pigtoe mussel (Fusconaia cuneolus) 

E.............Orange-footed pimpleback mussel (Plethobasus cooperianus) 

C.............Slabside pearlymussel (Lexingtonia dolabelloides) 

E.............Rough pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema plenum) 

E.............Snail darter (Percina tanasi) 

T.............Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana) 

E.............Green pitcher plant (Sarracenia oreophila) 

T.............Eggert’s sunflower (Helianthus eggertii) (P) 

E.1.3.49. Mobile 

E.............West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) 

T.............Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

E.............Least tern (Sterna antillarum) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

T.............Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) 

C.............Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi) 

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

E.............Alabama red-bellied turtle (Pseudemys alabamensis) 

T.............Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 

E.............Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) (P) 

T.............Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) (P) 

T.............Flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) (P) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

E.............Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) (P) 

E.1.3.50. Monroe 

E.............Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

T.............Red hills salamander (Phaeognathus hubrichti) 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-17 

E.............Heavy pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema taitianum) 

C.............Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

E.............Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) 

E.............Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) 

E.1.3.51. Montgomery 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.1.3.52. Morgan 

E.............Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

E.............Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) 

E.............Pink mucket pearly mussel (Lampsilis abrupta) 

E.............Ring pink mussel (Obovaria retusa) 

E.............Rough pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema plenum) 

E.............Leafy prairie-clover (Dalea foliosa) 

T.............American hart’s-tongue fern (Asplenium scolopendrium var.americana) 

T.............Eggert’s sunflower (Helianthus eggertii) (P) 

C.............Fleshyfruit gladecress (Leavenworthia crassa) 

E.1.3.53. Perry 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

E.............Ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum) 

E.............Cahaba shiner (Notropis cahabae) 

E.1.3.54. Pickens 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

T.............Orange-nacre mucket mussel (Lampsilis perovalis)

T.............Alabama moccasinshell mussel (Medionidus acutissimus)

E.............Flat pigtoe (Pleurobema marshallii) 

T.............Inflated heelsplitter (Potamilus inflatus)

E.............Southern clubshell mussel (Pleurobema decisum)

E.............Ovate clubshell mussel (Pleurobema perovatum) 

E.............Heavy pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema taitianum) 

E.............Stirrup shell mussel (Quadrula stapes)

E.1.3.55. Pike 

No listed species. 

E.1.3.56. Randolph 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

T.............Little amphianthus (Amphianthus pusillus) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-18 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

E.1.3.57. Russell 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

E.............Shiny-rayed pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis subangulata) 

C.............Georgia rockcress (Arabis georgiana) 

E.1.3.58. Shelby 

E.............Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

E.............Indiana bat (Myotis sodalist) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus

T.............Painted rocksnail (Leptoxis taeniata) 

E.............Cylindrical lioplax (snail) (Lioplax cyclostomaformis) 

E.............Tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica) 

E.............Flat pebblesnail (Lepyrium showalteri) 

T.............Round rocksnail (Leptoxis ampla) 

E.............Southern clubshell mussel (Pleurobema decisum) 

E.............Triangular kidneyshell mussel (Ptychobranchus greenii) 

E.............Southern acornshell mussel (Epioblasma othcaloogensis) (P) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

T.............Orange-nacre mucket mussel (Lampsilis perovalis) 

T.............Alabama moccasinshell mussel (Medionidus acutissimus) 

E.............Cahaba shiner (Notropis cahabae) 

T.............Goldline darter (Percina aurolineata) 

E.1.3.59. St. Clair 

E.............Tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica) 

E.............Southern acornshell mussel (Epioblasma othcaloogensis) 

E.............Triangular kidneyshell mussel (Ptychobranchus greenii) 

E.............Southern pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema georgianum) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

E.............Upland combshell mussel (Epioblasma metastriata) 

E.............Southern clubshell mussel (Pleurobema decisum) 

E.............Ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum) 

E.............Alabama leather flower (Clematis socialis) 

E.1.3.60. Sumter 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

E.............Ovate clubshell mussel (Pleurobema perovatum) 

T.............Inflated heelsplitter mussel (Potamilus inflatus) 

E.............Stirrup shell mussel (Quadrula stapes) 

E.............Heavy pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema taitianum) 

E.1.3.61. Talladega 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

E.............Tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica) 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-19 

T.............Painted rocksnail (Leptoxis taeniata) 

T.............Lacy elimia (snail) (Elimia crenatella) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

E.............Coosa moccasinshell mussel (Medionidus parvulus) 

E.............Southern pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema georgianum) 

E.............Southern clubshell (Pleurobema decisum) 

E.............Triangular kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus greenii) 

E.1.3.62. Tallapoosa 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

E.1.3.63. Tuscaloosa 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

T.............Flattened musk turtle (Sternotherus depressus) 

C.............Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis) 

E.............Southern clubshell mussel (Pleurobema decisum) 

E.............Dark pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema furvum) 

E.............Ovate clubshell mussel (Pleurobema perovatum) 

T.............Alabama moccasinshell mussel (Medionidus acutissimus) 

T.............Inflated heelsplitter mussel (Potamilus inflatus) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

T.............Orange-nacre mucket mussel (Lampsilis perovalis) 

C.............White fringeless orchid (Platanthera integrilabia) 

E.............Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) 

E.1.3.64. Walker 

T.............Flattened musk turtle (Sternotherus depressus) 

C.............Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis) 

E.............Ovate clubshell mussel (Pleurobema perovatum) 

E.............Triangular kidneyshell mussel (Ptychobranchus greenii) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

T.............Mohr’s Barbara’s buttons (Marshallia mohrii) 

E.1.3.65. Washington 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

C.............Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi) 

T.............Inflated heelsplitter mussel (Potamilus inflatus) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

E.............Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) (P) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-20 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

E.1.3.66. Wilcox 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Wood stork (Mycteria americana) (P) 

C.............Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae) 

E.............Heavy pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema taitianum) (P) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

E.............Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) 

C.............Georgia rockcress (Arabis georgiana) 

E.1.3.67. Winston 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

T.............Flattened musk turtle (Sternotherus depressus) 

C.............Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis) 

T.............Orange-nacre mucket mussel (Lampsilis perovalis) 

T.............Alabama moccasinshell mussel (Medionidus acutissimus) 

E.............Coosa moccasinshell mussel (Medionidus parvulus) 

E.............Dark pigtoe mussel (Pleurobema furvum) 

E.............Triangular kidneyshell mussel (Ptychobranchus greenii) 

T.............Fine-lined pocketbook mussel (Lampsilis altilis) 

E.............Ovate clubshell mussel (Pleurobema perovatum) 

C.............Rush darter (Etheostoma phytophilum) 

T.............Kral’s water-plantain (Sagittaria secundifolia) 

T.............Alabama streak-sorus fern (Thelypteris pilosa var. alabamensis) 

C.............White fringeless orchid (Platanthera integrilabia)

E.1.4. Federally Protected Species in Mississippi By County 

There following sections present the occurrence of Federally protected species in Alabama by county. 

However, Bald eagle is proposed to be delisted and Critical Habitat is proposed for Piping Plover on 

barrier islands and in certain areas of coastal counties. Species in the following sections are coded as 

follows: 

• E Endangered Species 

• T Threatened Species 

• C Candidate Species 

• CH Critical Habitat Designated 

• (P) Historical Record and/or Possible Occurrence in County 

• PE Proposed Endangered 

• PT Proposed Threatened 

E.1.4.1. Statewide 

E.............Fat pocketbook (Potamilus capax) has been found in the lower Mississippi River and may 

occur in side channels. 

E.1.4.2. Adams 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-21 

E.............Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) (P) 

E.1.4.3. Amite 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus)

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

E.1.4.4. Attala 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) 

E.1.4.5. Bolivar 

E.............Least tern (Sterna antillarum) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) (P) 

E.............Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) 

E.1.4.6. Chickasaw 

T.............Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana) (P) 

E.1.4.7. Claiborne 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) 

T.............Bayou darter (Etheostoma rubrum) 

E.............Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) (P) 

E.1.4.8. Clarke 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

T.............Yellow-blotched map turtle (Graptemys flavimaculata) 

E.1.4.9. Clay 

T.............Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana) 

E.1.4.10. Coahoma 

E.............Least tern (Sterna antillarum) 

E.............Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) (P) 

E.1.4.11. Copiah 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) 

T.............Ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculifera) 

T.............Bayou darter (Etheostoma rubrum) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-22 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

E.1.4.12. Covington 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

E.1.4.13. DeSoto 

E.............Least tern (Sterna antillarum) 

E.............Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) (P) 

E.1.4.14. Forrest 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

T.............Yellow-blotched map turtle (Graptemys flavimaculata)

T.............Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) (P) 

C.............Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus ssp. lodingi) 

C.............Pearl darter (Percina aurora) Pascagoula River System 

E.............Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) 

E.1.4.15. Franklin 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus)

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

E.1.4.16. George 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus)

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)

T.............Yellow-blotched map turtle (Graptemys flavimaculata)

T.............Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) (P) 

C.............Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus ssp. lodingi) 

C.............Pearl darter (Percina aurora) Pascagoula River System 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) 

E.............Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) (P) 

E.1.4.17. Greene 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

T.............Yellow-blotched map turtle (Graptemys flavimaculata)

T.............Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) (P) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi)

E.............Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) 

E.1.4.18. Grenada 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-23 

E.1.4.19. Hancock 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus)

E.............Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis)

T.............Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

E.............Kemp’s Ridley (Lepidochelys kempii)

T.............Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) (P) 

T.............Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta)

T.............Inflated heelsplitter (Potamilus inflatus)

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) 

E.............Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) (P) 

E.1.4.20. Harrison 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) 

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

T.............Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) 

C.............Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus ssp. lodingi) 

E.............Kemp’s Ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) 

T.............Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) (P) 

T.............Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta)

PE...........Mississippi gopher frog (proposal under review) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) 

E.............Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) 

E.1.4.21. Hinds 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

T.............Ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculifera) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) 

T.............Bayou darter (Etheostoma rubrum) 

E.1.4.22. Holmes 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

E.1.4.23. Humphreys 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

E.1.4.24. Issaquena 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) 

E.............Least tern (Sterna antillarum) 

E.............Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) (P) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-24 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

E.1.4.25. Itawamba 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Black clubshell (Curtus’ mussel) (Pleurobema curtum) 

E.............Southern combshell (Penitent shell mussel) (Epioblasma penita) 

E.............Heavy Pigtoe (Judge Tait’s mussel) (Pleurobema taitianum) 

E.............Southern clubshell (Pleurobema decisum) 

T.............Orange-nacre mucket (Lampsilis perovalis) 

E.............Ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum) 

E.1.4.26. Jackson 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus)

E.............Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

E.............Mississippi sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pulla) (CH) 

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

T.............Yellow-blotched map turtle (Graptemys flavimaculata)

T.............Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) (P) 

T.............Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Kemp’s Ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) 

T.............Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta)

C.............Pearl darter (Percina aurora) Pascagoula River System 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) 

E.............Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis)

E.1.4.27. Jasper 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

E.1.4.28. Jefferson 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus)

E.............Fat pocketbook mussel (Potamilus capax)

E.............Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) (P) 

E.1.4.29. Jefferson Davis 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

E.1.4.30. Jones 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

C.............Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus ssp. lodingi)

T.............Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) (P) 

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

T.............Yellow-blotched map turtle (Graptemys flavimaculata)

C.............Pearl darter (Percina aurora) Pascagoula River System 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-25 

E.............Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) 

E.1.4.31. Kemper 

T.............Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana)

E.1.5. Lafayette

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.1.5.1. Lamar 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

E.1.5.2. Lauderdale 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.1.5.3. Lawrence 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus)

T.............Ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculifera) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) 

E.1.5.4. Leake 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

T.............Ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculifera) 

E.1.5.5. Lee 

T.............Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana)

E.1.5.6. Lowndes 

E.............Heavy Pigtoe (Judge Tait’s mussel) (Pleurobema taitianum)

E.............Southern combshell (Penitent shell mussel) (Pleurobema penita) 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus)

T.............Alabama moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus) 

E.............Southern clubshell (Pleurobema decisum)

T.............Orange-nacre mucket (Lampsilis perovalis)

T.............Ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum) 

E.1.5.7. Madison 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

T.............Ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculifera) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-26 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

E.1.5.8. Marion 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus)

T.............Ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculifera) 

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

T.............Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) 

C.............Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus ssp. lodingi) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) 

E.1.5.9. Monroe 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Black combshell (Curtus’ mussel) (Pleurobema curtum) 

E.............Southern combshell (Penitent shell mussel) (Epioblasma penita) 

E.............Heavy Pigtoe (Judge Tait’s mussel) (Pleurobema taitianum) 

E.............Southern clubshell (Pleurobema decisum) 

T.............Orange-nacre mucket (Lampsilis perovalis) 

T.............Alabama moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus) 

E.............Ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum) 

E.1.5.10. Neshoba 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

T.............Ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculifera) 

E.1.5.11. Newton 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

E.1.5.12. Noxubee 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.1.5.13. Oktibbeha 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

T.............Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana)

E.1.5.14. Panola 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.1.5.15. Pearl River 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) 

C.............Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus ssp. lodingi)

T.............Ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculifera)

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

T.............Inflated heelsplitter (Potamilus inflatus)
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-27 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) 

E.............Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) (P) 

E.1.5.16. Perry 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus)

E.............Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) (P) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

T.............Yellow-blotched map turtle (Graptemys favimaculata)

T.............Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) (P) 

C.............Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus ssp. lodingi) 

C.............Camp Shelby burrowing crayfish (Fallicambarus gordoni) 

C.............Pearl darter (Percina aurora) Pascagoula River System 

E.............Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) 

E.1.5.17. Pike 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

E.1.5.18. Rankin 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

T.............Ringed sawback turtle (Graptemys oculifera) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) 

E.1.5.19. Scott 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

T.............Ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculifera) 

E.1.5.20. Sharkey 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

E.............Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) 

E.............Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) 

E.1.5.21. Simpson 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

T.............Ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculiferi) 

T.............Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi) 

E.1.5.22. Smith 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-28 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

E.1.5.23. Stone 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus)

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

C.............Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus ssp. lodingi) 

T.............Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) (P) 

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

T.............Yellow-blotched map turtle (Graptemys flavimaculata) 

E.............Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) 

E.1.5.24. Sunflower 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) 

E.1.5.25. Tallahatchie 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) 

E.1.5.26. Tate 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.1.5.27. Tishomingo 

E.............Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

E.............Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.1.5.28. Tunica 

E.............Least tern (Sterna antillarum) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) (P) 

E.1.5.29. Walthall 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

E.1.5.30. Warren 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Least tern (Sterna antillarum) 

E.............Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) (P) 

E.1.5.31. Washington 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus)

E.............Least tern (Sterna antillarum) 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-29 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) (P) 

E.1.5.32. Wayne 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) (P) 

E.............Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

T.............Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) (P) 

C.............Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus ssp. lodingi) 

T.............Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

T.............Yellowblotched map turtle (Graptemys flavimaculata) 

E.............Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) 

E.1.5.33. Wilkinson 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus)

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

E.............Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) (P) 

E.1.6. Winston

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.1.6.1. Yalobusha 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) 

E.1.6.2. Yazoo 

T.............Louisiana black bear (Ursus a. luteolus) 

T.............Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

E.............Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) (P) 

E.2. S1 AND S2 SPECIES

The following species are listed by the Natural Heritage Programs of Alabama and Mississippi as State 

imperiled species. The Heritage ranking system was developed by The Nature Conservancy. The State 

ranked species are species of concern and will be managed by the BLM to prevent any further reduction 

in species numbers or critical habitat loss. An S1 species as defined by The Nature Conservancy is 

“critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences of very few remaining 

individuals or acres) or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the 

state.” An S2 species as defined by The Nature Conservancy is “imperiled in the state because of rarity (6 

to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or because of some factor(s) making it very 

vulnerable to extirpation from Alabama.” 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-30 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

E.2.1. S1 and S2 Species in Alabama 

E.2.1.1. Mammals 

S2 ...........Black bear (Ursus americanus) 

S2 ...........Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) 

S1 ...........Northern yellow bat (Lasiurus intermedius) 

S2 ...........Southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius) 

S2 ...........Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) 

S1 ...........Eastern small-footed myotis (Myotis leibii) 

S2 ...........Northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) 

S2 ...........Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) 

S1 ...........Appalachian cottontail (Sylvilagus obscurus) 

S1 ...........Alabama beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) 

S1 ...........Perdido key beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis) 

S2 ...........West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus)

E.2.1.2. Birds 

Due to the migratory nature of birds, additional ranking systems from The Nature Conservancy are 

applied here. “SB are regularly occurring migratory and present only during the breeding season.” “SN 

are regularly occurring, usually migratory and typically non-breeding species in the state; this category 

includes migratory birds, bats, sea turtles, and cetaceans which do not breed in the state but pass through 

twice a year or may remain in winter.” 

