BLM BIA BIA Oklahoma Field Office Southern Plains Regional Office Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office 

Oklahoma Field Office 

Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas 

Draft Joint Environmental Impact Statement/ 

BLM Resource Management Plan and 

BIA Integrated Resource Management Plan 

United States Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management and 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

November 2018 

 

 Committed to Honor, Trust and Conservation Stewardship 

Production Cost 

 $4,455,763 
BLM Mission Statement

The Bureau of Land Management’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the 

public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Bureau accomplishes this 

by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy 

production, and by conserving natural, historical, cultural, and other resources on public lands.

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.

Cover Photo: Patrick R. Rich

BLM/NM/PL-18-02-1610
November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

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

ES.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. ES-1

ES.2 Description of the Lead Agencies........................................................................................... ES-2

ES.3 Description of the Planning and Decision Areas................................................................. ES-3

ES.3.1 BLM Decision Area ..................................................................................................... ES-6

ES.3.2 BIA Decision Area....................................................................................................... ES-7

ES.4 Purpose and Need...................................................................................................................... ES-9

ES.4.1 Purpose and Need for the BLM RMP ..................................................................... ES-9

ES.4.2 Purpose and Need for the BIA Integrated RMP................................................... ES-9

ES.5 Planning Issues.......................................................................................................................... ES-10

ES.6 Alternatives Development..................................................................................................... ES-11

ES.6.1 Purpose of Alternatives Development................................................................ ES-11

ES.6.2 Alternatives Development Process for the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and 

BIA Integrated RMP.................................................................................................. ES-12

ES.7 BLM Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... ES-12

ES.7.1 Management Common to All BLM Alternatives............................................... ES-12

ES.7.2 BLM Alternative A: No Action.............................................................................. ES-13

ES.7.3 BLM Alternative B: Agency Preferred.................................................................. ES-13

ES.7.4 BLM Alternative C.................................................................................................... ES-14

ES.7.5 BLM Alternative D.................................................................................................... ES-14

ES.8 BIA Alternatives....................................................................................................................... ES-14

ES.8.1 Management Common to All BIA Alternatives................................................. ES-14

ES.8.2 BIA Alternative A: No Action ............................................................................... ES-15

ES.8.3 BIA Alternative B: Proposed Action .................................................................... ES-15

ES.8.4 BIA Alternative C ..................................................................................................... ES-15

ES.8.5 BIA Alternative D..................................................................................................... ES-15

ES.9 Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis................................................................ ES-16

ES.10 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis............................................................... ES-19

ES.10.1 Retain All BLM-Administered Surface Tracts.................................................... ES-19

ES.10.2 Implement Exclusive Use or Protection in the BLM RMP.............................. ES-19

ES.11 Considerations in Selecting a Preferred Alternative....................................................... ES-20

ES.11.1 Recommendation and Resulting Actions ............................................................ ES-20

ES.12 Implementation and Monitoring of the BLM RMP........................................................... ES-20

ES.13 Implementation and Monitoring of the BIA Integrated RMP ........................................ ES-21

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

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Description of the Lead Agencies............................................................................................. 1-2

1.2.1 Bureau of Land Management....................................................................................... 1-2

1.2.2 Bureau of Indian Affairs................................................................................................ 1-2

1.3 Description of the Planning and Decision Areas................................................................... 1-8

1.3.1 BLM Decision Area ..................................................................................................... 1-17

1.3.2 BIA Decision Area....................................................................................................... 1-20
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

ii Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

1.4 Purpose and Need...................................................................................................................... 1-23

1.4.1 Purpose and Need for the BLM RMP ..................................................................... 1-23

1.4.2 Purpose and Need for the BIA Integrated RMP................................................... 1-23

1.5 Planning Process.......................................................................................................................... 1-24

1.6 Scoping .......................................................................................................................................... 1-28

1.6.1 Scoping Process............................................................................................................ 1-29

1.7 Issues.............................................................................................................................................. 1-30

1.7.1 Issue Identification and Issues Addressed.............................................................. 1-31

1.7.2 Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed...................................................... 1-32

1.8 Legislative Constraints and Planning Criteria....................................................................... 1-33

1.9 BLM Resource Management Plan Amendments.................................................................. 1-36

1.10 Collaboration............................................................................................................................... 1-36

1.10.1 Intergovernmental and Interagency......................................................................... 1-37

1.10.2 Tribal Relationships and Indian Trust Assets........................................................ 1-39

1.11 Related Land Use Plans............................................................................................................. 1-39

1.11.1 Other Federal Plans.................................................................................................... 1-40

1.11.2 State Plans...................................................................................................................... 1-40

1.11.3 Local Government Plan.............................................................................................. 1-42

1.12 Implementation and Monitoring of the BLM Resource Management Plan ................... 1-42

1.13 Implementing and Monitoring the BIA Integrated RMP .................................................... 1-42

2. ALTERNATIVES.............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Introduction to BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP Alternatives..................................... 2-2

2.2.1 Purpose of Alternatives Development..................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Alternatives Development Process for the Oklahoma, Kansas, and 

Texas Joint EIS / BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP........................................................... 2-3

2.3.1 Identifying Planning Issues............................................................................................ 2-3

2.3.2 Analyze the Management Situation............................................................................ 2-4

2.3.3 Develop a Reasonable Range of Alternatives......................................................... 2-4

2.4 Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis..................................................................... 2-4

2.4.1 BLM Alternative Summary........................................................................................... 2-6

2.4.2 BIA Alternative Summary .......................................................................................... 2-11

2.5 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis.................................................................. 2-13

2.5.1 Retain All BLM-Administered Surface Tracts....................................................... 2-13

2.5.2 Implement Exclusive Use or Protection................................................................. 2-13

2.6 Considerations in Selecting a Preferred Alternative.......................................................... 2-14

2.6.1 Recommendations and Resulting Actions.............................................................. 2-15

2.7 Management Guidance for BLM and BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D.......................... 2-15

2.7.1 How to Read Tables 2-2 and 2-3 ............................................................................. 2-16

2.8 Comparison of Impacts............................................................................................................. 2-86

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Regional Context........................................................................................................... 3-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP iii

3.2 BLM Resources.............................................................................................................................. 3-6

3.2.1 Air Resources................................................................................................................. 3-6

3.2.2 Geology.......................................................................................................................... 3-29

3.2.3 Soil Resources.............................................................................................................. 3-38

3.2.4 Water Resources......................................................................................................... 3-44

3.2.5 Vegetation...................................................................................................................... 3-62

3.2.6 Fish and Wildlife........................................................................................................... 3-84

3.2.7 Special Status Species.................................................................................................. 3-95

3.2.8 Cultural Resources................................................................................................... 3-127

3.2.9 Paleontological Resources...................................................................................... 3-138

3.2.10 Visual Resources....................................................................................................... 3-141

3.2.11 Wildland Fire Management ..................................................................................... 3-151

3.2.12 Cave and Karst Resources..................................................................................... 3-161

3.3 BLM Resource Uses................................................................................................................ 3-164

3.3.1 Energy and Minerals................................................................................................. 3-164

3.3.2 Renewable Energy .................................................................................................... 3-174

3.3.3 Recreation and Visitor Services............................................................................ 3-179

3.3.4 Travel, Transportation Management, and Access............................................. 3-180

3.3.5 Lands and Realty ....................................................................................................... 3-182

3.3.6 Livestock Grazing ..................................................................................................... 3-186

3.3.7 Prime and Unique Farmlands and Agriculture................................................... 3-186

3.4 BLM Special Designations...................................................................................................... 3-190

3.4.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern .......................................................... 3-190

3.4.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers............................................................................................ 3-190

3.4.3 National Historic Trails........................................................................................... 3-194

3.4.4 National, State, and BLM Scenic Byways............................................................. 3-196

3.5 BLM Social and Economic Conditions................................................................................ 3-199

3.5.1 Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests........................................................................ 3-202

3.5.2 Public Health and Safety.......................................................................................... 3-206

3.5.3 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................ 3-210

3.5.4 Environmental Justice............................................................................................... 3-250

3.6 BIA Decision Area................................................................................................................... 3-278

3.6.1 Air Resources............................................................................................................ 3-279

3.6.2 Geology....................................................................................................................... 3-280

3.6.3 Soil Resources........................................................................................................... 3-280

3.6.4 Water Resources...................................................................................................... 3-280

3.6.5 Vegetation................................................................................................................... 3-284

3.6.6 Fish and Wildlife........................................................................................................ 3-285

3.6.7 Special Status Species............................................................................................... 3-285

3.6.8 Cultural Resources................................................................................................... 3-286

3.6.9 Paleontological Resources...................................................................................... 3-286

3.6.10 Visual Resources....................................................................................................... 3-286

3.6.11 Wildland Fire Management..................................................................................... 3-287

3.6.12 Cave and Karst Resources..................................................................................... 3-291

3.6.13 Energy and Minerals................................................................................................. 3-292

3.6.14 Renewable Energy .................................................................................................... 3-297
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

iv Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

3.6.15 Recreation and Visitor Services............................................................................ 3-298

3.6.16 Travel, Transportation Management, and Access............................................. 3-298

3.6.17 Lands and Realty ....................................................................................................... 3-299

3.6.18 Livestock Grazing ..................................................................................................... 3-301

3.6.19 Prime and Unique Farmlands and Agriculture................................................... 3-301

3.6.20 National Historic Trails........................................................................................... 3-302

3.6.21 National and State Byways..................................................................................... 3-303

3.6.22 Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests........................................................................ 3-305

3.6.23 Public Health and Safety.......................................................................................... 3-305

3.6.24 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................ 3-305

3.6.25 Environmental Justice............................................................................................... 3-316

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.............................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Analytical Assumptions................................................................................................. 4-2

4.1.2 Types of Impacts to be Addressed............................................................................ 4-4

4.1.3 Incomplete or Unavailable Information.................................................................... 4-6

4.2 BLM Impacts Analysis .................................................................................................................. 4-7

4.2.1 BLM Resources............................................................................................................... 4-7

4.2.1.1. Air Resources............................................................................................... 4-7

4.2.1.2. Geology........................................................................................................ 4-33

4.2.1.3. Soil Resources............................................................................................ 4-36

4.2.1.4. Water Resources....................................................................................... 4-55

4.2.1.5. Vegetation.................................................................................................... 4-75

4.2.1.6. Fish and Wildlife...................................................................................... 4-111

4.2.1.7. Special Status Species............................................................................. 4-133

4.2.1.8. Cultural Resources................................................................................. 4-146

4.2.1.9. Paleontological Resources.................................................................... 4-166

4.2.1.10. Visual Resources..................................................................................... 4-179

4.2.1.11. Wildland Fire Management................................................................... 4-201

4.2.1.12. Cave and Karst Resources................................................................... 4-215

4.2.2 BLM Resource Uses................................................................................................. 4-221

4.2.2.1. Energy and Minerals............................................................................... 4-221

4.2.2.2. Renewable Energy .................................................................................. 4-247

4.2.2.3. Recreation and Visitor Services.......................................................... 4-252

4.2.2.4. Travel, Transportation Management, and Access........................... 4-258

4.2.2.5. Lands and Realty ..................................................................................... 4-261

4.2.2.6. Livestock Grazing ................................................................................... 4-272

4.2.3 BLM Special Designations....................................................................................... 4-284

4.2.3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ........................................ 4-284

4.2.3.2. Wild and Scenic Rivers.......................................................................... 4-286

4.2.3.3. National Historic Trails......................................................................... 4-294
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP v 

4.2.4 BLM Social and Economic Conditions................................................................. 4-297

4.2.4.1. Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests...................................................... 4-297

4.2.4.2. Public Health and Safety........................................................................ 4-315

4.2.4.3. Socioeconomics ...................................................................................... 4-320

4.2.4.4. Environmental Justice............................................................................. 4-352

4.3 BIA Impacts Analysis............................................................................................................... 4-360

4.3.1 Air Resources............................................................................................................ 4-360

4.3.2 Geology....................................................................................................................... 4-378

4.3.3 Soil Resources........................................................................................................... 4-378

4.3.4 Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 4-383

4.3.5 Vegetation................................................................................................................... 4-389

4.3.6 Fish and Wildlife........................................................................................................ 4-403

4.3.7 Special Status Species............................................................................................... 4-409

4.3.8 Cultural Resources................................................................................................... 4-412

4.3.9 Paleontological Resources...................................................................................... 4-422

4.3.10 Visual Resources....................................................................................................... 4-426

4.3.11 Wildland Fire Ecology and Fuels Management .................................................. 4-431

4.3.12 Cave and Karst Resources..................................................................................... 4-436

4.3.13 Energy and Minerals................................................................................................. 4-439

4.3.14 Renewable Energy .................................................................................................... 4-443

4.3.15 Travel, Transportation Management, and Access............................................. 4-446

4.3.16 Lands and Realty ....................................................................................................... 4-447

4.3.17 Livestock Grazing ..................................................................................................... 4-451

4.3.18 Prime and Unique Farmlands and Agriculture................................................... 4-455

4.3.19 National Historic Trails........................................................................................... 4-461

4.3.20 National and State Scenic Byways ........................................................................ 4-463

4.3.21 Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests........................................................................ 4-464

4.3.22 Public Health and Safety.......................................................................................... 4-474

4.3.23 Socioeconomics ........................................................................................................ 4-476

4.3.24 Environmental Justice............................................................................................... 4-483

4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................................................... 4-488

4.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................ 4-489

4.6 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity ........... 4-491

5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Cumulative Analysis Methodology............................................................................................ 5-1

5.3 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions............................................... 5-3

5.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis...................................................................................................... 5-14

5.4.1 Resources...................................................................................................................... 5-14

5.4.1.1. Air Resources............................................................................................. 5-14

5.4.1.2. Geology........................................................................................................ 5-36

5.4.1.3. Soil Resources............................................................................................ 5-37

5.4.1.4. Water Resources....................................................................................... 5-39

5.4.1.5. Vegetation.................................................................................................... 5-45

5.4.1.6. Fish and Wildlife......................................................................................... 5-52
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

vi Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

5.4.1.7. Special Status Species................................................................................ 5-56

5.4.1.8. Cultural Resources.................................................................................... 5-59

5.4.1.9. Paleontological Resources....................................................................... 5-61

5.4.1.10. Visual Resources........................................................................................ 5-63

5.4.1.11. Wildland Fire Management...................................................................... 5-65

5.4.1.12. Cave and Karst Resources...................................................................... 5-68

5.4.2 Resource Uses.............................................................................................................. 5-68

5.4.2.1. Energy and Minerals.................................................................................. 5-68

5.4.2.2. Renewable Energy ..................................................................................... 5-71

5.4.2.3. Recreation and Visitor Services............................................................. 5-72

5.4.2.4. Travel, Transportation Management, and Access.............................. 5-72

5.4.2.5. Lands and Realty ........................................................................................ 5-73

5.4.2.6. Livestock Grazing ...................................................................................... 5-75

5.4.2.7. Prime and Unique Farmlands and Agriculture.................................... 5-76

5.4.3 Special Designations.................................................................................................... 5-78

5.4.3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ........................................... 5-78

5.4.3.2. Wild and Scenic Rivers............................................................................. 5-79

5.4.3.3. National Historic Trails............................................................................ 5-80

5.4.3.4. National and State Scenic Byways ......................................................... 5-80

5.4.4 Social and Economic Conditions.............................................................................. 5-81

5.4.4.1. Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests......................................................... 5-81

5.4.4.2. Public Health and Safety........................................................................... 5-83

5.4.4.3. Socioeconomics ......................................................................................... 5-85

5.4.4.4. Environmental Justice................................................................................ 5-91

6. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION........................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Public Collaboration and Outreach.......................................................................................... 6-1

6.2.1 Scoping Process.............................................................................................................. 6-2

6.2.2 Project Website............................................................................................................. 6-5

6.2.3 Mailing List....................................................................................................................... 6-5

6.2.4 Future Public Involvement........................................................................................... 6-5

6.3 Consultation and Coordination ................................................................................................ 6-5

6.3.1 Native American Tribal Consultation....................................................................... 6-6

6.3.2 State Historic Preservation Office Consultation ................................................... 6-9

6.3.3 ESA Section 7 Consultation ........................................................................................ 6-9

6.3.4 Additional Coordination.............................................................................................. 6-9

6.4 List of Preparers.......................................................................................................................... 6-10

7. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 7-1

8. ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND GLOSSARY............................................................ 8-1

8.1 Acronyms and Abbreviations..................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 Glossary .......................................................................................................................................... 8-5

9. INDEX ............................................................................................................................ 9-1
November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP vii

TABLES Page

ES-1 Land Status in the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP Planning Area ......................... ES-5

ES-2 Tribal Jurisdictional Boundaries.............................................................................................................. ES-7

ES-3 Planning Issue Categories and Statements........................................................................................ ES-10

ES-4 Comparative Summary of BLM Alternatives.................................................................................... ES-16

1-1 Land Status in the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP Planning Area ......................... 1-10

1-2 USFWS-Administered Lands with Federal Minerals.......................................................................... 1-12

1-3 USACE-Administered Lands with Federal Minerals.......................................................................... 1-13

1-4 BOR Lands with Federal Minerals......................................................................................................... 1-15

1-5 Department of Defense Lands with Federal Minerals...................................................................... 1-16

1-6 BLM-Administered Surface Lands.......................................................................................................... 1-17

1-7 Tribal Jurisdictional Surface Boundaries............................................................................................... 1-20

1-8 Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP Planning Process...................................................... 1-27

1-9 Planning Issue Categories and Statements........................................................................................... 1-31

1-10 BLM RMP Amendments and Implementation-Level Plans............................................................... 1-36

1-11 Cooperating Agencies/Entities................................................................................................................ 1-37

2-1 Comparative Summary of BLM Alternatives......................................................................................... 2-9

2-2 Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D............................................................................... 2-18

2-3 Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D................................................................................. 2-55

2-4 Segments Determined Eligible for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

River System ............................................................................................................................................... 2-85

2-5 BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D ...................... 2-87

2-6 BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D..................... 2-144

3-1 Resources not Carried Forward for Analysis....................................................................................... 3-2

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

3-3 National Ambient Air Quality Standards............................................................................................... 3-8

3-4 Nonattainment Areas in the Planning Area......................................................................................... 3-11

3-5 2014 Emissions in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas by Source Category (tons)........................... 3-12

3-6 Comparison to Critical Loads of Total Annual Deposition Fluxes of Sulfur and 

Nitrogen near Class I and Class II Sites in the Planning Area......................................................... 3-20

3-7 Average Temperatures and Precipitation in the Planning Area (1981-2010).............................. 3-22

3-8 Estimated Oil and Gas GHG Emissions by Mineral Estate in Kansas, Oklahoma, and 

Texas in 2011 and 2015 ........................................................................................................................... 3-27

3-9 Estimated Coal Mining GHG Emissions by State and Mineral Designation in 2011 

and 2015 ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-28

3-10 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale............................................................................................................ 3-36

3-11 Mercalli Intensity and Richter Magnitude Scale Comparison.......................................................... 3-37

3-12 Soil Orders in the BLM and BIA Decision Areas............................................................................... 3-40

3-13 Areas Susceptible to Soil Erosion.......................................................................................................... 3-43

3-14 Streams in the BLM Decision Area ....................................................................................................... 3-49

3-15 Stream Segments on the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters in the BLM Decision Area.............. 3-50

3-16 Aquifers in the BLM Decision Area....................................................................................................... 3-54

3-17 100-Year Floodplains in the BLM Decision Area............................................................................... 3-57

3-18 Oil and Gas Statistics (Fiscal Year 2015) ............................................................................................. 3-58

3-19 Land Cover Classes................................................................................................................................... 3-67

3-20 Areas of Riparian or Wetland Vegetation ........................................................................................... 3-71

3-21 Noxious Weeds Potentially in the Planning Area.............................................................................. 3-72

3-22 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants Potentially Found in the Planning Area ............................. 3-74
TABLES (continued) Page

viii Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

3-23 Federal or State-Listed Plants Documented in or with Potential to Occur in the 

Planning Area .............................................................................................................................................. 3-78

3-24 USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern ............................................................................................. 3-87

3-25 Important Bird Areas in the Planning Area ......................................................................................... 3-92

3-26 Federally Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area...................................... 3-96

3-27 Key Special Status Species.................................................................................................................... 3-102

3-28 Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on the ESA ................ 3-113

3-29 Broad Temporal Framework with Date Ranges for the Planning Region................................. 3-132

3-30 Visual Resource Inventory Component Distribution .................................................................... 3-148

3-31 Fire Regimes............................................................................................................................................. 3-157

3-32 Fire Regime Descriptions...................................................................................................................... 3-158

3-33 Vegetative Condition Class.................................................................................................................. 3-158

3-34 Coal Resources in the BLM Decision Area...................................................................................... 3-165

3-35 Helium Areas........................................................................................................................................... 3-167

3-36 Geothermal Potential in the BLM Decision Area ........................................................................... 3-170

3-37 Oil and Gas Development Potential in the BLM Decision Area................................................. 3-171

3-38 Relative Wind Potential in the BLM Decision Area ....................................................................... 3-175

3-39 Relative Concentrated Solar Potential in the BLM Decision Area ............................................. 3-175

3-40 Relative Photovoltaic Solar Potential in the BLM Decision Area................................................ 3-179

3-41 BLM Grazing Allotments....................................................................................................................... 3-186

3-42 Prime Farmlands in the BLM Decision Area .................................................................................... 3-188

3-43 Oklahoma Scenic River Areas............................................................................................................. 3-192

3-44 National Historic Trails......................................................................................................................... 3-196

3-45 Scenic Byways Crossing Federal Mineral Estate.............................................................................. 3-198

3-46 Tribes with Potential Interest in the Planning and Decision Areas............................................ 3-205

3-47 Components of Population Growth, 2000-2013—Kansas........................................................... 3-211

3-48 Population and Population Projections—Kansas............................................................................ 3-212

3-49 Educational Attainment—Kansas........................................................................................................ 3-212

3-50 Language Spoken at Home—Kansas.................................................................................................. 3-213

3-51 Housing Occupancy—Kansas.............................................................................................................. 3-213

3-52 Housing Costs—Kansas........................................................................................................................ 3-214

3-53 Population, Employment, and Income Trends, 2000-2013—Kansas.......................................... 3-214

3-54 Average Annual Unemployment—Kansas........................................................................................ 3-215

3-55 Household Income Distribution—Kansas........................................................................................ 3-215

3-56 Employment and Wages by Industry—Kansas................................................................................ 3-216

3-57 Personal Income by Industry 2001-2013 (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars), Kansas................. 3-217

3-58 Study Area Labor and Non-labor Income—Kansas (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)............ 3-218

3-59 Production Volume, Sales, and Rents, Royalties, and Bonus Revenue 

Collected—Kansas (FY 2014).............................................................................................................. 3-220

3-60 Components of Population Growth—Oklahoma, 2000-2013 .................................................... 3-221

3-61 Population and Population Projections—Oklahoma...................................................................... 3-221

3-62 Educational Attainment—Oklahoma ................................................................................................. 3-222

3-63 Language Spoken at Home—Oklahoma ........................................................................................... 3-222

3-64 Housing Occupancy—Oklahoma........................................................................................................ 3-223

3-65 Housing Costs—Oklahoma ................................................................................................................. 3-223

3-66 Population, Employment and Income Trends 2000–2013—Oklahoma .................................... 3-224

3-67 Household Income Distribution—Oklahoma.................................................................................. 3-224
TABLES (continued) Page

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP ix

3-68 Average Annual Unemployment—Oklahoma ................................................................................. 3-225

3-69 Employment and Wages by Industry, 2013 (in 2013 Dollars)—Oklahoma ............................. 3-226

3-70 Personal Income by Industry, 2001-2013 (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)—Oklahoma....... 3-227

3-71 Non-Labor Share of Total Personal Income—Oklahoma ............................................................ 3-228

3-72 Production Volume, Sales, and Rents, Royalty, and Bonus Revenue 

Collected—Oklahoma (FY 2014)....................................................................................................... 3-230

3-73 Population and Population Projections—Texas.............................................................................. 3-231

3-74 Components of Population Growth—Texas, 2000-2013............................................................. 3-231

3-75 Educational Attainment—Texas.......................................................................................................... 3-232

3-76 Language Spoken at Home—Texas.................................................................................................... 3-232

3-77 Housing Occupancy—Texas................................................................................................................ 3-233

3-78 Housing Costs—Texas.......................................................................................................................... 3-233

3-79 Population, Employment and Income Trends, 2000-2013—Texas............................................ 3-234

3-80 Average Annual Unemployment—Texas.......................................................................................... 3-234

3-81 Household Income Distribution—Texas.......................................................................................... 3-235

3-82 Employment and Wages by Industry—Texas (in 2013 Dollars)................................................. 3-236

3-83 Personal Income by Industry—Texas (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)..................................... 3-237

3-84 Non-labor Share of Total Personal Income—Texas...................................................................... 3-237

3-85 Production Volume, Sales, and Rents, Royalty, and Bonus Revenue 

Collected—Texas (FY 2014) ............................................................................................................... 3-239

3-86 Employment in Mining, 2012................................................................................................................ 3-240

3-87 Active and Inactive Oil and Gas Wells (2010-2014) ...................................................................... 3-240

3-88 Estimated BLM Economic Direct, Indirect, and Total Output (Fiscal Year 2012).................. 3-241

3-89 Summary of Socioeconomic Study Area Agriculture (2012) ....................................................... 3-242

3-90 Summary of Planning Area Outdoor Recreation Economic Impacts......................................... 3-242

3-91 Study Area County Population in Poverty in 2013 ........................................................................ 3-251

3-92 Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Oklahoma .............................. 3-253

3-93 Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas...................................... 3-254

3-94 Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Kansas..................................... 3-260

3-95 Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Oklahoma ....................................... 3-265

3-96 Percent of Native American Population in Oklahoma .................................................................. 3-267

3-97 Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Kansas.............................................. 3-269

3-98 Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Texas............................................... 3-272

3-99 Study Area Population by Race/Ethnicity (2012)............................................................................. 3-278

3-100 Miles of Streams in the BIA Decision Area ...................................................................................... 3-281

3-101 Miles of Stream Segments on the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters in the BIA 

Decision Area.......................................................................................................................................... 3-281

3-102 Aquifers in the BIA Decision Area ..................................................................................................... 3-282

3-103 100-Year Floodplains in the Decision Area...................................................................................... 3-283

3-104 Visual Resource Inventory Component Distribution .................................................................... 3-287

3-105 Bureau of Indian Affairs Wildfires, Oklahoma ................................................................................. 3-288

3-106 Bureau of Indian Affairs Wildfires, Kansas........................................................................................ 3-288

3-107 Bureau of Indian Affairs Wildfires, Texas......................................................................................... 3-289

3-108 Fire Regimes............................................................................................................................................. 3-289

3-109 Vegetative Condition Class.................................................................................................................. 3-290

3-110 Coal Resources in the BIA Decision Area ....................................................................................... 3-292

3-111 Geothermal Potential in the BIA Decision Area............................................................................. 3-295
TABLES (continued) Page

x Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

3-112 Oil and Gas Development Potential in the BIA Decision Area................................................... 3-296

3-113 Relative Wind Potential in the BIA Decision Areas....................................................................... 3-298

3-114 Relative Concentrated Solar Potential in the BIA Decision Areas............................................. 3-298

3-115 Relative Photovoltaic Solar Potential in the BIA Decision Areas................................................ 3-298

3-116 Farmlands in the BIA Decision Area.................................................................................................. 3-301

3-117 National Historic Trails on BIA-Managed Tribal and Allotted Lands or 

Subsurface Mineral Estate..................................................................................................................... 3-303

3-118 Scenic Byways Crossing BIA-Managed Tribal and Allotted Lands or Subsurface 

Mineral Estate.......................................................................................................................................... 3-304

3-119 Education Attainment............................................................................................................................ 3-306

3-120 Language Spoken at Home ................................................................................................................... 3-306

3-121 Housing Occupancy ............................................................................................................................... 3-307

3-122 Housing Costs......................................................................................................................................... 3-308

3-123 Components of Population Growth, 2000-2013 ............................................................................ 3-308

3-124 Population and Population Projections.............................................................................................. 3-309

3-125 Population, Employment, and Income Trends, 2000-2013 ........................................................... 3-310

3-126 Average Annual Unemployment......................................................................................................... 3-310

3-127 Household Income Distribution ......................................................................................................... 3-310

3-128 Employment and Wages by Industry, 2013...................................................................................... 3-311

3-129 Personal Income by Industry 2001-2013 (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)................................ 3-312

3-130 Labor and Non-labor Income (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)................................................... 3-312

3-131 Rents, Royalties, and Bonus Revenue Collected (Fiscal Year [FY] 2014)................................. 3-314

3-132 Summary of Socioeconomic Study Area, Agriculture (2012) ...................................................... 3-314

3-133 Summary of Outdoor Recreation Economic Impacts in the Planning Area ............................. 3-315

3-134 Richardson County Population in Poverty in 2013 ........................................................................ 3-316

3-135 Richardson County Population by Race/Ethnicity (2012)............................................................. 3-317

4-1 Mineral Estate Designation Fractions by State ................................................................................... 4-11

4-2 Oil and Gas Emissions, Kansas............................................................................................................... 4-11

4-3 Oil and Gas Emissions, Oklahoma......................................................................................................... 4-12

4-4 Oil and Gas Emissions, Texas................................................................................................................. 4-12

4-5 Coal Mining Emissions, Oklahoma......................................................................................................... 4-13

4-6 Direct Oil and Gas-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Base and Future Years..................... 4-23

4-7 Direct Coal Mining-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Base and Future Years..................... 4-25

4-8 Induced Seismicity Zones in the Planning Area.................................................................................. 4-35

4-9 Alternatives Comparison of Fluid Minerals Development Stipulations........................................ 4-44

4-10 Alternatives Comparison of Coal Leasing ........................................................................................... 4-45

4-11 Alternatives Comparison of Travel Management.............................................................................. 4-46

4-12 Alternatives Comparison of Livestock Grazing.................................................................................. 4-47

4-13 Alternatives Comparison of Land Use Authorizations..................................................................... 4-48

4-14 Alternatives Comparison of Fluid Minerals and Coal Leasing Development 

Stipulations in Impaired Streams............................................................................................................ 4-60

4-15 Alternatives Comparison of Livestock Grazing in Impaired Streams........................................... 4-61

4-16 Five Common Stages of Water Management During Oil and Gas Development ..................... 4-65

4-17 Alternative A: Visual Resource Inventory Class and Proposed Visual Resource 

Management Class.................................................................................................................................. 4-188

4-18 Fluid Mineral Management Actions, Alternative A......................................................................... 4-189

4-19 Solid Mineral Management Actions, Alternative A......................................................................... 4-189
TABLES (continued) Page

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP xi

4-20 Alternative B: Visual Resource Inventory Class and Proposed Visual Resource 

Management Class.................................................................................................................................. 4-191

4-21 Fluid Mineral Management Actions, Alternative B.......................................................................... 4-192

4-22 Solid Mineral Management Actions, Alternative B ......................................................................... 4-192

4-23 Alternative C: Visual Resource Inventory Class and Proposed Visual Resource 

Management Class.................................................................................................................................. 4-194

4-24 Fluid Mineral Management Actions, Alternative C......................................................................... 4-195

4-25 Solid Mineral Management Actions, Alternative C......................................................................... 4-196

4-26 Alternative D: Visual Resource Inventory Class and Proposed Visual Resource 

Management Class.................................................................................................................................. 4-198

4-27 Fluid Mineral Management Actions, Alternative D......................................................................... 4-198

4-28 Solid Mineral Management Actions, Alternative D......................................................................... 4-200

4-29 Coal Leasing Acceptability in the Decision Area, Alternatives A and C................................... 4-227

4-30 Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in the Decision Area, Alternative A ....................................... 4-228

4-31 Geothermal Leasing Categories in the Decision Area, Alternative A....................................... 4-229

4-32 Coal Leasing Acceptability in the Decision Area, Alternatives B and D ................................... 4-231

4-33 Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in the Decision Area, Alternative B........................................ 4-233

4-34 Geothermal Leasing Categories in the Decision Area, Alternative B........................................ 4-235

4-35 Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in the Decision Area, Alternative C ....................................... 4-238

4-36 Geothermal Leasing Categories in the Decision Area, Alternative C....................................... 4-240

4-37 Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in the Decision Area, Alternative D....................................... 4-242

4-38 Geothermal Leasing Categories in the Decision Area, Alternative D....................................... 4-245

4-39 Eligible and Suitable Stream Segments............................................................................................... 4-287

4-40 Alternative A Fluid Mineral Leasing Acres by Tiers of Production Development.................. 4-337

4-41 Annual Well Estimates and Drilling and Completion Job Estimates by State for 

Total Forecast Wells.............................................................................................................................. 4-339

4-42 Well and Job Estimates by State for Total Forecast Wells at Maximum Buildout ................. 4-339

4-43 Production and Tax Estimates by State for 20-Year Planning Period (2016–2036) ............... 4-340

4-44 Alternative B Fluid Mineral Leasing Acres by Tiers of Development........................................ 4-343

4-45 Alternative C Fluid Mineral Leasing Acres by Tiers of Development........................................ 4-347

4-46 Alternative D Fluid Mineral Leasing Acres by Tiers of Development ....................................... 4-349

4-47 Environmental Justice Populations and Fluid Mineral Potential Tier, by County, 

Oklahoma ................................................................................................................................................. 4-355

4-48 Environmental Justice Populations and Fluid Mineral Potential Tier, by County, Texas....... 4-356

4-49 Environmental Justice Populations and Fluid Mineral Potential Tier, by County, Kansas..... 4-358

4-50 Energy Development Potential in VRI Class II Areas (BIA-Managed Surface Lands

Only).......................................................................................................................................................... 4-428

4-51 BIA-Managed Surface Farmland with Reasonably Foreseeable Development Energy 

Potential under All Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 4-457

4-52 Well and Annual Drilling and Completion Estimates by State for Total Forecast Wells..... 4-481

4-53 Well and Annual Production Job Estimates by State for Total Forecast Wells at 

Maximum Buildout ................................................................................................................................. 4-481

4-54 BIA Decision Area Tribes with Potential for Environmental Justice Impacts.......................... 4-486

5-1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects, Plans, or Actions Included in

the Cumulative Impact Scenario .............................................................................................................. 5-5

5-2 Federal Oil and Gas and Coal Mining Concentrations—Max PSD Consumption at 

Any Domain Class I Area, 2030 Scenario............................................................................................ 5-17
TABLES (continued) Page

xii Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

5-3 Federal Oil and Gas and Coal Mining Concentrations—Max PSD Consumption at 

Any Domain Sensitive Class II Area, 2030 Scenario ......................................................................... 5-18

5-4 Federal Oil and Gas and Coal Contributions to Modeled Visibility Impacts, 

2030 Scenario............................................................................................................................................. 5-19

5-5 Highest Maximum and Average Nitrogen Deposition (kg/ha-yr) at any Class I or 

Sensitive Class II Area Due to Federal Oil and Gas and Coal Mining, 2030 Scenario.............. 5-20

5-6 Highest Maximum and Average Sulfur Deposition (kg/ha-yr) at any Class I or 

Sensitive Class II Area Due to Federal Oil and Gas and Coal Mining, 2030 Scenario.............. 5-20

5-7 Base Year Ozone and Projected 2030 Future Year Ozone Design Values at 

Monitors Where Concentration Now Exceeds the Ozone NAAQS .......................................... 5-23

5-8 Projected CO2 Emissions from End Use of Oil and Gas in the Planning Area .......................... 5-35

5-9 Projected CO2 Emissions from End Use of Coal in the Planning Area........................................ 5-36

6-1 Public Scoping Meetings............................................................................................................................. 6-4

DIAGRAMS Page

1-1 Document Organization ............................................................................................................................ 1-3

1-2 BLM RMP Planning Process..................................................................................................................... 1-26

2-1 How to Read Tables 2-2 and 2-3 ........................................................................................................... 2-17

FIGURES Page

ES-1 Project Planning Area ............................................................................................................................... ES-4

1-1 Project Planning Area ................................................................................................................................. 1-9

1-2 BIA Regions................................................................................................................................................. 1-22

3-1 Level III Ecoregions...................................................................................................................................... 3-5

3-2 Visibility in Class I Areas in the Planning Area.................................................................................... 3-17

3-3 Visibility in Kansas Sensitive Class II Areas.......................................................................................... 3-18

3-4 Visibility in Oklahoma Sensitive Class II Areas................................................................................... 3-19

3-5 Geology........................................................................................................................................................ 3-31

3-6 Fault Features ............................................................................................................................................. 3-34

3-7 Probabilistic Seismic Hazards.................................................................................................................. 3-35

3-8 Soil Orders.................................................................................................................................................. 3-39

3-9 Areas Susceptible to Soil Erosion.......................................................................................................... 3-42

3-10 Hydrologic Accounting Units.................................................................................................................. 3-48

3-11 Domestic Water Wells............................................................................................................................ 3-51

3-12 Aquifers ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-53

3-13 Sole Source Aquifers................................................................................................................................. 3-55

3-14 Land Cover Classes................................................................................................................................... 3-66

3-15 American Burying Beetle ...................................................................................................................... 3-104

3-16 Arkansas River Shiner............................................................................................................................ 3-106

3-17 Black-capped Vireo................................................................................................................................. 3-107

3-18 Interior Least Tern................................................................................................................................. 3-109

3-19 Red-cockaded Woodpecker................................................................................................................ 3-110
FIGURES (continued) Page

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP xiii

3-20 Whooping Crane.................................................................................................................................... 3-112

3-21 Lesser Prairie-Chicken .......................................................................................................................... 3-122

3-22 Visual Resource Inventory Class......................................................................................................... 3-144

3-23 Visual Scenic Quality Rating ................................................................................................................. 3-145

3-24 Visual Sensitivity Rating ......................................................................................................................... 3-146

3-25 Visual Distance Zones........................................................................................................................... 3-147

3-26 Fire Regimes............................................................................................................................................. 3-155

3-27 Vegetation Condition Class.................................................................................................................. 3-156

3-28 Karst Features......................................................................................................................................... 3-163

3-29 Existing and Potential Oil and Gas Plays........................................................................................... 3-168

3-30 Oil and Gas Development Potential .................................................................................................. 3-172

3-31 Relative Wind Potential......................................................................................................................... 3-176

3-32 Relative Concentrated Solar Potential .............................................................................................. 3-177

3-33 Relative Photovoltaic Solar Potential................................................................................................. 3-178

3-34 BLM Grazing Allotments....................................................................................................................... 3-187

3-35 Prime Farmland ....................................................................................................................................... 3-189

3-36 Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers.................................................................................................... 3-193

3-37 National Historic Trails......................................................................................................................... 3-195

3-38 Byways....................................................................................................................................................... 3-197

3-39 Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level .............................................................................. 3-252

3-40 Aggregate Minority Population............................................................................................................ 3-264

4-1 Development Tiers ................................................................................................................................ 4-322

5-1 Comparison of Sulphur Deposition to Critical Loads of Acidity for the Three 

Surface Waters where Exceedances Occur........................................................................................ 5-21

5-2 Comparison of Nitrogen Deposition to Critical Loads of Acidity for the Nine 

Surface Waters where Exceedances Occur........................................................................................ 5-22

5-3 Fourth Highest Daily Maximum 8-hour Ozone Concentrations in the 2013 Base 

Year (left) and 2030 Scenario (right) .................................................................................................... 5-25

5-4 Eighth Highest 24-hour PM2.5 Concentrations in the 2013 Base Year (left) and 

2030 Scenario (right) ................................................................................................................................ 5-26

5-5 Annual Average 24-hour PM2.5 Concentrations in the 2013 Base Year (left) and 

2030 Scenario (right) ................................................................................................................................ 5-27

5-6 Second Highest 24-hour PM10 Concentrations in the 2013 Base Year (left) and 

2030 Scenario (right) ................................................................................................................................ 5-28

5-7 Fourth Highest (99th percentile) Daily Maximum 1-hour Average SO2 

Concentrations in the 2013 Base Year (left) and 2030 Scenario (right)...................................... 5-29

5-8 Second Highest 3-hour Average SO2 Concentrations in the 2013 Base Year (left) 

and 2030 Scenario (right) ........................................................................................................................ 5-30

5-9 Second Highest 24-hour Average SO2 Concentrations in the 2013 Base Year (left) 

and 2030 Scenario (right) ........................................................................................................................ 5-31

5-10 Annual Average SO2 Concentrations in the 2013 Base Year (left) and 

2030 Scenario (right) ................................................................................................................................ 5-32

5-11 Eighth Highest (98th percentile) Daily Maximum 1-hour Average NO2 

Concentrations in the 2013 Base Year (left) and 2030 Scenario (right)...................................... 5-33

5-12 Average Fracturing Fluid Volume per Well by Formation............................................................... 5-41
xiv Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

APPENDICES

A Alternatives A, B, C, and D Figures 

B BLM BMPs and SOPs

C BIA BMPs

D BLM Fluid Mineral Stipulations

E Recreation Management Areas

F Baseline Air Quality Report

G Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Report

H Wild and Scenic Rivers Report

I Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario

J1 Memorandum on Oil and Gas Mining Sector Emissions

J2 Memorandum on Year 2030 Emissions Inventory and Oil and Gas and Mining Sector Emissions 

for Air Quality Modeling

K Air Quality Modeling with CAMx Report

L Socioeconomic Data and Methods

M Coal Development Strategy

N BLM-Administered Surface Tracts Meeting Disposal Criteria Under Section 203 of FLPMA

POSTERS 

1 Surface Ownership and BLM-Administered Federal Minerals Estate

2 Surface Ownership and BIA-Administered Tribal and Allotted Subsurface Minerals Estate
Appendix A

Alternatives A, B, C, and D Figures 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP A-i 

FIGURES 

2-1 Cross Bar Management Area Alternative A: Visual Resource Management

2-2 Cross Bar Management Area Alternatives B and D: Visual Resource Management

2-3 Cross Bar Management Area Alternative C: Visual Resource Management

2-4 Alternatives A and C: Coal* 

2-5 Alternatives B and D: Coal* 

2-6 Cross Bar Management Area Alternative A: Mineral Materials

2-7 Cross Bar Management Area Alternatives B and D: Mineral Materials

2-8 Cross Bar Management Area Alternative C: Mineral Materials

2-9 Cross Bar Management Area Alternative A: Nonenergy Solid Leasable Minerals

2-10 Cross Bar Management Area Alternatives B and D: Nonenergy Solid Leasable Minerals

2-11 Cross Bar Management Area Alternative C: Nonenergy Solid Leasable Minerals

2-12 Alternative A: BLM Fluid Mineral Leasing* 

2-13 Alternative B and D: BLM Fluid Mineral Leasing* 

2-14 Alternative C: BLM Fluid Mineral Leasing* 

2-15 Alternative A: BLM Fluid Mineral Leasing- Subject to Major Constraints (NSO)* 

2-16 Alternative B: BLM Fluid Mineral Leasing- Subject to Major Constraints (NSO)* 

2-17 Alternative C: BLM Fluid Mineral Leasing- Subject to Major Constraints (NSO)* 

2-18 Alternative D: BLM Fluid Mineral Leasing- Subject to Major Constraints (NSO)* 

2-19 Alternative A: BLM Fluid Mineral Leasing- Subject to Moderate Constraints (CSU)* 

2-20 Alternative B: BLM Fluid Mineral Leasing- Subject to Moderate Constraints (CSU)* 

2-21 Alternative C: BLM Fluid Mineral Leasing- Subject to Moderate Constraints (CSU)* 

2-22 Alternative D: BLM Fluid Mineral Leasing- Subject to Moderate Constraints (CSU)* 

2-23 Cross Bar Management Area Alternatives A and C: Livestock Grazing 

2-24 Alternatives A, B, and D: Livestock Grazing

2-25 Cross Bar Management Area Alternatives B and D: Livestock Grazing

2-26 Alternative C: Livestock Grazing

2-27 Cross Bar Management Area Alternatives B, C, and D: Recreation Management Areas

2-28 Cross Bar Management Area Alternative A: Travel, Transportation Management, and Access

2-29 Cross Bar Management Area Alternatives B, C, and D: Travel, Transportation Management, and 

Access

2-30 Cross Bar Management Area Alternatives B and D: Right-of-Way

2-31 Cross Bar Management Area Alternative C: Right-of-Way

2-32 Cross Bar Management Area Alternative C: ACEC

2-33 Cross Bar Management Area Alternatives A, B, and C: Wild and Scenic Rivers

*Originally created in poster format. All figures are available for viewing on the project website 

at: https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/plans-in-development/new-mexico/oklahoma-rmp
A. Alternatives A, B, C, and D Figures

A-ii Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

































This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix B

BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

APPENDIX B: BLM BMP AND SOPS......................................................................................... B-1 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. B-1

Resources...................................................................................................................................................... B-2

Air Quality...................................................................................................................................... B-2

Soil Resources............................................................................................................................... B-2

Water Resources.......................................................................................................................... B-3

Vegetation–Forestry and Woodland Products...................................................................... B-3

Vegetation–Weeds....................................................................................................................... B-4

Chemical and Biological Control ........................................................................................... B-10

Vegetation–Rangeland............................................................................................................... B-11

Vegetation–Riparian Habitat and Wetlands........................................................................ B-11

Fish and Wildlife Management/Special Status Species....................................................... B-12

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management.............................................................................. B-13

Cultural/Paleontological Resources and Tribal Consultation ......................................... B-16

Paleontological Resources....................................................................................................... B-19

Visual Resources........................................................................................................................ B-20

Livestock Grazing ...................................................................................................................... B-27

Minerals and Energy .................................................................................................................. B-29

Transportation and Access...................................................................................................... B-32

Lands and Realty ........................................................................................................................ B-32

Recreation ................................................................................................................................... B-33

Wilderness Study Areas........................................................................................................... B-34

Public Health and Safety........................................................................................................... B-35

Summary ...................................................................................................................................... B-36

Sources and General References.......................................................................................................... B-36
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-ii Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-1 

APPENDIX B 

BLM BMPS AND SOPS

The best management practices and standard operating procedures listed in this 

appendix are not universally applicable and do not encompass all those that are 

currently required or available.

INTRODUCTION

Land managers often apply best management practices (BMPs) to a practice that 

has been specifically developed to mitigate impacts.1 Land managers use 

standard operating procedures (SOPs) where broader national or statewide 

guidance is insufficient to be applied at the district level.2 

The following guidelines, techniques, and practices (collectively referred to as 

management guidelines) are a general summary of the BLM BMPs and SOPs. 

These were compiled from a variety of sources, listed under Sources and 

General References at the end of this appendix. 

These guidelines are by no means a comprehensive list. When used in 

conjunction with other management plans applicable to public land resources 

and resource uses, the guidelines help land managers to achieve desired 

outcomes or conditions, as outlined in the Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas RMP 

(OKT RMP), to reduce adverse environmental effects. Any number of these 

guidelines can be applied or altered as necessary to make progress toward or to 

achieve the desired outcome or condition. 

 

1 Best management practices: A suite of techniques that guide, or may be applied to, management actions to aid in 

achieving desired outcomes. BMPs are often developed in conjunction with land use plans, but they are not 

considered a land use plan decision unless the land use plan specifies that they are mandatory. They may be 

updated or modified without a plan amendment if they are not mandatory (BLM Handbook H1601-1; Glossary). 2 Standard operating procedure: A written procedure, or set of written procedures, providing direction for 

consistently and correctly performing routine operations. These written procedures set forth methods expected 

to be followed during the performance of the particular task. The SOPs are approved by the land use manager and 

are adopted as policy for the Oklahoma Field Office.
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-2 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

The overall vision embraces the use of these guidelines to reduce or minimize 

impacts on the environment. However, they are not to be considered a land use 

plan decision unless specifically designated and identified as being a mandatory 

action in the OKT RMP. Only changes in specific and identified mandatory 

actions would require an amendment to the RMP. 

The management guidelines that follow are identified by resource. Since a 

number of these management guidelines can be applied to a variety of situations, 

there may be a duplication or similarity of and between these guidelines. 

Furthermore, these management guidelines, techniques, and practices may be 

identified for specific situations or actions (e.g., wind energy rights-of-way, 

livestock grazing, forestry, or road construction); nevertheless, they are not 

exclusive to those actions unless otherwise specified.

RESOURCES

Air Quality

Air quality standards are governed by the Clean Air Act of 1990, as amended 

(42 USC 85). The Environmental Protection Agency is charged with setting 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (EPA 2016b). 

Standard Operating Procedures

SOPs minimize or reduce adverse impacts on air quality from BLM or BLMauthorized activities by implementing mitigation measures on a case-by-case 

basis.

Soil Resources

The BLM incorporates appropriate BMPs into Applications for Permit to Drill 

and associated on- and off-lease rights-of-way approvals. BMPs relevant to soils 

may reduce the amount of vegetation lost to development or speed the 

regrowth of vegetation.

BLM may require “Interim Reclamation” to restore vegetation and soil 

resources while a well continues to produce energy. With interim reclamation, 

all areas not needed for the production of oil and gas are reclaimed, that is, 

reshaped, covered with topsoil, and reseeded with native plants. When the well 

no longer produces oil and gas, final reclamation begins. The well is sealed 

(plugged) with cement to protect freshwater aquifers. The entire well location 

and access road are reshaped as closely as possible to the original contour, 

covered with topsoil, and reseeded (BLM 2013).

Best Management Practices

• Effective erosion control measures will be installed and maintained 

at the base of all side slopes. Pad erosion will be controlled utilizing 

Hay bales, silt fencing (screening), earthen berms and hydromulching/seeding.
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-3

• Restoration plans are developed to identify reclamation, soil 

stabilization, and erosion reduction measures to ensure impacted 

areas are restored properly.

