BIA

BLM

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Oklahoma Field Office 

Amarillo Field Office 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Southern Plains Region 

Eastern Oklahoma Region

Joint Environmental Impact Statement/ 

BLM Resource Management Plan 

And BIA Integrated Resource Management Plan 

Analysis of the Management Situation 

June 2015 
BLM 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. 

BIA Mission Statement 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs’ mission is to enhance the quality of life, to promote economic opportunity, and 

to carry out the responsibility to protect and improve the trust assets of American Indians, Indian tribes, and 

Alaska Natives.
June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma i 

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 

Final Analysis of the Management Situation 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

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

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION .................... 1-2

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA, GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE, AND 

RESOURCES/PROGRAMS .................................................................................. 1-2

1.2.1 BLM Resources and Programs ............................................................. 1-7

1.2.2 BIA Resources ...................................................................................... 1-7

1.3 KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 1-8

1.4 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 1-10

2. AREA PROFILE .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 REGIONAL CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.1 Ecoregions............................................................................................. 2-2

2.1.2 References ............................................................................................. 2-2

2.2 BLM RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 2-5

2.2.1 Air ......................................................................................................... 2-5

2.2.2 Climate ................................................................................................ 2-40

2.2.3 Geology ............................................................................................... 2-44

2.2.4 Soil Resources ..................................................................................... 2-53

2.2.5 Water Resources ................................................................................. 2-59

2.2.6 Vegetation ........................................................................................... 2-81

2.2.7 Fish and Wildlife............................................................................... 2-106

2.2.8 Special Status Species ....................................................................... 2-117

2.2.9 Wild Horses and Burros .................................................................... 2-150

2.2.10 Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 2-154

2.2.11 Paleontological Resources ................................................................ 2-157

2.2.12 Visual Resources ............................................................................... 2-160

2.2.13 Wilderness Characteristics ................................................................ 2-164

2.2.14 Wildland Fire Management .............................................................. 2-165

2.2.15 Cave and Karst Resources ................................................................ 2-170

2.3 BLM RESOURCE USES ................................................................................. 2-173

2.3.1 Energy and Minerals ......................................................................... 2-173

2.3.2 Renewable Energy ............................................................................ 2-185

2.3.3 Recreation and Visitor Services ........................................................ 2-186

2.3.4 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management ................. 2-188

2.3.5 Lands and Realty............................................................................... 2-190

2.3.6 Livestock Grazing ............................................................................. 2-195

2.3.7 Prime and Unique Farmlands/Agriculture ........................................ 2-197

2.4 BLM SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS ..................................................................... 2-200

2.4.1 Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas .......................................... 2-200

2.4.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern......................................... 2-201

2.4.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers ..................................................................... 2-201

2.4.4 National Historic Trails ..................................................................... 2-204
Table of Contents 

ii BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015 

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 

Final Analysis of the Management Situation 

2.4.5 National, State, and BLM Scenic Byways ........................................ 2-207

2.5 BLM SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ............................................... 2-211

2.5.1 Native American Tribal Uses ............................................................ 2-211

2.5.2 Public Health and Safety ................................................................... 2-213

2.5.3 Socioeconomics ................................................................................ 2-217

2.5.4 Environmental Justice ....................................................................... 2-259

2.6 BIA DECISION AREA .................................................................................... 2-291

2.6.1 Air ..................................................................................................... 2-291

2.6.2 Climate .............................................................................................. 2-291

2.6.3 Geology ............................................................................................. 2-291

2.6.4 Soil Resources ................................................................................... 2-291

2.6.5 Water Resources ............................................................................... 2-291

2.6.6 Vegetation ......................................................................................... 2-297

2.6.7 Fish and Wildlife............................................................................... 2-300

2.6.8 Special Status Species ....................................................................... 2-300

2.6.9 Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 2-301

2.6.10 Paleontological Resources ................................................................ 2-301

2.6.11 Visual Resources ............................................................................... 2-301

2.6.12 Wildland Fire Management .............................................................. 2-303

2.6.13 Cave and Karst Resources ................................................................ 2-303

2.6.14 Energy and Minerals ......................................................................... 2-303

2.6.15 Renewable Energy ............................................................................ 2-309

2.6.16 Recreation and Visitor Services ........................................................ 2-309

2.6.17 Lands and Realty............................................................................... 2-310

2.6.18 Livestock Grazing ............................................................................. 2-311

2.6.19 Prime and Unique Farmlands/Agriculture ........................................ 2-312

2.6.20 National Historic Trails ..................................................................... 2-313

2.6.21 National and State Byways ............................................................... 2-314

2.6.22 Native American Tribal Uses ............................................................ 2-314

2.6.23 Public Health and Safety ................................................................... 2-314

2.6.24 Socioeconomics ................................................................................ 2-314

2.6.25 Environmental Justice ....................................................................... 2-328

3. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ......................................................................... 3-1

3.1 RELEVANT PLANS AND AMENDMENTS ............................................................ 3-1

3.2 BLM CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES ............................................. 3-2

3.2.1 Soils....................................................................................................... 3-2

3.2.2 Fish and Wildlife and Special Status Species ....................................... 3-2

3.2.3 Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 3-4

3.2.4 Paleontological Resources .................................................................... 3-8

3.3 BLM CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCE USES ..................................... 3-9

3.3.1 Energy and Minerals ............................................................................. 3-9

3.3.2 Locatable Minerals .............................................................................. 3-91

3.3.3 Recreation and Visitor Services .......................................................... 3-92

3.3.4 Lands and Realty................................................................................. 3-95

3.3.5 Livestock Grazing ............................................................................... 3-98
Table of Contents 

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma iii

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 

Final Analysis of the Management Situation 

3.4 BIA CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES ............................................. 3-98

3.4.1 Air ....................................................................................................... 3-98

3.4.2 Climate ................................................................................................ 3-99

3.4.3 Water Resources ................................................................................. 3-99

3.4.4 Vegetation ......................................................................................... 3-100

3.4.5 Fish and Wildlife............................................................................... 3-101

3.4.6 Special Status Species ....................................................................... 3-102

3.4.7 Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 3-102

3.4.8 Paleontological Resources ................................................................ 3-104

3.4.9 Visual Resources ............................................................................... 3-104

3.4.10 Wildland and Fire Management........................................................ 3-104

3.4.11 Energy and Minerals ......................................................................... 3-106

3.4.12 Recreation and Visitor Services ........................................................ 3-107

3.4.13 Lands and Realty............................................................................... 3-108

3.4.14 Livestock Grazing ............................................................................. 3-108

3.4.15 Prime and Unique Farmlands/Agriculture ........................................ 3-109

3.4.16 National Trails .................................................................................. 3-109

3.4.17 Native American Tribal Uses ............................................................ 3-110

3.4.18 Socioeconomics ................................................................................ 3-112

3.4.19 Environmental Justice ....................................................................... 3-112

3.5 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 3-112

4. MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES .................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Air ......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 Climate .................................................................................................. 4-2

4.1.3 Geology ................................................................................................. 4-3

4.1.4 Soils....................................................................................................... 4-4

4.1.5 Water Resources ................................................................................... 4-4

4.1.6 Vegetation ............................................................................................. 4-5

4.1.7 Fish and Wildlife................................................................................... 4-7

4.1.8 Special Status Species ........................................................................... 4-7

4.1.9 Wild Horse and Burros (BLM only) ...................................................... 4-9

4.1.10 Cultural Resources .............................................................................. 4-10

4.1.11 Paleontological Resources .................................................................. 4-10

4.1.12 Visual Resources ................................................................................. 4-11

4.1.13 Wilderness Characteristics (BLM only) ............................................. 4-11

4.1.14 Wildland and Fire Management.......................................................... 4-11

4.1.15 Cave and Karst Resources .................................................................. 4-15

4.2 RESOURCE USES ............................................................................................. 4-15

4.2.1 Energy and Minerals ........................................................................... 4-15

4.2.2 Renewable Energy .............................................................................. 4-24

4.2.3 Recreation and Visitor Services .......................................................... 4-24

4.2.4 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management ................... 4-26

4.2.5 Lands and Realty................................................................................. 4-27

4.2.6 Livestock Grazing ............................................................................... 4-28
Table of Contents 

iv BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015 

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 

Final Analysis of the Management Situation 

4.2.7 Prime and Unique Farmlands/Agriculture .......................................... 4-28

4.3 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS ................................................................................. 4-29

4.3.1 Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas ............................................ 4-29

4.3.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (BLM only) ...................... 4-29

4.3.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers ....................................................................... 4-29

4.3.4 National Historic Trails ....................................................................... 4-30

4.3.5 National, State, and BLM Byways ..................................................... 4-31

4.4 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ........................................................... 4-32

4.4.1 Native American Tribal Uses .............................................................. 4-32

4.4.2 Public Health and Safety ..................................................................... 4-32

4.4.3 Socioeconomics .................................................................................. 4-33

4.4.4 Environmental Justice ......................................................................... 4-33

4.5 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 4-34

5. CONSISTENCY AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER PLANS .......................................... 5-1

5.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANS .......................................................................... 5-2

5.2 STATE AGENCY PLANS ..................................................................................... 5-2

5.2.1 Oklahoma .............................................................................................. 5-2

5.2.2 Kansas ................................................................................................... 5-3

5.2.3 Texas ..................................................................................................... 5-4

5.3 FEDERAL AGENCY PLANS ................................................................................ 5-4

5.3.1 US Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................... 5-4

5.3.2 Forest Service........................................................................................ 5-4

5.3.3 Other ..................................................................................................... 5-4

5.4 COOPERATING AGENCIES ................................................................................ 5-5

5.5 TRIBAL CONSULTATION ................................................................................... 5-7

5.6 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 5-8

6. SPECIFIC MANDATES AND AUTHORITY ....................................................................... 6-1

6.1 BLM RESOURCES ............................................................................................. 6-1

6.1.1 Air ......................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.2 Climate .................................................................................................. 6-2

6.1.3 Geology ................................................................................................. 6-2

6.1.4 Soil Resources ....................................................................................... 6-2

6.1.5 Water Resources ................................................................................... 6-3

6.1.6 Vegetation ............................................................................................. 6-5

6.1.7 Fish and Wildlife................................................................................... 6-8

6.1.8 Special Status Species ........................................................................... 6-8

6.1.9 Wild Horses and Burros ........................................................................ 6-9

6.1.10 Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 6-9

6.1.11 Paleontological Resources .................................................................. 6-10

6.1.12 Visual Resources ................................................................................. 6-11

6.1.13 Wilderness Characteristics .................................................................. 6-11

6.1.14 Wildland Fire Management ................................................................ 6-12

6.1.15 Cave and Karst Resources .................................................................. 6-12
Table of Contents 

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma v

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 

Final Analysis of the Management Situation 

6.2 BLM RESOURCE USES ................................................................................... 6-13

6.2.1 Energy and Minerals ........................................................................... 6-13

6.2.2 Renewable Energy .............................................................................. 6-14

6.2.3 Recreation and Visitor Services .......................................................... 6-15

6.2.4 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management ................... 6-15

6.2.5 Lands and Realty................................................................................. 6-16

6.2.6 Livestock Grazing ............................................................................... 6-16

6.2.7 Prime and Unique Farmlands/Agriculture .......................................... 6-17

6.3 BLM SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS ....................................................................... 6-17

6.3.1 Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas ............................................ 6-17

6.3.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern........................................... 6-17

6.3.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers ....................................................................... 6-17

6.3.4 National Trails .................................................................................... 6-17

6.3.5 National, State, and BLM Byways ..................................................... 6-18

6.4 BLM SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ................................................. 6-18

6.4.1 Native American Tribal Uses .............................................................. 6-18

6.4.2 Public Health and Safety ..................................................................... 6-21

6.4.3 Socioeconomics .................................................................................. 6-22

6.4.4 Environmental Justice ......................................................................... 6-22

6.5 BIA DECISION AREA ...................................................................................... 6-22

6.5.1 Air ....................................................................................................... 6-22

6.5.2 Climate ................................................................................................ 6-22

6.5.3 Geology ............................................................................................... 6-22

6.5.4 Soil Resources ..................................................................................... 6-22

6.5.5 Water Resources ................................................................................. 6-22

6.5.6 Vegetation ........................................................................................... 6-22

6.5.7 Fish and Wildlife................................................................................. 6-22

6.5.8 Special Status Species ......................................................................... 6-22

6.5.9 Cultural Resources .............................................................................. 6-23

6.5.10 Paleontological Resources .................................................................. 6-23

6.5.11 Visual Resources ................................................................................. 6-23

6.5.12 Wildland Fire Management ................................................................ 6-23

6.5.13 Cave and Karst Resources .................................................................. 6-23

6.5.14 Energy and Minerals ........................................................................... 6-23

6.5.15 Renewable Energy .............................................................................. 6-24

6.5.16 Recreation and Visitor Services .......................................................... 6-24

6.5.17 Lands and Realty................................................................................. 6-24

6.5.18 Livestock Grazing ............................................................................... 6-24

6.5.19 Prime and Unique Farmlands/Agriculture .......................................... 6-24

6.5.20 National Trails .................................................................................... 6-24

6.5.21 National and State Byways ................................................................. 6-24

6.5.22 Native American Tribal Uses .............................................................. 6-24

6.5.23 Public Health and Safety ..................................................................... 6-25

6.5.24 Socioeconomics .................................................................................. 6-25

6.5.25 Environmental Justice ......................................................................... 6-25

6.6 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 6-25
Table of Contents 

vi BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015 

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 

Final Analysis of the Management Situation 

7. PREPARERS ................................................................................................................... 7-1

8. GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................... 8-1

TABLES Page 

1-1 Land Status in the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP Planning Area ..... 1-4

1-2 USFWS Lands with Federal Minerals .......................................................................... 1-5

1-3 Planning Issue Categories and Statements .................................................................... 1-9

2-1 Ecoregions in the Planning and Decision Areas ........................................................... 2-3

2-2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ...................................................................... 2-6

2-3 Nonattainment Areas in the Planning Area .................................................................. 2-9

2-4 Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State ................................... 2-11

2-5 Average Temperatures and Precipitation in the Planning Area (1981-2010) ............. 2-42

2-6 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale .............................................................................. 2-51

2-7 Soil Orders in the Decision Area ................................................................................ 2-55

2-8 Hydrologic Accounting Units in the BLM Decision Area ......................................... 2-63

2-9 Streams in the Decision Area for BLM ...................................................................... 2-66

2-10 Stream Segments on the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters in the Decision Area 

for BLM ...................................................................................................................... 2-66

2-11 Aquifers in the Decision Area for BLM ..................................................................... 2-70

2-12 100-Year Floodplains in the BLM Decision Area ...................................................... 2-71

2-13 Oil and Gas Statistics (Fiscal Year 2014) ................................................................... 2-72

2-14 Noxious Weeds Potentially in the Planning Area ....................................................... 2-88

2-15 Nonnative Invasive Weeds Potentially Found in the Planning Area .......................... 2-90

2-16 Federal or State-Listed Plants Documented in or with Potential to Occur in the 

Planning Area.............................................................................................................. 2-94

2-17 USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern .................................................................. 2-109

2-18 Important Bird Areas in the Planning Area .............................................................. 2-113

2-19 Federal-Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area .................... 2-118

2-20 Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on 

the ESA ..................................................................................................................... 2-137

2-21 Wild Horse Long-Term Holding Contracts in the Planning Area ............................ 2-151

2-22 Historical Natural Fire Regimes ............................................................................... 2-166

2-23 BIA Eastern Oklahoma Region Fire History 2008-2014 .......................................... 2-168

2-24 Coal Resources in the BLM Decision Area .............................................................. 2-174

2-25 Enhanced Geothermal Potential in the BLM Decision Area .................................... 2-178

2-26 Oil and Gas Development Potential in the BLM Decision Area .............................. 2-179

2-27 Helium Areas ............................................................................................................ 2-181

2-28 BLM Grazing Allotments ......................................................................................... 2-195

2-29 Prime Farmlands in the BLM Decision Area ........................................................... 2-199

2-30 Wilderness in Oklahoma and Texas ......................................................................... 2-200

2-31 Oklahoma Scenic River Areas .................................................................................. 2-202

2-32 National Historic Trails ............................................................................................. 2-206

2-33 Scenic Byways Crossing Federal Mineral Estate ..................................................... 2-207
Table of Contents

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma vii

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

2-34 Tribes with Potential Interest in the Planning and Decision Areas .......................... 2-213

2-35 Components of Population Growth, 2000-2013 ....................................................... 2-219

2-36 Population and Population Projections..................................................................... 2-219

2-37 Educational Attainment—Kansas............................................................................. 2-220

2-38 Language Spoken at Home—Kansas........................................................................ 2-220

2-39 Housing Occupancy—Kansas .................................................................................. 2-221

2-40 Housing Costs—Kansas............................................................................................ 2-221

2-41 Population, Employment, and Income Trends, 2000-2013—Kansas....................... 2-222

2-42 Average Annual Unemployment—Kansas............................................................... 2-222

2-43 Household Income Distribution—Kansas ................................................................ 2-224

2-44 Employment and Wages by Industry—Kansas ........................................................ 2-225

2-45 Personal Income by Industry 2001-2013 (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)............... 2-226

2-46 Study Area Labor and Non-labor Income—Kansas (in Thousands of 

2013 Dollars) ............................................................................................................ 2-226

2-47 Rents, Royalties, and Bonus Revenue Collected—Kansas (FY 2014)..................... 2-228

2-48 Components of Population Growth, 2000-2013 ....................................................... 2-229

2-49 Population and Population Projections—Oklahoma ................................................ 2-229

2-50 Educational Attainment—Oklahoma........................................................................ 2-230

2-51 Language Spoken at Home—Oklahoma .................................................................. 2-230

2-52 Housing Occupancy—Oklahoma ............................................................................. 2-231

2-53 Housing Costs—Oklahoma ...................................................................................... 2-232

2-54 Population, Employment and Income Trends 2000-2013—Oklahoma.................... 2-232

2-55 Household Income Distribution—Oklahoma ........................................................... 2-233

2-56 Average Annual Unemployment—Oklahoma.......................................................... 2-234

2-57 Employment and Wages by Industry, 2013 (in 2013 Dollars) ................................. 2-234

2-58 Personal Income by Industry, 2001-2013 (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars).............. 2-235

2-59 Non-Labor Share of Total Personal Income—Oklahoma ........................................ 2-236

2-60 Rents, Royalty, and Bonus Revenue Collected (Fiscal Year 2014) ......................... 2-238

2-61 Population and Population Projections—Texas........................................................ 2-239

2-62 Components of Population Growth, 2000-2013 ....................................................... 2-239

2-63 Educational Attainment—Texas............................................................................... 2-240

2-64 Language Spoken at Home—Texas.......................................................................... 2-240

2-65 Housing Occupancy—Texas .................................................................................... 2-241

2-66 Housing Costs—Texas.............................................................................................. 2-241

2-67 Population, Employment and Income Trends, 2000-2013—Texas.......................... 2-242

2-68 Average Annual Unemployment—Texas................................................................. 2-242

2-69 Household Income Distribution—Texas .................................................................. 2-243

2-70 Employment and Wages by Industry—Texas (in 2013 Dollars).............................. 2-244

2-71 Personal Income by Industry—Texas (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars).................... 2-245

2-72 Non-labor Share of Total Personal Income—Texas................................................. 2-246

2-73 Rents, Royalty, and Bonus Revenue Collected (Fiscal Year 2014) ......................... 2-247

2-74 Employment in Mining, 2012................................................................................... 2-248

2-75 Active and Inactive Oil and Gas Wells (2010-2014)................................................ 2-249

2-76 BLM Economic Contributions (Fiscal Year 2013)................................................... 2-250

2-77 Summary of Socioeconomic Study Area Agriculture (2012)................................... 2-251

2-78 Summary of Planning Area Outdoor Recreation Economic Impacts....................... 2-251
Table of Contents

viii BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

2-79 Study Area County Population in Poverty in 2013................................................... 2-260

2-80 Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Oklahoma.............. 2-260

2-81 Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas..................... 2-262

2-82 Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Kansas................... 2-269

2-83 Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Oklahoma...................... 2-275

2-84 Percent of Native American Population in Oklahoma.............................................. 2-277

2-85 Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Kansas........................... 2-279

2-86 Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Texas............................. 2-282

2-87 Study Area Population by Race/Ethnicity (2012)..................................................... 2-289

2-88 Accounting Units in the Decision Area for the BIA................................................. 2-293

2-89 Streams in the Decision Area for BIA ...................................................................... 2-295

2-90 Stream Segments on the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters in the Decision 

Area for BIA ............................................................................................................. 2-295

2-91 Aquifers in the Decision Area for BIA..................................................................... 2-296

2-92 100-Year Floodplains in the Decision Area.............................................................. 2-296

2-93 Ecoregions within the Planning and BIA Decision Areas........................................ 2-298

2-94 Coal Resources in the BIA Decision Area................................................................ 2-304

2-95 Enhanced Geothermal Potential in the BIA Decision Area...................................... 2-307

2-96 Oil and Gas Development Potential in the BIA Decision Area................................ 2-307

2-97 Farmlands in the BIA Decision Area........................................................................ 2-312

2-98 National Historic Trails on BIA-Administered Tribal and Allotted Lands or 

Subsurface Mineral Estate ........................................................................................ 2-313

2-99 Scenic Byways Crossing BIA-Administered Tribal and Allotted Lands or 

Subsurface Mineral Estate ........................................................................................ 2-315

2-100 Education Attainment ............................................................................................... 2-317

2-101 Language Spoken at Home ....................................................................................... 2-317

2-102 Housing Occupancy.................................................................................................. 2-318

2-103 Housing Costs........................................................................................................... 2-318

2-104 Components of Population Growth, 2000-2013 ....................................................... 2-319

2-105 Population and Population Projections..................................................................... 2-320

2-106 Population, Employment, and Income Trends, 2000-2013 ...................................... 2-320

2-107 Average Annual Unemployment .............................................................................. 2-320

2-108 Household Income Distribution................................................................................ 2-321

2-109 Employment and Wages by Industry, 2013.............................................................. 2-322

2-110 Personal Income by Industry 2001-2013 (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)............... 2-323

2-111 Labor and Non-labor Income (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)................................. 2-324

2-112 Rents, Royalties, and Bonus Revenue Collected (FY 2014) .................................... 2-325

2-113 Summary of Socioeconomic Study Area Agriculture (2012)................................... 2-325

2-114 Summary of Planning Area Outdoor Recreation Economic Impacts....................... 2-326

2-115 Richardson County Population in Poverty in 2013................................................... 2-328

2-116 Richardson County Population by Race/Ethnicity (2012)........................................ 2-329

3-1 Current Resource Management Plans and Amendments within the 

Planning Area................................................................................................................ 3-1
Table of Contents 

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma ix

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 

Final Analysis of the Management Situation 

FIGURES Page 

1-1 Planning Area................................................................................................................ 1-3

2-1 Level III Ecoregions ..................................................................................................... 2-4

2-2 Geology ....................................................................................................................... 2-46

2-3 Fault Features .............................................................................................................. 2-49

2-4 Probabilistic Seismic Hazards ..................................................................................... 2-50

2-5 Soil Orders .................................................................................................................. 2-56

2-6 Hydraulic Unit Code 6 (Accounting Units) ................................................................ 2-65

2-7 Stream Segments on the 303(d) List ........................................................................... 2-67

2-8 Aquifers....................................................................................................................... 2-69

2-9 Average Fracturing Fluid Volume per Well by Formation ........................................ 2-77

2-10 Cumulative Fracturing Fluid Volumes by Formation ................................................. 2-78

2-11 American Burying Beetle ......................................................................................... 2-127

2-12 Arkansas River Shiner .............................................................................................. 2-129

2-13 Black-capped Vireo .................................................................................................. 2-130

2-14 Interior Least Tern .................................................................................................... 2-132

2-15 Lesser Prairie-Chicken .............................................................................................. 2-133

2-16 Red-cockaded Woodpecker ...................................................................................... 2-135

2-17 Whooping Crane ....................................................................................................... 2-136

2-18 Wild Horse and Burro Long-term Holding Contracts .............................................. 2-152

2-19 Vegetation Current Condition (Formerly Fire Regime Current Condition) 

Classes (Version 2000) ............................................................................................. 2-168

2-20 Karst Features ........................................................................................................... 2-172

2-21 Oil and Gas Plays ...................................................................................................... 2-176

2-22 Oil and Gas Development Potential .......................................................................... 2-180

2-23 BLM Grazing Allotments ......................................................................................... 2-196

2-24 Prime Farmland ......................................................................................................... 2-198

2-25 Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers .......................................................................... 2-203

2-26 National Historic Trails ............................................................................................. 2-205

2-27 Byways ...................................................................................................................... 2-210

2-28 Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level ....................................................... 2-273

2-29 Aggregate Minority Population ................................................................................ 2-274
Table of Contents

x BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym/Abbreviation Full Phrase

ACEC area of critical environmental concern

AMS analysis of the management situation

BIA United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management

CLS coal lease stipulation

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

decision area BLM- and BIA-administered surface lands and subsurface mineral 

estate in the planning area

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Federal Endangered Species Act

federal mineral estate subsurface mineral estate administered by the BLM

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture, National Forest Service

FRCC fire regime condition class

Indian mineral estate subsurface mineral estate administered by the BLM and BIA

LAA lease applications areas 

LSAAP Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texas 

MCF thousand cubic feet

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

National Park Service United States Department of Interior, National Park Service

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NSO no surface occupancy

ODWC Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation

OFO Oklahoma Field Office

OHV off-highway vehicle

planning area Lands in Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and Nebraska, regardless of 

ownership

PSD manager Manager, Program Support Division, Mid-Continent Coordinating 

Center 

RFD reasonable foreseeable development scenario

RMP resource management plan

RMP resource management plan amendment

ROW right-of-way

SMA surface management agency

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS US Geological Survey 
Table of Contents

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma xi

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym/Abbreviation Full Phrase

VCC vegetation condition class

VRI visual resource inventory

VRM visual resource management
Table of Contents

xii BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

This page intentionally left blank.
June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 1-1

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 

Final Analysis of the Management Situation 

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION

The US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Oklahoma 

Field Office (OFO), in collaboration with the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA), is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS). This 

document will also result in a BLM resource management plan (RMP) and a BIA 

Integrated RMP. The BLM RMP will guide the management of BLM-administered lands 

and federal mineral estate in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. These lands are currently 

managed under the 1994 Oklahoma RMP (BLM 1994a), the 1991 Kansas RMP (BLM 

1991), and the 1996 Texas RMP (BLM 1996a), as amended (BLM 1994b, 1996b, 2000, 

2004, 2014a). 

The BIA Integrated RMP includes management direction for allotted and tribal surface 

mineral interests. These lands are administered by the BIA Eastern Oklahoma and 

Southern Plains Regional Offices in Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and Nebraska. 

The BLM and BIA are the co-lead agencies preparing the joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP. Based on findings of the EIS, the BLM will sign a record of decision on 

the approved RMP for the lands it administers and for federal mineral estate. The BIA 

will sign two separate records of decision for management decisions for Indian mineral 

interests and lands administered by each of the regional offices. 

This EIS is prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA); Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Parts 1500-1508); US Department of the Interior 

NEPA regulations (43 CFR, Part 46); and the requirements of the BLM’s NEPA 

Handbook, H-1790-1 (BLM 2008) and the BIA’s NEPA Guidebook, 59 Indian Affairs 

Manual 3-H.59 (BIA 2012). 

The BLM RMP is being prepared using BLM planning regulations and guidance issued 

under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) 

(43 US Code [USC], Section 1701 et seq.), as amended, and the BLM’s Land Use 

Planning Handbook, H-1601-1 (BLM 2005). 
1. Introduction

1-2 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION

When revising an RMP, the BLM must analyze inventory data and other information to 

identify issues and opportunities. This is called the analysis of the management situation 

(AMS), which provides an understanding of resources and uses in the planning area. It is 

a snapshot in time, which the BLM continues to refine through additional compilation 

and analysis of data and information. The BLM will consider these preliminary and 

subsequent assessments of conditions, current management, and management 

opportunities in the joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP. 

The AMS provides the foundation for the RMP/EIS and summarizes the issues relevant 

to resource management; however, it is not meant to be an exhaustive review of 

everything known about the resources, uses, and activities in the planning area. Sufficient 

detail is provided to create a platform for resolving planning issues by developing 

alternatives. The AMS also provides a summary of current management practices, 

including direction from existing plans and agency policy, and a discussion of local 

resources and social and economic conditions.

Consistent with multiple-use principles, the AMS provides the basis for formulating a 

range of reasonable alternatives (43 CFR, Part 1610.4-4). The AMS will be integrated 

into the subsequent joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP as part of the 

alternatives and affected environment analysis. Alternatives presented in the joint 

EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP will draw on the management opportunities and 

will examine the adequacy of current management.

Geographic Information System Data and Graphics

Geographic information systems (GIS) have been used in developing all maps, figures, 

and data and are based on preliminary analyses of datasets as of June 9, 2015. Most 

calculations in this document are rounded to the nearest one hundred acres. Calculations 

depend on the quality and availability of data. Given the scale of the analysis, the 

compatibility constraints between datasets, and the lack of data for some resources, all 

calculations are approximate; they are for comparison and analysis only and are not 

intended for use beyond this document. Likewise, the figures are provided for illustrative 

purposes and are subject to the same limitations. New data may be added and existing 

data may be refined before the draft joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP is 

published. Specific analyses, uses, and displays of data may vary from those that appear 

in the draft joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP as appropriate to the needs of 

that document.

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA, GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE, AND 

RESOURCES/PROGRAMS

The planning area is Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas, regardless of landownership, and 

lands administered by the BIA Southern Plains Region in Richardson County, Nebraska

(Figure 1-1, Planning Area). The 269,650,000-acre planning area is composed of federal, 

tribal trust or restricted (BIA), allotted, state, county, and private lands. Federal lands are 

administered by the BLM; US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (Forest 

1. Introduction

1-4 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Service); USDA, Agricultural Research Service; US Department of Justice, Federal

Bureau of Prisons; US Department of Defense; US Department of Energy; US Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE); International Boundary and Water Commission; and US 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS). The planning area encompasses 437 counties (105 in Kansas, 

1 in Nebraska, 77 in Oklahoma, and 254 in Texas). 

The decision area for the joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP is where there 

are federal, tribal, or allottee interests. The decision area covers only the BLM- and BIAadministered surface lands and subsurface mineral estate in the planning area, with the 

exception of oil and gas mineral estate in Osage County. Individual trust lands are held in 

trust by the US government for the benefit of individual Indian allottees or their heirs.

The BLM decision area is composed of approximately 46,900 acres of BLMadministered surface lands and 4,754,700 acres of federal mineral estate. BLMadministered federal mineral estate is composed of split-estate land (private surface over 

federal minerals, which totals 576,000 acres) and lands managed by other federal

agencies not covered under a land use plan (such as Forest Service) or congressionally 

withdrawn (National Park Service and some Fish and Wildlife Service refuges). The 

BLM decision area is limited to such lands and federal mineral estate in Oklahoma, 

Kansas, and Texas (BLM GIS 2015). Table 1-1 identifies the acreage of the various 

landownerships in the planning area.

Table 1-1

Land Status in the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP Planning Area

Land Status

Surface

Administration

(Acres)

1

Surface 

Percentage 

of Planning 

Area

BLMAdministered

Mineral 

Estate1

(Acres)

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate 

Percentage of 

Planning Area

BLM 46,900 0.0 46,900 0.0

BIA 853,000 0.3 N/A N/A

Bureau of Prisons 700 0.0 700 0.0

Bureau of Reclamation 211,500 0.1 210,300 0.1

Department of Defense 837,800 0.3 805,000 0.3

Department of Energy 15,100 0.0 15,100 0.0

International Boundary 

Water Commission

39,900 0.0 110,900 0.0

National Park Service 1,271,100 0.5 N/A N/A

Forest Service 1,265,900 0.5 N/A N/A

Agricultural Research 

Service

2,800 0.0 2,800 0.0

USFWS 783,500 0.3 554,400 0.2

USACE 2,319,100 0.9 2,243,800 0.8

State 1,467,800 0.5 14,500 0.0
1. Introduction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 1-5

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 1-1

Land Status in the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP Planning Area

Land Status

Surface

Administration

(Acres)

1

Surface 

Percentage 

of Planning 

Area

BLMAdministered

Mineral 

Estate1

(Acres)

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate 

Percentage of 

Planning Area

Private, other, or unknown2260,534,900 96.6 642,600 0.2

Total 269,650,000 100 4,754,700 1.7

1Rounded to the nearest 100 acres

2BLM-adminstered mineral estate acres include split estate minerals (private surface, federal minerals), public 

domain lands, and segregated coal.

Sources: BLM GIS 2015; BIA GIS 2015

Any minerals known to be held in full or in part by the USFWS are included in the BLMadministered federal mineral decision space (see Table 1-2, USFWS Lands with Federal 

Minerals). If any minerals are identified as being on land administered by the USFWS in 

the future, they will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and are not analyzed in this 

plan. 

Table 1-2

USFWS Lands with Federal Minerals

USFWS Unit Name Unit Type

Approximate Acres of 

BLM-Administered 

Federal Mineral Estate1

Kansas—USFWS Region 6

Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge 18,600

Great Plains Nature Center 10

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 10,800

Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge 7,700

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge 22,200

Oklahoma—USFWS Region 2

Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge 9,900

Optima National Wildlife Refuge 4,300 

Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge 4,000 

Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge 20,900

Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge 16,500 

Washita National Wildlife Refuge 8,100

Wichita National Wildlife Refuge 59,000

Texas—USFWS Region 2

Aransas National Wildlife Refuge 116,500

Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge 7,600

Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge 11,300

Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge 91,300
1. Introduction

1-6 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 1-2

USFWS Lands with Federal Minerals

USFWS Unit Name Unit Type

Approximate Acres of 

BLM-Administered 

Federal Mineral Estate1

Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 92,400

San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge 51,800 

Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge 2,100

Total 555,100

1Rounded to the nearest 100 acres, all lands may not include federal minerals

Source: BLM GIS 2015

The BIA decision areas include 394,200 surface acres and 2,012,200 mineral estate acres 

for BIA Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office. Approximately 1,474,500 acres of BIA 

Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office are limited to coal or other minerals in Osage County.

The BIA decision area also includes 457,500 surface acres and 632,000 mineral estate 

acres for the BIA Southern Plains Regional Office (BIA GIS 2015). The BIA decision 

area includes such lands and mineral estate in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas and 

Richardson County, Nebraska.

The calculations and acreages presented in this document are based on the decision area 

being comprised of the following four parts: 

 BLM surface, which includes

– all lands in Oklahoma that are potentially under BLM administration

– the Crossbar Ranch in Texas 

– BLM helium pipeline facility in Satanta, Kansas

– a study area buffer boundary around the disputed area along the Red 

River in Texas and Oklahoma 

 BLM-administered federal minerals, which include federal minerals described 

in Table 1-1

 BIA surface, which includes lands identified by the BIA Southern Plains and 

Eastern Oklahoma Regions as those potentially held in trust 

 BIA-administered federal minerals, which include lands identified by the 

BLM as BIA mineral estate; these lands are identified only when a specific 

application is made and additional areas of BIA minerals may exist. 

Additionally, anywhere BIA surface has been identified, BIA mineral estate is 

assumed to exist. All of Osage County is included in the BIA-administered 

federal mineral estate, but only coal and other solid minerals would be 

covered under this plan.
1. Introduction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 1-7

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

1.2.1 BLM Resources and Programs

The following resources and resource uses are discussed in the AMS for the BLM 

decision area:

 Resources

– Air

– Climate

– Geology

– Soil 

– Water 

– Vegetation

– Fish and wildlife

– Special status species, including threatened and endangered 

– Wild horses and burros

– Cultural resources

– Paleontological resources

– Visual resources

– Wilderness characteristics

– Wildland fire management

– Caves and karst resources

 Resource Uses

– Energy and minerals

– Renewable energy

– Recreation and visitor services

– Comprehensive travel and transportation management

– Lands and realty

– Livestock grazing

– Prime and unique farmlands and agriculture

Special designations, tribal uses, and social and economic features are also discussed.

1.2.2 BIA Resources

The following resources are discussed in the AMS for the BIA decision area:

 Air

 Climate
1. Introduction

1-8 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Geology

 Soil 

 Water 

 Vegetation

 Fish and wildlife

 Special status species

 Cultural resources

 Paleontological resources

 Visual resources

 Wildland fire management

 Caves and karst resources

 Energy and minerals

 Renewable energy

 Recreation and visitor services

 Lands and realty

 Livestock grazing

 Prime and unique farmlands and agriculture

 National trails

 National and state byways

Tribal uses and social and economic features are also discussed.

1.3 KEY FINDINGS

There have been many changes in resource conditions, laws, and policies since the BLM 

completed land use plans and amendments. A revision is needed to provide a 

comprehensive framework for the BLM’s management and allocation of public lands and 

resources under the jurisdiction of the OFO. Other reasons for the revision are to 

consolidate existing land use plan and amendments, to reevaluate resource availability, 

and to resolve resource conflicts or issues.

The BIA fulfills its Indian trust responsibilities on tribal and allotted lands under current 

policy and guidance; however, the BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regional 

Offices do not have an overarching planning document that outlines the steps to meet this 

mission. A comprehensive framework for fulfilling these trust responsibilities is needed. 

A preliminary list of key issues to be addressed has been compiled, based on internal 

scoping primarily derived from the BLM’s staff and managers’ knowledge of local 
1. Introduction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 1-9

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

conditions. These planning issues and management concerns were expanded and refined 

through external scoping. 

The following description provides the preliminary planning issues and management 

concerns that were developed primarily through internal scoping. Broadly defined 

planning issue statements identified in internal and external scoping are listed in Table 

1-3. More detailed information on each planning issue is included in the Final Joint 

EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP Scoping Summary Report (BLM 2014b).

Table 1-3

Planning Issue Categories and Statements

Issue Planning Issue 

Category Planning Issue Statement

1. Energy development

How can the BLM and BIA allow development of federal, 

tribal, and allotted energy resources and honor valid existing 

lease rights, while protecting air, visual resources, wildlife, 

water, and the natural environment?

2. Minerals and mining

How can the BLM and BIA allow development of federal,

tribal, and allotted other mineral resources and honor valid 

existing lease rights, while protecting air, water, and the 

natural environment?

3. Cultural and historic 

resources

How can the BLM and BIA manage cultural and historic 

resources for the benefit of Native American tribes and 

individual Indians, while protecting those resources?

4. Fences and trespassing

How should the BLM manage the land it administers in the 

Red River area to reduce conflicts with adjacent property 

owners?

5.

Recreation and other 

uses along the Red 

River

What uses should be allowed along the Red River and what 

restrictions, if any, should apply to those uses in order to 

protect other users and resources?

6. Access and 

transportation

What access points and trails should be open in the Red River 

area?

7. Public health and 

safety

How can the BLM minimize public health and safety risks in 

the Red River area?

8. Lands and realty What criteria should the BLM use for disposing of or 

acquiring BLM-administered lands?

9. Fish and wildlife

How should the BLM allow use of the lands it administers for 

recreation and other resource uses, while protecting fish and 

wildlife?

10. Socioeconomics

How can the BLM realize the socioeconomic benefits of the 

resources in the area, while minimizing conflicts with other 

uses and protecting sensitive resources in the planning area?

11. Tribal Interests How can the BIA minimize trespassing on tribal and allotted 

lands, especially during the hunting season?
1. Introduction

1-10 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 1-3

Planning Issue Categories and Statements

Issue Planning Issue 

Category Planning Issue Statement

12. Issues not addressed in 

previous RMPs

How will the BLM address resources not addressed in the 

current RMPs? 

13. Climate change and 

future water needs

How are the BLM and BIA going to plan for future water 

needs and for climate change and its effects, including water 

shortage?

Source: BLM 2014b

1.4 REFERENCES

BIA (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs). 2012. 59 Indian Affairs 

Manual 3-H—Indian Affairs NEPA Guidebook. BIA, Division of Environmental 

and Cultural Resources Management, Reston, Virginia. August 2012. 

BIA GIS (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Geographic 

Information System). 2015. GIS data of BIA-administered tribal and allotted 

lands and Version 04_02 of the decision area. Bureau of Indian Affairs Southern 

Plains and Eastern Oklahoma Regions.

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1991. Kansas 

Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. BLM, Tulsa District, 

Oklahoma Resource Area. September 1991. 

_____. 1994a. Oklahoma Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. BLM, 

Tulsa District, Oklahoma Resource Area. January 1994. 

_____. 1994b. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact and 

Decision Record: Six Coal Lease Applications and One Coal Lease Modification 

in Southeastern Oklahoma. BLM, Tulsa District, Oklahoma Resource Area. 

August 1994.

_____. 1996a. Texas Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. BLM, Tulsa 

District, Oklahoma Resource Area. May 1996. 

_____. 1996b. Oklahoma Resource Management Plan Amendment and Record of 

Decision. Bureau of Land Management, Tulsa District. September 1996. 

_____. 2000. Proposed Texas Resource Management Plan Amendment and 

Environmental Assessment. Bureau of Land Management, Amarillo Field Office. 

January 2000.
1. Introduction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 1-11

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

_____. 2004. Resource Management Plan Amendment and Decision Record for Three 

Competitive Coal Lease Sales in Haskell, Latimer, and LeFlore Counties, 

Oklahoma. Bureau of Land Management, Oklahoma Field Office. September 

2004.

_____. 2005. Handbook H-1601-1—Land Use Planning Handbook. Washington, DC. 

March 2005.

_____. 2008 Handbook H-1790-1—National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, 

DC. January 2008.

_____. 2014a. Resource Management Plan Amendment and Decision Record for Federal 

Coal Leases in Haskell and LeFlore Counties, Oklahoma. Bureau of Land 

Management, Oklahoma Field Office. February 2014.

_____. 2014b. Final Joint EIS and BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP Scoping 

Summary Report. Oklahoma Field Office. June 2014. Internet website: 

http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/fo/Oklahoma_Field_Office/ofo_planning/okt_rmp.

html. Accessed on March 1, 2015.

BLM GIS (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Geographic 

Information System). 2015. Base GIS data on file with the BLM’s eGIS server 

used for calculations or figures; includes data prepared for the reasonably

foreseeable development scenario and Version 04_02 of the decision area. BLM, 

Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa.
1. Introduction

1-12 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

This page intentionally left blank.
June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-1

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

CHAPTER 2

AREA PROFILE

2.1 REGIONAL CONTEXT

The planning area is primarily within three physiographic provinces: western Kansas, the 

Oklahoma panhandle, and west Texas are in the Great Plains province; north-central 

Texas, central Oklahoma, and eastern Kansas and Nebraska are in the Central Lowland 

province; and east/southeast Texas and far southeast Oklahoma are in the Coastal Plain 

province. A very small portion of eastern Oklahoma is also in the Ouachita and Ozark 

Plateaus provinces.

Kansas is the fifteenth-largest state, with a total area of 82,277 square miles. It is 

bordered to the east by Missouri, to the south by Oklahoma, to the west by Colorado, and 

to the north by Nebraska. Major rivers include the Missouri River along the northeast 

border with Missouri, and the Arkansas, Kansas, Saline, Smoky Hill, and Republican 

rivers. 

Oklahoma is the twentieth-largest state, with a total area of 69,898 square miles. It is 

bordered to the east by Arkansas and Missouri, to the south by Texas, to the west by 

Texas and New Mexico, and to the north by Kansas and Colorado. Three significant 

rivers drain into the Mississippi River before entering the Gulf of Mexico: the Arkansas, 

Canadian, and Red rivers. 

Nebraska is the sixteenth-largest state, with a total area of 77,354 square miles. It is 

bordered to the east by Iowa and Missouri, to the south by Kansas and Colorado, to the 

west by Colorado and Wyoming, and to the north by South Dakota. The two major rivers 

of Nebraska are the Missouri River, forming the eastern borders with Iowa, Missouri, and 

South Dakota; and the Platte River system, a tributary of the Missouri River.

Texas is the second-largest state, with a total area of 268,581 square miles. It is bordered 

to the east by Arkansas, Louisiana, and the Gulf of Mexico; to the south by Mexico; to 

the west by New Mexico; and to the north by Oklahoma. The Rio Grande forms the USMexico border. Other major rivers, which drain into the Gulf of Mexico, are the Pecos, 
2. Area Profile

2-2 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Colorado, Brazos, and Sabine rivers. The Red River forms part of the Texas-Oklahoma 

border.

2.1.1 Ecoregions

Ecoregions defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are derived from 

the seminal work Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States, by J. M. Omernik 

(1987). These ecoregions form a framework for researching, assessing, managing, and 

monitoring environmental resources. Ecoregions denote areas whose ecosystems are 

generally similar. In ecoregions, the type, quality, and quantity of environmental 

resources are also similar.

The planning area is within portions of 19 EPA Level III ecoregions (Woods et al. 2005; 

Chapman et al. 2001; Griffith et al. 2004; EPA 2013). Acres of each ecoregion within the 

planning and decision areas are summarized in Table 2-1, Ecoregions in the Planning and 

Decision Areas, and are shown in Figure 2-1, Level III Ecoregions.

The Draft Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment (Assal et al. 2015) area 

encompasses nearly 180 million acres in the south-central US. It is in portions of five 

states: the northern Texas panhandle, western Oklahoma, eastern New Mexico, eastern 

Colorado, and western Kansas. The area includes three ecoregions, as defined by 

Omernik (1987), which coincide with the EPA level III ecoregions: the Central Great 

Plains, the High Plains or Western High Plains, and the Southwestern Tablelands. 

The Draft Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment (Assal et al. 2015) 

identifies 19 conservation elements, which are ecological resources of concern (Assal et

al. 2015), including 6 ecological community conservation elements. These are mixedgrass prairie, short-grass prairie, riparian areas and wetlands, playas and saline lakes, 

lakes and reservoirs, and prairie streams and rivers. These conservation elements are 

described in detail in the Draft Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment 

(Assal et al. 2015).

2.1.2 References

Assal, T. J., C. P. Melcher, and N. B. Carr (editors). 2015. Southern Great Plains Rapid 

Ecoregional Assessment—Pre-assessment report: US Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2015–XXXX. Unpublished draft. 

Chapman, S. S., J. M. Omernik, J. A. Freeouf, D. G. Huggins, J. R. McCauley, C. C. 

Freeman, and G. Steinauer et al. 2001. Ecoregions of Nebraska and Kansas (color 

poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). US

Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia (map scale 1:1,950,000).

EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Primary Distinguishing 

Characteristics of Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States. 

September 2013. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/

level_iii_iv.htm.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-3

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-1

Ecoregions in the Planning and Decision Areas

Ecoregion (Ecoregion 

Number) Planning Area BLM-Administered Surface Lands

BLM-Administered 

Federal Mineral 

Estate

Arizona/New Mexico 

Mountains (23) 52,400 0 0

Chihuahuan Deserts 

(24) 22,632,200 0 179,000

High Plains (25) 33,675,300 30 91,900

Southwestern 

Tablelands (26) 19,458,200 11,900 99,000

Central Great Plains 

(27) 53,137,200 34,700 672,900

Flint Hills (28) 6,902,200 0 232,300

Cross Timbers (29) 21,791,800 240 827,700

Edwards Plateau (30) 18,524,000 0 51,500

Southern Texas Plains 

(31) 13,201,000 0 97,300

Texas Blackland 

Prairies (32) 10,719,900 0 184,300

East Central Texas 

Plains (33) 13,776,800 0 131,900

Western Gulf Coastal 

Plain (34) 14,769,400 0 347,100

South Central Plains 

(35) 17,423,100 0 566,000

Ouachita Mountains 

(36) 2,589,300 0 95,000

Arkansas Valley (37) 3,077,300 70 635,000

Boston Mountains (38) 530,500 0 95,200

Ozark Highlands (39) 1,548,200 0 27,900

Central Irregular Plains 

(40) 10,722,600 0 349,100

Western Corn Belt 

Plains (47) 2,635,000 22,000 11,900

Source: EPA GIS 2013

2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-5

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

EPA GIS (US Environmental Protection Agency, Geographic Information System). 2013. 

GIS data of ecoregions. Internet website: www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/

level_iii_iv.htm.

Griffith, G. E., S. A. Bryce, J. M. Omernik, J. A. Comstock, A. C. Rogers, B. Harrison, S. 

L. Hatch, and D. Bezanson. 2004. Ecoregions of Texas, US Environmental 

Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.

Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement). 

Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77(1):118-125.

Woods, A. J., J. M. Omernik, D. R. Butler, J. G. Ford, J. E. Henley, B. W. Hoagland, D. 

S. Arndt, and B. C. Moran. 2005. Ecoregions of Oklahoma (color poster with 

map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, US

Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,250,000). 

2.2 BLM RESOURCES

2.2.1 Air

Air quality may be affected by BLM applications, activities, and resource management. 

Therefore, the BLM must consider and analyze the potential effects of BLM and BLMauthorized activities on air resources as part of the planning and decision-making process.

Indicators

The federal Clean Air Act (42 USC, Sections 7401-7642) established the principal 

framework for national, state, and local efforts to protect air quality. The EPA sets 

regulations and standards to implement the requirements of the Clean Air Act. While the 

EPA retains authority for certain air quality rules, including most pertaining to emission 

standards for mobile sources, it may authorize states and, in some cases, tribal 

governments to implement portions of the Clean Air Act. The EPA has approved 

Oklahoma’s, Kansas’s, and Texas’s state implementation plans, which means those states 

may implement certain provisions of the Clean Air Act. While Oklahoma, Texas, and 

Kansas all contain both BLM- and BIA-administered land, only BIA-administered land is 

being analyzed in Nebraska. As such, air quality impacts in the BIA decision area in 

Nebraska are discussed exclusively in Section 2.6.1, Air .

Ambient Air Quality Standards

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has set time-averaged National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS, Table 2-2, National Ambient Air Quality Standards) for six air 

pollutants considered to be key indicators of air quality: carbon monoxide, nitrogen 

dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, lead, and two categories of particulate matter (particulate 

matter less than 10 microns in diameter [PM10] and particulate matter less than 2.5 

microns in diameter [PM2.5]). 
2. Area Profile

2-6 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-2

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging 

Time

National Standards

Primary Secondary Form

Ozone 8-hour 0.075 

ppm1

Same as 

primary

Annual 4th-highest daily maximum 8-hr 

concentration, averaged over three years

Carbon 

monoxide

8-hour 9 ppm -- Not to be exceeded more than once a year

1-hour 35 ppm --

Nitrogen 

dioxide

Annual 

(arithmetic 

mean)

0.053 ppm Same as 

primary

Annual mean

1-hour 100 ppb -- 98th percentile, averaged over three years

Sulfur 

dioxide

3-hour -- 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once a year

1-hour 75 ppb2-- 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over three years

PM10

24-hour 150 μg/m3Same as 

primary

Not to be exceeded more than once a year, 

on average, over three years

PM2.5

Annual 

(arithmetic 

mean)

12 μg/m315 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over three years

24-hour 35 μg/m3Same as 

primary

98th percentile, averaged over three years

Lead3

Rolling 

three-month 

average

0.15 

μg/m3

Same as 

primary

Not to be exceeded

Source: EPA 2014a

1

ppm—parts per million. Final rule signed March 12, 2008. The 1997 standard (0.08 ppm, annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over three years) and related implementation rules remain in place. 

In 1997, the EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once a year) in all 

areas, although some areas have obligations under that standard (anti-backsliding). The 1-hour ozone standard is 

attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 

12 ppm is less than or equal to 1.

2

ppb—parts per billion. Final rule signed June 2, 2010. The 1971 annual and 24-hour sulfur dioxide standards (0.03 

ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24-hour) were revoked in that same rulemaking. However, these standards remain in 

effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard. One exception is in areas designated as 

nonattainment for the 1971 standards; in such cases the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans 

to attain or maintain the 2010 standard are approved.

3

μg/m3—micrograms per cubic meter. Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3) 

remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard. The one exception is in areas 

designated as nonattainment for the 1978 standard; in such cases the 1978 standard remains in effect until 

implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

The two-tiered standards may be primary or secondary. Primary standards set limits to 

protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations, such as asthmatics,

children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, 

including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, 

vegetation, and buildings. Averaging periods vary by pollutant, based on potential health 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-7

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

and welfare effects of each pollutant. States may set their own ambient air quality 

standards, but they must be at least as stringent as the national standards. 

National ambient air quality standards are shown in Table 2-2. States can set their own 

standards, but they must be at least as stringent as the national standards. Oklahoma, 

Texas, and Kansas have adopted the national standards as the state standards for all 

criteria pollutants. For actions on lands within the boundaries of Indian reservations, 

national standards apply when they differ from the state standards.

In addition to criteria pollutants, the Clean Air Act regulates toxic air pollutants, or 

hazardous air pollutants, that are known to cause or are suspected to cause cancer or other 

serious health effects or adverse environmental impacts. The EPA has issued rules 

covering 80 categories of major industrial sources, as well as categories of smaller 

sources. Controls are usually required at the source to limit the release of these toxics into 

the atmosphere.

Clean Air Act General Conformity

Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act requires that federal actions conform to the 

appropriate state implementation plan. The EPA has promulgated rules establishing 

conformity analysis procedures for transportation-related actions and for other general 

federal agency actions (40 CFR, Parts 6, 51, and 93). 

The EPA general conformity rule requires preparation of a formal conformity 

determination document for federal agency actions that are undertaken, approved, or 

funded in federal nonattainment or maintenance areas. This rule applies when the total 

net change in direct and indirect emissions of nonattainment pollutants (or their 

precursors) exceeds specified thresholds. Because some counties in the planning area are 

in nonattainment for the NAAQS, the general conformity rule would apply (see Current 

Condition, below).

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

In addition to the NAAQS, the prevention of significant deterioration regulations set forth 

a permit process that applies to new major sources or major modifications of existing 

sources for pollutants. It is applicable where the emission source is inside an attainment 

or unclassifiable area, as defined by the NAAQS. Furthermore, the prevention of 

significant deterioration program requires the use of best available control technologies 

and provides for an air quality impact analysis and public involvement. The purpose of 

the prevention of significant deterioration program is to protect public health and welfare. 

It also preserves, protects, and enhances the air quality of national parks and wilderness 

areas, national monuments, seashores, and other areas of recreation, scenic, or historic 

value.

Prevention of significant deterioration regulations prevent areas that are in attainment of 

the NAAQS from being polluted up to the level of the standards. The Clean Air Act 

directs the EPA to classify air sheds as Class I, Class II, or Class III. Class I air sheds are 

national parks and wilderness areas of a certain size that were in existence before 1977 or 
2. Area Profile

2-8 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

additional areas that have since been designated by federal regulation. Class I air sheds

represent areas that should be given special protection. Class II air sheds are areas that 

would receive less protection than Class I areas. Class III air sheds require the least 

stringent air quality protection, and air quality in these areas would be permitted to 

degrade air quality up to the NAAQS (National Park Service 2006).

There are five Class 1 air sheds within the planning area: none in Kansas, two in 

Oklahoma, and three in Texas. The North Mountain Unit and the Charons Garden Unit of 

the Wichita Mountains Wilderness are in southern Oklahoma; Big Bend National Park, 

Carlsbad Caverns National Park, and Guadalupe Mountains National Park are all in 

western Texas (National Park Service 2011). There are no tribal Class 1 air sheds in the 

planning area (National Park Service 2011). Class II air sheds are the remaining areas 

outside nonattainment and maintenance areas. No areas have been designated as Class III.

Prevention of significant deterioration regulations limits the total increase in ambient 

pollution levels above established baseline levels for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and 

PM10.

Current Condition

The planning area encompasses Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and Nebraska. The area of 

analysis for directly emitted pollutants (pollutants other than ozone) is generally limited 

to a few miles downwind of a source. The area of analysis for ozone is larger; this is 

because it is formed by photochemical reactions of other pollutants in the atmosphere, 

primarily volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. Ozone may form later and at a 

greater distance from the sources of precursor emissions. 

The Clean Air Act requires each state to identify areas that have ambient air quality in 

violation of federal standards using monitoring data collected through state monitoring 

networks, as follows:

 Areas that violate air quality standards are designated as nonattainment for the 

relevant criteria air pollutants.

 Areas that comply with air quality standards are designated as attainment for 

the relevant criteria air pollutants.

 Areas that have been redesignated from nonattainment to attainment are 

considered maintenance areas.

 Areas of uncertain status are generally designated as unclassifiable but are 

treated as attainment areas for regulatory purposes.

Most of the counties in the planning area are either in attainment with or unclassified for 

the national standards. All counties in Oklahoma are either in attainment or unclassified. 

Several counties and portions of counties in Texas and one portion of a county in Kansas 

are not in attainment (see Table 2-3, Nonattainment Areas in the Planning Area). The 

county in Nebraska is in attainment for the national standards and is discussed in Section 

2.6.1, Air.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-9

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-3

Nonattainment Areas in the Planning Area

County

Part of County 

Designated 

Nonattainment

Pollutant Status

Kansas

Saline County Saline County* Lead (2008) Nonattainment

Texas

Brazoria County

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 8-Hr Ozone (1997) Severe 15

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Marginal

Chambers County 

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 8-Hr Ozone (1997) Severe 15

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Marginal

Collin County

Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (1997) Serious 

Frisco* Lead (2008) Nonattainment

Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Moderate

Dallas County Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (1997) Serious

Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Moderate

Denton County Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (1997) Serious

Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Moderate

El Paso County El Paso County* PM-10 (1987) Moderate

Ellis County Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (1997) Serious

Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Moderate

Fort Bend County

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 8-Hr Ozone (1997) Severe 15

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Marginal

Galveston County

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 8-Hr Ozone (1997) Severe 15

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Marginal

Harris County 

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 8-Hr Ozone (1997) Severe 15

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Marginal

Johnson County Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (1997) Serious

Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Moderate

Kaufman County Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (1997) Serious

Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Moderate
2. Area Profile

2-10 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-3

Nonattainment Areas in the Planning Area

County

Part of County 

Designated 

Nonattainment

Pollutant Status

Liberty County

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 8-Hr Ozone (1997) Severe 15

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Marginal

Montgomery 

County

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 8-Hr Ozone (1997) Severe 15

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Marginal

Parker County Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (1997) Serious 

Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Moderate

Rockwall County Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (1997) Serious

Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Moderate

Tarrant County Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (1997) Serious

Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Moderate

Waller County

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 8-Hr Ozone (1997) Severe 15

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Marginal

Wise County Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr Ozone (2008) Moderate

Source: EPA 2014b

*Only a portion of the county is designated nonattainment.

Table 2-4, Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1, divided by 

state, shows the locations of the network of air monitoring stations in the planning area, 

the pollutants monitored at each station, and the last three available years of monitoring 

data for each station. Some monitoring stations have multiple monitors on-site. When 

data for various pollutants at a station have come from different monitors, this is noted 

under the pollutant name in the table. Rows in bold indicate the pollutant exceeded the 

NAAQS or that monitors have recorded the pollutant at 100 percent of the NAAQS. 

Air quality monitors in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas all reported exceedances of the 

NAAQS for ozone and lead. High temperatures and drought may have contributed to 

ozone exceedances. One PM2.5 monitor in Harris County, Texas, reported exceedances of 

PM2.5 in 2011 and 2012. This resulted in an exceedance of the NAAQS when a three-year 

average was calculated for 2011-2013. Air quality monitoring values for Richardson 

County in Nebraska are discussed in Section 2.6.1, Air.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-11

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

Kansas

Health Department, 1900 East 9th, Wichita (Sedgwick County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 3.6 2.2 2.1 2.63 

ppm

35 ppm 8

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

3.4 1.5 1.4 2.1 ppm 9 ppm 23

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 3

1 Hour 69 85 40 65 ppb 100 ppb 65

Ozone

Monitor 1

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.076 0.08 0.071 0.076 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

101

PM2.5

Monitor 1

24 Hour 25 18 18 20.3 

μg/m

35 μg/m 58

Annual 

Mean

9.2 8.4 8.5 8.7 μg/m 12 μg/m 73

PM2.5

Monitor 2

24 Hour 25 16 17 19.3 

μg/m

35 μg/m 55

Annual 

Mean

8.7 8.3 8 8.3 μg/m 12 μg/m 69

12831 W. 117 North (not in a city; in Sedgwick County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.08 0.08 0.071 0.077 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

103

304 E. Avenue B (not in a city; in Saline County)

Lead

Monitor 1

24 Hour 0.937 0.58 0.588 0.70 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

467

Lead

Monitor 2

24 Hour - - 0.524 - 0.15 

μg/m

-

County Road 1103 (not in a city; in Linn County) 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 10 13 10 33 ppb 100 ppb 33

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.073 0.078 0.062 0.071 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

95

PM2.5 24 Hour 22 17 18 19 μg/m 35 μg/m 54

Annual 

Mean

9.8 8.3 8.3 8.8 μg/m 12 μg/m 73
2. Area Profile

2-12 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

SO2 1 Hour 8 7 6 7 ppb 75 ppb 9

Cedar Bluff Reservoir, Pronghorn and Muley (not in a city; in Trego County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.077 0.074 0.067 0.073 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

97

SO2 1 Hour 3 4 3 3.3 ppb 75 ppb 4

2501 Randolph Avenue, Topeka (Shawnee County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.075 0.079 0.066 0.073 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

97

PM2.5 24 Hour 20 18 20 19.3 

μg/m

35 μg/m 55

Annual 

Mean

9.6 8.6 8.4 8.9 μg/m 12 μg/m 74

PM10 24 Hour 35 - - - 150 

μg/m

-

Konza Prairie Biological Station (not in a city; in Riley County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.07 0.078 0.058 0.069 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

92

2010 Metropolitan, Leavenworth (Leavenworth County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.074 0.08 0.066 0.073 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

97

13899 W. 159th (not in a city; in Johnson County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.073 0.084 0.064 0.074 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

99

PM2.5 24 Hour 18 15 17 16.7 

μg/m

35 μg/m 48

Annual 

Mean

8.3 7.1 7.2 7.5 μg/m 12 μg/m 63

City Fire Station, 1010 Center, Goodland (Sherman County)

PM10 24 Hour 51 106 75 77 μg/m 150 

μg/m

51

K-96 and Hydraulic, Wichita (Sedgwick County)

PM2.5

Monitor 1

24 Hour - - 19 - 35 μg/m -
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-13

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

Annual 

Mean

- - 8.8 - 12 μg/m

PM10

Monitor 3

24 Hour 56 43 22 40 μg/m 150 

μg/m

27

85th and Antioch, Overland Park (Johnson County)

PM2.5 24 Hour 21 16 18 18 μg/m 35 μg/m 51

Annual 

Mean

9.1 7.9 8 8.3 μg/m 12 μg/m 69

Fire Station #11, Wichita (Sedgwick County)

PM2.5 24 Hour 25 18 20 21 μg/m 35 μg/m 60

Annual 

Mean

9.1 8.5 9.5 9.0 μg/m 12 μg/m 75

Fire Station #12, Wichita (Sedgwick County)

PM2.5 24 Hour 24 18 22 21 μg/m 35 μg/m 60

Annual 

Mean

9 9.3 9.5 9.3 μg/m 12 μg/m 78

One Main Place at Main and Douglas, Wichita (Sedgwick County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

1 Hour 2.8 7.1 - - 35 ppm -

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

2 5.7 - - 9 ppm -

Fire Station #2, 200 E. 53rd Street N (not in a city; in Sedgwick County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.062 - - 0.062 0.075 

ppm

83

Union and E. North/NE corner intersection, Coffeyville (Montgomery County)

SO2 1 Hour 30 - - - 75 ppb -

Oklahoma

South Highway 59, RR1, 1795 Dahlonegah Park Road, Stilwell, Cherry Tree (Adair County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

1 Hour 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 ppm 35 ppm 2

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 ppm 9 ppm 4

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.077 

0.083 .066 0.075 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

100

SO2 1 Hour 9 6 5 6.7 ppb 75 ppb 9
2. Area Profile

2-14 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 14 21 - 18 ppb 100 ppb 18

Oklahoma Christian University, 2501 E. Memorial Road, Oklahoma City (Oklahoma County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.2 ppm 35 ppm 3

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

1.1 0.7 0.9 0.9 ppm 9 ppm 10

Lead

Monitor 6

24 Hour 0.006 0.007 0.005 0.006 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

4

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 39 37 37 38 ppb 100 ppb 38

Ozone

Monitor 1

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.084 0.081 0.072 0.079 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

105

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour 45 73 62 60 μg/m 150 

μg/m

40

PM2.5

Monitor 1

24 Hour 23 19 21 21 μg/m 35 μg/m 60

Annual 

Mean

9.7 9.4 8.9 9.3 μg/m 12 μg/m 78

SO2

Monitor 1

1 Hour 5 5 3 4 ppb 75 ppb 5

3520 1⁄2 N. Peoria, Tulsa (Tulsa County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 2.5 1.8 1.6 2 ppm 35 ppm 6

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 ppm 9 ppm 14

Lead

Monitor 1

24 Hour 0.008 0.026 0.009 0.014 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

9

Lead

Monitor 6

24 Hour 0.017 0.027 0.008 0.017 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

11

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 42 42 38 41 ppb 100 ppb 41
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-15

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

Ozone

Monitor 1

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.085 0.085 0.072 0.081 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

108

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour 53 70 67 63 μg/m 150 

μg/m

42

PM2.5

Monitor 1

24 Hour 24 20 20 21 μg/m 35 μg/m 60

Annual 

Mean

11.2 9.7 9.2 10.0 

μg/m

12 μg/m 83

PM2.5

Monitor 2

24 Hour - 20 21 20.5 

μg/m

35 μg/m 59

Annual 

Mean

- 9.6 9.3 9.5 μg/m 12 μg/m 79

SO2

Monitor 1

1 Hour 25 16 20 20 75 ppb 27

12575 NW 10th (Water Tower), Yukon (Canadian County)

Lead

Monitor 6

24 Hour - - 0.004 - 0.15 

μg/m

-

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour - - 41 - 100 ppb -

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.083 0.075 0.071 0.076 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

101

8900 S. Air Depot, Oklahoma City (Oklahoma County)

Lead

Monitor 6

24 Hour 0.007 0.304 0.008 0.106 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

71

723 East Second Street, Picher (Ottawa County)

Lead

Monitor 1

24 Hour 0.05 0.168 0.021 0.080 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

53

190 S. Main Street, Cardin (Ottawa County) 

Lead

Monitor 1

24 Hour 0.141 0.144 0.123 0.136 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

91

Lead

Monitor 2

24 Hour 0.121 0.084 0.049 0.085 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

57

108 N. Main Street, Savanna (Pittsburg County)

Lead

Monitor 1

24 Hour 0.021 0.023 0.811 0.285 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

190

Lead

Monitor 2

24 Hour 0.021 0.009 0.607 0.212 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

141
2. Area Profile

2-16 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

124 North Riverside Drive West, Tulsa (Tulsa County)

Lead

Monitor 6

24 Hour - - 0.011 - 0.15 

μg/m

-

SO2

Monitor 1

1 Hour - - 48 - 75 ppb -

2443 South Jackson Avenue, Tulsa (Tulsa County)

Lead

Monitor 6

24 Hour 0.019 0.026 0.016 0.020 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

13

Lead

Monitor 7

24 Hour 0.02 0.025 0.016 0.020 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

13

SO2

Monitor 1

1 Hour 34 24 19 43 ppb 75 ppb 57

NE 10th and Stonewall, Oklahoma City (Oklahoma County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 55 60 46 54 ppb 100 ppb 54

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.082 0.079 0.073 0.078 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

104

207 Cherokee Boulevard, Roland (Sequoyah County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 38 31 28 32 ppb 100 ppb 32

Ozone

Monitor 1

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.073 0.077 0.067 0.072 0.075 

ppm

96

PM2.5

Monitor 1

24 Hour 23 22 22 22.3 

μg/m

35 μg/m 64

Annual 

Mean

11.6 10.2 9.7 10.5 

μg/m

12 μg/m 88

PM2.5

Monitor 2

24 Hour 22 23 - 22.5 

μg/m

35 μg/m 64

Annual 

Mean

11 10 - 10.5 

μg/m

12 μg/m 88

814 Waldron Road, Durant (Bryan County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

- - 0.069 - 0.075 

ppm

-
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-17

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

Western Delaware Tribal Complex, Anadarko (Caddo County)

Ozone

Monitor 1

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.084 0.078 0.065 0.076 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

101

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour 47 - - - 150 

μg/m

-

PM10

Monitor 2

24 Hour 47 - - - 150 

μg/m

-

PM2.5

Monitor 1

24 Hour 24 - - - 35 μg/m -

Annual 

Mean

11.3 - - - 12 μg/m -

PM2.5

Monitor 2

24 Hour 24 - - - 35 μg/m -

Annual 

Mean

11.3 - - - 12 μg/m -

PO Box 948 Tahlequah, Park Hill (Cherokee County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.077 0.08 0.065 0.074 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

99

S.E. 19th Street, Moore (Cleveland County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.081 0.079 0.069 0.076 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

101

Professional Development Center, 2211 NW 25 Lawton, Lawton (Comanche County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.079 0.08 0.072 0.077 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

103

Mannford Water Plant, Mannford (Creek County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.083 0.083 0.068 0.078 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

104

Seiling Municipal Airport, Seiling (Dewey County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.078 0.076 0.069 0.074 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

99

Lake Waurika Corp. of Eng. Office, Waurika (Jefferson County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.084 - 0.074 - 0.075 

ppm

-
2. Area Profile

2-18 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

North of Newkirk on Highway 77, East Home Road (not in a city; in Kay County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.081 0.078 0.073 0.077 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

103

Noble Foundation Red River Research Farm (not in a city; in Love County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

- - 0.078 - 0.075 

ppm

-

310 E. Burr Oak, Goldsby (McClain County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.08 0.076 0.066 0.074 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

99

Cherokee Heights Drive (not in a city; in Mayes County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.083 0.088 0.065 0.079 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

105

12880 A NE 10th, Choctaw (Oklahoma County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.081 0.08 0.069 0.077 0.075 

ppm

103

Quapaw Tribe’s Industrial Park, Miami (Ottawa County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.079 0.083 0.066 0.076 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

101

104 Airport Road, McAlester (Pittsburg County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.078 0.076 0.071 0.075 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

100

PM2.5 24 Hour 20 19 21 20 μg/m 35 μg/m 57

Annual 

Mean

10.4 9.6 9.7 9.9 μg/m 12 μg/m 83

Behind Environmental Office on Hardesty Road (not in a city; in Pottawatomie County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

- - 0.065 - 0.075 

ppm

-

1100 South Osage Drive, Skiatook (Tulsa County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.085 0.084 0.071 0.08 ppm 0.075 

ppm

107
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-19

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

502 East 144th Place, Glenpool (Tulsa County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.08 0.083 0.069 0.077 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

103

18707 E. 21st Street, Tulsa (Tulsa County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.082 0.082 0.068 0.077 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

103

Muskogee City-County Port Authority, 5201 Three Forks Road (not in a city; in Muskogee 

County)

PM10 24 Hour 85 87 39 70 μg/m 150 

μg/m

47

NW 5th and Shartel, Oklahoma City (Oklahoma County)

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour 59 55 56 57 μg/m 150 

μg/m

38

PM10

Monitor 2

24 Hour 62 43 52 52 μg/m 150 

μg/m

35

PM2.5

Monitor 1

24 Hour 22 19 19 20 μg/m 35 μg/m 57

Annual 

Mean

10.2 9.8 9.1 9.7 μg/m 12 μg/m 81

PM2.5

Monitor 2

24 Hour 22 17 - - 35 μg/m -

Annual 

Mean

10.2 8.7 - - 12 μg/m -

306 E. Otoe, Ponca City (Kay County)

SO2 1 Hour - 40 30 35 ppb 75 ppb 47

3500 Port Place, Muskogee (Muskogee County)

SO2 1 Hour 94 63 37 65 ppb 75 ppb 87

1710 West Charles Page Boulevard, Tulsa (Tulsa County)

SO2 1 Hour 68 55 42 55 ppb 75 ppb 73

1115 SE 9th Street, Pryor Creek (Mayes County)

Lead 24 Hour 0.006 0.013 - - 0.15 

μg/m

-

1800 Airport Road, Healdton (Carter County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.085 0.078 - - 0.075 

ppm

-
2. Area Profile

2-20 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

3

rd Street and Boundary, Walters (Cotton County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.083 0.082 - - 0.075 

ppm

-

HC 15 Box 72, Smithville (McCurtain County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.07 0.07 - - 0.075 

ppm

-

Site ID 401139020 (not in a city; in Osage County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.079 0.07 - - 0.075 

ppm

-

4616 E. 15th Street, Tulsa (Tulsa County)

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour 96 139 - - 150 

μg/m

-

PM10

Monitor 2

24 Hour 70 110 - - 150 

μg/m

-

104 Gilcrease Road, Tulsa (Osage County)

SO2 1 Hour 45 58 - - 75 ppb -

2712 South Midwest Boulevard, Midwest City (Oklahoma County)

Lead 24 Hour 0.005 - - - 0.15 

μg/m

-

521 SE 1st Street, Pryor Creek (Mayes County)

PM2.5 24 Hour 8 - - - 35 μg/m -

Annual 

Mean

6.9 - - - 12 μg/m -

901 Emporia, Muskogee (Muskogee County) 

PM2.5 24 Hour 20 - - - 35 μg/m -

Annual 

Mean

11.7 - - - 12 μg/m -

314 West Cleveland, Ponca City (Kay County)

SO2 1 Hour 34 - - - 75 ppb -

Texas

1415 Hinton Street, Dallas (Dallas County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

Monitor 3

1 Hour 1.7 1.8 2 1.8 ppm 35 ppm 5
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-21

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

1.3 1.7 1.7 1.6 ppm 9 ppm 18

Ozone

Monitor 3

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.084 0.087 0.081 0.084 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

112

Lead

Monitor 1

24 Hour 0.099 0.058 0.008 0.055 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

37

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 2

1 Hour 55 49 49 51 ppb 100 ppb 51

PM2.5

Monitor 1

24 Hour 23 20 23 22 μg/m 35 μg/m 63

Annual 

Mean

10.4 9.7 9.6 9.9 μg/m 12 μg/m 83

PM2.5

Monitor 2

24 Hour 20 21 26 22 μg/m 35 μg/m 63

Annual 

Mean

10.3 9.5 9.1 9.6 μg/m 12 μg/m 80

SO2

Monitor 3

1 Hour 8 6 5 6 ppb 75 ppb 8

J Harold Tillman Hlt Court, 222 S. Campbell, El Paso (El Paso County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 4.1 7.6 10.9 7.5 ppm 35 ppm 21

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

2.4 4.4 2.8 3.2 ppm 9 ppm 36

Lead

Monitor 1

24 Hour 0.162 0.055 0.065 0.094 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

63

Lead

Monitor 2

24 Hour 0.04 0.097 0.048 0.062 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

41

PM10

Monitor 2

24 Hour 113 55 82 83 μg/m 150 

μg/m

55

PM10

Monitor 3

24 Hour 119 54 57 77 μg/m 150 

μg/m

51

Ivanhoe Fire Station, 10834 Ivanhoe, El Paso (El Paso County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 2.3 6.2 10.8 6.4 ppm 35 ppm 18
2. Area Profile

2-22 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

1.6 1.8 1.9 1.8 ppm 9 ppm 20

Ozone

Monitor 1

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.066 0.057 0.06 0.061 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

81

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour 81 35 66 61 μg/m 150 

μg/m

41

250 Rim Road, El Paso (El Paso County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 2.3 2.9 3 2.7 ppm 35 ppm 8

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

1.4 1.5 1.2 1.4 ppm 9 ppm 16

Lead

Monitor 1

24 Hour - 0.084 0.07 - 0.15 

μg/m

-

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 61 53 51 55 ppb 100 ppb 55

Ozone

Monitor 2

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.07 0.074 0.073 0.072 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

96

PM2.5

Monitor 1

24 Hour 25 14 20 20 μg/m 35 μg/m 57

Annual 

Mean

11.5 7.4 8.6 9.2 μg/m 12 μg/m 77

SO2

Monitor 1

1 Hour 10 5 5 7 ppb 75 ppb 9

800 S San Marcial Street, El Paso (El Paso County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

Monitor 2

1 Hour 4.9 4.9 3.9 4.6 ppm 35 ppm 13

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

2.8 3.8 2.4 3 ppm 9 ppm 33

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 63 64 56 61 ppb 100 ppb 61
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-23

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

Ozone

Monitor 1

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.07 0.069 0.069 0.069 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

92

PM2.5

Monitor 1

24 Hour 27 21 23 23.7 

μg/m

35 μg/m 68

Annual 

Mean

12 9.9 9.7 10.5 

μg/m

12 μg/m 88

SO2

Monitor 1

1 Hour 11 12 9 11 ppb 75 ppb 15

650 R E Thomason Loop, El Paso (El Paso County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

1 Hour 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 ppm 35 ppm 12

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

2.8 2.7 2.6 2.7 ppm 9 ppm 30

Lead 24 Hour 0.029 0.115 0.028 0.057 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

38

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 61 59 56 59 ppb 100 ppb 59

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.068 0.065 0.06 0.064 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

85

5050a Yvette Drive, El Paso (El Paso County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

1 Hour 1.8 2.7 1.2 1.9 ppm 35 ppm 5

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

1 0.9 0.7 0.9 ppm 9 ppm 10

Lead 24 Hour 0.017 0.024 0.027 0.023 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

15

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.071 0.068 0.066 0.068 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

91

SO2 1 Hour 4 3 2 3 ppb 75 ppb 4

6767 Ojo De Agua, El Paso (El Paso County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour - - 1.1 - 35 ppm -
2. Area Profile

2-24 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

- - 0.7 - 9 ppm -

Lead

Monitor 1

24 Hour - - 0.021 - 0.15 

μg/m

-

Lead

Monitor 2

24 Hour - - 0.021 - 0.15 

μg/m

-

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour - - 56 - 150 

μg/m

-

PM10

Monitor 2

24 Hour - - 50 - 150 

μg/m

-

301 East Robinson, El Paso (El Paso County)

Lead 24 Hour 0.039 0.046 - - 0.15 

μg/m

-

4510 1⁄2 Aldine Mail Road (not in a city; in Harris County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 1.8 2.5 3.9 2.7 ppm 35 ppm 8

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

1.5 1.7 1.6 1.6 ppm 9 ppm 18

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 42 42 45 43 ppb 100 ppb 43

Ozone

Monitor 2

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.083 0.075 0.074 0.077 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

103

PM10

Monitor 3

24 Hour 45 46 58 50 μg/m 150 

μg/m

33

PM2.5

Monitor 5

24 Hour 21 26 22 23 μg/m 35 μg/m 66

Annual 

Mean

11.5 11.2 10.7 11.1 

μg/m

12 μg/m 93

4401 1⁄2 Lang Road, Houston (Harris County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 2.6 2.7 3.2 2.8 ppm 35 ppm 8

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

2.1 1.9 2.3 2.1 ppm 9 ppm 23
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-25

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 52 51 49 51 ppb 100 ppb 51

Ozone

Monitor 2

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.078 0.081 0.073 0.077 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

103

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour 46 53 55 51 μg/m 150 

μg/m

34

2311 Texas Avenue, Houston (Harris County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

1 Hour 2.2 2 2.6 2.3 ppm 35 ppm 7

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

1.7 1.5 1.8 1.7 ppm 9 ppm 19

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 60 60 58 59 ppb 100 ppb 59

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.079 0.082 0.072 0.078 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

104

7421 Park Place Boulevard, Houston (Harris County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

1 Hour 3.1 2.3 3.1 2.8 ppm 35 ppm 8

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

2.2 1.5 1.7 1.8 ppm 9 ppm 20

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 54 53 57 55 ppb 100 ppb 55

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.079 0.077 0.074 0.077 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

103

SO2 1 Hour 34 26 35 32 ppb 75 ppb 43

9525 1/2 Clinton Drive, Houston (Harris County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 ppm 35 ppm 5

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

1.2 1.2 1.4 1.3 ppm 9 ppm 14
2. Area Profile

2-26 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 58 54 58 57 ppb 100 ppb 57

Ozone

Monitor 3

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.08 0.081 0.067 0.076 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

101

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour 92 128 80 100 

μg/m

150 

μg/m

67

PM10

Monitor 2

24 Hour 79 104 76 86 μg/m 150 

μg/m

57

PM2.5

Monitor 1

24 Hour 23 23 22 23 μg/m 35 μg/m 66

Annual 

Mean

12.2 11.7 11.2 11.7 

μg/m

12 μg/m 98

PM2.5

Monitor 2

24 Hour 22 31 22 25 μg/m 35 μg/m 71

Annual 

Mean

13.2 12.7 11.8 12.6 

μg/m

12 μg/m 105

SO2

Monitor 2

1 Hour 41 29 21 30 ppb 75 ppb 40

4514 1/2 Durant Street, Deer Park (Harris County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

Monitor 2

1 Hour 1.5 1.3 1.9 1.6 ppm 35 ppm 5

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

1 0.9 1.3 1.07 ppm 9 ppm 12

Lead

Monitor 1

24 Hour 0.005 0.028 0.008 0.014 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

9

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 40 37 38 38 ppb 100 ppb 38

Ozone

Monitor 1

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.083 0.085 0.069 0.079 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

105

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour 41 47 49 46 μg/m 150 

μg/m

31

PM10

Monitor 2

24 Hour 41 47 44 44 μg/m 150 

μg/m

29
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-27

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

PM2.5

Monitor 8

24 Hour - - 16 - 35 μg/m -

Annual 

Mean

- - 9 - 12 μg/m -

SO2

Monitor 2

1 Hour 27 23 9 20 ppb 75 ppb 27

4472 Mazanec Road, Waco (McLennan County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

1 Hour 2.7 0.8 0.2 1.2 ppm 35 ppm 3

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

1.1 0.5 0.3 0.63 

ppm

9 ppm 7

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 32 26 24 27 ppb 100 ppb 27

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.078 0.073 0.072 0.074 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

99

SO2

Monitor 1

1 Hour 4 7 7 6 ppb 75 ppb 8

3317 Ross Avenue, Fort Worth (Tarrant County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 1.5 1.5 2.2 1.7 ppm 35 ppm 5

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 ppm 9 ppm 13

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 41 53 48 47 ppb 100 ppb 47

Ozone

Monitor 2

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.082 0.077 0.081 0.08 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

107

PM2.5

Monitor 1

24 Hour 22 22 26 23 μg/m 35 μg/m 66

Annual 

Mean

10.7 10.5 10.4 10.5 

μg/m

12 μg/m 88

5504 South Collins Street, Arlington (Tarrant County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

1 Hour 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.5 ppm 35 ppm 4
2. Area Profile

2-28 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

1 1 1 1 ppm 9 ppm 11

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 41 37 38 39 ppb 100 ppb 39

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.08 0.092 0.068 0.08 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

107

3724 North Hills Drive, Austin (Travis County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 ppm 35 ppm 2

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 ppm 9 ppm 4

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 2

1 Hour - 40 33 - 100 ppb -

Ozone

Monitor 2

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.075 0.074 0.069 0.073 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

97

SO2

Monitor 2

1 Hour - 5 5 - 75 ppb -

1441 99th Street, San Antonio (Bexar County)

Lead 24 Hour - 0.058 0.043 0.05 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

33

7471 South 5th Street, Frisco (Collin County)

Lead 24 Hour 0.449 0.462 0.195 0.369 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

246

6931 Ash Street, Frisco (Collin County) 

Lead

Monitor 1

24 Hour 0.627 0.262 0.055 0.315 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

210

Lead

Monitor 2

24 Hour 0.587 0.246 0.061 0.298 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

199

6601 Eubanks, Frisco (Collin County)

Lead

Monitor 1

24 Hour 1.85 1.396 0.327 1.191 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

794

Lead

Monitor 2

24 Hour 0.302 1.199 0.447 0.649 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

433
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-29

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

7202 Stonebrook Parkway, Frisco (Collin County)

Lead 24 Hour 1.07 0.423 0.395 0.629 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

419

1262 1⁄2 Mae Drive, Houston (Harris County)

Lead

Monitor 1

24 Hour 0.016 0.009 0.011 0.012 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

8

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 53 53 54 53 ppb 100 ppb 53

Ozone

Monitor 2

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.082 0.083 0.069 0.078 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

104

2988 Temtex Boulevard, Terrell (Kaufman County)

Lead 24 Hour 0.428 0.154 0.333 0.305 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

203

7100 State Highway 136 (not in a city; in Potter County)

Lead 24 Hour 0.081 0.079 0.008 0.056 

μg/m

0.15 

μg/m

37

6655 Bluebird Lane, Leon Valley (Bexar County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour - 42 40 - 100 ppb -

Ozone

Monitor 2

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.078 0.081 0.076 0.078 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

104

PM2.5

Monitor 1

24 Hour 26 18 26 23 μg/m 35 μg/m 66

Annual 

Mean

9.7 8.7 8.3 8.9 μg/m 12 μg/m 74

14620 Laguna Road (not in a city; in Bexar County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 35 34 35 35 ppb 100 ppb 35

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.071 0.07 0.069 0.07 ppm 0.075 

ppm

93

PM2.5

Monitor 1

24 Hour 27 23 19 23 μg/m 35 μg/m 66

Annual 

Mean

9.5 8.6 7.8 8.6 μg/m 12 μg/m 72
2. Area Profile

2-30 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

SO2

Monitor 1

1 Hour - 29 15 - 75 ppb -

4503 Croix Parkway (not in a city; in Brazoria County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 36 31 32 33 ppb 100 ppb 33

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.081 0.078 0.081 0.08 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

107

109b Brazoria Highway 332 West, Lake Jackson (Brazoira County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 20 19 22 20 ppb 100 ppb 20

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.073 0.071 0.067 0.070 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

93

12532 1⁄2 Nuestra Drive, Dallas (Dallas County)

Nitrogen

Dioxide

1 Hour 44 43 39 42 ppb 100 ppb 42

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.088 0.086 0.077 0.084 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

112

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour 31 53 39 41 μg/m 150 

μg/m

27

3277 W Redbird Lane, Dallas (Dallas County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 53 47 39 46 ppb 100 ppb 46

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.082 0.085 0.074 0.080 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

107

Denton Airport South, Denton (Denton County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 37 40 39 29 ppb 100 ppb 29

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.095 0.081 0.085 0.087

ppm

0.075 

ppm

116

2725 Old Fort Worth Road, Midlothian (Ellis County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 42 40 35 39 ppb 100 ppb 39
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-31

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

Ozone

Monitor 1

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.08 0.078 0.075 0.078 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

104

PM2.5

Monitor 5

24 Hour 20 23 25 23 μg/m 35 μg/m 66

Annual 

Mean

10.2 10.1 8.9 9.7 μg/m 12 μg/m 81

SO2

Monitor 1

1 Hour 11 15 16 14 ppb 75 ppb 19

900 Fm 667 Ellis County (not in a city; in Ellis County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 33 30 29 29 ppb 100 ppb 29

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.075 0.071 0.072 0.073 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

97

SO2 1 Hour 6 6 8 7 ppb 75 ppb 93

9511 Avenue V 1⁄2, Galveston (Galveston County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 28 29 32 30 ppb 100 ppb 30

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.079

0.081 0.064 0.075 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

100

PM2.5 24 Hour - - 27 - 35 μg/m -

Annual 

Mean

- - 7.6 - 12 μg/m -

1405 Sheldon Road, Channelview (Harris County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 2

1 Hour 50 48 46 48 ppb 100 ppb 48

Ozone

Monitor 3

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.081 0.077 0.061 0.073 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

97

16822 Kitzman (not in a city; in Harris County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 29 26 28 28 ppb 100 ppb 28

Ozone

Monitor 2

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.086 0.081 0.08 0.082 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

109
2. Area Profile

2-32 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

6400 Bissonnet Street, Houston (Harris County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 45 43 44 44 ppb 100 ppb 44

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.087 0.077 0.078 0.081 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

108

4407 Independence Parkway South, Houston (Harris County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 55 55 53 54 ppb 100 ppb 54

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.073 0.075 0.064 0.071 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

95

4522 Park Road, Seabrook (Harris County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 32 35 29 32 ppb 100 ppb 32

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.079 0.086 0.067 0.077 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

103

SO2 1 Hour 15 12 9 12 ppb 75 ppb 16

Highway 134 and Spur 449 (not in a city; in Harrison County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 28 20 19 22 ppb 100 ppb 22

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.076 0.072 0.07 0.073 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

97

PM10 24 Hour 32 36 53 40 μg/m 150 

μg/m

27

PM2.5 24 Hour 19 24 23 22 μg/m 35 μg/m 63

Annual 

Mean

11.9 10.4 9.4 10.6 

μg/m

12 μg/m 88

3790 S Houston Street, Kaufman (Kaufman County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 33 26 28 29 ppb 100 ppb 29

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.074 0.073 0.075 0.074 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

99

SO2 1 Hour 13 10 15 13 ppb 75 ppb 17
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-33

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

9472a Highway 1484, Conroe (Montgomery County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 30 26 25 27 ppb 100 ppb 27 

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.08 0.082 0.075 0.079 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

105

Corsicana Airport, Corsicana (Navarro County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 31 28 28 29 ppb 100 ppb 29

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.074 0.07 0.074 0.073 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

97

SO2 1 Hour 51 33 30 38 ppb 75 ppb 51

4100 Fairway Drive, Grapevine (Tarrant County)

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 42 46 43 44 ppb 100 ppb 44

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.091 0.086 0.083 0.087 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

116

8406 Georgia Avenue, Temple (Bell County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

- - 0.053 - 0.075 

ppm

-

1605 Stone Tree Drive, Killeen (Bell County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.075 0.078 0.071 0.075 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

100

F Range (1,000 yard marker off Wilderness Trail; not in a city; in Bexar County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.075 0.087 0.083 0.082 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

109

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 28 25 - - 100 ppb -

6590 Hillcrest Road, Frisco (Collin County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.091 0.084 0.078 0.084 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

112
2. Area Profile

2-34 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

792 E. Northside Drive, Pilot Point (Denton County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.091 0.078 0.084 0.084 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

112

320 Old Hueco Tanks Road, Socorro (El Paso County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 2.2 1.7 - - 35 ppm -

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

1.3 1.2 - - 9 ppm -

Ozone

Monitor 1

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.066 0.038 0.066 0.057 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

76

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour 95 46 137 93 μg/m 150 

μg/m

62

PM10

Monitor 2

24 Hour - 22 233 - 150 

μg/m

-

7330 1⁄2 North Wayside, Houston (Harris County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.08 0.075 0.07 0.075 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

100

SO2 1 Hour 11 8 10 10 ppb 75 ppb 13

13826 1⁄2 Croquet, Houston (Harris County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.085 0.077 0.078 0.08 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

107

SO2 1 Hour 24 13 17 18 ppb 75 ppb 24

9726 1⁄2 Monroe, Houston (Harris County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.076 0.079 0.069 0.075 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

100

PM10 24 Hour 52 76 50 59 μg/m 150 

μg/m

39

SO2 1 Hour 21 12 15 16 ppb 75 ppb 21

3333 1⁄2 Highway 6 South, Houston (Harris County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.081 0.081 0.077 0.080 

ppm

0.075

ppm

107
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-35

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

PM10 24 Hour 45 56 72 58 μg/m 150 

μg/m

39

8622 Garth Road, Unit A (not in a city; in Harris County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

- 0.071 0.061 - 0.075 

ppm

-

SO2 1 Hour - 9 8 - 75 ppb -

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

- - 0.061 - 0.075

ppm

-

5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston (Harris County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.08 0.075 - - 0.075 

ppm

-

SO2 1 Hour 25 16 - - 75 ppb -

1650 Airport Drive, Cleburne (Johnson County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.079 0.082 0.077 0.079 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

105

Corpus Christi State School (Airport Road), Corpus Christi (Nueces County)

Ozone

Monitor 2

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.075 0.069 0.066 0.07 ppm 0.075 

ppm

93

SO2

Monitor 1

1 Hour 9 5 7 7 ppb 75 ppb 9

9860 La Branch, Corpus Christi (Nueces County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.073 0.065 0.066 0.068 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

91

SO2 1 Hour 10 4 4 6 ppb 75 ppb 8

3033 New Authon Road (not in a city; in Parker County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.088 0.076 0.074 0.079 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

105

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 26 23 - - 100 ppb -
2. Area Profile

2-36 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

361 Tombigbee Road (not in a city; in Polk County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.073 0.067 0.065 0.068 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

91

Palo Duro Canyon State Park (not in a city; in Randall County)

Ozone 8-Hour

Averaging 

End Hour

0.076 0.074 0.07 0.073 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

97

14290 Morris Dido Newark Road, Pecan Acres (Tarrant County)

Ozone 8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.08 0.087 0.077 0.081 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

108

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1 Hour 41 41 - - 100 ppb -

FAA site off Alta Vista Road, Fort Worth (Tarrant County)

Ozone

Monitor 2

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.097 0.079 0.08 0.085 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

113

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 45 44 - - 100 ppb -

12200 Lime Creek Road (not in a city; in Travis County)

Ozone

Monitor 1

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

0.071 0.076 0.07 0.072 

ppm

0.075 

ppm

96

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

Monitor 1

1 Hour 21 19 - - 100 ppb -

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour 33 32 51 39 μg/m 150 

μg/m

26

PM2.5

Monitor 5

24 Hour 21 17 24 21 μg/m 35 μg/m 60

Annual 

Mean

8.3 7.8 7.2 7.8 μg/m 12 μg/m 65

16289 North Evans Road #2, Selma (Bexar County)

PM10 24 Hour 45 50 58 51 μg/m 150 

μg/m

34

401 South Frio Street, San Antonio (Bexar County)

PM10 24 Hour 36 42 71 50 μg/m 150 

μg/m

33
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-37

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

717 South Akard, Dallas (Dallas County)

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour 49 63 76 63 μg/m 150 

μg/m

42

PM10

Monitor 2

24 Hour 46 64 93 68 μg/m 150 

μg/m

45

PM2.5

Monitor 5

24 Hour 21 22 26 23 μg/m 35 μg/m 66

Annual 

Mean

11.1 10.7 10.6 10.8 

μg/m

12 μg/m 90

Earhart Elementary School, 3434 Bickers, Dallas (Dallas County)

PM10 24 Hour 57 62 77 65 μg/m 150 

μg/m

43

Riverside High School, 301 Midway Drive, El Paso (El Paso County)

PM10 24 Hour 91 50 121 87 μg/m 150 

μg/m

58

2700 Harrison Avenue, El Paso (El Paso)

PM10 24 Hour 60 39 60 53 μg/m 150 

μg/m

35

2516 Texas Avenue, Texas City (Galveston County)

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour 46 54 44 48 μg/m 150 

μg/m

32

PM10

Monitor 2

24 Hour 47 54 46 49 μg/m 150 

μg/m

33

SO2

Monitor 1

1 Hour 26 11 10 16 ppb 75 ppb 21

1001 1⁄2 Red Bluff, Pasadena (Harris County)

PM10 24 Hour 38 62 66 55 μg/m 150 

μg/m

37

5707 Up River Road, Corpus Christi (Nueces County)

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour 67 45 55 56 μg/m 150 

μg/m

37

PM10

Monitor 2

24 Hour 68 53 52 58 μg/m 150 

μg/m

39

PM2.5

Monitor 5

24 Hour 26 25 26 26 μg/m 35 μg/m 74

Annual 

Mean

9.3 9.6 9.2 9.4 μg/m 12 μg/m 78
2. Area Profile

2-38 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

8900 West Freeway, White Settlement (Tarrant County)

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour 45 63 63 57 μg/m 150 

μg/m

38

PM10

Monitor 2

24 Hour 40 66 57 54 μg/m 150 

μg/m

36

2600b Webberville Road, Austin (Travis County)

PM10

Monitor 1

24 Hour 33 28 57 39 μg/m 150 

μg/m

26

PM2.5

Monitor 2

24 Hour 22 23 27 24 μg/m 35 μg/m 69

Annual 

Mean

10.6 10.1 8.2 9.6 μg/m 12 μg/m 80

2315 W 10th Street, Texarkana (Bowie County)

PM2.5 24 Hour 23 19 28 23 μg/m 35 μg/m 66

Annual 

Mean

10.9 10.5 10.4 10.6 

μg/m

12 μg/m 88

7210 1⁄2 Bayway Drive, Baytown (Harris County)

PM2.5 24 Hour 21 22 21 21 μg/m 35 μg/m 60

Annual 

Mean

11.9 10.6 9.6 10.7 

μg/m

12 μg/m 89

3810 Huisache Street, Corpus Christi (Nueces County)

PM2.5

Monitor 1

24 Hour 23 41 29 31 μg/m 35 μg/m 89

Annual 

Mean

9.9 10.6 9.6 10.0 

μg/m

12 μg/m 83

PM2.5

Monitor 2

24 Hour 29 26 28 28 μg/m 35 μg/m 80

Annual 

Mean

10.3 9.7 9.8 9.9 μg/m 12 μg/m 83

SO2

Monitor 1

1 Hour 18 13 4 12 ppb 75 ppb 16

600 1⁄2 Congress Street, Fort Worth (Tarrant County)

PM2.5 24 Hour 23 21 26 23 μg/m 35 μg/m 66

Annual 

Mean

10.7 10.5 10.5 10.6 

μg/m

12 μg/m 88

4205 NE 24th Avenue, Amarillo (Potter County)

SO2 1 Hour - - 25 - 75 ppb -
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-39

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-4

Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State1

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 2011 2012 2013 3-Year Average1 NAAQS

Percent 

of 

NAAQS1

700 West San Francisco Avenue, El Paso (El Paso County)

Carbon 

Monoxide

1 Hour 5.1 3.7 - - 35 ppm -

8-Hour 

Averaging 

End Hour

2.7 2 - - 9 ppm -

SO2 1 Hour 11 8 - - 75 ppb -

Source: US EPA 2014c

*Exceptional events data are excluded.

1Monitored concentrations are the maximum second highest for 24-hour PM10; the fourth highest daily maximum for 

8-hour O3; 98th percentile for 24-hour PM2.5 and 1-hour NO2; 99th percentile for 1-hour SO2; highest for lead and 1-

hour CO and 8-hour CO; and maximum arithmetic mean for annual PM2.5. Average values for PM2.5 are monitored 

for each year to determine three-year average.

Trends

The planning area is in attainment for most pollutants, but exceeds the NAAQS for ozone 

and lead in many of the counties in the planning area. Warm weather and drought over 

the past few years could have contributed to the exceedances in the NAAQS for ozone.

Forecast

Air pollutants, especially ozone, will continue to be a concern in the planning area. New 

sources of ozone precursor emissions, particularly from the oil and gas sector and 

electrical generating plants, continue to be proposed in the planning area. At the same 

time, federal, state, local, and tribal jurisdictions continue to seek ways to reduce 

emissions from these industries through voluntary and regulatory mechanisms. Climate 

scientists have predicted drought conditions and high temperatures, which could 

contribute to increased ozone exceedances in the future.

A driver to reduce ozone concentrations is to avoid designating the area as nonattainment 

for the ozone NAAQS. The EPA revised the ozone standard in 2008 to be more stringent; 

it issued a proposed rule in 2010 to further revise the 8-hour primary standard from 0.075 

ppm to a lower level in the range of 0.060 to 0.070 ppm. Air monitoring concentration 

levels shown in Table 2-4 for the past three years exceed the lower level of this proposed 

range. These levels also frequently exceed the original 0.075 ppm standard. The EPA is 

reviewing the ozone standard and must promulgate a new standard by the end of 2015, in 

accordance with court proceedings.

Key Features

No key features for air quality have been identified in the planning area.
2. Area Profile

2-40 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

References

National Park Service (US Department of the Interior, National Park Service). 2006. 

PSD—Prevention of Significant Deterioration. Internet website: 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/regs/psd.cfm. Last updated on November 2, 2006. 

. 2011. Class 1 area locations. Internet website: 

http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/maps/classiloc.cfm. Last updated on July 26, 2011. 

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2014a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Last updated on 

October 21, 2014. 

. 2014b. Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria Pollutants. Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/ancl.html. Last updated on July 2, 

2014. 

. 2014c. Monitor Values Report. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/

airdata/ad_rep_mon.html. Last updated on October 8, 2014. 

2.2.2 Climate

Climate is defined as the generally prevailing weather conditions of a particular region 

throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. Climate is both a driving force and a 

limiting factor for biological, ecological, and hydrologic processes, as well as for 

resource management of public lands. 

Climate change is a statistically significant and long-term change in climate patterns. The 

terms climate change and global warming are often used interchangeably, although they 

are not the same thing. Climate change is any deviation from the average climate, 

whether warming or cooling, and can result from both natural and man-made sources. 

Natural contributors include fluctuations in solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, and plate 

tectonics. Global warming refers to the apparent warming of climate observed since the 

early twentieth century. It is primarily attributed to human activities, such as fossil fuel 

combustion, industrial processes, and land use changes.

Indicators

Greenhouse gases are chemical compounds in the earth’s atmosphere. These compounds 

allow incoming, short-wave, solar radiation but absorb long-wave infrared radiation 

reemitted from the earth’s surface, thereby trapping heat. The 2013 Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report states that the atmospheric 

concentrations of well-mixed, long-lived greenhouse gases have increased to levels 

unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Further, human influence has been 

detected in the warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water 

cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some 

climate extremes. It is 95 to 100 percent probable that human influence has been the 

dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century 

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013). 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-41

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor, and several 

trace gases. Some greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, occur naturally and are 

emitted into the atmosphere through both natural processes and human activities; others 

are created and emitted solely through human activities. The greenhouse gases that enter 

the atmosphere due to human activities are the following:

 Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels, solid waste, and trees and wood 

products

 Methane emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and 

oil and by livestock grazing, deforestation, and agricultural practices

 Nitrous oxide from agricultural and industrial activities and the combustion of 

fossil fuels and solid waste

 Fluorinated gases, which result from a variety of industrial processes

Although greenhouse gas levels have varied for millennia (along with corresponding 

variations in climate), industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources have caused 

greenhouse gas concentrations to increase measurably at a global scale. Because climate 

change is a global phenomenon, the degree of change and specific effects from these 

changes cannot be quantified at the regional or local scale.

Renewable and nonrenewable resource management actions could impact climate change 

due to greenhouse gas emissions and other human-caused effects. However, the 

assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is extremely complex. This 

is because of the inherent interrelationships among its sources, causation, mechanisms of 

action, and impacts. 

Given the global and complex nature of climate change, it is not currently possible to link 

projected greenhouse gas emissions associated with any particular activity to specific 

environmental impacts at a specific site or location. The uncertainty in applying results 

from global climate models to the regional or local scale (a process known as 

downscaling) limits the ability to quantify potential future impacts from greenhouse gas

emissions at this scale.

Current Condition

The planning area is classified as part of the Great Plains region. The climate of the 

planning area tends to be characterized by long hot summers and severe winters. Annual 

average temperatures in the Great Plains region range from 40 oF to more than 70 oF, with 

extremes as low as -70 oF and as high as 121 oF (National Climate Assessment 2014). 

Average annual rainfall tends to be less than 30 inches, with some areas receiving more 

than 50 inches and some receiving less than 15. The region tends to be susceptible to 

droughts (National Climate Assessment 2014). 

Table 2-5, Average Temperatures and Precipitation in the Planning Area (1981-2010),

shows monthly climate normal data for three representative cities in the planning area, 
2. Area Profile

2-42 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-5

Average Temperatures and Precipitation in the Planning Area (1981-2010)

Location

Average Maximum 

Temperature (°F)

Average Minimum 

Temperature (°F)

Average Precipitation 

(Inches)

Jan. July Annual Jan. July Annual Jan. July Annual

Wichita, 

Kansas

42.5 92.3 67.9 21.9 69.8 45.9 0.83 3.32 2.72

Galveston, 

Texas

61.0 89.2 76.4 45.1 77.9 62.8 3.69 3.85 3.59

Muskogee, 

Oklahoma 48.4 92.5 71.4 26.1 71.2 48.9 2.09 3.33 3.77

Falls City,

Nebraska 36.0 88.8 63.9 17.0 66.3 41.75 0.65 5.04 2.90

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2015

from 1981 to 2010. Climate normals are three-decade averages of climatological 

variables produced every ten years by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Climatic Data Center.

As of January 14, 2015, the White House and the EPA are seeking to use authority 

granted under 111(b) of the Clean Air Act to directly regulate methane emissions from 

the oil and gas industry. The oil and gas industry will need to reduce methane emissions 

by 40 to 45 percent from the 2012 levels by 2025. These reductions will apply to new, 

not existing, oil and gas sources (White House 2015). This could one day expand to 

include existing methane sources, through 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. This could impact 

greenhouse gas emissions in the planning area in the future. Additionally, methane and

VOCs contribute to the creation of ozone, a greenhouse gas regulated by the NAAQS.

(See Section 2.2.1, Air, for more information about NAAQS.) Reducing methane 

emissions could subsequently reduce ozone in the future.

Trends

Atmospheric concentrations of naturally emitted greenhouse gases have varied over time, 

and earth’s climate has fluctuated accordingly. Since the beginning of the industrial 

revolution, human activities have increased greenhouse gas concentrations and 

introduced man-made compounds that act as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 

In its latest report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that the 

atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased 

to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years (Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change 2013). From preindustrial times until today, global average 

concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by around 40 percent for carbon dioxide, 

150 percent for methane, and 20 percent for nitrous oxide (Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change 2013).
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-43

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Forecast

Climate changes over the past 100 years are well documented, and climate change is 

expected to continue. Fossil fuel combustion and other human-caused greenhouse gasproducing activities are ongoing, although public awareness and future regulations may 

reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions. Total US greenhouse gas emissions decreased 

from 2011 to 2012, largely due to reductions in power plant greenhouse gas emissions 

(EPA 2014a). Data from 2013 and 2014 are not yet available. Regulations such as the 

January 14, 2015, methane reduction discussed under Current Conditions are likely to 

contribute to similar reductions. However, due to the long atmospheric lifetime of most 

greenhouse gases, climate change impacts will continue to increase for many years after 

greenhouse gas emissions decrease (EPA 2013). Climate change may increase air 

pollution levels if temperatures increase and droughts are extended. 

Over the past 100 years, annual temperature and precipitation have increased, and climate 

models predict that they will continue to increase through the twenty-first century. 

Extreme weather events such as severe drought and intense rainfall are also expected to 

increase in frequency (National Conference of State Legislatures 2008). Global mean 

surface temperature predictions from 2046 to 2065 range between an increase of 1.0°C 

(1.8°F) and 2.0°C (3.6°F). For 2081 through 2100, the projected global mean surface 

temperature increase is between 1.0°C (1.8°F) and 3.7°C (6.7°F; Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change 2013).

In the Great Plains, climate change projections indicate that droughts, heat waves, and 

extreme rainfall would occur with greater frequency and intensity. This will likely result 

in challenges related to water quantity and agriculture (National Climate Assessment 

2014). Currently, the southern portion of the Great Plains region has an average of seven 

days a year where maximum temperatures exceed 100 oF. Mid-century projections show 

the number of days with temperatures exceeding 100 oF will quadruple (National Climate 

Assessment 2014). Projections also show an increase in the length of dry spells in Texas 

and Oklahoma. Additionally, the sea level rise expected as a result of climate change 

would increase the potential for storms to damage the Gulf Coast of Texas (National 

Climate Assessment 2014).

Key Features

No key features have been identified for climate.

References

EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Glossary of Climate Change Terms. 

Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html. Last updated 

09/09/2013.

. 2014. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 2013: Reported data. Internet 

website: http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgdata/reported/index.html. Last 

updated on September 30, 2014.
2. Area Profile

2-44 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. “Climate Change 2013: The Physical

Science Basis.” Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. 

Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, and A. Nauels et al., editors). 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New 

York.

National Climate Assessment. 2014. US Global Change Research Program. National 

Climate Assessment, Great Plains. Internet website: http://nca2014.globalchange

.gov/report/regions/great-plains. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center. Data 

Tools: 1981-2010 Normals. Internet website: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdoweb/datatools/normals. 

National Conference of State Legislatures. 2008. North Dakota: Assessing the Costs of 

Climate Change. Climate Change and the Economy. Internet website: 

http://www.ncsl.org/print/environ/ClimateChangeND.pdf. 

White House. 2015. Office of the Press Secretary. FACT SHEET: Administration Takes 

Steps Forward on Climate Action Plan by Announcing Actions to Cut Methane 

Emissions. Released January 14, 2015. Internet website: http://www.whitehouse

.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/14/fact-sheet-administration-takes-steps-forwardclimate-action-plan-anno-1. 

2.2.3 Geology

Geologic resources are defined through descriptions of the geology of the planning area 

and identification of geologic hazards. Geologic hazards are adverse geologic conditions 

that are capable of causing damage or loss of property and life. Geologic information is 

used to evaluate the potential development of mineral resources and to regulate land uses 

based on slope stability and accessibility. Several geologic type localities and areas of 

paleontological significance occur in the planning area. Mineral occurrence and 

management is discussed in detail in Section 2.3.2, and paleontological resources are 

discussed in Section 2.2.12.

Indicators

Indicators of geologic change were not used due to the rate and unpredictability of 

geologic changes, from sedimentation over millions of years to sudden shifts in surface 

geology as a result of faulting. Instead, indicators were formed based on the potential 

effects of geologic hazards on management scenarios. As such the indicators are as 

follows:

 Location of the management activity to geologic hazards, including fault 

features and areas of repeat earthquake activity

 Occurrence of hydrogen sulfide 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-45

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Occurrence of overpressure zones

 Occurrence or zones of loss circulation

 Alterations to the structure, chemistry, or interaction of subterranean water

resources due to geologic changes from natural and man-made occurrences

Current Condition

The planning area is composed of five geophysical provinces: the Central Lowlands, the 

Coastal Plains, the Great Plains, the Ouachita, and the Ozark Plateau (US Geological 

Survey [USGS] 1946). 

The Central Lowlands and Great Plains were once covered by a vast inland extension of 

the Gulf of Mexico. They are composed of sedimentary rock from material eroded from 

the Appalachian Mountains, the Rocky Mountains, and ancient upland areas near the 

Great Lakes (Lew 2004). The plains were under swampy conditions during the 

Carboniferous period; this has resulted in large deposits of coal, oil, and natural gas 

spanning from Texas through Alberta, Canada (Lew 2004). 

The Coastal Plains were gradually built up by unconsolidated sediments washed out from 

the Appalachian Mountains, Central Lowlands, and Great Plains. The Coastal Plains are 

composed of successive layers of sedimentation, with swamps, marshes, and lagoons 

fronted by sand bars and reefs (Lew 2004). 

The Ozark Plateau and Ouachita Mountains consist of a group of low mountains, 

sometimes referred to as the interior highlands. These features are the result of intense 

folding of sedimentary rocks and do not exceed 2,700 feet in elevation (Lew 2004). 

The geology in the planning area is diverse, with rock deposits ranging from the late 

Proterozoic (540 to 2,500 million years ago) to Quaternary (present to 2 million years 

ago; see Figure 2-2). While the surface geology of the planning area is composed of 

sedimentary rocks deposited since the middle Proterozoic, the planning area is 

predominantly composed of the North American Craton, or continental crust, which has 

remained relatively stable for the last 600 million years. The geologic history of the 

planning area is discussed in detail in the forthcoming reasonable foreseeable 

development scenario (RFD) being prepared by the OFO (BLM 2015b)

Areas in the planning area with mineral potential are those of high, medium, and low oil 

and gas potential, coal deposits, evaporate deposits, and sand and gravel resources. 

Mineral potential and resources are discussed in Section 2.3.2, Energy and Minerals.

There are several geological hazards associated with oil and gas deposits, including the

presence of hydrogen sulfide, zones of loss circulation, overpressure zones, and the 

potential to impact subterranean water resources, mainly aquifers, by altering the feature 

or introduction of materials. The BLM manages fluid mineral development through its 

Oil and Gas Inspections and Enforcement Program. Through the program, BLM staff 

complete thousands of inspections per year on production, drilling, abandonment work 

2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-47

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

overs, records verifications, undesirable events, and alleged thefts. They also make 

environmental-based inspections. Additional geologic hazards in the planning area are 

earthquake hazards centralized in Oklahoma and fault features throughout the planning 

area. 

Hydrogen Sulfide

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the characteristic foul odor of rotten eggs. 

It is heavier than air, corrosive, flammable, explosive, and very poisonous. At low 

concentrations it can irritate the eyes and act as a depressant; at high concentrations it can 

irritate the upper respiratory tract and, during long exposure, lead to pulmonary edema 

(USGS 2010). A 30-minute exposure to 500 ppm results in headache, dizziness,

excitement, staggering gait, and diarrhea, followed sometimes by bronchitis or 

bronchopneumonia (USGS 2010). 43 CFR part 3160 Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 6, 

Hydrogen Sulfide Operations, delegates the BLM to protect public health and safety and 

personnel essential to maintain control of the well emitting H2S. The order identifies 

national requirements and minimum standards of performance expected from operators 

when conducting operations involving oil or gas wells known to contain or, reasonably 

expected to contain, H2S. These requirements and standards also pertain to the emission 

of SO2 as a result of flaring H2S. Corrective actions may be required for any violations 

that occur. 

Overpressure Zones

Overpressure zones are areas where subsurface pressure is abnormally high and exceeds 

hydrostatic pressure at a given depth, usually in buried fluid-filled sediments. This could 

result in the rapid escape of the over-pressured fluids, leading to a well blowout, which 

can harm individuals on the drilling rig (Schlumberger 2015). 

Zones of Loss Circulation

Lost circulation is the reduced or total absence of returning fluid flow during drilling, 

generally classified as seepage (less than 3 m3/hr), partial loss returns (greater than 3 

m

3

/hr), and total loss returns, where no fluid returns (Schlumberger 2015). The loss of 

fluid generally translates into financial loss to the drilling company, well damage, and 

potential risk to the drilling rig and personnel. Depending on the area being drilled, the 

lost fluid could adversely affect karst resources or aquifers. 

Groundwater

Additional federal and state regulations and restrictions are applied to the lease 

stipulations and applications for permit to drill in areas with known groundwater features. 

These areas are not considered geologic hazards, but are considered areas of heightened 

concern due to appropriate geology resulting in the existence of water resources. Water 

resources and their management are discussed in detail in Section 2.2.6, and the location 

of water resources in the planning area are shown in that section.

