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 and

BLM Resource Management Plan and 

BIA Integrated Resource Management Plan

April 2015

SOCIOECONOMICS WORKSHOPS SUMMARY REPORT
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.
April 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions i 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

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

2. PUBLIC INPUT ............................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Wichita, Kansas General Socioeconomics Workshop ...................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Questionnaire Responses ...................................................................... 2-2

2.2 Norman, Oklahoma General Socioeconomics Workshop ................................ 2-7

2.2.1 Questionnaire Responses ...................................................................... 2-8

2.3 Fort Worth, Texas General Socioeconomics Workshop ................................. 2-13

2.3.1 Questionnaire Responses .................................................................... 2-14

2.4 Tribal Consultation Meetings ......................................................................... 2-19

2.4.1 Discussion on Socioeconomics ........................................................... 2-19

APPENDICES

A Sample Invitation Letter 

B Workshop Attendees 

C Project Overview Presentation

D Socioeconomics Presentation 

E Workshop Agenda 

F Blank Comment Card 
This page intentionally left blank. 
April 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions iii

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

ATV all-terrain vehicle

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

BLM United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

decision area BLM- and BIA-administered surface lands 

and subsurface mineral estate within the planning area 

EIS environmental impact statement

EMPSi Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Inc. 

federal mineral estate Subsurface mineral estate administered by the BLM

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

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

planning area Tribal, federal, state, and private lands in 

Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas

RMP resource management plan

US United States

USACE US Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

WAMPO Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 
This page intentionally left blank. 
April 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions 1-1 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

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

Oklahoma Field Office, in collaboration with the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regional Offices, is preparing a 

joint environmental impact statement (EIS), BLM resource management plan (RMP), and 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, the 1991 Kansas RMP, and the 1996 Texas RMP as amended. The 

BIA Integrated RMP will include management direction for allotted and tribal mineral interests. 

It will also address restricted tribal lands and lands administered by the BIA Eastern Oklahoma 

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

The BLM is the lead agency preparing the EIS and RMP; the BIA is participating as a 

cooperating agency. 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. 

The planning area for the project is Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas, regardless of land ownership, 

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

269,650,000-acre planning area is composed of federal, tribal (BIA), allottee, state, and private 

lands. The planning area encompasses 437 counties (105 in Kansas, 1 in Nebraska, 77 in 

Oklahoma, and 254 in Texas). The decision area covers only the BLM- and BIA-administered 

surface lands and subsurface mineral estate in the planning area and is composed of 

approximately 47,200 acres of BLM-administered surface lands and 4,184,900 acres of federal 

mineral estate on lands managed by other federal agencies or split-estate land (private surface 

over federal minerals, which totals approximately 431,100 acres). The BLM decision area is 

limited to such lands and federal mineral estate in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. The BIA 

decision areas include approximately 406,500 surface acres and 339,900 mineral estate acres for 

BIA Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office; it also includes 457,200 surface acres and 520,300 

mineral estate acres for the BIA Southern Plains Regional Office. The BIA decision area 
1. Introduction

1-2 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions April 2015

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

includes such lands and mineral estate in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas and Richardson County, 

Nebraska.

As part of the EIS process, the BLM and BIA will analyze the impacts on the human 

environment, including social and economic conditions. In order to gather information on 

existing social and economic conditions in the planning area, the BLM and BIA hosted 

workshops for state and community representatives, tribes, and other stakeholders who want to 

explore the issue of the changing local economy and its relationship to public lands, federal 

mineral estate, and Indian mineral resources managed by the BIA. A total of five workshops 

were held; two socioeconomic workshops specifically for tribal members, and three general 

socioeconomic workshops. The input received in these workshops will be used to develop the 

affected environment section of the EIS and in developing a reasonable range of alternative ways 

to manage the administered lands. 

Socioeconomic workshops for tribal members were held in advance of the general 

socioeconomic workshops in coordination with government-to-government consultation. Invitees 

included representatives from all tribes within the planning area. The purpose of these workshops 

was to solicit tribal-specific input on social and economic issues. In total, there were ten 

attendees representing five tribes at the two meetings. Tribal workshops were held at the 

following locations from 1:00 to 4:00 pm: 

• Norman, Oklahoma on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 

• Muskogee, Oklahoma on Thursday, January 15, 2015

Invitations for general socioeconomic workshops included all entities invited to become 

cooperators in the planning process and other relevant stakeholders that could offer expertise on 

social and economic issues within the interests they represent. Invitees included state 

environmental and economic agencies, tribal entities, all county commissioners for states with 

surface or mineral interests in the planning area, and representatives from relevant industries and 

nonprofit organizations. A sample invitation letter from the general workshops is provided in 

Appendix A. In total, there were 57 attendees for the three general workshops. A complete list 

of attendees and affiliation is included in Appendix B. 

Workshops were held at the following dates and locations from 1:00 to 4:00 pm:

• Wichita, Kansas on Tuesday, February 3, 2015 

• Norman, Oklahoma on Wednesday, February 4, 2015 

• Fort Worth, Texas on Thursday, February 5, 2015 

Meeting location details are provided in workshop specific discussions, below. 

Each workshop included two presentations. The first presentation given was an overview of the 

joint EIS/BLM RMP/BIA Integrated RMP that included information on the process, decision 

area, and planning issues (Appendix C). The second presentation given was an overview of 

current socioeconomic data for Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas (Appendix D). The presentations 
1. Introduction

April 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions 1-3 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

were followed by group discussions and smaller break-out sessions so that attendees could offer 

comments and concerns according to questions posed on a comment card. Issues for discussion 

included, but were not limited to, the following: 

• The current social and economic conditions in the planning area 

• The current role of public lands and federal and Indian mineral resources in the local 

economy 

• Visions for the future of the regional economy and for local communities, and the 

role of public lands and federal and Indian mineral resources in this vision 

The full agenda for the workshop meetings is included in Appendix E. Input received in these 

workshops is summarized in Section 2, Public Input. Social and economic feedback from tribal 

workshops is included in Section 2.4, Tribal Consultation Meetings. 

Representatives from the BLM and BIA attended the workshops. Third-party neutral facilitators 

from Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Inc. (EMPSi) organized, convened, 

and facilitated the workshops. The purpose of this socioeconomics workshops summary report is 

to summarize the information offered at the socioeconomics workshops for incorporation into the 

joint EIS/BLM RMP/BIA Integrated RMP process. 
This page intentionally left blank. 
April 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions 2-1 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

CHAPTER 2 

PUBLIC INPUT

Attendees at the tribal workshops were limited to tribal representatives. Attendees at the general 

socioeconomics workshops included federal agencies, state agencies, county representatives, 

tribal representatives, industry representatives, and, at one meeting, landowners. Federal and 

state agency representatives were interested in partnership opportunities with the BLM and BIA. 

County-level representatives wanted to ensure that social and economic concerns specific to their 

localities were being adequately considered. Industry representatives were interested in learning 

about how their industry might be limited or expanded by the joint EIS/BLM RMP/BIA 

Integrated RMP. 

The sections below include concerns specific to each meeting and include a summary of all 

comment card responses and information collected during group discussions. A blank comment 

card is included in Appendix F. 

The responses included in the meeting summaries may not represent the views of all participants. 

In many cases, participants had contrasting views, and attempts were made to include conflicting 

viewpoints, where appropriate. Completed comment cards are available in project records. 

2.1 WICHITA, KANSAS GENERAL SOCIOECONOMICS WORKSHOP

This meeting occurred at the Wichita Public Library, Lionel D. Alford Branch, in Wichita, 

Kansas. According to the official sign-in sheet (Appendix B), 21 people attended this meeting. 

The most represented entity at this meeting was county representatives (i.e., commissioners). 

Some industry, state agency, and tribal representatives were also in attendance. Many 

participants asked for clarification on National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

requirements, the joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP process, report organization, 

cooperating agency status, and other project logistics. Common concerns among attendees were 

impacts on and possible expansion of the agricultural industry, concerns about closure of the 

helium pipeline, and water quality, quantity, and conservation concerns. 

In addition to the comment card questions, the BLM posed the following points for discussion: 
2. Public Input

2-2 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions April 2015

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

• For oil and gas, is the process difficult due to different BIA and BLM permitting 

processes? Would there be a benefit to making the processes similar or the same?

• Currently the wild horse and burro program includes holding facilities on private 

ranches with few opportunities for public access. Are there other opportunities for 

public viewing/involvement in the wild horse and burro program that should be 

considered in the RMP, such as eco-sanctuaries or prison inmate training 

opportunities that are currently operating in some areas? 

• Should additional grazing on federal parcels be considered in the RMP? For 

example, what about on BLM held easements?

2.1.1 Questionnaire Responses

The following summarizes comments that were submitted individually via comment cards and 

comments gathered during group discussions at the meeting. 

What is your vision for your community over the next 20 years?

Participants had various views on important factors for their communities for the next 20 years. 

Some participants, such as those from Liberal, the county seat of Seward County, believed it was 

important to see growth and expansion of the tax base, in both new and existing business sectors. 

Business sectors mentioned specifically included ongoing agriculture and potential for future 

wind development. One attendee mentioned the potential for recreation-based tourism. Some 

concern was voiced about privatization of the helium program. 

Others stated that controlled growth is important and that slow but steady growth, both in 

population and economically, is a key concern. Specifically, one commenter stated that goals in 

the 93 Wichita Plan WAMPO (Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization) should be 

maintained. 

Some participants stated that protection of water quality and quantity for both surface and 

groundwater was important for local communities and the agricultural sector and should be 

recognized in the EIS. 

Finally, some participants were concerned with increased regulation by the Federal Government 

and the potential impacts of regulation on the tax base as well as agriculture and food supply. 

Examples were provided for neighboring states where it is perceived that increased regulations, 

such as protection of the prairie chicken, have resulted in negative impacts on tax base. 

Participants stated that they did not want the tax base to shrink as part of the policies put forth in 

this RMP. 

Overall, participants requested a balanced RMP consistent with NEPA to manage the 

community. 

What are some important social, environmental, economic issues, values, and concerns to 

meet your vision for your community?

Participants indicated that the following issues were important to local communities: 

• Keeping the oil industry viable
2. Public Input

April 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions 2-3 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

• Water quality and water quantity, including impacts of resource development and 

infrastructure needs 

• 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) 

• Level of government regulation, including potential for negative impacts from 

increased government regulation. A participant provided listing of the lesser prairie 

chicken as an example. The participant stated that as listings continue to increase and 

EISs are overlooked or ignored, these listings will harm agriculture production and 

producers. The participant stated that we must work together in a coordinated effort to 

protect not only agriculture production and its producers but the production and 

expansion of our raw materials, including coal and oil and gas production. They also 

stated that we cannot rely on the production of our food or energy from a foreign 

source. The black-footed ferret safe harbor agreement and impacts on the finances of 

Logan County were also discussed

• Control of drugs and drug traffic 

• Disproportionate impacts on small communities as a result of lack of re-permitting for 

current activities (i.e., packing plants in Penny County) 

• Helium pipeline and the fate of the current easements for the helium pipeline. 