• During reclamation, redistribute and seed the topsoil on the 

disturbed areas, and protect and maintain reclaimed areas until the 

sites are fully stabilized.

• Use existing routes when possible. Avoid excessive grades on roads, 

road embankments, ditches, and drainages, especially in areas with 

erodible soils and use special construction techniques, where 

applicable. Re-contour and re-vegetate abandoned roads and roads 

that are no longer needed.

• Identify unstable slopes and local factors that can induce slope 

instability (such as groundwater conditions, precipitation, 

earthquake activities, and slope angles). Avoid creating excessive 

slopes.

• Retain stabilizing vegetation on unstable soils and avoid new roads 

or heavy equipment use on unstable or highly erodible soils.

Water Resources

Water quality standards are governed by States of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas 

BMPs; however, during times of drought or flooding, certain lands may be 

temporarily closed to certain uses that may impact water sources or be 

impacted by flooding waters. 

Vegetation–Forestry and Woodland Products

Guidelines for Forestry

Standard Operating Procedures

No fuel wood cutting of live trees will be allowed for cottonwood, willow, 

alder, limber pine, white bark pine, and curl leaf mahogany, unless resource 

objectives allow otherwise. 

Best Management Practices

• Avoid heavy equipment use in stands of cottonwood, willow, alder, 

limber pine, white bark pine, and curl leaf mahogany. If heavy 

equipment use is necessary, allow on a case-by-case basis and 

mitigate for adverse impacts. 

• Do not allow dead and down collection of cottonwood, willow, 

alder, limber pine, white bark pine, and curl leaf mahogany for 

personal use, unless resource objectives allow otherwise.

• Where possible, avoid conducting work in an area with Sudden Oak 

Death disease, or conduct operations during dry season. Equipment 

should be routed away from infected plants and trees, and 
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-4 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

equipment and staging areas should be located away from host 

plants and trees. Equipment and vehicles should be inspected by 

operations personnel each time they leave the site, and plant debris 

should be removed from equipment and vehicles prior to departure.

Shoes and boots should also be cleaned of soil and organic debris 

after working in an infested area and before traveling to an 

uninfested area.

Guidelines for Firewood Harvesting

• Vehicle use is restricted to existing roads and trails. Do not drive 

off road.

• Do not damage adjacent trees.

• When cutting down standing trees, cut the stump to 12 inches or 

less or as close to the ground as possible.

• Scatter lopped branches at least 50 feet from the stump.

• Do not cut trees that have been posted as “SEED TREE DO NOT 

FALL” or “WILDLIFE TREE DO NOT DISTURB”

• Do not harvest any trees within 330 feet of a spring or creek unless 

trees are identified for selective removal to meet resource 

objectives.

• Please pack out your trash as well as trash left by others.

Vegetation–Weeds

Standard Operating Procedures

• Implement BMPs and SOPs in the records of decisions for the BLM 

Final Programmatic EIS for Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides 

on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States and 

Programmatic EIS for Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, 

Fluroxypyr, and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands 

in 17 Western States.

• Adopt the following stipulations on BLM and BLM-authorized 

projects (e.g., rights-of-ways and Applications for Permit to Drill): 

– Identify sites where equipment can be cleaned. Clean 

equipment before entering BLM-administered lands. Locate 

and manage vehicle and equipment wash stations to limit 

weed and invasive species spread into native plant 

communities.

– Clean vehicles and equipment (remove soil and plant parts) 

before entering or leaving a project area. Check body and 

undercarriage of off-road vehicles and other equipment for 

plant material and clean before leaving weed-infested areas. 
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-5

Use standard contract provisions to ensure that contractors 

adhere to this guideline.

– Inspect and treat weeds that establish at equipment cleaning 

sites while keeping main travel corridors free of noxious or 

invasive weeds to prevent spread and avoid or minimize all 

types of travel through weed-infested areas. If travel is 

necessary, restrict such activity to those periods when the 

spread of seed or propagules is least likely.

– Schedule and coordinate roadside maintenance in 

consultation with weed specialists.

– Inspect and document inspections on travel ways for weeds 

and treat as necessary.

– Evaluate options, including closure, to regulate the flow of 

traffic on sites where desired vegetation needs to be 

established. Sites could include road and trail rights-of-way 

and other areas of disturbed soils.

– Minimize roadside sources of weed seed that could be 

transported to other areas.

– Avoid all types of travel through weed-infested areas.

– Conduct a survey to locate noxious and invasive weeds 

before the project begins.

– Design projects to avoid infestations, to the extent 

practicable.

– Monitor and treat weeds during long-term projects to 

prevent their establishment and spread.

– After the project, reestablish vegetation (weed-resistant 

vegetation, where needed), monitor and treat weeds for 3 

years, and revegetate as needed to ensure revegetation 

success and prevent weed reinvasion.

• Ensure that weed prevention is considered in project activities 

regardless of discipline.

• Locate project staging areas for refueling, maintenance equipment, 

materials, and operating supplies in weed-free areas.

• Remove mud, dirt, and plant parts from project equipment before 

moving it into a project area. 

• Monitor sites for weeds after soil-disturbing activities and treat as 

needed.

The BLM will identify on the project area map units that are infested with 

specific noxious weeds species of concern. 
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-6 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• When determined to be necessary, develop site-specific plans for 

noxious weed and exotic plant prevention and control. Such plans 

will be subject to BLM approval. On approval, the noxious weed and 

exotic plant prevention and control plan will become a part of the 

authorization of the proposed project, and its provisions will be 

enforceable under the terms of the authorization.

• Be responsible for preventing and controlling noxious weeds and 

exotic plants of concern on the project area. Also be responsible 

for preventing and controlling noxious weed and exotic plant 

infestations not in the project area but that are determined by the 

BLM to have originated in the project area. 

• Clean off-road equipment before moving them from project areas 

known to be infested with noxious weeds to other project areas 

that are free of such weeds.

• Mitigate and reduce weed spread during prescribed fire activities; 

includes inventorying weeds before burning. Treat high risk areas 

before burning; pre- and post-treat high risk weed infestations.

• Reestablish vegetation on all disturbed soil from construction, 

reconstruction, and maintenance activities. 

• Use certified weed-free or weed-seed-free hay or straw where 

certified materials are required or are reasonably available.

• Buy only weed-free seed and conduct required seed testing before 

use.

• Use weed-free straw or mulch during revegetation.

• Inspect gravel pits and fill sources to identify weed-free sources. 

Inspect and treat sand, gravel, and fill material to prevent unwanted 

spread of noxious weeds and nonnative species.

• Inspect material sources onsite, and ensure that they are weed free 

before use and transport. Treat weed-infested sources for 

eradication, and strip and stockpile contaminated material before 

any use of pit material.

• Track weeds that may affect known populations of BLM-sensitive 

plants. Work with weed coordinator and take potential control 

measures if necessary.

• Retain bonds until reclamation requirements are completed, 

including weed treatments, based on inspection and documentation.

Best Management Practices

Executive Order 13112 enhances and orders coordination of federal activities 

to control and minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts 

caused by invasive species. The executive order also established a National 
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-7

Invasive Species Council to oversee a management plan detailing the goals and 

objectives of the involved federal agencies.

The Federal Plant Protection Act of 2000 (Title IV of Publ. 106-224) prohibits 

introducing any animal, plant, or material that is considered harmful to this 

country’s agriculture. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Plant 

Protection and Quarantine Division, is the enforcement authority for this act.

• As required by BLM policy (BLM Manual 9011, Chemical Pest 

Control), submit to NSO for approval and reporting requirements 

pesticide use proposals, pesticide application records, biological 

control agent release proposals, biological control agent release 

records, pesticide use reports, and integrated weed management 

reports.

• Keep main travel corridors free of noxious weeds to prevent 

spread and avoid or minimize all types of travel through weedinfested areas. If travel is necessary, restrict it to periods when the 

spread of seed or propagules is least likely. 

• Evaluate options, including closure, to regulate the flow of traffic on 

sites where desired vegetation needs to be established. Sites could 

include road and trail rights-of-way and other areas of disturbed 

soils.

• Minimize roadside sources of weed seed that could be transported 

to other areas. 

• Avoid all types of travel through weed-infested areas.

• Determine prevention and maintenance needs and measures to be 

included at the onset of the project and operation and reclamation 

plans at all phases, including project layout, design, alternatives 

evaluation, and project decision. 

• Incorporate into planning documents such actions as project 

inspection, documentation, and weed prevention, including the use 

of herbicides, if needed.

• Using environmental analysis for projects and maintenance 

programs, assess weed risks, analyze potential treatment of high-risk 

sites for weed establishment and spread, and identify prevention 

practices.

• Consider seasonal impacts of management actions, such as growing 

vs. dormant season disturbance effects, when developing objectives 

and strategies.

• Begin project operations in areas without nonnative or noxious 

weed species.
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-8 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• Before ground-disturbing activities begin, complete identification 

and inventories of noxious weeds and other invasive species in and 

next to project areas, as well as along access routes and potential 

invasion vicinity. High-risk noxious weed infestations should be 

avoided when possible. 

• Treat or have weeds treated on projects used by contractors 

before activities begin.

• Coordinate project activities with any nearby herbicide application 

to maximize cost effectiveness of weed treatments.

• Determine need for and, when appropriate, identify sites where 

equipment can be cleaned.

• If operation occurs within an infested area, require workers to 

inspect, remove, clean, and properly dispose of weed seed and plant 

parts found on clothing and equipment before leaving projected site. 

• Inspect and document annually, for at least three years after project 

completion, the area where material from treated weed-infested 

sources is used to ensure that any weeds transported to the site 

are promptly detected and controlled. 

• Avoid or minimize all types of travel through weed-infested areas, 

or restrict travel to those periods when spread of seed or 

propagules is least likely.

• Minimize soil disturbance to the extent practical, consistent with 

project objectives.

• Retain native vegetation in and around project activity and keep soil 

disturbance to a minimum, consistent with project objectives.

• Where project disturbance creates bare ground, consistent with 

project objectives, reestablish vegetation to prevent conditions 

where weeds could become established.

• Use caution when transporting vegetation and wood products from 

project sites to minimize the spread of invasive and nonnative pests.

• Unless the entire project area is already infested with specific 

noxious weed species of concern, require operators to ensure that, 

before moving on to the project site, all off-road equipment is free 

of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris that could contain 

or hold seeds. This would apply to equipment last operated in areas 

known by the BLM to be infested with specific noxious weeds of 

concern,

• Use whatever cleaning methods are necessary to ensure that offroad equipment is free of noxious weeds.

• Ensure revegetation is effective. 
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-9

• Schedule management activities, such as range management and 

grazing, when they may be most detrimental to populations of 

noxious weeds and nonnative species without harming preferred 

species.

• Use domestic animals to contain the target species in the treatment 

areas before weed seeds set. 

• Avoid creating soil conditions that promote weed germination and 

establishment. 

• Minimize soil disturbance that may encourage establishment of 

nonnative plants or noxious weed species.

• Use sterile or unpersistent exotic plants at low planting densities as 

nurse crops for local natives, so as to preclude the migration of 

noxious weeds into adjacent natural areas. 

• Design vegetation treatments that create small-scale openings in 

order to minimize the footprint of disturbance that can contribute 

to noxious weed establishment and spread. 

• Stockpile uninfested material in a weed-free condition.

• Prevent the introduction and spread of weeds caused by moving 

infested sand, gravel, borrow, and fill material.

• Dispose of noxious weeds and nonnative vegetation properly to 

prevent unwanted spread. 

• Avoid or remove sources of weed seed and propagules to prevent 

new weed infestations and the spread of existing weeds.

• Require the contracting officer’s representative to ensure that 

rental equipment is free of weed seed and propagules before 

accepting it. 

• Avoid acquiring water for dust abatement where access to the 

water is through weed-infested sites.

• Revegetate disturbed soil (except travel ways on surfaced projects) 

in a manner that optimizes plant establishment for that specific site. 

Define for each project what constitutes disturbed soil and the 

objectives for plant cover revegetation.

• Revegetation may include topsoil replacement, planting, seeding, 

fertilization, liming, and weed-free mulching. 

• Use native material where appropriate and feasible.

• Use local seeding guidelines to determine detailed procedures and 

appropriate mixes. To avoid weed contamination, have a certified 

seed laboratory test each lot against the all-state noxious weed list 

and provide documentation of the seed inspection test. 
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-10 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• Inspect and document all limited term ground-disturbing operations 

in noxious weed-infested areas for at least three growing seasons 

following completion of the project. 

• Provide information, training, and appropriate weed identification 

materials to people potentially involved in weed introduction, 

establishment, and spread on BLM-administered lands, including 

agency managers, employees, permit holders, and recreational 

visitors.

• Use such items as wattles, straw bales, dams, seed, and straw mulch 

for site rehabilitation, and inspect and certify that they are free of 

weed seeds and propagules. 

• To prevent conditions favoring weed establishment, reestablish 

vegetation on bare ground caused by project disturbance as soon as 

possible, using either natural recovery or artificial techniques as 

appropriate to the site objectives.

• When revegetating areas, reestablish native vegetation on sites if 

natural regeneration is unlikely. Use native vegetation that is 

genetically adapted (from the same seed zone and of similar 

elevation) to the area treated.

• Mitigate and limit impacts on habitats with existing and healthy 

native plant populations. Retain native vegetation in and around 

project areas to the maximum extent, consistent with project 

objectives.

• Where possible, provide interim revegetation in areas being actively 

disturbed. 

Also, vehicles and equipment exposed to contamination and requiring less than 

a complete, detailed cleaning are those that are only minimally exposed to the 

natural environment because of their operational requirements.

Vegetation Treatments

Vegetation treatments are governed by BLM Handbook 9000.

Chemical and Biological Control

Standard Operating Procedures and Best Management Practices—Wildlife Damage 

Management Activities 

• Before using biological controls, ensure that they are tested on a 

variety of species, including taxonomically close relatives. Disclose 

impacts from use of biological controls and develop appropriate 

mitigation measures to reduce adverse effects. 

• Follow all EPA use restrictions and requirements for toxicants on 

public lands. Notify the BLM before using any toxicants and provide 
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-11

a map of the treatment area. Provide and maintain adequate signs to 

notify the public of the presence of toxicants.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS) will 

notify the BLM before any damage control is implemented on BLM-administered 

lands within 1 mile of any community, major mine, developed recreation site, or 

any residence, within the restricted area(s), and exceptions would be approved 

on a case-by-case basis. No M-44s or other toxicants that are not species 

specific are to be used within seven miles of these areas, in accordance with 

EPA label use restrictions. Toxicants and M-44 cyanide devices are not allowed 

in wilderness areas.

Vegetation–Rangeland

Guidance may come from various sources. See individual resources.

Vegetation–Riparian Habitat and Wetlands

Best Management Practices

• Minimize crossing streams (intermittent and perennial) and wetlands 

with vehicles and heavy machinery. 

• Locate residue piles, such as sawdust and field chipping residue, 

away from drainages where runoff may wash residue into water 

bodies or wetlands.

• Maintain appropriate vegetation and riparian buffers around water 

bodies to protect water quality and ensure wildlife habitat suitability 

is maintained. Manage riparian areas to provide adequate shade, 

sediment control, bank stability, and recruitment of wood into 

stream channels.

• Locate project staging areas for refueling, maintaining equipment, 

and storing materials and operating supplies in areas not designated 

as riparian or stream bank management zones. 

• Determine the best locations and design for roads, the slope of 

roads, and the approach to stream crossings through proper 

planning.

• Do not locate roads and trails parallel to streams. Design roads that 

must cross streams to be perpendicular and then to immediately 

exit the buffer zone.

• Place appropriate improvements, such as culverts, at stream 

crossings to keep vehicles and equipment out of the stream flow 

and to prevent direct sedimentation of streams.

• Maintain a minimum of 6-inch stubble height at the end of October 

on stream bank (lotic) riparian.
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-12 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• Maintain a minimum of 4-inch stubble height at the end of October 

on wet meadows (lentic) systems.

Further guidance may be provided by the States of Oklahoma, Kansas, and 

Texas BMPs.

Fish and Wildlife Management/Special Status Species

Standard Operating Procedures

• Construct fences to comply with applicable wildlife fence standards 

(Fences - BLM Manual Handbook H-1741-1). Modify existing fences 

that impede big game movement or that otherwise conflict with 

wildlife, to comply with applicable wildlife fence standards on a caseby-case basis.

• Minimize the potential spread of white nose syndrome in bats in 

caves and abandoned mines in accordance with containment and 

decontamination procedures and as identified in WO Instruction 

Memorandum 2010-181.

• Survey for special status species and other species of concern within 

a project area when a project is proposed in order to accurately 

determine baseline conditions. Design the project to avoid (if 

possible), minimize, or mitigate impacts on resources if there could 

be any potential negative impacts. 

The BLM will consult agency species management plans and other conservation 

plan to guide management and will devise mitigation measures when needed. 

Examples of these plans are the, North American Landbird Conservation Plan, 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and National Partners in Flight 

Bird Conservation Plans.

Best Management Practices

• Coordinate with the state wildlife agencies on BLM projects and 

BLM-authorized projects that are proposed within 0.5 miles of a 

small capacity water development and 2.0 miles of a large capacity 

wildlife water development. Projects determined to have a 

detrimental effect on wildlife using wildlife water developments will 

be avoided or rerouted if possible.

• Coordinate with state wildlife agencies on migratory bird 

inventories when they are proposed by BLM or are required of 

third parties. 

• Ensure that wildlife water developments proposed in Wilderness 

Study Areas meet the nonimpairment criteria. 

• Co-locate new communication towers on existing communication 

towers or other structures to minimize impacts on wildlife. If co-
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-13

location is not possible, locate new communication towers next to 

existing towers.

• Down-shield security lighting for on-ground facilities and equipment 

to keep light within the boundaries of the site. 

• Avoid constructing communication towers and power lines around 

wetlands.

• Avoid tower designs featuring guy wires if the structure is to be 

located in known raptor or waterbird concentration areas or in 

major avian migration routes. If guy wires are absolutely necessary, 

place visual markers on the wires to prevent birds from colliding 

with the wires.

Standard Operating Procedures and Best Management Practices—Wildlife Damage 

Management Activities 

• Do not allow aerial control activities within 0.5 mile of active eagle 

nests between February 1 and August 1. In coordination with State 

Wildlife Agencies, the APHIS-WS will develop general areas of 

known active eagle nesting sites.

The BLM will identify, through the APHIS-WS annual work plan process, other 

areas of public lands considered special resource use areas. In these areas, 

control activities must be avoided, except as requested by state wildlife 

agencies, or other protective restrictions may apply. 

See also Vegetation–Riparian and Wetlands. 

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

Standard Operating Procedures/Best Management Practices—Fuels Management

• Construct fuel breaks or green strips to protect WUI communities 

and resources and to provide for firefighter and public safety using 

mechanical, chemical, biological, prescribed grazing, and prescribed 

fire treatments.

• Construct fuel breaks and green strips in areas containing a good 

understory of native perennials in order to successfully compete 

with and deter the establishment of annual species. 

• Where possible, construct fuel breaks and green strips to blend 

with the surrounding topography. Use existing disturbances, such as 

roads, seeding, burned areas, and natural barriers, as strategic places 

for fuel breaks. 

• Seed green strips in areas that do not have a good understory of 

desirable native perennials that can successfully compete with 

annual species.
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-14 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• Where practicable, use large-scale landscape planning to connect 

fuel breaks and avoid small piecemeal projects. 

• Maintain fuel breaks and green strips to ensure that they effectively 

change fire behavior.

• Do not allow grazing on seeded species during the first growing 

season following seeding.

• Where practicable and suitable, reduce new surface disturbance and 

minimize potential impacts on resource values by constructing fuel 

breaks and green strips in areas previously disturbed. Areas to be 

considered include roadways, previously burned areas, and 

cheatgrass-dominated sites.

• Strategically place and maintain pretreated strips and areas (e.g., 

mowing, applying herbicide, and strictly managing grazed strips) to 

aid in controlling wildfire if it should occur near key habitats or 

important restoration areas, such as where investments in 

restoration have already been made.

Standard Operating Procedures—Fire Suppression

• Avoid whenever possible burning out unburned islands of native 

vegetation.

• Avoid surface-disturbing suppression in riparian areas whenever 

possible.

• Do not construct fire lines using heavy equipment in riparian stream 

zones, and do not apply fire retardant to water. 

• Avoid the application of retardant or foam within 330 feet of the 

stream channel or waterway, when possible. Aerial application and 

use of retardants and foams should be consistent with national 

policy guidelines established by the National Office of Fire and 

Aviation.

• The unit administrator should determine whether there have been 

any adverse effects on federally listed species. This would apply in 

the following circumstances:

– if the unit administrator determines that retardant or 

surfactant foam must be used within 330 feet of a waterway 

or stream channel due to threats to life or property

– if alternative line construction tactics are not feasible 

because of terrain constraints, congested areas, or lack of 

ground personnel

– if potential damage to natural resources outweighs possible 

loss of aquatic life
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-15

– if the action agency determines that adverse effects were 

incurred by federally listed species or their habitats

In such cases, the action agency must consult with the USFWS, as 

required by 50 CFR, Part 402.05 (Emergencies), as soon as 

practicable.

• Close lands temporarily to other uses in areas where fire 

suppression is being implemented. 

In addition to the general suppression constraints, the following constraints are 

to be implemented within the vicinity of special status aquatic species habitats:

• Impound or divert streamflow by mechanical or other means in 

order to facilitate extraction of water from the stream for fire 

suppression.

• Screen the intake end of the draft hose to prevent entry of fish. 

Screen opening size should be a maximum of 3/16 inch.

• Do not allow water extraction to exceed the ability of the stream 

inflow to maintain water levels at the time initial attack began. If the 

water level drops below this predetermined level, cease all water 

removal immediately until water levels are recharged.

• For streams currently occupied by aquatic special status species, do 

not allow water to be extracted from ponds or pools if stream 

inflow is minimal (for example, during droughts) and extracting 

water would lower the pond or pool level.

• When possible, do not allow fire control lines to cross or terminate 

at the stream channel.

• Terminate control lines at the edge of the riparian zone at a 

location determined appropriate to meet fire suppression 

objectives, based on fire behavior, vegetation and fuel types, and 

firefighter safety.

Standard Operating Procedures—Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R) 

• Stabilize areas that have low potential to naturally revegetate and 

that have high wind and soil erosion potential. Treatments include 

the following: 

• Installing water bars and other drainage diversions, culverts along 

fire roads, dozer lines, and other cleared areas

• Seeding and planting to provide vegetation cover

• Spreading mulch to protect bare soil and discourage runoff

• Repairing damaged roads and drainage facilities
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-16 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• Clearing stream channels of structures or debris that is deposited 

by suppression activities

• Installing erosion control and channel stabilization structures

• Closing areas to livestock grazing to promote success of natural 

revegetation and establishment of seeded species

• Closing lands temporarily to other uses during emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation practices if activities inhibit the 

attainment of treatment goals

• Repairing or replacing range improvements and facilities

• Monitoring ES&R treatments

Fire Prevention and Mitigation

• Post fire prevention signs based on National Fire Danger Rating 

System (NFDRS).

• Provide fire prevention and mitigation outreach information and 

education to communities. 

• Reduce the potential for human-caused fires by issuing fire 

restrictions. 

Cultural/Paleontological Resources and Tribal Consultation

Best Management Practices

In situations where a proposed undertaking has the potential to affect the 

physical integrity of a significant cultural resources, numerous measures can be 

applied to reduce or eliminate the effects. BLM archeologists work through 

consultation with the tribes, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), and 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) to determine which practice is 

appropriate. Application of BMPs depends on the nature of the undertaking and 

the nature of the significant cultural resources.

Avoidance 

Avoidance, through modification of the proposed undertaking, is the primary 

and preferred measure used to protect cultural resources. This can be 

accomplished at the project planning stage. 

Monitoring 

In situations where avoidance of adverse effects is not feasible, or there is a 

determination of no adverse effects, but the potential remains for there to be 

adverse effects through inadvertent discovery, a BLM-permitted archeologist 

will monitor construction activities. The presence of a monitor is to ensure that 

buried cultural materials are immediately identified and that construction 

activities in that area are halted to avoid further impacts to the site. Before BLM 

authorization of the project, the project proponent submits a discovery plan 
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-17

outlining the way in which cultural resources will be treated and the 

responsibilities of the project proponent. BLM archeologists review this plan, 

and it is submitted to SHPO for concurrence. In the case where monitoring 

results in a discovery situation, the discovery plan is enacted. Depending on the 

nature of the discovery, the project may be allowed to proceed or be 

redesigned. Data recovery may also be required.

Standard Measures to Reduce Visual Contrast

When a proposed project is found to be within the contributing setting of a 

historic property, an assessment of potential impacts is conducted through 

viewshed analyses, onsite inspection, and photo inspection. For historic trails 

such as Chisholm and Santa Fe National Historic Trails, protection measures 

would be carried out similarly to other historic properties if any project were 

found to be located within designated buffer of a contributing portion of the 

historic trail. When a proposed project is outside of the designated buffer of the 

trail but found to be within the viewshed that contributes to NRHP eligibility, 

analyses of potential impacts to the integrity of the setting will be carried out in 

the same way as other properties where setting is an aspect of integrity. Best 

management practices used to ensure that the contributing viewshed of historic 

properties is not adversely affected include: 

• Consolidating project facilities among oil, gas and geothermal 

developers, which also facilitates cumulative analysis 

• Developing coordinated road and pipeline systems 

• Reducing the amount of surface development by consolidating 

facilities (e.g., develop bottom hole wells using directional drilling 

from a single surface well location) 

• Using low-profile facilities 

• Using proper sighting and location to maximize the use of 

topography and vegetation to screen development 

• Designing projects to blend with topographic forms and existing 

vegetation patterns 

• Using environmental coloration or advanced camouflage techniques 

to break up visual intrusion of facilities that cannot be completely 

hidden 

• Using broken linear patterns for road developments to screen roads 

as much as possible (including feathering or blending of the edges of 

linear ROWs to break up the linearity) 

• Designing linear facilities and seismic lines to run parallel to key 

observation points rather than perpendicular 

• Crossing the historic trails at right angles with linear developments 

when it would reduce the physical and visual impact 
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-18 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• Modifying the orientation of facilities to present less of a visual 

impact (e.g., a facility with several tanks lined up so that one 

obscures the visibility of the others) 

Mitigation 

Mitigation measures are determined by the types of proposed actions, the 

nature of the potential effect, and the qualities of the historic property that 

render it eligible for NRHP listing. Mitigation measures are applied when best 

management practices will not reduce or minimize adverse effects. Mitigation 

may include data recovery or other agreed-upon measures. Consultation with 

the individual state SHPOs and the ACHP is required when proposed actions 

are expected to adversely affect properties eligible for the NRHP and mitigation 

is determined to be the best course of action.

Data Recovery 

There are two times during a project when data recovery may be implemented. 

The first is before project construction when it is determined that there will be 

an adverse effect on a significant cultural resources. In this case, the BLM 

Authorized Officer, SHPO, THPO, and relevant tribes will work together to 

develop a data recovery plan that will mitigate the adverse effects. The second is 

after a discovery situation when it is determined that the project has already 

adversely impacted a significant cultural resources. Again, the BLM Authorized 

Officer, SHPO, THPO, and relevant tribes will work to develop a plan that 

mitigates all effects of the construction. Data recovery in itself is a destructive 

process; thus, it must be carried out in a way to successfully retrieve all 

pertinent information from the site.

Native American Consultation 

In addition to consultation with the individual state SHPO offices, BLM conducts 

Native American Consultation in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, 

NAGPRA, ARPA, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, and EO 

13007. The BLM has created a process for conducting Native American 

consultation for federal undertakings, as described in applicable BLM policy. The 

BLM has worked extensively with tribes who have traditional ties to the region 

to establish a protocol for consultation. Consultation with Native American 

tribes occurs during the NEPA planning process and when individual projects 

are proposed that may impact properties that have traditional use (i.e., 

traditional cultural properties [TCPs]) or are sacred to Native American 

cultures. When one of these site types is identified within proximity to a 

proposed undertaking, the project proponent and tribal governments are 

notified. Determinations of eligibility and effects the project may have on the 

site are made in consultation with tribal representatives. 

Standard Operating Procedures

In accordance with 43 CFR, Part 10.4(g), the holder of a BLM authorization to 

carry out land use activities on federal lands, including all leases and permits, 
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-19

must notify the BLM by telephone and in writing immediately on the discovery 

of human remains, funerary items, sacred objects, or objects of cultural 

patrimony. 

In accordance with 43 CFR, Parts 10.4(c) and (d), activities must stop in the 

immediate vicinity of the discovery. The discovery must be protected from the 

authorized activity for 30 days or unless otherwise notified by the BLM.

All BLM activities and BLM authorized activities shall comply with the following:

• BLM Manual 8100

• BLM Manual 8120 (Tribal Consultation under Cultural Resources 

Authorities)

• BLM Manual Handbook H-8120-1 (General Procedural Guidance for 

Native American Consultation)

Paleontological Resources 

Best Management Practices

In situations where a proposed undertaking has the potential to affect the 

physical integrity of paleontological resources, numerous measures can be 

applied to reduce or eliminate the effects. Application of BMPs depends on the 

nature of the undertaking and the nature of the significant paleontological 

resources.

Avoidance 

Avoidance, through modification of the proposed undertaking, is the primary 

and preferred measure used to protect paleontological resources. This can be 

accomplished at the project planning stage. 

Monitoring

In situations where avoidance of adverse effects is not feasible, or there is a 

determination of no adverse effects, but the potential remains for there to be 

adverse effects through inadvertent discovery, a BLM-permitted archeologist 

will monitor construction activities. The presence of a monitor is to ensure that 

plant and animal fossil are immediately identified and that construction activities 

in that area are halted to avoid further impacts to the site. In the case where 

monitoring results in a discovery situation, the discovery plan is enacted. 

Depending on the nature of the discovery, the project may be allowed to 

proceed or be redesigned. Data recovery may also be required.

Mitigation 

Mitigation measures are applied when best management practices will not 

reduce or minimize adverse effects. Mitigation may include data recovery or 

other agreed-upon measures. 
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-20 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Data Recovery 

There are two times during a project when data recovery may be implemented. 

The first is before project construction when it is determined that there will be 

an adverse effect on a significant paleontological resource. In this case, the BLM 

Authorized Officer will develop a data recovery plan that will mitigate the 

adverse effects. The second is after a discovery situation when it is determined 

that the project has already adversely impacted a significant paleontological 

resource. Again, the BLM Authorized Officer will work to develop a plan that 

mitigates all effects of the construction. Data recovery in itself is a destructive 

process; thus, it must be carried out in a way to successfully retrieve all 

pertinent information from the site.

Visual Resources

Best Management Practices or Standard Operating Procedures

• Refer to Visual Resource Contrast Rating Handbook H-8431-1 

• Refer to Visual Contrast Rating Worksheet Form 8400-4 

• Refer to Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and 

Gas Exploration and Development (commonly referred to as The 

Gold Book; BLM and Forest Service 2007) 

• Refer to Best Management Practices for Reducing Visual Impacts of 

Renewable Energy Facilities on BLM-Administered Lands, 1st Edition 

- 2013 or later 

• The following considerations can be helpful in choosing a project 

location:

– visual contrasts or impacts decrease as the distance 

between the viewer and the proposed development 

increases, so projects should be located as far away from 

prominent viewing locations as possible

– the human eye is naturally drawn to prominent topographic 

features, so projects should not be located on or near such 

features

– the shape and placement of projects should be designed to 

blend with topographic forms and existing vegetation 

patterns

– both topographic features and vegetation should be used to 

screen proposed development. 

• Techniques that help reduce surface disturbance are as follows:

– collocating several projects within the same right-of-way

– placing underground utilities either along the edge or under 

the surface of an existing road
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-21

– placing several underground utilities within the same trench

– establishing limits of disturbance that reflect the minimum 

area required for construction

– consolidating development of a similar nature within a 

common structure

– planning projects so that they use existing infrastructure, 

whenever possible

– maximizing slope when it is aesthetically and technically 

appropriate

– locating construction staging and administrative areas in less 

visually sensitive areas

– requiring restoration of disturbed areas no longer required 

after construction has been completed 

• Every landscape has the basic elements of form, line, color, and 

texture. Repeating these elements reduces contrasts between the 

landscape and the proposed activity or development and results in 

less of a visual impact.

• The following considerations can be helpful in making color 

selections:

– natural surfaces are usually well textured and have shade 

and shadow effects that darken them; surfaces of structures 

are usually smooth and reflect light even if dull-finish paint is 

used; as a general rule, colors on smooth man-made 

structures need to be two or three shades darker than the 

background colors to compensate for the shadow patterns 

created by naturally textured surfaces that make colors 

appear darker

– the color for all structures should be selected to achieve 

the best blending with the surrounding landscape in both 

summer and winter

– galvanized steel on utility structures should be darkened to 

prevent glare; low-luster paints should be used wherever 

possible to help reduce glare (although it is almost 

impossible to remove all sun glare) 

– color (hue) is most effective within 1,000 feet; beyond that 

point, color becomes more difficult to distinguish, and tone 

or value determines visibility and resulting visual contrast

– Surface disturbance of western mineralized soils can result 

in strong color contrasts; in many situations, this suggests 

that the area should be avoided as a location for the 
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-22 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

proposed development or that color selections for the 

man-made facilities or disturbance might need to reflect the 

lighter color soil revealed by the disturbance

– colors should be selected from a distance that permits 

viewing of the entire landscape surrounding the proposed 

development

– colors that blend with or are in harmony with the existing 

colors of the earth, rocks, and vegetation are usually more 

visually pleasing and attract less attention than colors that 

are chosen to match the color of the sky

• Another effective method of reducing the visual impact from a 

proposed activity or development is to retain as much of the 

vegetation as possible and where practical to use it to screen the 

development from public viewing areas. Some other techniques are 

as follows:

– design vegetation openings to repeat natural openings in the 

landscape; edges that are scalloped and irregular are more 

natural looking; straight line edges should be avoided

– minimize the impact on existing vegetation by the following:

o partially clearing the limits of construction rather 

than clearing the entire area (leaving islands of 

vegetation results in a more natural look)

o using irregular clearing shapes

o feathering and thinning the edges of the cleared 

areas to reduce strong lines of contrast; to create a 

more natural look along an edge, retain a good mix 

of tree/shrub species and sizes

o disposing of all slash

• The visual impact from new structures placed on the existing 

landscape can be reduced by using the following:

– repeating form, line, color, and texture

– minimizing the number of structures and combining 

different activities in one structure wherever possible

– using earth-tone paints and stains and self-weathering metals

– chemically treating wood so that it can be allowed to self 

weather

– using natural stone in wall surfaces

– burying all or part of the structure

– selecting paint finishes with low levels of reflectivity
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-23

– using rustic designs and native building materials

– using natural-appearing forms to complement landscape 

character

– screening the structure from view with natural landforms 

and vegetation

The scars from excessive cut and fill during construction in the southern great 

plains often leave long-lasting negative visual impacts. This is especially true of 

activities that disturb the highly mineralized soils of the southern great plains. 

Once the dark surface soil layer is disturbed, exposing the much lighter 

subsurface soil, a strong contrast is created that may take years to recover.

There are a number of ways to reduce the contrasts created by earthwork 

construction, the most important of which are proper location and alignment. 

Fitting the proposed development to the existing landforms so as to minimize 

the size of cuts and fills will greatly reduce visual impacts from earthwork. To 

reduce strong visual impacts, other earthwork design techniques should be 

considered, where appropriate, such as balancing cut and fill and constructing 

with all fill or all cut. Other strategies are as follows:

• Hauling in or hauling out excessive earth cut or fill in sensitive 

viewing areas

• Rounding or warping slopes (shaping cuts and fills to appear as 

natural forms)

• Bending slopes to match existing landforms

• Retaining rock formations, vegetation, and drainage, whenever 

possible

• Blasting split-face rock (cutting rock areas so that the resulting rock 

forms are irregular in shape, as opposed to making uniform 

“highway” rock cuts

• Toning down freshly broken rock faces using asphalt emulsions and 

rock stains

• Using retaining walls to reduce the amount and extent of earthwork

• Retaining vegetation by using retaining walls, reducing surface 

disturbance, and protecting roots from damage during excavation

• Avoiding soil types that will generate strong contrasts with the 

surrounding landscape when they are disturbed

• Prohibiting dumping of excess earth/rock on downhill slopes

Strategies for restoration and reclamation are akin to the design strategies for 

earthwork, as well as the design fundamentals of repeating form, line, color, and 

texture and reducing unnecessary disturbance. The objectives of restoration and 
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-24 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

reclamation include reducing long-term visual impacts by decreasing the amount 

of disturbed area and blending the disturbed area into the natural environment, 

while still providing for project operations.

Though restoration and reclamation are a separate part of project design, they 

should not be forgotten or ignored. It is always a good idea to require a 

restoration/reclamation plan as part of the original design package. All areas of 

disturbance that are not needed for operation and maintenance should be 

restored as closely as possible to previous condition.

Several strategies that can enhance any restoration or reclamation are as 

follows:

• Striping, saving, and replacing topsoil (6-inch surface layer) on 

disturbed earth surfaces

• Enhancing vegetation by 

– mulching cleared areas

– furrowing slopes

– using planting holes on cut/fill slopes to retain water

– choosing native plant species

– fertilizing, mulching, and watering vegetation

– replacing soil, brush, rocks, forest debris over disturbed 

earth surfaces when appropriate, thus allowing for natural 

regeneration rather than introducing an unnatural looking 

grass cover

• Minimizing the number of structures and combining different 

activities in one structure wherever possible. 

Projects and activities associated with linear alignments include rights-of-way, 

roads, trails, pipeline developments, and underground and overhead utility lines. 

The visual impact of a linear project depends largely on where it is located and 

how it is molded to the natural terrain. Proper location can often contribute 

significantly to reducing line and color impacts, making other measures either 

unnecessary or less costly and easier to accomplish.

Finding the best route for linear alignments involves the following:

• Identifying and analyzing all possible corridor alignments and 

selecting the one most feasible for the proposed project. 

• Locating the proposed project within the selected corridor after a 

thorough analysis of all environmental, socioeconomic, and 

engineering factors. 
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-25

There are several major considerations for determining an alignment, as follows:

• Topography is a crucial element in alignment selection. Visually, it 

can be used to subordinate or hide man-made changes in the 

landscape. Projects located at breaks in topography or behind tree 

groupings are usually of much less visual impact than projects on 

steep side slopes. By taking advantage of natural topographic 

features, cut and fill slopes can be greatly minimized.

• Topographic breaks frequently exhibit a natural line element that 

the proposed alignments can repeat or blend with to strengthen the 

design. This line element is partly established by a visual shadow 

zone, which will further reduce the contrast of the project.

• Soils are especially important when selecting an alignment and 

should be analyzed for stability and fertility, and a revegetation 

program should be planned.

• Hydrological conditions can strongly affect the visual impact of 

buried and surface construction. The risks of surface and subsurface 

erosion within the corridor should be analyzed and evaluated.

• Crossings with other linear features or structures should be 

designed to minimize their visual impact, as follows: 

– when possible, crossings should be made at right angles

– structures should be set as far back from the crossing as 

possible

– in areas with tree and shrub cover, the rights-of-way and 

structures should be screened from the crossing area

It is important to remember that when a system is planned and designed, the 

following parameters apply:

• Other services that will be needed to support the system must be 

analyzed and included in the design considerations. For example, a 

construction access road, electrical power with a backup system, 

and sanitation facilities are usually needed for most projects. At 

times, the visual impact of the support facilities is the deciding factor 

for the specific location of the main project. 

• How the system is to be maintained must also be considered. 

• A rehabilitation plan should be developed. All areas of disturbance 

that are not needed for operation and maintenance should be 

restored as closely as possible to previous conditions. 

The engineering design, landscape design, and visual considerations for a linear 

alignment must be determined together to ensure that all three are addressed 

and included in the final design solution.
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-26 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Night Lighting

• Lighting Plan and Design Features

– Consider a lighting plan using design/installation features 

intended to minimize night-sky and wildlife impacts.

– Consider lighting designs that meet safety and information 

needs taking place in the lit space. 

– Consider using shields and covers on lights to focus lighting 

on work areas. 

– When practicable, consider using warm-white or amber 

lighting in place of industry-standard blue lighting. 

– When practicable, consider using warm-white or amber 

lighting in place of industry-standard blue lighting. 

• Lighting Placement and Location

– Consider illuminating required work and thoroughfare areas 

only. 

– Consider overall efficiency and effectiveness of the 

placement, number, and type of lights used. 

– Human safety and site security should be the focus of any 

lighting selected. Be cognizant that "over-lighting" can 

adversely affect dark-adapted night vision.

– Consider using lower lumen “transition zones” between 

lighted and lighted areas.

– Encourage use of headlamps and flashlights outside of work 

areas. 

• Lighting Efficiency and Effectiveness 

– Consider using the following lighting controls in your 

lighting plan and design:

o Motion Sensors

o Photo Sensors

o Timers

o Dimmers

o CCT changeable lights

– Use FAA-approved aircraft detection lighting systems for 

structures taller than 200 feet. 

– Consider using vehicle-mounted lights or portable light 

towers for temporary lighting.
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-27

• Focused Lighting 

– Facility lighting should be the appropriate intensity required 

for tasks, safety, and basic security.

– Use of efficient, shielded light fixtures require smaller 

wattage bulb to be effective. 

Livestock Grazing

Standard Operating Procedures 

• Springs and seeps or other projects affecting water and associated 

resources should be designed to maintain the associated riparian 

area and assure attainment of standards.

• Periodic compliance inspections on grazing allotments should be 

conducted to ensure adherence to mandatory terms and conditions 

of grazing permits.

Best Management Practices

• Use livestock grazing as an intensively managed prescriptive grazing 

practice to control noxious weeds or invasive plants. 

• In spring, graze for a short duration earlier in the season so that 

sufficient soil moisture remains for plant recovery. 

• Implement short duration grazing (up to three weeks, with more 

animals in smaller pastures) where infrastructure permits it during 

the growing season. Avoid regrazing the same plants in one growing 

season. 

• Rotate livestock use areas year to year and not in the same place at 

the same time each year. 

• Allow for rest and recovery periods before or after grazing during 

critical growth period.

• Maintain range developments to maintain or improve distribution.

• Avoid the following grazing management practices:

– long seasonal use with no recovery time

– heavy use (which stresses plants)

– little or no regrowth before winter, when there is little 

stubble for root crown protection

– use at the same time every year, repeating the stress

– no rest or growing season recovery (little recovery with 

long seasons of use)

– little or ineffective herding
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-28 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

– salt placed in the same locations year after year

– grazing during the critical growth period year after year

• Do no graze seedings until the plants are well established.

• Use rotation or deferment to vary the timing of grazing to allow for 

periodic rest of upland vegetation during critical growth periods.

• Provide occasional rest to allow whole growing season for 

recovery.

• Use the target weed’s biology when developing a grazing strategy.

• Manage heavy grazing on target weed species to account for any 

intermixed desirable species.

• Manage animals’ post-treatment grazing to contain weed seeds.

Best Management Practices—Vegetation/Riparian Zone Management Guidelines

• Achieve proper functioning condition by managing livestock grazing 

with appropriate riparian management practices. 

• Graze earlier in the season when cattle use uplands.

• Graze plants only once or twice per year.

• Avoid hot season grazing of riparian areas.

• Allow regrowth before winter by grazing early enough for 

substantial plant regrowth during the growing season to slow spring 

flows and retain soil. 

• For maintenance or improvement of willows, allow two growing 

seasons rest before late season use.

• Provide and maintain alternate water sources for better 

distribution.

• In addition to the grazing management practices to avoid listed 

above, avoid the following:

– hot season grazing in big pastures with little riparian (poor 

distribution)

– few waters and only riparian waters (poor distribution)

– heavy use (stresses plants, tramples banks, and consumes 

last year’s wood)

– little or no regrowth before winter (little stubble for 

sediment)
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-29

Minerals and Energy

Actions involving minerals and energy are governed by the following:

• Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines to Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development (also known as “The Gold Book”; 

BLM and Forest Service 2007).

• Mineral Materials Disposal Handbook H-3600-1 (2002)

• Solid Minerals Reclamation Handbook H-3042-1 (1992)

• 43 CFR, Part 8900 et seq.

• Onshore Orders 1-8 

• Washington Office BMPs; BMP Technical Information can be found 

online at: https://www.blm.gov/bmp/General_Information.htm

Best Management Practices—Fluid Mineral Leasing 

Exploration

• Install temporary gates for use during the course of operations, 

unless the fence was immediately repaired. On completion of 

operations, restore fences to at least their original condition.

• Mitigate or suspend all activities off maintained roads that create 

excessive surface rutting during adverse conditions affecting soil 

moisture caused by such climatic factors as thawing, heavy rains, 

snow, flooding, or drought. 

• Limit off-road vehicle travel to that necessary to complete the 

geophysical operations. 

• Require specialized low surface impact equipment (such as wide- or 

balloon-tired vehicles and ATVs) or helicopters for any activities in 

off-road areas to protect the fragile soils or other resources.

• Locate powder magazines at least a mile from traveled roads, unless 

otherwise authorized after analysis or review. Require loaded shot 

holes and charges to be attended at all times (30 CR 56.6100 and 

56.6306; 43 CFR 3150). 

• Require all trash, flagging, and lath to be removed and hauled to an 

authorized disposal site. Do not allow oil or lubricants to be drained 

onto the ground surface. 

• Require the undersides of all heavy equipment to be washed before 

being driven onto public lands and discourage driving through or 

parking on noxious weed infestations.

• Stockpile all available topsoil from all disturbances for use in 

reclamation projects. 
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-30 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• Stockpile, shred, and use removed vegetation as mulch during site 

rehabilitation. 

• Return geophysical drill hole cuttings to the hole if possible, or at a 

minimum, rake and spread it out so as not to impede vegetation 

regrowth or to create erosion problems.

Preconstruction

• Use existing routes to the extent possible. Keep additional roads, if 

needed, to an absolute minimum and have the BLM Administrative 

Officer approve the location of routes before construction.

• Construct and maintain all access roads to BLM road standards, 

according to the Gold Book (BLM and Forest Service 2007) and 

BLM Manual 9113 (BLM 2011b).

• Restrict off-road travel to terrain with less than 30 percent slopes; 

20 percent if highly erodible.

• Limit proposed surface disturbance and vehicular travel to the 

approved well location and access route.

Well Pad and Facility Construction

• Ensure that every pad, access road, or facility site have an approved 

surface drainage plan.

• Confine or direct drainage from disturbed areas so that erosion of 

undisturbed areas would not be increased. 

• Do not allow runoff water (including that from roads) to flow into 

intermittent or perennial waterways without first passing through a 

sediment-trapping mechanism. Erosion control structures may 

include water bars, berms, drainage ditches, sediment ponds, or 

devices.

• Plan access road construction for exploratory wells such that a

permanent road could later be constructed in the event of field 

development. 

• Avoid constructing access roads on steep hillsides and near 

watercourses where alternate routes provide adequate access.

• Design access roads requiring construction with cut and fill to 

minimize surface disturbance; take into account the character of the 

landform, natural contours, cut material, depth of cut, resource 

concerns, visual contrast, and where the fill material will be 

deposited.

• Do not cast fill material over hilltops or into drainages. Cut slope 

ratios should normally be no steeper than 3:1 and fill slopes no 

steeper than 2:1.
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-31

• Use low water crossings whenever possible.

• Ensure that well site layout takes into account the character of the 

topography and landform. Avoid deep vertical cuts and steep, long 

fill slopes. Construct all cut and fill slopes to the least percent slope 

practical.

• Require trash to be retained in portable trash cages and hauled to 

an authorized disposal site for disposal. Prohibit burning on the well

site.

• Install and maintain cattle guards whenever access roads cut are 

through pasture gates or fences. Maintenance includes cleaning out 

under cattle guard bases, when needed.

• Adequately fence, post, or cover mud, separation pits, and other 

containments used during the exploration or operation of the lease 

for storing any hazardous materials.

Utilization 

• Conduct operations to prevent damage to, interference with, or 

disruption of water flows and improvements associated with all 

springs, wells, and impoundments.

• Prevent surface subsidence when mining through proper mine 

designs. 

• Require companies controlling roads that provide access to crucial 

wildlife areas to close the roads with a lockable gate to prevent 

general use during critical periods of the year, when resource 

problems are experienced (for example, during hunting seasons and 

winter). 

• Allow the use of closed road segments to legitimate authorized 

agents of the lessee or their subcontractors, the land managing 

agency, and other agencies with a legitimate need (for example, 

State Wildlife Agencies and other law enforcement agencies). 

• Require closing and reclaiming unnecessary roads to reduce 

fragmentation and restore habitat integrity, while reducing the 

potential for wildlife disturbances.

• Close roads during crucial periods, such as wildlife winter periods, 

spring runoff, calving and fawning seasons, and saturated soil 

conditions.

• Require storage of in approved containers for petroleum products, 

such as gasoline, diesel fuel, helicopter fuel, crankcase oil, lubricants, 

and cleaning solvents used to fuel, lubricate, and clean vehicles and 

equipment.
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-32 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• Require hazardous materials to be properly stored in separate 

containers to prevent mixing, drainage, or accidents. Prohibit 

hazardous materials from being drained onto the ground or into 

streams or drainage areas.

• Require totally enclosed containment for all solid construction 

waste. Trash, garbage, petroleum products, and related litter would 

be removed to an authorized sanitary landfill approved for the 

disposal of these waste classes. 