S1BS2N .Southeastern snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus tenuirostris) 

S1N ........Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) 

S1 ...........Wilson’s plover (Charadrius wilsonia) 

S2N ........Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) 

S2N ........Wood stork (Mycteria americana) 

S2N ........Groove-billed ani (Crotophaga sulcirostris) 

S2 ...........Swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus) 

S1 ...........Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) 

S1 ...........Appalachian Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii altus) 

S1 ...........Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii bewickii) 

S2 ...........Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

E.2.1.3. Reptiles 

S2 ...........Mimic glass lizard (Ophisaurus mimicus) 

S1 ...........Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi)

S1S2.......Prairie kingsnake (Lampropeltis calligaster calligaster) 

S2 ...........Red milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum syspila) 

S2 ...........Eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum) 

S2 ...........Gulf salt marsh snake (Nerodia clarkii clarkia) 

S2 ...........Green water snake (Nerodia cyclopion)

S2 ...........Florida green water snake (Nerodia floridana)

S2 ...........Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi) 

S2 ...........Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus)

S2 ...........Pine woods snake (Rhadinaea flavilata)

S2 ...........Black swamp snake (Seminatrix pygaea)
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-31 

S1 ...........Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 

S1 ...........Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) 

S2 ...........Barbour’s map turtle (Graptemys barbouri)

S2 ...........Escambia map turtle (Graptemys ernsti) 

S2 ...........Delta map turtle (Graptemys nigrinoda delticola) 

S2 ...........Mississippi diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin pileata) 

S1 ...........Alabama redbelly turtle (Pseudemys alabamensis)

S1 ...........Razorback musk turtle (Sternotherus carinatus) 

S2 ...........Flattened musk turtle (Sternotherus depressus) 

S2 ...........Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

S2 ...........Florida softshell (Apalone ferox)

E.2.1.4. Amphibians 

S2 ...........Pine barrens treefrog (Hyla andersonii)

S1 ...........Little grass frog (Pseudacris ocularis) 

S2 ...........Gopher frog (Rana capito)

S1 ...........River frog (Rana heckscheri)

S2 ...........Wood frog (Rana sylvatica) 

S1 ...........Flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) 

S1 ...........One-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma pholeter)

S2 ...........Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) 

S2 ...........Seepage salamander (Desmognathus aeneus) 

S2 ...........Southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus) 

S2 ...........Mountain dusky salamander (Desmognathus ocoee)

S2 ...........Pale salamander (Gyrinophilus palleucus palleucus) 

S2 ...........Red Hills salamander (Phaeognathus hubrichti) 

S2 ...........Black warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis) 

E.2.1.5. Snails 

S1 ...........Slender campiloma (Campeloma decampi)

S1 ...........Cylindrical lioplax (Lioplax cyclostomaformis) 

S1 ...........Alabama livebearing snail (Tulotoma magnifica)

S2 ...........Hood ancylid (Ferrissia mcneili) 

S1 ...........Domed ancylid (Rhodacme elatior) 

S2 ...........Knobby ancylid (Rhodacme hinkleyi) 

S1 ...........Manitou snail (Antrorbis breweri) 

S1 ...........Cahaba pebblesnail (Clappia cahabensis)

S1 ...........Flat pebblesnail (Lepyrium showalteri) 

S1 ...........Angled marstonia (Marstonia angulobasis)

S1 ...........Coosa pyrg (Marstonia hershleri) 

S1 ...........Armored marstonia (Marstonia pachyta) 

S1 ...........Moss pyrg (Marstonia scalariformis)

S2 ...........Teardrop snail (Rhapinema dacryon) 

S1 ...........Anthony’s river snail (Athearnia anthonyi)

S1 ...........Acute elimia (Elimia acuta)

S1 ...........Mud elimia (Elimia alabamensis) 

S1 ...........Ample elimia (Elimia ampla) 

S1 ...........Lilyshoals elimia (Elimia annettae)

S1 ...........Princess elimia (Elimia bellacrenata)
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-32 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

S1 ...........Walnut elimia (Elimia bellula) 

S2 ...........Rusty elimia (Elimia bentoniensis)

S1 ...........Brooch elimia (Elimia broccata)

S1S2.......A freshwater snail (Elimia bullula)

S2 ...........Prune elimia (Elimia chiltonensis) 

S1 ...........Cockle elimia (Elimia cochliaris)

S1 ...........Hispid elimia (Elimia comma)

S1 ...........Lacey elimia (Elimia crenatella) 

S1 ...........Graphite elimia (Elimia curvicostata)

S2 ...........Cylinder elimia (Elimia cylindracea) 

S2 ...........Fire elimia (Elimia exusta) 

S2 ...........Gladiator elimia (Elimia hydei)

S2 ...........Sowwater elimia (Elimia interveniens)

S1 ...........Teardrop elimia (Elimia lachryma)

S2 ...........Panel elimia (Elimia laqueata)

S1 ...........Black mudalia (Elimia melanoides) 

S1 ...........Latticed elimia (Elimia mihalcikae) 

S2 ...........Oak elimia (Elimia mutabilis)

S1 ...........Round-rib elimia (Elimia nassula)

S1 ...........Caper elimia (Elimia olivula) 

S1 ...........Engraved elimia (Elimia perstriata) 

S2 ...........Spring elimia (Elimia pybasi)

S1 ...........Compact elimia (Elimia showalteri)

S1 ...........Auger elimia (Elimia teretria)

S1 ...........Creek elimia (Elimia ucheensis) 

S1 ...........Cobble elimia (Elimia vanuxemiana) 

S1 ...........Puzzle elimia (Elimia varians) 

S1 ...........Squat elimia (Elimia variata) 

S2 ...........Round rocksnail (Leptoxis ampla)

S1 ...........Spotted rocksnail (Leptoxis picta)

S1 ...........Plicate rocksnail (Leptoxis plicata)

S1 ...........Painted rocksnail (Leptoxis taeniata) 

S1 ...........Armored rocksnail (Lithasia armigera)

S1 ...........Knobby rocksnail (Lithasia curta)

S1 ...........Ornate rocksnail (Lithasia geniculata)

S1 ...........Rustic rocksnail (Lithasia salebrosa) 

S2 ...........Rugged hornsnail (Pleurocera alveare) 

S2 ...........Spiral hornsnail (Pleurocera brumbyi) 

S1 ...........Corpulent hornsnail (Pleurocera corpulenta) 

S1S2.......Shortspire hornsnail (Pleurocera curta)

S1 ...........Rough hornsnail (Pleurocera foremani) 

S2 ...........Noble hornsnail (Pleurocera nobilis)

S2 ...........Broken hornsnail (Pleurocera postelli) 

S2 ...........Skirted hornsnail (Pleurocera pyrenella) 

S2 ...........Upland hornsnail (Pleurocera showalteri)

S2 ...........Sulcate hornsnail (Pleurocera trochiformis) 

S2 ...........Brook hornsnail (Pleurocera vestita)

E.2.1.6. Mussels 

S1 ...........Spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta)
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-33 

S1 ...........Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marriana)

S2 ...........A mucket (Actinonaias ligamentina)

S1 ...........Pheasantshell (Actinonaias pectorosa)

S1 ...........Southern elktoe (Alasmidonta triangulata)

S1 ...........Slippershell mussel (Alasmidonta viridis) 

S1 ...........Apalachicola floater (Anodonta heardi) 

S1S2.......Rayed creekshell (Anodontoides radiatus) 

S1 ...........Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria) 

S2 ...........Alabama spike (Elliptio arca) 

S2 ...........Delicate spike (Elliptio arctata) 

S1 ...........Spike (Elliptio dilatata) 

S2 ...........Fluted elephant-ear (Elliptio mcmichaeli) 

S1 ...........Inflated spike (Elliptio purpurella)

S1 ...........Purple bankclimber (Elliptoideus sloatianus)

S1 ...........Cumberlandian combshell (Epioblasma brevidens) 

S1 ...........Southern combshell (Epioblasma penita) 

S1 ...........Snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra)

S1 ...........Tennessee pigtoe (Fusconaia barnesiana) 

S2 ...........Shiny pigtoe (Fusconaia cor) 

S1 ...........Fine-rayed pigtoe (Fusconaia cuneolus) 

S2 ...........Narrow pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia)

S1S2.......Wabash pigtoe (Fusconaia flava) 

S1 ...........Round ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata) 

S1 ...........Long-solid (Fusconaia subrotunda)

S2 ...........Fine-lined pocketbook (Hamiota altilis) 

S1S2.......Southern sandshell (Hamiota australis) 

S2 ...........Orange-nacre mucket (Hamiota perovalis) 

S1 ...........Shiny-rayed pocketbook (Hamiota subangulata) 

S1 ...........Pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta) 

S1S2.......Wavy-rayed lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola) 

S2 ...........Louisiana fatmucket (Lampsilis hydiana) 

S2 ...........Rough fatmucket (Lampsilis straminea straminea) 

S1 ...........Alabama lampmussel (Lampsilis virescens) 

S2 ...........Fluted-shell (Lasmigona costata)

S1S2.......Tennessee heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia) 

S1 ...........Slabside pearlymussel (Lexingtonia dolabelloides) 

S2 ...........Black sandshell (Ligumia recta) 

S1 ...........Alabama moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus) 

S1 ...........Cumberland moccasinshell (Medionidus conradicus) 

S1S2.......Gulf moccasinshell (Medionidus penicillatus) 

S1S2.......Southern hickorynut (Obovaria jacksoniana) 

S1 ...........Ring pink (Obovaria retusa)

S2 ...........Round hickorynut (Obovaria subrotunda) 

S2 ...........Alabama hickorynut (Obovaria unicolor) 

S1 ...........White wartyback (Plethobasus cicatricosus)

S1 ...........Orange-foot pimpleback (Plethobasus cooperianus) 

S1 ...........Sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus) 

S1 ...........Painted clubshell (Pleurobema chattanoogaense) 

S2 ...........Ohio pigtoe (Pleurobema cordatum) 

S2 ...........Southern clubshell (Pleurobema decisum) 

S1 ...........Dark pigtoe (Pleurobema furvum) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-34 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

S1 ...........Southern pigtoe (Pleurobema georgianum)

S1 ...........Tennessee clubshell (Pleurobema oviforme) 

S1 ...........Ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum) 

S1 ...........Rough pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum) 

S1 ...........Oval pigtoe (Pleurobema pyriforme)

S1 ...........Warrior pigtoe (Pleurobema rubellum) 

S1 ...........Pyramid pigtoe (Pleurobema rubrum) 

S1 ...........Round pigtoe (Pleurobema sintoxia) 

S2 ...........Fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema strodeanum) 

S1 ...........Heavy pigtoe (Pleurobema taitianum) 

S1 ...........Inflated heelsplitter (Potamilus inflatus) 

S1 ...........Kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus fasciolaris) 

S1 ...........Triangular kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus greenii) 

S1 ...........Southern kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi) 

S1 ...........Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica) 

S1S2.......Wartyback (Quadrula nodulata) 

S1 ...........Tapered pigtoe (Quadrula burkei) 

S1 ...........Sculptured pigtoe (Quincuncina infucata) 

S2 ...........Alabama creekmussel (Strophitus connasaugansis)

S2 ...........Southern creekmussel (Strophitus subvexus) 

S1 ...........Squawfoot (Strophitus unduluatus) 

S1 ...........Southern lilliput (Toxolasma corvunculus) 

S1 ...........Pale lilliput (Toxolasma cylindrellus) 

S2 ...........Purple lilliput (Toxolasma lividus) 

S2 ...........Iridescent lilliput (Toxolasma paulus) 

S1 ...........Deertoe (Truncilla truncata) 

S2 ...........Florida floater (Utterbackia peggyae) 

S2 ...........Choctaw bean (Villosa choctawensis) 

S2 ...........Coosa creekshell (Villosa vanuxemensis umbrans) 

E.2.1.7. Crustaceans 

S1 ...........Alabama cave shrimp (Palaemonias alabamae) 

S1 ...........Tuscumbia cave shrimp (Palaemonias sp.1)

S2 ...........A crayfish (Cambarus acanthura)

S1 ...........A crayfish (Cambarus cracens)

S2 ...........A crayfish (Cambarus hamulatus) 

S2 ...........Alabama cave crayfish (Cambarus jonesi)

S2 ...........A crayfish (Cambarus ludovicanus)

S2 ...........A crayfish (Cambarus manningi) 

S2 ...........Rusty grave digger (Cambarus miltus)

S2 ...........A crayfish (Cambarus unestami) 

S1 ...........White Spring Cave crayfish (Cambarus veitchorum)

S1 ...........Speckled burrowing crayfish (Fallicambarus danielae)

S1 ...........A crayfish (Orconectes cooperi) 

S1 ...........A crayfish (Orconectes lancifer) 

S1 ...........A crayfish (Orconectes sheltie) 

E.2.1.8. Fish 

S1 ...........Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-35 

S1 ...........Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi)

S2 ...........Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) 

S2 ...........River carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio) 

S2 ...........Silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum)

S2 ...........Apalachicola redhorse (Moxostoma sp. cf. poecilurum) 

S2 ...........Bluefin stoneroller (Campostoma pauciradii) 

S1 ...........Blue shiner (Cyprinella caerulea) 

S2 ...........Bluestripe shiner (Cyprinella callitaenia)

S1 ...........Streamline chub (Erimystax dissimilis) 

S2 ...........Blotched chub (Erimystax insignis) 

S1 ...........Warpaint shiner (Luxilus coccogenis) 

S2 ...........Ribbon shiner (Lythrurus fumeus) 

S2 ...........Cherryfin shiner (Lythrurus roseipinnis) 

S2 ...........River chub (Nocomis micropogon) 

S1 ...........Palezone shiner (Notropis albizonatus) 

S2 ...........Popeye shiner (Notropis ariommus) 

S2 ...........Bigeye shiner (Notropis boops) 

S2 ...........Ghost shiner (Notropis buchanani) 

S2 ...........Cahaba shiner (Notropis cahabae) 

S1 ...........Ironcolor shiner (Notropis chalybaeus) 

S2 ...........Dusky shiner (Notropis cummingsae) 

S2 ...........Highscale shiner (Notropis hypsilepis) 

S1 ...........Tennessee shiner (Notropis leuciodus) 

S2 ...........Highland shiner (Notropis micropteryx) 

S2 ...........Coastal shiner (Notropis petersoni) 

S1 ...........Silver shiner (Notropis photogenis) 

S2 ...........Sawfin shiner (Notropis sp cf. spectrunculus) 

S1 ...........Sand shiner (Notropis stramineus) 

S2 ...........Skygazer shiner (Notropis uranoscopus) 

S1 ...........Channel shiner (Notropis wickliffi) 

S1 ...........Suckermouth minnow (Phenacobius mirabilis) 

S1 ...........Stargazing minnow (Phenacobius uranops) 

S2 ...........Broadstripe shiner (Pteronotropis euryzonus) 

S2 ...........Bluenose shiner (Pteronotropis welaka) 

S2 ...........Banded topminnow (Fundulus auroguttatus) 

S2 ...........Stippled studfish (Fundulus bifax) 

S2 ...........Lowland topminnow (Fundulus blairae) 

S2 ...........Starhead topminnow (Fundulus dispar) 

S1 ...........Saltmarsh topminnow (Fundulus jenkinsi) 

S1 ...........Pygmy killifish (Leptolucania ommata)

S1 ...........Bluefin killifish (Lucania goodei) 

S2 ...........Alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula) 

S1 ...........Banded sunfish (Enneacanthus obesus) 

S2 ...........Shoal bass (Micropterus cataractae) 

S1 ...........Spring pygmy sunfish (Elassoma alabamae) 

S1 ...........Scaly sand darter (Ammocrypta vivax) 

S2 ...........Warrior darter (Etheostoma bellator) 

S1 ...........Blenny darter (Etheostoma blennius) 

S1 ...........Slackwater darter (Etheostoma boschungi) 

S1 ...........Holiday darter (Etheostoma brevirostrum) 

S1 ...........Bluebreast darter (Etheostoma camurum) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-36 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

S1 ...........Vermilion darter (Etheostoma chermocki) 

S2 ...........Lipstick darter (Etheostoma chuckwachatte) 

S2 ...........Crown darter (Etheostoma corona) 

S1 ...........Fringed darter (Etheostoma crossopterum) 

S1 ...........Coldwater darter (Etheostoma ditrema) 

S2 ...........Tuskaloosa darter (Etheostoma douglasi) 

S1 ...........Brighteye darter (Etheostoma lynceum) 

S1 ...........Lollipop darter (Etheostoma neopterum) 

S1 ...........Watercress darter (Etheostoma nuchale) 

S1 ...........Rush darter (Etheostoma phytophilum) 

S1 ...........Upper Coosa darter nr. (E. ditrema2 Etheostoma sp 1) 

S1 ...........Lower Coosa darter nr. (E. ditrema2 Etheostoma sp 3) 

S2 ...........Sipsey darter (Etheostoma sp. cf. bellator) 

S2 ...........Tuscumbia darter (Etheostoma tuscumbia) 

S1 ...........Boulder darter (Etheostoma wapiti) 

S2 ...........Banded darter (Etheostoma zonale) 

S1 ...........Bandfin darter (Etheostoma zonistium) 

S2 ...........Yellow perch (Perca flavescens) 

S1 ...........Goldline darter (Percina aurolineata) 

S2 ...........Southern logperch (Percina austroperca) 

S2 ...........Coal darter (Percina brevicauda) 

S1 ...........Blotchside darter (Percina burtoni) 

S2 ...........Gilt darter (Percina evides) 

S1 ...........Slenderhead darter (Percina phoxocephala) 

S2 ...........Muscadine darter (Percina sp cf. macrocephala) 

S1 ...........Warrior bridled darter (Percina sp cf. macrocephala) 

S1 ...........Snail darter (Percina tanasi) 

S1 ...........Alabama cavefish (Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni) 

S2 ...........Mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi) 

S1 ...........Pygmy sculpin (Cottus paulus) 

S2 ...........Spotted bullhead (Ameiurus serracanthus) 

S1 ...........Mountain madtom (Noturus eleutherus) 

S1 ...........Highlands stonecat (Noturus sp. cf. flavus) 

S1 ...........Brindled madtom (Noturus miurus) 

S2 ...........Frecklebelly madtom (Notorus munitus) 

S2 ...........Chestnut lamprey (Ichthyomyzon castaneus) 

S1 ...........Mountain brook lamprey (Ichthyomyzon greeleyi) 

S1 ...........American brook lamprey (Lampetra appendix)

E.2.1.9. Plants 

S1 ...........Dwarf burhead (Echinodorus parvulus) 

S2 ...........Slender arrow-head (Sagittaria isoetiformis) 

S1 ...........Little River arrow-head (Sagittaria secundifolia) 

S1 ...........Sweetflag (Acorus calamus) 

S2 ...........Spoon flower (Peltandra sagittfolia) 

S1 ...........Kral’s yellow-eyed grass (Xyris longisepala) 