Participant stated that if BLM owns the easements, there is a possibility that these 

could be converted to conservation easements. If these become conservation 

easements with buffer zones, the potential impacts on property value should be 

evaluated, as it is possible that conservation easements could devalue property value 

for adjacent properties

One respondent requested that the BLM reference the May 9, 2014 letter sent to Steve Tryon 

from the Kansas Resource Coalition for additional details on suggested ways to manage the land 

through a community based approach. 

How do you and/or your community benefit from BLM/BIA surface lands or mineral resource 

management? 

Participants discussed the following uses of BLM or BIA surface lands and minerals:

• Protection of natural resources for hunting, fishing, open space, and areas of cultural 

importance 

• Protection of drinking water supply (i.e., Cheney Reservoir drinking water supply for 

Wichita) 

• Creation of jobs, stimulation of local and state economy, and contributions from the 

local tax base through mineral development were recognized. However, some 

participants stated that they prefer that private property owners manage minerals
2. Public Input

2-4 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions April 2015

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

• Potential for economic benefits from recreation

Some participants felt that their communities did not currently benefit from use of BLM or BIA 

lands or minerals but that use of these lands or minerals has negative costs for the local 

community. Representatives from Clay County, for example, stated that BLM land use results in 

a cost for local public health services and law enforcement and that no benefit is received in 

return. 

In other areas, participants stated that current contributions are minimal due to the lack of 

substantial surface lands or minerals. Prior to public scoping for the EIS, Kearny County 

representatives were unaware that BLM/BIA had any interest in or managed lands or minerals

within Kearny County. 

One participant provided detailed comments for Seward County. The participant stated that 

county residents have less than one thousand acres of BLM minerals at present and that

production of minerals plays an important role in monthly income for the mineral owners, in 

mineral taxes collected by the county, and in employment caused by that production. Seward 

County also has a helium pipeline that connects National Helium to the mainline, sending helium 

to the Amarillo, Texas area. The participant stated that this helium plant is very important to

Seward County, providing tax revenue to the county and employment for several individuals 

living both in Meade and Seward Counties. The participant emphasized that it is very important 

for the BLM and Seward County to work together to maintain, improve, and increase mineral 

production when possible.

What specific administrative activities, characteristics, and regulations would you have 

BLM/BIA maintain or change to help you obtain your desired outcomes or expectations for 

your community?

Participants stated that the following BLM/BIA management actions should continue in the joint 

EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP: 

• Remain open to development of resources (i.e., helium pipeline easement

development) and allow for revenue from mineral development to continue to 

contribute to local tax base

• Continue to protect cultural significance areas

• Continue to work with Clay County and others in the Red River on ongoing land 

management and ownership issues. Make sure Red River land is returned (as much as 

possible) to declared landowners. Patrol and provide emergency management services

for land remaining under BLM ownership 

Some participants, such as those representing Seward County, stated that there is no need to 

change current practices. They requested that the BLM regulations remain at a minimum, 

allowing agriculture and energy producers the opportunity to continue production and expansion, 

if needed, without interference. 
2. Public Input

April 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions 2-5 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

What specific BLM/BIA management actions would you prefer to see implemented to help you 

achieve your desired outcomes?

Participants mentioned the following desired management actions:

• Trade areas for conservation easements to drill elsewhere (mitigation) 

• Provide recreation opportunities, including educational/eco areas

• Provide protection for water resources, including set back and non-erodible berms for 

mineral extraction near surface water, extensive casing for wells penetrating drinking 

water aquifers, and requiring technologies to minimize water use during development 

• Develop or refine management for visual resources. Right now management is too 

speculative, allowing discretion on agency for making decisions 

• Develop mandatory permitting timeframes for approvals 

Other participants stated that there is no need to implement new rules and regulations where 

current rules and regulations appear to be working well (i.e., in Seward County). Some

participants asked that the BLM/BIA cease all activity, turn private lands back to deed owners, 

rescind all regulation, or include no further regulations. 

What are some partnership/collaboration opportunities between BLM/BIA and your 

community/industry/organization?

Participants suggested the following potential collaboration opportunities: 

• Coordinate on recreation and tourism and on cultural components of education 

• Coordinate with communities for water supply development 

• Collaborate with the Kansas Natural Resource Coalition, including all 32 counties in 

the coalition 

• Collaborate with the Kearny County Board of County Commissioners 

• Collaborate with the Seward County Commission, particularly as related to helium 

pipeline and minerals owned and managed by BLM 

One participant stated that there are no partnership/collaboration opportunities that they could 

see to benefit Clay County. 

Are there any key geographic areas and/or industries that should be examined in detail for 

social/economic discussion?

Key industries that participants believe should be discussed include the following: 

• Oil and gas 

• Wind energy development 

• Helium, including the new multimillion dollar helium plant under construction by 

National Helium in Seward County 
2. Public Input

2-6 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions April 2015

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

• Agriculture, including livestock grazing and ranching, the beef packing industry, 

especially in Finney, Ford, and Seward Counties, and new dairies coming into Kansas

from California 

One participant was also concerned about the impact on food supply and prices. The participant 

stated that in Woodward County, Oklahoma, social and environmental regulations are impacting 

the food supply. They are worried that the BLM’s decisions are having negative impacts on the 

food supply and prices and stated that producers going out of business, including berries and 

pork producers. The participant suggested that Agenda–UN Sustainable Development Plan 

would be applicable here. 

The importance of considering water rights and the need for water for various industries was also 

discussed, particularly as related to extraction of minerals. Participants noted that Tri-State 

Electric has been buying water rights. 

Social values, including churches and the role of undocumented workers, were also brought up. 

Are there key data sources that the BLM/BIA should include in economic baseline/analysis?

Participants recommended that the BLM/BIA use the following data sources: 

• Wichita State University center for economic diversity population projections 

• Texas State Water Plan and Regional Water Planning Reports, provided on the Texas 

Water Development Board website

• Horizon USDA climate hubs and Wilkow Fenton Tea Party for information on 

climate hubs 

Participants also noted that oil and gas data will be skewed based on the recent drop in oil and 

gas prices. 

Finally, it was noted that proper economic baseline analysis is critical to the EIS, and failure to 

do a proper study may result in litigation. 

Other comments/questions?

Other comments and questions provided by participants included the following: 

• There is a lack of understanding and information on BLM’s jurisdiction/authority in 

some counties 

• One participant stated that they looked forward to a continued great 

working/coordination relationship with BLM 

Recommendations or concerns for the socioeconomic analysis included the following: 

• The socioeconomic analysis should focus on counties with BLM lands/minerals

• The socioeconomic analysis should account for negative impacts of BLM/BIA 

management actions, including potential loss of jobs, not just jobs gained 
2. Public Input

April 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions 2-7 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

• When lumping states or counties together, the diversity of impacts within the 

planning area is lost. In particular, the Kansas metro population is lower than the 

national average, while the three-state region as a whole is higher than the national 

average. The impact analysis should consider differences in county population, 

economic sectors, etc. 

• Consider including information about how states distributes royalties 

2.2 NORMAN, OKLAHOMA GENERAL SOCIOECONOMICS WORKSHOP

This meeting occurred at the Oklahoma University National Weather Center in Norman, 

Oklahoma. According to the official sign-in sheet (Appendix B), 21 people attended this 

meeting. 

Industries were well represented at this meeting, including mining, salt, and oil industries. Salt 

industry representatives were interested in whether this resource would be open for mining 

through the joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP. Mining and oil development industry 

representatives were interested in streamlining the leasing and permitting process to make the 

process easier and more efficient, and in developing these industries to their fullest potential to 

bolster the economy. 

Common themes among participants included the following:

• Recreation, including trespass and enforcement issues and a need for more 

infrastructure to facilitate more and better recreational opportunities 

• Water quality and quantity concerns 

• Jobs, including how to create a skilled labor force through minerals development 

In addition to the comment card questions, the BLM posed the following points for discussion: 

• Should all coal be available for development, or should restrictions be placed in some 

areas?

• BLM is looking at opening up BLM administered property development that contains 

salt. Would this provide an economic benefit for area communities? 

• For oil and gas, is the process difficult due to different BIA and BLM permitting 

processes? Would there be a benefit to making the processes similar or the same?

• Currently the wild horse and burro program includes holding facilities on private 

ranches with few opportunities for public access. Are there other opportunities for 

public viewing/involvement in the wild horse and burro program that should be 

considered in the RMP, such as eco-sanctuaries or prison inmate training 

opportunities that are currently operating in some areas? 

• Should additional grazing on federal parcels be considered in the RMP? 
2. Public Input

2-8 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions April 2015

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

2.2.1 Questionnaire Responses

The following summarizes comments that were submitted individually via comment cards and 

comments gathered during group discussions at the meeting. 

There was minimal discussion in the larger group at this meeting; break-out sessions and 

comment cards offered more opportunity for participants to express concerns. 

What is your vision for your community over the next 20 years?

Participants noted the following as important for their communities over the next 20 years: 

• Working to connect kids to nature; nature deficit disorder is a concern for the 

planning area 

• Balancing oil and gas development with resource protection. Consideration of 

impacts of development on communities includes factors such as water resources and 

truck traffic

• Protecting natural resources, including night skies, air quality, and water

• Allowing for continued oil and gas development. Consider impacts of oil and gas 

regulation on development for both BIA and BLM minerals. Address the cost of 

development of minerals on other regulatory agencies

• Equitable development, lifting up everyone, not just those directly involved in oil and 

gas development 

• Quality of life issues for young adults and families, including walking trails, parks,

and sports parks for youth and teenage sports

• Promoting tourism and recreation and associated jobs

• Allowing for hunting and fishing, easing federal regulations on wildlife

• Allowing for mining to continue, as the 1980s leasing freeze had negative impacts on 

jobs. Continuing mining as an economic driver for next 230 years as long as the 

minerals are there. Mining drives other support businesses to the area

• Promoting renewable energy development, including issues of connecting to the grid 

for wind development 

• Continuing to grow business, prosper, and provide jobs to the people of the 

community 

• For South Central Chickasaw Nation, tourism development was specifically

mentioned 

• For Choctaw County, steady growth, promoting recreational assets, and developing

and supporting current and future retail and industrial entities were cited as locally 

important. The participant also stated that the community will strive to develop the 

lake and marina as well as lake cabins and other recreational assets.
2. Public Input

April 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions 2-9 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

What are some important social, environmental, economic issues, values, and concerns to 

meet your vision for your community?

Important issues brought forward include the following: 

• Managing recreation on lands like Red River lands and controlling this recreation.

Associated issues include environmental impact from trash due to lack of control, and 

access and trespass issues

• Water quality and quantity issues, including water use for mineral development and 

renewable energy. Chickasaw and Choctaw share the river, and they are developing a 

plan to make sure everyone has enough water (coordination and collaboration are 

key). Specific concerns for Cotton County-Cache Creek watershed were mentioned

• Health issues, including poverty and food scarcity

• Corporate participation, less zoning/planning by municipalities to encourage business 

development, church growth and participation 

• Leasing and permitting agencies and cooperation/streamlining of process. Oklahoma 

Department of Mines has a better streamlined process

• Education of workforce and turnover. Participants state that Oklahoma needs trained 

people to improve socioeconomic conditions. Turnover is an issue in particular 

business sectors (i.e., packing plant and casinos)

• Public health 

• Quality of life balance 

• Potential for economic diversity 

• 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 

One participant noted that potential purchase or lease of BLM minerals (halite), depending on 

the timing and completion of the RMP, could have a positive impact on the local economy. 