Transportation and Access

Standard Operating Procedures

• Continue coordinating with counties and other agency road entities 

to promote use of BMPs for road maintenance they perform within 

BLM boundaries.

• Maintain an inventory of existing road and trail systems.

• Use BLM Manual 9113.16 and BLM Handbook 9113-2 to guide all 

maintenance and road construction designs and requirements. 

Include definitions for functional road classification and maintenance 

levels for BLM roads. 

• Require all highway ROWs and other road authorizations to include 

noxious weed and invasive plant stipulations for prevention, 

inventory, treatment, and revegetation or rehabilitation. Road 

abandonment would generally include at least 3 years of postabandonment monitoring and treatment.

Best Management Practices

• In order to ensure public access and safety, the BLM will continue 

an active road maintenance program, using redesign, blading, brush 

removal for sight distance as appropriate, scarification, graveling, 

water barring, low water crossings, spur ditching, seeding and 

culvert installation and cleaning. 

• No new NEPA analysis would be required for road maintenance 

within the defined maintenance disturbance/easement footprint, 

which is defined as previously disturbed or maintained. Disturbance 

outside of the defined maintenance disturbance/easement footprint 

or road realignment would be subject to additional NEPA 

compliance.

Lands and Realty

Standard Operating Procedures

Power lines will be constructed in accordance to standards outlined in 

Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines, The State of the Art 
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-33

in 1996 by Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC 2006) or based on 

best science available. Right-of-way applicants will assume the burden and 

expense of proving that proposed pole designs not shown in this publication are 

safe for raptors. A raptor expert approved by the BLM Authorized Officer will 

provide such proof.

ROWs and other lands and realty authorizations would contain noxious weed 

and invasive plant management terms or stipulations for all ground-disturbing 

actions. Examples of these authorizations are power lines, pipelines, 

transmission corridors, energy development sites and related development, and 

gravel pits. This would require the following:

• Conducting a predisturbance noxious weed inventory

• Designing to avoid or minimize vegetation removal and weed 

introduction or spread

• Managing weeds during the life of the ROW or authorization to 

prevent or minimize weed introduction or spread

• Abandoning the ROW or authorization to establish competitive 

vegetation on bare ground areas

• Monitoring revegetation success and weed prevention and control 

for a reasonable number of years

Best Management Practices

Coordinate with the State Wildlife Agencies early in the sale process on 

proposals to dispose of public land encumbered by a small or large capacity 

wildlife water development Ensure if the ROW is permitted, that the water 

development is sufficiently mitigated. 

Recreation

Guidance for recreation use can be found in the Land Use Planning Handbook 

H-1601-1, Appendix C, Section II-C; the Recreation Permit Administration 

Handbook H-2930-1; Recreation Permit Fee Manual 2930; and 43 CFR, Part 

2930.

Special recreation permits would contain noxious weed management 

stipulations; examples are pre-event inventories to avoid infested areas, event 

management to avoid or isolate activities that could introduce or spread weeds, 

monitoring and treatment of infestations exacerbated by the activity, and other 

appropriate noxious weed management stipulations.

Lands may be temporarily closed to other uses during recreation performed 

under a special recreation permit, such as equestrian endurance rides or 

motorcycle events.
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-34 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Recreational use permits shall be issued in an equitable manner for specific 

recreational uses of BLM-administered lands and related waters as a means to 

manage visitor use; provide for visitor health, safety, and enjoyment; minimize 

adverse resource impacts; and provide for private and commercial recreational 

use according to limits or allocations established through the BLM’s planning 

process.

The BLM shall provide for more intensive visitor management, resource 

protection, and facility investment where the public has demonstrated its desire 

to use lands for outdoor recreation; where Congress has determined that the 

resources present in the area are of national importance; and where it has been 

determined that outdoor recreation is a high priority. 

Recreation resources will be evaluated on an individual basis as part of activity 

and project level planning. Such evaluations will consider sensitivity, and impacts 

on recreation resources in the affected area. Stipulations will be attached as 

appropriate to ensure the compatibility of projects with recreation management 

objectives.

Wilderness Study Areas 

Standard Operating Procedure

All Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) will be managed in accordance with the 

Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review 

H-8500-1.

Manage all WSAs in accordance with BLM Manual 6330 Management of 

Wilderness Study Areas (BLM 2012f).

Manage and protect WSAs Consistent with relevant law so as not to impair the 

suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness.

Ensure that all decisions and activities within WSAs conform to FLPMA, NEPA, 

designating legislation, and other applicable laws, and BLM policies and 

guidelines.

Develop and maintain relationships with other federal agencies, tribal 

governments, state and local governments, and general public regarding 

stewardship of WSAs.

New discretionary uses that would impair the suitability of areas for designation 

as wilderness should not be established or authorized within WSAs.

Exceptions to the nonimpairment criteria are only allowable for seven classes: 

• Emergencies 

• Public Safety
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-35

• Restoration of impacts from violations and emergencies 

• Valid existing rights

• Grandfathered uses

• Protection or enhancement of wilderness characteristics or values 

• Other legal requirements.

All proposals within WSAs are subject to the policies established in the BLM 

Manual 6330 and must be evaluated consistent with implementing regulations, 

policy, and guidance using the NEPA process provided in H-1790-1. Compliance 

with NEPA may include the use of the following: EA, EIS, DNA, or under rare 

circumstances, a CX.

Issuance of fluid mineral leases will be limited to within 0.25 miles of a WSA 

boundary. Any quarter-quarter sections intersected by or including a portion of 

a WSA boundary will be excluded from nomination unless an official Cadastral 

Survey has been completed (IM NV-2011-003). 

Public Health and Safety

Standard Operating Procedures and Best Management Practices—Wildlife Damage 

Management Activities 

• No control is allowed on public lands within a mile of any 

community, major mine, developed recreation site, or any 

residence, except for the purpose of human health and safety or as 

requested specifically by a cooperator. APHIS-WS will notify the 

BLM before any damage control is implemented within the 

restricted areas, and the BLM would approve exceptions on a caseby-case basis. No M-44s or other toxicants that are not species 

specific are to be used within these areas, in accordance with EPA 

label use restrictions (that is, seven miles).

• Controls, such as distance and signs, next to state or federal 

highways and county-maintained roads must be consistent with the 

State Wildlife Agencies trapping regulations.

• All EPA use restrictions and requirements for toxicants are to be 

followed where control devices are used on public lands. The BLM

must be notified before any toxicants are deployed, and a map of 

the treatment area must be provided. Adequate signs must be 

provided and maintained.

• All equipment (including traps, snares, and M-44s) and warning signs 

will be removed from bird-hunting areas, identified in coordination 

with State Wildlife Agencies, no later than one week before the 

opening day of the hunting season.
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-36 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• The BLM will identify through the APHIS-WS annual work plan 

process other areas of public lands considered special resource use 

areas on which control activities must be avoided, except as 

requested by State Wildlife Agencies, or other protective 

restrictions may apply. An example is special status species habitats.

Summary

The BMPs/SOPs listed in this handbook are not universally applicable and do not 

encompass all the effective BMPs/SOPs currently required or available. These 

BMPs/SOPs expand and supplement the basic guidelines and minimum 

requirements of the BLM manuals, practices, and regulations. However, several 

common themes related to the mitigation of environmental impacts were 

expressed throughout the previous sections, as follows: 

• The need for proper planning related to timing, spatial extent, and 

duration critical to minimize environmental impacts

• The value of consulting with specialists, such as cultural resource 

offices and weed managers, to make educated and accurate 

management decisions

• The importance of considering more than one factor, such as 

wildlife or water quality, when developing or implementing 

management activities

• The necessity of contingency revegetation plans in cases where 

natural reestablishment of native vegetation may not be feasible due 

to lack of seed source or impacts from competing noxious weeds 

or invasive vegetation

• The need to give special emphasis to the protection of sensitive 

resources., such as listed species habitats and cultural resources 

• The importance of developing inventory and monitoring strategies

Regardless of the project proposed or outcomes desired, managers involved in 

integrated vegetation management should consider these six thematic BMPs as 

well as the protection of human health and safety throughout all stages of 

planning and implementation.

SOURCES AND GENERAL REFERENCES

Listed below are additional resources that the BLM may consult, on a case-bycase basis, for additional BMP guidance applicable in the OKT planning area.
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP B-37

Instruction Memorandums and Technical Documents

BLM 

Instruction Memorandum No. 2007-021. Integration of Best Management 

Practices into Application for Permit to Drill Approvals and Associated 

Rights-of-Way

Best Management Practices (BMPs) Information Sheets (2004). 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AN

D_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/bmps.Par.73748.File.dat/WO1_WO_

BMPs_Technical_Information_Sheets.pdf. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) Technical Information (2013). 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_managemen

t_practices/technical_information.html.

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Treatments 

using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western 

States. BLM Washington Office, Washington DC. 

Record of Decision for Vegetation Treatments Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, 

and Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western 

States. August 2016. Internet website: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplfront-office/projects/nepa/70301/92842/111843/Record_of_

Decision.pdf.

Land Use Planning

BLM 

Record of Decision for Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Seventeen 

Western States (2007) 

Manuals and Handbooks

BLM 

Manual 9113.16, Roads

Handbook 9113-2, Road Design

USEPA 

Inactive Mine Site Characterization and Cleanup Handbook, EPA 910-8-00-001 

(2000)

Reports

BLM 

Programmatic Environmental Report for Vegetation Treatments on BLM land 

(2005) 
B. BLM BMPs and SOPs

B-38 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

EPA 

Drinking Water Academy Bulletin, Managing Septic Systems to Prevent 

Contamination of Drinking Water, EPA-816-F-01-030 (2001)

Forest Service 

Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands: A Synthesis of Scientific 

Literature, General Technical Report SRS-39 (2000)

Standards and Guidelines

BLM 

Visual Resource Management for Fluid Minerals. Best Management 

Practices/Participants Notebook Field Reference Guide (2007)

BLM and Forest Service 

Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development (commonly referred to as The Gold Book), 4th edition, 

(2007)

Forest Service

Low-Volume Roads Engineering, Best Management Practices Field Guide, (2003) 

US Department of Transportation 

Best Management Practices for Erosion and Sediment Control (current edition) 

Useful websites:

National Ambient Air Quality Standards http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

Interagency Operating Procedure References

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

2006. BLM Manual 9011-Chemical Pest Control. Internet website: 

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/weeds/9011.print.html. Accessed 

October 30, 2008.
Appendix C

BIA BMPs 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP C-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

C. BIA BMPS ..................................................................................................................... C-1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. C-1

Air Quality..................................................................................................................................... C-2

Soils/ Erosion Control ................................................................................................................ C-2

Vegetation–Forestry and Woodland Products..................................................................... C-3

Vegetation–Weeds...................................................................................................................... C-3

Chemical and Biological Control ............................................................................................. C-6

Vegetation–Riparian Habitat and Wetlands.......................................................................... C-6

Fish and Wildlife Management/Special Status Species......................................................... C-6

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management................................................................................ C-7

Cultural/Paleontological Resources and Tribal Consultation ......................................... C-10

Paleontological Resources....................................................................................................... C-12

Visual Resources........................................................................................................................ C-13

Water Resources....................................................................................................................... C-19

Livestock Grazing ...................................................................................................................... C-19

Transportation and Access...................................................................................................... C-24

Lands and Realty ........................................................................................................................ C-24

Public Health and Safety........................................................................................................... C-25
C. BIA BMPs 

C-ii Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP C-1 

APPENDIX C 

BIA BMPS 

The best management practices listed in this appendix are not universally 

applicable and do not encompass all those that are currently required or 

available. Best management practices are not required, only recommended.

INTRODUCTION

Land managers often apply best management practices (BMPs) to a practice that 

has been specifically developed to mitigate impacts.1 

The following guidelines, techniques, and practices (collectively referred to as 

management guidelines) are a general summary of the BIA’s BMPs. These were 

compiled from a variety of sources, listed under Sources and General 

References at the end of this appendix. 

These guidelines are by no means a comprehensive list. When used in 

conjunction with other tribal plans applicable to land resources and resource 

uses, the guidelines help land managers to achieve desired outcomes or 

conditions, as outlined in the BIA Integrated RMP, to reduce adverse 

environmental effects. Any number of these guidelines can be applied or altered 

as necessary to make progress toward or to achieve the desired outcome or 

condition. 

The overall vision embraces the use of these guidelines to reduce or minimize 

impacts on the environment. However, they are not to be considered a land use 

plan decision unless specifically designated and identified as being a mandatory 

action in the BIA Integrated RMP. 

 

1 Best management practices ~ A suite of techniques that guide, or may be applied to, management actions to aid 

in achieving desired outcomes. BMPs are often developed in conjunction with land use plans, but they are not 

considered a land use plan decision unless the land use plan specifies that they are mandatory. They may be 

updated or modified without a plan amendment if they are not mandatory (BLM Handbook H-1601-1; Glossary).
C. BIA BMPs 

C-2 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

The management guidelines that follow are identified by resource. Since a 

number of these management guidelines can be applied to a variety of situations, 

there may be a duplication or similarity of and between these guidelines. 

Furthermore, these management guidelines, techniques, and practices may be 

identified for specific situations or actions (e.g., wind energy rights-of-way, 

livestock grazing, forestry, or road construction); nevertheless, they are not 

exclusive to those actions unless otherwise specified.

Air Quality

Air quality standards are governed by the Clean Air Act of 1990, as amended 

(42 USC, Section 85). The Environmental Protection Agency is charged with 

setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (EPA 2016b). 

Air Quality BMPs

• Transportation BMPs to reduce the amount of fugitive dust and 

vehicle emissions: 

– use water or dust suppressants to control fugitive dust on 

roads

– control road speeds

– use van or carpooling

• BMPs to reduce engine emissions: 

– use cleaner diesel (Tier 2, 3, and 4) engines

– use natural gas-powered engines 

Dust Control

• Keep a watering truck on-site and water the access roads as 

necessary, especially during periods of high winds and/or low 

precipitation.

• Practice dust abatement on roads.

Soils/ Erosion Control

• Minimize topsoil removal and disturbance. 

• Stockpile stripped topsoil and protect it from erosion by seeding 

with native grasses, until reclamation activities commence. At that 

time, the soil would be redistributed and seeded on the disturbed 

areas. 

• Avoid removal of, and damage to, trees, shrubs, and groundcover 

where possible.

• During reclamation, redistribute and seed the topsoil on the 

disturbed areas, and protect and maintain reclaimed areas until the 

sites are fully stabilized.
C. BIA BMPs 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP C-3

• Follow permit conditions and/or develop a final reclamation plan 

that allows disturbed areas to be quickly absorbed into the natural 

landscape.

• Recontour disturbed areas to approximate the original contours of 

the landscape.

• Maintain buffer strips or use other sediment control measures to 

avoid sediment migration to stream channels as a result of 

construction activities.

• Implement an erosion control plan.

• Conduct snow removal activities in a manner that does not 

adversely impact reclaimed areas and areas adjacent to reclaimed 

areas.

• Construct berms and install straw wattles on the downslope sides 

of the proposed disturbed soils. Lay matting and/or conduct hydro 

seeding on the fill side of the disturbed soils.

• Conduct interim reclamation of at least half the disturbed area.

Vegetation–Forestry and Woodland Products

Follow the forestry management BMPs as described by the Oklahoma Forestry 

Services here: http://www.forestry.ok.gov/Websites/forestry/images/documents/

WaterQuality/Forestry%20BMP-3-16.pdf.

Vegetation–Weeds

Executive Order 13112 enhances and orders coordination of federal activities 

to control and minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts 

caused by invasive species. The executive order also established a National 

Invasive Species Council to oversee a management plan detailing the goals and 

objectives of the involved federal agencies.

The Federal Plant Protection Act of 2000 (Title IV of Publ. 106-224) prohibits 

introducing any animal, plant, or material that is considered harmful to this 

country’s agriculture. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Plant 

Protection and Quarantine Division, is the enforcement authority for this act.

• A noxious weed survey would be conducted prior to construction 

covering the ground-disturbing activities, access roads, and utility 

corridor ROWs. The applicant would control any noxious weeds 

within the ROW and other applicable facilities by approved chemical 

or mechanical methods, according to the weed management plan 

developed by the BIA to treat known or likely to occur noxious 

weed species.

• Clean vehicles and equipment (remove soil and plant parts) before 

entering or leaving a project area. Check body and undercarriage of 
C. BIA BMPs 

C-4 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

off-road vehicles and other equipment for plant material and clean 

before leaving weed-infested areas. Use standard contract 

provisions to ensure that contractors adhere to this guideline.

• Design projects to avoid infestations, to the extent practicable.

• Monitor and treat weeds during long-term projects to prevent their 

establishment and spread.

• Ensure that weed prevention is considered in project activities 

regardless of discipline.

• Locate project staging areas for refueling, maintenance equipment, 

materials, and operating supplies in weed-free areas.

• Clean off-road equipment before moving them from project areas 

known to be infested with noxious weeds to other project areas 

that are free of such weeds.

• Mitigate and reduce weed spread during prescribed fire activities; 

this includes inventorying weeds before burning. Treat high-risk 

areas before burning; pre- and post-treat high-risk weed 

infestations.

• Reestablish vegetation on all disturbed soil from construction, 

reconstruction, and maintenance activities. 

• Buy only weed-free seed and conduct required seed testing before 

use.

• Keep main travel corridors free of noxious weeds to prevent 

spread and avoid or minimize all types of travel through weedinfested areas. If travel is necessary, restrict to periods when the 

spread of seed or propagules is least likely. 

• When developing objectives and strategies, consider seasonal 

impacts of management actions, such as growing vs. dormant season 

disturbance effects.

• Avoid or minimize all types of travel through weed-infested areas, 

or restrict travel to those periods when spread of seed or 

propagules is least likely.

• Retain native vegetation in and around project activity and keep soil 

disturbance to a minimum, consistent with project objectives.

• Where project disturbance creates bare ground, consistent with 

project objectives, reestablish vegetation to prevent conditions 

where weeds could become established.

• Use caution when transporting vegetation and wood products from 

project sites to minimize the spread of invasive and nonnative pests.
C. BIA BMPs 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP C-5

• Use domestic animals to contain the target species in the treatment 

areas before weed seeds set. 

• Use sterile or nonpersistent exotic plants at low planting densities 

as nurse crops for local natives, so as to preclude the migration of 

noxious weeds into adjacent natural areas. 

• Design vegetation treatments that create small-scale openings in 

order to minimize the footprint of disturbance that can contribute 

to noxious weed establishment and spread. 

• Stockpile uninfested material in a weed-free condition.

• Prevent the introduction and spread of weeds caused by moving 

infested sand, gravel, borrow, and fill material.

• Dispose of noxious weeds and nonnative vegetation properly to 

prevent unwanted spread. 

• Revegetate disturbed soil (except travel ways on surfaced projects) 

in a manner that optimizes plant establishment for that specific site. 

• Revegetation may include topsoil replacement, planting, seeding, 

fertilization, liming, and weed-free mulching. 

• Use local seeding guidelines to determine detailed procedures and 

appropriate mixes. 

• Use items such as wattles, straw bales, dams, seed, and straw mulch 

for site rehabilitation, and inspect and certify that they are free of 

weed seeds and propagules. 

• To prevent conditions favoring weed establishment, reestablish 

vegetation on bare ground caused by project disturbance as soon as 

possible, using either natural recovery or artificial techniques as 

appropriate to the site objectives.

• When revegetating areas, reestablish native vegetation on sites if 

natural regeneration is unlikely. Use native vegetation that is 

genetically adapted (from the same seed zone and of similar 

elevation) to the area treated.

• Mitigate and limit impacts on habitats with existing and healthy 

native plant populations. Retain native vegetation in and around 

project areas to the maximum extent, consistent with project 

objectives.

• Where possible, provide interim revegetation in areas being actively 

disturbed. 
C. BIA BMPs 

C-6 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Chemical and Biological Control

Follow all EPA use restrictions and requirements for toxicants. Notify the BIA

before using any toxicants and provide a map of the treatment area. Provide and 

maintain adequate signs to notify the public of the presence of toxicants.

Vegetation–Riparian Habitat and Wetlands

• Minimize crossing streams (intermittent and perennial) and wetlands 

with vehicles and heavy machinery. 

• Locate residue piles, such as sawdust and field chipping residue, 

away from drainages where runoff may wash residue into water 

bodies or wetlands.

• Maintain appropriate vegetation and riparian buffers around water 

bodies to protect water quality and ensure wildlife habitat suitability 

is maintained. Manage riparian areas to provide adequate shade, 

sediment control, bank stability, and recruitment of wood into 

stream channels.

• Locate project staging areas for refueling, maintaining equipment, 

and storing materials and operating supplies in areas not designated 

as riparian or stream bank management zones. 

• Determine the best locations and design for roads, the slope of 

roads, and the approach to stream crossings through proper 

planning.

• Do not locate roads and trails parallel to streams. Design roads that 

must cross streams to be perpendicular and then to immediately 

exit the buffer zone.

• Place appropriate improvements, such as culverts, at stream 

crossings to keep vehicles and equipment out of the stream flow 

and to prevent direct sedimentation of streams.

• Maintain a minimum of 6-inch stubble height at the end of October 

on stream bank (lotic) riparian.

• Maintain a minimum of 4-inch stubble height at the end of October 

on wet meadows (lentic) systems.

Fish and Wildlife Management/Special Status Species

Survey for special status species and other species of concern within a project 

area when a project is proposed in order to accurately determine baseline 

conditions. Design the project to avoid (if possible), minimize, or mitigate 

impacts on resources if there could be any potential negative impacts.

Best Management Practices

• Collocate new communication towers on existing communication 

towers or other structures to minimize impacts on wildlife. If 
C. BIA BMPs 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP C-7 

collocation is not possible, locate new communication towers next 

to existing towers.

• Down-shield security lighting for on-ground facilities and equipment 

to keep light within the boundaries of the site. 

• Avoid constructing communication towers and power lines around 

wetlands.

• Avoid tower designs featuring guy wires if the structure is to be 

located in known raptor or waterbird concentration areas or in 

major avian migration routes. If guy wires are absolutely necessary, 

place visual markers on the wires to prevent birds from colliding 

with the wires.

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

Fire Control

The applicant or lessee would implement fire prevention and control measures 

including, but not limited to:

• Requiring construction crews to carry fire extinguishers in their 

vehicles and/or equipment

• Requiring construction crews to be trained in the proper use of fire 

extinguishers

• Contracting with the local fire district to provide fire protection

• Maintaining buffers around work areas where there is a risk of fire 

as a result of construction activities

Fuels Management

• Construct fuel breaks or green strips to protect WUI communities 

and resources and to provide for firefighter and public safety using 

mechanical, chemical, biological, prescribed grazing, and prescribed 

fire treatments.

• Construct fuel breaks and green strips in areas containing a good 

understory of native perennials in order to successfully compete 

with and deter the establishment of annual species. 

• Where possible, construct fuel breaks and green strips to blend 

with the surrounding topography. Use existing disturbances, such as 

roads, seeding, burned areas, and natural barriers, as strategic places 

for fuel breaks. 

• Seed green strips in areas that do not have a good understory of 

desirable native perennials that can successfully compete with 

annual species.
C. BIA BMPs 

C-8 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• Maintain fuel breaks and green strips to ensure that they effectively 

change fire behavior.

• Where practicable and suitable, reduce new surface disturbance and 

minimize potential impacts on resource values by constructing fuel 

breaks and green strips in areas previously disturbed. Areas to be 

considered include roadways, previously burned areas, and 

cheatgrass-dominated sites.

• Give priority for implementing specific species (e.g., lesser prairie 

chicken and American burying beetle) habitat restoration projects in 

annual grasslands first to sites that are next to or surrounded by 

key habitats.

• Strategically place and maintain pretreated strips and areas (e.g., 

mowing, applying herbicide, and strictly managing grazed strips) to 

aid in controlling wildfire if it should occur near key habitats or 

important restoration areas, such as where investments in 

restoration have already been made.

Fire Suppression

• Avoid, whenever possible, burning out unburned islands of native 

vegetation.

• Avoid surface-disturbing suppression in riparian areas whenever 

possible.

• Do not construct fire lines using heavy equipment in riparian stream 

zones, and do not apply fire retardant to water. 

• Avoid the application of retardant or foam within 330 feet of the 

stream channel or waterway, when possible. Aerial application and 

use of retardants and foams should be consistent with national 

policy guidelines established by the National Office of Fire and 

Aviation.

• The unit administrator should determine whether there have been 

any adverse effects on federally listed species. This would apply in 

the following circumstances:

– if the unit administrator determines that retardant or 

surfactant foam must be used within 330 feet of a waterway 

or stream channel due to threats to life or property

– if alternative line construction tactics are not feasible 

because of terrain constraints, congested areas, or lack of 

ground personnel

– if potential damage to natural resources outweighs possible 

loss of aquatic life
C. BIA BMPs 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP C-9

– if the action agency determines that adverse effects were 

incurred by federally listed species or their habitats

• In such cases, the action agency must consult with the USFWS, as 

required by 50 CFR, Part 402.05 (Emergencies), as soon as 

practicable.

• Close lands temporarily to other uses in areas where fire 

suppression is being implemented. 

In addition to the general suppression constraints, the following constraints are 

to be implemented within the vicinity of special status aquatic species habitats. 

Special status terrestrial species (e.g., lesser prairie chicken and American 

burying beetle) fire suppression BMPs apply plus the following:

• Impound or divert streamflow by mechanical or other means in 

order to facilitate extraction of water from the stream for fire 

suppression.

• Screen the intake end of the draft hose to prevent entry of fish. 

Screen opening size should be a maximum of 3/16 inch.

• Do not allow water extraction to exceed the ability of the stream 

inflow to maintain water levels at the time initial attack began. If the 

water level drops below this predetermined level, cease all water 

removal immediately until water levels are recharged.

• For streams currently occupied by Arkansas River shiner or other 

listed aquatic species or within designated critical habitat (e.g., 

rabbits-foot mussel and Neosho mucket), do not allow water to be 

extracted from ponds or pools if stream inflow is minimal (for 

example, during droughts) and extracting water would lower the 

pond or pool level.

• When possible, do not allow fire control lines to cross or terminate 

at the stream channel.

• Terminate control lines at the edge of the riparian zone at a 

location determined appropriate to meet fire suppression 

objectives, based on fire behavior, vegetation and fuel types, and 

firefighter safety.

• Use available maps and spatial data depicting lesser prairie chicken 

habitats or habitat for other listed species vulnerable to fire 

management in suppression response and staging decisions.

• Continue improving firefighter awareness of the importance of 

sagebrush habitat.

• Continue the use of resource advisors who are familiar with local 

lesser prairie chicken habitat needs, or the needs for other listed 

species vulnerable to fire management; who are trained in 
C. BIA BMPs 

C-10 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

suppression procedures; and who can advise about most 

appropriate tactics, during initial and extended attack.

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R) 

Stabilize areas that have low potential to naturally revegetate and that have high 

wind and soil erosion potential. Treatments include the following: 

• Installing water bars and other drainage diversions, culverts along 

fire roads, dozer lines, and other cleared areas

• Seeding and planting to provide vegetation cover

• Spreading mulch to protect bare soil and discourage runoff

• Repairing damaged roads and drainage facilities

• Clearing stream channels of structures or debris that are deposited 

by suppression activities

• Installing erosion control and channel stabilization structures

• Closing areas to livestock grazing to promote success of natural 

revegetation and establishment of seeded species

• Closing lands temporarily to other uses during emergency 

stabilization and rehabilitation practices if activities inhibit the 

attainment of treatment goals

Cultural/Paleontological Resources and Tribal Consultation

The Applicant will recognize the need to protect cultural resources on the 

project locations and commit to the following:

• Prohibiting all project workers from collecting artifacts or disturbing 

cultural resources in any area under any circumstances.

• Avoiding impacts on significant or unevaluated cultural resources. If 

cultural resources are discovered during construction, work shall 

immediately be stopped, the affected site secured, and the BIA and 

THPO notified. In the event of a discovery, work shall not resume 

until written authorization to proceed has been received from the 

BIA.

• If avoidance isn’t feasible, developing mitigation through 

consultation. 

Best Management Practices

In situations where a proposed undertaking has the potential to affect the 

physical integrity of significant cultural resources, numerous measures can be 

applied to reduce or eliminate the effects. BIA archeologists work through 

consultation with the tribes, SHPOs, and THPOs to determine which practice is 

appropriate. Application of BMPs depends on the nature of the undertaking and 

the nature of the significant cultural resources.
C. BIA BMPs 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP C-11

Avoidance 

Avoidance, through modification of the proposed undertaking, is the primary 

and preferred measure used to protect cultural resources. This can be 

accomplished at the project planning stage. 

Monitoring 

In situations where avoidance of adverse effects is not feasible, or there is a 

determination of no adverse effects, but the potential remains for there to be 

adverse effects through inadvertent discovery, a BIA-permitted archeologist may

monitor construction activities. The presence of a monitor, which may be a 

tribal appointee, is to ensure that buried cultural materials are immediately 

identified and that construction activities in that area are halted to avoid further 

impacts on the site. Before BIA authorization of the project, the project 

proponent submits a discovery plan outlining the way in which cultural 

resources will be treated and the responsibilities of the project proponent. BIA

archeologists review this plan, and it is submitted to the SHPO and THPO for 

concurrence. In the case where monitoring results in a discovery situation, the 

discovery plan is enacted. Depending on the nature of the discovery, the project 

may be allowed to proceed or be redesigned. Data recovery may also be 

required.

Standard Measures to Reduce Visual Contrast

When a proposed project is found to be within the contributing setting of a 

historic property, an assessment of potential impacts is conducted through 

viewshed analyses, on-site inspection, and photo inspection. For historic trails,

such as Chisholm and Santa Fe NHTs, protection measures would be carried 

out similarly to other historic properties if any project were found to be located 

within the designated buffer of a contributing portion of the historic trail. When 

a proposed project is outside of the designated buffer of the trail but found to 

be within the viewshed that contributes to NRHP eligibility, analyses of potential 

impacts on the integrity of the setting will be carried out in the same way as 

other properties where setting is an aspect of integrity. Best management 

practices used to ensure that the contributing viewshed of historic properties is 

not adversely affected include: 

• Consolidating project facilities among oil, gas, and geothermal 

developers, which also facilitates cumulative analysis 

• Developing coordinated road and pipeline systems 

• Reducing the amount of surface development by consolidating 

facilities (e.g., develop bottom hole wells using directional drilling

from a single surface well location) 

• Using low-profile facilities 

• Using proper sighting and location to maximize the use of 

topography and vegetation to screen development 
C. BIA BMPs 

C-12 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• Designing projects to blend with topographic forms and existing 

vegetation patterns 

• Using environmental coloration or advanced camouflage techniques 

to break up visual intrusion of facilities that cannot be completely 

hidden 

• Using broken linear patterns for road developments to screen roads 

as much as possible (including feathering or blending of the edges of 

linear ROWs to break up the linearity) 

• Designing linear facilities and seismic lines to run parallel to key 

observation points rather than perpendicular 

• Crossing the historic trails at right angles with linear developments 

when it would reduce the physical and visual impact 

• Modifying the orientation of facilities to present less of a visual 

impact (e.g., a facility with several tanks lined up so that one 

obscures the visibility of the others) 

Native American Consultation 

In addition to consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and Tribal 

Historic Preservation Office, the BIA conducts Native American Consultation in 

compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, and other 

applicable laws, regulations, and policies. 

Paleontological Resources 

The Applicant will recognize the need to protect paleontological resources on 

the project locations and commit to the following:

• Prohibiting all project workers from collecting fossil remains of 

animals or plants in any area under any circumstances.

• Avoiding impacts on significant or unevaluated paleontological

resources. If paleontological resources are discovered during 

construction, work shall immediately be stopped, the affected site 

secured, and the BIA notified. In the event of a discovery, work shall 

not resume until written authorization to proceed has been 

received from the BIA.

• If avoidance isn’t feasible, developing mitigation.

Best Management Practices

In situations where a proposed undertaking has the potential to affect the 

physical integrity of paleontological resources, numerous measures can be 

applied to reduce or eliminate the effects. Application of BMPs depends on the 

nature of the undertaking and the nature of the paleontological resources.
C. BIA BMPs 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP C-13

Avoidance 

Avoidance, through modification of the proposed undertaking, is the primary 

and preferred measure used to protect paleontological resources. This can be 

accomplished at the project planning stage. 

Monitoring 

In situations where avoidance of adverse effects is not feasible, or there is a 

determination of no adverse effects, but the potential remains for there to be 

adverse effects through inadvertent discovery, a BIA-permitted archeologist may

monitor construction activities. In the case where monitoring results in a 

discovery situation of fossil remains of plants or animals, the discovery plan is 

enacted. Depending on the nature of the discovery, the project may be allowed 

to proceed or be redesigned. Data recovery may also be required.

Visual Resources

Best Management Practices 

The following considerations can be helpful in choosing a project location:

• Use natural (topography and vegetation) or artificial (berms) 

features to help screen facilities such as valves and metering 

stations.

• Paint facilities a color that would blend with the environment.

• Contour disturbed areas to approximate the original contours of 

the landscape.

• Design roads and facility sites to minimize visual impacts.

• Visual contrasts or impacts decrease as the distance between the 

viewer and the proposed development increases, so projects should 

be located as far away from prominent viewing locations as possible. 

• The human eye is naturally drawn to prominent topographic 

features, so projects should not be located on or near such 

features. 

• The shape and placement of projects should be designed to blend 

with topographic forms and existing vegetation patterns. 

• Both topographic features and vegetation should be used to screen 

proposed development. 

Techniques that help reduce surface disturbance are as follows:

• Collocating several projects within the same right-of-way

• Placing underground utilities either along the edge or under the 

surface of an existing road

• Placing several underground utilities within the same trench
C. BIA BMPs 

C-14 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• Establishing limits of disturbance that reflect the minimum area 

required for construction

• Consolidating development of a similar nature within a common 

structure

• Planning projects so that they use existing infrastructure, whenever 

possible

• Maximizing slope when it is aesthetically and technically appropriate

• Locating construction staging and administrative areas in less visually 

sensitive areas

• Requiring restoration of disturbed areas no longer required after 

construction has been completed 

Every landscape has the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture. 

Repeating these elements reduces contrasts between the landscape and the 

proposed activity or development and results in less of a visual impact.

The following considerations can be helpful in making color selections:

• Natural surfaces are usually well textured and have shade and 

shadow effects that darken them; surfaces of structures are usually 

smooth and reflect light even if dull-finish paint is used; as a general 

rule, colors on smooth man-made structures need to be two or 

three shades darker than the background colors to compensate for 

the shadow patterns created by naturally textured surfaces that 

make colors appear darker.

• The color for all structures should be selected to achieve the best 

blending with the surrounding landscape in both summer and 

winter.

• Galvanized steel on utility structures should be darkened to prevent 

glare; low-luster paints should be used wherever possible to help 

reduce glare (although it is almost impossible to remove all sun 

glare).

• Color (hue) is most effective within 1,320 feet; beyond that point, 

color becomes more difficult to distinguish, and tone or value 

determines visibility and resulting visual contrast.

• Surface disturbance of western mineralized soils can result in strong 

color contrasts; in many situations, this suggests that the area 

should be avoided as a location for the proposed development or 

that color selections for the man-made facilities or disturbance 

might need to reflect the lighter color soil revealed by the 

disturbance.
C. BIA BMPs 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP C-15

• Colors should be selected from a distance that permits viewing of 

the entire landscape surrounding the proposed development.

• Colors that blend with or are in harmony with the existing colors of 

the earth, rocks, and vegetation are usually more visually pleasing 

and attract less attention than colors that are chosen to match the 

color of the sky.

Another effective method of reducing the visual impact from a proposed activity 

or development is to retain as much of the vegetation as possible and where 

practical to use it to screen the development from public viewing areas. Some 

other techniques are as follows:

• Design vegetation openings to repeat natural openings in the 

landscape; edges that are scalloped and irregular are more natural 

looking; straight line edges should be avoided.

• Minimize the impact on existing vegetation by the following:

– partially clearing the limits of construction rather than 

clearing the entire area (leaving islands of vegetation results 

in a more natural look)

– using irregular clearing shapes

– feathering and thinning the edges of the cleared areas to 

reduce strong lines of contrast; to create a more natural 

look along an edge, retain a good mix of tree/shrub species 

and sizes

– disposing of all slash

The visual impact from new structures placed on the existing landscape can be 

reduced by using the following:

• Repeating form, line, color, and texture

• Minimizing the number of structures and combining different 

activities in one structure wherever possible

• Using earth-tone paints and stains and self-weathering metals

• Chemically treating wood so that it can be allowed to self weather

• Using natural stone in wall surfaces

• Burying all or part of the structure

• Selecting paint finishes with low levels of reflectivity

• Using rustic designs and native building materials

• Using natural-appearing forms to complement landscape character
C. BIA BMPs 

C-16 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• Screening the structure from view with natural landforms and 

vegetation

The scars from excessive cut and fill during construction in the southern great 

plains often leave long-lasting negative visual impacts. This is especially true of 

activities that disturb the highly mineralized soils of the southern great plains. 

Once the dark surface soil layer is disturbed, exposing the much lighter 

subsurface soil, a strong contrast is created that may take years to recover.

There are a number of ways to reduce the contrasts created by earthwork 

construction, the most important of which are proper location and alignment. 

Fitting the proposed development to the existing landforms so as to minimize 

the size of cuts and fills will greatly reduce visual impacts from earthwork. To 

reduce strong visual impacts, other earthwork design techniques should be 

considered, where appropriate, such as balancing cut and fill and constructing 

with all fill or all cut. Other strategies are as follows:

• Hauling in or hauling out excessive earth cut or fill in sensitive 

viewing areas

• Rounding or warping slopes (shaping cuts and fills to appear as 

natural forms)

• Bending slopes to match existing landforms

• Retaining rock formations, vegetation, and drainage, whenever 

possible

• Blasting split-face rock (cutting rock areas so that the resulting rock 

forms are irregular in shape), as opposed to making uniform 

“highway” rock cuts

• Toning down freshly broken rock faces using asphalt emulsions and 

rock stains

• Using retaining walls to reduce the amount and extent of earthwork

• Retaining vegetation by using retaining walls, reducing surface 

disturbance, and protecting roots from damage during excavation

• Avoiding soil types that will generate strong contrasts with the 

surrounding landscape when they are disturbed

• Prohibiting dumping of excess earth/rock on downhill slopes

Strategies for restoration and reclamation are akin to the design strategies for 

earthwork, as well as the design fundamentals of repeating form, line, color, and 

texture and reducing unnecessary disturbance. The objectives of restoration and 

reclamation include reducing long-term visual impacts by decreasing the amount 

of disturbed area and blending the disturbed area into the natural environment, 

while still providing for project operations.
C. BIA BMPs 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP C-17

Though restoration and reclamation are a separate part of project design, they 

should not be forgotten or ignored. It is always a good idea to require a 

restoration/reclamation plan as part of the original design package. All areas of 

disturbance that are not needed for operation and maintenance should be 

restored as closely as possible to the previous condition.

Several strategies that can enhance any restoration or reclamation are as 

follows:

• Striping, saving, and replacing topsoil (6-inch surface layer) on 

disturbed earth surfaces

• Enhancing vegetation by 

– mulching cleared areas

– furrowing slopes

– using planting holes on cut/fill slopes to retain water

– choosing native plant species

– fertilizing, mulching, and watering vegetation

– replacing soil, brush, rocks, and forest debris over disturbed 

earth surfaces when appropriate, thus allowing for natural 

regeneration rather than introducing an unnatural looking 

grass cover

• Minimizing the number of structures and combining different 

activities in one structure wherever possible 

Projects and activities associated with linear alignments include rights-of-way, 

roads, trails, pipeline developments, and underground and overhead utility lines. 

The visual impact of a linear project depends largely on where it is located and 

how it is molded to the natural terrain. Proper location can often contribute 

significantly to reducing line and color impacts, making other measures either 

unnecessary or less costly and easier to accomplish.

Finding the best route for linear alignments involves the following:

• Identifying and analyzing all possible corridor alignments and 

selecting the one most feasible for the proposed project 

• Locating the proposed project within the selected corridor after a 

thorough analysis of all environmental, socioeconomic, and 

engineering factors 

There are several major considerations for determining an alignment, as follows:

• Topography is a crucial element in alignment selection. Visually, it 

can be used to subordinate or hide man-made changes in the 
C. BIA BMPs 

C-18 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

landscape. Projects located at breaks in topography or behind tree 

groupings are usually of much less visual impact than projects on 

steep side slopes. By taking advantage of natural topographic 

features, cut and fill slopes can be greatly minimized.

• Topographic breaks frequently exhibit a natural line element that 

the proposed alignments can repeat or blend with to strengthen the 

design. This line element is partly established by a visual shadow 

zone, which will further reduce the contrast of the project.

• Soils are especially important when selecting an alignment and 

should be analyzed for stability and fertility, and a revegetation 

program should be planned.

• Hydrological conditions can strongly affect the visual impact of 

buried and surface construction. The risks of surface and subsurface 

erosion within the corridor should be analyzed and evaluated.

Crossings with other linear features or structures should be designed to 

minimize their visual impact, as follows: 

• When possible, crossings should be made at right angles.

• Structures should be set as far back from the crossing as possible.

• In areas with tree and shrub cover, the rights-of-way and structures 

should be screened from the crossing area.

It is important to remember that when a system is planned and designed, the 

following parameters apply:

• Other services that will be needed to support the system must be 

analyzed and included in the design considerations. For example, a 

construction access road, electrical power with a backup system, 

and sanitation facilities are usually needed for most projects. At 

times, the visual impact of the support facilities is the deciding factor 

for the specific location of the main project. 

• How the system is to be maintained must also be considered. 

• A rehabilitation plan should be developed. All areas of disturbance 

that are not needed for operation and maintenance should be 

restored as closely as possible to previous conditions. 

The engineering design, landscape design, and visual considerations for a linear 

alignment must be determined together to ensure that all three are addressed 

and included in the final design solution.
C. BIA BMPs 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP C-19

Water Resources

• Implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and BMPs for 

the construction of the access roadway and proposed well pad to 

prevent erosion and sedimentation.

• Avoid or minimize topographic alterations, activities on steep 

slopes, and disturbances within stream channels and floodplains to 

the extent possible.

• Protect domestic or stock watering wells by prohibiting surface 

occupancy and disturbance within 660 feet of domestic watering 

wells. 

Livestock Grazing

Best Management Practices

• Use livestock grazing as an intensively managed prescriptive grazing 

practice to control cheatgrass and noxious or invasive weeds.

• In spring, graze for a short duration earlier in the season so that 

sufficient soil moisture remains for plant recovery. 

• Implement short-duration grazing (up to 3 weeks, with more 

animals in smaller pastures) where infrastructure permits it during 

the growing season. Avoid regrazing the same plants in one growing 

season. 

• Rotate livestock use areas year to year and not in the same place at 

the same time each year. 

• Graze during the dormant season to allow plants to recover every 

year.

• Allow for rest and recovery periods before or after grazing during 

critical growth period.

• Maintain range developments to maintain or improve distribution.

• Avoid use most years in areas of valuable woody plants during times 

when they are selected.

• Avoid selective use on key species by rest following heavy dormant 

season use. 

• Graze established seedings to avoid decadent plants and poor 

nutrient cycles, particularly in crested wheatgrass seedings.

• Avoid the following grazing management practices:

– long seasonal use with no recovery time

– heavy use (which stresses plants)

– little or no regrowth before winter, when there is little 

stubble for root crown protection
C. BIA BMPs 

C-20 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

– use at the same time every year, repeating the stress

– no rest or growing season recovery (little recovery with 

long seasons of use)

– little or ineffective herding

– salt placed in the same locations year after year

– livestock left behind after pasture moves

– grazing during the critical growth period year after year

• Do no graze seedings until the plants are well established.

• Use rotation or deferment to vary the timing of grazing to allow for 

periodic rest of upland vegetation during critical growth periods.

• Provide occasional rest to allow whole growing season for 

recovery.

• When using livestock to control cheatgrass or noxious or invasive 

weeds, match animal dietary preference or tolerance to the target 

species.

• Use the target weed’s biology when developing a grazing strategy.

• Manage heavy grazing on target weed species to account for any 

intermixed desirable species.

• Manage animals’ post-treatment grazing to contain weed seeds.

Best Management Practices—Vegetation/Riparian Zone Management Guidelines

Achieve proper functioning condition by managing livestock grazing with 

appropriate riparian management practices. 

• Graze earlier in the season when cattle use uplands.

• Graze plants only once or twice per year.

• Avoid hot season grazing of riparian areas.

• Allow regrowth before winter by grazing early enough for 

substantial plant regrowth during the growing season to slow spring 

flows and retain soil. 

• For maintenance or improvement of willows, allow two growing 

seasons rest before late season use.

• Provide and maintain alternate water sources for better 

distribution.

• In addition to the grazing management practices to avoid listed 

above, avoid the following:

– hot season grazing in big pastures with little riparian area 

(poor distribution)
C. BIA BMPs 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP C-21

– few waters and only riparian waters (poor distribution)

– heavy use (stresses plants, tramples banks, and consumes 

last year’s wood)

– little or no regrowth before winter (little stubble for 

sediment)

Minerals and Energy

Water Pollution and Prevention

General BMPs

To reduce the impact of accidental releases to surface waters, do not site 

construction or production equipment adjacent to surface water pathways to 

lakes, streams (including dry washes and ephemeral streams), wetlands, drainage 

and irrigation ditches, canals, flood plains, and shallow water wells unless proper 

permitting is secured.

• All applicable personnel (both company and contractor) should 

receive training to provide for proper operation and maintenance of 

the equipment. This training should include start-up and shutdown 

procedures, normal operating procedures, and emergency response 

procedures, in the event of a leak or spill of a hazardous substance.

• Operating procedures should provide for early identification of 

developing corrosion problems, failure-prone equipment, and 

malfunctions so that corrective action can be taken before 

environmental or safety consequences occur. Frequency of failure 

analysis should be considered to aid in scheduling equipment 

replacements.

• Advance planning and arrangements should include availability and 

ready access to vacuum trucks and to similar pickup equipment to 

recover any spilled material.

Air Pollution Prevention

General Facility BMPs

In general terms, all facilities that have the potential to emit air contaminants 

should be maintained in good working order and operated properly during 

facility operations. Each operator is encouraged to establish and maintain a 

program to replace, repair, and/or maintain facilities to keep them in good 

working order. The minimum expectations of such a program include:

• Compliance with the manufacturer's specifications and 

recommendations for installation and operation, and performance 

and effect on emissions
C. BIA BMPs 

C-22 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• An owner- or operator-developed inspection and maintenance plan 

for such equipment that is consistent with good air pollution 

control practices. This may include the cleaning and routine 

inspection of equipment from which emissions may result;

conducting regularly scheduled audio, visual, and olfactory 

inspections of potential sources of pollutants; and recording them in 

a log book.

BMPs for construction equipment

The reduction of fugitive emissions of gases or vapor from equipment due to 

leaks and other unintended or irregular releases of gases is significant, as fugitive 

emissions contribute to air pollution and climate change, as well as the 

economic cost of lost commodities. Because of the large number of potential 

leak sources at construction areas, fugitive emissions can be a significant 

proportion of total emissions. Though the quantities of leaked gases may be 

small, gases that have serious health or environmental impacts can cause a 

significant problem.

• Use dust control measures (spraying of water) to control dust, if 

necessary. Water used for dust abatement should not contain oil or 

solvents. Do not use dust abatement as a means of water disposal.

• As appropriate, convert gas pneumatic controls to instrument air to 

eliminate methane emissions.

Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions BMPs

If construction activities occur where hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is present, BMPs 

include:

• During construction activities occurring where H2S is reasonably 

expected to be present, maintain and implement a vigorous safety 

plan to include H2S monitors on-site with alarms and sirens, 

appropriate signs, and the mandatory wearing of individual H2S 

monitors for personal safety and protection. Various guidance, such 

as BIA’s On-Shore Order #6, provide details as to appropriate 

criteria for detection and monitoring equipment and signage.

Migratory Birds

The Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office of the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service has developed a document, Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office 

Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Avoidance Measures for Actions Associated 

with Oil and Gas Projects (April 2014), that is intended not only to assist the oil 

and gas industry but other industries and projects occurring in the state with 

project evaluation and compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 

and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) for activities within 

Oklahoma.
C. BIA BMPs 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP C-23

All utility lines, including gathering pipelines and electric and fiber optic lines, 

essential to the proposed project would be installed underground.

• Locate the proposed ground disturbance and utility corridors in 

areas with existing disturbances to the extent possible.

• Install covers under drip buckets and spigots.

Best Management Practices—Fluid Mineral Leasing 

Exploration

• Install temporary gates for use during the course of operations, 

unless the fence was immediately repaired. On completion of 

operations, restore fences to at least their original condition.

• Mitigate all activities off maintained roads that create excessive 

surface rutting during adverse conditions affecting soil moisture 

caused by such climatic factors as thawing, heavy rains, snow, 

flooding, or drought. 

• Limit off-road vehicle travel to that necessary to complete the 

geophysical operations. 

• Encourage specialized low-surface impact equipment (such as wideor balloon-tired vehicles and ATVs) or helicopters for any activities 

in off-road areas to protect the fragile soils or other resources.

• Locate powder magazines at least a mile from traveled roads, unless 

otherwise authorized after analysis or review. Require loaded shot 

holes and charges to be attended at all times (30 CR 56.6100 and 

56.6306; 43 CFR 3150).

• Require all trash, flagging, and lath to be removed and hauled to an 

authorized disposal site. Do not allow oil or lubricants to be drained 

onto the ground surface. 