S1S2.......Harper’s yellow-eyed grass (Xyris scabrifolia) 

S1 ...........Acid-swamp yellow-eyed grass (Xyris serotina) 

S1 ...........Tennessee yellow-eyed grass (Xyris tennesseensis) 

S1 ...........A sedge (Carex acidicola)
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-37 

S1 ...........Glomerate sedge (Carex aggregata) 

S1 ...........Baltzell’s sedge (Carex baltzellii) 

S1 ...........Bryson’s sedge (Carex brysonii) 

S1 ...........Cypress-knee sedge (Carex decomposita) 

S2 ...........Ebony sedge (Carex eburnea) 

S1 ...........Coast sedge (Carex exilis) 

S1 ...........Godfrey’s sedge (Carex godfreyi) 

S1 ...........Impressed-nerved sedge (Carex impressinervia) 

S2 ...........Purple sedge (Carex purpurifera) 

S1 ...........Walter’s sedge (Carex striata) 

S1 ...........A sedge (Carex thornei) 

S1 ...........Velvety sedge (Carex vestita) 

S1 ...........Twig rush (Cladium mariscoides) 

S2 ...........Granite-loving flatsedge (Cyperus granitophilus) 

S1 ...........Black-fruited spike-rush (Eleocharis melanocarpa) 

S1 ...........Capitate spikerush (Eleocharis olivacea) 

S1 ...........Robbins‘ spikerush (Eleocharis robbinsii) 

S1 ...........Beaked spikerush (Eleocharis rostellata) 

S1 ...........Wolf s spikerush (Eleocharis wolfii) 

S1 ...........Glade fimbristylis (Fimbristylis brevivaginata) 

S1 ...........Horned beakrush (Rhynchospora capillacea) 

S1 ...........Hairy-peduncled beakrush (Rhynchospora crinipes) 

S1 ...........Harper beakrush (Rhynchospora harperi) 

S1 ...........Southern white beak rush (Rhynchospora macra) 

S1 ...........Brown beakrush (Rhynchospora pleiantha) 

S1 ...........Stone Mountain beakrush (Rhynchospora saxicola) 

S2 ...........Chapman beakrush (Rhynchospora stenophylla) 

S1 ...........Thorne s beakrush (Rhynchospora thornei) 

S1 ...........Tracys beak rush (Rhynchospora tracyi) 

S1 ...........Blue maiden-cane (Amphicarpum muehlenbergianum) 

S1 ...........Pine-woods bluestem (Andropogon arctatus) 

S2 ...........Beardgrass (Andropogon capillipes) 

S1 ...........Beardgrass (Andropogon gyrans var. stenophyllus) 

S1 ...........Southern three-awned grass (Aristida simpliciflora)

S1 ...........Cumberland sandgrass (Calamovilfa arcuata) 

S1 ...........Shiny spikegrass (Chasmanthium nitidum) 

S1 ...........Florida jointgrass (Coelorachis tuberculosa) 

S2 ...........American beakgrain (Diarrhena americana) 

S1 ...........Brazilian luziola (Luziola bahiensis) 

S1 ...........Three-flower melic grass (Melica nitens) 

S1 ...........Cliff muhly (Muhlenbergia sobolifera) 

S1 ...........Swallen’s panic-grass (Panicum lithophilum) 

S2 ...........Naked-stemmed panic grass (Panicum nudicaule) 

S1 ...........Gulf bluestem (Schizachyrium maritimum) 

S1 ...........Pineland dropseed (Sporobolus curtissii) 

S1 ...........Wire-leaved dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius) 

S1 ...........Carolina fluff grass (Tridens carolinianus) 

S2 ...........Narrow pipewort (Eriocaulon lineare) 

S2 ...........Texas pipewort (Eriocaulon texense) 

S2 ...........Pineland bogbutton (Lachnocaulon digynum) 

S1 ...........Broad waterweed (Elodea canadensis) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-38 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

S1 ...........Georgia rush (Juncus georgianus) 

S2 ...........Naked-fruited rush (Juncus gymnocarpus) 

S1 ...........Stout rush (Juncus nodatus) 

S1 ...........Prairie pleatleaf (Nemastylis geminiflora) 

S2 ...........Little River Canyon onion (Allium speculae) 

S1 ...........Wild leek (Allium tricoccum) 

S1S2.......White trout lily (Erythronium albidum) 

S2 ...........Shoals spider-lily (Hymenocallis coronaria) 

S2 ...........Canada lily (Lilium canadense) 

S1 ...........Panhandle lily (Lilium iridollae) 

S1 ...........Michigan lily (Lilium michiganense)

S2 ...........Turks-cap lily (Lilium superbum) 

S1 ...........Broadleaf bunchflower (Melanthium latifolium) 

S1S2.......Small-flowered false hellebore (Melanthium parviflorum) 

S1 ...........Wood s false hellebore (Melanthium woodii) 

S1S2.......Rush false-asphodel (Pleea tenuifolia) 

S1 ...........Spotted mandarin (Prosartes maculate) 

S2 ...........Yellow sunnybell (Schoenolirion croceum) 

S1 ...........Texas sunnybell (Schoenolirion wrightii) 

S1 ...........Large-flowered trillium (Trillium grandiflorum) 

S2 ...........Alabama least trillium (Trillium pusillum var. 1) 

S2 ...........Prairie trillium (Trillium recurvatum) 

S2 ...........Relict trillium (Trillium reliquum) 

S2 ...........Toadshade (Trillium sessile) 

S1 ...........Southern red trillium (Trillium sulcatum) 

S1 ...........Florida bellwort (Uvularia floridana) 

S1 ...........Turkeybeard (Xerophyllum asphodeloides) 

S1 ...........Crow-poison (Zigadenus leimanthoides) 

S2 ...........Croomia (Croomia pauciflora) 

S1 ...........Thread-like naiad (Najas gracillima) 

S1 ...........Florida pondweed (Potamogeton floridanus) 

S2 ...........Bluethreads (Burmannia capitata) 

S2 ...........Puttyroot (Aplectrum hyemale)

S1 ...........Bearded grass-pink (Calopogon barbatus)

S1 ...........Many-flowered grass-pink (Calopogon multiflorus) 

S1 ...........Oklahoma grass-pink (Calopogon oklahomensis) 

S2 ...........Spring coralroot (Corallorhiza wisteriana) 

S1 ...........Small white lady s-slipper (Cypripedium candidum) 

S1 ...........Southern lady s-slipper (Cypripedium kentuckiense) 

S2 ...........Green-fly orchid (Epidendrum conopseum) 

S1 ...........Michauxs orchid (Habenaria quinqueseta var. quinqueseta) 

S2 ...........Large whorled pogonia (Isotria verticillata) 

S1 ...........Lily-leaved twayblade (Liparis liliifolia) 

S1S2.......Large white fringed orchid (Platanthera blephariglottis var. conspicua) 

S2 ...........Yellow fringeless orchid (Platanthera integra) 

S2 ...........White fringeless orchid (Platanthera integrilabia) 

S2 ...........Green-fringed orchid (Platanthera lacera) 

S1 ...........Purple fringeless orchid (Platanthera peramoena) 

S2 ...........Shadow-witch orchid (Ponthieva racemosa) 

S1 ...........Crestless eulophia (Pteroglossaspis ecristata) 

S1 ...........Giant spiral ladies-tresses (Spiranthes longilabris) 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-39 

S1 ...........Shining ladies-tresses (Spiranthes lucida) 

S1 ...........Golden canna (Canna flaccida) 

S1 ...........Carolina lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis carolinensis) 

S1 ...........Eastern bishop-weed (Ptilimnium costatum) 

S1 ...........Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) 

S1 ...........Florida water-parsnip (Sium floridanum) 

S1 ...........American spikenard (Aralia racemosa) 

S2 ...........Harper’s wild ginger (Hexastylis shuttleworthii var. harperi) 

S2 ...........Harper’s heartleaf (Hexastylis speciosa) 

S1 ...........Variable-leaved Indian plantain (Arnoglossum diversifolium) 

S1 ...........Nodding beggar-ticks (Bidens cernua) 

S2 ...........Flyr’s brickell-bush (Brickellia cordifolia) 

S1 ...........Godfrey’s golden-aster (Chrysopsis godfreyi) 

S1 ...........Swamp thistle (Cirsium muticum) 

S2 ...........Southeastern tickseed (Coreopsis gladiata) 

S2 ...........Tickseed (Coreopsis grandiflora var. inclinata)

S1 ...........Georgia tickseed (Coreopsis nudata) 

S2 ...........Woodland tickseed (Coreopsis pulchra) 

S2 ...........Pale-purple coneflower (Echinacea pallida) 

S1 ...........Wavy-leaf purple coneflower (Echinacea simulata) 

S2 ...........Coyote-thistle aster (Eurybia eryngiifolia) 

S2 ...........Showy aster (Eurybia specatabilis) 

S1 ...........Creeping aster (Eurybia surculosus) 

S1 ...........Little leaf sneezeweed (Helenium brevifolium) 

S2 ...........Spring sneezeweed (Helenium vernale) 

S1 ...........Eggert’s sunflower (Helianthus eggertii) 

S1S2.......Longleaf sunflower (Helianthus longifolius) 

S2 ...........Confederate daisy (Helianthus porteri) 

S2 ...........Smith’s sunflower (Helianthus smithii) 

S1 ...........Whorled sunflower (Helianthus verticillatus) 

S1 ...........Small-headed marsh-elder (Iva microcephala) 

S1 ...........Mountain dwarf dandelion (Krigia montana) 

S2 ...........Slender blazing-star (Liatris cylindracea) 

S1 ...........A liatris (Liatris oligocephala) 

S1 ...........Pineland false sunflower (Phoebanthus tenuifolius) 

S1 ...........Coastal-Plain golden-aster (Pityopsis oligantha) 

S1 ...........Golden aster (Pityopsis pinifolia) 

S1S2.......Barbed rattlesnake-root (Prenanthes barbata) 

S1 ...........Eared coneflower (Rudbeckia auriculata)

S2 ...........Sun-facing coneflower (Rudbeckia heliopsidis) 

S1 ...........Soft-hair coneflower (Rudbeckia mollis) 

S2 ...........Cumberland rosinweed (Silphium brachiatum) 

S1 ...........Rosinweed (Silphium glutinosum) 

S1 ...........Mohr s rosinweed (Silphium mohrii) 

S1 ...........Rosinweed (Silphium perplexum) 

S1 ...........Prairie-dock (Silphium pinnatifidum)

S1 ...........A goldenrod (Solidago arenicola) 

S1 ...........Heath aster (Symphyotrichum ericoides)

S2 ...........Smooth blue aster (Symphyotrichum laeve var. concinnum)

S1 ...........Sky blue aster (Symphyotrichum oolentangiense var. oolentangiense) 

S1 ...........Barrens silky aster (Symphyotrichum pretense) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-40 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

S1 ...........Western silvery aster (Symphyotrichum sericeum) 

S1S2.......Boydin’s lobelia (Lobelia boykinii) 

S1 ...........Georgia rock-cress (Arabis georgiana) 

S1 ...........Lake cress (Armoracia lacustris) 

S1 ...........Wedge-leaf Whitlow-grass (Draba cuneifolia) 

S2 ...........Alabama glade-cress (Leavenworthia alabamica) 

S1 ...........Fleshy-fruit glade cress (Leavenworthia crassa) 

S1 ...........Pasture glade-cress (Leavenworthia exigua var. lutea) 

S2 ...........Michaux leavenworthia (Leavenworthia uniflora) 

S1 ...........Duck river bladderpod (Lesquerella densipila) 

S1 ...........Lyrate bladderpod (Lesquerella lyrata) 

S1 ...........Sessile-leaved warea (Warea sessilifolia) 

S1 ...........Slenderleaf clammy-weed (Polanisia tenuifolia) 

S2 ...........Alabama sandwort (Minuartia alabamensis) 

S1 ...........Coastal plain nailwort (Paronychia herniarioides) 

S2 ...........Yellow nailwort (Paronychia virginica) 

S1S2.......Sherry’s catchfly (Silene caroliniana ssp. wherryi) 

S2 ...........Ovate catchfly (Silene ovata) 

S1S2.......Roundleaf catchfly (Silene rotundifolia) 

S1 ...........Chickweed (Stellaria corei) 

S2 ...........Pale umbrella-wort (Mirabilis albida) 

S1 ...........Carolina spring beauty (Claytonia caroliniana) 

S2 ...........Limestone fame-flower (Talinum calcaricum) 

S1 ...........Small-flowered flame-flower (Talinum parviflorum) 

S1 ...........Quill fameflower (Talinum teretifolium) 

S2 ...........Serviceberry holly (Ilex amelanchier) 

S2 ...........Climbing bittersweet (Celastrus scandens) 

S2 ...........Mountain bush-honeysuckle (Diervilla rivularis) 

S1 ...........Yellowleaf tinker’s-weed (Triosteum angustifolium) 

S1 ...........Limerock arrowwood (Viburnum bracteatum) 

S1 ...........Small-leaf viburnum (Viburnum obovatum) 

S1 ...........Valerian (Valeriana pauciflora)

S1 ...........Swamp buckthorn (Sideroxylon thornei) 

S2 ...........Silverbell (Halesia tetraptera var. tetraptera) 

S1 ...........Mountain pepper-bush (Clethra acuminate) 

S2 ...........Hairy laurel (Kalmia hirsute) 

S2 ...........Climbing fetter-bush (Pieris phillyreifolia) 

S2 ...........Cumberland rhododendron (Rhododendron cumberlandense) 

S2 ...........Carolina rhododendron (Rhododendron minus) 

S1 ...........Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata var. odorata)

S1 ...........Elliott’s croton (Croton elliottii) 

S1 ...........Florida pine spurge (Euphorbia inundata) 

S1 ...........Water toothleaf (Stillingia aquatica) 

S2 ...........Price s potato-bean (Apios priceana) 

S1 ...........Canadian milkvetch (Astragalus canadensis) 

S1 ...........Sandhills milk-vetch (Astragalus michauxii) 

S1S2.......Tennessee milk-vetch (Astragalus tennesseensis) 

S2 ...........Hoary milk-vetch (Astragalus villosus) 

S1 ...........Blue wild indigo (Baptisia australis) 

S2 ...........Apalachicola wild indigo (Baptisia megacarpa) 

S1 ...........Catbells (Baptisia perfoliata) 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-41 

S1 ...........Florida senna (Chamaecrista deeringiana) 

S2 ...........A prairie clover (Dalea cahaba) 

S1 ...........Leafy prairie clover (Dalea foliosa) 

S1 ...........Creamflower tick-trefoil (Desmodium ochroleucum) 

S1 ...........Smooth veiny peavine (Lathyrus venosus) 

S2 ...........Nashville breadroot (Pediomelum subacaule) 

S1S2.......Pineland hoary-pea (Tephrosia mohrii) 

S2 ...........Arkansas oak (Quercus arkansana) 

S1 ...........Boynton’s sand post oak (Quercus boyntonii) 

S2 ...........Georgia oak (Quercus georgiana) 

S2 ...........Bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa) 

S2 ...........Dwarf live oak (Quercus minima) 

S1 ...........Oglethorpe’s oak (Quercus oglethorpensis) 

S1 ...........Swamp post oak (Quercus similis) 

S1 ...........Stiff blue-star (Amsonia rigida) 

S1 ...........Carolina milkweed (Asclepias cinera) 

S1 ...........Red milkweed (Asclepias rubra) 

S1 ...........Southern milkweed (Asclepias viridula) 

S1 ...........Alabama anglepod (Matelea alabamensis) 

S1 ...........Baldwins’s milkyvine (Matelea baldwyniana) 

S2 ...........Carolina gentian (Frasera caroliniensis) 

S1 ...........Elliott’s gentian (Gentiana catesbaei) 

S1 ...........Short-leaved pink (Sabatia brevifolia) 

S2 ...........Rose gentian (Sabatia capitata)

S1 ...........Narrow-leaf miterwort (Mitreola angustifolia) 

S1 ...........Gentian pinkroot (Spigelia gentianoides var. alabamensis) 

S1 ...........Gentian pinkroot (Spigelia gentianoides var. gentianoides) 

S1 ...........Giant wood-sorrel (Oxalis grandis) 

S2 ...........Piedmont water-milfoil (Myriophyllum laxum) 

S1 ...........Dwarf witch-alder (Fothergilla gardenia) 

S2 ...........Mountain witch-alder (Fothergilla major) 

S2 ...........Bay starvine (Schisandra glabra) 

S2 ...........Nutmeg hickory (Carya myristiciformis) 

S1 ...........Butternut (Juglans cinerea)

S2 ...........Slabama marbleseed (Onosmodium decipiens) 

S2 ...........Soft false gromwell (Onosmodium molle ssp. molle)

S1 ...........Yellow giant hyssop (Agastache nepetoides) 

S1S2.......Smooth blephilia (Blephilia subnuda) 

S2 ...........Large-flowered pennyroyal (Dicerandra linearifolia) 

S2 ...........Drummond’s pennyroyal (Hedeoma drummondii) 

S2 ...........Basil bee-balm (Monarda clinopodia)

S1 ...........Virginia mountain mint (Pycnanthemum virginianum) 

S2 ...........Alabama skullcap (Scutellaria alabamensis) 

S1 ...........Glabrous skullcap (Scutellaria glabriuscula) 

S1 ...........Rock skullcap (Scutellaria saxatilis) 

S1 ...........Epling’s hedgenettle (Stachys eplingii) 

S1 ...........Guyandotte beauty (Synandra hispidula) 

S1 ...........Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia)

S1 ...........Bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea) 

S1 ...........Flax (Linum macrocarpum) 

S1 ...........Harper’s grooved-yellow flax (Linum sulcatum var. harperi) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-42 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

S1 ...........Fraser’s magnolia (Magnolia fraseri) 

S2 ...........Clustered poppy-mallow (Callirhoe alcaeoides) 