Potentially adding additional mineral rights within close proximity to the current active mining 

section may help increase the long-term mine plans, again, depending on timing and lease or 

purchase costs.

How do you and/or your community benefit from BLM/BIA surface lands or mineral resource 

management? 

Participants indicated that current uses/benefits to areas and communities from BLM/BIAadministered lands and minerals include the following: 

• Oil and gas development drives the economy and creates jobs (noted in particular for

Blaine, Canadian, Grady, and Stephens Counties) 

• Coal development; coal-fired utility plant is the biggest taxpayer in one community
2. Public Input

2-10 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions April 2015

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

• The BLM minerals are located in a strategically advantageous area at the current 

time. However, as mining continues, that area becomes less advantageous due to its 

proximity to current active underground workings 

• Recreation along Red River; some participants believe that this recreation enhances 

state revenue

• Grazing on tribal lands 

• Potential for hunting on tribal lands 

• BLM management of larger tracts of land can promote tourism, particularly related to 

recreation and opportunities for trails, visitor centers, etc.

Natural resources, especially water, timber, and rock, provide a great deal of employment for the 

area population. Participants state that good management goes hand in hand with economic 

development jobs, and the two should not be separated. 

Other participants stated that the BLM/BIA do not have substantial effects in some areas (i.e., 

Cleveland County). 

What specific administrative activities, characteristics, and regulations would you have 

BLM/BIA maintain to help you obtain your desired outcomes or expectations for your 

community?

Participants identified the following management activities as important:

• Reduction of regulations and administrative requirements associated with 

development 

• Continued/increased access on public lands, including for recreation 

• Continued mineral development. Some participants suggest that the BLM/BIA should 

consider revising the leasing process to increase efficiency and decrease length of 

time required for the process. Other participants request additional restrictions on oil, 

gas, and coal development 

• Increase in public access for the wild horse and burros program 

Some participants requested that management actions not be overly restrictive on counties. 

Guidelines are fine, but closures and prohibitions are too restrictive. 

What specific BLM/BIA management actions would you prefer to see implemented to help you 

achieve your desired outcomes?

The following additional management actions were recommended:

• Increase in education and recreation on BIA and BLM lands 

• Control of recreation on BLM lands, as feasible

• Increased solar and wind energy development 
2. Public Input

April 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions 2-11 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

• The Oklahoma Sierra Club opposes opening up additional coal assets and 

recommends the slowing/stopping/elimination of the burning of coal. In addition, the 

Sierra Club would prefer to slow or stop actions that follow the path of higher 

greenhouse gases as an outcome 

• Some participants state that the mining industry should be the highest priority. The 

BLM should leave lands for open leasing and expedite this industry to stimulate the 

economy unless there is imminent environmental harm. The participant felt that 

quality of life would be addressed by the permitting process. Regulations as part of 

the permitting process are strict enough to protect all of the resources that the BLM is 

analyzing 

• Representatives from Independent Salt would prefer management decisions that 

would allow the quickest route for producers to acquire the mineral rights, either by 

purchase or lease. Representatives stated that if the timing of the current RMP was

favorable (2018 or preferably sooner) and a royalty rate comparable to what they 

traditionally pay for mineral rights can be agreed upon, the leasing of the BLM 

minerals (halite) could be advantageous to their business as well as to the community 

• Representatives from Chickasaw County desire management that would allow or

promote recreational boating, recreational areas, gaming, and sustainable and 

services-based programs 

• Specifically, development of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) lands 

bordering Hugo Lake is recommended for consideration. Participants felt it would 

greatly enhance recreational economic development and promote population growth, 

especially in the large retirement sector. This, in turn, would promote additional 

service industry businesses in the county. If lake properties were sold to the private 

sector for development, it could reduce the federal cost while promoting economic 

growth 

What are some partnership/collaboration opportunities between BLM/BIA and your 

community/industry/organization?

Collaboration/partnership opportunities mentioned by participants included the following: 

• Utilize planning documents to streamline regulations and the permitting process. The 

current system of regulations is overwhelming and causes job loss; make it clear who 

should be contacted for leasing, and outline the process for developers and agencies

• Use planning documents to provide guidelines of oversight to local governments 

• Include Sierra Club annual “conservation interest survey” 

• Consider a user fee supporting the state for recreation on public lands and comanagement of public lands 

• Work with USACE in instances of USACE surface ownership/BLM minerals. 

Consider opportunities for improvement of their lake facility. Since the USACE

employs local people, improvements would be advantageous to the community and 

the local area in general
2. Public Input

2-12 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions April 2015

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

• Work closely with the BIA on tribal issues

• Consider outreach and education in the joint EIS/ BLM RMP and Integrated RMP

• Work with county commissioners, the Choctaw Nation, and city and county industrial 

authorities 

Are there any key geographic areas and/or industries that should be examined in detail for 

social/economic discussion?

Key components mentioned for socioeconomic analysis included the following: 

• Oil and gas exploration 

• Potential for expansion of coal mining 

• Eco-tourism, hunting, and other opportunities for southeast Oklahoma, which 

typically has economically distressed areas and appears to have sizeable amounts of 

federal land

• Benefits related to lack of human activity

• Quantification of non-market values

• There is concern that the salt industry is ready to develop but is waiting on 

BLM/BIA’s plan. The industry would like to examine interim opportunities for 

development and would like to examine sale versus leasing of salt mineral rights 

• Adjacent property issues (i.e., USACE property adjacent to our current underground 

mine workings) 

• Tourism, including on tribal lands 

• Mining and mineral materials in Choctaw County 

• Timber in some portions of the state 

Are there key data sources that the BLM/BIA should include in economic baseline/analysis?

Recommended data sources included the following: 

• Oklahoma State University School of Business, February 2010 Economics of Coal 

Mining Industry 

• Ellsworth County, Kansas and Saline County, Kansas demographics 

• The Oklahoma Department of Commerce and the newly formed Small Business 

Development Center

Other comments/questions?

Other comments/questions included the following: 

• Keep participants informed of this study, related steps, and any additional 

opportunities to participate further
2. Public Input

April 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions 2-13 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

• USACE land with BLM-managed minerals – If USACE wants to sell salt rights, why 

can’t they? Why is this controlled by the BLM? Who has the authority to dispose 

lands? 

• Concerns about the timing for this EIS/RMP. 2018 is a long time to wait, and there is 

the possibility for it to be delayed further

• BLM and States and need to be clear on water rights and decisions to be made in the 

document 

• Participants look forward to exploring the opportunities that this dialogue might 

provide and to working with BLM/BIA 

2.3 FORT WORTH, TEXAS GENERAL SOCIOECONOMICS WORKSHOP

This meeting occurred at the Fort Worth Public Library, Ella Mae Shamblee Branch, in Fort 

Worth, Texas. According to the official sign-in sheet (Appendix B), 15 people attended this 

meeting. 

Representatives from state and federal agencies attended this meeting, including representatives 

from Texas Parks and Wildlife, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), US Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, and USACE. Concerns regarding impacts on the interests 

of these agencies were expressed during break-out sessions, including impacts on recreation, 

natural resources, public health and safety, and oil and gas development. 

Landowners were also represented at this meeting. Landowners expressed concerns about social 

and economic impacts on the Red River area, including stresses on public health and safety 

resources due to unregulated/unsafe off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation, degradation of soil 

and water resources, and decreasing property values due to uncertainty of land ownership. 

The BLM provided a summary of the current status of land ownership issues for the benefit of 

landowners and interested parties at the start of the meeting. In addition to the comment card 

questions, the BLM posed the following points for discussion: 

• Are there any economic benefits from ATV use along the Red River? ATV users state 

that they buy lunch in town and support economy, but local communities may not 

agree that they see this benefit. Are there economic costs from ATV use? Potential 

costs include environmental degradation and increased demand on public resources 

such as law enforcement. 

• The uncertainty of land ownership along the Red River has made economic stability 

of housing in the area uncertain. One potential impact is about reduced property 

values along Red River. 

• Is there an opportunity for grazing on federal parcels? 

• Should regulated hunting be considered in the Red River area?

• Crossbar Helium plant will transfer out of government ownership, but the property 

will remain in the under BLM administration. What are some possible opportunities 

for this area?
2. Public Input

2-14 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions April 2015

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

• Are there other opportunities for the wild horse and burro program that should be

considered in the RMP, such as eco-sanctuaries or prison inmate training 

opportunities that are currently operating in other areas? 

• Should all coal be available for development, or should restrictions be placed in some 

areas? 

• BLM is looking at opening up BLM administered property development that contains 

salt. Would this provide an economic benefit for area communities? 

2.3.1 Questionnaire Responses 

The following summarizes comments that were submitted individually via comment cards and 

comments gathered during group discussions at the meeting. 

What is your vision for your community over the next 20 years?

Participants identified the following components as important for their communities:

• Slow and steady growth (well planned), need for economic stability, better ways to 

use water

• Sustainable economy, including smaller companies and opportunities for entrepreneur 

development 

• Identification of which National Wildlife Refuges have federal oil and gas underneath

and limitations on oil and gas development under refuges 

• Provide recreation on public lands for people from metro areas to recreate with 

OHVs. 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) 

• Manage for increased demand for water, recreation, and flood risk management 

associated with growth in the north Texas area 

What are some important social, environmental, economic issues, values, and concerns to 

meet your vision for your community?

Participants identified the following issues:

• Dark skies

• Economic diversification

• Water quality and quantity issues, including, but not limited to, 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 to Army 

mission from development) 
2. Public Input

April 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions 2-15 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

• Management of motorized recreation and creation of rules for users

• Population growth and increase in housing costs 

• Equestrian trail use is a major recreational use in some areas (i.e., Wise County) 

• Balance of less regulation-government assistance vs. government management

• Participants noted that drilling occurring 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

• Attendees expressed concerns about land disputes in the Red River area and Color of 

Title claims. The BLM is still trying to determine federal-private land boundaries 

based on cadastral survey results 

• Attendees spoke about the negative impacts of recreation in the Red River area, 

including trespass issues and burdens on public health and safety resources

How do you and/or your community benefit from BLM/BIA surface lands or mineral resource 

management? 

Participants stated the following uses of BLM lands/minerals:

• Developing minerals brings jobs and stimulates the economy but there is a need to 

protect resources. Royalties from mineral development go to local counties 

• Spider web of trails all around the Red River area from unregulated OHV use. With 

this plan, the hope is to concentrate this use to designated trails and preserve the lands

Other participants stated that their counties/communities had no BLM or BIA lands. 

Participants from Red River area communities stated that they receive no benefits from BLM 

lands and that public use of lands represents a cost to communities, consisting of an unsupervised 

gathering of careless people who drink, use drugs, shoot guns, and ride ATVs that erode the soil. 

Other stated issues from current uses of BLM lands or minerals included risks to wildlife, water 

resources, risks to human health and safety, local increases in crime, increased cost of housing 

from development, and impacts from transportation related to mineral development (i.e., large 

trucks resulting in additional need for road repairs). 

What specific administrative activities, characteristics, and regulations would you have 

BLM/BIA maintain or change to help you obtain your desired outcomes or expectations for 

your community?