Fault and Earthquakes

Faults are discontinuous features in a volume or rock, typically expressed as a fracture or 

break, with a surficial expression fault line. Faults are rarely individual occurrences; they 
2. Area Profile

2-48 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

are more typically formed in a fault zone and result when a body of rock breaks under 

stress, which most often manifests in an earthquake (see Figure 2-3).

Earthquakes are ground-shaking events that occur at various magnitudes as a result of 

movement within the earth’s crust that releases seismic waves. Earthquakes can vary 

from slight tremors to building-collapsing events, as shown on the Modified Mercalli 

Intensity Scale (Table 2-6, Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale). Management for 

earthquake occurrence is at the county level and includes building code modifications to 

withstand earthquake activity. 

Earthquake potential for the planning area is high, with the most violent earthquakes (see 

Figure 2-4) occurring in central Oklahoma, where peak horizontal acceleration reaches 

40 to 50 percent. This means very strong perceived shaking and moderate to heavy 

damage to structures; it corresponds to a VIII on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale.

Since January 1, 2015, there have been 312 earthquakes with magnitudes of between 3 

and 4.3; this corresponds to II to IV on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale, or unfelt to 

moderately perceived shaking with no to very light damage (USGS 2015). 

Trends

An increased understanding of area geology and geologic hazards can be expected as 

more knowledge is gained through oil and gas exploration and drilling and through

geologic mapping.

Forecast

Additional subsurface geologic information should continue to be gathered over the next 

decade in relation to oil, gas, and coal exploration and development.

Key Features

Sound geologic information is used for effective planning for development of mineral 

resources and avoidance and mitigation for geologic hazards. The planning area has been 

assessed for mineral potential under the reasonably foreseeable development scenario. 

Geologic information should be gathered and shared to improve planning for 

development of other mineral resources and natural gas production.

References

BLM. 2015b. Reasonable Foreseeable Development (RFD) for the Southern Great Plain 

Rapid Ecoregional Assessment and the Oklahoma-Texas-Kansas RMP. BLM 

Oklahoma Field Office. Forthcoming 2015. 

BLM GIS (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Geographic 

Information System). 2015. Base GIS data on file with the BLM’s eGIS server 

used for calculations or figures; includes data prepared for the reasonable 

foreseeable development scenario and Version 04_02 of the decision area. BLM, 

Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa, Oklahoma.


2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-51

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-6

Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale

I 

Value

Peak

Acceleration 

(g)

Perceived

Shaking

Potential 

Damage

Full Description, Shortened from 

Elementary Seismology

I <0.17 None felt None Not felt.

II 0.17-1.4 Weak None Felt by people seated or those on the 

upper floors of buildings.

III 0.17-0.14 Weak None Felt by almost all indoors. Hanging 

objects swing. Vibration is like of a

passing light truck. It may not be 

recognized as an earthquake.

IV 1.4-3.9 Light None Vibration feels like a passing heavy 

truck. Stopped cars rock; hanging 

objects swing; windows, dishes, and 

doors rattle and glasses clink. In the 

upper range of IV, wooden walls and 

frames creak.

V 3.9-9.2 Moderate Very Light Felt outdoors. Sleepers are wakened. 

Liquids are disturbed, some spilled. 

Small unstable objects are displaced 

or upset. Doors swing; pictures 

move; pendulum clocks stop.

VI 9.2-18 Strong Light Felt by all. People walk unsteadily. 

Many become frightened. Windows 

crack; dishes, glassware, 

knickknacks, and books fall off 

shelves; pictures fall off walls;

furniture is moved or overturned. 

Weak plaster, adobe buildings, and 

some poorly built masonry buildings 

crack. Trees and bushes shake 

visibly.

VII 18-34 Very Strong Moderate Difficult to stand or walk and is

noticed by drivers. Furniture is 

broken. Poorly built masonry 

buildings are damaged. Weak 

chimneys break at roof line. Plaster,

bricks, stones, tiles, cornices, 

unbraced parapets, and porches fall. 

Some cracks appear in better 

masonry buildings. Waves are 

generated on ponds.
2. Area Profile

2-52 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-6

Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale

I 

Value

Peak

Acceleration 

(g)

Perceived

Shaking

Potential 

Damage

Full Description, Shortened from 

Elementary Seismology

VIII 34-65 Severe Moderate/Heavy Drivers’ ability to steer is affected. 

Extensive damage to unreinforced 

masonry buildings, including partial 

collapse, and some masonry walls

fall. Chimneys and monuments are 

twisted and fall. Wood-frame houses 

move on foundations if not bolted; 

loose partition walls are thrown out. 

Tree branches break.

IX 65-124 Violent Heavy General panic. Damage to masonry 

buildings ranges from collapse to 

serious damage, unless buildings are 

of modern design. Wood-frame 

structures rack and, if not bolted, 

shift off foundations. Underground 

pipes break.

X >124 Extreme Very Poorly built structures are destroyed 

with their foundations. Even some 

well-built wooden structures and 

bridges are heavily damaged and 

need to be replaced. Water is thrown 

on water body banks.

XI >124 Not mapped because these 

intensities are typically limited 

to areas with ground failure.

Rails are bent greatly. Underground 

pipelines are completely out of 

service.

XII >124 Not mapped because these 

intensities are typically limited 

to areas with ground failure.

Damage is nearly total. Large rock 

masses are displaced. Lines of sight 

and level are distorted. Objects are

thrown into the air.

Sources: USGS 2000; Richter 1958

Lew, Alan A. 2004, Geography: USA, Chapter 2 Physical Geography of the US. Internet 

website: http://www.geog.nau.edu/courses/alew/gsp220/text/chapters/ch2.html. 

Richter, C. F. 1958. Elementary Seismology. W. H. Freeman and Company, San 

Francisco, pp. 135-149 and 650-653. Internet website: 

http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/shaking/mmi/. 

USGS GIS. 2005. GIS data of generalized geology. Internet website: 

pubs.usgs.gov/atlas/geologic.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-53

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

. 2014b. GIS data of seismic hazards. United State Geological Survey. Internet 

website: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/

index.php#2014. 

USGS. 2015. API Documentation-Earthquake Catalog. Internet website: 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/search/.

USGS (US Geological Survey). 1946. Nevin M. Fenneman, 1946, Physical Divisions of 

the United States: US Geological Survey, scale 1:7,000,000. Internet website: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/home/?cid=nrcs143_015

052. 

_____. 2000. David Wald et al. Fact Sheet 103-00 “Shake Maps” Instant Maps of 

Earthquake Shaking. 

. 2010. Volcano Hazards Program, Volcano Gases and Their Effects. Internet 

website: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php. 

Schlumberger. 2015. Oilfield Glossary. Internet website:

http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/.

2.2.4 Soil Resources

Soils in the planning area are diverse. Soil development is influenced by the length of 

time the soil has been forming and the surrounding climate, topography, ecosystems, and 

organic and mineral material (parent material) deposited during formation. These 

variables create complex and diverse soil patterns that influence the use and management 

of the soil resource. They provide the foundation for other resources and resource uses. 

The characteristics and distribution of soil types in the planning area affect the use and 

management of the land and the quality of surface water, air, forage, and tree growth. 

Soil characteristics are important to consider when siting construction activities, such as 

oil and gas well development, road construction, and building placement. They are also 

important considerations when planning recreation, such as off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

access and trail development, rangeland and timber stand improvements, surface water 

quality protection by minimizing erosion, and surface stabilization.

Indicators

Indicators are key soil characteristics that are sensitive to change in the environment. 

Indicators of soil resource condition (quality) can be categorized into four general groups: 

visual, physical, chemical, and biological. Visual indicators are those that are caused by

environmental factors, such as wind or water. Physical indicators are related to the 

arrangement of solid particles and pores within the soils composition. The soil’s chemical 

condition affects soil-plant relations, water quality, buffering capacities, availability of 

nutrients and water to plants and other organisms, mobility of contaminants, and some 

physical conditions, such as the tendency for crust to form. Biological indicators reflect 

activities of living organisms and their influence on soil health. 
2. Area Profile

2-54 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

The BLM uses indicators for soil resources in the planning area to determine soil and site 

stability. Examples of these indicators are as follows: 

 Erodibility—Sensitivity of the soil structure to the effects of wind and water 

or susceptibility of soil to erosion

 Visual—Exposure of subsoil, change in soil color, ephemeral gullies, 

ponding, runoff, plant response, weed species, blowing soil, plant roots 

exposed, and deposition

 Physical—Depth, bulk density, porosity, aggregate stability, texture, crusting, 

and compaction. Physical indicators primarily reflect limitations to root 

growth, seedling emergence, infiltration, and movement of water within the 

soil profile

 Chemical—pH, salinity, organic matter, cation-exchange capacity, nutrient 

cycling, and the concentrations of elements that may be potential 

contaminants or those that are needed for plant growth and development, and 

chemical composition that results in corrosive soils

 Biological—Measurements of microorganisms and macroorganisms, their 

activity, and byproducts 

The BIA uses its branch of Agricultural and Rangeland Development to preserve natural 

resources on trust lands and shared off-reservation resources under the authority of the 

American Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act (Public Law 103-177) and the 

Indian Self Determination Act (Public Law 93-638). Preservation of these natural 

resources includes conducting soil and range inventories to collect data on soil 

productivity, erosion, and stability problems and other physical land factors. These data 

are used for program development, conservation planning, and water rights claim 

settlements (BIA 2015). The indicators assessed for soil resource productivity are the 

same as those described above.

Current Condition

To broadly characterize the soils in the planning area, the highest level of soil 

taxonomy—soil orders—were used. Soils are classified into 12 soil orders, and have been 

mapped for the US by the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 

Seven of the soil orders are found in the decision area (NRCS 2015a): mollisols, alfisols, 

aridisols, inceptisols, entisols, ultisols, and vertisols (see Table 2-7 and Figure 2-5, Soil 

Orders). Miscellaneous or null areas have little or no soil material and thus support scant 

or no vegetation, for example rock outcrops. Additionally these areas may be water 

features, such as reservoirs. The composition of soil series in each association is variable 

and is based on the overall map unit.

Alfisols have clay-enriched subsoils and are also important for agricultural production. 

They are considered to be fertile, but their nutrients may be moderately leached or have 

been lost (University of Idaho 2013). 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-55

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-7

Soil Orders in the Decision Area

Soil Order

BLMAdministered

Surface 

Lands

BLMAdministered

Federal Mineral 

Estate

BIAAdministered 

Tribal And 

Allotted Lands

BIA-Administered 

Tribal and Allotted 

Subsurface Minerals 

Estate

Kansas

Alfisols 0 12,100 20 20

Entisols 0 73,100 600 600

Inceptisols 0 2,700 300 300

Mollisols 0 409,100 28,900 28,900

Vertisols 0 10,900 0 0

Null 0 160,800 10 10

Nebraska

Alfisols 0 0 10 10

Entisols 0 0 100 100

Inceptisols 0 0 100 100

Mollisols 0 0 700 700

Oklahoma

Alfisols 100 434,800 181,500 811,500

Entisols 25,500 177,400 90,300 141,300

Inceptisols 50 68,000 81,800 266,100

Mollisols 400 381,300 338,200 1,134,900

Utisols 0 195,000 55,600 72,800

Vertisols 50 36,500 36,600 86,600

Null 8,900 612,500 32,500 96,500

Texas

Alfisols 800 299,600 1,600 1,700

Aridosols 0 65,400 0 0

Entisols 400 220,500 600 700

Inceptisols 1,800 96,000 1,800 1,800

Mollisols 8,400 366,900 80 80

Utisols 0 43,100 900 900

Vertisols 0 187,900 80 80

Null 500 890,100 900 900

Source: NRCS GIS 2015

2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-57

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Aridisols are calcium carbonate-containing soils that are characterized as dry most of the 

year. As a result, aridisols have limited leaching and so have a subsurface horizon in 

which clays, calcium carbonate, silica, salts, and gypsum can accumulate (University of 

Idaho 2013). 

Entisols are a catch-all for soils that do not fit in the other eleven soil orders. They are 

described as new soils developed in unconsolidated parent material that usually do not 

have genetic horizons, except for horizon A (University of Idaho 2013). 

Inceptisols are soils that exhibit minimal horizon development. They are slightly more 

developed than entisols but still lack the features and characteristics of other soil orders. 

They are often found on fairly steep slopes, on young geomorphic surfaces, and on 

erosion-resistant parent materials (University of Idaho 2013). Mollisols are soils that have 

a dark-colored surface horizon. They are fertile or have a high capacity to support plant 

growth due to appropriate chemical, physical, and biological characteristics. These 

qualities are attributable to the long-term addition of organic materials derived from plant 

roots (University of Idaho 2013). As such, mollisols are considered to be among the most 

important and productive agricultural soils. 

Ultisols are strongly leached, acid forest soils with relatively low fertility. They are found 

in older stable landscapes where primary minerals have weathered intensely and much of 

the calcium, magnesium, and potassium have leached out (University of Idaho 2013). 

Finally, vertisols are clay-rich soils with high shrink and swell potential. This prevents 

the formation of distinct and well-developed horizons and can create serious engineering 

problems (University of Idaho 2013).

The NRCS has also conducted soils surveys and classified soils into map units broken out 

by land resource region at a scale of 1:10,000,000, major land resource areas at a scale of 

1:7,500,000, and land resource units at a scale of 1:250,000. These units are derived from 

the aggregation of map units from the State Soils Geographic database. Map units are 

identified during soil surveys at the county level, which can be used for management 

involving site-specific disturbance. Soil map units may be designated based on the soil’s 

series, slope, aspect, or texture. Soil series are two or more geographically associated 

soils that have similar formation, chemistry, or physical properties. Examples of soil 

series properties are runoff capabilities, erosion hazards, associated native vegetation, 

wildlife habitat, and suitability for community development. In the planning area there 

are eight land resource regions, comprising 49 major land resource areas (Center for 

Environmental Informatics 2015) and over 1,200 different map units, consisting of 

associations of different major soil series, as found in the NRCS SURRGO2 Data. 

Ecological site descriptions were subsequently developed for the soils in each major land 

resource areas (NRCS 2015b). Ecological site descriptions are a description of the 

original or natural plant community that can be supported at a given site based on 

multiple environmental factors, such as soils, topography, climate, and fire. State and 

transition models have been developed for some areas and are being developed in others. 
2. Area Profile

2-58 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

State and transition models describe the variability of a particular site and can help 

determine if an ecological threshold has been crossed. This type of knowledge can be 

invaluable for habitat restoration and surface management planning.

Trends

Localized impacts on soil resources may develop as a result of increased mineral activity, 

OHV and other recreation use, recreation facilities development, such as trails or 

campgrounds, livestock grazing, and right-of-way (ROW) development. Increased 

mineral development, recreation, and the continued dependence on other natural 

resources would place an increased demand on public lands and the soil resource. 

The most significant regional or national demand placed on soils in the planning area 

results from the development of fluid and nonfluid mineral resources. Minerals extraction

generally involves disturbing the surface and impacting soil resources; it can be long 

term. Disturbance is associated with such activities as pipeline installation, power line 

construction, seismic exploration, and exploratory drilling. The development of ROWs 

can include a number of surface-disturbing activities, such as road building, trenching, 

and construction site clearing. 

All of these activities have the potential to create both short- and long-term impacts on 

soils. The cumulative amount of surface disturbance or vegetative manipulation that can 

be supported by soils in the planning area has not been determined. However, it is widely 

recognized that there is a limit to the level of disturbance that can accumulate in any 

watershed before natural flow conditions are significantly affected. The initial 

disturbance caused by these activities creates the larger impact; over the long term these 

disturbance values diminish due to the estimated results of such best management 

practices as interim reclamation over the life of the plan.

The effects of climate change on soil resource may be subtle and could be difficult to 

detect until a change threshold has been crossed. Land uses could result in greater 

impacts on the soil resource. This would be the case particularly of those lands with 

surface disturbance, when combined with warmer temperatures and changes in rainfall 

and runoff and the resulting shifts in vegetative communities.

Forecast

Soil resources are currently evaluated case-by-case in NEPA documents. This may or 

may not adequately provide for future protection of the resource. The degree of 

degradation to soils is expected to be high under current management.

Key Features

Demands are placed on soil resources when other resources are developed. The most 

significant regional or national demand placed on soils in the planning area results from 

the development of fluid and nonfluid mineral resources. Soil can be disturbed by a 

variety of surface uses, such as livestock grazing, OHV use, recreation facilities 

development, such as trails and campgrounds, and ROW and mineral development. The 

initial disturbances are generally offset through the use of conditions of approval, best 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-59

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

management practices, and other mitigation measures assessed and assigned through 

NEPA and the permitting process.

References

BIA (US Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs). Division of Natural Resources, 

Branch of Agriculture and Rangeland Development). Internet website: 

http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OTS/NaturalResources/AgrRngeDev/index.

htm.

Center for Environmental Informatics. 2015. NRCS Major Land Resource Area Explorer. 

This application is a product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey partnership 

of The Pennsylvania State University (Center for Environmental Informatics); 

West Virginia University; and US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (National Geospatial Development Center and National Soil 

Survey Center) Cooperative Ecological Studies Unit (CESU), 63-3A75-4-104. 

Internet website: http://apps.cei.psu.edu/mlra/. 

NRCS (US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2015a.

Distribution Maps of Dominant Soil Orders. Internet website: 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/

survey/class/?cid=nrcs142p2_053589. 

. 2015b. Ecological Site Information System. Internet website: http://esis.sc.egov

.usda.gov/.

. 2015c. Web Soil Survey. Internet website: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.

NRCS GIS (US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 

2015. Published GIS data of soil attributes from the gSSURGO soil database. 

Received April 2015.

University of Idaho. 2013. The Twelve Soil Orders, Soil Taxonomy. Collage of 

Agricultural and Life Sciences, Soil and Land Resources Division. Internet 

website: http://www.cals.uidaho.edu/soilorders/. Accessed in January 2015.

2.2.5 Water Resources

The State of Kansas uses its water plan (2009) to coordinate the management, 

conservation, and development of its water resources. It recommends ways that the state 

can best achieve the proper use and control of water resources and contains hydrologic, 

climatic, and demographic characteristics. It also contains the following statewide 

management categories and policies: 

 Water resource objectives

 Water management and conservation

 Public water supply and quality
2. Area Profile

2-60 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Flood, wetland, and riparian management

 Water-based recreation

 Data and research

 Public information and education

 Enhanced stream corridor and wetland management to address reservoir 

sedimentation

Additionally, the state water plan contains twelve river basin plans (containing basin plan 

description, basin management categories, and basin priority issues). Also included is a 

Kansas water plan atlas, containing statewide and basin-specific maps illustrating various 

resource conditions (Kansas Water Office 2015). The Kansas Water Office, in 

coordination with local, state, federal, and interstate partners, is developing the five-year 

update of the Kansas Water Plan.

The Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan contains technical data, information, and 

policy recommendations manifested in an executive report, 13 companion watershed 

planning region reports, and many additional technical study findings and reports. The 

final 2012 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Update Executive Report serves as a 

concise compilation of technical and policy information. In addition to background 

information on water planning and management in Oklahoma, the executive report 

includes a statewide assessment of water supplies, future projections of demand, and 

potential options to alleviate anticipated deficits of particular concern. 

Thirteen regional planning reports, including 82 basin/watershed reports, provide the 

major technical component of the 2012 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Update. 

Each watershed planning region report presents information from both a regional and 

local perspective, including water supply and demand analysis results, forecasted water 

supply shortages, potential supply solutions and alternatives, and supporting technical 

information (Oklahoma Water Resources Board 2015).

In addition to incorporating the regional water plans, the 2012 State Water Plan in Texas 

serves as a guide to state water policy and includes legislative recommendations that the 

Texas Water Development Board believes are needed and desirable to facilitate voluntary 

water transfers. The plan also identifies river and stream segments of unique ecological 

value and sites of unique value for the construction of reservoirs that the Texas Water 

Development Board recommends for protection (Texas Water Development Board 

2015a). 

The primary message of Texas’s 2012 water plan is that in serious drought conditions, 

Texas does not and will not have enough water to meet the needs of its people, its 

businesses, and its agricultural enterprises. The plan presents the information regarding 

the recommended conservation and other types of water management strategies that 

would be necessary to meet the state’s needs in drought conditions, the cost of such 

strategies, and estimates of the state’s financial assistance that would be required to 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-61

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

implement these strategies. The plan contains descriptions of population and water 

demand projections, climate, water supplies, water supply needs, and water management 

strategies Texas (Water Development Board. 2015b).

Indicators

Indicators of water resources are as follows:

 State and federal water quality standards

 Water supply

 BLM rangeland health standards

Current Condition

Precipitation

Precipitation, as rain and snow, is the primary source of water in Kansas and Nebraska. 

Average annual precipitation from 1951 to 1980 increases from west to east and ranges 

from about 16 to 40 inches in Kansas. The climate of the western third of Kansas and 

Nebraska, where the average annual precipitation generally is less than 20 inches per 

year, is considered to be semiarid. This area receives little precipitation chiefly because it 

is distant from the Gulf of Mexico, which is the principal source of moisture-laden air for 

the Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska area. Scant precipitation is also partly because the 

area is in the rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains. 

Much of the precipitation is returned to the atmosphere by evapotranspiration. Some of 

the precipitation either flows directly into streams as overland runoff or percolates into 

the soil. Then it moves downward into aquifers, where it is stored for a time and 

subsequently released as base flow to streams. Average annual runoff (the total discharge 

into a stream from surface and groundwater sources) increases from west to east and 

ranges from about 0.2 inch to 5 inches in Kansas. Runoff is less than precipitation 

everywhere. Evapotranspiration rates are high, especially in the western three-quarters of 

Kansas. Only a small percentage of the precipitation is available to recharge aquifers in 

most places (Miller and Appel 1997).

Precipitation is the source of all the water in Oklahoma and Texas. Average annual 

precipitation ranges from about 8 inches per year in southwestern Texas to about 56 

inches per year in southeastern Texas. In general, precipitation increases rather uniformly 

from west to east in the two states. Much of the precipitation flows in one of two ways: 

directly into rivers and streams as overland runoff or indirectly as base flow that 

discharges from aquifers where the water has been stored for some time. 

Average annual runoff in the two-state area ranges from about 0.2 inch in the western 

part of the Oklahoma panhandle and parts of west Texas to about 20 inches in 

southeastern Oklahoma. Precipitation is greater than runoff everywhere in the two states. 

Much of the precipitation that falls is returned to the atmosphere by evapotranspiration. 
2. Area Profile

2-62 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Part of the precipitation percolates downward through the soil and permeable rocks and is 

available for aquifer recharge throughout the area (Ryder 1996).

Surface Water

Watersheds in the US were delineated by the USGS using a national standard hierarchical 

system. This is based on surface hydrologic features and are classified into hydrologic 

units: first field (region), second field (subregion), third field (accounting unit), and 

fourth field (cataloguing unit). Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique hydrologic 

unit code: 2-digit (region), 4-digit (subregion), 6-digit (accounting unit), and 8-digit 

(cataloging unit). 

The planning area is in Region 11 Arkansas-White-Red and Region 12 Texas-Gulf. The 

Arkansas River, White River, and Red River drain eastward toward the Mississippi River 

in Region 11. Rivers in Region 12 drain southeastward toward the Gulf of Mexico.

The second level of classification divides the regions into subregions. The third level of 

classification further subdivides many of the subregions into accounting units. The

accounting units nest in or are equivalent to the subregions. The fourth level of 

classification is the cataloging unit, which subdivides the subregions and accounting units 

into smaller areas. 

A cataloging unit is a geographic area representing part or all of a surface drainage basin, 

a combination of drainage basins, or a distinct hydrologic feature (USGS 2015). 

Cataloging units sometimes are called watersheds. A cataloguing unit is the most widely 

used hydrological unit in water resource planning, management, and policy (Daniels et 

al., undated). Due to the large number of watersheds in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, 

accounting units are provided in Table 2-8, Hydrologic Accounting Units in the BLM 

Decision Area; the accounting units are shown in Figure 2-6.

The Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment—Pre-assessment report (Assal 

et al. 2015) covers eastern Colorado and New Mexico, western Kansas and Oklahoma, 

and northern Texas. Streams and rivers of the Southern Great Plains ecoregion are highly 

variable in size, type, and flow patterns. Their hydrologic and geomorphic characteristics, 

however, change progressively along a predictable and consistent gradient from their

headwaters to the main-stem rivers. Small headwater streams of the Southern Great 

Plains undergo intermittent channel drying, especially in areas that lack the groundwater 

springs that typically promote more consistent flows. 

The drainage area of medium-sized reaches in the middle sections of a watershed can be 

engulfed by storms and thus are more prone to flooding than the upper reaches. In 

contrast, most of the large main-stem rivers in the Southern Great Plains are buffered

against all but the largest flood events by virtue of their floodplains, where water can 

dissipate laterally when large flows do occur. These larger river sections also are less 

likely to undergo periods of channel drying than upstream sections. 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-63

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-8

Hydrologic Accounting Units in the BLM Decision Area

Accounting Unit Name Acres of BLM-Administered 

Surface Land

Acres of BLM-Administered 

Federal Mineral Estate

Kansas

Arkansas-Keystone 0 3,700 

Big Blue 0 35,300 

Kansas 0 122,100 

Lower Cimarron 0 0

Middle Arkansas 0 93,900 

Missouri-Nishnabotna 0 200 

Neosho 0 49,300 

Osage 0 56,200 

Republican 0 104,200 

Smoky Hill 0 143,500 

Upper Beaver 0 100 

Upper Cimarron 0 14,200 

Verdigris 0 46,956 

Oklahoma

Arkansas-Keystone 50 55,700 

Lower Beaver 0 14,300 

Lower Canadian 1,600 288,200 

Lower Cimarron 700 76,600 

Lower North Canadian 30 110,500 

Middle Canadian 0 100 

Neosho 0 86,800 

North Fork Red 500 64,300 

Prairie Dog Town Fork Red 0 300 

Red-Lake Texoma 3,500 262,500 

Red-Little 0 230,100 

Red-Pease 7,000 9,900 

Robert S. Kerr Reservoir 0 435,200 

Salt Fork Red 10 9,100 

Upper Beaver 70 22,300 

Upper Cimarron 10 7,700 

Verdigris 0 82,700 

Washita 100 128,700 

Texas

Big Cypress-Sulphur 0 295,800 

Brazos Headwaters 0 2,300 

Central Texas Coastal 0 112,500 

Devils 0 36,600 

Galveston Bay-Sabine Lake 0 7,900 

Guadalupe 0 15,400 
2. Area Profile

2-64 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-8

Hydrologic Accounting Units in the BLM Decision Area

Accounting Unit Name Acres of BLM-Administered 

Surface Land

Acres of BLM-Administered 

Federal Mineral Estate

Lavaca 0 16,300 

Little 0 300,500 

Lower Beaver 0 0

Lower Brazos 0 41,500 

Lower Canadian 0 20 

Lower Colorado 0 12,000 

Lower Pecos 0 2,300 

Lower Rio Grande 0 37,300 

Lower Trinity 0 1,900 

Middle Brazos-Bosque 0 101,600 

Middle Brazos-Clear Fork 0 5,400 

Middle Canadian 11,800 59,800 

Middle Colorado-Concho 0 31,100 

Middle Colorado-Llano 0 3,200 

Neches 0 218,600 

North Fork Red 40 21,800 

Nueces 0 27,200 

Prairie Dog Town Fork Red 0 2,600 

Red-Lake Texoma 3,300 53,600 

Red-Little 0 35,000 

Red-Pease 18,100 18,200 

Rio Grande Closed Basins 0 25,600 

Rio Grande-Amistad 0 28,300 

Rio Grande-Falcon 0 46,000 

Rio Grande-Fort Quitman 0 90,700 

Sabine 0 38,200 

Salt Fork Red 0 100 

San Antonio 0 31,000 

San Bernard Coastal 0 43,200 

San Jacinto 0 45,000 

Southwestern Texas Coastal 0 162,300 

Upper Beaver 0 400 

Upper Trinity 0 220,600 

Washita 50 200 

Source: USGS GIS 2015

2. Area Profile

2-66 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

The channel geomorphology of streams and rivers in the Southern Great Plains can be 

coarsely described as meandering and braided, with channel-bed substrates of mostly 

sand (Assal et al. 2015).

Perennial streams contain water throughout the year; intermittent streams contain water 

during wet portions of the year; ephemeral channels contain water only during and 

immediately after rainstorms. The number of miles of these stream types is shown in

Table 2-9.

Table 2-9

Streams in the Decision Area for BLM

State

BLM-Administered Surface Lands

in Miles

BLM-Administered Federal Mineral 

Estate in Miles

Perenni

al

Intermitten

t

Ephemera

l

Perennial Intermittent Ephemera

l

Kansas 0 0 0 339.6 1387.5 3.7

Oklahoma 11.5 21.0 0 1,528.9 3,456.6 6.4

Texas 9.9 74.2 0 1,059.6 3,531.9 0

Nebraska 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: National Hydrography Dataset GIS 2013

Water quality standards consist of the designation of beneficial uses, water quality 

criteria to protect the designated uses, and antidegradation policies. Under Section 303(d) 

of the Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop 

lists of impaired waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water 

quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribes. The law requires that these 

jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop total maximum 

daily loads for these waters. The latter is a calculation of the maximum amount of a 

pollutant that a water body can receive and still safely meet water quality standards (EPA 

2015a). There are 472 stream segments in the decision area in Kansas, Oklahoma, and 

Texas that are on the 303(d) list of impaired waters (see Figure 2-7, Stream Segments on 

the 303(d) List, and Table 2-10; EPA GIS 2015).

Table 2-10

Stream Segments on the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters in the Decision 

Area for BLM

State BLM-Administered 

Surface Land (Miles)

BLM-Administered Federal 

Mineral Estate (Miles)

Kansas 0 385.0 

Oklahoma 48.2 1,572.3 

Texas 0.4 721.3 

Source: EPA GIS 2015

2. Area Profile

2-68 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Groundwater

An aquifer system is a grouping of two or more aquifers and can be of two types (Ryder 

1996):

 Vertically stacked aquifers—These are separated by confining units but are 

hydraulically connected; in other words, their flow systems function in a 

similar manner, and a change in conditions in one aquifer affects the others. 

 A set of disconnected aquifers—These are not physically connected but share 

common geologic and hydrologic characteristics and can thus be studied and 

described together. 

Both types of aquifer systems are in Oklahoma and Texas. The aquifers in Oklahoma and 

Texas are in geologic units that range from unconsolidated sand along major streams to 

consolidated carbonate rocks and sandstones that extend over wide areas. These aquifers 

are grouped into 16 major aquifers or aquifer systems on the basis of differences in their 

rock types and groundwater flow systems. Alluvial aquifers occur along major streams. 

Where they are exposed at the land surface, the aquifers generally contain water that is 

fresh to slightly saline (Ryder 1996).

The aquifers in the Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska area vary in composition, such as 

unconsolidated sand and gravel, semiconsolidated sediments, or consolidated sandstone, 

limestone, or dolomite. The aquifers have been defined primarily on the basis of 

differences in their rock types and groundwater flow systems and secondarily by the 

chemical quality of water they contain. 

Some of the aquifers are grouped into systems of two or more aquifers that are 

hydraulically connected. Portions of the High Plains aquifer, the Great Plains aquifer 

system, and the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system are in Kansas. One additional aquifer 

system, the Western Interior Plains, is present only in the subsurface; it contains saline 

water or brine and is not as well-known as the aquifers that primarily contain freshwater 

(Miller and Appel 1997).

The High Plains aquifer underlies parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming (Robson and Banta 1995). The Ogallala 

aquifer is the leading geologic formation of in the High Plains aquifer system. The Great 

Plains aquifer system underlies most of Nebraska, about half of Kansas, the eastern third 

of Colorado, and small parts of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, South Dakota, and 

Wyoming (Miller and Appel 1997). The Western Interior Plains aquifer system underlies 

most of Kansas, the eastern and southern parts of Nebraska, and a small area in westcentral Missouri (Miller and Appel 1997). Aquifers are listed in Table 2-11 and are also 

shown in Figure 2-8.

2. Area Profile

2-70 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-11

Aquifers in the Decision Area for BLM

Aquifer Name BLM-Administered 

Surface Lands (Acres)

BLM-Administered Federal 

Mineral Estate (Acres)

Texas coastal uplands aquifer system 0 433,300 

Seymour 40 430 

Rush Springs 30 8,900 

Rio Grande 0 116,300 

Ozark Plateaus 0 6,100 

Mississippi embayment aquifer 

system

0 600 

Lower Cretaceous 0 52,700 

High Plains (Ogallalla) 120 144,000 

Edwards-Trinity aquifer system 0 289,500 

Coastal lowlands aquifer system 0 413,400 

Central Oklahoma 240 18,800 

Blaine 0 7,200 

Arbuckle-Simpson 0 0

Ada-Vamoosa 0 21,800 

Source: USGS GIS 2003

Range Improvements Involving Water

There are two types of range improvements: nonstructural and structural (BLM 2015a). 

Seedings and prescribed burns are examples of nonstructural range improvements; fences 

and such facilities as wells or water pipelines are examples of structural improvements. 

Many structural improvements are considered permanent because they are not easily 

removed from the land. There are no water-related range improvements on BLM grazing 

allotments.

The following fundamentals of rangeland health must exist on BLM-administered lands 

(43 CFR, Part 4100, Subpart 4180):

 Watersheds are in, or are making significant progress toward, properly 

functioning physical condition, including their upland, riparian-wetland, and 

aquatic components; soil and plant conditions support infiltration, soil 

moisture storage, and the release of water that are in balance with climate and 

landform and maintain or improve water quality, water quantity, and timing 

and duration of flow.

 Ecological processes, including the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and 

energy flow, are maintained, or there is significant progress toward their 

attainment, in order to support healthy biotic populations and communities.

 Water quality complies with State water quality standards and achieves, or is 

making significant progress toward achieving, established BLM management 

objectives such as meeting wildlife needs.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-71

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Floodplains

A floodplain is a geographic area of relatively level land that is occasionally subject to 

inundation by surface water from rivers or streams. A 100-year flood is one having a one 

percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in magnitude in any given year; a 100-year 

floodplain is a one covered by water in the event of a 100-year flood. The number of 

acres in 100-year floodplains is in Table 2-12, 100-Year Floodplains in the BLM 

Decision Area.

Table 2-12

100-Year Floodplains in the BLM Decision Area

State

Acres of BLMAdministered 

Surface Land 

(Acres)

Acres of BLMAdministered Federal 

Mineral Estate 

(Acres)

Kansas 0 157,100

Oklahoma 2,200 537,100

Texas 12,400 1,262,000

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency GIS 2013

Water Use

One of the primary responsibilities of the BLM in the planning area is leasing coal and 

leasable minerals; such as oil and gas. These activities use water, generate contaminated 

water, and use substances capable of contaminating water. Releasing contaminated water 

or substances capable of contaminating water can affect the quality of surface and 

groundwater and, therefore, the uses of the surface and groundwater, such as domestic 

water consumption.

A federal coal lease grants the right to explore for, extract, remove, and dispose of some 

or all of the coal deposits that may be found on the leased lands. Coal leases are granted 

on the condition that the lessee will obtain the appropriate permits and licenses from the 

BLM, the Office of Surface Mining, and any affected state and local governments. 

In some areas, development of coal resources may conflict with the protection and 

management of other resources or public land uses. In such cases, the BLM may identify 

mitigating measures that may appear on leases as either stipulations to uses or restrictions 

on operations. If the lessee fails to comply with the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920, as amended, or fails to comply with any applicable regulations, lease terms, or 

stipulations, the BLM may take legal steps to cancel the lease (BLM 2015b). Large 

quantities of water are often needed to remove impurities from the coal. In addition, coalfired power plants use large quantities of water for producing steam and for cooling. The 

development of coal is discussed further in Section 2.3.1, Energy and Minerals, Coal.

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired 

Lands of 1947, as amended, give the BLM responsibility for oil and gas leasing on about 

564 million acres of BLM-administered lands, national forest lands, and other federal 
2. Area Profile

2-72 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

lands across the nation, as well as state and private surface lands where the federal 

government has retained the mineral rights. 

While the BLM provides technical assistance to Indian tribes and Indian mineral owners, 

it does not lease Indian minerals (BLM 2015c). Oil and gas leases in Kansas, Oklahoma, 

and Texas are identified in Table 2-13, Oil and Gas Statistics (Fiscal Year 2014). The 

development of oil and gas is discussed further in Section 2.3.1, Energy and Minerals,

Fluid Minerals.

Table 2-13

Oil and Gas Statistics (Fiscal Year 2014)

State

Total Number of 

Oil and Gas Leases 

in Effect

Total Number of 

Acres Under Lease 

as of the Last Day 

of Fiscal Year 2014

Kansas 467 120,562

Oklahoma 1,275 301,977

Texas 727 429,232

Source: BLM 2014a, 2014b

The Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development (commonly referred to as The Gold Book, BLM 2007) was developed to 

assist operators. It provides information on the requirements for obtaining permit 

approval and conducting environmentally responsible oil and gas operations on federal 

lands and on private surface over federal minerals (split-estate). In 2007 the Gold Book 

was updated to incorporate changes resulting from the new Onshore Oil and Gas Order 

No. 1 regulations (BLM 2015d). The Gold Book contains information on conducting 

operations to minimize impacts on water resources.

Hydraulic fracturing is a technique used in “unconventional” gas production. 

Unconventional gas reservoirs can cost-effectively produce gas only by using a special 

stimulation technique, like hydraulic fracturing, or other special recovery process and 

technology. This is often because the gas is highly dispersed in the rock, rather than 

occurring in a concentrated underground location (EPA 2015b).

Hydraulic fracturing produces fractures in a rock formation in order to stimulate the flow 

of natural gas or oil, thereby increasing the volumes of gas or oil that can be recovered. 

Wells may be drilled vertically hundreds to thousands of feet below the land surface and 

may include horizontal or directional sections extending thousands of feet (EPA 2015b).

Fractures are created by pumping large quantities of fluids at high pressure down a 

wellbore and into the target rock formation. Hydraulic fracturing fluid commonly consists 

of three components, as follows:
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-73

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Water

 Proppant (such as sand, ceramic pellets, or other small uncompressible 

particles that hold open the newly created fractures [EPA 2015b])

 Chemical additives that open and enlarge fractures in the rock formation that 

can extend several hundred feet from the well bore

Once the injection process is completed, the internal pressure of the rock formation 

causes fluid to return to the surface through the wellbore. This fluid is known as both 

flowback and produced water. It may contain the injected chemicals plus naturally 

occurring materials, such as brines, metals, radionuclides, and hydrocarbons. The 

flowback is typically stored on-site in tanks or pits before treatment, disposal, or 

recycling, though in the BLM’s hydraulic fracturing regulation, scheduled to be effective 

in June 2015, produced water will be stored almost exclusively in tanks. In many cases, it 

is injected underground for disposal. In areas where that is not an option, it may be 

treated and reused or processed by a wastewater treatment facility and then discharged to 

surface water (EPA 2015b). 

The protection of underground sources of drinking water from hydraulic fracturing is 

focused in the EPA Underground Injection Control program, which regulates the 

subsurface emplacement of fluid. While the Safe Drinking Water Act specifically 

excludes hydraulic fracturing from Underground Injection Control regulation under Safe 

Drinking Water Act Section 1421 (d)(1), the use of diesel fuel during hydraulic fracturing 

is still regulated by the Underground Injection Control program (EPA 2015c). The EPA 

is conducting a study to better understand any potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing 

for oil and gas on drinking water resources (EPA 2015d).

The EPA is developing a proposed rule to amend the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Category (40 CFR, Part 435). The proposed rule 

is scheduled for publication in 2015. It would address discharges of wastewater pollutants 

from onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction facilities to publicly owned treatment 

works. The EPA continues to collect and analyze information and will examine a variety 

of options for these discharges (EPA 2015e).

In Oklahoma, total withdrawals from surface water and groundwater sources during 2005 

were about 1,559 million gallons/day: 989 million gallons/day, or 63 percent, from 

surface water sources and 570 million gallons/day, or 37 percent, from groundwater 

sources. The three largest water use categories are as follows:

 Public supply, about 646 million gallons/day, or 41 percent of total 

withdrawals

 Irrigation, 495 million gallons/day, or 32 percent of total withdrawals

 Livestock and aquaculture, 181 million gallons/day, or 12 percent of total

withdrawals
2. Area Profile

2-74 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

All other categories—e.g. thermo-electric power generation, self-supplied domestic and 

commercial, and industrial and mining—were 237 million gallons/day, or 15 percent of 

total withdrawals (Tortorelli 2009).

Trends

Urban and agricultural development and energy infrastructure and development 

(especially for coal, oil, and gas) have influenced the quantity and quality of water in the 

planning area.

Streams and rivers of the Southern Great Plains have been severely affected by multiple 

stressors that have profoundly changed the ways in which these systems function. 

Dominant agents of change are agricultural development and associated activities, 

although energy development and urbanization contribute to the degradation and 

fragmentation of streams and rivers. In particular, urban centers have led to the 

channelization of many Southern Great Plains rivers and streams, which decreases habitat 

heterogeneity and severs important connections with floodplains. Projected average 

temperatures and precipitation patterns associated with climate change also represent 

significant potential agents of change to streams and rivers (Assal et al. 2015).

Development has frequently included dams, ditches, groundwater pumping, and other 

human alteration. This has altered the hydrology, thereby affecting the flow regime, 

reducing water tables, and increasing sedimentation (Assal et al. 2015).

Lakes are water impoundments created by natural processes along stream courses and in

depressions on landscapes. Reservoirs are man-made impoundments developed to control 

flooding, enhance water storage for use off stream (for example, irrigation), and to create 

hydraulic head for electric power generation. Many natural lakes, such as Lake Meredith 

in Texas, were converted to reservoirs by dam construction. In addition to Lake Meredith, 

other large reservoirs created by damming rivers or converting large lakes to reservoirs in 

the Southern Great Plains are Cedar Bluff and Cheney Reservoirs in Kansas, Tom Steed 

Reservoir and Great Salt Plains Lake in Oklahoma, and Lake Kemp in Texas (Assal et al. 

2015). 

Groundwater withdrawal for irrigating crops and providing livestock watering ponds is 

an important driver of change for saline lakes. The discharge rates in 75 percent of the 

saline lakes on the Llano Estacado (part of which is in northern Texas) are greatly 

diminished, or the springs have dried up altogether. Another negative outcome of 

overdrafting the groundwater is saltwater intrusion into underlying aquifers in the region. 

Playas that receive irrigation tail water from croplands may remain wetter longer than 

they did historically. Tail water also carries pesticides, heavy metals, sediments, and 

excessive nutrients into the wetlands (Assal et al. 2015).

Playa lakes are integral wetlands of the Southern Great Plains. They are found in 

semiarid environments throughout the world but are most numerous in the Playa Lakes 

Region of southwestern Kansas, southeastern Colorado, the Oklahoma Panhandle, eastern 

New Mexico, and northwestern Texas. Threats to playas are physical alteration, direct 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-75

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

application of agricultural chemicals, overgrazing, and sedimentation. Of these, 

sedimentation is the most serious. Approximately 90 percent of playas surrounded by 

cropland have lost their original volume due to sedimentation (Wishart 2011).

The infrastructure used to support industrial activities across the prairie landscape has 

redistributed water resources, for drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and coal bed methane 

extraction. The hydrology of major streams in the region has been altered by 

impoundments, withdrawals (municipal and irrigation), groundwater depletion, and a 

multitude of upland land use changes. As a result, timing and flow, water temperature, 

dissolved nutrients, and sediment levels have been altered (Assal et al. 2015). 

Water quality in the region has been affected by herbicides, urban pollutants, and fecal 

contamination. Groundwater depletion is a regional major concern. It is centered on the 

Ogallala aquifer, which declined by an average of 10 feet during a 40-year period in the 

middle of the twentieth century (Assal et al. 2015).

Because the Southern Great Plains is an arid landscape that nonetheless supports 

landscape-scale agricultural production, irrigation demand is high. To irrigate croplands, 

surface waters are diverted and groundwater is pumped to the surface, fundamentally 

altering the flow regimes of Southern Great Plains streams and rivers (Assal et al. 2015).

In Oklahoma, public-supply water withdrawals increased steadily from 1990 to 2000 and 

then decreased slightly in 2005, mainly because of a decrease in surface water 

withdrawals. Irrigation water withdrawals increased to about 864 million gallons/day, or 

44 percent, from 1990 to 1995 and then decreased steadily to 495 million gallons/day in 

2005. Total livestock and aquaculture water withdrawals steadily increased from 1990 to 

2005. The largest increase in the other water use categories was thermo-electric power 

generation, which has steadily increased and almost doubled from 1990 to 2005 

(Tortorelli 2009).

Forecast

During the last 30 years, northern portions of the Great Plains have seen average winter 

temperatures rise to 7 degrees Fahrenheit above historical averages. Average year-round 

temperatures are also increasing. During this century, temperatures are projected to 

continue increasing, especially in the southern and central Great Plains during the 

summer. Projections for future precipitation patterns vary within the region. Northern 

areas may become wetter, while southern areas may become drier, especially during the 

summer. Projections for future precipitation patterns vary within Texas, Oklahoma, and 

Kansas. Northeastern Kansas may become wetter, while western Texas may become drier

(EPA 2015g).

Oil, gas, and coal development (and associated water use and degradation) is expected to 

vary. Development is influenced by the price of these commodities, and as the price 

increases, the development of these commodities is expected to increase.
2. Area Profile

2-76 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Reservoirs affect sediment and nutrient flows to downstream reaches. Upstream inflows 

and surface runoff, particularly in agricultural areas, can be enriched with nitrogen from 

inorganic fertilizers and animal wastes. They can be contaminated with chemicals and 

can contain significant amounts of fine-grained sediments (Assal et al. 2015).

Measures are being taken to prevent or slow future sedimentation effects on playas, to 

restore degraded playas, and to conserve these wetlands. These include taking land out of 

production through the Conservation Reserve Program, controlling erosion through 

contour farming, and creating buffers of native vegetation around the playas (Wishart 

2011).

Activities associated with energy development, such as drilling and hydraulic fracturing, 

can affect the distribution and levels of surface water and groundwater. For example, an 

average of 4.8 million gallons of water are typically used to fracture natural gas shales in 

every horizontal well drilled, including the Woodford and Barnett shales being developed 

in Oklahoma and Texas, respectively. In these regions, however, the water stress is 

already considered medium to extremely high. In some areas of the southern mixed-grass 

prairie, hydraulic fracturing is contributing significantly to groundwater depletion. In the 

Southern Great Plains ecoregion, the southern mixed-grass prairie generally includes the 

grasslands of south-central Nebraska, the central third of Kansas and Oklahoma, small 

parts of the eastern Texas panhandle, and the western half of north-central Texas (Assal 

et al. 2015). 

There are many energy resource extraction projects occurring within the Southern Great 

Plains, particularly those associated with several shale gas/oil formations. These 

formations include the Barnett play in north-central Texas and the Woodford play in 

central Oklahoma. Hydraulic fracturing, which can have potentially negative effects on 

streams and rivers, is the primary type of energy development in these areas. Primary 

threats to aquatic systems from hydraulic fracturing are groundwater withdrawals and 

discharges of water with high levels of total dissolved solids (Assal et al. 2015).

Hydraulic fracturing fluid use by rock formation is shown in Figure 2-9 and Figure 2-10.

Also of concern where fossil fuels are being developed is the possibility of spills and 

other accidents and intentional dumping of contaminated fluids. These actions

contaminate land and water resources. Fluids associated with energy development and its 

waste products may contain high levels of salinity, radioactivity, hydrocarbons, and other 

contaminants. Shale-oil fields underlie most of the Southern Great Plains, so 

development risks exist across the region. Energy development may also contribute to 

land cover change, resulting in increased erosion (Assal et al. 2015).

The effects of energy development can include potential changes to groundwater flows 

and contamination from hydraulic fracturing (making spring-fed lakes particularly at 

risk), road and pipeline construction disturbance, and contamination from surface spills

(Assal et al. 2015). 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-77

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Figure 2-9

Average Fracturing Fluid Volume per Well by Formation

Source: Assal et al. 2015

Groundwater withdrawals for irrigation and municipal use are already having notable 

effects on the discharge rates of springs that discharge into saline lakes of the Southern 

Great Plains. Additional withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing could further affect the 

hydroperiod (the period in which a soil area is waterlogged) and ecological function of 

these wetlands (Assal et al. 2015).

Diverting surface water can reduce streamflow within stream channels and sometimes 

completely dewater stream channels. Pumping groundwater can have a very large 

footprint on the landscape because water being extracted miles away from an active 

stream channel can reduce water levels in the aquifers from which these stream channels 

receive inflow (Assal et al. 2015). 

This is particularly troublesome for the Southern Great Plains because the rate of 

recharge to the underlying aquifer is very slow. Pumping from this aquifer can influence 

streamflow in multiple ways, depending on its proximity to the stream channel. If a well 

is within the alluvial sediment, a cone of depression can be created, which can reverse the 

flow of groundwater away from stream channels. Pumping farther away from stream 

channels can decrease the overall elevations of regional aquifers and decrease the amount 
2. Area Profile

2-78 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Figure 2-10

Cumulative Fracturing Fluid Volumes by Formation

Source: Assal et al. 2015

of groundwater input to streams and rivers. Reducing groundwater input to streams and 

rivers in an environment as arid and hydrologically variable as the Southern Great Plains 

can drastically reduce perennial pool habitats (Assal et al. 2015). 

In addition, dams have been constructed to store water for both irrigation and municipal 

use and to provide recreational opportunities. The net result of damming streams and 

rivers in the Southern Great Plains is a high level of discontinuity in the historically 

continuous river networks of this region. Increasing human densities will lead to 

increased use of lakes and reservoirs, for both recreation and municipal water needs

(Assal et al. 2015).

Land use change can lead to increased sedimentation and nutrient inputs in affected 

watersheds. An example of such change is the conversion of grassland to cropland in the 

Southern Great Plains during the 1970s and 1980s. Another example is increased 

livestock grazing without appropriate buffer strategies, conservation tillage practices, and 

irrigation management (Assal et al. 2015). 

Grassland conversion is anticipated to continue through 2100, primarily because of 

cultivation and to a lesser extent urban and other development. Conversion from irrigated 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-79

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

farming to dryland farming (a method of farming in semiarid areas without the aid of 

irrigation, using drought-resistant crops and conserving moisture) will reduce water lost 

to evaporation and leakage from storage lakes and reservoirs. On the other hand, both 

direct and indirect inputs of irrigation tailwater could diminish as more farmland is 

transitioned to dryland farming. Another significant factor that could affect water levels 

in managed reservoirs is the transfer of water and the sale of water rights (particularly to 

municipalities). This is because water may be diverted to remote areas and water storage 

may be discontinued or significantly decreased (Assal et al. 2015).

Winter wheat is a common crop in the shortgrass ecoregion because it does not require 

irrigation. With water becoming increasingly expensive to pump as the main aquifer 

under the Southern Great Plains (Ogallala) is mined, the emphasis on dryland farming 

will increase as more drought- and herbicide-tolerant varieties of corn, soybeans, and 

other crops are developed (Assal et al. 2015).

Key Features

The key feature involving surface water resources is the Red River. Groundwater is a key 

feature where coal, oil, and gas development occurs.

References

Assal, T. J., C. P. Melcher, and N. B. Carr (editors). 2015. Southern Great Plains Rapid 

Ecoregional Assessment—Pre-assessment report: US Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2015–XXXX, FINAL URL.

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2007. Surface 

Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development. The Gold Book. Publication P-417. Internet website: http://www

.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/gold_bo

ok.html. 

. 2014a. Total Number of Leases in Effect. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/

style/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTEC

TION_/energy/oil___gas_statistics/data_sets.Par.56859.File.dat/numberofleasesin

effect.pdf. Data last updated October 29, 2014.

. 2014b. Total Number of Acres Under Lease As of the Last Day of the Fiscal 

Year. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/

MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/energy/

oil___gas_statistics/data_sets.Par.67327.File.dat/numberofacresleasedlastday.pdf. 

Data last updated October 29, 2014.

. 2015a. Investing in Range Improvements on Public Lands Fact Sheet. Internet 

website: http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/grazing.Par.17722.File.dat/

range_improvement_investment_fact_sheet.pdf. 
2. Area Profile

2-80 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

. 2015b. Coal Operations. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/

energy/coal_and_non-energy.html. 

. 2015c. Q’s & A’s About Oil and Gas Leasing. Internet website: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/questions_and_answers.ht

ml. 

Daniels, Mike, Brian Haggard, and Andrew Sharpley. Undated. Arkansas Watersheds. 

University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. FSA9521.

EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2015a. Impaired Waters and Total 

Maximum Daily Loads. Internet website: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/

lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/. 

. 2015b. The Process of Hydraulic Fracturing. Internet website: 

http://www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing/process-hydraulic-fracturing. 

. 2015c. Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

Internet website: http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/

hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm. 

. 2015d. EPA’s Study of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas and Its Potential 

Impact on Drinking Water Resources. Internet website: http://www2.epa.gov/

hfstudy. 

. 2015e. Unconventional Extraction in the Oil and Gas Industry. Internet website: 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/oilandgas/unconv.cfm#wastewater. 

. 2015g. Climate Impacts in the Great Plains. Internet website: http://www.epa.

gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/greatplains.html.

EPA GIS (US Environmental Protection Agency, Geographic Information System). 2015. 

GIS data used to describe the 303d impaired waters. Internet website: 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/tools/waters/data/downloads.cfm. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency GIS (Geographic Information System). 2013.

GIS data of areas of high risk to flooding. Data received via disc on October 22, 

2013.

Kansas Water Office. 2015. Kansas Water Plan. Internet website: http://www.kwo.org/

Kansas_Water_Plan/Kansas_Water_Plan.htm.

Miller, James A., and Cynthia L. Appel. 1997. Ground Water Atlas of the United States. 

Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. HA 730-D. US Geological Survey. Internet 

website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_d/index.html. 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-81

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

National Hydrography Dataset GIS. 2013. GIS data of rivers used to create GIS of the 

Oklahoma scenic rivers based on textual descriptions and to describe perennial, 

intermittent, and ephemeral streams. Internet website: http://datagateway.nrcs

.usda.gov.

Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 2015. The Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan. 

Internet website: http://www.owrb.ok.gov/supply/ocwp/ocwp.php. 

Robson S. G., and E. R Banta. 1995. Ground Water Atlas of the United States. Arizona, 

Colorado, New Mexico, Utah. HA 730-C. US Geological Survey. Internet 

website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_c/C-text5.html. 

Ryder, Paul D. 1996. Ground Water Atlas of the United States. Oklahoma and Texas. HA 

730-E. US Geological Survey. Internet website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch

_e/E-text.html. 

Texas Water Development Board. 2015a. State Water Planning. Internet website: 

http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/waterplanning/swp/. 

. 2015b. 2012 State Water Plan. Internet website: http://www.twdb.state.tx

.us/waterplanning/swp/2012/index.asp. 

Tortorelli, R. L. 2009. Water Use in Oklahoma 1950–2005: US Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5212.

USGS (US Geological Survey). 2015. Hydrologic Unit Maps. Internet website: 

http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html. 

USGS GIS (US Geological Survey, Geographic Information Systems). 2003. GIS data of 

aquifers. Internet website: http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html#aquifrp. 

_____. 2015. GIS data of Hydrologic Unit Code 6 accounting units. Watershed Boundary 

Dataset. Internet website: ftp://rockyftp.cr.usgs.gov/vdelivery/Datasets/Staged/

WBD/FileGDB101/. 

Wishart, David J. (editor). 2011. Encyclopedia of the Great Plains-Playa Lakes. 

University of Nebraska, Lincoln. 

2.2.6 Vegetation

Upland Vegetation

Vegetation provides an enormous variety of functions in an ecosystem and also provides 

for a variety of human and animal uses. Vegetation stabilizes soils, prevents erosion, uses 

carbon dioxide, releases oxygen, increases species diversity, and provides habitat and 

food for animals and resources for human use. 
2. Area Profile

2-82 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Ecosystems reflect complex sets of interactions among plants, animals, soil, water, air, 

temperature, topography, fire, and humans. Influences exerted on one component affect 

other components in the system. 

Vegetation provides many functions within ecosystems. Many of the BLM’s land 

management policies are directed toward managing for healthy vegetative communities,

which support resistant and resilient ecological systems.

Noxious Weeds and Nonnative Invasive Plants

Noxious weeds are native or nonnative plants that are unwanted in a particular area at a 

particular time, as designated by each state in the planning area. Although noxious weeds 

are usually nonnative, a distinction is made in this document because they can and do 

include undesirable native plants. Invasive plants disrupt or have the potential to disrupt

or alter the natural ecosystem function, composition, or diversity of the site they occupy. 

These species can complicate the use of local natural resources and may interfere with 

management objectives for the site. 

Invasive plants are widespread and can damage crops, affect entire industries, and harm 

the environment and public health. For centuries, people have moved plants, animals, and 

microbes around the world. Most countries now rely on plants and animals from other 

regions of the world in order to meet their dietary needs. Organisms that have been 

moved from their native habitat to a new location, especially from a different country, are 

typically referred to as nonnative. 

Prevention is generally recognized as the most cost-effective and efficient method of 

reducing the likelihood for weed introduction and spread, as opposed to eradication and 

control (Davies and Sheley 2007). One way to target prevention is to identify vectors that 

are major dispersers of an invasive plant species, such as attachment on animals or 

humans, transportation via wind or water, and self-propulsion (Davies and Sheley 2007).

On BLM-administered lands, the degree of impact from invasive plants depends on the 

growth characteristics of that species, the density and size of infestation, the land cover 

type being invaded, the resources threatened and potential economic impacts, and cost of 

control or eradication. Noxious weeds documented on BLM-administered grazing 

allotments in the planning area are musk thistle (Carduus nutans) and salt cedar (Tamarix 

spp.) and an additional native, invasive plant, mesquite (Prosopis spp.).

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Riparian areas are those next to rivers, creeks, lakes, springs, and wetlands. They are a 

transition zone between upland and aquatic ecosystems. Riparian areas occur where water 

is perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral. Riparian areas are defined by the BLM as “a 

form of wetland transition between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas. 

These areas exhibit vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent surface 

or subsurface water influence. Lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially 

and intermittent flowing rivers and streams, glacial potholes, and the shores of lakes and 

reservoirs with stable water levels are typical riparian areas” (Leonard et al. 1992). 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-83

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Wetlands occur between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually 

at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water (Cowardin et al. 1979). Soil, 

water conditions, and vegetation type distinguish wetlands from all other ecosystems.

The USACE regulates wetlands and defines them as “those areas inundated or saturated 

by surface or ground water 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. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and 

similar areas” (USACE 1987).

Wetlands must have one or more of the following attributes: 

 At least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes (plants that 

grow only in water or very moist soil)

 The substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil (soil formed under 

conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding)

 The substrate is not solid, is saturated with water, or is covered by shallow 

water at some time during the growing season of each year

Both riparian areas and wetlands are composed of aquatic vegetation with unique soil 

characteristics that developed under the influence of perennial water. The increased 

moisture found in these areas produces unique plant communities that differ noticeably 

from the surrounding upland vegetation. 

Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, landform, or 

large woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflows. 

This in turn results in the following (BLM 1998):

 Reduces erosion, improves water quality, filters sediment, captures bedload, 

and aids floodplain development

 Improves floodwater retention and groundwater recharge

 Promotes root mass development, which stabilizes streambanks against 

cutting action

 Develops diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat 

and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, 

waterfowl breeding, and other uses

 Supports greater biodiversity

Special Status Plant Species

Special status species are federal-listed listed and proposed species, federal candidate 

species, and state-listed species. Other sensitive species are those designated by the BLM 

and special management species. 
2. Area Profile

2-84 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

The BLM focuses on protecting and enhancing the habitats of threatened, endangered, 

and other special status species to ensure their continued existence. BLM special status 

species are as follows: 

 Species listed under or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species 

Act—The act provides a program for conserving threatened and endangered 

plants and animals and their habitats. The lead federal agencies for 

implementing the Endangered Species Act are the USFWS and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

 Species designated as sensitive by the BLM State Director—These require 

special management consideration to promote their conservation and reduce 

the likelihood and need for future listing under the ESA. All federal candidate 

species, proposed species, and species delisted for five years or less are 

considered BLM sensitive species.

Indicators

Upland Vegetation

Typically, BLM Standards and Guidelines can be used as qualitative measurements for 

upland vegetation in the planning area. No standards and guidelines have been developed 

for the planning area; however, details for the two standards that upland vegetation sites 

should meet were developed by the New Mexico State Office (BLM 2001) and are

included below.

Upland Sites Standard—Upland ecological sites are in a productive and sustainable 

condition within the capability of the site. Upland soils are stabilized and exhibit 

infiltration and permeability rates that are appropriate for the soil type, climate, and 

landform. The kind, amount, and pattern of vegetation provide protection on a given site 

to minimize erosion and to assist in meeting state and tribal water quality standards.

Biotic Communities Standard—Biotic communities are native, endangered, threatened, 

and special status species. Ecological processes, such as hydrologic and nutrient cycles

and energy flow, support productive and diverse native biotic communities. Desired plant 

community goals are maintaining and conserving productive and diverse populations of 

plants and animals within the capability of the ecological site, which sustain ecological 

functions and processes.

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Typically, the BLM uses proper functioning condition, a qualitative method for assessing 

the condition of riparian areas and wetlands. Proper functioning condition refers to both 

the assessment process and the on-the-ground condition of riparian areas and wetlands. 

The assessment process consists of an approach that considers the hydrology, vegetation, 

and erosion/deposition attributes of the area; the on-the-ground condition refers to how 

well the physical processes are functioning. This condition is a state of resiliency that 

allows a riparian area or wetland to hold together during times of high water flow with a 

high degree of reliability. This resiliency allows an area to then produce desired values 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-85

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

over time, including fish habitat, neotropical bird habitat, and forage. Riparian areas and 

wetlands that are not functioning properly cannot sustain these values.

A riparian area or wetland is considered to be in proper functioning condition when 

adequate vegetation and landforms are present to accomplish the following:

 Dissipate stream energy associated with high water flow, thereby reducing 

erosion and improving water quality

 Filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development

 Improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge

 Develop root masses that stabilize stream banks against cutting action

 Support greater biodiversity

If a riparian area or wetland is not in proper functioning condition, it is placed into one of 

the following categories:

 Functional-At Risk—Riparian areas and wetlands are in functional 

condition, but an existing soil, water, or vegetation attribute makes them 

susceptible to degradation

 Nonfunctional—Riparian areas and wetlands are not providing adequate 

vegetation or landforms to dissipate stream energy associated with high flows 

and thus are not maintaining or improving the condition of the area

 Unknown—Sufficient information on which to make any determination for 

riparian areas and wetlands is lacking

Noxious Weeds and Nonnative Invasive Plants

Indicators include the presence of a noxious weeds or invasive plants, the size of the 

population, acres of treatment completed to control these populations, and success of the 

control treatment.

Special Status Plant Species

Special status plant species indicators are population levels and density, distribution and 

range, connectivity of populations and habitats, age class structure, and genetic diversity. 

Population and biological data for special status species are tracked by the USFWS, the 

Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory, the Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory, and the 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Current Condition

Today only small fragments of native ecosystem remain in the Southern Great Plains

region (Assal et al. 2015). Much of the Southern Great Plains region has been converted 

to farmland or grazed intensively by domestic livestock.
2. Area Profile

2-86 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Upland Vegetation 

The planning area is within portions of 19 EPA Level III ecoregions (Woods et al. 2005; 

Chapman et al. 2001; Griffith et al. 2004; EPA 2013). The number of acres of each 

ecoregion within the planning and decision areas are summarized in Table 2-1 and are 

shown in Figure 1-1 (Section 2.1.1, Ecoregions). Additional information gathered in the 

Draft Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment is also found in Section 

2.1.1, Ecoregions.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Oklahoma Department of 

Wildlife Conservation [ODWC] 2005) identifies and discusses upland habitats in the 

state. Upland habitats are short-grass, mixed-grass, and tall-grass prairies, shinnery oak, 

sand sagebrush, sand plum, sumac, and mesquite shrublands. Other examples of upland 

habitat are post oak, blackjack oak, pinyon pine, shortleaf pine, loblolly pine, and juniper 

savannahs and woodlands and oak, hickory, and mixed deciduous forests. These habitats 

are fully described in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ODWC 2005).

Kansas

Kansas’s Comprehensive Wildlife Plan (Wasson et al. 2005) also identifies and discusses 

upland habitats in the state. These are short-grass, mixed-grass, and tall-grass prairies, 

sand prairie, sandsage shrubland, and deciduous forest. These habitats are fully described 

in the Comprehensive Wildlife Plan (Wasson et al. 2005).

Additionally, the Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory maintains a list of rare natural plant 

communities in the state (Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory 2012a). The inventory 

includes several upland vegetation communities, including varieties of short-grass, 

mixed-grass, and tall-grass prairies, sandsage-grass shrubland associations, and maple, 

basswood, oak, and dogwood forests. 

Texas

The Texas Conservation Action Plan (TWPD 2012) includes a list of many upland 

vegetation communities in the state, including native grasslands. These habitats are fully 

described in the Conservation Action Plan (TWPD 2012).

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

Currently, no proper functioning condition assessments have been completed within the 

analysis area. Wetlands and riparian areas occur throughout the analysis area, and these 

habitats are discussed generally for the states within the planning area, below. 

Oklahoma

Oklahoma’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ODWC 2005) discusses 

conservation landscapes, or habitats, in the state. Wetlands and riparian areas, as 

described in the document, include herbaceous wetlands, small and large rivers, sloughs, 

ponds, and sandy-bottom and gravel-bottom streams and associated riparian forests, oak 

and hickory bottomland hardwood forests, and limestone caves, seeps, and springs. These 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-87

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

habitats are fully described in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

(ODWC 2005).

Kansas

Kansas’s Comprehensive Wildlife Plan (Wasson et al. 2005) also discusses key habitats 

in the state. Wetlands and riparian areas identified in the document are playa lake, 

herbaceous wetland, seeps and springs, small and large rivers, and deciduous floodplain 

forests. These habitats are fully described in the Comprehensive Wildlife Plan (Wasson et 

al. 2005).

Additionally, the Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory is a list of rare natural plant 

communities in the state (Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory 2012a). The inventory 

includes many wetland or riparian communities, such as freshwater and alkaline 

wetlands, playas, and marshes and willow, cottonwood, oak, hickory, ash, and elm 

floodplain forests. 

Texas

Wetland and riparian habitats addressed in the Texas Conservation Action Plan (TWPD 

2012) are desert cienegas (a spring or marshy area where groundwater bubbles to the 

surface), plains playas, forested bottomlands, bogs and fens, and freshwater and saltwater 

marshes. Riparian plant communities in Texas include woodlands and forests dominated 

by cottonwood, ash, willow, hackberry, walnut, sycamore, cypress, and other trees. These 

habitats are fully described in the Conservation Action Plan (TWPD 2012).

Red River, Oklahoma/Texas

The Red River is a portion of the Oklahoma/Texas border and is in the planning area. The 

BLM estimates 31,500 acres, more or less, of public land along the Red River between 

the North Fork of the river and the 98th meridian. 

According to the Texas Conservation Action Plan (TWPD 2012), the Red River contains 

periodically flooded or subirrigated (i.e., subsurface water flooded) woodlands and 

forests containing oak, juniper, elm, and other species. Associated instream and adjacent 

wetlands are common. 

Noxious Weeds and Nonnative Invasive Plants

Noxious weeds can directly or indirectly injure or damage crops, livestock, or other 

interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, natural resources, or public health. Noxious 

weeds, as designated by Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas, are summarized in

Table 2-14, Noxious Weeds Potentially in the Planning Area.
2. Area Profile

2-88 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-14

Noxious Weeds Potentially in the Planning Area

Scientific Name 

(Synonym) Common Name Noxious in Oklahoma?

Noxious 

in 

Kansas?

Noxious 

in 

Texas?

Noxious in 

Nebraska?

Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed — NW — —

Alhagi maurorum (A. 

camelorum)

Camelthorn — — NP —

Alternanthera 

philoxeroides

Alligatorweed — — NP —

Ambrosia grayi Bur ragweed — NW — —

Arundo donax Giant reed — — NP —

Calystegia sepium Hedge bindweed — — NP —

Cardaria draba Hoary cress — NW — —

Cardiospermum 

halicacabum

Balloonvine — — NP —

Carduus acanthoides Plumeless thistle — — — NW

C. nutans Musk thistle, 

nodding plumeless 

thistle

NW NW — —

Centaurea 

biebersteinii

Spotted knapweed — — — NW

C. diffusa Diffuse knapweed — — — NW

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle NW NW — NW

C. vulgare Bull thistle — CO — —

Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed — NW NP —

Cuscuta japonica Japanese dodder — — NP —

Eichhornia azurea Rooted 

waterhyacinth

— — NP —

E. crassipes Floating water 

hyacinth

— — NP —

Elymus repens

(Agropyron r.)

Quackgrass — NW — —

Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge — NW — NW

Hoffmannseggia 

glauca 

Pignut, hog potato — NW — —

Hydrilla verticillata Hydrilla — — NP —

Ipomoea aquatica Water spinach — — NP —

Lagarosiphon major Lagarosiphon — — NP —

Landoltia punctata

(Spirodelta 

oligorrhiza)

Giant duckweed — — NP —

Lespedeza cuneata Chinese lespedeza — NW — —

Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife — — NP NW
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-89

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-14

Noxious Weeds Potentially in the Planning Area

Scientific Name 

(Synonym) Common Name Noxious in Oklahoma?

Noxious 

in 

Kansas?

Noxious 

in 

Texas?

Noxious in 

Nebraska?

Melaleuca 

quinquenervia

Paperbark — — NP —

Myriophyllum 

spicatum

Eurasian 

watermilfoil

— — NP —

Nassella trichotoma Serrated tussock — — NP —

Onopordum 

acanthium

Scotch thistle NW — — —

Orobanche ramosa Branched broomrape — — NP —

Panicum repens Torpedograss — — NP —

Pistia stratiotes Waterlettuce — — NP —

Pueraria lobata Kudzu — NW NP —

Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose — CO — —

Rottboellia 

cochinchinensis

Itchgrass — — NP —

Salvinia spp. Salvinia — — NP —

Schinus terebinthifolus Brazilian peppertree — — NP —

Solanum viarum Tropical soda apple — — NP —

Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass — NW — —

Tamarix spp. Saltcedar — — NP NW

Triadica sebifera 

(Sapium sebiferum)

Chinese tallow tree — — NP —

Sources: NRCS 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014g; Kansas Department of Agriculture 2014; Oklahoma State University

2012

Noxious weed codes: 

NW—Oklahoma, Kansas, or Nebraska noxious weed

NP—Texas noxious plant 

CO—Kansas county option. Each county in the state has the option to list weed as noxious.

In addition to noxious weeds, nonnative invasive plants can also be problematic where 

they are found. Many nonnative invasive plants were formerly recommended forage 

species that are now recognized as invasive (Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council 2014); as 

such, they are now widespread due to ranching and grazing. Many of these species have 

the ability to displace native plants (Kansas Native Plant Society 2006) and have 

apparent, substantial, or severe ecological impacts (Texas Invasive Plant and Pest 

Council 2011). Table 2-15, Nonnative Invasive Weeds Potentially Found in the Planning 

Area, summarizes nonnative invasive weeds that could occur in the planning area. Not all 

of the nonnative invasive species listed in the table necessarily occur in the planning area, 

though all have potential to occur in portions of it, depending on soil, disturbance, and 

hydrologic regimes and current and past land uses.
2. Area Profile

2-90 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-15

Nonnative Invasive Weeds Potentially Found in the Planning Area

Scientific Name Common Name Status1

Acer ginnala Amur maple NE-2

Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed NE-2

Ailanthus altissima Tree of heaven OK-WL, TX-Mod

Alliaria petiolata Common garlic-mustard KS-Inv, NE-2

Albizia julibrissin Mimosa, silk tree OK-PS

Alternanthera philoxeroides Alligator weed OK-PS, TX-Mod

Arundo donax Giant reed OK-WL, TX-High, NE1

Bothriochloa bladhii Caucasian bluestem OK-PS, KS-Inv, NE-2

B. ishaemum Yellow bluestem, OK-PS, KS-Inv, NE-2

Bromus inermus Smooth brome KS-Inv

B. japonicus Japanese brome OK-PS, KS-Inv

B. racemosus Meadow brome OK-PS

B. tectorum Cheatgrass OK-PS, KS-Inv

Broussonetia papyrifera Paper mulberry OK-WL, TX-Mod

Carduus nutans Musk thistle, nodding plumeless 

thistle

OK-PS, KS-Inv

Centaurea melitensis Malta star-thistle TX-Mod

C. moncktonii Black knapweed NE-2

C. solstitialis Yellow star-thistle KS-Inv, NE-2

Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental bittersweet NE-1

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle OK-PS, KS-Inv 

C. vulgare Bull thistle OK-PS

Clematis terniflora Sweet autumn virgin’s-bower NE-2

Colocasia esculenta Elephant ears TX-Mod

Conium maculatum Poison hemlock OK-PS

Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed OK-PS, KS-Inv

Cryptostegia grandiflora Palay rubbervine TX-High

Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass TX-Mod

Cynoglossum officinale Houndstongue NE-2

Cyperus rotundus Nut grass OK-WL

Dipsacus fullonum Fuller’s teasel KS-Inv

Dipsacus lacinatus Cut-leaf teasel KS-Inv, NE-2

Egeria densa Brazilian water weed OK-WL

Eichhornia crassipes Water hyacinth OK-WL, TX-High, NE1

Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive OK-WL, KS-Inv

E. pungens Thorny olive OK-WL

E. umbellatum Autumn olive OK-WL, KS-Inv

Erodium cicutarium Red stem stork’s bill OK-WL

Euonymus fortune Chinese spindle-tree KS-Inv
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-91

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-15

Nonnative Invasive Weeds Potentially Found in the Planning Area

Scientific Name Common Name Status1

Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge KS-Inv

Falcaria vulgaris Sickleweed NE-2

Firmiana simplex Chinese parasoltree TX-Mod

Galega officinalis Goat’s-rue NE-2

Galium verum Yellow bedstraw NE-2

Hydrilla verticillata Hydrilla OK-PS, TX-High, NE1

Hypericum perforatum St. John’s wort NE-2

Imperata cylindrical Cogongrass TX-High

Kochia scoparia Mexican fireweed OK-PS

Lespedeza cuneata Sericea lespedeza OK-PS, KS-Inv

Ligustrum japonicum Japanese privet OK-WL, TX-Mod

L. lucidum Glossy privet TX-High

Ligustrum sinense Chinese privet OK-PS

Lolium arundinaceum Tall fescue OK-WL

L. pretense Meadow ryegrass OK-WL

L. temulentum Darnel ryegrass OK-WL

Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle OK-PS, KS-Inv, NE-2

L. mackii Bush honeysuckle OK-WL, KS-Inv

L. tatarica Tatarian honeysuckle KS-Inv

Lygodium japonicum Japanese climbing fern OK-WL, TX-High

Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife OK-PS, KS-Inv

Macfadyena unquis-cati Catclaw vine TX-Mod

Melia azedarach Chinaberry tree OK-WL, TX-High

Microstegium vimineum Nepalese browntop OK-PS

Mililotus officinalis Yellow sweet clover OK-WL

Myriophyllum aquaticum Parrot’s feather OK-PS, TX-High

M. spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil OK-PS, KS-Inv, NE-2

Najas minor Brittle naiad NE-1

Nandina domestica Heavenly bamboo TX-Mod

Paulownia tomentosa Princess tree OK-WL

Perilla frutescens Beefsteak plant OK-PS

Phyllostachys aurea Golden bamboo TX-High

Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistache TX-Mod

Potentilla recta Sulphur cinquefoil OK-PS

Pueraria lobata Kudzu OK-PS, TX-High, NE2

Pyracantha coccinea Scarlet firethorn TX-Mod

Pyrus calleryana Callery pear OK-WL

Rapistrum rugosum Bastard cabbage TX-High

Rhamnus cathartica Common buckthorn KS-Inv
2. Area Profile

2-92 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-15

Nonnative Invasive Weeds Potentially Found in the Planning Area

Scientific Name Common Name Status1

Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose OK-PS, KS-Inv

Saccharum ravennae Revennagrass OK-PS

Salsola tragus Russian thistle, tumbleweed OK-PS

Salvinia molesta Giant salvinia NE-1

Schedonorus arundinaceus Tall mountain-fescue KS-Inv

S. pratensis Meadow mountain-fescue KS-Inv

Securigera varia Common crown-vetch KS-Inv, NE-2

Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass OK-PS, KS-Inv, TXHigh

Tamarix chinensis Chinese salt cedar OK-PS

T. parviflora Small-flowered tamarisk OK-PS, KS-Inv

T. ramosissima Salt cedar, tamarisk OK-PS, KS-Inv, TXHigh

Triadica sebifera (Sapium 

sebiferum)

Chinese tallow tree TX-Mod

Ulmus pumila Siberian elm OK-WL

Verbascum thapsus Common mullein OK-PS

Sources: Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council 2014, Kansas Native Plant Society 2006, Texas Invasive Plant and Pest 

Council 2011, Nebraska Weed Control Association 2014

1

Status Codes: 

OK-PS—Oklahoma problem species

OK-WL—Oklahoma watch list species

KS-Inv—Kansas invasive weed

TX-Mod—Texas moderate rated

TX-High—Texas high rated

NE-1—Invasive plant not currently documented in Nebraska but would pose a significant risk if introduced

NE-2—Top priority invasive species

The Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council maintains a list of problem and watch list species 

that pose a potential threat of invasion in the state (Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council

2014). It is based on a 2009 invasive plant audit for Oklahoma conducted by The Nature 

Conservancy (Pruett 2009). These nonnative invasive species are in addition to the threestate-listed noxious weeds described above. The Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council lists 

32 problem species and 21 watch list species in the state (see Table 2-15). Additionally,

the Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council maintains a list of noxious and nonnative invasive 

species in states bordering Oklahoma: Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, New Mexico, 

and Colorado. This list can be found on the Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council invasive 

weed database (Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council 2014).

The Kansas Native Plant Society maintains an invasive plant list for the state (Kansas 

Native Plant Society 2006). These nonnative invasive species are in addition to the state-
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-93

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

listed noxious weeds summarized above. The Kansas Native Plant Society lists 30 of the 

most invasive plant species in the state (see Table 2-15). 

The Nebraska Weed Control Association is composed of county representatives to 

advance and improve weed control programs in the state (Nebraska Weed Control 

Association 2014). The association maintains a watch list for invasive plant species by 

ecoregion in Nebraska; these nonnative invasive species are in addition to the state-listed 

noxious weeds summarized above. There are 25 category 1 and 2 invasive plants listed 

for regions of Nebraska containing the planning area (see Table 2-15).

The Texas Invasive Plant Inventory (Texas Invasive Plant and Pest Council 2011) 

categorizes nonnative invasive plants that threaten the state’s wildlands. Categorization is 

based on an assessment of the ecological impacts of each plant. The inventory lists 29 

species and assigns a ranking to each, based on the level of threat to the ecological health 

of wildlands presented by each species. Threat is determined through evaluation of that 

species’ ecological impact, its ability to invade natural vegetation communities, and the 

current extent of invasion. Moderate-rated species can have a substantial and apparent 

ecological impact on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation 

structure. High-rated species can have severe ecological impacts on these systems. Texas 

moderate- and high-rated nonnative invasive species are listed in Table 2-15.

Though many noxious weeds and nonnative, invasive plant species have been 

documented in or have the potential to occur in the planning area, several key species 

present management challenges on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

Historically, native grassland (prairie) ecosystems were maintained by naturally

occurring or managed low-intensity fire and grazing by native herbivores (Assal et al. 

2015). Fires restricted the extent of native invasive woody shrubs, including eastern 

redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) and mesquite (Prosopis spp.). Fires removed seedlings 

and saplings, while native grassland plants and perennial grasses adapted to frequent, 

low-severity fires (Barbour et al. 1999, in Assal et al. 2015). Woodlands have expanded 

at the expense of native prairie grasslands due to altered fire regimes and fire 

suppression, intensive livestock grazing, climate change, and removal of native 

herbivores (Weltzin et al. 1997). These invasive woody species have been documented on 

BLM-administered grazing allotments in the planning area.

One non-woody noxious weed is also especially problematic in the region. Musk thistle 

(Carduus nutans) is extremely prolific and invades native meadows and grasslands. 

Because it is unpalatable to cattle, selective grazing leads to severe degradation of native 

vegetation and a competitive advantage to musk thistle. Musk thistle has been 

documented in BLM-administered grazing allotments in the planning area.

In riparian systems, flow regime alterations and soil disturbance facilitate invasion by the 

noxious weed salt cedar (Tamarix spp.). This further alters water and nutrient availability, 

reduces habitat for sensitive wildlife, and facilitates fires and floods. 
2. Area Profile

2-94 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Special Status Plant Species

Federal- and state-listed plant species documented in or with the potential to occur in the 

planning area are listed in Table 2-16. Key species for the planning area are described in 

detail below.

Table 2-16

Federal or State-Listed Plants Documented in or with Potential to Occur in the Planning 

Area

Scientific Name (Synonym) Common Name Federal 

Status1

State Status1

(State where 

Listed)

Abronia macrocarpa Largefruit sand verbena E SE (TX)

Ambrosia cheiranthifolia Rio Grande ragweed E SE (TX)

Asclepias meadii Mead’s milkweed T

Astrophytum asterias Sanddollar E SE (TX)

Ayenia limitaris Rio Grande ayenia E SE (TX)

Callirhoe scabriuscula Texas poppymallow E SE (TX)

Coryphantha ramillosa Whiskerbush T ST (TX)

Cryptantha crassipes Terlingua Creek cryptantha E SE (TX)

Echinocereus chisoensis var. c Chisos Mountain hedgehog 

cactus

T ST (TX)

E. fendleri ssp. fendleri (E. f. var.

kuenzleri)

Pinkflower hedgehog cactus E

E. reichenbachii ssp. fitchii (E. r. 

var. albertii)

Fitch’s hedgehog cactus E SE (TX)

E. viridiflorus var. davisii Davis’ hedgehog cactus E SE (TX)

Echinomastus mariposensis 

(Neolloydia m.)

Lloyd’s fishhook cactus T ST (TX)

Escobaria minima (Coryphantha m.) Nellie cory cactus E SE (TX)

E. sneedii var. sneedii (Coryphantha 

s.)

Sneed’s pincushion cactus E SE (TX)

Festuca ligulata Guadalupe fescue C

Frankenia johnstonii Johnston’s seaheath E SE (TX)

Gaura neomexicana ssp. 

coloradensis

Colorado butterfly plant T

Geocarpon minimum Tinytim T

Helianthus paradoxus Paradox sunflower T ST (TX)

Hibiscus dasycalyx Neches River rose-mallow T

Hoffmannseggia tenella Slender rushpea E SE (TX)

Hymenoxys texana Prairiedawn E SE (TX)

Leavenworthia texana Texas golden gladecress E

Lesquerella pallida White bladderpod E SE (TX)

L. thamnophila Zapata bladderpod E SE (TX)

Manihot walkerae Walker’s manihot E SE (TX)
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-95

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-16

Federal or State-Listed Plants Documented in or with Potential to Occur in the Planning 

Area

Scientific Name (Synonym) Common Name Federal 

Status1

State Status1

(State where 

Listed)

Penstemon haydenii Blowout beardtongue E SE (NE)

Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis Texan phlox E SE (TX)

Platanthera leucophaea Eastern prairie fringed orchid T ST (OK)

P. praeclara Western prairie fringed orchid T ST (OK, NE)

Potamogeton clystocarpus Little aguja pondweed E SE (TX)

Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella E E (OK)

Quercus hinckleyi Hinckley oak T ST (TX)

Schwalbea americana Chaffseed E

Sclerocactus brevihamatus ssp. 

tobuschii (Ancistrocactus t.)

Shorthook fishhook cactus E SE (TX)

Spiranthes diluvialis Ute ladies’-tresses T ST (NE)

Spiranthes parksii Navasota lady’s tresses E SE (TX)

Streptanthus bracteatus Bracted twistflower C

Styrax platanifolius ssp. texanus 

(S. t.)

Texas snowbell E SE (TX)

Thymophylla tephroleuca Ashy pricklyleaf E SE (TX)

Trifolium stoloniferum Running buffalo clover E

Zizania texana Texas wildrice E SE (TX)

Source: NRCS 2014d, 2014e, 2014f, 2015

1

Status Codes: 

E—Federal Endangered, T—Federal Threatened, C—Federal Candidate

SE—State Endangered, ST—State Threatened 

Several key special status plant species are described below. While this is not an official 

designation, these species are relatively important in the planning area for several 

reasons. They occur in native prairie grasslands (eastern and western prairie fringed 

orchids) and riparian areas (harperella), which are some of the most threatened habitats in 

the planning area. These species have the potential to occur in portions of the planning 

area where most of the BLM- and BIA-administered surface lands are located (i.e., the 

Central Great Plains ecoregion; see Section 2.1.1, Ecoregions). Finally, these species are 

the only threatened or endangered species listed by the State of Oklahoma, which is 

where most BLM activities in the planning area occur.1

Eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea), Federal Threatened, State 

Threatened (Oklahoma). Eastern prairie fringed orchid is a perennial herb in the orchid 

 

1George Thomas, BLM, personal communication via e-mail with Kevin Rice, EMPSi, regarding special status 

species list and definition, February 13, 2015.
2. Area Profile

2-96 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

family (Orchidaceae) that flowers in late June or early July. Plants grow from an 

underground tuber and regenerate vegetatively through the tuber rootstock and buds and 

by seed. Successful seedling establishment requires development of a mycorrhizal 

association with a favorable soil-inhabiting fungus. Disturbance, either from animals or 

the death of other plants, appears to be important in seedling establishment (USFWS 

1999). Occasionally plants will enter dormancy and not emerge aboveground during the 

growing season (Bowles et al. 1992). Dormancy in this species is not well understood 

(USFWS 1999). 

Eastern prairie fringed orchid occurs in a wide variety of habitats, from mesic prairie to 

wetland communities, such as sedge meadows, marsh edges, and even bogs, with sunny 

open conditions (USFWS 1999). The species formerly occurred from eastern Iowa, 

Missouri, and Oklahoma eastward across southern Wisconsin, northern and central 

Illinois, southern Michigan, northern Indiana and Ohio, and northwestern Pennsylvania to 

western New York and southern Ontario. Disjunct populations also occurred in New 

Jersey, Virginia, and Maine. 

Eastern prairie fringed orchid has declined more than 70 percent from original county 

records in the US; at the time of listing 59 populations were extant in 6 states (USFWS 

1999). Plants have not been relocated in Oklahoma. The specie’s distribution has not 

changed appreciably since 1991 (USFWS 2010). Declines in populations have been due 

mainly to conversion of habitat to cropland and pasture (USFWS 1999). Remaining 

populations continue to be threatened by succession to woody vegetation, competition 

from nonnative species, pesticide impacts on pollinators, over-collection, drainage and 

development of wetland habitats, and climate change (USFWS 1999, 2010). 

Western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara), Federal Threatened, State 

Threatened (Oklahoma, Nebraska). Western prairie fringed orchid is a terrestrial 

perennial herb in the orchid family (Orchidaceae) that flowers from mid-June to late July. 

Plants grow from an underground tuber and regenerate vegetatively through the tuber 

rootstock and buds, as well as via seed. Successful seedling establishment requires 

development of a mycorrhizal association with a favorable soil-inhabiting fungus. 

Dormancy in the species generally lasts between one and three years (Sather 1997 in 

USFWS 2009), though more than half of dormancy episodes are less than one year long 

(Quintana-Ascencio et al. 2004 in USFWS 2009). 

Western prairie fringed orchid is known to occur only west of the Mississippi River. 

Western prairie fringed orchid occurs most often in unplowed, calcareous tallgrass prairie 

and sedge meadows and also in disturbed sites, including borrow pits, previously 

cultivated fields, and roadside ditches (USFWS 1996). Extant populations in eastern 

Kansas occur in mesic (moderately moist) to wet-mesic upland prairies, and occurred 

historically along the floodplains of several larger rivers (USFWS 1996; Freeman and 

Brooks 1989 in USFWS 2009). Although moist soil near the ground surface is critical to 

maintain western prairie fringed orchid populations, standing water may adversely affect 

populations, depending on the depth and duration of flooding (USFWS 2009). Drought 

has significant and, in some cases, widespread effects on western prairie fringed orchid 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-97

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

flowering and survival (USFWS 2009). Threats identified are conversion of habitat to 

cropland, overgrazing, invasive species, over-collection, climate change, and herbicide 

and pesticide impacts on the plant and its pollinators (USFWS 2009).

Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum), Federal Endangered, State Endangered 

(Oklahoma). Harperella is an annual aquatic herb in the carrot family (Apiaceae) that 

blooms from May to October. Population sizes may vary dramatically from year to year 

in response to water levels (USFWS 1990). Only 45 occurrences in 24 watersheds are 

known, with the largest concentration found along the Maryland/West Virginia border 

and in Arkansas. Around 25 percent of known occurrences have not been seen in 20 years 

(Oklahoma Biological Survey 2013).

Harperella occurs in seasonally flooded rocky streams and coastal plain ponds (USFWS 

1990). In Oklahoma, harperella occurs in the southeastern portion of the state in riverine 

habitat and includes two stands of approximately 500 plants (Oklahoma Biological 

Survey 2013). Threats to the species are fluctuating water levels from dredging, dam and 

reservoir construction and wetland draining, reductions in water quality from pollution, 

algae, erosion and siltation from logging and road construction, and invasive plants 

(Oklahoma Biological Survey 2013). Specific threats to the Oklahoma population are 

increased siltation from timber harvesting, runoff from ranching and poultry farming, the 

possibility of out-of-state water transfers, and recreational activity (Oklahoma Biological 

Survey 2013). The region has experienced drought conditions since 2010, which could 

eventually affect river flow (Oklahoma Biological Survey 2013).

Additional Rare Plant Species 

In addition to federal- and state-listed species, the Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory 

maintains a list of rare and vulnerable plant species in the state (Oklahoma Natural 

Heritage Inventory 2005). Similarly, the Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory maintains a 

list of Kansas rare plants (Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory 2012b). Nearly 400 species, 

in addition to the three federal-listed species, are on the Kansas element tracking list. 

Each species is assigned a global and state conservation status rank based on the 

NatureServe system (NatureServe, n.d.). Neither Oklahoma nor Kansas lists special status 

plant species in their respective wildlife action plans (ODWC 2005; Wasson et al. 2005). 

The Texas Conservation Action Plan (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2012) lists 

445 plant Species of Greatest Conservation Need (inclusive of federal- and state-listed 

species).

Trends

Upland Vegetation

Upland vegetation in the analysis area has been heavily impacted by human settlement 

and associated development, agricultural conversion, intensive grazing, woodland and 

invasive species spread, and altered fire regimes. 

Native grassland systems in particular are considered one of the most at-risk habitats in 

the analysis area (Assal et al. 2015). Short-grass, mixed-grass, and tall-grass prairie in the 
2. Area Profile

2-98 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

analysis area have been converted into a mosaic of cultivated croplands, prairie remnants, 

and expanding woodlands (Samson and Knopf 1994). In the southern Great Plains 

ecoregion, approximately 40 to 90 percent of mixed-grass and 50 to 75 percent of shortgrass prairie has been under cultivation at some point since European settlement (Bragg 

and Steuter 1996; Weaver et al. 1996).

Most areas of the prairie that have not been cultivated are intensively grazed by domestic 

cattle. The effects of grazing and grazing management on plant and animal communities 

can include loss of riparian vegetation, removal of vegetative cover, and dispersal of 

seeds from invasive plant species (Chaney et al. 1990; Vavra et al. 2007). The frequency

and extent of fire in these systems has dramatically declined as a result of fire 

suppression and reduction in fuels due to grazing. This can give rise to changes in the 

plant community and invasions of native or nonnative species including juniper, 

mesquite, and eastern redcedar (Bidwell et al. 1996; Weaver et al. 1996).

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Wetlands in the planning area are generally under the jurisdiction of the USACE 

regulatory division. It is responsible for protecting aquatic resources, including wetlands,

in the planning area, while allowing reasonable development through informed permit 

decisions. Wetlands at the highest risk may be those considered nonjurisdictional and 

isolated. These are not protected under any regulation and typically are unique and are 

some of the most important wetlands, disconnected from river and stream systems as 

stand-alone features; playas, some bogs, and fens are examples.

Riparian areas throughout the analysis area are fertile and often valued as prime 

farmland. Many riparian areas on nonfederal lands have been cleared for use as 

pastureland or for row crops or other agricultural activities. Many of these activities use 

fertilizers and pesticides, increasing the potential for both ground and surface water 

pollution. Riparian areas are often considered prime waterfront property by developers on 

private lands. Urban encroachment, channelization, and other water resource 

development activities have contributed to the destruction and alteration of native 

riparian areas. Additionally, hydrology in many of the major streams in the region has 

been altered as a result of impoundments, withdrawals, and adjacent upland land use 

changes. 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Nonnative Species

Invasive plants are generally spreading or increasing in density in some parts of the 

planning area, especially in oil and gas fields, along roadways, transmission lines, and 

other rights-of-ways and at the margins of agricultural operations. Typically, as ground 

disturbance increases in areas of known populations, the likelihood that invasive plants 

would move into this disturbance increases. Noxious weeds and native, invasive species 

have been documented on BLM-administered lands in the planning area, as discussed in 

Current Condition above. These weeds will continue to be treated in accordance with 

applicable land use planning documents and regulations.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-99

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Efforts have limited the spread and reduced the size of invasive plant populations in other

areas. Such efforts are spot treating noxious weeds, applying herbicide before seeding,

mowing or Dixie harrowing and seeding, using prescribed fire, and follow-up seeding 

with native species post-treatment. 

Weed management in ongoing on the BLM Cross Bar Cooperative Management Area 

(Cross Bar Ranch) in Texas. Weeds targeted for treatment are generally native and 

nonnative invasive woody shrubs, including mesquite and salt cedar. Treatments have 

included spot application of herbicide (BLM 2011) and prescribed burning (BLM 2015). 

Special Status Plant Species

Special status plant habitat, particularly native prairie grassland, shrubland, wetland, and 

riparian habitats, have been impacted by similar land uses, as described above. These 

land uses include development, agricultural conversion, intensive grazing, woodland and 

invasive species spread, altered fire regimes, and drought and other climate changerelated effects.

Forecast

Upland Vegetation

Upland vegetation in the analysis area will continue to face the effects of development, 

agricultural conversion, intensive grazing, woodland and invasive species spread, and 

altered fire regimes. 

Climate change will also be an important factor in upland vegetation in the planning area, 

including native prairie grasslands. Current climate change models are projecting a range 

of potential shifts in climate, including increasing temperatures and more intense rainfall. 

This is despite a decrease in average amounts of total annual precipitation (Karl et al.

2009), which may influence distribution of species in these systems.

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Development projects, agricultural conversion, and water resource projects will likely 

continue in the planning area and will have the potential to impact wetlands under the 

jurisdiction of the USACE. Before issuing permits, the USACE will require that 

unavoidable impacts on the aquatic environment be offset by mitigation requirements. 

This could include restoring, enhancing, creating, and preserving aquatic functions and 

values.

Development projects, agricultural conversion, and other projects will also likely 

continue to impact riparian areas. Spread of invasive weeds also has the potential to 

impact riparian areas through native species replacement, community structural 

modification, and water availability changes. 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Nonnative Species

Invasive plant species are expected to continue to spread. The degree to which these 

species spread is directly related to human activities and control efforts in the area. Some 
2. Area Profile

2-100 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

of these species are very invasive and are readily transported to uninfested areas. Surfacedisturbing activities and vehicular travel mainly contribute to weed proliferation, 

although natural elements, such as wind and wildlife, could also contribute. Range 

animals, such as livestock, also increase the opportunities for invasive plant species to 

spread and become established through transfer or, if unsatisfactory range management 

occurs, through overgrazing.

While it is difficult to predict future introductions of other listed invasive species, the 

most likely areas for introduction are those where new disturbances occur. Historic 

evidence indicates that new invasive species would be introduced in the planning area 

and become established if not eradicated immediately. 

Native woody shrub invaders, such as mesquite and eastern red cedar, are a management 

challenge in prairie grassland; however, options for control do exist, particularly where 

native vegetation persists (Assal et al. 2015). Control of invasive plants would depend on 

the cost and feasibility of available treatment methods. Resource management strategies 

would contribute to maintaining current levels or reducing the expansion of these species. 

Examples of these strategies are minimizing surface disturbance and surface-disturbing 

activities, requiring prompt reclamation of these disturbed areas, and reducing traffic 

through infested areas. Research continues in developing new herbicide formulations and 

the existence and effectiveness of biological agents, including pathogens, to use as tools 

to control invasive plant species that could spread into and outcompete native plant 

communities.

Noxious weed and invasive plant programs through the NRCS, Oklahoma State 

University, Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council, Oklahoma Biological Survey, and others 

will continue to increase awareness of invasive plants in the planning area. Recognition 

of the sources of invasives and economic and ecological impacts of invasives, along with 

early detection and prevention programs, can help prevent additional infestations. Control 

and management strategies will continue to prevent further expansion of current 

infestations in the planning area.

Special Status Plant Species

Special status plant habitats are expected to continue to be impacted by land uses similar 

to those described above. These land uses include development, agricultural conversion, 

intensive grazing, woodland and invasive species spread, altered fire regime, and drought 

and other climate change-related effects.

Key Features

Upland Vegetation

Some of the important functions of native grasslands are providing habitat for special 

status plant and animal species, controlling erosion (especially bordering croplands), 

slowing surface flows for groundwater recharge, filtering runoff of pollution and 

sediment, improving carbon storage, supporting pollinator processes, and retaining and 

building soil quality.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-101

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Riparian and wetland areas provide keystone habitat for riparian and wetland obligate and 

dependent bird species. Long-distance migration requires exceptional energy reserves, 

and migratory birds must rest and replenish fat reserves while traveling between 

wintering and breeding areas. Riparian and wetland areas provide migration stopover 

sites as they contain trees and shrubs that are required for roosting or foraging by most 

riparian birds. Riparian forests support a greater diversity of wildlife than nearly all 

nonaquatic areas or upland forests. Mammals depend on the vegetation found in riparian 

areas for food and shelter. The increased humidity of riparian areas makes them 

important habitat for amphibians, snakes, and turtles. 

Fishes in riparian stream areas are intimately linked to the habitat afforded to them. 

Vegetation rooted at the water’s edge provides escape cover, shade, and food for fish. 

This is especially critical along intermittent streams, where remnant summer pools 

provide refugia for fish. 

Riparian areas are crucial to the protection and enhancement of the water resources of the 

US. They are extremely complex ecosystems that help provide optimum food and habitat 

for stream communities and are useful in mitigating or controlling nonpoint source 

pollution.

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Nonnative Species

Any vegetative community is susceptible to invasive plants, but sites that are especially 

vulnerable are those where soils have been disturbed and the native plant community has 

been displaced or destroyed. Developed corridors, such as roads, oil and gas-related 

facilities, and pipelines, are vulnerable as vehicles can transport seeds from other 

locations. Riparian areas also provide optimal growing conditions, including nutrient-rich 

soils and ample moisture. Other areas that can easily be invaded are those where native or 

desirable vegetation has been compromised or destroyed through overgrazing, recreation, 

mining, and mineral development and those that have experienced wildfires.

Key features for invasive species are areas of potential infestations. These include oil and 

gas facilities and associated developments, riparian zones, and transportation and utility 

corridors.

Special Status Plant Species

Important habitat for special status plant species includes undisturbed native prairie 

grasslands, native shrublands, wetlands, and riparian areas.

References

Assal, T. J., C. P. Melcher, and N. B. Carr (editors). 2015. Southern Great Plains Rapid 

Ecoregional Assessment—Pre-assessment report: US Geological Survey OpenFile Report 2015–XXXX. Unpublished draft. 
2. Area Profile

2-102 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Bidwell, T. G., D. M. Engle, M. E. Moseley, and R. E. Masters. 1996. Invasion of 

Oklahoma Rangelands and Forests by Eastern Redcedar and Ashe Juniper. 

Circular E-947. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Division of 

Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Oklahoma State University, 

Stillwater.

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1998. Riparian 

Area Management. Technical Reference 1737-9. 

_____. 2001. New Mexico Standards for Public Land Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management Record of Decision. January 12, 2001.

_____. 2011. Environmental Assessment. Cross Bar Cooperative Management Area: 

Mesquite, Salt Cedar, and Cholla Cactus Eradication Project. BLM Amarillo 

Field Office, Amarillo, Texas. DOI-BLM-NM-060-2011-02. 

_____. 2015. Record of Decision. Prescribed Burning on the Cross Bar Management 

Area. BLM Amarillo Field Office, Amarillo, Texas. DOI-BLM-NM-0060-2015-

2-EA.

Bowles, M., R. Flakne, and R. Dombeck. 1992. “Status and population fluctuations of the 

eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea [Nutt. Lindl.]). in Illinois. 

Erigenia 12:12-40.

Bragg, T. B., and A. A. Steuter. 1996. “Prairie ecology—The mixed prairie.” In Prairie 

conservation—Preserving North America’s most endangered ecosystem (F. B. 

Samson and F. L. Knopf, editors). Island Press, Washington, DC. Pp. 53-66. 

Internet website: 

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZlHRjU2EDLQC&lpg=PA53&ots=7TA1_A

TvGS&dq=Prairie%20ecology%E2%80%94The%20mixed%20prairie%20bragg

%20steuter&pg=PA53#v=onepage&q=Prairie%20ecology%E2%80%94The%20

mixed%20prairie%20bragg%20steuter&f=false.

Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W. S. Platts. 1990. Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian 

Areas. Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc., Eagle, Idaho. Prepared for 

US Environmental Protection Agency.

Chapman, S. S., J. M. Omernik, J. A. Freeouf, D. G. Huggins, J. R. McCauley, C. C. 

Freeman, and G. Steinauer et al. 2001. Ecoregions of Nebraska and Kansas (color 

poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). US

Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia (map scale 1:1,950,000).

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of 

wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. US Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Internet website: 

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-103

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Davies, K. W., and R. L. Sheley. 2007. “A conceptual framework for preventing the 

spatial dispersal of invasive plants.” Weed Science 55:178-184.

EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Primary Distinguishing 

Characteristics of Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States. 

September 2013. Internet website: http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/

level_iii_iv.htm. 

Griffith, G. E., S. A. Bryce, J. M. Omernik, J. A. Comstock, A. C. Rogers, B. Harrison, S. 

L. Hatch, and D. Bezanson. 2004. Ecoregions of Texas, US Environmental 

Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.

Kansas Department of Agriculture. 2014. Noxious Weed Control Program. Kansas 

Department of Agriculture, Plant Protection and Weed Control. Internet website: 

https://agriculture.ks.gov/divisionsprograms/plantprotectweedcontrol/

noxiousweedcontrolprogram.

Kansas Native Plant Society. 2006. Invasive Plant Fact Sheet. R. L. McGregor 

Herbarium, University of Kansas, Lawrence. February 2006.

Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory. 2012a. Natural Community Tracking List. May 14, 

2012. Internet website: http://biosurvey.ku.edu/ksnhi/rare-plants-and-animals.

_____. 2012b. Rare Plant Tracking List. May 31, 2012. Internet website: http://biosurvey

.ku.edu/ksnhi/rare-plants-and-animals.

Karl, T. R., J. M. Melillo, and T. C. Peterson (editors). 2009. Global Climate Change 

Impacts in the United States. US Global Change Research Program, Cambridge 

University Press, New York, New York.

Leonard, S., G. Staidl, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, W. Hagenbuck, and D. Pritchard. 1992. 

Procedures for Ecological Site Inventory with Special Reference to RiparianWetland Sites. TR-1737-8. Bureau of Land Management. Denver, Colorado.

NatureServe. No date. Terrestrial Ecological Systems of the United States (Get Data 

portal). Internet website: http://www.natureserve.org/biodiversityscience/conservation-topics/data.

Nebraska Weed Control Association. 2014. Internet website: http://www.neweed.org/.

NRCS (US Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service). 

2014a. Oklahoma State-listed Noxious Weeds. OK state weed list. Internet 

website: http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=40.

_____. 2014b. Kansas State-listed Noxious Weeds. Internet website: http://plants.usda

.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=20.
2. Area Profile

2-104 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

_____. 2014c. Texas State-listed Noxious Weeds. Internet website: http://plants.usda

.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=48.

_____. 2014d. Threatened and Endangered Plant list for Oklahoma. Internet website:

http://plants.usda.gov/java/threat?statelist=states&fedlist=fed&stateSelect=US40

&sort=sciname. In: USFWS Endangered Species Program. 2014. All plants 

(January 2014). Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/

listedPlants.jsp. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, DC.

_____. 2014e. Threatened and Endangered Plant list for Kansas. Internet website:

http://plants.usda.gov/java/threat?statelist=states&fedlist=fed&stateSelect=US20

&sort=sciname. In: USFWS Endangered Species Program. 2014. All plants 

(January 2014). Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/

listedPlants.jsp. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, DC.

_____. 2014f. Threatened and Endangered Plant list for Texas. Internet website:

http://plants.usda.gov/java/threat?statelist=states&fedlist=fed&stateSelect=US48

&sort=sciname. In: USFWS Endangered Species Program. 2014. All plants 

(January 2014). Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/

listedPlants.jsp. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, DC.

_____. 2014g. Nebraska State-listed Noxious Weeds. Internet website: http://plants.usda

.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=48.

_____. 2015. Threatened and Endangered Plant list for Nebraska. Internet website: 

http://plants.usda.gov/java/threat?statelist=states&stateSelect=US31.

Oklahoma Biological Survey. 2013. “Biodiversity: The federally endangered harperella.”

Biosurvey News: The Oklahoma Biological Survey Newsletter. Spring 2013.

ODWC (Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation). 2005. Oklahoma 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.

Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council. 2014. Oklahoma Nonnative Invasive Plant Species. 

Developed by the Oklahoma Native Plant Society, Oklahoma Biological Survey, 

and Oklahoma State University Natural Resource Ecology and Management. 

Internet website: http://ok-invasive-plant-council.org/index.html.

Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory. 2005. Rare and Vulnerable Plant Species of 

Oklahoma. Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory, Oklahoma Biological Survey, 

Norman, Oklahoma. Internet website: http://www.oknaturalheritage.ou.edu/

plants_rare_vulnerable.htm.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-105

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Oklahoma State University. 2012. “EPP-7318 Integrated Management of Invasive 

Thistles in Oklahoma.” Internet website: http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/

dsweb/Get/Document-2325/F-7318pod%20color.pdf.

Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement).

Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77(1):118-125.

Pruett, J. 2009. Invasive Species Audit for Oklahoma. The Nature Conservancy. July 8, 

2009.

Samson, F. B., and F. L. Knopf. 1994. “Prairie conservation in North America.”

BioScience 44: 418-421.

Schneider, R., K. Stoner, G. Steinauer, M. Panella, and M. Humpert (Eds.). 2011. The 

Nebraska Natural Legacy Project: State Wildlife Action Plan. 2nd ed. The 

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Texas Invasive Plant and Pest Council. 2011. Texas Invasive Plant Inventory. Internet 

website: http://www.texasinvasives.org/professionals/assessment.php.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2012. Texas Conservation Action Plan 2012-2016: 

Overview. (Wendy Connally, editor and Texas Conservation Action Plan 

Coordinator). Austin, Texas.

USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation 

Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, 

Mississippi. January 1987.

USFWS (US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service). 1990. Harperella 

(Ptilimnium nodosum) Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, Massachusetts.

_____. 1996. Platanthera praeclara (Western Prairie Fringed Orchid) Recovery Plan. 

Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 

_____. 1999. Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) Recovery Plan. 

Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

_____. 2009. Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. USFWS Twin Cities Field Office, Bloomington, 

Minnesota. February 2009. 

_____. 2010. Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. USFWS Chicago Illinois Field Office. Barrington, 

Illinois.
2. Area Profile

2-106 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Vavra, M., C. G. Parks, and M. J. Wisdom. 2007. “Biodiversity, exotic plant species, and 

herbivory—The good, the bad, and the ungulate.” Forest Ecology and 

Management 246(1):66-72.

Wasson, T., L. Yasui, K. Brunson, S. Amend, and V. Ebert. 2005. A Future for Kansas 

Wildlife, Kansas’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Dynamic 

Solutions, Inc., in cooperation with Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. 

October 2005.

Weaver, T., E. M. Payson, and D. L. Gustafson. 1996. “Prairie ecology—The shortgrass 

prairie.” In: Prairie Conservation—Preserving North America’s Most 

Endangered Ecosystem. Island Press, Washington, DC. Pp. 67-76. Internet

website: 

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZlHRjU2EDLQC&pg=PA67&dq=Prairie+ec

ology%E2%80%94The+shortgrass+prairie+weaver&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e9bCVOH

sMZDmsAS0_YGYDg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Weltzin, J. F., S. Archer, and R. K. Heischmidt. 1997. “Small mammal regulation of 

vegetation structure in a temperate savanna.” Ecology 78:751-763.

Woods, A. J., J. M. Omernik, D. R. Butler, J. G. Ford, J. E. Henley, B. W. Hoagland, D. 

S. Arndt, and B. C. Moran. 2005. Ecoregions of Oklahoma (color poster with 

map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, US

Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,250,000). 

2.2.7 Fish and Wildlife

Indicators

Indicators of impacts on fish, wildlife, and migratory birds are as follows:

 Amount and condition of available habitat 

 Likelihood of mortality, injury, or direct disturbance

 Likelihood of habitat disturbance

Fisheries

Impacts specific to aquatic species and their habitats are the following:

 Sediment and turbidity—Increased sediment loading in waters containing 

sediment-intolerant fish species, loss of recruitment, stress, nutrient loading,

and habitat loss

 Habitat alteration—Changes in habitat that make it nonfunctional for select 

species or more conducive to competitive species

 Loss or reduction of streamside vegetation/cover— Increased temperatures, 

stress, reduced productivity, and impacts on food webs
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-107

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Water Quality alteration—Actions that alter important water quality 

parameters, including pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, hardness, 

alkalinity/salinity, and turbidity

 Water depletions—Loss of physical habitat, water quality changes, sediment 

accumulation, habitat complexity loss, and food source reduction

 Potential direct mortalities to aquatic wildlife from motorized vehicles 

Wildlife and Migratory Birds

Impacts on wildlife and migratory birds are the following:

 Disturbance or loss of plant communities, food supplies, cover, breeding sites, 

and other habitat components necessary for population maintenance used by 

any species to a degree that would lead to substantial population declines

 Disturbance, fragmentation, or loss of seasonally important habitat (e.g., 

critical for overwintering or successful breeding) to a degree that would lead 

to substantial population declines

 Interference with a species’ movement pattern that decreases its ability to 

breed or overwinter successfully to a degree that would lead to substantial 

population declines

Current Condition

Fisheries

The BLM manages subsurface minerals for reservoirs throughout Kansas, Oklahoma, and 

Texas and small isolated tracts of surface estate, which overlap or border fish-bearing 

streams. These lands contain a diverse assortment of game and nongame fish species. 

Common fish species found throughout the planning area are largemouth bass 

(Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (M. dolomieui), spotted bass (M. punctulatus), 

striped bass (Morone saxatilis), white bass (M. chrysops), channel catfish (Ictalurus 

punchtatus), blue catfish (I. furcatus), flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), rainbow trout 

(Salmo gairdneri), walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), 

black crappie (P.s nigromaculatus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), green sunfish (L.

cyanellus), and redear sunfish (L. microlophus). The BLM does not manage fish 

populations or habitat for reservoirs in the planning area; instead these areas are managed 

by the state wildlife departments, in coordination with the surface owner or land 

manager.

Wildlife

Upland Game

Important upland game species in the planning area are bobwhite quail (Colinus 

virginianus), scaled quail (Callipepla squamata), greater prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus 

cupido), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), whitewinged dove (Z. asiatica), and chachalacas (Ortalis vetula). In addition, the ring-necked 
2. Area Profile

2-108 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), a nonnative species, is an important game bird in the 

region.

Big Game

Big game species in the planning area are white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), 

mule deer (O. hemionus), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), javelina (Tayassu tajacu), 

black bear (Ursus americanus), and elk (Cervus elaphus). Distribution and abundance of 

big game species varies by habitat type and ecoregion. White-tailed deer, mule deer, 

pronghorn, and elk are found in all four states in the planning area, whereas the javelina 

range is restricted to Texas. 

Small Mammals 

Bats are found throughout the planning area, with approximately 22 species found in 

Oklahoma, 31 in Texas, and 15 in Kansas (Kansas State University Agricultural

Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service 2005; ODWC 2014; Texas Parks 

and Wildlife 2007). Roost sites are widely distributed and include rock crevices, trees, 

caves, buildings, and bridges. (The location and distribution of cave and karst resources 

in the decision area are described under Section 2.2.16.) Terrestrial mammals, such as 

squirrels, cottontails, and mice, are also common throughout much of the decision area. 

In southeastern Oklahoma, Clark et al. (1998) found that relative abundances of all small 

mammals were significantly greater in fencerows, in lowland prairie, and in lowland 

prairie with more forbs and shrubs than upland prairie. 

Amphibians and Reptiles

A rich diversity of amphibians and reptiles is found throughout the decision area. Aquatic 

environments, such as reservoirs with subsurface BLM management, provide habitat for 

numerous species of turtles, frogs, amphibians, and other reptiles. 

Migratory Birds

Decision area lands are used for nesting and foraging grounds by large numbers of 

migratory birds. (Migratory bird survey data are collected by the USGS Wildlife 

Research Center in Patuxent, Maryland.) There are over 60 breeding bird survey routes in 

Oklahoma and in Kansas and approximately 200 in Texas (Pardieck et al. 2014). Data are 

available online by survey route at https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS/Public

DataInterface/index.cfm.