• Require the undersides of all heavy equipment to be washed before 

being driven onto BIA-administered lands and discourage driving 

through or parking on noxious weed infestations.

• Stockpile all available topsoil from all disturbances for use in 

reclamation projects. 

• Stockpile, shred, and use removed vegetation as mulch during site 

rehabilitation. 

• Return geophysical drill hole cuttings to the hole if possible, or at a 

minimum, rake and spread it out so as not to impede vegetation 

regrowth or to create erosion problems.
C. BIA BMPs 

C-24 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Preconstruction

• Use existing routes to the extent possible. Keep additional roads, if 

needed, to an absolute minimum and have the BIA Administrative 

Officer approve the location of routes before construction.

• Restrict off-road travel to terrain with less than 30 percent slopes; 

20 percent if highly erodible.

• Limit proposed surface disturbance and vehicular travel to the 

approved lease location and access route.

Transportation and Access

• Construction personnel would stay within the approved ROW or 

would follow designated access roads.

• Plan transportation to reduce vehicle density.

• Post speed limits on roads.

• Use existing routes to the extent possible, upgrading as needed.

• Minimize the size of facility sites and types of roads to reduce 

surface disturbance.

• Plan roads and facility sites to minimize visual impacts.

• No new NEPA analysis would be required for road maintenance 

within the defined maintenance disturbance/easement footprint, 

which is defined as previously disturbed or maintained. Disturbance 

outside of the defined maintenance disturbance/easement footprint 

or road realignment would be subject to additional NEPA 

compliance.

Lands and Realty

Power lines should be constructed in accordance to standards outlined in 

Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines, The State of the Art 

in 1996 by Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC 2006) or based on 

best science available. Right-of-way applicants will assume the burden and 

expense of proving that proposed pole designs not shown in this publication are 

safe for raptors. A raptor expert approved by the Authorized Officer will 

provide such proof.

ROWs and other lands and realty authorizations would contain noxious weed 

and invasive plant management terms or stipulations for all ground-disturbing 

actions. Examples of these authorizations are power lines, pipelines, 

transmission corridors, energy development sites and related development, and 

gravel pits. This would require the following:

• Avoiding locating ROWs on steep slopes

• Sharing any common ROWs whenever possible
C. BIA BMPs 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP C-25

• Managing weeds during the life of the ROW or authorization to 

prevent or minimize weed introduction or spread

• Abandoning the ROW or authorization to establish competitive 

vegetation on bare ground areas

Public Health and Safety

• Store chemicals properly (including secondary containment).

• Keep sites clean, including containing trash in a portable trash cage. 

The trash cage would be emptied at a state-approved sanitary 

landfill.

• Minimize the use of hazardous materials whenever possible.

• Minimize the quantity of hazardous materials stored on the project 

site at any given time.

• Ensure that all hazardous materials and chemicals stored on-site are 

stored properly (secured, covered, secondary containment, 

incompatible materials separated, etc.).

• Collect and dispose of any spent or residual hazardous 

materials/wastes in accordance with federal regulations.

Best Management Practices—Wildlife Damage Management Activities 

• All EPA use restrictions and requirements for toxicants are to be 

followed where control devices are used on BIA-administered lands. 

The BIA must be notified before any toxicants are deployed, and a 

map of the treatment area must be provided. Adequate signs must 

be provided and maintained.

• All equipment (including traps, snares, and M-44s) and warning signs 

will be removed from bird-hunting areas, identified in coordination 

with state wildlife agencies, no later than 1 week before the opening 

day of the hunting season.
C. BIA BMPs 

C-26 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix D

BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-1

APPENDIX D

BLM MINERAL STIPULATIONS

All SMA related stipulations are defined by individual SMAs at the time of the lease. Though BLM has identified current stipulations in the 

following stipulation table, the SMA may change the specifics of the stipulation at the time of the lease sale.

BLM-ADMINISTERED SURFACE AND FEDERAL MINERAL ESTATE

Fluid Minerals- NSO Stipulations

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

NSO-1 (ORA-1

TX, OK, 

and KS 

RMPs)

Floodplains NSO X Stipulation: All or portions of the lands under this 

lease lie in or next to a major watercourse and are 

subject to periodic flooding. 

Purpose: To preserve the natural and beneficial 

values served by floodplains, in accordance with 

Executive Order (EO) 11988 Floodplain 

Management of May 24, 1977.

Waiver and/or Modification: None
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-2 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

Exception: Surface occupancy of these areas will 

not be allowed without the specific approval, in 

writing, of the BLM. 

NSO-2 Proposed Floodplains NSO X X X Stipulation: All or portions of the lands under this 

lease lie in or are adjacent to a major watercourse 

and are therefore subject to periodic flooding. 

Surface occupancy of areas within a Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or similarly 

identified floodplain map will not be allowed. 

Directional drilling from outside the floodplain into 

federal minerals beneath the floodplain is allowed, as 

long as it does not adversely affect the natural 

hydrology and geomorphology.

Purpose: To manage surface and ground water 

quality to maintain, improve, or restore the 

chemical, physical, and biological function of water 

resources.

Exception: An exemption allowing surface 

occupancy beyond floodway encroachment lines, the 

lines marking the limits of floodways on Federal, 

State, and local flood plain maps, or the Regulatory 

Flood Fringe, the area on either side of the floodway, 

may be allowed below the base flood elevation (BFE) 

if the lessee can demonstrate that the proposed 

action has sufficient mitigation, floodproofing, and 

engineering design features to prevent adverse 

impacts on the chemical, physical, and biological 

functions of the relevant floodplain, floodway, and 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-3

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

adjacent body of water contributing to flooding, as 

defined by the official FEMA Flood Boundary 

Floodway Map (FBFM) and the FEMA Flood Hazard 

Boundary Map (FHBM), and a variance is permitted 

by the State’s Coordinating Agency.

Waiver and/or Modification: None

NSO-3 Proposed Sole Source 

Surface 

Drinking Water 

Supply

NSO X X X Stipulation: NSO within 1,000 feet of waterbodies 

identified by the State of Texas in 30 TAC Section 

307.10(2). 

Purpose: To protect public drinking water supplies. 

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

NSO-4 Proposed Public Municipal 

Water Wells

NSO X X X Stipulation: NSO within 1-mile of public municipal 

water wells by the State of Oklahoma in OAC 

785:45.

Objective: To protect public drinking water 

supplies. 

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

NSO-5 (ORA-2

TX, OK, 

and KS 

RMPs)

Wetlands/

Riparian Areas

NSO X Stipulation: All or portions of the lands under this 

lease contain wetland and/or riparian areas. Surface 

occupancy of these areas will not be allowed without 

the specific approval, in writing, of the BLM. Impacts 

on or disturbance to wetlands and riparian habitats 

that occur on this lease must be avoided, minimized, 

or compensated for. The mitigation goal is no net 

loss of in-kind wetlands. Such mitigation will be 

developed during the application for permit to drill 

process, in cooperation with appropriate state and 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-4 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

federal agencies.

This stipulation applies to the following areas in 

Kansas: 

• Fort Riley, 1800 acres

• Allen County Split-Estate Tract

• Barber County Split-Estate Tract 1

• Bourbon County Split-Estate Tract

• Brown County Split-Estate Tract

• Cheyenne County Split-Estate Tracts 1 through 14 

and 16 

• Clark County Split-Estate Tracts

• Clay County Split-Estate Tract

• Comanche County Split-Estate Tract 13

• Cowley County Split-Estate Tract

• Decatur County Split-Estate Tract 1

• Doniphan County Split-Estate Tract

• Douglas County Split-Estate Tract 3

• Ellis County Split-Estate Tract

• Finney County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 4

• Greeley County Split-Estate Tracts

• Hamilton County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 2, 3, 6, and 

8

• Haskell County Split-Estate Tracts

• Jackson County Split-Estate Tracts

• Jefferson County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 2

• Jewell County Split-Estate Tracts

• Johnson County Split-Estate Tract

• Kearny County Split-Estate Tracts

• Kingman County Split-Estate Tracts
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-5

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

• Lane County Split-Estate Tract 15

• Leavenworth County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 2

• Linn County Split-Estate Tracts

• Logan County Split-Estate Tract 2

• Marshall County Split-Estate Tract 2

• Meade County Split-Estate Tract 15

• Mitchell County Split-Estate Tract

• Morris County Split-Estate Tract

• Norton County Split-Estate Tract

• Osage County Split-Estate Tract

• Phillips County Split-Estate Tract

• Riley County Split-Estate Tracts

• Saline County Split-Estate Tracts 

• Scott County Split-Estate Tract 1

• Seward County Split-Estate Tract 25

• Smith County Split-Estate Tract

• Stanton County Split-Estate Tract

• Wabaunsee County Split-Estate Tract

• Wallace County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 3

• Washington County Split-Estate Tract

• Wichita County Split-Estate Tract

This stipulation applies to the following areas in 

Oklahoma: 

• Alfalfa County Split-Estate Tract 35

• Atoka County Split-Estate Tract 24

• Beaver County Split-Estate Tracts 6, 8, 19-22, 27-

30, 34, 36-38, 44, 47, 76, 82, 86-89, and 92 

• Beckham County Split-Estate Tracts 4-34

• Blaine County Split-Estate Tracts 1-20, 25, and 27 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-6 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

• Bryan County Split-Estate Tract l

• Caddo County Split-Estate Tracts 3 and 6

• Canadian County Split-Estate Tracts 1-6, 9, and 

11-l3

• Carter County Split-Estate Tracts 1-4

• Cherokee County Split-Estate Tracts 

• Cimarron County Split-Estate Tracts 11, 13, 16, 

19, 29, 35, 53, 54, 60, 74, 75, 90-96, 141, 156, 162, 

and 165 

• Cleveland County Split-Estate Tracts 

• Coal County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 5

• Cotton County Split-Estate Tract 1-5

• Craig County Split-Estate Tract 2

• Custer County Split-Estate Tracts 3, 6, 8, 10-11, 

and 14-l9

• Dewey County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 28, 36, and 

40

• Ellis County Split-Estate Tracts 13, 17, 22-31, 34, 

39, and 50-61 

• Gavin County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 2, and 9

• Grant County Split-Estate Tract 14

• Greer County Split-Estate Tracts 6-12 and 17

• Harmon County Split-Estate Tracts 19, 17-19, 20-

28 and 37-40 

• Harper County Split-Estate Tracts 1-6, 9, 10, 13, 

15-22 and 28 

• Haskell County Split-Estate Tracts 4, 5, 8-13, and 

15-17

• Jackson County Split-Estate Tracts 1-15 and 21-39

• Jefferson County Split-Estate Tract 4
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-7

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

• Kingfisher County Split-Estate Tracts 2, 3, 4, 6, and 

10-17, and 20 

• Kiowa County Split-Estate Tracts 15, 16, and 17

• Latimer County Split-Estate Tracts 3, 5, and 6 

• Le Flore County Split-Estate Tracts

• Lincoln County Split-Estate Tracts I9 

• Logan County Split-Estate Tracts

• Major County Split-Estate Tracts 1-8, 10-12, 14, 

20, 26-29, 48, 51, 59, 60-64, and 97-99 

• McCurtain County Split-Estate Tract 1

• McIntosh County Split-Estate Tract 3

• Murray County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 4, and 6

• Muskogee County Split-Estate Tracts 2, 8, and 10

• Noble County Split-Estate Tracts 2, 7, and 8

• Oklahoma County Split-Estate Tracts 

• Pawnee County Split-Estate Tract 1 

• Payne County Split-Estate Tracts 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13-

16, 18-23, 27, 30, and 47

• Pittsburg County Split-Estate Tracts 3, 7, 8, and 9

• Pottawatomie County Split-Estate Tract 1-10

• Pushmataha County Split-Estate Tracts 5, 47, 55, 

60-64, and 69-84 

• Sequoyah County Split-Estate Tract 1

• Stephens County Split-Estate Tract

• Texas County Split-Estate Tract 18 

• Tillman County Split-Estate Tracts 3-4, 7-12, 16, 

and 17 

• Tulsa County Split-Estate Tracts

• Wagoner County Split-Estate Tract 4

• Washita County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 7 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-8 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

• Woods County Split-Estate Tracts 16, 19, 61, 63-

67, 70-72, 74-105, and 122-127 

• Woodward County Split-Estate Tracts 1-19, 29-

32, 35-39, and 42-51

Purpose: To minimize the destruction, loss, or 

degradation of wetlands and to preserve and 

enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands, 

in accordance with EO 11990, Protection of 

Wetlands of May 24, 1077. 

Waiver and/or Exception: None

Modification: Impacts on or disturbance to 

wetlands and riparian habitats that occur on this 

lease must be avoided or mitigated. The mitigation 

would be developed during the application for 

permit to drill.

NSO-6 Proposed RiparianWetland Areas 

and 

Waterbodies

NSO X X X Stipulation: All or portions of the lands under this 

lease contain wetland-riparian areas and/or 

waterbodies. Riparian-wetland areas and 

waterbodies include but are not limited to 

perennial, ephemeral, or intermittent streams; 

springs, seeps, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and playas. 

No surface occupancy is allowed within these 

areas and within an area that begins and extends 

415 feet landward from the outside edge of the 

riparian-wetland area or waterbody, as 

determined by the BLM biologist prior to any 

surface-disturbing activities. 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-9

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

Purpose: Manage surface water and groundwater 

quality to maintain, improve, or restore the 

chemical, physical, and biological function of water 

resources.

Exception: An exception may be granted if the 

lessee can demonstrate and the NEPA analysis has 

determined that there would be no adverse 

impacts to the natural hydrology and 

geomorphology associated with the wetlandriparian area and/or waterbody.

Modification: A modification may be granted if it is 

determined that a portion of the area does not 

qualify as a riparian-wetland area or waterbody, or if 

scientific research indicates that a lesser or more 

restrictive buffer is appropriate for managing these 

riparian-wetland/waterbody areas.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if it is determined

that the entire riparian-wetland area or waterbody 

does not qualify as a riparian-wetland area or 

waterbody, or if scientific research indicates that a 

buffer is not necessary for managing these riparianwetland/waterbody areas.
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-10 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

NSO-7 (ORA-4

TX, OK, 

and KS 

RMPs)

Multiple 

Resources

NSO/DD X Stipulation: No surface occupancy or use is 

allowed for the protection of the resource.

The lands may be leased for inclusion in a drilling 

unit and may be drilled directionally from an off-site 

location where occupancy is allowed.

Purpose: Protection of a resource or use not 

compatible with oil and gas development.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted by the 

Authorized Officer after preparation of an EA and a 

decision is made that the stipulation in question is no 

longer required for a particular lease. The decision 

to waive a substantial stipulation requires a plan 

amendment and a 30-day public notice period prior 

to granting a waiver. 

Exception: An exception will be granted by the 

Authorized Officer if the reason for the exception is 

consistent with that analysis. No public notice is 

required for exceptions which conform to the plan. 

Exceptions which do not conform to the plan may 

be granted only upon plan amendment and public 

notification. 

Modification: A modification may be granted when 

new information obtained by inventory, monitoring, 

or other source indicates that the protective 

measure is unnecessarily restrictive. A modification 

will require the preparation of an EA to determine 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-11

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

the potential impacts and/or plan amendment or 

maintenance needs. If the modification is determined 

to be substantial by the Authorized Officer, a 30-day 

public notice period prior to modifying the lease 

stipulation is required. 

NSO-8 Proposed National and 

State Historic 

Trails

NSO X X X Stipulation: NSO within the National Scenic and 

Historic Trails Right-of-Way and Management 

Corridor, or similar protected area or measures 

identified in the applicable land use plan.

Purpose: To safeguard the nature and purposes of 

the National Scenic and Historic Trails.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if, in 

coordination with the National Scenic and Historic 

Trails Administering Agency, it is determined that 

the stipulation is not needed to safeguard the nature 

and purposes of the National Scenic and Historic 

Trails.

Exception: An exception may be granted, if, as a 

result of the required National Scenic and Historic 

Trails inventory, no resources, qualities, values, or 

associated settings, or primary use or uses are 

present, resulting in no adverse impacts to the 

nature and purposes of the National Scenic and 

Historic Trails; or if the operator agrees to 

implement avoidance or mitigation measures 

developed in coordination with the National Scenic 

and Historic Trails administering agency that render 

the project compatible and does not substantially 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-12 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

interfere with the nature and purposes of the 

National Scenic and Historic Trails.

Modification: This stipulation may be modified to 

reduce the NSO area if, in coordination with the 

National Scenic and Historic Trails administering 

agency, it is determined that the reduced NSO area 

is adequate to safeguard the nature and purposes of 

the National Scenic and Historic Trails.

NSO-9 (OSU-1,

OK RMP)

Oklahoma State 

University 

NSO X LN LN LN Stipulation: This lease or portions of this 

lease fall within Oklahoma State University 

(OSU) – Lake Carl Blackwell lands. No 

occupancy or other activity is allowed on OSU 

lands within 660 feet of Lake Carl Blackwell or 

other designated OSU facilities. The lessee will 

coordinate all permitting and operational 

activities with an authorized OSU official.

Purpose: To protect Lake Carl Blackwell and 

associated university structures from impacts 

associated with oil and gas development.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

NSO-10 Proposed Cross Bar RMA NSO XSRMAClosed 

to 

leasing 

under 

ACEC

XERMAStipulation: This lease or a portion of the lease is 

located within the Cross Bar RMA. No surface 

occupancy within the Cross Bar RMA boundaries.

Purpose: To protect the Cross Bar RMA 

surface resources and visitor recreation 

experience and provide for a diversity of 

recreational opportunities.
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-13

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

NSO-11 Proposed Red River Area NSO X Stipulation: NSO in the Red River area.

Purpose: To protect recreation outcomes and 

setting prescriptions.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-14 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Fluid Mineral- CSU Stipulations 

CSU STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

CSU-1 Proposed Lands with 

Sensitive Soils

CSU X X X Stipulation: The lease or portions of the lease contain 

Sensitive Soils. Soils susceptible to erosion at excessive rates 

(per NRCS Highly Erodible Land (HEL) definition and Skidmore 

Wind Erodibility Groups 1 or 2) and/or Biological Soil Crusts 

(BSC) (per U.S. Department of Interior Technical reference 

1730-2 2001; Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management), 

which are found to be sensitive to surface disturbance, shall be 

avoided. Parcels exhibiting Sensitive Soil characteristics shall 

undergo a site-specific survey by a BLM-approved specialist to 

identify necessary special design, construction, implementation, 

mitigations, and/or reclamation measures. Surface-disturbing 

activities shall require re-location beyond standard lease terms 

and conditions (i.e., 656 feet). The mandated relocation, 

beyond standard lease terms and conditions, shall be 

communicated to the lessee/operator through a Conditions of 

Approval (COA) at the Application for Permit to Drill (APD) 

stage to avoid adverse impacts to Sensitive Soils on or near the 

lease parcel. If avoidance of Sensitive Soils is unattainable under 

standard lease terms and conditions, the operator/lessee shall 

be required to submit an operation plan to the BLM authorized 

officer. The operation plan shall require, but is not limited to, 

special design, construction, and implementation measures 

describing how impacts to Sensitive Soils (Biological Soil Crusts 

and NRCS identified Highly Erodible Soils) would be prevented 

or minimized, and how disturbed sited would be successfully 

reclaimed. The operator/lessee shall be subject to all or a 

combination of requirements, including, but not limited to:

• Areas of existing surface disturbance

• Co-location of development activities and operations

• Development and implementation of effective erosion control 

and soil protection plan

• Use of closed-loop fluids systems
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-15

CSU STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

Purpose: To prevent degradation of Sensitive Soils and 

maintain or improve soil composition.

Waiver: None

Exception: The BLM authorized officer shall provide for sitespecific exception(s) if the operator/lessee's operation plan 

provides for appropriate levels of special design, construction, 

implementation, and reclamation measures. 

Modification: None

CSU-2 OK RMP 

(OSU-2)

Oklahoma State 

University, Lake 

Carl Blackwell

CSU X LN LN LN Stipulation: This lease or portions of this lease fall within 

Oklahoma State University (OSU) – Lake Carl Blackwell lands. 

The lease will be subject to the following operational 

constraints: 

• Prior to conducting operations on these lands, a plan of 

operations must be approved by the Oklahoma Field Office of 

the BLM. Any drilling, construction, or other operations on 

the leased lands are subject to site-specific conditions of 

approval as may be necessary to assure reasonable protection 

of Lake Carl Blackwell and associated facilities owned by the 

OSU. A plan shall not be approved if it will result in 

unacceptable impacts on any land use or the environment.

• The successful bidder will be required to seek the University’s 

portion of the mineral interests through the State of 

Oklahoma Commissioners of the land office. Successful 

bidder shall work with the University areas assigned usage of 

those particular lands to see that the appropriate steps are 

taken to protect departmental interest from surface and 

nuisance damages. All information on this sale and lease 

should be directed to both OSU and State of Oklahoma Land 

Commissioners.
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-16 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

CSU STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

Purpose: To protect Lake Carl Blackwell and associated 

facilities owned by the OSU. 

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

CSU-3 WO-ESA-7 Special Status 

Species and/or 

Habitats

CSU X LN LN LN Stipulation: The lease area may now or hereafter contain 

plants, animals, or their habitats determined to be threatened, 

endangered, or other special status species. The BLM may 

recommend modifications to exploration and development 

proposals to further their conservation and management 

objectives to avoid any BLM-approved activity that would 

contribute to a need to list such a species or its habitat. The 

BLM may require modifications to or may disapprove any 

proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the 

continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or 

endangered species or to result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. The 

BLM will not approve any ground-disturbing activity that may 

affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its 

obligations under applicable requirements of the ESA (16 USC, 

Section 1531 et seq.).

This lease stipulation applies to the following in Kansas:

• Allen County Split-Estate Tract 

• Barber County Split-Estate Tract 2

• Clark County Split-Estate Tracts 14

• Comanche County Split-Estate Tract 3

• Cowley County Split-Estate 

• Douglas County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 3

• Finney County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 3

• Franklin County Split-Estate Tracts 1

• Hamilton County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7

• Jefferson County Split-Estate Tract 2
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-17

CSU STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

• Johnson County Split-Estate Tract

• Leavenworth County Split-Estate Tracts 4 and 5

• Linn County Split-Estate Tracts

• Logan County Split-Estate Tract 3

• Meade County Split-Estate Tracts

• Scott County Split-Estate Tract 2

• Seward County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 3, and 4

• Wabaunsee County Split-Estate Tract

• Wallace County Split-Estate Tract 1

This lease stipulation applies to the following in Oklahoma: 

• Alfalfa County Split-Estate Tracts 35

• Beaver County Split-Estate Tracts 19, 20- 22, 30, 27, 28, 29, 

34, and 38

• Blaine County Split-Estate Tracts 2-9, 12-20, and 27

• Bryan County Split-Estate Tracts

• Caddo County Split-Estate tracts

• Canadian County Split-Estate 16, 9, and 11-l3

• Cherokee County Split-Estate Tracts 

• Cleveland County Split-Estate Tracts

• Cotton County Split-Estate Tracts 15

• Custer County Split-Estate Tracts 10 and 15-19

• Dewey County Split-Estate Tracts 1 through 28

• Ellis County Split-Estate Tracts 17, 22 through 31, and 50 

through 61

• Grant County Split-Estate Tracts 14

• Harper County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 10, I3, and I5-22

• Haskell County Split-Estate Tracts

• Jackson County Split-Estate Tracts 14, 15, and 21-39

• Kingfisher County Split-Estate Tracts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10-17

• Latimer County Split-Estate Tracts
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-18 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

CSU STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

• Le Flore County Split-Estate Tracts

• Major County Split-Estate Tracts 1-8, 10-12, 14-20, 26-29, and 

97-99

• Muskogee County Split-Estate Tracts

• Payne County Split-Estate Tracts 4, 7, and 8

• Pittsburg County Split-Estate Tracts

• Pottawatomie County Split-Estate Tracts 4, 7, and 8

• Pushmataha County Split-Estate Tracts 60, 64, 69, and 84

• Rogers County Split-Estate Tracts

• Sequoyah County Split-Estate Tracts 

• Tillman County Split-Estate Tracts 4 and 7-12

• Tulsa County Split-Estate Tracts

• Woods County Split-Estate Tracts 1 through 6, 63-67, 70-72, 

74-105, and 122-127

• Woodward County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 19, 38, and 42-50

Purpose: To protect plants, animals, or their habitats 

determined to be threatened, endangered, or other special 

status species.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

CSU-4 Proposed American 

Burying Beetle 

(Proposed for 

delisting)

CSU X X X Stipulation: This lease may contain suitable habitat for 

American Burying Beetle (ABB), a federally listed endangered 

species. The lessee is required to adhere to the current 

protocol for ABB as determined by USFWS, and may be subject 

to constraints including but not limited to: 

• A clearance survey conducted by a qualified biologist may be 

required in all ABB suitable habitat. 

o If the survey is positive and reveals that beetles are 

present, no construction or ground-disturbing activities 

will be allowed during the active season while the ABB 

remains above ground unless the lessee is issued a take 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-19

CSU STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

permit by the USFWS.

o If the clearance survey is negative, surface disturbance and 

construction will be allowed during the active season. A 

new survey may be required for any new projects 

proposed in the next active season when the beetles 

emerge above ground.

Purpose: Protect, preserve, and enhance federally listed, 

proposed, or candidate species and their habitats and promote 

the recovery of these species for BLM-related actions, in 

accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (ESA), as amended (16 USC, Section 1531 et seq.).

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: Determined 

during consultation with the USFWS.

CSU-5 Proposed Visual

Resource 

Management 

(VRM) Class II

CSU X Stipulation: The objective of this VRM class is to retain the 

existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the 

characteristic landscape should be low. Development activities 

should be located, designed, operated, and reclaimed so that 

activities do not attract attention to the casual observer. Any 

changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and 

texture found in the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape. Therefore, surface activities in this 

parcel are subject to operational constraints to minimize visual 

impacts during construction, drilling and production, including, 

but not limited to the following: 

• Utilize existing surface disturbance. 

• The proposed pad size must be reduced to the minimum 

necessary for safe drilling operations. Final well pad dimensions 

will be determined during the permit approval process. 

• Vehicle travel outside approved surface disturbance areas is 

prohibited and not authorized.

• All aboveground facilities, structures, appurtenances, and 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-20 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

CSU STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

pipelines must be low profile (less than 8 feet in height) unless 

concealed behind landscape features and determined not to 

impact the viewshed. 

• All aboveground facilities, structures, appurtenances, and 

pipelines will be painted with a site-specific non-reflective (flat) 

paint color.

• Upon completion of the well and installation of the production 

facilities (if the well is a producer) the pad will be reclaimed 

back to a size necessary for production operations only. The 

edges will be recontoured and the extra caliche and pad 

material (excluding top soil) will be hauled off-site.

• Reclaimed areas will be grid rolled and reseeded.

• All noise disturbance associated with lease operations including, 

but not limited to, noise from engines, generators, or 

compressors on the well site or production facility must be 

muffled or otherwise controlled so as not to exceed 49 

decibels measured at 30 feet from the source of the noise and 

not to exceed 10 decibels above ambient noise.

Mitigation needed to meet VRM Class II management objectives 

will be determined on a case-by-case basis for each proposed 

lease activity.

Purpose: Maintain the scenic quality and natural aesthetics of 

cultural landscapes and other areas with high-quality visual 

resources that are considered important because of their social, 

economic, and environmental benefits and managed for overall 

multiple use in accordance with VRM classification objectives 

currently described in the BLM Visual Resource Inventory 

Handbook (H-8410-1, BLM 1986a).

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

CSU-6 Proposed Federal coal CSU LN X X X Stipulation: Federal coal resources exist on this lease or a 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-21

CSU STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

portion of the lease. Federal oil and gas operators must 

coordinate development with the Federal coal lessee, and 

vice versa. Operations authorized by this lease may be 

altered or modified by the authorized officer in order to 

conserve and protect the coal mineral resources and provide 

for simultaneous operations. 

Purpose: To provide for both the leasing and development 

of federal coal deposits and fluid minerals in accordance with 

existing laws, regulations, orders, and policy.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

CSU-7 Proposed Visual Resource 

Management 

(VRM) Class III

CSU X Stipulation: The objective of this VRM class is to partially 

retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of 

change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. 

Management activities may attract attention but should not 

dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should 

repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural 

features of the characteristic landscape. Therefore, surface 

activities in this parcel are subject to case-by-case basis 

operational constraints to minimize visual impacts, including, but 

not limited to: 

• Utilize existing disturbance.

• Facilities or structures such as power lines, oil wells, and 

storage tanks are required to be screened, painted, and 

designed to blend with the surrounding landscape except 

where safety indicates otherwise.

• The proposed pad size must be reduced to the minimum 

necessary for safe drilling operations. Final well pad 

dimensions will be determined during the permit approval 

process. 

• All aboveground facilities, structures, appurtenances, and 

pipelines must be low profile (less than 8 feet in height) unless 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-22 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

CSU STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

concealed behind landscape features and determined not to 

impact the viewshed.

• All aboveground facilities, structures, appurtenances, and 

pipelines will be painted with a site-specific non-reflective 

(flat) paint color.

• Upon completion of the well and installation of the 

production facilities (if the well is a producer) the pad will be 

reclaimed back to a size necessary for production operations 

only. The edges will be recontoured and the extra caliche and 

pad material (excluding top soil) will be hauled off-site.

• Reclaimed areas will be grid rolled and reseeded.

Mitigation needed to meet VRM Class III management objectives 

will be determined on a case-by-case basis for each proposed 

lease activity.

Purpose: Maintain the scenic quality and natural aesthetics of 

cultural landscapes and other areas with high-quality visual 

resources that are considered important because of their social, 

economic, and environmental benefits and managed for overall 

multiple use in accordance with VRM classification objectives 

currently described in the BLM Visual Resource Inventory 

Handbook (H-8410-1, BLM 1986a).

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

CSU-8 Proposed Special Status Bat 

Species (SSBS)

CSU X X X Stipulation: The lease or portions of the lease is known to 

contain Special Status Bat Species (SSBS) habitat. Parcels 

potentially containing SSBS maternity roosts or hibernacula 

within USFWS confirmed SSBS habitat shall undergo a sitespecific survey by a BLM-approved specialist/biologist to identify 

necessary special design, construction, implementation, and/or 

mitigation measures. Based on survey results, planned surface 

disturbing activities the BLM specialist/biologist has assessed to 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-23

CSU STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

be sufficiently threatening to SSBS roosts or hibernacula within 

USFWS confirmed habitat during the site-specific survey shall 

require relocation of surface disturbing activities to a geographic 

position that meets current regulatory and BLM/USFWS policy 

requirements. The mandated relocation, beyond standard lease 

terms and conditions (i.e., 200 meters/656 feet), shall be 

communicated to the lessee/operator through a Condition of 

Approval (COA) at the Application for Permit to Drill (APD) 

stage. If the BLM's site-specific survey results reveal the 

existence of SSBS maternity roosts or hibernacula within 

USFWS confirmed habitat and appropriate surface disturbing 

activity relocation is unattainable, additional 

protective/mitigation measures shall be required of the lessee

and/or operator, to include, but not limited to, the following:

• Development and implementation of a BLM-approved 

mitigation/protection plan for activities known to cause 

adverse impacts to SSBS maternity roosts or hibernacula 

within USFWS confirmed SSBS habitat. This plan shall 

require, but is not limited to, special design, construction, and 

implementation measures describing how adverse impacts to 

known SSBS maternity roosts or hibernacula within USFWS 

confirmed SSBS habitat would be prevented or mitigated. 

• Disturbance area minimization, utilization of previously 

existing disturbed areas, roads, well-pads, and corridors, and 

implementation of mitigation measures such as operational 

twinning.

Purpose: To prevent disturbance or destruction of known 

SSBS maternity roosts or hibernacula within USFWS confirmed 

SSBS habitat.

Waiver: None
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-24 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

CSU STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

Exception: The BLM authorized officer shall provide for sitespecific exception(s) if the operator/lessee's operation plan 

provides for the mandated levels of protective special design, 

construction, and implementation measures outlined in the BLM 

site-specific survey to prevent additional species loss. 

Modification: None
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-25

Fluid Mineral- TL Stipulations

TL STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

TL-1 Proposed Bald and Golden 

Eagle Nests

TL X X X Stipulation: The lease or portions of the lease contain known Bald 

or Golden Eagle nests. Parcels containing know Bald or Golden 

Eagle nests, occupied or unoccupied, shall undergo a site-specific 

survey by a BLM-approved specialist/biologist to identify any 

required buffers, special design, construction, implementation, 

and/or mitigations measures necessary to protect Bald or Golden 

Eagle nests. Unless a lesser restrictive protective zone is authorized 

by the BLM specialist/biologist, with USFWS concurrence, surfacedisturbing activities shall not be allowed within 0.5 mile of an 

occupied Bald or Golden Eagle nest during the ordinary nesting 

period (December 15th – July 15th). This stipulation does not apply 

to the operations and maintenance of production facilities.

Purpose: To protect and prevent disturbance of Bald and Golden 

Eagle nesting habitat in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 703 (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 668-668c (Eagle Act).

Waiver: None

Exception: An exception to this stipulation shall be granted by the 

BLM Authorized Officer if a site survey conducted by a BLM 

specialist/biologist or USFWS specialist/biologist confirms the known 

Bald or Golden Eagle nest associated with the lease parcel in 

question has been inactive for at least two consecutive years. An 

exception may also be considered and authorized by the BLM 

Authorized Officer on a case-by-case basis if the nest fledges early 

and a BLM site-specific survey finds that there is no outstanding 

danger to the either the nest or its inhabitants. 

Modification: None

TL-2 Proposed Least Tern

(Proposed for 

TL X X X Stipulation: No construction, drilling, completion, or workover 

activities are allowed from April 1 to August 15 within least tern 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-26 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

TL STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

delisting) nesting and fledging habitat and within an area that extends 300 feet

(100 yards) from the outside edge of suitable sandy riverbank 

nesting habitat.

Purpose: Protect, preserve, and enhance federally listed, proposed, 

or candidate species and their habitats and promote the recovery of 

these species for BLM-related actions, in accordance with Section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 USC, 

Section 1531 et seq.).

Exception: An exception may be granted within sandy riverbank 

areas when the project area is no longer considered suitable habitat 

and the project would not adversely impact the remaining habitat or 

if the nest fledges early, as determined by the Authorized Officer.

Modification: A modification may be granted for the portion of the 

lease in which suitable habitat no longer exists or is considered 

unsuitable, as determined by the Authorized Officer.

Waiver: A waiver may be granted when the habitat is no longer 

present or considered unsuitable as determined by the Authorized 

Officer. 

TL-3 (ORA-5:

TX, OK, and 

KS)

Lesser Prairie 

Chicken

TL X Stipulation: No pad or access road construction, drilling, 

completion, or stimulation (fracturing) activities associated with this 

federal lease will be allowed in LPC habitat between March 1 and 

May 31. During that period, other activities that produce noise or 

involve human activity, such as the maintenance of oil and gas 

facilities, or construction activities associated with pipelines, access 

roads, or well pads, will be allowed, except between 3:00 a.m. and 

9:00 a.m., every day within that period. The 3:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. 

restriction will not apply to normal, around-the-clock operations, 

such as venting, flaring, or pumping, which do not require human 

presence. Normal vehicle use on existing roads will not be 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-27

TL STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

restricted. Noise from pump jack engines must be muffled or 

otherwise controlled to no more than 75 decibels (dB), measured at 

a 30-foot distance from the source of the noise, or timers must be 

placed on the pump jacks to eliminate pump noise between 3:00 a.m. 

and 9:00 a.m.

Purpose: To protect lesser prairie chicken breeding and habitat, a 

BLM priority species for management.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

TL-4 Proposed Lesser Prairie 

Chicken

TL X Stipulation: Species has been delisted by USFWS. TL-4 has been 

integrated into Alt C for future use if the LPC is re-listed. All or 

portions of the lease contain lesser prairie-chicken (LPC) mating and 

nesting habitat. Timing and noise restrictions are in effect from 

March 1st through May 31st annually to accommodate LPC mating 

and nesting activities. During this period, activities that produce 

noise or involve human activity, such as maintenance of oil and gas 

facilities, geophysical exploration other than 3-D operations, and 

pipeline, road, and well pad construction, will not be allowed 

between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. The 3:00 a.m. to 9:00 

a.m. restriction will not apply to normal, around-the-clock 

operations such as venting, flaring, or pumping, which do not require 

a human presence during this period. Normal vehicle use on existing 

roads will not be restricted. 

In addition, all noise except vehicular traffic noise must be muffled or 

otherwise controlled so as not to exceed 75 decibels measured at 

30 feet from the source of the noise to eliminate pump noise during 

the hours of 3:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. 

Purpose: Maintain, protect, or enhance habitats of all special status 

species and ensure that BLM-authorized actions do not contribute 

to the need to list these species under the ESA. 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-28 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

TL STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

Exception: An exception may be granted by the Authorized 

Officer for emergency situations such as mechanical failures. 

Emergencies do not include situations such as potential drill rig loss, 

drill rig scheduling, or the potential loss of a lease. 

Modification: A modification may be granted if updated biological 

information in the form of breeding season lek survey or habitat 

suitability shows that granting of the modification would not result in 

adverse impacts to lesser prairie-chicken breeding season or the 

lease no longer contains lesser prairie-chicken habitat. 

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if updated biological information 

in the form of breeding season lek survey or habitat suitability shows 

that granting of the waiver would not result in adverse impacts to 

lesser prairie-chicken breeding season or the lease no longer 

contains lesser prairie-chicken habitat. 

TL-5 (ORA-3, TX, 

OK, and KS)

Season of Use 

(General)

TL X Stipulation: Surface occupancy of this lease will not be allowed 

from (date) through (date) without specific approval, in writing, 

from the BLM Authorized Officer (BLM 1993). [Dates vary by 

location, described below.] 

This stipulation restricts the time that the lessee can be on the 

lease for a period of more than 60 days. Most season of use 

restrictions involve wildlife seasonal use requirements or 

recreation use conflicts with drilling.

Applies to the following in Kansas:

• Council Grove Lake SMA from September 1 through March 31 on 

approximately 2,638 acres

• Elk City Lake SMA from September 1 through March 31 on 10,219 

acres

• Fall River Lake SMA from September 1 through March 31 on 

11,407 acres
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-29

TL STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

• John Redmond Dam and Reservoir from September 1 through 

March 31 on approximately 2,067 acres

• Marion Lake SMA from September 1 through March 31 on 

approximately 3,002 acres

• Pearson-Skubitz Big Hill Lake SMA from September 1 through 

March 31 on approximately 800 acres

• Toronto Lake SMA from September 1 through March 31 on 

approximately 5,576 acres

• Kaw, Hulah, and Capon Lakes SMA from September 1 through 

March 31

• Finney County Tract 2 from November 1 through March 1

• Scott County Tract 1 from October 15 through March 1

Oklahoma Resource Area ORA-3, Season of Use Stipulation:

Surface occupancy of this lease will not be allowed from DATE 

through DATE without the specific approval in writing, from the 

Authorized Officer of the BLM.” [Dates vary by location and 

species, as stated below.]

This stipulation restricts the time that the lessee can be on the 

lease. This is usually necessary only when the restriction would 

result in more than a 60-day delay before operations begin (by 

regulation, the BLM can specify up to a 60-day delay as a result of 

the application for permit to drill analysis). Most season of use 

restrictions involve wildlife seasonal use requirements or 

recreation use conflicts with drilling activities.

Applies to the following in Oklahoma:

• Pat Mayes Lake SMA from September 1 through March 31 on 

8,925 acres

• Texoma Lake SMA from September 1 through March 31 on 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-30 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

TL STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

11,429 acres

• Belton Lake SMA Oklahoma Resource Area ORA-3 from 

September 1 through March 31 on the approximately 5,000 acres

• B. A. Steinhagen Lake SMA from September 1 through March 31 

on approximately 13 ,450 acres

• Granger Lake SMA from September 1 through March 31 on 

approximately 10,800 acres

• Beaver County Tracts during all applicable hunting seasons and 

from February 15 through May 15

• Beckham County Tracts from February 15 through May I5

• Ellis County Tracts 39-49 and 62-64; during all applicable hunting 

seasons it applies to these and all other Ellis County tracts from 

February I5 to May 15

• Greer County Tracts 43 and 53-56 in the Sandy Sanders Public 

Hunting Area managed by ODWC, from September 1 to June 1

• Harper County Split-Estate Tracts February I5 through May I5

• Jefferson County Split-Estate Tract 2

• Major County Split-Estate Tract 84 from September 1 to May 3

• McIntosh County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 2

Payne County from February 15 through May 15

• Roger Mills County Split-Estate Tracts from February 15 to May 

15

• Rogers County Split-Estate Tracts from February 1 to May 15

• Tulsa County Split-Estate Tracts from February 15 to May 15

• Wagoner County Split-Estate Tracts from February 15 to May 15

• Woodward County Split-Estate Tracts from February 15 to May 

15

Purpose: To protect resources through seasonal surface 

restrictions and closure.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-31

TL STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

TL-6 Proposed Red-Cockaded 

Woodpecker

TL X X X Lease Notice: This lease may contain foraging habitat1 for the 

Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW), a federally listed endangered 

species. A foraging analysis survey performed by a qualified 

biologist may be required within 2,640 feet of RCW cavity tree 

clusters to identify RCW foraging habitat and to ensure the 

proposed action does not reduce suitable foraging habitat below 

USFWS required management stability standards. If foraging 

habitat is present, compliance with the current USFWS protocol 

as described in the RCW recovery plan would be required. This 

may also include no surface disturbance or occupancy within a 

200-foot wide area surrounding an aggregation of cavity trees, 

previously and currently used and defended by a group of RCWs 

and extending 200 feet from the outermost cavity trees.

 1 Foraging habitat is defined in the red-cockaded woodpecker recovery plan (USFWS 1985).
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-32 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Fluid Mineral- Lease Notices

LEASE NOTICES FOR FLUID MINERALS

Lease 

Notice 

#

Lease Notice 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Lease Notice Description A B C D

LN-1 Proposed Potential, Suitable, 

and Occupied Habitat 

for Special Status 

Plant Species

LN X X X Lease Notice: The lease contains potential, suitable, 

and/or occupied habitat for special status plant species; 

therefore, special status plant species clearance surveys 

may be required prior to approving any surfacedisturbing activities within or adjacent to BLM Special 

Status Plant Species’ potential, suitable and occupied 

habitats.

Survey requirements would include the following:

• Clearance surveys must be conducted by a qualified 

botanist. 

• The area to be surveyed will include at a minimum 

the project area plus an additional 328 feet outside 

the project area. 

• Clearance surveys will be conducted during the 

blooming season or the period in which the plant 

species is most easily detected. 

Based on the results of the survey, conditions of 

approval may be applied to land use authorizations and 

permits that fall within the area of direct/indirect 

impacts or affected habitat, as appropriate. Possible 

mitigation strategies may include, but are not limited 

to:

• Avoidance/restriction of development such as 

locating the surface disturbance area away from the 

edge of occupied or suitable habitat and ideally 

outside of the area where indirect/direct impacts 

would occur;

• Minimizing the area of disturbance utilizing strategies 

such as but not limited to twinning, and utilizing 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-33

LEASE NOTICES FOR FLUID MINERALS

Lease 

Notice 

#

Lease Notice 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Lease Notice Description A B C D

existing disturbance and corridors;

• Dust abatement measures;

• Signs, fencing, and other deterrents to reduce human 

disturbance;

• Construction of well sites, roads, and associated 

facilities outside of the blooming season;

• Specialized reclamation procedures such as, but not 

limited to,

o separating soil and subsoil layers with barriers to 

reclaim in the correct order, 

o using a higher percentage of forbs in the 

reclamation seed mix to promote pollinator 

habitat,

o collection of seeds for sensitive plant species’ 

genetic preservation, grow-out, and reclamation;

• Long-term monitoring of indirect/direct impacts on 

the species and/or habitat;

• Qualified, independent third-party contractors to 

provide general oversight and assure compliance with 

project terms and conditions during construction;

• Nonnative or invasive species monitoring and control 

in occupied and suitable habitat;

• Off-site mitigation such as conservation easements, 

funding for research, or habitat 

protection/improvement projects to offset impacts to 

occupied plant populations (40 CFR 1508.20).

LN-2 Proposed, in 

compliance 

with WO-ESA7

Endangered Species 

Act Section 7 

Consultation

LN CSU X X X Lease Notice: The lease area may now or hereafter 

contain plants, animals, or their habitats determined to 

be threatened, endangered, or other special status 

species. The BLM may recommend modifications to 

exploration and development proposals to further their 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-34 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

LEASE NOTICES FOR FLUID MINERALS

Lease 

Notice 

#

Lease Notice 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Lease Notice Description A B C D

conservation and management objectives to avoid any 

BLM-approved activity that would contribute to a need 

to list such a species or its habitat. The BLM may 

require modifications to or may disapprove any 

proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to 

the continued existence of a proposed or listed 

threatened or endangered species or to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of a designated or 

proposed critical habitat. The BLM will not approve any 

ground-disturbing activity that may affect any such 

species or critical habitat until it completes its 

obligations under applicable requirements of the ESA 

(16 USC, Section 1531 et seq.).

This lease stipulation applies to the following in Kansas:

• Allen County Split-Estate Tract 

• Barber County Split-Estate Tract 2

• Clark County Split-Estate Tracts 14

• Comanche County Split-Estate Tract 3

• Cowley County Split-Estate 

• Douglas County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 3

• Finney County Split-Estate Tracts 1 and 3

• Franklin County Split-Estate Tracts 1

• Hamilton County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7

• Jefferson County Split-Estate Tract 2

• Johnson County Split-Estate Tract

• Leavenworth County Split-Estate Tracts 4 and 5

• Linn County Split-Estate Tracts

• Logan County Split-Estate Tract 3

• Meade County Split-Estate Tracts

• Scott County Split-Estate Tract 2
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-35

LEASE NOTICES FOR FLUID MINERALS

Lease 

Notice 

#

Lease Notice 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Lease Notice Description A B C D

• Seward County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 3, and 4

• Wabaunsee County Split-Estate Tract

• Wallace County Split-Estate Tract 1

This lease stipulation applies to the following in 

Oklahoma: 

• Alfalfa County Split-Estate Tracts 35

• Beaver County Split-Estate Tracts 19, 20- 22, 30, 27, 

28, 29, 34, and 38

• Blaine County Split-Estate Tracts 2-9, 12-20, and 27

• Bryan County Split-Estate Tracts

• Caddo County Split-Estate tracts

• Canadian County Split-Estate 16, 9, and 11-l3

• Cherokee County Split-Estate Tracts 

• Cleveland County Split-Estate Tracts

• Cotton County Split-Estate Tracts 15

• Custer County Split-Estate Tracts 10 and 15-19

• Dewey County Split-Estate Tracts 1 through 28

• Ellis County Split-Estate Tracts 17, 22 through 31, 

and 50 through 61

• Grant County Split-Estate Tracts 14

• Harper County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 10, I3, and I5-22

• Haskell County Split-Estate Tracts

• Jackson County Split-Estate Tracts 14, 15, and 21-39

• Kingfisher County Split-Estate Tracts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 

10-17

• Latimer County Split-Estate Tracts

• Le Flore County Split-Estate Tracts

• Major County Split-Estate Tracts 1-8, 10-12, 14-20, 

26-29, and 97-99
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-36 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

LEASE NOTICES FOR FLUID MINERALS

Lease 

Notice 

#

Lease Notice 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Lease Notice Description A B C D

• Muskogee County Split-Estate Tracts

• Payne County Split-Estate Tracts 4, 7, and 8

• Pittsburg County Split-Estate Tracts

• Pottawatomie County Split-Estate Tracts 4, 7, and 8

• Pushmataha County Split-Estate Tracts 60, 64, 69, 

and 84

• Rogers County Split-Estate Tracts

• Sequoyah County Split-Estate Tracts 

• Tillman County Split-Estate Tracts 4 and 7-12

• Tulsa County Split-Estate Tracts

• Woods County Split-Estate Tracts 1 through 6, 63-

67, 70-72, 74-105, and 122-127

• Woodward County Split-Estate Tracts 1, 19, 38, and 

42-50

Purpose: To protect plants, animals, or their habitats 

determined to be threatened, endangered, or other 

special status species.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

LN-3 ORA-KS-LN-2 Black-Footed Ferrets LN X Lease Notice: If black-footed ferrets occur anywhere 

in Kansas, they are presumed to be associated with 

prairie dogs. All or portions of this lease area lie within 

a Kansas county where prairie dog towns have 

occurred in the past. Therefore, if a prairie dog town of 

80 acres or more is found to occur on or near this 

lease, a black-footed ferret survey may be required 

before permitting surface-disturbing activity, which may 

impact the prairie dog town.

Lease Notice LN-2 would be applied to leases issued in 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-37

LEASE NOTICES FOR FLUID MINERALS

Lease 

Notice 

#

Lease Notice 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Lease Notice Description A B C D

the following counties, which last reported the 

presence of prairie dog towns: Barber, Barton, 

Cheyenne, Clark, Clay, Comanche, Decatur, Edwards, 

Ellis, Ellsworth, Finney, Ford, Gove, Graham, Grant, 

Gray, Greeley, Hamilton, Harper, Harvey, Haskell, 

Hodgeman, Jewell, Kearny, Kingman, Kiowa, Lane, 

Lincoln, Logan, McPherson, Meade, Mitchell, Morton, 

Ness, Norton, Osborne, Ottawa, Pawnee, Phillips, 

Pratt, Rawlins, Reno, Rice, Rooks, Rush, Russell, Saline, 

Scott, Seward, Sheridan, Sherman, Smith, Stafford, 

Stanton, Stevens, Sumner, Thomas, Trego, Wallace, and 

Wichita.