Actions that participants noted included the following: 

• Look at technology changes (i.e., injection wells and fracking) and determine 

appropriate management. Specifically, proximity of injection wells to structures was 

cited as a concern.

• Determine appropriate stipulations for reclamation (i.e., roads, traffic, wildlife 

impacts)
2. Public Input

2-16 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions April 2015

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

• Consider the following for mineral development: timing restrictions, providing 

drainage, disconnect between state and federal pipeline regulations

• Consider using entry fees to pay for infrastructure for OHV recreation areas

• Define jurisdiction and land ownership so that the public is informed. ATV users 

want to be on designated trails. People that use the Red River area think it is 

permitted, and therefore think it is their right 

• Attendees from the USACE noted that the USACE works with the BLM to ensure 

that minerals development on federal lands occurs to the maximum extent possible. 

However, the USACE has instituted specific policies for both civil and military 

facilities to restrict such development where it impacts mission. These policies must 

be reflected in the decision process 

• Participants noted that the BLM should encourage local help and advice from all 

facets of the areas they operate in and invite different views, not just those of elected 

officials and self-promoting bureaucrats 

• Some participants requested that the BLM supervise management of the current 

recreation issues but otherwise do not restrict local landowners

What specific BLM/BIA management actions would you prefer to see implemented to help you 

achieve your desired outcomes?

Additional management recommendations included the following: 

• Better communications between BLM and USFWS

• Better communications and coordination between government and private 

landowners; need to work together better. Need more consideration of local 

knowledge and input 

• Consider alternative to gradient meridian method of determining boundaries 

• Manage recreation in the Red River area. Do not designate areas as open to recreation 

without necessary infrastructure. Suggestions include using active management to 

control OHV use in designated OHV areas, shutting OHV use down completely, or 

finding a partnership with a state agency. Proper signage is needed. Participants noted 

that the impacts of unmanaged recreation on soil and water should also be considered. 

ATVs strip the land of vegetation and soils, affect local vegetation and water, and 

create dust and degradation. Landowners are encouraged to keep vegetation on their 

lands, but ATVs are allowed to strip vegetation from BLM lands. Sand and silt is 

going to end up in Lake Taxoma. Allowing ATV use where vegetation has been 

stripped will deplete water resources, water quality, visual resources, and air quality. 

Red River is highly sensitive land and needs to be managed better 

• BLM needs to have an agreement put forth to assist/compensate the county for 

enforcement and emergency response in the Red River area. Public health and safety 

is an issue with regards to recreation on BLM land (i.e., ATV/OHV use). Emergency 

response is slow because of multi-jurisdictions; this causes uncertainties about who 

should respond to emergencies 
2. Public Input

April 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions 2-17 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

• Specific minerals development policies developed by the USACE for both civil and 

military facilities must be reflected in the decision-making process. USACE will 

provide those specific policies for use 

• BLM management should consider local contractors and workforce. Understand how 

your local economy works. Top officials should only be sure that the systems used to 

cooperate with the community are fair. They should not lay out all rules to operate by 

What are some partnership/collaboration opportunities between BLM/BIA and your 

community/industry/organization?

Suggestions for enhanced communication and potential partnership opportunities included the 

following: 

• Enhance local collaboration 

• Provide information for contacts in the State Office

• BLM should contact USDA Forest Service when on US Forest Service wells

• Region 6 USFWS contact is Kelly Hogan 

• Consider use of Texas Parks and Wildlife to operate the Red River area as a 

park/recreation area for the BLM. Texas Parks and Wildlife can also act as a liaison

between OHV users and BLM. Texas Parks and Wildlife can secure grant money for 

infrastructure, trails, trailheads, roads, signage, trail restoration and construction, and 

parking lots. Agency is willing to help if the BLM/BIA allows managed recreation in 

the Red River area

• See Highway 69 advisory committee as an example–it seems to be working; everyone 

is coming together 

• USACE can provide data with respect to benefits provided by our project, and 

provide policies developed to protect congressionally authorized missions of the 

agency, including both military and civil works 

Some participants did not see opportunities for partnership or collaboration. 

Are there any key geographic areas and/or industries that should be examined in detail for 

social/economic discussion?

Key geographic areas to examine in detail included the following: 

• Red River counties 

• Alfalfa County, Oklahoma 

• Woodford Shale 

• Wise County/oil and gas 

• Highway 79 bridge–this is where most violations occur. Are violations happening at 

other bridges along the 160-mile stretch of BLM land along the Red River? Manage 

these areas, too. 
2. Public Input

2-18 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions April 2015

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

• Lake O Pines–who owns water, who benefits from its water sale? Who controls the 

water? Who has water rights?

Key industries/components to examine included the following:

• Water quantity and quantity, particularly as related to hydraulic fracturing.

Participants noted that after fracturing, there is use of reinjection wells for the salt 

return water. There is a lag time after actual fracturing when the transportation and 

reinjection of the water takes place with attendant impacts, including increased traffic

and health and safety hazards, as well as dust, noise, and light

• Drinking water–Public water service isn’t provided throughout the state. The oil 

industry takes water. Participants noted concerns about salt contamination in water 

• Participants noted that the EIS should consider the differences in impacts from 

drilling in metropolitan areas as opposed to rural areas. For example, drilling in north

Texas is in metro areas (i.e., Ft. Worth). City regulations do not limit drilling. 

Potential positives include taxes for local communities, and negatives include 

environmental and social impacts 

• Participants requested that the analysis consider secondary effects of plants going out 

of business (the trade workers being laid off) 

• Wind energy 

• Wood pellets are a big movement right now, bringing in a lot of money

Are there key data sources that the BLM/BIA should include in economic baseline/analysis?

Participants recommended the following information be included: 

• Information on economic benefits of individual USACE projects as provided in 

relevant planning documents 

• Management Guidelines for OHV Recreation, written by Tom M. Crimmins in 

association with the National Off-Highway Vehicles Conservation Council 

• Example OHV management from California’s OHV parks and management. 

California is the only state with more OHVs than Texas. They have a regional trail 

system and use federal and state public lands. Their fee program is also very good. 

Additional examples to consider include Canadian River, Lake Meredith (NPS), 

Rosetta Flats, and Blue Creek. Their superintendent or law enforcement personnel 

will have insight on management challenges associated with OHV management. Pat 

Crannen, Law Enforcement/Game Warden, in Wichita Falls; he understands 

management considerations and constraints in Red River area 

• Regional water plans 

• Water level. Water levels in lakes including Lake O’Pines, Caddo Lake, Big Cypress, 

Black Cypress, and Little Cypress are low and need to be identified in the RMP as an 

issue. 
2. Public Input

April 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions 2-19 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

• Integrated State Water Plan and Regional Water Plans for social and economic 

information 

• For State of Texas, soil and water conservation districts provide source of private land 

agriculture numbers. Farm Bureau is the same for all three states

• Brazos Authority–Texas water plan recommended as a resource for projected 

developments and economics for Texas

Other comments/questions?

Other comments of questions provided included the following: 

• Why was the 98th parallel of the Red River chosen as BLM lands? Why not further 

east?

• There is a need to change the mindset on how to manage and preserve water. 

• One size doesn’t fit all; the BLM and BIA need to fit management to local issues. 

• The BLM needs to outreach to people who cannot always attend these meetings (i.e. 

needs to get to small towns). 

• For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. When government acts, be 

sure to check the reaction. 

2.4 TRIBAL CONSULTATION MEETINGS

Tribes were included in invitations to the general socioeconomics workshops in Wichita, Kansas, 

Norman, Oklahoma, and Fort Worth, Texas. In addition, tribal socioeconomics workshops were 

also held as part of formal government-to-government consultation meetings, to provide an 

opportunity for tribal representatives to discuss tribal specific issues related to social and 

economic conditions. The primary purpose of these meeting was to discuss the current and future 

role of public lands and federal and Indian mineral resources in the regional and local economy. 

Invitations were targeted to chairpersons, chiefs, and other high-ranking members of all tribes in 

the decision area. In total, there were ten attendees representing five tribes at the two meetings 

(Appendix B). 

The format of the tribal workshops included two presentations. The first presentation was an 

overview of the joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP that included information on the 

process, decision area, and planning issues. The second presentation offered an overview of 

current socioeconomic data for Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. Information presented was 

essentially the same as that provide for the general socioeconomics workshops (see Appendices

B and C). Presentations were followed by a discussion period. Information on social and 

economic feedback is summarized below. Information on other issues related to government-togovernment consultation was discussed at these meetings; this information is included in the 

government-to-government consultation record for the project. 

2.4.1 Discussion on Socioeconomics

Below is a summary of the social and economic comments taken at the Government-toGovernment Consultation Meeting and Socioeconomic Workshops. 
2. Public Input

2-20 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions April 2015

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

Norman, Oklahoma 

• Participants noted that the Choctaw Nation is focusing on economic development. 

Examples provided included the following: 

o Tourism is becoming more important to Choctaw Nation. Choctaw Ponies are 

a big tourism draw

o Choctaw Nation is doing more livestock grazing; this might be of interest to 

the BLM and possible partnership

o The Nation is open for partnership with federal agencies, etc. 

o Forestry is important to the eastern part of the Nation (near border with 

Arkansas). President Obama designated this a Promise Zone Initiative Area

o Jack Austin Jr., Assistant Chief, might be able to facilitate getting more 

information. Working on a couple of different economic developments 

• Participants noted that there is interest in wind development. There are at least three 

tribes that have proposed 90+ turbine wind farms. Looking at 5 to 7 wind farm 

developments in the next five years 

• Tribal gaming was cited as a big economic driver (tourism) for many tribes

• Absentee Shawnee noted that tourism is important for their tribe too

• Chickasaw social concerns noted include getting people working, addressing 

domestic violence

• Farming and grazing are important; but oil and gas is dominant. Related issues 

include the following: 

o Eastern Oklahoma (which has mainly gas) has been in a slower growth rate as 

the price of gas has been low, but now with oil prices going down, western 

Oklahoma (mainly oil) will likely slow down too 

o A lot of the 24 tribes in the Southern Plains rely on their oil and gas royalties 

o Clean up of abandon wells is a concern 

Muskogee, Oklahoma

• Jonna Polk (BIA Eastern Oklahoma Region) noted that data on employment provided 

by tribes should be included; tribes are a major employer in at least Oklahoma

• Representatives from the Quapaw Tribe noted that they are dealing with a large 

Superfund site. As it is being cleaned up, the tribe is looking at new uses for the site, 

including expanding livestock grazing 

• Participants noted that the Muskogee Creek Nation relies heavily on gaming, with 

some agriculture and oil and gas. They recently put in a new shopping center (River 

Walk) in Tulsa and support some travel plazas. Muskogee Business Enterprises is 

another big employer (security systems). Details provided included the following: 

o Nation just hired an oil and gas staff, so is just getting into development. 