The 2008 USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern report identifies migratory nongame 

birds that, without additional conservation action, are likely to become candidates for 

listing under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2008). For Kansas, Oklahoma, and 

Texas, a total of 117 birds are on this list from ten regions. The regions in Kansas are 

short-grass prairie, central mixed-grass prairie, and eastern tall-grass prairie. In 

Oklahoma, the regions are short-grass prairie, central mixed-grass prairie, oaks and 

prairies, eastern tall-grass prairie, Mississippi alluvial valley, and west Gulf coastal plain. 

In Texas, the regions are short-grass prairie, central mixed-grass prairie, Chihuahuan 

desert, Edwards plateau, oaks and prairies, west gulf coastal plain, Tamaulipan 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-109

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

brushlands, and Gulf-coastal prairie (USFWS 2008). Table 2-17 shows the Birds of 

Conservation Concern in each region.

Table 2-17

USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern

Bird of Conservation 

Concern

Shortgrass prairieCentral mixedgrass prairieEdwards plateauOaks and prairiesEastern tallgrass prairieMississippi alluvial planWest Gulf coastal plainChihuahuan desertTamaulipan Brushlands Gulf-coastal prairie

Pied-billed Grebe x

Horned grebe x

Audubon’s shearwater x

Band-rumped storm-petrel x

American bittern x x x

Least bittern x x x x

Reddish egret x

Black-crowned nightheron x

Lesser prairie-chicken x x

Little blue heron x x x

Swallow-tailed kite x x x x

Mississippi kite x

Bald eagle x x x x x x x x x

Golden eagle x x

Peregrine falcon x x x x x x

Prairie falcon x

Harris’s hawk x

Swainson’s hawk x x

Ferruginous hawk x

Common black-hawk x

White-tailed hawk x

American kestrel x

Black rail x x x x x

Yellow rail x x x

Snowy plover x x x x x

Wilson’s plover x

Mountain plover x x x x x x

American oystercatcher x

Solitary sandpiper x x x x x

Upland sandpiper x x x x x x

Lesser yellowlegs x x
2. Area Profile

2-110 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-17

USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern

Bird of Conservation 

Concern

Shortgrass prairieCentral mixedgrass prairieEdwards plateauOaks and prairiesEastern tallgrass prairieMississippi alluvial planWest Gulf coastal plainChihuahuan desertTamaulipan Brushlands Gulf-coastal prairie

Long-billed curlew x x x x x x x

Whimbrel x x

Hudsonian godwit x x x x x x

Marbled godwit x x x x

Red knot x x

Buff-breasted sandpiper x x x x x x

Short-billed dowitcher x x x x

Least tern x

Black tern x

Common tern x

Gull-billed tern x x

Sandwich tern x

Black skimmer x

Red-billed pigeon x

Green parakeet x

Red-crowned parrot x

Black-billed cuckoo x

Yellow-billed cuckoo x

Flammulated owl x

Elf owl x x

Short-eared owl x x x

Burrowing owl x x x

Lucifer hummingbird x

Buff-bellied hummingbird x

Whip-poor-will x

Chuck-will’s widow x

Red-headed woodpecker x x x x x

Lewis’s woodpecker x

Scissor-tailed flycatcher x x

Willow flycatcher x

Northern flicker x

Acadian flycatcher x

Loggerhead shrike x x x x x x

Brown-headed nuthatch x
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-111

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-17

USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern

Bird of Conservation 

Concern

Shortgrass prairieCentral mixedgrass prairieEdwards plateauOaks and prairiesEastern tallgrass prairieMississippi alluvial planWest Gulf coastal plainChihuahuan desertTamaulipan Brushlands Gulf-coastal prairie

Northern beardlesstyrannulet x

Rose-throated becard x

Gray vireo x x

Bell’s vireo x x x x x x

Verdin x

Bendire’s thrasher x

Curve-billed Thrasher x

Bewick’s wren x x

Sedge wren x x

Wood thrush x x x

Sprague’s pipit x x x x x x x

Tropical parula x

Summer tanager x

White-collared seedeater x

Virginia’s warbler x

Prairie warbler x

Worm-eating warbler x

Louisiana waterthrush x

Swainson’s warbler x x x x

Blue-winged warbler x

Cerulean warbler x x x

Prothonotary warbler x x x x

Kentucky warbler x x x

Colima warbler x

Red-faced warbler x

Yellow warbler x

Grace’s warbler x

Botteri’s sparrow x

Bachman’s sparrow x

Field sparrow x

Grasshopper sparrow x x

Rufous-crowned sparrow x

Black-chinned sparrow x

Cassin’s sparrow x x x
2. Area Profile

2-112 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-17

USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern

Bird of Conservation 

Concern

Shortgrass prairieCentral mixedgrass prairieEdwards plateauOaks and prairiesEastern tallgrass prairieMississippi alluvial planWest Gulf coastal plainChihuahuan desertTamaulipan Brushlands Gulf-coastal prairie

Henslow’s sparrow x x x x x x

Harris’s sparrow x x x

Leconte’s sparrow x x

Nelson’s sharp-tailed 

sparrow 

x

Seaside sparrow x

Lark bunting x x x x

Baird’s sparrow x

McCown’s longspur x x x x

Smith’s longspur x x x x

Chestnut-collared 

longspur x x x x x

Varied bunting x x

Painted bunting x x x x x

Dickcissel x x x x

Rusty blackbird x

Orchard oriole x x x x x

Hooded oriole x

Altamira oriole x

Audubon’s oriole x

Source: USFWS 2008

The Important Bird Areas (IBA) Program is an effort by the National Audubon Society 

and local partners to identify and conserve areas vital to birds and other species in the 

habitat. Identifying vital areas worldwide is an important step to improving public 

awareness and support and ensuring that all IBAs are properly managed and conserved. 

Bird habitats are threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation from human development. 

Coupled with global warming and introduced predators, these factors pose serious threats 

to populations of birds across America and around the world. By working to identify and 

implement conservation strategies in IBAs, Audubon and partners hope to avoid 

additional populations being listed as endangered or threatened or dropping to 

dangerously low levels. Approximately 441,400 acres of BLM-administered federal 

mineral estate lands overlap with IBAs in the planning area. No BLM-administered 

surface lands in the planning area are IBAs (see Table 2-19; Audubon GIS 2015).
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-113

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-18

Important Bird Areas in the Planning Area

Name Importance Acreage Notes

Kansas

Cheyenne Bottoms Preserve and 

Wildlife Area

Global 27,552 Whooping crane and 47 other 

bird species

Cimarron National Grassland Global 108,178 Lesser prairie-chicken, golden 

eagle, 3 other species

Flint Hills Region Global 3,300,112 Sprague’s pipit, greater prairiechicken and 13 other species

John Redmond Reservoir and

Flint Hills National Wildlife 

Refuge

State 18,464 Snow goose

Kirwin National Wildlife 

Refuge

State 10,779 N/A

Marais des Cygnes Wildlife 

Area and National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Global 15,145 Red-headed woodpecker and 2 

other species

Neosho Wildlife Area State 3,247 

Quivira National Wildlife 

Refuge

Global 22,136 Whooping crane and 3 other bird 

species

Red Hills Region Global 2,298,319 Lesser prairie-chicken

Oklahoma

Salt Plains National Wildlife 

Refuge

Global 32,000 Whooping crane and 5 other 

species

Selman Ranch State 13,998 Lesser prairie-chicken and 4 other 

species

Tallgrass Prairie Preserve Global 38,702 Greater prairie-chicken and 5 

other species

Wichita Mountains National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Global 59,021 Painted bunting and 3 other 

species

Texas

Balcones Canyonlands National 

Wildlife Refuge

Global 80,003 Golden-cheeked warbler

Balcones Canyonlands Preserve Global 27,928 Golden-cheeked warbler, 

dicksissel, and 120 other species

Blackjack Peninsula of Aransas 

National Wildlife Refuge

Global 70,504 Whooping crane and 4 other 

species

Brown Property Global 321 Golden-cheeked warbler

Columbia Bottomlands State 177,004 Bell’s vireo, bald eagle, hooded 

warbler, and 5 other species

Deadman Island/Long Reef State 5 Black skimmer, Sandwich tern,

and 14 other species
2. Area Profile

2-114 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-18

Important Bird Areas in the Planning Area

Name Importance Acreage Notes

Dressing Point Global 5 Black skimmer and 4 other 

species

Fort Hood Global 217,008 Golden-cheeked warbler

Green Island Global 25 Reddish egret and 4 other species

Jigsaw Islands Global 2 Black skimmer, royal tern, and 5 

other species

Katy Prairie Conservancy Global 17,500 Buff-breasted sandpiper, northern 

bobwhite, wood stork, and 5 other 

species

Laguna Vista Spoils Global 2 Black skimmer and 4 other 

species

Lavaca Bay Spoils Global 12 Black skimmer and 4 other 

species

Little Pelican Island State N/A Black skimmer, brown pelican, 

and 3 other species

Mustang Bayou Island State 2 Royal tern, brown pelican, and 16 

other species

Nature Conservancy Dolan 

Falls Preserve

Global 18,523 Golden-cheeked warbler, Bell’s 

Vireo, painted bunting

Nature Conservancy 

Independence Creek Preserve 

Global 19,741 Painted bunting, Bell’s vireo

Nature Conservancy Love 

Creek Preserve 

Global 1,401 Golden-cheeked warbler, Bell’s 

vireo, painted bunting, olive-sided 

flycatcher 

North Deer Island Global 143 Brown pelican and 4 other species

Port Bolivar Bird Sanctuaries—

Bolivar Flats

Global 1,796 Clapper rail, snowy plover, and 20 

other species

Port Bolivar Bird Sanctuaries—

Horseshoe Marsh 

State N/A Piping plover, brown pelican, and

11 other species

Sabal Palm Sanctuary State 526 Green kingfisher, buff-bellied 

hummingbird, and 8 other species

Southernmost Edwards Plateau Global 15,308 Golden-cheeked warbler

Sundown Island Global 69 Black skimmer, brown pelican,

and 15 other species

Yoakum Dunes Preserve Global 7,099 Lesser prairie-chicken

Source: National Audubon Society Important Bird Areas. http://netapp.audubon.org/IBA/Map/All

N/A: Not available
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-115

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Trends

Fisheries

Dams, diversions, and alterations of instream flow, in combination with and independent 

of adjacent land use activities, has historically affected fish and other aquatic 

invertebrates in the planning area. This has created unsuitable conditions for some 

species (Anderson et al. 1995). Additionally, the introduction and spread of aquatic 

nuisance species has disrupted ecological processes and displaced native species. 

Wildlife and Migratory Birds

For the short-grass prairie (high plains) in western Oklahoma, Texas Panhandle and 

western Kansas, invasive weeds, water quality changes, and habitat loss and 

fragmentation threaten habitat for migratory birds. The trend for most species is 

unknown, but many species appear to be declining (OK Department of Wildlife 

Conservation 2005). In Kansas, agricultural practices and poorly managed grazing 

systems are primary causes of habitat fragmentation (Wasson et al. 2005). Similar trends 

are apparent in the mixed-grass prairie of western Oklahoma, the tall-grass prairie, and 

Osage Plain regions. Certain areas also face water quality decline, often nutrient loading

from agricultural runoff, and habitat loss and fragmentation. These are mixed-grass 

prairie and oak woodland habitat of central Oklahoma and northern Texas and the 

western Gulf coastal plain and mountains of eastern Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. 

Agricultural practices are a primary driver of fragmentation (Wasson et al. 2005). These 

threats as well as heavy recreational use impact the Ozark Mountains area of northeastern 

Oklahoma (OK Department of Wildlife Conservation 2005).

Climate conditions play an important role in wildlife production and habitat quality and 

quantity. Persistent droughts have contributed to range-wide bobwhite quail population 

declines since the 1960s (ODWC 2011). Similar declines have been observed with the 

greater prairie-chickens due to woody encroachment of native grasslands, which can 

reduce suitable habitat (Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism 2014). For 

other upland game species, such as the wild turkey, long-term population trends have 

generally increased since the second half of the twentieth century, in part due to 

restocking and restoration. Private landowner conservation programs, such as the 

Conservation Reserve Program, have helped to preserve wildlife habitat on nonfederal 

lands in the planning area. These programs offer eligible farmers and ranchers monetary 

incentives for protecting their land. 

Variable changes in bat abundance over a 40-year survey period have been documented 

in the Red Hill region of Kansas and Oklahoma, an area that lies at the peripheries of four 

bat species’ distributions. Increasing abundance of some hibernacula may reflect range 

expansions or changes in the quality of hibernacula or other habitat aspects (Prendergast 

et al. 2010). Decision area lands in this region are primarily restricted to BLM subsurface 

tracts. Factors contributing to the decline of bat populations are loss of habitat from 

surface mining operations, urbanization, lake and reservoir construction, and cave 

commercialization and vandalism (ODWC 2014). Bat fatalities are also associated with 

wind energy operations (Arnett et al. 2009). A study in southeastern Oklahoma found that 
2. Area Profile

2-116 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

trends related to the abundance and distribution of other terrestrial small mammals is 

largely influenced by humans and varies by species (Clark et al. 1998). For example, deer 

mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) populations have responded positively to agricultural 

conversion and livestock grazing, whereas western harvest mice (Reithrodontomys 

megalotis) have been reduced in cultivated areas (Clark et al. 1998).

Forecast

Fish stocking in reservoirs with BLM subsurface management is expected to continue, as 

is the spread of aquatic invasive species. Migratory bird populations will continue to be 

impacted by habitat fragmentation and climate change, reducing effective habitat 

availability for nesting, migratory stopovers, and winter habitat for many species. Private 

landowner conservation incentives and federal and state wildlife regulations will help to 

preserve important fish and wildlife habitat.

Key Features

Several specific regions in the decision area provide important habitat for fish and 

wildlife species. The 11,800-acre Cross Bar Ranch north of Amarillo along the Canadian 

River is the only BLM-administered surface tract in Texas. Other key areas are the Red 

River Management Area along the Oklahoma and Texas border and various reservoirs 

with BLM subsurface management. Caves and karst resources, described under Section 

2.2.16, also provide valuable habitat for bats, arachnids, troglobites (permanent cavedwelling species), and various other animals.

References

Anderson, A. A., C. Hubbs, K. O. Winemiller, and R. J. Edwards. “Texas freshwater fish 

assemblages following three decades of environmental change.” The 

Southwestern Naturalist 40(3):314-321.

Arnett, E. B., M. Schirmacher, M. M. P. Huso, and J. P. Hayes. 2009. “Effectiveness of 

changing wind turbine cut-in speed to reduce bat mortalities at wind facilities.”

An annual report submitted to the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative. Bat 

Conservation International. Austin, Texas.

Clark, B. K., B. S. Clark, T. R. Homerding, and W. E. Munsterman. 1998. “Communities 

of small mammals in six grass-dominated habitats of southeastern Oklahoma.”

American Midland Naturalist 139(2):262-268.

Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension 

Service. 2005. Bats: Urban Wildlife Damage Control. Internet website: 

http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/bookstore/pubs/l855.pdf.

Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism. 2014. Upland Bird Forecast. 

Internet website: http://kdwpt.state.ks.us/news/Hunting/Upland-Birds/UplandBird-Forecast.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-117

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

ODWC (Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation). 2005. Oklahoma Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy.

. 2011. Upland urgency: the fight against bobwhite quail decline. Internet website: 

https://www.wildlifedepartment.com/hunting/quail/upland_urgengcy.pdf.

. 2014. Species spotlight: Oklahoma Bats. Internet website: 

http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/wildlifemgmt/species/okbats.htm.

Pardieck, K. L., D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and M.-A. R. Hudson. 2014. North American 

Breeding Bird Survey Dataset 1966-2013, version 2013.0. US Geological Survey, 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Internet website: www.pwrc.usgs.gov/

BBS/RawData/.

Prendergast, J. A., W. E. Jensen, and S. D. Roth. “Trends in abundance of hibernating 

bats in a karst region of the Southern Great Plains.” The Southwestern Naturalist

55(3):331-339.

Texas Parks and Wildlife. 2007. Bat Watching Sites of Texas. Internet website: 

http://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_w7000_1411.pdf.

USFWS (US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service). 2008. Birds of 

Conservation Concern 2008. US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. Internet 

website: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds.

Wasson, T., L. Yasui, K. Brunson, S. Amend, and V. Ebert. 2005. A Future for Kansas 

Wildlife, Kansas’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Dynamic 

Solutions, Inc., in cooperation with Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. 

October 2005.

2.2.8 Special Status Species

Special status species is a universal term used in the scientific community. It refers to 

species that are considered sufficiently rare that they require special consideration and 

protection and should be listed or have been listed as rare, threatened, or endangered by 

the federal or state governments or both. The authority for this policy and guidance 

regarding the evaluation of special status species comes from the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended; the FLPMA; and BLM Special Status Species Management 

(Manual 6840).

Indicators

A species is listed under the Endangered Species Act when it is determined to be 

endangered or threatened because of any of the following factors:

 The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range
2. Area Profile

2-118 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Overuse for commercial, recreational, scientific, or education purposes

 Disease or predation

 Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 

 Other natural or man-made factors affecting survival 

Important habitat features are vertical and horizontal structure, moisture, sunlight, and 

temperature. If only one of these conditions is inappropriate, a species may not be able to 

survive. Some species depend on more than one habitat type and need a variety of 

habitats near each other to survive. Habitat does not have to be completely eliminated to 

lose its usefulness to an organism.

Indicators for federal-listed species and other special status species (e.g., state threatened 

or endangered species and species of greatest conservation need) may include population 

surveys, habitat assessments, and other monitoring studies.

Current Condition

Federal-Listed and Proposed Species

According to the ESA, an endangered species is any species that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range; a threatened species is any 

that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

The OFO manages habitats for species listed by the USFWS as endangered, threatened, 

or proposed under the authority of the ESA. For federal-listed and proposed species 

occurring within the planning area, see Table 2-19.

Table 2-19

Federal-Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Federal 

Status*

Other 

Status*

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Amphibians Houston toad Anaxyrus houstonensis E SE 

(TX)

TX

Amphibians Salado salamander Eurycea chisholmensis T TX

Amphibians San Marcos 

salamander

E. nana T ST 

(TX)

TX

Amphibians Georgetown 

salamander

E. naufragia T TX

Amphibians Texas blind 

salamander

E. rathbuni E SE 

(TX)

TX

Amphibians Barton Springs 

salamander

E. sosorum E SE 

(TX)

TX
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-119

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-19

Federal-Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Federal 

Status*

Other 

Status*

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Amphibians Jollyville 

salamander

E. tonkawae T TX

Amphibians Austin blind 

salamander

E. waterlooensis E TX

Birds Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii C BCC OK, 

TX

Birds Rufa red knot Calidris canutus rufa T TX

Birds Piping plover C. melodus T ST 

(OK, 

TX, 

NE)

OK, 

KS, TX

Birds Mountain plover C. montanus C ST 

(NE), 

BCC, 

SINC 

(KS)

OK, KS

Birds Western yellowbilled cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus 

occidentails

T BCC TX

Birds Golden-cheeked 

warbler

Dendroica chrysoparia E SE 

(TX)

TX

Birds Southwestern 

willow flycatcher

Empidonax traillii extimus E SE 

(TX), 

BCC

TX

Birds Northern aplomado 

falcon

Falco femoralis 

septentrionalis

E SE 

(TX)

TX

Birds Whooping crane Grus americana E SE

(OK, 

TX, 

NE)

OK, 

KS, TX

Birds Eskimo curlew Numenius borealis E SE

(TX, 

NE)

KS, TX

Birds Red-cockaded 

woodpecker

Picoides borealis E SE

(TX), 

REA

OK, 

TX

Birds Least tern Sterna antillarum E SE

(KS), 

BCC

KS
2. Area Profile

2-120 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-19

Federal-Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Federal 

Status*

Other 

Status*

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Birds Interior least tern S. antillarum athalassos E SE 

(KS, 

TX, 

NE), 

BCC

OK, 

KS, TX

Birds Mexican spotted 

owl

Strix occidentalis lucida T ST

(TX)

TX

Birds Attwater’s greater 

prairie chicken

Tympanuchus cupido 

attwateri

E SE 

(TX)

TX

Birds Lesser prairiechicken

Tympanuchus pallidicinctus T BCC OK, 

TX

Birds Black-capped vireo Vireo atricapilla E SE 

(TX)

OK, 

KS, TX

Fishes Ozark cavefish Amblyopsis rosae T OK

Fishes Leon Springs 

pupfish

Cyprinodon bovinus E SE 

(TX)

TX

Fishes Comanche Springs 

pupfish

C. elegans E SE 

(TX)

TX

Fishes Devils River 

minnow

Dionda diaboli T ST

(TX)

TX

Fishes Arkansas darter Etheostoma cragini C ST 

(KS)

OK, KS

Fishes Fountain darter E. fonticola E SE 

(TX)

TX

Fishes Big Bend gambusia Gambusia gaigei E SE 

(TX)

TX

Fishes San Marcos 

gambusia (extinct)

G. georgei E SE 

(TX)

TX

Fishes Clear Creek 

gambusia

G. heterochir E SE

(TX)

TX

Fishes Pecos gambusia G. nobilis E SE 

(TX)

TX

Fishes Rio Grande silvery 

minnow

Hybognathus amarus E SE 

(TX)

TX

Fishes Smalleye shiner Notropis buccula E TX

Fishes Arkansas River 

shiner

N. girardi T SE 

(KS), 

ST 

(TX)

OK, 

KS, TX

Fishes Sharpnose shiner Notropis oxyrhynchus E TX
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-121

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-19

Federal-Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Federal 

Status*

Other 

Status*

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Fishes Topeka shiner N. topeka E ST

(KS) 

SE 

(NE)

KS

Fishes Neosho madtom Noturus placidus T ST 

(KS)

OK, KS

Fishes Leopard darter Percina pantherina T OK

Fishes Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata E SE 

(TX)

TX

Fishes Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus E E (KS, 

NE) 

KS, NE

Invertebrates Ouachita Rock 

pocketbook

Arkansia wheeleri E OK

Invertebrates Pecos assiminea 

snail

Assiminea pecos E SE 

(TX)

TX

Invertebrates Coffin Cave mold 

beetle

Batrisodes texanus E TX

Invertebrates Helotes mold 

beetle

Batrisodes venyivi E TX

Invertebrates Robber baron cave 

meshweaver

Cicurina baronia E TX

Invertebrates Madla Cave 

meshweaver

C. madla E TX

Invertebrates Bracken bat cave 

meshweaver

C. venii E TX

Invertebrates Government 

Canyon bat cave 

meshweaver

C. vespera E TX

Invertebrates Warton Cave 

meshweaver

C. wartoni C TX

Invertebrates Diminutive

amphipod

Gammarus hyalleloides E TX

Invertebrates Pecos amphipod G. pecos E TX

Invertebrates Comal Springs 

riffle beetle

Heterelmis comalensis E TX

Invertebrates Texas fatmucket Lampsilis bracteata C ST

(TX)

TX

Invertebrates Scaleshell Leptodea leptodon E SE 

(NE)

OK
2. Area Profile

2-122 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-19

Federal-Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Federal 

Status*

Other 

Status*

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Invertebrates American burying 

beetle

Nicrophorus americanus E SE 

(KS, 

NE)

OK, 

KS, TX

Invertebrates Rattlesnake masterborer moth

Papaipema eryngii C OK

Invertebrates Texas hornshell Popenaias popeii C ST

(TX)

TX

Invertebrates Diamond Y spring 

snail

Pseudotryonia adamantina E TX

Invertebrates Phantom Cave 

snail

Pyrgulopsis texana E TX

Invertebrates Golden orb Quadrula aurea C ST

(TX)

TX

Invertebrates Winged mapleleaf Q. fragosa E OK

Invertebrates Smooth 

pimpleback

Q. houstonensis C ST 

(TX)

TX

Invertebrates Texas pimpleback Q. petrina C ST 

(TX)

TX

Invertebrates A ground beetle Rhadine exilis E TX

Invertebrates A ground beetle R. infernalis E TX

Invertebrates Tooth Cave ground 

beetle

R. persephone E TX

Invertebrates Peck’s Cave 

amphipod

Stygobromus pecki E SE 

(TX)

TX

Invertebrates Comal Springs 

dryopid beetle

S. comalensis E TX

Invertebrates Tooth Cave 

pseudoscorpion

Tartarocreagris texana E TX

Invertebrates Gov. Canyon bat 

cave spider

Tayshaneta microps E TX

Invertebrates Tooth Cave spider T. myopica E TX

Invertebrates Kretschmarr Cave 

mold beetle

Texamaurops reddelli E TX

Invertebrates Cokendolpher Cave 

harvestman

Texella cokendolpheri E TX

Invertebrates Reddell harvestman T. reddelli E TX

Invertebrates Bone Cave 

harvestman

T. reyesi E TX

Invertebrates Texas fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon C ST

(TX)

TX
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-123

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-19

Federal-Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Federal 

Status*

Other 

Status*

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Invertebrates Phantom spring 

snail

Tryonia cheatumi E TX

Invertebrates Gonzales 

springsnail

T. circumstriata E TX

Mammals Finback whale Balaenoptera physalus E SE 

(TX)

TX

Mammals Gray wolf Canis lupus E SE 

(TX)

TX

Mammals Red wolf C. rufus E SE 

(TX)

TX

Mammals Ozark big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii 

ingens

E OK

Mammals Jaguarundi Herpailurus yaguarondi E SE 

(TX)

TX

Mammals Ocelot Leopardus pardalis E SE 

(TX)

TX

Mammals Mexican longnosed

Leptonycteris nivalis E SE 

(TX)

TX

Mammals Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae E SE 

(TX)

TX

Mammals Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes E SE 

(KS, 

NE)

KS

Mammals Gray myotis Myotis grisescens E SE 

(KS)

OK, KS

Mammals Northern longeared Bat

M. septentrionalis PE OK, KS

Mammals Indiana bat M. sodalis E OK

Mammals Jaguar Panthera onca E SE 

(TX)

TX

Mammals West Indian 

manatee

Trichechus manatus E SE 

(TX)

TX

Mammals Louisiana black 

bear

Ursus americanus luteolus T ST 

(TX)

TX

Reptiles Loggerhead sea 

turtle

Caretta caretta T ST 

(TX)

TX

Reptiles Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas T ST 

(TX)

TX

Reptiles Leatherback sea 

turtle

Dermochelys coriacea E SE 

(TX)

TX
2. Area Profile

2-124 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-19

Federal-Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Federal 

Status*

Other 

Status*

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Reptiles Atlantic hawksbill 

sea turtle

Eretmochelys imbricata E SE 

(TX)

TX

Reptiles Kemp’s ridley sea 

turtle

Lepidochelys kempii E SE 

(TX)

TX

Reptiles Louisiana pine 

snake

Pituophis ruthveni C ST

(TX)

TX

Plants Large-fruited sandverbena

Abronia macrocarpa E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants South Texas 

ambrosia

Ambrosia cheiranthifolia E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Mead’s milkweed Asclepias meadii T KS

Plants Star cactus Astrophytum asterias E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Texas ayenia Ayenia limitaris E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Texas poppymallow

Callirhoe scabriuscula E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Bunched cory 

cactus

Coryphantha ramillosa ssp.

ramillosa

T ST 

(TX)

TX

Plants Terlingua Creek 

cat’s-eye

Cryptantha crassipes E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Chisos mountains 

hedgehog cactus

Echinocereus chisoensis var.

chisoensis

T ST 

(TX)

TX

Plants Pinkflower 

hedgehog cactus

E. fendleri ssp. fendleri (E. f. 

var. kuenzleri)

E TX

Plants Davis’s green 

pitaya

Echinocereus viridiflorus 

var. davisii

E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Black lace cactus E. reichenbachii ssp. fitchii 

(E. r. var. albertii)

E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Lloyd’s fishhook 

cactus

Echinomastus mariposensis 

(Neolloydia m.)

T ST 

(TX)

TX

Plants Nellie’s cory cactus Escobaria minima 

(Coryphantha m.)

E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Sneed’s pincushion 

cactus

E. sneedii var. sneedii 

(Coryphantha s.)

E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Guadalupe fescue Festuca ligulata C TX

Plants Johnston’s 

frankenia

Frankenia johnstonii E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Earth fruit Geocarpon minimum T ST 

(TX)

TX
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-125

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-19

Federal-Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Federal 

Status*

Other 

Status*

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Plants Pecos sunflower Helianthus paradoxus T ST 

(TX)

TX

Plants Neches River rosemallow

Hibiscus dasycalyx T TX

Plants Slender rushpea Hoffmannseggia tenella E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Texas prairie dawn Hymenoxys texana E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Texas golden 

gladecress

Leavenworthia texana E TX

Plants Walker’s manioc Manihot walkerae E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Texas trailing 

phlox

Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants White bladderpod Physaria 

pallida (Lesquerella p.)

E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Zapata bladderpod P. thamnophila 

(Lesquerealla t.)

E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Eastern prairiefringed orchid

Platanthera leucophaea T ST 

(OK)

OK

Plants Western prairiefringed orchid

P. praeclara T ST 

(OK, 

NE)

OK

Plants Little aguja 

pondweed

Potamogeton clystocarpus E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Harperella Ptillium nodosum E SE 

(OK)

OK

Plants Hinckley’s oak Quercus hinckleyi T ST 

(TX)

TX

Plants Chaffseed Schwalbea americana E TX

Plants Tobusch fishhook 

cactus

Sclerocactus brevihamatus

ssp. tobuschii 

(Ancistrocactus t.)

E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Lloyd’s mariposa 

cactus

Sclerocactus mariposensis T ST 

(TX)

TX

Plants Navasota ladies’-

tresses

Spiranthes parksii E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Bracted twistflower Streptanthus bracteatus C TX
2. Area Profile

2-126 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-19

Federal-Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Federal 

Status*

Other 

Status*

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Plants Texas snowbells Styrax 

platanifolius spp. texanus (S. 

t.)

E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Ashy dogweed Thymophylla tephroleuca E SE 

(TX)

TX

Plants Running buffaloclover

Trifoloium stoloniferum E KS

Plants Texas wild-rice Zizania texana E SE 

(TX)

TX

Sources:2 USFWS 2008; NRCS 2014e, 2014f, 2014g; Nebraska Natural Heritage Program 2013

*Status Codes: 

E—Federal-listed Endangered, T—Federal-listed Threatened, C—Federal-listed Candidate, P—Proposed for 

Listing, BCC—Bird of Conservation Concern, SE—State Endangered, ST—State Threatened

SINC—Species in Need of Conservation, REA—Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment 

In addition, the USFWS has designated critical habitat in the BLM decision area for the 

following species: Arkansas River shiner (730 acres), Houston toad (10 acres), whooping 

crane (101,210 acres), piping plover (48,580 acres), zapata bladderpod (5,120 acres), 

leopard darter (140 acres), and Georgetown salamander (170 acres; USFWS GIS 2014).

Federal-listed key species, including those listed in the Draft Southern Great Plains Rapid 

Ecoregional Assessment or with known occurrences in the decision area, are discussed in 

detail below.

American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus). Federal-listed Endangered

The American burying beetle is approximately 1.0 to 1.5 inches in length, the largest 

member of its genus in North America. The species is identifiable by its large size and by 

a large orange-red pronotal disk (the flat, upper-most part of the prominent plate-like 

structure that covers all or part of the thorax of some insects) (USFWS 1988). Once 

widely distributed throughout eastern North America, populations have disappeared from 

most of their historic range. The species occupies a range of habitats, such as tall-grass 

prairie, woodlands, and forests. In the planning area, the American burying beetle is 

found primarily in eastern Oklahoma (USFWS 2015), although field surveys have 

documented occurrences in Kansas and Texas (USFWS 2008; see Figure 2-11). In 

Oklahoma, the highest concentration of beetles is found at Camp Gruber, 32,000 acres of 

cross-timber habitat with an oak-hickory forest and tall-grass prairie mosaic pattern 

(USFWS 2008). This area contains decision area BLM subsurface lands.

 

2George Thomas, BLM, personal communication via e-mail with Kevin Rice, EMPSi, regarding special status 

species list and definition, February 13, 2015.

2. Area Profile

2-128 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi). Federal-listed as Threatened

The Arkansas River shiner is a small streamlined minnow found in the Arkansas River 

Basin. The species inhabits shallow braided channels with pool, riffle, run, and backwater 

components. Water quality is characterized by low contaminant concentration and 

seasonally variable temperature, turbidity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH 

(USFWS 2001).

Historically, the Arkansas River shiner was widespread and abundant throughout the 

Arkansas River basin in Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas; however, the 

species has been reduced from more than 80 percent of its original range. Current 

populations are almost entirely restricted to approximately 500 miles of the Canadian

River in Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico (USFWS 1998; see Figure 2-12 for critical 

habitat distribution in the planning area). The construction of reservoirs has fragmented, 

inundated, dewatered, or otherwise directly affected habitat for the Arkansas River 

shiner, and depletions and diversions continue to threaten the species. Water quality 

degradation caused by concentrated animal feeding, municipal sewage effluent, and other 

sources have impacted aggregations (USFWS 2009).

Black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla). Federal-listed as Endangered

This vireo has white eye rings, olive upper parts, a white breast and belly with yellowish 

flanks, and a black head (in adult males). It is similar in appearance to the solitary vireo, 

but somewhat smaller. A long-distance migrant, it nests in Texas and Oklahoma and 

winters in Mexico. It feeds on insects (especially caterpillars), spiders, and fruits. It is 

found in shrubland and chaparral habitat, in dense low thickets and oak scrub, mostly on 

rocky hillsides or steep ravines in rugged terrain. Nests are in tangles of shrubby growth 

close to the ground in small trees or shrubs, with vegetation extending to the ground, 

among barren or less vegetated areas.

Historically the black-capped vireo was found from south-central Kansas through central 

Oklahoma and Texas into northeastern Mexico. Its present range extends from Blaine 

County, Oklahoma (two locations, only one of which [Wichita Mountains] has 

substantial numbers), south through central and western Texas into Mexico, where it is 

thought to be more prevalent. Threats include habitat loss and degradation from human 

development, fire suppression, effects of grazers, and range management practices that 

remove low woody vegetation and promote juniper (Juniperus sp.) invasion. In addition, 

it is a frequent host of the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), which may reduce 

nesting success by 80 to 100 percent in some years (NatureServe 2015; see Figure 2-13

for the species’ range in the planning area). 

Interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos). Federal-listed as Endangered

Interior least terns nest locally along the Colorado, Red, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and 

Mississippi Rivers. Least terns nesting on the California coast and along interior rivers 

are listed as Endangered by USFWS, except areas within 50 miles of the Texas coast. 

The least tern is the smallest North American tern, gray above, with a black cap and nape, 

white forehead, and a black line running from the crown through the eye to the base of 


2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-131

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

the bill. Interior populations mainly eat aquatic invertebrates, primarily cyprinids. They 

nest in shallow depressions on the ground on sandy beaches, salt flats, or sparsely 

vegetated river or lake banks in North America and winter in Mexico and Central 

America. Least terns were formerly more widespread and common but now survive only 

in scattered remnants. Their habitat has been decimated by human use of beaches and 

sandbars and by upstream dams that remove alluvium and create scour in river channels, 

reducing sandbars and beaches used by least terns for nesting (NatureServe 2015; see 

Figure 2-14 for the species range within the planning area).

Lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus). Federal-listed as Threatened

The lesser prairie-chicken is characterized by brown and buff-colored barring, similar in 

appearance to the greater prairie-chicken but slightly smaller. It inhabits mixedgrass/dwarf shrub communities that occur on sandy soils. Principally these communities 

are the sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifoilia)-bluestem (Andropogon spp.) association in 

Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma and to a lesser extent Texas and New Mexico. Leks 

typically occur on knolls or ridges with relatively short or sparse vegetation. Nesting sites 

are in sand sagebrush or shinnery oak grasslands with high canopy cover in relatively tall 

dense vegetation. The species’ diet includes insects, seeds, acorns, vegetative material, 

and cultivated grains, such as sorghum. 

In spring and fall, adults congregate on leks where males engage in communal courtship 

displays; the number of males attending a lek is influenced by habitat and population 

density. Droughts and hot dry weather during nesting season negatively impact grass 

height and may reduce hatching success. Lesser prairie-chickens form flocks in fall and 

winter and generally do not migrate. Males and females both demonstrate strong site 

fidelity. The lesser prairie-chicken has a small, fragmented range in the southwestern 

Great Plains region. Distribution and abundance have declined due to habitat loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation caused by conversion of native rangelands to cropland, 

spread of invasive species, and cumulative habitat degradation caused by inappropriate 

livestock grazing practices, energy development, woodland spread due to fire 

suppression, and structural and transportation developments (NatureServe 2015). 

Additionally, aboveground vertical structures, such as power poles, fence posts, oil and 

gas wells, provide a perch for raptors and can cause general habitat avoidance and 

displacement (NatureServe 2015). In the planning area, populations are primarily 

concentrated in western Kansas and the Oklahoma and Texas panhandle region (see

Figure 2-15).

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Federal-listed as Endangered

A small woodpecker closely related to the hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus]. Adult 

males have red streaks (cockades) on either side of the head. They live in groups, unlike 

other woodpeckers, with a single breeding pair and sometimes helpers, which incubate 

eggs, feed nestlings and fledglings, and defend territories. The species roosts in cavities 

excavated in mature pine trees. Rat snake predation takes a heavy toll on nestlings, and 

flying squirrels (Gluacomys volans) may seize and destroy nests. Nesting groups are 

highly territorial, and competition for cavities is strong with other woodpeckers and 


2. Area Profile

2-134 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

flying squirrels. Home ranges are approximately 100 to 125 acres. Historically found 

from New Jersey to Texas, this species is now reduced to small fragmented populations 

in the southeastern US. It is highly imperiled in Oklahoma and Texas; Kansas and 

Nebraska are not part of its range (see Figure 2-16). It requires mature old growth pine 

trees for cavity nesting and foraging. Deforestation and short rotation timber management 

practices have removed habitat, while fire suppression has allowed pine stands to be 

invaded by hardwoods (NatureServe 2015).

Whooping crane (Grus americana). Federal-Listed as Endangered

The whooping crane is a tall, mostly white, long-legged bird with red facial skin. During 

summer, it feeds on insects, crustaceans, and berries; its winter diet also includes grains, 

acorns, fishes, amphibians, and marine worms.

The species’ preferred habitat is wetland, lagoon, riparian tidal flat and shallow water, 

and grassland or cropland. It nests in dense emergent vegetation, such as bulrushes in 

shallow ponds, marshes, wet prairies, and lake margins. The nest is made of marsh 

vegetation, rising about 8 to 20 inches above the surrounding water level. Breeding 

territories are very large, averaging 1,900 acres, and pairs mate for life. Habitat during 

migration and winter includes marshes, shallow lakes, lagoons, salt flats, grain and 

stubble fields, and barrier islands. The remaining birds migrate mainly through the Great 

Plains south to Texas for the winter. Mated pairs and families establish and defend winter 

territories on coastal marshes in Texas. Pairs or family groups begin northward migration 

in April. 

The whooping crane is on the brink of extinction; the wild population reached a low of 14 

birds and has since improved to over two hundred, with intensive captive breeding, 

including migration following ultralight aircraft. Ultralight aircrafts act as surrogate 

parents and guide captive-hatched whooping cranes along a planned migration route. At 

present, one self-sustaining population nests in Canada and winters along the Texas 

coast; two additional reintroduced populations exist; one migrates from Wisconsin to 

Florida, and one in Florida does not migrate. Historically, whooping cranes suffered from 

hunting and habitat loss from conversion of prairie to cropland. The remaining wild 

cranes are vulnerable to catastrophic natural events. Ongoing human threats are loss of 

coastal wetlands, oil spills, collisions with power lines and structures during migration, 

and poaching. In addition, because of delayed sexual maturity and low annual 

reproductive output, the population of this species grows slowly and is especially 

vulnerable to poor survivorship. The population shrinking to such small numbers results 

in a loss of genetic variability that increases the birds’ vulnerability to disease. The 

Aransas reintroduced population migrates through western Kansas and Oklahoma and 

central Texas en route to its wintering ground at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge on the 

coast in south Texas, a distance of 4,000 km (NatureServe 2015; see Figure 2-17 for the 

species range in the planning area).


2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-137

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Other Special Status Species

Special status species are those that are not listed under the Endangered Species Act but 

still warrant some protection or for which insufficient data have been collected for the 

USFWS to make a determination for listing. These include state threatened and 

endangered species, species of greatest conservation concern, and rare plant 

communities. Federal land management agencies are mandated to manage special status 

species so that they should not need to be listed under the Endangered Species Act in the 

future.

Lists of other special status species are maintained by Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. In 

coordination with the state heritage programs, the OFO has identified those species 

occurring within the planning area, as shown in Table 2-20.

Table 2-20

Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on the ESA

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Status*

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Amphibians Green toad Bufo debilis ST (KS) KS

Amphibians Red-spotted toad B. punctatus SINC (KS) KS

Amphibians Cascade Caverns 

salamander

Eurycea latitans ST (TX) TX

Amphibians Longtail salamander E. longicauda ST (KS) KS

Amphibians Cave salamander E. lucifuga SE (KS) KS

Amphibians Blanco blind salamander E. robusta ST (TX) TX

Amphibians Comal blind salamander E. tridentifera ST (TX) TX

Amphibians Eastern narrowmouth toad Gastrophryne 

carolinensis

ST (KS) KS

Amphibians Sheep frog Hypopachus variolosus ST (TX) TX

Amphibians White-lipped frog Leptodactylus fragilis ST (TX) TX

Amphibians Black-spotted newt Notophthalmus 

meridionalis

ST (TX) TX

Amphibians Eastern newt N. viridescens 

louisianensis

ST (KS) KS

Amphibians Spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer SINC (KS) KS

Amphibians Strecker’s chorus frog P. streckeri ST (KS) KS

Amphibians Crawfish frog Rana areolata SINC (KS) KS

Amphibians Green frog R. clamitans melanota ST (KS) KS

Amphibians Mexican burrowing toad Rhinophrynus dorsalis ST (TX) TX

Amphibians South Texas siren (large 

form)

Siren sp. ST (TX) TX

Amphibians Mexican treefrog Smilisca baudinii ST (TX) TX

Amphibians Grotto salamander Typhlotriton spelaeus SE (KS) KS

Birds Bachman’s sparrow Aimophila aestivalis ST (TX),

BCC, REA

TX
2. Area Profile

2-138 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-20

Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on the ESA

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Status*

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Birds Botteri’s sparrow Aimophila botterii 

arizonae

ST (TX), 

BCC

TX

Birds Texas Botteri’s sparrow A. b. texana ST (TX), 

BCC

TX

Birds Henslow’s sparrow Ammodramus henslowii BCC, SINC 

(KS)

KS

Birds Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BCC, SINC 

(OK, KS)

OK, KS, 

TX

Birds Short-eared owl Asio flammeus BCC, SINC 

(KS)

KS

Birds Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, REA OK, KS, 

TX

Birds White-tailed hawk Buteo albicaudatus ST (TX), 

BCC

TX

Birds Zone-tailed hawk B. albonotatus ST (TX) TX

Birds Gray hawk B. nitidus ST (TX) TX

Birds Ferruginous hawk B. regalis BCC, SINC 

(KS), REA

OK, KS, 

TX

Birds Whip-poor-will Camprimulgus vociferus BCC, SINC 

(KS)

KS

Birds Northern beardlesstyrannulet

Camptostoma imberbe ST (TX), 

BCC

TX

Birds Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC, REA OK, KS, 

TX

Birds Black tern Chlidonias niger BCC, SINC 

(KS)

KS

Birds Chihuahuan raven Corvus cryptoleucus SINC (KS) KS

Birds Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus SINC (KS) KS

Birds Reddish egret Egretta rufescens ST (TX), 

BCC

TX

Birds Swallow-tailed kite Elanoides forficatus ST (TX), 

BCC

TX

Birds American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus 

anatum

ST (TX), 

BCC

TX

Birds Cactus ferruginous Pygmyowl

Glaucidium brasilianum 

cactorum

ST (TX) TX

Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

ST (TX),

BCC SINC 

(OK, KS)

OK, KS, 

TX
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-139

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-20

Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on the ESA

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Status*

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Birds Black rail Laterallus jamaicensis BCC, SINC 

(KS)

KS

Birds Wood stork Mycteria americana ST (TX) TX

Birds Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus BCC, SINC 

(KS), REA

OK, KS, 

TX

Birds Rose-throated becard Pachyramphus aglaiae ST (TX), 

BCC

TX

Birds Tropical parula Parula pitiayumi ST (TX), 

BCC

TX

Birds White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi ST (TX) TX

Birds Cerulean warbler Setophaga cerulea BCC, SINC 

(KS)

KS

Birds Yellow-throated warbler Setophaga dominica SINC (KS) KS

Birds Sooty tern Sterna fuscata ST (TX) TX

Birds Curve-billed thrasher Toxostoma curvirostre BCC, SINC 

(KS)

KS

Birds Greater prairie chicken Tympanuchus cupido SINC (OK) OK

Fishes Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens SINC (KS), 

ST (NE)

KS

Fishes River goby Awaous banana ST (TX) TX

Fishes Mexican stoneroller Campostoma ornatum ST (TX) TX

Fishes Highfin carpsucker Carpiodes velifer SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Southern redbelly dace Chrosomus 

erythrogaster

SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Banded sculpin Cottus carolinae SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Mexican goby Ctenogobius claytonii ST (TX) TX

Fishes Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus ST (TX), 

SINC (KS)

KS, TX

Fishes Proserpine shiner Cyprinella proserpina ST (TX) TX

Fishes Spotfin shiner C. spiloptera SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Conchos pupfish C. eximius ST (TX) TX

Fishes Pecos pupfish C. pecosensis ST (TX) TX

Fishes Gravel chub Erimystax x-punctatus SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus ST (TX) TX

Fishes Greenside darter Etheostoma blennioides SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Bluntnose darter E. chlorosoma SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Slough darter E. gracile SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Rio Grande darter E. grahami ST (TX) TX

Fishes Sunburst darter E. mihileze SINC (KS) KS
2. Area Profile

2-140 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-20

Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on the ESA

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Status*

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Fishes Johnny darter E. nigrum SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Highland darter E. teddyroosevelt SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Redfin darter E. whipplei SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Banded darter E. zonale SINC (KS) KS

Fishes San Felipe gambusia Gambusia clarkhubbsi ST (TX) TX

Fishes Blotched gambusia (wild 

extinct)

G. senilis ST (TX) TX

Fishes Rio Grande chub Gila pandora ST (TX) TX

Fishes Western silvery minnow Hybognathus argyritis ST (KS) KS

Fishes Plains minnow H. placitus ST (KS) KS

Fishes Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon castaneus SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Cardinal shiner Luxilus cardinalis SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Striped shiner L. chrysocephalus SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Common shiner L. cornutus SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Sturgeon chub Macrhybopsis gelida ST (KS), SE 

(NE)

KS

Fishes Shoal chub M. hyostoma ST (KS) KS

Fishes Sicklefin chub M. meeki SE (KS) KS

Fishes Silver chub M. storeriana SE (KS) KS

Fishes Arkansas River speckled 

(peppered) chub

M. tetranema SE (KS) KS

Fishes Opossum pipefish Microphis brachyurus ST (TX) TX

Fishes Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops SINC (KS) KS

Fishes River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Black redhorse M. duquesnei SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Redspot chub Nocomis asper ST (KS) KS

Fishes Hornyhead chub N. biguttatus ST (KS) KS

Fishes Tadpole madtom Norturus gyrinus SINC (KS) KS

Fishes River shiner Notropis blennius SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Bigeye shiner N. boops SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Chihuahua shiner N. chihuahua ST (TX) TX

Fishes Ozark minnow N. nubilus SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Silverband shiner N. shumardi SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Bluntnose shiner (extinct) N. simus ST (TX) TX

Fishes Brindled madtom Noturus miurus SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Black-sided darter Percina maculata ST (OK, 

KS, TX)

OK, KS, 

TX

Fishes Long-nosed darter P. nasuta SE (OK) OK
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-141

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-20

Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on the ESA

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Status*

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Fishes River darter P. shumardi SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Flathead chub Platygobio gracilis ST (KS) KS

Fishes Paddlefish Polyodon spathula ST (TX) TX

Fishes Bluehead shiner Pteronotropis hubbsi ST (TX) TX

Fishes Western blacknose dace Rhinichthys obtusus SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Widemouth blindcat Satan eurystomus ST (TX) TX

Fishes Shovelnose sturgeon Scaphirhynchus 

platorynchus

ST (TX) TX

Fishes Toothless blindcat Trogloglanis pattersoni ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Mucket mussel Actinonaias ligamentina SE (KS) KS

Invertebrates Elktoe mussel Alasmidonta marginata SE (KS) KS

Invertebrates Flat floater mussel Anodonta suborbiculata SE (KS) KS

Invertebrates Cylindrical papershell 

mussel

Anodontoides 

ferussacianus

SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Rock pocketbook mussel Arcidens confragosus ST (KS) KS

Invertebrates Oklahoma Cave crayfish Cambarus tartarus SE (OK) OK

Invertebrates Western fanshell mussel Cyprogenia aberti SE (KS) KS

Invertebrates Butterfly mussel Ellipsaria lineolata ST (KS) KS

Invertebrates Spike mussel Elliptio dilatata SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Snuffbox mussel Epioblasma triquetra SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Texas pigtoe Fusconaia askewi ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Wabash pigtoe mussel F. flava SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Triangle pigtoe F. lananensis ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Prairie mole cricket Gryllotalpa major SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Neosho mucket Lampsilis rafinesqueana SE (OK, 

KS)

OK, KS

Invertebrates Sandbank pocketbook L. satura ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Fat mucket mussel L. siliquoidea SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Yellow sandshell mussel L. teres SINC (KS), 

REA

OK, KS, 

TX

Invertebrates Fluted-shell mussel Lasmigona costata ST (KS) KS

Invertebrates Washboard mussel Megalonaias nervosa SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Southern hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Optioservus riffle beetle Optioservus phaeus SE (KS) KS

Invertebrates Neosho midget crayfish Orconectes macrus SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Round pigtoe mussel Pleurobema coccineum SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Louisiana pigtoe P. riddellii ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Sharp hornsnail Pleurocera acuta ST (KS) KS

Invertebrates Slender walker snail Pomatiopsis lapidaria SE (KS) KS
2. Area Profile

2-142 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-20

Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on the ESA

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Status*

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Invertebrates Texas heelsplitter Potamilus 

amphichaenus

ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Salina mucket P. metnecktayi ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Delta hydrobe Probythinella 

emarginata

ST (KS) KS

Invertebrates Ouachita kidneyshell 

mussel

Ptychobranchus 

occidentalis

ST (KS) KS

Invertebrates Giant floater Pyganodon grandis REA OK, KS, 

TX

Invertebrates Rabbits-foot mussel Quadrula cylindrica SE (KS) KS

Invertebrates False spike Q. mitchelli ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Wartyback mussel Q. nodulata SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Ozark emerald dragonfly Somatochlora 

ozarkensis

SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Creeper mussel Strophitus undulatus SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Gray petaltail dragonfly Tachopteryx thoreyi SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Mexican fawnsfoot Truncilla cognata ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Fawnsfoot mussel T. donaciformis SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Deertoe mussel T. truncata SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Pondhorn Uniomerus tetralasmus REA OK, KS, 

TX

Invertebrates Ellipse mussel Venustaconcha 

ellipsiformis

SE (KS) KS

Mammals Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SINC (KS), 

REA

OK, KS, 

TX

Mammals Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus 

rafinesquii

ST (TX) TX

Mammals Townsend’s big-eared bat C. townsendii SINC (KS), 

REA

OK, KS, 

TX

Mammals Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus SINC (OK) OK

Mammals Texas kangaroo rat Dipodomys elator ST (TX) TX

Mammals Spotted bat Euderma maculatum ST (TX) TX

Mammals Pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata ST (TX) TX

Mammals Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans SINC (KS), 

ST (KS)

KS

Mammals Short-finned pilot whale Globicephala 

macrorhynchus

ST (TX) TX

Mammals Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps ST (TX) TX

Mammals Dwarf sperm whale Kogia simus ST (TX) TX
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-143

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-20

Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on the ESA

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Status*

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Mammals Eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis REA OK, KS, 

TX

Mammals Southern yellow bat Lasiurus ega ST (TX) TX

Mammals Margay Leopardus wiedii ST (TX) TX

Mammals River otter Lutra canadensis ST (NE) NE

Mammals Gervais’s beaked whale Mesoplodon europaeus ST (TX) TX

Mammals White-nosed coati Nasua narica ST (TX) TX

Mammals Killer whale Orcinus orca ST (TX) TX

Mammals Coues’s rice rat Oryzomys couesi ST (TX) TX

Mammals Texas mouse Peromyscus attwateri SINC (KS) KS

Mammals Palo duro mouse P. truei comanche ST (TX) TX

Mammals False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens ST (TX) TX

Mammals Franklin’s ground squirrel Spermophilus franklinii SINC (KS) KS

Mammals Eastern spotted skunk Spilogale putorius ST (KS) KS

Mammals Atlantic spotted dolphin Stenella frontalis ST (TX) TX

Mammals Rough-toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis ST (TX) TX

Mammals Southern bog lemming Synaptomys cooperi SINC (KS) KS

Mammals Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis REA OK, KS, 

TX

Mammals Black bear Ursus americanus ST (TX)

(due to 

similarity to 

Louisiana 

black bear)

TX

Mammals Swift fox Vulpes velox REA, SE 

(NE)

OK, KS, 

TX

Mammals Goose-beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris ST (TX) TX

Plants American ginseng Panax quinquefolium ST (NE) NE

Reptiles Glossy snake Arizona elegans SINC (KS) KS

Reptiles Scarlet snake Cemophora coccinea ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Reticulated gecko Coleonyx reticulatus ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Black-striped snake Coniophanes imperialis ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus ST (TX), 

SINC (KS)

KS, TX

Reptiles Reticulate collared lizard Crotaphytus reticulatus ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Texas indigo snake Drymarchon melanurus 

erebennus

ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Speckled racer Drymobius 

margaritiferus

ST (TX) TX
2. Area Profile

2-144 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-20

Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on the ESA

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Status*

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Reptiles Broadhead skink Eumeces laticeps ST (KS) KS

Reptiles Texas tortoise Gopherus berlandieri ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Cagle’s map turtle Graptemys caglei ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Common map turtle G. geographica ST (KS) KS

Reptiles Western hognose snake Heterodon nasicus SINC (KS) KS

Reptiles Eastern hognose snake H. platirhinos SINC (KS) KS

Reptiles Chihuahuan night snake Hypsiglena jani SINC (KS) KS

Reptiles Chihuahuan mud turtle Kinosternon hirtipes 

murrayi

ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Northern cat-eyed snake Leptodeira 

septentrionalis

ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Smooth green snake Liochlorophis vernalis ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Alligator snapping turtle Macrochelys temminckii ST (TX), 

SINC (KS)

KS, TX

Reptiles Brazos water snake Nerodia harteri ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Mountain short-horned 

lizard

P. hernandesi ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Texas blind snake (New 

Mexico blind snake)

Rena dissecta ST (KS) KS

Reptiles Longnose snake Rhinocheilus lecontei SINC (KS) KS

Reptiles Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus ST (NE) NE

Reptiles Redbelly snake Storeria 

occipitomaculata

SINC (KS) KS

Reptiles Checkered garter snake Thamnophis marcianus ST (KS) KS

Reptiles Chihuahuan desert lyre 

snake

Trimorphodon 

vilkinsonii

ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Rough earth snake Virginia striatula SINC (KS) KS

Reptiles Smooth earth snake V. valeriae SINC (KS) KS

Sources:3 USFWS 2008; Nebraska Natural Heritage Program 2013

*Status Codes: 

E—Federal-listed Endangered, T—Federal-listed Threatened, C—Federal-listed Candidate, P—Proposed for 

Listing, BCC—Bird of Conservation Concern, SE—State Endangered, ST—State Threatened

SINC—Species in Need of Conservation, REA—Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment 

 

3

Ibid.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-145

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Other key special species, including those listed in the Draft Southern Great Plains Rapid 

Ecoregional Assessment or with known occurrences in the decision area, are discussed in 

detail below. 

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Bird of Conservation Concern, Draft Southern Great 

Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment species

A small ground-dwelling owl, with long legs, white chin stripe, round head, and stubby 

tail, the burrowing owl may be observed perching on the ground, on fence posts, or on 

mounds in open spaces. Burrowing owls are not highly territorial and may share a 

common foraging area with other nesting pairs. Habitat includes open grasslands, prairie, 

plains, and savanna and sometimes vacant lots near human habitation or airports. This 

owl spends much time on the ground or on low perches such as fence posts or dirt 

mounds. It nests in abandoned burrows dug by prairie dogs, ground squirrels, foxes, 

woodchucks, or badgers. In Oklahoma, burrowing owls are highly associated with prairie 

dog colonies. Their diet includes large insects, rodents, and sometimes birds and 

amphibians. Widely distributed through the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains in the US

and Canada, the burrowing owl’s numbers have been greatly reduced by habitat loss due 

to intensive agriculture, degradation via human control of prairie dogs and other small 

burrowing mammals, and fragmentation from conversion to agriculture (NatureServe

2015).

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis). Bird of Conservation Concern, Draft Southern Great 

Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment species

With a rusty back and shoulders, pale head, and white tail, the ferruginous hawk winters 

in Texas and Oklahoma in grassland and desert shrub areas. It prefers open country, 

primarily prairies, plains, and badlands, sagebrush, saltbush-greasewood shrubland, 

periphery of pinyon-juniper and other woodland, and desert. It nests in tall trees or 

willows along streams or on steep slopes, on cliff ledges, hillsides, on power line towers, 

sometimes on sloped ground on the plains or on mounds in open desert. It avoids 

agriculture and human activity. Ferruginous hawks may maintain several nests in a 

territory and alternate their use. Clutch size varies with availability of prey, especially 

ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.) and jackrabbits (Lepus spp.). Home range size 

varies widely, from 3 to 30 square miles in some areas. Uncommon but widespread in 

suitable habitat in the western US and Canada, ferruginous hawk numbers have declined 

in local areas. It is highly sensitive to human disturbance and subject to continuing 

habitat loss from agricultural development and forest incursion into grasslands 

(NatureServe 2015).

Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus). Bird of Conservation Concern, Draft 

Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment species

The long-billed curlew is a large dusky shorebird, with black barring and a long decurved 

bill for probing for food in the mud. It is a long-distance migrant that breeds on prairies 

and grassy meadows, generally near water. It nests on the ground, usually in a flat area 

with short grass, sometimes on more irregular terrain, often near rocks, in prairies and 

meadows. In winter, it is often found on beaches and mudflats. It is an opportunistic 

feeder, ranging from insects such as beetles and grasshoppers, to berries, crabs, small 
2. Area Profile

2-146 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

toads, and snails. It is found widely across the western US and Canada, but its range is 

diminishing. It occurs in the decision area in northern Texas through southwestern 

Kansas but is vulnerable or imperiled throughout these areas. Its populations have 

declined from hunting, and habitat loss from cultivation has led to localized declines 

(NatureServe 2015). 

Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus). Bird of Conservation Concern, Draft Southern 

Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment species

The mountain plover has a brown back, mainly white undersides, and a dark crown. It is 

a long-distance migrant, wintering along the Pacific coast and nesting in the Great Plains 

and Rocky Mountains on the ground in bare or sparsely vegetated areas. It is found in 

croplands, deserts, and grassland areas and nests in short-grass prairie and sagebrush 

habitat, sometimes in prairie dog towns. Nests are on the ground in shallow depressions 

in dry soils. Nest predation is high, mainly from foxes and coyotes, and nests may be lost 

by being located in fallow fields that subsequently are planted with millet or sunflowers. 

Mountain plovers feed primarily on insects, including grasshoppers, crickets, beetles, 

flies, and ants. Preferred winter habitat consists of short-grass plains and fields, plowed 

fields, and sandy deserts, where they forage and roost in loose flocks that may exceed 

1,000 birds on the southern Great Plains.

Mountain plovers’ numbers have been greatly reduced by hunting, and habitat has been 

lost by conversion of short-grass prairie to cropland or tall grasses, orchards, or 

developments. In the plains, many nests are in prairie dog towns, which have declined 

greatly from human removal but are now increasing in abundance again. The USFWS 

recently declined to list the mountain plover under the Endangered Species Act

(NatureServe 2015).

Snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus). Bird of Conservation Concern, Draft Southern Great 

Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment species

The snowy plover is a small pale plover with a thin dark bill, white underside, and a 

breast band and dark ear patch. It nests on the ground in loose colonies on shorelines, 

mud or salt flats, and sandy or sparsely vegetated shores of rivers, lakes, and ponds. Nest 

predation by gulls, common raven, red fox, skunk, raccoon, and coyote results in a high 

rate of loss in some areas. Most populations are migratory, and in winter, this species is 

found on beaches, in salt ponds, and on estuarine sand and mud flats. They eat insects, 

small crustaceans, and other invertebrates in the mud or near shallow water. They have a 

large, scattered range, from Texas and Oklahoma west to California. Populations are 

declining in many areas, due to habitat loss and degradation, especially from 

development and disturbance by humans in shoreline areas, as well as from predators. On 

the Great Plains, habitat has been lost to invasion of nonnative tamarisk (NatureServe

2015). The Pacific coast population is listed as threatened under the ESA.

Greater prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus cupido). Bird of Conservation Concern

The greater prairie-chicken is a chunky, hen-like bird, barred with dark brown, cinnamon, 

and pale buff coloring. It is slightly larger, darker, and more barred than the lesser prairie 

and sharp-tailed grouse. Its preferred habitat is grasslands with herbaceous cover, but it 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-147

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

may also be found in cultivated lands and pastures. As with lesser prairie-chicken, males 

gather in leks for communal courtship, and females nest in the vicinity, in a scrape on the 

ground lined with vegetation. Both sexes show site fidelity, and most do not migrate.

Ranges vary from 25 to 500 acres. The diet consists primarily of insects, especially 

grasshoppers in summer. At other times of the year it eats fruit, leaves, flowers, shoots, 

and grain. Formerly widespread in grasslands of Canada and the western US, the greater 

prairie-chicken is now found in much reduced numbers in the Great Plains south to 

Texas. Decline is mainly the result of loss and fragmentation of tall-grass prairie. The 

largest remaining populations are in Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. 

The closely related lesser prairie-chicken is also diminished in range. The subspecies 

cupido (heath hen) of the eastern seaboard has been extinct since the 1930s (NatureServe

2015).

Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus). Species in Need of Conservation 

(Oklahoma), Draft Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment species

Black-tailed prairie dog is a diurnal rodent, approximately 15 inches in length. It lives in 

colonies or towns, which can cover up to thousands of acres of grassland habitat (Arizona 

Game and Fish Department 1999). Well-drained and medium-textured soils are required 

for burrow excavation. Declines in populations in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas have 

been attributed to population control, habitat destruction, fragmentation by agricultural 

conversion, and plague (Arizona Game and Fish Department 1999). Prairie dogs provide 

important habitat and feeding grounds for other species, including the endangered blackfooted ferret, which uses prairie dog burrows for shelter and depend on prairie dogs for 

food. Activities that affect black-tailed prairie dog populations or habitat may also affect 

black-footed ferrets (USFWS 2013).

Swift fox (Vulpes velox), Draft Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment

species

This is the smallest fox in North American, found primarily in short-grass and mixedgrass prairies. It relies on dens year-round for shelter, escape from predators, and rearing 

of young (Meyer 2009). Coyotes are the primary predator, and badgers and raptors are 

also responsible for some swift fox mortality. Threats include trapping, poisoning, 

vehicle collision, red fox range expansion, coyotes, and habitat loss and degradation 

(Meyer 2009). The swift fox is found in northern Texas, the Oklahoma panhandle, and 

western Kansas.

Trends

Special status species diversity and abundance is directly related to maintaining habitat 

availability, diversity, and quality. The species described above each has its own 

specialized habitat requirements. In many instances, these habitat types have been 

drastically altered or reduced from the historic native ranges. 

Continuing threats to native ecosystems and species diversity in the planning area are 

fragmentation and loss of critical or important habitat due to human activities. 
2. Area Profile

2-148 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

In Kansas, a 2005 reevaluation of the status of fishes found that 54 of the 116 native fish 

species should be assigned special conservation status due to substantial declines in 

distribution or abundance or their rarity (Haslouer et al. 2005). Habitat disturbances, 

including instream flow alteration, water diversions, eutrophication, and exotic species 

introductions, have resulted in unsuitable conditions for some fish and aquatic 

invertebrates in the planning area (Anderson et al. 1995). 

In Oklahoma, 26 species of breeding land birds have experienced population declines of 

45 percent or more between 1968 and 2003 (ODWC 2005). Additionally, channelization 

and impoundment of rivers has directly eliminated nesting habitat for such species as the 

least tern. However, listed species, such as the whooping crane and bald eagle, that have 

benefitted from extensive conservation efforts have been recovering in the region 

(ODWC 2005; Wasson et al. 2005). Bald eagles have recovered from a low of nine pairs 

to approximately 150 breeding pairs in Oklahoma today.4In eastern Texas, red-cockaded 

woodpeckers experienced severe population declines in the 1980s. Management activities 

on federal surface lands, such as thinning projects and translocations, have helped to 

reverse this trend; nevertheless, loss of forested habitat, inadequate fire regimes to control 

hardwood midstory, and demographic dysfunction remain as obstacles to recovery, 

particularly on private and state-owned surface lands (Conner et al. 2006).

Forecast

Fish stocking in reservoirs with BLM subsurface management is expected to continue, as 

is the spread of aquatic invasive species, which will impact special status fish and 

amphibian species. Migratory bird populations, including special status birds, will 

continue to be impacted by habitat fragmentation and climate change. These will reduce 

the effective habitat availability for nesting, migratory stopovers, and winter habitat for 

species that are not the focus of extensive conservation efforts. Private landowner 

conservation incentives and federal and state wildlife regulations will help to preserve 

special status fish and wildlife habitat.

Key Features

BLM decision area lands provide important habitat for special status species throughout 

the planning area. Critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner overlaps BLM mineral 

estate along the Canadian River. Additionally, the Little River watershed in Oklahoma 

contains overlapping BLM mineral estate and critical habitat for the leopard darter 

(USFWS GIS 2014). Reservoirs and other waterways in the decision area also support 

special status bird populations, such as eagles, whooping crane, and interior least tern. 

The USFWS manages the 32,000-acre Great Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge in 

northern Oklahoma, but it contains BLM subsurface mineral estate. This is a crucial 

stopover site for whooping cranes during spring and fall migration (USFWS 2007). In 

Oklahoma, the highest concentrations of American burying beetles are found at Camp 

Gruber, which contains BLM subsurface lands (USFWS 2008). Numerous caves found 

 

4Don Wolfe, Biologist at Sutton Avian Research Center in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. Personal communication with 

Liza Wozniak, EMPSi Biologist. January 2015.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-149

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

throughout the planning area (as described under Section 2.2.16) provide habitat for 

special status invertebrates and bats. The sand sagebrush native rangelands in northwest 

Oklahoma, western Kansas, and the Texas panhandle provide important habitat for the 

lesser prairie-chicken.

References

Anderson, A. A., C. Hubbs, K. O. Winemiller, and R. J. Edwards. “Texas freshwater fish 

assemblages following three decades of environmental change.” The 

Southwestern Naturalist 40(3):314-321.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1999. The Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Conservation 

Assessment and Strategy. Technical Report 159. 

Conner, R. N., D. Saenz, and D. C. Rudolph. 2006. “Population trends of red-cockaded 

woodpeckers in Texas.” Bulletin of the Texas Ornithological Society 39(2):42-48.

Haslouer, S. G., M. E. Eberle, D. R. Edds, K. B. Gido, C. S. Mammoliti, J. R. Triplett, 

and J. T. Collins, et al. 2005. “Current status of native fish species in Kansas.”

Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 108(1-2):32-46.

KBS GIS (Kansas Biological Survey, Geographical Information systems). 2014. GIS data 

of lesser prairie-chicken habitat and range. Kansas Biological Survey. The 

University of Kansas. Data received from the BLM.

Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism. 2014. Kansas Threatened and 

Endangered Species Statewide. Internet website: http://kdwpt.state.ks.us/

Services/Threatened-and-Endangered-Wildlife/Kansas-Threatened-andEndangered-Species-Statewide. 

Meyer, Rachelle. 2009. Vulpes velox. In: Fire Effects Information System. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Internet website: http://www.fs.fed.us/

database/feis/.

NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.0. 

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Internet website: http://explorer.natureserve

.org.

ODWC (Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation). 2005. Oklahoma 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Internet website: http://www

.wildlifedepartment.com/CWCS.htm.

_____. 2014. County by County List of Endangered and Threatened Species. Internet 

website: http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/wildlifemgmt/endangered/

State_Listed_by_County.pdf.
2. Area Profile

2-150 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

TPW (Texas Parks and Wildlife). 2014. Federally Listed, State Listed, and Candidate 

Species in Texas: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Nongame and Rare 

Species Program (12.11.2014). Internet website: https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/

wild/wildlife_diversity/nongame/listed-species/.

USFWS (US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service). 1998. Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List the Arkansas River Basin 

Population of the Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) as Threatened. 

Federal Register 63(225):647222-64799.

_____. 2001. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Arkansas River Basin Population of the Arkansas River 

Shiner. Federal Register 66(65):18002-18034.

_____. 2007. International recovery plan for the whooping crane (Grus Americana), 

Third Revision. Endangered Species Bulletins and Technical Reports (USFWS). 

Paper 45. 

_____. 2008. American Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus americanus). 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, New England Field Office, Concord, New Hampshire.

_____. 2009. Spotlight Species Action Plan, Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi). 

Region 2. Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office. 

_____. 2013. Recovery plan for the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). US 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado.

_____. 2014. Information Planning, and Conservation System. Internet website: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac. 

_____. 2015. County data of endangered species. Environmental Conservation Online 

System. Internet website: http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/home.action. 

USFWS GIS (US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Geographic 

Information Systems). 2014. GIS data of critical habitat. Internet website: 

http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/. 

2.2.9 Wild Horses and Burros

Indicators

The indicators for the wild horse and burro program relate directly to the requirements of 

the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1972 and the CFRs because these 

are the directives for management. Key indicators derived from the act and the CFRs are

animal health and habitat health.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-151

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Current Condition

The wild horse and burro program is run out of the BLM’s Washington, DC, office 

(WO). WO staff members stationed in the OFO manage large long-term and short-term 

holding facility contracts in Kansas and Oklahoma. As part of the program, staff 

members regularly inspect facilities and hold monthly adoptions as well as occasional 

special adoptions. 

The BLM manages 15 long-term holding facility contracts in Oklahoma, a short-term 

holding facility contract (Paul’s Valley) in Oklahoma, and a short-term holding facility 

contract in Scott City, Kansas. A contract is initially for one year, with an option for up to

four years. Table 2-21 provides details on current long-term holding contracts of the 

OFO; Figure 2-18 depicts the locations of these facilities. None of the holding facilities 

in the planning area house burros. 

Table 2-21

Wild Horse Long-Term Holding Contracts in the Planning Area

Long-Term Holding Contract Type of Horse Acreage

Two Mounds Ranch, LLC Mares 6,742

Cross Bell Equine Services, LLC Geldings 20,350

Grand Eagle Summit, LLC Mares 17,895

20 West, LLC Both; mostly mares 26,328

Vestring Ranch Geldings 14,084

Burton Ranch Mares 4,243

Riddle Ranch Mares 3,670

Row Ranch Mares 3,233

Steinhoff, Garry Geldings 1,234

Hughes Cattle Company, LLC (Catoosa) Geldings 9,446

Hughes Cattle Company, LLC (Bartlesville) Geldings 19,155

Moore Ranch Mares 5,588

Jacobs Ranch, LLC Mares 9,707

Mustang Holding, LLC (formally part of 

Shadow 7, LLC) 

Both; mostly geldings 16,428

Reed Brothers Geldings 19,295

Total 177,398

Source: BLM 2015a

Hutchinson Correctional Facility

Through a unique partnership with the Kansas Department of Corrections and Kansas 

Correctional Industries, the BLM offers for adoption wild horses that have been halter or 

saddle trained by inmates at the Hutchinson Correctional Facility. This arrangement adds 

value to the horses, while allowing the agency to offer them for adoption for the 

minimum fee of $125. (Certain special use horses, such as driving teams, may be offered 

for different fees.)

2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-153

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

In addition to benefitting the horses and the adopting public, the training program at 

Hutchinson also helps prepare inmates for their eventual reintroduction into society by 

instilling important values, such as discipline, work, and respect. Approximately 14 to 18 

minimum security inmates participate in the program at any given time. As they progress 

through the program, inmates move from providing basic care for the horses (feeding, 

watering, and cleaning) to actual training, under the supervision and guidance of 

professional trainers and correction staff.

The Hutchinson facility is designed to hold 350 horses in multiple enclosures and pens. 

In addition to boarding and training stalls, there are multiple riding rings and a large 

enclosed building that can be used for training during inclement weather. The entire 

facility was built by inmates using donated materials, including surplus highway 

guardrails from the Kansas Department of Transportation.

Untrained adult and yearling horses in holding at Hutchinson are also available for 

adoption. The BLM will pay a $500 care and feeding allowance to adopters of adult 

untrained horse four years old and older (BLM 2015).

Trends

Despite overpopulation and drought conditions, wild horse populations generally are able 

to survive generation to generation. Wild horses have few natural predators, and annual 

survival rates of horses are very high, exceeding 95 to 98 percent for mature animals and 

lower for very young. As horse populations exceed set herd management area appropriate 

management levels, the horses are removed and either adopted out or moved to long-term 

holding facilities.

Forecast

The BLM will continue to remove wild horses from herd management areas that exceed 

appropriate management levels and care for excess wild horses that have not been 

adopted. Future contracts and partnerships will be explored to care for the animals.

Because the wild horse and burro program is run out of the WO and there is no land 

allocation decision associated with wild horses and burros in this BLM RMP, they were

not brought forward in the Joint EIS/BLM RMP. 

Key Features

No key features for wild horses have been identified in the planning area.

References

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2015a. BLM OFO 

Long Term Holding Contract database. E-mail from Melinda Fisher, BLM natural 

resource specialist. January 20, 2015.

. 2015b. BLM New Mexico WHB. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/

en/prog/wild_horse_and_burro/hutchinson_correctional.html.
2. Area Profile

2-154 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

BLM GIS (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Geographic 

Information System). 2015. Base GIS data on file with the BLM’s eGIS server 

used for calculations or figures; includes data prepared for the reasonable 

foreseeable development scenario and Version 04_02 of the decision area. BLM, 

Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa.

2.2.10 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources are locations of human activity, occupation, or use. They include 

expressions of human culture and history in the physical environment, such as 

archaeological sites, historic buildings and structures, and historic trails. Cultural 

resources can also be natural features, plants, and animals or places that are considered to 

be traditionally important or sacred to a culture, subculture, or community. The 

significance of these places is derived from the role the property plays in a community’s 

cultural identity, as defined by its beliefs, practices, history, and social institutions. 

Historic properties are cultural resources that meet specific criteria for eligibility for 

listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The National Historic Preservation 

Act Section 106 process outlines the steps for identifying and evaluating historic 

properties, for assessing the effects of federal actions on historic properties, and for 

consulting to avoid, reduce, or minimize adverse effects. This process does not require 

historic properties to be preserved or even nominated for listing, but it does ensure that 

the decisions of federal agencies concerning the treatment of these places result from 

meaningful consideration of cultural and historic values and the options available to 

protect the properties. 

Indicators

Impacts on cultural resources occur when there is damage to or loss of the integrity or 

setting. The integrity of cultural resources is assessed by the ability of the cultural, 

archaeological, or historic property to convey the important traditional, scientific, and 

public values for which it is determined to be historically significant. 

Important elements for assessing the values conveyed by a site or property are integrity 

and condition. Integrity of archaeological sites in particular is often related to the 

condition of the property. It is affected to the extent that important spatial patterning of 

artifacts, cultural features, or other important elements are lost, mixed, or otherwise 

compromised by natural or cultural processes. Actions that alter, degrade, or otherwise 

affect the integrity and condition of a property have a high potential to impact the values 

that contribute to traditional, cultural, scientific, or historical value of the property. 

Actions that protect, limit, or otherwise avoid impacts on the integrity or condition of the 

property would protect and maintain those values. 

The physical, visual, and acoustic setting is often integral to the important traditional or 

cultural values of a site or property. Cultural landscapes, viewsheds, natural or cultural 

features, and soundscapes are important elements of many traditional cultural and historic 

properties. Actions that alter or impact these values or traditional practices associated 

with these places have a high potential to diminish the values that contribute to its 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-155

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

cultural or historical importance. Actions that protect, avoid, or otherwise minimize 

impacts on the physical, visual, and acoustic setting would maintain or enhance important 

traditional, cultural, or historical values of the property. 

Specific indicators relevant to BLM decisions are the following: 

 Extent and relative depth of ground-disturbing activities or removal of 

structural features permitted and their potential to affect known or unknown 

intact cultural resources or areas of importance to Native Americans or other 

traditional communities

 Increased access to or activity in areas where resources are present or 

anticipated

 Extent that an action changes the potential for erosion or other natural process 

that could affect cultural resources

 Extent that the action alters the visual, aural, or atmospheric setting of cultural 

resources and culturally significant landscapes, traditional cultural properties, 

and National Historic Trails

Current Condition

The decision area for the BLM and BIA in the three states consists of a mix of BLM- and 

BIA-administered surface lands, split-estate land, federal mineral estate on lands 

managed by other federal agencies, and surface and mineral estate on tribal lands. 

There is no comprehensive overview of the recorded cultural resources in this large and 

geographically diverse decision area. However, it is known that there is a full range of 

cultural resources that may date to over 10,000 years ago and continue through multiple 

eras and cultures to the present day. 

Archaeological sites make up most of the recorded cultural resources. They are the most 

likely cultural resource type to be identified and encountered in federal actions involving 

mineral estate or land use decisions. Survey coverage overall for the decision area has not 

been estimated but is expected to be very low. Inventories of cultural resources typically 

occur in advance of a particular project or permit application. Survey coverage is most 

complete where blocks of land are surveyed instead of individual drill sites or small 

parcels. Designated tribal representatives are typically notified at the project or permit 

application phase. This is to determine the potential presence of traditional cultural 

properties or traditional use areas.

The condition of cultural resources in the decision area is variable. Where there is federal 

surface and mineral estate management, there is cultural resource review of all authorized 

projects and permitted activities. Where surface management is private or the 

responsibility of other entities, impacts on cultural resources are not necessarily 

considered, except when there is a federal action, such as an application for permit to 

drill. In all cases there can be impacts on cultural resources resulting from any activity or 
2. Area Profile

2-156 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

construction that is not subject to review. This can include dispersed recreation, 

unauthorized collection, vandalism, and natural processes, such as erosion. 

Because of increases in oil and gas development, there have been many surveys for 

cultural resources, and many new sites have been recorded. In most cases if a site is 

discovered it is avoided, regardless of National Register of Historic Places status. Only a 

relatively few sites have been formally nominated for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places, but many more meet the eligibility criteria or have not been evaluated.

Sites that are not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and 

cannot be avoided may be destroyed after the project proponent completes the Section106 

process. It is the BLM’s policy (as outlined in BLM Manual 8140) and BIA’s policy that 

impacts on historic properties be avoided if possible; if not, adverse effects must be 

resolved or mitigated. Archaeological site mitigation, when necessary, most often takes 

the form of data recovery through excavation but can also include alternative forms of 

off-site mitigation. Site identification, determinations of effect, and resolution of adverse 

effects are conducted in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office in the 

respective states.

Current practices are consistent with cultural resource laws and BLM planning guidance. 

A Class 1 inventory of BLM-administered surface land is in progress; it will include a 

broad regional overview of the three-state planning area. The BLM and the BIA have 

efficient practices and workflow for coordinating Section 106 review of applications for 

permit to drill. Unlike other states where the BLM operates under a programmatic 

agreement and state implementation protocols that give it more autonomy in complying 

with Section 106, a programmatic agreement does not apply to BLM decisions for 

Oklahoma, Kansas, or Texas but may in the future. In these three states, the BLM and 

BIA complete Section 106 review on a project-by-project basis. 

Trends

The condition of cultural resources has remained stable for those sites identified through 

compliance activities. The rate of site discoveries has steadily increased due to continued 

mineral and energy development and the use of block surveys to efficiently inventory the 

cultural resources. Although sites are generally avoided, additional information valuable 

to archaeological and historical research is being gained by compiling and synthesizing 

data from these studies. 

More activity, workers, roads, and recreational access near sites can increase the potential 

for impacts on cultural resources from inadvertent damage, unauthorized collection, 

vandalism, and erosion, resulting in a potential downward trend in site integrity and 

scientific potential. 

Forecast

If the demand for development and production of the mineral estate continues, there will 

be an ongoing need to identify and manage cultural resources in the decision area and 

more intensive pressure on fragile resources. Additional roads, population growth, 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-157

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

general development, and access for recreation may directly and indirectly damage 

cultural resources. Ground-disturbing activities will continue. Loss of vegetative cover 

and the ongoing drought will likely lead to soil erosion, which can impact cultural 

resources. Resources that have been avoided can change over time and will require 

monitoring and stabilization.

Key Features

Key features include the Cross Bar Ranch Complex, Cherokee Trail, Santa Fe Trail, and 

Trail of Tears.

2.2.11 Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources are any fossilized remains or traces of organisms that are 

preserved in or on the earth’s crust, that are of scientific interest, and that provide 

information about the history of life. Paleontological resources, whether invertebrate, 

plant, trace, or vertebrate fossils, constitute a fragile and nonrenewable record of the 

history of life. They are managed for scientific, educational, and recreational values, such 

as collecting invertebrate fossils and petrified wood for a hobby, and to protect these 

resources from adverse impacts. The BLM provides expertise to other federal agencies, 

such as the BIA, for managing paleontological resources and permitting paleontological 

research. 

Indicators

Paleontological resources constitute a fragile and nonrenewable scientific record of the 

history of life. Resource condition is assessed by field observations, paleontological 

reports, commercial site reports, and project review. The primary resource indicator is 

whether there is a loss of those characteristics that make the fossil locality or feature 

important for scientific use. Natural weathering, decay, erosion, improper collection, and 

vandalism can remove or damage those characteristics that make the paleontological 

resource scientifically important.

The BLM considers significant any vertebrate fossils or other noteworthy occurrences of 

invertebrate and plant fossils. Invertebrate and plant fossils are typically more abundant, 

and the BLM does not ordinarily consider them to be of significance. 

Indicators for the condition of paleontological resources are as follows:

 Type of fossil resource present (vertebrate, invertebrate, or plant)

 Prevalence of the fossil resource in the area

 Geologic formations in the planning area likely to contain fossils

 Physical condition of the fossil

 Scientific, educational, or recreational merit of the resource

Geologic formations are the basic units of geology, indicating a discrete rock type and 

representing a certain depositional environment or method of development. 

Paleontological resources are closely tied to the geologic formations containing them; 
2. Area Profile

2-158 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

rocks of different age contain fossils of different types. A basic tenet in paleontology 

holds that if fossils are found in a formation elsewhere, they could also occur in the same 

formations in the planning area. 

The potential fossil yield classification is a system for categorizing the probability of 

geologic units to contain scientifically significant paleontological resources or

noteworthy fossils. This system has been developed to estimate the potential for 

discovering significant fossils during any surface-disturbing activity in specific geologic 

formations. 

The potential fossil yield classification has five levels or classes, with Class 1 applied to 

geologic units that are not likely to contain significant fossils through class 5 for geologic 

formations that have a high potential to yield scientifically significant fossils (see BLM 

Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-009). This classification does not reflect rare or 

isolated occurrences of significant fossils or individual localities; it refers only to the 

relative occurrence on a formation- or member-wide basis. 

Each class is defined briefly as follows:

Class 1, Very Low Potential—Geological units not likely to contain recognizable fossil 

remains, such as igneous, metamorphic, and Precambrian rocks

Class 2, Low Potential—Sedimentary geological units not likely to contain vertebrate 

fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate fossils, such as altered formations or 

Holocene sediments

Class 3, Moderate or Undetermined Potential—Fossiliferous sedimentary geological 

units where fossil content varies in significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence 

or sedimentary units of unknown fossil potential

Class 3 is divided into two parts, as follows:

Class 3a, Moderate Potential—Units are known to contain vertebrate fossils or 

scientifically significant invertebrate fossils, but these occurrences are widely 

scattered; common invertebrate or plant fossils may be found in the area.

Class 3b, Undetermined Potential—Units exhibit geological features that 

suggest significant fossils could be present, but little information about the 

paleontological resources of the unit or area is known. This may indicate the unit 

or area is poorly studied, and field surveys may uncover significant fossils.

Class 4, High Potential—Geological units that contain a high occurrence of significant 

fossils; vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils are 

known to occur and have been documented but may vary in occurrence and predictability
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-159

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Class 5, Very High Potential—Highly fossiliferous geological units that consistently 

and predictably produce vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or 

plant fossils

Most fossils occur in sedimentary rock formations, where they may be distributed 

extensively both vertically and horizontally throughout the formations or may occur in 

discontinuous pockets. Few geologic formations are uniformly rich in fossils throughout, 

and some are richer in fossils than others. Experienced paleontologists can predict which 

formations will contain fossils and, in general, what types of fossils will be found based 

on the age of the formation and its depositional environment. However, predicting the 

exact location where fossils will be found without field surveys is not possible.

Current Condition

The geologic history of the three-state area manifests a variety of changing environments 

and life forms preserved in the fossil record. During the early and middle Paleozoic, a 

shallow sea covered most of the planning area and supported small marine animals, such 

as Brachiopods, trilobites, mollusks, and crinoids. Late in the Paleozoic 

(Carboniferous/Pennsylvanian), vast swampy deltas were deposited by rivers supporting 

amphibians and early reptiles and developing a rich growth of vegetation that would later 

become coal seams. Periodically, the sea would alternately return and retreat. Other 

fossils of the late Paleozoic include insects, marine invertebrates, and fishes, such as 

sharks. 

During the Mesozoic, parts of the planning area in the west were generally above sea 

level, and sands and shales were deposited by large river systems. River and floodplain 

deposits in the panhandle of Oklahoma include dinosaur footprints and fossils, 

crocodiles, turtles, and fish. During the Late Mesozoic (Cretaceous), sea levels fluctuated 

and marine fossils were also deposited. In Kansas the sea deepened, and sharks, 

mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, turtles, fish, and numerous invertebrates are part of the fossil 

record.

During the Early Cenozoic (Tertiary), the Rockies were being pushed up to the west, 

causing a period of broad gentle uplift in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. Rivers draining 

off the rising mountains carried extensive sand and gravel deposits and filled wide 

shallow valleys. These sediments and rocks contain a rich vertebrate fossil record, 

including a large assortment of fossil mammals and petrified wood. During the Late 

Cenozoic (Quaternary), glaciers covered a portion of Kansas. Quaternary fossils in the 

planning area are clams, snails, and the teeth and bones of horses, camels, bison, 

mastodons, saber-tooth cats, and mammoths (The Paleontology Portal 2015).

Potential fossil yield classification maps have not been completed for the decision area. 

The BLM has not done paleontological investigation in the decision area because of the 

limited surface management and the types of activities that it typically permits. There is a 

potential for fossils geologically, especially for Pennsylvanian epoch fossils associated 

with coal, but there has been relatively little formal investigation. 
2. Area Profile

2-160 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Trends

Qualitative observation indicates the condition has remained stable for paleontological 

resources are protected from actions that the BLM permits. The BLM has developed 

objectives for paleontological resources (BLM Manual H-8270-1, General Procedural 

Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management) to provide protection of the 

resources. It is the BLM’s policy to manage paleontological resources for these values 

and to mitigate adverse impacts on them. 

In accordance with the 1994 RMP, the BLM paleontological resource management 

program requires that the BLM be notified if paleontological resources are encountered 

during approved operations. It also requires that the resources be mitigated through the 

permitting process and other standard operating procedures (e.g., pre-disturbance 

clearance) associated with federal management actions. In these cases, the trend is toward 

conservation and scientific study. 

Forecast

The development of potential fossil yield classification maps would provide additional 

information for permit review and for resource discovery and protection. Continued 

mineral estate development could lead to more discoveries but also the potential for 

impacts on the resource. The increase of use or activities in sensitive areas would require 

additional measures to manage these resources according to BLM policy and laws. The 

scientific, educational, and recreational value of any discovered or known paleontological 

resource should be determined by careful examination and evaluation by a 

paleontological resource specialist.

Key Features

No specific localities were identified.

Reference

The Paleontology Portal. 2015. Interactive Database. Internet website: http://www.paleo

portal.org/index.php?globalnav=time_space§ionnav=map. 

2.2.12 Visual Resources

Visual resources are features on a landscape, such as land, water, vegetation, animals, and 

structures. These features contribute to the landscape’s scenic or visual quality and appeal 

(BLM 1984).

Visual Resource Management System

The BLM Visual Resource Management (VRM) System is a way to identify and evaluate 

visual resources in order to determine appropriate levels of management. The objective of 

the VRM System is to manage BLM-administered lands in a manner that will protect the 

quality of the scenic values of those lands. The VRM System is a tool to identify and map 

essential landscape settings to meet public preferences and recreational experiences today 

and in the future. The VRM System helps to ensure that actions taken on BLMadministered lands today will benefit the visual qualities associated with the landscapes, 

while protecting these visual resources for years to come. 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-161

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Visual Resource Inventory

The visual resource inventory (VRI) involves identifying the visual resources of an area 

and assigning them to inventory classes using the BLM’s VRI process. The process 

involves rating the visual appeal of a tract of land (scenic quality), measuring public 

concern for scenic quality (visual sensitivity), and determining whether the tract of land is 

visible from travel routes or observation points (distance zone). This process is described 

in detail in BLM Handbook H-8410-1, Visual Resource Inventory (BLM 1986a). Based

on the three inventory components, lands are placed into one of four VRI classes. These 

class assignments are informational and provide the basis for considering visual values 

during the RMP process. They do not establish management direction and are not used 

for constraining or limiting surface-disturbing activities; instead they are considered a 

baseline for existing conditions.

The results of the VRI become an important component of the RMP. The RMP 

establishes how BLM-administered lands will be used and allocated for different 

purposes. It is developed through public participation and collaboration. Visual values are 

considered throughout the RMP process, and the visual resources of an area are then 

assigned to the management classes with established objectives.

Management of Visual Resources

The designation of VRM classes is ultimately based on management decisions made 

during the RMP process, which must take into consideration the value of visual 

resources. During the process, inventory class boundaries can be adjusted as necessary to 

reflect these resource allocation decisions. The goal of VRM is to minimize the visual 

impacts of all surface-disturbing activities, regardless of the class to which an area is 

assigned. 

The objectives for each of the four VRM classes are as follows:

 Class I—To preserve the existing 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 attract attention.

 Class II—To retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of 

change to the characteristic landscape should be low. 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—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. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant 

natural features of the characteristic landscape.

 Class IV—To provide for management activities that 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 
2. Area Profile

2-162 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

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 basic element repetition.

The VRM objectives are established in conformance with land use allocations made in 

the plan. The VRM objectives are area specific and provide visual standards for planning, 

designing, and evaluating proposed development projects. Proper implementation of 

VRM helps prevent environmental degradation and maintains important resource values.

The visual resource contrast rating process is used to resolve visual impacts. The process 

of a visual contrast rating compares the project features with the existing landscape 

features, using basic elements of form, line, color, and texture. It is described in detail in 

BLM Handbook H-8431-1, Visual Resource Contrast Rating (BLM 1986b).

Indicators

Indicators for visual resources are the components of the VRI: scenic quality, visual 

sensitivity, and distance zone. 

Scenic quality factors are evaluated relative to similar features in the same physiographic 

province. Physiographic provinces are a subdivision of physiographic regions that divide 

the continent into distinct regions based on similar landforms and landscapes. The 

planning area is primarily within three physiographic provinces: western Kansas, the 

Oklahoma panhandle, and west Texas are in the Great Plains province; north-central 

Texas, central Oklahoma, and eastern Kansas are in the Central Lowland province; and 

east/southeast Texas and far southeast Oklahoma are in the Coastal Plain province. A 

very small portion of eastern Oklahoma is also in the Ouachita and Ozark Plateaus 

provinces.

Visual sensitivity is a measure of public concern for scenic quality. It can vary with the 

types of users, level of use, public interest, adjacent land uses, and special areas in the 

vicinity. Landscapes are assigned to one of three possible sensitivity ratings: high, 

medium, or low.

Distance zones are a measure of how visible the landscape is from key travel routes or 

observation points. The closer a landscape is to a viewer the more details are visible. 

Using GIS, landscapes are assigned to one of three possible distance zones: 

foreground/middleground (0 to 5 miles), background (5 to 15 miles), or seldom seen 

(beyond background or not visible).

The BLM will complete a targeted VRI for the planning area according to guidelines in 

BLM Manual Handbook H-8410-1, Visual Resource Inventory (BLM 1986a). It will

include the 31,500 acres, more or less, of BLM-administered land along the Red River. 

Also included will be BLM-administered land deemed to be of high value for the other 

4,000 acres, as well as high value Indian surface lands. High value lands are those near

federal- or state-designated parks, scenic rivers, and scenic highways and lands where 

visual setting may be culturally important to tribal groups. Although the BLM VRM 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-163

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

System is applicable to BLM-administered lands, it will also be used to develop an 

inventory of visual resources on high-value Indian surface lands. Results of the VRI will 

be documented in a report and posted on the project website.

Current Condition

BLM-administered lands in the planning area do not currently have VRM objectives 

assigned. Visual resources are considered on a case-by-case basis during the 

environmental evaluation of a project.

Trends

In 1978 the BLM evaluated and documented visual resources for a portion of southeast 

Oklahoma in LeFlore, Haskell, Latimer, Pittsburgh, Coal, and Atoka Counties (BLM 

1978) in response to increased demands for coal in that area. At that time, the overlay of 

scenic quality, sensitivity, and distance zone resulted in a VRM classification, though not 

a VRI classification as current guidance provides. (Because no planning document 

carried forward the identified VRM classifications identified in the 1978 report, the term 

VRI is used here to compare with current BLM guidance for inventorying visual 

resources.)

Most of the land in the 1978 study area rated as VRI Class II or IV. Lands rated as VRI 

Class II were identified as such because of the high sensitivity of the area. A few lands 

were identified as scenic quality A because of the variety of landform and vegetation and 

scarcity of visual features.

Forecast

There has been additional coal and natural gas development in the planning area since 

1978. At the same time, public interest in maintaining high value visual landscapes has 

also increased. Both are expected to continue into the future.

Key Features

The following areas have been identified as visually important features or viewsheds in 

the planning area:

 Gloss Mountain State Park

 Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge

 Cimarron River 

 South Canadian River

 Oklahoma designated scenic rivers (Flint Creek, Illinois River, Barren Fork 

Creek, Upper Mountain Fork River, Big Lee’s Creek, and Little Lee’s Creek)

 National and State Scenic Byways

 Chickasaw National Recreation Area

BLM-administered land and Indian lands near these areas will be inventoried for visual 

resources. Also to be identified and inventoried are other lands near federal- and state-
2. Area Profile

2-164 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

designated parks, scenic rivers, and scenic highways and lands where visual setting may 

be culturally important to tribal groups.

References

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1978. Visual 

Resource Inventory and Evaluation Southeast Oklahoma Land Use Analysis. 

Southeast Oklahoma Planning Unit, Oklahoma Project Office.

. 1984. Manual 8400—Visual Resource Management. Rel. 8-24. Washington, 

DC. April 5, 1984.

. 1986a. Handbook H-8410-1—Visual Resource Inventory. Rel. 8-28. BLM, 

Washington, DC. January 17, 1986.

. 1986b. Handbook H-8431-1—Visual Resource Contrast Rating. Rel. 8-30. 

Washington, DC. January 17, 1986. 

2.2.13 Wilderness Characteristics

The BLM’s authority to conduct wilderness reviews, including the establishment of new 

wilderness study areas, expired on October 21, 1993, in accordance with Section 603 of 

the FLPMA. However, the BLM has retained authority under Section 201 of the FLPMA 

to inventory BLM-administered lands for wilderness characteristics and to consider such 

information during land use planning. Policy guidance is provided by BLM Manual 6310, 

Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands (BLM 2012a) and 

Manual 6320, Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the BLM Land Use 

Planning Process (BLM 2012b). Through this planning process, the BLM has discretion 

to determine which portions of BLM-administered lands with wilderness characteristics 

would be protected by special management. 

The inventory process entails the identification of wilderness inventory units, an 

inventory of roads and wilderness characteristics, and a determination of whether the unit 

as a whole possesses wilderness characteristics. Units found to possess wilderness 

characteristics are evaluated during the land use planning process to address future 

management for wilderness characteristics. 

Wilderness characteristics considered in this analysis are naturalness, outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation, and 

supplemental values, as follows:

 Size—An area must be roadless and have 5,000 acres of contiguous BLMadministered lands or, if less, it must be contiguous with lands that have been 

formally determined to have wilderness or potential wilderness values (e.g., 

designated wilderness and BLM wilderness study areas).

 Naturalness—Lands and resources exhibit a high degree of naturalness when 

affected primarily by the forces of nature; the imprint of human activity is 

substantially unnoticeable. An area’s naturalness may be influenced by the 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-165

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

presence of roads and trails, fences, or other developments; the nature and 

extent of landscape modifications; the presence of native vegetation 

communities; and the connectivity of habitats. Wildlife populations and 

habitat are recognized as important aspects of naturalness and would be 

managed as such.

 Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Types of 

Recreation—Visitors may have outstanding opportunities for solitude when 

the sights, sounds, and evidence of other people are rare or infrequent or 

where visitors can feel isolated, alone, or secluded from others. Visitors may 

have outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation where 

access to the area is by nonmotorized, nonmechanical means and where no or 

minimal developed recreation facilities are encountered.

 Supplemental Values—The area may contain ecological, geological, or other 

features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

Current Condition

In accordance with BLM Manual 6310, the BLM conducted a GIS analysis for 5,000 

acres of contiguous BLM-administered lands; it determined that no such lands were 

present in the planning area. There are also no BLM-administered lands contiguous with 

lands that have been formally determined to have wilderness or potential wilderness 

values. Therefore there are no lands with wilderness characteristics in the planning area. 

This resource will not be carried forward for analysis in the EIS.

References

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2012a. BLM 

Manual 6310—Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands. 

Rel. 6-129. Washington, DC. March 15, 2012.

. 2012b. BLM Manual 6320—Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

in the BLM Land Use Planning Process. Rel. 6-130. BLM, Washington, DC. 

March 15, 2012.

2.2.14 Wildland Fire Management

Federal fire management in the planning area is guided by the Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy established in 1995 and updated in 2001. This policy establishes the 

guiding principles for fire management: ensuring firefighter and public safety, protecting 

communities, including property and infrastructure, and protecting natural and cultural 

resources. Wildland fire management is also guided by land use plans that identify 

strategies to meet land use goals and objectives related to wildland fire management, 

including strategies for unplanned ignitions and hazardous fuel treatments. In addition, 

fire management is also guided by specific fire management plans, which are the 

overarching activity plans for the fire program. Fire management plans provide the 

necessary tools for implementing on-the-ground fire-related direction from land use 

plans. Other fire management direction is provided through other regulatory compliance 

and statute requirements.
2. Area Profile

2-166 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Indicators

Indicators identify factors to describe resource conditions. The indicators used for 

wildland fire ecology and management use the vegetation condition class (VCC; formerly

fire regime condition classification [FRCC]) system to measure the extent to which 

vegetation departs from historical natural fire regimes (Table 2-22, Historical Natural 

Fire Regimes). Natural fire regimes are based on the frequency of fire, combined with the 

severity of fire on the dominant overstory vegetation. The historical natural fire regimes 

for most of the planning area were within Fire Regime II and some in Fire Regime I on 

the eastern edges of Oklahoma and Texas (Schmidt et al. 2002).

VCCs are qualitative measurements that determine the degree of departure of vegetation 

from historical fire regimes. This could alter key ecosystem components, such as species 

composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and fuel loadings. 

Table 2-22

Historical Natural Fire Regimes

Code Description

I 0-35 year frequency,1low severity2

II 0-35 year frequency, stand-replacement severity

III 35-100+year frequency, mixed severity

IV 35-100+year frequency, stand-replacement severity

V 200+year frequency, stand-replacement severity

Source: Schmidt et al. 2002

1

Fire frequency is the average number of years between fires.

2

Severity is the effect of the fire on the dominant overstory vegetation.

VCCs range from Class 1 to Class 3, as follows (Schmidt et al. 2002 and Santiestevan 

2012):

 VCC Class 1—Fire regimes are within a historical range, and the risk of 

losing key ecosystem components is low. 

 VCC Class 2—Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical 

range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate.

 VCC Class 3—Fire regimes have been significantly altered from historical 

range. Risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies 

have departed from historical frequencies by multiple return intervals.

Current Condition

Vegetation in the planning area can be described as the short-grass prairie ecoregion and 

the mixed-grass prairie ecoregion. Generally short-grass prairie occurs on the western 

side to the middle of the planning area, with the mixed-grass prairie occurring in the 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-167

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

central to east side of the planning area. The short-grass prairie occurs in the western 

Kansas and the panhandles and rolling plains of Oklahoma and Texas.

Vegetation communities associated with the short-grass prairie are buffalograss 

(Bouteloua dactyloides) and blue grama (B. gracilis). Some herbaceous species are 

threadleaf sedge (Carex filifolia), curlycup gumweed (Grindelia squarrosa), and scarlet

globemallow (Sphaeralcea coccinea). Woody species occur in some areas and include 

sand sagebrush (Artemisia filifolia) and shinnery oak (Quercus havardii). 

The southern mixed-grass prairie generally includes the central third of Kansas and 

Oklahoma and small areas of the eastern Texas panhandle and the western half of northcentral Texas. Vegetation communities associated with the mixed-grass prairie are 

bluestem-grama (Andropogon gerardii, Schizachyrium scoparium, Bouteloua 

curtipendula, and B. gracilis), mesquite-buffalograss (Prosopis spp., Bouteloua 

dactyloides), buffalograss (Bouteloua dactyloides) and blue grama (B. gracilis). Common 

forb species are blanketflowers (Gaillardia spp.), evening primroses (Oenothera spp.), 

dozedaisies (Aphanostephus spp.), aster (Symphyotrichum spp.), penstemons (Penstemon

spp.), blazing star (Liatris punctate), and annual sunflower (Helianthus annuus). 

Common tree and shrub species are redberry juniper (Juniperus pinchotii), honey 

mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), shinnery oak (Quercus havardii), and sand sagebrush 

(Artemisia filifolia). Shinnery oak and sand sagebrush are found on sandy soils from 

western Oklahoma and northern Texas south to central Texas (USGS 2015).

VCCs of vegetation in the planning area are variable across the landscape. Many factors 

have altered fire regime condition classes from historical regimes to VCC 2 or 3 (see 

Figure 2-19). Examples are wildfire management (aggressive suppression), climate, 

human disturbances (agriculture, energy development, transportation corridors), and 

invasive species.

In general, agriculture has altered historical vegetation in large areas of the planning area. 

The eastern portion of Kansas includes areas where departure from historical ranges have 

transitioned to VCC 3. Occurrences of VCC 1 are present on the western edges of Kansas 

and Oklahoma and occur throughout Texas. VCC 2 occurs throughout Kansas and the 

western edge of central Texas (Schmidt et al. 2002 and Santiestevan 2012).

The availability of fire history data is variable throughout the planning area and differs by 

agency. In general, fire history is characterized by numerous small fires, most of which 

are caused by humans. BIA Eastern Oklahoma Region fire history data for the past six 

years has identified approximately 6,154 human-caused fires, compared to 500 natural 

fires on BIA-administered or adjacent lands (see Table 2-23).
2. Area Profile

2-168 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Figure 2-19

Vegetation Current Condition (Formerly Fire Regime Current Condition) Classes (Version 

2000)

Source: Schmidt et al. 2002 and Santiestevan 2012

Table 2-23

BIA Eastern Oklahoma Region Fire History 2008-2014

Ignition 

Source (Cause)

Number of 

Fires

BIA Acres 

Burned

Other Acres 

Burned

Total Acres 

Burned

Human 6,154 114,844 818,275 933,119

Natural 500 9,644 42,804 52,448

Total 6,654 124,488 861,079 985,567

Source: Brent Gohring, BIA, Eastern Oklahoma Region, personal communication via e-mail with Jeff 

Johnson, EMPSi, regarding fire history, January 21, 2015
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-169

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Trends

In general, change agents such as agricultural development, energy development (oil and 

gas), transportation corridor construction, community expansion and growth, 

establishment and spread of invasive species, and aggressive fire suppression will 

continue to alter vegetation communities from historic regimes to VCCs 2 and 3. Change 

agents remove historical vegetation and disturb soils, which can increase erosion, alter 

vegetation communities, and make areas vulnerable to invasive species. In general, fire 

suppression has reduced fire size but has also contributed to fuels buildup, especially of 

woody vegetation, such as mesquite, creosote, and red cedar. These species now 

dominate previous grassland areas. The resulting expansion increases the buildup in 

fuels, causing hotter fires and greater plant mortality (USGS 2015). Human-caused fires 

should continue to be the primary source of ignition.

Forecast

Changes in VCCs will continue with the establishment and expansion of human-caused 

disturbances, wildland fire, and noxious weeds. Management actions necessary to slow 

changes in VCCs from 1 and 2 to 3 would be necessary. It would be necessary to 

implement management actions to improve vegetative conditions and land health, such as 

habitat restoration and fuels treatments. 

Continued buildup of fuels in areas would increase the need for aggressive fuel 

treatments such as prescribed fire, mastication of vegetation, and application of chemical 

treatments to protect communities and resource values. Expansion and growth of 

communities would increase fire suppression priorities and would increase the need to 

construct hazardous fuels treatments to provide for public safety and protect 

communities. Community expansion and increases in population would increase the

potential for more public recreation on federal lands and the potential for human-caused 

fires. 

Suppression priorities would increase should additional recreational sites be developed. 

Identifying areas where fire would be managed for resource benefit would improve fire 

management efficiencies and improve vegetative ecological conditions. This would be 

based on interagency coordination needs and would provide more opportunities to 

manage fire for multiple objectives.

Protecting important resource values, such as sensitive wildlife habitat and cultural areas, 

would further increase suppression and hazardous fuels priorities to protect these areas 

and improve habitat conditions. 

The potential may increase to implement emergency stabilization and rehabilitation 

treatments to reduce the wind and water erosion and to deter the establishment of 

invasive species. 

Key Features

Key areas or features that would guide wildland fire ecology and management are as 

follows:
2. Area Profile

2-170 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Wildland Urban Interface

 Special Management Areas 

 Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Areas

 Important Cultural Areas

 Special Designation (e.g., Wild and Scenic Rivers, areas of critical 

environmental concern [ACECs], and Wilderness)

 Special Recreation Management Areas

References

LANDFIRE GIS. 2015. Published GIS data of Vegetation Condition Class. Internet 

Website: http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/. 

Santiestevan, Cristina. 2012. Burning Hot: The Evolution of Eastern and Western Fires. 

American Forests, Forest File. May 2012. Internet Website: 

https://www.americanforests.org/our-programs/american-forestspublications/forest-files/forest-files-may-2012/burning-hot-the-evolution-ofeastern-and-western-fires/. 

Schmidt, Kirsten M., James P. Menakis, Colin C. Hardy, Wendel J. Hann, and David L. 

Bunnell. 2002. Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel 

management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-87. US Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado

USGS (US Geological Survey). 2015. Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional 

Assessment—Pre-Assessment Report. (Timothy J. Assal, Cynthia P. Melcher, and 

Natasha B. Carr editors). Open File Report 2015.

2.2.15 Cave and Karst Resources

With the passage of the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (CRPA), 

Sec.3(1), Congress declared that significant caves on federal lands are an invaluable and 

irreplaceable part of the nation’s natural heritage. It recognized that significant caves may 

be threatened due to improper use, recreational demand, urban spread, and lack of 

protection. The purpose of the CRPA is to secure, protect, and preserve significant caves 

on federal lands for the perpetual use, enjoyment, and benefit of all people. The CRPA’s 

other purpose is to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between 

governmental authorities and those who use caves on federal lands for science, education, 

or recreation. With the CRPA, Congress established policy that federal lands be managed 

in a manner that protects and maintains, to the extent practical, significant caves.

The CRPA defines a cave as any naturally occurring void, cavity, recess, or system of 

interconnected passages beneath the surface of the earth or within a cliff or ledge that is 

large enough to permit an individual to enter, whether the entrance is naturally formed or 

man‐made. A karst is an area of irregular limestone or carbonate in which erosion has 

produced fissures, sinkholes, underground streams, and caverns. Caves and karst
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-171

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

resources may be considered nonrenewable resources due to the nature of the animal and 

plant life, paleontological deposits, biological resources, or minerals.

It is the policy of the Secretary of the Interior that federal lands be managed in a manner 

which, to the extent practical, protects and maintains significant caves and cave resources 

(43 CFR, Part 37.2). The type and degree of protection is determined through the local 

agency resource management planning process, with full public participation.

Indicators

Under the CRPA, a cave is considered significant if it meets one or more of the following 

six criteria:

 Biota—The cave serves as seasonal or yearlong habitat for organisms or 

animals, or contains species or subspecies of flora or fauna native to caves, or 

is sensitive to disruption, or contains species found on state or federal 

sensitive, threatened, or endangered species lists.

 Cultural—The cave contains historic or archaeological resources included on

or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places because of 

its research importance for history or prehistory, its historical association, or 

other historical or traditional significance.

 Geological/mineralogical/paleontological—The cave possesses one or more

geological or mineralogical features that are fragile or exhibit interesting 

formations.

 Hydrologic—The cave is part of a hydrologic system or contains water 

important to humans, biota, or development of cave resources.

 Recreational—The cave provides or could provide recreational opportunities 

or scenic values.

 Educational or scientific—The resource offers opportunities for educational or 

scientific use or is in a virtually pristine state, lacking evidence of 

contemporary human disturbance or impact, or the length, height, volume, 

total depth, or similar measurements are notable (43 CFR, Part 37).

Current Condition

Currently, cave features or caves of significance have not been identified on BLMadministered surface lands or lands with BLM subsurface mineral estate in the planning 

area. The USGS has identified karst features and pseudo karst features in the planning 

area, based on regional geology (see Figure 2-20).

Trends

Caves and karst are expected to be discovered more frequently as BLM- and BIAadministered surface and subsurface land is identified and such activities as mineral 

exploration occur over a larger expanse of federally administered lands. As caves are 

identified on BLM-administered surface lands, they will be examined for significance or 

avoided or mitigated where they occur on BLM-administered subsurface mineral estate.

2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-173

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Forecast

Under current management, significant caves and karst areas would continue to receive 

recognition and appropriate protection in the planning area. 

Trends indicate a continued increase in interest in cave and karst resources. Educational 

outreach stressing the importance of these resources would continue. Without proper 

education, negative impacts on these resources could increase. Caves identified as bat 

habitat may be closed to reduce the potential of introduction and spread of white nose 

syndrome, a disease proving detrimental to bat populations. 

Increased oil and gas production in the planning area indicates an increased potential for 

development in sensitive cave and karst areas. Impacts on cave and karst resources will 

be mitigated as individual project applications are received. However, it is likely that 

cumulatively these projects will have a negative impact on karst and related resources. 

Without plans of development, cumulative impacts would affect not only karst but related 

resources, such as groundwater and biological communities. Older wells with eroding or 

improperly sealed reserve pits will continue to have impacts on karst resources. These 

impacts are groundwater contamination and hydrocarbon releases into cave atmospheres, 

which causes dangerous conditions. The continued leasing of sensitive karst areas will 

allow potential negative impacts on karst resources and karst groundwater aquifers.

Key Features

In the planning area caves and cave resources of significance have not been documented

on BLM-administered surface lands or lands with mineral estate, but they will likely be 

encountered during oil and gas development. In such as case, they would be documented 

and protected in a manner that preserves them.

References

USGS GIS. 2014a. GIS data of cave and karst resources. Internet Website: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2014/1156/. 

2.3 BLM RESOURCE USES

2.3.1 Energy and Minerals

The sections below are discussions of current conditions and forecasts on BLMadministered surface and federal mineral estate. The BLM also has some jurisdiction over 

leasing Indian minerals (see Section 2.6.14, Energy and Minerals).

Coal

Current Condition

Coal resources exist in all three states in the planning area. Table 2-24, Coal Resources

in the BLM Decision Area, shows the types of economically valuable coal found on 

BLM-administered federal mineral estate in each of the three states. Approximately 70 

acres of BLM-administered surface lands overlay federal coal resources, but the 

resources are of doubtful value.
2. Area Profile

2-174 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-24

Coal Resources in the BLM Decision Area

Coal Type Acres of BLM-Administered 

Federal Mineral Estate

Kansas

Lignite 0

Low volatile bituminous 0

Medium and high volatile bituminous 49,800

Oklahoma

Lignite 0

Low volatile bituminous 90,400

Medium and high volatile bituminous 586,700

Texas

Lignite 414,900

Low volatile bituminous 0

Medium and high volatile bituminous 7,000

Source: BLM GIS 2015

The bulk of coal resources on BLM-administered federal mineral estate in the decision 

area are in Oklahoma. Most of the valuable coal there is medium and high volatile 

bituminous. BLM-administered federal mineral estate in Texas contains a large amount 

of relatively low-value lignite.

Coal mining on BLM-administered federal mineral estate in the planning area is only 

occurring in Oklahoma; for this reason, coal occurrence and activity are discussed for 

Oklahoma only.

Oklahoma’s coal resources are found in the eastern portion of the state in a coalfield 

spanning 19 counties. Oklahoma contains the most significant deposits of bituminous 

coal west of the Mississippi River and east of the Rocky Mountains (Oklahoma 

Department of Mines 2015). Approximately 0.1 percent of the estimated US recoverable 

coal reserves are at producing mines in the state. 

Oklahoma coal operations produced approximately 1 million tons of coal in 2012, 

approximately 487,000 tons of which was produced from federal leases (BLM 2015a). 