S1 ...........Clustered poppy-mallow (Callirhoe triangulata) 

S1 ...........Brilliant hibiscus (Hibiscus coccineus) 

S1 ...........Elliott’s fan-petal (Sida elliottii) 

S1 ...........Awned meadowbeauty (Rhexia aristosa) 

S1 ...........Small-flowered meadowbeauty (Rhexia parviflora) 

S1 ...........Panhandle meadowbeauty (Rhexia salicifolia) 

S1 ...........Willow herb (Epilobium coloratum) 

S1S2.......Spathulate seedbox (Ludwigia spathulata) 

S1 ...........Round-leaved sundew (Drosera rotundifolia) 

S2 ...........Green pitcher plant (Sarracenia oreophila) 

S1S2.......Alabama canebrake pitcher-plant (Sarracenia rubra ssp. alabamensis) 

S1 ...........West Florida cowlily (Nuphar lutea ssp. ulvacea) 

S2 ...........Dutchman’s breeches (Dicentra cucullaria) 

S1 ...........Celandine poppy (Stylophorum diphyllum) 

S1 ...........Heart-leaved plantain (Plantago cordata) 

S1 ...........Crenate milkwort (Polygala crenata) 

S1S2.......Hooker’s milkwort (Polygala hookeri) 

S1 ...........Seneca snakeroot (Polygala senega var. latifolia) 

S1 ...........Harper’s umbrella plant (Eriogonum longifolium var. harperi) 

S1 ...........Southern jointweed (Polygonella americana) 

S1 ...........Large-leaved jointweed (Polygonella macrophylla) 

S1 ...........French’s shooting star (Dodecatheon frenchii) 

S2 ...........Featherfoil (Hottonia inflate) 

S1 ...........Fraser’s loosestrife (Lysimachia fraseri) 

S1 ...........Grass-leaf loosestrife (Lysimachia graminea) 

S2 ...........Twinleaf (Jeffersonia diphylla) 

S1 ...........Blue monkshood (Acontium uncinatum) 

S1 ...........Marianna columbine (Aquilegia canadensis var. australis) 

S1S2.......Morefield’s leather-flower (Clematis morefieldii) 

S1 ...........Alabama leather-flower (Clematis socialis) 

S1 ...........Alabama larkspur (Delphihium alabamicum)

S1 ...........Prairie larkspur (Delphinium carolinianum ssp. calciphilum) 

S2 ...........False rue-anemone (Enemion biternatum) 

S2 ...........Golden seal (Hydrastis canadensis)

S1 ...........Yellow water-crowfoot (Tanunculus flabellaris) 

S2 ...........Granite gooseberry (Ribes curvatum) 

S1S2.......Prickly gooseberry (Ribes cynosbati) 

S2 ...........Incised groovebur (Agrimonia incisa) 

S1 ...........Ash’s hawthorn (Crataegus ashei) 

S2 ...........Three-flowered hawthorn (Crataegus triflora) 

S1 ...........Rough avens (Geum laciniatum) 

S2 ...........Pale avens (Geum virginianum)

S2 ...........Alabama snow-wreath (Neviusia alabamensis) 

S1 ...........Allegheny blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis) 

S1 ...........Piedmont barren strawberry (Waldsteinia lobata) 

S1 ...........Brook saxifrage (Boykinia aconitifolia) 

S1 ...........Long-flower alumroot (Heuchera longiflora) 

S1 ...........Miterwort (Mitella diphylla) 

S2 ...........Kidneyleaf grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia asarifolia) 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-43 

S1 ...........Large-leaved grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia grandifolia) 

S1 ...........Torrey’s wild licorice (Galium lanceolatum) 

S1 ...........Florida willow (Salix floridana) 

S1 ...........Bastard-toadflax (Comandra umbellate) 

S2 ...........Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) 

S2 ...........Buffalo-nut (Pyrularia pubera) 

S2 ...........American smoke-tree (Cotinus obovatus) 

S1 ...........Northern prickley ash (Zanthoxylum americanum) 

S1 ...........Oblon-leaved dyschoriste (Dyschoriste oblongifolia) 

S1 ...........Night-flowering wild-petunia (Ruellia noctiflora) 

S1S2.......Chapman’s butterwort (Pinguicula planifolia) 

S1S2.......Florida bladderwort (Utricularia floridana) 

S1S2.......Swollen bladderwort (Utricularia inflate) 

S1 ...........Piedmont bladderwort (Utricularia olivacea) 

S1S2.......Northeastern bladderwort (Utricularia resupinata) 

S2 ...........One-flowered broomrape (Orobanche uniflora) 

S2 ...........Leafless false-foxglove (Agalinis aphylla) 

S1 ...........Pineland false-foxglove (Agalinis divaricata) 

S2 ...........Thin-stemmed false-foxglove (Agalinis filicaulis) 

S1 ...........Georgia false-foxglove (Agalinis georgiana) 

S2 ...........Prairie false-foxglove (Agalinis heterophylla) 

S2 ...........Flax-leaf false-foxglove (Agalinis linifolia) 

S1 ...........Ridge-stem false-foxglove (Agalinis oligophylla) 

S1 ...........Shinners ‘ false-foxglove (Agalinis pseudaphylla) 

S1 ...........Granite pool sprite (Amphianthus pusillus) 

S1 ...........Spreading false-foxglove (Aureolaria patula) 

S1 ...........Scarlet indian paintbrush (Castilleja coccinea) 

S2 ...........An indian paintbrush (Castilleja kraliana) 

S1 ...........Pink turtlehead (Chelone lyonii) 

S2 ...........Flame flower (Macranthera flammea) 

S1 ...........Many-flower beardtongue (Penstemon multiflorus) 

S1 ...........Small’s beardtongue (Penstemon smallii) 

S1 ...........Chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) 

S1 ...........Culver’s root (Veronicastrum virginicum) 

S1 ...........Creeping morning-glory (Evolvulus sericeus var. sericeus) 

S1 ...........Water dawnflower (Stylisma aquatica) 

S1 ...........Pickering’s morning-glory (Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii) 

S2 ...........Harper’s dodder (Cuscuta harperi) 

S1S2.......Phacelia (Phacelia dubia var. dubia) 

S2 ...........Outcrop small-flower phacelia (Phacelia dubia var. georgiana) 

S1S2.......Christmas berry (Lycium carolinianum) 

S1 ...........Carpenter’s ground-cherry (Physalis carpenteri) 

S1 ...........Horse-nettle (Solanum carolinense var. hirsutum) 

S1 ...........Lloyd St. John s-wort (Hypericum lloydii) 

S2 ...........Carolina St. John’s-wort (Hypericum nitidum) 

S2 ...........Pretty St. John’s-wort (Hypericum nudiflorum) 

S2 ...........Atlantic St. John’s-wort (Hypericum reductum) 

S1 ...........Loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus) 

S1 ...........Coastal-sand frostweed (Helianthemum arenicola) 

S2 ...........Canada violet (Viola canadensis) 

S1 ...........Eggleston’s violet (Viola egglestonii) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-44 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

S1 ...........Ground juniper (Juniperus communis) 

S2 ...........Sand pine (Pinus clausa) 

S1 ...........Pond pine (Pinus serotina) 

E.2.1.10. Ferns and Allies 

S2 ...........Bradley’s spleenwort (Asplenium bradleyi)

S1 ...........Single-sorus spleenwort (Asplenium monanthes)

S2 ...........Wall rue spleenwort (Asplenium ruta-muraria) 

S1 ...........American hart’s-tongue fern (Asplenium scolopendrium var. americanum) 

S1 ...........Scott’s spleenwort (Asplenium x ebenoides)

S2 ...........Tennessee bladderfern (Cystopteris tennesseensis) 

S1 ...........Log fern (Dryopteris celsa)

S1 ...........Southern woodfern (Dryopteris x australis) 

S1 ...........Gorge filmy fern (Hymenophyllum tayloriae) 

S2 ...........Dwarf filmy fern (Trichomanes petersii) 

S1 ...........Hybrid cloak fern (Astrolepis x integerrima) 

S2 ...........Climbing fern (Lygodium palmatum) 

S1 ...........Alabama streak-sorus fern (Thelypteris pilosa var. alabamensis) 

S2 ...........Hairy maiden fern (Thelypteris quadrangularis) 

S1 ...........American pillwort (Pilularia americana) 

S1 ...........Alabama grapefern (Botrychium jenmanii) 

S1 ...........Appalachian quillwort (Isoetes appalachiana)

S2 ...........Butler s quillwort (Isoetes butleri)

S1 ...........Southern quillwort (Isoetes flaccida)

S1 ...........Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) 

S1 ...........Blackfoot quillwort (Isoetes melanopoda)

S2 ...........Piedmont quillwort (Isoetes piedmontana) 

S2 ...........Riddell’s spikemoss (Selaginella arenicola ssp. riddellii) 

S1S2.......Gulf spike-moss (Selaginella ludoviciana) 

S2 ...........Shining clubmoss (Huperzia lucidula) 

S1 ...........Rock clubmoss (Huperzia porophila) 

S1S2.......Nodding clubmoss (Lycopodiella cernua) 

S1 ...........Tree clubmoss (Lycopodium obscurum)

S1 ...........Deep-root clubmoss (Lycopodium tristachyum) 

S1 ...........Whiskfern (Psilotum nudum)

S2 ...........Feid horsetail (Equisetum arvense) 

E.2.2. S1 and S2 Species in Mississippi 

E.2.2.1. Mammals 

S1 ...........Black bear (Ursus americanus) 

S1 ...........Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) 

S1 ...........Meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius)

E.2.2.2. Birds 

Due to the migratory nature of birds, additional ranking systems from The Nature Conservancy are 

applied here. “SB are regularly occurring migratory and present only during the breeding season.” “SN 

are regularly occurring, usually migratory and typically non-breeding species in the state; this category 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-45 

includes migratory birds, bats, sea turtles, and cetaceans which do not breed in the state but pass through 

twice a year or may remain in winter.” 

S1N ........Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) 

S2B.........Swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus)

S1BS2N .Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

S1 ...........Mississippi sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pulla) 

S2N ........Yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis)

S2N ........Black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis)

S2N ........American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) 

S1N ........Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) 

S1 ...........Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

S1N ........Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) 

E.2.2.3. Reptiles 

S2 ...........Mimic glass lizard (Ophisaurus mimicus) 

S1 ...........Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) 

S2 ...........Rainbow snake (Farancia erytrogramma) 

S2 ...........Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi) 

S1N ........Kemp’s or atlantic ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) 

S2 ...........Yellow-blotched map turtle (Graptemys flavimaculata)

S2 ...........Black-knobbed map turtle (Graptemys nigrinoda)

S2 ...........Ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculifera) 

S2 ...........Mississippi diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin pileata)

S1 ...........Mississippi redbelly turtle (Pseudemys pop 1)

S2 ...........Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

E.2.2.4. Amphibians 

S1 ...........River frog (Rana heckscheri) 

S1 ...........Dark gopher frog (Rana sevosa) 

S1 ...........Tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) 

S1 ...........One-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma pholeter) 

S1 ...........Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) 

S1 ...........Green salamander (Aneides aeneus) 

S1 ...........Cave salamander (Eurycea lucifuga) 

S1 ...........Spring salamander (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus) 

S1S2.......Four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) 

S2 ...........Southern zigzag salamander (Plethodon ventralis)

E.2.2.5. Snails 

S1 ...........Big Black Rocksnail (Lithasia hubrichti)

E.2.2.6. Mussels 

S1 ...........Mucket (Actinonaias ligamentina) 

S2 ...........Rayed creekshell (Anodontoides radiatus) 

S2 ...........Rock pocketbook (Arcidens confragosus) 

S1 ...........Purple wartyback (Cyclonaias tuberculata) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-46 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

S1 ...........Delicate spike (Elliptio arctata) 

S1 ...........Spike (Elliptio dilatata) 

S1 ...........Cumberlandian combshell (Epioblasma brevidens) 

S1 ...........Southern combshell (Epioblasma penita) 

S1 ...........Snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra) 

S1 ...........Tennessee pigtoe (Fusconaia barnesiana) 

S1 ...........Orange-nacre mucket (Lampsilis perovalis) 

S1 ...........Slabside pearlymussel (Lexingtonia dolabelloides) 

S2 ...........Black sandshell (Ligumia recta) 

S1 ...........Alabama moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus) 

S2 ...........Southern hickorynut (Obovaria jacksoniana) 

S2 ...........Round hickorynut (Obovaria subrotunda) 

S1 ...........Sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus)

S1S2.......Southern clubshell (Pleurobema decisum) 

S1 ...........Ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum) 

S1 ...........Pyramid pigtoe (Pleurobema rubrum)

S2 ...........Pink heelsplitter (Potamilus alatus) 

S1 ...........Fat pocketbook (Potamilus capax) 

S1 ...........Kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus fasciolaris)

S1 ...........Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica) 

S2 ...........Ridged mapleleaf (Quadrula rumphiana) 

S1 ...........Alabama creekmussel (Strophitus connasaugaensis) 

S2 ...........Southern creekmussel Strophitus subvexus) 

S2 ...........Tapered pondhorn (Uniomerus declivis) 

E.2.2.7. Crustaceans 

S2 ...........Least crayfish (Cambarellus diminutus) 

S2 ...........A crayfish (Cambarellus lesliei) 

S2 ...........A crayfish (Cambarus girardianus) 

S2 ...........Burris’ burrowing crawfish (Fallicambarus burrisi) 

S2 ...........Speckled burrowing crayfish (Fallicambarus danielae) 

S1 ...........Camp Shelby burrowing crawfish (Fallicambarus gordoni) 

S2 ...........Pearl rivulet crayfish (Hobbseus attenuatus) 

S1 ...........Oktibbeha rivulet crayfish (Hobbseus orconectoides) 

S2 ...........Tombigbee rivulet crayfish (Hobbseus petilus) 

S1 ...........Choctaw rivulet crayfish (Hobbseus valleculus) 

S2 ...........A crayfish (Orconectes hartfieldi) 

S2 ...........Jackson Prairie crayfish (Procambarus barbiger) 

S1 ...........Mississippi flatwoods crayfish (Procambarus cometes) 

S2 ...........Spiny-tailed crayfish (Procambarus fitzpatricki) 

S1 ...........Lagniappe crayfish (Procambarus lagniappe) 

S2 ...........Mobile crayfish (Procambarus lecontei)

S2 ...........Shutispear crayfish (Procambarus lylei) 

S1 ...........Bearded red crayfish (Procambarus pogum)

E.2.2.8. Fish 

S1 ...........Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

S1 ...........Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus)

S1 ...........Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi)
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-47 

S2 ...........Broadstripe topminnow (Fundulus euryzonus) 

S1 ...........Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) 

S1 ...........Silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum) 

S1 ...........Black redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei) 

S1 ...........Shorthead redhorse (Moxostoma macrolepidotum) 

S2 ...........Rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides) 

S2 ...........Alabama shiner (Cyprinella callistia) 

S2 ...........Spotfin shiner (Cyprinella spiloptera)

S2 ...........Rosefin shiner (Lythrurus fasciolaris) 

S1 ...........Bigeye shiner (Notropis boops) 

S2 ...........Silverside shiner (Notropis candidus) 

S2 ...........Ironcolor shiner (Notropis chalybaeus) 

S1 ...........Fluvial shiner (Notropis edwardraneyi) 

S1S2.......Blackmouth shiner (Notropis melanostomus) 

S1 ...........Rosyface shiner (Notropis rubellus) 

S1 ...........Suckermouth minnow (Phenacobius mirabilis) 

S2 ...........Southern redbelly dace (Phoxinus erythrogaster) 

S1 ...........Blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus) 

S2 ...........Alligator gar (Atractosteus spatula) 

S1 ...........Rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris)

S1 ...........Western sand darter (Ammocrypta clara) 

S1 ...........Crystal darter (Crystallaria asprella)

S1 ...........Black darter (Etheostoma duryi)

S2 ...........Fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare) 

S2 ...........Stripetail darter (Etheostoma kennicotti) 

S2 ...........Blackfin darter (Etheostoma nigripinne) 

S2 ...........Yazoo darter (Etheostoma raneyi) 

S1 ...........Bayou darter (Etheostoma rubrum) 

S2 ...........Redline darter (Etheostoma rufilineatum) 

S1 ...........Backwater darter (Etheostoma zonifer) 

S2 ...........Bandfin darter (Etheostoma zonistium) 

S1 ...........Pearl darter (Percina aurora) 

S1 ...........Gilt darter (Percina evides) 

S2 ...........Freckled darter (Percina lenticula) 

S1 ...........Slenderhead darter (Percina phoxocephala) 

S1 ...........Banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae) 

S1 ...........Slender madtom (Noturus exilis) 

S2 ...........Frecklebelly madtom (Noturus munitus) 

S1 ...........Northern madtom (Noturus stigmosus) 

E.2.2.9. Plants 

S2 ...........Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) 

S2 ...........Southern red cedar (Juniperus silicicola) 

S1 ...........Sand pine (Pinus clausa) 

S2 ...........Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) 

S2 ...........San antonio false-foxglove (Agalinis homalantha)

S2 ...........Shinners’ false-foxglove (Agalinis pseudaphylla)

S1 ...........Pale false foxglove (Agalinis skinneriana) 

S1S2.......Wood anemone (Anemone quinquefolia) 

S1 ...........Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana)
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-48 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

S1S2.......Wild columbine (Aquilegia canadensis) 

S1 ...........Spreading rockcress (Arabis patens)

S1S2.......Lake cress (Armoracia aquatica) 

S2 ...........Prairie milkweed (Asclepias hirtella) 

S1 ...........Purple milkweed (Asclepias purpurascens) 

S2 ...........White heath aster (Aster ericoides)

S1 ...........Barrens silky aster (Aster pratensis)

S1 ...........Purple-stemmed aster (Aster puniceus)