Mostly private 
2. Public Input

April 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions 2-21 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

o Unsure how many oil and gas wells/leases the Nation has with BIA

o Have many livestock leases and business leases with BIA

• Quapaw Tribe noted that they manage all their lands; all agricultural lands are already 

leased 

• Livestock grazing currently occurs on tribal lands. A discussion occurred related to 

the need of Muskogee Creek Nation to get water to a livestock lease allotment and 

need for NEPA coverage for a well and pond 

• Recommended study to review–Muskogee Creek Nation, Environmental Specialist 

noted that Muskogee Creek Nation has a report that has relevant economic 

information. Title is something like 2014 National Resource Directory
This page intentionally left blank. 
Appendix A 

Sample Invitation Letter
This page intentionally left blank
US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 


Oklahoma Field Office 


Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Southern Plains Region 

Eastern Oklahoma Region 

Joint Environmental Impact Statement 

and BLM Resource Management Plan 

Socioeconomic Workshops 

The United States (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) Eastern 


Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regional Offices is preparing a Joint Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and 


BLM Resource Management Plan (RMP). As part of the Joint EIS/ BLM RMP, the BLM and BIA are hosting 


three workshops for state and community representatives, tribes, and other stakeholders who want to 


explore the issue of the changing local economy and its relationship to public lands, federal mineral estate, 


and Indian mineral resources managed by the BIA. Workshop format will include a brief presentation of 


current socioeconomic data followed by group discussions. Issues for discussion include but are not limited 


to: 


I) The current social and economic conditions in the planning area; 


2) The current role of public lands as well as federal and Indian mineral resources in the local economy; 


3) Visions for the future of the regional economy and for local communities, and the role of public lands as 


well as federal and Indian mineral resources in this vision. 


As a local expert, your participation is these workshops would provide valuable insight for the BLM and BIA. 


Third-party neutral facilitators from Environmental Management and Planning Solutions Inc. (EMPSi) have 


been hired to organize, convene, and facilitate these workshops. Representatives from the BLM and BIA will 


be in attendance, and EMPSi will document the workshops and summarize the information for incorporation 


into the RMP process. 


Who: 


One representative or staff member from each agency, entity or organization. You may wish to designate a 


backup representative to ensure your agency has representation at the workshop. 


When and Where: 


Date: Tuesday, February 3nd, 20 15, 1-4 pm 


Location: Wichita Public Library, Lionel D. Alford Branch, 3447 S. Meridian, Wichita, Kansas 67217 


Date: Wednesday, February 4th, 20 15, 1-4 pm 


Location: Oklahoma University - National Weather Center. 120 David L Boren Blvd. 


Norman, Oklahoma 73072 


Date:Thursday, February 5th, 20 15, 1-4 pm 


Location: Fort Worth Public Library, Ella Mae Shamblee Branch, I 062 Evans Ave.. Fort Worth, Texas 76104 


You may attend any workshop; information presented will be the same at each meeting. 


Please contact Larry Levesque, BLM Project Manager at 918-621-4136 or email llevesqu@blm.gov with any 


questions. 


Sincerely, 

<~~-4r- Stephen G. Tryon 

Field Manager, BLM Oklahoma Field Office 

RSVP is required for attendance. Please RSVP by january 9th 

Preferred method: online response form at http://goo.gl/forms/rw751UQbvg 

Alternatively, email Zoe Ghali at zoe.&hali@empsi.com, call 303-447-7160, 

or send reply to 3775 Iris Ave. Suite I A, Boulder, Colorado 8030 I. 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Appendix B 

Workshop Attendees
This page intentionally left blank.
April 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions B-1 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

APPENDIX B

WORKSHOP ATTENDEES

The following representatives from BLM, BIA, and EMPSi attended the workshops. 

Workshop Attendees

Norman, Oklahoma Tribal 

workshop 

January 14, 2015

Larry Levesque, BLM

John Worthington, BIA 

Gabe Morgan, BIA 

David Batts, EMPSi

Zoe Ghali, EMPSi

Muskogee, Oklahoma 

Tribal workshop 

January 15, 2015

Larry Levesque, BLM

Ryan Howell, BLM 

Jonna Polk, BIA 

Sierra Mandelko, BIA

David Batts, EMPSi

Zoe Ghali, EMPSi 

Wichita, Kansas

General Workshop 

February 3, 2015

Steve Tryon,BLM 

Johnathan Goodman, BLM 

Michael Johnson, BLM 

Holly Prohaska, EMPSi 

Zoe Ghali, EMPSi 

Molly McCarter, EMPSi

Norman, Oklahoma 

General Workshop 

February 4, 2015

Steve Tryon,BLM 

Johnathan Goodman, BLM 

Michael Johnson, BLM 

Jonna Polk, BIA

David Anderson, BIA 

Holly Prohaska, EMPSi 

Zoe Ghali, EMPSi 

Molly McCarter, EMPSi
B. Workshop Attendees

B-2 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions April 2015

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

Workshop Attendees

Fort Worth, Texas,

General Workshop 

February 5, 2015

Steve Tryon, BLM 

Johnathan Goodman, BLM 

Michael Johnson, BLM 

Jonna Polk, BIA

David Anderson, BIA 

Holly Prohaska, EMPSi 

Zoe Ghali, EMPSi 

Molly McCarter, EMPSi

The following attendees are based on the official sign-in sheet that all participants were asked to 

fill out upon arrival. 

Name Affiliation Title

Wichita, Kansas – February 3, 2015

Kenneth Liggett Clay County, Texas Judge

Erika Stanley Kansas Water Office Planner

Nik Johanson Bureau of Reclamation, NebraskaKansas Area OfficeNatural Resource Specialist

Jason Claycamp Jackson County, Kansas Zoning Admin

Jeana Morgan SG County Public Works R/W Agent

Rebecca Fuhrman Osage Nation Legislative/Legal Analyst

Shawn Tasset KS Natural Resource Coalition President

Jim Carlson Logan County, STS, Kansas 

Natural Resource Coalition

Exec. Dir.

Karl Peterjohn Sedgwick County Commissioner

Debbie Hazelbeck DA Fort Leavenworth, Kansas Environmental Protection 

Agent

Nancy Thellman Douglas County, Kansas County Commissioner

Jann Hayman Osage Nation Environmental Director

Kevin G. Campbell Kearny County Counselor

Nikki Schwerdfeger Hamilton County Commissioner

Jim Rice Seward County Commissioner

Wendy Lauritzen Tallgrass Prairie National 

Preserve, National Park Service

Superintendent

Anne Tjaden Mike Pompeo Office Rep

Sheila Ellis Wichita County, Kansas Rep

Tommy Roedell Woodward, Oklahoma County Commission Rep

Andrea Hutchison Woodward, Oklahoma County Commission Rep

Mike Moriarty Kansas Department of 

Transportation

Section Manager

Norman, Oklahoma – February 4, 2015

Milton R. Pax Moore County, Texas Commissioner

Ronnie Thompson Hugo, Oklahoma County Commissioner

Saeed Zahrai Emera Corp. President
B. Workshop Attendees

April 2015 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions B-3 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

Name Affiliation Title

Wayne Kellogg Chickasaw Nation Engineer

Greg Tyra Wilbarger County, Vernon, Texas Judge

Johnson Bridgewater Oklahoma Sierra Club Director

Noel Osborn Chickasaw National Recreation 

Area, National Park Service

Martha Penisten General Counsel

Tek Tsegay ODM Chief Tech. Services

Jack Brown Marathon Oil Environmental Engineer

Rod Cleveland Cleveland County Commissioner

Jad Ziolkowska Oklahoma University Assistant Professor

Jon Bristor County Rep Director

Bob Cooper Farrell Cooper Mining Vice President

Kara Berst Chickasaw nation Exec EHS Officer

Charlene Glover Chesapeake Energy Land Advisor

Daniel Redetske Independent Salt Co Mowe Engineer

Sean Copp Independent Salt Co. Chief Financial Officer

Richard Boeckman Barton County, Kansas Administrator

Russ Horton Oklahoma Dept of Wildlife Research Supervisor

Mitch Antle Washington County, Oklahoma Commissioner

Fort Worth, Texas – February 5, 2015

Steve Thompson Texas Parks and Wildlife OHV Program Manager

J.R. Ashley Marion County Commissioner

John Bradley Marion County

Tiffany Morgan Brazos River Authority

Tommy Henderson Landowner

Barry Mahler Wichita County Commissioner

Marc Pons US Forest Service Caddo-LBJ 

Grasslands

ORA

LaNell Aston TXGLO

Anita Branch Regional Technical Specialist

Kevin Hunter

Leon Klement Cooke County Commissioner

Caleb Pool US Rep Mac Thornberry District Rep

Randy Roberts US Army Corps of Engineers

Mary Maddux US Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Oil and Gas Specialist

Tracy Homfeld Collin County Assistant Director of Eng.

Norman, Oklahoma – January 14, 2015

Lea Tsotaddle Absentee Shawnee Realty Specialist

Lindsey Bilyeu Choctaw Nation Sec 106 Reviewer

Daniel Ragle Choctaw Nation Sec 106 Reviewer

Kirk Perry Chickasaw Nation Historic Preservation 

Executive Office

Monty Stick Chickasaw Nation Cultural Preservation Tech
B. Workshop Attendees

B-4 BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions April 2015

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

Socioeconomics Workshops Summary Report

Name Affiliation Title

Muskogee, Oklahoma – January 15, 2015

Craig Kreman Quapaw Tribe Assistant Environmental 

Director

Trenton Stand Quapaw Tribe Director of Realty

David Porter Muskogee Creek Nation Cultural Advisor

Odette Freeman Muskogee Creek Nation Assistant Manager

Judy Ausmus Muskogee Creek Nation Environmental Specialist
Appendix C 

Project Overview Presentation
This page intentionally left blank.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

2/4/2015
	

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Oklahoma, Kansas, & Texas 

Joint Environmental Impact Statement / 

BLM Resource Management Plan 

February 2015 

BLM Oklahoma Field Office 

BIA Eastern Oklahoma Region 

BIA Southern Plains Region 

What is an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS)? 

 A detailed report identifying effects on the 

human environment resulting from decisions 

and actions of the Federal government. 

 A requirement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

 The purpose of NEPA is to help make 

informed decisions while concurrently 

protecting the environment. 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

1 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

2/4/2015
	

What is a BLM Resource 

Management Plan? 

 The primary tool guiding BLM management activities 

in support of the dual mandate of multiple use and 

sustained yield. 

 Establishes goals and objectives for resource 

management and the measures needed to achieve 

them. 

 Identifies lands that are open and available for 

certain uses, including any restrictions, and lands 

that are closed to certain uses. 

 Provides comprehensive management direction for 

and/or allocates use of resources. 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Why Are BLM and BIA 

Conducting an EIS? 

 The EIS will enable BLM and BIA to better 

manage resource use decisions within the 

planning area. 

 BLM and BIA work collectively on permitting 

of Indian & Tribal mineral development. 

 Resources  Resource Uses 

include: Include:  Oil & Gas  Recreation 

 Solid Minerals  Livestock grazing 

 Lands  Other uses 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

2 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS













BLM 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP 

Purpose and Need
 

To revise outdated plans: 

Kansas 1991 RMP 

Oklahoma 1994 RMP 

Texas 1996 RMP 

OK RMP Amendments 

2004, 1996, 1994, 2014 

 TX RMP Amendment, 2000 

 To support future leasing and 

permitting decisions 

 To include/update resource uses 

and incorporate new data 

 To allocate other resources not 

included in original RMPs 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 







BIA 

Leasing and development of 

Indian mineral interests will be 

strengthened when addressed in 

an EIS-level analysis 

BIA EO & SP would sign separate 

Indian EIS and Record of 

Decisions 

Strengthens future leasing by BIA 

or individual Tribes 

Through tiering, strengthens 

permitting by BLM for Indian and 

Tribal mineral development 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP 

Decision Area 

BLM

4,184,900 acres of BLMadministered federal 

mineral estate. 