Coal was produced from five Oklahoma counties in 2013: LeFlore, Haskell, Craig, 

Rogers, and Okmulgee (Oklahoma Department of Mines 2013). There are eight federal 

coal leases in Oklahoma, covering approximately 15,700 acres. Two of the leases, both in 

LeFlore County, are in production, and six are inactive (BLM GIS 2015). Oklahoma coal 

is mined by both surface and underground methods (Oklahoma Department of Mines 

2015). Approximately 60 percent of the coal mined in Oklahoma is used in lime and 

cement kilns in Oklahoma and surrounding states. The remainder is used for electricity 

generation at one power plant in Oklahoma and one plant in Missouri (BLM 2015a).
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-175

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Forecast

Approximately 1.6 billion tons of economically recoverable coal reserves remain in 

Oklahoma. While large deposits remain to be produced, extracting these resources will 

require significant capital investments. Production and market issues affect whether some 

coal reserves are economical to mine. Regulations concerning mining and reclamation 

requirements also impact coal activity in the state. Future activity will hinge on 

development of additional markets for high sulfur coal and the increased use and 

development of clean coal technology at coal-fired utilities in Oklahoma and surrounding 

states. These facilities are close enough to Oklahoma’s coal reserves to continue to serve 

as a market for its coal if it can be burned cleanly enough to comply with federal and 

state air quality standards (Oklahoma Department of Mines 2015).

Key Features

The coalfield in eastern Oklahoma is the key feature for coal resources in the BLM 

decision area. It contains a commercial coal belt and a noncommercial coal bearing 

region. Approximately 866,700 acres of the coal field are on BLM-administered federal 

mineral estate (BLM GIS 2015). 

Fluid Minerals

Fluid minerals in the planning area are helium, oil and gas, and geothermal resources. 

Each of these resources is discussed below.

Current Condition

Helium

Natural gas fields in the western portion of the planning area contain unusually high 

concentrations of helium (from 0.3 to 2.7 percent). These fields constitute the largest 

source of helium in the US (BLM 2015c). The BLM operates and maintains a helium 

storage reservoir known as the Cliffside Storage Facility, along with an enrichment plant 

and pipeline system near Amarillo, Texas. The Cliffside Storage Facility is a natural 

geologic formation known as the Bush Dome. Helium from this storage facility supplies 

over 40 percent of domestic helium demand. The BLM supplies crude helium to private 

helium refining companies, which in turn refine the helium and market it to consumers. A 

central compression project to produce helium from the storage facility is ongoing. 

Oil and Gas

The planning area contains approximately 34 oil and gas plays across all three states (see 

Figure 2-21). Portions of nine plays overlap BLM-administered surface lands, and 24 

plays overlap BLM-administered federal mineral estate. BLM-administered surface lands 

overlap plays almost exclusively in Oklahoma, but some overlapping also occurs in 

Texas. BLM-administered federal mineral estate overlaps oil and gas plays in all three 

states in the planning area (BLM GIS 2015). 

2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-177

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

For detailed information on production, well completions, and oil and gas development 

potential, refer to the forthcoming Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFD) 

being prepared by the OFO (BLM 2015b). The current condition discussion below 

summarizes the information provided in the RFD. 

Overall oil production in the planning area declined from 1993 to 2004. Production 

remained steady from 2004 to 2009 and began to rapidly increase from 2009 to the 

present. The most significant increases in oil production have been in southern and 

western Texas. Most of the increase in southern Texas has been from horizontal wells, 

while the increase in western Texas is largely conventional wells (BLM 2015b). 

Despite the overall increase in oil production in the planning area, oil production on 

BLM-administered federal mineral estate has not surpassed 1993 levels of 1.1 million oil 

barrels. Production in 2012 approached 1993 levels at 946,000 oil barrels, but 2013 

production dropped to 661,000 oil barrels (BLM 2015b).

Allocated oil production (production from wells on private land but for which the BLM 

shares in production through a unitization agreement) has also declined since 1993. This 

decline has occurred at a greater rate than the decline in production from wells on BLMadministered federal mineral estate. Most oil production from BLM-administered federal 

mineral estate has been in Oklahoma, although production on federal mineral estate in 

Texas spiked in 1997 (BLM 2015b).

Overall gas production in the planning area was relatively stable from 1993 to 2005. 

Production peaked in 2008 and 2012 at over 10 billion thousand cubic feet (MCF) and 

remained at nearly 10 billion MCF of gas in 2013. Most of the increase in gas production 

since 2005 has been in eastern Texas. Gas production in Oklahoma and Kansas has 

remained relatively stable since 1993. Kansas produced by far the least amount of gas in 

the planning area over this time, with less than 1 billion MCF per year. Like horizontal

oil, horizontal gas production in the planning area has been rapidly increasing since 2003. 

The increase in horizontal gas production has occurred in Texas and Oklahoma (BLM 

2015b).

Gas production from federal and Indian minerals in the planning area accounts for 

approximately 0.7 percent of total gas production in the planning area. Gas production 

from BLM-administered federal mineral estate in the planning area peaked in 1996 at 

approximately 123 million MCF. Production hit a smaller peak in 2012 at approximately

79 million MCF and fell to 64 million MCF in 2013. As is the case with the general 

planning area, Texas is largely responsible for the peaks in gas production from BLMadministered federal mineral estate in 1996 and 2012. Kansas has had the least gas 

production from BLM-administered federal mineral estate. 

Approximately 2.2 million oil and gas wells have been drilled in the planning area, over 

85,000 of which are horizontal or directional; approximately 409,000 wells are currently 

producing (BLM 2015b). Of the 409,000 producing oil and gas wells in the planning 

area, 125 (less than 1 percent) are on BLM-administered surface lands and 9,702 (2 
2. Area Profile

2-178 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

percent) are on BLM-administered federal mineral estate (BLM GIS 2015). Most 

producing wells in the BLM decision area are in Oklahoma. 

Injection wells have also been drilled in the decision area. There are five injection wells 

on BLM-administered surface lands in Texas (plus one in Oklahoma) and 480 injection 

wells on BLM-administered federal mineral estate across all three states (BLM GIS 

2015).

Geothermal Resources

The most favorable portions of the planning area with geothermal energy potential are 

along its southern border and in the eastern portion of Texas. Northern Oklahoma and 

central Kansas also have moderately favorable geothermal potential (National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory GIS 2009). Table 2-25 shows the acres of BLM-administered surface 

lands and federal mineral estate with varying levels of enhanced geothermal resource 

potential (geothermal resources that can be reached by fracturing rock). 

Table 2-25

Enhanced Geothermal Potential in the BLM Decision Area

Geothermal Potential Class 

(1—Most Favorable to 5—

Least Favorable)

Acres of BLM-Administered 

Surface Lands

Acres of BLM-Administered 

Federal Mineral Estate

1 0 0

2 0 464,000

3 16,100 2,080,200

4 18,100 889,800

5 12,700 985,200

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory GIS 2009

While portions of the BLM decision area overlay areas with geothermal resource 

potential, there has never been any geothermal leasing or activity there.

Forecast

Helium

In recent decades, private sector demand for helium has begun to exceed federal demand 

for defense purposes. In response, Congress redefined the government’s role in helium 

production by passing the Helium Privatization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-273, 110 

Statute 3315). The BLM was given responsibility for operating the federal helium reserve 

to provide enriched crude helium to private refiners. The Helium Stewardship Act of 

2013 (Public Law 113-40, 127 Statute 534), was passed to allow for a smooth transition 

to private means of helium production as the federal helium reserve is steadily drawn 

down. Under this act, all of the federal helium reserve and federally owned facilities 

associated with the federal helium system must be disposed of by September 30, 2021.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-179

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Oil and Gas

The BLM has classified the planning area by oil and gas development potential, ranging 

from no potential to high potential (see Figure 2-22, Oil and Gas Development 

Potential). Table 2-26, Oil and Gas Development Potential in the BLM Decision Area,

shows the number of acres with oil and gas development potential on BLM-administered 

surface lands and subsurface mineral estate in the planning area. As shown in Table 2-26, 

about half of the BLM decision area has moderate or greater oil and gas potential. Most 

of these areas are on BLM-administered federal mineral estate.

Table 2-26

Oil and Gas Development Potential in the BLM Decision Area

Potential Level

Acres of BLMAdministered Surface 

Lands

Acres of BLMAdministered Federal 

Mineral Estate

Total

High 1,500 733,500 735,000

Moderate to high 12,900 751,500 764,400

Moderate 17,700 942,500 960,200

Low to moderate 60 536,300 536,360

Low 14,700 1,707,600 1,722,300

None 0 75,500 75,500

Source: BLM GIS 2015

The Energy Information Administration predicts that nationwide oil prices will rise 

between 0.8 and 1.4 percent per year between 2012 and 2040 (in 2012 dollars; Energy 

Information Administration 2014). Natural gas prices are predicted to rise at a rate of 3.7 

percent per year between 2012 and 2040 (in 2012 dollars; Energy Information 

Administration 2014). Based on the oil and gas development potential and predicted 

nationwide price increases, oil and gas activity in the BLM decision area is expected to 

increase over the next 20 years. 

The RFD prepared by the BLM for the planning area estimates that approximately 1.9 

million oil barrels will be produced from federal and Indian minerals in the planning area 

in 2035; this is a 27 percent increase over 2013 production levels for the BLM and BIA 

decision areas. The RFD also estimates that 126 million MCF of gas will be produced 

from federal and Indian minerals in the planning area in 2035; this is a 40 percent 

increase over 2013 production levels for the BLM and BIA decision areas (BLM 2015b).

Geothermal Resources

Future development of geothermal energy in Texas is expected to include geoexchange 

systems (heat pumps), direct use activities, and electric power generation. The most 

likely use of federal geothermal resources would be for electric power generation, which 

has not yet become commercially established in the state (Texas State Energy 

Conservation Office 2015). Although portions of the BLM decision area have moderately 

high geothermal resource potential, geothermal resource development in the decision area 

is not expected in the next 20 years.

2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-181

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Key Features

Helium

Four helium areas overlap BLM-administered surface lands and federal mineral estate in 

the western portion of the planning area: Hugoton/Panoma/Panhandle, 

Greenwood/Keyes, Bradshaw, and Cliffside. These areas contain natural gas fields with 

high concentrations of helium. The Cliffside area is the storage reservoir for the federal 

helium reserve. Table 2-27 shows the number of acres of each helium area that overlaps 

the BLM decision area.

Table 2-27

Helium Areas

Helium Area Name State

Acres of BLMAdministered 

Surface Lands

Acres of BLMAdministered 

Federal Mineral 

Estate

Hugoton/Panoma/Panhandle Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas 70 68,500

Greenwood/Keyes Kansas, Oklahoma 0 1,400

Bradshaw Kansas 0 1,500

Cliffside Texas 10 10,800 

Source: BLM GIS 2015

Oil and Gas

Key oil and gas features in the planning area are the plays shown in Figure 2-21. These 

plays contain known oil and gas resources and are considered to have high development 

potential. For more information on these plays, see the RFD (BLM 2015b).

Geothermal Resources

Key geothermal features in the planning area are areas with the most favorable 

geothermal potential classes. (See Table 2-25 for a breakdown of geothermal potential 

classes on BLM-administered surface lands and federal mineral estate.) The highest 

potential classes in the planning area and decision area are in eastern Texans and along its 

southern border. The Texas State Energy Conservation Office estimates there are at least 

five major regions in Texas that have strong potential for geothermal electrical power 

production. This is based on the existence of oil and gas wells with temperatures that can 

get above 212 degrees Fahrenheit. These regions are East Texas, the Gulf Coast, the 

Delaware-Val Verde Basin region, the Trans-Pecos region, and the Aardvark Basin 

where it enters the Texas panhandle (Texas State Energy Conservation Office 2015).

Locatable Minerals

Current Condition

Because nearly all BLM-administered federal mineral estate is acquired, hardrock 

minerals that would otherwise be locatable under the General Mining Law of 1872, as 
2. Area Profile

2-182 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

amended (30 USC, Section 29) are leasable under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (5 

USC, Appendix). See Section 2.3.2, Energy and Minerals, Nonenergy Leasables, for 

more information on these leasable hardrock minerals. 

Public domain federal mineral estate (mineral estate that has always been federal rather 

than having been acquired by the federal government) does exist along the Red River in 

the decision area on the Texas/Oklahoma border. Hardrock minerals in this area would be 

locatable under the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended. Copper and uranium 

deposits may exist on BLM-administered surface and federal mineral estate in this area 

(Johnson 2008); however, no locatable mineral activity has occurred on BLMadministered surface or federal mineral estate in this area to date.

Forecast

Due to the small amount of public domain federal mineral estate in the decision area, 

locatable mineral activity is not expected to occur in the decision area in the next 20 

years.

Key Features

The public domain federal mineral estate along the Red River is the key feature for 

locatable minerals in the decision area. This is because it the only area in which hardrock 

minerals would be locatable subject to the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended. 

Mineral Materials

Current Condition

The planning area contains numerous mineral materials, such as sand and gravel, 

limestone, granite, chalk, and pumice. However, because most of the BLM-administered 

federal mineral estate in the decision area is acquired, mineral materials that would 

normally be disposed of through the Mineral Materials Act of 1947, as amended (30 

USC, Section 601 et seq.) are leased under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (5 USC, 

Appendix). See Section 2.3.2, Energy and Minerals, Nonenergy Leasables, for more 

information on these leasable mineral materials.

Public domain federal mineral estate (mineral estate that has always been federal rather 

than having been acquired by the federal government) does exist along the Red River in 

the decision area along the Texas/Oklahoma border. Mineral materials in this area would 

be disposed of under the Mineral Materials Act of 1947, as amended. Sand and gravel are 

the most common mineral materials in this area (Johnson 2008); however, no mineral 

material activity has occurred on BLM-administered surface or federal mineral estate in 

this area to date.

Forecast

Due to the small amount of public domain federal mineral estate in the decision area, 

mineral material activity is not expected to be significant in the next 20 years. Because 

mineral materials often provide construction and road building materials, demand is 

largely driven by proximity to construction projects. Therefore, if projects occurred near 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-183

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

the public domain federal mineral estate along the Red River, the BLM could dispose of 

mineral materials in the area.

Key Features

The public domain federal mineral estate along the Red River is the key feature for 

mineral materials in the decision area. This is because it is the only area in which mineral 

materials would be disposed of subject to the Mineral Materials Act of 1947, as amended.

Nonenergy Leasables

Current Condition

As mentioned under Locatable Minerals and Mineral Materials, hardrock minerals and 

mineral materials on acquired BLM-administered federal mineral estate in the planning 

area would be leased under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (5 USC, Appendix); 

however, there has been very little hardrock or mineral material activity in the decision 

area. In the past, companies showed interest in chromium and palladium deposits on 

BLM-administered federal mineral estate in the Ouachita Mountains in southeastern 

Oklahoma, but the minerals did not exist in economic quantities. 

The primary nonenergy leasable minerals in the planning area are evaporites, which 

include salt and gypsum, along with other minerals that are less commercially viable. 

Large salt deposits lie beneath western Texas, western Oklahoma, and western and

central Kansas. Although no salt development is occurring in the decision area, the 

Kanopolis salt mine outside Salina, Kansas, is mining salt resources close to BLMadministered federal mineral estate. Approximately 1,324,800 acres of BLMadministered federal mineral estate and 14,000 acres of BLM-administered surface lands 

contain salt resources (BLM GIS 2015). 

Forecast

Based on low historical demand and the widespread availability of hardrock minerals and 

mineral materials on private minerals, the BLM does not expect leasing activity 

associated with hardrock minerals and mineral materials in the next 20 years. 

Development of salt resources in the planning area, particularly in Kansas, is expected to 

continue. The Hutchinson Salt Member in Kansas contains a higher concentration of salt 

and fewer impurities than most salt beds (Sawin and Buchanan 2002). Members of the 

commercial salt industry have identified a tract of BLM-administered federal mineral 

estate near the Kanopolis mine for future salt mining. This tract is expected to be leased 

in the next 20 years. 

Key Features

Key features in the planning area are the salt resources in the western and northern 

portions of the planning area, particularly the Hutchinson Salt Member in Kansas. 
2. Area Profile

2-184 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

References

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2015a. New 

Mexico—Coal. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/prog/energy/

solid_minerals/solid_leasable_minerals/coal.print.html. 

_____. 2015b. Reasonable Foreseeable Development (RFD) for the Southern Great Plain 

Rapid Ecoregional Assessment and the Oklahoma-Texas-Kansas RMP. BLM 

Oklahoma Field Office. Forthcoming 2015. 

_____. 2015c. About Helium. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/prog/

energy/helium_program/about_helium.html. 

BLM GIS (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Geographic 

Information System). 2015. Base GIS data on file with the BLM’s eGIS server 

used for calculations or figures; includes data prepared for the reasonable 

foreseeable development scenario and Version 04_02 of the decision area. BLM, 

Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa.

Energy Information Administration. 2014. Annual Energy Outlook 2014. Pp. A-25 to A27. Internet website: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/appa.pdf. 

Johnson, Kenneth S. 2008. Mineral Deposits and Resources of Oklahoma (Exclusive of 

Oil and Gas). P. 10. In: Earth Sciences and Mineral Resources of Oklahoma 

(Kenneth S. Johnson and Kenneth V. Luza editors). Oklahoma Geological 

Survey. Educational Publication 9. Internet website: http://www.ogs.ou.edu/

pubsscanned/EP9_All.pdf. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory GIS. 2009. GIS data of geothermal potential. 

Internet website: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/data_geothermal.html. 

Oklahoma Department of Mines. 2013. Coal Production 2013 By Type of Coal (Tons). 

Internet website: http://www.ok.gov/mines/documents/CoalBedProduction

Chart2013.pdf. 

_____. 2015. Oklahoma Coal. Internet website: http://www.ok.gov/mines/Coal_Program/

Oklahoma_Coal/.

Sawin, Robert S., and Rex C. Buchanan. 2002. “Salt in Kansas.” Kansas Geological 

Survey, Public Information Circular 21. Internet website: http://www.kgs.ku.edu/

Publications/pic21/pic21_1.html. 

Texas State Energy Conservation Office. 2015. Texas Geothermal Energy. Internet 

website: http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re/geothermal/.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-185

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

2.3.2 Renewable Energy

Renewable energy consists of energy produced from wind, solar, and biomass generation 

methods.

Current Condition

Wind energy development is a rapidly growing industry throughout the planning area. 

Reliable wind resources throughout the Great Plains, combined with federal incentives 

for renewable energy development as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act, led to a proliferation of new and expanded wind energy generation facilities in 

Kansas, western Oklahoma, northwestern Texas, and the Texas gulf coast. Within the 

three-state planning area, there are 214 individual wind energy project locations (National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory 2015). Project locations contain as few as one turbine, but 

many have 50 or more. Individual turbine sizes and generation capacities vary, but 

typical commercial-scale turbines are between 200 and 300 feet tall, with +/-100-foot 

long rotors, and generation capacities between 1.5 and 3 megawatts. 

There are currently no wind or solar energy ROWs or biomass facilities on BLMadministered lands or split-estate lands where the BLM manages the subsurface mineral 

estate.

Forecast

Fewer federal incentives for renewable energy development are expected to lead to a 

slowing of the expansion of future wind energy development throughout the planning 

area. However, technological advancements are expected to gradually lower the cost per 

kilowatt hour, which could promote future development. The comparative cost of fossil 

fuel-based energy sources is also expected to dictate the amount of future wind energy 

generation facilities. Higher oil, gas, and coal prices could lead to more rapid and 

widespread wind energy development as demand for more sustainable energy sources 

grows. Lower prices for carbon-based energy products could also fuel wind energy 

development as investors seek higher and more sustainable returns on energy 

investments.

Key Features

While wind resources in the planning area are generally favorable for utility-scale wind 

energy development, the scattered nature of BLM and BIA landownership limits the 

likelihood of future development in the decision area. Legal access to BLM-administered 

and BIA trust lands further complicates renewable energy development opportunities in 

the decision area. Within the planning area where wind resources are highest, wind 

energy development is most likely where energy generation is compatible with the 

existing land use (e.g., agriculture).

References

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2015. Open EI: Map of Wind Farms. Internet 

website: http://en.openei.org/wiki/Map_of_Wind_Farms. Accessed in January 

2015.
2. Area Profile

2-186 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

2.3.3 Recreation and Visitor Services

Current Condition

There are a multitude of recreation opportunities in the 269-million-acre planning area. 

Many activities take place on surface lands not managed by the BLM, including state 

parks, state and federally managed reservoirs, and other destinations.

Recreation is also popular along stretches of the Red River, including near Waurika, 

Oklahoma. Off-highway vehicle riding, bird watching, fishing, picnicking, hunting, and 

hiking are common activities on BLM-administered land and private lands along the 

river. Recreation on BLM-administered lands has increased dramatically in the past 10 

years.

Hunting is a popular seasonal activity throughout the planning area and is regulated at the 

applicable tribal or state government level.

Oklahoma

The Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department provides recreation opportunities 

statewide at 35 state parks. Four of those parks charge day-use fees, but access to the 

other 31 is free. Common activities are boating and fishing, hunting, camping, hiking, 

horseback riding, and mountain biking (Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department 

2015).

A portion of one national forest and two national grasslands occur in Oklahoma. They 

offer many dispersed and developed recreation opportunities, many of which are centered 

on Lake Ouachita and Broken Bow Reservoir in Ouachita National Forest in eastern 

Oklahoma. 

Dispersed recreation also occurs on public land throughout Oklahoma. On BLMadministered lands and federal mineral estate, low levels of hiking, hunting, camping, 

sightseeing, and driving for pleasure are occurring, primarily along the Canadian River 

corridor and existing roads.

Recreation along the Red River corridor is discussed under Key Features, below.

Texas

Texas Parks and Wildlife administers 103 state parks and historical sites. These 

properties provide a wide variety of recreation opportunities, from camping and hunting 

to hiking and mountain biking, and horseback riding. Daily or annual passes are required 

for entrance to many parks and historical sites.

There are four national forests and four national grasslands in Texas, totaling over one 

million acres. OHV riding, hunting, hiking, camping, fishing, and other dispersed and 

developed recreation activities are popular on National Forest System land.

The only BLM-administered surface land in Texas is the 11,800-acre Cross Bar Ranch

near Amarillo. It is discussed in more detail under Key Features, below.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-187

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Kansas

The Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism manages 26 state parks. Most 

offer camping, wildlife viewing, and access to reservoirs for water-based recreation. 

Daily and seasonal passes are available for purchase. Recreation activities are hunting, 

fishing, boating, hiking, camping, wildlife viewing, mountain biking, and horseback 

riding (Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism 2015).

The Cimarron National Grassland is in the southwest corner of Kansas. Popular activities 

are hunting, wildlife viewing, camping and picnicking, hiking, and interpretive education 

(Forest Service 2015). 

Tribal Jurisdictional Lands

Recreation on tribal jurisdictional lands is generally restricted for nontribal members. 

Tribes establish their own policies for public access, including recreation. Recreational 

activities, such as hunting and fishing, require applicable tribal permits and permission.

Forecast

Recreation is expected to continue to be a popular use for the life of the plan. This is 

especially true for areas experiencing population growth, including expanding urban 

areas in the planning area. Developed recreation areas, including state parks, reservoirs, 

and other locations with recreation facilities, may experience greater increases in 

visitation than undeveloped areas because of greater certainty of long-term public access.

Key Features

Stretches of the Red River corridor have become popular recreation areas. The area of 

public land south of Waurika, Oklahoma, next to State Route 79, has extensive 

recreational use. Other than posting signs, the BLM does not have an active day-to-day 

management presence in this part of the river. OHV riding is especially popular, and

users ride cross-country and on a series of user-created trails; the lack of signs makes it 

difficult for users to determine land management boundaries and results in frequent 

trespass onto private land. Some users also camp in this area during multi-day trips.

In addition to OHV use, bird-watching and wildlife viewing are also common activities 

along portions of the Red River. There are a series of unofficial trails users can follow, 

but access often requires traversing private land.

The Cross Bar Ranch, an 11,800-acre parcel near Amarillo, Texas, in the Amarillo Field 

Office, was originally acquired as a strategic helium reserve; today it also serves as a 

research area. The ranch is surrounded by private land, and public access is limited to 

hiking in along the Canadian River. As a result, the area receives low recreation use, 

primarily by archery hunters. 

The planning area includes many reservoirs and other parcels where the BLM administers 

federal mineral estate but does not manage any surface uses, including recreation.
2. Area Profile

2-188 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

References

Forest Service. 2015. Pike and San Isabel National Forests Cimarron and Comanche 

National Grasslands. Internet website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/psicc/

aboutforest/districts/?cid=fsm9_032733. 

Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism. 2015. Your Official Guide to Kansas 

State Parks. Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism, Topeka.

Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department. 2015. State Park Frequently Asked 

Questions. Internet website: http://www.travelok.com/article_page/stateparkfaqs. 

2.3.4 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

In the past, comprehensive and proactive transportation planning has not been an 

emphasis in BLM RMPs. The development of transportation routes, whether planned 

through projects such as oil and gas developments or created by recreation users, has 

traditionally been viewed as an acceptable part of the development of BLM lands. 

Research from the past 20 years on the impacts of roads on resources, wildlife, and other 

users and actual experience by the BLM on these impacts is increasing the need for welldesigned and integrated transportation planning. 

Current Condition

Travel and transportation is extensive across the planning area and includes routes 

ranging from interstate highways to foot trails. Routes are managed by a variety of 

entities at the federal, state, and local level. 

There is no management framework for travel and transportation on BLM-administered 

land in the planning area; previous RMPs did not analyze this use. While most scattered 

parcels of BLM-administered land receive little to no travel, land along the Red River has 

become increasingly popular for OHV use. This has resulted in a need to allocate BLMadministered land as open, limited, or closed to OHV use, in accordance with federal 

regulations in 43 CFR, Part 8340.

Forecast

Population growth and an increasing awareness of BLM-administered land as a 

recreation destination are expected to drive the trend toward additional recreational use 

and accompanying requests for improved access. 

Travel is expected to increase throughout the life of the plan, especially as recreation 

becomes more popular. Areas along the Red River will require specific management for 

OHV travel to mitigate damage to vegetation and riparian areas.

Key Features

The Red River near Waurika, Oklahoma, is a popular recreation destination; as such, 

routes near it receive moderate to heavy vehicle use. None of the routes on BLMadministered land have been designated for public use, and the area has not previously 

been analyzed for OHV use or associated management allocations. 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-189

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Likewise, there is no current management allocation for OHV use in the Cross Bar 

Ranch. The ranch is surrounded by private land, though an easement has been acquired 

that may provide public access in the future. If access is improved, there will likely be an 

increased demand for creating designated routes for motorized and nonmotorized use on 

the ranch. There are a total of 32.8 miles of roads and trails at the Cross Bar Ranch, 

though they are not designated for specific types of vehicles or uses (BLM GIS 2015).

Off-Highway Vehicle Management Areas

Off-highway vehicle is synonymous with off-road vehicle. Off-road vehicle is defined in 

43 CFR, Part 8340.0-5(a): Off-road vehicle means any motorized/battery-powered 

vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or other 

natural terrain, excluding: 1) Any non-amphibious registered motorboat; 2) Any military, 

fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for emergency purposes; 3) 

Any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer or otherwise 

officially approved; 4) Vehicles in official use; and 5) Any combat or combat-support 

vehicle when used in times of national defense emergencies. Types of OHVs commonly 

used on public lands include dirt motorcycles, dune buggies, sand rails, jeeps, four-wheel 

drive vehicles, snowmobiles, and all-terrain vehicles. 

The BLM’s regulations for OHV management, 43 CFR, Part 8342.1, stipulate “the 

authorized officer shall designate all BLM lands as either open, limited, or closed to 

[OHVs].” As such, all BLM lands in the planning area need to be designated in one of 

three OHV designation categories, as follows:

 Open area designations are used for intensive OHV or other transportation use 

areas where there are no special restrictions or where there are no compelling 

resource protection needs, user conflicts, or public safety issues to warrant 

limiting cross-country travel. 

 Limited area designations are used where travel must be restricted to meet 

specific resource and/or resource use objectives. In accordance with BLM 

Travel and Transportation Manual 1626, areas classified as limited, the BLM 

must consider a full range of possibilities, including travel that will be limited 

to types or modes of travel, such as foot, equestrian, bicycle, and motorized; 

limited to existing roads and trails; limited to time or season of use; limited to 

certain types of vehicles (e.g., motorcycles, all terrain, and high clearance); 

limited to licensed or permitted vehicles or users; limited to BLM 

administrative use only; or other types of limitations. In addition, the BLM 

must provide specific guidance about the process for managing motorized 

vehicle access for authorized, permitted, or otherwise approved vehicles for 

those specific categories of motorized vehicle uses that are exempt from a 

limited designation. 

 Closed area designations prohibit any and all motorized travel and 

transportation. Areas or trails are designated closed if closure to all vehicular 

use is necessary to protect resources, promote visitor safety, or reduce use 

conflicts. Non-motorized uses are permitted in these areas.
2. Area Profile

2-190 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

References

BLM GIS (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Geographic 

Information System). 2015. Base GIS data on file with the BLM’s eGIS server 

used for calculations or figures; includes data prepared for the reasonable 

foreseeable development scenario and Version 04_02 of the decision area. BLM, 

Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa.

2.3.5 Lands and Realty

Land Use Authorizations

Current Condition

On BLM-administered lands, the BLM authorizes certain land use activities, mainly by 

issuing rights-of-way (ROWs) and leases. Examples of ROWs are roads (e.g., highways), 

electrical distribution and transmission lines, pipelines, and wind and solar energy 

generation facilities. The BLM typically issues leases for communication sites. 

The following analysis describes these types of land uses generally for the broad planning 

area and more specifically for BLM-administered lands. For analysis of wind and solar 

energy ROWs, see Section 2.3.3, Renewable Energy. 

Kansas and Oklahoma

The State of Kansas has an average population density of 35 people per square mile, 

while in Oklahoma the population per square mile is 55. The averages for both states are 

below the national average of 87 people per square mile. The largest population centers 

in the planning area are Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Wichita and Topeka, 

Kansas. Collectively, these four cities have a population of 1,523,000 and account for 

nearly a quarter of the two-state population (US Census Bureau 2010). Major land use 

authorizations, such as highways, electrical transmission lines, pipelines, and 

communication equipment, are more concentrated near these and other smaller urban 

centers. In general, rural areas have a lower density of ROWs and other infrastructure. In 

rural areas, most roads, power lines, and other linear features follow Public Land 

Surveying System section lines. 

Approximately 31,500 acres of BLM-administered surface lands are next to the Red 

River, along the Oklahoma-Texas border. BLM-administered lands along the Red River 

consist of scattered parcels and contiguous land holdings, generally ranging in size from 

less than one acre to approximately 200 acres. In general, these isolated parcels contain 

few roads, pipelines, transmission lines, or other similar uses.

BLM-administered subsurface estate accounts for approximately 4,754,700 acres in the 

planning area. These areas are most prevalent in eastern Oklahoma, but are also scattered 

throughout the two states. On the surface, infrastructure-related land uses consist of a 

variety of power lines, pipelines, roadways, and communication facilities, as well as 

typical urban development, agricultural lands, and undeveloped open space. 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-191

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Texas

Texas has a population density of 96 people per square mile, which is more than the 

national average of 87 and a total population in 2013 of 26,448,000. Cities such as 

Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin are some of the most rapidly growing urban 

areas in the country. Between 2010 and 2013, for example, the population of Austin grew 

by 9.2 percent. With a total population of 2,196,000, Houston is the fourth most populous 

city in the country. Regional road, electrical, gas, oil, and communication infrastructure 

in place to support these large and expanding urban areas is substantial, with 

infrastructure systems extending far beyond the cities’ geographic centers. In rural areas, 

infrastructure is a less dominant element of the overall landscape. Infrastructure patterns 

in Texas are also less predictable because it largely did not use the Public Land 

Surveying System to allocate landownership. Roads and other linear features tend to 

cross the landscape in an assortment of directions rather than the grid pattern 

characteristic throughout the northern portion of the planning area in Oklahoma and 

Kansas. 

There is a cluster of approximately 11,800 acres of BLM-administered surface lands, the 

Cross Bar Ranch, northwest of Amarillo. There are two large transmission lines that cross 

through the center of the cluster from north to south (BLM GIS 2015). There are also 

several unpaved access roads in this area. It is unclear, however, if the BLM issued 

ROWs for these uses. 

The current management direction for lands and realty is considered adequate to ensure 

continued management of lands in the planning area. Management decisions in the 

planning area could identify ROW avoidance or exclusion areas to better protect 

resources. Public utility corridors for power lines, pipelines, communication sites, and 

communication ROWs could be identified as well. 

Throughout the planning area, unauthorized uses on BLM-administered lands are an 

ongoing management concern. The BLM is aware of approximately 10 pipelines crossing 

the Red River and potentially affecting BLM-administered lands that have not been 

formally authorized through the BLM ROW process. Other potential unauthorized uses 

and trespass cases are thought to be present; however, the BLM is unclear of the nature 

and extent of these issues. 

Due to the isolated and scattered nature of the BLM landownership pattern in the 

planning area, access to BLM-administered lands is also a management concern. The 

BLM is aware that people trespass across adjacent private lands to reach federal lands. 

This is especially prevalent along the Red River. 

Forecast

Overall demand for land use authorizations in the planning area is anticipated to increase 

as a result of continued regional population expansion, future subsurface mineral 

development, renewable energy development, and demand from other uses such as 

agricultural and manufacturing.
2. Area Profile

2-192 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Key Features

Land use authorizations in the planning area consist of major roadways, high-voltage 

electrical transmission lines, electrical distribution lines, pipelines, and communication 

sites. In general, there is a higher concentration of ROWs and communication sites near 

large urban areas with fewer infrastructure-related uses in the rural areas. The BLM will 

continue to evaluate applications for land use authorizations for compatibility with valid 

existing rights and uses.

Possible indicators are as follows:

 Change in the nature and type of ROWs and leases on BLM-administered 

lands 

 Acres designated as ROW avoidance or exclusion on BLM-administered 

lands

 Acres on BLM-administered lands within designated utility corridors 

Land Tenure

Current Condition

The distribution of landownership directly influences the current level and locations of 

uses influencing BLM management in the planning area. BLM-administered lands are 

highly scattered and represent less than one percent of the total landownership in the 

planning area. The most concentrated areas of contiguous ownership are along the Red 

River in southwestern Oklahoma and northern Texas. Surface land in the planning area is 

administered by or owned by numerous federal agencies and tribal, state, and private 

entities (Table 1-1). 

The BLM administers approximately 4,754,700 acres of subsurface mineral estate within 

the planning area. Surface uses vary in ownership and types and intensity of uses, which

may limit opportunities for developing the underlying mineral resources. In split-estate 

areas where existing mineral development activity is present on the surface, surface 

owners have the responsibility to consider compatibility of any surface land uses with the 

existing mineral development activity. In some areas, incompatible uses (e.g., electrical 

or transportation infrastructure) could be precluded or required to use an alternative 

design to avoid conflict with any subsurface mineral development activities.

In the planning area, there are five National Forest System national grasslands and five

national forests. In addition, the Big Bend National Park in Texas near the Mexican 

border and the eastern portion of Guadalupe Mountains National Park in far northwestern 

Texas are within the planning area. The BLM does not manage Forest Service minerals, 

just the permits. The BLM is the leasing agent for the Forest Service, but the Forest 

Service plans and stipulates the restrictions for the leases. However, the BLM does 

manage the subsurface mineral split-estate within the administrative boundaries of all six

national grasslands and five national forests in the planning area.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-193

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

BLM-administered lands are retained in federal ownership, as mandated by the FLPMA, 

with the exception of lands identified in a land use plan for disposal. To be eligible for 

disposal, lands must meet certain FLPMA criteria, such as being isolated or difficult to 

manage, or they must have the potential to support community expansion, economic 

development, or other public purposes. Withdrawn BLM-administered lands remain 

under title with the BLM but are managed by another federal entity and are not available 

for sale or exchange. 

In accordance with the 1987 Planning Analysis for Proposed Disposal of Public Lands in 

Kansas and 1988 Supplemental Planning Analysis, all BLM-administered lands in 

Kansas were disposed of through procedures outlined in 43 CFR, Parts 2710 or 2740. At 

the time of the 1987 and 1988 analyses, the BLM had not identified all public lands in the 

state. In Oklahoma, similar direction provided by the BLM Director in 1982 initiated a 

program to dispose of the remaining 8,200 acres of identified lands. Subsequent BLM 

analyses between 1982 and 1994 identified townsites that had not been patented and 

remained in public ownership. The BLM also conducted a landownership analysis as part 

of this RMP Amendment (RMPA), which identified 2,000 acres of BLM-administered 

surface estate, 4,500 acres of land that had been conveyed out of federal ownership, and 

1,700 acres of lands of unknown status, or where discrepancies regarding landownership 

remain unresolved (BLM GIS 2015).

One of the primary mechanisms the BLM uses to dispose of federal lands in the planning 

area is the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1954 (68 Statute 173; 43 USC, Section 

869 et seq.). Through the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, the BLM can sell or lease 

federal lands to state and local governments or qualified nonprofit organizations for a 

range of public or recreational purposes, including public parks, campgrounds, schools, 

and landfills and for other public service facilities, such as police and fire stations. 

Recipients of lands transferred out of federal ownership via the Recreation and Public 

Purposes Act maintain a patent and are deeded the title of ownership under the condition 

that the lands be used for the specified public purpose. In the event that the new owner 

fails to develop the public facility or use for which the lands were transferred, then the 

lands revert to federal ownership. Over the past 25 years, the BLM has issued Recreation 

and Public Purposes Act patents for approximately 2,600 acres in the planning area. Of 

these, approximately 700 acres have either reverted to federal ownership or have an 

unknown or unresolved landownership status. Lands reverted to public ownership are 

identified for disposal.

Forecast

FLPMA states that BLM-administered lands should be retained in federal ownership 

unless adjustment is in the public interest. Therefore, public surface will remain under 

BLM administration if resources of national, state, or regional significance are found on 

them and the possible adverse effects of the adjustment action cannot be mitigated at 

reasonable cost. Examples of such resources are habitat for threatened or endangered 

species, riparian areas, wetlands, mining claims, and important cultural resources.
2. Area Profile

2-194 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Disposals will continue to be considered if such actions would accomplish any of the 

following:

 Support the multiple use mandate

 Meet the implementation of special acts and support the growth and 

development of communities or agriculture

 Dispose of lands with little or no value to the public

 Transfer ownership of lands that have been used as landfills or other lands that 

may be a liability to the public interest

 Settle trespass

The BLM will continue to evaluate land tenure adjustments on a case-by-case basis. All 

proposals will be given full consideration of public benefits and land management goals. 

Land tenure adjustments are anticipated to continue as the BLM evaluates the practicality 

and efficiency of managing existing surface estate. Lands determined to be inefficient to 

manage and having limited to no resource or resource use potential will be considered for 

disposal. 

Additional land tenure actions may be necessary along the Red River as ongoing 

adjudication and land surveys verify existing landownership. Where public recreation 

values exist on BLM-administered lands along the Red River, the BLM will evaluate 

opportunities to support and provide access to those areas. Where lack of access prohibits 

effective BLM management of federal lands, the BLM will consider those lands for 

disposal. 

Key Features

The noncontiguous land pattern caused by the implementation of previous disposals, 

special acts, patents, and land grants presents the greatest management challenge and 

results in overlapping interests on BLM-administered lands. 

The one possible indicator is a change in the total acres of BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area.

Withdrawals

The BLM currently has no land withdrawals, and no future land withdrawals are 

proposed in the planning area.

Current Condition

There are no withdrawn lands in the planning area.

Forecast

The BLM does not anticipate the need for future land withdrawals.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-195

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Key Features

The on possible indicator is a change in the total area of land withdrawals in the planning 

area.

References

BLM GIS (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Geographic 

Information System). 2015. Base GIS data on file with the BLM’s eGIS server 

used for calculations or figures; includes data prepared for the reasonable 

foreseeable development scenario and Version 04_02 of the decision area. BLM, 

Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa.

US Census Bureau. 2010. Census of Population, Public Law 94-171 Redistricting Data 

File. Internet website: http://quickfacts.census.gov/. 

2.3.6 Livestock Grazing

Current Condition

There are four active BLM grazing leases being administered in Oklahoma. Three of 

these lie along the north bank of the Red River (in the Red River Management Area): two 

in Tillman County and one in Jefferson County. The fourth grazing lease is on the South 

Canadian River in Blaine County (see Table 2-28 and Figure 2-23).

Table 2-28

BLM Grazing Allotments*

Allotment Name Total Acres Season of Use Total Animal 

Unit Months

Tillman 1 147 March 1 to February 28 51

Tillman 2 92 March 1 to February 28 36

Blaine 1 29 March 1 to February 28 36

Jefferson 1 167 March 1 to February 28 15

Source: BLM 20155

*All grazing allotments are for cattle.

Trends

Grazing has not been a big resource use on BLM-administered surface lands in the 

planning area. In the absence of a well-defined south bank (state line), the public lands in 

the Red River Management Area historically have been grazed by livestock generally 

owned by Texas ranchers on private lands adjacent to the Red River public lands.

 

5Melinda Fisher, BLM, personal communication via e-mail to Holly Prohaska, EMPSi, regarding OKT RMP 

Livestock Grazing and Wild Horses, January 20, 2015.

2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-197

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Forecast

Future trends in grazing depend on such environmental factors as water availability and 

demand; therefore, at this time it is unknown if grazing on BLM-administered lands will 

continue or expand. 

Key Features

The public lands in the Red River Management Area do not possess value for livestock 

grazing because they lack consistent water. Mesquite encroachment is significant to the 

point that forage production is dropping drastically. Combating mesquite would be a 

huge undertaking, considering the size of the allotments and resources available in the 

OFO to complete vegetation projects such as these. In addition, there are no fences 

around the allotments and keeping fences up in the river/sandy soil would be a challenge.

References

BLM GIS (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Geographic 

Information System). 2015. Base GIS data on file with the BLM’s eGIS server 

used for calculations or figures; includes data prepared for the reasonable 

foreseeable development scenario and Version 04_02 of the decision area. BLM, 

Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa.

2.3.7 Prime and Unique Farmlands/Agriculture

The planning area contains soils that are considered suitable for farmland applications 

and are protected by the Farmland Protection Policy Act, under the Agricultural Food Act 

of 1981. Farmlands are classified as prime, unique, or farmlands of state or local 

importance. Prime and unique farmlands are those that have the best combination of 

physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and 

other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, or labor. The 

Farmland Protection Policy Act is intended to minimize impact of federal programs by 

reducing the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. 

If a project has the potential to convert important farmlands to nonagricultural uses, then 

the project proponent must submit a farmland conversion impact rating form to the 

NRCS.

Current Condition

According to NRCS data, there are prime farmlands, prime farmlands of statewide 

importance, prime farmlands if drained or irrigated, and prime farmlands if protected 

from flooding on BLM-administered lands in the decision area, as shown in Table 2-29

and Figure 2-24, Prime Farmland.

2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-199

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-29

Prime Farmlands in the BLM Decision Area

Farmland 

Type

BLMAdministered

Surface 

Lands

BLMAdministered

Federal Mineral 

Estate

BIAAdministered 

Tribal and 

Allotted Lands

BIA-Administered 

Tribal and Allotted 

Subsurface 

Minerals Estate

Kansas

Prime farmland 0 224,900 7,600 7,600

Farmland of 

statewide 

importance

0 114,400 19,700 19,700

Prime farmland 

if drained

0 1,100 1,000 1,000

Prime farmland 

if irrigated

0 8,500 0 0

Not prime 

farmland

0 303,900 1,500 1,500

Nebraska

Prime farmland 0 0 200 200

Farmland of 

statewide 

importance

0 0 200 200

Not prime 

farmland

0 0 500 500

Oklahoma 

Prime farmland 400 425,000 379,700 956,700

Not prime 

farmland

34,600 1,385,500 435,400 1,651,400

Texas

Prime farmland 4,700 348,400 1,600 1,700

Prime farmland 

if drained

0 15,200 0 0

Prime farmland 

if irrigated

0 38,200 100 100

Prime farmland 

if protected 

from flooding

0 2,500 0 0

Not prime 

farmland

7,100 1,755,200 2,900 3,000

Source: NRCS GIS 2015

Forecast

The planning area is projected to have high levels of new oil and gas activity. Soils with 

farmland characteristics are generally avoided when siting oil and gas or other 
2. Area Profile

2-200 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

development features, but farmlands disturbed by topsoil excavation and soils 

compaction would change these soils. Stockpiling the soil horizons separately and 

spreading them across the site in their original order during reclamation could prevent 

this change.

Key Features

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. Also 

appropriate mitigation measures would be identified to minimize any unnecessary and 

irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

References

NRCS GIS 2015. Published GIS data of soil attributes from the gSSURGO soil database. 

Received April 2015. 

2.4 BLM SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

2.4.1 Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas

Under FLPMA, wilderness preservation is part of the BLM’s multiple use mandate. 

Wilderness is recognized as part of a spectrum of resource values to be considered during 

land use planning. As set forth in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964, wilderness

is defined as having the following characteristics: natural, untrammeled, and undeveloped 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation and (optionally) unique, 

supplemental, or other features. Table 2-30 lists wildernesses in the planning area (there 

are no wilderness areas in Kansas).

Table 2-30

Wilderness in Oklahoma and Texas

Wilderness Name Management Agency

Oklahoma

Black Fork Mountain Wilderness Forest Service

Upper Kiamichi River Wilderness Forest Service

Wichita Mountains Wilderness USFWS

Texas

Big Slough Wilderness Forest Service

Guadalupe Mountains Wilderness National Park Service

Indian Mounds Wilderness Forest Service

Little Lake Creek Wilderness Forest Service

Turkey Hill Wilderness Forest Service

Upland Island Wilderness Forest Service

Big Bend Wilderness (proposed) National Park Service

Source: Wilderness.net 2015a, 2015b

The Black Fork Mountain Wilderness, Upper Kiamichi River Wilderness, and Wichita 

Mountains Wilderness overlap BLM-administered federal mineral estate (Wilderness.net 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-201

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

GIS 2014). According to the Wilderness Act of 1964, except where there are valid 

existing rights, the minerals in designated wilderness areas are withdrawn from all forms 

of appropriation under the mining laws and from disposition under all laws pertaining to 

mineral leasing (Public Law 88-577). Therefore, the EIS will not result in any decisions 

that will impact these areas, and this resource topic will not be carried forward in the joint 

EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP.

Wilderness study areas are lands with wilderness characteristics identified through the 

wilderness review required by Section 603 of FLPMA, Congressional legislation, or the

land use planning process in Section 202 of FLPMA. There are no wilderness study areas 

in the planning area. Therefore, this resource topic will not be carried forward in the joint 

EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP.

References

Wilderness.net. 2015a. List of Wilderness Areas by Location—Oklahoma. Internet 

website: http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/stateView?state=OK. 

_____. 2015b. List of Wilderness Areas by Location—Texas. Internet website: 

http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/stateView?state=TX. 

Wilderness.net GIS. 2014. GIS data of designated wilderness areas. Internet website: 

http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/geography. 

2.4.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

An ACEC is defined in FLPMA, Section 103(a). It is an area within BLM-administered 

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 to 

other natural systems or processes or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. BLM 

regulations for implementing the ACEC provisions of the FLPMA are found in 43 CFR, 

Part 1610.7-2(b).

To be eligible for consideration as an ACEC, the area must meet criteria of relevance and 

importance found in 43 CFR, Part 1610-7-2(a)(b). An ACEC possesses significant 

historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish or wildlife resources (including habitat, 

communities, or species), natural processes or systems, or natural hazards. In addition, 

the significance of these values and resources must be substantial in order to satisfy the 

importance criteria.

There are no ACECs in the planning area, and no nominations for ACECs were received 

during public scoping. The Cross Bar Ranch has been discussed internally as a possible 

ACEC nomination. It is yet to be determined whether portions of this area will be brought 

forward as an ACEC in the joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP.

2.4.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers

Wild and scenic rivers are streams or stream segments designated by Congress under the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 USC, Sections 1271-1287; Public Law 90-542, 
2. Area Profile

2-202 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

as amended). The purposes of wild and scenic river designation are to preserve the stream 

or stream section in its free-flowing condition and to preserve water quality. The act’s 

other purpose is to protect outstandingly remarkable values, which are identified on a 

segment-specific basis. They may include scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, 

historic, cultural, or other similar values.

There are no wild and scenic rivers in Oklahoma or Kansas, as designated under the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Council 2015). In

Texas, 191.2 miles of the Rio Grande are designated; 95.2 miles are classified as wild and 

96 miles are classified as scenic (Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Council 2015). No 

portions of this wild and scenic river overlap with BLM-administered federal mineral 

estate, so this resource topic will not be carried forward in the joint EIS/BLM RMP and 

BIA Integrated RMP (Rivers.gov GIS 2009).

However, there are state-designated scenic river areas that overlap with BLMadministered federal mineral estate. Designated under Oklahoma’s Scenic Rivers Act 

(Oklahoma Statute Title 82, Sections 1451-1471), six scenic river areas are to be 

preserved as part of Oklahoma's diminishing resource of free-flowing rivers and streams

(Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Act 1983). These rivers were found to possess unique natural 

scenic beauty, water conservation, fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreational values of 

present and future benefit. A total of 31.6 miles of Oklahoma’s scenic river areas overlap 

BLM-administered federal mineral estate; none overlap BLM-administered surface lands

(see Table 2-31 and Figure 2-25 illustrates these rivers).

Table 2-31

Oklahoma Scenic River Areas

River Name Total Miles

Miles on BLMAdministered Federal 

Mineral Estate

Flint Creek 13.7 0

Illinois River 62.9 5.2

Baron Fork 29.4 3.8

Mountain Fork 48.5 22.5

Lee Creek 17.9 0

Little Lee Creek 25.9 0.1

Total 198.3 31.6

Sources: Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Act 1983; National Hydrography Dataset GIS 2013

Note: Miles are rounded to the nearest 1/10th.

2. Area Profile

2-204 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

References

Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Council. 2015. River Mileage Classifications for 

Components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. January 2015. 

National Hydrography Dataset GIS. 2013. GIS data of rivers used to create GIS of the 

Oklahoma scenic rivers based on textual descriptions and to describe perennial, 

intermittent, and ephemeral streams. Internet website: http://datagateway.nrcs

.usda.gov. 

Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Act. 1983. Oklahoma Statute Title 82, Sections 1451-1471. 

Amended June 29, 1983. Rivers.gov GIS. 2009. GIS data of designated wild and

scenic rivers. Data last updated 2009. Internet website: www.rivers.gov. 

Rivers.gov GIS. 2009. GIS data of designated wild and scenic rivers. Data last updated 

2009. Internet website: rivers.gov. 

2.4.4 National Historic Trails

Congress designates national historic trails under the National Trails System Act of 1968.

BLM Manual 6250, National Scenic and Historic Trail Administration (BLM 2012a), and 

BLM Manual 6280, Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails and Trails Under 

Study or Recommended as Suitable for Congressional Designation (BLM 2012b), 

contain policy for the management and administration of congressionally designated 

national historic trails. BLM Manual 6100, National Landscape Conservation System 

Management (BLM 2012c), also provides guidance on managing the areas as part of the 

National Landscape Conservation System.

National historic trails are extended trails that closely follow a historic trail or route of 

travel of national significance. Congress identifies and protects historic routes, historic 

remnants, and artifacts for public use and enjoyment. They must meet the following 

criteria listed in Section 5(b)(11) of the National Trails System Act:

 Follow actual documented route of historic use

 Be of national significance

 Possess significant potential for public recreation and interpretation

There are six national historic trails in the planning area, covering 4,761.6 miles (see

Table 2-32, National Historic Trails, and Figure 2-26). Of these, 70.2 miles are on BLMadministered federal mineral estate; none are on BLM-administered surface lands.

2. Area Profile

2-206 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-32

National Historic Trails

Trail Name 

Miles in 

Planning 

Area

Miles on BLMAdministered Federal 

Mineral Estate

Oklahoma

Butterfield Overland National Historic Trail 

(proposed) 185.6 7.6

Chisholm National Historic Trail (proposed) 282.9 0

Santa Fe National Historic Trail 76.3 1.3

Trail of Tears National Historic Trail 94.4 25.4

Total 639.2 34.3

Kansas

California National Historic Trail 346 1.9

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail 48.6 0

Oregon National Historic Trail 179.7 1.9

Pony Express National Historic Trail 132.7 0

Santa Fe National Historic Trail 985.6 0.5

Total 1,692.9 4.3

Texas

Chisholm National Historic Trail (proposed) 1.4 0

El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail 2,428.1 31.9

Total 2,429.5 31.9

Sources: National Park Service 2010, BLM GIS 2015

Note: Miles are rounded to the nearest 1/10th.

References

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2012a. BLM 

Manual 6250—National Scenic and Historic Trail Administration. Rel. 6-133. 

Washington, DC. July 13, 2012.

. 2012b. Manual 6280—Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails and 

Trails Under Study or Recommended as Suitable for Congressional Designation. 

Rel. 6-139. Washington, DC. September 24, 2012.

. 2012c. BLM Manual 6100— National Landscape Conservation System 

Management. Rel. 6-131. Washington, DC. July 13, 2012.

BLM GIS (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Geographic 

Information System). 2015. Base GIS data on file with the BLM’s eGIS server 

used for calculations or figures; includes data prepared for the reasonable 

foreseeable development scenario and Version 04_02 of the decision area. BLM, 

Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-207

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

National Park Service. 2010. National Trails System Map. Internet website: 

http://www.nps.gov/nts/maps.html. 

NPS GIS. 2015. GIS data of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. National Park 

Service. Internet website: http://imgis.nps.gov/DSC/Viewer/?Viewer=LECL. 

Scenicbyways.info GIS. 2015. GIS data of scenic byways. Byway routes opened in 

Furkot.com and exported as a gpx file. Google Earth was used to create a kmz of 

each byway polyline. Internet website: www.scenicbyways.info.

2.4.5 National, State, and BLM Scenic Byways

National and State Scenic Byways

The National Scenic Byways Program was established under the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and was reauthorized in 1998 under the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. The program recognizes certain roads as 

National Scenic Byways or All-American Roads, based on their archaeological, cultural, 

historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities. All-American Roads must exhibit 

multiple intrinsic qualities to be considered for inclusion in the program. A highway must

provide safe passage for passenger cars year-round, be designated a State Scenic Byway, 

and have a current corridor management plan in place. Off-site outdoor advertising (such 

as billboards) is not allowed along scenic byways.

Scenic byways are found throughout the planning area. There are 7 in Oklahoma, 11 in 

Kansas, and 10 in Texas, covering a total of 8,182 miles. Of these, 0.1 mile is on BLMadministered surface lands, and 146.5 miles are on BLM-administered federal mineral 

estate (Scenicbyways.info GIS 2015). Table 2-33 describes byways that cross federal 

mineral estate (see also Figure 2-27). 

Table 2-33

Scenic Byways Crossing Federal Mineral Estate

Byway Name Designation Type

Miles in 

Planning 

Area

Miles on BLMAdministered 

Surface Lands

Miles on BLMAdministered 

Federal 

Mineral Estate

Oklahoma

Cherokee Hills 

Byway

National Scenic 

Byway

84.7 0 6.6

Historic Route 66—

Oklahoma

All-American 

Road, National 

Scenic Byway

22.9 0.1 2.6

Mountain Gateway 

Scenic Byway

State Byway 23.2 0 3.8

Mountain Pass Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 65.7 0 0
2. Area Profile

2-208 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-33

Scenic Byways Crossing Federal Mineral Estate

Byway Name Designation Type

Miles in 

Planning 

Area

Miles on BLMAdministered 

Surface Lands

Miles on BLMAdministered 

Federal 

Mineral Estate

Osage Nation 

Heritage Trail 

Byway

State Byway 34.7 0 0.5

Talimena Scenic 

Drive—Oklahoma

National Scenic 

Byway

105.4 0 0

Wichita Mountains 

Byway

National Scenic 

Byway

391.6 0 23.5

Total (Oklahoma) 728.2 0.1 13

Kansas

Flint Hills Scenic 

Byway

National Scenic 

Byway

43.1 0 0

Frontier Military 

Historic Byway

State Byway 172.2 0 0

Glacial Hills Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 63.2 0 0

Gypsum Hills Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 35.9 0 0

Kansas Historic 

Route 66 Byway

State Byway 11.3 0 0

Native Stone Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 49 0 0

Post Rock Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 14.7 0 2.3

Prairie Trail Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 55.8 0 2.8

Smoky Valley Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 60.9 0 3.4

Western Vistas 

Historic Byway

State Byway 93.3 0 0.3

Wetlands and 

Wildlife Scenic 

Byway

National Scenic 

Byway

75.9 0 4.1

Total (Kansas) 673.9 0 12.9

Texas

Texas Brazos Trail State Byway 471.2 0 16.5

Texas Forest Trail State Byway 836.4 0 35.9

Texas Forts Trail State Byway 673.6 0 3.8

Texas Hill Country 

Trail

State Byway 634.6 0 0.3
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-209

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-33

Scenic Byways Crossing Federal Mineral Estate

Byway Name Designation Type

Miles in 

Planning 

Area

Miles on BLMAdministered 

Surface Lands

Miles on BLMAdministered 

Federal 

Mineral Estate

Texas Independence 

Trail

State Byway 717.9 0 2

Texas Lakes Trail State Byway 650.3 0 18

Texas Mountain Trail State Byway 688.7 0 2.3

Texas Pecos Trail State Byway 696.1 0 5.3

Texas Plains Trail State Byway 684.1 0 0.4

Texas Tropical Trail State Byway 673 0 12.6

Total (Texas) 6,725.9 0 97.1

Sources: Scenic Byways 2015, Federal Highway Administration 2015, Scenicbyways.info GIS 2015

Note: Miles are rounded to the nearest 1/10th. 

BLM Backcountry Byways

The National Backcountry Byway Program is the BLM’s unique contribution to the 

larger National Scenic Byways Program. BLM Backcountry Byways fall into one of the 

following category types (BLM 2014, 2004):

 Type I—Roads are paved or have an all-weather surface and have grades that 

are negotiable by a normal touring car. These roads are usually narrow, slow 

speed, secondary roads. 

 Type II—Roads require high-clearance vehicles, such as trucks or four-wheel 

drives. These roads are usually not paved but may have some type of 

surfacing. Grades, curves, and road surfaces are such that they can be 

negotiated with a two-wheel drive high-clearance vehicle without undue 

difficulty. 

 Type III—Roads require four-wheel drive or other specialized vehicles, such 

as dirt bikes or all-terrain vehicles. These roads are usually not surfaced but 

are managed to provide for safety considerations and resource protection. 

They have grades, tread surfaces, and other characteristics that require 

specialized vehicles to negotiate. 

 Type IV—Trails that are managed specifically to accommodate dirt bikes, 

mountain bikes, snowmobiles, or all-terrain vehicles. These are usually singletrack trails.

There are no BLM Backcountry Byways in the planning area (BLM 2004).

2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-211

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

References

BLM (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2004. 

Table 1, BLM Scenic and/or Back County Byway (BCB) Roster. June 30, 2004.

_____. 2014. BLM Backcountry Byways. Internet website: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/Recreation/recreation_national/byways/blm_b

ack_country_byways.html. 

Federal Highway Administration. 2015. Byways by State. Internet website: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/states/. 

Scenic Byways. 2015. America’s Scenic Byways. Internet website: http://scenicbyways

.info/. 

Scenicbyways.info GIS. 2015. GIS data of scenic byways. Byway routes opened in 

Furkot.com and exported as a gpx file. Google Earth was used to create a kmz of 

each byway polyline. Internet website: www.scenicbyways.info. 

2.5 BLM SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

2.5.1 Native American Tribal Uses

Native American tribal uses and interests in the decision area include both the exercise of 

economic and resource rights and those uses and resources that are tied to traditional 

cultural practices. Under the federal government’s trust responsibilities to tribes, the 

BLM and the BIA have an obligation to exercise statutory and other legal authorities to 

protect tribal resources and rights. These agencies also have a duty to carry out the 

mandates of federal law with respect to American Indians. 

Indian trust assets are legal interests held by the federal government for federally 

recognized Indian tribes or nations or for individual Indians. Native American economic 

rights and uses include using the mineral resources and Indian trust surface lands in the 

decision area. The Secretary of the Interior has specific trust responsibilities, including 

holding land and resources in trust and maintaining monetary accounts for tribes and 

individual tribal members. Protecting these economic rights and uses are most directly 

the responsibility of the BIA. It maintains and discharges the trust responsibility of the 

Secretary of the Interior through public laws, permitting, and restricted requirements 

concerning tribal and individually owned native allotments and resources. 

Development and exploitation of the mineral estate provides the most important source of 

income among many tribal members. With the emphasis on Indian self-governance and 

self-determination, many of the tribes have initiated other economic development 

enterprises, including alternative energy, commercial facilities, gaming, and tourism. 

The BLM assesses the effects of its programs, permits, and projects on tribal trust 

resources but does not administer tribal trust accounts. Both the BLM and BIA engage 
2. Area Profile

2-212 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

federally recognized tribal governments and consult with tribes on a government-togovernment level when their actions could affect trust resources. 

There are also Native American tribal uses and interests associated with the cultural 

practices or beliefs. These uses are rooted in the community’s history and are important 

in maintaining cultural identity. Examples can include natural landscape features, 

ceremonial and worship places, plant gathering locations, ancestral archaeological sites, 

artisan material locations, landscapes, and rock art. 

The boundaries of these resources and impact areas are often difficult to assess. They are 

usually identified through government-to-government consultation during compliance 

with NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Cultural resources 

that meet the criteria for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places

are referred to as traditional cultural properties. For tribes, maintaining confidentiality 

and customs regarding traditional knowledge may take precedence over identifying and 

evaluating these resources, unless they are in imminent danger of damage or destruction.

In the decision area, there is extensive geographic, environmental, historic, economic, 

social, ethnic, and religious diversity that is reflected in the tribal interests and traditional 

cultural resources that may be valued by Native Americans. There is no comprehensive 

way to define all of the resources on this broad scale, especially where confidentiality is 

often required. There is also considerable overlap between what an outsider or another 

group might define as economic interests and natural resource issues and ones that have 

religious and traditional cultural meaning to a group. 

Section 101(d) of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that federal agencies 

consult with Native American tribes who historically occupied the area of the 

undertaking or who may attach significance to resources in the region. Provisions of 

NEPA also require that agencies consult with Native American tribal leaders. 

Consultation with Native American tribes typically occurs during an undertaking, such as 

review of an application for a permit to drill, when the BLM or BIA requests that a tribe 

identify any areas of interest in the project area. The National Historic Preservation Act

applies to federal actions, regardless of who owns the land surface. In split-estates the 

BLM or the BIA still has the authority and the responsibility to take reasonable measures 

to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on cultural resources that may result from mineral 

leasing activities. 

Table 2-34 lists the tribes with potential interest in the planning and decision areas of the 

joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP.

Tribes have also been invited to participate in regional tribal socioeconomic workshops to 

present their concerns. 

References

BIA 2014. Compiled from lists supplied by BIA Southern Plains and Eastern Oklahoma 

Regions. March 2014.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-213

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-34

Tribes with Potential Interest in the Planning and Decision Areas

Absentee Shawnee Tribe Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas Kiowa Tribe

Alabama Quassarte Tribal Town Miami Tribe of Oklahoma

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma

Caddo Nation Muscogee (Creek) Nation

Cherokee Nation Osage Nation

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes Otoe-Missouria Tribe

Chickasaw Nation Ottawa Tribe

Choctaw Nation Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma 

Citizen Potawatomi Nation Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma

Comanche Nation Ponca Nation

Delaware Nation Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation

Delaware Tribe of Indians Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma 

Eastern Shawnee Tribe Sac and Fox Nation

Euchee (Yuchi) Tribe (not federally 

recognized)

Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and 

Nebraska

Fort Sill Apache Tribe Seminole Nation

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma

Jena Band of the Choctaw Shawnee Tribe

Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Thlopthlocco Tribal Town

Jicarilla Apache Nation of New Mexico Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma

Kaw Nation of Oklahoma United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee 

Kialegee Tribal Town Wichita and Affiliated Tribes

Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Wyandotte Nation

Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas Wyandotte Nation

Source: BIA 2014

2.5.2 Public Health and Safety

The BLM has a mission to sustain public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and 

future generations. Its responsibility is to minimize and reduce threats from releases of 

hazardous substances that could have an impact on the health, diversity, and productivity 

of the public lands as well as on the health and safety of the individuals who use and 

work on these lands. In addition, FLPMA require that BLM actions comply with 

approved standards for public health and safety. Of particular concern to the BLM are the 

safety impacts related to abandoned mines, unexploded ordnance, solid waste, hazardous 

materials associated with energy development, hydraulic fracturing, hydrogen sulfide gas, 

and recreational shooting

The goals of public safety management are as follows:

 Protect public health and safety and environmental resources by minimizing 

environmental contamination from past and present land uses (such as
2. Area Profile

2-214 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

abandoned mine lands) on public lands and on BLM-administered and 

operated facilities

 Comply with federal, state, and local hazardous materials management laws 

and regulations

 Maintain the health of ecosystems through assessment, cleanup, and 

restoration of contaminated lands

 Manage the costs, risks, and liabilities associated with hazardous materials so 

that the responsible parties and not the government bear the brunt of financial 

liabilities

 Integrate environmental protection and compliance with all environmental 

statutes into BLM activities

Abandoned Mines

The Abandoned Mine Lands Program is a national and state BLM safety priority. In the 

planning area, abandoned mine lands issues are focused on lands with private surface 

ownership, as sites located on BLM surface administered lands either are reclaimed or 

would be managed appropriately on discovery.

Abandoned mine sites may pose hazards to the environment and to employee and visitor 

health and safety. Open mines are unstable; openings or tunnels may collapse, internal 

supports may fail, and mine shafts (vertical openings) may be obstructed or unseen. 

Oxygen levels can be at lethally low levels or toxic gases could be present at high 

concentrations. Hazardous wastes, such as containers of explosives and chemicals used in 

milling or drilling, could be present. Illegal dumping of hazardous wastes in abandoned 

mines is also a possibility. Changes in the chemical composition or soil loss near 

abandoned mines can result in alterations or loss of natural habitat for native wildlife. 

Environmental problems stemming from abandoned mine land sites are 

contaminated/acidic surface water and groundwater and stockpiled waste rock and mill 

tailing piles. Ensuring public safety and protecting watersheds from hazardous materials 

and mine drainage is emphasized. At the field office level, the purpose of the program is 

to identify and characterize inactive mine sites. Hazards or potential hazards to human 

health, safety, and the environment are inventoried, and data are stored in a national or 

state database. Specific sites may be closed or remediated in order to protect human 

health or the environment. The presence of a large number of abandoned mine lands that 

are not being monitored, restored, or reclaimed would indicate a public health and safety 

risk.

Unexploded Ordnance

The BLM may accept lands from other federal agencies that were formerly used by the 

Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps and that have been returned to the public 

domain. As part of the management of these lands, the BLM collaborates with the 

Department of Defense and the USACE to address any public lands that may contain 

munitions or explosives of concern. The presence of unexploded ordnance or of lands in 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-215

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

the planning area that were formerly used by military services would indicate a potential 

public safety risk. Such areas potentially include Camp Gruber Training Center and the 

McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, both located in Oklahoma, and Camp Roberts, 

located in the Rita Blanca National Grasslands in north Texas. 

Solid Waste 

The term solid waste is defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 

USC, Section 6901). It is any solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material that 

is deemed to be a waste. Solid waste is further defined as abandoned piles of household 

garbage, bags of yard waste, discarded appliances, old barrels, used tires, and demolition 

debris that can threaten the health of humans, wildlife, and the environment. A few 

commonly found illegally dumped items, such as vehicles, boats, trailers, and 

motorhomes, can be characterized as either solid waste or hazardous waste; this would 

depend on the timeliness of the item being found, reported, and subsequently cleaned up. 

For example, rubber car tires or an intact fiberglass boat found in the desert does not pose 

much of a threat as a solid waste, but if the rubber tires or fiberglass are set on fire and 

burned, it becomes a hazardous waste.

Petroleum Wastes

Petroleum wastes are those substances included in the meaning of the petroleum 

exclusion to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (42 USC, Section 9601). This is petroleum that is not specifically listed or designated 

as a hazardous substance. 

The term hazardous substance is defined by the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability Act. There are thousands of hazardous substances, 

but in general they can be categorized as ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic materials. 

Release, as defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act, means any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, 

discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing of (including 

abandonment) a hazardous substance. 

The presence of oil and gas development in the planning area poses the potential for 

public safety and health risks if the public were to come in contact with any petroleum 

wastes or other hazardous substances. The BLM requires all oil and gas operators to 

comply with applicable regulations designed to protect the environment and the public 

(e.g., the BLM’s Onshore Orders 1, 2, and 7). The operators also must comply with 

additional BLM requirements as part of the drilling permit or lease or ROW grant. Spills 

of oil and gas wastes and chemicals used in production can contaminate surface water, 

groundwater, and soil. Active wells can produce hazardous chemical emissions through 

well control valves (e.g., venting pressurized well gas), leaking equipment (e.g., well 

heads), water or condensate tanks (e.g., entrained gas can flash or evaporate), and gas 

compressors. Well work can also result in the release of hazardous chemicals.
2. Area Profile

2-216 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Hydraulic Fracturing

New technologies in oil and gas development have led to increased concern about the

impacts on public health and safety. Many of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing 

are considered hazardous under 40 CFR, Part 302, Section 302.4. 

Hydraulic fracturing has been used for more than 50 years to enhance the recovery of oil 

and gas hydrocarbons from bedrock by creating small fractures that function as 

preferential flowpaths of fluids toward the borehole. The fractures are generally more 

permeable to fluid flow than the interstices (pore spaces) within sedimentary rocks 

containing the hydrocarbons; this is because the pore spaces are filled with a natural 

cementing agent (typically calcite or silica).

Recent advances in hydraulic fracture technology have opened to development large 

reserves of domestic natural gas reserves that previously could not be extracted from the 

rock. This advance has been realized primarily in “tight” formations, particularly deep 

marine shales and marlstones that have very low permeability due to very small grain size 

in addition to the pressure from thousands of feet of overlying strata.

Public concern about the use of hydraulic fracturing has been focused on the potential for 

it to contaminate freshwater aquifers and to impact domestic and municipal water wells. 

An associated concern has involved the potential for “mini-earthquakes” caused by 

creating enough pressure within the formation to cause fractures. If the public were to 

come in contact with these substances, it could result in health and safety impacts.

Hydrogen Sulfide Gas

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas with the characteristic foul odor of rotten eggs. 

It is heavier than air, corrosive, flammable, explosive, and very poisonous. At low 

concentrations it can irritate the eyes and act as a depressant; at high concentrations it can 

irritate the upper respiratory tract and, during long exposure, lead to pulmonary edema 

(USGS 2010). A 30-minute exposure to 500 ppm results in headache, dizziness, 

excitement, staggering gait, and diarrhea, followed sometimes by bronchitis or 

bronchopneumonia (USGS 2010). Areas with H2S that are not being monitored would 

indicate a public health and safety risk.

Recreational Shooting

Recreational shooting is commonplace in the Red River area and can pose significant 

danger to public health and safety if not managed correctly. Conflicts may arise between 

shooting and other recreational activities in this area, including camping, OHV use, and 

fishing. These conflicts include shooting over roads or trails, not having a backstop, or 

shooting in areas where there are high levels of other recreation. Most shooting areas are 

littered with garbage and tend to attract illegal dumping. In these areas, it is common to 

find shot up televisions, appliances, and furniture. There are no BLM policies in place 

regulating shooting or setting a standard for acceptable responsibility while shooting.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-217

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

References

USGS (US Geological Survey). 2010. Volcano Hazards Program, Volcano Gases and 

Their Effects. Internet website: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php. 

Accessed on January 2015.

2.5.3 Socioeconomics

A socioeconomic study area is defined as the area where social and economic conditions 

may affect or be affected by the BLM’s and BIA’s land use and mineral leasing 

decisions. This area is invariably larger than the decision area because decisions can 

affect conditions on adjacent parcels, communities, and beyond. A socioeconomic study 

area may differ from the planning area, depending on social and economic relationships 

across communities, regions, and states. In addition, the geographic basis on which social 

and economic data are available may affect the determination of a socioeconomic study 

area’s boundaries. For example, while impacts of decisions may be mostly experienced 

within a few communities, counties are often the smallest geographic units for which 

important data are available.

Different management decisions will be made for BLM- and BIA-administered lands and 

minerals; however, due to the widespread and scattered nature of surface land and 

mineral estate, the socioeconomic study area is the same for BLM and BIA management 

decisions.

For each state in the joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP, the socioeconomic 

study area was determined by the distribution of surface land and areas for which the 

BLM or BIA administers the federal mineral leasing program. Because these areas are 

distributed across major portions of the state, the socioeconomic study area is defined as 

a statewide area. For some indicators, information is broken down by both metro and 

non-metro populations to provide insight into the role of BLM-administered lands and 

BIA-managed minerals. 

Indicators

Each state section below provides socioeconomic information in the topical subsections

defined. These issues were selected to provide an overview of current demographic and 

economic conditions and to highlight components of the local economy or social setting 

that may be impacted by BLM or BIA management decisions.

 Population and migration—This section profiles trends in population. Current 

and historic population trends and forecasts can indicate the degree of 

population migration. 

 Community indicators—This section includes indicators such as age, 

education level, language spoken, and place of birth, which can impact the 

social values of a community.

 Housing—This section includes data on housing availability and cost. These 

indicators have the potential to impact and be impacted by development and 

associated temporary or permanent changes in population.
2. Area Profile

2-218 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Income and employment—Income is derived from two major sources: labor 

earnings (income from the workplace) and nonlabor income. The former is

dividends, interest, and rent, collectively often referred to as money earned 

from investments, and transfer payments, such as those from governments to 

individuals, including Medicare, disability, and Social Security insurance 

payments, and retirements. This section includes such indicators as income 

distribution and proportion of labor and nonlabor income, which provide 

baselines for the region. This section also examines employment and income 

by industry sector and unemployment levels. Such indicators demonstrate the 

relative importance of various industries and the economic stability of the 

area.

 Public finance—Current management actions may impact revenue from the 

use of public lands and mineral resources. Its focus is the sources of public 

revenues from minerals, which are most likely to impact state and local 

government revenues in the region. In particular, it addresses federal mineral 

royalties, severance taxes, and ad valorem taxes produced in the state or the 

socioeconomic study area. Information is also included for payment in lieu of 

taxes, where appropriate.

 Social and economic activity related to BLM/BIA management actions—This 

section highlights the current role of BLM and BIA management actions in 

the state.

 Social conditions and nonmarket values—This section provides a social 

context for land use planning decisions.

Existing Conditions—Kansas Overview

The Kansas economy was originally based on agriculture. Today industry sectors include 

bioscience, especially in the animal health area, transportation, advanced manufacturing 

due to numerous aerospace and automotive products, food processing and distributing, 

and energy technology, particularly wind energy. Much of the state's economic growth 

has been based on abundant mineral deposits. During the late 19th and early 20th 

centuries, coal, oil and natural gas, lead and zinc, salt, and many other natural resources 

were extracted from the earth. In varying degrees, most of these resources continue to be 

of importance to the state's economy. The cost of living in Kansas is nearly 8.74 percent 

below the national average, ranking the state sixth lowest for cost of living in the US.

Housing costs are especially low, with the median value of owner-occupied homes below

the national average by a factor of over 200 (Kansas Department of Commerce 2015).

Approximately 29,700 acres of BIA-managed surface lands and mineral estate are found 

in Kansas. In total, Kansas has 669,700 acres of BLM-administered minerals but has no 

surface lands administered by the BLM. 

Population and Migration

The total population in Kansas in 2013 was 2,868,107, up approximately 6.7 percent 

since 2000. In comparison, the US population as a whole increased 10.7 percent between 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-219

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

2000 and 2013 (Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, 

Washington, DC, Table CA-30, as reported by Headwater Economics 2015). Overall, 

population increases in the state have come from births; more people are moving out of 

the state than into the state, based on average annual net migration data (see Table 2-35).

Table 2-35

Components of Population Growth, 2000-2013

Change 2000-2013

Population growth 201,147

Average annual population change (natural change and net migration) 13,396

Average annual natural change (births and deaths) 15,698

Average annual net migration (international and domestic) -2,423

Source: US Census Bureau Population Division 2014. as reported by Headwater Economics 2015

Similar trends in population change are anticipated over the next 20 years. The state’s 

population is projected to increase approximately 9.4 percent by 2030, as compared to 

29.2 percent for the US as a whole (see Table 2-36). Information on ethnicity and race in 

area populations is addressed in Section 2.5.4, Environmental Justice.

Table 2-36

Population and Population Projections 

Kansas Three-State 

Region United States

Population (2013) 2,868,107 32,293,222 311,536,594

Population (2000) 2,688,418 26,990,892 281,421,906

Population change (2000-2013) 179,689 5,302,330 30,114,688

Population percent change (2000-2013) 6.7 19.6 10.7

Projected population change (2010-2030) 251,666 N/A 82,162,529

Projected percent change (2010-2030) 9.4 N/A 29.2

Source: US Census Bureau 2000 Census and 2013 American Community Survey data, as reported in Headwater 

Economics 2015; US Census Bureau 2005

N/A: not available (the source does not provide aggregate area population projections)

Community Indicators

The population of Kansas, with a median age of 36 years in 2013, was slightly younger 

on average than the US population (median age 37.3). In general, the non-metro 

population (43.4 median age) was older than the metro population (33.8 median age; US 

Census Bureau 2013a).

The population in Kansas had a slightly higher level of people who had bachelor’s 

degrees, as compared to the three-state region for the metro area population; this was

slightly below that of the three-state region for the non-metro population (see Table 

2-37).
2. Area Profile

2-220 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-37

Educational Attainment—Kansas

Kansas Metro Kansas NonMetro

Three-State

Region United States

Total Population 25 or 

older

1,338,759 511,251 20,394,615 206,587,852

No high school degree 142,242 46,030 3,551,747 28,887,721

10.6% 9.0% 17.4% 14.0%

High school graduate 1,196,517 465,221 16,842,868 177,700,131

89.4% 91.0% 82.6% 86.0%

Associate’s degree 97,737 42,943 1,353,982 16,135,795

7.3% 8.4% 6.6% 7.8%

Bachelor’s degree or 

higher

443,354 116,461 5,424,267 59,583,138

33.1% 22.8% 26.6% 28.8%

Bachelor’s degree 283,053 80,333 3,601,803 37,286,246

21.1% 15.7% 17.7% 18.0%

Graduate or 

professional degree

160,301 36,128 1,822,464 22,296,892

12.0% 7.1% 8.9% 10.8%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Most residents in Kansas speak only English, and the percentage of those who speak 

English less than very well is below that of the three-state average and national average 

(see Table 2-38).

Table 2-38

Language Spoken at Home—Kansas

Kansas 

Metro

Kansas 

Non-Metro

Metro/NonMetro RegionUnited 

States

Population 5 or older 1,967,797 697,549 29,891,329 291,484,482

Speak only English 1,705,827 665,601 21,032,653 231,122,908

86.7% 95.4% 70.4% 79.3%

Speak a language other than 

English

261,970 31,948 8,858,676 60,361,574

13.3% 4.6% 29.6% 20.7%

Speak English less than very 

well

110,504 9,828 3,633,524 25,148,900

5.6% 1.4% 12.2% 8.6%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015.

Housing 

Housing availability and cost has the potential to be impacted by development and 

associated population changes. Housing occupancy information in the planning area is 

displayed in Table 2-39. Approximately 8.9 percent of housing in metro areas and 13.3 

percent in non-metro areas is vacant. This rate is similar to the three-state region and US 

national average.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-221

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-39

Housing Occupancy—Kansas

Kansas 

Metro

Kansas NonMetroThree-State 

Region

United 

States

Total Housing Units 901,803 333,682 12,976,016 132,057,804

Occupied 821,161 289,279 11,440,992 115,610,216

91.1% 86.7% 88.2% 87.5%

Vacant 80,642 44,403 1,535,024 16,447,588

8.9% 13.3% 11.8% 12.5%

For rent 23,746 3,998 406,597 3,230,123

2.6% 1.2% 3.1% 2.4%

Rented, not occupied 4,821 825 67,837 599,884

0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5%

For sale only 11,220 4,249 151,989 1,682,020

1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.3%

Sold, not occupied 2,921 1,229 54,530 608,590

0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5%

For seasonal, recreational, 

occasional use

4,603 9,876 290,284 5,122,778

0.5% 3.0% 2.2% 3.9%

For migrant workers 207 180 3,913 34,233

0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Other vacant 33,124 24,046 559,874 5,169,960

3.7% 7.2% 4.3% 3.9%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Housing costs for rent and mortgage in Kansas are below that of the national average for 

both metro and non-metro areas (see Table 2-40).

Table 2-40

Housing Costs—Kansas

Kansas Metro Kansas NonMetro

Three-State

Region

United 

States

Owner-occupied 

housing units with a 

mortgage

346,708 126,857 4,503,350 49,820,840

Monthly cost <15% 

of household income

77,453 32,247 992,414 9,215,740

22.3% 25.4% 22.0% 18.5%

Monthly cost >30% 

of household income

86,584 32,074 1,316,380 17,636,343

25.0% 25.3% 29.2% 35.4%

Specified renteroccupied units

309,100 51,603 4,098,967 40,534,516

Gross rent <15% of 

household income

38,892 9,949 505,289 4,355,942

12.6% 19.3% 12.3% 10.7%
2. Area Profile

2-222 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-40

Housing Costs—Kansas

Kansas Metro Kansas NonMetro

Three-State

Region

United 

States

Gross rent >30% of 

household income

136,095 14,593 1,824,871 19,581,493

44.0% 28.3% 44.5% 48.3%

Median monthly 

mortgage cost

$1,322 $1,204 N/A $1,540

Median gross rent $750 $607 N/A $904

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Income and Employment

Both total employment and total personal income in Kansas has increased more rapidly 

than population change from 2000 to 2013 (see Table 2-41).

Unemployment in Kansas generally followed national trends, peaking in 2010-2011, but 

remained below the national average. Unemployment over the past five years is shown in 

Table 2-42.

Table 2-41

Population, Employment, and Income Trends, 2000-2013—Kansas

2000 2013 Change 

2000-2013

Percent 

Change

2000-2013

Population 2,693,681 2,893,957 200,276 8.9 

Employment (full and parttime jobs)1,759,453 1,864,258 104,805 10.3

Personal income (in thousands 

of 2013 dollars)

104,833,609 128,540,565 23,706,956 44

Average earnings per Job $44,202 $49,920 $5,718 12.9

Per capita income $38,918 $44,417 $5,499 14.1

Source: Headwater Economics 2015

Table 2-42

Average Annual Unemployment—

Kansas

Kansas United States

2013 5.4% 7.4%

2012 5.8% 8.1%

2011 6.5% 8.9%

2010 7.1% 9.6%

2009 7.1% 9.3%
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-223

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-42

Average Annual Unemployment—

Kansas

Kansas United States

2008 4.4% 5.8%

2007 4.1% 4.6%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014

Income distribution for 2009-2013 American Community Survey data is demonstrated in 

more detail for both metro and non-metro populations in Table 2-43, Household Income 

Distribution—Kansas. Per capita income in Kansas was slightly lower than that of the US 

average. Median household income was slightly higher than the US average in metro 

areas and slightly lower in non-metro populations.

When examined by industry, key sectors of the economy can be identified. Based on 

2013 data, top economic sectors are trade, transportation, and utilities, government,

education and health, and manufacturing. It is worth noting that average annual wages 

were lower than average levels for trade and government and higher than average for 

education and manufacturing (see Table 2-44, Employment and Wages by Industry—

Kansas). In 2013 the three industry sectors with the most jobs were government 

(296,431), health care, social assistance (194,872), and retail trade (183,224). From 2001 

to 2013, the three industry sectors that added the most new jobs were health care, social 

assistance (29,508), mining (including fossil fuels; 25,309), and finance, insurance 

(23,811).

Total personal income by industry provides additional information on key economic 

sectors. In 2013, the three industry sectors with the largest personal income were 

government ($16,321.3 million), manufacturing (including forest products; $12,975.8 

million), and health care, social assistance ($9,667.1 million). From 2001 to 2013, the 

three industry sectors that added the most new personal income in real terms were 

government ($3,144.9 million), farm ($2,512.7 million), and health care, social assistance 

($2,323.6 million; see Table 2-45, Personal Income by Industry 2001-2013 (in 

Thousands of 2013 Dollars)).

Labor is the main source of income for Kansas, comprising 67.1 percent and 61.8 percent

for metro and non-metro populations. Non-labor income is of increasing importance 

nationally and may provide locally important sources of income. This is particularly the 

case in non-metro areas, which have a higher dependence on non-labor income than the 

average or the three-state region and the national average. For more details regarding 

income source, refer to Table 2-46, Study Area Labor and Non-labor Income—Kansas 

(in Thousands of 2013 Dollars).
2. Area Profile

2-224 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-43

Household Income Distribution—Kansas

Kansas Metro Kansas NonMetro

Three-State

Region United States

Per capita income (in 

2013 dollars)

$26,840 $27,182 N/A $28,155

Median household 

income (in 2013 

dollars)

$50,317 $53,847 N/A $53,046

Total Households 821,161 289,279 11,440,992 115,610,216

Less than $10,000 58,060 13,463 847,123 8,380,364

7.1% 4.7% 7.4% 7.2%

$10,000 to 14,999 43,889 13,692 624,251 6,214,548

5.3% 4.7% 5.5% 5.4%

$15,000 to 24,999 92,496 29,675 1,280,481 12,468,604

11.3% 10.3% 11.2% 10.8%

$25,000 to 34,999 91,818 32,045 1,249,592 11,929,761

11.2% 11.1% 10.9% 10.3%

$35,000 to 49,999 121,977 44,189 1,613,499 15,723,148

14.9% 15.3% 14.1% 13.6%

$50,000 to 74,999 153,313 61,612 2,069,926 20,744,045

18.7% 21.3% 18.1% 17.9%

$75,000 to 99,999 99,930 39,878 1,347,052 14,107,031

12.2% 13.8% 11.8% 12.2%

$100,000 to 149,999 97,678 36,345 1,402,947 14,858,239

11.9% 12.6% 12.3% 12.9%

$150,000 to 199,999 32,853 10,058 511,090 5,651,848

4.0% 3.5% 4.5% 4.9%

$200,000 or more 29,147 8,322 495,031 5,532,628

3.5% 2.9% 4.3% 4.8%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-225

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-44

Employment and Wages by Industry—Kansas

Employ

ment

Percent

of Total 

Employment

Average

Annual 

Wages 

(Metro)

Average

Annual 

Wages 

(NonMetro)

Average

Annual 

Wages 

(State)

Percent

Above 

or 

Below 

Average

Total 1,337,168 $44,790 $33,403 $41,546

Private 1,093,116 81.7 $42,442 $31,234 $42,294 1.8

Non-Services-Related 241,371 18.1 $65,945 $51,190 $51,059 22.9

Natural

resources/mining

21,512 1.6 $49,381 $39,044 $45,599 9.8

Agriculture, forestry, 

fishing, and hunting

11,049 0.8 $36,122 $28,325 $36,115 -13.1

Mining (including

fossil fuels)

10,463 0.8 $45,153 $34,112 $55,614 33.9

Construction 56,855 4.3 $56,586 $42,635 $47,895 15.3

Manufacturing 

(including forest 

products)

163,003 12.2 $48,525 $44,609 $52,883 27.3

Services-related 851,745 63.7 $39,029 $35,762 $39,811 -4.2

Trade, transportation, 

and utilities

254,212 19.0 $60,267 $54,799 $37,985 -8.6

Information 27,548 2.1 $48,965 $44,538 $68,033 63.8

Financial activities 70,727 5.3 $60,003 $42,199 $58,475 40.7

Professional and 

business 

161,716 12.1 $42,542 $30,218 $51,913 25.0

Education and health 182,646 13.7 $38,800 $33,184 $38,952 -6.2

Leisure and Hospitality 121,337 9.1 $74,662 $39,058 $14,411 -65.3

Other services 33,559 2.5 $62,690 $40,770 $29,324 -29.4

Unclassified 0 0.0 $54,526 $36,384 N/A N/A

Government 244,053 18.3 $41,964 $31,883 $38,194 -8.1

Federal 25,382 1.9 $15,350 $11,833 $61,452 47.9

State 40,691 3.0 $31,155 $25,661 $47,679 14.8

Local 177,980 13.3 N/A N/A $32,709 -21.3

Source: US Department of Labor 2014, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 

Washington, DC, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015
2. Area Profile

2-226 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-45

Personal Income by Industry 2001-2013 (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)

2001 2013 Change 

2001-2013

Labor earnings 79,046,306 93,063,676 14,017,370

Non-services related 20,861,800 24,825,948 3,964,148

Farm 1,530,127 4,042,790 2,512,663

Forestry, fishing, and related activities 247,177 516,653 269,476

Mining (including fossil fuels) 814,874 2,363,628 1,548,754

Construction 4,816,283 4,927,057 110,774

Manufacturing 13,453,339 12,975,820 -477,519

Services related 45,008,139 51,916,458 6,908,319

Utilities 838,148 1,038,267 200,119

Wholesale trade 4,336,473 4,893,810 557,337

Retail trade 5,603,178 5,276,719 -326,459

Transportation and warehousing 3,263,232 3,471,380 208,148

Information 3,981,383 2,442,177 -1,539,206

Finance and insurance 4,129,278 5,362,230 1,232,952

Real estate and rental and leasing 1,218,288 1,244,046 25,758

Professional and technical services 4,637,996 5,966,214 1,328,218

Management of companies and enterprises 1,115,149 1,624,865 509,716

Administrative and waste services 2,529,029 3,939,882 1,410,853

Educational services 581,511 785,353 203,842

Health care and social assistance 7,343,548 9,667,124 2,323,576

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 380,867 461,991 81,124

Accommodation and food services 2,139,585 2,364,565 224,980

Other services, except public administration 2,910,474 3,377,835 467,361

Government 13,176,366 16,321,270 3,144,904

All employment data are reported by place of work. Estimates for data that were not disclosed are indicated with ~.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, Washington, DC. Table CA05N, as reported 

in Headwater Economics 2015

Table 2-46

Study Area Labor and Non-labor Income—Kansas (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)

Kansas 

Metro

Kansas 

Non-Metro

Three-State 

Region United States

Total personal income 

($1,000)

88,651,992 39,888,573 1,449,807,346 14,151,427,000

Non-labor income 29,151,871 15,223,571 460,289,630 5,085,220,000

32.9% 38.2% 31.7% 35.9%

Dividends, interest, and rent 16,873,737 7,896,376 243,340,439 2,670,719,000

19.0% 19.8% 16.8% 18.9%
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-227

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-46

Study Area Labor and Non-labor Income—Kansas (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)

Kansas 

Metro

Kansas 

Non-Metro

Three-State 

Region United States

Transfer payments 12,278,134 7,327,195 216,949,191 2,414,501,000

13.8% 18.4% 15.0% 17.1%

Labor earnings 59,500,121 24,665,002 989,517,716 9,066,207,000

67.1% 61.8% 68.3% 64.1%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014, as reported in headwater Economics 2015

Note: Non-labor income and labor earnings may not add to total personal income because of adjustments made by 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis. This was to account for contributions from Social Security, cross-county 

commuting, and other factors. 

Public Finance

Components of public finance related to management of federal lands and mineral 

resources in the planning area primarily include federal mineral royalty payments and

other taxes collected from the extraction and sale of mineral resources. These categories 

are explained in detail below.

Taxes

The severance tax in Kansas was 8 percent on gross value of oil or gas, with exemptions 

for low producing oil and gas wells. Money for refunds distributed into the mineral 

production tax refund fund. Of the remaining revenues, seven percent were deposited in 

the special county mineral production tax fund; the remaining revenues were deposited in

a general state fund with surplus money in special funds if available (National 

Conference of State Legislatures 2012). In 2011, approximately $128 million was 

collected in severance taxes (Kansas Independent Oil and Gas Association 2012).

Ad valorem property taxes are charged on oil and gas equipment and on oil and gas 

produced. The unit of taxation for property taxes is the mil, defined as one-thousandth of

a currency unit. To calculate the property tax, the authority multiplies the assessed value 

of the property by the mil rate and then divides it by 1,000. For example, a property with 

an assessed value of $50,000 located in a municipality with a rate of 20 mils would have 

a property tax bill of $1,000 per year. Kansas has an oil and gas conservation fee of 91 

mils per barrel for oil and 12.9 mils per MCF for gas (National Conference of State 

Legislatures 2012). Approximately $225 million dollars in ad valorem taxes were 

collected in 2011 (Kansas Independent Oil and Gas Association 2012).

Federal Mineral Royalties

Additional revenues from oil, gas, and coal extraction come from rents and royalties paid 

by producers on public lands. Lease holders competitively bid, pay an initial bonus, and 

subsequently pay rent for the right to develop the resources on public lands. These funds 

are collected and subsequently distributed to the federal and state government and are 

known as lease revenue and, in the case of rents, lease royalties. Lease revenues and 

royalties to the state and county provide an additional economic benefit of mineral 
2. Area Profile

2-228 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

resource extraction. Federal mineral lease revenues are collected by the Office of Natural 

Resources Revenue within the Department of the Interior. Approximately 50 percent of 

the revenues are transferred to the state treasurer for disbursement to the counties of 

origin.

Royalties collected in Kansas is shown in Table 2-47, Rents, Royalties, and Bonus 

Revenue Collected—Kansas. The US Department of the Interior disburses 100 percent of 

the revenues received for energy and mineral production on Indian lands directly to the 

tribes and individual mineral owners through the BIA and the Office of Special Trustee 

for American Indians. Tribes then distribute the revenues among all members; alternately 

they apply the revenues to health care, infrastructure, education, and other critical 

community development programs, such as senior centers, public safety projects, and 

youth initiatives. Many individual mineral owners use these revenues as a major source 

of income to support their families and communities. Kansas’s state share of federal 

mineral royalty revenue disbursement for fiscal year 2014 was $1,354,119. A portion of 

this amount is then disbursed to counties of origin.

Table 2-47

Rents, Royalties, and Bonus Revenue Collected—

Kansas (FY 2014)

Gas (mcf*) volume 4,050,842

Gas sales $13,443,499

Gas royalties $1,650,579

Oil (oil barrels) volume $193,600

Oil sales $18,630,063

Oil royalties $$2,391,248

Coal (tons) volume 0

Coal sales 0

Coal royalties 0

Rents $$45,014

Bonuses $18,000

Other Revenue $8,348.38

Source: Office of Natural Resources Revenue 2015

*mcf = thousand cubic feet

Existing Conditions—Oklahoma Overview

Historically, agriculture has been a dominant economic activity in Oklahoma. However, 

in the 1900s, agriculture’s share of employment dropped from 70 percent to 37 percent as 

employment in other sectors, including oil and gas mining and petroleum refineries, 

began to grow (Oklahoma Historical Society 2009). 

According to the State Chamber of Oklahoma Research Foundation, the oil and gas 

industry has doubled in size in the past decade and has an outsized influence on overall 

state economic activity; oil and gas firms account for only 3.2 percent of all business 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-229

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

establishments but hire 5 percent of wage and salary workers. The oil and gas industry 

produces 10 percent of state gross domestic product and generates 13.5 percent of total 

earnings statewide (State Chamber of Oklahoma Research Foundation 2014).

Approximately 13,600 acres of BLM-administered surface lands and 816,500 acres of 

BIA-managed surface lands are found in Oklahoma. in total, Oklahoma has 1,885,000

acres of BLM-administered minerals and 2,609,500 acres of BIA-managed minerals. 

Population and Migration

The total population in Oklahoma in 2013 was 3,785,742, an approximately 9.7 percent 

increase since 2000. This is compared to the increase of 10.7 percent in the US 

population as a whole over the same time period (US Census Bureau 2014). Population 

increases in the state have come from both births (62 percent) and migration of people 

into the area (42 percent; see Table 2-48).

Table 2-48

Components of Population Growth, 2000-2013

Change 2000-2013

Population Growth (2000-2013) 396,625

Average annual population change (natural change and net migration) 26,958

Average annual natural change (births and deaths) 16,903

Average annual net migration (international and domestic) 11,625

Source: US Census Bureau Population Division 2014, as reported by Headwater Economics 2015

The state’s population is projected to increase approximately 13.4 percent by 2030, as 

compared to 29.2 percent for the US as a whole (see Table 2-49, Population and 

Population Projections—Oklahoma). Information on ethnicity and race in area population 

is addressed in Section 2.5.4, Environmental Justice.

Table 2-49

Population and Population Projections—Oklahoma

Oklahoma Three-State 

Region United States

Population (2013) 3,785,742 32,293,222 311,536,594

Population (2000) 3,450,654 26,990,892 281,421,906

Population change (2000-2013) 335,088 5,302,330 30,114,688

Population percent change (2000-2013) 9.7 19.6 10.7

Projected population change (2010-2030) 462,597 N/A 82,162,529

Projected percent change (2010-2030) 13.4 N/A 29.2

Source: US Census Bureau 2000 Census and 2013 American Community Survey data as reported in Headwater 

Economics 2015, US Census Bureau 2005.
2. Area Profile

2-230 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Community Indicators

The population of Oklahoma, with a median age of 36.2 years in 2013, was slightly 

younger on average than the US population (median age 37.3). In general, the non-metro 

population (41.2 median age) was older than the metro population (33.9 median age; US 

Census Bureau 2014).

Oklahoma had a slightly lower percent of people with bachelor’s degrees or higher in the 

metro area compared to the three-state region and the US average. For non-metro 

populations, the rate was 10 percent below the US average (see Table 2-50, Educational 

Attainment—Oklahoma). Most residents in Oklahoma speak only English, and the 

percentage of those who speak English less than very well is below that of the three-state 

and national averages (see Table 2-51, Language Spoken at Home—Oklahoma).

Table 2-50

Educational Attainment—Oklahoma

Oklahoma

Metro

Oklahoma 

Non-Metro

Three-State

Region United States

Total Population 25 

or older

1,591,754 872,544 20,394,615 206,587,852

No high school degree 211,482 123,749 3,551,747 28,887,721

13.3% 14.2% 17.4% 14.0%

High school graduate 1,380,272 748,795 16,842,868 177,700,131

86.7% 85.8% 82.6% 86.0%

Associate’s degree 114,094 57,901 1,353,982 16,135,795

7.2% 6.6% 6.6% 7.8%

Bachelor’s degree or 

higher

420,173 158,284 5,424,267 59,583,138

26.4% 18.1% 26.6% 28.8%

Bachelor’s degree 279,677 108,208 3,601,803 37,286,246

17.6% 12.4% 17.7% 18.0%

Graduate or 

professional degree

140,496 50,076 1,822,464 22,296,892

8.8% 5.7% 8.9% 10.8%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Table 2-51

Language Spoken at Home—Oklahoma

Oklahoma 

Metro

Oklahoma

Non-Metro

Metro/NonMetro Region United States

Population 5 or older 2,319,106 1,202,477 29,891,329 291,484,482

Speak only English 2,041,976 1,148,100 21,032,653 231,122,908

88.1% 95.5% 70.4% 79.3%

Speak a language other than 

English

277,130 54,377 8,858,676 60,361,574

11.9% 4.5% 29.6% 20.7%
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-231

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-51

Language Spoken at Home—Oklahoma

Oklahoma 

Metro

Oklahoma

Non-Metro

Metro/NonMetro Region United States

Speak English less than 

very well

123,390 15,251 3,633,524 25,148,900

5.3% 1.3% 12.2% 8.6%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Housing 

Housing occupancy information in the planning area is displayed in Table 2-52, Housing 

Occupancy—Oklahoma. Approximately 11.6 percent of housing in metro areas and 17.2

percent in non-metro areas is vacant compared to the three-state average of 11.8 percent 

and the national average of 12.5 percent.

Table 2-52

Housing Occupancy—Oklahoma

Oklahoma

Metro

Oklahoma

Non-Metro

Three-State

Region United States

Total Housing Units 1,095,047 574,781 12,976,016 132,057,804

Occupied 968,134 475,947 11,440,992 115,610,216

88.4% 82.8% 88.2% 87.5%

Vacant 126,913 98,834 1,535,024 16,447,588

11.6% 17.2% 11.8% 12.5%

For rent 35,700 7,777 406,597 3,230,123

3.3% 1.4% 3.1% 2.4%

Rented, not occupied 7,567 1,560 67,837 599,884

0.7% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5%

For sale only 15,753 7,396 151,989 1,682,020

1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.3%

Sold, not occupied 4,709 3,909 54,530 608,590

0.4% 0.7% 0.4% 0.5%

For seasonal, recreational, 

occasional use

7,523 31,952 290,284 5,122,778

0.7% 5.6% 2.2% 3.9%

For migrant workers 424 322 3,913 34,233

0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Other vacant 55,237 45,918 559,874 5,169,960

5.0% 8.0% 4.3% 3.9%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Housing cost for rent and mortgage, which are important indicators of cost of living, are 

below that of the national average for both metro and non-metro areas (see Table 2-53, 

Housing Costs—Oklahoma).
2. Area Profile

2-232 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-53

Housing Costs—Oklahoma

Oklahoma

Metro

Oklahoma

Non-Metro

Three-State

Region

United 

States

Owner-occupied housing units 

with a mortgage

373,182 196,425 4,503,350 49,820,840

Monthly cost <15% of household 

income

91,270 53,188 992,414 9,215,740

24.5% 27.1% 22.0% 18.5%

Monthly cost >30% of household 

income

97,939 52,330 1,316,380 17,636,343

26.2% 26.6% 29.2% 35.4%

Specified renter-occupied units 385,134 90,211 4,098,967 40,534,516

Gross rent <15% of household 

income

50,701 15,078 505,289 4,355,942

13.2% 16.7% 12.3% 10.7%

Gross rent >30% of household 

income

171,449 26,890 1,824,871 19,581,493

44.5% 29.8% 44.5% 48.3%

Median monthly mortgage cost $1,165 $1,078 N/A $1,540

Median gross rent $717 $611 N/A $904

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Income and Employment

Both total employment and total personal income in Oklahoma increased more rapidly 

than population change from 2000 to 2013 (see Table 2-54, Population, Employment and 

Income Trends 2000-2013—Oklahoma).

Income distribution for 2009-2013 data is shown for both metro and non-metro 

populations in Table 2-55, Household Income Distribution—Oklahoma. Both per capita 

income and median household income were lower in Oklahoma metro and non-metro 

areas than in the US. 

Table 2-54

Population, Employment and Income Trends 2000-2013—Oklahoma

2000 2013 Change 

2000-2013

Percent 

Change

2000-2013

Population 3,454,365 3,850,568 396,203 11.5 

Employment (full and part-time jobs) 1,993,644 2,254,523 260,879 13.1

Personal income (in thousands of 

2013 dollars)

115,918,470 161,187,913 45,269,443 39.1

Average earnings per job $42,053 $50,875 $8,822 21 

Per capita income $33,557 $41,861 $8,304 24.7

Source: Headwater Economics 2015
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-233

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-55

Household Income Distribution—Oklahoma

OK Metro OK

Non-Metro

Three-State

Region

United

States

Per capita income (in 2013 

dollars)

$24,585 $23,468 N/A $28,155

Median household income 

(in 2013 dollars)

$44,468 $47,143 N/A $53,046

Total households 968,134 475,947 11,440,992 115,610,216

Less than $10,000 84,245 33,829 847,123 8,380,364

8.7% 7.1% 7.4% 7.2%

$10,000 to 14,999 61,160 30,554 624,251 6,214,548

6.3% 6.4% 5.5% 5.4%

$15,000 to 24,999 121,576 58,311 1,280,481 12,468,604

12.6% 12.3% 11.2% 10.8%

$25,000 to 34,999 118,243 55,792 1,249,592 11,929,761

12.2% 11.7% 10.9% 10.3%

$35,000 to 49,999 146,996 71,337 1,613,499 15,723,148

15.2% 15.0% 14.1% 13.6%

$50,000 to 74,999 176,266 93,128 2,069,926 20,744,045

18.2% 19.6% 18.1% 17.9%

$75,000 to 99,999 106,833 57,351 1,347,052 14,107,031

11.0% 12.0% 11.8% 12.2%

$100,000 to 149,999 95,854 50,608 1,402,947 14,858,239

9.9% 10.6% 12.3% 12.9%

$150,000 to 199,999 29,136 14,037 511,090 5,651,848

3.0% 2.9% 4.5% 4.9%

$200,000 or more 27,825 11,000 495,031 5,532,628

2.9% 2.3% 4.3% 4.8%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Unemployment in Oklahoma generally followed national trends, peaking in 2010, but it 

remained below the national average. Since 1990, the annual unemployment rate ranged 

from a low of 3.1 percent in 2000 to a high of 6.9 percent in 2010. Unemployment over 

the past five years is shown in Table 2-56, Average Annual Unemployment—Oklahoma.

When examined by industry, key sectors of the economy can be identified. Based on 

2013 data, top economic sectors in percent of employment were trade, transportation, and

utilities, government, education and health, and professional and business services.

Average annual wages were lower than average levels for trade and government and 

higher than average for education and manufacturing (see Table 2-57, Employment and

Wages by Industry, 2013 (in 2013 Dollars)).
2. Area Profile

2-234 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-56

Average Annual Unemployment—Oklahoma

Oklahoma United 

States

2013 5.4% 7.4%

2012 5.4% 8.1%

2011 5.9% 8.9%

2010 6.9% 9.6%

2009 6.7% 9.3%

2008 3.7% 5.8%

2007 4.1% 4.6%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014

Table 2-57

Employment and Wages by Industry, 2013 (in 2013 Dollars)

Employment

Percent of 

Total 

Employment

Average

Annual 

Wages

Percent

Above or 

Below 

Average

Total 1,560,843 $42,451

Private 1,240,974 79.5 $42,733 0.7

Non-services-related 280,403 18.0 $58,627 38.1

Natural resources and mining 69,696 4.5 $85,551 101.5

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 10,262 0.7 $33,565 -20.9

Mining (including fossil fuels) 59,434 3.8 $94,527 122.7

Construction 74,477 4.8 $46,045 8.5

Manufacturing (including forest products) 136,230 8.7 $51,731 21.9

Services-related 960,571 61.5 $38,093 -10.3

Trade, Transportation, and utilities 292,881 18.8 $38,810 -8.6

Information 21,807 1.4 $53,313 25.6

Financial activities 77,747 5.0 $50,476 18.9

Professional and business services 180,114 11.5 $47,316 11.5

Education and health services 200,985 12.9 $40,252 -5.2

Leisure and hospitality 151,399 9. $16,006 -62.3

Other services 35,582 2.3 $30,849 -27.3

Unclassified 55 0.0 $69,854 64.6

Government 319,870 20.5 $41,357 -2.6

Federal government 47,144 3.0 $62,988 48.4

State government 72,101 4.6 $43,493 2.5

Local government 200,625 12.9 $35,506 -16.4

Source: Headwater Economics 2015

Note: This table shows wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which does not report data for proprietors or 

the value of benefits and uses slightly different industry categories than those shown on previous pages of this 

report.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-235

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

In 2013 the three industry sectors with the largest number of jobs were government 

(369,501), retail trade (220,147), and health care, social assistance (213,636). From 2001 

to 2013, the three industry sectors that added the most new jobs were mining, including

fossil fuels (79,420), health care, social assistance (40,111), and government (34,737).

Total personal income by industry provides additional information on key economic 

sectors. In 2013, the three industry sectors with the largest personal income were 

government ($21,204.2 million), mining, including fossil fuels ($14,735.5 million), and 

health care, social assistance ($11,013.0 million). From 2001 to 2013, the three industry 

sectors that added the most new personal income in real terms were mining, including

fossil fuels ($8,426.8 million), government ($4,154.6 million), and health care, social 

assistance ($3,191.1 million; see Table 2-58).

Table 2-58

Personal Income by Industry, 2001-2013 (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)

2001 2013 Change 2001-

2013

Labor Earnings 88,458,239 114,699,262 26,241,023

Non-services-related 24,554,566 33,990,458 9,435,892

Farm 1,072,055 1,128,307 56,252

Forestry, fishing, and related activities 198,244 267,650 69,406

Mining (including fossil fuels) 6,308,665 14,735,514 8,426,849

Construction 5,196,449 7,295,564 2,099,115

Manufacturing 11,779,153 10,563,423 -1,215,730

Services-related 46,854,088 59,504,620 12,650,532

Utilities 1,200,360 1,573,284 372,924

Wholesale trade 3,784,759 4,558,635 773,876

Retail trade 6,606,891 7,328,920 722,029

Transportation and warehousing 4,002,498 5,738,541 1,736,043

Information 2,310,613 1,756,007 -554,606

Finance and insurance 3,654,657 4,603,017 948,360

Real estate and rental and leasing 1,496,404 2,292,357 795,953

Professional and technical services 4,691,182 6,057,297 1,366,115

Management of companies and enterprises 1,061,810 1,597,976 536,166

Administrative and waste services 3,438,254 4,354,373 916,119

Educational services 614,113 855,034 240,921

Health care and social assistance 7,821,878 11,012,997 3,191,119

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 397,392 682,254 284,862

Accommodation and food services 2,320,715 3,051,769 731,054

Other services, except public 

administration

3,452,561 4,042,159 589,598

Government 17,049,585 21,204,184 4,154,599

Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014, as reported in Headwater Economics 

2015
2. Area Profile

2-236 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

One important economic sector, particularly for Indian tribes, is gaming. Gaming is 

typically included in the leisure and hospitality sector. There are two racetrack casinos 

and 114 tribal casinos in the state. From 2011 to 2012, consumer spending on commercial 

casino gambling increased 6.4 percent, from $106.23 million to $113.06 million. In 2012, 

commercial casino tax revenue was $20.38 million, a growth of 11.4 percent from 2011. 

There were 870 commercial casino jobs in Oklahoma in 2012, a decrease of 3.9 percent 

from 905 jobs in 2011 (American Gaming Association 2013).

Tribes that operate covered games in accordance with State-Tribal Gaming Compacts pay 

a monthly exclusivity fee to the State of Oklahoma for the exclusive right to operate 

compacted gaming. Exclusivity fees paid to the state are calculated as follows:

 4 percent of the first $10 million of annual adjusted gross revenues (the total, 

minus prize payouts)

 5 percent of the next $10 million of annual adjusted gross revenues

 6 percent of adjusted gross revenues over $20 million

In 2011, approximately $122 million was collected in exclusivity fees, a growth of 3.3 

percent from 2011 in which approximately $118 million was collected (Oklahoma Office 

of State Finance 2015).

Labor is the main source of income for Oklahoma, comprising 67.1 percent and 58.7 

percent for metro and non-metro populations. Nonlabor income is of increasing 

importance nationally and may provide locally important sources of income, particularly 

in non-metro areas, which have a higher dependence on nonlabor income from transfer 

payments than the average or the three-state region and the national average. For more 

details regarding income source, refer to Table 2-59.

Table 2-59

Non-Labor Share of Total Personal Income—Oklahoma

Oklahoma 

Metro

Oklahoma 

Non-Metro

Three-State

Region United States

Total personal income (in 

thousands of 2013 dollars)

111,591,055 49,596,858 1,449,807,346 14,151,427,000

Non-labor income 36,828,448 20,477,538 460,289,630 5,085,220,000

33.0% 41.3% 31.7% 35.9%

Dividends, interest, and rent 19,184,334 8,945,475 243,340,439 2,670,719,000

17.2% 18.0% 16.8% 18.9%

Transfer payments 17,644,114 11,532,063 216,949,191 2,414,501,000

15.8% 23.3% 15.0% 17.1%

Labor earnings 74,762,607 29,119,320 989,517,716 9,066,207,000

67.0% 58.7% 68.3% 64.1%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Note: Non-labor income and labor earnings may not add to total personal income because of adjustments made by 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis to account for contributions from Social Security, cross-county commuting, and 

other factors. 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-237

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Public Finance

Components of public finance related to managing federal lands and mineral resources in 

the planning area primarily include federal mineral royalty payments and other taxes 

collected from the extraction and sale of mineral resources. These categories are 

explained in additional detail below.

Taxes

Taxes collected on mineral production in Oklahoma include a gross production tax and 

petroleum excise tax. No ad valorem production tax is collected in the state on oil and gas 

production or equipment. The gross production severance tax in Oklahoma is variable, 

based on an average price of crude oil and natural gas in a calendar month. The severance 

tax rate in a month is determined by the average production price in the prior three 

months. For gas, the gross production tax rate is seven percent if the statewide average 

price of Oklahoma gas equals or exceeds $2.10 per MCF, four percent if greater than 

$1.75 per MCF but less than $2.10 per MCF, and one percent if less than $1.75 per MCF. 

For oil, the gross production tax rate is seven percent if the average price of Oklahoma oil 

equals or exceeds $17 per oil barrel, four percent if the average price is less than $17 per 

oil barrel but equal to or exceeds $14 per oil barrel, and one percent if the average price is 

less than $14 per oil barrel (Oklahoma Tax Commission 2012; National Conference of 

State Legislatures 2012). In fiscal year 2012, the gross production severance tax was 

constant at seven percent, and approximately $703 million was collected (Oklahoma Tax 

Commission 2013). All oil and gas products produced in Oklahoma also incur a 

petroleum excise tax of 0.095 percent of the same taxable value used to compute the 

gross production severance tax (Oklahoma Tax Commission 2012). In fiscal year 2013, 

approximately $13 million was collected in petroleum excise taxes (Oklahoma Tax 

Commission 2013).

Federal Mineral Royalties

Additional revenues from oil, gas, and coal extraction come from rents and royalties paid 

by producers on public lands. Lease holders competitively bid, pay an initial bonus, and 

subsequently pay rent for the right to develop the resources on public lands. These funds 

are collected and are subsequently distributed to the federal and state government; they

are known as lease revenue and, in the case of rents, as lease royalties. Lease revenues 

and royalties to the state and county provide an additional economic benefit of mineral 

resource extraction. Federal mineral lease revenues are collected by the Office of Natural 

Resources Revenue within the Department of the Interior. Approximately 50 percent of 

the revenues are transferred to the state treasurer for disbursement to counties of origin.