LN-4 Proposed Black-footed Ferrets LN X X X Lease Notice: If black-footed ferrets occur anywhere 

in Kansas, they are presumed to be associated with 

prairie dogs. All or portions of this lease area lie within 

a Kansas county where prairie dog towns have 

occurred in the past. Therefore, if a prairie dog town of 

80 acres or more is found to occur on or near this 

lease, a black-footed ferret survey may be required 

before permitting surface-disturbing activity, which may 

impact the prairie dog town.

LN-5 Proposed Migratory Bird

Flyways and Nesting 

Season

LN X X X Lease Notice: The lease or portions of the lease falls 

within the Central Flyway for Migratory Birds. 

Consultation with the USFWS may be required at the 

time of the Application for Permit to Drill. In addition, 

the proposed project(s) may be subject to operational 

constraints required to mitigate impacts to the flyway 

and the migratory bird species within the flyway. 

If surface-disturbing activities occur during the 

migratory birds’ nesting season (which varies per 

species and could be any time between December 15th
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-38 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

LEASE NOTICES FOR FLUID MINERALS

Lease 

Notice 

#

Lease Notice 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Lease Notice Description A B C D

to July 30th), surveys for ground- and tree-nesting birds 

may be required to be conducted by an entity 

approved by the BLM Authorized Officer. If active nests 

are encountered, surface-disturbing activities may be 

delayed until the nesting activities are complete. The 

project proponent must consult with the BLM to 

determine whether a survey is required, the extent of 

the survey and the timing of the nesting season. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as 

amended, authorizes the Secretary of Interior to adopt 

such measures necessary to protect and preserve 

migratory raptor and other avian species. In accordance 

with MBTA and Executive Order 13186 (Federal 

Register Volume 66, Issue 11, January 17, 2001), the 

BLM may require modifications to or may disapprove 

any proposed activity that is likely to jeopardize 

migratory raptor and other avian species. 

LN-6 Texas RMP 

(NM-8)

Federal Coal LN X Lease Notice: Federal coal resources exist on this 

lease. Operations authorized by this lease may be 

altered or modified by the authorized officer in order to 

conserve and protect the mineral resources and provide 

for simultaneous operations.

LN-7 Proposed Federal Minerals X X X X Lease Notice: Other federal minerals, including but 

not limited to, asphalt, salt and coal, may exist on this 

lease or portions of the lease. If other federal minerals 

are present, then the oil and gas lessee and operators 

are required to coordinate development with the other 

federal minerals lessee, and vice versa. Operations 

authorized by this lease may be altered or modified by 

the authorized officer in order to conserve and 

protect the other mineral resources and provide for 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-39

LEASE NOTICES FOR FLUID MINERALS

Lease 

Notice 

#

Lease Notice 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Lease Notice Description A B C D

simultaneous operations. Some areas may not be 

drillable due to multiple mineral resources present. 

LN-8 Proposed (NM14-LN)Paleontological 

Resources

X X X Lease Notice: All development in this lease will be 

subject to compliance with the Paleontological 

Resources Preservation Act (PRPA), the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The lessee shall 

immediately notify the BLM Authorized Officer of any 

paleontological resources discovered as a result of 

operations under this authorization. The lessee shall 

suspend all activities in the vicinity of such discovery 

until notified to proceed by the Authorized Officer and

shall protect the discovery from damage or looting. 

The Authorized Officer will evaluate, or will have 

evaluated, such discoveries after being notified. 

Appropriate measures to mitigate adverse effects to 

significant paleontological resources will be determined 

by the Authorized Officer after consulting with the 

operator and the Regional Paleontologist. Upon 

approval of the Authorized Officer, the operator will 

be allowed to continue construction through the site 

or will be given the choice of either (1) following the 

Authorized Officer’s instructions for stabilizing the 

fossil resource in place and avoiding further disturbance 

to the fossil resource, or (2) following the Authorized 

Officer’s instructions for mitigating impacts to the fossil 

resource prior to continuing construction through the 

project area. The lessee is responsible for any cost 

associated for mitigating paleontology resources 

discovered as a result of their activities. 

In addition, surface occupancy or use may be subject 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-40 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

LEASE NOTICES FOR FLUID MINERALS

Lease 

Notice 

#

Lease Notice 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Lease Notice Description A B C D

to, but not limited to, the following special operating 

constraints:

• Access may be restricted to existing roads.

• A pedestrian survey for paleontological resources is 

required in areas that have been classified as 

Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) UUnknown, 4 or 5. A survey is also required in areas 

that are known to contain fossil localities. This survey 

would be completed using a qualified paleontologist 

as identified in BLM Handbook 8270, prior to any 

surface disturbing activity. A report on the results of 

the paleontological survey would be required to be 

submitted and approved by BLM as part of the permit 

application for the proposed lease activity. The 

survey and report would be used to determine the 

presence of paleontological material exposed on the 

surface, and if necessary, the appropriate treatments 

such as avoidance and/or project re-design during all 

phases of the proposed lease activity. Based on the 

recommendations of the paleontology survey report, 

monitoring of ground disturbing activities may be 

required.

LN-9 Proposed Potential Cave or 

Karst Occurrence 

Area

X X Lease Notice: All or a portion of the lease is located 

in a potential cave or karst occurrence area. Within 

this area, caves or karst features such as sinkholes, 

passages, and large rooms may be encountered, within 

surface areas ranging from a few acres to hundreds of 

acres. Due to the sensitive nature of the cave or karst 

systems of this area, special protective measures (i.e., 

operational constraints) may be developed during 

environmental analyses and be required as part of 

approvals for drilling or other operations on this lease. 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-41

LEASE NOTICES FOR FLUID MINERALS

Lease 

Notice 

#

Lease Notice 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Lease Notice Description A B C D

These measures could include but are not limited to 

the following: changes in drilling operations; special 

casing and cementing programs; modifications in 

surface activities; or other reasonable measures to 

mitigate impacts to cave or karst values. These 

measures may be imposed in accordance with 43 CFR 

3101.1-2; 43 CFR 3162.5-1; Onshore Oil and Gas 

Order No. 1; and Section 6 of the lease terms. In 

addition, third-party clearances surveys may be 

required, and as various geophysical techniques are 

proven useful for detection they may be required on a 

case-by-case basis.

LN-10 WO-NHPA/

TX, OK, and 

KS RMPs

Cultural Resources 

and Tribal 

Consultation

LN X X X X Stipulation: This lease may be found to contain 

historic properties or resources protected under the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act, Executive Order 

13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The 

BLM would not approve any ground-disturbing 

activities that may affect any such properties or 

resources until it completes its obligations, for 

example, to consult with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) and tribes, under 

applicable requirements of the NHPA and other 

authorities. The BLM may require modification to 

exploration or development proposals to protect such 

properties or may disapprove any activity that is likely 

to result in adverse effects that could not be 

successfully avoided, minimized, or mitigated.

Purpose: To protect cultural resources. 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-42 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

LEASE NOTICES FOR FLUID MINERALS

Lease 

Notice 

#

Lease Notice 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Lease Notice Description A B C D

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

LN-11 ODWC (A-12) Oklahoma 

Department of 

Wildlife Conservation 

(ODWC)-Owned 

and Managed Lands

LN X LN15LN15LN15Lease Notice: The ODWC owns and manages the 

surface above all, or a portion, of this federal lease. The 

lessee needs to be aware of the surface use 

requirements, as presented in ODWC documents G12-82 and A-12 (Appendix 3 of the Oklahoma 

RMP/ROD; BLM 1994), which address regulations and a 

surface damage agreement to govern oil, gas, and other 

mineral exploration and production on ODWC-owned 

and -managed lands. Applies to:

• Beaver County Split-Estate Tracts 27, 30, 31, 32, and 

33

• Cimarron County Split-Estate Tracts 4, 11, 12, 39, 

and 40

• Major County Split-Estate Tracts 4, 86, and 90

LN-12 SRA-LN* Toledo Bend 

Reservoir (Sabine 

River Authority)

LN X LN-15LN-15LN-15 Other than any requirements of the Texas Railroad 

Commission, the Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality, and the US Corps of Engineers, the Sabine 

River Authority of Texas, as surface owner and coowner of the Toledo Bend Reservoir, would request to 

be advised of any exploration and/or drilling on any 

tract referenced prior to actual exploration and/or 

drilling. If any actual drilling, surface use, production, 

or right-of-way are necessary on SRA lands, then a 

“Surface Use Agreement” and/or a “Right-of-Way” 

Easement may be required.

LN-13 TX(AMU)SS-1 Texas A&M Biological 

Research Site

LN/SS X LN-15LN-15LN-15 1. Prior to entering onto the property to conduct 

geophysical surveys, exploration or production 

activities, the Lessee, or its designee, must contact Dr. 

Steven A. Smith for purposes of coordinating access 

and escorting the crews while on the property. This 

condition is critical due to the nature of the research 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-43

LEASE NOTICES FOR FLUID MINERALS

Lease 

Notice 

#

Lease Notice 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Lease Notice Description A B C D

being conducted on the property. Dr. Smith's address 

is provided below:

Dr. Steven A. Smith

Department of Biology

Texas A&M University-Kingsville

Campus Box 158

Kingsville, Texas 78363

(512) 593-3504

2. The Lessee will be responsible for and shall pay all 

surface damages resulting from Lessee's operations. 

The System Real Estate Office of the Texas A&M 

University System will be responsible for assessing 

damage and collecting payment from the Lessee.

3. Access to the property will be granted to the 

Lessee, or its designee, with the full understanding that 

Lessee will indemnify and hold the Texas A&M 

University System harmless from any and all claims, 

liabilities, or causes of action for personal injury, death, 

or damage to or destruction of property or 

improvements caused by, or arising out of the exercise 

of rights granted to Lessee, its employees, agents, or 

other persons acting under Lessee's direction. The 

Lessee expressly acknowledges its affirmative duty not 

to use the property or allow the property to be used in 

a way that would cause or allow any contamination of 

the property by oil, gasoline, hazardous materials, 

hazardous wastes, or other chemical compounds. The 

Lessee is solely responsible for cleanup of any 

contamination resulting from its activities on the 

property.

4. The Lessee, or its designee, expressly understands 

the Texas A&M University System is an agency of the 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-44 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

LEASE NOTICES FOR FLUID MINERALS

Lease 

Notice 

#

Lease Notice 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Lease Notice Description A B C D

State of Texas and does not waiver or relinquish its 

rights to claim such exemptions, privileges, and 

immunities that may be provided by law.

LN-14 TX(MFC) LN-1 Texas National Guard 

(Formerly the Texas 

Military Facilities 

Commission) 

LN X LN-15LN-15LN-15 Lease Notice: Portions of the lands within this lease 

contain wetlands and/or riparian values. Impacts or 

disturbance to wetland and riparian habitats that occur 

on this lease must be avoided or mitigated. Any 

mitigation would be developed during the application 

for permit to drill process. Further, surface use 

activities conducted by the Texas Military Facilities 

Commission (TMFC) or their surface lessees and 

assigns must be considered prior to lease entry. The 

oil and gas lease operator may be required to locate 

well facilities so as to avoid these surface operations 

and/or improvements. Because military activities may 

occur on the surface, lessee’s access may be denied 

from time to time in the interest of the safety of 

lessee’s employees, agents, or contractors.

LN-15 Proposed This lease notice 

applies to the 

following:

• Oklahoma 

Department of 

Wildlife 

Conservation 

(ODWC)-Owned 

and -Managed 

Lands

• Sabine River 

Authority Lands

• Oklahoma State 

University landsLN X X X Lease Notice: Lease parcels under regulatory 

authority of another Surface Management Agency 

(SMA), where the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

administers mineral estate, require consent, 

concurrence, and stipulations, if any should apply, from 

the authorized Other SMA official prior to the BLM 

leasing any Other SMA lands. Another SMA consent or 

concurrence letter and current stipulation(s), if any 

should apply, for the proposed lease parcel shall be 

made available for public review prior to the lease sale, 

where the proposed land parcel will be offered for 

sale. Examples of potential Other SMA stipulations 

which may be applied include, but are not limited to, 

any one or combination of the following:
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-45

LEASE NOTICES FOR FLUID MINERALS

Lease 

Notice 

#

Lease Notice 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Lease Notice Description A B C D

Lake Carl Blackwell

• Texas A&M 

Biological Research 

Site

• Texas National 

Guard lands

• No Surface Occupancy (NSO)

• No Drilling (ND)

• Directional Drilling (DD)

• Controlled Surface Use (CSU)

• Timing Limitations (TL)

Buffer Zones are intended to protect resource values:

(i.e., dams, spillways, major structures, restricted areas, 

recreation areas & facilities, bridges, tunnels, USFWS 

listed threatened and endangered species or BLM 

special status species, etc.)
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-46 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Coal Stipulations

STIPULATIONS FOR COAL

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

CLS-1 1994 OK 

RMP (CLS-3)

Wetland 

Protection

NSO X Stipulation: All or portions of the lands under this lease 

contain wetland and/or riparian areas. The lessee will not 

conduct surface-disturbing activities on these areas without the 

specific waiver, in writing, of the BLM Authorized Officer after 

consultation with ODM, OSM, and the US Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE).

Purpose: To protect the integrity of wetland and/ or riparian 

areas.

Waiver and/or Exception: None 

Modification: Impacts on or disturbance to wetlands and 

riparian habitats that occur on the lease must be avoided, 

minimized, or compensated for. The mitigation goal would be 

no net loss of in-kind habitats. The mitigation would be 

developed in cooperation with appropriate state and federal 

agencies. The wetland/riparian stipulation is mandated by EO 

11990, Protection of Wetlands, of May 24, 1977.

CLS-2 Proposed Wetlands/ 

Riparian Areas

NSO X No 

future 

leasing

X Stipulation: All or portions of the lands under this lease 

contain wetlands or riparian areas or both. Surface occupancy 

of these areas and within a 415-foot buffer will not be allowed 

without the specific approval, in writing, of the BLM. The buffer 

may be accomplished by such measures as avoidance and 

fencing.

Purpose: To protect the integrity of wetland and/ or riparian 

areas.

Waiver: None 

Exception: Exception/modification for boring or drilling as long 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-47

STIPULATIONS FOR COAL

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

as to not affect wetland or riparian function.

Modification: Impacts on or disturbance to wetlands and 

riparian habitats that occur on this lease must be avoided or 

mitigated. The mitigation would be developed during the 

application for permit to drill.

CLS-3 2014 OK 

RMPA /CLS6

Migratory Birds TL X Stipulation: If surface-disturbing activities occur between 

March 1 and July 30, surveys for ground- and tree-nesting birds 

will be conducted by an entity approved by the BLM Field 

Office. If active nests are encountered, surface-disturbing 

activities will be delayed until the nesting activities are complete. 

Concurrence by the USFWS Oklahoma Ecological Services 

Office will be required for compliance.

Purpose: To protect migratory bird nesting sites.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

CLS-4 Proposed Nesting 

Migratory Birds

TL X No 

future 

leasing

X Stipulation: If surface-disturbing activities occur during the 

nesting period (generally from March 1 to July 30), surveys for 

ground- and tree-nesting birds will be conducted by an entity 

approved by the BLM Field Office. If active nests are 

encountered, surface-disturbing activities will be delayed until 

the nesting activities are complete. Follow the BLM-FWS MOU 

(EO 13186).

Purpose: To protect migratory bird nesting sites.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

CLS-5 1994 OK 

RMP (CLS-4)

American 

Burying Beetle

(Proposed for 

delisting)

CSU X Stipulation: The lessee will not conduct surface-disturbing 

lease activities that would result in unacceptable impacts on the 

ABB, a federally listed endangered species. The lessee may be 

required to arrange for a qualified biologist to conduct field 

surveys, which could result in beetle removal and transplant 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-48 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

STIPULATIONS FOR COAL

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

efforts. Such transplants must be accomplished no more than 

one year before surface-disturbing activities are to begin. Survey 

requirements, transplant efforts, and ESA coordination and 

consultation will be accomplished with the cooperation of the 

USFWS. This stipulation would be attached to federal coal 

leases that occur in Bryan, Cherokee, Haskell, Latimer, LeFlore, 

Muskogee, Pittsburg, Sequoyah, and Tulsa Counties.

Purpose: To protect ABB habitat. 

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

CLS-6 Proposed American 

Burying Beetle

(Proposed for 

delisting)

CSU X No 

future 

leasing

X Stipulation: The lessee will not conduct surface-disturbing 

lease activities that would result in unacceptable impacts on the 

ABB, a federally listed endangered species. The lessee may be 

required to arrange for a qualified biologist to conduct field 

surveys. Survey requirements and ESA coordination and 

consultation will be accomplished with the cooperation of the 

USFWS. This stipulation applies to federal coal leases that occur 

in USFWS identified ABB habitat.

Purpose: To protect ABB habitat.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

CLS-7 2014 OK 

RMPA (CLS5)

Cultural 

Resources 

(Historic 

Properties)

X Stipulation: Before undertaking any activities that may disturb 

the surface of the leased lands, the lessee would conduct a 

cultural resource intensive field inventory in a manner specified 

by the BLM Authorized Officer or of the surface-managing 

agency, if different, on portions of the mine plan area and 

adjacent areas, or exploration area, that may be adversely 

affected by lease-related activities and that were not previously 

inventoried at such a level of intensity. The inventory would be 

conducted by a qualified professional cultural resource 

specialist, such as an archaeologist, a historian, or a historical 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-49

STIPULATIONS FOR COAL

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

architect, approved by the BLM Authorized Officer of the BLM 

(if the surface is privately owned). A report of the inventory and 

recommendations for protecting any cultural resources 

identified would be submitted to the Assistant Director of the 

Midcontinent Region of the OSM or the BLM Authorized 

Officer if activities are associated with coal exploration outside 

an approved mining permit area, and the BLM Authorized 

Officer of the surface-managing agency, if different. The lessee 

would undertake measures, in accordance with instructions 

from the Assistant Director or BLM Authorized Officer, to 

protect cultural resources on the leased lands. The lessee 

would not commence the surface-disturbing activities until 

permission to proceed is given by the Assistant Director or 

BLM Authorized Officer. The lessee would protect all cultural 

resource properties in the lease area from lease-related 

activities until the cultural resource mitigation measures could 

be implemented as part of the approved mining and reclamation 

or exploration plan. The cost of conducting the inventory, 

preparing reports, and carrying out mitigation measures would 

be borne by the lessee. If cultural resources are discovered 

during operations under this lease, the lessee would 

immediately bring them to the attention of the Assistant 

Director or BLM Authorized Officer, or the authorized officer 

of the surface-managing agency, if the Assistant Director is not 

available. The lessee would not disturb such resources, except 

as may be subsequently authorized by the Assistant Director or 

BLM Authorized Officer. Within two working days of 

notification, the Assistant Director or BLM Authorized Officer 

would evaluate or have evaluated any cultural resources 

discovered to determine if any action may be required to 

protect or preserve such discoveries. The cost of data recovery 

for cultural resources discovered during lease operations would 

be borne by the surface-managing agency, unless otherwise 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-50 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

STIPULATIONS FOR COAL

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

specified by the BLM Authorized Officer or of the surfacemanaging agency, if different. All cultural resources would 

remain under the jurisdiction of the United States until 

ownership is determined under applicable law.

Purpose: To protect cultural resources in compliance with 

Section 106 of the NHPA.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

CLS-8 Proposed Cultural 

Resources 

(Historic 

Properties)

X No 

future 

leasing

X Stipulation: Before undertaking any activities that may disturb 

the surface of the leased lands, the lessee would conduct a 

cultural resource intensive field inventory in a manner specified 

by the BLM Authorized Officer or of the surface-managing 

agency, if different, on portions of the mine plan area and 

adjacent areas, or exploration area, that may be adversely 

affected by lease-related activities and that were not previously 

inventoried at such a level of intensity. The inventory would be 

conducted by BLM-permitted archaeologist and a report of the 

inventory and recommendations for protecting any cultural 

resources identified would be submitted to the Assistant 

Director of the Midcontinent Region of the OSM, the BLM 

Authorized Officer, if activities are associated with coal 

exploration outside an approved mining permit area, and the 

Authorized Officer of the surface-managing agency, if different. 

The lessee would undertake measures, in accordance with 

instructions from the Assistant Director or BLM Authorized 

Officer, to protect cultural resources on the leased lands. The 

lessee would not commence the surface-disturbing activities 

until permission to proceed is given by the Assistant Director 

or BLM Authorized Officer. The lessee would protect all 

cultural resource properties within the lease area from leaserelated activities until the cultural resource mitigation measures 

could be implemented as part of the approved mining and 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-51

STIPULATIONS FOR COAL

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

reclamation or exploration plan. The cost of conducting the 

inventory, preparing reports, and carrying out mitigation 

measures would be borne by the lessee. If cultural resources 

are discovered during operations under this lease, the lessee 

would immediately bring them to the attention of the Assistant 

Director or BLM Authorized Officer, or the authorized officer 

of the surface-managing agency, if the Assistant Director is not 

available. The lessee would not disturb such resources, except 

as may be subsequently authorized by the Assistant Director or 

BLM Authorized Officer. Within two working days of 

notification, the Assistant Director or BLM Authorized Officer 

would evaluate or have evaluated any cultural resources 

discovered and would determine if any action may be required 

to protect or preserve such discoveries. The cost of data 

recovery for cultural resources discovered during lease 

operations would be borne by the lessor, unless otherwise 

specified by the BLM Authorized Officer or of the surfacemanaging agency, if different. All cultural resources would 

remain under the jurisdiction of the United States until 

ownership is determined under applicable law.

Purpose: To protect cultural resources in compliance with 

section 106 of the NHPA.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

CLS-9 Proposed Visual 

Resources

CSU X No 

future 

leasing

Stipulation: In VRM Class II, coal development activities would 

be located, designed, operated, and reclaimed so that activities 

should not attract attention to the casual observer.

Purpose: To retain the existing character of the landscape 

(VRM Class II Objective).

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-52 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

STIPULATIONS FOR COAL

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

CLS-10 1994 OK 

RMP (CLS-1)

Rights-of-Way CSU X X No 

future 

leasing

X Stipulation: If it is impractical to relocate the right-of-way 

(ROW), surface mining would be prohibited in the ROW and to 

within a 100-foot buffer zone from the outside of the ROW. 

Relocation approval of both the holder and issuing parties 

involved in the ROW would be required.

Purpose: To protect sensitive resources from ROW 

development (habitat, etc.)

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

CLS-11 1994 OK 

RMP (CLS-2)

Occupied 

Dwellings

CSU X X No 

future 

leasing

X Stipulation: The coal lessee would consult with the owners of 

occupied dwellings and would maintain or, with the owner’s 

written consent, adjust the designated 300-foot buffer zone.

Purpose: To protect occupied dwellings from disturbance.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

CLS-12 Proposed* Reservoirs 

(USACE)*

CSU X No 

future 

leasing

X Stipulation: No mining around or under reservoir facilities, 

such as dams, spillways, or critical structures, within a 2,000-

foot buffer in Oklahoma and a 3,000-foot buffer in Kansas and 

Texas.

Purpose: To protect USACE facilities.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-53

STIPULATIONS FOR COAL

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

CLS-13 Proposed National Scenic 

and Historic 

Trails

CLS X Closed 

to 

leasing

X Stipulation: No surface-disturbing activities within the 

National Scenic and Historic Trails Right-of-Way and 

Management Corridor, or similar protected area or measures 

identified in the applicable land use plan. 

Purpose: To safeguard the nature and purposes of the

National Scenic and Historic Trails.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

CLS-14 Proposed Special Status 

Bat Species 

(SSBS)

CSU X X X Stipulation: The lease or portions of the lease is known to 

contain Special Status Bat Species (SSBS) habitat. Parcels 

potentially containing SSBS maternity roosts or hibernacula 

within USFWS confirmed SSBS habitat shall undergo a sitespecific survey by a BLM-approved specialist/biologist to identify 

necessary special design, construction, implementation, and/or 

mitigation measures. Based on survey results, planned surface 

disturbing activities the BLM specialist/biologist has assessed to 

be sufficiently threatening to SSBS roosts or hibernacula within 

USFWS confirmed habitat during the site-specific survey shall 

require relocation of surface disturbing activities to a geographic 

position that meets current regulatory and BLM/USFWS policy 

requirements. The mandated relocation, beyond standard lease 

terms and conditions (200 meters/656 feet), shall be 

communicated to the lessee/operator through a Condition of 

Approval (COA) at the leasing stage. If the BLM's site-specific 

survey results reveal the existence of SSBS maternity roosts or 

hibernacula within USFWS confirmed habitat and appropriate 

surface disturbing activity relocation is unattainable, additional 

protective/mitigation measures shall be required of the lessee 

and/or operator, to include, but not limited to, the following:

• Development and implementation of a BLM-approved 

mitigation/protection plan for activities known to cause 

adverse impacts to SSBS maternity roosts or hibernacula 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-54 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

STIPULATIONS FOR COAL

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type Alternative Stipulation Description A B C D

within USFWS confirmed SSBS habitat. This plan shall 

require, but is not limited to, special design, construction, and 

implementation measures describing how adverse impacts to 

known SSBS maternity roosts or hibernacula within USFWS 

confirmed SSBS habitat would be prevented or mitigated. 

• Disturbance area minimization, utilization of previously 

existing disturbed areas, roads, mine staging areas, and/or 

corridors, and implementation of mitigation measures such as 

operational twinning.

Purpose: To prevent disturbance or destruction of known 

SSBS maternity roosts or hibernacula within USFWS confirmed 

SSBS habitat.

Waiver: None

Exception: The BLM authorized officer shall provide for sitespecific exception(s) if the operator/lessee's operation plan 

provides for the mandated levels of protective special design, 

construction, and implementation measures outlined in the BLM 

site-specific survey to prevent additional species loss. 

Modification: None
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-55

Mineral Material Special Considerations

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR MINERAL MATERIALS (43 CFR 3602.45 [g])

Special 

Consideration #

Special 

Consideration 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Special Consideration Description A B C D

MM-1 Proposed Wetland/ Riparian 

Areas

NSO X X X Special Consideration: All or portions of the 

lands contain wetlands or riparian areas or both. 

Mineral material development of these areas and 

within a 415-foot buffer will not be allowed 

without the specific approval, in writing, of the 

BLM. The buffer may be accomplished by such 

measures as avoidance or fencing.

Purpose: To protect the integrity of wetland 

and/ or riparian areas.

Waiver: None

Exception: None.

Modification: Impacts on or disturbance to 

wetlands and riparian habitats that occur on this 

lease must be avoided or mitigated. The 

mitigation would be developed during 

permitting.

MM-2 Proposed Bald and Golden 

Eagle Nests

TL X X X Special Consideration: Lands within this 

contract contain known Bald or Golden Eagle 

nests. Parcels containing known Bald or Golden 

Eagle nests, occupied or unoccupied, shall 

undergo a site-specific survey by a BLMapproved specialist/biologist to identify any 

required buffers, special design, construction, 

implementation, and/or mitigations measures. 

Surface-disturbing activities shall not be allowed 

within 0.5 mile of an occupied Bald or Golden 

Eagle nest during the nesting period (December 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-56 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR MINERAL MATERIALS (43 CFR 3602.45 [g])

Special 

Consideration #

Special 

Consideration 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Special Consideration Description A B C D

15th – July 15th).

This special consideration does not apply to the 

operations and maintenance of production 

facilities.

Purpose: To protect and prevent disturbance 

of Bald and Golden Eagle nesting habitat in 

accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 

16 U.S.C. 703 (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 668-668c (Eagle 

Act).

Waiver: None

Exception: An exception to this special 

consideration may be granted by the BLM 

Authorized Officer if a site survey conducted by 

a BLM specialist/biologist or USFWS 

specialist/biologist confirms the known Bald or 

Golden Eagle nest associated with the lease 

parcel in question has been inactive for no less 

than two consecutive years. An exception may 

also be considered and authorized by the BLM 

Authorized Officer on a case-by-case basis if the 

nest fledges early. 

Modification: None

MM-3 Proposed Least Tern

(Proposed for 

delisting)

TL X X X Special Consideration: Close least tern 

nesting and fledging habitat and surrounding 

300-foot area to mineral materials disposal from 

April 1 to June 1.
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-57

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR MINERAL MATERIALS (43 CFR 3602.45 [g])

Special 

Consideration #

Special 

Consideration 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Special Consideration Description A B C D

Purpose: To protect least tern nesting and 

fledgling habitat.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: 

None

MM-4 Proposed RMA and other 

Resources

CSU X X Stipulation: All or portions of the Federal 

lands being considered for mineral material 

development in accordance with the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 

Section 204(a), the Minerals Leasing Acts, or 

under the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946, 

that may be situated on, under, or near Federal 

lands allocated and designated as a Special 

Recreation Management (RMA). Prior to 

mineral material development, a BLM-approved 

Geologist/Natural Resource Specialist (NRS) 

shall conduct a site-specific survey and identify 

buffers, special design, construction, 

implementation, and/or mitigations measure 

required to ensure the protection of 

recreational resource or other resource values 

associated with the designated RMA. If the 

BLM's site-specific survey results reveal the 

proposed surface disturbing activity will have an 

adverse impact on recreational resource or 

other resource values within the designated 

RMA, the operator/proponent shall be required 

to develop and implement protective/mitigation 

measures including, but not limited to, the 

following: 

• Development and implementation of a 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-58 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR MINERAL MATERIALS (43 CFR 3602.45 [g])

Special 

Consideration #

Special 

Consideration 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Special Consideration Description A B C D

comprehensive protection/mitigation plan 

addressing activities known to cause adverse 

impacts to the protected recreational 

resource or other resource values. This plan 

shall require, but is not limited to, special 

design, construction, and implementation 

measures describing how adverse impacts 

shall be prevented or mitigated.

• Disturbance area minimization, utilization of 

previously existing roads, staging areas, and/or 

corridors, and implementation of mitigation 

measures such as operational twinning.

• If the adverse impacts to recreation or other 

resource values cannot be eliminated, the 

proposed project shall be denied.

Purpose: To prevent and/or mitigate adverse 

impact to recreational resource values on the 

Cross Bar Recreation Management Area (RMA).

Waiver: None

Exception: None

Modification: None

• *Other Federal Surface Management Agency-managed lands
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-59

Non Energy Leasables

STIPULATION FOR NONENERGY LEASABLEs

Stipulation

#

Stipulation

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description A B C D

NEL-1 Proposed RMA and 

other 

Resources

CSU X X Stipulation: All or portions of the Federal lands being considered for 

non-energy leasable exploration, development, or production, in 

accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) Section 204(a), the Minerals Leasing Acts, or under the 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946, that may be situated on, under, or 

near Federal lands allocated and designated as a Special Recreation 

Management (RMA). Prior to non-energy leasable exploration, 

development, or production occurs, a BLM-approved 

Geologist/Natural Resource Specialist (NRS) shall conduct a sitespecific survey and identify buffers, special design, construction, 

implementation, and/or mitigations measure required to ensure the 

protection of recreational resource or other resource values 

associated with the designated RMA. If the BLM's site-specific survey 

results reveal the proposed surface disturbing activity will have an 

adverse impact on recreational resource or other resource values 

within the designated RMA, the operator/proponent shall be required 

to develop and implement protective/mitigation measures including, 

but not limited to, the following: 

• Development and implementation of a comprehensive 

protection/mitigation plan addressing activities known to cause 

adverse impacts to the protected recreational resource or other 

resource values. This plan shall require, but is not limited to, special 

design, construction, and implementation measures describing how 

adverse impacts shall be prevented or mitigated.

• Disturbance area minimization, utilization of previously existing 

roads, staging areas, and/or corridors, and implementation of 

mitigation measures such as operational twinning.

• If the adverse impacts to recreation or other resource values cannot 

be eliminated, the proposed project shall be denied.

Purpose: To prevent and/or mitigate adverse impact to recreational 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-60 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

STIPULATION FOR NONENERGY LEASABLEs

Stipulation

#

Stipulation

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description A B C D

resource values on the Cross Bar Recreation Management Area 

(RMA).

Waiver: The BLM Authorized Officer shall provide for a site-specific 

waiver for administrative purposes directly associated with the Cross 

Bar RMA upon satisfactory implementation of appropriate protective 

and/or mitigation measures by Department of Interior personnel. 

Exception: None

Modification: None
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-61

OTHER SURFACE MANAGEMENT AGENCIES

Other SMA - No NSO Stipulations

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS for SMAs

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

SMA-NSO-1

(NSO/ND)

(SMA, Texas 

RMP)*

Falcon Reservoir 

SMA (US 

Section of the 

International 

Boundary and 

Water 

Commission 

Stip. No. I)

NSO/

ND

X LN LN LN Stipulation: NSO/ND within 2,300 feet of the 

centerline of the dam embankment. NSO below the 307-

foot elevation traverse.

Purpose: To protect IBWC resources and facilities. 

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

SMA-NSO-2 SMA, Texas 

RMP*

Amistad 

Reservoir SMA 

(US Section of 

the International 

Boundary and 

Water 

Commission 

Stip. No. I)

NSO X LN LN LN Stipulation: NSO below the 1,144.3-foot elevation 

traverse. (USIDWC Stip. No. I)

Purpose: To protect USIDWC resources. 

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

SMA-NSO-3 SMA, OK, 

KS, and TX 

RMPs*

Facilities (Bureau 

of Reclamation) 

NSO/

ND

X LN LN LN Stipulation: GP-135 stipulations protect Reclamation 

projects with buffer zones, which prohibit occupancy and 

drilling for a specific distance. Maximum project 

protection is provided by the NSO/ND to within 1,000 

feet under the maximum water surface by elevation, as 

defined in standard operating procedures of the US 

Bureau of Reclamation; to within 2,000 feet under dam 

embankments and appurtenance structures, outlet works, 

and spillways; or to within 2,640 feet of the centerline of 

any tunnel. Should Reclamation waive the maximum 

project protection stipulation, additional restrictions 

would protect recreational developments, wildlife 

habitats, project facilities, and water supplies by creating 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-62 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS for SMAs

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

an NSO/Open to Directional Drilling (DD) buffer, ranging 

from 200 to 500 feet around these areas.

Stipulations protecting special wildlife habitats or 

significant surface resources have been identified by 

project site. The overlapping buffer zones identified for 

each surface resource result in stipulation acreage greater 

than the project’s total.

In all cases, GP-135 requires a site-specific surface use 

plan approved by the US Bureau of Reclamation Regional 

Director before any lease development. Whenever a 

conflict occurs concerning the applicability of a 

Reclamation stipulation, the more restrictive stipulation 

would apply.

This stipulation applies to:

• Altus Dam and Reservoir

• Fort Cobb Dam and Reservoir

• Floss Reservoir

• McGee Creek Reservoir

• Mountain Park Dam/Tom Steed Reservoir 

• Glen Elder Dam/Waconda Lake SMA

• Norton/Keith Sebelius Lake

• Lovewell Reservoir

• Cheney Reservoir 

• Webster Reservoir 

• Cedar Bluff Reservoir

• Choke Canyon Dam and Reservoir—Neuces River 

Project 

• Palmetto Bend Dam and Lake Texana
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-63

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS for SMAs

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

• Sanford Dam and Lake Meredith Canadian River 

Project 

• Twin Buttes Dam and Reservoir San Angelo Project

Purpose: To protect dams, reservoirs, recreation 

developments, wildlife habitats, project facilities, and 

water supplies.

Waiver: Providing that appropriate environmental 

compliance measures can be ensured and providing 

further that Reclamation project works and other public 

interests can be protected, Reclamation may consider, on 

a case-by-case basis, a waiver. HOWEVER, LESSEES ARE 

ADVISED THAT OBTAINING SUCH A WAIVER CAN 

BE A DIFFICULT, TIME CONSUMING, AND COSTLY 

PROCESS WITH NO GUARANTEE THAT 

RECLAMATION WILL GRANT THE REQUESTED 

WAIVER.

Exception and/or Modification: None.

SMA-NSO-4 OK, KS and 

TX RMPs*

Facilities 

(Department of 

Defense)

NSO X LN LN LN Stipulation: NSO within 2,000 feet of structures and 

developments in the following:

• Fort Sill Military Reservation

• Camp Gruber

• McAlester US Army Ammunition Depot

• McConnell Air Force Base

• A portion of Fort Riley Military Reservation

• Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant

• Smoky Hill Air National Guard Range

• Fort Bliss

• Hood and Wolters
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-64 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS for SMAs

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

• Camp Bowie

• Camp Bullis

• Camp Swift

• Lone Star and Longhorn Army Ammunition Plants

• Red River Army Depot

• Dyess AFB

• Laughlin AFB

• Randolph AFB

• Reese AFB

• Sheppard Air Force Bases

• Laughlin No. 1 Abandoned Air Field

• Seguin Abandoned Air Field Corpus

• Christi and Kingsville Naval Air Station

• Cabaniss and Waldon Navy Landing Airfield 

• McGregor Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plants

• Texas National Guard (formerly Texas Military 

Facilities Commission)

Purpose: To protect installation structures and 

developments.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

SMA-NSO-5 SMA, 

Oklahoma 

RMP, ARS-1/ 

TX RMP*

Facilities USDA 

Research 

Stations

NSO X LN LN LN Stipulation: NSO at the following USDA lands:

• Southern Plains Agricultural Research Station

• Pecan Genetics and Improvement Research Laboratory

• Conservation and Production Research Laboratory

• The US Livestock Insects Laboratory

• Grassland, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory

Purpose: To protect surface resources. 
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-65

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS for SMAs

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

SMA-NSO-6

(NSO/ ND)

SMA Texas, 

RMP*

USDOE-Pantex 

Facility

NSO/

ND

X LN LN LN Stipulation: NSO/ND on the approximately 16,000 

acres controlled by the Pantex facility.

Purpose: To protect project facilities.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

SMA-NSO-7

(NSO/DD)

Kansas RMP 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions)*

Structures 

(Kansas City 

District USACE 

Projects)

NSO/

DD

X LN LN LN Stipulation: Kansas City District USACE requires NSO 

or directional drilling within 2,000 feet under restricted 

areas, which are major structures, such as the dam, 

spillways, and embankments. An NSO restriction applies 

to all areas below the lake’s flood elevation level and to 

existing or proposed public use areas, recreation areas, 

wildlife and waterfowl refuges, unique ecological areas, 

historic sites, and hiking or horseback trails. The special 

stipulations are standardized and apply to all Kansas City 

District USACE projects. Additionally, the Kansas City 

District USACE uses a wildlife habitat protection 

stipulation for lands designated for the management of 

wildlife, which essentially provides a season of use 

restriction and a surface avoidance restriction on all 

identified wildlife habitat. 

Purpose: To protect the integrity of USACE reservoirs, 

recreation developments, wildlife habitats, project 

facilities, and water supplies.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-66 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS for SMAs

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

SMA-NSO-8

(NSO/ND)

SMA, Texas 

RMP*

Surface 

Resources 

(USACE Fort 

Worth District 

Projects)

NSO/

ND

X LN LN LN Stipulation: These stipulations provide for the 

protection of surface resources through the use of 

surface occupancy restrictions, drilling restrictions, or 

consultation requirements with authorized surface 

lessees. Generally, the Fort Worth District USACE 

requires NSO/ND within 3,000 feet under restricted 

areas. Restricted areas include major structures, such as 

the dam, spillways, and embankments. An NSO 

restriction applies to all areas below the lake’s flood 

elevation level and on existing or proposed public use 

areas, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, 

unique ecological areas, historic sites, and hiking or 

horseback trails. The special stipulations are 

standardized and apply to specific areas in all Fort 

Worth District project areas, as follows:

• Aquilla Lake SMA

• Bardwell Lake SMA

• Belton Lake SMA

• Benbrook Lake SMA

• B. A. Steinhagen Lake SMA

• Canyon Lake SMA

• Cooper Lake SMA

• Georgetown Lake SMA

• Granger Lake SMA

• Grapevine Lake SMA

• Hords Creek Lake SMA

• Joe Pool Lake SMA

• Lake O’ The Pines SMA

• Lavon Lake SMA

• Lewisville Lake SMA
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-67

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS for SMAs

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

• Navarro Mills Lake SMA

• O. C. Fisher Lake SMA

• Proctor Lake SMA

• Ray Roberts Lake SMA

• Sam Rayburn Lake SMA

• Somerville Lake SMA

• Stillhouse Hollow Lake

• Waco Lake SMA

• Whitney Lake SMA

• Wright Patman Lake SMA

Purpose: To protect the integrity of USACE reservoirs, 

recreation developments, wildlife habitats, project 

facilities, and water supplies.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

SMA-NSO-9 Tulsa District 

USACE

Special 

Stipulations 

1-A; also 

described in 

Appendix 2; 

OK and 

Texas RMPs*

Surface 

Resources 

(Specific Site 

Descriptions, 

USACE Tulsa 

District)

NSO/

DD

X LN LN LN Stipulation: USACE I-A stipulations protect surface 

resources through the use of surface occupancy 

restrictions, drilling restrictions, or consultation 

requirements with authorized surface lessees. Generally, 

I-A requires NSO or directional drilling within 2,000 

feet in restricted areas. Restricted areas include major 

structures, such as the dam, spillways, and 

embankments. All existing or proposed public use areas, 

recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, historic 

sites, and hiking or horseback trails are designated

NSO. 

• All Tulsa District projects in OK and TX (including 

Lake Texoma and Pat Mayse Lake)

• Council Grove Lake SMA
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-68 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

NSO STIPULATIONS FOR FLUID MINERALS for SMAs

Stipulation 

#

Stip 

Reference

Protected 

Resource Type

Alternative

Stipulation Description

A B C D

• El Dorado Lake SMA

• Elk City Lake SMA

• Fall River Lake SMA

• John Redmond Dam and Reservoir SMA

• Marion Lake SMA

• Pearson-Skubitz Big Hill Lake SMA

• Toronto Lake SMA

• Kaw, Hulah, and Capon Lakes SMA

Purpose: To protect the integrity of USACE reservoirs, 

recreation developments, wildlife habitats, project 

facilities, and water supplies.

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None

SMA-NSO10SMA, 

Oklahoma 

RMP*

Department of 

Justice-El Reno 

Prison

NSO X LN LN LN Stipulation: NSO at the El Reno Prison in Oklahoma. 

Purpose: To protect DOJ facility and resources. 

Waiver, Exception, and/or Modification: None
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP D-69

Other SMA- Lease Notices

LEASE NOTICES FOR FLUID MINERALS for SMAs

Lease 

Notice #

Lease 

Notice 

Reference

Protected Resource Type

Alternative Lease Notice Description

A B C D

LN-1 Proposed This lease notice applies to the 

following SMAs:

• Falcon Reservoir SMA (US 

Section of the International 

Boundary and Water 

Commission Stip. No. I)

• Amistad Reservoir SMA (US 

Section of the International 

Boundary and Water 

Commission Stip. No. I)

• Facilities (Bureau of 

Reclamation)

• Facilities (Department of 

Defense)

• Facilities USDA Research 

Stations

• USDOE- Facilities

• Structure and Surface 

Resources (USACE Projects)

• Department of Justice-El 

Reno Prison

• International Boundary and 

Water Commission lands

LN X X X Lease Notice: Lease parcels under 

regulatory authority of another Surface 

Management Agency (SMA), where the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

administers mineral estate, require consent, 

concurrence, and stipulations, if any should 

apply, from the authorized Other SMA official 

prior to the BLM leasing any Other SMA 

lands. Another SMA consent or concurrence 

letter and current stipulation(s), if any should 

apply, for the proposed lease parcel shall be 

made available for public review prior to the 

lease sale, where the proposed land parcel 

will be offered for sale. Examples of potential 

Other SMA stipulations which may be applied 

include, but are not limited to, any one or 

combination of the following:

• No Surface Occupancy (NSO)

• No Drilling (ND)

• Directional Drilling (DD)

• Controlled Surface Use (CSU)

• Timing Limitations (TL)

Buffer Zones intended to protect resource 

values (i.e., dams, spillways, major structures, 

restricted areas, recreation areas & facilities, 

bridges, tunnels, USFWS listed threatened 

and endangered species or BLM special status 

species, etc.)
D. BLM Mineral Stipulations

D-70 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix E

Recreation Management Area

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP E-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Recreation Management Area Page

E. RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA .............................................................................. E-1

Cross Bar Recreation Management Area .............................................................................................. E-1

Recreation Setting Characteristics Matrix............................................................................................. E-5

FIGURES

See Appendix A, Alternative Figures
E. Recreation Management Area

E-ii Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
E. Recreation Management Area

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP E-1 

Cross Bar Recreation Management Area

Objective: Manage the Cross Bar RMA for visitors to engage in horseback riding, mountain biking, hiking, and wildlife viewing activities so that they report 

an average 4.0 realization of the targeted experiences and benefit outcome stated in the following table (4.0, on a probability scale, where 1=not at all 

realized to 5=totally realized).

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Targeted Activities No Action. Manage the Cross Bar 

SRMA (9,900 acres) to 

identify and target

outdoor recreation 

activities such as 

horseback riding, 

mountain biking, hiking, 

camping, and hunting. 

Manage the Cross Bar ERMA (9,900 

acres) to provide general outdoor 

recreation activities such as 

horseback riding, mountain biking, 

hiking, and wildlife viewing activities.

Identify and designate areas where 

special management attention is 

needed to protect important 

historical, cultural, and scenic values. 

Manage the Cross Bar ERMA (9,900 

acres) to provide general outdoor 

recreation activities such as horseback 

riding, mountain biking, hiking, and 

wildlife viewing activities. 

Targeted Experiences Enjoying frequent 

access to outdoor 

activity, exercise, 

releasing mental 

tension, enjoying the 

closeness of family and

friends, escaping 

everyday 

responsibilities, 

enjoying and 

appreciating the area’s 

natural qualities, and 

continuing the hunting 

heritage instilled across 

generations

Enjoying frequent access to outdoor 

activity, exercise, releasing mental 

tension, enjoying the closeness of 

family and friends, escaping everyday 

responsibilities, enjoying and 

appreciating the area’s natural 

qualities, and continuing the hunting 

heritage instilled across generations

Enjoying frequent access to outdoor 

activity, exercise, releasing mental 

tension, enjoying the closeness of 

family and friends, escaping everyday 

responsibilities, enjoying and 

appreciating the area’s natural qualities, 

and continuing the hunting heritage 

instilled across generations

Targeted Benefits Personal/Individual:

Improved physical 

fitness/better health 

maintenance; living a 

more outdoororiented lifestyle; 

improved work/life 

balance; restored mind 

from stress, tension, 

and anxiety 

Community/Social: 

Lifestyle improvement, 

heightened sense of 

community satisfaction 

Economic: 

Increased desirability as 

a place to live; maintain 

and increase local 

tourism revenue

Environmental: 

Preserve special 

landscape 

characteristics, greater 

community ownership 

and stewardship of 

recreation and natural 

resources

Personal/Individual: 

Improved physical fitness/better 

health maintenance; living a more 

outdoor-oriented lifestyle; improved 

work/life balance; restored mind 

from stress, tension, and anxiety

Community/Social: 

Lifestyle improvement, heightened 

sense of community satisfaction 

Economic: 

Increased desirability as a place to 

live; maintain and increase local 

tourism revenue

Environmental: 

Preserve special landscape 

characteristics, greater community 

ownership and stewardship of 

recreation and natural resources

Personal/Individual: 

Improved physical fitness/better health 

maintenance; living a more outdoororiented lifestyle; improved work/life 

balance; restored mind from stress, 

tension, and anxiety 

Community/Social: 

Lifestyle improvement, heightened 

sense of community satisfaction

Economic: 

Increased desirability as a place to live; 

maintain and increase local tourism 

revenue

Environmental: 

Preserve special landscape 

characteristics, greater community 

ownership and stewardship of 

recreation and natural resources

Recreation Setting Characteristics (refer to page E-7 for descriptions) Physical

Remoteness The outdoor 

recreation program 

uses the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum 

as a basic tool for 

inventory and 

management to ensure 

the general public the 

continued variety of 

quality recreational 

opportunities (BLM 

2000).

Primitive Classification 

(4,880 acres)

Back Country 

Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country 

Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country 

Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)

Naturalness Primitive Classification 

(4,880 acres)

Back Country 

Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country 

Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country 

Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)
E. Recreation Management Area

E-2 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Facilities Primitive Classification 

(4,880 acres)

Back Country 

Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country 

Classification (270

acres)

Front Country 

Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)

Social

Contacts Primitive Classification 

(4,880 acres)

Back Country 

Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country 

Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country 

Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)

Group Size Primitive Classification 

(4,880 acres)

Back Country 

Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country 

Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country 

Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)

Evidence of Use Primitive Classification 

(4,880 acres)

Back Country 

Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country 

Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country 

Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)

Operational

Access Primitive Classification 

(4,880 acres)

Back Country 

Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country 

Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country 

Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)

Visitor Services Primitive Classification 

(4,880 acres)

Back Country 

Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country 

Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country 

Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)

Management 

Controls

Primitive Classification 

(4,880 acres)

Back Country 

Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country 

Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country 

Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)

Primitive Classification (4,880 acres)

Back Country Classification (2,966 

acres)

Middle Country Classification (270 

acres)

Front Country Classification (2,796 

acres)
E. Recreation Management Area

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP E-3

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Management Actions and Allowable Use Decisions

VRM Class VRM Class III VRM Class II VRM Class III

Rights-of-Way Avoidance Avoidance Avoidance

Leasable Minerals: 

Fluids and Solids 

• NSO-46: Cross Bar 

Management Area

• Closed • NSO-46: Cross Bar Management 

Area

Locatable Minerals Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Mineral Materials Closed Closed Closed

Facility Development Facility development 

will be minimal but will 

be required for vault 

toilets, picnic areas, 

campsite area, visitor 

information center, and 

headquarters/

storage area.