This includes: 

47,200 acres of BLMadministered surface lands 

Other agencies’ minerals that 

the BLM administers 

Split estate land (private land 

with federal mineral interests)

Segregated Coal 

BIA 

  864,100 acres of BIAadministered tribal and

allotted surface lands

860,200 acres of BIAadministered tribal and 

allotted subsurface minerals 

estate? 

 







February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

2/4/2015
	

3 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

2/4/2015
	

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Oklahoma 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Kansas 

February 2015 

4 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

2/4/2015
	

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Texas 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Public & Tribal Scoping 







Formal public scoping period: July 26, 2013 to 

January 31, 2014 

BLM and BIA hosted 17 public meetings Nov 2013 

to Jan 2014 

 172 total attendees 

683 Comments Received 

 85.9 % contained planning issues that will be 

addressed in the Joint EIS/BLM RMP 

February 2015 

5 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

 

















February 2015 

Planning Issues 

Planning Issue Categories 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 









Energy Development 

Minerals and mining 

Cultural and historic 

resources 

Fences and trespassing 

Recreation and other uses 

along the Red River 

Access and transportation 

Public health and safety 

Lands and realty 

Fish and wildlife 

Socioeconomics 

Tribal Interests 

Issues not addressed in 

previous RMPs 

Climate change and future 

water needs 

Planning Issues 

 Energy development 

 How can the BLM and BIA allow development of federal and tribal oil and gas 

resources and honor valid existing lease rights, while protecting air, visual 

resources, wildlife, water, and the natural environment? 

 Minerals and mining 

 How can the BLM and BIA allow development of federal and tribal coal 

resources and honor valid existing lease rights, while protecting air, water, and 

the natural environment? 

 Cultural and historic resources 

 How can the BLM and BIA manage cultural and historic resources for public 

enjoyment, while protecting those resources? 

 Fences and trespassing 

 How should the BLM manage the land it administers in the Red River area 

to reduce conflicts with adjacent property owners?
 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

2/4/2015
	

6 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

2/4/2015
	

Planning Issues (continued)











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? 

Access and transportation 

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

Public health and safety 

 How can the BLM minimize public health and safety risks in the Red River 

area? 

Lands and realty 

 What criteria should the BLM use for disposing of or acquiring BLMadministered lands?
 

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? 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Planning Issues (continued)

 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? 







Tribal Interests 

 How can the BIA minimize trespassing on tribal lands, especially during the 

hunting season? 

Issues not addressed in previous RMPs 

 How will the BLM address resources not addressed in the current RMPs? 

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?
 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

7 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

2/4/2015
	

Government-to-Government 

Consultation 

 Previous Tribal Consultation Meetings 





 J

October 28th, 2013 in Muskogee, OK 

October 30th, 2013 in Anadarko, OK 

anuary 14th, 2015 in Norman, OK 

 January 15th, 2015 in Muskogee, OK 

 This consultation will continue throughout 

the Joint EIS/BLM RMP process to ensure 

that the concerns of tribal groups are 

considered as the Joint EIS/BLM RMP is 

developed. 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Osage EIS 

 In order to be responsive to the Energy 

Development issue statement, and at the 

request of the Osage Nation, the BIA decided 

to do a separate EIS for oil and gas 

development in Osage County before the 

analysis for the Joint EIS/BLM RMP. 

 Acceleration of this EIS will allow updated 

guidance for oil and gas management in the 

county to be prepared in a more timely 

fashion. 

 Anticipated date for FEIS completion: 

December 2015. 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

8 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

2/4/2015
	

Next Steps 

 Data collection, 

document current 

condition 

 Evaluate effectiveness 

of current 

management 

 Identify opportunities 

to change 

management 

 Prepare resource 

studies 

 Develop alternatives 

 Publish a Draft 

EIS/RMP 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP Schedule 

 Special Studies: Spring 2015 

Alternatives Development: Summer 2015 

Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP: Summer 2016 

Final Joint EIS/BLM RMP: Summer 2017 







February 2015 

9 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

2/4/2015
	

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Questions? 

Project Web site: 

http://www.blm.gov/nm/oktrmp 

Project E-mail Address: 

BLM_NM_OKT_RMP@blm.gov 

David Anderson 

BIA, Southern Plains Regional Office 

Anadarko, OK 73005 

405-247-1532 

Laurence Levesque 

BLM, Oklahoma Field Office 

7906 E. 33rd, Suite 101 

Tulsa, OK 74145 

918-621-4136 

Jonna E. Polk 

BIA, Eastern Oklahoma Region 

3100 W. Peak Boulevard 

Muskogee, OK 74401 

918-781-4660 

February 2015 

Dave Goodman 

BLM, New Mexico State Office 

301 Dinosaur Trail 

Santa Fe, NM 

505-954-2181 

10 
Appendix D 

Socioeconomics Presentation
This page intentionally left blank.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2/6/2015
	

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Oklahoma, Kansas, & Texas 

Joint Environmental Impact Statement / 

BLM Resource Management Plan 

Socioeconomic Workshops 

February 2015 

BLM Oklahoma Field Office 

BIA Eastern Oklahoma Region 

BIA Southern Plains Region 

Current Social and Economic 

Trends 

 Socioeconomic Profiles: 

Data compiled by Headwaters Economics, 

publically available in the Economic Profile 

System-Human Dimensions Toolkit (EPS-HDT) 

For more info see: 

http://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/eps-hdt 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

1 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2/6/2015
	

Current Social and Economic 

Trends 

 EPS-HDT Data Sources include US Census 

Bureau (10 year census and American 

Community Survey [ACS]), US Bureau of 

Economic Analysis, US Bureau of Labor Statistics 

and other federal data sets. 

 Other potential sources for the environmental 

baseline include state and county financial data; 

federal data from USDA National Agricultural 

Statistical Service, Office of Natural Resources 

Revenue, etc.; and economic modeling such as 

IMPLAN. February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Current Social and Economic 

Trends 

 Questions to consider while viewing data: 

o	 What social and economic trends have you observed 

in your community? 

o	 Do you have questions or concerns about data 

presented?
 

o	 Do you have additional/alternative data sources or 

reports to recommend? 

o	 How might the data presented be influenced by 

BLM/BIA management decisions?
 

o	 Are there key areas within the planning area are 

important to examine in greater detail?
 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

2 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2/6/2015
	

Current Social and Economic 

Trends 

Population (2000-2013) 

Oklahoma 

3,785,742 

3,450,654 

9.7% 

Population 

(2013) 

Population 

(2000) 

Population 

Percent Change 

(2000-2013) 

Texas 

25,639,373 

20,851,820 

23.0% 

Kansas 

2,868,107 

2,688,418 

6.7% 

3 State 

Area 

32,293,222 

26,990,892 

19.6% 

U.S. 

311,536,594 

281,421,906 

10.7% 

US Census Bureau, American Community Survey Data 2009-2013, Census 2000 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Current Social and Economic 

Trends 

Population, Percent Change, 1970-2013 

156.9% 

Texas Metro

106.8% 

Metro/NonMetro 

Region 

70.1% 

Oklahoma 

Metro 

52.9%

Kansas 

Metro 

42.7% 

 Texas NonMetro 

23.1% 

Oklahoma

Non-Metro

-2.5% 

Kansas NonMetro 

February 2015 

3 

180% 

160% 

140% 

120% 

100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

-20% 

55.1% 

U.S. 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2/6/2015
	

Current Social and Economic 

Trends
 Population by Race and Ethnicity (2013) 

US Census Bureau, American Community Survey Data 2009-2013 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Percent of Total 

Hispanic/Latino of Any 

Race 

White alone 

Black or African American

alone
 

American Indian alone
 

Asian alone 

Native Hawaiian & Other 

Pacific Is. Alone
 

Some other race alone
 

Two or more races 

Aggregate minority 

Population 

OK 

Metro 

11.5% 

71.6% 

9.7% 

5.6% 

2.5% 

0.1% 

3.1% 

7.4% 

35.2% 

OK 

NonMetro 

4.5% 

77.3% 

2.4% 

10.0% 

0.5% 

0.1% 

1.4% 

8.5% 

25.1% 

TX 

Metro

40.6% 

71.9% 

13.0% 

0.5% 

4.6% 

0.1% 

7.5% 

2.4% 

59.7% 

TX

NonMetro 

22.6% 

88.1% 

5.4% 

0.6% 

0.7% 

0.0% 

3.5% 

1.7% 

30.2% 

KS 

Metro

12.9% 

82.2% 

7.4% 

0.8% 

3.2% 

0.1% 

2.8% 

3.6% 

27% 

KS Non-

 Metro 

4.4% 

94.6% 

0.9% 

1.0% 

0.4% 

0.0% 

0.9% 

2.2% 

8.5% 

U.S. 

16.6% 

74.0% 

12.6% 

0.8% 

4.9% 

0.2% 

4.7% 

2.8% 

36.7% 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

February 2015 

4 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2/6/2015
	

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

February 2015 

5 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2/6/2015
	

Current Social and Economic 

Trends 

Housing Characteristics (2013) 

Occupied 

Vacant 

For rent 

Rented, not occupied 

For sale only 

Sold, not occupied
 

For seasonal, recreational,

or occasional use 

For migrant workers
 

Other vacant
 

February 2015
 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Oklahoma 

86.5% 

13.5% 

2.6% 

0.5% 

1.4% 

0.5% 

2.4%
 

0.0% 

6.1%
 

Texas 

88.2% 

11.8% 

3.3% 

0.5% 

1.1% 

0.4% 

2.3% 

0.0% 

4.0% 

Kansas 

89.9% 

10.1% 

2.2% 

0.5% 

1.3% 

0.3% 

1.2% 

0.0% 

4.6% 

3 State 

Region 

88.2% 

11.8% 

3.1% 

0.5% 

1.2% 

0.4% 

2.2% 

0.0% 

4.3% 

U.S. 

87.5% 

12.5% 

2.4% 

0.5% 

1.3% 

0.5% 

3.9% 

0.0% 

3.9% 

Current Social and Economic 

Trends 

Housing Costs as a Percent of Household Income, 2013 

Owner-occupied housing 

units with a mortgage 

Monthly cost <15% of 

household income
 

Monthly cost >30% of
 

household income 

Specified renter-occupied 

units 

Gross rent <15% of 

household income
 

Gross rent >30% of 

household income 

Median monthly mortgage 

cost 

Median gross rent 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

6 

Oklahoma 

569,607 

144,458 

150,269 

475,345 

65,779 

198,339 

$1,137 

$699 

Texas 

3,460,178

738,256 

1,047,453

3,262,919

390,669 

1,475,844

$1,443 

$851 

Kansas 

 473,565 

109,700 

 118,658 

 360,703 

48,841 

 150,688 

$1,290 

$732 

3 State 

Region 

4,503,350

992,414 

1,316,380

4,098,967

505,289 

1,824,871

na 

na 

U.S. 