S2 ...........Rattle-vetch (Astragalus canadensis) 

S1 ...........Engelman’’s bent milk-vetch (Astragalus distortus var. engelmannii)

S1 ...........Great indian-plantain (Cacalia muehlenbergii)

S1S2.......Clustered poppy-mallow (Callirhoe triangulata)

S1 ...........Scarlet indian-paintbrush (Castilleja coccinea)

S1 ...........Florida senna (Chamaecrista deeringiana) 

S1 ...........Pink turtlehead (Chelone lyonii)

S2 ...........Spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata)

S1S2.......Black bugbane (Cimicifuga racemosa)

S2 ...........Yellowwood (Cladrastis kentukea) 

S1 ...........Vase-vine leather-flower (Clematis beadlei)

S1 ...........White-leaved leather-flower (Clematis glaucophylla)

S1 ...........Seaside balm (Conradina canescens)

S1S2.......Georgia tickseed (Coreopsis nudata)

S2 ...........Alternate-leaf dogwood (Cornus alternifolia)

S1 ...........Ashe hawthorn (Crataegus ashei) 

S1 ...........Gallion hawthorn (Crataegus meridionalis)

S1 ...........Three-flowered hawthorn (Crataegus triflora)

S2 ...........Dwarf larkspur (Delphinium tricorne)

S1S2.......Pepper-root (Dentaria diphylla)

S1 ...........Creamflower tick-trefoil (Desmodium ochroleucum)

S1 ...........Dutchman’s breeches (Dicentra cucullaria)

S2 ...........Eastern leatherwood (Dirca palustris)

S2 ...........Shootingstar (Dodecatheon meadia)

S1S2.......American dragonhead (Dracocephalum parviflorum) 

S1 ...........Marsh eryngo (Eryngium aquaticum) 

S1S2.......Hooker’s eryngo (Eryngium hookeri)

S1 ...........Tall prairie-gentain (Eustoma exaltatum)

S1 ...........Bighead pygmycudweed (Evax prolifera)

S1 ...........Upland swamp privet (Forestiera ligustrina) 

S2 ...........Blue ash (Fraxinus quadrangulata)

S1 ...........Sticky hedge-hyssop (Gratiola brevifolia)

S2 ...........Kentucky coffee-tree (Gymnocladus dioicus)

S1 ...........Drummond pennyroyal (Hedeoma drummondii)

S1S2.......Gulf rockrose (Helianthemum arenicola) 

S1 ...........Giant alumroot (Heuchera villosa var. macrorhiza)

S1 ...........Large-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis shuttleworthii) 

S2 ...........Brillant hibiscus (Hibiscus coccineus) 

S1 ...........Rattlesnake hawkweed (Hieracium venosum)

S1S2.......Featherfoil (Hottonia inflata)

S2 ...........Green violet (Hybanthus concolor) 

S1 ...........Golden seal (Hydrastis canadensis) 

S1 ...........Appendaged waterleaf (Hydrophyllum appendiculatum) 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-49 

S1 ...........Large-leaf waterleaf (Hydrophyllum macrophyllum) 

S2 ...........Myrtle-leaved st. Johnswort (Hypericum myrtifolium)

S2 ...........Dahoon holly (Ilex cassine)

S2 ...........White walnut (Juglans cinerea) 

S2 ...........Spreading bladder-pod (Lesquerella gracilis)

S1S2.......Nondo lovage (Ligusticum canadense) 

S2 ...........Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) 

S2 ...........Bog spice bush (Lindera subcoriacea) 

S2 ...........Large fruited flax (Linum macrocarpum)

S1 ...........Boykin’s lobelia (Lobelia boykinii)

S1 ...........Sessile-leaved bugleweed (Lycopus amplectens)

S1S2.......Umbrella magnolia (Magnolia tripetala)

S1S2.......Virginia bluebells (Mertensia virginica)

S1S2.......Square-stem monkey flower (Mimulus ringens)

S1 ...........Narrowleaf miterwort (Mitreola angustifolium) 

S1 ...........Loose watermilfoil (Myriophyllum laxum)

S1S2.......Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) 

S1 ...........Alabama snow-wreath (Neviusia alabamensis) 

S1S2.......Floating-heart (Nymphoides cordata) 

S1 ...........Large-flowered evening-primrose (Oenothera grandiflora)

S1 ...........Small palafoxia (Palafoxia callosa) 

S2 ...........Large-leaved grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia grandifolia)

S1S2.......Beach sand-squares (Paronychia erecta)

S1S2.......Eastern eulophus (Perideridia americana) 

S1 ...........Fernleaf phacelia (Phacelia bipinnatifida) 

S1S2.......Sandhill bean (Phaseolus sinuatus) 

S1 ...........Hairy mock-orange (Philadelphus hirsutus) 

S2 ...........Odorless mock-orange (Philadelphus inodorus) 

S1 ...........Carpenter’s ground-cherry (Physalis carpenteri)

S1 ...........Climbing fetter-bush (Pieris phillyreifolia) 

S2 ...........Chapman’s butterwort (Pinguicula planifolia) 

S1 ...........Heartleaf plantain (Plantago cordata)

S1S2.......Slender-leaf clammy-weed (Polanisia tenuifolia)

S1S2.......Hooker’s milkwort (Polygala hookeri)

S1 ...........Georgia milkwort (Polygala leptostachys) 

S2 ...........Prairie parsley (Polytaenia nuttallii) 

S2 ...........Rough rattlesnake-root (Prenanthes aspera)

S1 ...........Awned mountain-mint (Pycnanthemum setosum) 

S2 ...........Bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa) 

S1 ...........Dwarf live oak (Quercus minima)

S2 ...........Lance-leaved buckthorn (Rhamnus lanceolata)

S1 ...........Smooth azalea (Rhododendron arborescens) 

S1 ...........Rough coneflower (Rudbeckia grandiflora) 

S1 ...........Sweet coneflower (Rudbeckia subtomentosa) 

S2 ...........Night-flowering ruellia (Ruellia noctiflora)

S2 ...........Tiny-leaved buckthorn (Sageretia minutiflora)

S1S2.......Flordia soapberry (Sapindus marginatus)

S1 ...........Rose pitcherplant (Sarracenia rosea)

S1 ...........Wherry’s pitcher-plant (Sarracenia rubra ssp. wherryi)

S1 ...........Rock stonecrop (Sedum pulchellum) 

S2 ...........Wood stonecrop (Sedum ternatum)
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-50 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

S1S2.......Ovate catchfly (Silene ovata)

S1 ...........Eared goldenrod (Solidago auriculata) 

S1S2.......Appalachian goldenrod (Solidago flaccidifolia)

S1S2.......False goldenrod (Solidago sphacelata) 

S1 ...........Mountain camellia (Stewartia ovata)

S1 ...........Water southern morning-glory (Stylisma aquatica)

S1 ...........Patterson’s bindweed (Stylisma pickeringii var. pattersonii) 

S1 ...........Yellow pimpernell (Taenidia integerrima) 

S1S2.......Southern meadow-rue (Thalictrum debile)

S1 ...........Stiff greenthreads (Thelesperma filifolium) 

S2 ...........Heart-leaved foam-flower (Tiarella cordifolia)

S1 ...........Earleaf false-foxglove (Tomanthera auriculata)

S1 ...........Carolina tassel-rue (Trautvetteria caroliniensis) 

S1 ...........Piedmont bladderwort (Utricularia olivacea)

S2 ...........Gale-leaf blueberry (Vaccinium tenellum)

S1 ...........Maple-leaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium) 

S1S2.......Smooth yellow violet (Viola pubescens var. eriocarpon) 

S1 ...........Green-flower yeatesia (Yeatesia viridiflora)

S1 ...........Pinewoods-lily (Alophia drummondii) 

S1 ...........Puttyroot (Aplectrum hyemale) 

S1 ...........Southern three-awned grass (Aristida simpliciflora)

S1 ...........Many-flower grass-pink (Calopogon multiflorus)

S1 ...........Oklahoma grass-pink (Calopogon oklahomensis) 

S1 ...........Golden canna (Canna flaccida) 

S1 ...........Baltzell’s sedge (Carex baltzellii)

S1 ...........Bristly sedge (Carex comosa)

S2 ...........Coast sedge (Carex exilis) 

S1 ...........Southern few-fruited sedge (Carex impressinervia)

S1S2.......Nebraska sedge (Carex jamesii)

S1 ...........Loose-flowered sedg (Carex laxiflora var. laxiflora) 

S1 ...........Eastern few-fruit sedge (Carex oligocarpa)

S1 ...........Drooping sedge (Carex prasina)

S1S2.......Separated sedg e (Carex seorsa)

S1S2.......Walter’s sedg e (Carex striata)

S2 ...........Uptight sedge (Carex stricta)

S1 ...........Twig rush (Cladium mariscoides) 

S1 ...........Pitted jointgrass (Coelorachis cylindrical) 

S1 ...........Small yellow lady’s-slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum)

S1S2.......Wright’s witchgrass (Dichanthelium wrightianum) 

S1 ...........Erect burhead (Echinodorus rostratus) 

S1 ...........Dwarf burhead (Echinodorus tenellus var. parvulus) 

S1 ...........Slim spike-rush (Eleocharis elongate) 

S1 ...........Black-fruited spike-rush (Eleocharis melanocarpa)

S2 ...........Robbins spikerush (Eleocharis robbinsii) 

S1 ...........Beaked spikerush (Eleocharis rostellata) 

S2 ...........Green-fly orchid (Epidendrum conopseum) 

S2 ...........White dog’s tooth violet (Erythronium albidum)

S1S2.......Yellow dog’s tooth violet (Erythronium americanum)

S1S2.......Beaked dog’s tooth violet (Erythronium rostratum)

S1S2.......Smooth-lipped eulophia (Eulophia ecristata)

S1 ...........Downy rattlesnake-plantain (Goodyera pubescens)
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix E-Special Status Species 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP E-51 

S1 ...........Engelmann’s sea-grass (Halophila engelmannii)

S2 ...........Herbertia (Herbertia lahue ssp. caerulea) 

S2 ...........Crested coralroot (Hexalectris spicata) 

S2 ...........Pineland bogbutton (Lachnocaulon digynum) 

S1S2.......Michigan lily (Lilium michiganense) 

S1S2.......Slender muhly (Muhlenbergia tenuiflora) 

S2 ...........Prairie-iris (Nemastylis geminiflora) 

S1 ...........Showy orchis (Orchis spectabilis) 

S2 ...........Naked-stemmed panic grass (Panicum nudicaule)

S2 ...........Large white fringed orchid (Platanthera blephariglottis) 

S1 ...........White fringeless orchid (Platanthera integrilabia) 

S1S2.......Green fringed-orchid (Platanthera lacera)

S1 ...........Creekgrass (Potamogeton epihydrus) 

S1 ...........Hairy-peduncled beak-rush (Rhynchospora crinipes)

S1 ...........Curtiss’s beakrush (Rhynchospora curtissii) 

S1 ...........Swamp-forest beakrush (Rhynchospora decurrens) 

S1 ...........Fernald’s beakrush (Rhynchospora fernaldii) 

S1 ...........Small’s beakrush (Rhynchospora globularis var. pinetorum) 

S1 ...........Harper beakrush (Rhynchospora harperi) 

S1 ...........Thorne’s beakrush (Rhynchospora thornei) 

S1 ...........Tracy’s beakrush (Rhynchospora tracyi) 

S1 ...........Slender arrow-head (Sagittaria isoetiformis) 

S1 ...........Spring-tape arrowhead (Sagittaria kurziana)

S1 ...........Reticulated nutrush (Scleria reticularis)

S1 ...........Florida ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes brevilabris var. floridana) 

S1S2.......Eastern featherbells (Stenanthium gramineum)

S1 ...........Powdery thalia (Thalia dealbata) 

S1 ...........Palmer’s spiderwort (Tradescantia ernestiana) 

S1 ...........Drooping trillium (Trillium flexipes)

S1 ...........Dwarf trillium (Trillium pusillum) 

S1 ...........Southern bellwort (Uvularia floridana) 

S2 ...........Drummond’s yellow-eyed grass (Xyris drummondii)

S1S2.......Harper’s yellow-eyed grass (Xyris scabrifolia)

E.2.2.10. Ferns and Allies 

S1S2.......Field horsetail (Equisetum arvense)

S2 ...........Southern maidenhair-fern (Adiantum capillus-veneris) 

S1 ...........Lobed spleenwort (Asplenium pinnatifidum) 

S1 ...........Black-stem spleenwort (Asplenium resiliens)

S1S2.......Walking-fern spleenwort (Asplenium rhizophyllum)

S1 ...........Maidenhair spleenwort (Asplenium trichomanes)

S2S3.......Glade fern (Athyrium pycnocarpon) 

S2S3.......Silvery spleenwort (Athyrium thelypterioides) 

S1 ...........Alabama lipfern (Cheilanthes alabamensis) 

S2 ...........Hairy lipfern (Cheilanthes lanosa) 

S1 ...........Southern shield wood-fern (Dryopteris ludoviciana)

S1 ...........Southern wood fern (Dryopteris x australis) 

S1S2.......Hairy water-fern (Marsilea mucronata)

S1S2.......Purple-stem cliff-brake (Pellaea atropurpurea)

S1 ...........Bristle-fern (Trichomanes boschianum) 
Appendix E-Special Status Species Draft EIS – August 2007 

E-52 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

S1 ...........Dwarf filmy-fern (Trichomanes petersii) 

S1S2.......Appalachian quillwort (Isoetes engelmannii)

S2 ...........Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis) 

S2 ...........Blackfoot quillwort (Isoetes melanopoda)

S2 ...........Nodding clubmoss (Lycopodium cernuum) 

S1 ...........Limestone adder’s-tongue (Ophioglossum engelmannii)
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix F-Soils 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP F-1 

APPENDIX F—SOILS 

SOILS WITHIN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI BLM-ADMINISTERED NONU.S. FOREST SERVICE FEDERAL MINERAL OWNERSHIP

Tables F-1 and F-2 provide erosion potential and prime farmland information for areas in Alabama and 

Mississippi BLM-administered non-U.S. Forest Service Federal Mineral Ownership (non-USFS FMO) 

that are considered high potential for either oil and gas or coal exploration and development. Data are 

available in spatial format. 

Table F-1. Soils Descriptions for Areas Within Alabama Non-USFS FMO 

County Soil Description Erosion 

Potential 1

Prime 

Farmland 1

Baldwin Coastal beaches None No 

Baldwin Leon sand Slight No 

Baldwin St. Lucie–Leon–Muck complex Slight No 

Cherokee Allen fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Slight to Moderate Yes 

Cherokee Hartsells fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Slight to Moderate Yes 

Cherokee Hartsells fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes Moderate No 

Cherokee Hartsells-rock outcrop association, steep Very Severe No 

Cherokee Hector-Hartsells-rock outcrop complex, 2 to 10 percent 

slopes (Gorgas-Hartsells-rock outcrop) Moderate No 

Cherokee Linker fine sandy loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes Slight to Moderate No 

Cherokee Toccoa soils Slight No 

DeKalb Crossville rocky loam, rolling Unavailable No 

DeKalb Hartsells fine sandy loam, eroded, rolling Moderate No 

DeKalb Hartsells fine sandy loam, eroded, rolling, shallow Moderate No 

DeKalb Hartsells fine sandy loam, eroded, undulating Slight to Moderate Yes 

DeKalb Hartsells fine sandy loam, eroded, undulating, shallow Slight to Moderate No 

DeKalb Hartsells fine sandy loam, rolling, shallow Moderate No 

DeKalb Muskingum stony fine sandy loam, hilly Very Severe No 

DeKalb Muskingum stony fine sandy loam, rolling Very Severe No 

DeKalb Philo loam Slight Yes 

DeKalb Rockland, sandstone, rolling Very Severe No 

DeKalb Rockland, sandstone, steep Very Severe No 

Fayette Barfield-Rock outcrop complex, steep Very Severe No 

Fayette Gorgas-rock outcrop complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes Very Severe No 

Fayette Hanceville fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Severe No 

Fayette Hanceville-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes Slight to Moderate No 
Appendix F-Soils Draft EIS – August 2007 

F-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

County Soil Description Erosion 

Potential 1

Prime 

Farmland 1

Fayette Holston-urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes Unavailable No 

Fayette Nauvoo and Nectar fine sandy loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes Slight to Moderate Yes 

Fayette Nauvoo-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes Unavailable No 

Fayette Sunlight-Sipsey complex, 15 to 40 percent slopes Very Severe No 

Fayette Sunlight-Townley complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes Very Severe No 

Jefferson Docena complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes Slight No 

Jefferson Hanceville fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Severe No 

Jefferson Hanceville-urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes Slight to Moderate No 

Jefferson Montevallo-Nauvoo association, steep Very Severe No 

Jefferson Nauvoo fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Unavailable No 

Jefferson Palmerdale complex, steep Unavailable No 

Jefferson Sullivan-state complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes Slight Yes 

Jefferson Townley-Nauvoo complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes Severe No 

Mobile Pactolus loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Moderate No 

Shelby Allen loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Slight to Moderate Yes 

Shelby Allen loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes Moderate No 

Shelby Allen-Quitman-urban land complex, 0 to 10 percent slopes Slight to Moderate No 

Shelby Choccolocco loam, occasionally flooded Slight Yes 

Shelby Choccolocco-Sterrett association, frequently flooded Slight No 

Shelby Decatur silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Slight to Moderate Yes 

Shelby Decatur silt loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes Moderate No 

Shelby Etowah silt loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes Moderate No 

Shelby Minvale-Fullerton complex, 6 to 15 percent slopes Severe No 

Shelby Nauvoo-Sunlight complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes Severe No 

Shelby Nella-Mountainburg association, steep Very Severe No 

Shelby Quitman loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes Slight to Moderate Yes 