Royalties collected in Oklahoma shown in Table 2-60, Rents, Royalty, and Bonus 

Revenue Collected. The Department of the Interior disburses 100 percent of the revenues 

received for energy and mineral production on Indian lands directly to the tribes and to 

individual mineral owners through the BIA and the Office of Special Trustee for 

American Indians. Tribes then distribute the revenues among all members or apply the 

revenues to health care, infrastructure, education, and other critical community 

development programs, such as senior centers, public safety projects, and youth 
2. Area Profile

2-238 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-60

Rents, Royalty, and Bonus Revenue Collected (Fiscal Year 2014)

Oklahoma

Gas (mcf) volume 41,207,754

Gas sales $189,711,741

Gas royalties $32,421,925

Oil (oil barrel) volume 1,775,706

Oil sales $$170,314,276

Oil royalties $25,780,515

Coal (tons) volume 563,275

Coal sales $30,286,733

Coal royalties $713,196

Rents $619,527

Bonuses $821,220

Other Revenue $2,069,741

Source: Office of Natural Resources Revenue 2015

initiatives. Many individual mineral owners use these revenues as a major source of 

income to support their families and communities. Indian royalty disbursement 

information is not available due to the proprietary nature of the data, but due to the large 

amount of Indian minerals in the area, the amount has significant importance for some 

individuals and tribes in the state.

Oklahoma’s state share of federal mineral royalty disbursement for fiscal year 2014 was

$5,353,242. A portion of this amount is then disbursed to the counties of origin.

Existing Conditions—Texas Overview

Texas industries with the greatest concentrations of employment are biotech and life 

sciences, information and electronics, professional and financial services, aerospace and 

aviation, industrial manufacturing, petroleum and chemical products, logistics and 

transportation, and food and beverage processing (Office of the Governor 2012). 

Historically, the oil industry has been a significant economic sector in Texas. When the 

sector gained prominence in the twentieth century, petroleum began to displace 

agriculture as the principal economic driver of the state (Texas Almanac 2015). Today, 

Texas is the nation’s leading producer of oil and gas, refined products, and chemicals. 

Texas is the nation’s largest chemicals producer, manufacturing 14 percent of the

nation’s value of chemical output (Office of the Governor 2005). In 2011, Texas had the 

fourth largest percentage of jobs directly attributable to the oil and natural gas industry’s 

operations, with 13.6 percent of jobs in that sector (American Petroleum Institute 2013).

Texas has approximately 33,290 acres of BLM-administered surface lands and 6,000

acres of BIA-managed surface lands. In total 2,192,000 acres of BLM-administered 

minerals and 6,300 acres of BIA-managed minerals are in Texas. 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-239

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Population and Migration

The total population in Texas in 2013 was 25,639,373. The population increased 

approximately 23 percent over the last decade, double the percent change in population in 

the US. Population projections for Texas estimate a continued population influx, with 

approximately 60 percent population change predicted by 2030, compared to a 29 percent 

increase for the US (see Table 2-61). 

Table 2-61

Population and Population Projections—Texas

Texas

ThreeState 

Region

United 

States

Population (2013) 25,639,373 32,293,222 311,536,594

Population (2000) 20,851,820 26,990,892 281,421,906

Population change (2000-2013) 4,787,553 5,302,330 30,114,688

Population percent change (2000-2013) 23.0 19.6 10.7

Projected population change (2010-2030) 12,465,924 N/A 82,162,529

Projected percent change (2010-2030) 59.8 N/A 29.2

Source: US Census Bureau 2000 Census and 2013 American Community Survey data as reported in Headwater 

Economics 2015, US Census Bureau 2005.

Population increases in the state have come from both births (54 percent) and migration 

of people into the area (46 percent; see Table 2-62). Ethnicity and race in area population 

are addressed in Section 2.5.4, Environmental Justice.

Table 2-62

Components of Population Growth, 2000-2013

Change 2000-2013

Population growth 5,502,230

Average annual population change (natural change and net migration) 419,256

Average annual natural change (births and deaths) 227,287

Average annual net migration (international and domestic) 192,999

Source: US Census Bureau, Population Division 2014, as reported by Headwater Economics 2015

Community Indicators

The population of Texas was overall the youngest in the planning area, with a median age 

of 33.8 in 2013, younger on average than the US population (median age 37.3). In 

general, the non-metro population (41.0 median age) was older than the metro population 

(32.7 median age; US Census Bureau 2014).

Texas had a lower level of those with bachelor’s degrees or higher in both metro and nonmetro populations, compared to the three-state average and national average (see Table 

2-63, Educational Attainment—Texas).
2. Area Profile

2-240 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-63

Educational Attainment—Texas

Texas

Metro

Texas NonMetroThree-State

Region United States

Total population 25 or 

older

13,428,682 2,651,625 20,394,615 206,587,852

No high school degree 2,564,817 463,427 3,551,747 28,887,721

19.1% 17.5% 17.4% 14.0%

High school graduate 10,863,865 2,188,198 16,842,868 177,700,131

80.9% 85.2% 82.6% 86.0%

Associate’s degree 861,623 179,684 1,353,982 16,135,795

6.4% 6.8% 6.6% 7.8%

Bachelor’s degree or higher 3,785,410 500,585 5,424,267 59,583,138

28.2% 18.9% 26.6% 28.8%

Bachelor’s degree 2,501,143 349,389 3,601,803 37,286,246

18.6% 13.2% 17.7% 18.0%

Graduate or professional 

degree

1,284,267 151,196 1,822,464 22,296,892

9.6% 5.7% 8.9% 10.8%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Texas had a high rate of residents who speak a language other than English, compared to 

the three-state and national average and based on 2013 data. The percentage of those who 

speak English less was also above the three-state average and national average (see Table 

2-64).

Table 2-64

Language Spoken at Home—Texas

Texas 

Metro

Texas

Non-Metro

Metro/NonMetro RegionUnited 

States

Population 5 or older 20,040,637 3,663,763 29,891,329 291,484,482

Speak only English 12,466,128 3,005,021 21,032,653 231,122,908

62.2% 82.0% 70.4% 79.3%

Speak a language other than 

English

7,574,509 658,742 8,858,676 60,361,574

37.8% 18.0% 29.6% 20.7%

Speak English less than very well 3,140,103 234,448 3,633,524 25,148,900

15.7% 6.4% 12.2% 8.6%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Housing 

Housing occupancy information in the planning area is displayed in Table 2-65, Housing 

Occupancy—Texas. Approximately 10.2 percent of housing in metro areas and 19.5 

percent in non-metro areas is vacant, as compared to the three-state average of 11.8 

percent and the national average of 12.5 percent.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-241

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-65

Housing Occupancy—Texas

Texas

Metro

Texas

Non-Metro

Three-State

Region United States

Total housing units 8,367,394 1,703,309 12,976,016 132,057,804

Occupied 7,514,794 1,371,677 11,440,992 115,610,216

89.8% 80.5% 88.2% 87.5%

Vacant 852,600 331,632 1,535,024 16,447,588

10.2% 19.5% 11.8% 12.5%

For rent 315,669 19,707 406,597 3,230,123

3.8% 1.2% 3.1% 2.4%

Rented, not occupied 49,195 3,869 67,837 599,884

0.6% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5%

For sale only 88,251 25,120 151,989 1,682,020

1.1% 1.5% 1.2% 1.3%

Sold, not occupied 28,569 13,193 54,530 608,590

0.3% 0.8% 0.4% 0.5%

For seasonal, recreational, 

occasional use

97,499 138,831 290,284 5,122,778

1.2% 8.2% 2.2% 3.9%

For migrant workers 1,578 1,202 3,913 34,233

0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Other vacant 271,839 129,710 559,874 5,169,960

3.2% 7.6% 4.3% 3.9%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Housing costs for rent and mortgage are similar to the national average for metro areas 

and below the national average for non-metro areas (see Table 2-66).

Table 2-66

Housing Costs—Texas

Texas

Metro

Texas

Non-Metro

Three-State

Region

United 

States

Owner-occupied housing units 

with a mortgage

2,912,427 547,751 4,503,350 49,820,840

Monthly cost <15% of household 

income

600,305 137,951 992,414 9,215,740

20.6% 25.2% 22.0% 18.5%

Monthly cost >30% of household 

income

892,121 155,332 1,316,380 17,636,343

30.6% 28.4% 29.2% 35.4%

Specified renter-occupied units 3,013,509 249,410 4,098,967 40,534,516

Gross rent <15% of household 

income

352,088 38,581 505,289 4,355,942

11.7% 15.5% 12.3% 10.7%

Gross rent >30% of household 

income

1,397,662 78,182 1,824,871 19,581,493

46.4% 31.3% 44.5% 48.3%
2. Area Profile

2-242 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-66

Housing Costs—Texas

Texas

Metro

Texas

Non-Metro

Three-State

Region

United 

States

Median monthly mortgage cost $1,467 $1,290 N/A $1,540

Median gross rent $858 $736 N/A $904

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Income and Employment

Both total employment and total personal income in Texas has increased more rapidly 

than population change from 2000 to 2013 (see Table 2-67).

Table 2-67

Population, Employment and Income Trends, 2000-2013—Texas

2000 2013 Change 

2000-2013

Percent 

Change

2000-2013

Population 20,944,499 26,448,193 5,503,694 26.2

Employment (full and part-time 

jobs)

12,139,152 15,505,307 3,366,155 27.7

Personal income (in thousands of 

2013 dollars)

803,126,092 1,160,078,868 356,952,776 44.4

Average earnings per job $53,956 $57,319 $3,363 6.2

Per capita income $38,345 $43,862 $5,517 14.4

Source: Headwater Economics 2015

In general, average annual unemployment in Texas has remained lower than the national 

average but has followed similar trends. Since 1990, the annual unemployment rate 

ranged from a low of 4.4 percent in 2000 to a high of 8.2 percent in 2010. See Table 2-68

for a comparison of Texas and US average unemployment over the past five years.

Table 2-68

Average Annual Unemployment—Texas

Texas United States

2013 6.3% 7.4%

2012 6.8% 8.1%

2011 7.9% 8.9%

2010 8.2% 9.6%

2009 7.5% 9.3%

2008 4.9% 5.8%

2007 4.4% 4.6%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-243

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Income distribution for 2009-2013 is demonstrated in more detail for both metro and 

non-metro population in Table 2-69. Per capita income was lower in Texas metro and 

non-metro areas compared to the US average. Median household income was similar to 

the national average for non-metro areas and was lower in metro areas.

Table 2-69

Household Income Distribution—Texas

Texas Metro Texas

Non-Metro

Three-State

Region United States

Per capita income (in 

2013 dollars)

$26,051 $25,841 N/A $28,155

Median household 

income (in 2013 dollars)

$51,665 $53,191 N/A $53,046

Total households 7,514,794 1,371,677 11,440,992 115,610,216

Less than 10,000 570,070 87,456 847,123 8,380,364

7.6% 6.4% 7.4% 7.2%

$10,000 to 14,999 403,190 71,766 624,251 6,214,548

5.4% 5.2% 5.5% 5.4%

$15,000 to 24,999 827,626 150,797 1,280,481 12,468,604

11.0% 11.0% 11.2% 10.8%

$25,000 to 34,999 806,019 145,675 1,249,592 11,929,761

10.7% 10.6% 10.9% 10.3%

$35,000 to 49,999 1,038,681 190,319 1,613,499 15,723,148

13.8% 13.9% 14.1% 13.6%

$50,000 to 74,999 1,330,875 254,732 2,069,926 20,744,045

17.7% 18.6% 18.1% 17.9%

$75,000 to 99,999 870,094 172,966 1,347,052 14,107,031

11.6% 12.6% 11.8% 12.2%

$100,000 to 149,999 941,276 181,186 1,402,947 14,858,239

12.5% 13.2% 12.3% 12.9%

$150,000 to 199,999 362,479 62,527 511,090 5,651,848

4.8% 4.6% 4.5% 4.9%

$200,000 or more 364,484 54,253 495,031 5,532,628

4.9% 4.0% 4.3% 4.8%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Based on 2013 data, top economic sectors in Texas were government, trade, 

transportation, and utilities, and professional and business services. It is worth noting that 

average annual wages were higher than average levels for professional services and lower 

for trade and government. The mining sector, which includes oil and gas, had a notably 

higher average annual wage (see Table 2-70, Employment and Wages by Industry—

Texas (in 2013 Dollars)). In 2013 the three industry sectors with the largest number of 

jobs were government (1,973,911), retail trade (1,510,502), and health care, social 
2. Area Profile

2-244 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-70

Employment and Wages by Industry—Texas (in 2013 Dollars)

Employment

Percent

of Total

Employment

Average

Annual 

Wages

Percent

Above or 

Below 

Average

Total 11,036,121 $51,187

Private 9,262,091 83.9 $52,146 1.9

Non-services-related 1,833,539 16.6 $71,405 39.5

Natural Resources and Mining 347,411 3.1 $105,413 105.9

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and

hunting 57,864 0.5 $30,928 -39.6

Mining (including fossil fuels) 289,547 2.6 $120,299 135.0

Construction 612,682 5.6 $55,738 8.9

Manufacturing (including forest 

products) 873,446 7.9 $68,869 34.5

Services-related 7,428,552 67.3 $47,392 -7.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities 2,225,210 20.2 $46,849 -8.5

Information 200,822 1.8 $75,536 47.6

Financial activities 670,725 6.1 $69,768 36.3

Professional and business services 1,458,998 13.2 $63,510 24.1

Education and health services 1,423,098 12.9 $42,851 -16.3

Leisure and hospitality 1,138,859 10.3 $18,995 -62.9

Other services 306,725 2.8 $33,857 -33.9

Unclassified 4,116 0.0 $44,008 -14.0

Government 1,774,031 16.1 $46,183 -9.8

Federal government 197,038 1.8 $70,094 36.9

State government 348,938 3.2 $49,676 -3.0

Local government 1,228,055 11.1 $41,353 -19.2

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2013, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

assistance (1,500,081). From 2001 to 2013, the three industry sectors that added the most 

new jobs were health care, social assistance (504,210), finance, insurance (352,378), and 

accommodation, food services (313,294).

In 2013, the three industry sectors with the largest personal income were government 

($125,628.5 million), manufacturing ($82,393.7 million), and professional, scientific, and 

technical services ($81,184.9 million). From 2001 to 2013, the three industry sectors that 

added the most new personal income (in real terms) were mining, including fossil fuels 

($49,458.3 million), government ($30,484.7 million), and health care, social assistance 

($26,691.4 million; see Table 2-71, Personal Income by Industry—Texas (in Thousands 

of 2013 Dollars)).
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-245

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-71

Personal Income by Industry—Texas (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)

2001 2013 Change 

2001-2013

Labor earnings 683,283,413 888,747,947 205,464,534

Non-services-related 172,770,102 234,130,996 61,360,894

Farm 5,242,962 4,368,353 -874,609

Forestry, fishing, and related activities 1,462,602 1,567,377 104,775

Mining (including fossil fuels) 30,940,843 80,399,099 49,458,256

Construction 50,248,044 65,402,439 15,154,395

Manufacturing 84,875,652 82,393,728 -2,481,924

Services-related 415,369,460 528,988,434 113,618,974

Utilities 8,357,805 8,407,367 49,562

Wholesale trade 42,765,377 54,590,626 11,825,249

Retail trade 47,430,397 51,356,632 3,926,235

Transportation and warehousing 38,091,551 43,099,932 5,008,381

Information 24,960,690 19,610,290 -5,350,400

Finance and insurance 43,825,874 51,529,082 7,703,208

Real estate and rental and leasing 17,613,093 18,333,995 720,902

Professional and technical services 57,931,987 81,184,922 23,252,935

Management of companies and enterprises 3,466,252 11,411,928 7,945,676

Administrative and waste services 26,043,190 37,453,164 11,409,974

Educational services 5,029,704 8,288,228 3,258,524

Health care and social assistance 52,323,124 79,014,481 26,691,357

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 4,473,834 5,891,776 1,417,942

Accommodation and food services 19,207,868 25,535,001 6,327,133

Other services, except public administration 23,848,715 33,281,010 9,432,295

Government 95,143,850 125,628,517 30,484,667

Data Sources: US Department of Commerce 2014, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts,

Washington, DC., Table CA25N, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Labor is the main source of income for Texas, comprising 70.3 percent and 57.9 percent 

for metro and non-metro populations. Non-labor income is of increasing importance 

nationally and may provide locally important sources of income. This is particularly the 

case in non-metro areas, which have a higher dependence on non-labor income than the 

average for the three-state region and the nation. For more details regarding income 

source, refer to Table 2-72, Non-labor Share of Total Personal Income—Texas.

Public Finance

Components of public finance related to managing federal lands and mineral resources in 

the planning area are primarily federal mineral royalty payments and other taxes collected 

from the extraction and sale of mineral resources. These categories are explained in detail 

below.
2. Area Profile

2-246 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-72

Non-labor Share of Total Personal Income—Texas 

Texas Metro Texas NonMetro

Three-State

Region United States

Total personal income 

(in thousands of 2013 

Dollars)

1,044,931,932 115,146,936 1,449,807,346 14,151,427,000

Non-labor income 310,100,137 48,508,065 460,289,630 5,085,220,000

29.7% 42.1% 31.7% 35.9%

Dividends, interest, 

and rent

168,779,428 21,661,089 243,340,439 2,670,719,000

16.2% 18.8% 16.8% 18.9%

Transfer payments 141,320,709 26,846,976 216,949,191 2,414,501,000

13.5% 23.3% 15.0% 17.1%

Labor earnings 734,831,795 66,638,871 989,517,716 9,066,207,000

70.3% 57.9% 68.3% 64.1%

Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014, as reported in headwater Economics 

2015

Note: Non-labor income and labor earnings may not add to total personal income because of adjustments made by 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis to account for contributions from Social Security, cross-county commuting, and 

other factors. 

Taxes

The baseline gross production severance tax in Texas on is 7.5 percent of market value of 

gas produced and saved and 4.6 percent of market value of oil produced. There is a 

condensate production tax of 4.6 percent of market value (National Conference of State 

Legislatures 2012). Taxable barrels of oil are subject to a regulatory tax and fee 

assessment of 0.008125 cents, which consists of 3/16 of a cent ($.001875) per barrel plus 

5/8 of a cent ($0.00625) per barrel, totaling 0.008125 cents (Texas Comptroller of Public

Accounts 2013). There is an oilfield cleanup regulatory fee of 5/8 of $0.01/barrel and 

1/15 of $0.01 per MCF of gas (National Conference of State Legislatures 2012). In 2013, 

approximately $4.6 billion was collected in severance taxes in Texas (US Census Bureau 

2014).

In addition to severance taxes, ad valorem property taxes are levied at the county level. 

This tax is payable only when minerals are producing. The market value that county ad 

valorem tax is assessed is the value of the discounted cash flow estimated from future 

production, which is based on production profile, operating expenses, oil and gas prices, 

and the discount rate (MineralWise 2011). In Texas, oil and gas mineral interests are also 

assessed an annual ad valorem tax at the county level based on market value of an 

individual interest in a given lease. The market value of future lease reserves is based on 

the appraiser’s projection as to how each lease will perform in the future using a statemandated appraisal methodology. This methodology includes examining factors such as 

start rate and decline of production, price operating expense, and discount rate to 

determine the fair market value of the lease in the market place (Pritchard and Abbott, 

Inc. 2009). Oil and gas equipment are also subject to county ad valorem taxes.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-247

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Federal Mineral Royalties

Additional revenues from oil, gas, and coal extraction come from rents and royalties paid 

by producers on public lands. Lease holders competitively bid, pay an initial bonus, and 

subsequently pay rent for the right to develop the resources on public lands. These funds 

are collected and subsequently distributed to the federal and state government. This is

known as lease revenue and, in the case of rents, as lease royalties. Lease revenues and 

royalties to the state and county provide an additional economic benefit of mineral 

resource extraction. Federal mineral lease revenues are collected by the Office of Natural 

Resources Revenue within the Department of the Interior. Approximately 50 percent of 

the revenues are transferred to the state treasurer for disbursement to counties of origin.

Royalties collected from onshore oil and gas development in Texas is provided in Table 

2-73, Rents, Royalty, and Bonus Revenue Collected (Fiscal Year 2014). The Department 

of the Interior disburses 100 percent of the revenues received for energy and mineral 

production on Indian lands directly to the tribes and individual mineral owners through 

the BIA and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. Tribes then distribute 

the revenues among all members or apply them to health care, infrastructure, education, 

and other critical community development programs, such as senior centers, public safety 

projects, and youth initiatives. Many individual mineral owners use these revenues as a 

major source of income to support their families and communities. 

Texas’s share of onshore federal minerals royalty revenue disbursement for fiscal year 

2014 was $ 10,730,021.. A portion of this amount is then disbursed to the counties of 

origin.

Table 2-73

Rents, Royalty, and Bonus Revenue Collected (Fiscal Year 2014)

Texas

Gas (mcf) sales volume 48,092,356

Gas sales $215,930,532

Gas royalties $25,416,705

Oil (oil barrel) volume 489,691

Oil sales $ $46,686,490

Oil royalties $ $5,465,102

Coal (tons) volume 0

Coal sales 0

Coal royalties 0

Rents $493,651

Bonuses $2,552,315

Other Revenue $78,068

Source: Office of Natural Resources Revenue 2015
2. Area Profile

2-248 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Social and Economic Activity Related to BLM/BIA Management Actions

Energy and Minerals

Energy and mineral development represents a key economic sector for states in the 

planning area. In Kansas, however, this sector is of lesser economic importance than in 

Texas and Oklahoma. The percent of private employment in mining is notably higher 

than the national average in all three states, but particularly in Oklahoma and Texas. 

Employment in the mining sector is broken out by sector in Table 2-74, Employment in 

Mining, 2012. The BLM-administered and BIA-managed minerals represent only a 

fraction of total oil and gas production in all three states; over the past 20 years, federal 

and Indian wells accounted for just for 0.3 percent of the wells drilled in the three-state

planning area. Table 2-75, Active and Inactive Oil and Gas Wells (2010-2014) , shows 

active and inactive oil and gas wells in the planning area by state as of December 2014.

Based on preliminary estimates from production models, production for both oil and gas 

is anticipated to increase over the next 20 year time frame.

Table 2-74

Employment in Mining, 2012

Oklahoma

Metro

Oklahoma

NonMetro

Texas

Metro

Texas

NonMetro

Kansas

Metro

Kansas

NonMetro

United 

States

Total 

private 

employment

909,682 372,334 8,304,745 732,385 792,031 327,076 115,938,468

Mining 2.80% 5.30% 1.60% 6.60% 0.30% 2.00% 0.60%

Oil and

gas 

extraction

2.80% 5.00% 1.50% 6.20% 0.20% 1.80% 0.40%

Oil and

gas 

extraction

1.40% 1.10% 0.40% 1.00% 0.10% 0.40% 0.10%

Drilling 

oil and

gas wells

0.50% 1.00% 0.30% 1.30% 0.10% 0.50% 0.10%

Support 

for oil and

gas operations

0.90% 2.90% 0.80% 4.00% 0.10% 0.90% 0.20%

Coal 

mining

0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10%

Metal ore 

mining

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-249

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-74

Employment in Mining, 2012

Oklahoma

Metro

Oklahoma

NonMetro

Texas

Metro

Texas

NonMetro

Kansas

Metro

Kansas

NonMetro

United 

States

Nonmetallic 

minerals 

mining

0.10% 0.30% 0.00% 0.20% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10%

Miningrelated0.50% 0.80% 0.70% 1.50% 0.10% 0.90% 0.20%

Oil and

gas 

pipeline 

and

related 

construction

0.40% 0.50% 0.50% 1.10% 0.00% 0.30% 0.10%

Pipeline 

transportation

0.10% 0.20% 0.20% 0.40% 0.10% 0.60% 0.00%

Nonmining96.70% 93.90% 97.70% 91.90% 99.60% 97.10% 99.20%

Source: Headwater Economics 2015

Table 2-75

Active and Inactive Oil and Gas Wells (2010-2014) 

Kansas 

Federal

Oklahoma

Federal

Texas 

Federal

Oklahoma 

Indian 

Trust

Texas 

Indian 

Trust

Actual Active Wells 394 387 490 1,760 9

Actual Inactive Shut-in Wells 21 66 49 261 0

Allocated Active Wells 553 2,053 200 4,267 0

Allocated Inactive Shut-in Wells 36 203 61 571 2

Source: BLM 2014b . Data current as of December 2014

Current coal production in the planning area is limited to nine authorized federal leases 

and two active mines in Oklahoma, covering 16,700 acres. Coal development in the state 

is focused in Haskell, Latimer, and Le Flore Counties. In 2012 total production was 

1,075,100 tons, and federal leases production was 487,000 tons. 
2. Area Profile

2-250 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

The BLM has provided estimates for economic contributions from oil and gas in the three 

states in the planning area (see Table 2-76, BLM Economic Contributions (Fiscal Year 

2013); note that contributions from BIA-managed mineral development are not included 

in this analysis). Contributions to state and local economies are jobs, income, taxes, and 

royalty revenue disbursement, as discussed in detail in state summary sections.

Table 2-76

BLM Economic Contributions (Fiscal Year 2013)

Kansas (in 

Millions of 

Dollars)

Oklahoma (in 

Millions of Dollars)

Texas (in Millions of 

Dollars)

Oil and gas

Direct $40.6 $140.0 $249.0

Total $67.6 $205.7 $388.8

Coal

Direct $0 $35.7 $0

Total $0 $56.8 $0

Source: BLM 2014b

Additional mineral development includes mineral materials. BIA managed minerals 

included 1,917,300 tons of sand and $60,700 tons of gravel with total sales value of 

$433,500 from 2009-2014. Mineral materials may also have additional economic 

importance for local communities as the materials are important for road construction and 

other construction activities.

The BLM Helium reserve near Amarillo, Texas, houses the national helium reserves. As 

dictated by the Helium Stewardship Act of 2013, the helium program is being privatized, 

with all helium resources and dispose of all facilities, equipment, and other real and 

personal property, held by the US in the Federal Helium System. In order to achieve this 

agenda, helium in the reserve is being auctioned off. The first auction in June 2014 

resulted in $14,972,568 in revenue which will contribute to nearly $185 million the 

program contributed to the U.S. Treasury in fiscal year 2014.

Potential for other mineral development is present in the planning area including but not 

limited to salt.

Agriculture

Agriculture and livestock grazing played a traditional role in the study area economy and 

continue to be important in some areas today, particularly in non-metro areas. There were 

390,800 farms, totaling 164,556,000 acres, in the study area in 2012 (USDA, National 

Agricultural Statistical Service 2012). Agricultural data are presented in Table 2-77, 

Summary of Socioeconomic Study Area Agriculture (2012). Due to the limited BLM 

surface lands in the planning area, BLM management actions have had only a minor role 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-251

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-77

Summary of Socioeconomic Study Area Agriculture (2012)

State Number of 

Farms

Acres in 

Farms

Market Value 

(Crop Sales)

Market Value 

(Livestock 

Sales)

Kansas 61,773 46,137,295 6,983,993,000 11,476,571,000

Texas 248,809 130,153,438 7,366,993,000 18,008,588,000

Oklahoma 80,245 34,356,110 1,875,569,000 5,254,015,000

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistical Service 2012

in livestock grazing to this point. There are four allotments with a total of 138 animal unit 

months, in the planning area on BLM lands, all in Oklahoma. Economic contributions 

from grazing on BLM lands are negligible for the planning area as a whole because of the 

low level of grazing. Additional grazing occurs on BIA-administered lands in the area,

and there is potential for grazing to increase on both public and BIA-managed lands in 

the future.

Recreation

Recreation plays an important role in some areas in the three-state region. Estimated 

economic impacts from area recreation are shown in Table 2-78, Summary of Planning 

Area Outdoor Recreation Economic Impacts. Due to the scattered nature of surface lands 

in the area and legal access issues, recreation has not historically been a major land use in 

the area on public lands; its use has not been closely tracked or managed. There is 

potential for management of recreation, including OHVs in the planning area. 

Table 2-78

Summary of Planning Area Outdoor Recreation Economic Impacts

State

Consumer 

Spending for 

Outdoor 

Recreation

Direct Jobs 

Generated 

from Outdoor 

Recreation

Wages and 

Salaries Related 

to Outdoor 

Reaction

State and Local 

Tax Revenue 

from Outdoor 

Recreation

Kansas $7.1 billion 85,000 $2 billion $477,000,000

Texas 28.7 billion 277,000 8.9 billion 1.9 billion

Oklahoma 8.4 billion 95,000 2.5 billion 584,000,000

Source: Outdoor Industry Association 2014

Wild Horse and Burros

The Wild horse and burro program in the three state region consists of a regional holding 

facility at Paul’s Valley Oklahoma, the adoption team based in Moore, Oklahoma and 

long and short term holding at private ranches through contracts with the BLM.

Of the 77.2 million appropriated for the national wild horse and burro program in fiscal 

year 2014, holding costs accounted for $43.235 million (64 percent). Contracts for 
2. Area Profile

2-252 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

private ranchers to use their properties as holding facilities for 4 year periods are 

available for bid for properties meeting specific criteria. Payment in contracts is generally 

around $1.35 per head/per day and can provide an important source of income for some 

area ranchers. 

Visitation opportunities are available at the BLM's regional holding facility in Paul’s 

Valley, Oklahoma. A drive-up interpretation center situated near the pastures allows 

visitors to view the animals as they leisurely roam and graze on the land.

Through a joint partnership with the Kansas Department of Corrections, Kansas 

Correctional Industries, and the Mustang Heritage Foundation, horse are trained for 

adoption and sold for the minimum price of $125.

Social Conditions and Non-Market Values

Social Setting

Much of the planning area was historically based on a rural agricultural economy. In 

certain local communities and regional centers such as Dallas, Houston, and Oklahoma 

City, oil and gas development have an important economic role. Cycles in oil and gas 

prices and level of development and employment can result in swings in population. This

may strain public services and introduce large influxes of people from outside the region, 

potentially straining the social setting in smaller communities and rural areas. Large 

population changes may alter perceptions of the friendliness, neighborliness, and 

trustworthiness of other residents. It also could change the perception of security, safety, 

and risk of victimization by crime and the satisfaction level of community life in general 

(Smith et al. 2001). 

Changes to the social setting are more likely to occur when development and associated 

population change is introduced to communities that do not have a long history of natural 

resource development. With changes in technology, different portions of the planning 

area may be impacted by development. 

Changes to the social setting can also impact the ability of different groups to adopt 

historic land uses. In addition, the planning area contains traditional cultural properties 

(TCPs), places that have cultural values and that have potential to be impacted by 

development. The National Park Service has defined TCPs as follows: 

A traditional cultural property can be defined generally as one [a property] that is 

eligible for the National Register because of its association with cultural practices 

or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history, 

and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the 

community (National Register Bulletin 38). 

TCPs typically include prehistoric and historic Native American archaeological sites but 

may also include culturally important sites with limited archaeological significance. In 

addition there are good reasons to expect that non-Native American communities may 

have TCPs in the planning area. 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-253

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

At community assessment meetings held in February 2015, representatives from local 

communities and interest groups provided input on important community social and 

economic values. Participants had various views on important factors for their 

communities for the next 20 years. Key issues of concern varied by state and among 

participants and are summarized below. Additional details are provided in the 

Socioeconomic Workshop Summary Report. 

Kansas

 Maintaining a viable oil industry

 Growth and expansion of the local tax base 

 Potential impacts of regulation on the tax base

 Slow but steady growth in population and finances

 Protection of water quality and quantity for both surface water and 

groundwater 

 Air quality and nonattainment areas

 Work force, including level of training and turnover rates

 Impacts on private land, including changes to traditional land uses (e.g., 

family ranches are not being passed down to families that ranch, and wind 

turbines are popping up on old ranch lands)

 Disproportionate impacts on small communities as a result of lack of repermitting for current activities 

 Helium pipeline and the fate of the current easements for the helium pipeline.

Oklahoma

 Recreation, including trespass and enforcement issues and a need for more 

infrastructure to facilitate more and better recreation opportunities

 Jobs, including how to create a skilled labor force through minerals 

development

 Water quality and quantity issues, including water use for mineral 

development and renewable energy

 Health issues, including poverty and food scarcity

 Continued leasing and permitting of mineral development, and streamlining

the process for developers

 Education of workforce and turnover; Oklahoma needs trained people to 

improve socioeconomic conditions; turnover is an issue in particular business 

sectors, such as the packing plant and casinos

 Quality of life balance

 Potential for economic diversity
2. Area Profile

2-254 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Tribal casinos, particularly for some Texas/Oklahoma border counties such as 

Cotton County; potential impacts on local economy

 Slow steady growth, while meeting the needs of citizens was cited as key for 

some communities

Texas

 Sustainable economy and economic diversification, including smaller 

companies and opportunities for entrepreneur development

 Management of motorized recreation and creation of rules for users; provide 

recreation on public lands for people from metro areas to use OHVs for 

recreation; legal and safe places for recreationists to go (i.e., places that are 

managed and maintained and that have rules and provide a safe environment); 

in particular for the Red River area, impacts of recreation, including trespass 

issues and burdens on public health and safety resources

 Water quality and quantity issues, including groundwater and water use, water 

availability, water disposal, brine spills from salt water flow lines, and 

sediment runoff

 Special status species, including impacts from recreation (i.e., all-terrain 

vehicle [ATV] use affecting interior least terns)

 Carbon sequestration

 Impacts of BLM management actions on other agencies (i.e., impacts on the

Army’s mission from development)

 Population growth and increase in housing costs

 Equestrian trails are a major recreation use in some areas, such as Wise 

County

 Balance of less regulation-government assistance vs. government management

 Drilling in north Texas runs the gamut from being done in very rural areas to 

highly urbanized areas, such as Fort Worth, so the impacts will vary 

considerably across the region

 Concerns about land disputes in the Red River area 

Many of the quality of life components brought forward in meetings can be discussed in 

terms of non-market values. Non-market values are the benefits derived by society from 

the uses or experiences that are not dispensed through markets and do not require 

payment. Non-market values can be broken down into two categories, use and non-use. 

The use value of a non-market good is the value to society from the direct use of the asset 

through recreation, such as hiking, bird watching, and OHV use. The use of non-market 

goods often requires consumption of associated market goods, such as lodging and gas. 

Non-use, or passive use, values of a non-market good reflect the value of an asset beyond 

its current use, due to willingness to preserve a resource for potential future use and for 

the benefit of preserving an asset for future generations to enjoy. This can include values 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-255

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

such as scenic views and preservation of plant and animal habitat that are not currently 

providing economic benefits. 

Affected Groups and Individuals 

The socioeconomic study area is a diverse setting with portions having suburban or urban 

character and experiencing rapid development in the past decades. It includes other areas 

that retain rural character and traditional land uses, including ranching and mineral 

development. 

Groups and individuals who have similar values but may not represent a physical 

community or region, but rather a specific group for whom management of public or 

BIA-managed land or minerals is of particular interest. These groups are discussed 

below.

Oil and Gas Leaseholders—Development of mineral resources is of primary importance in 

the planning area economy. Details of the contributions of these resources are discussed 

above, under Regional Demographics and Economic Context. Leaseholders are 

particularly interested in keeping restrictions on leasing minimal in order to keep the 

costs and delays of production low. 

Local Residents and Private Landowners—Landowners next to public lands and BIAmanaged lands are an important group to consider in the planning process. All landowner 

groups are concerned about how management decisions may impact the quality or 

quantity of local natural resources. Some common concerns are quality and quantity of 

water and the protection of adjacent lands from wildland fire. Additional planning issues 

of importance are impacts of development on adjacent lands, rural lifestyle preservation, 

and public land recreation opportunities. 

Ranchers—Ranching and agriculture are a part of the planning area’s history, culture, and 

economy. Due to the limited BLM-administered surface lands, ranching has not 

traditionally been impacted by BLM land management decisions. Livestock graze on 

BIA-managed lands to a greater extent and may represent a locally important source of 

income. Ranchers face such challenges as fluctuating livestock prices, increasing 

equipment and operating costs, fluctuating water availability, and changing federal 

regulations. Additional income sources are often necessary to continue ranching, and 

ranchers or their family members may also work in other sectors of the economy. 

Recreational Users—Recreational use of public lands in the planning area has been 

limited in the past due to the scatted nature of parcels and the lack of public access. One 

exception is within the Red River area bordering Oklahoma and Texas. Recreational 

users in the area have the potential to be impacted by BLM management decisions. 

Potential Renewable Energy Leaseholders—Renewable energy, particularly wind energy,

is of increasing importance in certain portions of the planning area, notably Kansas. 

While wind energy is not a traditional land use, management decisions on BLM-
2. Area Profile

2-256 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

administered or BIA-managed lands may impact the ability of this industry to grow in 

those lands in the planning area.

Individuals and Groups Who Prioritize Resource Protection—Various individuals and 

groups at the local, regional, and national levels are interested in how the BLM manages 

public lands. Many of their concerns are in regard to oil and gas development and 

impacts on water and air quality and visual quality. They value public lands for open 

space, wildlife, recreation, and scenic qualities, among other aspects. 

Individuals and Groups Who Prioritize Resource Use—Due to the long history of fossil 

fuel development in the planning area, the local, state, and regional economy is tied to 

fossil fuels development. Interested parties include local, regional, and national energy 

development companies, as well as local retailers who directly support construction, 

drilling, and operations for the industry. In addition, local retailers that offer lodging, 

food, and other services to oil and gas employees have an interest in management 

decisions impacting the level of permitted development. Fossil fuel development on 

public lands and minerals and BIA-managed minerals represents only a small fraction of 

total fossil fuels development but may have local or regional impacts.

Native Americans—Land held in trust for Native Americans and land held by individual 

Indian allottees has an important role in the planning area. Native Americans have a 

unique relationship with lands based on traditional uses and cultural values. The value 

they place on public lands includes extractive resource use and also may have religious, 

spiritual, and traditional aspects, all of which may be affected by BLM or BIA resource 

management decisions. These values are defined solely by the concerned tribes and are 

integral to tribal history, sense of place, and community identity. Development of oil and 

gas resources can impact Native Americans by affecting development potential on all 

landownership in the area (due to changes in infrastructure and supply), by affecting 

employment opportunities, and by potentially impacting traditional important or sacred 

places and land uses. 

References

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2014a. A Sound 

Investment for America. Economic Contributions from BLM-Managed Lands. 

Fiscal Year 2013 Data. Internet website: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/

socioeconomic.html.

. 2014b. Automated Fluid Minerals Management Support System. December 

2014 Data Query. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014. Average Annual Unemployment Rate 2000-2013. 

Updated February 2014. Internet website: http://stats.bls.gov/lau/data.htm. 

Headwater Economics. 2015. Socioeconomic profiles for states of Nebraska, Kansas, 

Texas, and Oklahoma. Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit. 

Internet website: http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-257

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Kansas Department of Commerce. 2015. Economic Overview. Internet website: 

http://www.kansascommerce.com/index.aspx?NID=172. 

Kansas Independent Oil and Gas Association. 2012. Kansas Oil and Gas Industry

Strategic Analysis. January 2012. Internet website: 

http://www.kioga.org/communications/reports/2012/Ks%20Oil%20-

%20Gas%20Industry%20Strategic%20Analysis%20(2012).pdf/view. Accessed 

on February 2, 2015.

Office of Natural Resources Revenue. 2014. Reported Revenues and Distributions for All 

Land Categories in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas for Fiscal Year 2013 by 

Accounting Year. Internet website: http://statistics.onrr.gov/ReportTool.aspx.

Accessed in January 2015.

Outdoor Industry Association. 2014. The Outdoor Recreation Economy. State profiles for 

Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. Internet website: 

www.outdoorindustry.org/recreationeconomy. Accessed in February 2015.

US Census Bureau. 2005. Population Division, Interim State Population Projections, 

2005. Release Date: April 21, 2005. Internet website: http://www.census.gov/

population/projections/data/state/projectionsagesex.html. 

USDA, National Agricultural Statistical Service (US Department of Agriculture, National 

Agricultural Statistical Service). 2012. 2012 National Agricultural Census. Issued

May 2014. Internet website: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/. 

. 2012. 2012 National Agricultural Census.

References—Oklahoma Taxes

National Conference of State Legislatures. 2012. Oil and Gas Severance Taxes: States 

Work to Alleviate Fiscal Pressures amid the Natural Gas Boom. Article by 

Jacquelyn Press. Internet website: http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/oil-andgas-severance-taxes.aspx.

Oklahoma Tax Commission. 2012. Gross Production Monthly Rate. Internet website: 

http://www.tax.ok.gov/gp2.html. Accessed on February 1, 2015. 

. 2013. Annual Report of the Oklahoma Tax Commission. Fiscal Year ended June 

30, 2013. Internet website: http://www.tax.ok.gov/reports/AR2013.pdf.

References—Texas Taxes

MineralWise. 2011. Ad Valorem Taxes. Internet website: http://www.mineralweb.com/

owners-guide/leased-and-producing/royalty-taxes/ad-valorem-taxes/.
2. Area Profile

2-258 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Pritchard and Abbott, Inc. 2009. The Appraisal of Mineral Interests (Completed or 

Producing) for Ad-Valorem Tax Purposes In Texas. Prepared by Gordon G. 

Peppard, RPA. Revised October 12, 2009. Internet website: http://www.tad

.org/mineral-oil-gas-info-faq. 

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. 2013. Crude Oil Production Tax. Internet 

website: http://comptroller.texas.gov/taxinfo/crude/.

US Census Bureau. 2014. State Government Tax Collections, Summary Report: 2013, 

Governments Division Briefs. Released April 8, 2014. Internet website:

http://www2.census.gov/govs/statetax/2013stcreport.pdf.

References—Oklahoma Gaming

American Gaming Association. 2013. State of the States, the AGA Survey of Casino 

Entertainment. Internet website: http://www.americangaming.org/sites/default/

files/uploads/docs/aga_sos2013_fnl.pdf. 

Oklahoma Office of State Finance. 2015. Gaming Compliance Unit (for Compacted 

Tribal Gaming). Gaming Exclusivity Fees. Internet website: http://www.ok.gov

/OGC/Gaming_Exclusivity_Fees/index.html. 

References—Oklahoma Overview

Oklahoma Historical Society. 2009. Oklahoma Economy. Internet website: http://www

.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=OK041. 

State Chamber of Oklahoma Research Foundation. 2014. Top Economic Facts About 

Oklahoma’s Oil and Gas Industry. January 2014. Internet website: http://www.ok

statechamber.com/sites/www.okstatechamber.com/files/MS_OilGasFacts.pdf. 

References—Texas Overview

American Petroleum Institute. 2013. Economic Impacts of the Oil and Natural Gas 

Industry on the US Economy in 2011. July 2013. Internet website: http://www.api

.org/~/media/Files/Policy/Jobs/Economic_impacts_Ong_2011.pdf. 

Office of the Governor. 2005. State of Texas Petroleum Refining and Chemical Products 

Cluster Assessment. August 2005. Internet website: http://gov.texas.gov/files/

ecodev/TexasPetrochemCluster.pdf.

_____. 2012. Texas Industry Concentrations, Where the State’s Key Sectors Cluster. 

Economics Development and Tourism. Internet website: http://gov.texas.gov/

files/ecodev/concentrations.pdf. 

Texas Almanac. 2015. Oil and Texas: A Cultural History. Internet website: http://www

.texasalmanac.com/topics/business/oil-and-texas-cultural-history. 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-259

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

2.5.4 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice refers to the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the 

development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or 

socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative 

environmental consequences of industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the 

execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.

Guidance on environmental justice terminology developed by the President’s Council on 

Environmental Quality (1997) is discussed below.

 Low-income population—A low-income population is determined based on 

annual statistical poverty thresholds developed by the US Census Bureau. In 

2013, the poverty level was based on total income of $11,888 for an 

individual and $23,624 for a family of four (US Census Bureau 2013). A lowincome community may include either a group of individuals living in 

geographic proximity to one another or dispersed individuals, such as migrant 

workers or Native Americans.

 Minority—Minorities are individuals who are members of the following 

population groups: American Indian, Alaskan Native, Asian, Pacific Islander, 

Black, or Hispanic. 

 Minority population area—A minority population area is so defined if either 

the aggregate population of all minority groups combined exceeds 50 percent 

of the total population in the area or if the percentage of the population in the 

area comprising all minority groups is meaningfully greater than the minority 

population percentage in the broader region. Like a low-income population, a 

minority population may include either individuals living in geographic 

proximity to one another or those who are dispersed.

 Comparison population—For the purpose of identifying a minority 

population or a low-income population concentration, state populations are 

compared to the US population. For counties, populations are compared to the 

respective state population average.

Low-Income Populations

Summary state-level poverty data is displayed in Table 2-79, Study Area County 

Population in Poverty in 2013, Table 2-80, Percent of Individuals below the Poverty 

Level in Counties of Oklahoma, Table 2-81, Percent of Individuals below the Poverty 

Level in Counties of Texas, and Table 2-82, Percent of Individuals below the Poverty 

Level in Counties of Kansas. The percent of individuals in poverty was lowest for the 

Kansas non-metro area population (9.5 percent) and highest for the Texas metro 

population (18.3 percent). In general, metro areas in all three states had higher percentage 

of people in poverty than non-metro populations. 
2. Area Profile

2-260 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-79

Study Area County Population in Poverty in 2013

Oklahoma

Metro

Oklahoma

NonMetro

Texas

Metro

Texas

NonMetro

Kansas

Metro

Kansas

NonMetro

United

States

Percent of 

individuals in 

poverty 

18 14.6 18.3 13.9 15.2 9.5 15.4

Percent of 

families in 

poverty 

13.6 10.8 14.4 10.1 10.4 6.5 11.3

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015.

Table 2-80, Table 2-81, and Table 2-82 show the percent of individuals below the 

poverty level for each county in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas, respectively. Counties 

with levels above the state average are shaded. These would be areas of focus for 

ensuring that residents of these counties do not have disproportionately negative 

economic and social impacts from decisions in the joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP. Figure 2-28, Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level, shows a 

map of each states' counties and comparative poverty levels.

The average percent of individuals below the poverty level in Oklahoma is 16.9 percent 

(US Census Bureau 2010b). Table 2-80 shows the percent of individuals below the 

poverty level for each county in Oklahoma. 35 counties in Oklahoma have a percentage 

of individuals living below the poverty line that is higher than the state average. 

Table 2-80

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Oklahoma

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Kay 18.3

Okfuskee 23.7

Wagoner 12.1

Tulsa 15.1

Cotton 13.8

Harper 11.6

Canadian 7.8

Coal 23.5

Oklahoma 17.3

Jackson 18.9

Washington 13.3

Blaine 15.6

Delaware 20.7
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-261

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-80

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Oklahoma

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Grady 14.3

Cimarron 23.7

Le Flore 20.9

Comanche 16.9

Custer 17.7

Cleveland 12.1

Okmulgee 19.4

Adair 24.8

Caddo 20.9

Garvin 15.0

Choctaw 25.5

Pottawatomie 17.6

McCurtain 27.6

Logan 14.9

Beaver 13.2

Beckham 15.8

McIntosh 22.2

Ottawa 18.8

Tillman 21.7

Cherokee 25.8

Atoka 22.6

Creek 14.2

Payne 23.2

Pittsburg 17.4

Noble 13.7

Murray 15.7

Nowata 16.3

Roger Mills 14.1

Washita 15.4

Texas 14.6

Muskogee 21.1

Pawnee 17.7

Grant 11.6

Kiowa 21.2

Sequoyah 19.0

Rogers 9.9

Carter 16.2

Mayes 17.9

Harmon 30.6

Seminole 22.4
2. Area Profile

2-262 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-80

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Oklahoma

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Hughes 23.3

Greer 11.0

Woods 15.8

Pushmataha 27.2

Love 16.0

Osage 13.6

Dewey 12.9

Major 10.4

Bryan 20.0

Johnston 22.6

Craig 15.0

Woodward 12.4

Latimer 14.2

Garfield 16.3

Stephens 13.0

Marshall 14.3

Pontotoc 17.5

Alfalfa 11.2

Kingfisher 10.4

Jefferson 18.4

McClain 11.6

Ellis 15.3

Haskell 12.7

Lincoln 14.8

Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey GIS 2015, US Census Bureau 

2010b

The average percent of individuals below the poverty level in Texas is 17.9 percent (US 

Census Bureau 2010b). Table 2-81 shows the percent of individuals below the poverty 

level for each county in Texas. 102 counties in Texas have a percentage of individuals 

living below the poverty line that is higher than the state average. 

Table 2-81

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Andrews 17.0

Crane 19.3

Liberty 16.2
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-263

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-81

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Yoakum 22.4

Bee 20.6

Foard 21.7

Glasscock 5.1

Gregg 16.6

Orange 13.6

Sabine 21.8

Crosby 27.4

Angelina 18.4

Kaufman 11.8

Camp 18.6

Haskell 17.0

Matagorda 21.2

Hamilton 12.5

Aransas 17.6

Uvalde 27.7

Lynn 18.5

Eastland 19.5

DeWitt 14.7

Presidio 22.9

Brazos 29.7

Borden 0.0

Fisher 13.6

Mason 13.2

Hall 25.9

Castro 24.6

Bell 14.8

Reeves 28.4

Hale 20.0

Rusk 13.5

Bexar 17.1

Stephens 14.9

Lavaca 10.1

Archer 13.1

Brewster 13.9

Briscoe 22.9

San Patricio 17.3

Childress 12.5

Dimmit 33.0

Dallam 12.3
2. Area Profile

2-264 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-81

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Kleberg 24.8

Bastrop 14.2

Blanco 8.1

Grimes 15.6

Jones 13.0

Carson 6.5

Bowie 18.4

Rains 11.8

Webb 30.6

Gillespie 9.1

Brooks 39.6

Coke 13.6

Edwards 20.8

Marion 22.6

Runnels 20.0

Zapata 36.7

Clay 10.4

Gaines 19.0

Llano 13.1

Jack 16.6

Trinity 16.6

Hutchinson 14.9

Lee 12.5

Floyd 21.8

Freestone 14.0

Coryell 14.1

Howard 19.7

Grayson 14.4

Refugio 16.8

Morris 17.4

Callahan 12.7

Schleicher 22.4

Nacogdoches 24.1

Terrell 14.0

Dallas 18.3

Karnes 22.7

Limestone 19.1

Wood 14.8

Colorado 15.7

Collingsworth 26.8
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-265

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-81

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Hunt 18.3

Hood 11.3

Cochran 16.2

Harrison 14.5

Armstrong 11.1

Galveston 13.1

Franklin 13.4

Pecos 17.0

Kinney 27.9

Newton 17.4

Reagan 10.8

San Augustine 27.2

Gray 14.6

Terry 16.7

Parmer 19.7

Winkler 15.6

Burnet 14.0

Hardeman 22.2

Fayette 12.8

Montgomery 11.5

La Salle 24.3

Dickens 20.5

Shackelford 13.0

Nueces 18.8

Wharton 17.5

Young 16.6

Van Zandt 15.9

Hudspeth 44.7

McLennan 21.7

Lampasas 15.3

Gonzales 22.3

Burleson 13.3

McCulloch 20.8

Mitchell 13.3

Zavala 39.0

Kent 7.0

Martin 11.5

Waller 18.3

Real 25.1

Navarro 20.0
2. Area Profile

2-266 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-81

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Tarrant 14.2

Sutton 11.7

Erath 19.5

Hidalgo 35.3

Ector 16.2

Houston 20.7

McMullen 15.2

Donley 12.5

Hopkins 18.2

Comanche 23.4

Potter 22.7

Hartley 8.0

Hemphill 16.5

Lubbock 19.1

Washington 14.3

Midland 11.5

Panola 12.8

Madison 22.7

Williamson 6.3

Crockett 18.0

Cameron 34.9

Ellis 11.4

Maverick 31.5

Throckmorton 13.3

Victoria 17.1

Sterling 14.7

Falls 23.6

Wise 10.0

Swisher 17.2

Menard 19.3

Titus 18.3

Jeff Davis 9.7

El Paso 25.0

San Saba 22.0

Wichita 13.9

Upton 13.7

Jasper 17.5

Dawson 20.6

Travis 16.6

Hardin 11.5
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-267

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-81

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Ward 14.2

Garza 22.5

Montague 13.1

Moore 15.1

Henderson 16.0

Johnson 10.8

Hill 16.3

San Jacinto 17.7

Delta 20.2

Caldwell 20.7

Fort Bend 8.3

Lipscomb 14.7

Hansford 13.3

Loving 16.1

Chambers 8.3

Guadalupe 9.7

Kerr 14.1

Collin 7.3

Hockley 16.0

Wilson 10.1

Nolan 18.9

Stonewall 18.9

Live Oak 14.6

Denton 7.9

Bosque 15.2

Baylor 15.8

Culberson 32.3

Mills 16.8

Lamb 21.1

Ochiltree 21.6

Cass 18.9

Upshur 13.0

Bandera 17.4

Jim Wells 22.9

Austin 9.3

Jefferson 18.9

Fannin 15.3

Jim Hogg 9.9

Roberts 10.2

Goliad 13.8
2. Area Profile

2-268 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-81

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Concho 21.7

Frio 22.1

Palo Pinto 15.8

Robertson 22.1

Knox 18.9

Tom Green 15.9

Cottle 13.3

Atascosa 17.7

Irion 3.4

Lamar 17.0

Coleman 30.8

Rockwall 5.5

Wilbarger 20.6

Calhoun 16.7

Leon 17.5

Bailey 19.2

Kimble 17.4

Polk 19.9

Val Verde 23.0

Duval 22.8

Starr 36.3

Wheeler 12.3

Oldham 20.0

Comal 9.5

Medina 16.6

King 5.5

Somervell 9.0

Tyler 19.2

Jackson 12.5

Milam 17.0

Red River 16.8

Motley 21.6

Kendall 8.9

Hays 16.4

Deaf Smith 16.8

Shelby 24.5

Harris 17.3

Kenedy 19.1

Cooke 13.6

Scurry 18.5
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-269

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-81

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Randall 9.4

Sherman 14.0

Taylor 16.5

Willacy 42.3

Parker 10.9

Brazoria 10.7

Cherokee 22.3

Anderson 18.8

Brown 17.1

Walker 23.4

Smith 15.5

Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey GIS 2015, US Census Bureau 

2010b

The average percent of individuals below the poverty level in Kansas is 13.6 percent (US 

Census Bureau 2010b). Table 2-82 shows the percent of individuals below the poverty 

level for each county in Kansas. 35 counties in Kansas have a percentage of individuals 

living below the poverty line that is higher than the state average. 

Table 2-82

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in 

Counties of Kansas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Elk 19.3

Edwards 15.4

Harper 13.9

Brown 20.2

Sheridan 13.4

Clark 12.2

Pottawatomie 6.8

Lyon 21.2

Phillips 12.7

Cowley 16.8

Grant 13.2

Marion 10.2

Greenwood 18.1

Dickinson 10.3

Gove 9.4
2. Area Profile

2-270 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-82

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in 

Counties of Kansas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Kingman 11.4

Shawnee 14.7

Seward 16.2

Bourbon 15.9

Rice 14.7

Greeley 6.2

Thomas 7.8

Washington 12.3

Jefferson 6.3

Osage 10.8

Crawford 19.1

Anderson 12.8

Pawnee 6.5

Linn 10.9

Lane 15.8

Saline 13.9

Doniphan 12.5

Wilson 13.3

Comanche 6.3

Republic 12.4

Scott 7.2

Leavenworth 8.8

Gray 7.6

Mitchell 8.3

Montgomery 15.3

Cheyenne 10.3

Wyandotte 21.9

Ness 7.4

Franklin 10.2

Barton 12.7

McPherson 8.6

Chautauqua 14.7

Johnson 5.9

Stevens 12.8

Miami 8.4

Riley 23.6

Morris 7.8

Sherman 19.9

Sedgwick 14.0
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-271

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-82

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in 

Counties of Kansas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Graham 10.5

Hodgeman 5.2

Ottawa 9.9

Stanton 4.6

Cherokee 15.4

Osborne 14.2

Wabaunsee 6.7

Marshall 11.8

Atchison 13.0

Stafford 11.2

Douglas 19.0

Kiowa 13.2

Lincoln 11.5

Chase 13.3

Woodson 18.6

Nemaha 11.2

Geary 12.5

Haskell 11.8

Smith 13.8

Russell 13.9

Butler 7.6

Morton 5.3

Meade 10.0

Logan 11.3

Decatur 9.6

Ford 15.5

Labette 16.1

Ellis 15.4

Jackson 9.5

Neosho 16.8

Pratt 7.6

Rooks 15.5

Jewell 10.6

Finney 15.1

Trego 9.4

Sumner 12.6

Rush 13.5

Hamilton 8.8

Reno 13.0
2. Area Profile

2-272 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-82

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in 

Counties of Kansas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Norton 12.7

Barber 11.0

Allen 15.4

Wichita 13.0

Cloud 16.2

Clay 11.6

Rawlins 13.5

Kearny 9.5

Harvey 11.1

Wallace 14.1

Coffey 9.9

Ellsworth 6.2

Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey GIS 2015, 

US Census Bureau 2010b

Minority Populations

Based on 2013 data, the population of Kansas had minority populations below that of the 

national average; Oklahoma populations were similar to the national average, while 

Texas had minority populations above that of the national average (see Table 2-87). 

Native Americans are a significant minority in Oklahoma. Table 2-34 lists tribes within 

the planning area. The largest minority groups outside of tribal groups were 

Hispanics/Latinos, particularly of note in Texas.

Table 2-83, Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Oklahoma, Table 

2-, Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Kansas, and Table 2-86,

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Texas, show the aggregate 

minority population percentage, or the percentage of the population identifying as one or 

more racial or ethnic minorities (non-white) for each county in Oklahoma, Kansas, and 

Texas, respectively. This is found by taking the total population minus the non-Hispanic 

white population. Counties with levels above the state average are shaded. These would 

be areas of focus for ensuring that residents of these counties do not have 

disproportionately negative economic and social impacts from decisions in the joint 

EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP. Figure 2-29, Aggregate Minority Population,

shows a map of each states’ counties and comparative aggregate minority population 

percentages.


2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-275

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

The average percent of aggregate minority population in Oklahoma is 31.3 percent (US 

Census Bureau 2010a). Table 2-83 shows the percent of aggregate minority population 

for each county in Oklahoma. 25 counties in Oklahoma have a percentage of aggregate 

minority population that is higher than the state average. As previously stated, people of 

Native American descent make up a significant minority group in Oklahoma. In 2010 

data, 12.9 percent of people identified themselves as Native American in the state overall.

In total, 37 counties (48 percent) had a percentage of Native American population that is 

higher than the state average (see Table 2-84).

Table 2-83

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of 

Oklahoma

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Population

Adair County 57.9

Alfalfa County 12.7

Atoka County 27.2

Beaver County 23.5

Beckham County 21.1

Blaine County 37.1

Bryan County 26.2

Caddo County 40.5

Canadian County 20.3

Carter County 27.5

Cherokee County 49.8

Choctaw County 36.3

Cimarron County 23.5

Cleveland County 24.3

Coal County 26.9

Comanche County 41.1

Cotton County 20.8

Craig County 34.4

Creek County 21.6

Custer County 26.6

Delaware County 34.1

Dewey County 14.0

Ellis County 9.4

Garfield County 19.5

Garvin County 21.0

Grady County 16.4

Grant County 8.5

Greer County 21.6

Harmon County 37.1

Harper County 19.8
2. Area Profile

2-276 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-83

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of 

Oklahoma

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Population

Haskell County 26.7

Hughes County 33.2

Jackson County 34.2

Jefferson County 19.4

Johnston County 28.3

Kay County 22.4

Kingfisher County 20.0

Kiowa County 22.7

Latimer County 30.8

Le Flore County 26.9

Lincoln County 15.4

Logan County 21.5

Love County 23.7

Major County 11.9

Marshall County 30.2

Mayes County 33.1

McClain County 19.0

McCurtain County 34.2

McIntosh County 30.6

Murray County 24.1

Muskogee County 41.7

Noble County 16.7

Nowata County 32.2

Okfuskee County 36.8

Oklahoma County 40.7

Okmulgee County 35.6

Osage County 35.3

Ottawa County 32.6

Pawnee County 20.3

Payne County 20.3

Pittsburg County 28.1

Pontotoc County 30.7

Pottawatomie County 25.6

Pushmataha County 26.1

Roger Mills County 12.7

Rogers County 26.3

Seminole County 32.8

Sequoyah County 34.8

Stephens County 17.5
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-277

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-83

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of 

Oklahoma

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Population

Texas County 47.2

Tillman County 35.4

Tulsa County 34.8

Wagoner County 26.6

Washington County 24.1

Washita County 14.1

Woods County 13.4

Woodward County 17.2

Source: US Census Bureau GIS 2010, US Census Bureau 2010a

Table 2-84

Percent of Native American Population in Oklahoma

County

Percent of Population Native 

American or Alaskan Native 

(Including People of One or 

More Races)

Adair County 53.4

Alfalfa County 4.4

Atoka County 20.3

Beaver County 2.4

Beckham County 4.3

Blaine County 10.5

Bryan County 19.3

Caddo County 29.7

Canadian County 7.5

Carter County 14.1

Cherokee County 42.6

Choctaw County 21.8

Cimarron County 1.7

Cleveland County 8.2

Coal County 24.1

Comanche County 8.5

Cotton County 13.5

Craig County 28.2

Creek County 15.8

Custer County 8.8

Delaware County 29.8

Dewey County 8.2
2. Area Profile

2-278 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-84

Percent of Native American Population in Oklahoma

County

Percent of Population Native 

American or Alaskan Native 

(Including People of One or 

More Races)

Ellis County 2.4

Garfield County 4.1

Garvin County 11.6

Grady County 8.8

Grant County 3.6

Greer County 4.7

Harmon County 3

Harper County 1.8

Haskell County 22.4

Hughes County 24.2

Jackson County 3.7

Jefferson County 9.9

Johnston County 22.5

Kay County 13.6

Kingfisher County 5.2

Kiowa County 9.1

Latimer County 27.8

Le Flore County 17.3

Lincoln County 10.6

Logan County 6

Love County 9.7

Major County 10.8

Marshall County 20.4

Mayes County 24.9

McClain County 3.4

McCurtain County 14.5

McIntosh County 29.9

Murray County 17.8

Muskogee County 24.6

Noble County 11.7

Nowata County 27.6

Okfuskee County 25.4

Oklahoma County 6.4

Okmulgee County 23.2

Osage County 20.9

Ottawa County 25.6

Pawnee County 16.9

Payne County 8.3
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-279

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-84

Percent of Native American Population in Oklahoma

County

Percent of Population Native 

American or Alaskan Native 

(Including People of One or 

More Races)

Pittsburg County 20.4

Pontotoc County 23.7

Pottawatomie County 18

Pushmataha County 22.8

Roger Mills County 7.6

Rogers County 20.4

Seminole County 24.2

Sequoyah County 29.3

Stephens County 8.6

Texas County 2.3

Tillman County 5.4

Tulsa County 10.1

Wagoner County 16.2

Washington County 15.2

Washita County 5.2

Woods County 4.2

Woodward County 4.4

Source: US Census Bureau 2010a

The average percent of aggregate minority population in Kansas is 21.8 percent (US 

Census Bureau 2010a). Table 2-85 shows the percent of aggregate minority population 

for each county in Kansas. 16 counties in Kansas have a percentage of aggregate minority 

population that is higher than the state average. 

Table 2-85

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of 

Kansas

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Population

Allen County 8.1

Anderson County 4.0

Atchison County 10.5

Barber County 5.2

Barton County 16.6

Bourbon County 8.0

Brown County 16.0

Butler County 9.0
2. Area Profile

2-280 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-85

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of 

Kansas

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Population

Chase County 6.9

Chautauqua County 10.3

Cherokee County 10.8

Cheyenne County 6.7

Clark County 11.2

Clay County 4.1

Cloud County 5.2

Coffey County 4.9

Comanche County 5.7

Cowley County 17.8

Crawford County 11.0

Decatur County 3.1

Dickinson County 7.3

Doniphan County 8.3

Douglas County 18.3

Edwards County 19.5

Elk County 6.5

Ellis County 8.3

Ellsworth County 11.8

Finney County 53.6

Ford County 56.0

Franklin County 8.1

Geary County 40.1

Gove County 2.9

Graham County 9.2

Grant County 45.8

Gray County 15.9

Greeley County 15.3

Greenwood County 6.5

Hamilton County 33.0

Harper County 7.5

Harvey County 15.4

Haskell County 28.7

Hodgeman County 8.8

Jackson County 14.1

Jefferson County 5.0

Jewell County 3.8

Johnson County 18.0

Kearny County 31.5
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-281

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-85

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of 

Kansas

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Population

Kingman County 4.7

Kiowa County 6.9

Labette County 14.5

Lane County 7.0

Leavenworth County 19.7

Lincoln County 3.9

Linn County 4.9

Logan County 5.3

Lyon County 26.7

Marion County 5.3

Marshall County 3.9

McPherson County 6.9

Meade County 17.8

Miami County 6.3

Mitchell County 2.8

Montgomery County 19.1

Morris County 5.9

Morton County 23.7

Nemaha County 3.3

Neosho County 8.3

Ness County 9.0

Norton County 8.9

Osage County 4.5

Osborne County 3.0

Ottawa County 4.3

Pawnee County 13.7

Phillips County 4.4

Pottawatomie County 8.9

Pratt County 8.7

Rawlins County 4.7

Reno County 13.9

Republic County 2.6

Rice County 13.9

Riley County 20.5

Rooks County 3.9

Rush County 4.3

Russell County 4.7

Saline County 17.9

Scott County 17.0
2. Area Profile

2-282 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-85

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of 

Kansas

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Population

Sedgwick County 30.1

Seward County 64.0

Shawnee County 24.4

Sheridan County 4.7

Sherman County 13.2

Smith County 3.7

Stafford County 14.2

Stanton County 39.6

Stevens County 34.6

Sumner County 8.7

Thomas County 7.1

Trego County 3.3

Wabaunsee County 5.5

Wallace County 8.8

Washington County 4.2

Wichita County 26.3

Wilson County 5.8

Woodson County 5.1

Wyandotte County 56.7

Source: US Census Bureau GIS 2010, US Census Bureau 2010a

The average percent of aggregate minority population in Texas is 54.7 percent (US 

Census Bureau 2010a). Table 2-86 shows the percent of aggregate minority population 

for each county in Texas. 59 counties in Texas have a percentage of aggregate minority 

population that is higher than the state average. 

Table 2-86

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of 

Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Anderson County 38.8

Andrews County 52.1

Angelina County 36.7

Aransas County 29.4

Archer County 9.6

Armstrong County 9.3

Atascosa County 63.7
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-283

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-86

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of 

Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Austin County 34.3

Bailey County 61.7

Bandera County 19.1

Bastrop County 42.8

Baylor County 15.5

Bee County 65.6

Bell County 49.3

Bexar County 69.7

Blanco County 20.6

Borden County 15.9

Bosque County 19.3

Bowie County 33.7

Brazoria County 46.8

Brazos County 40.9

Brewster County 45.7

Briscoe County 29.0

Brooks County 92.1

Brown County 25.3

Burleson County 31.9

Burnet County 23.9

Caldwell County 55.8

Calhoun County 54.2

Callahan County 10.9

Cameron County 89.3

Camp County 41.1

Carson County 11.5

Cass County 22.8

Castro County 62.7

Chambers County 29.4

Cherokee County 37.3

Childress County 38.5

Clay County 7.5

Cochran County 57.5

Coke County 20.2

Coleman County 19.9

Collin County 36.9

Collingsworth County 36.6

Colorado County 40.1

Comal County 28.7
2. Area Profile

2-284 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-86

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of 

Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Comanche County 27.4

Concho County 55.7

Cooke County 21.3

Coryell County 38.0

Cottle County 30.7

Crane County 59.7

Crockett County 64.7

Crosby County 56.7

Culberson County 79.0

Dallam County 44.4

Dallas County 66.9

Dawson County 60.9

Deaf Smith County 69.3

Delta County 16.8

Denton County 35.6

DeWitt County 42.9

Dickens County 34.9

Dimmit County 87.8

Donley County 14.7

Duval County 89.8

Eastland County 17.8

Ector County 58.9

Edwards County 52.7

El Paso County 86.9

Ellis County 34.5

Erath County 22.5

Falls County 47.5

Fannin County 19.1

Fayette County 26.5

Fisher County 29.6

Floyd County 56.9

Foard County 18.6

Fort Bend County 63.8

Franklin County 18.9

Freestone County 31.1

Frio County 83.8

Gaines County 39.4

Galveston County 40.7

Garza County 54.2
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-285

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-86

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of 

Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Gillespie County 21.6

Glasscock County 32.7

Goliad County 39.8

Gonzales County 55.4

Gray County 30.9

Grayson County 21.3

Gregg County 39.2

Grimes County 39.4

Guadalupe County 45.2

Hale County 62.4

Hall County 40.4

Hamilton County 12.0

Hansford County 45.0

Hardeman County 29.0

Hardin County 12.0

Harris County 67.0

Harrison County 35.0

Hartley County 32.2

Haskell County 29.7

Hays County 41.4

Hemphill County 30.2

Henderson County 19.1

Hidalgo County 92.2

Hill County 26.4

Hockley County 48.6

Hood County 12.9

Hopkins County 24.6

Houston County 37.6

Howard County 46.3

Hudspeth County 81.9

Hunt County 25.2

Hutchinson County 25.6

Irion County 27.9

Jack County 19.4

Jackson County 37.1

Jasper County 24.6

Jeff Davis County 36.4

Jefferson County 55.4

Jim Hogg County 93.7
2. Area Profile

2-286 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-86

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of 

Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Jim Wells County 80.3

Johnson County 23.4

Jones County 37.9

Karnes County 59.8

Kaufman County 30.0

Kendall County 22.9

Kenedy County 79.3

Kent County 17.2

Kerr County 27.8

Kimble County 25.1

King County 15.4

Kinney County 58.4

Kleberg County 76.7

Knox County 36.9

La Salle County 87.0

Lamar County 23.9

Lamb County 56.9

Lampasas County 24.6

Lavaca County 23.8

Lee County 35.0

Leon County 22.2

Liberty County 30.8

Limestone County 38.3

Lipscomb County 33.0

Live Oak County 41.0

Llano County 10.4

Loving County 26.8

Lubbock County 42.7

Lynn County 49.6

Madison County 41.2

Marion County 28.3

Martin County 46.3

Mason County 22.9

Matagorda County 52.6

Maverick County 97.1

McCulloch County 32.8

McLennan County 41.1

McMullen County 38.9

Medina County 53.5
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-287

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-86

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of 

Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Menard County 36.4

Midland County 46.8

Milam County 34.5

Mills County 18.5

Mitchell County 49.5

Montague County 12.0

Montgomery County 28.8

Moore County 61.8

Morris County 33.2

Motley County 16.3

Nacogdoches County 38.5

Navarro County 40.1

Newton County 25.1

Nolan County 39.6

Nueces County 67.1

Ochiltree County 50.5

Oldham County 17.2

Orange County 17.0

Palo Pinto County 21.9

Panola County 26.4

Parker County 14.7

Parmer County 61.6

Pecos County 72.1

Polk County 27.7

Potter County 51.0

Presidio County 85.5

Rains County 12.5

Randall County 21.8

Reagan County 63.8

Real County 27.5

Red River County 26.1

Reeves County 80.5

Refugio County 54.8

Roberts County 9.5

Robertson County 40.9

Rockwall County 25.9

Runnels County 34.9

Rusk County 33.9

Sabine County 12.5
2. Area Profile

2-288 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-86

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of 

Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

San Augustine County 30.3

San Jacinto County 23.4

San Patricio County 57.8

San Saba County 32.6

Schleicher County 45.9

Scurry County 42.2

Shackelford County 12.3

Shelby County 35.0

Sherman County 41.9

Smith County 37.9

Somervell County 22.3

Starr County 96.0

Stephens County 24.3

Sterling County 35.9

Stonewall County 19.1

Sutton County 60.3

Swisher County 48.8

Tarrant County 48.2

Taylor County 33.0

Terrell County 49.7

Terry County 54.6

Throckmorton County 11.5

Titus County 50.8

Tom Green County 42.1

Travis County 49.5

Trinity County 19.0

Tyler County 19.6

Upshur County 17.9

Upton County 52.0

Uvalde County 71.0

Val Verde County 82.5

Van Zandt County 14.2

Victoria County 52.1

Walker County 41.5

Waller County 55.4

Ward County 53.8

Washington County 33.6

Webb County 96.7

Wharton County 52.3
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-289

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-86

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of 

Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level

Wheeler County 28.9

Wichita County 31.6

Wilbarger County 36.6

Willacy County 89.9

Williamson County 36.2

Wilson County 41.3

Winkler County 57.5

Wise County 20.3

Wood County 15.1

Yoakum County 60.8

Young County 19.4

Zapata County 93.9

Zavala County 94.5

Source: US Census Bureau GIS 2010, US Census Bureau 2010a

Table 2-87

Study Area Population by Race/Ethnicity (2012)

Population Oklahoma

Metro

Oklahoma

NonMetro

Texas

Metro

Texas

NonMetro

Kansas

Metro

Kansas

NonMetro

United 

States

Total 

Hispanic or 

Latino 

ethnicity of any 

race

11.5% 4.5% 40.6% 22.6% 12.9% 4.4% 16.6%

White alone 71.6% 77.3% 71.9% 88.1% 82.2% 94.6% 74.0%

Black or 

African 

American 

alone

9.7% 2.4% 13.0% 5.4% 7.4% 0.9% 12.6%

American 

Indian or 

Alaskan Native 

alone

5.6% 10.0% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 0.8%

Asian alone 2.5% 0.5% 4.6% 0.7% 3.2% 0.4% 4.9%
2. Area Profile

2-290 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-87

Study Area Population by Race/Ethnicity (2012)

Population Oklahoma

Metro

Oklahoma

NonMetro

Texas

Metro

Texas

NonMetro

Kansas

Metro

Kansas

NonMetro

United 

States

Native 

Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific 

Islander alone

0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%

Some other 

race

3.1% 1.4% 7.5% 3.5% 2.8% 0.9% 4.7%

Two or more 

races

7.4% 8.5% 2.4% 1.7% 3.6% 2.2% 2.8%

Aggregate 

minority 

population

35.2% 25.1% 59.7% 30.2% 27% 8.5% 36.7%

Source: Headwater Economics. 2015

References

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. December 10, 1997.

Headwater Economics. 2015. Socioeconomic profiles for states of Nebraska, Kansas, 

Texas, and Oklahoma. Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit. 

Internet website: http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt. Accessed on 

January 6, 2015 and February 26, 2015.

US Census Bureau. 2010a. 2010 Census Demographic Profile Data. Profile of General 

Population and Housing Characteristics (DP-1). Internet website: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t. 

Accessed on March 3, 2015.

_____. 2010b. 2010 1 year American Community Survey Data. DP03 Selected Economic 

Characteristics. Internet website: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/

searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t. Accessed on March 3, 2015

_____. 2013. Poverty Thresholds for 2013 by Size of Family and Number of Related 

Children Under 18 Years. Internet website: https://www.census.gov/hhes/

www/poverty/data/threshld/. Accessed on January 21, 2015.

US Census Bureau American Community Survey GIS (Geographic Information 

Systems). 2015. GIS data of percentage of individuals below poverty level, 2007 

to 2011. Internet website: https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tigerdata.html. Accessed on January 12, 2015.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-291

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

US Census Bureau GIS (Geographic Information Systems). 2010. GIS data of aggregate 

minority population-derived. Internet website: https://www.census.gov/geo/

maps-data/data/tiger-data.html. Accessed on January 12, 2015.

2.6 BIA DECISION AREA

2.6.1 Air

Air resources in the BIA decision area are primarily described above under Section 2.2, 

BLM Resources, which discusses air quality on both BLM and BIA land in Oklahoma, 

Texas, and Kansas. The BIA decision area in Richardson County, Nebraska, is not 

included in Section 2.2 and is discussed here.

There are no Class I areas within Richardson County, nor are there any tribal Class I 

areas in the Nebraska BIA decision area (National Park Service 2011). All of Richardson 

County is classified as a Class II area. 

Nebraska has adopted the national standards for all criteria pollutants. These standards 

are listed in Table 2-2. There are no nonattainment areas in Richardson County (EPA 

2014b). There are no air quality monitoring data from Richardson County to compare 

with the data in Table 2-2, Air Quality Monitoring Values in the Planning Area by State 

(EPA 2014c). The Nebraska State Implementation Plan has been approved by the EPA.

Trends and Forecast for air resources are discussed under Section 2.2, BLM Resources.

References

References are provided under Section 2.2, BLM Resources.

2.6.2 Climate

Climate resources are described above under Section 2.2, BLM Resources.

2.6.3 Geology

The geology of the planning area and associated geologic hazards are described above 

under Section 2.2, BLM Resources. 

2.6.4 Soil Resources

Soil resources are described above under Section 2.2, BLM Resources. 

2.6.5 Water Resources

To qualify to administer the water quality standards program, a tribe needs to develop 

and submit an application to the appropriate regional EPA office. The basic requirements 

for applying to administer the water quality standards program are described in 40 CFR, 

Part 131.8, of the water quality standards regulation. Briefly, these requirements are that 

the Tribe must conform to the following:

 Be recognized by the federal government
2. Area Profile

2-292 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Have a governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties and 

powers over a federal Indian reservation

 Have appropriate authority to regulate the quality of reservation waters

 Be capable of carrying out the functions of an effective water quality 

standards program

For this last bullet item, a tribe must have either the technical capability for administering 

the program or must provide a plan showing how it will get such capability.

If a tribe has submitted information to apply for authorization to administer other Clean 

Water Act programs, it need only supply additional materials relevant to the water quality 

standards program that were not previously submitted (EPA 2015f).

Indicators

Indicators of water resources are state and federal (or tribal) water quality standards and 

Water supply.

Current Condition

Water resources (such as hydrologic units, streams, and aquifers) cross various managed 

lands, which does not necessarily result in changes to water resources. Therefore, water 

resources descriptions provided under Section 2.2.5 are also applicable to the BIA 

decision area. Information is provided below where water resources information is 

different for the BIA decision area.

Surface Water

Due to the large number of watersheds in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, accounting units 

are provided in in Table 2-88, Accounting Units in the Decision Area for the BIA.

The number of miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream types is in Table 

2-89, Streams in the Decision Area for BIA.

The number of miles of streams on the 303(d) list is shown in Table 2-90, Stream 

Segments on the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters in the Decision Area for BIA.

For the Southern Plains, Native American tribes have no water management plans or 

established water rights. Acquisition of water rights either has not been successful or is in 

progress.6

For eastern Oklahoma, the Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Cherokee tribes have water rights to 

the Arkansas River riverbed.7

 

6David Anderson, Regional Environmental Scientist, Southern Plains Region, BIA, personal communication with 

Derek Holmgren, EMPSi, February 12, 2015.

7Mosby Halterman, Environmental Protection Specialist and Regional Water Coordinator, Eastern Oklahoma 

Region, BIA, personal communication with Derek Holmgren, EMPSi, February 18, 2015.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-293

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-88

Accounting Units in the Decision Area for the BIA

Accounting Unit Name BIA Trust Surface Land 

(Acres)

BIA Trust Subsurface 

(Acres)

Kansas

Arkansas-Keystone 0 0

Big Blue 0 0

Kansas 27,800 27,800 

Lower Cimarron 0 0

Middle Arkansas 0 0

Missouri-Nishnabotna 1,900 1,900 

Neosho 0 0

Osage 0 0

Republican 0 0

Smoky Hill 0 0

Upper Beaver 0 0

Upper Cimarron 0 0

Verdigris 10 0

Oklahoma

Arkansas-Keystone 110,900 569,700 

Lower Beaver 0 0

Lower Canadian 61,000 114,700 

Lower Cimarron 25,300 35,800 

Lower North Canadian 97,500 150,000 

Middle Canadian 0 0

Neosho 47,900 48,400 

North Fork Red 8,200 12,900 

Prairie Dog Town Fork Red 0 0

Red-Lake Texoma 124,600 219,900 

Red-Little 51,000 114,000 

Red-Pease 14,800 24,600 

Robert S. Kerr Reservoir 61,600 117,300 

Salt Fork Red 0 0

Upper Beaver 0 0

Upper Cimarron 0 0

Verdigris 66,000 956,900 

Washita 147,700 245,300 

Texas

Big Cypress-Sulphur 0 0

Brazos Headwaters 0 0

Central Texas Coastal 0 0

Devils 0 0

Galveston Bay-Sabine Lake 0 0

Guadalupe 0 0
2. Area Profile

2-294 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-88

Accounting Units in the Decision Area for the BIA

Accounting Unit Name BIA Trust Surface Land 

(Acres)

BIA Trust Subsurface 

(Acres)

Lavaca 0 0

Little 0 0

Lower Beaver 0 0

Lower Brazos 0 0

Lower Canadian 0 0

Lower Colorado 0 0

Lower Pecos 0 0

Lower Rio Grande 0 0

Lower Trinity 0 0

Middle Brazos-Bosque 0 0

Middle Brazos-Clear Fork 0 0

Middle Canadian 0 0

Middle Colorado-Concho 0 0

Middle Colorado-Llano 0 0

Neches 4,600 4,700 

North Fork Red 0 0

Nueces 0 0

Prairie Dog Town Fork Red 0 0

Red-Lake Texoma 500 700 

Red-Little 600 600 

Red-Pease 200 200 

Rio Grande Closed Basins 0 0

Rio Grande-Amistad 0 0

Rio Grande-Falcon 100 100 

Rio Grande-Fort Quitman 0 0

Sabine 0 0

Salt Fork Red 0 0

San Antonio 0 0

San Bernard Coastal 0 0

San Jacinto 0 0

Southwestern Texas Coastal 0 0

Upper Beaver 0 0

Upper Trinity 0 0

Washita 0 0

Nebraska

Missouri-Nishnabotna 918 918

Source: USGS GIS 2015
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-295

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-89

Streams in the Decision Area for BIA

State

BIA-Administered Tribal and 

Allotted Lands

BIA-Administered Tribal and 

Allotted Subsurface Minerals Estate

Perennial 

(Miles)

Intermittent 

(Miles)

Ephemeral 

(Miles)

Perennial 

(Miles)

Intermittent 

(Miles)

Ephemeral 

(Miles)

Kansas 44.6 84 0 44.6 83.9 0

Oklahoma 802.4 2,291.3 0.1 1,917.6 8,004.4 0.2

Texas 10.3 6.2 0 10.4 6.2 0

Nebraska 0.8 2.6 0 0.8 2.6 0

Source: National Hydrography Dataset GIS 2013

Table 2-90

Stream Segments on the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters in the Decision Area 

for BIA

State BIA Trust Surface (Miles) BIA Trust Subsurface (Miles)

Kansas 3.2 3.2 

Oklahoma 215.0 521.1 

Texas 3.6 3.6 

Source: EPA GIS 2015

Groundwater

Aquifers are listed in Table 2-91, Aquifers in the Decision Area for BIA. 

For the Southern Plains, some residents are served by water wells for domestic and 

livestock use.8

Floodplains

The number of acres in 100-year floodplains is in Table 2-92, 100-Year Floodplains in 

the Decision Area.

For Southern Plains, flood control structures and farm ponds are sources of water for 

livestock use.9

Trends

For the Southern Plains, the trends for water resources are described under Section 2.2.5, 

excluding coal trends (Anderson 2015). For the Eastern Oklahoma Region, the trends for 

water resources are described under Section 2.2.5 (Halterman 2015).

 

8Anderson.

9

Ibid.
2. Area Profile

2-296 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-91

Aquifers in the Decision Area for BIA

Aquifer Name

BIA-Administered 

Tribal and Allotted 

Lands (Acres)

BIA-Administered Tribal 

and Allotted Subsurface 

Mineral Estate (Acres)

Texas coastal uplands aquifer system 0 0

Seymour 0 0

Rush Springs 76,600 108,100 

Rio Grande 0 0

Ozark Plateaus 52,700 54,600 

Mississippi embayment aquifer system 0 0

Lower Cretaceous 0 0

High Plains (Ogallalla) 0 0

Edwards-Trinity aquifer system 12,500 36,400 

Coastal lowlands aquifer system 4,600 4,700 

Central Oklahoma 24,400 32,700 

Blaine 0 0

Arbuckle-Simpson 2,400 8,500 

Ada-Vamoosa 82,200 600,100 

Source: USGS GIS 2003

Table 2-92

100-Year Floodplains in the Decision Area

State

BIA-Administered 

Tribal and Allotted 

Lands (Acres)

BIA-Administered Tribal 

and Allotted Subsurface 

Minerals Estate (Acres)

Kansas 2,400 2,400

Oklahoma 108,000 306,800

Texas 4,000 4,500

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency GIS 2013

For eastern Oklahoma, tribes value water conservation. There is concern for the Tar 

Creek Superfund site in Ottawa County. Chat piles from previous mining operations are 

contaminating the soil, groundwater, surface water, and drinking water aquifer with lead, 

zinc, and other metals. Other concerns for eastern Oklahoma are runoff from chicken 

farms into the Illinois River and into the water supply for Sardis Lake. The Choctaw and 

Chickasaw Tribes are seeking water rights to Sardis Lake for domestic water use and to 

preserve water levels for recreation.10

 

10Halterman.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-297

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Forecast

For the Southern Plains Region, the forecast for water resources is described under 

Section 2.2.5, excluding the forecast for coal.11

For the Eastern Oklahoma Region, the forecast for water resources is described under 

Section 2.2.5. Also, the Tar River, Illinois River, and Sardis Lake trends will continue to 

be a concern.12

Key Features

Key features for water resources are described under Section 2.2.5. Also, for the Southern 

Plains Region, some tribes have lands on shores of rivers and lakes.13

For the Southern Plains Region, water from the Delaware River is treated by the 

Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas at a water treatment plant. The treated water is used for 

domestic use.14

For the Southern Plains Region, key features for water resources are described under 

Section 2.2.515. Also, Grand Lake and Sardis Lake are key water features. The 

impoundment of the Neosho River created Grand Lake. The impoundment of Jackfork 

Creek created Sardis Lake. Other key water features are the Illinois, Arkansas, and 

Canadian rivers16.

References

References are provided under Section 2.2, BLM Resources. The following additional 

references are also cited:

EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2015f. Authorization for Tribes to 

Administer Water Quality Standards Program. Internet website: 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/auth.cfm. Accessed 

on February 18, 2015.

2.6.6 Vegetation

Vegetation is described above under Section 2.2, BLM Resources. Where vegetation 

information is different for the BIA decision area, that information is provided below.

Current Condition

Upland Vegetation

The planning area is in portions of 19 EPA Level III ecoregions (Woods et al. 2005; 

Chapman et al. 2001; Griffith et al. 2004; USEPA 2013). The acres of each ecoregion in 

 

11Anderson.

12Halterman.

13Anderson.

14Ibid.

15Halterman.

16Ibid.
2. Area Profile

2-298 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

the planning area and the BIA decision area are summarized in Table 2-93, Ecoregions 

within the Planning and BIA Decision Areas; ecoregions in the planning area are shown 

in Figure 2-1.

Table 2-93

Ecoregions within the Planning and BIA Decision Areas

Ecoregion (Ecoregion 

Number) Planning Area

BIA-Administered 

Tribal and Allotted 

Lands

BIA-Administered 

Tribal and Allotted 

Subsurface Mineral 

Estate

Arizona/New Mexico 

Mountains (23)

52,400 0 0

Chihuahuan Deserts (24) 22,632,200 0 0

High Plains (25) 33,675,300 0 0

Southwestern Tablelands 

(26)

19,458,200 0 0

Central Great Plains (27) 53,137,200 381,200 653,600

Flint Hills (28) 6,902,200 53,200 522,900

Cross Timbers (29) 21,791,800 217,200 1,130,700

Edwards Plateau (30) 18,524,000 0 0

Southern Texas Plains 

(31)

13,201,000 130 100

Texas Blackland Prairies 

(32)

10,719,900 0 0

East Central Texas Plains 

(33)

13,776,800 600 3,300

Western Gulf Coastal 

Plain (34)

14,769,400 0 0

South Central Plains (35) 17,423,100 27,000 49,000

Ouachita Mountains (36) 2,589,300 21,100 35,600

Arkansas Valley (37) 3,077,300 42,600 91,700

Boston Mountains (38) 530,500 16,900 20,600

Ozark Highlands (39) 1,548,200 55,400 59,300

Central Irregular Plains 

(40)

10,722,600 15,700 57,500

Western Corn Belt Plains 

(47)

2,635,000 22,000 22,000

Source: EPA GIS 2013

The BIA supports tribes through forestry management planning. According to the 

national Indian forestry database, Eastern Oklahoma Region contains approximately 

123,800 acres of forested lands (Nix 2015) and the Southern Plains Region contains 

approximately 99,230 acres of forested land (Sahmaunt 2015). 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-299

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Noxious Weeds and Nonnative Invasive Plants

In addition to the noxious weeds and nonnative plants described under Section 2.2.6, 

some species are designated as noxious in the state of Nebraska, but not in Oklahoma, 

Kansas, or Texas. These species include plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides), spotted 

knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii), and diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) (NRCS 

2014), 

Special Status Plant Species

In addition to the special status plant species described under Section 2.2.6, American 

ginseng (Panax quinquefolium) is known to occur in Richardson County, Nebraska, and 

is a state threatened species (Nebraska Natural Heritage Program 2013). American 

ginseng was previously listed as a candidate species under the federal ESA but was 

subsequently removed from candidacy, as the USFWS determined it was more abundant 

or widespread than previously thought (50 FR 39526. Special status plant species are also 

those species considered culturally significant by the BIA or tribes in the planning area. 

This information is considered sensitive and is therefore not published in this document.

Trends

Upland Vegetation

Tallgrass prairie has declined greatly in acreage due to agricultural conversion throughout 

the region; however, large expanses of this vegetation type still occur in Osage County 

and adjacent counties in Oklahoma (Hoagland 2008). The Osage grasslands were 

historically used largely for pasture (Duck and Fletcher 1943). This practice led to the

conversion to exotic pasture grasses (yellow bluestem, Bermuda grass [Cynodon 

dactylon], and weeping lovegrass [Eragrostis curvula]; Hoagland 2000) and is an 

ongoing threat in tall-grass prairie and other vegetation types in the region. 

The BIA will continue to support forest management planning in the Eastern Oklahoma 

and Southern Plains Regions.

Special Status Plant Species

Trends for special status plant species are described under Section 2.2.6.

References

References are provided under Section 2.2, BLM Resources. The following additional 

references are also cited:

Duck, L. G., and J. B. Fletcher. 1943. The Game Types of Oklahoma. A Report to the 

Oklahoma Game and Fish Commission. Adapted by the Oklahoma Biological 

Survey. Internet website: http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/duckflt/dfhome.html. 

Internet website. Accessed on November 11, 2014.

Nix 2015. Email from Robert Nix to Holly Prohaska (EMPSi) containing information on 

forested lands in the Eastern Oklahoma Region from the National Indian Forestry 

Database. May 29, 2015.
2. Area Profile

2-300 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Sahmaunt 2015. Email from Mark Sahmaunt to Holly Prohaska (EMPSi) containing 

information on forested lands in the Southern Plains Region from the National 

Indian Forestry Database. May 29, 2015.

EPA GIS (US Environmental Protection Agency, Geographic Information System). 2013. 

GIS data of ecoregions. Internet website: www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/

level_iii_iv.htm. Accessed on November 15, 2013.

Hoagland, B. W. 2000. The Vegetation of Oklahoma: A Classification for Landscape 

Mapping and Conservation Planning. Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory and 

Department of Geography, University of Oklahoma, Norman. December, 2000.

_____. 2008. “Vegetation of Oklahoma.” [poster] Oklahoma Biological Survey.

Nebraska Natural Heritage Program. 2013. Range Maps for Nebraska’s Threatened and 

Endangered Species. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission—White Papers, 

Conference Presentations and Manuscripts. Paper 30.

NRCS (US Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service). 2014. 

Nebraska State-listed Noxious Weeds. Internet website: http://plants.usda.gov/

java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=48. Accessed on December 26, 2014.

2.6.7 Fish and Wildlife

Fish and wildlife are described above under Section 2.2, BLM Resources. Where 

information is different for the BIA decision area, that information is provided below.

Key Features

BIA surface and subsurface trust lands provide habitat for fish and wildlife throughout 

the planning area. Lands in Caddo and Osage Counties in Oklahoma are of particular 

importance, as they contain more acres of BIA subsurface and surface trust lands than 

any other counties in the decision area.

2.6.8 Special Status Species

Special status species are described above under Section 2.2, BLM Resources. Where 

information is different for the BIA decision area, that information is provided below.

Current Condition

Designated critical habitat for federal-listed species in the BIA decision area are the 

Arkansas River shiner (Notropis giradi) and the leopard darter (Percina pantherina; 

USFWS GIS 2014). Additionally special status species which occur in Richardson 

County, Nebraska, and not within the BLM decision area include: massasauga (Sistrurus 

catenatus), and river otter (Lutra canadensis). Both species are Nebraska state threatened 

(Nebraska Natural Heritage Program 2013). Special status species also are those species 

considered culturally significant by the BIA or tribes in the planning area. This 

information is considered sensitive, and is therefore not published in this document.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-301

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Key Features

BIA surface and subsurface trust lands provide habitat for special status species 

throughout the planning area. Lands in Caddo and Osage Counties in Oklahoma are of 

particular importance, as they contain more acres of BIA subsurface and surface trust 

lands than any other counties in the decision area. Additionally, the following Oklahoma 

counties contain critical habitat for federal-listed fish species on BIA surface and 

subsurface trust lands: Canadian, Cleveland, Grady, Hughes, McClain, McCurtain, 

McIntosh, Pittsburg, Pontotoc, and Seminole (USFWS GIS 2014).

References

References are provided under Section 2.2, BLM Resources. The following additional 

reference is also cited:

Nebraska Natural Heritage Program. 2013. Range Maps for Nebraska’s Threatened and 

Endangered Species. Nebraska Game and Parks Commission—White Papers, 

Conference Presentations, and Manuscripts. Paper 30. DigitalCommons at 

University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.

2.6.9 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources are described above under Section 2.2, BLM Resources.

2.6.10 Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources are described above under Section 2.2, BLM Resources.

2.6.11 Visual Resources

Visual resources refer to the visible features on a landscape, such as land, water, 

vegetation, animals, and structures. These features contribute to the scenic or visual 

quality and appeal of the landscape (BLM 1984).

The inventory consists of three components: scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity level 

analysis, and delineation of distance zones. 

Indicators

Indicators for visual resources are scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and distance zone. 

Scenic quality factors are evaluated relative to similar features in the same physiographic 

province. Physiographic provinces are a subdivision of physiographic regions that divide 

the continent, based on similar landforms and landscapes. The planning area is primarily 

in the following physiographic provinces:

 Western Kansas, the Oklahoma panhandle, and west Texas are in the Great 

Plains province

 North-central Texas, central Oklahoma, and eastern Kansas and Nebraska are 

in the Central Lowland province

 East/southeast Texas and far southeast Oklahoma are in the Coastal Plain 

province
2. Area Profile

2-302 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

A very small portion of eastern Oklahoma is also in the Ouachita and Ozark Plateaus 

provinces.

Visual sensitivity is a measure of public concern for scenic quality. It can vary with the 

types of users, level of use, public interest, adjacent land uses, and special areas present. 

Landscapes are assigned to one of three possible sensitivity ratings: high, medium, or 

low.

Distance zones are a measure of how visible the landscape is from key travel routes or 

observation points. The closer a landscape is to a viewer the more details are visible. 

Using GIS, landscapes are assigned to one of three possible distance zones: 

foreground/middleground (0 to 5 miles), background (5 to 15 miles), or seldom seen 

(beyond background or not visible).

A targeted VRI of scenic quality, sensitivity, and distance zone for the planning area will 

be completed according to guidelines in BLM Manual Handbook H-8410-1, Visual 

Resource Inventory (BLM 1986a). It will include high value Indian surface lands. These 

are lands near federal- or state-designated parks, scenic rivers, and scenic highways or

lands where visual setting may be culturally important to tribal groups. Although the 

BLM’s VRM System is applicable to BLM-administered lands, it also will be used to 

develop an inventory of visual resources on high-value Indian surface lands. 

Based on the three inventory components, lands will be placed into one of four VRI 

classes. These class assignments are informational and provide the basis for considering 

visual values during the EIS process. They do not establish management direction and are 

not used as a basis for constraining or limiting surface-disturbing activities; instead they 

are considered a baseline for existing conditions. Results of the VRI will be documented 

in a report and posted on the project website.

Current Condition

The BIA does not maintain a visual resources inventory. Visual resources would likely 

vary from tribe to tribe. Areas with sensitive visual resources might be impacted by 

proposed renewable energy projects and transportation projects in areas with low relief 

and sparse vegetation. 

Key Features

The following areas have been identified as visually important features or viewsheds in 

the planning area:

 Gloss Mountain State Park

 Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge

 Cimarron River 

 South Canadian River

 Oklahoma-designated scenic rivers (Flint Creek, Illinois River, Barren Fork 

Creek, Upper Mountain Fork River, Big Lee’s Creek, and Little Lee’s Creek)
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-303

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 National and State Scenic Byways

 Chickasaw National Recreation Area

BLM and Indian lands near these areas will be inventoried for visual resources. Other 

lands near federal- or state-designated parks, scenic rivers, and scenic highways or lands 

where visual setting may be culturally important to tribal groups will also be identified 

and inventoried.

References

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1984. Manual 

8400—Visual Resource Management. Rel. 8-24. Washington, DC. April 5, 1984.

. 1986a. Handbook H-8410-1—Visual Resource Inventory. Rel. 8-28. 

Washington, DC. January 17, 1986. 

2.6.12 Wildland Fire Management

Wildland fire management resources on federal lands are described above under Section 

2.2, BLM Resources. 

2.6.13 Cave and Karst Resources

Cave and karst resources are described above under Section 2.2, BLM Resources. Where 

cave and karst resources information is different for the BIA decision area that

information is provided below. 

Current Condition

The BIA has made a recent cave discovery within its administered lands. Further 

exploration and information on this discovery will need to be gathered. 

Trends

As caves are identified, they will be examined for significance and will be documented. 

2.6.14 Energy and Minerals

Coal

Current Condition

Coal resources exist in all three states in the planning area. Table 2-94, Coal Resources 

in the BIA Decision Area, shows the types of economically valuable coal found on BIAadministered tribal and allotted surface and mineral estate in Kansas, Oklahoma, and 

Nebraska. No coal resources exist beneath BIA-administered tribal and allotted surface or 

mineral estate in Texas.

The bulk of coal resources in the BIA decision area are in Oklahoma on both BIAadministered tribal and allotted surface and subsurface mineral estate. Most of the 

valuable coal in the Oklahoma portion of the BIA decision area is medium and high 

volatile bituminous. 
2. Area Profile

2-304 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-94

Coal Resources in the BIA Decision Area

Coal Type

Acres of BIA-Administered 

Tribal and Allotted 

Lands

Acres of BIA-Administered 

Tribal and Allotted 

Subsurface Mineral Estate

Kansas

Lignite 0 0

Low volatile bituminous 0 0

Medium and high volatile 

bituminous

1,900 1,900

Oklahoma

Lignite 0 0

Low volatile bituminous 14,500 15,600

Medium and high volatile 

bituminous

32,900 173,900

Nebraska

Medium and high volatile 

bituminous

800 800

Source: BLM GIS 2015

Because most coal resources in the BIA decision area are in Oklahoma, coal occurrence 

and activity in Oklahoma only is discussed below. 

Oklahoma’s coal resources are found in the eastern portion of the state, in a coalfield 

spanning 19 counties. Oklahoma contains the most significant deposits of bituminous 

coal west of the Mississippi River and east of the Rocky Mountains (Oklahoma 

Department of Mines 2015). Approximately 0.1 percent of the estimated US recoverable 

coal reserves are located at producing mines in the state. 

Oklahoma coal operations produced approximately 1 million tons of coal in 2012 (BLM 

2015a). Coal was produced from five Oklahoma counties in 2013: LeFlore, Haskell, 

Craig, Rogers, and Okmulgee (Oklahoma Department of Mines 2013). Oklahoma coal is 

mined by both surface and underground methods (Oklahoma Department of Mines 2015). 

Approximately 60 percent of the coal mined in Oklahoma is used in lime and cement 

kilns in Oklahoma and surrounding states. The remainder is used for electricity 

generation at one power plant in Oklahoma and one plant in Missouri (BLM 2015a).

There are no active coal leases in the BIA decision area.

Forecast

Approximately 1.6 billion tons of economically recoverable coal reserves remain in 

Oklahoma. While large deposits remain to be produced, extracting these resources will 

require significant capital investments. Production and market issues affect whether some 

coal reserves are economical to mine. Regulations concerning mining and reclamation 

requirements also impact coal activity in the state. Future activity will hinge on 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-305

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

development of additional markets for high sulfur coal and the increased use and 

development of clean coal technology at coal-fired utilities in Oklahoma and surrounding 

states. These facilities are close enough to Oklahoma’s coal reserves to continue to serve 

as a market for Oklahoma coal if the coal can be burned cleanly enough to comply with 

federal and state air quality standards (Oklahoma Department of Mines 2015).

Key Features

The coalfield in eastern Oklahoma is the key feature for coal resources in the BIA 

decision area. It contains a commercial coal belt and a noncommercial coal-bearing 

region. Approximately 217,000 acres of the coalfield are on BIA-administered tribal and 

allotted surface, and 1,347,200 acres are on BIA-administered tribal and allotted 

subsurface mineral estate (BLM GIS 2015). 

Fluid Minerals

Fluid minerals in the BIA decision area are oil and gas and geothermal resources. Each is 

discussed below.

Current Condition

Oil and Gas

The planning area contains approximately 34 oil and gas plays across all three states (see 

Figure 2-21). Portions of 11 plays overlap BIA-administered tribal and allotted surface 

and subsurface mineral estate. BIA-administered tribal and allotted surface and 

subsurface mineral estate overlaps plays almost exclusively in Oklahoma, but some 

overlapping also occurs in Texas. No BIA-administered tribal or allotted surface or 

subsurface mineral estate overlaps oil and gas plays in Kansas (BLM GIS 2015). 

For detailed information on production, well completions, and oil and gas development 

potential, refer to the forthcoming RFD being prepared by the OFO (BLM 2015b). The 

current condition discussion below presents a summary of the information provided in the 

RFD. 

Overall oil production in the planning area declined from 1993 to 2004. Production 

remained steady from 2004 to 2009 and began to rapidly increase from 2009 to the 

present. The most significant increases in oil production have been in southern and 

western Texas. Most of the increase in production in southern Texas has been from 

horizontal wells, while the increase in western Texas is largely from conventional wells 

(BLM 2015b). 

Despite the overall increase in oil production in the planning area, oil production on BIAadministered tribal and allotted subsurface mineral estate spiked in 1997 at 2.3 million oil 

barrels; it has been gradually declining since then to a 2013 level of 790,000 oil barrels 

(BLM 2015b). Most oil production from federal and Indian minerals has been in 

Oklahoma, although production of federal and Indian minerals in Texas spiked in 1997 

(BLM 2015b).
2. Area Profile

2-306 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Overall gas production in the planning area was relatively stable from 1993 to 2005. 

Production peaked in 2008 and 2012 at over 10 billion MCF and remained at nearly the 

same amount in 2013. Most of the increase in gas production since 2005 has been in 

eastern Texas. Gas production in Oklahoma has remained relatively stable since 1993. 

Like horizontal oil, horizontal gas production in the planning area has been rapidly 

increasing since 2003 in Texas and Oklahoma (BLM 2015b).

Gas production from federal and Indian minerals in the planning area accounts for 

approximately 0.7 percent of total gas produced in the planning area. Gas production 

from BIA-administered tribal and allotted subsurface mineral estate peaked around 1989, 

1997, and 2011 at between 41 and 32 million MCF per year. Gas production in 2013 

from BIA-administered tribal and allotted subsurface mineral estate was approximately 

26 million MCF. As is the case with the general planning area, Texas is largely 

responsible for the peaks in gas production from BIA-administered tribal and allotted 

subsurface mineral estate in 1996 and 2012. 

Approximately 2.2 million oil and gas wells have been drilled in the planning area, over 

85,000 of which are horizontal or directional wells. Approximately 409,000 wells are 

currently producing (BLM 2015b). Of these, 7,390 (2 percent) are on BIA-administered 

tribal and allotted lands, and 39,117 (10 percent) are on BIA-administered tribal and 

allotted subsurface mineral estate. However, note that, of the producing wells on BIAadministered tribal and allotted subsurface mineral estate, 29,688 (76 percent) are in 

Osage County. Almost all producing wells in the BIA decision area are in Oklahoma. 

Only 13 producing wells are in the Texas portion of the BIA decision area (BLM GIS 

2015). 

Injection wells have also been drilled in the decision area: 311 on BIA-administered 

tribal and allotted lands and 2,133 on BIA-administered tribal and allotted subsurface 

mineral estate in the BIA decision area. All injection wells in the BIA decision area are in 

Oklahoma. Of injection wells on BIA-administered tribal and allotted subsurface mineral 

estate, 1,696 (80 percent) are in Osage County.

Geothermal Resources

The most favorable portions of the planning area with geothermal energy potential are 

along the southern border of Texas and in the state’s eastern portion Northern Oklahoma 

and central Kansas also have moderately favorable geothermal potential (National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory GIS 2009). Table 2-95, Enhanced Geothermal Potential in 

the BIA Decision Area, shows the acres of BIA-administered tribal and allotted lands and 

mineral estate with varying levels of enhanced geothermal resource potential (geothermal 

resources that can be reached by fracturing rock). 

While portions of the BIA decision area overlay areas with geothermal resource potential, 

there has never been any geothermal leasing or activity in the decision area. 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-307

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-95

Enhanced Geothermal Potential in the BIA Decision Area

Geothermal Potential Class 

(1: Most Favorable to 5: Least 

Favorable)

Acres of BIA-Administered 

Tribal and Allotted 

Lands

Acres of BIA-Administered 

Tribal and Allotted 

Subsurface Minerals

1 0 0

2 400 400

3 365,500 1,817,600

4 202,300 352,700

5 173,500 309,400

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory GIS 2009

Forecast

Oil and Gas

The BLM has classified the planning area by oil and gas development potential, ranging 

from no potential to high potential. Table 2-96, Oil and Gas Development Potential in the 

BIA Decision Area, shows the number of acres with oil and gas development potential on 

BIA-administered tribal and allotted lands and subsurface mineral estate.

Table 2-96

Oil and Gas Development Potential in the BIA Decision Area

Potential Level

Acres of BIA-Administered 

Tribal and Allotted 

Lands

Acres of BIA-Administered 

Tribal and Allotted Subsurface 

Mineral Estate (Acres in Osage 

County)

High 223,000 1,239,300 (973,400)

Moderate to high 272,600 657,600 (268,200)

Moderate 141,600 443,200 (231,500)

Low to moderate 4,200 15,000 (1,300)

Low 209,300 289,100 (200)

None 1,400 2,500 (0)

Source: BLM GIS 2015

As shown in Table 2-96, most of the BIA decision area has moderate or greater oil and 

gas potential. However, approximately 63 percent of the areas with moderate or greater 

oil and gas potential in the BIA decision area are in Osage County. Oil and gas resources 

in Osage County would not be subject to the decisions made in this planning effort.

The Energy Information Administration predicts that nationwide oil prices will rise 

between 0.8 and 1.4 percent per year between 2012 and 2040 (in 2012 dollars; Energy 

Information Administration 2014). Natural gas prices are predicted to rise at a rate of 3.7 

percent per year between 2012 and 2040 (in 2012 dollars; Energy Information 
2. Area Profile

2-308 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Administration 2014). Based on the oil and gas development potential and predicted 

nationwide price increases, oil and gas activity in the BIA decision area is expected to 

increase over the next 20 years. 

In its RFD prepared for the planning area, the BLM estimates that approximately 1.9 

million oil barrels will be produced from federal and Indian minerals in the planning area 

in 2035; this is a 27 percent increase over 2013 production levels for the BIA and BLM 

decision areas. In its RFD, the BLM also estimates that 126 million MCF of gas will be 

produced from federal and Indian minerals in the planning area in 2035; this is a 40 

percent increase over 2013 production levels for the BIA and BLM decision areas (BLM 

2015b).

Geothermal Resources

Future development of geothermal energy in Texas is expected to include geoexchange 

systems (heat pumps), direct use activities, and electric power generation. The most 

likely use of federal geothermal resources is for electric power generation, which has not 

yet become commercially established in the state (Texas State Energy Conservation 

Office 2015). Although portions of the BIA decision area have moderately high 

geothermal resource potential, geothermal resources in the decision area are not expected 

to be developed during the next 20 years. 

Key Features

Oil and Gas

Key oil and gas features in the planning area are the plays shown in Figure 2-21. These 

plays contain known oil and gas resources and are considered to have high development 

potential. For more information on these plays, see the RFD (BLM 2015b).

Geothermal Resources

Key geothermal features in the planning area are those with the most favorable 

geothermal potential classes. See Table 2-95 for a breakdown of geothermal potential 

classes on BIA-administered tribal and allotted lands and subsurface mineral estate. The 

highest potential classes in the planning area and decision area are along the southern 

border of Texas and in eastern Texas. The Texas State Energy Conservation Office 

estimates there are at least five major regions in Texas that have strong potential for 

geothermal electrical power production, based on the existence of oil and gas wells with 

temperatures that can get above 212 degrees Fahrenheit. These regions are east Texas, the 

Gulf Coast, the Delaware-Val Verde Basin region, the Trans-Pecos region, and the 

Aardvark Basin where it enters the Texas panhandle (Texas State Energy Conservation 

Office 2015).

Nonenergy Solid Minerals

Current Condition

Limestone/dolomite operations use blasting and crushing techniques to produce crushed 

gravel from limestone formations at or near the surface. There are five 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-309

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

limestone/dolomite leases in Osage County totaling 570 acres. There is one sand and 

gravel lease in Cotton County, Oklahoma, totaling 160 acres and another sand and gravel 

lease in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, totaling 100 acres. 

Sandy soil operations are similar to sand and gravel pits where unconsolidated material at 

or near the surface is removed and hauled away. In Osage County much of the sand is 

mixed with top soil or sub-soil and therefore cannot be called a sand lease. This typically 

includes road fill material as well, even though such material might contain either 

sandstone, limestone, or both. There are four sandy soil leases in Osage County totaling 

almost 200 acres.

Sandstone operations are informal operations where a lessee will select and remove only 

certain sandstone pieces based on appearance and demand. There is little or no surface 

disturbance and even after an area is mined there may be many pieces of rock that were 

not removed. There are three sandstone leases in Osage County totaling 225 acres.

There is a business lease on the Arkansas Riverbed in Leflore and Sequoyah counties, 

Oklahoma. The lease allows a third party the right to purchase and transfer dredged 

materials from the Arkansas River.

Large salt deposits lie beneath western Texas, western Oklahoma, and western and 

central Kansas. Approximately 103,800 acres of BIA-administered tribal and allotted 

lands and 150,700 acres of BIA-administered tribal and allotted subsurface mineral estate 

contain salt resources.

Forecast

Levels and locations of nonenergy solid mineral activity in the BIA decision area are 

expected to remain the same throughout the life of the RMP.

Key Features

Key features for nonenergy solid mineral activity in the BIA decision area are riverbeds, 

which contain sand and gravel and other nonenergy solid mineral resources.

References

References are provided in Section 2.2, BLM Resources. 

2.6.15 Renewable Energy

Renewable energy is described above under Section 2.2, BLM Resources. Where 

information is different for the BIA decision area, that information is provided below. 

Current Condition

There are currently no wind or solar energy ROWs or biomass facilities on tribal trust

lands. Plans are underway for a wind energy project on tribal trust lands surrounding the 

Chilocco Indian School campus, but construction has not begun. 

2.6.16 Recreation and Visitor Services

The BIA does not manage trust land for recreation.
2. Area Profile

2-310 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

2.6.17 Lands and Realty

Land Use Authorizations

Current Condition

On BIA-managed lands, land use authorizations for certain activities are issued mainly as 

ROWs. Examples of ROWs are roads, electrical distribution and transmission lines, 

pipelines, and wind and solar energy generation facilities. In accordance with 23 CFR, 

Part 169, ROWs can be issued on tribal trust lands only when there is written consent of 

the landowners and the Secretary of the Interior. The types of land uses found throughout 

the broad planning area and on tribal trust lands are discussed below. For analysis of 

wind and solar energy ROWs, see Section 2.6.15, Renewable Energy. 

In the broader planning area, major land use authorizations, such as highways, electrical 

transmission lines, pipelines, and communication equipment, are more concentrated near 

urban centers, such as Oklahoma City and Tulsa. In general, rural areas have a lower 

density of ROWs and other infrastructure. In rural areas, most roads, power lines, and 

other linear features follow Public Land Surveying System section lines. 

Of the 269,650,000 total acres in the planning area, 853,000 are BIA-managed lands, 

with 394,200 acres in eastern Oklahoma and 457,500 acres in the Southern Plains region 

of Oklahoma and Kansas. Tribal trust lands generally consist of scattered lands in 

northeastern Oklahoma, with two small but contiguous groups of land in Kansas, north of 

Topeka. In general, tribal trust lands contain few roads, pipelines, communication sites, 

transmission lines, and other authorizations. 

Forecast

Overall demand for land use authorizations in the planning area is anticipated to increase 

as a result of continued regional population expansion, future subsurface mineral 

development, renewable energy (e.g., wind) development, and demand from other uses, 

such as agricultural and manufacturing. 

There is a US Department of the Interior working group evaluating a proposed ROW rule 

that would streamline the review process for ROWs proposed on tribal trust lands. 

Implementation of the proposed rule could incentivize ROW development on tribal trust 

lands, thereby increasing the number of authorizations in the future. 