 49,820,840 

9,215,740 

 17,636,343 

 40,534,516 

4,355,942 

 19,581,493 

$1,540

$904 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2/6/2015
	

Current Social and Economic 

Trends 

Individuals and Families Below Poverty, 2013 

18.0% 

13.6%

Oklahoma 

Metro 

14.6% 

10.8%

Oklahoma

Non-Metro

20% 

15% 

10% 

5%
 

0% 

18.3% 

14.4%

Texas Metro 

13.9%

10.1%

Texas NonMetro 

15.2%

10.4%

Kansas Metro 

9.5%

6.5%

Kansas NonMetro 

17.2% 

13.2%

Metro/NonMetro Region 

15.4%

11.3%

U.S. 

People Below Poverty Families below poverty 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

February 2015 

7 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2/6/2015
	

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

February 2015 

8 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

tate

gion

2/6/2015
	

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Current Social and Economic 

Trends 

Annual Unemployment Rate, 2013 

February 2015 

5.5% 

Oklahoma 

Metro 

5.3% 

Oklahoma 

on-Metro 

6.3% 

Texas 

Metro 

6.4% 

Texas NonMetro 

5.7% 

Kansas 

Metro 

4.9% 

Kansas Non

Metro 

6.2% 

-Metro/NonMetro 

Region 

7.4% 

U.S. 

0% 

1% 

2% 

3% 

4% 

5% 

6% 

7% 

8% 

N

Current Social and Economic 

Trends 

Average Annual Unemployment Rate 

Year 

2013 

2012 

2011 

2010 

2009 

2008 

2007 

Oklahoma 

5.4% 

5.4% 

5.9% 

6.9% 

6.7% 

3.7% 

4.1% 

Texas 

6.3% 

6.8% 

7.9% 

8.2% 

7.5% 

4.9% 

4.4% 

Kansas 

5.4% 

5.8% 

6.5% 

7.1% 

7.1% 

4.4% 

3 S

4.1% Re

U.S. 

7.4% 

8.1% 

8.9% 

9.6% 

9.3% 

5.8% 

 

4.6% 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

9 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2/6/2015
	

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Percent of Total Employment, 2013 

Government 

Federal Government 

State Government 

Local Government 

Total Private 

Non-Services 

Natural Resources and Mining (incl. 

Oil and Gas) 

Ag., Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 

Mining 

Construction 

Manufacturing (Incl. Forest Prod.) 

Services 

Trade, Transportation, Utilities 

Information 

Financial Activities 

Professional and Business 

Education and Health 

Leisure and Hospitality 

Other Services 

Unclassified 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

February 2015 

$60,000 $

$70,000 

2013 $s 

$50,000 

$40,000 

$30,000 

$20,000 

$10,000 

$0 

10 

OK Metro 

17.9% 

3.5% 

4.4% 

10.0% 

82.1% 

16.4% 

2.9% 

0.2% 

2.7% 

4.8% 

8.7% 

65.6% 

19.0% 

1.6% 

5.5% 

13.1% 

13.7% 

10.4% 

2.4% 

0.0% 

OK NonMetro 

24.9% 

2.2% 

3.7% 

19.0% 

72.3% 

21.2% 

7.7% 

1.6% 

5.3% 

4.1% 

8.8% 

51.1% 

18.0% 

0.9% 

3.8% 

6.1% 

11.6% 

8.6% 

2.0% 

0.0% 

TX 

Metro 

15.5% 

1.8% 

3.0% 

10.7% 

84.4% 

15.7% 

2.4% 

0.2% 

2.2% 

5.5% 

7.7% 

68.7% 

20.1% 

1.9% 

6.3% 

13.7% 

13.2% 

10.7% 

2.8% 

0.0% 

TX 

NonMetro 

23.3% 

1.6% 

4.9% 

16.8% 

76.3% 

25.9% 

9.6% 

2.4% 

6.1% 

4.9% 

9.8% 

50.4% 

18.8% 

0.7% 

3.7% 

4.5% 

11.5% 

8.5% 

2.3% 

0.0% 

KS Metro 

14.7% 

1.9% 

2.6% 

10.1% 

84.1% 

15.6% 

0.4% 

0.1% 

0.2% 

4.4% 

10.8% 

68.4% 

19.1% 

2.4% 

6.0% 

14.4% 

14.2% 

9.6% 

2.7% 

0.0% 

KS NonMetro 

23.8% 

1.7% 

2.8% 

19.3% 

75.9% 

23.8% 

4.3% 

1.2% 

1.7% 

3.7% 

14.7% 

52.1% 

18.6% 

1.1% 

3.4% 

5.9% 

12.6% 

8.2% 

1.9% 

0.0% 

U.S. 

15.7% 

2.1% 

3.4% 

10.2% 

84.3% 

14.8% 

1.5% 

0.9% 

0.6% 

4.3% 

9.0% 

69.5% 

19.1% 

2.0% 

5.7% 

13.8% 

15.1% 

10.6% 

3.1% 

0.1% 

Current Social and Economic 

Trends 

Average Earnings per Job, 2013 

$55,698

Oklahoma 

Metro 

$41,156

Oklahoma 

Non-Metro

$59,184

Texas 

Metro 

$41,209

Texas Non

Metro 

$52,858

- Kansas 

Metro 

$44,193

Kansas NonMetro 

$55,876

Metro/NonMetro 

Region 

55,768

U.S. 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2/6/2015
	

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Average Annual Wages, 2013 (2013 $s) 

Total Private & Public 

Government 

Federal Government 

State Government 

Local Government 

Total Private 

Non-Services 

Natural Resources and Mining 

Ag., Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 

Mining 

Construction 

Manufacturing (Incl. Forest 

Prod.) 

Services 

Trade, Transportation, Utilities 

Information 

Financial Activities 

Professional and Business 

Education and Health 

Leisure and Hospitality 

Other Services 

Unclassified 

Oklahoma 

$42,451 

$41,357 

$62,989 

$43,493 

$35,506 

$42,733 

$58,627 

$85,551 

$33,565 

$94,527 

$46,045 

$51,731 

$38,093 

$38,810 

$53,312 

$50,476 

$47,317 

$40,252 

$16,006 

$30,849 

$69,643 

Texas 

$51,187 

$46,183 

$70,094 

$49,676 

$41,353 

$52,146 

$71,405 

$105,413 

$30,929 

$120,299 

$55,738 

$68,869 

$47,392 

$46,849 

$75,536 

$69,768 

$63,510 

$42,851 

$18,995 

$33,857 

$44,009 

Kansas 

$41,546 

$38,194 

$61,453 

$47,680 

$32,708 

$42,294 

$51,059 

$45,599 

$36,115 

$55,613 

$47,895 

$52,883 

$39,811 

$37,985 

$68,032 

$58,476 

$51,913 

$38,952 

$14,411 

$29,324 

na 

State 

Region 

$49,283 

$44,688 

$68,037 

$48,535 

$39,666 

$50,210 

$67,799 

$99,324 

$31,994 

$114,155 

$54,169 

$64,656 

$45,727 

$45,187 

$72,773 

$66,962 

$60,849 

$42,168 

$18,280 

$33,167 

$44,348 

U.S. 

$49,804 

$50,360 

$72,906 

$52,468 

$45,108 

$49,700 

$58,364 

$57,071 

$29,455 

$98,183 

$53,181 

$61,096 

$47,854 

$41,761 

$86,801 

$80,730 

$64,620 

$44,971 

$20,405 

$32,848 

$52,642 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Current Social and Economic 

Trends 

Percent of Total Private Employment in Mining, 2012 

February 2015 

2.84% 

Oklahoma 

Metro 

5.35% 

Oklahoma 

Non-Metro 

1.59% 

Texas Metro 

6.62% 

Texas NonMetro 

0.31% 

Kansas Metro 

1.99% 

Kansas NonMetro 

2.05% 

Metro/Nonetro Region 

0.63%

U.S. 

0.0% 

1.0% 

2.0% 

3.0% 

4.0% 

5.0% 

6.0% 

7.0% 

M

11 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2/6/2015
	

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Employment in Mining, 2012 

Total Private 

Employment 

Mining 

Oil & Gas Extraction 

Oil & Gas Extraction 

Drilling Oil & Gas 

Wells 

Support for Oil & 

Gas Operations 

Coal Mining 

Metal Ore Mining 

Nonmetallic Minerals 

Mining 

Mining Related 

Oil & Gas Pipeline & 

Related Const. 

Pipeline 

Transportation 

Non-Mining 

8 

February 2015 

OK Metro 

909,682 

2.80% 

2.80% 

1.40% 

0.50% 

0.90% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.10% 

0.50% 

0.40% 

0.10% 

96.70% 

OK NonMetro 

372,334 

5.30% 

5.00% 

1.10% 

1.00% 

2.90% 

0.10% 

0.00% 

0.30% 

0.80% 

0.50% 

0.20% 

93.90% 

TX Metro 

,304,745

1.60% 

1.50% 

0.40% 

0.30% 

0.80% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.70% 

0.50% 

0.20% 

97.70% 

TX 

NonMetro 

732,385 

6.60% 

6.20% 

1.00% 

1.30% 

4.00% 

0.20% 

0.00% 

0.20% 

1.50% 

1.10% 

0.40% 

91.90% 

KS Metro 

792,031 

0.30% 

0.20% 

0.10% 

0.10% 

0.10% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.10% 

0.10% 

0.00% 

0.10% 

99.60% 

KS 

Non-Metro 

327,076 

2.00% 

1.80% 

0.40% 

0.50% 

0.90% 

0.00% 

0.00% 

0.10% 

0.90% 

0.30% 

0.60% 

97.10% 

U.S 

115,938,468 

0.60% 

0.40% 

0.10% 

0.10% 

0.20% 

0.10% 

0.00% 

0.10% 

0.20% 

0.10% 

0.00% 

99.20% 

Current Social and Economic 

Trends 

Household Income Distribution, 2013 

Per Capita Income 

(2013 $s) 

Median Household 

Income (2013 $s) 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

12 

OK 

Metro 

$24,585 

$44,468 

OK

NonMetro 

$23,468 

$47,143 

TX 

Metro 

$26,051 

$51,665 

TX NonMetro 

$25,841 

$53,191 

KS Metro 

$26,840 

$50,317 

KS NonMetro 

$27,182 

$53,847 

U.S. 

$28,155

$53,046

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2/6/2015
	

Current BLM/BIA economic 

contributions 

 BLM/BIA Management that may influence 

local economic activity: 

o

o

o

o

o

BLM/BIA Direct Expenditures and Employment 

Minerals Management 

Renewable Energy? 

Recreation? 

Livestock grazing? 

 Economic activity can include, direct, 

indirect and induced effects 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Current BLM/BIA economic 

contributions- BLM/BIA Expenditures and 

Employment 

 Non Salary Expenditures 

BLM program related work (i.e. ecosystems management 

projects, supplies/materials, travel, utilities, contracts, etc.) 