Shelby Sterrett silt loam Slight No 

Shelby Townley silt loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes Very Severe No 

Shelby Townley silt loam, 4 to 12 percent slopes Severe No 

Shelby Townley-Sunlight complex, 12 to 35 percent slopes Very Severe No 

Shelby Tupelo loam, frequently flooded Unavailable No 

Tuscaloosa Adaton silt loam Slight No 

Tuscaloosa Augusta-Amy complex, frequently flooded Slight No 

Tuscaloosa Bama fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Slight Yes 

Tuscaloosa Bama fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Slight to Moderate Yes 

Tuscaloosa Boswell loam, 4 to 10 percent slopes Severe No 

Tuscaloosa Choccolocco silt loam Slight Yes 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix F-Soils 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP F-3 

County Soil Description Erosion 

Potential 1

Prime 

Farmland 1

Tuscaloosa Ellisville silt loam, frequently flooded Slight No 

Tuscaloosa Falkner silt loam Slight Yes 

Tuscaloosa Iuka-Mantachie complex, frequently flooded Slight No 

Tuscaloosa Luverne-Smithdale complex, 4 to 10 percent slopes Severe No 

Tuscaloosa Montevallo-Nauvoo association, steep Very Severe No 

Tuscaloosa Montevallo-Nauvoo complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes Very Severe No 

Tuscaloosa Nauvoo fine sandy loam, 4 to 10 percent slopes Moderate No 

Tuscaloosa Palmerdale very gravelly loam, 6 to 45 percent slopes Very Severe No 

Tuscaloosa Palmerdale very shaly loam, 6 to 45 percent slopes Very Severe No 

Tuscaloosa Ruston fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Slight Yes 

Tuscaloosa Ruston fine sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Slight Yes 

Tuscaloosa Shatta silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Slight Yes 

Tuscaloosa Shatta silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Slight to Moderate Yes 

Tuscaloosa Smithdale association, hilly Very Severe No 

Tuscaloosa Smithdale fine sandy loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes Very Severe No 

Tuscaloosa Smithdale fine sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Severe No 

Tuscaloosa Smithdale-Flomaton complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes Very Severe No 

Tuscaloosa Smithdale-Luverne association, hilly Severe No 

Tuscaloosa Smithdale-Luverne complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes Very Severe No 

Tuscaloosa Smithdale-Pikeville association, hilly Very Severe No 

Walker Brilliant and Palmerdale extremely channery loams, 6 to 60 

percent slopes Very Severe No 

Walker Hanceville fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Severe No 

Walker Izagora-Annemaine association, moderately undulating Unavailable No 

Walker Montevallo channery silt loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes Very Severe No 

Walker Nauvoo and Nectar fine sandy loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes Slight to Moderate Yes 

Walker Nauvoo and Sipsey soils, 6 to 12 percent slopes Severe No 

Walker Nauvoo-Townley complex, 4 to 20 percent slopes Very Severe No 

Walker Sipsey-Bankhead complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes Very Severe No 

Walker Spadra-Whitwell complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes, 

occasionally flooded Unavailable Yes 

Walker Sunlight-Sipsey complex, 15 to 40 percent slopes Very Severe No 

Walker Sunlight-Townley complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes Very Severe No 

Walker Townley silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Moderate No 

Walker Townley silt loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Very Severe No 

1 Erosion potential and prime farmland classification data collected from NRCS Soil Data Mart 

(http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/). 
Appendix F-Soils Draft EIS – August 2007 

F-4 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Table F-2. Soils Descriptions for Areas Within Mississippi Non-USFS FMO 

County Soil Description Erosion 

Potential 1 

Prime 

Farmland 

Forrest Bassfield fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Low to Moderate Yes 

Forrest Benndale fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Low to Moderate Yes 

Forrest Benndale fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes Low to Moderate Yes 

Forrest Cahaba sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Moderate Yes 

Forrest Malbis loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Moderate Yes 

Forrest McGauran loamy sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes Low Yes 

Forrest Poarch fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Low to Moderate Yes 

Forrest Poarch fine sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes Low to Moderate Yes 

Forrest Prentiss loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Moderate Yes 

Forrest Prentiss loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes Moderate Yes 

Forrest Bassfield urban land complex, occasionally flooded Unavailable No 

Forrest Benndale fine sandy loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes Low to Moderate No 

Forrest Bibb silt loam Moderate No 

Forrest Bibb and Jena soils, frequently flooded Moderate No 

Forrest Cadeville variant silt loam, 15 to 60 percent slopes Moderate to High No 

Forrest Faulkner-Susquehanna urban land complex, 2 to 5 

percent slopes Moderate No 

Forrest Heidel sandy loam, 12 to 30 percent slopes Low to Moderate No 

Forrest Jena-Nugent association, frequently flooded Low No 

Forrest McLaurin loamy sand, 5 to 8 percent slopes Low No 

Forrest McLaurin-Benndale association, rolling Moderate No 

Forrest Pamlico-Dorovan association Low No 

Forrest Petal-Susquehanna-Benndale association, rolling Moderate No 

Forrest Pits Moderate No 

Forrest Poarch-Saucier association, undulating Moderate No 

Forrest Prentiss urban land complex Moderate No 

Forrest Susquehanna silt loam, 5 to 12 percent slopes Moderate No 

Forrest Troup loamy fine sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes Low No 

1 Erosion potential was estimated based on K factors (susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water) provided by the 

NRCS. Erosion hazard estimation as provided for Alabama were not available for Mississippi.
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix G-Socioeconomic Figures 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP G-1 

APPENDIX G—SOCIOECONOMIC FIGURES 

The following figures represent socioeconomic trends for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

administered non-U.S. Forest Service Federal Mineral Ownership (non-USFS FMO) study areas in 

Mississippi and Alabama. Socioeconomic study areas for non-USFS FMO were developed for areas with 

high potential for mineral development as discussed in Chapter 3. 

Figure G-1. Population Trends for BLM Non-USFS FMO Study Area in Alabama 

(1990-2002) 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Population

Fayette

Jefferson

Tuscaloosa

Walker

Source: BEA Regional Economic Accounts, Table CA1-3-Population, 2007.
Appendix G-Socioeconomic Figures Draft EIS – August 2007 

G-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Figure G-2. Poverty Rate for BLM Non-USFS FMO Study Area in Alabama 

17.3%

14.8%

17.0%

16.5%

16.1%

13.5%

14.0%

14.5%

15.0%

15.5%

16.0%

16.5%

17.0%

17.5%

Fayette County Jefferson County Tuscaloosa County Walker County Alabama

Area

Percent of Population

Source: Census 2000 SF 3, Quick Tables DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics. 

Figure G-3. Ethnicity for BLM Non-USFS FMO Study Area in Alabama 86.5% 11.9% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.8% 13.5% 57.4% 39.2% 0.2% 0.9% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% 1.6% 42.6% 67.5% 29.2% 0.2% 0.9% 0.0% 0.1% 0.8% 1.3% 32.5% 91.7% 6.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.9% 8.3% 62.4% 34.3% 0.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% 1.4% 37.6% 70.3% 25.9% 0.5% 0.7% 0.0% 0.1% 0.9% 1.7% 29.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

White Black or

African

American

American

Indian or

Native

Alaskan

Asian Native

Hawaiian or

Other

Pacific

Islander

Some Other

Race

Two or More

Races

Hispanic or

Latino

Minority

Ethnicity

Percent of Population

Fayette County

Jefferson County

Tuscaloosa County

Walker County, Alabama

Study Area

Alabama

Source: Census 2000 SF 1, Quick Tables QT-P4. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix G-Socioeconomic Figures 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP G-3 

Figure G-4. Unemployment Trends for BLM Non-USFS FMO Study Area in Alabama 

(1990–2005) 

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Percent Unemployment

Fayette

Jefferson

Tuscaloosa

Walker

Alabama

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics – Not Seasonally Adjusted, 2007. 

Figure G-5. Per Capita Income Trends for BLM Non-USFS FMO Study Area in Alabama 

(1990–2004) 

$-

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Fayette

Jefferson

Tuscaloosa

Walker

Alabama

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2007, adjusted to 2006$ with the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI. 
Appendix G-Socioeconomic Figures Draft EIS – August 2007 

G-4 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Figure G-6. Employment by Industry for BLM Non-USFS FMO Study Area in Alabama 

(2004) 

Construction

7%

Manufacturing

7%

Wholesale trade

4%

Retail trade

12%

Transportation and 

warehousing

3%

Information

2%

Finance and insurance

6%

Real estate

3%

Arts, entertainment, and 

recreation

1%

Accommodation and food 

services

6%

Other services

6%

Government

15%

Health care

10%

Professional services

8%

Administrative and waste 

services

6%

Educational services

1%

Utilities

1%

Farm & Forrestry

1%

Mining

1%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2007. 

Figure G-7. Personal Income Per Capita in Mississippi (2006$) 

$-

$5,000.00

$10,000.00

$15,000.00

$20,000.00

$25,000.00

$30,000.00

$35,000.00

$40,000.00

Tunica

Quitman

Tallahatchie

Sunflower

Humphreys

Holmes

Issaquena

Claiborne

Jefferson

Wilkinson

Jefferson Davis

Green

Kemper

Mississippi

United States

Source: Bureau of the Census, reported in 2004$, adjusted to 2006$ with the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix G-Socioeconomic Figures 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP G-5 

Figure G-8. Employment by Industry for Mississippi, 2005 

 Ret ail t rade

12%

 Transport at ion 

3%

 Finance and insurance

3%

 Real est at e

3%

 Prof essional services

4%

 Administ rat ive and wast e 

services

5%

 Healt h care 

8%

 Accommodat ion and f ood 

services

8%

 Ot her services

6%

 Government

18%

 Farming

3%

 Const ruct ion

6%

 Manuf act uring

12%

 Wholesale t rade

3%

Ot her

6%

Figure G-9. Unemployment Rate for Mississippi and United States, 1997-2006 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

US

MS

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 
Appendix G-Socioeconomic Figures Draft EIS – August 2007 

G-6 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Figure G-10. Mississippi Unemployment Rates by County 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix G-Socioeconomic Figures 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP G-7 

Figure G-11. Mississippi Population 

2,800,000

2,820,000

2,840,000

2,860,000

2,880,000

2,900,000

2,920,000

2,940,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Mississippi

Figure G-12. Poverty Rate for Mississippi and United States, 2003 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mississippi U.S. 

Source: Bureau of the Census 
Appendix G-Socioeconomic Figures Draft EIS – August 2007 

G-8 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

This page intentionally left blank.
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix H-Water Resources 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP H-1 

APPENDIX H—WATER RESOURCES 

The following table lists river miles and areas of water bodies in Alabama and Mississippi that cross nonU.S. Forest Service Federal mineral ownership (non-USFS FMO). 

Table H-1. River Miles and Areas of Water Bodies Crossing Non-USFS Federal Mineral 

Ownership 

Non-USFS FMO River Miles (miles) Area if Water Bodies (acres) 

Mississippi 48.41 33,140 

Alabama 26.54 2,190 

BLM-administered surface tracts and FMO occur within river basins throughout Alabama and 

Mississippi. There are a total of 14 river basins in the State of Alabama: the Tennessee, Upper 

Tombigbee, Lower Tombigbee, Black Warrior, Coosa, Cahaba, Tallapoosa, Chattahoochee, 

Choctawhatchee, Chipola, Perdido-Escambia, Alabama, Mobile, and Escatawpa River Basins (ADEM 

2004). In the State of Mississippi there are a total of 10 river basins: the Big Black River, Coastal 

Streams, Mississippi River, North Independent Streams, Pascagoula River, Pearl River, South 

Independent Streams, Tennessee River, Tombigbee River, and Yazoo River Basins (MDEQ 2005). A 

brief description of each of these major river basins follows. 

STATE OF ALABAMA

Tennessee 

The Tennessee River Basin is one of the largest river systems passing through Alabama. Parts of this river 

basin occupy seven states in the southeastern United States. The Alabama portion of the Tennessee River 

Basin is located along what is known as the “Great Bend,” which is an Indian term that early settlers used 

to describe the southern bend of the Tennessee River as it reached into Alabama. The Tennessee River 

Basin in Alabama drains roughly 13 percent of the state’s 51,705 square miles. The basin is home to the 

Alabama cavefish, a rare freshwater fish (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

The Tennessee River begins near Holston and French Broad Rivers near Knoxville, Tennessee. After 

flowing along a 652-mile course, the river empties into the Ohio River near Paducah, Kentucky. The 

Tennessee River cuts westward across northern Alabama as it flows through the Cumberland Plateau 

physiographic province to Muscle Shoals in northwestern Alabama. The river falls 137 feet in 37 miles at 

Muscle Shoals, which serves as the dividing line between the Upper and Lower Tennessee. In 1933 the 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) constructed the Wilson Dam on the river near Muscle Shoals (Rivers 

of Alabama 2005). There are 10 locks and dams located along the Tennessee River (TVA 2005). 

Upper Tombigbee/Lower Tombigbee 

The Tombigbee River begins in Prentiss and Tishomingo Counties in northeastern Mississippi. The 

Upper Tombigbee flows through Mississippi to Alabama and crosses the state line at Aliceville Lake in 

Pickens County. The river then continues in a southeasterly direction to Demopolis, Alabama, and merges 

with the Black Warrior River, one of its largest tributaries. The Upper Tombigbee River Basin occupies 
Appendix H-Water Resources Draft EIS – August 2007 

H-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

approximately 9,000 square miles and includes sections of the Fall Line Hills, Pontotoc Ridge, and Black 

Prairie districts of the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

The Lower Tombigbee River Basin is the portion of the basin below the confluence with the Black 

Warrior River. This section of the basin flows 175 miles and drains 4,659 square miles in seven Alabama 

counties before merging with the Alabama River to form the Mobile River (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

Black Warrior 

The Black Warrior River Basin drains approximately 6,276 square miles of land in Alabama. The 

principal forks of the Black Warrior River are the Sipsey, Mulberry, and Locust, which begin in northern 

Alabama and converge to form the Black Warrior. The Black Warrior River falls across large shoals 

before reaching Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The Black Warrior River mainstem occupies five counties in 

Alabama: Jefferson, Walker, Tuscaloosa, Hale, and Greene (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

The river flows across the fall line, a geologic barrier separating the high and hilly Cumberland Plateau 

from the flat and loping East Gulf Coastal Plain. The Upper Black Warrior River is above the fall line and 

flows through sandstones, shales, and limestones of the Cumberland Plateau and streambeds. The 

elevations range from 1,100 feet on the northern slopes to 600 feet near Tuscaloosa and the Fall Line 

Hills. The Lower Black Warrior River flows below the fall line through the upper Coastal Plain, with 

elevations between 150 and 300 feet. Approximately 75 percent of the Black Warrior River Basin is 

above the fall line, and approximately 25 percent flows below the fall line. The river ends at the east bank 

of the Tombigbee River just north of Demopolis (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

The Sipsey Fork, a National Wild and Scenic River, is a tributary of the Black Warrior River. 

Approximately 61 miles of the river within the William B. Bankhead National Forest are permanently 

protected (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

Coosa 

The Coosa River Basin begins in northwestern Georgia before flowing to and entering the State of 

Alabama. The main tributaries of the Coosa River include the Conasauga, Coosawattee, Oostanaula, and 

Etowah Rivers. The Coosa River’s mainstem flows for approximately 286 miles before arriving north of 

Montgomery. Approximately 255 miles of the Coosa River’s mainstem rests in Alabama, which is 89 

percent of the total river miles. The Coosa River watershed covers about 10,200 square miles, of which 

about 4,500 square miles (46 percent) are in Georgia and 5,400 square miles (53 percent) are in Alabama 

(Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

The Coosa River Basin occupies five different physiographic regions. The majority of the Coosa River 

Basin is split between the Valley and Ridge and Piedmont provinces. Approximately 34 percent of the 

river basin occurs in the Valley and Ridge physiographic province, with altitudes ranging from 600 to 

1,600 feet; 34 percent is in the Piedmont province; 4 percent is in the Blue Ridge province; 8 percent is in 

the Cumberland Plateau in Alabama, with altitudes of 1,500 to 1,800 feet; and 2 percent is in the Coastal 

Plain province (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

Cahaba 

The Cahaba River is one of the longest free-flowing rivers in the State of Alabama. The Cahaba flows for 

about 190 miles and occupies approximately 1,163,574 acres. The Cahaba River Basin flows through 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix H-Water Resources 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP H-3 

portions of eight counties: Jefferson, St. Clair, Shelby, Bibb, Perry, Dallas, Tuscaloosa, and Chilton 

(Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

The Cahaba River begins at the Cahaba Mountain northeast of Birmingham, at an elevation of 

approximately 1,200 feet. The Cahaba River has an average slope of 15 feet per mile for the first 25 to 30 

miles, then drops to a slope of 2.5 feet per mile for about 44 miles, and finally flattens to a slope of 0.6 

feet per mile. Elevation in the Cahaba River Basin ranges from 1,100 feet in Shelby County to 100 feet at 

the confluence with the Alabama River (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

The Cahaba River Basin is located in two physiographic regions of the State of Alabama. The Upper 

Cahaba River Basin lies in the Valley and Ridge province, and the Lower Cahaba River Basin lies in the 

East Gulf Coastal Plain province. The majority of the basin (84 percent) lies within the Valley and Ridge 

province. The remainder of the basin (14 percent) lies in the East Gulf Coastal Plain Province (Rivers of 

Alabama 2005). 

Tallapoosa 

The Tallapoosa River originates in Paulding County, Georgia, which is located 40 miles west of Atlanta. 