Facility development will be minimal 

but will be required for vault toilets, 

picnic areas, campsite area, visitor 

information center, and 

headquarters/storage area.

Facility development will be minimal but 

will be required for vault toilets, picnic 

areas, campsite area, visitor information 

center, and headquarters/storage area.

Camping Restrictions Overnight camping 

allowed in designated 

areas; no electricity, or 

plumbed water to 

individual sites will be 

implemented but could 

be considered for 

future use.

Overnight camping will be allowed 

in designated areas, but no 

electricity or plumbed water to 

individual sites will be implemented; 

however, they could be considered 

for future use.

Overnight camping will be allowed in 

designated areas, but no electricity or 

plumbed water to individual sites will 

be implemented; however, they could 

be considered for future use.

Firearms Firearms restricted for 

recreational target 

shooting but will be 

allowed and regulated 

only for hunting 

purposes and based on 

yearly hunting

opportunities 

determined by both the 

TPWD and Oklahoma

Field Office 

Firearms restricted for recreational

target shooting but will be allowed 

and regulated only for hunting 

purposes and based on yearly 

hunting opportunities determined by 

both the TPWD and Oklahoma

Field Office 

Firearms will be allowed for 

recreational target shooting and for 

hunting purposes and based on yearly 

hunting opportunities determined by 

both the TPWD and Amarillo Field 

Office 

SRPs No restrictions No restrictions No restrictions

Travel Management Limited off-road vehicle 

use;

multiuse trails 

(horseback riding, 

hiking, and mountain 

biking) will be 

constructed after 

intensive surveying is 

completed that will 

determine areas of 

least erodibility, most 

scenic, avoidance of 

cultural sites, avoidance 

of significant wildlife 

use, etc.

Limited off-road vehicle use; 

multiuse trails (horseback riding, 

hiking, and mountain biking) will be 

constructed after intensive surveying 

is completed that will determine 

areas of least erodibility, most 

scenic, avoidance of cultural sites, 

avoidance of significant wildlife use, 

etc.

Limited off-road vehicle use; multiuse 

trails (horseback riding, hiking, and 

mountain biking) will be constructed 

after intensive surveying is completed 

that will determine areas of least 

erodibility, most scenic, avoidance of 

cultural sites, avoidance of significant 

wildlife use, etc.

Forestry/Fire Prescribed burns will 

be implemented as a 

natural ecological 

influence on vegetation

communities. Wildfires 

will be controlled but 

also be utilized to 

achieve burn objectives 

if conditions allow.

Prescribed burns will be 

implemented as a natural ecological 

influence on vegetation

communities. Wildfires will be 

controlled but also be utilized to 

achieve burn objectives if conditions 

allow.

Prescribed burns will be implemented 

as a natural ecological influence on 

vegetation communities. Wildfires will 

be controlled but also be utilized to 

achieve burn objectives if conditions 

allow.

Implementation Actions

Management Develop written 

information, brochures, 

maps, and other 

written materials. Also 

include things such as

parking lot 

development and any 

necessary fees or 

permit structure, if 

applicable.

Develop written information, 

brochures, maps, and other written 

materials. Also include things such as

parking lot development and any 

necessary fees or permit structure, 

if applicable.

Develop written information, 

brochures, maps, and other written 

materials. Also include things such as

parking lot development and any 

necessary fees or permit structure, if 

applicable.

Administration

Information and 

Education

Monitoring
E. Recreation Management Area

E-4 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
E. Recreation Management Area

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP E-5

Recreation Setting Characteristics Matrix

Primitive Classification Back Country Classification Middle Country Classification Front Country Classification Rural Classification Urban Classification

Physical Component – Qualities of the Landscape

Remoteness

(approximate

distance from 

routes)

More than 0.25 miles from either 

mechanized or motorized routes

Within 0.25 miles of mechanized 

trail routes

Within 0.25 miles of four-wheel 

drive vehicle, ATV, and motorcycle 

routes

Within 0.25 miles of low-clearance 

or passenger vehicle routes 

(including unpaved county roads 

and private land routes)

Within 0.25 miles of paved/primary 

roads and highways

Within 0.25 miles of streets and 

roads in municipalities and along 

highways

Naturalness 

(landscape 

texture, form, 

line, and color)

Undisturbed natural landscape Natural landscape with any 

modifications in harmony with 

surroundings and not visually 

obvious or evident (e.g., stock 

ponds and trails)

Character of the natural landscape 

retained; a few modifications 

contrast with character of the 

landscape (e.g., fences and primitive 

roads)

Character of the natural landscape 

partially modified, but none 

overpower natural landscape (e.g., 

roads, structures, and utilities)

Character of the natural landscape 

considerably modified (agriculture, 

residential, or industrial)

Urbanized developments dominate 

landscape

Facilities No structures and/or trails Developed trails made mostly of 

native materials, such as log bridges;

structures are rare and isolated

Maintained and marked trails, rustic 

trailhead developments

Rustic facilities, such as campsites, 

restrooms, trailheads, and 

interpretive displays

Modern facilities, such as 

campgrounds, group shelters, boat 

launches, and occasional exhibits

Elaborate full-service facilities, such 

as laundries, restaurants, and 

grocery stores

Social Component – Qualities Associated with Use

Contacts 

(average with any 

other group)

Fewer than 3 encounters per day at 

campsites and fewer than 6

encounters per day on travel routes

3 to 6 encounters per day off travel 

routes (e.g., campsites) and 7 to 15 

encounters per day on travel routes

4 to 6 encounters per day on travel 

routes 

15 to 29 encounters per day off 

travel routes (e.g., campgrounds) 

and 30 or more encounters per day 

on travel routes

Busy area with other highway 

vehicles and off-road vehicles

constantly in view; people seem to 

be generally everywhere

Busy place with other people 

constantly in view

Group Size

(average, other 

than your own)

Fewer than or equal to 3 people

per group

4 to 6 people per group 3 to 6 people per group 7 to 10 people per group 26 to 50 people per group Greater than 50 people per group

Evidence of Use No alterations of the natural 

terrain; footprints only observed;

sounds of people rare

Areas of alteration uncommon;

little surface vegetation wear 

observed; sounds of people 

infrequent

Large areas of visual disturbance 

and sounds of vehicles and off-road

vehicle movement and usage 

throughout the area; surface 

vegetation showing wear, with 

some bare soils; sounds of people 

occasionally to frequently 

Small areas of alteration prevalent;

surface vegetation gone, with 

compacted soils observed; sounds 

of people regularly heard

A few large areas of alteration; 

surface vegetation absent, with 

hardened soils; sounds of people 

frequently heard

Large areas of alteration prevalent;

some erosion; constantly hear 

people

Operational Component – Conditions Created by Management and Controls over Recreation Use

Access

(type of travel 

allowed)

Foot and horse Mountain bikes and perhaps other 

mechanized use, but all are 

nonmotorized

On BLM property: Mountain bikes 

and perhaps other mechanized use, 

but all are nonmotorized

Off BLM property: Heavy OHV use

Foot, horse, mountain bikes, and 

perhaps other mechanized use, but 

all are nonmotorized

Ordinary highway licensed 

automobile and truck traffic is 

characteristic

Wide variety of street vehicles and 

highway traffic is ever present

Visitor Services

(and information)

No maps or brochures available onsite; staff rarely present to provide 

on-site assistance

Basic maps; staff infrequently 

present (e.g., seasonally and highuse periods) to provide on-site 

assistance

Area brochures and maps; staff 

occasionally (e.g., most weekends) 

present to provide on-site 

assistance

Information materials describe 

recreation areas and activities; staff 

periodically present (e.g., weekdays 

and weekends)

Information described to the left, 

plus experience and benefit 

descriptions; staff regularly present 

(e.g., almost daily)

Information described to the left, 

plus regularly scheduled on-site 

outdoor demonstrations and clinics

Management 

Controls

No on-site posting and signs of 

visitor regulations, interpretive 

information, or ethics; few use 

restrictions

Basic user regulations at key access 

points; minimum use restrictions

Some regulatory and ethics signs;

moderate use restrictions (e.g., 

camping and human waste);

moderate use restrictions.

Rules, regulations, and ethics clearly 

posted; use restrictions, limitations,

and closures

Enforcement and regulations strict 

and ethics prominent; use may be 

limited by permits and reservations

Enforcement, in addition to rules to 

reduce conflicts, hazards, and 

resource damage

Source: IM No. 2011-004, Revised Recreation and Visitor Services Land Use Planning Guidance, Updated Checklist, and Three Land Use Planning Templates. Attachment 5, Recreation Setting Characteristics Matrix. BLM, Washington, DC. October 14, 2010.
E. Recreation Management Area

E-6 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix F 

Baseline Air Quality Report

Baseline Air Quality in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas

 

Technical Supporting Documentation for the 

BLM-BIA Regional Management Plan/ 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for Kansas-Oklahoma-Texas

Final Report 

Prepared for:

Mary Uhl

BLM New Mexico State Office

301 Dinosaur Trail 

Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87508

Prepared by:

Krish Vijayaraghavan, Biljana Cosic and Ralph Morris

Ramboll Environ US Corporation

773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115

Novato, California, 94998

www.ramboll-environ.com

P-415-899-0700

F-415-899-0707

January 2016

06-35864A

January 2016

i

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1

1.1 Background and Objectives.............................................................................................1

1.2 Statement of Work..........................................................................................................1

1.2.1 Task 1. Summary of the Relevant Air Quality Standards and 

Guidelines .............................................................................................................1

1.2.2 Task 2. Review of Current (Baseline) Conditions..................................................2

2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT...............................................................................................3

2.1 Summary of Relevant Air Quality Standards and Guidelines..........................................3

2.1.1 Air Quality Standards............................................................................................3

2.1.2 Air Quality Related Values....................................................................................7

2.2 Review of Current (Baseline) Conditions.......................................................................14

2.2.1 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................14

2.2.2 Air Quality Related Values..................................................................................38

3.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................53

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Ambient Monitoring Trends in Selected Class I and Class II Areas in 

Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas

Appendix B. Annual Average Visibility Extinction at the Class I and Class II Areas –

Individual Pollutant Contribution

TABLES

Table 2-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency)..................................................................................................3

Table 2-2. National Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD Class I and Class II 

Increments...............................................................................................................7

Table 2-3. IMPROVE Monitoring Sites in the Region ...............................................................8

Table 2-4. Visibility Criteria used to Track Reasonable Progress Goals.................................10

Table 2-5. Monitoring Sites from the NADP Network for Wet Deposition 

Measurements......................................................................................................11

Table 2-6. Monitoring Sites from CASTNET Network.............................................................12
January 2016

ii

Table 2-7. Estimates of Critical Loads (CL) of Deposition at or near Class I and 

Selected Sensitive Class II Sites in the Region (source: CLAD v.2.0 

database)...............................................................................................................13

Table 2-8. List of Nonattainment Areas in the Region...........................................................17

Table 2-9. 2013 SO2 Design Values of by County in 2013(1) ...................................................21

Table 2-10. 2013 NO2 Design Values by County in 2013(1).......................................................22

Table 2-11. 2013 CO Design Values by County in 2013(1) ........................................................23

Table 2-12. 2013 PM2.5 Design Values by County in 2013 .......................................................24

Table 2-13. 2013 PM10 Concentrations and Design Values by County in 2013(1).....................25

Table 2-14. 2013 Lead Design Values by County(1) ..................................................................25

Table 2-15. 2013 Ground-level Ozone Design Values by County(1)..........................................26

Table 2-16. Counties in Kansas with Ozone Monitors and those Violating the 

Proposed Primary Ground-level Ozone Standard (EPA 2014)* ............................30

Table 2-17. Counties in Oklahoma with Ozone Monitors and those Violating the 

Proposed Primary Ground-level Ozone Standard (EPA 2014)* ............................31

Table 2-18. Counties in Texas with Ozone Monitors and those Violating the 

Proposed Primary Ground-level Ozone Standard (EPA 2014) ..............................32

Table 2-19. Annual Wet Deposition Measured at NADP Sites in 2013....................................45

Table 2-20. Estimates of Total Annual Deposition Fluxes of Sulfur and Nitrogen in 

2013 at Monitoring Sites at or near Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas...............50

Table 2-21. Comparison of Total Annual Deposition Fluxes of Sulfur and Nitrogen 

near Class I and Class II Sites to Critical Loads ......................................................51

FIGURES

Figure 2-1. Map of Mandatory Class I Areas in the Region (Source NPS: retrieved 

2015)........................................................................................................................6

Figure 2-2. IMPROVE Sites in the Region...................................................................................9

Figure 2-3. Geographic Areas of Regional Planning Organizations (EPA) ...............................10

Figure 2-4. CASTNET Sites in the Region .................................................................................12

Figure 2-5. Air Quality System Ozone Monitors in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas..................15

Figure 2-6. Map of U.S. Ambient O3 Monitoring Sites Reporting Data to EPA during 

the 2009-2013 Period (EPA 2014).........................................................................16

Figure 2-7. Map of Nonattainment Areas in Texas (TCEQ 2012, source: 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality)...............................................................18
January 2016

iii

Figure 2-8. Map and Designation of Nonattainment Areas for 2008 8-hr Ozone in 

Texas and the Region (EPA 2015, adapted from 

http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/tx8_2008.html) .................................19

Figure 2-9. Lead (2008) Nonattainment Area in the Region...................................................20

Figure 2-10. Map of 8-hour Ozone Design Values in ppb, averaged cross the 2009-

2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013 Periods (EPA 2014, modified).........................28

Figure 2-11. Map of 8-hr Ozone Design Values Based on Monitored Air Quality 

from 2011-2013.....................................................................................................33

Figure 2-12. U.S. Climate Regions (EPA 2015)...........................................................................35

Figure 2-13. Regional Trend in SO2 Levels in South Climatic Region (source: EPA)..................35

Figure 2-14. Regional Trend in NO2 Levels in South Climatic Region (source: EPA) .................36

Figure 2-15. Regional Trend in CO Levels in South Climatic Region (source: EPA) ...................36

Figure 2-16. Regional Trend in PM2.5 Levels in South Climatic Region (source: EPA 

2015)......................................................................................................................37

Figure 2-17. Regional Trend in PM10 Levels in South Climatic Region (source: EPA)................37

Figure 2-18. Regional Trend in Ozone Levels in South Climatic Region (source: EPA)..............38

Figure 2-19. Visibility Extinction in Class I Areas (BLM 2015)....................................................40

Figure 2-20. Visibility Extinction in Kansas Class II Area sites: Tallgrass (TALL1), 

Cedar Bluff (CEBL1), and Sac and Fox (SAFO1) (BLM 2015)..................................42

Figure 2-21. Visibility Extinction in Oklahoma Class II Area sites: Cherokee Nation 

(CHER1), Ellis (ELLI1) and Stilwell (STIL1) (BLM 2015)...........................................44

Figure 2-22. Sulfate ion wet deposition in 1990, 2000 and 2013 (NADP 2014)........................45

Figure 2-23. Nitrate ion wet deposition in 1990, 2000 and 2013 (NADP 2014) .......................46

Figure 2-24. Ammonium ion wet deposition in 1990, 2000 and 2013 (NADP 2014)................46

Figure 2-25. Total inorganic nitrogen wet deposition in 1990, 2000 and 2013 

(NADP, 2014).........................................................................................................47

Figure 2-26. Sulfur dry deposition in 2000 and 2013 (EPA 2015) .............................................48

Figure 2-27. Total (dry + wet) sulfur deposition in 2000 and 2013 (EPA 2015)........................48

Figure 2-28. Total nitrogen dry deposition in 2000 and 2013 (EPA 2015)................................49

Figure 2-29. Total (dry+wet) nitrogen deposition in 2000 and 2013 (EPA 2015) .....................49

Figure 2-30. Map of W126 values in ppm-hour for 2012 at CASTNET locations 

(AMEC, 2014, adjusted).........................................................................................52

Figure 2-31. Map of 3-year average W126 values in ppm-hour, averaged across 

2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013 periods (EPA 2014)................................52

January 2016

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Objectives

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are tasked with 

managing a variety of resources and programs for the benefit of the public and Indian tribes. 

These operations require management plans that provide long term direction and guidance. 

Creation of these plans is to be done with careful consideration of the local and regional factors 

unique to the planning area (Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas), while being fully consistent with 

national laws, regulations and policies. This planning effort will engage several cooperating 

agencies and it is anticipated that numerous interested parties, stakeholders, agencies, tribes, 

and corporations will become involved in the process, assisting in providing a variety of data 

and information in support of the effort. The process includes alternatives development, 

impacts analysis, and providing a variety of data.

The BLM Oklahoma Field Office (OFO), in cooperation with the BIA Eastern Oklahoma and 

Southern Plains Regional Offices, is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to guide the management of BLM-administered 

public resources (BLM-administered surface lands and federal minerals) and restricted, trust,

and tribal minerals and lands under the jurisdiction of the BIA within the states of Oklahoma, 

Kansas and Texas. The NEPA process will produce a Record of Decision (ROD) that will serve as 

the Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the ongoing and foreseeable operations of the BLM 

within the 3-state area and two RODs for the two BIA regions.

Ramboll Environ, as sub-contractors to Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Inc. 

(EMPSi), is conducting Task 8 (Air Quality Analysis/Green House Gases Overview) of the

RMP/EIS by the BLM and BIA for the three state-planning area of Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas.

This document presents technical documentation for the Affected Environment for Air Quality, 

i.e., Baseline (Current Conditions) section of the RMP/Draft EIS.

1.2 Statement of Work

This report was prepared as and represents a technical document in support of the air quality 

baseline assessment of the affected environment. The report builds upon information provided 

in the Air Resources Technical Report by the BLM New Mexico State Office on Oil and Gas 

Development for New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas (BLM, 2015), information from the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as several other literature references.

The focus of the current report is on two specific tasks as described below.

1.2.1 Task 1. Summary of the Relevant Air Quality Standards and Guidelines

Task 1 (Section 2.1 of the report), provides a summary of the current National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria air pollutants (CAPs), pursuant to Section 109 of the 

Clean Air Act. These include sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), 
January 2016

2

lead (Pb), particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and ozone (O3), including a recent revision to the 

ozone standard. The meaning of a design value (DV) and attainment/nonattainment 

designation are discussed. A brief overview of the programs and standards designed to further

protect air quality in attainment and nonattainment areas such as the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and New Source Review (NSR) is provided. 

Air Quality Related Value (AQRV) including visibility, acid deposition and ground-level ozone 

impact on vegetation are also reviewed in this task. The requirements of the EPA Regional Haze 

Regulations, which is the primary driver for visibility analyses under NEPA, are described. While 

there are no standards for acidic deposition of sulfur and nitrogen compounds, relevant critical 

loads (CL) - which serve as a basis for evaluating deposition effects for acidic deposition to 

aquatic and terrestrial environments - have been compiled.

1.2.2 Task 2. Review of Current (Baseline) Conditions

Ambient air concentrations of the criteria pollutants measured in the Air Quality System (AQS), 

Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) and the Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network are used to asses current air quality parameters in 

OKT region in Task 2 (Section 2.2). The existing nonattainment areas in the three states are 

summarized for all applicable pollutants. The most recent published DVs (2013) are reported 

for all counties in OKT region which have ambient monitors and compared with NAAQS. Ozone

DVs are also discussed in the context of the newly established ozone standard of 0.07 ppm. Air 

quality trends between 200 and 2013 for the South Climate region in the U.S. region, which 

includes OKT are presented and discussed for CACs including SO2, NO2, CO, O3, PM2.5, and PM10. 

Historical air quality trends for the same pollutants are also presented at individual monitoring 

locations in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, with specific focus on the sites in Class I and Class II 

areas. 

Baseline (2013) conditions and historical trends in AQRVs are also reviewed in this task. 

Visibility extinction trends in Class I and Class II areas in OKT region are discussed and presented

for the 20% worst and best 20% days, along with their respective natural conditions. 

Contributions of the individual pollutants to the visibility extinction during the best and worst 

days are also provided. Wet deposition measurements of sulfate, nitrate, ammonium and total 

inorganic nitrogen are reported at 15 monitoring stations in the National Acid Deposition 

Network in the three states. General temporal and spatial trends in acidic wet and total (dry + 

wet) deposition are also presented the three state region through maps for the period 1990-

2013 and 2000-2013, respectively. Historical trends in total S and N deposition are discussed for 

the five CASTNET monitoring locations in OKT region. Their 2013 deposition fluxes are 

compared with critical loads to characterize the current impact of acidic deposition on the 

aquatic/terrestrial environment. Finally, to understand baseline conditions and historical trends 

in the effect of surface ozone on vegetation, data for the cumulative ozone W126 metric in the 

three states are summarized for 2012 and 2013.
January 2016

3

2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

2.1 Summary of Relevant Air Quality Standards and Guidelines

2.1.1 Air Quality Standards

The Clean Air Act (CAA), amended most recently in 1990, is the federal law designed to regulate 

and protect air quality in the United States. The CAA is administered by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) which has the responsibility to regulate emissions of pollutants that 

“endanger public health and welfare”. Under the CAA (Section 109) EPA has established 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six pollutants considered to be most 

harmful to humans and environment. These pollutants, referred to as “criteria pollutants” or 

“criteria air pollutant or CAPs” include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone 

(O3), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and fine particulate matter, 

which is less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and lead (Pb). Table 2-1

shows the current NAAQS for each CAP. 

Table 2-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)

Pollutant File Rule Date Primary/ 

Secondary

Averaging 

Period Level(1) Form

Carbon 

Monoxide 08/31/2011 Primary 8-hour 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more than 

1-hour 35 ppm once per year

Lead 09/12/2008

Primary and 

Secondary

Rolling

3-Month 

Average

0.15 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

02/09/2010 Primary 1-hour 100 ppb 98th percentile, averaged over 3 

years(2)

10/08/1996 Primary and 

Secondary Annual 53 ppb Annual mean

Ozone 10/1/2015 Primary and 

Secondary 8-hour 0.070(4)ppm

Annual 4th-highest daily 

maximum 8-hr concentration, 

averaged over 3 years(3)

PM2.5 12/14/2012

Primary Annual 12 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3 

years(5)

Secondary 24-hour 35 μg/m3 98th percentile, averaged over 3 

years(6)

PM10 12/14/2012

Primary and 

Secondary 24-hour 150 μg/m3

Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year on average over 

3 years

Sulfur Dioxide

06/22/2010 Primary 1-hour 75 ppb

99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations, 

averaged over 3 years(7)

09/14/1973 Secondary 3-hour 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year

Notes:

1 Air quality standards and monitoring concentrations are typically expressed in units of μg/m3, parts per billion (ppb), or parts 

per million (ppm); ppm and ppb refer to volumetric fraction of a pollutant in air and are applicable to gaseous CAPs only. 

2 To attain 1-hour NO2 standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each 

monitor within an area must not exceed 100 ppb or 188 μg/m3.

3 To attain 8-hour O3 standard, the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years) must 

not exceed 0.070 ppm or approximately 137 μg/m3. 
January 2016

4

4 This was revised from the 2008 NAAQS of 0.075 ppm.

5 To attain 24-hour PM2.5 standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or 

multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 12.0 μg/m3

6 To attain annual PM2.5 standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each populationoriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 μg/m3

7 To attain 1-hour SO2 standard, the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor 

within an area must not exceed 75 ppb or 196 μg/m3.

To determine whether or not NAAQS has been met at an ambient monitoring site for a given 

pollutant, a statistic known as a “design value” must be calculated based on the form of the 

appropriate NAAQS described in table above. For instance, the form of design value (DV) 

statistic for primary and secondary ozone is the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily 

maximum 8-hour ozone concentration in parts per billion (ppb), with decimal digits truncated. 

In this instance, an ambient monitoring site is said to be meeting the primary and secondary 

NAAQS for ozone if the DV is less than 0.070 ppm (when considering concentrations in ppb, this 

value is treated as 71 ppb because decimal digits are truncated). In counties or geographic 

areas with multiple monitoring sites, the area-wide DV is based on the highest DV among the

individual -monitoring sites. The area is said to have met the NAAQS only if all monitoring sites 

in the area are meeting the NAAQS. In addition to assessing compliance with NAAQS, design 

values are often used to follow progress towards meeting the NAAQS

NAAQS have been promulgated to protect human health and welfare with an “adequate margin 

of safety”. The standards, and the science they are based upon, are periodically reviewed by 

EPA. The existing standards can be revised or new standards introduced to ensure that they 

provide adequate health and environmental protection. After EPA establishes or revises 

NAAQS, the EPA designates areas as "attainment" (meeting), "nonattainment" (not meeting), or 

"unclassifiable" (insufficient data) based on the ambient monitoring data collected in the area.

“Designation” is the term used to describe the air quality in a given area with respect to NAAQS

for any of the six criteria pollutants. In November 2014, EPA proposed lowering the current 

primary and secondary ozone standard from 0.075 ppm to a range between 0.065 ppm and 

0.070 ppm. The final standard of 0.070 ppm promulgated in October 2015 (EPA 2015) may

trigger a new designation assessment. As a result of the more stringent standard, some areas 

in attainment with the current ozone standard are expected to be re-designated as 

nonattainment areas (see Section 2.2.1.8).

After nonattainment designation takes effect, state and local agencies are required to develop 

an implementation plan, known as State Implementation Plan (SIP), outlining what actions and 

controls will be taken to attain and maintain the standards. SIP is considered a state’s legal 

guide for local enforcement of the CAA and NAAQS. States and local agencies are responsible 

for planning and developing solutions to air quality problems tailored to meet their specific 

local needs. In addition to federal regulations, states can develop and enforce their own air

quality standards and regulations within their area of jurisdiction. These standards and 

regulations are not applicable tribal lands which are regulated directly by the EPA. Oklahoma, 

Kansas and Texas do not have State standards for criteria pollutants that differ from the 

NAAQS.
January 2016

5

The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program, authorized under the CAA (Section 

160 et. seq.), is designed to further protect air quality from significant deterioration even when 

NAAQS is not violated (i.e. in attainment areas). PSD increments or PSD standards, limit the 

incremental increase in specific pollutant concentration associated with future developments 

(new major sources or modification of major sources) in areas which are in attainment. Based 

on the level of protection, areas are divided into three federal or PSD classes. Class I areas -

which includes national parks, wilderness and other pristine areas - are given the highest level 

of protection and the smallest allowable incremental increases in “new pollution”

concentration. Figure 2-1 shows Federal Class I areas in Oklahoma and Texas; there are no Class 

I areas in Kansas. Class II and Class III areas are allowed respectively higher level of air quality 

degradation, or increment consumption limits, without exceeding NAAQS. Currently, all areas in 

the United States are designated for air quality as Class I and Class II; there are no Class III 

areas. The PSD increments for Class I and Class II areas are presented in Table 2-2.

The New Source Review (NSR) program addresses requirements for new major sources or 

modification to existing sources permit application in a nonattainment area. As air quality 

standard is already exceeded, compliance is demonstrated through the most stringent emission 

limitations, that is installation of the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER), and emission 

offsets where increase in emissions from the new/modified source has to be balanced by an 

equivalent or greater reductions from existing sources. 
January 2016

6

Figure 2-1. Map of Mandatory Class I Areas in the Region (Source NPS: retrieved 2015)
January 2016

7

Table 2-2. National Ambient Air Quality Standards and PSD Class I and Class II Increments

Pollutant Averaging 

Period

NAAQS 

(μg/m3)

PSD Class I 

Increment 

(μg/m3)

PSD Class II 

Increment 

(μg/m3)

Carbon 

Monoxide

8-hour 40,000 − −

1-hour 10,000 − −

Lead Rolling

3-Month 0.15 − −

Nitrogen 

Dioxide

1-hour 188 − −

Annual 100 2.5 25

Ozone 8-hour 137 − −

PM2.5

24-hour 35 2 9

Annual 12 1 4

PM10

24-hour 150 8 30

Annual − 4 17

Sulfur Dioxide

1-hour 196 − −

3-hour 1,3000 25 512

24-hour 365 5 91

Annual 80 2 20

2.1.2 Air Quality Related Values

Air Quality Related Values (AQRV) have been defined as unique attributes/resources of 

federally mandated Class I areas or other Class II areas of special national, regional, natural, 

scenic, recreational, or historic value, which can be adversely affected by a change in air quality.

AQRVs include impacts such as visibility impairment, terrestrial and aquatic effect of wet and 

dry pollutant deposition, and terrestrial effects of ozone. While in some cases AQRVs may not 

have specific standards, different criteria are used and developed to evaluate whether an 

adverse impact has occurred, whether there is consistent improvement in the 

attribute/resource in time and at what rate.

2.1.2.1 Visibility

Visibility impairment, known also as regional haze, occurs as a result of light scattering and 

absorption by particle and gases in the atmosphere. It is caused by accumulation and chemical 

transformation of pollutants from a various sources and over wide geographic region. Visibility 

is often described by two parameters, visual range (VR) and light (or visibility) extinction 

coefficient (bext) which are inversely related to each other. Good visibility conditions are 

characterized by long VRs and low bext values, while poor visibility (most impaired) conditions 

are characterized by short VRs and high bext values.

In 1985, the EPA initiated a monitoring network, known as the Interagency Monitoring for the 

Protection of Visual Environments (IMPROVE), to monitor visibility in Federal Class I Areas 

(FCIA). The objective was to evaluate current visibility conditions, and identify chemical species 

and emission sources responsible for visibility impairment in FCIA. In 1999, EPA promulgated 

the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) regulations which require states to develop long-term strategies
January 2016

8

for making reasonable progress in preventing any future, and remedying any existing visibility

impairment in FCIA resulting from man-made air pollution. 

The IMPROVE network, which monitors particulate matter that affects visibility and tracks 

regional trends in visual and air quality, includes most Class I areas and some sensitive Class II 

areas. Table 2-3 and Figure 2-2 show IMPROVE monitoring sites in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

Table 2-3. IMPROVE Monitoring Sites in the Region

State Station Name/Area County Designation

Kansas

Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve Chase Class II

Cedar Bluff State Park Trego Class II

Sac and Fox(1) Brown Class II

Oklahoma

Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area Comanche Class I

Ellis County Wildlife Management Area Ellis Class II

Stilwell / Cherokee Nation Adair Class II

Newkirk(2) Kay Class II

Texas

Big Bend National Park Brewster Class I

Guadalupe Mountains National Park Culberson Class I

Houston Deer Park #2 Harris Class II

Notes: 

1 Operational/data reporting until 2011 

2 Operational/data reporting until 2010 (Ponca City)

Source: U.S. EPA Air and Radiation website, http://www3.epa.gov/air/
January 2016

9

Figure 2-2. IMPROVE Sites in the Region

Recognizing that visibility degradation in FCIA has resulted from the cumulative effect of 

numerous sources over a wide geographic region, EPA encouraged states to develop 

coordinated regional strategizes though collaborative, multi-state planning and 

implementation. To facilitate interstate coordination in addressing visibility issues, EPA 

designated five regional planning organizations (RPOs). The geographic areas of the five 

regional planning organizations in the U.S. are shown in Figure 2-3. Kansas, Oklahoma and 

Texas, together with Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana, are all 

members of the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) which was subsequently 

replaced by the Central States Air Resource Agencies (CENSARA).
January 2016

10

Figure 2-3. Geographic Areas of Regional Planning Organizations (EPA)1

The haze rule requires states to establish reasonable progress goals for each affected Class I 

area. These include improving visibility on the 20% haziest (most impaired) days and ensuring

that no degradation occurs on the 20% clearest (least impaired) days, with an ultimate goal to 

reach natural background conditions in FCIA by 2064. Tracking the progress towards the goal of 

restoring natural background to FCIAs over 60 year period is based on three visibility metrics

shown in Table 2-4.

Table 2-4. Visibility Criteria used to Track Reasonable Progress Goals

Metrics How it is used Form

Natural Conditions Ultimate goal to be 

reached in 2064

Visibility level for the 20% most impaired and 20% least 

impaired days as if there were no human emissions

Baseline Conditions Reference point to 

measure progress against

Visibility level for the 20% most impaired and 20% least 

impaired days for the years 2000-2004, or when 

progress tracking started

Current Conditions Used to determine 

progress made

Visibility level for the 20% most impaired and 20% least 

impaired days for the most recent 5 year period

 1 Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) was replaced by Central States Air Resource Agencies 

(CENSARA), often referred to as CENRAP/CENSARA.
January 2016

11

2.1.2.2 Wet and Dry Pollutant Deposition

Deposition of airborne pollutants through precipitation (e.g. rain, snow) or dry deposition (as 

particulates or gases) can result in acidification of water and soil resources, adversely affecting 

terrestrial and aquatic species. SO2 and NOX are the main precursors of acidic and acid-forming 

pollutants which can affect forested landscapes and aquatic ecosystems in rural and remote 

locations, far from the sources of pollution.

In 1978, the EPA initiated Nation Acid Deposition Program (NADP), a cooperative program 

between federal and state agencies, universities and industries, to measure wet deposition of 

pollutants and determine spatial patterns and trends in precipitation chemistry. Nowadays 

known as NADP/NTN (National Trends Network), it is the longest running national atmospheric 

deposition monitoring network. NADP/NTN measures concentrations and depositions rates of 

constituents removed from the atmosphere by precipitation, with a focus on those that affect

rainfall acidity and those that may cause adverse ecological effects. Table 2-5 shows the NADP 

monitoring sites in the 3-state area which measure wet acid deposition and wet deposition of 

some base cations including sulfate (SO4

2-

), nitrate (NO3

-

), ammonium (NH4

+), total inorganic 

nitrogen (N), calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), potassium (K+), sodium (Na+), chloride (Cl-

), and 

free acidity (H+ as pH). . 

Table 2-5. Monitoring Sites from the NADP Network for Wet Deposition Measurements

State Site ID Site Name County

Kansas

KS07 Farlington Fish Hatchery Crawford

KS31 Konza Prairie Riley

KS32 Lake Scott State Park Scott

Oklahoma

OK29 Goodwell Research Station Texas

OK17 Kessler Farm Field Laboratory McClain

OK00 Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge Alfalfa

Texas

TX10 Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge Colorado

TX03 Beeville Bee

TX04 Big Bend National Park - K-Bar Brewster

TX43 Cañónceta Randall

TX22 Guadalupe Mountains National Park Frijole Ranger Station Culberson

TX56 L.B.J. National Grasslands Wise

TX21 Longview Gregg

TX02 Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge Bailey

TX16 Sonora Edwards

In 1991, EPA, in cooperation with the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

initiated the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET) from the National Dry Deposition 

Network (NDDN) which was established in 1987. CASTNET was developed to provide a platform 

for long-term, national monitoring of air quality and deposition trends in rural areas. CASTNET 

measures regionally representative concentrations of sulfur, nitrogen, ozone and other 

atmospheric data and provides estimates of estimate dry deposition of pollutants. In 

conjunction with other national monitoring networks, CASTNET data are used to assess 

relationship between regional pollution and total deposition patterns, and evaluate 
January 2016

12

effectiveness of national and regional emission control programs. Table 2-6 and Figure 2-4

show the location of CASTNET monitoring sites in the 3-state region.

Table 2-6. Monitoring Sites from CASTNET Network

State Site ID Site County

Kansas KNZ184 Konza Prairie Riley

Oklahoma CHE185 Cherokee Nation Adair

Texas

BB401 Big Bend NP Brewster

ALC188 Alabama-Coushatta Polk

PAL190 Palo Duro Randall

Source: Clean Air Status and Trends Network website, http://www2.epa.gov/castnet

Figure 2-4. CASTNET Sites in the Region

There are no standards for acidic deposition of sulfur and nitrogen compounds. Their impact is

site-, and region-specific and it depends on the natural ability of soil or water to neutralize 

acidity. Each ecosystem has its specific critical load, that is, the maximum amount of a pollutant 

that can be deposited or taken up by the system over a period of time, below which there are 

no significant harmful effects to the system. Deposition rates and exposure higher than critical 

load (CL) may cause adverse and irreversible effect on a habitat. CLs of a specific habitat can be 
January 2016

13

determined by observing/measuring a response of an ecosystem to a given deposition load. 

Such empirical data is rather limited and CLs are often estimated or modelled. NADP Critical 

Loads of Atmospheric Deposition (CLAD) database (NADP, 2015) is one of the available 

resources on CLs; it is a compilation of empirical and calculated CLs and other relevant

information from many regional and national scale projects. It is focused specifically on sulfur 

and nitrogen deposition and their effects on terrestrial and aquatic environments. Table 2-7

shows estimated and measured critical loads of sulfur (S) and nitrogen (N) at locations at or 

near Class I and Class II CASTNET areas retrieved from the CLAD database. The site-specific CLs 

are used as a reference to which actual deposition rates of S and N are compared to, to 

evaluate the potential impact of acid deposition on local habitat. 

Federal Land Managers (FLM), including the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have developed guidance (NPS, 2011) to evaluate the impact 

of additional nitrogen or sulfur deposition on lands under their management for NSR permit 

applicants. The guidance involves a staged screening process which considers factors such as 

distance from an FLM area and total annual source emissions of SO2, NOX, PM10 and H2SO4 to 

determine whether the source’s impact to AQRVs would be negligible. For this purpose, FLM 

established a Deposition Analysis Thresholds (DATs) which represents the additional amount of 

N or S deposition within an FLM area, below which estimated impact from a new or modified 

source are considered negligible. The established DATs for N and S deposition in eastern and 

western FLM areas are 0.010 kg/ha-yr and 0.05 kg/ha-yr, respectively.

Table 2-7. Estimates of Critical Loads (CL) of Deposition at or near Class I and Selected 

Sensitive Class II Sites in the Region (source: CLAD v.2.0 database)

State Site

(County)

Max CL of 

Sulfur

Min CL of 

Nitrogen(2)

Max CL of 

Nitrogen

Min CL of 

Nitrogen 

Max CL of 

Nitrogen 

Calculated CL(1) kg/ha-yr Empirical CL, kg/ha-yr

Kansas Konza Prairie (Riley) 33.71 0.60 30.07 12(3) 12(3)

Oklahoma

Wichita Mountains, 

(Comanche) - Class I 26.37 0.60 23.65 12(3) 12(3)

Cherokee Nation (Adair) 31.11 0.60 27.80 4.64(4) 4.64(4)

Texas

Big Bend NP (Brewster) -

Class I 38.44 0.60 34.21 3(5) 3(5)

Guadalupe NP, 

(Culberson) - Class I 56.22 0.60 49.75 3(5) 3(5)

Alabama-Coushatta 

(Polk) 41.13 0.60 36.55 4.86(4) 4.86(4)

Palo Duro (Randall) 28.63 0.60 25.63 12(3) 12(3)

Notes: 

1 Calculated critical loads of S and N are applicable to forest ecosystem, representative of the setting of the given Class I and 

Class II sites

2 The calculated minimum N critical loads correspond to the acceptable Rate of N Immobilization in the soil 

3 The empirical N load is applicable to the ecosystem of Mycorrhizal Fungi

4 The empirical N load is applicable to the ecosystem of Lichen 

5 The empirical N load is applicable to the ecosystem of Lichen Ecoregion
January 2016

14

2.1.2.3 Terrestrial Effect of Ground-level Ozone

Exposure to ground-level ozone has been associated with a wide range of negative impacts on 

vegetation and ecosystems: reduced growth, visible damage to leaves, and interference with 

the ability of plants to produce and store food being some of the effects observed. In addition 

to ozone Design Value, another ozone metric known as the W126 index value, which has been 

found to correlate with ozone-related damage to plants and ecosystems (EPA 2014). The W126 

index represents a seasonal aggregate of daytime (8:00 AM to 8:00 PM) hourly ozone 

concentrations designed to measure the cumulative effects of ozone exposure impact on 

vegetation, with units in parts per million-hours (ppm-hrs).

There is no specific standard for W126 metric. The index is related to the secondary ozone 

standard and attainment of the standard provides required level of protection, which is 

currently equivalent to 21 ppm-hours in W126 metric. The EPA’s proposal to strengthen the 

secondary ozone standard will reduce the maximum allowed cumulative exposure of trees, 

plants and ecosystems to ground-level ozone. EPA estimated that the proposed standard 

between 65 and 70 ppb will provide a level of protection equivalent to 13 to 17 ppm-hours

respectively, based on the W126 metric. 

2.2 Review of Current (Baseline) Conditions

2.2.1 Air Quality

The Air Quality System (AQS) database, maintained by EPA, is a very large national database of 

ambient monitoring data of criteria pollutants compiled from more than 10,000 monitoring 

sites nationwide, 5,000 of which are currently active.

2 There are more than 300 monitoring 

sites in the AQS in the 3-state region of Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas. Data from individual 

monitoring sites are accessible in various formats, including raw data (hourly and daily 

measurements) and data that have been processed by EPA (e.g. annual statistics for each

monitored year or design values for the most recent 3 year period). The change in CAP 

concentration is tracked on annual basis on national level and for individual climatic regions in 

the U.S., with the information on air quality trends updated nearly every year. EPA does not 

report on air quality trends in individual states, however annual monitoring data from counties 

and individual monitoring sites can be used to deduce historic change in concentrations in an

area of interest. 

Air quality monitoring networks are assessed periodically to determine if the existing network 

meets the monitoring objectives including, whether there is a need to set up new sites, 

discontinue those in the areas that have been consistently well below the standards, or

whether new air quality monitoring technologies should be incorporated. Figure 2-5 shows the 

coverage of the ozone monitoring network in the region associated with/reporting to AQS.

Figure 2-6 shows the map of U.S. ambient O3 monitoring sites reporting data to EPA during the 

2009-2013 period.

 2 U.S. EPA Air Data, http://www3.epa.gov/airdata/
January 2016

15

Figure 2-5. Air Quality System Ozone Monitors in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas
January 2016

16

Figure 2-6. Map of U.S. Ambient O3 Monitoring Sites Reporting Data to EPA during the 

2009-2013 Period (EPA 2014) 

2.2.1.1 Design Values and Attainment

Design values are used to designate nonattainment areas as well as to follow progress towards 

restoring attainment. At present, there are four designated nonattainment areas in Texas (two 

for ozone, one for lead and one for PM10) and one nonattainment area in Kansas (for lead). 

There are no nonattainment areas in Oklahoma. Table 2-8 and Figure 2-7, Figure 2-8, and Figure 

2-9 show locations of the nonattainment areas in the region. 
January 2016

17

Table 2-8. List of Nonattainment Areas in the Region

State NAAQS Area Name County Classification

Texas

Ozone

(8-hour)

1997 NAAQS 2008 NAAQS

Dallas-Fort 

Worth

Collin 

Serious Moderate

Dallas

Denton

Ellis

Johnson

Kaufman

Parker

Rockwall

Tarrant

Wise Attained

HoustonGalvestonBrazoria

Brazoria

Severe Marginal

Chambers

Fort Bend

Galveston

Harris

Liberty

Montgomery

Waller

Lead City of Frisco Collin −

City of Salina Saline −

PM10 City of El Paso El Paso Moderate

Source: EPA Green Book accessed at http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/ancl.html
January 2016

18

Figure 2-7. Map of Nonattainment Areas in Texas (TCEQ 2012, source: 

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality)
January 2016

19

Figure 2-8. Map and Designation of Nonattainment Areas for 2008 8-hr Ozone in Texas 

and the Region (EPA 2015, adapted from

http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/tx8_2008.html)
January 2016

20

Figure 2-9. Lead (2008) Nonattainment Area in the Region3

Table 2-9 to Table 2-15 provide 2013 DVs of all criteria pollutants in the 3-state area, by county. 

2013 DVs for all pollutants including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, PM10 and PM2.5, 

with the exception of CO, are based on the monitoring data for 3 year period 2011-2013, in 

accordance with NAAQS formulation. CO DVs are based on one year of observations, 2013 only. 

Design values are presented only for the counties with monitoring sites which have sufficient 

monitoring data to calculate valid DVs for year 2013. County DV represents the highest DV 

among the monitors in the county. DVs presented therefore do not include complete 

information on air quality and may not reflect the highest concentrations measured in the 

region. There may be counties with monitoring sites which measured higher ambient 

concentrations but did not fulfil minimum data requirement for DV determination/calculation. 

Supplemental tables are available for the user with annual summaries of CAPs concentrations 

by county for years 1990, 2000, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Annual concentrations provide some 

information on the air quality in the counties which do not have valid 2013 DVs and are not 

included in DV tables presented in this section. 

2.2.1.2 Sulfur Dioxide Design Values 

Sulfur dioxide 2013 design values presented in Table 2-9 suggest that concentrations in the 

counties across the three states were well below bellow SO2 1-hour NAAQS. The highest DV for 

SO2 was observed in Tulsa County, OK at 73% of 1-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb with three more 

counties Gregg and Navarro, TX and Wyandotte, KS with DVs higher than 50% of the standard. 

 

3 EPA, adapted from http://www3.epa.gov/leaddesignations/2008standards/final/natlmap.html 
January 2016

21

Table 2-9. 2013 SO2 Design Values of by County in 2013(1)

State County 1-Hour SO2

(2)

(ppb)

DV as Percent of 

NAAQS

Kansas

Linn 7 9%

Trego 3 4%

Wyandotte 48 64%

Oklahoma

Adair 6 8%

Oklahoma 4 5%

Tulsa 55 73%

Texas

Dallas 6 8%

Ellis 14 19%

El Paso 7 9%

Galveston 16 21%

Gregg 52 69%

Harris 31 41%

Jefferson 29 39%

Kaufman 13 17%

McLennan 6 8%

Navarro 38 51%

Nueces 12 16%

Notes:

1 Calculated as the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour average 

concentrations for the last 3-year period 2011-2013. The design value listed for each area is the highest among monitors with 

valid design values. Includes only counties with monitors with complete 3-year dataset.

2 1-hr SO2 NAAQS is 75 ppb. There were no NAAQS exceedances in 2013.

Source: U.S, EPA site, Air and Radiation, Air Trends, Design Values at http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html last accessed 

July 1, 2015

2.2.1.3 Nitrogen Dioxide Design Values 

Nitrogen dioxide 2013 design values are presented in Table 2-10. Monitoring data indicate that 

NO2 concentrations in the counties in the three states were also well below NAAQS. County 

with the highest NO2 DV was Sedgwick, KS at 65% of 1-hour NO2 NAAQS of 100 ppb. With the 

exception of five counties including Oklahoma, OK and Dallas, El Paso, Harris and Tarrant in 

Texas which are between 50 and 60% of the standard, majority of the remaining counties are at 

less than 1/3rd of the standard. 
January 2016

22

Table 2-10. 2013 NO2 Design Values by County in 2013(1)

State County 1-Hour NO2

(2)

(ppb)

DV as Percent of 

NAAQS

Kansas Sedgwick 65 65%

Oklahoma Oklahoma 54 54%

Sequoyah 32 32%

Texas

Brazoria 20 20%

Dallas 51 51%

Ellis 31 31%

El Paso 59 59%

Gregg 28 28%

Harris 59 59%

Harrison 22 22%

Hunt 30 30%

Jefferson 35 35%

Kaufman 29 29%

McLennan 27 27%

Navarro 29 29%

Orange 30 30%

Smith 20 20%

Tarrant 53 53%

Notes:

1 Calculated as the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the annual distribution of daily maximum 1-hour average 

concentrations for the last 3-year period 2011-2013. Includes only counties with monitors with complete 3-year dataset.

2 1-hr NO2 NAAQS is 100 ppb. There were no NAAQS exceedances in 2013.

Source: U.S, EPA site, Air and Radiation, Air Trends, Design Values at http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html last accessed 

July 1, 2015

2.2.1.4 Carbon Monoxide Design Values 

Carbon monoxide 2013 design values presented in Table 2-11 show that the county with the 

highest CO design value - El Paso, TX – was less than 30% of 8-hour CO NAAQS of 9 ppm, with 

majority of the remaining counties being well below 20% of the standard.
January 2016

23

Table 2-11. 2013 CO Design Values by County in 2013(1)

State County

8-Hour CO(2)

(ppm)

DV as 

Percent of 

NAAQS

Kansas Sedgwick 1.3 14%

Wyandotte 1.7 19%

Oklahoma

Adair 0.4 4%

Oklahoma 0.8 9%

Tulsa 1.0 11%

Texas

Cameron 0.8 9%

Dallas 1.5 17%

El Paso 2.6 29%

Harris 1.9 21%

Jefferson 0.5 6%

McLennan 0.3 3%

Tarrant 1.0 11%

Tarrant 1.0 11%

Travis 0.3 3%

Webb 1.2 13%

Notes:

1 Calculated as the 3-year average of the 2nd highest 8-hour average concentration in 2013. Includes only counties with 

monitors with complete dataset.