Key Features

Land use authorizations in the planning area consist of major roadways, high-voltage 

electrical transmission lines, electrical distribution lines, pipelines, and communication 

sites. In general, there is a higher concentration of ROWs and communication sites near 

large urban areas with fewer infrastructure-related uses in the rural areas. 

Possible Indicators are as follows:
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-311

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Change in the nature and type of ROWs and leases on BLM-administered 

lands 

 Acres designated as ROW avoidance or exclusion on BLM-administered 

lands

 Acres on BLM-administered lands in designated utility corridors 

Land Tenure

Current Condition

The distribution and types of landownership directly influence the current level and 

locations of uses influencing tribal trust lands in the planning area. Tribal trust lands

represent less than one percent of the total landownership in the planning area. The most 

concentrated areas of contiguous tribal trust lands are in northeastern Oklahoma and 

northeastern Kansas. In addition to tribal trust lands, surface ownership in the planning 

area consists of BLM, US Bureau of Reclamation, USACE, Forest Service, National Park 

Service, Department of Defense, and state and private entities (see Table 1-1). The 

Standards for Indian Trust Lands Boundary Evidence Handbook provides a standardized 

system of identifying and documenting tribal trust lands, as well as differentiating those 

lands from individual trust lands and restricted lands.

Forecast

The BIA will continue to facilitate landownership actions on a case-by-case basis and in 

accordance with current policy.

Key Features

The noncontiguous land pattern caused by the implementation of previous disposals, 

special acts, patents and land grants presents the greatest management challenge and 

results in overlapping interests on BLM-administered lands. 

Possible Indicator is change in the total acres of tribal trust lands in the planning area.

Withdrawals

Tribal trust lands are by default withdrawn from the public domain. Conversion of 

allotted trust lands to fee simple status (i.e., where an individual holds title to the land

outside of trust) is the primary means by which land is conveyed out of the tribal trust. 

2.6.18 Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing is described in Section 2.2, BLM Resources. Where information is 

different for the BIA decision area, that information is provided below.

Current Condition

Both the BIA eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains regions process grazing leases for 

restricted and trust lands. Grazing leases vary in size from as little as 5 to 10 acres and up.

The leases are normally executed for three to five years. At this time, the total number of 

leases that are administered in the two regions is unknown.
2. Area Profile

2-312 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Forecast

The BIA will continue to process permits for agricultural and livestock grazing leases on 

restricted and trust lands.

2.6.19 Prime and Unique Farmlands/Agriculture

Prime and unique farmlands and agricultural resources are described in Section 2.2, BLM 

Resources. Where information is different for the BIA decision area, it is provided below.

The BIA staff provide technical assistance to Indian landowners, tribal governments, and 

land users. They help develop, update, and amend land use plans under the principal of 

sustainable yield managements to ensure adequate resources in the future (BIA 2015). 

Current Condition

According to NRCS data, on BLM- and BIA-administered lands in the decision area,

there are prime farmlands, prime farmlands of statewide importance, prime farmlands if 

drained or irrigated, and prime farmlands if protected from flooding(see Table 2-97).

Table 2-97

Farmlands in the BIA Decision Area

Farmland Type

BIA-Administered 

Tribal and Allotted 

Lands

BIA-Administered Tribal 

and Allotted Subsurface 

Minerals Estate

Kansas

Prime farmland 7,600 7,600

Farmland of statewide importance 19,700 19,700

Prime farmland if drained 1,000 1,000

Prime farmland if irrigated 0 0

Not prime farmland 1,500 1,500

Nebraska

Prime farmland 200 200

Farmland of statewide importance 200 200

Not prime farmland 500 500

Oklahoma 

Prime farmland 379,700 956,700

Not prime farmland 435,400 1,651,400

Texas

Prime farmland 1,600 1,700

Prime farmland if drained 0 0

Prime farmland if irrigated 100 100

Prime farmland if protected from 

flooding

0 0

Not prime farmland 2,900 3,000

Source: NRCS GIS 2015
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-313

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

References

BIA (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs). 2015. Division of Natural 

Resources, Branch of Agriculture and Rangeland Development. Internet website: 

http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OTS/NaturalResources/AgrRngeDev/index.

htm.

2.6.20 National Historic Trails

National historic trails are described in Section 2.2, BLM Resources. Where information 

is different for the BIA decision area, it is provided below.

Of the six national historic trails in the planning area, 18.5 miles are on BIA-administered 

tribal and allotted lands; 23.6 miles are on BIA-administered tribal and allotted 

subsurface minerals estate (see Table 2-98, National Historic Trails on BIAAdministered Tribal and Allotted Lands or Subsurface Mineral Estate; 

Scenicbyways.info GIS 2015).

Table 2-98

National Historic Trails on BIA-Administered Tribal and Allotted Lands or Subsurface 

Mineral Estate

Trail Name 

Miles in 

Planning 

Area

Miles on BIAAdministered 

Tribal and 

Allotted 

Lands

Miles on BIAAdministered 

Tribal and Allotted 

Subsurface 

Minerals Estate

Oklahoma

Butterfield Overland National Historic 

Trail (proposed)

185.6 0.2 9

Chisholm National Historic Trail 

(proposed)

282.9 2.6 3.6

Santa Fe National Historic Trail 76.3 0 0

Trail of Tears National Historic 94.4 15.5 0

Total (Oklahoma) 639.2 18.3 12.6

Kansas

California National Historic Trail 346 0 0

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail 48.6 0 0

Oregon National Historic Trail 179.7 0 0

Pony Express National Historic Trail 132.7 0.2 0

Santa Fe National Historic Trail 985.6 0 0

Total (Kansas) 1,692.9 0.2 0

Texas

Chisholm National Historic Trail 

(proposed)

1.4 0 0

El Camino Real de los Tejas National 

Historic Trail

2,428.1 0 0

Total (Texas) 2,429.5 0 0
2. Area Profile

2-314 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-98

National Historic Trails on BIA-Administered Tribal and Allotted Lands or Subsurface 

Mineral Estate

Trail Name 

Miles in 

Planning 

Area

Miles on BIAAdministered 

Tribal and 

Allotted 

Lands

Miles on BIAAdministered 

Tribal and Allotted 

Subsurface 

Minerals Estate

Nebraska

Lewis and Clark Trail 9.8 0 0

Total (Nebraska) 9.8 0 0

Sources: National Park Service 2010; BLM GIS 2015

Note: Miles are rounded to the nearest 1/10th. 

References

References are provided in Section 2.2, BLM Resources. 

2.6.21 National and State Byways

National and state byways are described in Section 2.2, BLM Resources. Where 

information is different for the BIA decision area, it is provided below.

Of the scenic byways in the planning area, 22 miles are on BIA-administered tribal and 

allotted lands and 95.4 miles are on BIA-administered tribal and allotted subsurface 

minerals estate (see Table 2-99, Scenic Byways Crossing BIA-Administered Tribal and 

Allotted Lands or Subsurface Mineral Estate; Scenicbyways.info GIS 2015).

References

References are provided in Section 2.2, BLM Resources. 

2.6.22 Native American Tribal Uses

Native American tribal uses are described above in Section 2.2, BLM Resources. 

2.6.23 Public Health and Safety

Public health and safety concerns on BIA lands are the same as those described in 

Section 2.2, BLM Resources. 

2.6.24 Socioeconomics

The socioeconomic conditions and trends for Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas are described 

in Section 2.2, BLM Resources. The following describes socioeconomic conditions for 

Richardson County, Nebraska, which is part of the planning area. This county only 

includes BIA surface and subsurface minerals. The same indicators as used in the 

socioeconomics sections for Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas (Section 2.2, BLM 

Resources) are used to describe conditions in Richardson County, Nebraska.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-315

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-99

Scenic Byways Crossing BIA-Administered Tribal and Allotted Lands or Subsurface 

Mineral Estate

Byway Name Designation Type

Miles in 

Planning 

Area

Miles on BIAAdministered 

Tribal And 

Allotted 

Lands

Miles on BIAAdministered 

Tribal and 

Allotted 

Subsurface 

Minerals 

Estate

Oklahoma

Cherokee Hills Byway National Scenic 

Byway

84.7 1.3 0

Historic Route 66—

Oklahoma

All-American Road, 

National Scenic 

Byway

22.9 3.8 4.4

Mountain Gateway

Scenic Byway

State Byway 23.2 0 0

Mountain Pass Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 65.7 0.5 0.5

Osage Nation Heritage 

Trail Byway

State Byway 34.7 1.2 0.1

Talimena Scenic 

Drive—Oklahoma

National Scenic 

Byway

105.4 0 0

Wichita Mountains 

Byway

National Scenic 

Byway

391.6 13.8 18.9

Total 728.2 20.6 23.9

Kansas

Flint Hills Scenic 

Byway

National Scenic 

Byway

43.1 0 0

Frontier Military 

Historic Byway

State Byway 172.2 0 0

Glacial Hills Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 63.2 0 0

Gypsum Hills Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 35.9 0 0

Kansas Historic Route 

66 Byway

State Byway 11.3 0 0

Native Stone Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 49 0 0

Post Rock Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 14.7 0 0

Prairie Trail Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 55.8 0 0
2. Area Profile

2-316 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-99

Scenic Byways Crossing BIA-Administered Tribal and Allotted Lands or Subsurface 

Mineral Estate

Byway Name Designation Type

Miles in 

Planning 

Area

Miles on BIAAdministered 

Tribal And 

Allotted 

Lands

Miles on BIAAdministered 

Tribal and 

Allotted 

Subsurface 

Minerals 

Estate

Smoky Valley Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 60.9 0 0

Western Vistas Historic 

Byway

State Byway 93.3 0 0

Wetlands and Wildlife 

Scenic Byway

National Scenic 

Byway

75.9 0 0

Total 673.9 0 0

Texas

Texas Brazos Trail State Byway 471.2 0 0

Texas Forest Trail State Byway 836.4 1.4 1.4

Texas Forts Trail State Byway 673.6 0 0

Texas Hill Country Trail State Byway 634.6 0 0

Texas Independence 

Trail

State Byway 717.9 0 0

Texas Lakes Trail State Byway 650.3 0 0

Texas Mountain Trail State Byway 688.7 0 0

Texas Pecos Trail State Byway 696.1 0 0

Texas Plains Trail State Byway 684.1 0 0

Texas Tropical Trail State Byway 673 0 0

Total 6,725.9 1.4 1.4

Sources: Scenic Byways 2015; Federal Highway Administration 2015; Scenicbyways.info GIS 2015

Note: Miles are rounded to the nearest 1/10th.

Existing Conditions—Nebraska Overview 

Agriculture was a historically important sector for Nebraska, with commercial apple 

orchards being a popular crop in the 1900s (Save America’s Heritage 1993). In the 1930s,

abandonment of railroad lines and drought resulted in economic and population decline in 

the county. Richardson County’s first oil boom was from 1938 to 1942; the first oil strike 

in Nebraska was in Falls City, within Richardson County (Schottenhamel 1979; Nebraska 

Energy Quarterly 2015). Production in Richardson County peaked in 1941 with 1.88 

million barrels just 2 years after this first strike (Nebraska Energy Quarterly 2015).

However, today the state’s leaders in oil production are Red Willow and Hitchcock 

counties (Nebraska Energy Quarterly 2015). Today, trade, transportation, and utilities are

important economic sectors in Richardson County.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-317

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Community Indicators

The population of Richardson County, with a median age of 46.7 years in 2013, was 

older on average than the US population (median age 37.3) (US Census Bureau 2013, 

American Community Survey Office, as reported by Headwater Economics 2015). 

Richardson County had fewer people who held a bachelor’s degree as compared to the 

US, but more high school graduates and people who held an associate’s degree (see 

Table 2-100).

Table 2-100

Education Attainment

Richardson County, NE United States

Total Population 25 or older 6,038 206,587,852

No high school degree 459 28,887,721

7.6% 14.0%

High school graduate 5,579 177,700,131

92.4% 86.0%

Associate’s degree 564 16,135,795

9.3% 7.8%

Bachelor’s degree 820 37,286,246

13.6% 18.0%

Bachelor’s degree or higher 1,137 59,583,138

18.8% 28.8%

Graduate or professional 

degree

317 22,296,892

5.3% 10.8%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, American Community Survey Office, as reported by 

Headwater Economics 2015

Most residents in Richardson County speak only English, and the percentage of those 

who speak English less than very well is below that of the national average (see Table 

2-101).

Table 2-101

Language Spoken at Home

Richardson County, NE United States

Population 5 or older 7,896 291,484,482

Speak only English 7,777 231,122,908

98.5% 79.3%

Speak a language other than 

English

119 60,361,574

1.5% 20.7%

Speak English less than very 

well

17 25,148,900

0.2% 8.6%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, American Community Survey Office, as reported by 

Headwater Economics 2015
2. Area Profile

2-318 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Housing

Housing availability and cost can be impacted by development and associated population 

changes. Housing occupancy information is displayed in Table 2-102, Housing 

Occupancy. Approximately 13.9 percent of housing in Richardson County is vacant. This 

rate is similar to the US national average (12.5 percent). Housing costs for rent and 

mortgage in Richardson County are almost half of the US national average costs (see

Table 2-103, Housing Costs).

Table 2-102

Housing Occupancy

Richardson County, NE United States

Total Housing Units 4,387 132,057,804

Occupied 3,779 115,610,216

86.1% 87.5%

Vacant 608 16,447,588

13.9% 12.5%

For rent 53 3,230,123

1.2% 2.4%

Rented, not occupied 0 599,884

0.0% 0.5%

For sale only 129 1,682,020

2.9% 1.3%

Sold, not occupied 0 608,590

0.0% 0.5%

For seasonal, recreational, 

occasional use

93 5,122,778

2.1% 3.9%

For migrant workers 0 34,233

0.0% 0.0%

Other vacant 333 5,169,960

7.6% 3.9%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, American Community Survey Office, as reported by 

Headwater Economics 2015

Table 2-103

Housing Costs

Richardson County, NE United States

Owner-occupied housing units with a mortgage 1,290 49,820,840

Monthly cost <15% of household income 443 9,215,740

34.3% 18.5%

Monthly cost >30% of household income 294 17,636,343

22.8% 35.4%

Specified renter-occupied units 871 40,534,516

Gross rent <15% of household income 277 4,355,942

31.8% 10.7%
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-319

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-103

Housing Costs

Richardson County, NE United States

Gross rent >30% of household income 243 19,581,493

27.9% 48.3%

Median monthly mortgage cost $773 $1,540

Median gross rent $490 $904

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, American Community Survey Office, as reported by Headwater Economics 2015

Population and Migration

The total population in Richardson County in 2013 was 8,125, down approximately 17

percent since 2000. In comparison, the US population as a whole increased 10.7 percent 

between 2000 and 2013 (Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, 

Washington, DC, Table CA-30, as reported by Headwater Economics 2015). Population 

decline in the county is due to more deaths than births and more people moving out of the 

county than into the county, based on average annual net migration data (see Table 

2-104, Components of Population Growth, 2000-2013).

Table 2-104

Components of Population Growth, 2000-2013

Change 2000-2013

Population decline -1,378

Average annual population change (natural change and net migration) -134

Average annual natural change (births and deaths) -52

Average annual net migration (international and domestic) -76

Source: US Census Bureau Population Division 2014, as reported by Headwater Economics 2015

Population decline is projected to slow in the next 20 years in Richardson County. The 

county’s population is expected to decrease approximately 3.3 percent by 2030, while the 

population in the Unites States as a whole is expected increase by 29.2 percent (see Table 

2-105, Population and Population Projections). Information on ethnicity and race in area 

populations is addressed in Section 2.6.25, Environmental Justice.

Income and Employment

Total employment in Richardson County has decreased at almost the same rate as 

population change between 2000 and 2013, while total personal income has increased 

more rapidly than population change during the same timeframe (see Table 2-106).

Unemployment in Richardson County has generally followed national trends, peaking in 

2010-2011, but remained below the national average. Unemployment over the past five

years is shown in Table 2-107.
2. Area Profile

2-320 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-105

Population and Population Projections

Richardson County, NE United States

Population (2013) 8,125 311,536,594

Population (2000) 9,507 281,421,906

Population change (2000-2013) -1,382 30,114,688

Population percent change (2000-2013) -17.0 10.7

Projected population change (2010-2030) 7,398 82,162,529

Projected percent change (2010-2030) -3.3 29.2

Source: US Department of Commerce 2014, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic 

Accounts, Washington, DC, Table CA-30, as reported by Headwater Economics 2015; Prochaska and 

Associates 2013

Table 2-106

Population, Employment, and Income Trends, 2000-2013

2000 2013 Change 

2000-2013

Percent 

Change

2000-2013

Population 9,507 8,125 -1,382 -14.5

Employment (full and parttime jobs)4,947 4,247 -700 -14.1

Personal income (in thousands 

of 2013 dollars)

314,245 377,691 63,446 20.2

Average earnings per Job $31,545 $47,551 $16,006 50.7

Per capita income $33,054 $46,485 $13,431 40.6

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, as reported by Headwater Economics 2015

Table 2-107

Average Annual Unemployment

Richardson County, NE United States

2013 5.3% 7.4%

2012 5.3% 8.1%

2011 6.4% 8.9%

2010 6.6% 9.6%

2009 6.1% 9.3%

2008 4.3% 5.8%

2007 4.1% 4.6%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-321

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Income distribution for 2009-2013 American Community Survey data is demonstrated in

more detail in Table 2-108, Household Income Distribution. Per capita income in 

Richardson County was slightly lower than that of the US average. Median household 

income was much lower than the US average.

Table 2-108

Household Income Distribution

Richardson County, NE United States

Per capita income (in 2013 

dollars)

$23,566 $28,155

Median household income (in 

2013 dollars)

$38,582 $53,046

Total Households 3,779 115,610,216

Less than $10,000 275 8,380,364

7.3% 7.2%

$10,000 to 14,999 277 6,214,548

7.3% 5.4%

$15,000 to 24,999 522 12,468,604

13.8% 10.8%

$25,000 to 34,999 703 11,929,761

18.6% 10.3%

$35,000 to 49,999 685 15,723,148

18.1% 13.6%

$50,000 to 74,999 542 20,744,045

14.3% 17.9%

$75,000 to 99,999 432 14,107,031

11.4% 12.2%

$100,000 to 149,999 240 14,858,239

6.4% 12.9%

$150,000 to 199,999 62 5,651,848

1.6% 4.9%

$200,000 or more 41 5,532,628

1.1% 4.8%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, American Community Survey Office, as reported by as 

reported by Headwater Economics 2015

Based on 2013 data, top economic sectors in Richardson County are trade, transportation, 

and utilities, local government, education and health, and manufacturing. It is worth 

noting that average annual wages were much higher than average levels for information 

services and much lower than average for leisure and hospitality services (see Table 

2-109, Employment and Wages by Industry, 2013). In 2013 the three industry sectors 

with the most jobs were trade, transportation, and utilities (526); government (590); and 

education and health (466). 
2. Area Profile

2-322 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-109

Employment and Wages by Industry, 2013

Employment

Percent of 

Total 

Employment

Average 

Annual 

Wages

Percent

Above or 

Below 

Average

Total 2,434 $28,495

Private 1,844 75.8 $28,045 -1.6

Non-Services-Related 360 14.8 $36,223 27.1

Natural resources/mining 39 1.6 $23,126 -18.8

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, 

and hunting

33 1.4 $23,642 -17.0

Mining (including fossil fuels) 5 0.2 $24,342 -14.6

Construction 81 3.3 $31,530 10.7

Manufacturing (including 

forest products)

240 9.9 $39,935 40.1

Services-related 1,484 61.0 $26,061 -8.5

Trade, transportation, and 

utilities

526 21.6 $27,020 -5.2

Information 22 0.9 $72,845 155.6

Financial activities 103 4.2 $36,027 26.4

Professional and business 99 4.1 $28,393 -0.4

Education and health 460 18.9 $29,168 2.4

Leisure and Hospitality 220 9.0 $10,019 -68.8

Other services 54 2.2 $13,267 -53.4

Unclassified 0 0.0 N/A N/A

Government 590 24.2 $29,901 4.9

Federal 36 1.5 $40,215 41.1

State 33 1.4 $30,861 8.3

Local 521 21.4 $29,127 2.2

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, as reported by Headwaters 

Economics 2015

Total personal income by industry provides additional information on key economic 

sectors. In 2013, the three industry sectors with the largest personal income were farm 

($73.4 million), government ($27.3 million), and health care and social assistance ($17.8 

million). From 2001 to 2013, the three industry sectors that added the most new personal 

income in real terms were farm ($41.8 million), health care and social assistance ($2.7 

million), and construction ($1.6 million; see Table 2-110, Personal Income by Industry

2001-2013 (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)).
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-323

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-110

Personal Income by Industry 2001-2013 (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)

2001 2013 Change 

2001-2013

Labor earnings 152,965 201,948 48,983

Non-services related 52,103 93,785 41,682

Farm 31,656 73,403 41,747

Forestry, fishing, and related activities N/A N/A N/A

Mining (including fossil fuels) 249 240 -9

Construction 5,737 7,297 1,560

Manufacturing 14,461 12,845 -1,616

Services related 59,665 61,394 1,729

Utilities N/A N/A N/A

Wholesale trade 6,710 8,234 1,524

Retail trade 13,011 11,184 -1,827

Transportation and warehousing N/A N/A N/A

Information 3,291 2,150 -1,141

Finance and insurance 5,578 4,461 -1,117

Real estate and rental and leasing 692 1,088 396

Professional and technical services 3,307 3,521 214

Management of companies and enterprises N/A N/A N/A

Administrative and waste services N/A N/A N/A

Educational services 1,144 1,144 0

Health care and social assistance 15,115 17,844 2,729

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 203 391 188

Accommodation and food services 3,189 3,015 -174

Other services, except public administration 7,426 8,362 936

Government 26,873 27,343 470

Source: US Department of Commerce. 2014. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, 

Washington, DC. Table CA05N, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Note: All employment data are reported by place of work.

Labor is the main source of income for Richardson County, comprising 62.1 percent of 

total personal income. Non-labor income is of increasing importance nationally and may

provide locally important sources of income. Non-labor income in Richardson County 

makes up about the same percentage of total personal income as the national average. For 

more details regarding income source, refer to Table 2-111, Labor and Non-labor Income

(in Thousands of 2013 Dollars).

Public Finance

Components of public finance related to management of federal lands and mineral 

resources in the planning area primarily include federal mineral royalty payments and 

other taxes collected from the extraction and sale of mineral resources. These categories 

are explained in detail below.
2. Area Profile

2-324 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-111

Labor and Non-labor Income (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)

Richardson County, NE United States

Total personal income 

($1,000)

377,691 14,151,427,000

Non-labor income 143,157 5,085,220,000

37.9% 35.9%

Dividends, interest, and 

rent

66,617 2,670,719,000

17.6% 18.9%

Transfer payments 76,540 2,414,501,000

20.3% 17.1%

Labor earnings 234,534 9,066,207,000

62.1% 64.1%

Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014, Regional Economic Accounts, as reported by 

Headwater Economics 2015

Taxes

The severance tax in Nebraska is 3 percent on value for natural gas and non-stripper oil 

severed and 2 percent on value for stripper oil severed (National Conference of State 

Legislatures 2012). In 2006, approximately $2.8 million was collected in severance taxes 

in Nebraska (Nebraska Department of Revenue 2006). In addition to severance tax, oil 

and gas is subject to conservation tax, which is based on the value at the well of all oil 

and gas produced, saved, and sold or transported from Nebraska. The conservation tax 

rate is 0.40 percent and is deposited in the Oil and Gas Conservation Fund. In 2006, 

approximately $484,000 was collected in conservation tax (Nebraska Department of 

Revenue 2006).

Federal Mineral Royalties

As discussed in Section 2.2, BLM Resources, additional revenues from oil, gas, and coal 

extraction come from rents and royalties paid by producers for development of federal or 

Indian minerals. Mineral lease revenues are collected by the Office of Natural Resources

Revenue within the Department of the Interior. Royalties collected in Nebraska are

shown in Table 2-112, Rents, Royalties, and Bonus Revenue Collected. The Department 

of the Interior disburses 100 percent of the revenues received for energy and mineral 

production on Indian lands directly to the tribes and individual mineral owners through 

the BIA and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians. Tribes then distribute 

the revenues among all members. Alternately, they apply the revenues to health care, 

infrastructure, education, and other critical community development programs, such as 

senior centers, public safety projects, and youth initiatives. Many individual mineral 

owners use these revenues as a major source of income to support their families and 

communities.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-325

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-112

Rents, Royalties, and Bonus Revenue Collected (FY 2014)

Gas (mcf1) volume 1,330

Gas sales $5,330

Gas royalties $5,064

Oil (oil barrels) volume 24,681

Oil sales $ 2,190,827

Oil royalties $ 274,123

Coal (tons) volume 0

Coal sales 0

Coal royalties 0

Rents $ 7,605

Bonuses $ 48,544

Other Revenue $46,214

Source: Office of Natural Resources Revenue 2015

1mcf = thousand cubic feet

Nebraska’s state share of federal mineral royalty revenue disbursement for fiscal year 

2014 was $38,770. A portion of this amount is then disbursed to counties of origin (Office 

of Natural Resources Revenue 2015).

Social and Economic Activity Related to BIA Management Actions

Energy and Minerals

Employment in the mining sector in Nebraska represented only 0.6 percent (1,811) of the 

total private employment in 2012, less than that in Oklahoma, Kansas, or Texas. BIAadministered minerals represent only a fraction of total oil and gas production Nebraska. 

Agriculture

Agriculture and livestock grazing played a traditional role in the study area economy and 

continue to be important in some areas today, particularly in non-metro areas. There were 

736 farms, totaling 318,179 acres, in the Richardson County in 2012 (USDA, National 

Agricultural Statistical Service 2012). Agricultural data are presented in Table 2-113, 

Summary of Socioeconomic Study Area Agriculture (2012). Additional grazing occurs 

on BIA-administered lands in the area and there is potential for grazing to increase on 

both public and BIA-administered lands in the future. 

Table 2-113

Summary of Socioeconomic Study Area Agriculture (2012)

Area Number of 

Farms

Acres in 

Farms

Market Value 

(Crop Sales)

Market Value 

(Livestock 

Sales)

Richardson County 736 319,179 $114,978,000 $47,045,000

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistical Service 2012
2. Area Profile

2-326 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Recreation

Recreation plays an important role in some local areas. Estimated economic impacts from 

area recreation are included below in Table 2-114. 

Table 2-114

Summary of Planning Area Outdoor Recreation Economic Impacts

State

Consumer 

Spending for 

Outdoor 

Recreation

Direct Jobs 

Generated from 

Outdoor 

Recreation

Wages and 

Salaries Related to 

Outdoor Reaction

State and Local 

Tax Revenue 

from Outdoor 

Recreation

Nebraska $5.7 billion 74,000 $1.7 billion $396,000,000

Source: Outdoor Industry Association 2014

Social Conditions and Non-Market Values

An overview of social conditions and non-market values is provided in Section 2.5.3.

Tribal socioeconomic workshops were held in January 2015 to collect input from tribal 

groups on social and economic considerations important to tribes in the planning area. A 

summary of key concerns from participants at the tribal socioeconomic workshops is 

included below; full details are provided in the Socioeconomic Workshop Summary 

Report (BLM and BIA 2015). Details for general socioeconomic workshops conducted in 

February 2015, which also included some tribal member participation, are included in 

Section 2.5.3 and in the Workshop Summary Report (BLM and BIA 2015).

 Tribal gaming was cited as a big economic driver for many tribes.

 Tourism is becoming more important to some tribes, such as the Choctaw 

Nation and Absentee Shawnee. 

 Participants noted that there is interest in wind development. There are at least 

three tribes that have proposed over 90 turbine wind farms. There will be five 

to seven wind farm developments in the next five years.

 Social concerns were getting people working and addressing domestic 

violence.

 Many of the 24 tribes in the Southern Plains rely on their oil and gas royalties.

Eastern Oklahoma (which has mainly gas) has been in a slower growth rate as 

the price of gas has been low, and now with oil prices going down, western 

Oklahoma (mainly oil) will likely slow down too.

 Employment in tribal government and business ventures represents a major 

employer in some areas.

 Livestock graze on tribal lands and can be locally important for some tribes. 
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-327

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

References

References are provided under Section 2.2, BLM Resources. The following additional 

references are also cited:

BLM and BIA 2015. BLM Oklahoma Field Office and BIA Southern Plains Region and 

Eastern Oklahoma Region. Joint Environmental Impact Statement and BLM 

Resource Management Plan and BIA Integrated Resource Management Plan 

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report. ul April 2015.

BLM GIS (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Geographic 

Information System). 2015. Base GIS data on file with the BLM’s eGIS server 

used for calculations or figures; includes data prepared for the reasonable 

foreseeable development scenario and Version 04_02 of the decision area. BLM, 

Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2015. Unemployment Rate for Richardson County. Internet 

website: http://data.bls.gov/map/MapToolServlet. 

Nebraska Department of Revenue. 2006. Nebraska Department of Revenue Annual 

Report. Internet website: http://nlcs1.nlc.state.ne.us/epubs/R5000/A001-2006.pdf. 

Nebraska Energy Quarterly. 2015. The Birth of Oil Production in Nebraska. Internet 

website: http://www.neo.ne.gov/neqsum97/sum9705.htm. 

Office of Natural Resources Revenue. 2015. Reported Revenues for All Land Categories 

in Nebraska for Fiscal Year 2014 by Accounting Year. Internet website: 

http://statistics.onrr.gov/ReportTool.aspx. 

Outdoor Industry Association. 2014. The Outdoor Recreation Economy. State profiles for 

Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. Internet website: outdoorindustry.org/

recreationeconomy. 

Prochaska and Associates. 2013. Richardson County Law Enforcement Center Needs 

Assessment Study. August 13, 2013. Falls City, Nebraska. Internet website: 

http://www.co.richardson.ne.us/pdfs/jail_project/Needs_Assessment_for_Law_En

forcement_Center.pdf.

Save America’s Heritage. 1993. Nebraska Historic Buildings Survey, Reconnaissance 

Survey Final Report of Richardson County, Nebraska. August 1, 1993. Available 

online: http://www.nebraskahistory.org/histpres/reports/richardson_county.pdf.

Schottenhamel, George C. 1979. The Richardson County Oil Boom, 1938-1942. 

Nebraska History 60 (1979): 357-370. Internet website: http://www.nebraska

history.org/publish/publicat/history/full-text/NH1979RichardsonOil.pdf.
2. Area Profile

2-328 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

2.6.25 Environmental Justice

The environmental justice conditions and trends for Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas are 

described in Section 2.2, BLM Resources. The following describes environmental justice 

conditions for Richardson County, Nebraska, which is part of the planning area. This 

county only includes BIA surface and subsurface minerals. The same indicators as used 

in the environmental justice sections for Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas (Section 2.2, 

BLM Resources) are used to describe conditions in Richardson County, Nebraska.

Low-Income Populations

A summary of poverty data for Richardson County is displayed in Table 2-115. The 

percent of individuals in poverty in Richardson County is slightly higher than the national 

average. The percent of families in poverty in Richardson County is about the same as the 

national average. 

Table 2-115

Richardson County Population in Poverty in 2013

Richardson County, NE United States

Percent of individuals in poverty 17.2 15.4

Percent of families in poverty 11.2 11.3

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, American Community Survey Office, as reported by 

Headwater Economics 2015

The average percent of individuals below the poverty level in Nebraska is 12.9 percent

(US Census Bureau 2010b). Individual poverty in Richardson County is therefore higher 

than the state average. This would be an area of focus for ensuring that residents of this 

county do not have disproportionately negative economic and social impacts from 

decisions in the joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP. Figure 2-28, Percent of 

Individuals below the Poverty Level, shows a map of Nebraska counties and comparative 

poverty levels.

Minority Populations

Based on 2013 data, the population of Richardson County had mostly minority 

populations below that of the national average (see Table 2-116, Richardson County

Population by Race/Ethnicity (2012)). The exceptions are American Indian and 

individuals with two or more races, both of which were higher than the national average. 

The average percent of aggregate minority population in Nebraska is 17.9 percent (US 

Census Bureau 2010a). Richardson County is therefore much lower than the state 

average. Figure 2-29, Aggregate Minority Population, shows a map of Nebraska counties 

and comparative aggregate minority populations. 

References

References are provided under Section 2.2, BLM Resources.
2. Area Profile

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 2-329

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Table 2-116

Richardson County Population by Race/Ethnicity (2012)

Population Richardson County, NE United States

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity of 

any race

5.7% 16.6%

White alone 88.9% 74.0%

Black or African American 

alone

0.0% 12.6%

American Indian alone 7.0% 0.8%

Asian alone 0.0% 4.9%

Native Hawaiian and Other 

Pacific Islander alone

0.0% 0.2%

Some other race 0.0% 4.7%

Two or more races 4.0% 2.8%

Aggregate minority population 6% 36.7%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, American Community Survey Office, as reported by 

Headwater Economics 2015
2. Area Profile

2-330 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

This page intentionally left blank.
June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-1

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

CHAPTER 3

CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

3.1 RELEVANT PLANS AND AMENDMENTS

Management decisions are currently based on the Kansas RMP (BLM 1991), the 

Oklahoma RMP (BLM 1994a), and the Texas RMP (BLM 1996a), as amended (see 

Table 3-1).

Table 3-1

Current Resource Management Plans and Amendments within the Planning Area

Document Title Month 

and Year

Kansas Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision (BLM 1991) September 

1991

Oklahoma Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision (BLM 1994a) January 

1994

Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision

Record: Six Coal Lease Applications and One Coal Lease Modification in 

Southeastern Oklahoma (BLM 1994b)

August 

1994

Oklahoma Resource Management Plan Amendment and Record of Decision(BLM 

1996b)

September 

1996

Oklahoma Resource Management Plan Amendment and Finding of No Significant 

Impact for Three Competitive Coal Lease Sales in Haskell, Latimer, and LeFlore

Counties, Oklahoma (BLM 2004)

September 

2004

Resource Management Plan Amendment and Decision Record for Federal Coal

Leases in Haskell and LeFlore Counties, Oklahoma (BLM 2014)

March 

2014

Texas Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision (BLM 1996a) May 1996

Texas Resource Management Plan Amendment and Finding of No Significant

Impact for the Cross Bar Cooperative Management Area (BLM 2000)

April 

2000
3. Current Management Direction

3-2 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

3.2 BLM CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES

While the BLM manages according to federal and state laws and Department of the 

Interior policies and guidelines, no planning-level decisions have been identified in the 

existing Oklahoma, Kansas, or Texas RMPs for the following resources: air, soil, water, 

vegetation, wild horses and burros, visual resources, wildland fire, lands with wilderness 

characteristics, caves and karsts, forests, comprehensive trails and travel management, 

ACECs, backcountry byways, national trails, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study 

areas, outstanding natural areas, social and economic conditions, treaty rights and tribal 

interests, environmental justice, and public safety. While the RMPs do not contain 

specific management decisions for the above-listed resources, specific fluid mineral 

leasing stipulations (see Federal Mineral Lease Stipulations) provide protection of some 

of these resources.

3.2.1 Soils

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

RMP Amendment 

and Decision Record 

for Three 

Competitive Coal 

Lease Sales in 

Haskell, Latimer, and 

LeFlore Counties, 

Oklahoma (2004)

Neither the 1994 

RMP nor the 

amendment prepared 

in 1996 addressed the 

areas that are the 

subject of this 

RMPA. Lands 

already considered in 

the 1994 Oklahoma 

RMP, and as

amended in 1996, are 

not addressed.

Highly erodible soils should be managed to maintain 

or reduce erosion and to improve vegetative ground 

cover. Where necessary, roads should be upgraded, 

maintained, and properly surfaced in accordance with 

the appropriate standards. Areas where the soils are 

highly erodible or difficult to reclaim should receive 

increased attention and are avoidance areas for 

surface-disturbing activities.

3.2.2 Fish and Wildlife and Special Status Species

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Kansas RMP 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance)

Special status species and other fish, wildlife and 

wetland/riparian resource concerns are addressed through 

site-specific agency coordination in Kansas.
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-3

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Agency coordination is initiated with the USFWS, Kansas 

Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism, and the 

Kansas Natural Heritage Program regarding each site 

specific BLM project in Kansas. Every application for 

permit to drill will continue to result in site specific 

agency coordination and application and discussion of 

any existing lease stipulations and notices.

Texas Proposed 

RMPA and 

Environmental 

Assessment, 2000 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance) 

The planning area 

this RMPA 

applies to is 

11,833.80 acres of 

federal surface 

estate (Cross Bar 

property) and 

38,256.18 acres of 

split-estate 

(private

surface over 

federal minerals) 

in Potter

County, north of 

Amarillo. 

Wildlife program coordination, such as that needed to 

conduct special status species evaluations, has been, and 

will continue to be, conducted with the Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department and USFWS.

Texas Proposed 

RMPA and 

Environmental 

Assessment, 2000 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance) 

The planning area 

this RMPA 

applies to is 

11,833.80 acres of 

federal surface 

estate (Cross Bar 

property) and 

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

recommended that deer hunting on the lands be 

restricted to archery hunting only. The Department of 

the Interior adopted this recommendation. Shotgun-only 

small game hunting is largely regulated by the absence 

of legal access, both pedestrian and vehicular.
3. Current Management Direction

3-4 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

38,256.18 acres of 

split-estate 

(private surface 

over federal 

minerals) in Potter

County, north of 

Amarillo.

Texas Proposed 

RMPA and 

Environmental 

Assessment, 2000 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance) 

The planning area 

this RMPA 

applies to is 

11,833.80 acres of 

federal surface 

estate (Cross Bar 

property) and 

38,256.18 acres of 

split-estate 

(private

surface over 

federal minerals) 

in Potter County, 

north of Amarillo.

Since the transfer of responsibilities to the BLM the 

Texas Panhandle Chapter of Quail Unlimited has 

expressed interest in challenge cost share projects to 

benefit the bobwhite and scaled (blue) quail populations 

on the Cross Bar property. These projects have been put 

on hold until the BLM finalizes a decision regarding the 

management of these lands.

3.2.3 Cultural Resources

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Oklahoma RMP 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance)

Sacred tribal grounds or ceremonial sites considered 

important by federally recognized tribes are managed in 

accordance with the American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act, Public Law 95-341. At present, the American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act has no implementing regulations, 

and BLM consults with Native Americans under 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979

regulations and 43 CFR, Part 7. The Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act requires 

consultations with a tribe that has cultural affiliation when 

human remains, associated and unassociated funerary 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-5

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony 

are found during testing, excavations, or unexpected 

discoveries.

Oklahoma RMP 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance)

A key tool used by the BLM to manage the cultural 

resources is a varied intensity of inventory divided into 

three classes: Class I—Previously conducted inventory 

and literature search; Class II—Sampling field inventory 

(all sample units inventoried to a Class III level); and 

Class III—Intensive field inventory covers 100 percent of 

the area on foot. With only specifically defined 

exceptions in the BLM Cultural Resource Manual, the 

Class III inventory is required before any surface 

disturbance is allowed.

Kansas RMP 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance)

Sacred tribal grounds or ceremonial sites considered 

important by federally recognized tribes are managed in 

accordance with American Indian Religious Freedom Act

using 43 CFR, Part 7. This consultation will take into 

account the concerns of the tribes involving sites or 

locations of religious significance and can result in 

restrictions of oil and gas development or even no surface 

occupancy (NSO).

Oklahoma RMP 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance)

Kansas RMP 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance)

Cultural resource program involvement in split-estate 

minerals activities in Kansas consists of development of 

environmental analyses reports, site specific evaluations 

or inventories in support of oil and gas leasing, 

development of stipulations for impact mitigation or 

impact avoidance, and consultations with state agencies. 

Program involvement associated with mineral leasing 

under other federal surface management agencies 

properties is limited to coordination and consultation 

with the other federal agencies and with state agencies.

Texas RMP 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance)

The cultural resource program activities in Texas consist 

of development of environmental analysis reports; site 

specific evaluations or inventories of cultural resources 

in support of mineral leasing and development, 

development of terms and conditions of impact 

mitigation or impact avoidance, and consultations with 

state agencies and Indian tribes. Program involvement 

associated with mineral leasing under the federal surface 

management agency (SMA) properties is limited to

coordination and consultation with other federal and 

state agencies and federally recognized Indian tribes.

Consultation directly with federally recognized Indian 

tribes is regularly performed to comply with the
3. Current Management Direction

3-6 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

American Indian Religious Freedom Act. These 

consultations do not depend on tribal ownership of 

mineral rights in a development area, but result from 

tribal history, sacred or ceremonial areas or unmarked 

graves possible in an area of development. Negotiations

with specific Indian tribes will also be conducted when 

any newly discovered Indian graves are claimed for 

repatriation in accordance with the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

Texas Proposed 

RMPA and 

Environmental 

Assessment, 2000 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance) 

The planning area 

this RMPA 

applies to is 

11,833.80 acres of 

federal surface 

estate (Cross Bar 

property) and 

38,256.18 acres of 

split-estate 

(private

surface over 

federal minerals) 

in Potter

County, north of 

Amarillo.

The management of cultural resources at the Cross Bar 

property is very similar to that described in the original 

Texas RMP. Preparation of environmental assessments 

required by proposed surface disturbance of any 

development is a regular function. Review continues of 

any contracted cultural inventories and close 

consultation with the Texas Historical Commission, 

other federal or state agencies, and federally recognized 

Indian tribes. Negotiation and preparation of the terms 

and conditions of any impact on cultural resources 

would be a second option after avoidance of any impact 

on cultural resources was first considered.

Texas Proposed 

RMPA and 

Environmental 

Assessment, 2000 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance) 

The planning area 

this RMPA 

applies to is 

11,833.80 acres of 

federal surface 

Consultation directly with a federally recognized Indian 

tribe would be the policy to comply with the American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act. These consultations do 

not depend on an Indian tribe owning mineral rights, but 

result from past tribal occupation, sacred or ceremonial 

areas and unmarked graves in a proposed project area. 

Negotiations with specific Indian tribes will be 

conducted when any newly discovered Indian grave is 

claimed for repatriation in accordance with the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-7

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

estate (Cross Bar 

property) and 

38,256.18 acres of 

split-estate 

(private

surface over 

federal minerals) 

in Potter

County, north of 

Amarillo. (This is 

the same as the 

Texas RMP)

Texas Proposed 

RMPA and 

Environmental 

Assessment, 2000 

(Alternative B.—

Retention and 

Management of 

Public Lands in 

Potter County, 

Texas (Preferred 

Alternative)) 

The planning area 

this RMPA 

applies to is 

11,833.80 acres of 

federal surface 

estate (Cross Bar 

property) and 

38,256.18 acres of 

split-estate 

(private

surface over 

federal minerals) 

in Potter

County, north of 

Amarillo.

Note—The 

decision detailed 

here is an action 

of the preferred 

alternative, which 

Proposed Action (treated as decisions)

Develop a cooperative resource management plan for the 

Management of the Cross Bar property.

This cooperative resource management plan will include 

the following management principles and objectives:

Natural and cultural resources protection will be a 

priority.
3. Current Management Direction

3-8 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

is assumed to be 

the selected 

alternatives (no 

ROD provided for 

this proposed 

RMPA). 

WO- NHPA Lease stipulation. A lease may be found to contain 

historic properties or resources protected under the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act, Executive Order 13007, 

or other statutes and executive orders. The BLM will not 

approve any ground-disturbing activities that may affect 

any such properties or resources until it completes its 

obligations (e.g., State Historic Preservation Officer 

[SHPO] and tribal consultation) under applicable 

requirements of the NHPA and other authorities. The 

BLM may require modification to exploration or 

development proposals to protect such properties, or 

disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse 

effects that cannot be successfully avoided, minimized, or 

mitigated.

3.2.4 Paleontological Resources

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Oklahoma RMP 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance) 

The BLM paleontological resource management program 

within Oklahoma includes the requirement that the BLM 

be notified should paleontological resources be 

encountered during the conduct of BLM approved 

operations.

Texas RMP 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance)

The paleontological resource program activities in Texas 

consists of development or review of environmental 

analysis reports; site specific evaluations or inventories of 

paleontological resources in support of mineral leasing 

and development, and application of terms and conditions 

for impact mitigation or to avoid impacts. 

Kansas RMP 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance)

The BLM paleontological resource management 

program within Kansas includes the requirement that the 

BLM be notified should paleontological resources be 

encountered during the conduct of operations.
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-9

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

3.3 BLM CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCE USES

3.3.1 Energy and Minerals

General—All Energy and Minerals

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Kansas RMP 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance)

Federal minerals under private surface or federal surface 

managed by another federal agency or licensed by 

another federal agency to a state or local agency for 

surface management purposes are the most common 

situations encountered in BLM's wildlife management 

program in Kansas. In these situations BLM's wildlife 

responsibilities in Kansas do not begin until a BLM 

mineral action is proposed.

Kansas RMP 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance)

All federal oil and gas leasing and lease operations in 

Kansas are conducted following procedures established 

and presented in 43 CFR, Part 3100. Lease development 

activities in Kansas involve on-site inspections before 

application for permit to drill approval, drilling plan 

review and lease operations inspection and enforcement.

Kansas RMP 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance)

Lease operations are regulated by lease terms, 

regulations, and stipulations that may be attached to the 

lease to protect specific resource values identified in an 

Environmental Assessment or EIS. Before operations, a 

site-specific environmental analysis of the proposed well 

site may result in additional considerations before 

approval of the drilling permit.

Kansas RMP 

(RMP Actions)

Under the RMP, new leases and expired leases that are 

reissued would be leased with standard lease terms. 

Mandatory stipulations would be incorporated into each 

lease where those stipulations apply. In addition, this 

will include optional stipulations where resource values 

exist that warrant special protection.

Kansas RMP 

(RMP Actions)

All new leases and expired leases that are reissued 

would be leased with stipulations currently identified by 

the SMA. Additional stipulations may be applied to 

these SMA lands where the BLM determines that 

additional stipulations may be necessary to protect 

resource values warranting greater protection than 

provided by the SMA stipulations.

Texas RMP 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance)

The uncertainty concerning the location of split-estate 

minerals in Texas makes some preleasing/post RMP 

wildlife agency coordination necessary. Every postleasing action which would result in surface disturbing 

activities would be analyzed in a BLM Environmental 
3. Current Management Direction

3-10 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Assessment and an “evaluation of special status species, 

wetlands and riparian zones.” Agency Coordination 

letters would be mailed to the Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department and the appropriate USFWS office on all 

post-leasing oil and gas actions which would result in 

surface-disturbing activities. Such surface disturbing 

actions would include applications for permit to drill or 

sundry notices submitted for actions on Indian or 

federal oil and gas leases. Site-specific agency 

coordination would include a discussion of lease 

stipulations and notices. 

Texas RMP 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance)

Federal minerals occurring in commercial quantities in 

Texas include oil and gas and coal or lignite. Federal 

lignite leasing in Texas was addressed in the Draft and 

Final Camp Swift Lignite Leasing EIS of 1980 and is 

included as continuing management guidance.

Procedures for reviewing oil and gas lease applications 

vary depending on the category of surface ownership. 

Proposals to lease split-estate minerals require the BLM 

to prepare a site-specific Environmental Assessment

and assure that necessary surface protection stipulations 

are attached to the lease. Procedures for leasing on other 

SMA minerals are similar to split-estate procedures 

except that the SMA is contacted for approval to lease 

and also for identification of specific agency surface 

protection stipulations. The BLM is responsible for 

NEPA compliance documentation, which could include 

preparing a site-specific Environmental Assessment that 

addresses the proposal.

All federal oil and gas leasing and lease operations in 

Texas are conducted following procedures established 

and presented in 43 CFR, Part 3100. Before operations 

begin, a site-specific environmental analysis of the 

proposed well site may result in additional 

considerations before approval of an application for 

permit to drill.

Lease activities in Texas involve on-site inspections 

before approving an application for permit to drill, 

drilling plan review and lease operations inspection and 

enforcement. Lease operations are regulated by lease 

terms, regulations and stipulations that may be attached 

to the lease to protect specific resource values identified 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-11

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

in an Environmental Assessment or EIS.

Geophysical operations within Texas are not controlled 

or authorized by the BLM. Each SMA and surface 

owner negotiates and controls surface uses which 

includes access for geophysical exploration activities.

Texas RMP (The 

RMP for Oil and 

Gas Leasing and 

Development)

Split-Estate Lands

All new leases and all expired leases that are reissued 

would be leased with surface resource protection 

stipulations. Mandatory stipulations would be 

incorporated into each lease where those stipulations 

apply. In addition, optional stipulations will be included 

where resource values exist that warrant special 

protection.

Texas RMP (The 

RMP for Oil and 

Gas Leasing and 

Development)

SMA Lands

All new leases and all expired leases that are reissued 

would be leased with stipulations currently identified by 

the SMA. Additional stipulations may be applied to 

these SMA lands where the BLM determines additional 

stipulations may be necessary to protect resource values 

warranting protection greater than that provided by the 

SMA stipulations. 

Texas Proposed 

RMPA and 

Environmental 

Assessment, 2000 

(Alternative B—

Retention and 

Management of 

Public Lands in 

Potter County, 

Texas (Preferred 

Alternative) 

The planning area 

this RMPA applies 

to is 11,833.80 

acres of federal 

surface estate 

(Cross Bar 

property) and 

38,256.18 acres of 

split-estate 

(private

surface over 

Proposed action (treated as decisions): Designate an 

electrical transmission line ROW corridor across federal 

surface estate adjacent to the existing power line (as 

required by Section 503 of FLPMA)
3. Current Management Direction

3-12 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

federal minerals) 

in Potter

County, north of 

Amarillo.

Texas Proposed 

RMPA and 

Environmental 

Assessment, 2000 

(affected 

environment: 

portions from this 

section that 

describe 

management 

direction as they 

now exist on the 

Amarillo Field 

Office unit 

boundaries) 

The planning area 

this RMPA applies 

to is 11,833.80 

acres of federal 

surface estate 

(Cross Bar 

property) and 

38,256.18 acres of 

split-estate 

(private

surface over 

federal minerals) 

in Potter

County, north of 

Amarillo.

Gas rights for 6,806.3 acres were leased by the BM to 

Sunlight Exploration, Inc. This lease includes the 

following lands:

Sections 2, 3, 4 Block 4 G&M Survey

Sections 45, 48, 50 Block 5 G&M Survey

Section 14 Block 21-W EL&RR Survey

Section 19 Block 21-W Pointevant Survey

Sections 22, 27 Block 21-W GC&SFRR Survey

Gas right for 1920 acres was leased to J.W. Resources 

by the BM. This lease includes the following lands:

Sections 211, 212, 213 Block 2 AB&M Survey.

When these leases expire, the gas rights will not be 

offered for lease again (43CFR3100.3-3[b][2][v]).

Resource 

Management Plan 

Amendment and 

Decision Record 

for Three 

Competitive Coal 

Lease Sales in 

Haskell, Latimer, 

and LeFlore 

Counties, 

The RMPA will allow the three lease applications areas 

(LAA) to be leased and subsequently developed. These 

LAAs are in Haskell, Latimer, and LeFlore Counties in 

southeastern Oklahoma and total 6,883.17 acres of 

previously unleased coal. The sizes and locations of the 

three LAAs are as follows:

LAA: Liberty West

Acres: 640

County: Haskell
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-13

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Oklahoma (2004)

Neither the 1994 

RMP nor the 

amendment 

prepared in 1996 

addressed the 

areas that are the 

subject of this 

RMPA. Lands 

already considered 

in the 1994 

Oklahoma RMP, 

and as amended in 

1996, are not 

addressed.

Cadastral Location: Sections 1 and 12, T10N, R21E

LAA: McCurtain 

Acres: 2,380

County: Haskell

Cadastral Location: Sections 8-11, 14-17, T8N, R22E

LAA: Bull Hill

Acres: 3,863.17

County: Latimer, LeFlore

Cadastral Location: Sections 4-6, T5N, R23E; Sections 

31-34, T6N, R24E;

Sections 33-36, T6N, R23E; Section 1-3, T5N, R22E

Amendment and 

Decision Record 

for Three 

Competitive Coal 

Lease Sales in 

Haskell, Latimer, 

and LeFlore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma (2004)

Neither the 1994 

RMP nor the 

amendment 

prepared in 1996 

addressed the 

areas that are the 

subject of this 

RMPA. Lands 

already considered 

in the 1994 

Oklahoma RMP, 

and as amended in 

1996, are not 

addressed.

Liberty West LAA

Coal from the Stigler seam would be recovered by 

surface mining methods. The Stigler seam averages 26 

inches in thickness, and dips toward the northwest and 

southwest at a rate of approximately 2 to 4 percent, with 

135 tons per acre-inch of recoverable coal. The Stigler 

seam in this area lies from approximately 60 feet below 

the surface to as deep as 150 feet below the surface 

within the mining area.

Mining would be a continuation of the adjacent permit, 

Oklahoma Department of Mines Permit #4268. Mining 

would progress in a series of long narrow pits away from 

the crop line of the Stigler horizon. The pits would be up 

to 150 feet wide at the bottom and may range from 60 to 

120 feet deep. The length would vary but would range 

from 2,000 to 4,000 feet.

Amendment and 

Decision Record 

for Three 

Competitive Coal 

Lease Sales in 

McCurtain LAA

Coal from the Hartshorne seam would be recovered by 

underground mining methods. The Hartshorne seam 

averages 47 inches in thickness and a maximum recovery 
3. Current Management Direction

3-14 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Haskell, Latimer, 

and LeFlore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma (2004)

Neither the 1994 

RMP nor the 

amendment 

prepared in 1996 

addressed the 

areas that are the 

subject of this 

RMPA. Lands 

already considered 

in the 1994 

Oklahoma RMP, 

and as amended in 

1996, are not 

addressed.

depth of 1,000 feet. The existing high wall remaining 

from previous mining operations would be stripped back 

to a solid wall, and then the underground mining 

operation would begin.

Amendment and 

Decision Record 

for Three 

Competitive Coal 

Lease Sales in 

Haskell, Latimer, 

and LeFlore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma (2004)

Neither the 1994 

RMP nor the 

amendment 

prepared in 1996 

addressed the 

areas that are the 

subject of this 

RMPA. Lands 

already considered 

in the 1994 

Oklahoma RMP, 

and as amended in 

1996, are not 

addressed.

Bull Hill LAA

Coal from the Lower and Upper Hartshorne coal seams 

would be recovered to a depth of 100 feet of overburden. 

The coal seam would be recovered with a combination of 

conventional surface mining and auger mining. Surface 

mining operations would remove coal from two steeply 

dipping coal seams. One pit of coal would be stripped 

using conventional surface mining methods. The 

stripping would advance the existing highwall down-dip 

to a depth of approximately 100 feet to provide additional 

pit area for the auger mining operations and would 

recover coal 300 to 500 feet into the seam from the 

highwall.

Amendment and 

Decision Record 

The three LAAs will be offered for lease, allowing 

development of all lands in the leased areas, except those 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-15

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

for Three 

Competitive Coal 

Lease Sales in 

Haskell, Latimer, 

and LeFlore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma (2004)

Neither the 1994 

RMP nor the 

amendment 

prepared in 1996 

addressed the 

areas that are the 

subject of this 

RMPA. Lands 

already considered 

in the 1994 

Oklahoma RMP, 

and as amended in 

1996, are not 

addressed.

considered to be unsuitable for development (1) in 

accordance with the unsuitability criteria and (2) 

considering the results of the multiple use screen, which 

includes wetland and riparian areas, the Wister Wildlife 

Management Area, cultural resources, and priority 

streams. With stipulations, approximately 1.62 acres, or 

less than 1 percent of the originally proposed leases, 

would be unsuitable for consideration. 

Oklahoma RMPA 

and Decision 

Record for Federal 

Coal Leases in 

Haskell and 

Leflore Counties, 

Oklahoma (2014)

The planning area 

this RMPA applies 

to is the 

McCurtain Area 

(1,300.62 acres), 

the Milton Area 

(290.00 acres), the 

Spiro Area (790 

acres), and the 

Liberty Area 

(1,620 acres). 

The planning area 

is outside of areas 

designated as 

The planning area would be made available for leasing, 

allowing for potential development of all lands in the 

leased areas, except those considered to be unsuitable 

for development (1) in accordance with the unsuitability 

criteria and (2) considering the results of the multipleuse screen. This screen identified wetlands, stream, and 

riparian zones and potential archaeological and 

historical sites, potential habitat for special status 

wildlife species, and potential conflict with existing 

land uses. The estimated total number of acres in the 

planning area considered at this time as unsuitable for 

development, after stipulations and the multiple-use 

screen, is approximately 323 acres. This is about 8.1 

percent of the total 4,000.62 acres.
3. Current Management Direction

3-16 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

available for coal 

leasing in the 

RMP (1994) or its 

amendments.

Oklahoma 

RMPA and 

Decision Record 

for Federal Coal 

Leases in Haskell 

and Leflore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma 

(2014)

The planning 

area this RMPA 

applies to is the 

McCurtain Area 

(1,300.62 acres), 

the Milton Area 

(290.00 acres),

the Spiro Area 

(790 acres), and 

the Liberty Area 

(1,620 acres).

The planning 

area is outside of 

areas designated 

as available for 

coal leasing in 

the RMP (1994) 

or its 

amendments.

Area: Milton

Total Acres: 290.00

Area Considered Unsuitable (acres): 26.3

Percent of Total Considered Unsuitable: 9

Area Considered Suitable (acres) 263.7

Oklahoma 

RMPA and 

Decision Record 

for Federal Coal 

Leases in Haskell 

and Leflore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma 

(2014)

The planning 

Area: Spiro

Total Acres: 790.00

Area Considered Unsuitable (acres): 0.0 

Percent of Total Considered Unsuitable: 0.0

Area Considered Suitable (acres): 790
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-17

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

area this RMPA 

applies to is the 

McCurtain Area 

(1,300.62 acres), 

the Milton Area 

(290.00 acres), 

the Spiro Area 

(790 acres), and 

the Liberty Area 

(1,620 acres). 

The planning 

area is outside of 

areas designated 

as available for 

coal leasing in 

the RMP (1994) 

or its 

amendments.

Oklahoma 

RMPA and 

Decision Record 

for Federal Coal 

Leases in Haskell 

and Leflore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma 

(2014)

The planning 

area this RMPA 

applies to is the 

McCurtain Area 

(1,300.62 acres), 

the Milton Area 

(290.00 acres), 

the Spiro Area 

(790 acres), and 

the Liberty Area 

(1,620 acres). 

The planning 

area is outside of 

areas designated 

as available for 

Area: Liberty

Total Acres: 1,620.00

Area Considered Unsuitable (acres): 297.1

Percent of Total Considered Unsuitable: 18.3

Area Considered Suitable (acres): 1,322.9
3. Current Management Direction

3-18 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

coal leasing in 

the RMP (1994) 

or its 

amendments.

Oklahoma 

RMPA and 

Decision Record 

for Federal Coal 

Leases in Haskell 

and Leflore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma 

(2014)

The planning 

area this RMPA 

applies to is the 

McCurtain Area 

(1,300.62 acres), 

the Milton Area 

(290.00 acres), 

the Spiro Area 

(790 acres), and 

the Liberty Area 

(1,620 acres). 

The planning 

area is outside of 

areas designated 

as available for 

coal leasing in 

the RMP (1994) 

or its 

amendments.

Area: McCurtain

Total Acres: 1,300.62

Area Considered Unsuitable (acres): 0.0

Percent of Total Considered Unsuitable: 8.1

Area Considered Suitable (acres):1,300.62

Federal Mineral Lease Notices

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Kansas RMP 

(Lease 

Stipulations)

Lease Stipulation WO-ESA-7: Consultation Stipulation

The lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, 

animals, or their habitats determined to be threatened or

endangered or other special status species. The BLM 

may recommend modifications to exploration and 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-19

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

development proposals to further its conservation and 

management objective to avoid BLM-approved activity 

that will contribute to a need to list such a species or its

habitat. The BLM may require modifications to or may 

disapprove proposed activity that is likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened 

or endangered species or to result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical 

habitat. The BLM will not approve any grounddisturbing activity that may affect any such species or 

critical habitat until it completes its obligations under 

applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act 

as amended, 16 USC, Section 1531 et seq., including 

completion of any required procedure for conference or 

consultation.

This lease stipulation applies to the following:

 Allen County Split-Estate Tract 

 Barber County Split-Estate Tract 2

 Clark County Split-Estate Tracts 14

 Comanche County Split-Estate Tract 3

 Cowley County Split-Estate

 Douglas County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 3

 Finney County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 3

 Franklin County Split-Estate Tracts 1

 Hamilton County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 2, 4, 5, 

and 7

 Jefferson County Split-Estate Tract 2

 Johnson County Split-Estate Tract

 Leavenworth County Split-Estate Tracts 4 and 5

 Linn County Split-Estate Tracts

 Logan County Split-Estate Tract 3

 Meade County Split-Estate Tracts

 Scott County Split-Estate Tract 2

 Seward County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 3, and 4

 Wabaunsee County Split-Estate Tract

 Wallace County Split-Estate Tract 1

Kansas RMP 

(Lease Notices)

Lease Notice LN-2, Black-Footed Ferrets In Kansas

“If black-footed ferrets occur anywhere in the wild in 

Kansas, they are presumed to be associated with prairie 

dogs. All or portions of this lease area lie within a 

county of Kansas where prairie dog towns have 

occurred in the past. Therefore, if a prairie dog town of 
3. Current Management Direction

3-20 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

eighty acres or more is found to occur on or near this 

lease, a black-footed ferret survey may be required 

before permitting surface-disturbing activity which may 

impact the prairie dog town.”

Lease Notice LN-2 will be applied to leases issued in 

the counties that last reported the presence of prairie 

dog towns, as follows: Barber, Barton, Cheyenne, 

Clark, Clay, Comanche, Decatur, Edwards, Ellis, 

Ellsworth, Finney, Ford, Gove, Graham, Grant, Gray, 

Greeley, Hamilton, Harper, Harvey, Haskell, 

Hodgeman, Jewell, Kearny, Kingman, Kiowa, Lane, 

Lincoln, Logan, McPherson, Meade, Mitchell, Morton, 

Ness, Norton, Osborne, Ottawa, Pawnee, Phillips, Pratt, 

Rawlins, Reno, Rice, Rooks, Rush, Russell, Saline, 

Scott, Seward, Sheridan, Sherman, Smith, Stafford, 

Stanton, Stevens, Sumner, Thomas, Trego, Wallace, 

and Wichita. 

Texas RMP (Lease 

Stipulations)

Oklahoma RMP 

(Lease 

Stipulations)

Lease Stipulation WO-ESA-7, Consultation Stipulation

“The lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, 

animals, or their habitats determined to be threatened, 

endangered, or other special status species. BLM may 

recommend modifications to exploration and 

development proposals to further its conservation and 

management objective to avoid BLM-approved activity 

that will contribute to a need to list such a species or their 

habitat. BLM may require modifications to or disapprove 

proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the 

continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or 

endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. 

BLM will not approve any ground-disturbing activity 

that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it 

completes its obligations under applicable requirements 

of the Endangered Species Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 

1531 et seq., including completion of any required 

procedure for conference or consultation.”

This lease stipulation applies to the following in 

Oklahoma: 

 Alfalfa County Split-Estate Tracts 35

 Beaver County Split-Estate Tracts 19, 20- 22, 30, 

27, 28, 29, 34, and 38

 Blaine County Split-Estate Tracts 2-9, 12-20, and 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-21

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

27

 Bryan County Split-Estate Tracts

 Caddo County Split-Estate tracts

 Canadian County Split-Estate 16, 9, and 11-l3

 Cherokee County Split-Estate Tracts 

 Cleveland County Split-Estate Tracts

 Cotton County Split-Estate Tracts 15

 Custer County Split-Estate Tracts 10 and 15-19

 Dewey County Split-Estate Tracts 1 through 28

 Ellis County Split-Estate Tracts 17, 22 through 

31, and 50 through 61

 Grant County Split-Estate Tracts 14

 Harper County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 10, I3, and 

I5-22

 Haskell County Split-Estate Tracts

 Jackson County Split-Estate Tracts 14, 15, and 

21-39

 Kingfisher County Split-Estate Tracts 2, 3, 4, 5, 

and 10-17

 Latimer County Split-Estate Tracts

 Le Flore County Split-Estate Tracts

 Major County Split-Estate Tracts 1-8, 10-12, 14-

20, 26-29, and 97-99

 Muskogee County Split-Estate Tracts

 Payne County Split-Estate Tracts 4, 7, and 8

 Pittsburg County Split-Estate Tracts

 Pottawatomie County Split-Estate Tracts 4, 7, and 

8

 Pushmataha County Split-Estate Tracts 60, 64, 

69, and 84

 Rogers County Split-Estate Tracts

 Sequoyah County Split-Estate Tracts 

 Tillman County Split-Estate Tracts 4 and 7-12

 Tulsa County Split-Estate Tracts

 Woods County Split-Estate Tracts 1 through 6, 

63-67, 70-72, 74-105, and 122-127

 Woodward County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 19, 38, 

and 42-50

Oklahoma RMP 

(Lease Notices)

Lease Notice LN-2, ODWC-owned and –managed 

Lands

The ODWC owns and manages the surface above all or 

a portion of this federal lease. The lessee needs to be 
3. Current Management Direction

3-22 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

aware of the surface use requirements as presented in 

ODWC documents G-12-82 and A-12 which address 

regulations and a surface damage agreement to govern 

oil, gas, and other mineral exploration and production 

on ODWC-owned and -managed lands.

Applies to:

 Beaver County Split-Estate Tracts 27, 30, 31, 32, 

and 33

 Cimarron County Split-Estate Tracts 4, 11, 12, 

39, and 40. 

 Major County Split-Estate Tracts 4, 86, and 90

Federal Mineral Conditions of Approval

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Oklahoma RMP 

(Conditions of 

Approval)

“All open pits and tanks being used in conjunction with 

the development of this lease will be covered until they 

are removed and/or filled and reclaimed. The 

recommended coverings include hard covers or a 

screen material of small enough mesh size so as to 

prevent the entry and death of migratory birds. The 

USFWS, Division of Law Enforcement has prepared 

materials which provide more detailed guidelines for 

covering oil field pits and tanks.”

Federal Mineral Lease Stipulations

All stipulations are relevant to Energy and Minerals; additional resources/programs of 

relevance for each stipulation are also noted. 

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Kansas RMP (BLM 

Stipulations)Texas 

RMP (BLM 

Mandatory 

Stipulations)

Oklahoma RMP 

(BLM Mandatory 

Stipulations)

Oklahoma Resource Area ORA-1, Floodplain 

Protection Stipulation

“All or portions of the lands under this lease lie in and 

or adjacent to a major watercourse and are subject to 

periodic flooding. Surface occupancy of these areas will 

not be allowed without the specific approval, in writing, 

of the BLM.”

This stipulation applies to the following areas in 

Kansas: 

 Fort Riley Military Reservation (1,800 acres)
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-23

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

 Allen County Split-Estate Tracts

 Bourbon County Split-Estate Tracts

 Cheyenne County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 15

 Clark County Split-Estate Tract 1

 Comanche County Split-Estate Tract 3

 Cowley County Split-Estate Tract

 Decatur County Split-Estate Tract 1

 Geary County Split-Estate Tract

 Greeley County Split-Estate Tract 1

 Hamilton County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 2, and 4

 Jefferson County Split-Estate Tract 2

 Leavenworth County Split-Estate Tract 2

 Linn County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 2

 Logan County Split-Estate Tract 1

 Marshall County Split-Estate Tract 1

 Morris County Split-Estate Tract

 Osage Split-Estate Tract

 Republic County Split-Estate Tract

 Riley County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 2

 Scott County Split-Estate Tract 1

 Seward County Split-Estate Tracts 3, 4, and 5

 Wabaunsee County Split-Estate Tract

This stipulation applies to the following areas in 

Oklahoma:

 Alfalfa County Split-Estate Tracts 35

 Atoka County Split-Estate Tract 1

 Beaver County Split-Estate Tracts 4, 20-22, 27-

30, 34, 37, 38, and 47 

 Beckham County Split-Estate Tracts

 Blaine County Split-Estate Tracts 19, 11-17, 18-

20, and 27

 Bryan County Split-Estate Tracts 

 Caddo County Split-Estate Tracts

 Canadian County Split-Estate Tracts 16, 9, and 

11-l3

 Carter County Split-Estate Tracts 14

 Cherokee County Split-Estate Tracts

 Cimarron County Split-Estate Tracts 13, 16, 19, 

74, 75, 92-96, 141, 156, 162, and 165

 Cleveland County Split-Estate Tracts

 Cotton County Split-Estate Tracts 15

 Craig County Split-Estate Tract 2
3. Current Management Direction

3-24 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

 Custer County Split-Estate Tracts 10 and 14-l9

 Dewey County Split-Estate Tracts 1 through 28

 Ellis County Split-Estate Tracts 17, 22-31, and 

50- 61

 Gavin County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 2

 Grant County Split-Estate Tracts 1-4

 Greer County Split-Estate Tracts 7-12 and 17

 Harmon County Split-Estate Tracts 19, 20-28, 

and 37-40

 Harper County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 8, 10-13, 

and 15-22 

 Haskell County Split-Estate tracts 5,9, and 10

 Jackson County Split-Estate Tracts 1-15 and 21-

39

 Jefferson County Split-Estate Tract 4

 Kingfisher County Split-Estate Tracts 2, 3, 4, 6, 

and 11-17

 Kiowa County Split-Estate Tracts 15-17

 Latimer County Split-Estate Tracts 5 and 6

 Le Flore County Split-Estate Tracts

 Lincoln County Split-Estate Tracts 1-8

 Logan County Split-Estate Tracts

 Major County Split-Estate Tracts 1-8, 10-12, 14, 

20, 26-29, 60-64, and 97-99

 Muskogee County Split-Estate Tract 23

 Murray County Split-Estate Tract 1

 Noble County Split-Estate Tract 8

 Oklahoma County Split-Estate Tracts

 Payne County Split-Estate Tracts 4, 7, and 8

 Pottawatomie County Split-Estate Tracts 1-10

 Pushmataha County Split-Estate Tracts 60-64 

and 69-84

 Texas County Split-Estate Tract 18

 Tillman County Split-Estate Tracts 4 and 7-12

 Washita County Split-Estate Tract 7

 Woods County Split-Estate Tracts 16, 63-67, 70-

72, 74-105, and 122-127

 Woodward County Split-Estate Tracts 1-19, 38, 

and 42-50

Kansas RMP (BLM 

Stipulations)

Texas RMP (BLM 

Oklahoma Resource Area ORA-2, Wetland/Riparian 

Stipulation

“All or portions of the lands under this lease contain 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-25

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Mandatory 

Stipulations)

Oklahoma RMP 

(BLM Mandatory 

Stipulations)

wetland and/or riparian areas. Surface occupancy of 

these areas will not be allowed without the specific 

approval, in writing of the BLM. Impacts or disturbance 

to wetlands and riparian habitats which occur on this 

lease, must be avoided, minimized or compensated. The 

mitigation goal will be no net loss of in-kind wetlands. 

Such mitigation will be developed during the 

application for permit to drill process in cooperation 

with appropriate state and Federal agencies.”

This stipulation applies to the following areas in 

Kansas: 

 Fort Riley, 1800 acres

 Allen County Split-Estate Tract

 Barber County Split-Estate Tract 1

 Bourbon County Split-Estate Tract

 Brown County Split-Estate Tract

 Cheyenne County Split-Estate Tracts 1 through 

14 and 16 

 Clark County Split-Estate Tracts

 Clay County Split-Estate Tract

 Comanche County Split-Estate Tract 13

 Cowley County Split-Estate Tract

 Decatur County Split-Estate Tract 1

 Doniphan County Split-Estate Tract

 Douglas County Split-Estate Tract 3

 Ellis County Split-Estate Tract

 Finney County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 4

 Greeley County Split-Estate Tracts

 Hamilton County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 2, 3, 6, 

and 8

 Haskell County Split-Estate Tracts

 Jackson County Split-Estate Tracts

 Jefferson County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 2

 Jewell County Split-Estate Tracts

 Johnson County Split-Estate Tract

 Kearny County Split-Estate Tracts

 Kingman County Split-Estate Tracts

 Lane County Split-Estate Tract 15

 Leavenworth County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 2

 Linn County Split-Estate Tracts

 Logan County Split-Estate Tract 2

 Marshall County Split-Estate Tract 2
3. Current Management Direction

3-26 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

 Meade County Split-Estate Tract 15

 Mitchell County Split-Estate Tract

 Morris County Split-Estate Tract

 Norton County Split-Estate Tract

 Osage County Split-Estate Tract

 Phillips County Split-Estate Tract

 Riley County Split-Estate Tracts

 Saline County Split-Estate Tracts 

 Scott County Split-Estate Tract 1

 Seward County Split-Estate Tract 25

 Smith County Split-Estate Tract

 Stanton County Split-Estate Tract

 Wabaunsee County Split-Estate Tract

 Wallace County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 3

 Washington County Split-Estate Tract

 Wichita County Split-Estate Tract

This stipulation applies to the following areas in 

Oklahoma: 

 Alfalfa County Split-Estate Tract 35

 Atoka County Split-Estate Tract 24

 Beaver County Split-Estate Tracts 6, 8, 19-22, 

27-30, 34, 36-38, 44, 47, 76, 82, 86-89, and 92 

 Beckham County Split-Estate Tracts 4-34

 Blaine County Split-Estate Tracts 1-20, 25, and 

27 

 Bryan County Split-Estate Tract l

 Caddo County Split-Estate Tracts 3 and 6

 Canadian County Split-Estate Tracts 1-6, 9, and 

11-l3

 Carter County Split-Estate Tracts 1-4

 Cherokee County Split-Estate Tracts 

 Cimarron County Split-Estate Tracts 11, 13, 16, 

19, 29, 35, 53, 54, 60, 74, 75, 90-96, 141, 156, 

162, and 165 

 Cleveland County Split-Estate Tracts 

 Coal County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 5

 Cotton County Split-Estate Tract 1-5

 Craig County Split-Estate Tract 2

 Custer County Split-Estate Tracts 3, 6, 8, 10-11, 

and 14-l9

 Dewey County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 28, 36, and 

40
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-27

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

 Ellis County Split-Estate Tracts 13, 17, 22-31, 

34, 39, and 50-61 

 Gavin County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 2, and 9

 Grant County Split-Estate Tract 14

 Greer County Split-Estate Tracts 6-12 and 17

 Harmon County Split-Estate Tracts 19, 17-19, 

20-28 and 37-40 

 Harper County Split-Estate Tracts 1-6, 9, 10, 13, 

15-22 and 28 

 Haskell County Split-Estate Tracts 4, 5, 8-13, 

and 15-17

 Jackson County Split-Estate Tracts 1-15 and 21-

39

 Jefferson County Split-Estate Tract 4

 Kingfisher County Split-Estate Tracts 2, 3, 4, 6, 

and 10-17, and 20 

 Kiowa County Split-Estate Tracts 15, 16, and 17

 Latimer County Split-Estate Tracts 3, 5, and 6 

 Le Flore County Split-Estate Tracts

 Lincoln County Split-Estate Tracts I9 

 Logan County Split-Estate Tracts

 Major County Split-Estate Tracts 1-8, 10-12, 14, 

20, 26-29, 48, 51, 59, 60-64, and 97-99 

 McCurtain County Split-Estate Tract 1

 McIntosh County Split-Estate Tract 3

 Murray County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 4, and 6

 Muskogee County Split-Estate Tracts 2, 8, and 

10

 Noble County Split-Estate Tracts 2, 7, and 8

 Oklahoma County Split-Estate Tracts 

 Pawnee County Split-Estate Tract 1 

 Payne County Split-Estate Tracts 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 

13-16, 18-23, 27, 30, and 47

 Pittsburg County Split-Estate Tracts 3, 7, 8, and 

9

 Pottawatomie County Split-Estate Tract 1-10

 Pushmataha County Split-Estate Tracts 5, 47, 

55, 60-64, and 69-84 

 Sequoyah County Split-Estate Tract 1

 Stephens County Split-Estate Tract

 Texas County Split-Estate Tract 18 

 Tillman County Split-Estate Tracts 3-4, 7-12, 

16, and 17 
3. Current Management Direction

3-28 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

 Tulsa County Split-Estate Tracts

 Wagoner County Split-Estate Tract 4

 Washita County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 7 

 Woods County Split-Estate Tracts 16, 19, 61, 

63-67, 70-72, 74-105, and 122-127 

 Woodward County Split-Estate Tracts 1-19, 29-

32, 35-39, and 42-51 

Kansas RMP (BLM 

Stipulations)

Texas RMP (BLM 

Optional 

Stipulations)

Oklahoma RMP 

(BLM Mandatory 

Stipulations)

Oklahoma Resource Area ORA-3, Season of Use 

Stipulation (Optional)

“Surface occupancy of this lease will not be allowed 

from (date) through (date) without the specific 

approval in writing, from the Authorized Officer of the 

BLM.”

This stipulation restricts the time that the lessee can be 

on the lease for a period of more than 60 days. Most 

season of use restrictions involve wildlife seasonal use 

requirements or recreation use conflicts with drilling 

activities.

Applies to the following in Kansas:

 Council Grove Lake SMA from September 1 

through March 31, on approximately 2,638 acres

 Elk City Lake SMA from September 1 through 

March 31, on 10,219 acres

 Fall River Lake SMA from September 1 through 

March 31, on 11,407 acres

 John Redmond Dam and Reservoir from 

September 1 through March 31, on 

approximately 2,067 acres

 Marion Lake SMA from September 1 through 

March 31, on approximately 3,002 acres

 Pearson-Skubitz Big Hill Lake SMA from 

September 1 through March 31, on 

approximately 800 acres

 Toronto Lake SMA from September 1 through 

March 31, on approximately 5,576 acres

 Kaw, Hulah, and Capon Lakes SMA from 

September 1 through March 31

 Finney County Tract 2 from November 1 

through March 1

 Scott County Tract 1 from October 15 through 

March 1
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-29

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Oklahoma Resource Area ORA-3, Season of Use 

Stipulation

“Surface occupancy of this lease will not be allowed 

from DATE through DATE without the specific 

approval in writing, from the Authorized Officer of the 

BLM.”

This stipulation restricts the time that the lessee can be 

on the lease. This is usually necessary only when the 

restriction would result in more than a 60-day delay 

before operations begin (by regulation, the BLM can 

specify up to a 60-day delay as a result of the 

application for permit to drill analysis). Most season of 

use restrictions involve wildlife seasonal use 

requirements or recreation use conflicts with drilling 

activities.

Applies to the following in Oklahoma:

 Pat Mayes Lake SMA from September 1 

through March 31, on 8,925 acres

 Texoma Lake SMA from September 1 through 

March 31, on 11,429 acres

 Belton Lake SMA Oklahoma Resource Area 

ORA-3 from September 1 through March 31, on 

the approximately 5,000 acres

 B. A. Steinhagen Lake SMA from September 1 

through March 31, on approximately 13 ,450 

acres

 Granger Lake SMA from September 1 through 

March 31, on approximately 10,800 acres

 Beaver County Tracts during all applicable 

hunting seasons and from February 15 through 

May 15

 Beckham County Tracts from February 15 

through May I5

 Ellis County Tracts 39-49 and 62-64 during all 

applicable hunting seasons it applies to these and 

all other Ellis County tracts from February I5 to 

May 15

 Greer County Tracts 43 and 53-56 in the Sandy 

Sanders Public Hunting Area managed by 

ODWC, from September 1 to June 1
3. Current Management Direction

3-30 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

 Harper County Split-Estate Tracts February I5 

through May I5

 Jefferson County Split-Estate Tract 2

 Major County Split-Estate Tract 84 from 

September 1 to May 3

 McIntosh County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 2

 Payne County from February 15 through May 15

 Roger Mills County Split-Estate Tracts from 

February 15 to May 15

 Rogers County Split-Estate Tracts from 

February 1 to May 15

 Tulsa County Split-Estate Tracts from February 

15 to May 15

 Wagoner County Split-Estate Tracts from 

February 15 to May 15

 Woodward County Split-Estate Tracts from 

February 15 to May 15

Kansas RMP (BLM 

Stipulations)

Texas RMP (BLM 

Optional 

Stipulations)

Oklahoma RMP 

(BLM Mandatory 

Stipulations)

Oklahoma Resource Area ORA-4, NSO (Optional)

“Surface occupancy of this lease will not be allowed.”

This stipulation prohibits surface use to protect a 

resource or use that is not compatible with oil and gas 

development. The tract could be leased for inclusion in 

a drilling unit and may be drilled directionally from an 

offsite location where occupancy is allowed.

The stipulation applies to the following Kansas areas:

 Barber County Split-Estate Tract 1

 Clark County Split-Estate Tract 4

 Comanche County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 2

 Cowley County Split-Estate Tract

 Decatur County Split-Estate Tract 2

 Doniphan County Split-Estate Tract

 Edwards County Split-Estate Tract

 Geary County Split-Estate Tract

 Gove County Split-Estate Tract 20 and 21

 Hamilton County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 2, and 4

 Kearney County Split-Estate Tracts 5 and 6

 Logan County Split-Estate lands in Sections 30 

and 31 of Tract 3 and all of Tract 4

 Meade County Split-Estate Tracts 7 and 8

 Riley County Split-Estate Tract 2
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-31

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

 Seward County Split-Estate Tract 6

The stipulation applies to the following Oklahoma 

areas:

 Beaver County Split-Estate Tract 68 

 Cimarron County Split-Estate Tracts 38, 39, 40, 

41, 43, 61, and 62 to protect Black Mesa State 

Park

 Oklahoma County Split-Estate Tracts

 Pushmataha County Split-Estate Tracts 35, 40, 

and 41

 Red River Management Area Split-Estate Tracts

Oklahoma RMP 

(Site-specific 

Descriptions, US 

Bureau of 

Reclamation 

Projects)

The following areas are subject to NSO stipulations:

 Altus Dam and Reservoir

 Fort Cobb Dam and Reservoir

 Floss Reservoir

 McGee Creek Reservoir

 Mountain Park Dam/Tom Steed Reservoir

Oklahoma RMP 

(Site-specific 

Descriptions, US 

Army, USACE 

Tulsa District 

Projects)

The following areas are subject to NSO/ND (no 

disturbance) stipulations:

 Broken Bow Lake

 Canton Lake

 Chouteau Lock and Dam

 Copan Lake

 Eufaula Dam and Lake

 Fort Gibson Lake

 Fort Supply Lake

 Great Salt Plains Lake

 Heyburn Lake

 Hugo Lake

 Kaw Lake

 Keystone Dam and Lake

 Newt Graham Lock and Dam

 Oologah Lake

 Optima Lake

 Pine Creek Lake

 Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam and Lake

 Sardis Lake

 Tenkiller Ferry Dam

 Texoma Lake and Denison Dam 

 W. D. Mayo Lock and Dam

 Waurika Lake 

 Webbers Falls Lock and Dam
3. Current Management Direction

3-32 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

 Wister Lake

Oklahoma RMP 

(Site-specific 

Descriptions, US 

Department of 

Defense Military 

Lands)

The following areas are subject to NSO stipulations:

 Fort Sill Military Reservation

 Camp Gruber

 McAlester US Army Ammunition Depot

Oklahoma RMP 

(Site-Specific 

Descriptions, 

USDA, Agriculture 

Research Service)

The following area is subject to NSO stipulations: 

Agricultural Research Service (ARS) lands in Harper 

and Woodward Counties not in city limits.

Kansas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

US Bureau of 

Reclamation 

GP (Great Plains 

Region)-135 

stipulations; also 

described in 

Appendix 2

GP-135 stipulations protect US Bureau of Reclamation

projects with buffer zones, which prohibit occupancy 

and drilling for a specific distance. Maximum project 

protection is provided by the NSO/ND to within 1,000 

feet under the maximum water surface by elevation, as 

defined in standing operating procedures of the US 

Bureau of Reclamation, or to within 2,000 feet under 

dam embankments and appurtenance structures, outlet 

works, and spillways or to within half a mile (2,640 

feet) of the centerline of any tunnel. Should the US 

Bureau of Reclamation waive the maximum project 

protection stipulation, additional restrictions protect 

recreational developments, wildlife habitats, project 

facilities, and water supplies by creating a No Surface 

Occupancy/Open to Directional Drilling (NSO/DD)

buffer, ranging from 200 to 500 feet around these 

areas.

Stipulations protecting special wildlife habitats or 

significant surface resources have been identified by 

project site. The overlapping buffer zones identified 

for each surface resource result in stipulation acreage 

greater than the project’s total.

In all cases, GP-135 requires a site-specific surface use 

plan approved by the US Bureau of Reclamation 

Regional Director before any lease development. 

Whenever a conflict occurs concerning the 

applicability of a US Bureau of Reclamation 

stipulation, the more restrictive stipulation will apply.

This stipulation applies to:

 Glen Elder Dam/Waconda Lake SMA
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-33

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

 Norton/Keith Sebelius Lake SMA

 Lovewell Reservoir SMA

 Cheney Reservoir SMA

 Webster Reservoir SMA

 Cedar Bluff Reservoir SMA

Kansas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

Tulsa District 

USACE

Special Stipulations 

1-A; also described 

in Appendix 2

1-A stipulations protect surface resources through the 

use of surface occupancy restrictions, drilling 

restrictions, or consultation requirements with 

authorized surface lessees (Kansas Department of 

Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism). Generally, 1-A requires 

NSO or directional drilling within 2,000 feet under 

restricted areas. Restricted areas are major structures, 

such as the dam, spillways, and embankments. All 

existing or proposed public use areas, recreation areas, 

wildlife and waterfowl refuges, historical sites, and 

hiking or horseback trails are designated NSO. The 1-

A stipulations are standardized and apply to the 

following:

 All Tulsa District projects

 Council Grove Lake SMA

 El Dorado Lake SMA

 Elk City Lake SMA

 Fall River Lake SMA

 John Redmond Dam and Reservoir SMA

 Marion Lake SMA

 Pearson-Skubitz Big Hill Lake SMA

 Toronto Lake SMA

 Kaw, Hulah, and Capon Lakes SMA

Kansas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

Kansas City District 

USACE

Special 

Stipulations—Also 

described in 

Appendix 2

Kansas City District USACE requires NSO or 

directional drilling within 2,000 feet under restricted 

areas, which are major structures, such as the dam, 

spillways, and embankments. A NSO restriction applies 

to all areas below the lake’s flood elevation level and to 

existing or proposed public use areas, recreation areas, 

wildlife and waterfowl refuges, unique ecological areas, 

historical sites, and hiking or horseback trails. The 

special stipulations are standardized and apply to all 

Kansas City District USACE projects. Additionally, the 

Kansas City District USACE uses a wildlife habitat 

protection stipulation (Appendix 2) that essentially 

provides a season of use restriction and a surface 

avoidance restriction on all identified wildlife lands.

This stipulation applies to the following: 
3. Current Management Direction

3-34 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

 Clinton Lake SMA 

 Hillsdale Lake SMA 

 Kanopolis Lake SMA

 Melvern Lake SMA

 Milford Lake SMA

 Perry Lake SMA

 Pomona Lake SMA

 Tuttle Creek Lake SMA

 Wilson Lake SMA

Kansas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

US Department of 

Defense Military 

Lands—US 

Department of 

Defense Leasing 

Stipulations

US Department of Defense lands acquired or withdrawn 

for military purposes are available for oil and gas 

leasing subject to US Department of Defense leasing 

stipulations and the particular uses of a specific base or 

facility. There are two active Army Military 

Reservations (forts), two working Army ammunition 

plants, and two active Air Force facilities in Kansas. 

Two of the military facilities, Fort Leavenworth and the 

Kansas Army Ammunition Plant are closed to oil and 

gas leasing.

Kansas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

US Department of 

Defense lands

Fort Riley Military Reservation SMA Lease 

Stipulations are as follows: 

 Closed to leasing 30,700

 NSO 68,173

 Open W/STC 1,800

Kansas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

US Department of 

Defense lands

Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant SMA Lease 

Stipulations: Standard US Department of Defense 

stipulations require NSO within 2,000 feet of structures 

and developments. This effectively places the entire 

10,000 acres in this category. All oil and gas operations 

would be subject to approval of the base commander.

Kansas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

US Department of

Defense lands

McConnell Air Force Base SMA Lease Stipulations: 

NSO with directional drilling possible, with the 

approval of the base commander.

Kansas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

US Department of 

Defense lands

Smoky Hill Air National Guard Range SMA Lease 

Stipulations: Standard US Department of Defense and 

US Air Force stipulations would apply. NSO would 

apply on approximately 11,326 acres associated with 

the target area, as well as an appropriate buffer 

surrounding facilities and structures. Leased, 

stipulations as described would apply.

Lease 

Stipulations—US 

If required by the lessor during the period of this lease, 

including any extension thereof, the lessee agrees to 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-35

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Bureau of 

Reclamation

Source: Kansas 

RMP (Appendix 2) 

and Texas RMP 

(Appendix)

Lease Stipulations, 

US Bureau of 

Reclamation 

Source: Oklahoma 

RMP (Appendix 3, 

Oklahoma Oil and 

Gas Lease 

Stipulations)

maintain an additional bond with qualified sureties in 

such sum as the lessor, if it considers that the bond 

required under Section 2(a) is insufficient, may at any 

time require the following: 

 Pay for damages sustained by any reclamation 

homestead entryman to crops or improvements 

that are caused by drilling or other operations of 

the lessee; such damages would include the 

lessee reimbursing the entryman when the lessee 

uses or occupies the land of any homestead 

entryman, for all construction and operation and 

maintenance charges becoming due during such 

use or occupation on any portion of the land so 

used and occupied

 Pay for any damage caused to any reclamation 

project or water supply thereof by the lessee’s 

failure to comply fully with the requirements of 

the lease

 Recompense any nonmineral applicant, 

entryman, purchaser under the Act of May 16, 

1930 (46 Statute 367), or patentee for all 

damages to crops or to tangible improvements 

caused by drilling or other prospecting 

operations, where any of the lands covered by 

this lease are embraced in any nonmineral 

application, entry, or patent under rights initiated 

before the date of the lease, with a reservation of 

the oil deposits, to the United States, in 

accordance with the act of July 17, 1914 (38 

Statute 509).

As to any lands covered by this lease in the area of any 

federal government reclamation project, or in proximity 

thereto, the lessee shall take such precautions as 

required by the Secretary of the Interior to prevent any 

injury to the lands susceptible to irrigation under such 

project or to the water supply thereof; provided that 

drilling is prohibited on any constructed works or ROW

of the US Bureau of Reclamation, and provided, further, 

that there is reserved to the lessor, its successors and 

assigns, the superior and prior right at all times to 

construct, operate, and maintain dams, dikes, reservoirs, 

canals, wasteways, laterals, ditches, telephone and 

telegraph lines, electric transmission lines, roadways, 

appurtenant irrigation structures, and reclamation 
3. Current Management Direction

3-36 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

works, in which construction, operation, and 

maintenance, the lessor, its successors and assigns, shall 

have the right to use any or all of the lands herein 

described without making compensation therefor, and 

shall not be responsible for any damage from the 

presence of water thereon or on account of ordinary, 

extraordinary, unexpected, or unprecedented floods. 

That nothing shall be done under this lease to increase 

the cost of, or interfere in any manner with, the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of such works. 

It is agreed by the lessee that, if the construction of any 

or all of said dams, dikes, reservoirs, canals, wasteways, 

laterals, ditches, telephone or telegraph lines, electric 

transmission lines, roadways, appurtenant irrigation 

structures or reclamation works across, over, or on said 

lands should be made more expensive by reason of the 

existence of the improvements and workings of the 

lessee thereon, said additional expense is to be 

estimated by the Secretary of the Interior, whose 

estimate is to be final and binding on the parties hereto, 

and that within thirty (30) days after demand is made on 

the lessee for payment of any such sums, the lessee will 

make payment thereof to the United States, or its 

successors, constructing such dams, dikes, reservoirs, 

canals, wasteways, laterals, ditches, telephone and 

telegraph lines, electric transmission lines, roadways, 

appurtenant irrigation structures, or reclamation works, 

across, over, or on said lands; provided, however, that 

subject to advance written approval by the United 

States, the location and course of any improvements or 

works and appurtenances may be changed by the lessee; 

provided, further, that the reservations, agreements, and 

conditions contained in the within lease shall be and 

remain applicable notwithstanding any change in the 

location or course of said improvements or works of 

lessee. The lessee further agrees that the United States, 

its officers, agents, and employees, and its successors 

and assigns shall not be held liable for any damage to 

the improvements or workings of the lessee resulting 

from the construction, operation, and maintenance of 

any of the works hereinabove enumerated. Nothing in 

this paragraph shall be construed as in any manner 

limiting other reservations in favor of the United States 

contained in this lease.
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-37

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

The lessee Further Agrees That there is reserved to the 

lessor, its successors and assigns, the prior right to use 

any of the lands herein leased, to construct, operate, and 

maintain dams, dikes, reservoirs, canals, wasteways, 

laterals; ditches, telephone and telegraph lines, electric 

transmission lines, roadways, or appurtenant irrigation 

structures, and also the right to remove construction 

materials therefrom, without any payment made by the 

lessor or its successors for such right, with the 

agreement on the part of the lessee that if the 

construction of any or all of such dams, dikes, 

reservoirs, canals, wasteways, laterals, ditches, 

telephone and telegraph lines, electric transmission 

lines, roadways, or appurtenant

irrigation structures across, over, or on said lands or the 

removal of construction materials therefrom, should be 

made more expensive by reason of the existence of 

improvements or workings of the lessee thereon, such 

additional expense is to be estimated by the Secretary of 

the Interior, whose estimate is to be final and binding on 

the parties hereto, and that within thirty (30) days after 

demand is made on the lessee for payment of any such 

sums, the lessee will make payment thereof to the 

United States or its successors constructing such dams, 

dikes, reservoirs, canals, wasteways, laterals, ditches, 

telephone and telegraph lines, electric transmission 

lines, roadways, or appurtenant irrigation structures 

across, over, or on said lands or removing construction 

materials therefrom. The lessee further agrees that the 

lessor, its officers, agents, and employees and its 

successors and assigns shall not be held liable for any 

damage to the improvements or workings of the lessee 

resulting from the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of any of the works herein above 

enumerated. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall 

be construed as in any manner limiting other 

reservations in favor of the lessor contained in this 

lease.

Oklahoma RMP 

(Appendix 3, 

Oklahoma Oil and 

Gas Lease 

Stipulations, 

Oklahoma State 

University OSU-1)

Oklahoma State University OSU-1

No occupancy or other activity on the surface of the 

following described lands: 

This NSO stipulation is to protect Lake Carl Blackwell 

and associated facilities owned by Oklahoma State 

University.
3. Current Management Direction

3-38 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

-Payne County Split Estate Tracts 9-48 would also be 

covered under this stipulation.

Oklahoma RMP 

(Appendix 3, 

Oklahoma Oil and 

Gas Lease 

Stipulations, OSU2)

Oklahoma State University OSU-2

Before operations are conducted on these lands, the 

Tulsa District Office of the BLM must approve a plan 

of operations. Any drilling, construction, or other 

operations on the leased lands are subject to sitespecific stipulations as may be necessary to ensure 

reasonable protection of Lake Carl Blackwell and 

associated facilities owned by Oklahoma State 

University. A plan would not be approved if it would 

result in unacceptable impacts on any land use or the 

environment. Payne County Split-Estate Tracts 9 

through 48 would also be covered under this stipulation.

Kansas RMP 

(Appendix 2)

US Bureau of 

Reclamation 

Special Stipulations

Texas RMP 

(Appendix)

US Bureau of 

Reclamation 

Special 

Stipulations, GP135

Oklahoma RMP 

(Appendix 3, 

Oklahoma Oil and 

Gas Lease 

Stipulations, 

Special Stipulation, 

US Bureau of 

Reclamation)

The lessee agrees that the conditions below shall apply 

to all exploration and development and other operation 

of the works thereafter on lands covered by this lease. 

This is to avoid interfering with recreation development 

or having impacts on fish and wildlife habitat and to 

help prevent damage to any US Bureau of Reclamation 

dams, reservoirs, canals, ditches, laterals, tunnels, and 

related facilities, and contamination of the water supply 

therein.

Note:

1. Before commencement of any surface-disturbing 

work including drilling, access road work, and well 

location construction, a surface use and operations 

plan will be filed with the appropriate officials. A 

copy of this plan will be furnished to the Regional 

Director. Great Plains Region. US Bureau of 

Reclamation, P.O. Box 36900, Billings, MT 59107-

6900, for review and consent before approval of the 

plan. Such approval will be conditioned on 

reasonable requirements needed to prevent soil 

erosion, water pollution, and unnecessary damages 

to the surface vegetation and other resources, 

including cultural resources, of the United States, its 

lessees, permittees, or licensees, and to provide for 

the restoration of the land surface and vegetation. 

The plan shall contain provisions as the US Bureau 

of Reclamation may deem necessary to maintain 

proper management of the water, recreation, lands, 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-39

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

structures, and resources, including cultural 

resources, within the prospecting, drilling, or 

construction area.

Drilling sites for all wells and associated 

investigations such as seismograph work shall be 

included in the abovementioned surface use and 

operation plan. If later explorations require 

departure from or additions to the approved plan, 

these revisions or amendments, together with a 

justification statement for proposed revisions, will 

be submitted for approval to the Regional Director, 

Great Plains Region, US Bureau of Reclamation, or 

the Director’s authorized representative.

Any operations conducted in advance of approval of 

an original, revised, or amended prospecting plan, or 

which are not in accordance with an approved plan 

constitute a violation of the terms of this lease. The 

US Bureau of Reclamation reserves the right to 

close down operations until such corrective action, 

as is deemed necessary, is taken by the lessee.

2. No occupancy of the surface of the following 

excluded areas is authorized by this lease. It is 

understood and agreed that the use of these areas for 

US Bureau of Reclamation purposes is superior to 

any other use. The excluded areas are:

a. Within 500 feet on either side of the 

centerline of any and all roads or highways

within the leased area.

b. Within 200 feet on either side of the 

centerline of any and all trails within the leased 

area.

c. Within 500 feet of the normal high-water 

line of any and all live streams in the leased 

area.

d. Within 400 feet of any and all recreation 

developments within the leased area.

e. Within 400 feet of any improvements either 

owned, permitted, leased, or otherwise 
3. Current Management Direction

3-40 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

authorized by the US Bureau of Reclamation 

within the leased area.

f. Within 200 feet of established crop fields, 

food plots, and tree/shrub plantings within the 

leased area.

g. Within 200 feet of slopes steeper than a 2:1 

gradient within the leased area.

h. Within established rights-of-way of canals, 

laterals, and drainage ditches within the leased 

area

i. Within a minimum of 500 feet horizontal 

from the centerline of the facility or 50 feet 

from the outside toe of the canal, lateral, or 

drain embankment, whichever distance is 

greater, for irrigation facilities without clearly 

marked rights-of-way within the leased area.

Texas RMP (not in Kansas RMP or Oklahoma RMP)

j. Providing that appropriate environmental 

measures can be ensured, and providing further 

that Reclamation project works and other public 

interests can be protected, Reclamation may 

consider, on a case-by-case basis, waiving the 

requirements specified in Section 2 hereof. 

However, lessees are advised that obtaining such 

a waiver can be a difficult, time consuming, and 

costly process, with no guarantee that the US 

Bureau of Reclamation will grant the requested 

waiver.

3. No occupancy of the surface or surface drilling will 

be allowed in the following areas. In addition, no 

directional drilling will be allowed that would 

intersect the subsurface zones, delineated by a 

vertical plane in these areas. The following 

restrictions apply only to mineral tracts located 

within the boundary of a US Bureau of Reclamation 

project where the United States owns 100 percent of 

the fee mineral interest.

a. Within 1,000 feet of the maximum water 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-41

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

surface, as defined in the Standard Operating 

Procedures, of any reservoirs and related 

facilities located within the leased area.

b. Within 2,000 feet of dam embankments and 

appurtenance structures such as spillway 

structures, outlet works, etc.

c. Within one-half mile horizontal from the

centerline of any tunnel within the leased area.

d. Providing that appropriate environmental 

compliance measures can be ensured, and 

providing further that Reclamation project works 

and other public interests can be protected, 

Reclamation may consider, on a case-by-case 

basis, waiving the requirements specified in 

Section 3 hereof. However, lessees are advised 

that obtaining such a waiver can be a difficult, 

time consuming, and costly process with no 

guarantee that Reclamation will grant the 

requested waiver.

4. The distances stated in items 2 and 3 above are 

intended to be general indicators only. The US 

Bureau of Reclamation reserves the right to revise 

these distances as needed to protect US Bureau of 

Reclamation facilities.

5. The use of explosives in any manner shall be so 

controlled that the works and facilities of the United 

States, its successors and assigns will in no way be 

endangered or damaged. In this connection, an 

explosives use plan shall be submitted to and 

approved by the Regional Director, Great Plains 

Region, US Bureau of Reclamation, or authorized 

representative.

6. The lessee shall be liable for all damage to the 

property of the United States, its successors and 

assigns, resulting from the exploration, 

development, or operation of the works 

contemplated by this lease, and shall further hold the 

United States, its successors and assigns, and its 

officers, agents, and employees, harmless from all 

claims of third parties for injury or damage 

sustained or in any way resulting from the exercise 
3. Current Management Direction

3-42 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

of the rights and privileges conferred by this lease.

7. The lessee shall be liable for all damage to crops or 

improvements of any entryman, nonmineral 

applicant, or patentee, their successors and assigns, 

caused by or resulting from the drilling or other 

operations of the lessee, including reimbursement of 

any entryman or patentee, their successors and 

assigns, for all construction, operation, and 

maintenance charges becoming due on any portion 

of their said lands damaged as a result of the drilling 

or other operations of the lessee.

8. In addition to any other bond required under the 

provisions of this lease, the lessee shall provide such 

bond as the United States may at any lime require 

for damages which may arise under the liability 

provisions of sections 6 and 7 above.

Kansas RMP 

(Appendix 2)

Special Stipulations 

1-A

Texas RMP 

(Appendix) US 

Army USACE 

Special Stipulations 

1-A

Oklahoma RMP 

(Appendix 3, 

Oklahoma Oil and 

Gas Lease 

Stipulations, US 

Army USACE 

Special Stipulations 

1-A)

1. All oil and gas drilling and production operations 

shall be under the supervision of the District 

Manager, BLM, in accordance with 43 CFR, Part 

3160.

2. The Secretary of the Army or designee reserves the 

right to require cessation of operations if a national 

emergency arises of if the Army needs the leased 

property for a mission incompatible with lease 

operations. On approval from higher authority, the 

District Engineer will give notice of the required 

suspension. The lessee agrees to this condition and 

waives compensation for its exercise.

3. If the District Engineer or authorized representative 

discovers an imminent danger to safety or security 

which allows no time to consult BLM, that person 

may order such activities stopped immediately. The 

District Manager, BLM, will be notified 

immediately, will review the order, and will 

determine the need for further remedial action.

4. lessee liability for damage to improvements shall 

include improvements of the Department of 

Defense. lessee shall be liable for pollution and 

other damages, as a result of their operations, to 

Government-owned land and property and to the 

property of the Government’s authorized surface 

user.

5. Before beginning to drill, the lessee must consult 

with third parties authorized to use real estate in the 

lease area and must consider programs for which 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-43

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

third parties have contractual responsibility.

6. A license to conduct geophysical test on the leased 

area must be obtained separately from the District 

Engineer.

7. That all rights under this lease are subordinate to the 

rights of the United States to flood and submerge the 

lands, permanently or intermittently, in connection 

with the operation and maintenance of the abovenamed project.

8. That the United States shall not be responsible for 

damages to property or injuries to persons which 

may arise from or be incident to the use and 

occupation of the said premises, or for damages to 

the property of the lessee, or for injuries to the 

person of the lessee’s officers, agents, servants, or 

employees, or others who may be on said premises 

at their invitation or the invitation of any one of 

them arising from or incident to the flooding of the 

said premises by the Government or flooding from 

any other cause, or arising from or incident to any 

other governmental activities; and the lessee shall 

hold the United States harmless from any and all 

such claims.

9. That the work performed by the lessee on the lands 

shall be under the general supervision of the District 

Engineer, Corps of Engineers in direct charge of the 

project and subject to such conditions and 

regulations as the District Engineer may be 

prescribed, and the plans and locations for all 

structures, appurtenances thereto, and work on said 

lands shall be submitted to the said District Engineer 

for approval in advance of commencement of any 

work on said lands. The District Engineer shall have 

the right to enter on the premises, at any time, to 

inspect both the installation and operational 

activities of the lessee.

10. That no structure or appurtenance thereto shall be of 

a material or construction determined to create 

floatable debris.

11. That the construction and operation of said 

structures and appurtenances thereto shall be of such 

a nature as not to cause pollution of the soils and the 

waters of the project.

12. That the United States reserves the right to use the 

land jointly with the lessee in connection with the 
3. Current Management Direction

3-44 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

construction, operation, and maintenance of the 

Government project and to place improvements 

thereon or to remove materials therefrom, including 

sand and gravel and other construction material, as 

may be necessary in connection with such work, and 

the lessee shall not interfere in any manner with 

such work or do any act that may increase the cost 

of performing such work. If the cost of the work 

performed on land outside the property included in 

the lease is made more expensive by reason of 

improvements constructed on the leased property by 

the lessee, the lessee shall pay to the United States 

money in the amount, as estimated by the Chief of 

Engineers, sufficient to compensate for the 

additional expense involved.

13. All areas within 2,000 feet of any major structure, 

including but not limited to the dam, spillway, or 

embankment, are restricted areas. The lessee, 

operators, agents, or employees shall not utilize the 

surface of restricted areas for any purpose. Drilling 

operations in, on, or under the restricted areas, 

including drilling outside of the restricted areas 

which would cause a bore hole to be under the 

restricted area, will not be permitted. The restricted 

areas are included in the lease for the sole purpose 

of becoming part of a drilling unit so that the United 

States will share in the royalty of the unit.

14. All existing or proposed public use areas, recreation 

areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, historical 

sites, and hiking and horseback trail areas may be 

leased for the sole purpose of becoming a part of a 

drilling unit. The lessee, the lessee’s operators, 

agents, or employees will not use or enter on the 

surface for any purpose. Directional drilling from 

non-public areas is permitted if not otherwise 

restricted.

15. No drilling will be permitted from Governmentowned surface where alternate surface use is 

available within the same drilling unit.

16. All storage tanks and slush pits will be protected by 

dikes of sufficient capacity to protect the reservoir 

from pollution to flood pool elevation _____ feet, 

National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

17. It is the responsibility of the lessee to identify and 

be aware of areas where entry is prohibited. There 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-45

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

will be no surface or subsurface entry within 2,000 

feet of the dam structure. A portion of the lease 

includes the ____ Public Use Area; therefore, 

stipulation ____ is applicable. Stipulation _____ 

also applies to portions of the lease area.

18. The operator will immediately stop work and advise 

the District Engineer or authorized representative if 

contamination is found in the operating area.

Kansas RMP 

(Appendix 2)

Stipulations for Oil 

and Gas Leases—

Lands Under 

Jurisdiction of the 

USACE (Water 

Resource Projects)

The lands embraced in this lease, in accordance with the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 USC, Section 181 et 

seq.) or the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 

1947 (30 USC, Section 351 et seq.) are under the 

jurisdiction of the USACE, as the SMA, and are subject 

to further controls established by the Engle Act (43 

USC, Section 155 et seq.). 

The lands described are a part of a water resource 

multipurpose project, authorized by Congress for flood 

control, water supply, navigation, recreation, wildlife, 

and other purposes. Rights under this lease are 

subordinate to the rights of the United States for the 

management, operation, and maintenance of the project, 

including public use and the right to flood and submerge 

the lands intermittently and to remove materials 

therefrom.

1. That all rights under this lease are subordinate to the 

rights of the United States to flood and submerge the 

lands, permanently or intermittently, in connection 

with the operation and maintenance of the abovenamed project.

2. That the United States shall not be responsible for 

damages to property or injuries to persons which 

may arise from or be incident to the use and 

occupation of the said premises, or for damages to 

the property of the lessee, or for injuries to the 

person of the lessee (if an individual), or for 

damages to the property or injuries to the person of 

the lessee’s officers, agents, servants, or employees, 

or other who may be on said premises at their 

invitation or the invitation of any one of them 

arising from or incident to the flooding of the said 

premises by the Government or flooding from any 

other cause, or arising from or incident to any other 

governmental activities; and the lessee shall hold the 

United States harmless from any and all such claims.
3. Current Management Direction

3-46 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

3. That the work performed by the lessee on the lands 

shall be under the general supervision of the District 

Commander, Corps of Engineers, in direct charge of 

the project and subject to such conditions and 

regulations as the District Commander may 

prescribe. Before lessee developing plan of 

operation involving any surface-disturbing activity, 

including routes to be used for vehicular access and 

plans and locations for all structures and 

appurtenances thereto, the lessee shall contact the 

SMA for information to develop such surface use 

program. There shall be no surface disturbance

before compliance by lessee with applicable BLM 

Onshore Oil and Gas Operation Procedures (43 

CFR, Part 3160), including Oil and Gas Orders and 

Notice to lessees.

The lessee must obtain permission (through the 

BLM) of the SMA and subordinate holders of 

interest (or third parties having contractual 

responsibility) and approval of the plan of operation 

from the SMA before any surface-disturbing 

activity. The District Commander shall have the 

right to enter on the premises at any time to inspect 

both the installation and operational activities of the 

lessee.

4. That no structure or appurtenance thereto shall be of 

a material or construction determined to create 

floatable debris.

5. That the construction and operation of said 

structures and appurtenances thereto shall be of such 

a nature as not to cause pollution of the soils and the 

waters of the project.

6. That the United States reserves the right to use the 

land jointly with the lessee in connection with the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the 

Government project and to place improvements 

thereon or to remove materials therefrom, including 

sand and gravel and other construction material, as 

may be necessary in connection with such work, and 

the lessee increase the cost of performing such work. 

If the cost of the work performed by the 

Government at and in connection with the project, 

including work performed on lands outside the 

property included in the lease, is made more 

expensive by reason of improvements constructed 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-47

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

on the leased property by the lessee, the lessee shall 

pay to the United States money in an amount, as 

estimated by the Chief of Engineers, sufficient to 

compensate for the additional expense involved.

7. No drill related structures (rigs, collector lines, 

reserve pits, access roads, and storage tanks) will be 

allowed for placement in the following restricted 

areas:

a. Within 2,000 feet of any structure, including, 

but not limited to the dam, spillway or 

embankment areas. The lessee, operators, 

agents, or employees shall not utilize the 

surface of such areas for any purpose. 

Drilling operations in, on, or under these 

areas, including drilling outside of such areas 

which would cause a bore hole to be under 

these areas, will not be permitted. These 

areas are included in the lease for the sole 

purpose of becoming a part of a drilling unit 

so that the United States will share in the 

royalty of the unit. The lessee shall be fully 

responsible for any damaging subsidence 

from extraction thereunder.

b. within the boundaries of designated USACEor state-operated public use areas, and 

special recreation areas, such as hiking and 

horseback trails).

c. within areas leased to cities, townships, or 

quasi-public groups for park and recreational 

purposes,

d. below elevations, ______feet mean sea level

e. within incorporated town, villages, or city 

limits,

f. within unique ecological areas,

g. historical sites,

h. wildlife and waterfowl refuges,

i. within 100 feet of public roadways or 300 

feet of occupied buildings.

j. The lessee, operators, agents, or employees 

will be prohibited from use or entry on the 

surface of restricted areas for any purpose. 

With the exception of lands covered in 

paragraph 7a. above, directional drilling 

from nonrestricted areas is prohibited.

8. The Secretary of the Army or designee reserves the 
3. Current Management Direction

3-48 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

right to require cessation of operations in a national 

emergency of if the Army needs the premises for a 

use incompatible with lease operations. On approval 

by higher authority, the Commander will notify the 

lessee in writing or, if time permits, requests the 

BLM to notify the lessee. The lessee understands 

that rights granted by this lease do not include the 

period of any such cessation, and the United States 

has no obligation to compensate the lessee for 

damages or contractual losses resulting from 

exercise of this stipulation. The lessee shall include 

this stipulation in contracts with third parties to 

supply oil and gas. This stipulation shall not affect 

the lessee’s right to seek suspension of the lease 

term from BLM.

9. If the Commander or the Commander’s authorized 

representative discovers an imminent danger to 

safety or security that allows no time to consult the 

BLM, that person may order such activities stopped 

immediately. The state BLM director will be 

notified immediately, will review the order, and will 

determine the need for further remedial action.

10. If contamination is found in the operating area, 

either from mineral lessee’s operations or existing 

conditions, the operator will immediately stop work 

and consult with the District Commander, or his 

authorized representative in analyzing the problem 

and developing a remedial plan.

11. In furtherance of Section 9 of the lease, lessee 

liability for damage to improvements and all natural 

resources and waters of the project shall include 

improvements of the Department of Defense and 

any surface users authorized by the Department of 

Defense.

12. Before beginning to drill, the lessee must consult 

with third parties authorized to use real estate in the 

leased area and must take into consideration 

programs for which third parties have contractual 

responsibility.

13. A license to conduct geophysical tests on the leased 

area must be obtained separately from the 

Commander or authorized representative.

14. Before beginning operations, the lessee will appoint 

and retain a local agent who may be served notice 

concerning matters in these stipulations and who 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-49

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

will notify the SMA instantly in the event of 

pollution, potential spills or other hazards 

encountered.

15. The lessee will be liable for pollution or other 

damages, as a result of their operations, to 

Government-owned lands and property and to the 

property of the Government’s authorized surface 

user.

16. That it is understood that this instrument is effective 

only insofar as the rights of the United States in the 

said property are concerned; and that the lessee shall 

obtain such permission as may be necessary on 

account of any other existing rights whether or not 

granted by the Government.

It is further understood that the Government does 

not warrant title or the accuracy of the descriptions 

provided in the lease.