 Salary Expenditures 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

14 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2/6/2015
	

Current BLM/BIA economic 

contributions-Minerals Management 

 Principal Minerals include Coal, Oil, Natural 

Gas 









Mineral development can result in: 

Creating or sustaining direct and indirect jobs and 

providing associated economic benefits 

Collection/distribution of severance, ad valorem and 

other taxes for state and local government 

Collection/distribution of federal and Indian mineral 

royalties 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 





Active and Inactive Oil and Gas Wells (2010-2014) 

Preliminary Data 

Actual Active 

Wells 

Actual Inactive 

Shut-in Wells
 

Source: BLM 2014. Automated Fluid Minerals Support System . 

February 2015 

15 

Kansas 

Federal 

394 

21 

Oklahoma 

Federal 

387 

66 

Texas 

Federal 

490 

49 

Oklahoma 

Indian Trust 

1,760 

261 

Texas 

Indian Trust 

9 

0 

In the three state planning area there are currently around 409,000 

producing oil and gas wells. 

Over the last 20 years Federal and Indian actual wells drilled 

accounted for just for 0.3% of the wells drilled in the three state 

planning area. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2/6/2015
	

Current BLM/BIA economic 

contributions- Minerals Management 

BLM Economic Contributions (Fiscal Year 2013) 

State 

Direct
 

Total
 

Kansas 

Oil and Gas (Million $)
 

$40.6 

$67.6 

Texas 

$249.0 

$388.8 

Oklahoma
 

$140.0
 

$205.7
 

Source: BLM 2014. A Sound Investment for America.
 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Current BLM/BIA economic 

contributions- Minerals Management 

 Coal 

o	 

o

o	 

o	 

o

Nine authorized federal leases in Oklahoma, covering 

16,700 acres. Two active mines 

Focused in Haskell, Latimer and Le Flore Counties 

2012 total production was 1,075,100 tons. Federal 

leases production was 487,000 tons. 

BLM estimated 35.7 million direct dollars and 56.8 

million total dollars to the Oklahoma economy in FY 

2013 (BLM 2014, A Sound Investment for America).
 

No currently authorized Indian coal leases 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

17 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2/6/2015
	

Current BLM/BIA economic 

contributions- Minerals Management 

 Mineral Materials 

o	 

o

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. 

No BLM managed minerals material sales were recorded 

 Helium 

o	 

o	 

BLM manages the federal helium reserve near Amarillo, 

TX. Federal management of reserve to end in 2021. 

First auction in June 2014 resulted in $14,972,568 in 

revenue. In total the program contributed nearly $185 

million to the U.S. Treasury in 2014.
 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Current BLM/BIA economic 

contributions- Minerals Management 

 Royalties, Rents, Bonus 

o	 

o

o

o	 

o	 

o	 

Derived from non-renewable resource production of federal or 

Indian minerals 

Based on the amount of sales volume and the sales price 

Onshore Federal Royalty Rate is generally 12.5% 

Indian minerals Royalty rate varies from approximately 12.5% to 

25% 

Federal royalty revenues shared approximately 50/50 between 

Federal Government & States 

100 % of Indian royalty revenues go to BIA to distribution to tribes 

and/or individuals based on percent ownership in a given lease. 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

18 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Current BLM/BIA economic 

contribu

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2/6/2015
	

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Rents, Royalty and Bonus Revenue 

All Federal and Indian Minerals (2013) 

Gas (mcf) volume tions

Gas sales 

Gas royalties 

Oil (bbl) volume 

Oil sales 

Oil royalties 

Coal (tons) volume 

Coal sales 

Coal royalties 

Rents 

Bonuses 

February 2015 

Kansas 

13,339,044 

$24,001,252 

$3,016,433 

$247,696 

$21,533,910 

$2,653,436 

$42,812 

$24,000 

Oklahoma 

38,551,155 

$146,594,080 

$25,843,676 

1,700,527 

$151,407,533 

$22,378,447 

597,537 

$34,763,676 

$927,731 

$677,933 

$1,362,710 

Texas 

66,245,090 

$263,184,515 

$31,148,035 

491,292 

$50,618,212 

$6,367,873 

$764,939 

$8,877,852 

Current BLM/BIA economic 

contributions 

Federal Mineral Royalty Distributions per FY, 3 State 

Region 

$60,000.0 

19861988199019921994199619982000200220042006200820102012 

Thousands (2013 $s) 

$50,000.0 

$40,000.0 

$30,000.0 

$20,000.0 

$10,000.0 

$0.0 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

19 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

US Oil and Gas Prices 

 

 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Current BLM/BIA economic 

contributions-Minerals Management 

$160.00 

$140.00 

$120.00 

$100.00 

$80.00 

$60.00 

$40.00 

$20.00 

$0.00 

February 2015 Oil and Gas Prices 

Last 20 Years (1992- 2012) 

US Crude Spot Prices 

US Natural Gas Well Head Prices 

Asian 

financial 

crises 

OPEC cuts production 

targets 1.7 mmbpd 

9-11 

attacks 

Global 

financial 

collapse 

2005 Hurricanes 

shut down oil 

and gas production 

and refineries 

OPEC cuts production 

targets 4.2 mmbpd 

Current BLM/BIA economic 

contributions-Minerals Management 

 BLM is compiling a Reasonably Foreseeable 

Development Scenario for Federal and Indian 

minerals 

 Contribution from minerals activities in the 

planning area will involve translating 

development/construction expenditures and 

production levels info economic metricies, 

such as output (sales), employment, and labor 

income 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

2/6/2015
	

20 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

 

 

 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

2/6/2015
	

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

February 2015 

0.000 

0.020 

0.040 

0.060 

0.080 

0.100 

0.120 

0.140 

0.160 

0.180 

Quadrillion BTU 

Preliminary Projections Federal / Indian Gas Production

 EIA Projections US 

(Proportionally Fitted)

 Projections (Realistic)

 Projections (Conservative) 

Actual Wells (Source: DOI AFMMS Data) Production from IHS Energy) EIA Projection Start Date 2012 EIA Projection Start Date 2012 

History Projections

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

Current BLM/BIA economic 

contributions- Other 

 Renewable Energy Development 

o Potential for wind development 

 Recreation: limited opportunities on BLM 

lands due to the lack of large tracts of surface 

land ownership. 

 Grazing: limited economic contributions due 

to the lack of large tracts of surface land 

management 

o	 Total of 4 allotments with 138 total Animal Unit Months 

(132 billed)
 

February 2015 

22 
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

2/6/2015
	

Current BLM/BIA economic 

contributions 

 Does the economic contribution capture all 

of the value of BLM/BIA lands and mineral 

management? 

o	 

o	 

o	 

Economic contribution analysis provides insight 

into market value 

Market may not capture full value of resources in 

the planning area 

Non market/social values can include views, 

historic land uses and values, open space, 

ecosystem services, etc.
 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Questions? 

Project Web site: 

http://www.blm.gov/nm/oktrmp 

Project E-mail Address: 

BLM_NM_OKT_RMP@blm.gov 

Laurence Levesque 

BLM, Oklahoma Field Office 

7906 E. 33rd, Suite 101 

Tulsa, OK 74145 

918-621-4136 

David Anderson 

BIA, Southern Plains Regional Office

Anadarko, OK 73005 

405-247-1532 

Dave Goodman 

BLM, New Mexico State Office 

301 Dinosaur Trail 

Santa Fe, NM 

505-954-2181 

Jonna E. Polk 

BIA, Eastern Oklahoma Region 

3100 W. Peak Boulevard 

Muskogee, OK 74401 

918-781-4660 

February 2015 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

23 
Appendix E 

Workshop Agenda
This page intentionally left blank.
Socioeconomic Workshops February 3-5, 2015

page 1/2 

AGENDA

BLM AND BIA OKLAHOMA, KANSAS, AND TEXAS

JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND BLM RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

PLAN 

Socioeconomic Workshops 

Wichita, Kansas – February 3rd, 2015

Norman, Oklahoma – February 4th, 2015

Fort Worth, Texas – February 5th, 2015 

 

1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS 

• Workshop ground rules

2. PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP 

Update on the Joint EIS/BLM RMP Process

• Provide planning and decision area overview

• Provide summary of scoping results

• Discuss current project status and next steps

Discussion of Social and Economic Data and Values

• Characterize existing socioeconomic conditions and trends in the planning area 

• Gather input on social structure and values for area communities

• Identify social and economic opportunities and constraints to help inform in 

alternatives development and determine appropriate indicators and analysis 

methods for the Joint EIS/BLM RMP.

• Identify collaboration opportunities

3. OVERVIEW OF JOINT EIS/ BLM RMP PROCESS

4. ECONOMIC PROFILE SYSTEM – HUMAN DIMENSIONS TOOLKIT DATA 

5. CURRENT BLM/BIA ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS 

6. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

• What is your vision for your community over the next 20 years?

• What are some important social, environmental, economic issues, values, and 

concerns to meet your vision for your community? 

• How do you and/or your community benefit from BLM/BIA surface lands or 

mineral resource management? 

• What specific administrative activities, characteristics, and regulations you would 

have BLM/BIA maintain or change to help you obtain your desired outcomes or 

expectations for your community? 

• What specific BLM/BIA management actions would you prefer to see implemented 

to help you achieve your desired outcomes?

• What are some partnership/collaboration opportunities between BLM/BIA and 

your community/industry/organization? 

• Are there any key geographic areas and/or industries that should be examined in 

detail for social/economic discussion?

• Are there key data sources that the BLM/BIA should include in economic 

baseline/analysis?

• Other comments/questions?
Socioeconomic Workshops February 3-5, 2015

page 2/2 

7. NEXT STEPS

8. CONTACT INFORMATION

BLM Oklahoma Field Office

Larry Levesque

BIA Southern Plains Region

David Anderson BIA Eastern Oklahoma RegionJonna Polk

Phone: (918) 621-4100

Email: llevesqu@blm.gov

Phone: (405) 247-6673

Email: david.anderson@bia.gov 

Phone: (918) 781-4608

Email: jonna.polk@bia.gov
Appendix F 

Blank Comment Card
This page intentionally left blank. 
OKLAHOMA, KANSAS, & TEXAS

JOINT EIS/BLM RMP

Socioeconomics Workshop

Comment Card

Please provide any additional comments that you would like to be considered for socioeconomics 

analysis when developing the Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Joint EIS/ BLM RMP. 

1. What is your vision for your community over the next 20 years?

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

2. What are some important social, environmental, economic issues, values, and concerns to meet 

your vision for your community?

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

3. How do you and/or your community benefit from BLM/BIA surface lands or mineral resource 

management? 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

4. What specific administrative activities, characteristics, and regulations you would have BLM/BIA 

maintain or change to help you obtain your desired outcomes or expectations for your community?

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

5. What specific BLM/BIA management actions would you prefer to see implemented to help you 

achieve your desired outcomes?
Socioeconomics Workshop 

Comment Card

Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Indian Affairs

Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas Joint EIS and BLM RMP 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

6. What are some partnership/collaboration opportunities between BLM/BIA and your 

community/industry/organization? 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

7. Are there any key geographic areas and/or industries that should be examined in detail for 

social/economic discussion?

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

8. Are there key data sources that the BLM/BIA should include in economic baseline/analysis?

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

9. Other comments/questions?

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

Please provide your contact information if you would like to be added to the project mailing list 

so you can receive future project updates. 

Name: ________________________ Email: _____________________________

Mailing Address: _____________________________________________________

 City: _____________ State: _____________ Zip: __________

Form can be returned to: Molly McCarter at Molly.McCarter@empsi.com