2 8-hour CO NAAQS is 9 ppm, there were no NAAQS exceedances in 2013. (max is 29% of NAAQS)

Source: U.S, EPA site, Air and Radiation, Air Trends, Design Values at http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html last accessed 

July 1, 2015

2.2.1.5 PM2.5 Design Values 

2013 Design values for PM2.5 are presented in Table 2-12. While none of the counties exceeded

NAAQS, concentrations in certain counties were approaching annual PM2.5 standard of 12 

μg/m3. At 11.8 μg/m3 and 11.6 μg/m3, Harris and El Paso Counties in Texas were at 98% and 

97% of the NAAQS, with 13 additional counties in Texas (8), Oklahoma (4) and Kansas (1)

between 80% and 90% of the standard. On 24-hour basis, El Paso and Nueces, TX were highest 

at 94% and 89% of the 35 μg/m3 NAAQS, respectively, with remaining counties all below 70% of 

the 24-hour standard.
January 2016

24

Table 2-12. 2013 PM2.5 Design Values by County in 2013

State County Annual PM2.5(1)

(μg/m3)

Annual DV,

% of NAAQS

24-hour PM2.5(2)

(μg/m3)

24-hour DV,

% of NAAQS

Kansas

Johnson 8.3 69% 18 51%

Linn 8.8 73% 19 54%

Sedgwick 9.4 78% 23 66%

Shawnee 9 75% 20 57%

Sumner 8.5 71% 21 60%

Wyandotte 9.7 81% 21 60%

Oklahoma

Oklahoma 9.7 81% 21 60%

Pittsburg 10.3 86% 21 60%

Sequoyah 10.5 88% 22 63%

Tulsa 10.1 84% 22 63%

Texas

Bexar 8.9 74% 23 66%

Bowie 10.6 88% 23 66%

Dallas 10.8 90% 23 66%

Ellis 9.7 81% 23 66%

El Paso 11.6 97% 33 94%

Harris 11.8 98% 23 66%

Harrison 10.5 88% 22 63%

Nueces 10.2 85% 31 89%

Tarrant 10.6 88% 24 69%

Travis 9.6 80% 24 69%

Wyandotte 9.7 81% 21 60%

Notes:

1 The design value for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS is the 3-year average annual mean concentration for the 3-year period, 2011-

2013. Annual NAAQS is 12 μ/m3. There were no NAAQS exceedances in 2013.

2 The design value for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is the 3-year average 98th percentile concentration. 24-hour NAAQS is 35 

μ/m3. There were no NAAQS exceedances in 2013.

Source: U.S, EPA site, Air and Radiation, Air Trends, Design Values at http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html last accessed 

July 1, 2015

2.2.1.6 PM10 Design Values 

24-hour PM10 NAAQS is defined in terms of the 3-year average expected number of 

exceedances (ENE) of the 150 μg/m3 threshold. Therefore, PM10 DV is expressed as a number of 

exceedances rather than concentration. 2013 PM10 DVs, presented in Table 2-13 indicate that 

the standard was exceeded in 3 counties including the nonattainment area El Paso, TX with 4 

exceedances, and Sherman and Sedgwick counties, KS with 4.8 and 2.2 exceedances 

respectively.
January 2016

25

Table 2-13. 2013 PM10 Concentrations and Design Values by County in 2013(1)

State County

24-hour PM10(2)

(μg/m3

2011-2013 

Average 

Estimated 

Exceedances(1)

Met NAAQS 

2011-2013?

2011 2012 2013

Kansas

Ford 72 54 30 0 Yes

Sedgwick 80 94 84 2.2 No

Shawnee 68 47 54 0 Yes

Sherman 78 106 136 4.8 No

Oklahoma Oklahoma 62 73 62 0 Yes

Texas

Bexar 51 50 71 0 Yes

Dallas 57 64 93 0 Yes

El Paso 252 643 233 4.0 No

Galveston 47 54 46 0 Yes

Harris 92 128 80 0 Yes

Harrison 32 36 53 0 Yes

Nueces 68 53 55 0 Yes

Tarrant 45 66 63 0 Yes

Travis 33 32 57 0 Yes

Notes:

1 The NAAQS metric for the PM10 NAAQS is the 3-year average expected number of exceedances (ENE) of the 24-hour NAAQS 

of 150 μ/m3 for the 3-year period 2011-2013. 

2 Highest second maximum 24-hour concentrations in individual years.

Source: U.S, EPA site, Air and Radiation, Air Trends, Design Values at http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html last accessed 

July 1, 2015

2.2.1.7 Lead Design Values 

2013 Lead DVs, shown in Table 2-14 , are available for four counties, two of them being 

nonattainment areas Saline, KS and Collin, TX, both of which were exceeding the 0.15 μg/m3

NAAQS. The remaining two counties Pittsburg and Ottawa, OK were well below at 40% and 20% 

of the standard, respectively. 

Table 2-14. 2013 Lead Design Values by County(1)

State County

Rolling 3-month 

Average Pb

(μg/m3)

Meets NAAQS?

DV as Percent 

of NAAQS

Kansas Saline 0.23 No 153%

Oklahoma Pittsburg 0.06 Yes 40%

Ottawa 0.03 Yes 20%

Texas Collin 0.52(2) No 347%

Notes:

1 The design value for the 2008 lead NAAQS is the maximum rolling 3-month lead-TSP average over the 3-year period 2011-

2013

2 Violation of NAAQS in Collin County in 2013 was driven by emission from a battery-recycling plant in Frisco, TX. The plant was 

permanently shut down at the end of 2012, https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/dfw/dfw-lead-history; 

http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/sipstatus/reports/tx_elembypoll.html#lead__2008__1252

Source: U.S, EPA site, Air and Radiation, Air Trends, Design Values at http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html last accessed 

July 1, 2015
January 2016

26

2.2.1.8 OzoneDesign Values 

2013 Ozone DVs (Table 2-15) indicate that the 2008 ozone standard of 75 ppb was exceeded in 

25 counties in Kansas (2), Oklahoma (9) and Texas (14). Highest concentrations were measured 

in nonattainment areas Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) and Houston-Galveston Brazoria (HGB), TX 

with all counties with DVs at 74 ppb and above. The highest DVs were observed in Denton 

(DFW) and Brazoria (HGB) counties, both at 87 ppb, followed by Tarrant County at 86 ppb, and 

Collin and Dallas counties at 84 ppb, all in DFW area. The highest observed DVs in Kansas and 

Oklahoma were 77 ppb in Sedgwick County, KS and 80 ppb in Tulsa County, OK.

Table 2-15. 2013 Ground-level Ozone Design Values by County(1)

State County 8-Hour O3

(ppb)

Meets 2008 NAAQS?

(2)

Kansas

Johnson 73 Yes

Leavenworth 73 Yes

Linn 71 Yes

Sedgwick 77 No

Shawnee 73 Yes

Sumner 76 No

Trego 72 Yes

Wyandotte 70 Yes

Oklahoma

Adair 75 Yes

Caddo 75 Yes

Canadian 76 No

Cherokee 74 Yes

Cleveland 76 No

Comanche 77 No

Creek 78 No

Dewey 74 Yes

Kay 77 No

McClain 74 Yes

Mayes 77 No

Oklahoma 79 No

Ottawa 76 No

Pittsburg 75 Yes

Sequoyah 72 Yes

Tulsa 80 No

Texas

Bell 74 Yes

Bexar 81 No

Brazoria 87 No

Brewster 71 Yes

Cameron 60 Yes

Collin 84 No

Dallas 84 No

Denton 87 No

Ellis 77 No

El Paso 72 Yes

Galveston 74 Yes

Gregg 77 No
January 2016

27

State County 8-Hour O3

(ppb)

Meets 2008 NAAQS?

(2)

Harris 82 No

Harrison 72 Yes

Hidalgo 59 Yes

Hood 77 No

Hunt 74 Yes

Jefferson 75 Yes

Johnson 79 No

Kaufman 74 Yes

McLennan 74 Yes

Montgomery 79 No

Navarro 72 Yes

Nueces 70 Yes

Orange 69 Yes

Parker 79 No

Rockwall 77 No

Smith 75 Yes

Tarrant 86 No

Travis 73 Yes

Victoria 67 Yes

Notes:

1 Calculated as the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration for the period 2011-

2013. The design value listed for each county is the highest among monitors with valid design values. Includes only counties 

with monitors.

2 2008 8-hr ozone NAAQS is 0.075 ppm. This was revised to 0.070 ppm in October 2015. In 2013, design O3 values in 14 Texas 

counties of 32 monitored did not meet the 2008 NAAQS; in Oklahoma 9 of 17, and in Kansas 2 of 9 counties that monitored

ozone did not meet NAAQS.

Source: U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Ground-Level Ozone, EPA-452/P-14-006, November 2014.

Figure 2-10 shows a map of the ozone DVs averaged across the 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 

2011-2013 periods, at all monitoring sites in the region. Although the plotted concentrations 

are based on the monitoring period longer than the data used to derive 2013 DVs (2011-2013) 

shown in Table 2-15, the values and overall distributions of ozone concentrations over the two 

periods are comparable. 
January 2016

28

Figure 2-10. Map of 8-hour Ozone Design Values in ppb, averaged cross the 2009-2011, 

2010-2012, and 2011-2013 Periods (EPA 2014, modified) 

Recognizing that there will may be additional counties exceeding ozone standard after the 

promulgation of the new NAAQS, EPA made a projection of the expected violations with 

respect to the proposed levels of 70 and 65 ppb (note that 70 ppb or 0.070 ppm is the final 

standard promulgated by EPA). Table 2-16 to Table 2-18 show the projections for the counties 

in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. Under this scenario which is based on 2013 DVs, it is predicted 

that 50 counties in the region will violate the new NAAQS of 70 ppb (Kansas 7, Oklahoma 16 

and Texas 27) and 55 counties would violate standard of 65 ppb (Kansas 8, Oklahoma 16, and 
January 2016

29

Texas 31). 

Figure 2-11 shows a map of the counties estimated to violate the new NAAQS of 0.070 ppm

based on 2011-2013 DVs as well as the prior standard of 0.075 ppm and the proposed (but not 

adopted) standard of 0.065 ppm. Because the design value is truncated to the nearest ppb, 
January 2016

30

exceedances of the 8-hr ozone NAAQS occur when the ozone DV is 71 ppb or higher for the 

0.070 ppm standard and 76 ppb or higher for the previous 0.075 ppm standard.

Table 2-16. Counties in Kansas with Ozone Monitors and those Violating the Proposed 

Primary Ground-level Ozone Standard (EPA 2014)*

Does not violate proposed range

Violates 70 parts per billion

Violates 65 parts per billion

State Name County Name

2011-2013 Concentrations 3-year average(1)

Based on final 

standard of 70 ppb

Based on proposed 65 

ppb

Kansas

Johnson 73 73

Leavenworth 73 73

Linn 71 71

Riley 70 70

Sedgwick 77 77

Shawnee 73 73

Sumner 76 76

Trego 72 72

Wyandotte 70 70

Notes:

* Data from the EPA proposed ozone NAAQS rule. The ozone standard has been finalized at 70 ppb.

1a Based on Monitored Air Quality from 2011-2013

1b Includes only Counties with Monitors

1c The chart shows two columns of air quality levels because the calculation of the 3-year concentration is dependent on the 

level of the proposed standard level
January 2016

31

Table 2-17. Counties in Oklahoma with Ozone Monitors and those Violating the Proposed 

Primary Ground-level Ozone Standard (EPA 2014)*

Does not violate proposed range

Violates 70 parts per billion

Violates 65 parts per billion

State Name County Name

2011-2013 Concentrations 3-year average(1)

Based on final 

standard of 70 ppb Based on 65 ppb

Oklahoma

Adair 75 75

Caddo 75 75

Canadian 76 76

Cherokee 74 74

Cleveland 76 76

Comanche 77 77

Creek 78 78

Dewey 74 74

Kay 77 77

Mayes 78 78

Mcclain 74 74

Oklahoma 79 79

Ottawa 76 76

Pittsburg 75 75

Sequoyah 72 72

Tulsa 80 80

Notes:

* Data from the EPA proposed ozone NAAQS rule. The ozone standard has been finalized at 70 ppb.

1a Based on Monitored Air Quality from 2011-2013

1b Includes only Counties with Monitors

1c The chart shows two columns of air quality levels because the calculation of the 3-year concentration is dependent on the 

level of the proposed standard level
January 2016

32

Table 2-18. Counties in Texas with Ozone Monitors and those Violating the Proposed 

Primary Ground-level Ozone Standard (EPA 2014)

Does not violate proposed range

Violates 70 parts per billion

Violates 65 parts per billion

State Name County Name

2011-2013 Concentrations 3-year average(1)

Based on final 

standard of 70 ppb

Based on proposed 65 

ppb

Texas

Bell 74 74

Bexar 81 81

Brazoria 87 87

Brewster 71 71

Cameron 60 60

Collin 84 84

Dallas 84 84

Denton 87 87

El Paso 72 72

Ellis 77 77

Galveston 74 74

Gregg 77 77

Harris 82 82

Harrison 72 72

Hidalgo 59 59

Hood 77 77

Hunt 74 74

Jefferson 75 75

Johnson 79 79

Kaufman 74 74

McLennan 74 74

Montgomery 79 79

Navarro 72 72

Nueces 70 70

Orange 69 69

Parker 79 79

Polk 68 68

Randall 73 73

Rockwall 77 77

Smith 75 75

Tarrant 86 86

Travis 73 73

Victoria 67 67

Webb 64 64

Notes:

* Data from the EPA proposed ozone NAAQS rule. The ozone standard has been finalized at 70 ppb.

1a Based on Monitored Air Quality from 2011-2013

1b Includes only Counties with Monitors

1c The chart shows two columns of air quality levels because the calculation of the 3-year concentration is dependent on the 

level of the proposed standard level
January 2016

33

Figure 2-11. Map of 8-hr Ozone Design Values Based on Monitored Air Quality from 2011-

2013
January 2016

34

2.2.1.9 Air Quality Trends

2.2.1.9.1 South Region

Using the nationwide network of monitoring sites, EPA has developed ambient air quality for 

distinct climatic regions in the contiguous United States recognizing that this is a relevant way 

of looking at trends in air quality. The trends are developed for all CAPs with the exception of 

lead, the ambient concentration of which is highly site specific and not correlated to climate. 

Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas are all part of the South climatic region shown in Figure 2-12. 

Figure 2-13 and Figure 2-14 show the regional trends in SO2 and NO2 levels, respectively, in the 

South climatic region. The trends presented in Figure 2-15 to Figure 2-18 show the distribution 

of air pollution levels among the trend sites (blue band), the average value across the

monitoring sites (white centerline) and the 90th and 10th percentiles (top and bottom of the 

blue band, respectively), relative to the NAAQS (National Standard line). The trends sites 

include all sites in the South climatic region which have complete data records over the 2000 to 

2013 period. For each pollutant, the trend statistic is directly related to the level and averaging 

time of the NAAQS. For example, for a given year ozone concentration at an individual site is 

based on the annual 4th maximum of daily max 8-hour average.

The figures show the relative change in regional average concentration over the 14 year period 

(2000 to 2013). In case of ozone, for instance, average concentration monitored in the region

decreased by 21%, based on the data from 112 monitoring sites. CO and PM2.5 average 

concentrations show similar decreasing rate of 24% and 27%, respectively over the 14 years.

The figures and associated statistics do not provide information whether the decreasing trends 

are statistically significant, although they do appear to be systematic (and most likely 

statistically significant). The plots still provide some useful qualitative information on how the 

pollutant concentrations changed in time. CO and SO2 concentrations in the region show

stronger decreasing trends, with average concentrations decreasing by 64% and 66%,

respectively between 2000 and 2013. SO2 and PM2.5 plots also reveal a sharper decreasing 

trend around the time when their new standards were revised and/or proposed, that is, around 

2010 and 2011. PM10 is the only pollutant which does not appear to exhibit decreasing trend, 

with average regional concentration increasing by 4% between 2000 and 2013. 
January 2016

35

Figure 2-12. U.S. Climate Regions (EPA 2015) 

Figure 2-13. Regional Trend in SO2 Levels in South Climatic Region (source: EPA) 
January 2016

36

Figure 2-14. Regional Trend in NO2 Levels in South Climatic Region (source: EPA)

Figure 2-15. Regional Trend in CO Levels in South Climatic Region (source: EPA) 
January 2016

37

Figure 2-16. Regional Trend in PM2.5 Levels in South Climatic Region (source: EPA 2015) 

Figure 2-17. Regional Trend in PM10 Levels in South Climatic Region (source: EPA) 
January 2016

38

Figure 2-18. Regional Trend in Ozone Levels in South Climatic Region (source: EPA) 

EPA does not provide trend analysis for individual monitoring sites or counties, however 

historical monitoring data for individual sites can be obtained from AQS. The plots of historical 

air quality trends at the monitoring sites at or near Class I areas and selected Class II are 

included in Appendix A. 

2.2.2 Air Quality Related Values

2.2.2.1 Visibility Data

Visibility data are collected as a part of the IMPROVE program at the three Federal Class I areas 

and five Class II areas in the region. Visibility extinction trends and statistical trend analysis 

developed by University of Colorado are obtained from Federal Land Manager Environmental 

Database (2015)4 which provides processed extinction data until year 2013. Graphs represent 

extinction for the 20% worst (haziest) days and the 20% best (clearest) days, along with 

extinction that corresponds to the natural conditions for the haziest and clearest days at the 

site.

Figure 2-19 shows visibility extinction trends in the Class I areas Guadalupe Mountain and Big 

Bend NP, TX and Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area, OK. Visibility extinctions in Guadalupe 

Mountain and Big Bend show similar pattern: decreasing extinction (improving visibility) for the 

20% best days. While the extinction for the 20% worst days at Big Bend does not appear to 

 4 Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments website, 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/IMPROVE/improve_data.htm

;http://views.cira.colostate.edu/fed/DataWizard/Default.aspx
January 2016

39

have any distinct trend (decreasing or increasing trend), the extinction for the 20% worst days 

at Guadalupe Mountains is increasing (diminishing visibility). Theil’s slope analysis indicates that 

the improving visibility trend on the 20% best days is statistically significant at both locations, as 

well as the increasing trend for the worst days at Guadalupe Mountains. The data at Wichita 

Mountains show that visibility extinction trend on the best days is flat to slightly increasing, 

while for the 20% worst days the trend is apparently decreasing. Theil’s analysis indicates that 

the decreasing extinction trend for the worst days at Wichita Mountains is statistically 

significant. 

Figure 2-20, shows extinction trends in Class II sites in Kansas including Tallgrass Prairie NP, 

Cedar Bluff, and Sac and Fox. Figure 2-21, shows similar plots for Class II areas in Oklahoma, 

including Cherokee Nation, Ellis and Stillwater. Most of the sites from KS and OK appear to 

exhibit fairly similar extinction trends. Their trend lines for the 20% worst days resemble those 

observed at Wichita Mountains, all showing an overall improvement in visibility with distinct 

peaks in extinction in 2005, 2007 and 2011. These common features suggest that visibility 

during the most impaired days at these sites may have been affected by a common source or 

sources. The trend lines for the 20% best days also seem to resemble among the KS and OK

sites, all showing flat to moderately decreasing trends.
January 2016

40

Figure 2-19. Visibility Extinction in Class I Areas (BLM 2015).
January 2016

41
January 2016

42

Figure 2-20. Visibility Extinction in Kansas Class II Area sites: Tallgrass (TALL1), Cedar Bluff 

(CEBL1), and Sac and Fox (SAFO1) (BLM 2015).
January 2016

43
January 2016

44

Figure 2-21. Visibility Extinction in Oklahoma Class II Area sites: Cherokee Nation (CHER1),

Ellis (ELLI1) and Stilwell (STIL1) (BLM 2015).

Additional extinction plots for the Class I and Class II areas showing individual pollutant 

contributions to the light extinctions for the worst and the best 20% days during the same 

period are provided in Appendix B. 

2.2.2.2 Wet and Dry Deposition

Table 2-19 shows wet deposition of sulfate, nitrate, ammonium and total inorganic nitrogen 

measured in 2013 at 15 monitoring stations from the NADP sites in the region. The table shows 

that on average, the highest wet deposition fluxes of sulfates, nitrates and ammonia are 

measured at monitoring sites in Kansas and Oklahoma. Maps of wet deposition of sulfate, 

nitrate, ammonium and total inorganic nitrogen extrapolated over the entire 3-state region are 

shown in Figure 2-22, Figure 2-23, Figure 2-24 and Figure 2-25 for years 1990, 2000 and 2013. 

The maps indicate that in most of the areas in the 3-state region sulfate wet deposition 

decreased between 1990 and 2013. At some areas, sulfate deposition reduced up to 60% over 

the twenty year period, while some areas such as in east Oklahoma, within Bureau of Indian 

Affairs related region, experienced increase in sulfate deposition of up to 20%. On average, 

across the region, sulfate wet deposition reduced by 32% over the 20 year period. Temporal 

and spatial trend of nitrate deposition resembles that of sulfate. Nitrate depositions went down 

as well over the same period although at a lower rate. Across the region, nitrate deposition 

decreased on average by 17% between 1990 and 2013. As seen in Table 2-19, ammonium 

showed an increasing trend over the 20 year period. Ammonium deposition increased across 
January 2016

45

the region, especially in Oklahoma and Kansas, with certain areas in OK experiencing increase in 

deposition by nearly 130%. For the entire 3-state area ammonium wet deposition, on average, 

increased by 22% between 1990 and 2013. The decreasing trend in nitrate deposition partially 

compensated for the increase in ammonium deposition, resulting in a net increase in total 

nitrogen deposition of approximately 5% over the entire area. 

Table 2-19. Annual Wet Deposition Measured at NADP Sites in 2013

State Site ID County Wet Deposition (kg/ha-y)

SO4(1) NO3

(2) NH4(3) Inorg. N(4)

Kansas

KS07 Crawford 13.3 12.7 6.5 7.9

KS31 Riley 6.4 7.7 4.1 4.9

KS32 Scott 2.6 4.8 4.6 4.7

Oklahoma

OK29 Texas 2.7 4.2 3.5 3.7

OK17 McClain 10.2 9.9 4.5 5.7

OK00 Alfalfa 7.3 7.5 4.5 5.2

Texas

TX10 Colorado 8.7 5.0 1.5 2.3

TX03 Bee 7.4 6.2 4.0 4.5

TX04 Brewster 1.7 1.7 0.6 0.9

TX43 Randall 3.7 4.7 2.5 3.0

TX22 Culberson 3.8 4.1 1.5 2.1

TX56 Wise 6.7 6.6 2.9 3.8

TX21 Gregg 10.7 6.1 2.1 3.0

TX02 Bailey 3.1 3.5 2.1 2.4

TX16 Edwards 4.8 3.9 1.8 2.3

Notes: 

1 Sulfate as SO4

2 Nitrate as NO3

3 Ammonium as NH4 

4 Inorganic N – expressed as the molecular weight of N 

Figure 2-22. Sulfate ion wet deposition in 1990, 2000 and 2013 (NADP 2014)
January 2016

46

Figure 2-23. Nitrate ion wet deposition in 1990, 2000 and 2013 (NADP 2014)

Figure 2-24. Ammonium ion wet deposition in 1990, 2000 and 2013 (NADP 2014)
January 2016

47

Figure 2-25. Total inorganic nitrogen wet deposition in 1990, 2000 and 2013 (NADP, 2014) 

Figure 2-26, Figure 2-27, Figure 2-28 and Figure 2-29 show the maps of the estimates of dry

deposition and total (wet + dry) deposition fluxes for total sulfur and nitrogen in the 3-state 

area for years 2000 and 2013. The deposition estimates are developed by EPA using air 

concentration measurements from the CASTNET (EPA 2015),

5 wet deposition measurements 

from the NADP, and photochemical grid modelling. The maps can be used to characterize 

spatial and temporal trends in acid dry deposition and total deposition fluxes. Figures show that 

dry sulfur deposition in the region decreased between 2000 and 2013. Total sulfur deposition 

also decreased in most of the parts of the 3-state area. In limited areas which include east 

Oklahoma and southeast corner of Kansas total sulfur levels increased moderately, which is 

driven by the increase in wet sulfate deposition. Table 2-20 shows a breakdown of total sulfur

and nitrogen deposition to dry and wet component for selected CASNET monitoring sites. The 

data indicate that in Kansas and Oklahoma sites total deposition of both S and N is dominated 

by wet component, which represents the highest fraction of the total deposition, with dry 

deposition contribution varying between 16% and 20%. Relative contribution of dry deposition 

is higher in Texas, ranging from 20% to more than 50% in the northwest.

The pattern and trend in dry and total nitrogen deposition varies by region. There is no 

apparent systematic increase or decrease in dry N deposition in Kansas and Oklahoma between 

2000 and 2013. At the same time total N deposition in the two states increased consistently, 

driven by the increase in wet ammonia deposition. In most areas of Texas, especially south, dry 

and total nitrogen deposition decreased while the northwest of the state saw increase in dry 

and total deposition. As maps show, dry and total deposition fluxes of N in Texas have similar 

patterns as a result of a considerable contribution of dry fraction to the total deposition in the 

area. 

 5 EPA 2015, Clean Air Status and Trends Network, http://www2.epa.gov/castnet
January 2016

48

Figure 2-26. Sulfur dry deposition in 2000 and 2013 (EPA 2015)

Figure 2-27. Total (dry + wet) sulfur deposition in 2000 and 2013 (EPA 2015)
January 2016

49

Figure 2-28. Total nitrogen dry deposition in 2000 and 2013 (EPA 2015)

Figure 2-29. Total (dry+wet) nitrogen deposition in 2000 and 2013 (EPA 2015)
January 2016

50

Total annual deposition of sulfur and nitrogen is shown in Table 2-20 for selected Class I and 

Class II areas. Historical total deposition data indicate that deposition of both N and S 

decreased across all Class I sites. At Konza Prairie, KS, total S and N deposition decreased by 

27% and 16% respectively since 2002 (2002 being the first year for which total deposition data 

are reported). During the same period, total S and N deposition at Cherokee Nation site, OK, 

decreased by 12% and 5%, respectively. At TX sites the observed improvement was more 

significant. Since 2006, total S and N deposition decreased by 34% and 25% at Big Bend and by 

44% and 31% at Alabama Coushatta, respectively. At Palo Duro total deposition of S and N went 

down by 14% and 15% since 2009, the year with the earliest reported data. 

The 2013 total S and N deposition fluxes at the five sites are also compared to the critical loads 

estimated for those habitats. Table 2-21 shows that total S and N deposition fluxes measured 

and estimated at all sites are well below the CLs determined for those habitats, suggesting that 

no adverse effects are expected to their ecosystems as a result of acidic deposition in the areas. 

Table 2-20. Estimates of Total Annual Deposition Fluxes of Sulfur and Nitrogen in 2013 at 

Monitoring Sites at or near Class I and Sensitive Class II Areas

State Site

(County)

S Wet(1) 

(kg/ha)

S Dry(2)

(kg/ha)

S Total 

(kg/ha)

N Wet (1) 

(kg/ha)

N Dry(2)

(kg/ha)

N Total 

(kg/ha)

Kansas Konza Prairie 

(Riley) 2.13 0.472 2.602 4.913 1.135 6.048

Oklahoma Cherokee Nation

(Adair) 3.083 0.609 3.693 4.894 1.215 6.109

Texas

Big Bend NP

(Brewster) 1.24 0.637 1.877 3.005 1.421 4.426

AlabamaCoushatta

(Polk)

3.633 0.883 4.517 3.774 1.062 4.836

Palo Duro 

(Randall) 0.56 0.506 1.066 0.849 0.932 1.781

Notes: 

1 Wet deposition fluxes measured and reported at the monitoring stations in the National Acid Deposition Network 

measurements (NADP)

2 Dry deposition fluxes estimated by photochemical grid modelling using air concentrations measurements from the Clean Air 

Status and Trends Network (CASTNET), http://www2.epa.gov/castnet
January 2016

51

Table 2-21. Comparison of Total Annual Deposition Fluxes of Sulfur and Nitrogen near Class I 

and Class II Sites to Critical Loads 

State Site S Total 

(kg/ha) CLS (kg/ha)

Total S 

Flux 

Exceeds 

CLS?

N Total 

(kg/ha) CLN (kg/ha)

Total N 

Flux 

Exceeds 

CLN?

KS Konza Prairie 2.602 33.71 No 6.048 30.07 No

OK Cherokee Nation 3.693 31.11 No 6.109 17.5(1) No

TX

Big Bend NP 1.877 38.44 No 4.426 34.21 No

AlabamaCoushatta 4.517 41.13 No 4.836 12(1) No

Palo Duro 1.066 28.63 No 1.781 25.63 No

Notes: 

1 The lower of the calculated and empirical critical load of nitrogen 

2.2.2.3 Terrestrial Effect of Ozone

Figure 2-30 shows W126 values for 2012 (AMEC 2014) for the 3-state region at CASTNET 

monitoring locations. A similar map, Figure 2-31, was developed by EPA (2014) using ozone 

ambient concentrations observed at AQS monitoring locations. In this case W126 index was

determined using the 3-year average annual W126 concentrations in ppm-hrs averaged across 

the 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013 periods. The general pattern, the distribution and 

magnitude of W126 metric in the two figures are comparable. They show that W126 fairly, but 

not entirely correlate with the ozone 2009-2013 DVs shown in Figure 2-10. As expected, high 

W126 index is observed in areas with high ozone DVs, such as in and around urban centers 

including DFW nonattainment area, Tulsa and Oklahoma City. In addition, high cumulative 

exposures are observed in the north-west region of Texas, which is otherwise in attainment 

with secondary ozone standard. The 20.4 ppm-hr levels measured in north-west KS (Konza 

Prairie CASTNET site) and 18.4 ppm-hr measured in north-west TX (Palo Duro site) exceed the 

level of protection of 13 ppm-hr to 17 ppm-hr that will be promulgated with the new ozone 

standard. The cumulative exposure observed in the west region of Oklahoma (Cherokee Nation) 

at 17 ppm-hr is at the upper end of the proposed protective range. 
January 2016

52

Figure 2-30. Map of W126 values in ppm-hour for 2012 at CASTNET locations (AMEC, 2014, 

adjusted)

Figure 2-31. Map of 3-year average W126 values in ppm-hour, averaged across 2009-2011, 

2010-2012, and 2011-2013 periods (EPA 2014)
January 2016

53

3.0 REFERENCES

AMEC, 2014. Clean Air Status Trends Network (CASTNET): 2012 Annual Report. AMEC 

Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

April.

BLM, 2015. Air Resources Technical Report of Oil and Gas Development: New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas. Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico State Office, 

July.

EPA, 2014. Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Ground-Level Ozone. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA452/P-14-006, November.

EPA, 2015. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. Final Rule. 40 CFR Parts 50, 51, 

52, 53 and 58. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699; FRL-9913-18-OAR. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, October.

NADP, National Atmospheric Deposition Program, at http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/NADP/. 

accessed July 1, 2015.

NPS, 2011. Federal Land Managers’ Interagency Guidance for Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition: 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRSS/ARD/NRR—2011/ 465. National Park Service, US 

Department of the Interior, November 2011.

January 2016

APPENDIX A

Ambient Monitoring Trends in Selected Class I and Class II Areas 

in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas
January 2016

A-1

Appendix A. Ambient Monitoring Trends in Selected Class I and Class II Areas in 

Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas

AIR QUALITY TRENDS IN CLASS I AREAS

OZONE

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppm)

Ozone Air Quality 1994-2013

Wichita Mountains - Comanche County, OK

(Annual 4th Maximum of Daily Max 8-hr Average)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppm)

Ozone Air Quality 1991-2013

Big Bend NP - Brewster County, TX

(Annual 4th Maximum of Daily Max 8-hr Average)

National Standard
January 2016

A-2

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

1990 1991 1992 1993

Concentration (ppm)

Ozone Air Quality 1990-1993

Guadalupe Mountains NP- Culberson County, TX

(Annual 4th Maximumof Daily Max 8-hr Average)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppm)

Ozone Air Quality 1998-2013

Carlsbad-Artesia near Guadalupe NP - Eddy County, NM

(Annual 4th Maximum of Daily Max 8-hr Average)
January 2016

A-3

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppm)

Ozone Air Quality 2000-2013

Cedar Bluff State Park - Trego County, KS

(Annual 4th Maximum of Daily Max 8-hr Average)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppm)

Ozone Air Quality 1998-2013

Linn County/Marais des Cygnes WLR, KS

(Annual 4th Maximum of Daily Max 8-hr Average)
January 2016

A-4

SULFUR DIOXIDE

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

Concentration (ppb)

SO2 Air Quality 1988-1991

Wichita Mountains - Comanche County, OK

(Annual 99th Percentile of Daily Max 1-Hour Average)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Concentration (ppb)

SO2 Air Quality 1999-2000

Big Bend NP - Brewster County, TX

(Annual 99th Percentile of Daily Max 1-Hour Average)
January 2016

A-5

NITROGEN DIOXIDE

Table A-1. Historic Levels of NO2 in Class I Areas with Limited Monitoring Data(1)

State Class I Area County Monitoring 

Year

98th percentile of 1-

hour average 

concentrations

(ppb)

Meets 

NAAQS?

Texas Big Bend NP Brewster 1999 1 Yes

Notes: Includes sites with 1-year measurements, with insufficient data to present air quality trend . 

There is no monitored NO2 data and/or sufficient monitored data in Guadalupe NP to calculate 98% percentile. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Concentration (ppb)

NO2 Air Quality 1992-1998

Wichita Mountains - Comanche County, OK

(Annual 98th Percentile of Daily Max 1-Hour Average)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Concentration (ppb)

NO2 Air Quality 1998-2013

Carlsbad-Artesia near Guadalupe NP - Eddy County, NM

(Annual 98th Percentile of Daily Max 1-Hour Average)

National Standard
January 2016

A-6

PARTICULATE MATTER PM2.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Concentration (

μ/m3)

PM2.5 Air Quality 1999-2013

Near Wichita Mountains - Comanche County, OK

(98th Percentile of 24-Hour Average )

0

5

10

15

20

25

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Concentration (

μ/m3)

PM2.5 Air Quality 1999-2013

Near Wichita Mountains - Comanche County, OK

(Seasonally-Weighted Annual Average )
January 2016

A-7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Concentration (

μ/m3)

PM2.5 Air Quality 2001-2008

Big Bend NP - Brewster County, TX

(98th Percentile of 24-Hour Average )

0

5

10

15

20

25

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Concentration (

μ/m3)

PM2.5 Air Quality 2001-2008

Big Bend NP - Brewster County, TX

(Seasonally-Weighted Annual Average)
January 2016

A-8

PARTICULATE MATTER PM10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Concentration (ppb)

PM10 Air Quality 1989-1998

Comanche County/Wichita Mountains, OK

(Annual 2nd Maximum 24-Hour Average)
January 2016

A-9

AIR QUALITY TRENDS IN SELECTED CLASS II AREAS

OZONE

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Concentration (ppm)

Ozone Air Quality 2011-2013

Konza Prairie Biological St. - Riely County, KS

(Annual 4th Maximumof Daily Max 8-hr Average)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppm)

Ozone Air Quality 2002-2013

Cherokee Nation - Adair County, OK

(Annual 4th Maximum of Daily Max 8-hr Average)
January 2016

A-10

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppm)

Ozone Air Quality 2003-2013

NEWKIRK IMPROVE - Kay County, OK

(Annual 4th Maximum of Daily Max 8-hr Average)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Concentration (ppm)

Ozone Air Quality 2011-2013

Alabama-Coushatta - Polk County, TX

(Annual 4th Maximumof Daily Max 8-hr Average)

National Standard
January 2016

A-11

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Concentration (ppm)

Ozone Air Quality 2011-2013

Palo Duro Canyon State Park - Randall County, TX

(Annual 4th Maximumof Daily Max 8-hr Average)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppm)

Ozone Air Quality 1990-2013

Corpus Christi West near Padre Island - Nueces County, TX

(Annual 4th Maximum of Daily Max 8-hr Average)
January 2016

A-12

SULFUR DIOXIDE

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppb)

SO2 Air Quality 2002-2013

Cedar Bluff - Trego County, KS

(Annual 99th Percentile of Daily Max 1-Hour Average)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppb)

SO2 Air Quality 2002-2013

Cedar Bluff - Trego County, KS

(Annual 99th Percentile of Daily Max 1-Hour Average)

National Standard
January 2016

A-13

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppb)

SO2 Air Quality 1997-2013

Mine Creek near Marais des Cygnes WLR - Linn County, KS

(Annual 99th Percentile of Daily Max 1-Hour Average)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppb)

SO2 Air Quality 1998-2013

Linn County/Marais des Cygnes WLR, KS

(Annual 99th Percentile of Daily Max 1-Hour Average)

National Standard
January 2016

A-14

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppb)

SO2 Air Quality 2004-2017

NEWKIRK IMPROVE/Tallgrass Prairie Pres. - Kay County, OK

(Annual 99th Percentile of Daily Max 1-Hour Average)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppb)

SO2 Air Quality 2004-2012

Oklahome City North - Oklahoma County, OK

(Annual 99th Percentile of Daily Max 1-Hour Average)

National Standard

National Standard
January 2016

A-15

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppb)

SO2 Air Quality 1990-2012

Corpus Christi West near Padre Island - Nueces County, TX

(Annual 99th Percentile of Daily Max 1-Hour Average)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2006 2008 2010 2012

Concentration (ppb)

SO2 Air Quality 2008-2010

San Antonio Missions NHP - Bexar County, TX

(Annual 99th Percentile of Daily Max 1-Hour Average)
January 2016

A-16

NITROGEN DIOXIDE

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Concentration (ppb)

NO2 Air Quality 1999-2012

Mini Creek near Marais des Cygnes WLR - Linn County, KS

(Annual 98th Percentile of Daily Max 1-Hour Average)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppb)

NO2 Air Quality 1998-2013

Linn County/Marais des Cygnes WLR, KS

(Annual 98th Percentile of Daily Max 1-Hour Average)
January 2016

A-17

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2008 2010 2012 2014

Concentration (ppb)

NO2 Air Quality 2010-2013

Cherokee Nation near Fort Smith NHS - Sequoyah County, OK

(Annual 98th Percentile of Daily Max 1-Hour Average)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Concentration (ppb)

NO2 Air Quality 2001-2003

Ponca City near Tallgrass Prairie Pres. - Kay County, OK

(Annual 98th Percentile of Daily Max 1-Hour Average)
January 2016

A-18

PARTICULATE MATTER PM2.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppb)

NO2 Air Quality 1991-2013

Oklahoma City Central - Oklahoma County, OK

(Annual 98th Percentile of Daily Max 1-Hour Average)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Concentration (

μ/m3)

PM2.5 Air Quality 2008-2010

Cherokee Nation - Adair County, KS

(98th Percentile of 24-Hour Average )

National Standard
January 2016

A-19

0

5

10

15

20

25

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Concentration (

μ/m3)

PM2.5 Air Quality 2008-2010

Cherokee Nation - Adair County, KS

(Seasonally-Weighted Annual Average)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (

μ/m3)

PM2.5 Air Quality 1999-2013

Linn County/Marais des Cygnes WLR, KS

(98th Percentile of 24-Hour Average )
January 2016

A-20

0

5

10

15

20

25

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (

μ/m3)

PM2.5 Air Quality 1999-2013

Linn County/Marais des Cygnes WLR, KS

(Seasonally-Weighted Annual Average)

0

5

10

15

20

25

2002 2004 2006 2008

Concentration (

μ/m3)

PM2.5 Air Quality 2003-2007

NEWKIRK IMPROVE - Kay County, OK

(Seasonally-Weighted Annual Average)
January 2016

A-21

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Concentration (

μ/m3)

PM2.5 Air Quality 2000-2013

Oklahoma City Central Fire St. - Oklahoma County, OK

(98th Percentile of 24-Hour Average )

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Concentration (

μ/m3)

PM2.5 Air Quality 2000-2010

Amarillo near Palo Duro - Potter County, TX

(98th Percentile of 24-Hour Average )
January 2016

A-22

0

5

10

15

20

25

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Concentration (

μ/m3)

PM2.5 Air Quality 2001-2008

Amarillo near Palo Duro - Potter County, TX

(Seasonally-Weighted Annual Average)

0

5

10

15

20

25

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Concentration (

μ/m3)

PM2.5 Air Quality 2001-2008

San Antonio Missions NHP - Bexar County, TX

(Seasonally-Weighted Annual Average)
January 2016

A-23

PARTICULATE MATTER PM10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Concentration (ppb)

PM10 Air Quality 2008-2013

Cherokee Nation - Adair County, KS

(Annual 2nd Maximum 24-Hour Average)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Concentration (ppb)

PM10 Air Quality 2008-2014

Cherokee Nation - Adair County, KS

(Annual 2nd Maximum 24-Hour Average)
January 2016

A-24

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Concentration (ppb)

PM10 Air Quality 2003-2009

NEWKIRK IMPROVE - Kay County, OK

(Annual 2nd Maximum 24-Hour Average)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Concentration (ppb)

PM10 Air Quality 2004-2009

Cherokee Heights - Mayes County, OK

(Annual 2nd Maximum 24-Hour Average)
January 2016

A-25

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Concentration (ppb)

PM10 Air Quality 2003-2009

Near Bixhoma Lake - Tulsa County, OK

(Annual 2nd Maximum 24-Hour Average)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Concentration (ppb)

PM10 Air Quality 1995-2013

Oklahoma City Central Fire St. - Oklahoma County, OK

(Annual 2nd Maximum 24-Hour Average)
January 2016

A-26

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Concentration (ppb)

PM10 Air Quality 2004-2013

Karmak/Caddo Lake NWR - Harrison Counry, TX

(Annual 2nd Maximum 24-Hour Average)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Concentration (ppb)

PM10 Air Quality 2003-2013

Corpus Christi D. Park/Padre Island - Nueces County, TX

(Annual 2nd Maximum 24-Hour Average)
January 2016

A-27

CARBON MONOXIDE

0

5

10

15

20

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Concentration (ppm)

CO Air Quality 1992-2005

Wichita Mountains - Comanche County, OK

(Annual 2nd Maximum 8-Hour Average)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Concentration (ppm)

CO Air Quality 1992-2005

Wichita Mountains - Comanche County, OK

(Annual 2nd Maximum 1-Hour Average)
January 2016

A-28

0

5

10

15

20

1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014

Concentration (ppm)

CO Air Quality 1994-2013

Brownsville - Cameron County, OK

(Annual 2nd Maximum 8-Hour Average)

0

5

10

15

20

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Concentration (ppm)

CO Air Quality 1998-2006

Linn County/Marais des Cygnes WLR, KS

(Annual 2nd Maximum 8-Hour Average)
January 2016

A-29

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Concentration (ppm)

CO Air Quality 1998-2008

Linn County/Marais des Cygnes WLR, KS

(Annual 2nd Maximum 1-Hour Average)

0

5

10

15

20

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Concentration (ppm)

CO Air Quality 2004-2008

NEWKIRK IMPROVE - Kay County, KS

(Annual 2nd Maximum 8-Hour Average)
January 2016

A-30

0

5

10

15

20

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Concentration (ppm)

CO Air Quality 1999-2009

Kay County, KS

(Annual 2nd Maximum 8-Hour Average)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Concentration (ppm)

CO Air Quality 1999-2009

Kay County, KS

(Annual 2nd Maximum 1-Hour Average)
January 2016

A-31

0

5

10

15

20

2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Concentration (ppm)

CO Air Quality 2008-2013

STILWELL IMPROVE - Adair County, OK

(Annual 2nd Maximum 8-Hour Average)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Concentration (ppm)

CO Air Quality 2008-2013

STILWELL IMPROVE - Adair County, OK

(Annual 2nd Maximum 1-Hour Average)
January 2016

APPENDIX B

Annual Average Visibility Extinction at the Class I and Class II Areas –

Individual Pollutant Contribution

January 2016

B-1

Appendix B. Annual Average Visibility Extinction at the Class I and Class II Areas 

– Individual Pollutant Contribution

CLASS I AREAS
January 2016

B-2
January 2016

B-3
January 2016

B-4

CLASS II AREAS
January 2016

B-5
January 2016

B-6
January 2016

B-7
January 2016

B-8
January 2016

B-9

Appendix G 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Climate Change Report

GHG Emissions and Climate Change for the

BLM-BIA Regional Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement

for Kansas-Oklahoma-Texas

Final

Prepared for:

Bureau of Land Management

New Mexico State Office

301 Dinosaur Trail 

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508

and

Bureau of Land Management

National Operations Center

Division of Resource Services: OC-520

Denver Federal Center, Building 50

Denver, Colorado 80225

Prepared by:

Biljana Cosic and Krish Vijayaraghavan

Ramboll Environ US Corporation

773 San Marin Drive, Suite 2115

Novato, California 94998

www.ramboll-environ.com

P-415-899-0700

06-35864D

September 2016

i

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1

2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT...............................................................................................2

2.1 Overview..........................................................................................................................2

2.2 Global climate and emission trends................................................................................4

2.3 U.S. climate and emission trends....................................................................................8

2.4 Climate and emission trends in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas .....................................15

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...............................................................................22

3.1 Oil and gas and coal mining development on Federal and Indian mineral 

estate in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas .........................................................................22

3.2 Other GHG emissions....................................................................................................23

4.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................27
September 2016

ii

TABLES

Table 2-1 Global Warming Potential (100-year time horizon) of Selected 

Greenhouse Gases (source: EPA, 2016a) ................................................................4

Table 2-3 Average global concentrations of greenhouse gases in 1750 and 2011 

(source: IPCC, 2014). ...............................................................................................6

Table 2-4 U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for selected sectors in 2014 

(source: EPA, 2016a). ............................................................................................14

Table 2-5 Estimated oil and gas GHG emissions by mineral estate in Kansas, 

Oklahoma, and Texas in 2011 and 2015 ...............................................................20

Table 2-6 Greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas extraction and downstream 

processes in 2014 (source: EPA, 2014)..................................................................20

Table 2-7 Estimated coal mining GHG emissions by state and mineral designation in 

2011 and 2015.......................................................................................................21

Table 3-1 Total oil and gas GHG emissions from Federal and Indian mineral estate by 

state, projection 2020-2030..................................................................................22

Table 3-2 Total coal mining GHG emissions on Federal mineral estate, projection 

2020-2030 .............................................................................................................23

Table 3-3 Projected oil and gas GHG emissions by state during 2020-2030..............................24

Table 3-4 Projected coal mining GHG emissions by state and mineral designation..................25

FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Multiple observed indicators of a changing global climate system: 

Observed changes in surface temperature (a) and (b); sea ice extent 

(c); sea levels (d); and precipitation (source: IPCC, 2014). .....................................5

Figure 2-2 Total annual global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by gases for 

the period 1970-2010 (source: IPCC, 2014). ...........................................................7

Figure 2-3 Global greenhouse gas emissions by economic sector in 2010 (source: 

IPCC, 2014). .............................................................................................................7

Figure 2-4 Observed annual average temperatures change rate in the U.S. since 

1901 (source: EPA, 2016b). .....................................................................................9

Figure 2-5 Observed annual average change in precipitation in the U.S. since 1901 

(source: EPA, 2016b). ............................................................................................10

Figure 2-6 Historical Trend in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas, 1990-2014 

(source: EPA, 2016a). ............................................................................................11
September 2016

iii

Figure 2-7 Historical Trend in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sector, 

1990-2014 (source: EPA, 2016a). ..........................................................................12

Figure 2-8 Historical Trend in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Energy Sector, 

1990-2014 (source: EPA, 2016a). ..........................................................................13

Figure 2-9 BLM-BIA Environmental Impact Statement for the Resource Management 

Plan (RMP) Planning Area (source: BLM and BIA, 2014).......................................16

Figure 2-10 Temperature and Precipitation Distribution in the Great Plains (source: 

Shafer et al., 2014). ...............................................................................................17

Figure 2-11 Historical temperatures on the 7 hottest days and 7 warmest nights in 

the Great Plains (source: Shafer et al., 2014). ......................................................17

Figure 2-12 Historical Amount Precipitation on the 7 Wettest Days of the Year in 

Great Plains (source: Shafer et al., 2014)..............................................................18

Figure 2-13 Historical trend in total GHG emissions in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, 

1990 - 2012 (source of data: WRI, 2016). .............................................................19

September 2016

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are tasked with 

managing a variety of resources and programs for the benefit of the public and Indian tribes. 

These operations require management plans that provide long-term direction and guidance, 

typically over 15 to 20 years. 

The BLM Oklahoma Field Office (OFO), in cooperation with the BIA Eastern Oklahoma and 

Southern Plains Regional Offices, is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to guide the management of BLM-administered 

public resources (BLM-administered surface lands and federal minerals) and restricted, trust, 

and tribal minerals and lands under the jurisdiction of the BIA within the states of Kansas,

Oklahoma, and Texas. The NEPA process will produce a Record of Decision (ROD) that will serve 

as the Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the ongoing and foreseeable operations of the 

BLM within the three-state area and two RODs for the two BIA regions. In particular, the BLM 

RMP under development will provide the framework for managing BLM-administered surface 

lands and subsurface minerals within the three-state region for the next 15 to 20 years

(http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/info/news_releases0/2015/october/bureau_of_land_manage

ment.html). While the planning area includes three states encompassing over 400,000 square 

miles and 436 counties, the actual decision area is only where federal or Indian interests exist.

Ramboll Environ, as sub-contractors to Environmental Management and Planning Solutions, Inc. 

(EMPSi), is conducting Task 8 (Air Quality Analysis/Green House Gases Overview) of the 

RMP/EIS by the BLM and BIA for the three-state planning area of Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. 

The purpose of this document is to report GHG emissions related to current and potential 

future development of Federal and Tribal mineral estate and provide an overview of climate 

change. In Section 2, we discuss the existing environment, climate change impacts to date and 

past and present greenhouse emissions at global, regional and local levels. Section 3 describes

the GHG emission projections associated with Federal and Tribal oil and gas development in the 

three-state planning area and other sources, and potential future climate change phenomena.
September 2016

2

2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

2.1 Overview

Climate change refers to any statistically significant (measurable) alteration of climate that can 

be identified by changes in the mean value or the variability of climatic elements (e.g.,

temperature, precipitation, wind patterns) and that persists for an extended period, typically 

decades or longer. 