17. Land and water areas included under a fish and 

wildlife management license agreement with a State 

agency, or allocated in the Master Plan for Fish and 

Wildlife Management, will be subject to the special 

Kansas City District Corps of Engineers Lease 

Stipulations for Wildlife Lands.

Kansas RMP 

(Appendix 2)

Kansas City District 

USACE Stipulation 

for Lands 

Designated for the 

Management of 

Wildlife

Lands and water areas of the project are managed for 

multiple purposes and may be included under a fish 

and wildlife management license with a State agency, 

permitted to the USFWS, or allocated in the Master 

Plan for Fish and Wildlife Management, and will be 

subject to special stipulations to insure the mitigation, 

protection and/or enhancement of wildlife and wildlife 

habitat. Surface disturbance will be restricted to those 

areas with insignificant impact to wildlife resources, 

and will be prohibited in areas providing habitat for 

threatened or endangered species, refuges, critical 

habitat of the key management species, and/or unique 

breeding grounds. The time period or location where 

construction, drilling, production or restoration 

activity can occur (or is required to be accomplished) 

may be specified to avoid impact to seasonal hunting, 

breeding, migration or fire hazard, to include seasonal 

occupancy, controlled access, limits on noise 

generation, lighting and use of explosives. Vegetation 

must be preserved, sludge or flare pits covered, 

erosion repaired, and scars revegetated. Access roads 

must be maintained for collateral use with the public 
3. Current Management Direction

3-50 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

where hunting or fishing is authorized, and when no 

longer required by the lessee shall be brought to 

useable standards for continued public access, or 

obliterated and revegetated, at the option of the lessor. 

Ancillary equipment will be removed immediately 

when no longer needed for production.

Texas RMP 

(Federal Oil and 

Gas Lease 

Stipulations)

Exceptions to a lease stipulation, waiver of a lease 

stipulation, or modification of a lease stipulation (as 

explained in 43 CFR, Part 3101.1-4) can only be 

granted by the Authorized Officer. If the proposed 

exception, waiver, or modification is inconsistent with 

the land use plan, the plan will be amended or changed 

or the exception, waiver, or modification will be 

disallowed. 

Exceptions are considered on a case-by-case basis and 

are subject to an environmental analysis. Exception to 

a leasing stipulation will be granted by the Authorized 

Officer if the reason for the exception is consistent 

with that analysis. No public notice is required for 

exceptions to lease stipulations which conform to the 

plan. Exceptions which do not conform to the plan 

may be granted only on plan amendment and public 

notification.

A stipulation waiver is the complete elimination of a 

stipulation from a particular lease contract. A 

stipulation is waived by the Authorized Officer after 

preparation of an Environmental Assessment and a 

decision is made that the stipulation in question is no 

longer required for a particular lease. The decision to 

waive a substantial stipulation requires a plan 

amendment and a 30-day public notice period before 

waiver.

Modifications to a lease stipulation are made if and 

when resource management determines the stipulation 

is no longer effective as written. This situation could 

occur when new information, obtained by inventory or 

monitoring, indicates that the protective measure is 

unnecessarily restrictive. Modification of a stipulation 

requires the preparation of an Environmental 

Assessment to determine the potential impacts and/or 

plan amendment or maintenance needs. If the 

modification is determined to be substantial by the 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-51

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Authorized Officer, a 30-day public notice period 

before modifying the lease stipulation is required.

Stipulations attached to a tease as a condition of 

consent by a SMA are not subject to exception, waiver 

or modification by the BLM.

Texas RMP (BLM 

Optional 

Stipulations)

NM-8, Coal Protection

This stipulation requires that any federal oil and gas 

operator must coordinate development with the federal 

coal lessee. This stipulation is used to protect the value 

of the federal coal resource.

Kansas RMP (BLM 

Optional 

Stipulations)

Oklahoma RMP 

(BLM Optional 

Stipulations)

NM-10, Coal Protection

This stipulation requires that any federal oil and gas 

operator must coordinate development with the federal 

coal lessee. This stipulation is used to protect the value 

of the federal coal resource and is applicable to the 

following areas in Oklahoma:

 Atoka County Split-Estate Tracts 2-4

 Haskell County Split-Estate Tracts 15-17

 Latimer County Split-Estate Tracts 3-6

 Le Flore County Split-Estate Tracts 15-17

 Pittsburg County Split-Estate Tracts 8 and 9

Texas RMP (BLM 

Optional 

Stipulations)

Oklahoma RMP 

(BLM Optional 

Stipulations)

NM-9, NSO, Pooling Purposes Only

This stipulation prohibits surface use and directional 

drilling into federal minerals. It protects a resource or 

use that is not compatible with oil and gas 

development. The tract could be leased for inclusion in 

a drilling unit to meet an operator’s spacing 

requirements. This stipulation is applicable to the 

following areas in Oklahoma:

 Beaver County Split-Estate Tract 93

 Carter County Split-Estate Tract 5

Texas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

US Army, USACE, 

Tulsa District 

Projects

I-A stipulations provide for the protection of surface 

resources through the use of surface occupancy 

restrictions, drilling restrictions or consultation 

requirements with authorized surface lessees. 

Generally, I-A requires NSO or directional drilling 

within 2,000 feet under restricted areas. Restricted 

areas include the major structures such as the dam, 

spillways, and embankments. All existing or proposed 

public use areas, recreation areas, wildlife and 

1-A/NSO
3. Current Management Direction

3-52 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

waterfowl refuges, historical sites and hiking or 

horseback trails are designated NSO. The I-A 

stipulations are standardized and apply to all Tulsa 

District projects.

Texas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

US Army, USACE, 

Tulsa District 

Projects

Pat Mayse Lake SMA Lease Stipulations: NSO/ND on 

approximately 1,200 acres associated with the dam 

and spillway and a 2,000-foot buffer. NSO on 

approximately 10,000 acres as buffers to recreational 

facilities, roads, trails and other developments and 

within the identified flood pool.

Should USACE project lands at Pat Mayse Lake be 

available for lease the stipulations described above 

would apply and 

Texas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

US Army, USACE, 

Tulsa District 

Projects

Texoma Lake SMA Lease Stipulations: NSO/ND on 

approximately 4,250 acres associated with the dam 

and spillway and a 2,000-foot buffer. NSO on 

approximately 85,500 acres as buffers to recreational 

facilities, roads, trails, and other developments and 

within the identified flood pool.

Should USACE project lands at Lake Texoma be 

available for lease the stipulations described above 

would apply and Oklahoma Resource Area ORA-3 

Season of Use restrictions would apply from 

September 1 through March 31, on the 11,429 acres of 

wildlife management lands within Texas.

Texas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

US Army, USACE, 

Fort Worth District 

Projects

These stipulations provide for the protection of surface 

resources through the use of surface occupancy 

restrictions, drilling restrictions or consultation 

requirements with authorized surface lessees. 

Generally, the Fort Worth District USACE requires 

NSO/ND within 3,000 feet under restricted areas. 

Restricted areas include the major structures such as 

the dam, spillways, embankments. A NSO restriction 

applies to all areas below the lakes flood elevation 

level an existing or proposed public use areas, 

recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, 

unique ecological areas, historical sites and hiking or 

horseback trails. The special stipulations are 

standardized and apply to specific areas within all Fort 

Worth District projects:

 Aquilla Lake SMA

 Bardwell Lake SMA

 Belton Lake SMA
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-53

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

 Benbrook Lake SMA

 B. A. Steinhagen Lake SMA

 Canyon Lake SMA

 Cooper Lake SMA

 Georgetown Lake SMA

 Granger Lake SMA

 Grapevine Lake SMA

 Hords Creek Lake SMA

 Joe Pool Lake SMA

 Lake O’ The Pines SMA

 Lavon Lake SMA

 Lewisville Lake SMA

 Navarro Mills Lake SMA

 O. C. Fisher Lake SMA

 Proctor Lake SMA

 Ray Roberts Lake SMA

 Sam Rayburn Lake SMA

 Somerville Lake SMA

 Stillhouse Hollow Lake

 Waco Lake SMA

 Whitney Lake SMA

 Wright Patman Lake SMA

Texas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

US Bureau of 

Reclamation 

Projects. 

US Bureau of 

Reclamation GP135 Special 

Stipulations.

US Bureau of Reclamation GP-135 Special 

Stipulations provide for protection of US Bureau of 

Reclamation projects by use of buffer zones which 

prohibit occupancy and/or drilling for specific 

distance. 

Maximum project protection is provided by the use of 

NSO/ND to within 1,000 feet under the maximum 

water surface by elevation as defined in Standing 

Operating Procedures of US Bureau of Reclamation or 

to within 2,000 feet under dam embankments and 

appurtenance structures, outlet works, spillways, or to 

within one-half mile (2,640 feet) of the centerline of 

any tunnel. Should the maximum project protection 

stipulation be waived by the BR, additional restrictions 

protect recreational developments, wildlife habitats, 

project facilities and water supplies by creating a 

NSO/DD buffer ranging from 200 to 500 feet around 

these areas.]Stipulations protecting special wildlife 

habitats or significant surface resources have been 

identified by project site. The overlapping buffer zones 
3. Current Management Direction

3-54 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

identified for each surface resource results in special 

stipulations covering acreage greater than the project 

total. This stipulation applies to specific areas in the 

following projects:

 Choke Canyon Dam and Reservoir—Neuces 

River Project SMA

 Palmetto Bend Dam and Lake Texana SMA

 Sanford Dam and Lake Meredith Canadian 

River Project SMA

 Twin Buttes Dam and Reservoir San Angelo 

Project SMA

Texas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

US Department of 

Defense Military 

Lands

US Department of Defense lands acquired for military 

purposes are available for oil and gas leasing subject 

to US Department of Defense leasing stipulations, the 

approval of the base commander as well as the 

inclusion of base specific lease stipulations.

Generally, US Department of Defense military lands 

are leased with the NSO/DD stipulation, however, the 

NSO/ND stipulation has been used to keep drilling 

rigs from impacting mission required air space.

US Army: Forts Bliss, Hood and Wolters, Camps 

Bowie, Bullis and Swift, Lone Star and Longhorn 

Army Ammunition Plants and Red River Army Depot.

US Air Force: Bergstrom, Dyess, Laughlin, Randolph, 

Reese and Sheppard Air Force Bases, as well as 

Laughlin No. 1 and Seguin Abandoned Air Field.

US Navy: Corpus Christi and Kingsville Naval Air 

Station, Cabaniss and Waldon Navy Landing Airfield

and the McGregor Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance 

Plants.

Texas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

USDA

Pecan Genetics and Improvement Research 

Laboratory SMA Lease Stipulations: NSO on 

approximately 84 acres.

Should federal minerals at this facility be available for 

lease the stipulations described above would apply. 

Texas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

USDA

Conservation and Production Research Laboratory 

SMA Lease Stipulations: NSO on approximately 

1,531 acres.
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-55

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Should federal minerals at this facility be available for 

lease the stipulations described above would apply.

Texas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

USDA

The US Livestock Insects Laboratory SMA Lease 

Stipulations: NSO on approximately 35 acres.

Should federal minerals at this facility be available for 

lease the stipulations described above would apply.

Texas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

USDA

Grassland, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory SMA 

Lease Stipulations: NSO on approximately 1,272 

acres.

Should federal minerals at this facility be available for 

lease the stipulations described above would apply.

Texas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

US Department of 

State

Amistad Reservoir SMA Lease Stipulations: NSO 

below the 1144.3 foot elevation traverse (USIDWC 

Stip. No. I).

Should federal minerals at this facility be available for 

lease the stipulations described above would apply.

Texas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

US Department of 

State

Falcon Reservoir SMA Lease Stipulations: NSO/ND 

within 2,300 feet of the centerline of the dam 

embankment. NSO below the 307-foot elevation 

traverse (US Section of the International Boundary 

and Water Commission Stip. No. I).

Should federal minerals at this facility be available for 

lease the stipulations described above would apply.

Texas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)

US Department of 

Energy

Pantex SMA Stipulations: NSO/ND on the 

approximately 16,000 acres controlled by the Pantex 

facility.

Should federal minerals at this facility be available for 

lease, the stipulations described above would apply.

Texas RMP 

(Appendix) US 

Bureau of 

Reclamation 

General 

Stipulations

I. All rights under this lease are subordinate to the right 

of the United States to flood and submerge the lands, 

permanently or intermittently, in connection with the 

construction and operation and maintenance of the 

_______ Dam and Reservoir, ___________Project, 

_________.

2. All surface work performed by the lessee on the lands 

shall be under the general supervision of the Area 

Manager, US Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) in 

direct charge of the project, and shall be subject to such 

conditions and regulations as he may prescribe. Detailed 
3. Current Management Direction

3-56 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

plans and location for all structures, appurtenances 

thereto, and surface disturbance work on the leased 

lands shall be submitted to the said Area Manager for 

approval in advance of commencement of any surface 

work 011 the said leased lands. At least 60 days or more 

lead time is preferred. All oil or gas drilling and 

producing operations shall be under the supervision of 

the District Manager, BLM, in accordance with 43 CFR, 

Part 3160. The authorized representatives of 

Reclamation and the BLM shall have the right to enter 

on the leased premises at any time to inspect both the 

installation and operational activities of the lessee.

A. Predrilling Conditions

I. No exploratory drilling, pit construction, or site 

clearing will occur until approval is granted by the 

appropriate Reclamation representatives in consultation 

with the local managing agencies.

2. No well shall be drilled for oil or gas below the 

surface elevation of feet. (This elevation restriction does 

not apply to areas downstream of the dam.) No drilling 

will be allowed within feet of any developed recreation 

area.

3. All storage tanks shall be constructed outside the 

Hood plain above elevation feet (maximum water 

surface). This elevation restriction does not apply to 

areas downstream of the dam. Berms shall be 

constructed around storage batteries, tanks, and 

separators to contain their entire volume should an 

accidental spill or rupture occur.

4. Drilling a well for oil and gas is prohibited within 

feet of any dam, dike, or other major structures, unless 

otherwise approved by the Area Manager in 

consultation with the local managing agencies.

5. No well shall be drilled within 1/8 mile (660 feet) of 

a river, channel, permanent stream, tributary, or marsh 

site unless otherwise approved by the Area Manager in 

consultation with the local managing agencies. To 

protect watersheds, slopes in excess of 40 percent (2.5: 

I) should be avoided where possible.
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-57

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

6. All drilling operations shall be conducted in 

accordance with the applicable State laws relative to 

municipal water supplies.

7. No surface disturbance shall occur until completion 

of an environmental analysis of the proposed drilling 

activity by Reclamation and all coordination matters are 

completed. This analysis will involve review of 

federally listed threatened and endangered plant and 

animal species, protection of wetlands, cultural 

resources, and water quality associated concerns. 

Certain data needs may be requested from the applicant 

proposing a surface disturbance action.

8. Where surface operations and facilities could 

reasonably be expected to discharge petroleum products 

into navigable waters and should oil or petroleum 

products be stored onsite and facilities have an 

aggregate storage of 1,320 gallons or more or single 

containers with capacity of 660 gallons or more, a spill 

prevention control and counter measure plan shall be 

prepared and must be maintained and kept available for 

inspection onsite (if staffed) or at the nearest field office 

if unmanned. In the event of a spill or leakage, the 

lessee assumes all responsibility for cleanup and 

damages.

9. At the lessee’s expense, a cultural resource survey of 

lands that may be disturbed must be completed before 

any surface disturbance. If during operations the lessee 

or any person working on the lessee’s behalf discovers 

any historic or prehistoric ruin, monument, or site or 

any object of antiquity subject to the Archaeological 

Resource Protection Act of 1979 or the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and 

Reclamation Instructions 376.11, then work shall be 

suspended and the discovery promptly reported to 

Reclamation. When directed by Reclamation’s 

authorized representative, the lessee shall obtain at the 

lessee’s expense a qualified archaeologist to examine 

and, if necessary, excavate or gather such ruins or 

objects.

10. No mud pits shall be constructed below elevation __ 
3. Current Management Direction

3-58 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

feet. (This elevation restriction does not apply to areas 

downstream of the dam.) Pits shall be well constructed 

in such a manner to prevent leaching of chemicals into 

the water table and under no circumstances shall they be 

allowed to leak or be cut to drain. Lining mud pits with 

plastic may be required. They shall not be located on 

natural drainages. In some situations, such as drilling in 

a floodplain, a closed mud system may be required with 

containerization of drill cuttings. Waste or discharge of 

any kind shall not be allowed to enter any drainage. Any 

plastic material used to line pits or sumps shall be cut 

off below ground level, as far down as possible, and 

disposed of before the pits are covered. All unattended 

pits containing liquids shall be fenced, and the liquid 

portion shall be allowed to evaporate before the pits are 

broken.

11. The derrick shall not be closer than one-and-a-half 

times its height from any electrical power transmission 

line unless prior approval is obtained from the owner of 

the power company. Signs shall be posted warning the 

public to prevent entry to the jobsite. Also, adequate 

blowout preventers shall be properly maintained.

12. All aboveground structures, not subject to applicable 

safety requirements, shall be painted to blend with the 

natural surroundings. The paint used shall be lusterless, 

nonreflective, flat, or semigloss color that blends with 

the area.

B. Roads

1. The lessee shall observe the following restrictions 

during exploration:

a. Wherever possible, existing roads and trails 

are to be used as access to the drilling site. New 

road construction will be kept to a minimum, 

and new construction will not begin until the 

location is approved by the local managing 

agency.

b. Each existing fence to be crossed by the 

lessee shall be braced and tied off before cutting 

so as to prevent slacking of the wire. The 

opening shall be protected as necessary during 

construction and well operation to prevent the 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-59

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

escape of livestock. On completion of 

construction, the fence shall be repaired to the 

original standard of the existing fence.

c. Cleared trees and shrubs will be removed 

and/or piled as brush piles for wildlife shelter as 

designated by the local managing agency. 

Available topsoil will be removed from the road 

right of-way and stored in a topsoil stockpile.

d. New access roads shall normally be a 

maximum of 30 feet wide, including drainage 

ditches and culverts. Road surface shall be 

graveled to a thickness identified as suitable for 

the safe operation of the vehicles and equipment 

at speeds proposed. The road shall be posted 

with curve signs and maximum speed limits. 

Speeds shall be limited on curves and posted to 

speeds that win permit a vehicle to be stopped 

within one-half the minimum sight distance. The 

road shall be maintained in safe condition.

e. At the request of the local managing agency, 

on new access roads the lessee shall construct 

cattle guards or install gates with locks which 

will be maintained by the lessee during drilling 

operations and all such times thereafter as 

production continues. Fencing of roads may be 

required.

f. Roads shall be maintained in suitable 

condition for vehicle passage during the duration 

of drilling activities with special consideration 

given to erosion control during wet and muddy 

periods.

g. Existing roads shall be returned to original or 

equivalent condition after drilling equipment has 

been removed.

h. All roads shall be adequately drained to 

control runoff and soil erosion. Drainage 

facilities may include ditches, water bars, 

culverts, or any other measures deemed 

necessary by Reclamation representatives. The 

following is a general guide for the spacing of 

water bars:

Present Slope 

 less than 2 percent—200 feet 

 2 to 4 percent—100 feet 

 4 to 5 percent—75 feet 
3. Current Management Direction

3-60 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

 more than 5 percent—50 feet

i. In the event of a dry hole, any new road 

construction sites will be revegetated by the 

drilling company, with native or adapted 

grasses, forbs, and shrubs as requested by 

Reclamation, unless the local managing agency 

indicates in writing that the road is to remain. 

Revegetation is to be accomplished by seeding 

and fertilizing the area within one year of 

completion at recommended seeding rates and 

dates.

2. The lessee shall observe the following stipulations 

should oil or gas be found and production activities 

occur:

a. Production company shall maintain road in 

suitable condition or vehicle passage. Public will 

be permitted to use road where existing road was 

originally open to such use. New road 

construction, if needed, can be exempt from 

public use.

b. Should the local managing agency deem it 

necessary to control vehicle traffic into the area 

during any season of the year, the production 

company will provide a metal gate and lock.

C. Drilling Pad and Reserve Pit

I. Area cleared for the drilling pad site and reserve pit 

shall be the absolute minimum required for operations.

2. All trees and shrubs removed from the pad site shall 

be piled near the site at places designated by the local 

managing agency for use as wildlife shelters.

3. Available topsoil shall be removed from the drilling 

pad and pit site and stored in a topsoil stockpile.

4. Diesel fuel tanks and other potential pollution sources 

will be surrounded by an earthen berm of sufficient 

height to contain their entire volume in the event of an 

accidental leak or rupture.

5. The area will be kept well policed and free of trash 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-61

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

and litter at all times, including access roads used solely 

by the lessee. Litter blown out of the work area must be 

picked up. All waste associated with the drilling 

operations shall be removed and deposited in an 

approved sanitary landfill within 1month after removal 

of the drilling rig. The lessee shall comply with all state 

laws and regulations pertaining to the disposal of human 

waste.

6. For the protection of livestock and wildlife, all pits 

containing toxic liquids shall be fenced and covered 

with a fine mesh netting (i.e., hardware cloth) with 

openings being of one-half inch or less.

7. The lessee will remove fluids and trash from all pits. 

The sludge pit will be pumped after drilling activities 

are completed and, following adequate drying, reshaped 

to original contours and covered with topsoil. This 

restoration must be accomplished within 90 days of 

completion of drilling. The area must then be 

revegetated as requested by Reclamation.

D. Actions with a Producing Well

1. A minimum service area will be developed around 

the well head. No permanent material storage will be 

allowed on the lease. The remainder of the drilling pad 

will be covered with topsoil from the stockpile and 

restored to vegetation by tilling, fertilizing, and seeding. 

Specific seed types will be determined on a case-bycase basis by Reclamation in consultation with the local 

managing agency.

2. The lessee may be required to utilize electric or 

submersible pumps, where feasible, rather than fuelpowered pumps (or other machinery). All electric lines 

must be buried to a depth of 15 to 18 inches.

3. All transfer lines from well site to tank: battery, 

saltwater disposal well, or the like, must be buried 3 feet 

below the surface and a minimum depth of 4 feet at 

stream, creek, and river channel crossings.

4. When possible, a common point of collection shall be 

established to minimize the number of tank batteries.
3. Current Management Direction

3-62 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

E. Actions with a Nonproducing Well

1. All disturbed areas will be recontoured, covered with 

topsoil, and revegetated. All trash will be removed from 

the lease site.

2. Gates and cattle guards shall be removed where 

requested by the local managing agency. Any openings 

in fences will be restored to original condition.

F. General

I. The lessee shall limit access to well and storage 

locations on the leased property to authorized personnel.

2. The lessee agrees to cease all operations and make all 

necessary corrections to the satisfaction of the 

representative of Reclamation in consultation with tl1e 

local managing agency before resuming any operations 

should any violations of tl1e terms of this lease occur.

3. The lessee shall not permit any nuisance to be 

maintained on the premises and shall not use said 

premises for any purposes other than those authorized in 

the lease. Before abandoning any well, the lessee shall 

securely plug the same so as to effectually shut off 

water from the oil-bearing stratum.

4. The lessee shall carry on the development or 

operation of the leased premises in a workmanlike 

manner and shall not commit or suffer to be committed 

waste on the lands in the lessee’s occupancy and use. In 

drilling operations, the lessee shall only use so much of 

the land as is necessary; shall safeguard the lakes and 

streams from any pollution; and shall not permit oil, 

saltwater, drilling mud, or other deleterious substances 

to escape onto the land, but the same shall be retained in 

proper tanks, receptacles, or in pits prepared for such 

purpose; and after the termination of drilling operations, 

any such pits shall be filled and land properly restored 

to its original condition, and only so much thereof shall 

be used in the production of the leased premises as is 

reasonably necessary to operate any well or wells 

thereon.
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-63

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

5. The lessee shall provide all subcontractors and 

assigns, especially the dirt contractor, with a copy of the 

above stipulations before construction of the road, pad, 

or associated developments.

Area Manager 

Oklahoma-Texas Area Office 

US Bureau of Reclamation 

420 West Main, Suite 630 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102

Texas RMP 

(Appendix) Lone 

Star Army 

Ammunition Plan 

Mineral Leasing 

Stipulations (US 

Department of 

Defense Military 

Lands, US Army)

It is understood by all parties that the following fifteen 

mineral leasing stipulations are a part of subject lease

and may be waived or modified only on the written 

concurrence of the installation commander, Lone Star 

Army Ammunition Plant, Texas (LSAAP, hereinafter 

Commander) and the written approval of the 

Department of the Interior’s BLM, or authorized 

representatives. Compliance with these stipulations will 

be at no cost to the United States:

1. The lessee understands that its activity on LSAAP 

requires prior approval of the BLM, and that BLM 

approval requires the concurrence of the Commander, 

where necessary. Requirements which may be imposed 

include but are not limited to prohibitions or 

specifications on:

a. access (e.g., time of year, gates, roads, construction, 

maintenance, pipelines, vegetation disposal)

b. exploration activities

c. location, design, and timing of construction of 

drilling, collection, and storage facilities (e.g., burial of 

wellhead and equipment in underground bunkers, depth 

of burial of flow lines)

d. use and protection of LSAAP water supply (e.g., 

water quality testing)

e. protection of the environment (e.g., hazardous waste 

areas, endangered species, erosion control, pollution 

prevention) and protection of objects of historic and 

scientific significance

f. safety and fire protection measures (e.g., use of 

explosives, safe working distances from ammunition 

and explosives, construction and maintenance of 

firebreaks, development of contingency plans in the 

event of danger to persons or property, posting of signs)
3. Current Management Direction

3-64 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

g. use of communication and transportation systems

h. LSAAP security (e.g., authorized operation hours, 

worker identification)

i. management of production area (e.g., size, fencing, 

gates, cattle guards, interim revegetation)

j. reclamation measures

k. attendance at meetings (e.g., pre-operations 

conference, post-operations conference)

2. The lessee may occupy only the surface of the lands 

that are cross-hatched, identified on the attached map, 

Exhibit A; the remaining areas identified on Exhibit A 

are available only for directional drilling.

3. The lessee will make every effort to locate pipeline 

and access routes in existing utility and road corridors. 

The lessee will furnish as-built drawings of completed 

pipelines at a scale and detail specified by the 

Commander.

4. The lessee in accepting this lease understands that the 

leased lands are part of LSAAP, a military installation. 

Mineral exploration and development in any restricted 

impact areas or areas involving ammunition or 

explosives is prohibited; however, these lands may be 

explored and produced by directional drilling at a safe 

distance from outside the areas as prescribed by US 

Department of Defense or Department of the Army 

regulations. Furthermore, the lessee understands that 

future increased production, testing or storage of 

ammunition or explosives may further restrict the

surface area available for lease operations. Safe 

distances from ammunition and explosive facilities are 

based on the quantity and type of explosive present or 

authorized and the proposed use (e.g., aboveground or 

below ground, continuous or temporary presence of 

personnel). The lessee may obtain pertinent information 

on this subject from the LSAAP safety office.

5. Before beginning any approved operations on 

LSAAP the lessee must consult with third parties 

authorized to use real estate in the leased area and must 

document in any proposals for development the manner 

in which consideration is being given to programs for 

which third parties have contractual rights or 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-65

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

responsibility. The lessee may consult the records of the 

District Engineer, Fort Worth, Texas to determine what 

real estate interests have been granted to third parties on 

LSAAP. On request of the BLM, the Commander may 

seek to resolve disputes between the lessee and third 

parties if they cannot reach agreement. Resolutions will 

be coordinated with contracting officers or 

representatives of all parties involved. The lessee shall 

hold the United States harmless for claims by such third 

parties arising from the lessee’s activities, including 

damage to pasture and cropland capabilities.

6. Merchantable timber cleared from roads, pipeline 

rights-of-way, or drill sites will be disposed of in 

accordance with the Commander’s instructions.

7. The lessee shall bear all costs of the following:

a. Increased Army costs for its projects which are 

incurred by reason of the lessee’s activity on LSAAP. 

Such costs will be paid when demanded on a one time 

basis as a condition of approval of proposed operations.

b. Any Army costs to administer and ensure lease 

compliance not otherwise funded by Congress.

c. The lessee’s share of road and bridge maintenance 

costs for use of LSAAP roads and bridges in accordance 

with a maintenance agreement. In calculating such 

costs, the drilling and production area, pipeline ROW, 

lengths of roads and bridges, and so forth will be 

considered. Payments shall be made in advance as a 

result of negotiations between LSAAP and the lessee. 

d. Repair or restoration for damage or degradation of 

land or facilities, including that caused by subsidence 

and pollutant spills, resulting from the lessee’s 

activities. Where conditions of urgency exist as 

determined by the Commander and time is of the 

essence, the lessee shall repair damages or degradation 

in a timely fashion in the manner specified by the 

Commander without awaiting confirmation from the 

BLM. The Commander shall subsequently confirm oral 

orders to the lessee in writing, with a copy furnished to 

the BLM and the District Engineer. If the lessee cannot 

or will not immediately comply, the Commander may 

immediately act, and the lessee shall be liable for 

reimbursement to the Army for all damages and costs of 
3. Current Management Direction

3-66 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

such action, including administrative costs and any 

surcharges that may be deemed appropriate.

8. The lessee shall not pollute the air, ground, or water 

(including groundwater) or create a public nuisance.

a. Before beginning operations, the lessee shall retain a 

local agent who may be served notice on these matters 

and who shall notify the Commander immediately of 

spills or other unexpected threats or hazards to the 

environment.

b. The lessee shall hold the United States harmless for 

any claim, including equitable claims, court or legal 

expenses incurred by the United States, and fines or 

penalties imposed on the United States which are 

related to unlawful pollution arising from the lessee’s 

use of the property.

9. The United States reserves the option to purchase up 

to a hundred percent of the natural gas or oil refined, at 

the price defined below, under a utility service contract 

to be negotiated before the exercise of this right in 

accordance with present or future US Department of 

Defense or Army regulations. Any product purchased 

by the government shall be for the sole use of Army or 

US Department of Defense installation tenants located 

within a one-hundred fifty (150) mile radius of 

headquarters, LSAAP, and not for resale to the public. 

The lessee shall include this paragraph in any contract 

or sale of natural gas or oil to other parties.

a. The lessee shall, in its sole discretion, determine 

whether oil or gas reserves are present on LSAAP in 

sufficient quantities to permit commercial development. 

After the lessee has determined and declared that 

commercial production is possible, the Government and 

lessee will have four months in which to negotiate the 

specific terms of any sale and begin delivery of 

production. Except during mobilization or surge 

periods, the Commander shall have the right to change 

its election under this option, but in no case more often 

than once every 12 months.

b. The price paid to the lessee by the United States shall 

be the average of the three lowest publicly posted or 

spot prices for the delivered refined product as 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-67

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

announced monthly by the three largest purchasers in 

Texas Railroad Commission District-6. Specific details 

of the price and actual quantity of product shall be 

negotiated during sales contract procedures. The sale 

price may be adjusted to reflect any unusual 

unanticipated capital investment and transportation 

costs incurred by the lessee. Such costs should be 

negotiated in paragraph 9a. In all cases, the lessee shall 

bear all costs on a nonreimbursable basis associated 

with maintaining the well site (including meters) during 

the producing life of the well and salvaging such 

facilities when production is ended.

c. The lessee shall routinely inspect and calibrate 

equipment involved with the exercise of this option with 

the BLM. The BLM may require the lessee at least 

annually to engage an independent party acceptable to 

BLM to test meters for accuracy and to furnish written 

findings to BLM.

10. Notwithstanding any other stipulation, or condition 

of the lease, the United States and its officers, agents, 

servants and employees (the released parties) shall not 

be responsible for damages to property, injury to 

persons, or any other cause of action (released actions) 

which may arise from or be incident to this lease or the 

lessee’s use and occupation of the leased premises. 

Released actions include, without limitations, damages 

to the lessee’s property, injury to the lessee’s person, or 

other cause of action of the lessee, or such damage, 

injury or other cause of action of the lessee’s officers, 

agents, servant employees, invitees of any of these, or 

anyone else otherwise on or off said premises incident 

to the lease. Released actions include any actions arising 

from flooding of the lease premises. The lessee shall 

hold harmless and indemnify the released parties for 

released actions which may arise from or be incident to 

this lease or the lessee’s use or occupation of the leased 

premises.

11. The lessor’s rights described in the printed BLM 

lease form include the rights of the Army.

12. The Secretary of the Army or designee reserves the 

right to require cessation of operation if a national 

emergency arises or if the Army needs the leased 
3. Current Management Direction

3-68 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

premises for a mission incompatible with lease 

operations. On approval from higher authority, the 

Commander will give the lessee written notice or, if 

time permits, request, the BLM to give notice of the 

required cessation. The lessee understands the lease 

rights granted by this instrument do not include the 

period of any such cessation and the United States has 

no obligation to compensate the lessee for damages 

(including contractual losses) resulting from the 

exercise of this stipulation. The lessee shall include this 

stipulation in contracts with third parties to supply oil 

and gas. This stipulation shall not affect the lessee’s 

right to seek suspension of the lease term from the 

BLM. Whether or not a suspension is granted will have 

no effect on cessation of operations as stipulated herein.

13. If the Commander or the authorized representative 

discovers an imminent danger to safety or security 

which allows no time to consult BLM, that person may 

order such activities stopped immediately. The 

authorized officer of BLM shall review the order and 

determine the need for further remedial action.

14. If military or explosive contamination is found in 

the operating area, the operator shall immediately stop 

work, leave the area, notify the Commander and not 

return until the Commander advises that it is safe to 

return.

15. It is in the best interest of LSAAP to determine if 

commercial deposits of oil or gas exist within LSAAP 

boundaries. The Authorized Officer (AO) of the BLM 

may specify rates of development and production 

pursuant to Section 4 of the Lease Terms and the Oil 

and Gas Operations Regulations at 43 CFR, Part 

3162.2(c). Accordingly, the operator will commence 

drilling within thirty-six (36) months of the effective 

date of this lease on acreage available for occupancy on 

this lease, or within an approved exploratory unit which 

includes this lease. Drilling operations shall be 

diligently prosecuted until a well capable of adequately 

testing, at a minimum, Paluxy, Moorings Port, and the 

Smackover Formations has been drilled. The operator 

shall not in any event be required to drill said well to a 

depth in excess of 8,500 feet. With the approval of the 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-69

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

AO, a completion to a lesser depth than the Smackover 

may be made. However, not later than twelve (12) 

months after said completion to a lesser depth, the 

operator shall commence drilling a well to test, at a 

minimum, the Formations mentioned above. Additional 

wells may be drilled as deemed necessary by the AO, 

after consultation with the lessee, based on test results 

and well spacing rules.

Failure to comply with this stipulation will result in an 

assessment, civil penalty, or lease cancellation pursuant 

to 43 CFR, Part 3162. The lessee has the option to 

voluntarily cancel the lease in lieu of the assessment or 

civil penalty.

Texas RMP 

(Appendix) 

Lone Start Army 

Ammunition Plant 

Installation 

Conditions for Site 

Approval (US 

Department of 

Defense Military 

Lands, US Army)

It is understood by all parties that the following sixteen 

(16) installation conditions for site approval (the 

“Conditions”) are a part of subject lease and may be 

waived or modified only upon the written concurrence 

of the installation commander, Lone Star Army 

Ammunition Plant, Texas (LSAAP), (hereinafter 

“Commander”) and the written approval of the 

Department of the Interior's BLM, or authorized 

representatives. The Lessee's compliance with these 

Conditions will be at no cost to the United States:

1. The routing of all supply pipelines, as well as 

material workmanship specifications shall be approved 

in advance by LSAAP. Pipeline access routes have yet 

to be determined by LSAAP.

2. The Lessee's access to LSAAP shall be through 

existing gates and roads as approved in advance by the 

Commander. No temporary gates shall be installed in 

LSAAP's perimeter fence. 

3. New road routes, if any, will be approved by LSAAP 

before the start of construction. Such roads shall be 

properly drained, terraced to prevent erosion, 

compacted and surfaced to provide for all weather 

access to wells and equipment. The Lessee will 

maintain these roads for the duration of the underlying 

lease. Roads to drilling sites of wells with no production 

capability shall be restored to original condition 

immediately after the site is abandoned unless LSAAP 

Commander accepts the road and the maintenance 
3. Current Management Direction

3-70 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

responsibility for it.

4. Proposed activities have been reviewed and approved 

by the appropriate safety offices to include site approval 

by the Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board. 

Any and all changes to activities must have prior 

approval by the appropriate Safety Office.

5. Producing wells shall be enclosed with a permanent 

fence which shall enclose an area not to exceed the 

minimum required for operation and maintenance of the 

well as mutually determined by LSAAP and the Lessee. 

The fencing shall be 72” chain link utilizing steel posts. 

Fence gates shall be kept locked and the Lessee shall 

furnish LSAAP Commander with keys to all locks.

6. Lessee is required to comply with security regulations 

as stipulated in DARCOM-R 190-3 as well as any and 

all LSAAP security regulations and the LSAAP 

Protection Plan.

7. Lessee is required to comply with fire and safety 

regulations in accordance with AMC-R 385-100, Safety 

Manual as well as any and all plant safety and fire 

regulations. Firebreaks (50' minimum clear zone) are 

required around drilling sites, fences, pipelines, and as 

required by the Commander.

8. The LSAAP underground water table must not be 

contaminated nor disturbed or disrupted. The Lessee 

shall not contaminate any surface water, soil, air, or 

groundwater.

9. Hazardous and non-hazardous waste material will be 

disposed of in accordance with LSAAP, State of Texas, 

and Federal regulations; disposal of hazardous materials 

will be off LSAAP.

10. Charges for any administrative assistance, 

monitoring, or relocation of explosives will be assessed 

by LSAAP at a man-hour plant rate determined by the 

activity involved (guards, production, engineering, etc.). 

These charges will be reviewed annually and will be 

changed when necessary to reflect the Government's 

cost for providing these services. A separate negotiated 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-71

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

agreement will be required for these services. Advance 

payment, at the discretion of the Commander, may be 

required as part of the contract.

11. Drilling on or under any lease, license, permit or 

easement stated in the report of Availability is permitted 

so long as the use granted thereunder is not disturbed. 

Known easements on LSAAP consist of, but are not 

limited to:

a. Access to families of individuals buried on the 5.5 

acres of cemeteries maintained by LSAAP.

b. Approximately 13 SF in the telephone 

communications building (1-4) for General Telephone 

(GTE) to supply switch gear.

c. Lake Texarkana Water Supply Corporation for a 30”

line along the northern border.

d. Southwestern Electric Power Company for a 

transmission line along the southwestern border.

12. The Lessee shall provide completely installed, 

maintained, and operable supply systems from the 

wellhead to existing LSAAP distribution lines if and 

when the Government exercises its option to purchase 

up to One-Hundred Percent (100%) of the well's natural 

gas or oil production. The supply systems shall meet the 

following requirements, or current industry standards:

a. Materials -All piping shall be schedule 40 steel. 

Welded joints are required for underground piping and 

for piping 2-1/2” diameter or more if above ground. 

Above ground piping of 2” diameter or less may be 

screw joints. All piping, valves and fittings shall meet 

existing EPA requirements for high pressure gas 

distribution systems, as well as American National 

Standards Institute Specification B31.8 (latest edition) 

for Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems.

b. Coating -All underground piping shall be coated with 

coal tar enamel and glass fiber reinforced felt or suitable 

factory applied polyethylene or plastic coating (tape 

rapped at joints) to fully meet all EPA

recommendations/requirements for gas distribution 

lines. Cathodic protection shall be provided by 

magnesium anodes or rectifier/ground-bed systems. The 

Government shall review and approve proposed systems 

and shall perform quality control testing and inspection 

of piping, coating and cathodic protection systems.
3. Current Management Direction

3-72 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

c. Welding and General Workmanship -Welding and 

general workmanship shall be in accordance with all 

EPA and American National Standards Institute

requirements for high pressure gas distribution systems.

d. Size of Piping -Size of piping shall be sufficient to 

convey 50 percent of the well's production capacity, to 

the specified delivery point with a minimum delivery 

pressure of 50 pounds per square inch gauge and a 

maximum line pressure of 15 pounds per square inch 

gauge. Sizing shall be approved in advance by the 

Government.

e. Meters -Meters shall be provided, installed, 

maintained, and calibrated by the Lessee, and shall be of 

type and quality equivalent to those used by the 

alternative non-Government gas purchaser. Meters shall 

be installed at the point of entry into the Government 

gas distribution system.

f. Pressure Regulators and Accessories -Pressure 

regulators and accessories shall be provided and 

maintained by the Lessee to automatically pass gas into

LSAAP distribution system as required to maintain a 

system pressure of 50 pounds per square inch gauge at 

the delivery point.

13. The Lessee is required to provide all necessary data 

to LSAAP to permit development of a Safety Site Plan 

which must be approved at all necessary Army 

command levels prior to the Army concurring with 

either a Notice of Staking or an Application for Permit 

to Drill.

14. Herbicides may be used by the Lessee to maintain 

clear zones. Any herbicides proposed for use must be 

coordinated with LSAAP pest management coordinated 

through AMCCOM prior to use. Only those herbicides 

approved by the EPA are acceptable. The Lessee will 

report to LSAAP pest management coordinator monthly 

herbicide usage not later than the third working day 

after the end of the month of use. Negative reports are 

not required.

15. The Lessee shall not establish any drill site, 

pipeline, or any other facilities within 200 feet of any 

cemetery or other potential historical site (see Exhibit F) 

within LSAAP. Explosive or seismic methods will not 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-73

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

be employed within 500 feet of any cemetery or other 

historic site unless otherwise approved by the 

Commander. The Lessee will be responsible for any 

damages to headstones, markers, fences, or other 

property in area of the historic site, or access roads to 

same, that result from its operations. Exploration or 

exploitation actions proposed in the vicinity of historic 

sites will require coordination with, and approval by, 

the State Historic Preservation Office.

16. Leasing is permitted for oil and natural gas only.

Texas RMP 

(Appendix) United 

States Section, 

International 

Boundary and 

Water Commission, 

United States and 

Mexico

Special Stipulations 

for Falcon Dam and 

Reservoir

1. The lessee understands and agrees that a negative 

easement is imposed in and on said land to prohibit the 

drilling or deepening of any well for the purpose of 

producing oil or gas and other minerals provided, 

however, that exploration and development of oil or 

gas and other minerals under said land will be 

permitted by directional drilling from locations off the 

said land and above the 307-foot elevation traverse.

2. No drilling operations are permitted which will 

cause contamination of the Falcon Reservoir, or the 

Rio Grande. Before drilling operations commence, 

works, including a reserve pit, satisfactory to and as 

required by the United States Commissioner, United 

States Section, International Boundary and Water 

Commission, United States and Mexico, shall be 

constructed of sufficient size and maintained so as to 

hold all contaminants, well cuttings, trash, debris, and 

refuse, and to prevent them from getting into Falcon 

Reservoir or into the Rio Grande; and further, the 

lessee shall be liable for all damages due to any 

contamination of the Falcon Reservoir, or the Rio 

Grande, resulting from the lessee’s operations.

3. The lessee agrees that all drilling, exploration, 

development and producing operations will be in 

conformance with the requirements of the Texas 

Railroad Commission and agencies of the State of 

Texas responsible for environmental concerns.

4. The lessee agrees not to subdivide or assign this 

lease without the prior written approval of the said 

United States Commissioner, 4171 North Mesa, Suite 

C-310, EI Paso, Texas 79902, first had and obtained 
3. Current Management Direction

3-74 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

before submission for approval to the Department of 

the Interior.

Texas RMP (Appendix) United States Section, 

International Boundary and Water Commission, 

United States and Mexico

Special Stipulations for Amistad Dam and Reservoir 

1. The lessee understands and agrees that a negative 

easement is imposed in and on said land to prohibit the 

drilling or deepening of any well for the purpose of 

producing oil and/or gas and other mineral provided, 

however, that exploration and development of oil 

and/or gas and other minerals under said land will be 

permitted by directional drilling from locations off the 

said land and above the 1,144.3-foot elevation contour.

2. No drilling operations are permitted which will 

cause contamination of the Amistad Reservoir, or the 

Rio Grande, Pecos or Devils Rivers. Before drilling 

operations commence, works, including a reserve pit, 

satisfactory to and as required by the United States 

Commissioner, United States Section, International 

Boundary and Water Commission, United States and 

Mexico, shall be constructed of sufficient size and 

maintained so as to hold all contaminants, well 

cuttings, trash, debris, and refuse and to prevent them 

from getting into Amistad Reservoir or into the Rio 

Grande, Devils, or Pecos Rivers; and further, the 

lessee shall be liable for all damages due to any 

contamination of the Amistad Reservoir, or the Rio 

Grande, Pecos, or Devils Rivers resulting from the 

lessee’s operations.

3. On completion of the well, any pits—after settling 

or drying—shall be filled and the location area shall be 

graded so as to resemble, as nearly as practicable, the 

land conditions before drilling.

4. The lessee agrees not to subdivide or assign this 

lease without the prior written approval of the said 

United States Commissioner, 4171 North Mesa, Suite 

C-310, EI Paso, Texas 79902, first had and obtained 

before submission for approval to the Department of 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-75

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

the Interior.

Texas RMP 

(Appendix) Lease 

Stipulations, Oil 

and Gas Leasing, 

Randolph Air Force 

Base, Texas

NSO permitted. Pooling of minerals or extraction of 

minerals via slant drilling or other methods is 

permitted provided that such activity does not 

detrimentally impact the flying training mission at 

Randolph Air Force Base, Texas. The 12th Civil 

Engineer Squadron,

Randolph Air Force Base, Texas 78150-4513 must 

approve all drilling locations before the BLM 

approves any applications for permits to drill.

Texas RMP 

(Appendix) Lease 

Stipulations, Oil 

and Gas Leasing, 

Seguin Air Force 

Auxiliary Airfield, 

Texas

NSO permitted. Pooling of minerals or extraction of 

minerals via slant drilling or other methods is 

permitted provided that such activity does not 

detrimentally impact the flying training mission at 

Seguin Air Force Auxiliary Field. The 12th Civil 

Engineer Squadron, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas 

78150-4513 must approve all drilling locations before 

the BLM approves any applications for permits to 

drill.

Oklahoma Resource 

Management Plan 

Amendment and 

Record of Decision 

(1996b)

The RMP 

amendment will 

incorporate the 

Lease Application 

Area (LAA) of 90 

acres of previously 

unleased federal 

coal and an existing 

adjacent lease area 

which covers 100 

acres into the landuse plan.

Appendix A, Lease Stipulations

1. The lands described below may be mined using 

surface or subsurface mining techniques. The plan area 

consists of 190 acres in LeFlore County, Oklahoma, and 

is described as follows:

IM, T.9 N., R.24 E., Section 3, NE1⁄4 NE1⁄4, 

NW1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4. 

5. If it is impractical to relocate any ROW, mining will 

be prohibited within the ROW and within a 100-foot 

buffer zone outside the ROW (100 feet on either side of 

the ROW boundaries). Relocation approval of both the 

holder and issuing parties involved in the ROW is 

required to be filed with the District Manager unless 

included with the mining permit application package.

6. The coal lessee will consult with the owners of 

occupied dwellings and maintain or, with the owner’s 

written consent, adjust a designated 300-foot buffer 

zone. Consent to mine is required to be filed with the 

District Manager unless included with the mining 

permit application package.

7. Before undertaking any activities that may disturb the 

surface of the leased lands, the lessee shall conduct a 

cultural resource intensive field inventory in a manner 
3. Current Management Direction

3-76 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

specified by the authorized officer of the BLM on 

portions of the mine plan area that may be adversely

affected by lease related activities, and that were not 

previously approved by the authorized officer of the 

surface managing agency (or the BLM if the surface is 

privately owned). Lessee shall submit the results of such 

surveys to the Tulsa District, BLM.

8. The lessee shall protect all cultural resource 

properties within the lease area from lease-related 

activities until the cultural resource mitigation measures 

can be implemented as part of an approved mining and 

reclamation plan or exploration plan. The cost of 

conducting the inventory, preparing reports, and 

carrying out mitigation measures shall be borne by the 

lessee. If cultural resource are discovered during 

operations under this lease, the lessee shall immediately 

bring them to the attention of the Regional Director (or 

the District Manager if activities are associated with 

coal exploration outside an approved mining permit 

area), or the authorized officer of the surface managing 

agency if the Regional Director, or District Manager, as 

appropriate, is not available. The lessee shall not disturb 

such resources except as may be subsequently 

authorized by the Regional Director (or the District 

Mining Supervisor if activities are associated with coal 

exploration outside an approved mining permit area). 

With two working days of notification, the Regional 

Director (or the District Manager, if activities are 

associated with coal exploration outside an approved 

mining permit area) will evaluate or have evaluated any 

cultural resources discovered and will determine if any 

action may be required to protect or preserve such 

discoveries. The cost of data recovery for cultural 

resources discovered during lease operations shall be 

borne by the surface managing agency unless otherwise 

specified by the authorized officer of the BLM. All 

cultural resources shall remain under the jurisdiction of 

the United States until ownership is determined under 

applicable law.

9. The lessee shall not knowingly disturb, alter, destroy, 

or take any larger and more conspicuous fossils or 

significant scientific interest, and shall protect all such 

fossils in conformance with the measures included in 

the approval of the mining and reclamation plan or 

exploration plan. The lessee shall immediately bring 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-77

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

any such fossils that might be altered or destroyed by 

the lessee’s operation to the attention of the Regional 

Director or the District Manager, as appropriate. 

Operations may continue as long as the fossil specimen 

or specimens would not be seriously damaged or 

destroyed by the activity. The Regional Director or the 

District Manager, as appropriate, shall evaluate or have 

evaluated such discoveries brought to the Director or 

Manager’s attention and, within five working days, shall 

notify the lessee what action shall be taken with respect 

to such discoveries. All such fossils of significant 

scientific interest shall remain under the jurisdiction of 

the United States until ownership is determined under 

applicable law. Copies of all paleontological resource 

data generated as a result of the lease term requirements 

will be provided to the Regional Director or the District 

Manager, as appropriate. The cost of any required 

salvage of such fossils shall be borne by the United 

States. These conditions apply to all such fossils of 

significant scientific interest discovered within the lease 

area whether discovered in the overburden, interburden, 

or coal seam or seams.

Oklahoma RMP 

(Federal Coal 

Tracts in Oklahoma 

Acceptable for 

Further 

Consideration for 

Leasing—

Exceptions, 

Stipulation 

Application and 

Mitigation)

COAL LEASE STIPULATION I (CLS-I). ROW: If it is 

impractical to relocate the ROW, mining will be 

prohibited in the ROW and to within a 100-foot buffer 

zone from the outside of the ROW. Relocation approval 

of both the holder and issuing parties involved in the 

ROW would be required.

Applies to the following areas in Oklahoma:

 Bache Area

 Blocker Area

 Buck Creek Mountain Area

 Cavanal West Area

 Coalgate Area

 Heavener Area

 Howe Area

 Lehigh Area

 McCurtain Area

 Morgan Mountain Area

 Rock Island Area

 Spiro-Bokoshe Area

 Wilbueron-Red Oak Area

 Wister Area
3. Current Management Direction

3-78 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Amendment and 

Decision Record for 

Three Competitive 

Coal Lease Sales in 

Haskell, Latimer, 

and LeFlore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma (2004)

Neither the 1994 

RMP nor the 

amendment 

prepared in 1996 

addressed the areas

that are the subject 

of this RMPA. 

Lands already 

considered in the 

1994 Oklahoma 

RMP, and as 

amended in 1996, 

are not addressed.

Existing Stipulations

Coal Lease Stipulation 1 (CLS-1) ROW: If it is 

impractical to relocate the ROW, mining will be 

prohibited within the ROW and to within a 100-foot 

buffer zone from the outside of the ROW. Relocation 

approval of both the holder and issuing parties involved 

in the ROW would be required.

Oklahoma RMP 

(Federal Coal 

Tracts in Oklahoma 

Acceptable for 

Further 

Consideration for 

Leasing—

Exceptions, 

Stipulation 

Application and 

Mitigation)

COAL LEASE STIPULATION 2 (CLS-2). 

DWELLINGS: The coal lessee will consult with the 

owners of occupied dwellings and maintain or, with the 

owner’s written consent, adjust the designated 300-foot 

buffer zone.

Applies to the following areas in Oklahoma:

 Bache Area

 Blocker Area

 Buck Creek Mountain Area

 Coalgate Area

 Heavener Area

 Howe Area

 Lehigh Area

 Morgan Mountain Area

 Rock Island Area

 Spiro-Bokoshe Area

 Wilbueron-Red Oak Area

 Wister Area

Amendment and 

Decision Record for 

Three Competitive 

Existing Stipulations

Coal Lease Stipulation 2 (CLS-2) Dwellings: The coal 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-79

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Coal Lease Sales in 

Haskell, Latimer, 

and LeFlore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma (2004)

Neither the 1994 

RMP nor the 

amendment 

prepared in 1996 

addressed the areas 

that are the subject 

of this RMPA. 

Lands already 

considered in the 

1994 Oklahoma 

RMP, and as 

amended in 1996, 

are not addressed.

lessee will consult with the owners of occupied 

dwellings and will maintain or, with the owner’s written 

consent, adjust the designated 300-foot buffer zone.

Oklahoma RMP 

(Federal Coal 

Tracts in Oklahoma 

Acceptable for 

Further 

Consideration for 

Leasing—

Exceptions, 

Stipulation 

Application and 

Mitigation)

COAL LEASE STIPULATION 3 (CLS-3). WETLAND 

PROTECTION: All or portions of the lands under this 

lease contain wetland and/or riparian areas. The lessee 

will not conduct surface-disturbing activities on these 

areas without the specific approval, in writing, of the 

authorized officer. Impacts or disturbance to wetlands 

and riparian habitats which occur on this lease, must be 

avoided, minimized or compensated. The mitigation 

goal will be no net loss of in-kind habitats. The 

mitigation shall be developed in cooperation with 

appropriate state and federal agencies.

The wetland/riparian stipulation is mandated by 

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, of 

May 24, 1977.

Applies to the following areas in Oklahoma:

 Bache Area

 Blocker Area

 Buck Creek Mountain Area

 Cavanal West Area

 Coalgate Area

 Heavener Area

 Howe Area

 Lehigh Area
3. Current Management Direction

3-80 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

 McCurtain Area

 Morgan Mountain Area

 Rock Island Area

 Spiro-Bokoshe Area

 Wilbueron-Red Oak Area

 Wister Area

Oklahoma Resource 

Management Plan 

Amendment and 

Record of Decision 

(1996b)

The RMP 

amendment will 

incorporate the 

Lease Application 

Area (LAA) of 90 

acres of previously 

unleased federal 

coal and an existing 

adjacent lease area 

which covers 100 

acres into the landuse plan.

CLS-3 (Wetland Protection) will be modified to read as 

follows:

All or portions of the lands under this lease contain 

wetland and/or riparian areas. The lessee will not 

conduct surface-disturbing activities on these areas 

without the specific approval, in writing, of the 

authorized officer. Impacts or disturbance to wetlands 

and riparian habitat which occur on this lease, must be 

avoided, minimized or compensated. The mitigation 

goal will be no net loss of in-kind habitats. The 

mitigation shall be developed in cooperation with 

appropriate state and federal agencies. All proposals to 

divert stream channels must receive specific 

concurrence from the BLM. 

Amendment and 

Decision Record for 

Three Competitive 

Coal Lease Sales in 

Haskell, Latimer, 

and LeFlore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma (2004)

Neither the 1994 

RMP nor the 

amendment 

prepared in 1996 

addressed the areas 

that are the subject 

of this RMPA. 

Lands already 

considered in the 

1994 Oklahoma 

RMP, and as 

Existing Stipulations

Coal Lease Stipulation 3 (CLS-3) Wetland Protection: 

All or portions of the lands under this lease contain 

wetland and/or riparian areas. The lessee will not 

conduct surface-disturbing activities on these areas 

without the specific approval, in writing, of the 

authorized officer. Impacts on or disturbance of 

wetlands and riparian habitats, which occur on this 

lease, must be avoided, minimized, or compensated. 

The mitigation goal will be no net loss of in-kind 

habitats. The mitigation shall be developed in 

cooperation with appropriate State and federal agencies. 

The wetland/riparian stipulation is mandated by 

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, of May 

24, 1977.
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-81

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

amended in 1996, 

are not addressed.

Oklahoma RMPA 

and Decision 

Record for Federal 

Coal Leases in 

Haskell and Leflore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma (2014)

The planning area 

this RMPA applies 

to is the McCurtain 

Area (1,300.62 

acres), the Milton 

Area (290.00 acres), 

the Spiro Area (790 

acres), and the 

Liberty Area (1,620 

acres). 

The planning areas 

are outside of areas 

designated as 

available for coal 

leasing in the RMP 

(1994) or its 

amendments.

Forested, emergent, or riverine wetlands deemed 

important by the BLM and USFWS have been 

identified during the Unsuitability Analysis. The BLM 

would attach the CLS for wetlands, USGS mapped 

streams, and riparian zones (CLS-3) to new coal leases 

as stated in Section 2.4.4. Riparian zones have been

incorporated as a 100-foot buffer applied to mapped 

wetlands and streams. 

Oklahoma RMP 

(Federal Coal 

Tracts in Oklahoma 

Acceptable for 

Further 

Consideration for 

Leasing—

Exceptions, 

Stipulation 

Application and 

Mitigation)

CLS-4, American burying beetle protection: The lessee 

will not conduct surface-disturbing lease activities 

which will result in unacceptable impacts to the 

American burying beetle, a federally listed endangered 

species. The lessee may be required to arrange for a 

qualified biologist to conduct field surveys which could 

result in beetle removal and transplant efforts. Such 

transplant efforts must be accomplished no more than 

one year before surface-disturbing activities are to 

begin. Survey requirements, transplant efforts and 

Endangered Species Act coordination/consultation will 

be cooperatively accomplished with the USFWS. This 

stipulation would be attached to federal coal leases that 

occur in Bryan, Cherokee, Haskell, Latimer, LeFlore, 

Muskogee, Pittsburg, Sequoyah, and Tulsa counties.

Applies to the following areas in Oklahoma:
3. Current Management Direction

3-82 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

 Bache Area

 Blocker Area

 Buck Creek Mountain Area

 Cavanal West Area

 Heavener Area

 Howe Area

 McCurtain Area

 Morgan Mountain Area

 Rock Island Area

 Spiro-Bokoshe Area

 Wilbueron-Red Oak Area

 Wister Area

Oklahoma Resource 

Management Plan 

Amendment and 

Record of Decision 

(1996b)

The RMP 

amendment will 

incorporate the 

Lease Application 

Area (LAA) of 90 

acres of previously 

unleased federal 

coal and an existing 

adjacent lease area 

which covers 100 

acres into the landuse plan.

CLS-4 (American Burying Beetle Protection) will be 

modified to read as follows:

The lessee may be required to arrange for a qualified 

biologist to conduct field surveys for the federally 

endangered American burying beetles. Without a 

survey, no determination can be made about the effects 

of the action on this species. If American burying 

beetles are found during the survey, further consultation 

with the Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office of 

the USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act may be necessary. 

Resource 

Management Plan 

Amendment and 

Decision Record for 

Three Competitive 

Coal Lease Sales in 

Haskell, Latimer, 

and LeFlore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma (2004)

Neither the 1994 

RMP nor the 

amendment 

The 1994 RMP includes one Coal Lease Stipulation 

(CLS-4) for protection of the American burying beetle 

(Nicrophorus americanus), a federally listed 

endangered species. The stipulation prohibits surfacedisturbing activities that would result in unacceptable 

impacts on the American burying beetle. The stipulation 

is specifically attached to leases in Bryan, Cherokee, 

Haskell, Latimer, LeFlore, Muskogee, Pittsburg, 

Sequoyah, and Tulsa Counties. As such, this stipulation 

would apply to the three current LAAs.
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-83

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

prepared in 1996 

addressed the areas 

that are the subject 

of this RMPA. 

Lands already 

considered in the 

1994 Oklahoma 

RMP, and as 

amended in 1996, 

are not addressed.

Amendment and 

Decision Record for 

Three Competitive 

Coal Lease Sales in 

Haskell, Latimer, 

and LeFlore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma (2004)

Neither the 1994 

RMP nor the 

amendment 

prepared in 1996 

addressed the areas 

that are the subject 

of this RMPA. 

Lands already 

considered in the 

1994 Oklahoma 

RMP, and as 

amended in 1996, 

are not addressed.

Existing Stipulations

CLS-4, American Burying Beetle Protection: The lessee 

will not conduct surface-disturbing lease activities that 

will result in unacceptable impacts on the American 

burying beetle, a federally listed endangered species. 

The lessee may be required to arrange for a qualified 

biologist to conduct field surveys that could result in 

beetle removal and transplant efforts. Such transplant 

efforts must be accomplished no more than one year 

before surface-disturbing activities are to begin. Survey 

requirements, transplant efforts, and Endangered 

Species Act coordination/consultation will be 

accomplished cooperatively with the USFWS. This 

stipulation would be attached to federal coal leases, 

which occur in Bryan, Cherokee, Haskell, Latimer, 

LeFlore, Muskogee, Pittsburg, Sequoyah, and Tulsa 

Counties.

Oklahoma RMPA 

and Decision 

Record for Federal 

Coal Leases in 

Haskell and Leflore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma (2014)

The planning area 

this RMPA applies 

to is the McCurtain 

Area (1,300.62 

acres), the Milton 

CLS–5—Cultural Resources: Before undertaking any 

activities that may disturb the surface of the leased 

lands, the lessee shall conduct a cultural resource 

intensive field inventory in a manner specified by the 

Authorized Officer of the BLM or of the surfacemanaging agency, if different, on portions of the mineplan area and adjacent areas, or exploration area, that 

may be adversely affected by lease-related activities 

and that were not previously inventoried at such a 

level of intensity. The inventory shall be conducted by 

a qualified archaeologist, historian, or historical 

architect, as appropriate, approved by the Authorized 

Officer of the surface-managing agency, or by the 
3. Current Management Direction

3-84 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Area (290.00 acres), 

the Spiro Area (790 

acres), and the 

Liberty Area (1,620 

acres). 

The planning area 

are outside of areas 

designated as 

available for coal 

leasing in the RMP 

(1994) or its 

amendments.

BLM, if the surface is privately owned, and a report of 

the inventory and recommendations for protecting any 

cultural resources identified shall be submitted to the 

Assistant Director of the Midcontinent Region of the 

OSM, the Authorized Officer of the BLM if activities 

are associated with coal exploration outside an 

approved mining permit area, and the Authorized 

Officer of the surface-managing agency, if different. 

The lessee shall undertake measures, in accordance 

with instructions from the Assistant Director, or 

Authorized Officer, to protect cultural resources on the 

leased lands. The lessee shall not commence the 

surface-disturbing activities until permission to 

proceed is given by the Assistant Director or 

Authorized Officer. The lessee shall protect all cultural 

resource properties within the lease area from leaserelated activities until the cultural resource mitigation 

measures can be implemented as part of the approved 

mining and reclamation or exploration plan. The cost 

of conducting the inventory, preparing reports, and 

carrying out mitigation measures shall be borne by the 

lessee. If cultural resources are discovered during 

operations under this lease, the lessee shall 

immediately bring them to the attention of the 

Assistant Director or Authorized Officer, or the 

Authorized Officer of the surface-managing agency, if 

the Assistant Director is not available. The lessee shall 

not disturb such resources except as may be 

subsequently authorized by the Assistant Director or 

Authorized Officer. Within two working days of 

notification, the Assistant Director or Authorized 

Officer will evaluate or have evaluated any cultural 

resources discovered and will determine if any action 

may be required to protect or preserve such 

discoveries. The cost of data recovery for cultural 

resources discovered during lease operations shall be 

borne by the surface-managing agency unless 

otherwise specified by the Authorized Officer of the 

BLM or of the surface-managing agency, if different. 

All cultural resources shall remain under the 

jurisdiction of the United States until ownership is 

determined under applicable law.

Amendment and 

Decision Record for 

Three Competitive 

Standard Stipulation for Cultural Resources

The BLM employs a standard overall stipulation for 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-85

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Coal Lease Sales in 

Haskell, Latimer, 

and LeFlore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma (2004)

Neither the 1994 

RMP nor the 

amendment 

prepared in 1996 

addressed the areas 

that are the subject 

of this RMPA. 

Lands already 

considered in the 

1994 Oklahoma 

RMP, and as 

amended in 1996, 

are not addressed.

cultural resources that is not stated specifically in the 

1994 RMP. The standard stipulation for cultural 

resources states the following.

CLS–5, Cultural Resources: Before undertaking any 

activities that may disturb the surface of the leased 

lands, the lessee shall conduct a cultural resource 

intensive field inventory in a manner specified by the 

authorized officer of the BLM or of the surface 

managing agency, if different, on portions of the mine 

plan area and adjacent areas, or exploration area, that 

may be adversely affected by lease-related activities and 

that were not previously inventoried at such a level of 

intensity. The inventory shall be conducted by a 

qualified archaeologist, historian, or historical architect, 

as appropriate, approved by the authorized officer of the 

surface-managing agency (or by the BLM, if the surface 

is privately owned), and a report of the inventory and 

recommendations for protecting any cultural resources 

identified shall be submitted to the Manager, Program 

Support Division, Mid-Continent Coordinating Center 

(PSD manager) of the OSM, the authorized officer of 

the BLM, if activities are associated with coal 

exploration outside an approved mining permit area 

(hereinafter called authorized officer), and the 

authorized officer of the surface managing agency, if 

different. The lessee shall undertake measures, in 

accordance with instructions from the PSD manager, or 

authorized officer, to protect cultural resources on the 

leased lands. The lessee shall not commence the 

surface-disturbing activities until permission to proceed 

is given by the PSD manager or authorized officer. The 

lessee shall protect all cultural resource properties 

within the lease area from lease-related activities until 

the cultural resource mitigation measures can be 

implemented as part of approved mining and 

reclamation or exploration plan.

The cost of conducting the inventory, preparing reports, 

and carrying out mitigation measures shall be borne by 

the lessee.

If cultural resources are discovered during operations 

under this lease, the lessee shall immediately bring them 

to the attention of the PSD manager or authorized 
3. Current Management Direction

3-86 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

officer, or the authorized officer of the surface 

managing agency, if the PSD manager is not available. 

The lessee shall not disturb such resources except as 

may be subsequently authorized by the PSD manager or 

authorized officer. Within two working days of 

notification, the PSD manager or authorized officer will 

evaluate or have evaluated any cultural resources 

discovered and will determine if any action may be 

required to protect or preserve such discoveries. The 

cost of data recovery for cultural resources discovered 

during lease operations shall be borne by the surfacemanaging agency unless otherwise specified by the 

authorized officer of the BLM or of the surface 

managing agency, if different.

All cultural resources shall remain under the jurisdiction 

of the United States until ownership is determined under 

applicable law.

Oklahoma RMPA 

and Decision 

Record for Federal 

Coal Leases in 

Haskell and Leflore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma (2014)

The planning area 

this RMPA applies 

to is the McCurtain 

Area (1,300.62 

acres), the Milton 

Area (290.00 acres), 

the Spiro Area (790 

acres), and the 

Liberty Area (1,620 

acres). 

The planning area is 

outside of areas 

designated as 

available for coal 

leasing in the RMP 

(1994) or its 

amendments.

CLS–6—Migratory Bird Habitat: If surface-disturbing 

activities occur between March 1 and July 30, surveys 

for ground- and tree-nesting birds will be conducted by 

an entity approved by the BLM field office staff. If 

active nests are encountered, surfacing disturbing 

activities will be delayed until the nesting activities are 

complete. Concurrence by the USFWS Oklahoma 

Ecological Services Office will be required for 

compliance. 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-87

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Amendment and 

Decision Record for 

Three Competitive 

Coal Lease Sales in 

Haskell, Latimer, 

and LeFlore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma (2004)

Neither the 1994 

RMP nor the 

amendment 

prepared in 1996 

addressed the areas 

that are the subject 

of this RMPA. 

Lands already 

considered in the 

1994 Oklahoma 

RMP, and as 

amended in 1996, 

are not addressed.

Stipulation Identified Through the Coal Screen

CLS-6, Floodplains: Floodplains (100-year recurrence 

interval) have been mapped by the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency for the Bull Hill LAA. The 

leaseholder must receive a floodplain permit from the 

county floodplain administrator. The leaseholder must 

correspond with both the floodplain administrator and 

the ODM to make any necessary modification to 

achieve the floodplain permit. 

The Liberty West and McCurtain LAAs lie within areas 

that are unmapped by the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency for floodplains. As such, within 

the Liberty West LAA a 100-foot buffer zone (200-foot 

total) would be applied to perennial and intermittent 

streams. Mining would not be allowed within this buffer 

zone unless approval is obtained from the county 

floodplain administrator. Mining within the McCurtain 

LAA would be conducted in accordance with SMCRA 

and 30 CFR, Part 817.57 (hydrologic balance: stream 

buffer zones). As such, no land within 100 feet of a 

perennial stream or an intermittent stream shall be 

disturbed by underground mining activities, unless the 

regulatory authority specifically authorizes underground 

mining activities closer to, or through, such a stream.

Amendment and 

Decision Record for 

Three Competitive 

Coal Lease Sales in 

Haskell, Latimer, 

and LeFlore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma (2004)

Neither the 1994 

RMP nor the 

amendment 

prepared in 1996 

addressed the areas 

that are the subject 

of this RMPA. 

Lands already 

considered in the 

1994 Oklahoma 

Stipulation Identified Through the Coal Screen

CLS-7, Municipal Watersheds: The Bull Hill LAA lies 

within the municipal watershed for the city of Poteau. 

Leasing must be coordinated with the Poteau Valley 

Improvement Authority, which provides water to 

Poteau, and agreements must be made with the 

authorized officer to allow surface mining to occur in 

this watershed.
3. Current Management Direction

3-88 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

RMP, and as 

amended in 1996, 

are not addressed.

Amendment and 

Decision Record for 

Three Competitive 

Coal Lease Sales in 

Haskell, Latimer, 

and LeFlore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma (2004)

Neither the 1994 

RMP nor the 

amendment 

prepared in 1996 

addressed the areas 

that are the subject 

of this RMPA. 

Lands already 

considered in the 

1994 Oklahoma 

RMP, and as 

amended in 1996, 

are not addressed.

Stipulation Identified Through the Coal Screen

CLS-8, Wister Wildlife Management Area: Leasing 

within the Wister Wildlife Management Area must be 

coordinated with the USACE and ODWC or authorized 

officer. If leasing agreements cannot be reached, no 

surface mining would be allowed in the Wister Wildlife 

Management Area.

Resource 

Management Plan 

Amendment and 

Decision Record for 

Three Competitive 

Coal Lease Sales in 

Haskell, Latimer, 

and LeFlore 

Counties, 

Oklahoma (2004)

Neither the 1994 

RMP nor the 

amendment 

prepared in 1996 

addressed the areas 

that are the subject 

of this RMPA. 

Lands already 

considered in the 

The Wister Wildlife Management Area covers a total of 

35,500 acres of central LeFlore and eastern Latimer 

Counties in southeastern Oklahoma. It is located around 

the 7,000-acre Wister Lake, along and on either side of 

Highway 59 and 271 South, and south of the towns of 

Wister and Heavener. Provisions for development 

around the Wister Wildlife Management Area are 

defined by the 1994 RMP. NSO is allowed in 

approximately 23,070 acres around the lake as buffers 

for recreational facilities, roads, trails, and other 

developments and within the identified flood pool. 

Leasing within the Wister Wildlife Management Area 

must be coordinated with the USACE and ODWC. 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-89

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

1994 Oklahoma 

RMP, and as 

amended in 1996, 

are not addressed. 

Oklahoma Resource 

Management Plan 

Amendment and 

Record of Decision 

(1996b)

The RMP 

amendment will 

incorporate into the 

land use plan the 

LAA of 90 acres of 

previously unleased 

federal coal and an 

existing adjacent 

lease area that 

covers 100 acres.

Action

The Decision (Preferred Alternative) is to amend the

Oklahoma RMP to include a 190-acre area described as 

IM, T.9 N., R.24 E., Section 3 I.M., NE1⁄4NE/1⁄4, 

NW1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 

NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4.

Oklahoma Resource 

Management Plan 

Amendment and 

Record of Decision 

(1996b)

The RMP 

amendment will 

incorporate into the 

land use plan the 

LAA of 90 acres of 

previously unleased 

federal coal and an 

existing adjacent 

lease area which 

covers 100 acres.

Non-Suitable Areas

A 50-foot ROW for a 161 kV power line, 100-foot 

buffers on each side of Cache Creek, and buffer east of 

the highway on the west side of the tract have been 

designated unsuitable for surface mining. 

Oklahoma Resource 

Management Plan 

Amendment and 

Record of Decision 

(1996b)

The RMP 

amendment will 

incorporate into the 

Multiple Use Decision

The Oklahoma RMP designated areas acceptable for 

further consideration for leasing. Implementing the 

action would then include this LAA into the previous 

decisions, making the LAA available for further 

consideration for leasing. 
3. Current Management Direction

3-90 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

land use plan the 

LAA of 90 acres of 

previously unleased 

federal coal and an 

existing adjacent 

lease area which 

covers 100 acres.

Oklahoma Resource 

Management Plan 

Amendment and 

Record of Decision 

(1996b)

incorporate into the 

land use plan the 

LAA of 90 acres of 

previously unleased 

federal coal and an 

existing adjacent 

lease area which 

covers 100 acres.

Surface Owner Consultation and Consent

The surface of the LAA is entirely under private 

ownership. Any surface owned by a qualified surface 

owner could not be included in a lease sale without 

written consent. 

W

O

-

E

S

A

-

7

The lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, 

animals, or their habitats determined to be threatened or

endangered or other special status species. The BLM 

may recommend modifying exploration and 

development proposals to further its conservation and 

management objective to avoid BLM-approved activity 

that will contribute to a need to list such a species or its

habitat. The BLM may require modifications to or 

disapprove a proposed activity that is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed or 

listed threatened or endangered species or to result in 

the destruction or adverse modification of a designated 

or proposed critical habitat. The BLM will not approve 

any ground-disturbing activity that may affect any such 

species or critical habitat until it completes its 

obligations under applicable requirements of the 

Endangered Species Act as amended, 16 USC, Section

1531 et seq., including completion of any required 

procedure for conference or consultation.

WO-NHPA A lease may be found to contain historic properties or 

resources protected under the NHPA, the American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Executive 

Order 13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-91

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

BLM will not approve any ground-disturbing activities 

that may affect any such properties or resources until it 

completes its obligations (e.g., SHPO and tribal 

consultation) under applicable requirements of the 

NHPA and other authorities. The BLM may require 

modification to exploration or development proposals to 

protect such properties, or it may disapprove any 

activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that 

could not be successfully avoided, minimized, or 

mitigated.

3.3.2 Locatable Minerals

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Texas Proposed 

RMPA and 

Environmental 

Assessment, 2000 

(Affected 

Environment—

portions from this 

section that describe 

management direction 

as they now exist on 

the Amarillo Field 

Office unit 

boundaries) 

The planning area this 

RMPA applies to is 

11,833.80 acres of 

federal surface estate 

(Cross Bar property) 

and 38,256.18 acres 

of split-estate (private

surface over federal 

minerals) in Potter

County, north of 

Amarillo.

According to 30 USC, Section 22 (1982), lands 

acquired by the United States are not, by mere force 

of acquisition, open to disposal under the public land 

laws. In absence of specific statutory authority to the 

contrary, acquired land is not subject to location 

under the mining law. Acquired lands, according to 

43 USC, Section 1571 (1982) administered by the 

BLM are not subject to appropriation unless and until 

opening orders are duly noted on the land records.
3. Current Management Direction

3-92 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

3.3.3 Recreation and Visitor Services

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Oklahoma 

Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS 

Continuing 

Management 

Guidance

The Red River Management Area would be classified as 

an extensive recreation management area. As public land 

is identified it becomes available for dispersed recreation 

activities, including hunting, fishing, sightseeing, 

horseback riding, hiking, and rafting, consistent with 

limitations necessary to meet other resource management 

objectives. Provision for opportunities accessible by car 

and close to population centers are emphasized. 

Texas Proposed 

RMPA and 

Environmental 

Assessment, 2000 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance) 

The planning area 

this RMPA 

applies to is 

11,833.80 acres of 

federal surface 

estate (Cross Bar 

property) and 

38,256.18 acres of 

split-estate 

(private surface 

over federal 

minerals) in Potter

County, north of 

Amarillo.

The FLPMA provides for management of outdoor 

recreation on public lands. Section 202(c)(9) calls for land 

use planning consistent with statewide outdoor recreation 

plans. Recreation use is managed in order to protect the 

health and safety of visitors and to protect natural, 

cultural, and other resource values to facilitate public 

enjoyment of public lands and to resolve user conflicts. 

Providing opportunities for unconfined recreation close to 

major urban areas is stressed.

Texas Proposed 

RMPA and 

Environmental 

Assessment, 2000 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance) 

The planning area 

this RMPA 

applies to is 

11,833.80 acres of 

federal surface 

The outdoor recreation program uses the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum as a basic tool for inventory and 

management to ensure the general public the continued 

variety of quality recreational opportunities. 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-93

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

estate (Cross Bar 

property) and 

38,256.18 acres of 

split-estate 

(private surface 

over federal 

minerals) in Potter

County, north of 

Amarillo.

Texas Proposed 

RMPA and 

Environmental 

Assessment, 2000 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance) 

The planning area 

this RMPA 

applies to is 

11,833.80 acres of 

federal surface 

estate (Cross Bar 

property) and 

38,256.18 acres of 

split-estate 

(private surface 

over federal 

minerals) in Potter

County, north of 

Amarillo.

Recreation resources are also evaluated on a case-bycase basis as a part of project level planning. Such 

evaluation considers the significance of the proposed 

project and the sensitivity of recreation resources in the 

affected area. Stipulations are attached as appropriate to 

ensure compatibility of projects with recreation 

management objectives.

Texas Proposed 

RMPA and 

Environmental 

Assessment, 2000 

(Continuing 

Management 

Guidance) 

The planning area 

this RMPA 

applies to is 

11,833.80 acres of 

federal surface 

estate (Cross Bar 

The use of off-road vehicles on BLM-administered land 

is regulated in accordance with the authority and 

requirements of Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 and 

regulations contained in 43 CFR, Part 8340. These 

regulations and Executive Orders require that off-road 

vehicle use not cause significant adverse impacts to 

resource values, that conflicts between visitors be 

minimized, and that public hazards are identified and 

public safety is promoted.
3. Current Management Direction

3-94 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

property) and 

38,256.18 acres of 

split-estate 

(private surface 

over federal 

minerals) in Potter

County, north of 

Amarillo.

Texas Proposed 

RMPA and 

Environmental 

Assessment, 2000 

(Alternative B.—

Retention and 

Management of 

Public Lands in 

Potter County, 

Texas (Preferred 

Alternative)) 

The planning area 

this RMPA applies 

to is 11,833.80 

acres of federal 

surface estate 

(Cross Bar 

property) and 

38,256.18 acres of 

split-estate (private

surface over 

federal minerals) 

in Potter County, 

north of Amarillo.

Note—The 

decision detailed 

here is an action of 

the preferred 

alternative, which 

is assumed to be 

the selected 

alternatives (no 

ROD provided for 

this Proposed 

RMPA).

Proposed Action (treated as decisions)

Develop a cooperative resource management plan for the 

Management of the Cross Bar property. Under this 

cooperative resource management plan, public use of the 

public lands will be a priority.
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-95

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Texas Proposed 

RMPA and 

Environmental 

Assessment, 2000 

(Affected 

Environment—

portions from this 

section that 

describe 

management 

direction as they 

now exist on the 

Amarillo Field 

Office unit 

boundaries) 

The planning area 

this RMPA 

applies to is 

11,833.80 acres of 

federal surface 

estate (Cross Bar 

property) and 

38,256.18 acres of 

split-estate 

(private surface 

over federal 

minerals) in Potter

County, north of 

Amarillo.

There exists a memorandum of understanding between the 

National Park Service and the BLM. It gives the National 

Park Service management and supervisory authority over 

all surface uses, including recreational uses, on 6,975 

acres of the subject BLM-administered lands. The 

memorandum of understanding was renewed on January 

28, 1999, for a term of five years with either agency 

having the right of termination on 60 days written notice 

to the local management of the other agency.

3.3.4 Lands and Realty

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Kansas RMP

Planning Analysis 

for Proposed 

Disposal of Public 

Lands in Kansas, 

prepared in 1987, 

and the 

Supplemental 

Planning Analysis 

Decision to transfer title of the isolated tracts of BLMmanaged federal surface estate to other than federal 

ownership. There may also be additional tracts of public 

land situated within the state that are presently unidentified 

due to deficiencies in existing land status records.

Any unidentified tracts detected will be disposed of 

through procedures outlined in 43 CFR, Part 2710, Sales, 

or 43 CFR, Part 2740. If at some future date, abandoned 

rail road corridors revert to federal ownership, the 
3. Current Management Direction

3-96 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

for Proposed 

Disposal of Public 

Lands in Kansas, 

completed in 

1988. 

corridors in question would be evaluated for potential rails 

to trails projects with full public participation as required 

by law.

Oklahoma 

Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS 

Continuing 

Management 

Guidance

Red River Management Area —The precise limit of the 

boundary of the Red River Management Area has yet to be 

determined. 

Oklahoma RMP 

(The RMP for 

Issues 3. Townsite 

Disposal)

Under the RMP, the BLM would pursue disposal of all 

townsite reserves. Townsite reserves in incorporated towns 

or cities would be transferred to those towns or cities that 

desire such a transfer. The remaining parcels would then 

be offered based on the “needs of Federal, state, and local 

governments, adjoining landowners, historical uses, and 

competitive interests.” This would result in first making 

these parcels available to other federal agencies, followed 

respectively by offerings to the State of Oklahoma, and 

then local government entities that are in vicinity of the 

lands for augmentation or implementation of their specific 

missions. The lands would next be offered to adjoining 

landowners, and finally to individuals and the general 

public. Disposal would be through sales, the Recreation 

and Public Purposes Act of 1976, and the Color-of-Title 

Act.

Texas Proposed 

RMPA and 

Environmental 

Assessment, 2000 

(Alternative B—

Retention and 

Management of 

Public Lands in 

Potter County, 

Texas (Preferred 

Alternative) 

The planning area 

this RMPA 

applies to is 

11,833.80 acres of 

federal surface 

estate (Cross Bar 

Proposed Action (treated as decisions)

Develop a cooperative resource management plan for the 

management of the Cross Bar property.

This cooperative resource management plan will include 

the following management principles and objectives:

A. No actions which conflict with the BLMs mission of 

storage and production of helium will be allowed.

B. Management of the public lands as one unit.

(1) The special use permit to the Department of the 

Navy will be canceled

(a) All structures, signs and Navy property 

will be removed and the lands returned to 

native condition

(b) Any future Marine Reserve use of 

public lands will be considered through the 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-97

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

property) and 

38,256.18 acres of 

split-estate 

(private surface 

over federal 

minerals) in Potter

County, north of 

Amarillo.

Note—The 

decision detailed 

here is an action 

of the preferred 

alternative, which 

is assumed to be 

the selected 

alternative (no 

ROD was 

provided for this 

proposed RMPA). 

use of applications and temporary use 

permits

(2) The memorandum of understanding between 

the BLM and National Park Service concerning 

current management of the Cross Bar property will 

be canceled.

Texas Proposed 

RMPA and 

Environmental 

Assessment, 2000 

(Alternative B—

Retention and 

Management of 

Public Lands in 

Potter County, 

Texas (Preferred 

Alternative)

The planning area 

this RMPA 

applies to is 

11,833.80 acres of 

federal surface 

estate (Cross Bar 

property) and 

38,256.18 acres of 

split-estate 

(private surface 

over federal 

minerals) in Potter

County, north of 

Proposed Action (treated as decisions)

Develop a cooperative resource management plan for the 

management of the Cross Bar property. Adjacent 

landowners will be encouraged to participate in its 

development and implementation.
3. Current Management Direction

3-98 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Amarillo.

Note—The 

decision detailed 

here is an action 

of the preferred 

alternative, which 

is assumed to be 

the selected 

alternative (no 

ROD was 

provided for this 

Proposed RMPA). 

3.3.5 Livestock Grazing

Decision Source Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Oklahoma RMP 

Guidance

There are four active grazing leases being administered in 

Oklahoma. Three of these grazing leases lie along the north 

fork of the Red River: two in Tillman County and one in 

Jefferson County. The fourth grazing lease is on the South 

Canadian River in Blaine County.

3.4 BIA CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES

While the BIA manages according to federal and state laws and US Department of the 

Interior policies and guidelines, no planning level decisions have been identified for the 

BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regional Offices. All of the management 

described in the table below comes from policy. 

3.4.1 Air

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Indian Affairs 

Manual: Part 59, 

Chapter 1; 1.3, B. 

Environmental and 

Cultural Resources 

Management, 

Environmental 

Management

It is the policy of Indian Affairs to comply with all 

applicable federal, state, local and tribal environmental 

laws and regulations. 

Indian Affairs 

Manual: Part 59, 

Implement sustainable practices for energy efficiency, 

greenhouse gas emission reduction, renewable energy, 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-99

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Chapter 1; 1.3, C. 

Environmental and 

Cultural Resources 

Management, 

Environmental 

Management

water conservation, pollution and waste minimization, 

recycling, reduction or elimination of use of toxic or 

hazardous chemicals, petroleum products use 

reduction, and green purchasing, among others.

3.4.2 Climate

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Indian Affairs

Manual: Part 59, 

Chapter 1; 1.3, B. 

Environmental and 

Cultural Resources 

Management, 

Environmental 

Management

It is the policy of the BIA to comply with all applicable 

federal, state, local and tribal environmental laws and 

regulations. 

Indian Affairs 

Manual: Part 59, 

Chapter 1; 1.3, C. 

Environmental and 

Cultural Resources 

Management, 

Environmental 

Management

Implement sustainable practices for energy efficiency, 

greenhouse gas emission reduction, renewable energy, 

water conservation, pollution and waste minimization, 

recycling, reduction or elimination of use of toxic or 

hazardous chemicals, petroleum products use 

reduction, and green purchasing, among others.

3.4.3 Water Resources

There are minimal management decisions or policy guiding water resources management 

for BIA.

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Title 25—Indians, 

Chapter 1—BIA, 

Department of the 

Interior (Parts 1-

293), Subchapter 

H—Land and Water 

(Parts 150-183)

Regulation of with water leases, water runoff, livestock 

water developments, and irrigation water.
3. Current Management Direction

3-100 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

3.4.4 Vegetation

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Indian Affairs 

Manual: 53 Indian 

Affairs Manual

10—Woodland 

Management (BIA 

2006)

All woodlands on Indian forest lands shall be afforded 

the opportunity for effective management and protection 

through the application of sound silvicultural principles. 

Woodlands are a component of the overall forest 

resource, and are subject to all policies and standards 

relating to forest management on Indian lands. 

Woodland cover types include pinyon-juniper, nontimber oak, riparian, and others.

Indian Affairs 

Manual: 54 Indian 

Affairs Manual 7—

Management of 

Noxious Weeds on 

Indian Lands (BIA 

2014)

It is the policy of BIA to implement BIA programs with 

the goal of preventing the introduction and spread of 

noxious weeds, to monitor for and rapidly respond to the 

presence of noxious weeds, and to promote the 

restoration of native species and habitat conditions in 

ecosystems that have been impaired by noxious weed 

infestation. Noxious weed means a plant species that has 

been officially declared by a federal, state, tribal or 

county government entity to be injurious to native 

ecosystems and wildlife habitats, cropland and 

rangeland agriculture, and/or humans, livestock, and 

wildlife, and to be the target of recommended or 

mandatory management efforts.

25 CFR, Part 162—

Leases and Permits

A Restoration and Reclamation Plan is a required 

component of some leases of tribal land, including wind 

energy evaluation leases and wind and solar resource 

leases, and others. Restoration and reclamation 

plan means a plan that defines the reclamation, 

revegetation, restoration, and soil stabilization 

requirements for the project area, and requires the 

expeditious reclamation of construction areas and 

revegetation of disturbed areas to reduce invasive plant 

infestation and erosion.

n/a BIA indicated that they regularly conduct prescribed 

burning operations for fuels reduction/weed 

management/range improvement purposes. These 

treatments generally target Easter red cedar in the 

wildland/urban interface. Trees are cut, piled, and 

burned, followed by a broadcast burn the following 

season to target resprouts.1

 

1David Anderson, Regional Environmental Scientist, BIA, Southern Plains Regional Office, personal 

communication with Kevin Rice and Morgan Trieger, EMPSi, February 25, 2015.
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-101

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

10-Year Regional 

Fire Management 

Plan 2010-2020

The BIA’s Eastern Oklahoma Region and the tribes 

regularly conduct hazardous fuel reduction treatments,

as directed by the 10-year Regional Fire Management 

Plan 2010-2020. The Eastern Oklahoma Region has fire 

management plans for specific tribes as well.

Forest Management 

Plans (multiple 

plans)

The BIA Eastern Oklahoma Region and the tribes have 

prepared several forest management plans and NEPA 

documents to establish timber resource management 

goals and objectives and to define management practices 

and methods to achieve goals and objectives. Tribes that 

have prepared forest management plans in the planning 

area are the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, the 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, the Eastern Shawnee 

Tribe of Oklahoma, the Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma, and 

the Cherokee Nation (BIA 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 

2009e). Additionally, the BIA Southern Plains Region 

Anadarko Agency has prepared a draft forest 

management plan for the Wichita/Caddo/Delaware 

Reservation, the Kiowa/Commence/Apache 

Reservation, and the Fort Sill Apache Reservation (BIA 

2009f).

3.4.5 Fish and Wildlife

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Indian Affairs 

Manual: Part 56, 

Chapter 3. Fish, 

Wildlife, and 

Recreation Policies

The BIA will actively protect Indian fish, wildlife and 

outdoor recreation resources as trust assets, and assure 

that tribal input is obtained for all agency actions and 

decisions that may affect these assets. The BIA will 

protect against the loss, infringement and abrogation of 

hunting, fishing, gathering, and related rights guaranteed 

to federally-recognized tribes by the United States 

through treaty, statute or Executive Order and support 

fulfilling tribal co-management responsibilities 

associated with the exercise of such rights. It will also 

provide for the conservation, prudent management, 

enhancement, orderly development and wise use of fish, 

wildlife and outdoor recreation resources on which the 

meaningful exercise of hunting, fishing, gathering, and 

related rights depend and the implementation of 

associated resource management programs require.
3. Current Management Direction

3-102 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Indian Affairs 

Manual: Part 56, 

Chapter 3. Fish, 

Wildlife, and 

Recreation Policies

All Indian lands administered by the BIA which contain 

fish, wildlife, outdoor recreation, and tourism-related 

values suitable for management and development will 

have, with the consent and participation of the tribes, an 

active program for managing associated resources 

consistent with other land uses. To the maximum extent 

possible, this will be accomplished through direct tribal 

participation and capability development in the 

establishment and implementation of integrated resource 

management plans, codes, ordinances, regulations, 

harvest management programs, population and habitat 

management strategies, and other activities required for 

effective management.

3.4.6 Special Status Species

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Indian Affairs 

Manual: 59 Indian 

Affairs Manual 1—

Environmental and 

Cultural Resources 

Management—

Policy, 

Requirements, and 

Responsibilities 

Section 1.3 B: It is the policy of Indian Affairs to 

comply with all applicable federal, State, local and 

Tribal environmental laws and regulations. 

3.4.7 Cultural Resources

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Indian Affairs 

Manual: Part 59, 

Chapter 8—

Protection of 

Historical and 

Archaeological 

Resources. The 

manual is a basis 

reference source for 

BIA’s cultural 

It is the policy of BIA to ensure that, before approving 

or expending funds on a proposed federal undertaking, 

BIA: takes into account the effect the undertaking may 

have on any district, site, building, structure, or object 

that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places; manages the 

historic resources it owns; protects the archaeological 

resources on Trust lands; and enforces the prohibition 

against excavating, removing, or damaging 

archaeological resources on Indian trust lands without a 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-103

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

resource 

management 

program.

permit issued by BIA.

Indian Affairs 

Manual: Part 59, 

Chapter 9—Native 

American Graves 

Protection and 

Repatriation. General 

Native American 

Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act 

compliance 

procedures. 

A. Follow legal requirements and appropriate 

protocols when Native American human remains 

and funerary objects are intentionally excavated or 

inadvertently discovered on Indian lands, as 

defined in Section 3 of the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 USC, Section 

3002.

B. Ensure federal and non-federal repositories 

complete summaries, inventories, consultations, 

notices, and repatriations for cultural items in 

BIA’s possession or control, consistent with 

Sections 5-7 of the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 USC, Sections 

3003-3005.

C. Take action for the successful repatriation of all 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act cultural items within BIA’s 

possession or control.

25 CFR, Part 211: 

Leasing of Tribal 

Lands for Mineral 

Development

(211.7(b]): The Secretary shall ensure that all necessary 

surveys are performed and clearances obtained in 

accordance with 36 CFR, Parts 60, 63, and 800 and 

with the requirements of the Archaeological and 

Historic Preservation Act (16 USC, Section 469 et 

seq.), the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC, 

Section 470 et seq.), The American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act (42 USC, Section 1996), and Executive 

Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the 

Cultural Environment (3 CFR, Parts 1971 through 1975 

Comp., p. 559).

Application for 

Permit to Drill 

Process

Application for permit to drill process for oil and gas 

development, is integrated with Section 106 and tribal 

consultation process, requiring surveys for cultural 

resources. In most cases if a site is discovered it is 

avoided. 
3. Current Management Direction

3-104 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

3.4.8 Paleontological Resources

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Indian Affairs 

Manual: Part 59, 

Chapter 7—

Paleontological 

Resources

Describes BIA Policies for protecting fossils and 

permitting paleontological research on Indian lands. 

Before any person excavates or removes any imbedded 

fossil from Indian lands, BIA issue a permit under the 

authority of the Secretary of the Interior. No permit is 

required for exploration or surface collecting of nonimbedded fossils; however, these exempted activities 

are subject to tribal jurisdiction and/or landowner 

consent.

3.4.9 Visual Resources

There are no management decisions or policy guiding visual resource management.

Visual resources are encountered on a site-specific basis.

3.4.10 Wildland and Fire Management

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

National Fire Plan 

and Federal Wildland 

Fire Management 

Policy (1995) and the 

Federal Fire Policy 

Implementation 

Strategy (2003)

Manage fire for one or more objectives as they are 

affected by changes in fuels, weather, topography, 

social understanding and tolerance, and involvement 

of other governmental jurisdictions. The fire 

management priorities are 1) life and safety 

(firefighter and public), 2) property protection, 3) fire 

management and ecosystem sustainability

BIA Manual: Part 90, 

Chapter 1—Wildland 

Fire Management 

Policies and 

Responsibilities

The BIA will adhere to the following wildland 

policies: 

Safety—Firefighter and public safety is the first 

priority. 

Protection Priorities—Setting priorities among 

protecting human communities and community 

infrastructure, other property and improvements, and 

natural and cultural resources will be done based on 

the values to be protected, human health and safety, 

and the costs of protection.

Fire Management and Ecosystem Sustainability—The 

full range of fire management activities will be used to 

achieve ecosystem sustainability, including 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-105

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

interrelated ecological, economic, and social 

components. 

The appropriate management response is any specific 

action suitable to meet fire management unit 

objectives. Typically, the appropriate management 

response ranges across a spectrum of tactical options, 

from monitoring to intensive management actions. 

The appropriate management response is developed 

by using fire management unit strategies and 

objectives identified in the fire management plan.

The wildland fire situation analysis process is used to 

determine and document the suppression strategy from 

the full range of responses available for suppression 

operations. Suppression strategies are designed to 

meet the policy objectives of suppression. 

Wildland fire use is the result of a natural event. The 

land/resource management plan or the fire 

management plan will identify areas where the 

strategy of wildland fire use is suitable. The wildland 

fire implementation plan is the tool that examines the 

available response strategies to determine if a fire is 

being considered for wildland fire use. 

Federal Wildland and 

Prescribed Fire 

Management Policy 

Implementation 

Procedures Reference 

Guide

BIA Fuels 

Management Program 

Supplement to the 

Interagency 

Prescribed Fire 

Planning and 

Implementations 

Procedures—

Reference Guide 

2008

Hazardous fuels reduction treatments will be designed 

and implemented to reduce the risk and consequences 

of wildfire to communities and ecosystems. 

Hazardous fuels treatments may be used to restore and 

maintain healthy ecosystems. Hazardous fuels 

reduction should be planned and implemented in an 

interdisciplinary and collaborative manner with tribes 

and other federal, state and local partners. Herbicide 

use will adhere to EPA label requirements and 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Hazard Communication Standards.

Prevents deterioration of air quality and NAAQS 

violations and addresses visibility impacts to class 1 

federal areas, in accordance with regional air rules.

10-Year Regional 

Fire Management 

The BIA Eastern Oklahoma Region and the tribes 

regularly conduct hazardous fuel reduction treatments,
3. Current Management Direction

3-106 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Plan 2010-2020 as directed by the 10-Year Regional Fire Management 

Plan 2010-2020. There are also fire management plans

in the Eastern Oklahoma Region for specific tribes.

3.4.11 Energy and Minerals

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

25 USC, Section 

415 (1955), Leases 

of Restricted Lands 

for Public, 

Religious, 

Educational, 

Recreational, 

Residential, 

Business, and Other 

Purposes

Any restricted Indian lands, whether tribally or 

individually owned, may be leased by the Indian 

owners, with the approval of the Secretary of the 

Interior, for public, religious, educational, recreational, 

residential, or business purposes, including the 

development or use of natural resources in connection 

with operations under such leases, for grazing 

purposes, and for those farming purposes that require 

the making of a substantial investment in the 

improvement of the land for the production of 

specialized crops as determined by said Secretary. All 

leases so granted shall be for a primary term not to 

exceed 25 years and a single renewal period of up to 25 

years, except leases of land located in specifically 

delineated reservations.

25 CFR, Part 200 Terms and Conditions: Coal Leases

25 CFR, Part 211 Leasing of Tribal Lands for Mineral Development

25 CFR, Part 212 Leasing of Allotted Lands for Mineral Development

25 CFR, Part 213 Leasing of Restricted Lands of Members of Five 

Civilized Tribes, Oklahoma, for Mining

25 CFR, Part 214 Leasing of Osage Reservation Lands, Oklahoma, for 

Mining, Except Oil and Gas

25 CFR, Part 216 Surface Exploration, Mining, and Reclamation of 

Lands

25 CFR, Part 225 Oil and Gas, Geothermal, and Solid Minerals 

Agreements

25 CFR, Part 226 Leasing of Osage Reservation Lands for Oil and Gas 

Mining

BIA Fluid Mineral 

Estate Procedural 

Handbook (52 

Indian Affairs 

Manual X-H)

Details step-by-step procedures for each action 

necessary to accomplish management of the fluid 

mineral estate
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-107

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

3.4.12 Recreation and Visitor Services

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

BIA Manual, Part 

56, Chapter 1, 

Fish, Wildlife, and 

Recreation 

Authority and 

Responsibilities

The scope of BIA and tribal fish and wildlife 

management authority, jurisdiction, and responsibility 

varies by reservation and off-reservation case area, 

depending on land status and the language contained in 

individual treaties, Executive Orders, court rulings, 

resource-specific statutes, and other legal instruments. 

The BIA supports tribal needs and efforts in the areas of 

fisheries management, wildlife management, outdoor 

recreation management, and related fields. Tribes 

determine the specific scope of program activity for their 

respective reservations and programs 

(http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/public/

documents/text/idc-000453.pdf).

BIA Fish, 

Wildlife, and 

Recreation 

Program

The BIA Fish, Wildlife, and Recreation Program enables 

tribes the meaningful exercise of their treaty fishing, 

hunting, and gathering rights. Two of the five program 

elements directly relate to recreation. First, the Wildlife 

and Parks Program, distributes funding that is sub-allotted 

to tribes through a local priority setting process 

determined by the tribe and the BIA to fund tribal 

activities in the areas of fisheries, wildlife, outdoor 

recreation, and public use management, conservation 

enforcement, and related fields. Activities conducted are 

determined by tribes and cover a broad array of diverse 

fisheries, wildlife, conservation enforcement, public use, 

habitat management, and related programs. Tribes 

conduct program planning, implementation and 

evaluation, with BIA functions being primarily inherently 

federal. Second, the Tribal Management/Development 

Program assists with the management of tribal fish and 

game programs on Indian reservations. Tribal 

management activities are resource management and 

provision and enforcement of hunting and fishing 

activities on trust lands. Contracts are executed with tribal 

fish and wildlife organizations and individual fish and 

wildlife resource tribes throughout the country to 

accomplish various resource management objectives set 

by tribal governments. Individual tribes have jurisdiction 

over hunting and fishing activities on trust lands 

(http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OTS/Natural

Resources/FishWildlifeRec/index.htm).
3. Current Management Direction

3-108 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

3.4.13 Lands and Realty

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

25 CFR Subchapter 

H Land and Water 

Parts 150-183

Land and Water Regulations

Indian Affairs 

Manual: Part 50

Irrigation and Power

Indian Affairs 

Manual: Part 51

Land Titles and Records

Indian Affairs 

Manual: Part 52

Real Estate Services

3.4.14 Livestock Grazing

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

25 CFR Part 166 Grazing Permits

Indian Affairs 

Manual (IAM): 54 

IAM 2, 54 IAM 3, 

54 IAM 4, 54 IAM 

5, 54 IAM 6, and 54 

IAM 7-Agricultural 

Resources

Following is the policy of BIA:

 To protect, conserve, use, and maintain the 

highest productive potential on Indian grazing 

lands through the application of sound multipleresource conservation planning and practices to 

the development, inventory, classification, 

management, and administration of grazing 

resources

 To assist trust and restricted Indian landowners 

in permitting their grazing lands for a reasonable 

annual return, consistent with prudent 

management and conservation practices, as well 

as community goals, as expressed by landowners 

and in applicable tribal management plans and 

ordinances

 To monitor permittee adherence to the provisions 

of their grazing permits, including compliance 

with requirements described in conservation 

plans

 To monitor the results of management and 

administrative decisions against projected 

outcomes in order to strengthen future decisions
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-109

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

3.4.15 Prime and Unique Farmlands/Agriculture

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

25 CFR Part 162 Leases and Permits

Indian Affairs 

Manual (IAM): 54 

IAM 1, 3 and 5.

It is the policy of the BIA to take part in managing

Indian agricultural lands and related resources, with 

participation of the beneficial owners of the land in a 

manner consistent with the trust responsibility of the 

federal government; to protect and conserve Indian 

agricultural resources; and to promote the sustained

yield use of Indian agricultural resources. 

It is BIA policy

 To protect, conserve, use, and maintain the 

highest productive potential on Indian

agricultural lands by applying sound 

conservation practices and techniques

 To increase production and expand the diversity 

and availability of agricultural

products for subsistence, income, and employment 

of Indians and Alaska Natives,

through the development of agricultural resources on 

Indian lands

 To develop Indian agricultural resources in a 

manner consistent with applicable tribal 

programmatic resource management plans

 To coordinate and plan with the USDA

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

and Farm Service Agency (FSA) to significantly 

increase the participation of Indian landowners 

and land users in

applicable USDA farm programs.

3.4.16 National Trails

There is no BIA policy guiding management of national trails. National and State 

Byways

There is no BIA policy guiding management of national and state byways. 
3. Current Management Direction

3-110 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

3.4.17 Native American Tribal Uses

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

Government-toGovernment 

Relations with Native 

American Tribal 

Governments 

(memorandum signed 

by President Clinton, 

April 29, 1994), 

Federal Register, 

Vol. 59, No. 85

Directs federal agencies to consult, to the greatest 

extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, 

with tribal governments before taking actions that 

affect federally recognized tribal governments. Federal 

agencies must assess the impact of federal government 

plans, projects, programs, and activities on tribal trust 

resources and ensure that tribal government rights and 

concerns are considered during such development.

Secretarial Order No. 

3175, Departmental 

Responsibilities for 

Indian Trust 

Resources

Requires Department of the Interior bureaus and 

offices to consult with the recognized tribal 

government with jurisdiction over the trust property 

that a proposal may affect

Secretarial Order No. 

3206, American 

Indian Tribal Rights, 

Federal Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and 

the ESA

Clarifies the responsibilities of the Department of the 

Interior agencies with regard to how Endangered 

Species Act compliance actions affect, or may affect, 

Indian lands, tribal trust resources, or the exercise of 

American Indian tribal rights. Department of the 

Interior agencies will carry out its responsibilities in a 

manner that complements the federal trust 

responsibility to tribes, tribal sovereignty, and statutory 

missions of the departments. Also, it must strive to 

ensure that Indian tribes do not bear a disproportionate 

burden for the conservation of listed species. 

Secretarial Order No. 

3215, Principles for 

the Discharge of the 

Secretary’s Trust 

Responsibility

Provides guidance to the employees of the Department 

of the Interior who are responsible for carrying out the 

Secretary’s trust responsibility as it pertains to Indian 

trust assets. 

Departmental Manual 

512 Chapter 2, 

Departmental 

Responsibilities for 

Indian Trust 

Resources

Establishes the policies, responsibilities, and 

procedures for operating on a government-togovernment basis with federally recognized Indian 

tribes to identify, conserve, and protect American 

Indian and Alaska Native trust resources to fulfill the 

federal Indian trust responsibility.

Executive Order 

13175, Governmentto- Government Basis

Directs federal agencies to continue to work with 

Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis to 

address issues concerning Indian tribal selfgovernment, tribal trust resources, and Indian tribal 

treaty and other rights and to establish regular and 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-111

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal 

officials in the development of federal policies that 

have tribal implications, to strengthen the United States 

government-to-government relationships with Indian 

tribes, and to reduce the imposition of unfunded 

mandates on Indian tribes.

BIA Manual: Part 59, 

Chapter 8—

Protection of 

Historical and 

Archaeological 

Resources. The 

manual is a basis 

reference source for 

the BIA’s cultural 

resource management 

program.

It is the policy of the BIA to ensure that, before 

approving or expending funds on a proposed federal 

undertaking, it takes into account the effect the 

undertaking may have on any district, site, building, 

structure, or object that is on or is eligible for inclusion 

on the National Register of Historic Places; manages 

the historic resources it owns; protects the 

archaeological resources on trust lands; and enforces 

the prohibition against excavating, removing, or 

damaging archaeological resources on Indian trust 

lands without a permit issued by the BIA.

Indian Affairs 

Manual: Part 59, 

Chapter 9—Native 

American Graves 

Protection and 

Repatriation. General 

Native American 

Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act 

compliance 

procedures

Follow legal requirements and appropriate protocols 

when Native American human remains and funerary 

objects are intentionally excavated or inadvertently 

discovered on Indian lands, as defined in Section 3 of 

the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, 25 USC, Section 3002.

Ensure federal and nonfederal repositories complete 

summaries, inventories, consultations, notices, and 

repatriations for cultural items in the BIA’s possession 

or control, consistent with Sections 5-7 of the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 

USC, Sections 3003-3005.

Take action for the successful repatriation of all Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

cultural items within the BIA’s possession or control.

25 CFR, Part 211: 

Leasing of Tribal 

Lands for Mineral 

Development

(211.7[b]): The Secretary shall ensure that all 

necessary surveys are performed and clearances 

obtained, in accordance with 36 CFR, Parts 60, 63, and 

800, and with the requirements of the Archaeological 

and Historic Preservation Act (16 USC, Section 469 et 

seq.), the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC, 

Section 470 et seq.), the American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act (42 USC, Section 1996), and Executive 

Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the 

Cultural Environment (3 CFR, Parts 1971 through 
3. Current Management Direction

3-112 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Decision Source 

(if applicable) Current Management Decision/Policy Status

1975 Comp., p. 559).

Application for 

Permit to Drill 

Process

The application for permit to drill process for oil and 

gas development is integrated with Section 106 and 

tribal consultation process, requiring surveys for 

cultural resources. In most cases if a site is discovered, 

it is avoided. 

3.4.18 Socioeconomics

There is no BIA policy guiding socioeconomics.

3.4.19 Environmental Justice

There is no BIA policy guiding environmental justice. 

3.5 REFERENCES

BIA (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs). 2009a. Final 

Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma 

Forest Management Plan. BIA Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office, Division of 

Environmental, Safety and Cultural Resources Management, Muskogee, 

Oklahoma. September 28, 2009.

_____. 2009b. Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Seminole Nation of 

Oklahoma Forest Management Plan. BIA Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office, 

Division of Environmental, Safety and Cultural Resources Management, 

Muskogee, Oklahoma. September 28, 2009. 

_____. 2009c. Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Eastern Shawnee Tribe 

of Oklahoma Forest Management Plan. BIA Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office, 

Division of Environmental, Safety and Cultural Resources Management, 

Muskogee, Oklahoma. September 28, 2009.

_____. 2009d. Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Modoc Tribe of 

Oklahoma Forest Management Plan. BIA Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office, 

Division of Environmental, Safety and Cultural Resources Management, 

Muskogee, Oklahoma. September 28, 2009.

_____. 2009e. Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Cherokee Modoc Tribe 

of Oklahoma Forest Management Plan. BIA Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office, 

Division of Environmental, Safety and Cultural Resources Management, 

Muskogee, Oklahoma. September 28, 2009.

_____. 2009f. Forest Management Plan for Wichita/Caddo/Delaware Reservation, 

Kiowa/Commence/Apache Reservation, and Fort Sill Apache Reservation Tribal 

and Allotted Lands. BIA Southern Plains Region Anadarko Agency. 
3. Current Management Direction

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 3-113

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management).1991. Kansas 

Resource Management Plan. BLM, Tulsa District Office, Moore, Oklahoma.

September 1991.

_____. 1994a. Oklahoma Resource Management Plan. BLM, Tulsa District Office,

Moore, Oklahoma. January 1994.

_____. 1994b. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact and 

Decision Record: Six Coal Lease Applications and One Coal Lease Modification 

in Southeastern Oklahoma. BLM, New Mexico State Office, Tulsa District 

Office, and Oklahoma Resource Area Office. August 1994.

_____. 1996a. Texas Resource Management Plan. BLM, Tulsa District Office, Moore, 

Oklahoma. May 1996.

_____. 1996b. Oklahoma Resource Management Plan Amendment and Record of 

Decision. BLM, Tulsa District Office, Moore, Oklahoma. September 1996.

_____. 2000. Texas Resource Management Plan Amendment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact for the Cross Bar Cooperative Management Area. BLM, 

Amarillo Field Office, Amarillo, Texas. April 2000.

_____. 2004. Oklahoma Resource Management Plan Amendment and Finding of No 

Significant Impact for Three Competitive Coal Lease Sales in Haskell, Latimer, 

and LeFlore Counties, Oklahoma. BLM, Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa. 

September 2004.

_____. 2014. Resource Management Plan Amendment and Decision Record for Federal 

Coal Leases in Haskell and LeFlore Counties, Oklahoma. BLM, Oklahoma Field 

Office, Tulsa. March 2014.
3. Current Management Direction

3-114 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

This page intentionally left blank.
June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 4-1

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

CHAPTER 4

MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES

This chapter analyzes the ability of the BLM and BIA to achieve desired resource 

conditions through its management direction. It also addresses demands on each resource

use. It describes current resource management activities that are not, or are only partially, 

meeting the goals specified in the RMPs and other BLM and BIA management guidance 

covering the decision area. This chapter serves as a starting point for alternative 

formulation by identifying management opportunities for consideration while developing

alternatives.

The following tables reference management decisions from the RMPs for Kansas, 

Oklahoma, and Texas, the RMP amendments, and other sources, if applicable.

Opportunities for updated management decisions are offered to meet current resource 

demands. Each decision is analyzed for responsiveness to current needs and opportunities 

for management changes. The tables also offer new opportunities for desired resource 

conditions management that are not currently guided by planning or policy. For these, the 

Planning Decision column is noted as none, and the Remarks explain that management of 

that resource is not discussed in current management documents. 

4.1 RESOURCES

4.1.1 Air

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No Several counties in 

the planning area are

not in attainment for 

the NAAQS. Several 

other counties are 

close to losing 

Establish best management 

practices to limit air 

pollutants.

Conditions of Approval in 

all applications for permits 
4. Management Opportunities

4-2 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

attainment status. to drill. Oil and gas 

operator must install

engines rated for low 

emissions of nitrogen 

oxides and must limit 

emissions that contribute 

to ozone formation.

Partner with agencies, 

organizations, and 

industries to conduct 

additional air quality 

monitoring in areas with 

oil and gas development 

and in areas that are in 

danger of losing 

attainment status.

Surface Operating 

Standards and 

Guidelines for Oil and 

Gas Exploration and 

Development (Gold 

Book, BLM 2007)—

Road maintenance 

includes dust abatement 

and design and 

construction to limit 

vehicle speeds and 

resulting dust 

entrainment.

Yes Can contribute to the 

control of particulate 

matter

Expand dust abatement 

measures to other surfacedisturbing activities not 

related to oil and gas 

exploration and 

development.

4.1.2 Climate

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No Climate change 

trends indicate 

climate change will 

continue into the 

Conditions of Approval in 

all applications for permits 

to drill. Oil and gas 

operator must take the 
4. Management Opportunities

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 4-3

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

future. The effects 

of climate change 

are already being 

felt. The oil and gas 

industry contributes 

to greenhouse gas

emissions. Some of 

these emissions can 

be reduced greatly 

through proven costeffective 

technologies and 

practices. These 

improve operational 

efficiency and 

reduce emissions of 

methane, a potent 

greenhouse gas

(EPA Natural Gas 

STAR Program).

following actions: 

 Monitor well 

compressors, drill 

rigs, pumps, 

storage tanks, and 

valves for fugitive 

methane leaks

 Install new 

equipment and fix 

old equipment as 

needed to prevent 

leaks

 Take precautions to 

prevent fugitive 

methane emissions 

during delivery to 

power plants

 Take steps to 

prevent venting 

methane emissions 

Oil and gas operators 

could reduce methane 

emissions through the use 

of the technologies and 

practices recommended in 

the EPA Natural Gas 

STAR Program.