Originating at an elevation of about 1,145 feet, the river flows southwest for about 195 miles into 

Alabama and then flows west after meeting Uphapee Creek for 40 miles to join the Coosa River near 

Wetumpka. The 235-mile river drains a basin area of 4,680 square miles. Approximately 3,960 square 

miles lie in the State of Alabama, accounting for 85 percent of the land area (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

The Tallapoosa River falls at a rate of 12 feet per mile for its first 15 miles. The river then descends to 3.4 

feet per mile. From Thurlow Dam to its mouth, the Tallapoosa River falls at a rate of 1.6 feet per mile. 

The Tallapoosa River’s width varies from 250 feet to 700 feet along its course, and the river has banks 

that are 20 feet high along the floodplain (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

Approximately 71 percent of the Tallapoosa River Basin lies in the Piedmont physiographic province. 

Another 29 percent of the river basin lies in the Coastal Plain province, with elevations between 50 and 

850 feet (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

Chattachoochee 

The Chattahoochee River begins in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Georgia. The Chattahoochee River 

mainly flows southwest through Georgia until it reaches Alabama. From the towns of Lannett, Alabama 

and West Point, Georgia, the Chattahoochee River is shared between the two states on a river course 

toward the Gulf of Mexico. The river flows along Alabama’s boundary for 160 miles until it reaches the 

southeastern corner of the state before flowing into Florida (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

The Chattahoochee River Basin has a total drainage area of 8,770 square miles. The Alabama portion of 

the Chattahoochee River in Alabama covers an area of 2,830 square miles, or 32 percent of the total 

Chattahoochee River Basin. This section of the Chattahoochee River Basin is about 35 miles across at its 

widest point. Principal tributaries of the river are the Uchee, Cowikee, and Abbie Creeks. There are 13 

hydroelectric dams in the Chattahoochee Basin; however, all of the tributaries to the Chattahoochee are 

free-flowing. Major aquifers in the Alabama portion of the Chattahoochee River Basin are the Libson, 

Nantafalia-Clayton, Providence-Ripley, and Tuscaloosa (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

Principal cities in Alabama located along the Chattahoochee River are Lanett, Phenix City, Eufala, and 

Dothan. The watershed of the Chattahoochee River flows through counties in Alabama: Chambers, Lee, 

Russell, Barbour, Henry, Houston, Randolph, Macon, and Bullock (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 
Appendix H-Water Resources Draft EIS – August 2007 

H-4 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

The Chattahoochee River Basin occupies three physiographic regions. In the upper Chattahoochee River 

Basin, the headwaters occupy the Blue Ridge Province and then flow into the Piedmont Province. At the 

Alabama/Georgia border the Piedmont Province transitions into the Southern Coastal Plain Province 

(Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

Choctawhatchee 

The Choctawhatchee River begins in Dale County near Newton, Alabama. The river flows for 

approximately 138 miles and empties into Choctawhatchee Bay in Florida. The Choctawhatchee River 

Basin encompasses approximately 4,748 square miles. The majority of the basin, about 66 percent, or 

3,400 square miles, occurs in Alabama. About 50 miles of the mainstem of the river is located in 

Alabama. The Alabama portion of the Choctawhatchee River Basin comprises 2 million acres and lies in 

portions of 10 Alabama counties: Bullock, Barbour, Coffee, Geneva, Covington, Houston, Crenshaw, 

Dale, Henry, and Pike. The entire Choctawhatchee River Basin lies within the physiographic region of the 

East Gulf Coastal Plain Province, which drains about 25 percent of the state (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

Chipola 

The Chipola River flows through the States of Alabama and Florida. Its total length is 125 miles through 

the two states. The Chipola River Basin is part of the Chattahoochee watershed (allrefer.com 2005). 

Perdido-Escambia 

The Perdido-Escambia River Basin flows through Baldwin and Escambia counties in Alabama and 

Escambia County, Florida. The Perdido River forms the boundary between the States of Alabama and 

Florida. This river basin encompasses a total area of 1,250 square miles. Before flowing into the Gulf of 

Mexico, the Perdido River forms Perdido Bay. The Perdido River flows approximately 44 miles before 

reaching Perdido Bay just north of Lillian, Alabama. Major cities within the Perdido-Escambia River 

Basin are Perdido, Bay Minette, Robertsdale, and Summerdale. The Escambia River also flows through 

Alabama and Florida. The Escambia River flows into Escambia Bay, an arm of Pensacola Bay. Large 

tributaries of the Escambia River include Patsaliga Creek, Big Escambia Creek, and the Sepulga River 

(Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

Alabama 

The Alabama River is formed by the confluence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers, 15 miles north of 

the city of Montgomery. The Alabama River begins at the fall line, and the Alabama River Basin lies 

almost entirely within the flat topography of the Coastal Plain Province. At the City of Montgomery, the 

Alabama River slopes at 0.82 foot per mile; below the fall line the slope is approximately 0.34 foot per 

mile. The Alabama River’s total length is 315 miles; it drains approximately 22,168 square miles. The 

Alabama River Basin comprises an area of 6,023 square miles (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

Much of the Alabama River has been altered by three U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dam projects that 

were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. Approximately 233 miles of the river are impounded by the 

Robert F. Henry, Millers Ferry, and Claiborne lock and dams (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

Large tributaries of the Alabama River include Turkey, Little River, Pintlala, Limestone, Pursley, Pine 

Barren, Mulberry, Boguechitto, Cedar, Big Swamp, and Catoma Creeks. The river has a carrying capacity 

of 100,000 to 150,000 cfs. The Alabama River flows through nine Alabama counties: Elmore, Autauga, 

Montgomery, Lowndes, Dallas, Wilcox, Monroe, Baldwin, and Clarke (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix H-Water Resources 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP H-5 

Mobile 

The area where the Mobile River meets Mobile Bay can be described as a delta. The land area between 

the Mobile River on the west edge of the delta and the Tensaw River on the east edge is marshland. About 

one-third of the area also is a vast network of waterways and river basins. More than 250 separate 

waterways, such as rivers, bays, creeks, bayous, lakes, cutoffs, branches, and sloughs, have been 

identified and charted (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

Mobile Bay is the receiving basin for the sixth largest river system in the United States. The river drains 

the fourth largest watershed in the United States in terms of flow volume. Approximately 65 percent of 

Alabama’s land area drains its waters into Mobile Bay. Mobile Bay is approximately 32 miles long and 

23 miles wide. The average depth of the Bay is about 10 feet (Rivers of Alabama 2005).

Escatawpa 

The Escatawpa River Basin is approximately 15 miles wide and 100 miles long. The length of the 

Escatawpa River is 80 miles. The Escatawpa River begins in southwest Alabama, less than 1 mile from 

the Alabama/Mississippi border in Washington County, Alabama. The Escatawpa River flows south from 

Alabama into Mississippi. The main tributaries of the Escatawpa River flow through Washington and 

Mobile counties in Alabama (Rivers of Alabama 2005). 

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Big Black River Basin 

The Big Black River Basin is approximately 155 miles in length and 22 miles in width and is located in 

west-central Mississippi. The river basin covers an area of approximately 3,400 square miles. The Big 

Black River Basin has approximately 6,638 total miles of perennial and intermittent rivers and streams. 

The Big Black River flows entirely within Mississippi; it begins in Webster County and flows southwest 

for approximately 300 miles to its mouth at the Mississippi River near Vicksburg (MDEQ 2004). 

Tributaries to the Big Black River include Big Bywy Ditch, Zilpha Creek, Apookta Creek, Doaks Creek, 

Bear Creek, Bogue Chitto Creek, and Fourteen Mile-Bakers Creek. The Big Black River Basin occupies 

13 counties and 24 municipalities. According to the 2000 census, about 220,000 people live in the Big 

Black River Basin. Larger cities in the basin include Jackson, Clinton, and Canton (MDEQ 2004). 

Coastal Streams Basin 

The Coastal Streams Basin is located in southern Mississippi. The Basin begins in Lamar County and 

extends south, with Pearl River as its western boundary and the eastern boundary, mainly consisting of 

the Alabama state line. The Coastal Streams Basin drains an area of about 1,545 square miles and empties 

into the Gulf of Mexico. A total of 2,442 miles of perennial and intermittent rivers and streams occur in 

the Basin (MDEQ 2004). 

The Coastal Streams Basin includes the Mississippi Sound and the following barrier islands: Cat, Ship, 

Deer, Horn, Round, and Petit Bois Islands. The topography of the Costal Streams Basin ranges from pine 

forests and low rolling hills in the upper part to low-lying flatlands and salt marsh along the coast (MDEQ 

2004). 
Appendix H-Water Resources Draft EIS – August 2007 

H-6 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Major cities located in the basin include Biloxi, Gulfport, Bay St. Louis, Pass Christian, Ocean Springs, 

and Pascagoula. The Coastal Streams Basin’s population is estimated at 426,231. The Coastal Streams 

Basin is mainly rural, with an average population density of 137 people per square mile (MDEQ 2004). 

Mississippi River Basin 

The Mississippi River Basin is a large river system, comprised of 2,350 river miles, that drains 31 states 

before reaching the Gulf of Mexico. The Mississippi River Basin consists of 1.2 million square miles. 

Approximately 12 million people live in the river basin in approximately 125 counties along the river 

(EPA 2003). 

The Mississippi Alluvial Plain (MAP) encompasses the land on the banks of the Mississippi River in six 

states and is the original floodplain of the Mississippi River. The part of the MAP system that lies within 

the State of Mississippi extends the entire length of the state. Just south of Memphis, Tennessee, the plain 

fans out to encompass all of the land between the Mississippi and Yazoo Rivers. The flat lowland area in 

northwest Mississippi located in the MAP Region, known as the Delta, is widely recognized as a fertile 

and productive farmland. This region of the Mississippi River Basin is mostly a flat, broad, floodplain. 

Land in the Delta comprises alluvial deposits of sand and clay (MDEQ 2004). 

North Independent Streams Basin 

The North Independent Streams Basin is located in north Mississippi. The basin consists of streams that 

mainly drain into Tennessee. The North Independent Streams Basin occupies seven counties in northern 

Mississippi. Major streams in the North Independent Streams Basin include the Tuscumbia River, Horn 

Lake Creek, Muddy Creek, the Wolf River, and the Hatchie River. The basin comprises a total of 1,956 

miles of perennial and intermittent rivers and streams (MDEQ 2004). 

The North Independent Streams Basin is composed of portions of four physiogeographic subregions: the 

Loess Bluffs, Red Clay Hills, Flatwoods, and Pontotoc Ridge. Most of these regions are made up of low 

to high rolling hills, mainly forested (MDEQ 2004). 

The two major cities located in the North Independent Streams Basin are Southhaven, Tennessee, and 

Corinth, Alabama. The population of the counties within the basin was estimated in 2000 at 

approximately 182,000 (MDEQ 2004). 

Pascagoula River Basin 

The Pascagoula River Basin is the second largest basin in the State of Mississippi. It is approximately 164 

miles long and 84 miles wide. The basin has a total of approximately 14,777 miles of perennial and 

intermittent rivers and streams. The Leaf and Chickasawhay Rivers are the two main headwater streams 

in the Pascagoula River Basin. The Pascagoula River Basin occupies 22 counties and drains an area of 

approximately 9,600 square miles before draining into the Gulf of Mexico. The Pascagoula River system 

is the last unimpeded large river system in the lower 48 states. The Black Creek, which is located in the 

Pascagoula River Basin, is the only National Wild and Scenic River in the State of Mississippi (MDEQ 

2004). 

Near the Gulf Coast, the topography of the Pascagoula River Basin is low-lying flatlands, forested 

wetlands, and marshlands. Inland, the Pascagoula River Basin consists of gently rolling hills and broad, 

flat floodplains. The major urban areas in the basin are Meridian, Laurel, Hattiesburg, and Pascagoula. 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix H-Water Resources 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP H-7 

The Pascagoula River Basin has an estimated population of 716,925. The Pascagoula River Basin is 

mainly rural, with an average population density of about 75 people per square mile (MDEQ 2004). 

Pearl River Basin 

The Pearl River Basin is located in east-central and southwest Mississippi and southeastern Louisiana. 

The river basin starts in Philadelphia, Mississippi, and flows through central Mississippi to the coast. The 

Pearl River is approximately 490 miles long and drains an area of 8,760 square miles. The Pearl River 

Basin occupies 24 counties in east-central and southern Mississippi. The river basin has a total of 

approximately 16,300 miles of perennial and intermittent rivers and streams (MDEQ 2004). 

Major tributaries to the Pearl River include the Yockanookany River, Bogue Chitto River, and Strong 

River. The Pearl River originates in Neshoba County by the confluence of Bogue Chitto, Nanawaya, and 

Tallahaga Creeks. The Pearl River flows southwest for approximately 146 miles to the Ross Barnett 

Reservoir in Jackson, and then flows 217 miles in a southerly direction to the West Pearl and Pearl 

Rivers. These channels continue for 44 and 48 miles, respectively, and empty into Lake Borgne in 

Louisiana and the Mississippi Sound. The West Pearl River flows entirely within the State of Louisiana. 

The lower 61 miles of Pearl River form part of the boundary between the States of Mississippi and 

Louisiana (MDEQ 2004). 

Much of the upper part of the Pearl River Basin consists of gently rolling to hilly terrain. In the southern 

part of the basin the land is flatter as low, rolling, forested hills give way to lowlands and marshes near 

the coast. The only large urban area in the Pearl River Basin is Jackson, Mississippi (MDEQ 2004). 

South Independent Streams Basin 

The South Independent Streams Basin is located in southwest Mississippi. The Basin consists of streams 

that drain into the Mississippi River below the Big Black River and streams that drain into Louisiana, 

west of the Pearl River Basin. The Basin occupies 4,418 square miles and comprises 11 counties in 

Mississippi. There are 7,499 miles of perennial and intermittent rivers and streams in the Basin. Major 

streams in the South Independent Streams Basin include the Homochitto River, Bayou Pierre, the 

Tangipahoa River, and the Amite River (MDEQ 2004). 

Most of the South Independent Streams Basin region is made up of low, rolling hills and is largely 

forested. On the western side of the Basin, high bluffs dominate the topography as the land meets the 

Mississippi River. The two largest cities in the basin are Natchez and Vicksburg, which are located on the 

Mississippi River. The population within the South Independent Streams Basin was estimated in 2000 at 

439,933 (MDEQ 2004). 

Tennessee River Basin 

The Tennessee River Basin covers an area of 417 square miles in the northeast Mississippi. The 

Tennessee River Basin is composed of Pickwick Lake, a portion of the Tennessee River, a portion of Bear 

Creek, and the Yellow Creek segment of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. Other smaller water 

bodies in the Tennessee River Basin include Indian Creek, Cripple Deer Creek, and Little Cripple Deer 

Creek. The Tennessee River Basin has a total of 646 miles of perennial and intermittent rivers and 

streams in Mississippi (MDEQ 2004). 

The Mississippi portion of the Tennessee River Basin lies within the Fall Line Hills of the East Gulf 

Coastal Plain. The topography of the river basin is gently rolling hills, sharp ridges, and broad alluvial 
Appendix H-Water Resources Draft EIS – August 2007 

H-8 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

floodplains over rocks of sedimentary origin. Portions of the river basin landscape are in Tishomingo 

State Park and are characterized by rock formations and fern-filled crevices (MDEQ 2004). 

The only major urban area of the basin is the city of Iuka. The Tennessee River Basin occupies four 

counties in Mississippi: Alcorn, Itawamba, Prentiss, and Tishomingo. The Tennessee River Basin is 

sparsely populated, with fewer than 30,000 persons inhabiting the area. According to the 2000 census, 

approximately 27,630 people live in the river basin within Mississippi’s boundaries (MDEQ 2004). 

Tombigbee River Basin 

The Tombigbee River Basin is located in northeastern Mississippi. The Tombigbee River Basin covers 

approximately 6,100 square miles in Mississippi and 7,600 square miles in Alabama. The Mississippi 

portion of the Tombigbee River Basin consists of 56 watersheds and is approximately 190 miles in length 

and 48 miles in width. The Tombigbee River begins in Itawamba County, Mississippi, from the 

convergence of Big Brown Creek and Mackeys Creek. A significant hydrologic feature of the Tombigbee 

River Basin is the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. The waterway uses a series of dams and manmade 

canals to connect the Tennessee River in Tennessee to Mobile Bay in Alabama. The Tombigbee River 

Basin in Mississippi has approximately 11,690 miles of perennial and intermittent rivers and streams. 

Major tributaries to the Tombigbee River and the waterway include Town Creek, Chuquatonchee Creek, 

Chiwapa Creek, Luxapallila Creek, and the Buttahatchee, Sucarnoochee, and Noxubee Rivers (MDEQ 

2004). 

The topography of the Tombigbee River Basin ranges from hilly to gently rolling, with elevations in the 

headwaters from 500 to 600 feet above sea level, to flat and gently rolling topography in the central and 

south portion, with elevations from 100 to 300 feet. The Tombigbee River Basin is mostly forested. The 

major urban populations in the river basin are in Tupelo, Columbus, and Aberdeen. The Tombigbee River 

Basin occupies 19 counties in Mississippi. According to the 2000 census, approximately 382,109 people 

live in the river basin (MDEQ 2004). 

Yazoo River Basin 

The Yazoo River Basin is located in the northwest and west-central part of Mississippi. The basin covers 

13,355 square miles in 30 counties. The basin is approximately 200 miles long and approximately 100 

miles wide. The Yazoo River Basin eventually drains the Yazoo River into the Mississippi River near 

Vicksburg, Mississippi. The Yazoo River Basin has 24,554 miles of rivers and streams. The Yazoo River 

begins in Leflore County from the convergence of its main headwater tributaries, the Tallahatchie River 

and the Yalobusha River. Major rivers in the Yazoo River Basin include the Coldwater, Little 

Tallahatchie, Tallahatchie, Yocona, Yalobusha, Big Sunflower, and Yazoo Rivers (MDEQ 2004). 