Best management practices

focus on reduction and 

sequestration of 

greenhouse gases

4.1.3 Geology

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

Identify areas of geologic 

hazards and incorporate 
4. Management Opportunities

4-4 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

identified in current 

plans.

mitigation of the hazards, 

such as county-level 

building codes or buffers 

from the hazard as 

necessary

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Identify areas of unique 

geology and manage for 

the protection of these 

resources; alternatively, 

structure management to 

identify and subsequently 

manage unique geological 

features.

4.1.4 Soils

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Integrate the Rangeland 

Health Standards (BLM 

2001) and Rangeland 

Interagency Ecological 

Site Handbook for 

Rangelands (BLM 2013) 

in site monitoring 

procedures to manage soil 

resources.

4.1.5 Water Resources

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No Coal, oil, and gas 

development and locations 

have changed dramatically 

over the past 20 years. 

Decisions should address 
4. Management Opportunities

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 4-5

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

new forms of development 

and locations in order to 

prevent contamination and 

loss of water supply and to 

identify practices for 

managing requirements for 

cleaning up contaminants.

None No Unsettled or unclear water 

rights exist. Decisions 

should address interim 

management of water 

resources.

None No Inventory water 

developments on livestock 

allotments.

4.1.6 Vegetation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks (Rationale) Options for Change

Oklahoma RMP—BLM 

Stipulations—Oklahoma 

Resource Area ORA-2, 

Wetland/Riparian 

Stipulation (page 12)

Kansas RMP—BLM 

Stipulations—Oklahoma 

Resource Area 

Oklahoma Resource 

Area ORA-2, 

Wetland/Riparian 

Stipulation (page11) 

Kansas City District 

USACE Stipulation for 

Lands Designated for 

the Management of 

Wildlife (Kansas RMP, 

Partially Current BLM 

wetland/riparian lease 

stipulations allow 

surface occupancy 

within these resources 

and call for mitigation 

when resources are 

impacted (no net loss 

of in-kind wetlands). 

USACE stipulation 

applies to 

wetland/riparian/other 

vegetated areas (as 

habitat for wildlife 

species). 

Opportunity to strengthen 

existing or add to standard 

BLM lease stipulations, 

specifically relating to 

wetlands and riparian 

areas. Specific 

opportunities are to add or 

modify surface occupancy 

restrictions, avoidance 

buffers, and revegetation 

requirements for 

abandoned leases. 
4. Management Opportunities

4-6 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks (Rationale) Options for Change

appendices 2-13)

Texas RMP—BLM 

Stipulations—Oklahoma 

Resource Area ORA-2, 

Wetland/Riparian 

Stipulation (page 10) 

Oklahoma RMP—Issue 

4. Red River 

Management scenarios. 

(pages 101-111)

Partially Due to the extensive 

occurrence of 

wetlands, riparian 

areas, and sensitive 

species’ habitats 

along the Red River, 

robust management 

guidelines should be 

developed once land 

administration and 

ownership issues are 

resolved.

Opportunity for detailed 

resource inventory on 

BLM-administered lands, 

including wetlands, 

riparian, and other 

sensitive vegetation 

inventories.

Opportunities for 

improved grazing 

management in areas with 

sensitive riparian 

vegetation.

Opportunities for riparian 

vegetation to be brought 

up to proper functioning 

condition, in accordance 

with BLM regulations.

Opportunities for 

vegetation restoration on 

lands impacted by such 

activities as grazing and 

OHV use.

None No Management of the 

Cross Bar Ranch is 

not identified in 

current plans.

Cross Bar Ranch, Texas. 

Opportunities exist to 

formalize vegetation 

management, including 

restoring native shortgrass prairie, treating 

noxious weeds, and 

restoring riparian areas. 

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

Tribal sensitive and 

culturally significant 
4. Management Opportunities

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 4-7

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks (Rationale) Options for Change

identified in current 

plans.

plants. Though the revised 

plan should not disclose 

species and locations, 

there is opportunity to 

formalize the consultation 

procedure with the BIA 

and tribes on a project 

level. 

4.1.7 Fish and Wildlife

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

Texas Proposed RMPA 

and Environmental 

Assessment, 2000

Partially Lack of formalized 

management of fish 

and wildlife at 

Crossbar Ranch.

Provide opportunity for 

Challenge Cost Share 

projects and other projects 

with the potential to 

benefit wildlife species at 

the Crossbar Ranch.

4.1.8 Special Status Species

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

Kansas, Oklahoma, and 

Texas RMPs (lease 

stipulations)

Partially Lease Stipulation 

WO-ESA-7: Applies 

to only a select few 

counties and tracts, 

based on 

preliminary 

information on the 

presence of federaland state-listed 

species. Based on 

new survey data, 

these ranges may 

Expand the application of 

Lease Stipulation WOESA-7 to all counties 

where special status 

species are known to 

occur, or include a general 

consultation requirement.
4. Management Opportunities

4-8 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

have changed. 

Additionally, some 

species, such as the 

bald eagle, are no 

longer listed by the 

federal government.

Kansas RMP (lease 

notices)

Partially Lease Notice LN-2 

applies to counties 

that last reported the 

presence of prairie 

dog towns. 

Update with current list of 

counties containing prairie 

dog towns for the entire 

planning area, or include 

general consultation 

requirement.

Oklahoma RMP (lease 

notices)

Partially Lease Notice LN-2 

refers to ODWC 

documents G-12-82 

and A-12, which are 

both regulations that 

appear to be 

outdated.

Update Lease Notice LN-2 

with current ODWC

regulations (see Title 

800:30-3), or include 

general stipulation that the 

surface land manager 

adhere to surface use 

requirements.

None No Federal government 

listed the lesser 

prairie-chicken as a 

threatened species in 

2012; therefore, 

existing 

management lacks 

protective measures 

for the species.

Implement 

recommendations from the 

LPC range-wide 

conservation plan. Such 

measures may include the 

following:

 For oil and gas 

development, 

reduce impacts 

through the use of 

directional drilling 

and clustering 

where feasible or 

by locating 

facilities to reduce 

habitat loss and 

fragmentation of 

habitat

 For oil and gas 

development, use 

horizontal drilling, 

pad drilling 
4. Management Opportunities

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 4-9

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

(multiple wells per 

pad), and common 

tank batteries 

where feasible with 

regulatory approval 

to minimize new 

surface disturbance 

within CHAT 

categories 1 to 3.

 Avoid conducting 

seismic activities 

and similar 

activities that 

require off-road 

travel in rangeland 

or planted grass 

cover during the 

lekking, nesting, 

and brooding 

season (March 1 to 

July 15) within 

1.25 miles of leks 

recorded as active 

within the previous 

five years; lek 

surveys will be 

required in CHAT 

categories 1 to 3 

before any 

breeding season 

seismic activities.

4.1.9 Wild Horse and Burros (BLM only)

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

National policy and 

guidance only

Contract more “ecosanctuaries.”
4. Management Opportunities

4-10 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

4.1.10 Cultural Resources

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No Class I overview in 

progress for BLMadministered lands. 

Provides a synthesis 

of previous work to 

understand the 

resource base for 

better management 

of the resource. 

Define and evaluate the 

nature and distribution of 

property types, the historic 

and prehistoric contexts of 

properties of special 

significance, the uses to 

which property types may

be assigned, the threats to 

site integrity, and the 

strategies for resource 

management and 

protection. 

4.1.11 Paleontological Resources

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

Existing RMPs require 

permitting for scientific 

research and reporting of 

discoveries. 

Partially Instruction 

Memorandum 2008-

009, Potential Fossil 

Yield Classification 

System for 

Paleontological 

Resources on Public 

Lands has not been 

completed. Updates 

needed for 

addressing 

Paleontological 

Resources 

Preservation Act of 

2009. 

Potential Fossil Yield 

Classification is in 

progress and could be used 

to determine high priority 

areas for proactive 

inventory, stipulations for 

ground-disturbing 

activities, and developing 

research priorities and 

educational/interpretive 

programs. 
4. Management Opportunities

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 4-11

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

4.1.12 Visual Resources

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Assign VRM classes to all 

BLM-administered land.

Develop stipulations and 

design features or other 

mitigation measures to 

reduce impacts on the 

characteristic landscape.

4.1.13 Wilderness Characteristics (BLM only)

In accordance with BLM Manual 6310, the BLM conducted a GIS analysis to determine 

presence of 5,000 acres of contiguous BLM-administered lands in the planning area; no 

such lands are present. There are also no BLM-administered lands contiguous with lands 

that have been formally determined to have wilderness or potential wilderness values. 

Therefore, there are no lands with wilderness characteristics in the planning area and no 

management opportunities to be offered for this resource. This resource will not be 

carried forward for analysis in the EIS.

4.1.14 Wildland and Fire Management

Planning Decision, Source

Is Decision 

Responsive 

to Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

Source: Guidance for Implementation 

of the Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy 2009

Protection Priorities—Protecting human 

communities, community infrastructure, 

other property and improvements, and 

natural and cultural resources will be 

prioritized, based on the values to be 

protected, human health and safety, and 

the costs of protection.

Partially Any 

community 

risk 

assessment 

data?

If wildland urban 

interface areas have 

been identified, 

consider prioritizing 

them for fire 

suppression.

Source: Guidance for Implementation 

of the Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy 2009

Fire Management and Ecosystem 

Sustainability—The full range of fire 

management activities will be used to 

Yes Limited fire 

prevention 

management

Opportunities for 

adding public fire 

prevention strategies, 

public education, and 

fire restrictions.
4. Management Opportunities

4-12 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, Source

Is Decision 

Responsive 

to Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

achieve ecosystem sustainability; these 

include interrelated ecological, 

economic, and social components.

Source: Guidance for Implementation 

of the Federal Wildland Fire

Management Policy 2009—Managers 

will use a decision support process to 

guide and document wildfire 

management decisions. The process 

will provide situational assessment, will 

analyze hazards and risk, will define 

implementation actions, and will 

document decisions and rationale for 

those decisions. 

Partially Wildland fire 

situation 

analysis has 

changed to

wildland fire 

decision 

support 

system

Consider revising to 

“Use a decision support 

process to guide and 

document wildland fire 

management decisions.

Guidance for Implementation of the 

Federal Wildland Fire Management 

Policy 2009—Wildland fire will be 

used to protect, maintain, and enhance 

resources and, as nearly as possible, be 

allowed to function in its natural 

ecological role. Use of fire will be 

based on L/RMP and associated fire 

management plans and will follow 

specific prescriptions contained in 

operational plans.

No Management 

states fire 

use areas 

will be 

identified in 

land use 

plans or fire 

management 

plans. 

The term fire 

use is no 

longer 

applicable. 

In 

accordance 

with BLM 

Planning 

Handbook 

H01601, 

identify old 

fire use as an 

allowable 

use and 

identify the 

geographic 

areas where 

fire use is 

Consider including 

RMP objective, such as 

“Manage natural 

wildfire to allow the 

full spectrum of 

management responses 

and achieve multiple 

objectives, including to 

achieve resource 

benefits.”

Consider Management 

Action; “Manage 

XXXX acres as 

conditional suppression 

areas where natural fire 

may be used to improve 

or provide habitat or 

other resource 

benefits.”

Delineate these areas on 

maps or consider the 

entire BIA planning 

area as suitable for fire 

use.
4. Management Opportunities

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 4-13

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, Source

Is Decision 

Responsive 

to Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

appropriate.

Source: Guidance for Implementation 

of the Federal Wildland Fire 

Management Policy 2009—Agencies 

and bureaus will review, update, and 

develop agreements that clarify the 

jurisdictional interrelationships and 

define the roles and responsibilities 

among local, state, tribal and federal

fire protection entities. Agreements will 

be developed to clarify jurisdictional 

interrelationships and define roles and 

responsibilities among local, state, 

tribal, and federal fire protection 

entities, based on each organization’s 

enabling protection authorities and 

assistance/mutual aid responsibilities. 

Yes Create cooperative 

agreements with 

federal, state, local, and 

tribal agencies to report,

identify, manage, and 

rehabilitate fires on 

BLM-administered 

lands.

Hazardous fuels treatments may be used

to restore and maintain healthy 

ecosystems.

Partially Hazardous 

fuels 

reduction 

treatments 

are not 

identified. 

This ensures 

treatment 

methods 

comply with 

applicable 

LUPs.

Consider identifying 

treatment methods; 

example, “Use fuel 

treatment management 

tools, such as 

prescribed fire and 

vegetation manipulation 

(mechanical 

mastication, biological, 

prescriptive grazing, 

and chemical 

treatments) to construct 

fuel breaks or improve 

ecological conditions.”

There are opportunities 

to define fuels 

management in, for 

example, Special 

Recreation 

Management Areas, 

ACECs, and sensitive 

cultural areas.

Prevent deterioration of air quality and 

NAAQS violations and addresses 

visibility impacts on class 1 federal 

Partially No mention 

of smoke 

modeling, 

Consider management 

actions. “Continue 

smoke modeling for 
4. Management Opportunities

4-14 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, Source

Is Decision 

Responsive 

to Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

areas, in accordance with regional air 

rules.

prescribed 

fire 

prescription 

plans, dust or 

ash 

abatement 

treatments, 

or mitigation 

measures 

following 

fire to reduce 

impacts on 

air quality.

prescribed burns to 

achieve multiple 

objectives. Ensure 

smoke management 

complies with 

prescribed fire 

prescription plans. 

Implement dust and ash 

abatement treatments 

and other mitigating 

measures to reduce 

impacts on air quality.”

Emergency Stabilization and 

Rehabilitation

Source: Guidance for Implementation 

of Federal Wildland Fire Management 

Policy 2009—Burned areas will be 

assessed to determine suitable and 

effective emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation needs to meet current and 

anticipated environmental conditions. 

Rehabilitation and restoration will be 

evaluated to assess effectiveness of 

treatments. 

No ES&R 

strategies are 

not 

implemented 

on BLMadministered 

lands due to 

scattered 

surface 

ownership.

Consider adding 

objectives and 

management actions 

consistent with the 

National Fire 

Rehabilitation Plan and 

emergency stabilization 

and response guidance

Healthy Forest Restoration Act 

(2003)

None No Management 

of this 

resource is 

not identified

in current 

plans.

Consider fire 

management strategies 

(suppression 

prioritization and fuel 

treatments) to protect 

any old growth forests.
4. Management Opportunities

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 4-15

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

4.1.15 Cave and Karst Resources

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

No None Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Document how the BLM 

would react to cave 

discoveries. On BLMadministered lands, cave 

location and significant 

features would be 

documented and 

management would protect 

the cave resources. On 

private lands, disturbance 

of the cave would be 

avoided by moving the 

disturbing activity. 

4.2 RESOURCE USES

4.2.1 Energy and Minerals

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No Fluid mineral 

leasing allocations 

are not mapped. 

Consider mapping portions 

of the decision area that 

are open to fluid mineral 

leasing, subject to standard 

terms and conditions, 

closed to fluid mineral 

leasing, open subject to 

major constraints (NSO 

stipulations), or open 

subject to minor 

constraints (controlled

surface use/timing 

limitation stipulations).

Texas RMP (Optional 

Stipulations) NM-8, 

Kansas RMP and 

Oklahoma RMP 

Partially No identification of 

where in Texas the 

stipulation applies. 

Need to reevaluate 

Consider revising and 

mapping the list of areas 

where the stipulation 

applies.
4. Management Opportunities

4-16 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

()optional Stipulations) 

NM-10

“This stipulation 

requires that any 

federal oil and gas 

operator must 

coordinate 

development with the 

federal coal lessee. This 

stipulation is used to 

protect the value of the 

federal coal resource 

and is applicable to the 

following areas in 

Oklahoma:

 Atoka County 

Split-Estate 

Tracts 2-4

 Haskell County 

Split-Estate 

Tracts 15-17

 Latimer County 

Split-Estate 

Tracts 3-6

 Le Flore County 

Split-Estate 

Tracts 15-17

 Pittsburg County 

Split-Estate 

Tracts 8 and 9”

where the stipulation 

is applied, based on 

current resource 

conditions.

Kansas RMP, Lease 

Notice LN-2: BlackFooted Ferrets In 

Kansas

“If black-footed ferrets 

occur anywhere in the 

wild in Kansas, they 

are presumed to be 

associated with prairie 

Partially No identification of 

where in Kansas the 

stipulation applies. 

Need to reevaluate 

where the stipulation 

is applied, based on 

current resource 

conditions.

Consider revising and 

mapping the list of areas 

where the stipulation 

applies.
4. Management Opportunities

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 4-17

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

dogs. All or portions of 

this lease area lie 

within a county of 

Kansas where prairie 

dog towns have 

occurred in the past. 

Therefore, if a prairie 

dog town of eighty 

acres or more is found 

to occur on or near this 

lease, a black-footed 

ferret survey may be 

required before 

permitting surface 

disturbing activity 

which may impact the 

prairie dog town.”

Lease Notice LN-2 will 

be applied to leases 

issued in the counties 

that last reported the 

presence of prairie dog 

towns.

Texas RMP, Oklahoma 

RMP, Lease Stipulation 

WO-ESA-7: 

Consultation Stipulation

“The lease area may now 

or hereafter contain 

plants, animals, or their 

habitats determined to be 

threatened, endangered, 

or other special status 

species. BLM may 

recommend 

modifications to 

exploration and 

development proposals 

to further its 

Partially Need to reevaluate 

where the stipulation 

is applied, based on 

current resource 

conditions.

Consider revising and 

mapping the list of areas 

where the stipulation 

applies.
4. Management Opportunities

4-18 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

conservation and 

management objective to 

avoid BLM-approved 

activity that will 

contribute to a need to 

list such a species or 

their habitat. BLM may 

require modifications to 

or disapprove proposed 

activity that is likely to 

result in jeopardy to the 

continued existence of a 

proposed or listed 

threatened or endangered 

species or result in the 

destruction or adverse 

modification of a 

designated or proposed 

critical habitat. BLM 

will not approve any 

ground-disturbing 

activity that may affect 

any such species or 

critical habitat until it 

completes its obligations 

under applicable 

requirements of the 

Endangered Species Act 

as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 

1531 et seq., including 

completion of any 

required procedure for 

conference or 

consultation.”

Oklahoma RMP, Lease 

Notice LN-2: ODWC

Owned and Managed 

Lands

The ODWC owns and 

manages the surface 

Partially Need to reevaluate 

where the stipulation 

is applied, based on 

current 

landownership.

Consider revising and 

mapping the list of areas 

where the stipulation 

applies.
4. Management Opportunities

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 4-19

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

above all or a portion 

of this federal lease. 

The lessee needs to be 

aware of the surface 

use requirements, as 

presented in ODWC 

documents G-12-82 

and A-12 (appendix 3). 

These address 

regulations and a 

surface damage 

agreement to govern 

oil, gas, and other 

mineral exploration and 

production on ODWC 

owned and managed 

lands.

Kansas RMP, Texas 

RMP, Oklahoma RMP, 

Oklahoma Resource 

Area ORA-1: Floodplain 

Protection Stipulation

“All or portions of the 

lands under this lease lie 

in and or adjacent to a 

major watercourse and 

are subject to periodic 

flooding. Surface 

occupancy of these areas 

will not be allowed 

without the specific 

approval, in writing, of 

the BLM.”

Partially No identification of 

where the stipulation 

applies. Need to 

reevaluate where the 

stipulation is 

applied, based on 

current resource 

conditions.

Consider revising and 

mapping the list of areas 

where the stipulation 

applies.

Kansas RMP, Texas 

RMP, Oklahoma RMP, 

Oklahoma Resource 

Area ORA-2: 

Wetland/Riparian 

Stipulation

“All or portions of the 

lands under this lease 

Partially No identification of 

where the stipulation 

applies. Need to 

reevaluate where the 

stipulation is 

applied, based on 

current resource 

conditions.

Consider revising and 

mapping the list of areas 

where the stipulation 

applies.
4. Management Opportunities

4-20 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

contain wetland and/or 

riparian areas. Surface 

occupancy of these areas 

will not be allowed 

without the specific 

approval, in writing of 

the BLM. Impacts or 

disturbance to wetlands 

and riparian habitats 

which occur on this 

lease, must be avoided, 

minimized or 

compensated. The 

mitigation goal will be 

no net loss of in-kind 

wetlands. Such 

mitigation will be 

developed during the 

application for permit to 

drill process in 

cooperation with 

appropriate state and 

federal agencies.”

Kansas RMP, Texas 

RMP, Oklahoma RMP, 

Oklahoma Resource 

Area ORA-3: Season of 

Use Stipulation 

(Optional)

“Surface occupancy of 

this lease will not be 

allowed from (date) 

through (date) without 

the specific approval in 

writing, from the 

Authorized Officer of 

the BLM.”

This stipulation 

restricts the time that 

the lessee can be on the 

Partially No identification of 

where the stipulation 

applies. Need to 

reevaluate where the 

stipulation is 

applied, based on 

current resource 

conditions.

Consider revising and 

mapping the list of areas 

where the stipulation 

applies.
4. Management Opportunities

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 4-21

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

lease for a period of 

more than 60 days. 

Most season of use 

restrictions involve 

wildlife seasonal use 

requirements or 

recreation use conflicts 

with drilling activities.

Kansas RMP, Texas 

RMP, Oklahoma RMP, 

Oklahoma Resource 

Area ORA-4: NSO

(Optional)

“Surface occupancy of 

this lease will not be 

allowed.”

This stipulation 

prohibits surface use to 

protect a resource or 

use that is not 

compatible with oil and 

gas development. The 

tract could be leased for 

inclusion in a drilling 

unit and may be drilled 

directionally from an 

off-site location where 

occupancy is allowed.

Partially No identification of 

where the stipulation 

applies. Need to 

reevaluate where the 

stipulation is 

applied, based on 

current resource 

conditions.

Consider revising and 

mapping the list of areas 

where the stipulation 

applies.

Kansas RMP, GP-135 

stipulations provide for 

protection of US 

Bureau of Reclamation

projects by using buffer 

zones, which prohibit 

occupancy and drilling 

for a specific distance. 

Maximum project 

protection is provided 

by the use of NSO/ND

to within 1,000 feet 

Partially This stipulation does 

not identify specific 

areas where it 

applies.

Consider mapping the 

specific areas subject to 

this stipulation.
4. Management Opportunities

4-22 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

under the maximum 

water surface by 

elevation, as defined in 

Standing Operating 

Procedures of US 

Bureau of Reclamation; 

to within 2,000 feet 

under dam 

embankments and 

appurtenance 

structures, outlet works, 

and spillways; or to 

within one-half mile 

(2,640 feet) of the 

center line of any 

tunnel. Should the US 

Bureau of Reclamation

waive the maximum 

project protection 

stipulation, additional 

restrictions protect 

recreational 

developments, wildlife 

habitats, project 

facilities, and water 

supplies by creating a 

NSO/DD buffer around 

these areas, ranging 

from 200 to 500 feet.

Stipulations protecting 

special wildlife habitats 

or significant surface 

resources have been 

identified by project 

site. The overlapping 

buffer zones identified 

for each surface 

resource results in 

stipulation acreage 

greater than the 

project’s total.
4. Management Opportunities

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 4-23

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

In all cases, GP-135 

requires a site-specific 

surface use plan 

approved by the US 

Bureau of 

Reclamation’s regional 

director before any 

lease is developed. 

Whenever a conflict 

occurs concerning the 

applicability of a US 

Bureau of Reclamation

stipulation, the more 

restrictive stipulation 

will apply.

Kansas RMP, SplitEstate Tracts 

Stipulations: 

Summarized in Table 3 

of the Kansas RMP.

Partially Need to reevaluate 

where the 

stipulations are 

applied, based on 

current resource 

conditions.

Consider revising and 

mapping the list of areas 

where the stipulations 

apply.

For a complete list of 

fluid mineral 

stipulations, refer to 

Chapter 3, Current 

Management Direction, 

Section 3.3, BLM 

Current Management of 

Resource Uses

, Federal Mineral Lease 

Stipulations.

Partially All stipulations 

applicable to 

specific named 

locations that are 

managed by other 

special management 

areas are assumed to 

be adequate. 

All stipulations applied 

based on the presence of a 

sensitive resource to be 

protected are assumed to 

be partially adequate and 

need to be updated based 

on an updated evaluation 

of current conditions.

None No Many federal coal 

tracts in the planning 

area do not have 

management 

decisions and cannot 

be leased until they 

do.

For all federal coal 

resources in the planning 

area, consider identifying 

in a coal report those areas 

unacceptable for further 

consideration for coal 

leasing, those areas 

unsuitable for all or certain 

stipulated methods of coal 

mining, and those areas 
4. Management Opportunities

4-24 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

acceptable for further 

consideration for leasing 

and suitable for all 

methods of coal mining.

None No There are no 

decisions applicable 

to salable minerals 

in the current RMPs.

Consider identifying areas 

open and closed to salable 

mineral disposal 

throughout the decision 

area.

None No There are no 

decisions applicable 

to locatable minerals 

in the current RMPs.

Consider identifying areas 

open to locatable mineral 

entry and areas that would 

be petitioned for 

withdrawal from locatable 

mineral entry in the 

decision area.

4.2.2 Renewable Energy

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No In current 

management plans, 

there are no 

decisions applicable 

to renewable energy 

sources: wind, solar, 

and biomass.

Consider designating areas 

as open, avoidance, or 

exclusion for new utility 

scale (>20 megawatts) 

renewable energy ROWs.

4.2.3 Recreation and Visitor Services

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Consider a recreation 

management area 

designation for such high 

use areas as the Red River. 
4. Management Opportunities

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 4-25

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

Designation would provide 

management focus on 

recreation and associated 

activities, opportunities, and 

experiences.

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Consider action to manage 

camping and overnight use, 

especially for popular areas 

such as the Red River. 

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Consider recreation 

management area 

designation for Cross Bar 

Ranch to accommodate 

planned future recreation 

use during the life of the 

plan.

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Consider action outlining 

strategy for and placement 

of such facilities as 

trailheads, kiosks, and 

parking to support current 

and anticipated recreation 

demand. This is an 

implementation level action 

but can be included in the 

RMP if it is analyzed 

specifically.

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Analyze the types, activities, 

and locations where special 

recreation permits would be 

issued or not issued.

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Consider leasing and land 

use authorization 

stipulations to protect 

recreation facilities, 

activities, and opportunities 

on BLM-administered 

surface land and split-estate. 

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Consider actions to connect 

recreation facilities, such as 

trails, and activities on 

BLM-administered lands 
4. Management Opportunities

4-26 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

with similar facilities and 

activities on adjoining lands 

managed by other entities.

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Consider establishing areas 

open and closed to 

recreational target shooting.

4.2.4 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Designate all public lands 

as open, limited, or closed 

for OHV use, as required 

in 43 CFR, Part 8340.

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Consider designating land 

as open, limited, or closed 

for nonmotorized uses, 

such as hiking, horseback 

riding, and mountain 

biking. 

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Identify travel 

management areas and 

publish current route 

inventory map, in 

accordance with BLM 

Manual 1626. This will 

begin the process of future 

route designations as 

needed to facilitate access 

and protect sensitive 

resources.

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Identify priority areas for 

access, in accordance with 

BLM Manual 1626. This 

would include such parcels 

as the Cross Bar Ranch, 

where public and 
4. Management Opportunities

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 4-27

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

permitted access will be

important over the life of 

the plan.

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Establish route designation 

criteria, in accordance with 

BLM Manual 1626 (this 

should be done even if 

route designations are 

being deferred).

4.2.5 Lands and Realty

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No There are no 

decisions applicable 

to land use 

authorizations in 

current management 

plans.

Consider designating areas 

as open, avoidance, or 

exclusion for ROWs, 

leases, and other 

applicable land use 

authorizations.

Public land disposal, 

Oklahoma and Kansas 

RMPs

No The Oklahoma and 

Kansas RMPs 

indicate the BLM 

policies to dispose 

of federal lands in 

those states. GIS 

analysis is being 

done to clarify 

current ownership.

Identify lands for 

retention, exchange, or 

sale. 

Indicate any areas where 

land acquisition would be 

considered (e.g., through 

purchase, exchange, or 

donation). 

None No There are no 

decisions applicable 

to land withdrawals. 

Specify any areas (if 

applicable) that would be 

considered for withdrawal. 

Identify any current 

withdrawals (if any) that 

would continue to be 

managed as withdrawn. 
4. Management Opportunities

4-28 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

4.2.6 Livestock Grazing

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

There are four active 

grazing leases being 

administered in 

Oklahoma. Three lie 

along the north fork of 

the Red River, two are in 

Tillman County, and one 

is in Jefferson County. 

The fourth grazing lease 

is on the South Canadian 

River in Blaine County. 

Oklahoma RMP 

Guidance

Yes Identifies allocation Alternative 1: Increase 

grazing (e.g., open up 

grazing in Texas or along 

the gas pipeline easement).

Alternative 2: Decrease 

grazing and close permits 

that are not actually viable. 

4.2.7 Prime and Unique Farmlands/Agriculture

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Document how the BLM 

would manage privately 

owned subsurface mineral 

estate with farmlands by 

including them in the 

stipulations for mineral 

leasing. Currently the 

BLM is managing for 

farmland conversion on a 

case-by-case basis, 

including conservation, 

conditions of approval, 

mitigation, and restoration, 

rather than blanket 

“avoidance.”
4. Management Opportunities

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 4-29

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

4.3 SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

4.3.1 Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas 

Federal mineral estate in designated wilderness areas is not part of the decision area. The 

planning area includes wildernesses that are managed by the Forest Service, USFWS, and 

National Park Service (see Section 2.4.1, Table 2-27). Only the Wichita Mountains 

Wilderness overlaps BLM-administered federal mineral estate (Wilderness.net GIS 

2014). According to the Wilderness Act of 1964, except where there are valid existing 

rights, the minerals in designated wilderness areas are withdrawn from all forms of 

appropriation under the mining laws and from disposition under all laws pertaining to 

mineral leasing (Public Law 88-577). Therefore, there are no management opportunities 

to be offered for this resource, which is fully protected under current mandates. No 

decisions will be made in the EIS that will impact these areas, and this resource topic will 

not be carried forward in the joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP.

4.3.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (BLM only)

There are no ACECs in the planning area, and no nominations for ACECs were received 

during internal or public scoping. Therefore, there are no management opportunities that 

can be offered for this resource, and it will not be carried forward in the joint EIS/BLM 

RMP and BIA Integrated RMP.

4.3.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers 

There are no wild and scenic rivers in Oklahoma or Kansas, as designated under the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Council 2015). In 

Texas, 191.2 miles of the Rio Grande are designated: 95.2 miles are classified as wild and 

96 miles are classified as scenic (Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Council 2015). No 

portions of this wild and scenic river overlap with BLM-administered federal mineral 

estate; therefore, there are no management opportunities that can be offered for this 

resource, and it will not be carried forward in the joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP (Rivers.gov GIS 2009).

However, there are state-designated scenic river areas that overlap with BLMadministered federal mineral estate designated under Oklahoma’s Scenic Rivers Act 

(Oklahoma Statute Title 82, Sections 1451-1471; see Section 2.4.3). Management 

opportunities for these state-designated scenic river areas are described below.

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No Management of 

state-designated 

scenic river areas is 

not identified in 

current plans.

Oklahoma’s Scenic Rivers 

Act (Oklahoma Statute 

Title 82, Sections 1451-

1471) mandates preserving 

state-designated scenic 

river areas in their free-
4. Management Opportunities

4-30 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

flowing condition and 

prohibits impoundment by 

any large dam or structure 

in these areas. 

To comply with this, 

develop stipulations

preventing impoundment 

of state scenic river areas 

and design features or 

other mitigation measures 

to preserve the freeflowing condition of these 

scenic river areas.

4.3.4 National Historic Trails

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

RMPs stipulate (NSO) 

buffers around hiking 

and horseback trails in 

certain areas. 

Oklahoma RMP 

(Appendix 3, Oklahoma 

Oil and Gas Lease 

Stipulations, USACE 

Special Stipulations 1-A)

Oklahoma RMP 

(Appendix 3, Oklahoma 

Oil and Gas Lease 

Stipulations, Special 

Stipulation—US Bureau 

of Reclamation);

Kansas RMP, Tulsa 

District USACE Special 

Stipulations 1-A

Partially These stipulations 

apply to specific 

sites within districts 

managed by the 

USACEadministered lands 

or to US Bureau of 

Reclamationadministered lands. 

Buffers vary in size 

and are specified as 

acres rather than in 

length and width. 

In accordance with BLM 

Manual 6280, establish 

national trail management 

corridors and identify 

management goals, 

objectives, and actions for 

each designated national 

trail.

Develop a national trail 

management corridor of 

sufficient width, in 

accordance with the 

requirements of this 

manual, and, to the extent 

possible, follow the 

management guidance by 

resource program offered 

by this manual. 
4. Management Opportunities

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 4-31

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

Kansas RMP, Kansas 

City District USACE 

Special Stipulations

Kansas RMP (Appendix 

2)

Stipulations for Oil and 

Gas Leases—Lands 

Under Jurisdiction of 

Department of the 

USACE (Water 

Resource Projects)

Kansas RMP (Appendix 

2)

US Bureau of 

Reclamation Special 

Stipulations

Texas RMP, USACE 

Special Stipulations 1-A

Texas RMP, USACE, 

Fort Worth District 

Projects

Texas RMP (Appendix)

US Bureau of 

Reclamation Special 

Stipulations, GP-135

Establish an NSO buffer of 

consistent size around 

national historic trails to be 

applied to all trails 

crossing BIA- or BLMadministered minerals to 

protect such trails across 

the decision area, despite 

landownership. 

4.3.5 National, State, and BLM Byways

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No Management of 

national, state, and 

BLM-administered 

byways is not 

Develop stipulations or 

mitigation measures to 

protect the scenic quality 

of national and state 
4. Management Opportunities

4-32 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

identified in current 

plans.

byways. 

There are no BLMadministered backcountry 

byways in the planning 

area, so no management 

opportunities exist for this 

resource. 

4.4 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

4.4.1 Native American Tribal Uses

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

Existing RMP cultural 

resource continuing 

management guidance, 

government-togovernment consultation 

and United States 

Department of the 

Interior requirements 

address Indian Trust and 

Native American use 

issues. 

Partially Focus is on 

compliance when 

there is an 

undertaking. 

Incorporate proactive 

measures to identify and 

protect areas of cultural 

importance and consider 

Indian Trust Assets in

early planning on an 

allocations basis and 

through standard 

stipulations. 

4.4.2 Public Health and Safety

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Designate specific 

recreation areas in the Red 

River area to separate 

conflicting recreation 

(such as OHV use, 
4. Management Opportunities

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 4-33

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

recreational shooting, and 

camping).

Develop a warning system 

to alert recreationists in the 

event of a flood.

4.4.3 Socioeconomics

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Management actions on 

public lands can have a 

profound impact on social 

conditions. Consider 

impacts.

4.4.4 Environmental Justice

Planning Decision, 

Source

Is Decision 

Responsive to 

Current 

Issues?

Remarks 

(Rationale) Options for Change

None No Management of this 

resource is not 

identified in current 

plans.

Create EIS/BLM RMP and 

BIA Integrated RMP 

objectives for fair 

treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people,

regardless of race, color, 

sex, national origin, or 

income.
4. Management Opportunities

4-34 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

4.5 REFERENCES

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2001. Handbook H4180-1—Rangeland Health Standards. BLM, Washington, DC. Internet website: 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management

/policy/blm_handbook.Par.61484.File.dat/h4180-1.pdf. Accessed on March 5, 

2015.

_____. 2007. Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration 

and Development. The Gold Book. Publication P-417. Internet website: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/

en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/gold_book.html. 

Accessed on January 23, 2015.

_____. 2013. Handbook H-1734-1—Rangeland Interagency Ecological Site Handbook 

for Rangelands. BLM, Washington, DC. Internet website: 

http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=33943.wb

a. Accessed on March 5, 2015.
March 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 5-1

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Draft Analysis of the Management Situation

CHAPTER 5

CONSISTENCY/COORDINATION WITH OTHER 

PLANS

Section 202 of the FLPMA requires the BLM to coordinate land use planning activities 

with other federal agencies and with state, local, and tribal governments (FLPMA Section 

202[c][9]). The FLPMA states the following:

[T]he Secretary shall, to the extent he finds practical, keep apprised of State, 

local, and tribal land use plans; assure that consideration is given to those State, 

local, and tribal land use plans that are germane in the development of land use 

plans for public lands; assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies 

between Federal and non-Federal Government plans, and shall provide for 

meaningful public involvement of State and local government officials... 

(FLPMA Section 202[c][9]). 

The FLPMA also states “Land use plans of the Secretary under this section [202] shall be 

consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with 

Federal law and the purposes of this Act (FLPMA Section 202[c][9]).” The BLM 

planning regulations further clarify the following:

Guidance and resource management plans and amendments to management 

framework plans shall be consistent with officially approved or adopted resource 

related plans, and the policies and programs contained therein, of other Federal 

agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes, so long as the guidance 

and resource management plans are also consistent with the purposes, policies and 

programs of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands, including 

Federal and State pollution control laws as implemented by applicable Federal 

and State air, water, noise, and other pollution standards or implementation plans 

(43 CFR 1610.3-2[a]).

Before the RMP decisions are approved, the BLM authorized officer, in this case the 

BLM New Mexico State Director, will submit to the governors of Oklahoma, Kansas, 
5. Consistency/Coordination with Other Plans

5-2 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

and Texas the proposed plan. The authorized officer will identify any known 

inconsistencies with the state or local plans, policies, or programs. The governors will 

have 60 days to identify inconsistencies and provide recommendations in writing to the 

state director. If the governors do not respond within the 60-day period, the proposed plan

is presumed to be consistent. 

If the governors recommend changes in the proposed plan that were not raised during the 

public participation process, the state director will provide the public with an opportunity 

to comment on the changes. If the state director does not accept the governors’ 

recommendations, the state director will notify the governors, who will have 30 days to 

submit a written appeal to the state director. The state director will accept the governors’ 

recommendations if the he or she determines that they provide a reasonable balance 

between the national interest and the states’ interests. 

The state director will communicate to the governors in writing and will publish in the 

Federal Register the reasons for the decision to accept or reject the governors’

recommendations (43 CFR, Part 1610.3-2[e]). 

Plans formulated by federal, state, local, and tribal governments for managing lands and 

resources will be considered as the joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP is 

developed. The plans identified include those below.

5.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANS

The BLM and BIA will continuously work with local governments as cooperating 

agencies to identify and, where practicable, resolve consistency issues throughout the EIS 

process. 

5.2 STATE AGENCY PLANS 

A number of planning documents, strategies, or policies that guide management activities 

affect public lands. Many of the plans directly impact or otherwise affect BLMadministered lands, agreements, or other partnership involvement opportunities. In 

addition to the BLM’s cooperating agency relationship with several state agencies (see 

Cooperating Agencies below), ongoing coordination and communication will ensure 

consistency. 

The state plans most pertinent to the planning area are listed below.

5.2.1 Oklahoma

 Oklahoma’s Great Outdoors: The Place, The People, The Providers, The Plan 

(2012 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan; Oklahoma 

Tourism and Recreation Department 2012)

 Oklahoma Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ODWC 2005)

 Oklahoma’s Biodiversity Plan: A Shared Vision for Conserving Our Natural 

Heritage (ODWC 1993)

 Oklahoma Lesser Prairie Chicken Conservation Plan (Haufler et al. 2012)
5. Consistency/Coordination with Other Plans

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 5-3

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 State of Oklahoma Implementation Plan for Air Quality (Internet website: 

http://www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew/rulesandplanning/index.htm)

 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (Oklahoma Water Resources Board 

2015)

 Oklahoma Department of Transportation Long Range Transportation Plan 

2010-2035 (Oklahoma Department of Transportation 2010)

5.2.2 Kansas

 Kansas Outdoor Recreation Plan (Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and 

Tourism 2009)

 State of Kansas Implementation Plan for Air Quality (Internet website: 

http://www.kdheks.gov/bar/sip.html)

 Kansas Water Plan (Kansas Water Office 2015) 

 Natural Resource Coordination Plan (Kansas Natural Resource Coalition 

2013)

 Kansas Department of Transportation Long Range Transportation Plan 2008 

(Kansas Department of Transportation 2008)

 Kansas’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan (Wasson et al. 2005)

 Kansas Recovery Plan for the Snowy Plover, Charadrius alexandrines (Busby 

2003)

 Kansas Recovery Plan for Three Big River Fish Species: Sicklefin Chub, 

Sturgeon Chub, and Western Silvery Minnow (Layher 2003a)

 Recovery Plan for Four Salamander Species of Cherokee County, Kansas

(Layher 2002a)

 Recovery Plan for the Arkansas Darter, Etheostoma cragini Gilbert, in Kansas

(Layher 2002b)

 Recovery Plan for Four Freshwater Mussels in Southeast Kansas (Obermeyer 

2000)

 Recovery Plan for Freshwater Mussels in the Upper Osage River System, 

Kansas (Obermeyer 2003)

 Recovery Plan for the Henslow’s Sparrow, Ammodramus henslowii, in Kansas 

(Layher et al. 2005a)

 Recovery Plan for the Peppered Chub, Macrhybopsis tetranema Gilbert, in 

Kansas (Layher and Brinkman 2005)

 Recovery Plan for the Prairie Mole Cricket Gryllotalpa major Saussure in 

Kansas (Layher et al. 2005b)

 Recovery Plan for the Scott Riffle Beetle, Optioservus phaeus Gilbert, in 

Kansas (Layher 2002c)
5. Consistency/Coordination with Other Plans

5-4 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Recovery Plan for the Slender Walker Snail, Pomatiopsis lapidaria (Say) in 

Kansas (Layher 2003b)

 Recovery Plan for the Topeka Shiner (Notropis topeka) in Kansas (Mammoliti

2004)

5.2.3 Texas

 Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2012a)

 Texas Conservation Action Plan 2012-2016 (Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Department 2012b)

 Texas Department of Transportation Long Range Transportation Plan 2040

(Texas Department of Transportation 2014)

 State of Texas Implementation Plan for Air Quality (Internet website: 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip)

 2012 Texas State Water Plan (Texas Water Development Board 2015)

5.3 FEDERAL AGENCY PLANS

5.3.1 US Fish and Wildlife Service

Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan Associated with Issuance of Endangered Species 

Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits for the American Burying Beetle in Oklahoma (USFWS 

2014)

5.3.2 Forest Service

 National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Service 1996)

 Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas and Oklahoma Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Service 2005)

 Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Comanche and Cimarron National 

Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 1984).

 Cibola National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 

1985)

5.3.3 Other

 Lesser Prairie-Chicken Range-Wide Conservation Plan (Van Pelt et al. 2013)

 2008-2012 National Invasive Species Management Plan (National Invasive 

Species Council 2008)

 Chickasaw National Recreation Area General Management Plan (National 

Park Service 2008)
5. Consistency/Coordination with Other Plans

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 5-5

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

5.4 COOPERATING AGENCIES

A cooperating agency is any federal, state, or local government agency or Indian tribe 

that enters into a formal agreement with the lead federal agency to help develop an 

environmental analysis. More specifically, cooperating agencies “work with the BLM, 

sharing knowledge and resources, to achieve desired outcomes for public lands and 

communities within statutory and regulatory frameworks” (BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook, H-1601-1). 

The benefits of enhanced collaboration among agencies in preparing NEPA analyses are 

as follows: 

 Disclosing relevant information early in the analytical process

 Applying available technical expertise and staff support

 Avoiding duplication with other federal, state, tribal, and local procedures

 Establishing a mechanism for addressing intergovernmental issues

In March 2014, the BLM invited all affected local, state, federal, and tribal 

representatives to participate as cooperating agencies for the joint EIS/BLM RMP and 

BIA Integrated RMP. As of November 20, 2014, 57 agencies have agreed to participate 

as cooperating agencies for the RMP and 48 have signed a memorandum of 

understanding with the BLM. These agencies are as follow:

 Federal

– Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

– US Bureau of Reclamation, Nebraska-Kansas Area Office

– USACE, Fort Worth District

– Forest Service, National Forests and Grasslands in Texas

– USFWS Region 2 Refuges

 State

– Kansas Corporation Commission

– Kansas Water Office

– Oklahoma Climatological Survey

– Oklahoma Department of Mines

– ODWC

– Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

– Oklahoma Geological Survey

– Brazos River Authority (Texas)

– Red River Authority of Texas
5. Consistency/Coordination with Other Plans

5-6 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

– Texas General Land Office

– Texas Railroad Commission

– Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board

 Local

– Kansas

o Barton County

o Cherokee County

o Douglas County

o Hamilton County

o Jackson County

o Johnson County

o Sumner County

– Oklahoma

o Adair County 

o Caddo County 

o Choctaw County 

o Cleveland County 

o Coal County 

o Cotton County 

o Creek County 

o Hughes County 

o Latimer County 

o Lincoln County 

o Love County 

o McIntosh County 

o Murray County 

o Okfuskee County 

o Payne County 

o Pontotoc County 

o Pushmataha County 

o Sequoyah County 

o Tulsa County 
5. Consistency/Coordination with Other Plans

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 5-7

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

o Washington County 

– Texas

o Clay County 

o Cooke County 

o Denton County 

o Marion County 

o Montague County 

o Scurry County 

o Wichita County 

o Wilbarger County 

o Young County Texas

 Tribes

– Cherokee Nation

– Citizen Potawatomie Nation

– Muskogee Creek Nation

– Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma

The BLM and BIA encourage cooperating agencies and entities to attend meetings and 

provide scoping comments, to assist the BLM and BIA in developing alternatives, and to 

review the draft joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP materials. They will seek 

additional cooperation opportunities with other agencies and entities throughout the 

development process. Project phases involving state and local governments, other federal 

agencies, and tribal governments will help provide consistency with other federal, state, 

and local plans.

5.5 TRIBAL CONSULTATION

Treaties, statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions, and agreements define the unique 

political relationship between the US government and the Native American tribes that it 

recognizes. This relationship has created a special federal trust responsibility, involving 

the legal commitments and obligations of the US toward Native American tribes and their

lands and tribal trust resources and the exercise of tribal rights.

Consultation with Native American tribes is required by the National Historic 

Preservation Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. Government-togovernment consultation began in September 2013 with the BLM and BIA sending 

requests for consultation letters to all area tribes. The following lists the tribes contacted 

for consultation and interest in the project:
5. Consistency/Coordination with Other Plans

5-8 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Absentee Shawnee Tribe

 Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas

 Alabama Quassarte Tribal Town

 Apache Tribe of Oklahoma

 Caddo Nation

 Cherokee Nation

 Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes

 Chickasaw Nation

 Choctaw Nation

 Citizen Potawatomi Nation

 Comanche Nation

 Delaware Nation

 Delaware Tribe of Indians

 Eastern Shawnee Tribe

 Euchee (Yuchi) Tribe

 Fort Sill Apache Tribe

 Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska

 Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma

 Kaw Nation of Oklahoma

 Kialegee Tribal Town

 Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of 

Texas

 Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas

 Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma

 Kiowa Tribe

 Miami Tribe of Oklahoma

 Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma

 Muscogee (Creek) Nation

 Osage Minerals Council

 Osage Nation

 Otoe-Missouria Tribe

 Ottawa Tribe

 Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma

 Peoria Tribe of Indians of 

Oklahoma

 Ponca Nation

 Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation

 Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma

 Sac and Fox Nation

 Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in 

Kansas and Nebraska

 Seminole Nation

 Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma

 Shawnee Tribe

 Thlopthlocco Tribal Town

 Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma

 United Keetoowah Band of 

Cherokee

 Wichita and Affiliated Tribes

 Wyandotte Nation

5.6 REFERENCES

Busby, William H. 2003. Kansas Recovery Plan for the Snowy Plover, Charadrius 

alexandrines. Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism. January 10, 

2003.
5. Consistency/Coordination with Other Plans

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 5-9

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Forest Service (US Department of Agriculture, National Forest Service). 1984. Record of 

Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and 

Resource Management Plan for Pike and San Isabel National Forests and 

Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands. Forest Service Rocky Mountain 

Region.

Forest Service (US Department of Agriculture, National Forest Service). 1985. Record of 

Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and 

Resource Management Plan for Cibola National Forest. Forest Service 

Southwestern Region.

Forest Service (US Department of Agriculture, National Forest Service). 1996. Record of 

Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and 

Resource Management Plan for National Forests and Grasslands in Texas. Forest 

Service Southern Region.

Forest Service (US Department of Agriculture, National Forest Service). 2005. Record of 

Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and 

Resource Management Plan for Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas and 

Oklahoma. Forest Service Southern Region.

Haufler, J., D. Davis, and J. Caulfield. Oklahoma Lesser Prairie-Chicken Conservation 

Plan: A Collaborative Strategy for Species Conservation.

Kansas Department of Transportation. 2008. Kansas Long Range Transportation Plan. 

Internet website: https://www.ksdot.org/lrtp2008/. Accessed on December 2, 

2014.

Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism. 2009. Kansas Outdoor Recreation 

Plan.

Kansas Natural Resource Coalition. 2013. Natural Resource Coordination Plan. October 

14, 2013.

Kansas Water Office. 2015. Kansas Water Plan. Internet website: 

http://www.kwo.org/Kansas_Water_Plan/Kansas_Water_Plan.htm. Accessed on 

January 22, 2015.

Layher, W. G. 2002a. Recovery Plan for Four Salamander Species of Cherokee County, 

Kansas. Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism. April 16, 2002.

_____. 2002b. Recovery Plan for the Arkansas Darter, Etheostoma cragini Gilbert, in 

Kansas. Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism. May 30, 2002. 

_____. 2002c. Recovery Plan for the Scott Riffle Beetle, Optioservus phaeus Gilbert, in 

Kansas. Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism. July 25, 2002. 
5. Consistency/Coordination with Other Plans

5-10 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

_____. 2003a. Kansas Recovery Plan for Three big River Fish Species: Sicklefin Chub, 

Sturgeon Chub and Western Silvery Minnow. Kansas Department of Wildlife,

Parks, and Tourism. December 4, 2003. 

_____. 2003b. Recovery Plan for the Slender Walker Snail, Pomatiopsis lapidaria (Say) 

in Kansas. Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism. December 4, 

2003. 

Layher, W. G., and Eric Brinkman. 2005. Recovery Plan for the Peppered Chub, 

Macrhybopsis tetranema Gilbert, in Kansas. Kansas Department of Wildlife,

Parks, and Tourism. May 24, 2005.

Layher, W. G, E. Brinkman, and K. Ruff. 2005a. Recovery Plan for the Henslow’s 

Sparrow, Ammodramus henslowii, in Kansas. Kansas Department of Wildlife,

Parks, and Tourism. May 24, 2005.

_____. 2005b. Recovery Plan for the Prairie Mole Cricket, Gryllotalpa major Saussure, 

in Kansas. Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism. May 24, 2005.

Mammoliti, C. S. 2004. Recovery plan for the Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka) in 

Kansas. Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism. Pratt, KS. May 17, 

2004.

National Invasive Species Council. 2008. 2008-2012 National Invasive Species 

Management Plan. Washington, DC. August 1, 2008. 

National Park Service (US Department of the Interior, National Park Service). 2008. 

Chickasaw National Recreation Area General Management Plan. Internet website: 

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=44&project

ID=11065&documentID=22914. Accessed on December 2, 2014.

Obermeyer, B. K. 2000. Recovery Plan for Four Freshwater Mussels in Southeast 

Kansas. Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism. Pratt, KS. 

November 6, 2000.

. 2003. Recovery Plan for Freshwater mussels in the upper Osage River system, 

Kansas. Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism. Pratt, KS. 

November 5, 2003.

ODWC (Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation). 1993. Oklahoma’s 

Biodiversity Plan: A Shared Vision for Conserving Our Natural Heritage. Internet 

website: http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/wildlifemgmt/biodiversity.htm. 

Accessed on December 2, 2014.

_____. 2005. Oklahoma Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.
5. Consistency/Coordination with Other Plans

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 5-11

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Oklahoma Department of Transportation. 2010. Oklahoma Long Range Transportation 

Plan. Internet website: http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/p-r-div/lrp_2010-

2035/index.htm. Accessed on December 2, 2014.

Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department. 2012. Oklahoma’s Great Outdoors: The 

Place, The People, The Providers, The Plan (2012 Statewide Comprehensive 

Outdoor Recreation Plan).

Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 2015. The Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan. 

Internet website: http://www.owrb.ok.gov/supply/ocwp/ocwp.php. Accessed on 

January 22, 2015.

Texas Department of Transportation. 2014. Texas Long Range Transportation Plan. 

Internet website: http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/transportationplanning/statewide-plan.html. Accessed on December 2, 2014.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2012a. 2012 Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan. 

Recreation Grants Branch, State Parks Division. September 2012.

_____. 2012b. Texas Conservation Action Plan 2012-2016: Statewide/Multi-Region 

Handbook (Wendy Connally, editor and Texas Conservation Action Plan 

Coordinator). Austin, Texas.

Texas Water Development Board. 2015. 2012 State Water Plan. Internet website: 

http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/waterplanning/swp/2012/index.asp. Accessed on 

January 22, 2015.

USFWS (US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service) 2014. Oil and Gas 

Industry Conservation Plan Associated with Issuance of Endangered Species Act 

Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits for the American Burying Beetle in Oklahoma. May 

21, 2014.

Van Pelt, W. E., S. Kyle, J. Pitman, D. Klute, G. Beauprez, D. Schoeling, A. Janus, and J. 

Haufler, 2013. The Lesser Prairie-Chicken Range-wide Conservation Plan. 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Wasson, T., L. Yasui, K. Brunson, S. Amend, and V. Ebert. October 2005. A Future for 

Kansas Wildlife, Kansas’ Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 

Dynamic Solutions, Inc., in cooperation with Kansas Department of Wildlife,

Parks, and Tourism.
5. Consistency/Coordination with Other Plans

5-12 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

This page intentionally left blank.
June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 6-1

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

CHAPTER 6

SPECIFIC MANDATES AND AUTHORITY

6.1 BLM RESOURCES

6.1.1 Air

The following statutes, regulations, handbooks, and other policies govern air quality:

 BLM-M-7300, Air Resource Management

 Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended in 1977 and 1990

 Executive Order 11738, providing for administration of the Clean Air Act and

Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to federal contracts, grants, 

and loans

 FLPMA

In 2011 the BLM, USFWS, National Park Service, EPA, and Forest Service signed an 

interagency memorandum of understanding to address air quality issues associated with 

oil and gas development on federal lands. The memorandum of understanding establishes 

common procedures for the agencies to follow in analyzing and mitigating the potential 

air quality impacts of proposed oil and gas activities on federally managed public lands 

through the NEPA process, as follows:

 Consultation among the five participating agencies throughout the NEPA 

process

 Common procedures for determining what type of air quality analyses are 

appropriate and when air modeling is necessary

 Specific provisions for analyzing and discussing impacts on air quality-related 

values and for mitigating impacts on air quality and air quality-related values

 A dispute resolution process to facilitate timely resolution of differences 

among agencies
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

6-2 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Additionally, air quality in the planning area is regulated and monitored by the Kansas 

Department of Health and Environment, the Office of Air in the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality, and the Air Quality Division of the Oklahoma Department of 

Environmental Quality.

6.1.2 Climate

There are no NAAQS for greenhouse gases. The Final Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule 

and the Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule govern climate and climate change.

6.1.3 Geology

There are no specific regulations and guidelines for geology critical for NEPA 

compliance. There are specific construction requirements specified in federal building 

codes, and mandates and authority on mineral development. These are as follows:

 43 CFR, Part 3160, Order 6, Hydrogen Sulfide Operations

 Indian Mineral Leasing Act, 25 USC, Section 396a et seq.

 25 USC, Section 396, and the Indian Mineral Development Act, 25 USC, 

Section 2101 et seq.

 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 USC, Section 181 et seq.)

 Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 (30 USC, Section 21a)

 General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 USC, Section 21 et seq.)

 Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (30 USC, Section 181 et 

seq.)

 Mining Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947

 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 USC, Section 1201 

et seq.)

 Mineral Sites ROWs are granted to State Departments’ of Transportation (23 

USC, Section 317)

 43 CFR, Part 3100, Oil and Gas Leasing

6.1.4 Soil Resources

The following statutes, regulations, handbooks, and other policies govern soil resources:

 43 CFR, Part 3809, Surface Management Regulations 

 43 CFR, Parts 3715 and 3800, Mining Regulations 

 43 CFR, Part 3600, Mineral Material Regulations 

 43 CFR, Part 3802, Exploration and Mining, Wilderness Review Program 

 43 CFR, Part 3715, Use and Occupancy under the Mining Laws 

 43 CFR, Parts 6300 and 8560, Wilderness Management 
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 6-3

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 BLM Manual 7150 (provides guidance in the conduct and maintenance of 

water utilization and development, water quality, water yield and timing, and 

water rights)

 BLM Manual 7100 (defines the BLM’s Soil Resource Management Program)

 BLM Manual 7160 (provides general guidance for preventing water and wind 

erosion)

 BLM Manual 7180 (relates the restoration of disturbed areas directly to the 

policy on erosion control, protection, maintenance of environmental quality, 

rehabilitation of mined lands [BLM 3509 and 3605] and prevention of erosion 

in road construction)

 BLM Manual 7210 (provides the basic framework for soil and watershed 

activities)

 BLM Technical Notes 371: Determining Hydrologic Properties of Soil 

 BLM Technical Reference 1737-19: Riparian Wetland Soils (2003) 

 Desert Land Entry Act of 1877, as amended 

 Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935, as amended 

 Soil Information Assistance for Community Planning and Resource 

Development Act of 1996 

 Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977

 The American Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act, Public Law

103-177 

 Indian Self Determination Act, Public Law 93-638.

6.1.5 Water Resources

Federal laws, statutes, mandates and authorities on water resources are as follows:

 Appropriations Act of 1952, McCarran Amendment

 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly referred to as the Clean 

Water Act), as amended (33 USC, Sections 1251-1387)

 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (42 USC, Section 201)

 Economy Act of 1932, as amended

 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, as amended

 Water Resources Development Act of 1974

 Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, as amended

 Water Resources Research Act of 1954, as amended

 Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-87, 91 

Statute 1407, November 8, 1977; 16 USC, Section 2000 et seq.)
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

6-4 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed Approach to Federal Land and 

Resource Management, October 18, 2000

 Executive Order 11288, Prevention, Control and Abatement of Water 

Pollution by Federal Activities, July 2, 1966

 Executive Order 11507, Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Air and Water 

Pollution at Federal Facilities, February 4, 1970

 Executive Order 11514, as amended by Executive Order 11991, Protection 

and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, March 5, 1970

 Executive Order 11988, as amended by Executive Order 12148, Floodplain 

Management, May 24, 1977

 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 24, 1977

 Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control 

Standards, October 13, 1978

 Executive Order 12322, Water resources projects, September, 17, 1981

 President’s letter of May 26, 1974 (creates the Interagency Committee on 

Water Resources and establishes interagency participation in river basin 

planning)

 The Unified Federal Policy for a Watershed Approach to Federal Land and 

Resource Management (Federal Register, October 18, 2000)

Regulations are as follows:

 43 CFR, Part 3809, Surface Management Regulations 

 43 CFR, Parts 6300 and 8560, Wilderness Management

 43 CFR, Part 4100, Subpart 4180, Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and 

Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Administration

Instruction memoranda, information bulletins, manual sections, handbooks, and technical 

notes are as follows:

 Instruction Memorandum 2000-179—Funding of Water-Related Restoration 

and Cleanup Projects on Private and Other Non-BLM Lands

 Instruction Memorandum 99-085—Federal Multi-Agency Source Water 

Agreement

 Information Bulletin 98-116—Clean Water Action

 Instruction Memorandum 87-261—Implementation of the Riparian Area 

Management Policy

 Instruction Memorandum 78-410—Protection of Wetlands and Riparian 

Areas
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 6-5

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 BLM Manual 6740—Policy and procedures for identifying, protecting, 

maintaining, and managing fresh, brackish, and saline waters and wetland 

areas

 BLM Manual 7120—Guidelines for maintaining BLM watershed 

improvements on public lands

 BLM Manual 7200—BLM direction in surface water resources

 BLM Manual 7221—Policies, responsibilities, and procedures used to 

incorporate floodplain management into BLM activities

 BLM Manual 7240—BLM policy to protect, maintain, restore, and enhance 

the quality of water on public lands so that its utility for other dependent 

ecosystems will be maintained equal to or above legal water quality criteria

 BLM Manual 7250—Policy and guidance to acquire, perfect, and protect 

water rights necessary for multiple use management

 BLM Manual 7315-7317—Procedures for inventorying and analyzing

groundwater and surface water inventories and for erosion and sediment 

reduction

 BLM Manual 7322—Procedures for analyzing watershed problems and 

developing plans for improving watershed conditions

 BLM Handbook 85501—Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for 

Lands under Wilderness Review

 BLM Handbook 8560-1—Management of Designated Wilderness Areas

 BLM Technical Notes 372—Stream discharge measurement using a modified 

technique

 BLM Technical Notes 405—A framework for analyzing the hydrologic 

conditions of watersheds

6.1.6 Vegetation

Upland Vegetation

The following statutes, regulations, handbooks, and other policies govern upland 

vegetation: 

 The Public Rangelands Improvement Act (43 USC, Section 869 et seq.)

 Riparian Area Management—Process for Assessing Proper Functioning 

Condition (Prichard et al. 1998)

 BLM Handbook H-4180—Rangeland Health Standards 

 BLM Handbook H-1740-2—Integrated Vegetation Management (BLM 2008)

 BLM Instruction Manual 2012-124, Land Health Standards (BLM 2012)
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

6-6 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Final Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western 

States Programmatic EIS (BLM 2007).

The Oklahoma RMP (BLM 1994) does not provide management directly related to 

upland vegetation management. Relevant management is discussed in the wildlife section 

as it relates to habitat management for special status species, including lease stipulations 

and notices, and conditions of approval attached to drilling permits. 

The Kansas RMP (BLM 1991) does not provide management directly related to upland 

vegetation management. Relevant management is discussed in the wildlife section as it 

relates to habitat management for special status species, including lease stipulations and 

notices, and conditions of approval attached to drilling permits.

The Texas RMP (BLM 1996) does not provide management directly related to upland 

vegetation management. Relevant management is discussed in the wildlife section as it 

relates to habitat management for special status species, including lease stipulations and 

conditions of approval attached permits.

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

The following statutes, regulations, handbooks, and other policies govern riparian areas 

and wetlands: 

 The Public Rangelands Improvement Act (43 USC 869 et seq.)

 Riparian Area Management—Process for Assessing Proper Functioning 

Condition (Prichard et al. 1998)

 BLM Handbook H-4180—Rangeland Health Standards 

 BLM Handbook H-1740-2—Integrated Vegetation Management 

 BLM Instruction Manual 2012-124, Land Health Standards 

 Final Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western 

States Programmatic EIS (BLM 2007).

 Executive Order 11988—Floodplain Management

 Executive Order 11990—Protection of Wetlands

The Oklahoma RMP (BLM 1994) provides for wetland and riparian management 

direction. Wetland and riparian resource protection stipulations have been developed, and 

are an integral part of the oil, gas, and coal resource programs in the state. Wetland and 

riparian resource concerns are addressed through site specific agency coordination with 

the Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory, and the ODWC as necessary regarding each 

BLM project in the state. 

The Kansas RMP (BLM 1991) also provides for wetland and riparian management 

direction. Wetland and riparian resource protection stipulations have been developed, and 

are an integral part of the oil, gas, and coal resource programs in the state. Wetland and 
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 6-7

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

riparian resource concerns are addressed through site specific agency coordination with 

the Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory as necessary regarding each BLM project in the 

state.

The Texas RMP (BLM 1996) also provides for wetland and riparian management 

direction. Wetland and riparian leasing stipulations and conditions of approval have been 

developed. Wetland and riparian resource concerns are addressed through preparation of 

environmental analyses and wetland and riparian evaluations in coordination with the 

Texas Wildlife and Parks Department.

Noxious Weeds and Invasive, Nonnative Species

The following statutes, regulations, handbooks, and other policies govern noxious weeds 

and nonnative, invasive species: 

 The Public Rangelands Improvement Act (43 USC, Section 869 et seq.)

 Executive Order 13112—Invasive Species

 Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended

 Riparian Area Management—Process for Assessing Proper Functioning 

Condition (Prichard et al. 1998)

 BLM Handbook H-4180—Rangeland Health Standards 

 BLM Handbook H-1740-2—Integrated Vegetation Management (BLM 2008)

 BLM Instruction Manual 2012-124, Land Health Standards (BLM 2012)

 Final Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western 

States Programmatic EIS (BLM 2007)

Indian Affairs Manual Part 54, Chapter 7-Management of Noxious Weeds on 

Indian Lands.

The Oklahoma RMP (BLM 1994), Kansas RMP (BLM 1991), and Texas RMP (BLM 

1996) do not provide management directly related to noxious weeds and invasive 

nonnative species. Relevant management is discussed in the wildlife section as it relates 

to habitat management for special status species. 

Special Status Plant Species

The following statutes, regulations, handbooks, and other policies govern special status 

species: 

 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

 BLM Manual 6840, Special Status Species Management

The Oklahoma RMP (BLM 1994) provides for special status species management. It is 

discussed in the wildlife section as it relates to habitat management for special status 

species, including lease stipulations and notices, and conditions of approval attached to 
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

6-8 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

drilling permits. Special status species resource concerns are addressed through sitespecific agency coordination with the Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory and the 

ODWC regarding each BLM project in the state.

The Kansas RMP (BLM 1991) provides for special status species management. It is 

discussed in the wildlife section as it relates to habitat management for special status 

species, including lease stipulations and notices, and conditions of approval attached to 

drilling permits. Special status species resource concerns are addressed through sitespecific agency coordination with the Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory regarding each 

BLM project in the state.

The Texas RMP (BLM 1996) provides for special status species management direction. 

Special status species leasing stipulations and conditions of approval have been 

developed. Species concerns are addressed by environmental analyses and special status 

species evaluations, in coordination with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

6.1.7 Fish and Wildlife

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act implements a series of international treaties that provide 

for migratory bird protection. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate the 

taking of migratory birds. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it unlawful, except as 

permitted by regulations, “to pursue, take, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest or 

egg of any such bird” (16 USC, Section 703), but it does not regulate habitat. The list of 

species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was revised in March 2010 and 

includes almost all 1,007 bird species that are native to the US.

Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory 

Birds

Signed on January 11, 2001, this Executive Order directs each federal agency taking 

actions that are likely to have a measureable effect on migratory bird populations to 

develop and implement a memorandum of understanding with USFWS that promotes the 

conservation of migratory bird populations.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Code Section 12.0011

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is charged with providing recommendations 

that will protect fish and wildlife resources to local, state, and federal agencies that 

approve, permit, license, or construct developmental projects. It provides information on 

fish and wildlife resources to any local, state, and federal agencies or private 

organizations that make decisions affecting those resources.

6.1.8 Special Status Species

Specific mandates and authorities are as follows:

 Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act (16 USC, Section 1531

et seq.), as amended, provides for the conservation of federal-listed plant and 
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 6-9

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

animal species and their habitats. The Endangered Species Act directs federal 

agencies to conserve listed species and imposes an affirmative duty on them to 

ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

a listed species or adversely modify its designated critical habitat.

 BLM Manual 6840—Special Status Species Management. This provides 

management policy for federal-listed species and BLM-designated sensitive 

species. There are no BLM-designated sensitive species in the planning area.

6.1.9 Wild Horses and Burros

The BLM is responsible for protecting, managing, and controlling wild horses and 

burros, in accordance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 

(Public Law 92-195, as amended). Its purpose is to “manage wild horses and burros 

within herd management areas designated for their long-term maintenance, in a manner 

designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple use 

relationships.” The FLPMA directs the BLM to manage wild horses and burros as one of 

numerous multiple uses: mining, recreation, domestic grazing, and fish and wildlife. 

Additional guidance is found in 43 CFR, Part 4700, Protection, Management, and Control 

of Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros.

The Public Rangeland Improvement Act of 1978, as amended, defined excess wild horses

and burros, reaffirmed the need to remove excess animals to protect animal and rangeland 

health, mandated research, and provided guidance for titles to adopted horses and the 

adoption process.

6.1.10 Cultural Resources

The following statutes, regulations, handbooks, and other policies govern cultural 

resources: 

 American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended

 BLM Manual 8100, Cultural Resource Management

 Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites

 Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

 Historic Sites Act of 1935

 Information Bulletin 2002-101, Cultural Resource Information

 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended

 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, as amended

 Procedures for Performing Cultural Resource Fieldwork in the Areas of 

Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas BLM Responsibilities 
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

6-10 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Indian Affairs Manual Part 59, Chapter 8- Protection of Historical and 

Archaeological Resources

 Memorandum of Understanding Among the US Department of Defense, US 

Department of the Interior, US Department of Agriculture, US Department of 

Energy, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding 

Interagency Coordination and Collaboration for the Protection of Indian 

Sacred Sites

6.1.11 Paleontological Resources

The Antiquities Act of 1906 and the Paleontological Resource Preservation Act; Sections 

6301-6312 of the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009, 16 USC, Section 470aaa) serve as 

the primary federal legislation to protect and conserve paleontological resources on lands 

administered by the federal government. The Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC, Sections 

431-433) protects both historic and prehistoric resources on federal lands. 

The Paleontological Resource Preservation Act codified specific protection for 

paleontological resources that provide information about the history of life on earth. It

mandates the management and preservation of those resources on public lands, using 

scientific principles and expertise. Furthermore, the Paleontological Resource 

Preservation Act created criteria for issuing paleontological collection permits and 

directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to ensure paleontological 

resources discovered on federal lands are curated properly into the collections of 

approved repository institutions. 

In addition, the FLPMA (Public Law 94-579) requires that public lands be managed in a 

manner that protects the “quality of scientific” and other values. NEPA (Public Law 91-

190) requires that “important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national 

heritage” be protected. The Paleontological Resource Preservation Act applies to federal 

lands only and does not affect private lands. It provides the authority to protect

paleontological resources on federal lands and includes criminal and civil penalties for 

fossil theft and vandalism.

The following statutes, regulations, handbooks, and other policies govern paleontological 

resources:

 BLM Manual 8270 on Paleontological Resource Management 

 Handbook H8270 on Paleontological Resource Management 

 Instruction Memorandum 2008-009 on Potential Fossil Yield Classification 

System for Paleontological Resources on Public Lands

 Instruction Memorandum 2009-011 on Assessment and Mitigation of 

Potential Impacts [on] Paleontological Resources
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 6-11

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Instruction Memorandum 2009-113 on Casual Collecting of Common 

Invertebrate and Plant Paleontological Resources under the Paleontological 

Resources Preservation Act of 2009

 Instruction Memorandum 2012-140 on Collecting Paleontological Resources 

under the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009

 Instruction Memorandum 2012-141 on Confidentiality of Paleontological 

Locality Information under the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009, Title VI, 

Subtitle D on Paleontological Resources Preservation

 Indian Affairs Manual Part 59, Chapter 7, Paleontological Resources.

6.1.12 Visual Resources

The following statutes, regulations, handbooks, and other policies govern visual 

resources:

 BLM Manual 8400—Visual Resource Management describes the overall 

BLM policy direction for visual resource management.

 BLM Handbook H-8410-1—Visual Resource Inventory outlines the BLM’s 

process to identify visual values. The inventory consists of an evaluation of 

scenic quality and sensitivity and a delineation of distance zones. Based on 

these three factors, lands are placed into one of four VRI classes, which 

represent the relative value of the visual resources. Classes I and II are the 

most valued, class III represents a moderate value, and class IV is the least 

valued. The inventory classes provide the basis for considering visual values 

in the planning process.

 BLM Handbook H-8431-1—Visual Resource Contrast Rating outlines the 

BLM’s process to analyze potential visual impacts of proposed projects and 

activities. The degree to which a proposed project affects the visual quality of 

the landscape depends on the visual contrast created between the proposed 

project and the existing landscape. The contrast can be measured by 

comparing the proposed project features with the major features in the 

existing landscape. The basic design elements of form, line, color, and texture 

are used to make this comparison and to describe the visual contrast created 

by the proposed project. This assessment process provides a means for 

determining visual impacts and for identifying measures to mitigate these 

impacts.

6.1.13 Wilderness Characteristics

The following statutes, regulations, handbooks, and other policies govern lands with 

wilderness characteristics outside wilderness study areas:

 BLM Manual 6310, Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on 

BLM Lands (BLM 2012b)
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

6-12 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 BLM Manual 6320, Considering Lands with Wilderness Characteristics in the 

BLM Land Use Planning Process (BLM 2012c)

6.1.14 Wildland Fire Management

The following statutes, regulations, handbooks, and other policies govern wildland fire 

management:

 FLPMA

 NEPA

 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy, established in 1995 and updated in 

2001

 Interagency Guidance—Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation 

Operations, Interagency Burned Areas Emergency Response and Interagency 

Burned Area Rehabilitation, Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and 

Implementation Procedures Reference Guide

 Land Use Planning—BLM Planning Handbook H-1601

 District and Field Office—Fire Management Plans

 BLM Fire Management Policy and Integrated Vegetation Management—

BLM Handbook H-1740-2, Integrated Vegetation Management; BLM Manual 

9211, Fire Planning; BLM Handbook 9211-1, Fire Planning; BLM Manual 

9212, Fire Protection; BLM Handbook H-9238, Fire Trespass

 Indian Affairs Manual Part 90, Chapters 1-4, Wildland Fire Management

6.1.15 Cave and Karst Resources

The following statutes, regulations, handbooks, and other policies govern cave and karst 

resources:

 Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988, 16 USC Section 4301

 National Cave and Karst Research Institute Act of 1988

 43 CFR, Part 37, Cave Management

 Instruction Memorandum 2008-105 (cave safety standards)

 BLM Memorandum of Understanding WO-250-2007-01—Facilitates

cooperation and enhances management of cave and karst resources on BLMadministered lands

 Interagency Cave and Karst Management Agreement 2003
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 6-13

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

6.2 BLM RESOURCE USES

6.2.1 Energy and Minerals

Coal

 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended—Under this federal law, the BLM 

issues leases for developing deposits of coal, phosphates, potassium, sodium, 

uranium, petroleum, natural gas, and other hydrocarbons on public domain 

lands and lands having general reserved minerals.

 Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 as amended—This federal 

law states that all deposits of coal, phosphate, oil, oil shale, gas, sodium, 

potassium, and sulfur on lands legally acquired by the US may be leased 

under the same conditions as the leasing provisions of the federal mineral 

leasing system.

 BLM Coal Regulations (43 CFR, Parts 3400-3580)—These regulations 

govern the BLM’s management of federal coal resources, including leasing, 

suitability determinations, exploration, and mining operations.

Fluid Minerals

 Helium Privatization Act of 1996—This federal law gives the BLM 

responsibility for operating the federal helium reserve to provide enriched 

crude helium to private refiners.

 Helium Stewardship Act of 2013—This federal law directs the Secretary of 

the Interior to sell the helium resources in the federal helium reserve in a 

competitive market and to credit the proceeds to the Helium Production Fund 

to support research, development, commercial application, and conservation 

programs related to helium resources.

 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended—Under this federal law, the BLM 

issues leases for developing deposits of coal, phosphates, potassium, sodium, 

uranium, petroleum, natural gas, and other hydrocarbons on public domain 

lands and lands having general reserved minerals.

 Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended—This federal 

law states that the leasing of all deposits of coal, phosphate, oil, oil shale, gas, 

sodium, potassium, and sulfur on lands legally acquired by the US may be 

leased under the same conditions as the leasing provisions of the federal 

mineral leasing system. 

 Geothermal Steam Act of 1970—This law authorizes the Department of the 

Interior to lease public lands for geothermal development. The Department of 

the Interior has delegated leasing authority to the BLM.

 BLM Fluid Mineral Regulations (43 CFR, Parts 3100-3280)—These 

regulations govern the BLM’s management of federal fluid mineral resources, 

including leasing, exploration, and operations.
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

6-14 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1—This policy contains the requirements 

necessary for the approval of all proposed oil and gas exploratory, 

development, or service wells on all federal and Indian onshore oil and gas 

leases (other than those of the Osage Tribe)..

Locatable Minerals

 General Mining Law of 1872, as amended—This law authorizes and governs 

prospecting and mining for hardrock minerals on federal public lands. 

 BLM Locatable Mineral Regulations (43 CFR, Parts 3800 to 3870)—These 

regulations govern the BLM’s management of mining and mining claims 

under the general mining laws.

Mineral Materials

 Mineral Materials Act of 1947—This law authorizes the BLM to sell mineral 

materials at fair market value and to grant free-use permits to government 

agencies and nonprofit organizations.

 BLM Mineral Materials Regulations (43 CFR, Part 3600)—These regulations 

govern the BLM’s administration of mineral materials on public domain 

lands.

Nonenergy Leasables

 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended—Under this federal law, the BLM 

issues leases for developing deposits of coal, phosphates, potassium, sodium, 

uranium, petroleum, natural gas, and other hydrocarbons on public domain 

lands and lands having general reserved minerals.

 Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended—This federal 

law states that all deposits of coal, phosphate, oil, oil shale, gas, sodium, 

potassium, and sulfur on lands legally acquired by the US may be leased 

under the same conditions as the leasing provisions of the federal mineral 

leasing system. 

 Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946—This plan, prepared by the President and 

approved by Congress pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1945, transferred 

the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture for leasing or disposing of 

minerals (including hardrock minerals) to the Secretary of the Interior for 

acquired lands.

 BLM Nonenergy Leasable Mineral Regulations (43 CFR, Part 3500)—These 

regulations govern the BLM’s administration of nonenergy leasable minerals, 

including issuing prospecting permits and leases.

6.2.2 Renewable Energy

The following statutes, regulations, handbooks, and other policies govern renewable 

energy:

 FLPMA
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 6-15

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58, Title II)

6.2.3 Recreation and Visitor Services

BLM Manual 8320, Planning for Recreation and Visitor Services, provides general 

policy, direction, and guidance for recreation and visitor services planning on the public 

lands and associated waters under the BLM’s administration. This manual provides 

definitions and criteria for designating special recreation management areas and extensive 

recreation management areas. (Neither of these two types of recreation areas have been 

designated in the planning area.)

BLM Handbook H-2930-1, Recreation Permit and Fee Administration, provides agency 

policy, direction, and guidance for establishing, modifying, and managing recreation fees 

and for issuing and administering the various permits for recreation on public lands and 

related waters. As authorized by 43 CFR, Part 2932, the following four types of uses 

require Special Recreation Permits: commercial use, competitive events, organized 

groups, and recreation use in special areas. The BLM can issue Special Recreation 

Permits for noncommercial use in certain special areas, including rivers, backcountry,

and camping areas. 

6.2.4 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management

Transportation is an integral part of virtually every activity that occurs on public lands. 

Comprehensive travel and transportation management is meant for the BLM’s proactive 

interdisciplinary planning, on-the-ground management, and administration of roads and 

trails for both motorized and nonmotorized travel. Its purpose is to ensure that public 

access, natural and cultural resources, and regulatory needs are considered. The 

comprehensive travel and transportation management process must address variability 

among landscapes, users’ interests, equipment options, and cultural and biological 

resource constraints. The primary goal of the comprehensive travel and transportation 

management process is to develop a systematic network of routes with appropriately 

designated uses that provide opportunities for a diverse set of activities on public lands, 

such as recreation, energy development, grazing, and wildlife management.

Traditionally, the BLM’s travel management program focused primarily on motor vehicle 

use. However, the introduction of comprehensive travel and transportation management

significantly expanded the planning scope to include all forms of travel, including travel 

on foot, on horseback and other livestock, via mechanized vehicles (e.g., bicycles), 

motorized vehicles (e.g., motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, cars, and trucks), and travel by 

motorized and nonmotorized boats.

There is considerable overlap between travel management and all other uses on BLM 

lands. For example, many people visit public lands for recreation. For these visitors, a 

route system may serve as either a means to reach a destination where the activity occurs 

(e.g., a road to a trailhead or parking area) or as the focus of the recreation itself (e.g., 

trails for four-wheel driving, hiking, and horseback riding).
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

6-16 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

To reduce the duplication of narrative between travel management and the other sections 

of this document, this section addresses only public travel and access: management area 

designations, route designations, types of travel, and seasonal area limitations.

6.2.5 Lands and Realty

The following statutes, regulations, handbooks, and other policies govern land tenure: 

 43 CFR, Parts 2100, 2200, 2300, 2700, 2800, 2900, 3100, 3200, 3400, 3500, 

3600, and 3800 

 25 CFR, Parts 150, 151, 152

 FLPMA

 Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1954, as amended 

 Recreation and Public Purposes Act Amendment Act of 1988 

 BLM Handbook 2100-1, Acquisitions

 BLM Handbook 2200, Land Exchanges

 BLM Manual 2200, Land Exchanges

 BIA Fee-to-Trust Handbook, Version II

 OIG Handbook for Gaming Acquisition

 Indian Affairs Manual Part 51, Land Titles and Records

 Indian Affairs Manual Part 52, Real Estate Services.

The following statutes, regulations, handbooks, and other policies govern use 

authorizations: 

 43 CFR, Part 2920, Leases, Permits, and Easements

 FLPMA

6.2.6 Livestock Grazing

Federal laws, statutes, mandates, and authorities on livestock grazing are as follows:

 Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 USC, Section 315) 

 General Allotment Act of 1887 

 The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 

 Executive Order 10175, Amending Executive Order 7908 of June 9, 1938, and 

Executive Order 10046 of March 24, 1949 

 Executive Order 12548, Grazing Fee, February 14, 1986 
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 6-17

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Indian Affairs Manual Part 54, Chapter 7, Grazing Permit Issuance, 

Administration, and Monitoring

The regulation on livestock grazing is 43 CFR, Part 4100, Grazing Regulations.

6.2.7 Prime and Unique Farmlands/Agriculture

 Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1984 (7 USC, Sections 4201-4209)

 The American Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act, Public Law

103-177 

 Indian Self Determination Act Public Law 93-638

6.3 BLM SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

6.3.1 Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas

 Wilderness Act of 1964—The Wilderness Act 1964 established the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. It directs each agency administering any 

designated wilderness to preserve the wilderness character of the area.

6.3.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

 FLPMA Section 202 (43 USC, Section 1712[c][3]) 

 43 CFR, Part 1610.7-2

 FLPMA and BLM Manual Section 1613 (BLM 1988)—Requires the BLM to 

prioritize designating and protecting ACECs during the land use planning 

process

 This analysis and the resultant findings for ACEC relevance and importance 

criteria has been performed in accordance with FLPMA Section 202 (43 USC, 

Section 1712[c][3]), 43 CFR, Part 1610.7-2, and BLM Manual 1613 [BLM 

1988])

6.3.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers

 Oklahoma’s Scenic Rivers Act, Oklahoma Statute Title 82, Sections 1451-

1471—Preserves some of the free-flowing streams and rivers of Oklahoma for 

the benefit of its people. These rivers are preserved because the Oklahoma 

legislatures find that they possess unique natural scenic beauty, water 

conservation, fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreational values of present and 

future benefit to the people of the state. 

6.3.4 National Trails

 National Trails System Act of 1968—Created the National Trails System and 

defined four categories of national trails: national scenic trails, national 

historic trails, national recreation trails, and connecting or side trails. 

 BLM Manual 6250, National Scenic and Historic Trail Administration—

Addresses specific functions delegated to the BLM from the Secretary of the 

Interior, in accordance with the National Trails System Act. The manual 
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

6-18 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

describes how to conduct national scenic or historic trail feasibility studies, 

how to administer a national scenic or historic trail after its designation by 

Congress, and the responsibilities of national scenic or historic trail 

administrators. 

 BLM Manual 6280, Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails and 

Trails Under Study or Recommended as Suitable for Congressional 

Designation—Provides the policies for managing national scenic and historic 

trails. It identifies requirements for managing trails undergoing a national trail 

feasibility study, trails that are recommended as suitable for the National Trail

System, designation through the national trail feasibility study, and 

inventorying, planning, managing, and monitoring designated national scenic 

and historic trails. 

 BLM Manual 6100, National Landscape Conservation System Management—

Provides general policy for all units of the BLM’s National Landscape 

Conservation System.

6.3.5 National, State, and BLM Byways

 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991—Developed a 

national intermodal surface transportation system and authorized funds for 

construction of highways, highway safety programs, and mass transit 

programs. 

 Transportation Equity Act of 1998—Authorized the federal surface 

transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for from

1998 to 2003. It required that certain planning factors be included in regional 

transportation plans. 

6.4 BLM SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

6.4.1 Native American Tribal Uses

Consideration of Indian trust assets is based on the following selected Executive Orders, 

secretarial orders, and regulations:

 Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 

Governments (Memorandum signed by President Clinton, April 29, 1994), 

Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 85—Directs federal agencies to consult, to the 

greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, with tribal governments 

before taking actions that affect tribal governments recognized by the federal 

government. Federal agencies must assess the impact of federal government 

plans, projects, programs, and activities on tribal trust resources and ensure 

that tribal government rights and concerns are considered during such 

development. 

 Executive Order 13751, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, 63 Federal Register 96—Issued to establish regular and 

meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in developing
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 6-19

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

federal policies that have tribal implications. When implementing such 

policies, agencies must consult with tribal officials as to the need for federal 

standards and any alternatives that limit their scope or otherwise preserve the 

prerogatives and authority of Indian tribes.

 Secretarial Order No. 3175, Departmental Responsibilities for Indian Trust 

Resources—Requires Department of the Interior bureaus and offices to 

consult with the recognized tribal government with jurisdiction over the trust 

property that a proposal may affect.

 Secretarial Order No. 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal Tribal 

Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act—Clarify the 

responsibilities of the Department of the Interior agencies on how Endangered 

Species Act compliance actions affect, or may affect, Indian lands, tribal trust 

resources, or the exercise of American Indian tribal rights. Department of the 

Interior agencies will carry out their responsibilities in a manner that 

complements the federal trust responsibility to tribes, tribal sovereignty, and 

statutory missions of the departments. Also, agencies must strive to ensure 

that Indian tribes do not bear a disproportionate burden for the conservation of 

listed species. 

 Secretarial Order No. 3215, Principles for the Discharge of the Secretary’s 

Trust Responsibility—Provides guidance to Department of the Interior 

employees who are responsible for carrying out the Secretary’s trust 

responsibility as it pertains to Indian trust assets. 

 Departmental Manual 512 Chapter 2, Departmental Responsibilities for Indian 

Trust Resources—Establishes the policies, responsibilities, and procedures for 

operating on a government-to-government basis with Indian tribes recognized 

by the federal government to identify, conserve, and protect American Indian 

and Alaska Native trust resources to fulfill the Federal Indian Trust 

Responsibility. 

Consideration of traditional cultural uses, locations, and sacred site tribal Indian trust 

assets is based on the following selected laws, executive orders, secretarial orders, and

regulations:

 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 USC, Section

470—Directs federal agencies to take into account the effect of any 

undertaking (a federally funded or assisted project) on historic properties.

 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, 42 USC, Section

1996—Establishes a national policy to protect and preserve the right of 

American Indians to exercise traditional Indian religious beliefs or practices.

 The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990—

Requires consultation with appropriate Native American tribes and Native 

Alaskan and Native Hawaiian organizations on the identification and 
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

6-20 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

affiliation of cultural items and those resulting from subsequent intentional 

excavations and inadvertent discoveries.

 Executive Order 13007—Directs federal agencies, when possible, to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian 

religious practitioners and to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity 

of such sacred sites. 

 Executive Order 13175—Directs federal agencies to continue to work with 

Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis to address issues 

concerning Indian tribal self-government, tribal trust resources, and Indian 

tribal treaty and other rights; to establish regular and meaningful consultation 

and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of federal policies 

that have tribal implications; to strengthen the US government-to-government 

relationships with Indian tribes; and to reduce the imposition of unfunded 

mandates on Indian tribes. 

 Interagency Coordination and Collaboration for the Protection of Indian 

Sacred Sites—Memorandum of Understanding among the Departments of the 

Interior, Agriculture, Energy, and Defense and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation; states that federal land management agencies “hold in 

public trust a great diversity of landscapes and sites, including many culturally 

important sites held sacred by Indian Tribes,” and acknowledges that “all 

Federal agencies are responsible for assessing the potential effects of 

undertakings they carry out, fund, or permit on historic properties of 

traditional cultural and religious importance to tribes.”

BLM Policy, Direction, and Guidance: 

 BLM 8100 series manuals on cultural resources management—A reference 

source that provides basic information and general summary guidance for the 

BLM’s cultural resource management program.

 8110, Identifying Cultural Resources—Provides general direction for 

identifying cultural resources; designed to ensure that BLM field office 

managers locate and record cultural resources on lands they administer or are 

affected by undertakings they authorize; evaluate the resources’ significance 

and their scientific, cultural, public, traditional, and conservation importance 

as the basis for managing the resources and the surrounding land area; and 

maintain records that can be used for education, research, and other learning 

purposes.

 8120, Protecting Cultural Resources—Provides general guidance for 

protecting cultural resources from deterioration; for making decisions about 

recovering significant cultural resource data when it is impossible or 

impractical to maintain cultural resources; for protecting cultural resources 

from inadvertent adverse effects; and for controlling unauthorized uses of 

cultural resources.
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 6-21

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 8130, Utilizing Cultural Resources for Public Benefit—Provides specific 

procedural direction on authorizing the use of cultural resources on public 

land and general guidance on ensuring public benefits from their use.

 8160, Native American Consultation and Coordination, and Handbook H8160-1, Tribal Consultation under Cultural Resource Authorities—Provide 

policy and guidance on coordinating and consulting with Native Americans. 

The goal is to ensure that tribal governments, Native American communities, 

and individuals whose interests might be affected have a sufficient 

opportunity to participate in BLM planning and resource management 

decision-making. 

6.4.2 Public Health and Safety

 NAAQS (40 CFR, Parts 50.4-50.12) 

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR, Part 61) 

 The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980 (42 USC, Section 9601 et seq.) 

 Occupational and Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended 

 Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, as amended 

 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947, as amended in 

1972 

 43 CFR, Part 300, National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan

 43 CFR, Part 3809, Surface Management

 Department Manual Part 602 Chapter 2 (land acquisitions, exchanges, and 

disposals of hazardous substance determination procedures) 

 Department Manual Part 910 (national oil and hazardous substances 

contingency plan procedures) 

 BLM Manual 1703 (objectives, policies, responsibilities, and authorities for 

hazardous material management) 

 BLM Manual 9113, Roads 

 BLM Handbook H-1703-1 (Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act Response Actions Handbook) 

 Instruction Memorandum 2003-008 (policy for BLM personnel to enter sites 

with potential of known hazardous substance releases) 

 Instruction Memorandum 2002-138 (hazardous substance discovery policy for 

BLM personnel) 

 Information Bulletin 2001-071 (BLM safety and health policy) 
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

6-22 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Information Bulletin 2004-209 (deployment and population of the site cleanup 

system) 

6.4.3 Socioeconomics

Appendix D of the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1), Social Science 

Considerations in Land Use Planning Decisions, provides guidance on analyzing social 

and economic information in the BLM planning process. The purpose of such analysis is 

to contribute to informed, sustainable land use planning decisions.

6.4.4 Environmental Justice

The following statutes, regulations, handbooks, and other policies govern social and 

economic features:

 BLM-H-1601-1, Land Use Planning Handbook

 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

6.5 BIA DECISION AREA

6.5.1 Air

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources.

6.5.2 Climate

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources.

6.5.3 Geology

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources.

6.5.4 Soil Resources

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources.

6.5.5 Water Resources

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources.

6.5.6 Vegetation

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources.

Special Status Plant Species

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources. 

6.5.7 Fish and Wildlife

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources.

6.5.8 Special Status Species

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC, Section 1531 et seq.), as amended, 

provides for the conservation of federal-listed plant and animal species and their habitats. 

The Endangered Species Act directs federal agencies to conserve listed species and 
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 6-23

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

imposes an affirmative duty on these agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify its designated 

critical habitat.

6.5.9 Cultural Resources

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources.

6.5.10 Paleontological Resources

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources.

6.5.11 Visual Resources

The BIA does not maintain a visual resource inventory. 

6.5.12 Wildland Fire Management

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources.

6.5.13 Cave and Karst Resources

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources.

6.5.14 Energy and Minerals

 Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938—Provides for the competitive leasing of 

lands owned by a tribe, group, or a band of Indians with the approval of the 

Secretary of the Interior. 

 Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982—Allows tribes to enter into certain 

agreements for the exploration, extraction, processing, or other development 

of oil, gas, uranium, coal, geothermal, or other energy or nonenergy mineral 

resources. 

 Osage Allotment Act of 1906—Provides for the competitive leasing of lands 

on any Indian reservation or lands owned by the Osage Nation.

 BIA Mineral Leasing Regulations (25 CFR, Parts 211-225)—Govern the 

BIA’s management of Indian mineral resources, including resources other 

than oil and gas on Osage Reservation Lands and leasing, exploration, and 

operations.

 BIA Regulations on Leasing of Osage Reservation Lands for Oil and Gas 

Mining (25 CFR, Part 226)—Govern the BIA’s administration of fluid 

mineral development on the Osage Nation.

 Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1—Contains the requirements necessary for 

the approval of all proposed oil and gas exploratory, development, or service 

wells on all federal and Indian onshore oil and gas leases (other than those of 

the Osage Tribe).

 BIA Fluid Mineral Estate Procedural Handbook—Establishes procedures for 

each action necessary to manage Indian fluid mineral estate, including leasing, 

operations, and reclamation.
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

6-24 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

6.5.15 Renewable Energy

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources. The 

addditional statutes, regulations, handbooks, or other policies also govern renewable 

energy:

 23 CFR, Part 169

6.5.16 Recreation and Visitor Services

The BIA Southern Plains and Eastern Oklahoma Regions do not provide recreation and 

visitor services. 

6.5.17 Lands and Realty

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources. The 

addditional statutes, regulations, handbooks, or other policies also govern use 

authorizations:

 23 CFR, Part 169, which specifies that a ROW can be granted across tribal 

lands only when the proponent has landowner consent 

 25 CFR, Subchapter H, Land and Water, Parts 150-183

 Standards for Indian Trust Lands Boundary Evidence Handbook

 Indian Affairs Manual: Part 50

 Indian Affairs Manual: Part 51

 Indian Affairs Manual: Part 52

6.5.18 Livestock Grazing

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources. 

6.5.19 Prime and Unique Farmlands/Agriculture

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources.

6.5.20 National Trails

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources.

6.5.21 National and State Byways

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources.

6.5.22 Native American Tribal Uses

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources. In addition, 

the following summarizes BIA policy, direction, and guidance: 

 Indian Affairs Manual: Part 59, Chapter 8, Protection of Historical and 

Archaeological Resources—A basis reference source for the BIA’s cultural 

resource management program.
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 6-25

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Indian Affairs Manual: Part 59, Chapter 9, Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation—General Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act compliance procedures.

6.5.23 Public Health and Safety

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources. In addition, 

the following summarizes BIA policy, direction, and guidance: Indian Affairs Manual: 

Part 25, Chapter 1-9, Safety and Occupational Health.

6.5.24 Socioeconomics

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources.

6.5.25 Environmental Justice

Mandates and authorities are described under Section 6.1, BLM Resources.

6.6 REFERENCES

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1988. BLM 

Instruction Manual 1613—FLPMA and BLM Manual Section 1613. BLM, 

Washington, DC. September 29, 1988.

_____. 1991. Kansas Resource Management Plan. BLM, Moore, OK. September 1991.

_____. 1994. Oklahoma Resource Management Plan. BLM, Moore, OK. January 1994.

_____. 1996. Texas Resource Management Plan. BLM, Moore, OK. May 1996.

_____. 2007. Final Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental impact 

Statement. Washington, DC. June 29, 2007.

_____. 2008. BLM Handbook H-1740-2-Integrated Vegetation Management. BLM, 

Washington, DC. March 25, 2008.

_____. 2012. BLM Instruction Manual 2012-124—Land Health Standards. BLM, 

Washington, DC. May 29, 2012.

Prichard, D., J. Anderson, C. Correll, J. Fogg, K. Gehbardt, R. Krapf, S. Leonard, B. 

Mitchell, and J. Staats. 1998. Riparian Area Management—A User Guide to 

Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic 

Areas. Technical Reference 1737-15. BLM, US Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, and US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. BLM, National Business Center, Denver, CO. 136pp.
6. Specific Mandates and Authority

6-26 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

This page intentionally left blank.
June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 7-1

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

CHAPTER 7

PREPARERS

Name Role/Responsibility Education

BLM

Steve Tryon Field Manager Oklahoma 

Field Office

Laurence Levesque Project Manager, reviewed all 

sections

MS, Wildlife Ecology

BA, Biology

BS, Wildlife Conservation

Ryan Howell Cultural Resources, 

Paleontological Resources, 

Native American Tribal Uses

MA, Anthropology with 

emphasis in Archaeology, 

ABD

BA, Anthropology

BA, Classical Studies 

Minor, Latin

David J. Money GIS Specialist BS, Geoscience with an 

emphasis in Geography

Minors, History, Recreation

Janine Book Assessment, Inventory, and 

Monitoring Project Manager

MA, Education

BS, Biology

Minor, Outdoor Recreation

Jackie Badley Livestock grazing N/A

William George Air Quality, Climate MS, Meteorology

BS, Petroleum Engineering

Richard Wymer Air Quality, Climate, 

Geology, Soil Resources, 

Water Resources, 

Paleontological Resources, 

Energy Minerals, Renewable 

Energy

MS, Geology

BS, Geology 
7. List of Preparers

7-2 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

FinalAnalysis of the Management Situation

Name Role/Responsibility Education

Melinda Fisher Air Quality, Climate, Special 

Designations, Wild Horse and 

Burro, Livestock Grazing, 

Cave and Karst Resources, 

Wildland Fire Management 

BS, Natural Resources

David Anderson Reviewed all resource sections BS, Environmental Science

Gabe Morgan Visual Resources, Recreation 

and Visitor Services, Lands 

and Realty

BS, Forestry

George Thomas Senior Wildlife Biologist MS, Wildlife Biology

Allen Holubec Solid Minerals N/A

BIA

David Anderson Regional Environmental 

Scientist

N/A

Sierra Mandelko Regional Archeologist, 

National Environmental 

Policy Act, Climate

MA, Anthropology

EMPSi, Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Inc. (Contractor)

Jordan Adams Geology, Soils, Cave and 

Karst Resources, Prime and 

Unique Farmlands/Agriculture

BS, Environmental Sciences

Minor, Geology

Amy Cordle Air Quality and Climate 

(Reviewer)

BS, Civil Engineering

Annie Daly Air Quality and Climate 

(Author)

BA, Environmental Studies

Kevin T. Doyle Cultural Resources, 

Paleontological Resources, 

Native American Tribal Uses

BA, Sociology

Zoe Ghali Socioeconomics and 

Environmental Justice

MS, Environmental 

Physiology

Graduate Certificate, 

Environmental Policy

Peter Gower Lands and Realty, Renewable 

Energy

MS, Land Use Planning

Derek Holmgren Water Resources, Visual 

Resources

MS, Environmental Science

MPA, Environmental Policy 

and Natural Resources 

Management

BS, Environmental Science

BA, International Studies

Minor, Spanish

Jeff Johnson Wildland Fire Management BS, Conservation of Natural 

Resources
7. List of Preparers

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 7-3

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Name Role/Responsibility Education

Kate Krebs Visual Resources; Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics; 

BLM Special Designations

BA, Environmental Studies, 

Spanish

Minor, Political Science

Molly McCarter Special Designations 

(Wilderness and Wilderness 

Study Areas, ACECs, Wild 

and Scenic Rivers, National 

Trails, and National, State, 

and BLM Byways) 

BA, Environmental Studies

Minor, Geography

Katie Patterson Nonrenewable Resources 

Lead

BA, Environmental Policy

JD, Environmental Law

Holly Prohaska Wild Horse and Burros, 

Livestock Grazing (Author)

MS, Environmental Education

Kevin Rice Fish and Wildlife, Special 

Status Species (Author)

BS, Environment Science

Morgan Trieger Vegetation (Author) BS, Conservation and 

Resource Studies

Drew Vankat Recreation and Visitor 

Services, Comprehensive 

Travel and Transportation 

Management (Author)

BPhil, Urban and 

Environmental Planning

MS, Environmental Planning 

and Policy

Liza Wozniak Fish and Wildlife, Special 

Status Species (Author)

MS, Ecology

Meredith Zaccherio Biology (QA/QC) MA, Biology
7. List of Preparers

7-4 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

FinalAnalysis of the Management Situation

This page intentionally left blank.
June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 8-1

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

CHAPTER 8

GLOSSARY

Allotment (BLM). An area of land in which one or more livestock operators graze their 

livestock. Allotments generally consist of BLM-administered lands but may also include 

other federally managed, state-owned, and private lands. An allotment may include one 

or more separate pastures. Livestock numbers and periods of use are specified for each 

allotment. 

Allotted land/Allotment (BIA). Land held in trust by the US government for the benefit 

of individual Indian allottees (or their heirs).

All-terrain vehicle. A wheeled vehicle, other than a snowmobile, which has a wheelbase 

and chassis of 50 inches in width or less, is steered with handlebars, generally has a dry 

weight of 800 pounds or less, travels on three or more low-pressure tires, and has a seat 

designed to be straddled by the operator.

Animal unit month. The amount of forage needed by an “animal unit” grazing for one 

month. The animal unit in turn is defined as one mature 1,000-pound cow and her 

suckling calf; one horse; five goats; or five sheep.

Appropriate management level. The optimum number of wild horses that provide a 

thriving natural ecological balance on the public range. 

Area of critical environmental concern (ACEC). An area within BLM-administered 

lands where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or 

used or where no development 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.

Brachiopods. Marine animals (phylum Brachiopoda) that have hard valves (shells) on 

the upper and lower surfaces.
8. Glossary

8-2 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Carboniferous Period. A geologic period that lasted from about 359.2 to 299 million 

years ago during the late Paleozoic Era; it is associated with coal deposits.

Cenozoic Era. The most recent of subdivisions of animal history and spans about 65 

million years, from the extinction of nonavian dinosaurs to the present.

Class 1 inventory. A literature and site record search of previously conducted cultural 

resource surveys that also provides a historic overview, research issues, and management 

recommendations. 

Comprehensive travel management. The proactive interdisciplinary planning, on-theground management, and administration of motorized and nonmotorized travel networks

to ensure public access, natural resources, and regulatory needs are considered. It consists 

of inventorying, planning, designating, implementing, educating, enforcing, monitoring, 

acquiring easements, mapping and signing, and other measures necessary to provide 

access to public lands for a wide variety of uses, for example, recreational, traditional, 

casual, agricultural, commercial, educational, and other purposes.

Cretaceous Period. The last and longest segment of the Mesozoic Era. It lasted from the 

minor extinction event that closed the Jurassic Period about 145.5 million years ago to 

the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event, dated at 65.5 million years ago.

Crinoids. Aquatic invertebrates that are related to sea stars and are often flower shaped. 

They have a body plan based on a five-fold radial symmetry, meaning they generally 

have a body that can be divided into five (or a multiple of 5) roughly equal parts, which 

are laid out around a central axis.

Designated roads and trails. Specific roads and trails identified by the BLM (or other 

agencies) where some type of motorized vehicle use is appropriate and allowed either 

seasonally or year-long (H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook).

Distance zone. In the visual resource inventory process, landscapes are subdivided into 

three distance zones based on relative visibility from travel routes or observation points. 

The three zones are foreground-middleground, background, and seldom seen. The 

foreground-middle ground zone is areas seen from highways, rivers, or other viewing 

locations that are less than 3-5 miles away. Seen areas beyond the foregroundmiddleground zone but usually less than 15 miles away and in the background zone. 

Areas not seen as foreground-middleground or background are in the seldom seen zone; 

that is, they are hidden from view.

Existing routes. The roads, trails, or ways that are used by operators of 

motorized vehicle (for example jeeps, all-terrain vehicles, and motorized dirt bikes), 

mechanized uses (for example mountain bikes, wheelbarrows, and game carts), hikers, 

and horseback riders and are, to the best of the BLM’s knowledge, in existence at the 

time of RMP/EIS publication. 
8. Glossary

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 8-3

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Fee simple. Landownership status in which an individual or group holds title to and 

control of the property. The owners may make decisions about land use or may sell the 

land.

Herd management area. A geographic area identified in a management framework plan 

or resource management plan for the long-term management of a wild horse herd. 

Historic properties. Cultural resources that meet specific eligibility criteria for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places.

Indian trust assets. Legal interests in assets held in trust by the federal government for 

federally recognized Indian tribes or nations or for individual Indians.

Individual trust land. Land held in trust by the United States for an individual Indian.

Invertebrates. Animal species that neither possess nor develop a backbone.

Long-term holding facility. A private ranch that is under contract with the BLM to care 

for wild horses and that allows the horses to roam freely, protected under the 1971 Wild 

Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.

Mesozoic Era. An interval of geological time from about 252 to 66 million years ago;

also called the age of reptiles.

Mollusks. A very large phylum of soft-bodied invertebrates with bilateral symmetry and 

usually one or two shells. Their organs are in a fluid-filled cavity. Most mollusks live in 

water, but some live on land.

Mosasaurs. A family of marine reptiles during the Late Cretaceous, from approximately 

98 to 65 million years ago. They were large and vicious predators with a long streamlined 

body, flippers, and a skull with a long, double-hinged jaw. 

Motorized vehicles or uses. Any vehicle that is self-propelled, including jeeps, allterrain vehicles (such as four-wheelers and three-wheelers), trail motorcycles and dirt 

bikes, and airplanes.

National historic trail. A congressionally designated, extended, long-distance trail, not 

necessarily managed as continuous. National historic trails follow as closely as possible 

and practicable the original trails or routes of travel of national historic significance. Its

purpose is to identify and protect the historic route, remnants, and artifacts for public use 

and enjoyment. A national historic trail is managed to protect the nationally significant 

resources, qualities, values, and associated settings of the areas it passes through, 

including the primary use or uses of the trail.

National Register of Historic Places. The official list of the nation’s historic places 

worthy of preservation. The National Register of Historic Places is part of a national 
8. Glossary

8-4 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and 

protect America’s historic and archaeological resources.

Off-highway vehicle (OHV). Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel 

on or over land, water, or other natural terrain. The term excludes any nonamphibious 

registered motorboat; any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while 

being used for emergencies; any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the 

authorized officer or otherwise officially approved; vehicles in official use; and any 

combat or combat support vehicle when used for national defense (H-1601-1, BLM Land 

Use Planning Handbook).

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) area designations. BLM-administered lands are designated 

as open, limited, or closed for OHV use, as follows:

 Open—Designated areas where all types of motorized vehicles (e.g., jeeps, 

all-terrain vehicles, and motorized dirt bikes) are permitted at all times, 

anywhere in the area, on roads or cross country, subject to the operating 

regulations and vehicle standards set forth in 43 CFR, Subparts 8341 and 

8342. 

 Limited—Designated areas where motorized vehicles are restricted to 

designated routes. Off-road, cross-country travel is prohibited in such an area, 

unless it is specifically identified as one where cross-country over-snow travel 

is allowed. Some existing routes may be closed in areas designated as limited. 

 Closed—Designated areas where off-road motorized vehicle travel is 

prohibited yearlong. Emergency use of vehicles is allowed yearlong.

Open area. Designated areas and trails where off-road vehicles may be operated, subject 

to operating regulations and vehicle standards set forth in BLM Manuals 8341 and 8343; 

or an area where all types of vehicle use is permitted at all times, subject to the standards 

in BLM Manuals 8341 and 8343 (BLM National Management Strategy for OHV Use on 

Public Lands).

Paleozoic Era. A major interval of geologic time that began 542 million years ago with 

the Cambrian explosion, an extraordinary diversification of marine animals, and ended 

251 million years ago with the end-Permian extinction, the greatest extinction event in 

history. 

Pennsylvanian. Used in the US to coincide with the late Carboniferous Period; it is 

associated with coal-bearing geological stratigraphy.

Plesiosaurs. Flippered marine reptiles from the Mesozoic Era.

Programmatic agreement. A legally binding document for an agency to establish an 

alternate process for consulting, reviewing, and complying with federal laws concerning 

historic preservation. 
8. Glossary

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 8-5

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Quaternary Period. The current and most recent of the three periods of the Cenozoic 

Era in the geologic time scale. It spans from 2 million years ago to the present.

Restricted lands. Lands owned by the individual Indian that are subject to restrictions.

Right-of-way (ROW). BLM-administered lands authorized to be used or occupied for 

specific purposes pursuant to a ROW grant, which are in the public interest and that 

require ROWs over, on, under, or through such lands. 

Right-of-way (ROW) avoidance area. An area identified through resource management 

planning to be avoided but may be available for ROW location with special stipulations. 

Right-of-way (ROW) exclusion area. An area identified through resource management 

planning that is not available for ROW location under any conditions. 

Scenic byway. Highway route with a roadside or corridor of special aesthetic, cultural, or 

historic value. An essential part of the highway is its scenic corridor which may contain 

outstanding scenic vistas, unusual geologic features, or other natural elements.

Scenic quality. A measure of the visual appeal of a tract of land. In the visual resource 

inventory process, public lands are given an A, B, or C rating based on the apparent 

scenic quality This is determined by seven key factors: landform, vegetation, water, 

color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural modifications.

Scenic river area. As used in Oklahoma’s Scenic Rivers Act (Oklahoma Statute Title 82, 

Sections 1451-1471), this is defined as the stream or river and the public use and access 

areas in the area designated.

Section 106. A cultural resource compliance process under the National Historic 

Preservation Act that outlines the steps for identifying and evaluating historic properties, 

for assessing the effects of federal actions on historic properties, and for consulting to 

avoid, reduce, or minimize adverse effects.

Tertiary Period. The geologic period from 66 million to 2.58 million years ago.

Thermoelectric generators/generation (also called Seebeck generators) are devices 

that convert heat (temperature differences) directly into electrical energy, using a 

phenomenon called the Seebeck effect (a form of thermoelectric effect).

Traditional cultural properties. A cultural property that is eligible for inclusion on the 

National Register of Historic Places because of its association with a living community’s 

cultural practices or beliefs that (a) are rooted in that community’s history and that (b) are 

important in maintaining the community’s continuing cultural identity.

Tribal trust. Land owned either by an individual tribal member, small group, or a tribe, 

the title to which is held in trust by the federal government. Most trust land is within 

reservation boundaries but can also be outside the reservation boundaries.
8. Glossary

8-6 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

Trilobites. A fossil group of extinct marine arthropods among the early arthropods; a 

phylum of hard-shelled creatures with multiple body segments and jointed legs. 

Utility type (or terrain) vehicle. Any recreational motor vehicle other than an ATV, 

motorbike, or snowmobile, designed for and capable of traveling over designated 

unpaved roads, traveling on four or more low-pressure tires, maximum width less than 74 

inches, usually a maximum weight less than 2,000 pounds, or having a wheelbase of 94 

inches or less. It does not include vehicles specially designed to carry a person with 

disabilities.

Vertebrates. Animal species that have a backbone.

Visual resource inventory (VRI). A process used by the BLM to identify visual values. 

The inventory consists of an evaluation of scenic quality and sensitivity and a delineation 

of distance zones. Based on these three factors, lands are placed into one of four visual 

resource inventory classes, which represent the relative value of the visual resources. 

Classes I and II are the most valued, class III is a moderate value, and class IV is the least 

valued. The inventory classes provide the basis for considering visual values in the 

planning process.

Visual resource inventory (VRI) classes. Assigned through the inventory process. Class 

I is assigned to those areas where a management decision has been made previously to 

maintain a natural landscape. This includes such areas as designated wilderness, 

designated wild and scenic rivers classified as wild, and other congressionally and 

administratively designated areas where decisions have been made to preserve a natural 

landscape. Classes II, III, and IV are assigned based on a combination of scenic quality, 

sensitivity level, and distance zones. Inventory classes are informational and provide the 

basis for considering visual values in the planning process. They do not establish 

management direction and should not be used as a basis for constraining or limiting 

surface-disturbing activities.

Visual resource management (VRM) system. The inventory and planning actions taken 

to identify visual resource values and to establish objectives for managing those values 

and the management actions taken to achieve the visual resource management objectives.

Visual resource management (VRM) class. Defines the degree of acceptable visual 

change in a characteristic landscape. A class is based on the physical and sociological 

characteristics of any given homogeneous area and serves as a management objective. 

Each class has an objective that prescribes the amount of change allowed in the 

characteristic landscape (from H-1601-1, BLM Land Use Planning Handbook). 

The four classes are as follows:

 Class I provides for natural ecological changes only. It includes primitive 

areas, some natural areas, some wild and scenic rivers, and other similar areas 

where landscape modification should be restricted.
8. Glossary

June 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma 8-7

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

 Class II areas are those where changes in any of the basic elements (form, 

line, color, or texture) caused by a management activity should not be evident 

in the characteristic landscape.

 Class III is used for areas where changes in the basic elements (form, line, 

color, or texture) caused by a management activity may be evident in the 

characteristic landscape. However, the changes should remain subordinate to 

the visual strength of the existing character.

 Class IV applies to areas where changes may subordinate the original 

composition and character; however, they should reflect what could be a 

natural occurrence in the characteristic landscape.

Visual resources. The visible physical features on a landscape, (topography, water, 

vegetation, animals, structures, and other features) that comprise the scenery of the area.

Visual sensitivity. Visual sensitivity levels are a measure of public concern for scenic 

quality. Lands are assigned high, medium, or low sensitivity levels by analyzing various 

indicators of public concern, including type of users, amount of use, public interest, 

adjacent land uses, and special areas.

Wild horses. Unbranded and unclaimed horses that use public land as all or part of their 

habitat or that have been removed from such land by an authorized officer but have not 

lost their status under section 3 of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. 

Wilderness area. An area formally designated by Congress as part of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System.

Wilderness characteristics. Wilderness characteristics attributes include the area’s size, 

its apparent naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation. They may also include supplemental values. Lands with 

wilderness characteristics are those lands that have been inventoried and determined by 

the BLM to contain wilderness characteristics as defined in Section 2(c) of the 

Wilderness Act.
8. Glossary

8-8 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma June 2015

and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Final Analysis of the Management Situation

This page intentionally left blank.