The Delta portion of the Yazoo River Basin is a geographic feature and is part of the alluvial plain of the 

Mississippi River. The only outlet to the Mississippi River for the basin is the Yazoo River mainstem at 

Vicksburg in central Mississippi. The Yazoo River Basin includes a hilly upland in north and northcentral Mississippi and an extensive, flat lowland area in the north and west. Major cities in the Yazoo 

River Basin include Grenada, Batesville, Oxford, Holly Springs, and New Albany. The Yazoo River 

Basin has an estimated population of 625,524 and encompasses approximately one-fifth of Mississippi’s 

population. The river basin is mainly rural, with an average population density of approximately 45 

persons per square mile (MDEQ 2004). 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix I-Withdrawn Lands 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP I-1 

APPENDIX I—WITHDRAWN LANDS 

Withdrawn lands are public lands administered by other Federal or State agencies. Withdrawals are 

generally for a specific purpose such as a reclamation project or wildlife refuge. When the agency to 

which the withdrawal is granted ceases to use the land for the specified purpose, the withdrawal will be 

re-evaluated, and if appropriate, the management of that area will revert to the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). These lands are withdrawn from settlement, location, sale or entry and reserved for 

use by the designated agency. The following tables list tracts in Alabama and Mississippi that have been 

withdrawn to management by other Federal agencies. 

Table I-1. Withdrawn Lands in Alabama 

Agency/Use Legal Description Serial/PLO No. Acres 

Federal Energy 

Regulatory 

Commission 

(FERC) 

Hydro Power 

St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 22 N., R. 6 E., 

Sec. 1 (see case file) 

ALES 032320 

1.00 

FERC 

Hydro Power 

St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 21 N., R. 16 E., 

Sec. 14, Fractional (FRL), W. of Coosa River, Lots 1-

12 

ALES 035022 

66.16 

FERC 

Hydro Power 

St. Stephens Meridian 

T. 21 N., R. 17 E., 

Sec. 30, W2NW, FRL, W. of Coosa River 

Sec. 32, C East of Coosa River 

ALES 035023 

111.85 

FERC 

Hydro Power 

T. 8 S., R. 9 E., 

Sec. 1, Lots 1-4; Sec. 2, Lots 1-3; Sec. 10, Lots 1-2; 

Sec. 11, Lots 1-6; Sec. 12, Lot 1; Sec. 14, Lots 1-3; 

Sec. 15, Lots 1-4; Sec. 22, Lots 1-4; Sec. 23, Lots 1-4; 

Sec. 26, Lots 1-2; Sec. 27, Lots 1-5, E2NE; 

Sec. 28, Lot 1; Sec 33, Lots 1-3, Sec. 34, Lot 1 

ALES 035024 

1,545.41 

FERC 

Hydro Power 

T. 6 S., R. 10 E., 

Sec. 34, N2SW, SWSW ALES 035025 112.50 

Tennessee Valley 

Authority (TVA) 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 4 S., R. 7 E., 

Sec. 28, NWNW 

ALES 036757 

40.00 

TVA – Tennessee 

River 

Lands bordering the Tennessee River, and also all 

islands and towheads in the river in legal subdivisions 

described in Executive Orders 2246 and 8059 

ALES 36760 

1,500.00 

TVA 

T. 6. S., R. 1 E., 

Sec. 26, SE (FRL, north of Tennessee River); 

T. 6 S., R. 2 E., 

Sec. 31, NWSW 

ALES 36762 

92.00 
Appendix I-Withdrawn Lands Draft EIS – August 2007 

I-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Agency/Use Legal Description Serial/PLO No. Acres 

U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) 

Bankhead 

National Forest 

(N.F.) 

Sipsey River 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 9 S., R. 8 W., 

Sec. 8, S2NE 

ALES 36763 

80.00 

USFS 

Bankhead N.F. 

Kinlock Camp 

Recreation Area 

T. 8 S., R. 9 W., 

Sec. 32, E2SESWNW 

“ 

5.00 

USFS 

Bankhead N.F. 

And FERC Power 

Project 2165 

T. 9 S., R. 8 W., 

Sec. 33 NENE; Sec 35, S2SW; 

T. 10 S., R. 6 W., 

Sec. 19, NESW; Sec. 30, N2SE; Sec. 31, N2SW; 

T. 10 S., R. 7 W., 

Sec. 23, SWNW; Sec 24, W2NE, NESW; Sec 25, 

SESE; 

T. 11 S., R. 5 W., 

Sec. 17, SENE; 

T. 11 S., R. 6 W., 

Sec. 5, SWSE; Sec 7, NWNW; Sec. 11, NWNE; 

Sec. 21, SENE; Sec. 22, NENW, E2SW; Sec. 23 

SESE; 

Sec. 25, N2NW; Sec. 27, SWNE, NENW; Sec. 32 

SWNW; 

T. 11 S., R. 7 W., 

Sec. 12, W2SW; Sec. 14, SESE; Sec. 22, NESW; 

Sec. 23, NWSE 

T. 12 S., R. 6 W., 

Sec. 2 NESE; Sec. 10, SESW; Sec. 13, SENE; 

T. 12 S., R. 7 W., 

Sec. 18, NESE; 

T. 12 S., R. 8 W., 

Sec. 13 SENE, SENW; Sec. 14 SWNW 

“ 

1,560.00 

USFS 

Bankhead N.F. 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 7 S., R. 6 W., 

Sec. 31, FRL 

“ 

39.34 

USFS 

Bankhead N.F. 

T. 7 S., R. 7 W., 

Sec. 30, FRL 

“ 

36.55 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix I-Withdrawn Lands 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP I-3 

Agency/Use Legal Description Serial/PLO No. Acres 

USFS 

Bankhead N.F. 

T. 7 S., R. 8 W., 

Sec. 23, FRL 

Sec. 24, FRL 

Sec. 25, FRL 

Sec. 26, FRL, 77.05; FRL, 39.51: 

Sec. 27, FRL 

Sec. 31, FRL 

Sec. 32, FRL, 154.78; FRL, 158.52: 

Sec. 33, FRL 

Sec. 34, FRL 

Sec. 36, FRL 

“ 

39.00 

156.66 

164.43 

116.56 

40.10 

443.87 

313.30 

77.83 

39.31 

39.37 

USFS 

Bankhead N.F. 

T. 7. S., R. 9 W., 

Sec. 19, FRL 

Sec. 29, FRL 

Sec. 33, FRL, 82.16; FRL, 78.43; FRL, 41.25: 

Sec. 34, FRL 

Sec. 35, FRL 

Sec. 36, FRL 

“ 

37.86 

38.17 

201.84 

41.99 

42.71 

315.78 

USFS 

Bankhead N.F. 

T. 7 S., R. 10 W., 

Sec. 8, FRL 

Sec. 13, FRL 

Sec. 24, FRL 

Sec. 27, FRL 

“ 

40.98 

41.72 

37.07 

40.01 

USFS 

Bankhead N.F. 

T. 8 S., R. 6 W., 

Sec. 2, FRL 

Sec. 4, FRL 

Sec. 14, FRL 

Sec. 15, FRL, 10.23; FRL, 82.93: 

Sec. 17, FRL, 37.91; FRL 40.51; FRL, 40.17: 

Sec. 18, FRL 

Sec. 20, FRL 

Sec. 22, FRL 

Sec. 29, FRL 

Sec. 30, FRL, 41.96: FRL, 40.67: 

Sec. 32, FRL 

Sec. 34, FRL 

“ 

41.31 

84.41 

41.56 

93.16 

118.59 

39.64 

40.12 

38.33 

40.17 

82.63 

40.04 

42.21 
Appendix I-Withdrawn Lands Draft EIS – August 2007 

I-4 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Agency/Use Legal Description Serial/PLO No. Acres 

USFS 

Bankhead N.F. 

T. 8 S., R. 7 W., 

Sec. 3, FRL, 124.87; FRL, 40.61; FRL, 40.90: 

Sec. 5, FRL, 40.25; FRL, 77.84: 

Sec. 6, FRL, 80.23; FRL, 38.45: 

Sec. 7, FRL, 41.56; FRL, 39.26: 

Sec. 8, FRL 

Sec. 9, FRL 

Sec. 14, FRL 

Sec. 17, FRL 

Sec. 18, FRL 

Sec. 19, FRL 

Sec. 21, FRL 

Sec. 24, FRL, 39.47; FRL, 37.75: 

Sec. 31, FRL 

Sec. 32, FRL, 40.74; FRL, 83.09: 

Sec. 35, FRL 

“ 

206.83 

118.09 

118.68 

80.82 

40.16 

40.04 

43.88 

163.79 

36.00 

284.67 

42.61 

77.22 

154.56 

123.83 

41.03 

USFS 

Bankhead N.F. 

T. 8 S., R. 8 W., 

Sec. 1, FRL 

Sec. 2, FRL 

Sec. 5, FRL, 76.85; FRL, 122.91: 

Sec. 6, FRL, 241.80; FRL, 80.88: 

Sec. 7, FRL, 38.53; FRL, 37.93; FRL, 82.24: 

Sec. 8, FRL 

Sec. 9, FRL 

Sec. 10, FRL 

Sec. 12, FRL 

Sec. 14, FRL 

Sec. 18, FRL, 39.64; FRL, 197.99: 

Sec. 19, FRL 

Sec. 20, FRL, 40.25; FRL, 231.16: 

Sec. 22, FRL 

Sec. 23, FRL 

Sec. 24, FRL, 84.74; FRL, 40.18: 

Sec, 26, FRL, 37.08; FRL, 40.62; FRL, 42.98: 

Sec. 28, FRL, 

Sec. 29, FRL, 41.03; FRL, 156.98 

Sec. 30, FRL, 39.86; FRL, 200.70: 

Sec. 32, FRL 

Sec. 33, FRL 

Sec. 34, FRL 

“ 

120.40 

163.27 

199.86 

322.68 

158.70 

158.10 

42.33 

39.42 

37.83 

243.52 

237.63 

197.41 

271.41 

41.09 

37.87 

124.92 

120.68 

41.36 

198.01 

240.56 

402.50 

236.76 

272.02 

USFS 

Bankhead N.F. 

T. 8 S., R. 9 W., 

Sec. 2, FRL 

Sec. 3, FRL 

Sec. 4, FRL 

Sec. 8, FRL 

Sec. 10, FRL 

“ 

44.32 

39.77 

36.18 

117.14 

157.95 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix I-Withdrawn Lands 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP I-5 

Agency/Use Legal Description Serial/PLO No. Acres 

Sec. 11, FRL 

Sec. 12, FRL 

Sec. 13, FRL 

Sec. 14, FRL 

Sec. 15, FRL, 41.61; FRL, 39.53; FRL, 41.05: 

Sec. 17, FRL 

Sec. 21, FRL, 41.02; FRL, 39.42: 

Sec. 23, FRL 

Sec. 24, FRL, 80.60; FRL, 201.11: 

Sec. 25, FRL 

Sec. 26, FRL 

Sec. 27, FRL 

Sec. 28, FRL 

Sec. 29, FRL 

Sec. 30, FRL, 39.98; FRL, 36.81; FRL, 80.48: 

Sec. 31, FRL 

Sec. 32, FRL, 38.77; FRL, 39.35: 

Sec. 33, FRL 

Sec. 34, FRL, 117.89; FRL, 40.67: 

Sec. 36, FRL, 41.11; FRL, 240.78: 

280.05 

328.29 

410.12 

487.80 

122.19 

39.64 

80.44 

41.77 

281.71 

205.45 

406.41 

78.53 

121.78 

39.72 

157.27 

39.60 

78.12 

39.00 

158.56 

281.89 

TVA – Elk River 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 3 S., R. 7 W., 

Sec. 34 – Parcel 1, Metes and Bounds (Lock B) 

Sec. 35 – Parcel 2, Metes and Bounds (Lock A) 

ALES 36765 

19.50 

29.41 

TVA 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 6 S., R. 5 E., 

Sec. 6, Lot 1 

ALES 36766 

2.90 

Army Corp of 

Engineers (COE) 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 15 S., R. 8 E., 

Sec. 24, SESE 

ALES 49553 

1,160.00 

USFS 

Talladega N.F. 

Huntsville Meridian 

T. 13 S., R. 9 E., 

Sec, 28, SE; 

T. 17 S., R. 8 E., 

Sec. 34, NE, SW, S2NW 

ALES 52032 

PLO 7605 

559.48 
Appendix I-Withdrawn Lands Draft EIS – August 2007 

I-6 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

Agency/Use Legal Description Serial/PLO No. Acres 

National Park 

Service (NPS) 

Huntsville Meridian 

Cherokee County: 

T. 8 S., R. 9 E., 

Sec. 1, Lots 1-4; 

Sec. 2, Lots 1-3; 

Sec. 10, Lots 1, 2; 

Sec. 11, Lots 1-6; 

Sec. 12, Lot 1; 

Sec. 14, Lots 1-3; 

Sec. 15, Lots 1-4; 

Sec. 22, Lots 1-4; 

Sec. 23, Lots 1-4; 

Sec. 26, Lots 1, 2; 

Sec. 27, FRL E2NE; 

Sec. 27, Lots 1-5; 

Sec. 28, Lot 1; 

Sec. 33, Lots 1-4; 

Sec. 34, Lots 1-2 

Dekalb County: 

T. 8 S., R. 9 E., 

Sec. 1, Lots 1-4; 

Sec. 2, Lots 1-3; 

Sec. 10, Lots 1, 2; 

Sec. 11, Lots 1-6; 

Sec. 15, Lots 1-4 

P.L 102-427 

1,625.19 

Table I-2. Withdrawn Lands in Mississippi 

Agency/Use Legal Description Serial/PLO 

No. Acres 

FERC ES-2740 WR 8.17 

FERC ES 2843 WR 2,708.30 

COE – 

Improvement of 

Black Warrior & 

Tombigee Rivers 

ES 36758 WR 63.00 

Army – Camp 

McClellan Military 

Reservation 

 ES-36759 WR 840.00 

Abandoned – 

Military Reserve ES-36761 WR 296.50 

NPS – Horn 

Island 

BLM-044621 

WR 2,514,00 

NPS – Petit Bois BLM-045555 

WR 748.00 
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix I-Withdrawn Lands 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP I-7 

Agency/Use Legal Description Serial/PLO 

No. Acres 

USFS – Harrison 

Experimental 

Forest 

BLM-046329 

WR 40.00 

COE – Flood 

Control (Big Black 

River) 

See file M&B ES-36892 WR 0.29 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) – 

Noxubee 

 ES-36893 WR 52,620.00 

NPS – Ackia 

Battleground 

National 

Monument 

 ES-36894 WR 49.15 

USFS – Holly 

Springs 

BLM-062875 

WR 39.48 
Appendix I-Withdrawn Lands Draft EIS – August 2007 

I-8 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

This page intentionally left blank.
Draft EIS – August 2007 Appendix J-RFDS Summary 

Alabama and Mississippi RMP J-1 

APPENDIX J—SUMMARY OF THE REASONABLY 

FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO 

EXPECTED DISTURBANCE FROM OIL AND GAS

The expected level of disturbance from the projected oil and gas wells was determined using reasonable 

assumptions about a generic well site and access needs. Typically 2 to 5 acres are cleared for construction 

of a well pad. However, depending on the topography of the well site and access area, this construction 

may require the creation of cut slopes and fill areas which may disturb additional acres. Constructed roads 

typically have a width of approximately 30 feet. The length of the road is dependent on the well site 

location in relation to existing roads or highways. The average length of roads per well is 1/3 of a mile. 

Pipelines and/or flow lines will be constructed in conjunction with road construction to minimize 

additional disturbance. Pipeline rights-of-way are generally 30 feet wide, however widths could vary 

depending on ground conditions. Pipeline depth must be at least 48 inches. When possible, a common 

collection point will be established to minimize the number of production sites. The producing well sites 

will be reduced to a maximum long-term disturbance area of 1⁄4 acre (10,000 square feet) after the well is 

put into production. 

The Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) projects the number of wells anticipated to 

be drilled over the next 20 years. The following is a summary RFDS for Alabama and Mississippi. 

ALABAMA

In Alabama, BLM projects that 20 wells accessing non-USFS FMO would be drilled over the next 20 

years. BLM projects that the 20 wells would disturb approximately 105 acres. Table J-1 displays the 

RFDS and associated surface disturbance for Alabama by mineral and surface ownership. 

Table J-1. Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Alabama 

Mineral/Surface Owners Number of Wells Total Acres Disturbed 

Federal/non-USFS 20 105 

Federal/USFS 12 61 

Non-Federal/non-Federal 3,988 20,750 

Total 4,020 20,916 

Oil and gas development on the Alabama surface tracts is not expected. This is a function of the high 

potential of the beach and highway tracts on the Fort Morgan Peninsula to have commercial development 

when combined with adjacent lands. These tracts can be developed by wells drilled in the nearby offshore waters. Also, the engineering problems presented by the river tracts with the associated increase in 

costs preclude the surface use of those tracts as the mineral estate can be more inexpensively developed 

from adjacent lands.
Appendix J-RFDS Summary Draft EIS – August 2007 

J-2 Alabama and Mississippi RMP 

MISSISSIPPI

In Mississippi, BLM projects that 10 wells accessing non-USFS FMO would be drilled over the next 20 

years. BLM projects that the 10 wells would disturb approximately 55 acres. Table J-2 displays the RFDS 

and associated surface disturbance for Mississippi by mineral and surface ownership. 

Table J-2 Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Mississippi 

Mineral/Surface Owners Number of Wells Total Acres Disturbed 

Federal/non-USFS 10 55 

Federal/USFS 350 1,925 

Non-Federal/non-Federal 11,650 57,820 

Total 12,010 59,800 

Oil and gas development on the Mississippi surface tract is not expected. The engineering problems 

presented by this low lying marshland tract and the associated increase in costs preclude the surface use 

of this tract for mineral development. The mineral estate may be more inexpensively developed from 

adjacent lands.