Climate change represents any deviation from the average climate, whether warming or 

cooling; such change has been happening continuously since the formation of the Earth and its 

early atmosphere billions of years ago. Climate change can be caused by many factors, both 

natural and human. Variation in solar radiation, volcanic eruptions and tectonic movements are 

some of the natural factors that can contribute to climate change. Global warming observed 

since mid-20th century, however, is primarily due to human activities such as fossil fuel 

combustion, industrial processes and changes in land use (BLM, 2015a).

Climate change occurs as a result of the change in Earth’s overall energy balance, that is, the 

change in the balance between energy that Earth receives and radiates (emits) into space. 

Some gases in the atmosphere have the ability to differentially absorb and emit thermal 

radiation contributing (incrementally) to climate change. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as 

carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are efficient in absorbing short-wave radiation emitted 

by the Earth, effectively trapping the heat that would otherwise be lost into space. This “heat 

trapping” effect, also known as greenhouse effect, results in warming of the Earth and the 

atmosphere, or climate warming.

Following decades of extensive and focused research and growing body of evidence, the 

scientific community has reached a consensus that global warming is occurring. It is happening 

at an unprecedented rate and it is primarily driven by increasing greenhouse gas emissions 

associated with human activity. The findings presented in the most recent Fifth Assessment 

Report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014) indicate that:

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of 

greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had 

widespread impacts on human and natural systems.” .... “Warming of the climate system 

is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented 

over decades to millennia.”

The changes in climate observed include an increase in average temperatures, increase in warm 

temperature extremes, decrease in cold temperature extremes, and increase in the number of 

heavy precipitation events. While there are general projections regarding potential impacts of 

cumulative GHG emissions on climate change, environment and natural resources, these effects 

vary with geographical region and the magnitude of these changes cannot be predicted with 

great certainty (Karl et al., 2009). It is predicted that observed warming will be irreversible for 
September 2016

3

many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse 

gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere (AMS, 2012).

It is recognized that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming 

and that more recent changes in global climate are associated with an increase in greenhouse 

gases emissions since the beginning of Industrial Era (IPCC, 2014). 

Principal greenhouse gases include CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), fluorocarbons and other 

fluorinated gases. GHGs can be emitted naturally through biological processes such as

volcanoes and forest fires; however, it is human activity that has led to a sharp increase in GHG

emissions over the last century. Human activities are responsible for billions of tons of GHGs, 

primarily CO2 emitted into the atmosphere every year.

CO2 is one of the most abundant GHGs generated by burning of fossil fuels. It can be emitted 

from other anthropogenic sources (e.g., cement manufacturing) as well as natural sources such 

as decomposition of solid waste and fermentation. CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere, 

for example through natural sequestration by plants. Net emissions of CO2 are therefore 

dependent on the balance between CO2 source and sinks. Any activity that affects natural 

sequestration and reduces natural sinks of CO2, such as change in land use and deforestation, 

will result in an increase in net CO2 emissions. 

CH4 is produced through anaerobic decomposition of organic matter and as such is a common 

by-product of fossil fuel extraction and processing, primarily the oil and gas industry and coal 

mining. Methane also can be produced in landfills and wetlands, from agricultural activities or 

by incomplete fossil fuel combustion. 

N2O emissions are typically associated with agricultural activities, including cultivated soils and

fertilized or grazed grasslands although it also can be generated from fossil fuel combustion and 

biomass burning, in solid waste and wastewater treatment.

There are several groups of man-made synthetic GHGs such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) designed with special application for 

refrigeration, electrical transmission, and the metal and semiconductors industry. Although 

they are not emitted in large quantities they can be very potent greenhouse gases that can stay 

in the atmosphere for very long time. 

Most of the GHGs persist mostly in lower parts of the atmosphere and their climate-forcing 

potential depends on their ability to absorb heat efficiently, as well as their lifetime in the 

atmosphere. One of the metrics used to compare the potency of different GHGs is Global 

Warming Potential (GWP). GWP represents the relative measure of the climate-forcing ability 

of a gas relative to the same mass of CO2. Table 2-1 shows GWP for several greenhouse gases. 

The persistence of CO2 varies because of its ability to be removed by natural sequestration;

however, it is estimated to be in the range of hundreds of years (EPA, 2016a).
September 2016

4

Table 2-1 Global Warming Potential (100-year time horizon) of Selected Greenhouse Gases

(source: EPA, 2016a)

Greenhouse gas Lifetime 

(years)

IPCC Fourth Assessment 

Report (IPCC, 2007): AR4

IPCC Fifth Assessment 

Report (IPCC, 2014): AR5

Carbon Dioxide, CO2 Varies 1 1

Methane, CH4 12 25 28

Nitrous oxide, N2O 114 298 265

Select Hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs 1 - 270 124 – 14,800 138 – 12,400

Sulfur hexafluoride, SF6 3,200 22,800 23,500 * Effect of feedbacks not shown here.

Once emitted into the atmosphere, GHGs can sustain for a long period of time; they disperse, 

mix with air and can move great distances, contributing incrementally to the total GHG burden

causing global warming. Due to the global nature of climate change and the inherent 

complexity in the way GHGs, environment and climate interact with each other, it is not 

currently possible to link a specific local activity (and its incremental contributions to the global 

GHG burden) to specific environmental impacts at a given location.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has published final guidance for Federal 

Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of 

Climate Change in NEPA Reviews (CEQ, 2016). CEQ recommends the use of projected GHG 

emissions associated with proposed actions as a proxy for assessing the proposed action’s

potential effects on climate change in NEPA analysis. Accordingly, we discuss the GHG 

emissions estimated to be associated with current and projected future oil and gas 

developments and coal mining on BLM-administered and Indian lands in the three-state 

planning area as well as other sources in the area.

2.2 Global climate and emission trends

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are 

warming, sea level is rising, and Arctic sea ice, snow cover, and mountain glaciers are receding

(AMS, 2012; IPCC, 2014). Global mean surface temperatures have already increased by 1.5 

degrees F (0.85°C) from 1880 to 2012 (IPCC, 2014). Ocean surface temperatures have been 

rising at an average rate of 0.13°F (0.07°C) per decade and, since 1901, average sea level has 

increased by about 8 inches (20 cm). Late summer Arctic Ocean sea ice coverage has decreased 

by half since 1979, and glaciers have receded and lost significant mass since the 1970s. 

Figure 2-1 shows multiple observed indicators of a changing global climate system, including

temperature, precipitation, sea ice and sea level. The climate indicators are often expressed as

the difference between two long-term (30-year) average values from two different time 

periods. 

The Earth’s surface has been successively warmer in the past three decades comparing to any 

preceding decade since 1850. There is high certainty that the period from 1983 to 2012 was the 

warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years in the Northern Hemisphere, likely the warmest 

30-year period of the last 1400 years (IPCC, 2014).
September 2016

5

Historic data suggest that the change in precipitation over global land area has been happening 

since 1901 and with more certainty since 1951. The change in precipitation is not necessarily 

consistent like the change (increase) in temperature; precipitation increased in some regions 

while it decreased in others. The most statistically significant change in precipitation since 1901 

has been observed over the mid-latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere.

Figure 2-1 Multiple observed indicators of a changing global climate system: Observed 

changes in surface temperature (a) and (b); sea ice extent (c); sea levels (d); and precipitation

(source: IPCC, 2014).

Concentrations of naturally emitted GHGs in the atmosphere also varied with time. However, 

during the last century due to an increase in man-made emissions, concentrations of GHGs 

increased at a rate unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. From pre-industrial times 

until 2011, the global average concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O in the atmosphere have 

increased by around 40%, 150%, and 20%, respectively (IPCC, 2014). Table 2-1 shows the 

average global concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O in 1750 and in 2011. 
September 2016

6 

Table 2-2 Average global concentrations of greenhouse gases in 1750 and 2011 (source: IPCC, 

2014). 

Greenhouse gas 1750 

Concentration

2011 

Concentration

Increase 

1750 - 2011

Carbon Dioxide, CO2 278 ppm 390.5 ppm 40%

Methane, CH4 720 ppm 1803 ppb 150%

Nitrous oxide, N2O 270 ppb 324 ppb 20%

The World Resources Institute’s (WRI) Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) (WRI, 2016) 

provides data on GHG emissions from 186 countries and all 50 states of the U.S. In 2012, the 

total GHG emissions were 46,049 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMT CO2e). Since 1990 

total GHG emissions increased by 42% or at an average annual rate of 1.9%. Electricity 

generation, manufacturing/construction, and transportation account for approximately 32%, 

14%, and 13% of total global GHG emissions, respectively. 

Total annual anthropogenic GHG emissions have continued to increase over 1970 to 2010 

despite a growing number of climate change mitigation policies. Figure 2-2 shows the historic 

trend in global GHG emissions by gas. The data indicates that over the last decade (2010-2000),

annual GHG emissions grew at a higher annual rate, 2.2%, compared to the preceding three 

decades (1970 to 2000 ) when it increased at a rate of 1.3% per year. Estimated total 

(cumulative) anthropogenic GHG emissions from 2000 to 2010 were the highest in human 

history. 

It is estimated that 40% of the cumulative GHG emissions in the last two and a half centuries 

(1750-2011) have occurred in the last 40 years driven by a sharp increase in CO2 emissions from 

fossil fuel combustion, cement production and flaring (which have tripled since 1970) and CO2

emissions from forestry and other land use (which have increased by about 40% in the same 

period).

Over the last four decades the biggest contributors to global CO2 emissions have been fossil fuel 

combustion and industrial processes, which accounted for 78% of the total GHG emission. 

Figure 2-3 shows the contribution of different economic sectors to global GHG emissions. Since 

2000, GHG emissions have been increasing in all sectors except in agriculture, forestry and 

other land use (AFOLU). In 2010, electricity and heat production accounted for 25% of direct 

GHG emissions, AFOLU 24%, industry 21%, and transport 14%.
September 2016

7

Figure 2-2 Total annual global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by gases for the 

period 1970-2010 (source: IPCC, 2014).

Figure 2-3 Global greenhouse gas emissions by economic sector in 2010 (source: IPCC, 2014).
September 2016

8

2.3 U.S. climate and emission trends

Observations show that since 1895, U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3°F to 1.9°F;

most of this increase has occurred since about 1970. The most recent decade was the nation’s 

warmest decade on record. Since 1901, the average surface temperature in the contiguous U.S. 

has increased at an average rate of 0.14°F per decade (EPA, 2016b). Figure 2-4 shows the rate 

of temperature change in the U.S. since 1901. Most of the increase has occurred since about 

1970 or 0.29-0.46°F per decade since 1979. Eight of the top 10 warmest years for the 

contiguous 48 states have occurred since 1998, with 2012 and 2016 being the two warmest 

years on record. Although the warming trend is similar to the global rate, since 1970 the United 

States has warmed faster than the global rate. Some parts of the U.S. such as the North, the 

West, and Alaska have experienced higher rise in temperatures, while some parts of the 

Southeast have experienced little change. Note, however, that not all of these regional trends 

are statistically significant.
September 2016

9

Figure 2-4 Observed annual average temperatures change rate in the U.S. since 1901 (source: 

EPA, 2016b).

On average, total annual precipitation has increased over land areas in the United States and 

worldwide. Since 1901 global precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.08 inches per 

decade, while precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased at a rate of 0.17 inches 

per decade (EPA, 2016b). Some parts of the country experienced greater increases in 

precipitation than others. A few areas, such as Southwest, have seen a decrease in 

precipitation. Not all of these regional trends are statistically significant however. Figure 2-5

shows change in precipitation in the U.S. since 1901.
September 2016

10

Figure 2-5 Observed annual average change in precipitation in the U.S. since 1901 (source: 

EPA, 2016b).

The CAIT Tool (WRI, 2016) reports total U.S. GHG emissions of 5,420.7 million MMT CO2e in 

2012; this represented nearly 12% of the total world emissions. CAIT-US GHG data are derived 

by the World Resources Institute from the State Inventory Tool (SIT) of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA's) Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP).

A recent comprehensive GHG emission inventory prepared by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA, 2016a) for 2014 shows that total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,870 MMT 

CO2e in that year, which is a 1% increase relative to 2013. The short-term trend is attributed to 
September 2016

11

increased fuel use driven by different factors including changes in prevailing weather and 

increase in miles travelled by on-road vehicles. Since 1990 total U.S. GHG emissions have 

increased by 7.4%; this corresponds to an annual average rate of 0.3%. 

Historical trends and contributions by individual gases are presented in Figure 2-6. Carbon 

dioxide represents the principal GHG gas accounting for 80.9% of the total emissions in 2014,

followed by CH4 at 10.6% and N2O at 5.9% (EPA, 2016a). Historical trend in the U.S. GHG 

emissions by economic sector is presented in Figure 2-7. Electricity generation, transportation 

and industry are the largest sources accounting for 30% (2,080.7 MMT CO2e), 26% (1,810.3 

MMT CO2e) and 21% (1,461.7 MMT CO2e), respectively, to the total GHG emissions in 2014. 

The contribution from the energy sector in 2014, presented in Figure 2-8, was nearly 84% 

(5,746.2 MMT CO2e) of the total U.S. emissions. The energy sector includes fossil fuel 

combustion, no-energy use of fuels, natural gas systems, petroleum systems, coal mining and 

waste incineration.

Figure 2-6 Historical Trend in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas, 1990-2014 (source: EPA, 

2016a).
September 2016

12

Figure 2-7 Historical Trend in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sector, 1990-2014

(source: EPA, 2016a).
September 2016

13

Figure 2-8 Historical Trend in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Energy Sector, 1990-2014

(source: EPA, 2016a).

The EPA national GHG inventory (EPA, 2016a) reports GHG emissions associated with different 

stages of oil and gas development and mining, as presented in Table 2-3. “Natural Gas Systems” 

and “Petroleum Systems” sectors refer to field production, processing, refining and 

distribution. Note that the BLM has jurisdiction over oil and gas exploration and production 

activities on Federal and Indian mineral estate (BLM, 2015a). The jurisdiction, however, does 

not extend to the processing, refining, distribution or use of the produced oil or gas.

Methane and carbon dioxide emissions are principal gases associated with oil and gas 

production. During exploration and development, natural gas may be flared or vented from 

conventional, coal bed methane, and shale wells. The development stage may include 

installation of pipelines and facilities for gas processing, collection and distribution. CH4, the 

main component of natural gas, can be released via controlled venting or through unintentional 

leaks during well development, production and transmissions. CO2 can be inherently present in 

natural gas or it can be used in the production process to enhance oil recovery (EOR), in which 

case it is released through venting or leaks. In the field production stage CO2 emissions, 

however, are most commonly associated with controlled flaring and fossil fuel combustion used 

to power equipment used in drilling, pumping, compression and transportation.
September 2016

14

Table 2-3 U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for selected sectors in 2014 (source: 

EPA, 2016a).

Sector Subsector

2014 GHGEmissions (MMTCO2e) % of U.S.

Total

GHGs CO2 CH4 N2O

Total

GHGs

Natural Gas

Systems

Field production 18.6 109 a 127.6 1.86%

Processing 23.7 24 a 47.7 0.69%

Transmission and storage a 32.1 a 32.1 0.47%

Distribution a 11.1 a 11.1 0.16%

Total 42.4 176.1 a 218.5 3.18%

Petroleum

Systems

Production field operations 0.6 67.4 a 68 0.99%

Crude oil

b 0.2 a 0.2 0.00%

Crude refining 2.9 0.6 a 3.5 0.05%

Total 3.6 68.1 a 71.7 1.04%

Coal Mining - - a 67.6 a 67.6 0.98%

Fossil Fuel

Combustion

Electricity generation 2,039.30 0.4 19.6 2,059.40 29.97%

Transportation 1,737.60 2 16.3 1,756.0 25.56%

Industrial 813.3 1.5 2.4 817.2 11.89%

Residential 345.1 5 1 351.1 5.11%

Commercial 231.9 1.1 0.3 233.3 3.40%

Total 5167.2 10 39.6 5217 75.93%

U.S. Total 5,556.00 730.8 403.5 6,870.5c 100%

a

Indicates values less than 0.1 Tg CO2e

b

Indicates values that do not exceed 0.05 Tg CO2e c

Indicates that the total U.S. GHG emissions value includes U.S. emissions of three additional minor classes of

GHGs not presented in the table

The GHG inventory (EPA, 2016a) reports that the total U.S. methane emissions from Natural 

Gas Systems were 176.1 MMT CO2e, which makes the sector the largest anthropogenic source 

category for methane emissions in the United States. CH4 emissions decreased by 30.6 MMT

CO2e (14.8%) between 1990 and 2014, largely due to decrease in production and distribution 
September 2016

15

emissions. The decrease in production emissions is attributed to several factors including 

implementation of new regulations for completions and voluntary reductions as well as the use 

of plunger lifts for liquids unloading. Decrease in distribution emissions is largely due to 

increased use of plastic pipelines in place of unprotected steel and cast iron pipelines. Since 

1990 total CO2 from Natural Gas Systems emissions increased by 12% due to an increase in 

flaring; over the same period the volume of gas flared increased by 93%. In 2014 GHG emissions 

from this entire sector accounted for 3.2% of the total U.S. emissions.

For petroleum systems, methane emissions increased by about 76% between 1990 and 2014, 

primarily due to increased emissions from production field operations which accounted for 

approximately 99% of total CH4 emissions from Petroleum Systems sector (EPA, 2016a). In 

2014, with annual CH4 emissions at 68.1 MMT CO2e, Petroleum Systems operations represent 

the fourth highest anthropogenic source of CH4 emissions in the United States (9.3% of total 

CH4 emissions). The CO2 emissions from the same processes, however, remained at the same 

level as in 1990 (EPA, 2016a). Total emissions from Petroleum Systems represent about 1% of 

the total U.S. GHG emissions. At 290.2 MMT CO2e, the oil and gas sector represented 4.2% of 

the total U.S. GHG emissions in 2014 (EPA, 2016a).

Coal mining operations can be a significant source of methane which can be liberated during 

and after mining operations. While surface mines account for the majority of U.S. coal 

production, underground coal mines can produce greater levels of methane due to the higher 

CH4 content of coal in the deeper underground coal seams. In 2014, 345 underground coal 

mines and 613 surface mines were operating in the U.S. Total methane emissions in 2014 were 

estimated to be 67.6 MMT CO2e which represents a 30% decline since 1990. In 2014 coal 

mining methane emission accounted for 9.3% of the total methane emissions in U.S. and less 

than 1% of the total GHG emissions. Of this amount underground mines accounted for 

approximately 73%, surface mines for 14% and post-mining emissions for 13% (EPA, 2016a).

2.4 Climate and emission trends in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas

Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas encompass a large geographic area (Figure 2-9), with regionally 

diverse topography and climate. The region is characterized by relatively flat plains in the east 

that gradually increase in elevation to the west, the Great Plains region, with the highest point 

at an altitude of more than 8,700 feet in west Texas. The area features rangelands spread 

throughout the Plains, lush vegetation in east Texas and Oklahoma, marshes along Texas’ Gulf 

Coast, and a desert at the far west of Texas. The region is rich with energy sources including oil, 

natural gas and coal with growing renewable energy industry, primarily wind and biofuel. Texas 

alone accounts for roughly 16% of the produced energy in the U.S. primarily from crude oil and 

natural gas (Melillo et al., 2014).
September 2016

16

Figure 2-9 BLM-BIA Environmental Impact Statement for the Resource Management Plan 

(RMP) Planning Area (source: BLM and BIA, 2014)

Annual average temperatures in the region increase north to south, ranging from about 50°F in 

north Kansas to more than 70°F in south Texas. Annual average precipitation increases west to 

east, from less than 15 inches a year in west Texas to more than 50 inches in eastern Texas. 

Much of the geographic area experiences droughts due to a deficit in precipitation relative to 

the total demand for water by humans, plants and animals. The region is already susceptible to 

extreme weather including droughts, severe thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, floodproducing rainfall, and winter storms. The Texas Gulf Coast experiences about three tropical 

storms or hurricanes every four years generating coastal storm surge and sometimes bringing 

heavy rainfall and damaging winds hundreds of miles inland. The extreme weather patterns 

represent challenges and stresses that communities already face in the existing environment. A

comprehensive report on the climate change impacts in the United States by the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014; Shafer et al., 2014) identifies a range of 

potential region-specific climate change impacts in the United States. One of the regions 

addressed in the report is the Great Plains. Figure 2-10 through Figure 2-12 show current 

meteorological normals in the Great Plains, including spatial distribution of temperature and 

precipitation, frequency of the seven hottest days and seven warmest nights and precipitation 

amount on seven wettest days.
September 2016

17

Figure 2-10 Temperature and Precipitation Distribution in the Great Plains (source: Shafer et 

al., 2014).

Figure 2-11 Historical temperatures on the 7 hottest days and 7 warmest nights in the Great 

Plains (source: Shafer et al., 2014).
September 2016

18

Figure 2-12 Historical Amount Precipitation on the 7 Wettest Days of the Year in Great Plains

(source: Shafer et al., 2014).

According to the WRI CAIT GHG inventory for 2012 (WRI, 2016) statewide GHG emissions in 

Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas were 102.1 MMT CO2e, 139.4 MMT CO2e, and 804.8 MMT CO2e,

respectively; these account for 1.6%, 2.2% and 12.5%, respectively, of the total U.S. GHG 

emissions. Between 1990 and 2012 total GHG emissions increased in Kansas by 4.1%, in 

Oklahoma by 18.1%, and in Texas by 14.9%. Electricity generation, transportation and industry 

have been the primary contributors to the GHG emissions in the three states. In 2012 these 

sectors accounted for approximately the following fractions: 

• Kansas: electricity 30%, transportation 18% and industry 14%

• Oklahoma: electricity 34%, transportation 23% and industry 16%

• Texas: electricity 28%, transportation 25% and industry 30%

Figure 2-13 shows historical trend in total GHG emissions in the three states between 1990 and 

2012 (WRI, 2016).
September 2016

19

Figure 2-13 Historical trend in total GHG emissions in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, 1990 - 

2012 (source of data: WRI, 2016). 

For the oil and gas sector, Ramboll Environ developed GHG emissions for upstream and 

midstream sources including well sites, compressor stations, gas plants and off-road 

equipment. Table 4-1 shows current emissions by state and designation (Grant et al., 2016a, b). 

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission inventories typically include CO2, CH4, N2O, and 

fluorinated gases. Fluorinated gases are not expected to be emitted in appreciable quantities by 

any category considered in this emission inventory and were therefore not included in this 

analysis.

Table 2-5 shows total oil and gas GHG emissions for each state by mineral estate in 2011 and 

2015. In Kansas, there are no emissions from Indian mineral estate and less than 1% of the 

emissions are from Federal mineral estate. In Oklahoma, more than 96% of emissions are from 

private/state fee mineral estate, with contributions of 2% or less from Osage Indian mineral 

estate, 1.5% or less from other Indian mineral estimate, and 1% or less from Federal mineral 

estate. In Texas, close to 100% of emissions are from private/state fee land with very small 

contributions from Federal and Indian mineral estate. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

199019921994199619982000200220042006200820102012

GHG Emissions, MMT CO2e/year

Total GHG Emissions by State, 1990 - 2012

Kansas Oklahoma Texas
September 2016

20

Table 2-4 Estimated oil and gas GHG emissions by mineral estate in Kansas, Oklahoma, and 

Texas in 2011 and 2015

Mineral Designation

CO2e

(million metric tonnes/year)

2011 2015

Kansas

Federal 0.2 0.3

State and Private 29.8 35.9

Indian - -

Totals State-wide 30.0 36.2

Oklahoma

Federal 0.2 0.3 

State and Private 44.3 49.2 

Osage Indian 0.8 1.0 

Other Indian 0.6 0.7 

Totals State-wide 46.0 51.2 

Texas

Federal 0.2 0.2

State and Private 63.0 72.2

Indian 0.0 0.0

Totals State-wide 63.2 72.3

GHG emissions for downstream sources such as oil refineries can be obtained from the 

Greenhouse Gas Facility Level Information on Greenhouse Gases Tool (FLIGHT) (EPA, 2014). The

database supports the mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) which requires 

all facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons of more per year to submit annual reports to EPA.

Table 2-6 shows reported GHG emissions for petroleum refineries in 2014. Texas accounts for 

30.5% of total U.S. refining emissions, Oklahoma 2.6% and Kansas 1.8%. Total reported U.S. 

emissions from oil refineries were 191 MMT CO2e. They represent about 6% of the total 

reported U.S. emissions (3,163.6 MMT CO2e) (EPA, 2014).

Table 2-5 Greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas extraction and downstream processes in 

2014 (source: EPA, 2014).

Oil and Gas Activity Kansas Oklahoma Texas U.S. total

Refineries

Number of reporting facilities 3 5 28 135

GHG Emissions, CO2e MMT/year 3.4 5.0 58 191

% of U.S. total reporting Refineries 1.8 2.6 30.5 100

There are approximately 20 coal mines in the Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas planning area; there 

is one underground mine in Oklahoma and all remaining mines are surface mines. There are 

currently two mines on federal mineral estate that are operating (Bull Hill and Polyanna #8) in 

Oklahoma with a potential for four additional mines on federal land, all in Oklahoma. There are 

no mines on federal mineral estate in Kansas and Texas.
September 2016

21

GHG emissions for coal mining sectors were estimated for methane venting and off-road 

equipment associated with mining activities (Grant et al., 2016). Table 2-7 shows mining 

emissions in 2011 and 2015 by state and mineral designation. State-level contributions to 

methane emissions are generally indicative of coal mining activity by state. In 2015 it is 

estimated that 70% of methane mining emissions are from Texas (all private mineral estate), 

30% are from Oklahoma (where 88% of the state emissions are from mines on Federal estate), 

and less than 1% from Kansas (all from private estate). While Oklahoma represents less than 3% 

of the mining activity across the three states it is the only state with an underground mine, 

hence has a larger contribution to methane emissions.

Table 2-6 Estimated coal mining GHG emissions by state and mineral designation in 2011 and 

2015

Mineral 

Estate Year CO2(tons/year)

CH4

(tons/year)

N2O

(tons/year)

CO2e 

(thousand 

metric 

tonnes/year)

Kansas

Federal no emissions

Private

2011 354 49 0.01 1.4

2015 317 44 0.01 1.3

Oklahoma

Federal

2011 1,904 6,487 0.05 149

2015 1,994 6,514 0.05 150

Private

2011 5,085 1,010 0.13 27.6

2015 4,565 906 0.12 24.7

Texas

Federal no emissions

Private

2011 435,718 19,217 11.04 834

2015 391,147 17,248 9.91 749

In 2015, total methane mining emissions in the three-state planning area are estimated to be 

about 560 thousand tonnes CO2e; this represents less than 1% of the total U.S. mining 

emissions in 2014 (EPA, 2016).
September 2016

22

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 Oil and gas and coal mining development on Federal and Indian mineral 

estate in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas

As part of this RMP/EIS study, Ramboll Environ estimated annual emissions of greenhouse 

gases for future years 2020, 2025 and 2030 for the oil and gas and coal mining sectors for the 

states of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Detailed information on the methodology and results 

may be found in Grant et al. (2016a, b).

For oil and gas sector, emissions were developed for upstream and midstream sources 

including well sites, compressor stations, gas plants and off-road equipment (Grant et al., 

2016a, b). Emission for future years were derived by scaling 2011 emissions accounting for both 

forecasted changes in oil and gas production and emission control program effects. For Federal 

and Indian mineral estate, BLM Reasonable Foreseeable Development (RFD) oil and gas 

forecasts (derived by BLM from EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2014 data) were assumed uniformly 

across all three states.

Table 3-1 shows total projected oil and gas GHG emissions by state from Federal and Indian 

mineral estate (Grant et al., 2016a, b). In Kansas, there are no emissions from Indian mineral 

estate. In Oklahoma, in 2030, emissions from Osage Indian estate are expected to account for 

48%, other Indian 36% and Federal 16% of total emissions from Federal and Indian oil and gas 

development. In Texas, the contribution from Federal and Indian mineral estate is negligible

compared to State and Private estate.

Table 3-1 Total oil and gas GHG emissions from Federal and Indian mineral estate by state, 

projection 2020-2030

Mineral Designation

CO2e

(million metric tonnes/year)

2020 2025 2030

Kansas Kansas

Federal 0.3 0.3 0.3

Indian - - -

Total 0.3 0.3 0.3

Oklahoma Oklahoma

Federal 0.3 0.3 0.4 

Osage Indian 1.1 1.2 1.2 

Other Indian 0.8 0.9 0.9 

Total 2.2 2.4 2.5

Texas Texas

Federal 0.2 0.2 0.2

Indian 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 0.2 0.2 0.2

GHG emissions for coal mining sectors were estimated for methane venting and off-road 

equipment associated with mining activities (Grant et al., 2016a, b). Future year coal mining 

activity for mines on federal mineral estate was estimated based on information provided by 
September 2016

23

BLM staff (BLM, 2015b). There are no mines on federal mineral estate in Kansas and Texas. All 

mining activities on Federal lands will be in Oklahoma. Projections consider development and 

operation of Liberty surface mine and McCurtain and Red Bank underground mines. Table 3-2

shows total projected coal mining GHG emissions from Federal mineral estate in Oklahoma. 

There are no coal mines on Indian mineral estate in any of the three states. 

Table 3-2 Total coal mining GHG emissions on Federal mineral estate, projection 2020-2030

Mineral 

Estate Year CO2(tons/year)

CH4

(tons/year)

N2O 

(tons/year)

CO2e 

(thousand 

metric 

tonnes/year)

Oklahoma

Federal

2020 4,273 11,633 0.11 268

2025 4,274 12,884 0.11 296

2030 2,279 12,289 0.06 281

3.2 Other GHG emissions 

Ramboll Environ estimated state-level oil and gas emissions in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas for 

non-Federal and non-Indian sources for future years 2020, 2025 and 2030 by accounting for 

both forecasted changes in oil and gas production and emission control program effects (Grant 

et al., 2016a, b). Table 3-3 shows total estimated GHG emissions associated with developments 

on private/state fee mineral estate in these future years. Projected emissions from Federal and 

Indian estate are repeated here for comparison. Emissions from private/state fee mineral 

estate constitute over 99.3% of total projected oil and gas GHG emissions in Kansas and over 

99.7% in Texas. In Oklahoma, more than 96% of oil and gas GHG emissions are from private and 

state fee mineral estate. 
September 2016

24

Table 3-3 Projected oil and gas GHG emissions by state during 2020-2030. 

Mineral 

Designation

CO2e

(million metric tonnes/year)

2020 2025 2030

Kansas

State and Private 40.3 41.9 43.4

Federal 0.3 0.3 0.3

Indian - - -

Totals State-wide 40.6 42.2 43.7

Oklahoma

State and Private 57.4 62.0 66.2 

Federal 0.3 0.3 0.4 

Osage Indian 1.1 1.2 1.2 

Other Indian 0.8 0.9 0.9 

Totals State-wide 59.7 64.4 68.6 

Texas

State and Private 81.9 86.4 90.0

Federal 0.2 0.2 0.2

Indian - - -

Totals State-wide 82.2 86.6 90.2

State-level emissions for coal mining sectors were estimated for methane venting and off-road 

equipment (Grant et al., 2016a, b). Future year coal mining activity for mines on federal mineral 

estate was estimated based on (1) information provided by BLM staff (BLM, 2015b), for mines 

on federal mineral estate and (2) U.S. Energy Information Administration nationwide future 

coal mining activity forecasts based on the analysis of EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan (EIA, 

2015); base case policy forecasts were assumed. 

Table 3-4 shows total mining emissions for each state by mineral estate and emissions

associated with future coal mining developments on private/state fee mineral estate. Projected 

emissions from Federal estate are also shown for comparison. There are no mines on federal 

mineral estate in Kansas and Texas or on Indian mineral estate in any of the three states. All 

mining activities on Federal land in the three state area will be in Oklahoma. In 2030, 96% of 

the state mine GHG emissions in Oklahoma will originate from mines on Federal lands.
September 2016

25

Table 3-4 Projected coal mining GHG emissions by state and mineral designation.

Mineral 

Estate Year CO2(tons/year)

CH4

(tons/year)

N2O

(tons/year)

CO2e 

(thousand 

metric 

tonnes/year)

Kansas

Federal no emissions

Private

2020 275 38 0.01 1.1

2025 244 33 0.01 1.0

2030 260 36 0.01 1.1

Oklahoma

Federal

2020 4,273 11,633 0.11 268

2025 4,274 12,884 0.11 296

2030 2,279 12,289 0.06 281

Private

2020 3,961 786 0.1 21.4

2025 3,509 696 0.09 19.0

2030 3,742 742 0.09 20.2

Texas

Federal no emissions

Private

2020 339,338 14,959 8.6 649

2025 300,632 13,250 7.61 575

2030 320,616 14,131 8.12 614

Indirect GHG emissions will result from the combustion and other use of oil and natural gas 

produced on Federal and Indian mineral estate in the three state planning area. Likewise, 

indirect GHG emissions will also result from the combustion of coal mined on Federal mineral 

estate in the three state area. We note that the final combustion or other energy use of local 

coal or oil and gas may not necessarily happen in the three-state area. The Federal and Indian

emissions are a relatively small fraction of total U.S. GHG emissions. For comparison, U.S. GHG 

emissions due to coal combustion in the energy sector are predicted to decrease by 6% from 

1,819 Tg CO2e in 2011 to 1,715 Tg CO2e in 2020 (U.S. Climate Action Report, 2014). U.S. GHG 

emissions due to petroleum and natural gas use in the energy sector are predicted to increase 

by 2% from 3,410 Tg CO2e in 2011 to 3,465 Tg CO2e in 2020. Total gross U.S. GHG emissions are 

projected to grow by 2% from 6,702 Tg CO2e in 2011 to 6,815 Tg CO2e in 2020, based on data 

current as of 2012. It should be noted that these future estimates have considerable 

uncertainty due to ongoing changes in the selection of fuel for energy use across the country.

Due to inherent complexity of the climate system, it is not possible at present to predict with 

certainty global or local-scale impacts from a proposed action or the effect of global GHG 

emissions changes in a particular planning area. General circulation models provide some 

general predictions which, to a certain extent, could be extrapolated to local conditions. Global 

climate modeling suggests that climate change will impact regions differently and warming will 

not be equally distributed. Increases in temperature are likely to be greater at higher latitudes, 
September 2016

26

where the temperature increase may be more than double the global average (IPCC, 2014).

Frequency of warm days and nights will increase and frequency of cold days and cold nights will 

decrease across most regions. Models also predict increases in duration, intensity, and extent 

of extreme weather events and long-term changes in air quality, precipitation, atmospheric 

circulation, ocean temperatures and salinity, and sea ice cover. Due to the large size of the 

Great Plains region, including the South and Central Plains region which Texas, Oklahoma and 

Kansas occupy, the effects of global warming are expected to vary due to the varied existing 

environment (Shafer et al., 2014). In general, the area is expected to experience increases in 

temperatures and more frequent drought in the future due to global climate change. 
September 2016

27

4.0 REFERENCES

American Meteorological Society (AMS), 2012. Climate Change, An Information Statement of 

the American Meteorological Society. Adopted by AMS Council, 20 August 2012. 

Available at: https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/amsstatements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change. Accessed July 2016.

BLM and BIA, 2014. Resource Management Plan Revision and Environmental Impact Statement. 

Final Scoping Summary Report. Prepared by Oklahoma Field Office. US Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Indian Affairs. July 2014.

BLM, 2015a. Air Resources Technical Report for Oil and Gas Development. New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas. Prepared by New Mexico State Office. July 2015.

BLM, 2015b. Estimates of coal mining activity on Federal mineral estate provided by Allen 

Hollubec. June 5, 2015.

CEQ, 2016. Final guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental 

Policy Act Reviews. Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies. 

August 1, 2016.

Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2015. Analysis of the Impacts of the Clean Power Plan. 

United States Energy Information Administration. May. Available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/powerplants/cleanplan/pdf/powerplant.pdf. 

Accessed July 2016.

EPA, 2007. Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment 

of Air Quality Goals for ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina. (EPA-454/B-07-002). April.

EPA, 2014. Facility Level Information on Greenhouse gases Tool (FLIGHT). Available at: 

https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do. Accessed July 2016.

EPA, 2016a. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014. EPA 430-R-16-

002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, 

DC 20460. April 15, 2016.

EPA, 2016b. Climate change indicators in the United States, 2016. Fourth edition. EPA 430-R-16-

004. Available at: www.epa.gov/climate-indicators. Accessed August 2016.

Grant, J., R. Parikh, K. Vijayaraghavan, R. Morris. 2016a. Memorandum: Texas, Oklahoma, and 

Kansas Oil and Gas and Mining Sector Emissions. Prepared by Ramboll Environ, Novato, 

CA. Developed for BLM New Mexico State Office. May 2016.

Grant, J., R. Parikh, K. Vijayaraghavan, R. Morris. 2016b. Addendum to the Memorandum: 

Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas Oil and Gas and Mining Sector Emissions. Developed by 

Ramboll Environ, Novato, CA. Developed for Craig Nicholls, BLM National Operations 

Center. May 2016.
September 2016

28

IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III 

to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core 

Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.

Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, Eds., 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States. Cambridge University Press. Available at: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/climate-impactsreport.pdf. Accessed August 2016.

Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: Climate Change 

Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, 841 pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2. Available at: 

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report. Accessed July 2016.

Ramboll Environ, 2016. Baseline Air Quality in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas: Technical 

Supporting Documentation for the Affected Environment Section of the BLM-BIA 

Regional Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement for KansasOklahoma-Texas, Draft Report. Prepared by Ramboll Environ, January.

Shafer, M., D. Ojima, J. M. Antle, D. Kluck, R. A. McPherson, S. Petersen, B. Scanlon, and K. 

Sherman, 2014: Ch. 19: Great Plains. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The 

Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. 

Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 441-461. doi:10.7930/J0D798BC.

U.S. Climate Action Report, 2014. U.S. Department of State. Available at 

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/219038.pdf. Accessed August 2016.

WRI, 2016. World Resources Institute Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT). Available at 

http://cait.wri.org. Accessed July 2016.
Oil 

Inventory Year 

Oil Production (Mbbl) Emission Factor CO2 Emissions (million metric tons) 

Federal Osage 

Tribe 

Other 

Tribal Pvt/State Total metric tons CO2 / 

barrel Federal Osage Tribe 

Other 

Tribal Pvt/State Total 

Kansas 

Original 

Inventory 

2011 239 0 0 41,118 41,357 0.43 0.10 - - 17.68 18 

2015 364 0 0 62,533 62,897 0.43 0.16 - - 26.89 27 

2020 383 0 0 65,879 66,262 0.43 0.16 - - 28.33 28 

2025 369 0 0 63,499 63,869 0.43 0.16 - - 27.30 27 

2030 348 0 0 59,817 60,164 0.43 0.15 - - 25.72 26 

Addendum 2030 348 0 0 55,129 55,450 0.43 0.15 - - 23.71 24 

Oklahoma 

Original 

Inventory 

2011 302 4,587 1,385 67,582 73,856 0.43 0.13 1.97 0.60 29.06 32 

2015 459 6,976 2,107 102,780 112,322 0.43 0.20 3.00 0.91 44.20 48 

2020 484 7,349 2,220 108,280 118,332 0.43 0.21 3.16 0.95 46.56 51 

2025 466 7,083 2,139 104,369 114,058 0.43 0.20 3.05 0.92 44.88 49 

2030 439 6,673 2,015 98,316 107,443 0.43 0.19 2.87 0.87 42.28 46 

Addendum 2030 439 6,673 2,015 90,611 99,738 0.43 0.19 2.87 0.87 38.96 43 

Texas 

Original 

Inventory 

2011 370 0 50 528,959 529,380 0.43 0.16 - 0.02 227.45 228 

2015 563 0 77 804,460 805,100 0.43 0.24 - 0.03 345.92 346 

2020 593 0 81 847,503 848,177 0.43 0.26 - 0.03 364.43 365 

2025 572 0 78 816,890 817,540 0.43 0.25 - 0.03 351.26 352 

2030 539 0 73 769,514 770,126 0.43 0.23 - 0.03 330.89 331 

Addendum 2030 539 0 73 1,091,788 1,092,400 0.43 0.23 - 0.03 469.47 470 

Barrels of oil consumed 

Carbon dioxide emissions per barrel of crude oil are determined by multiplying heat content times the carbon coefficient times the fraction oxidized times the ratio of the
 

molecular weight of carbon dioxide to that of carbon (44/12).
 

The average heat content of crude oil is 5.80 mmbtu per barrel (EPA 2015). The average carbon coefficient of crude oil is 20.31 kg carbon per mmbtu (EPA 2015). The
 

fraction oxidized is 100 percent (IPCC 2006).
 

Calculation 

Note: Due to rounding, performing the calculations given in the equations below may not return the exact results shown. 

5.80 mmbtu/barrel × 20.31 kg C/mmbtu × 44 kg CO2/12 kg C × 1 metric ton/1,000 kg = 0.43 metric tons CO2/barrel 

Sources 

EPA (2015). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013. Annex 2 (Methodology for estimating CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion), Table A40 and Table A-47. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. U.S. EPA #430-R-15-004 (PDF) (564 pp, 11.1 M, About PDF)
 

IPCC (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.
 
bon dioxide to ca

CO2 is 100 perc

emissions releas

A 2016).

ntal Protection 

     

Gas 

Inventory Year 

Gas Production (MMCF) Emission Factor CO2 Emissions (million metric tons) 

Federal Osage 

Tribe 

Other 

Tribal Pvt/State Total metric tons CO2 

/MCF Federal Osage Tribe Other Tribal Pvt/State Total 

Kansas 

Original 

Inventory 

2011 4,792 0 0 309,735 314,527 0.054717 0.26 - - 16.95 17.21 

2015 5,131 0 0 331,678 336,809 0.054717 0.28 - - 18.15 18.43 

2020 6,061 0 0 391,738 397,799 0.054717 0.33 - - 21.43 21.77 

2025 6,639 0 0 429,111 435,750 0.054717 0.36 - - 23.48 23.84 

2030 7,173 0 0 463,638 470,811 0.054717 0.39 - - 25.37 25.76 

Addendum 2030 7,173 0 0 214,084 217,396 0.054717 0.39 - - 11.71 11.90 

Oklahoma 

Original 

Inventory 

2011 11,010 9,953 33,530 1,718,839 1,773,332 0.054717 0.60 0.54 1.83 94.05 97.03 

2015 11,790 10,659 35,905 1,840,606 1,898,960 0.054717 0.65 0.58 1.96 100.71 103.91 

2020 13,925 12,589 42,407 2,173,904 2,242,825 0.054717 0.76 0.69 2.32 118.95 122.72 

2025 15,254 13,790 46,452 2,381,301 2,456,797 0.054717 0.83 0.75 2.54 130.30 134.43 

2030 16,481 14,899 50,190 2,572,904 2,654,474 0.054717 0.90 0.82 2.75 140.78 145.24 

Addendum 2030 16,481 14,899 50,190 1,188,033 1,269,604 0.054717 0.90 0.82 2.75 65.01 69.47 

Texas 

Original 

Inventory 

2011 43,515 0 1,286 7,827,574 7,872,375 0.054717 2.38 - 0.07 428.30 430.75 

2015 46,598 0 1,377 8,382,100 8,430,075 0.054717 2.55 - 0.08 458.64 461.27 

2020 55,036 0 1,627 9,899,937 9,956,600 0.054717 3.01 - 0.09 541.69 544.80 

2025 60,286 0 1,782 10,844,420 10,906,488 0.054717 3.30 - 0.10 593.37 596.77 

2030 65,137 0 1,925 11,716,978 11,784,040 0.054717 3.56 - 0.11 641.12 644.79 

Addendum 2030 65,137 0 1,925 9,613,323 9,680,385 0.054717 3.56 - 0.11 526.01 529.68 

Therms and Mcf of natural gas 

Carbon dioxide emissions per therm are determined by multiplying heat content times the carbon coefficient times the fraction oxidized times the ratio of the molecular weight ratio of car 

The average heat content of natural gas is 0.1 mmbtu per therm (EPA 2015). The average carbon coefficient of natural gas is 14.46 kg carbon per mmbtu (EPA 2015). The fraction oxidized to 

Note: When using this equivalency, please keep in mind that it represents the CO2 equivalency for natural gas burned as a fuel, not natural gas released to the atmosphere. Direct methane 

Calculation 

Note: Due to rounding, performing the calculations given in the equations below may not return the exact results shown. 

0.1 mmbtu/1 therm × 14.46 kg C/mmbtu × 44 kg CO2/12 kg C × 1 metric ton/1,000 kg = 0.005302 metric tons CO2/therm 

Carbon dioxide emissions per therm can be converted to carbon dioxide emissions per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) using the average heat content of natural gas in 2015, 10.32 therms/Mcf (EI 

0.005302 metric tons CO2­/therm x 10.32 therms/Mcf = 0.054717 metric tons CO2/Mcf 

Sources 

EIA (2016). Monthly Energy Review. Table A4, Approximate Heat Content of Natural Gas for End-Use Sector Consumption. January 27, 2016. (PDF) (1 pp, 36 K, About PDF) 

EPA (2015). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013. Annex 2 (Methodology for estimating CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion), Table A-40. U.S. Environme 

IPCC (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland 
Total Oil and Gas 

Year 

Oil Gas Total (Oil and Gas) 

CO2 Emissions (million metric tons) CO2 Emissions (million metric tons) CO2 Emissions (million metric tons) 

Federal Osage Tribe Other Tribal Pvt/State Total Federal Osage Tribe Other Tribal Pvt/State Total Federal Osage Tribe Other Tribal Pvt/State Total 

Kansas 

2011 0.10 0 0 17.68 17.78 0.26 0 0 16.95 17.21 0.36 0 0 34.63 34.99 

2015 0.16 0 0 26.89 27.05 0.28 0 0 18.15 18.43 0.44 0 0 45.04 45.47 

2020 0.16 0 0 28.33 28.49 0.33 0 0 21.43 21.77 0.50 0 0 49.76 50.26 

2025 0.16 0 0 27.30 27.46 0.36 0 0 23.48 23.84 0.52 0 0 50.78 51.31 

2030 0.15 0 0 23.71 23.84 0.39 0 0 11.71 11.90 0.54 0 0 35.42 35.74 

Oklahoma 

2011 0.13 1.97 0.60 29.06 31.76 0.60 0.54 1.83 94.05 97.03 0.73 2.52 2.43 123.11 128.79 

2015 0.20 3.00 0.91 44.20 48.30 0.65 0.58 1.96 100.71 103.91 0.84 3.58 2.87 144.91 152.20 

2020 0.21 3.16 0.95 46.56 50.88 0.76 0.69 2.32 118.95 122.72 0.97 3.85 3.27 165.51 173.60 

2025 0.20 3.05 0.92 44.88 49.04 0.83 0.75 2.54 130.30 134.43 1.04 3.80 3.46 175.18 183.47 

2030 0.19 2.87 0.87 38.96 42.89 0.90 0.82 2.75 65.01 69.47 1.09 3.68 3.61 103.97 112.36 

Texas 

2011 0.16 0 0.02 227.45 227.63 2.38 0 0.07 428.30 430.75 2.54 0 0.09 655.75 658.39 

2015 0.24 0 0.03 345.92 346.19 2.55 0 0.08 458.64 461.27 2.79 0 0.11 804.56 807.46 

2020 0.26 0 0.03 364.43 364.72 3.01 0 0.09 541.69 544.80 3.27 0 0.12 906.12 909.51 

2025 0.25 0 0.03 351.26 351.54 3.30 0 0.10 593.37 596.77 3.54 0 0.13 944.64 948.31 

2030 0.23 0 0.03 469.47 469.73 3.56 0 0.11 526.01 529.68 3.80 0 0.14 995.48 999.41 
ectricity gene

the molecula

CO

able A-40,

Coal 

Year Annual Production (short tons) Emission Factor 

(metric tons CO2 

CO2 Emissions (million metric tons) 

Federal Pvt/State Federal Pvt/State Total 

Kansas 

2011 0 37,257 1.9 0 0.07 0.07 

2015 0 33,441 1.9 0 0.06 0.06 

2020 0 29,003 1.9 0 0.06 0.06 

2025 0 25,691 1.9 0 0.05 0.05 

2030 0 27,398 1.9 0 0.05 0.05 

Oklahoma 

2011 608,910 535,755 1.9 1.16 1.02 2.17 

2015 610,000 480,876 1.9 1.16 0.91 2.07 

2020 1,150,000 417,063 1.9 2.19 0.79 2.98 

2025 1,150,000 369,435 1.9 2.19 0.70 2.89 

2030 940,000 393,982 1.9 1.79 0.75 2.53 

Texas 

2011 0 45,903,597 1.9 0 87.22 87.22 

2015 0 41,201,591 1.9 0 78.28 78.28 

2020 0 35,734,021 1.9 0 67.89 67.89 

2025 0 31,653,246 1.9 0 60.14 60.14 

2030 0 33,756,479 1.9 0 64.14 64.14 

Pounds of coal burned 

The average heat content of coal consumed in the U.S. in 2014 was 21.63 mmbtu per metric ton (EIA 2015). The average carbon coefficient of coal combusted for el 

Carbon dioxide emissions per pound of coal were determined by multiplying heat content times the carbon coefficient times the fraction oxidized times the ratio of 

Calculation 

Note: Due to rounding, performing the calculations given in the equations below may not return the exact results shown. 

21.63 mmbtu/metric ton coal × 26.05 kg C/mmbtu × 44 kg CO2/12 kg C × 1 metric ton coal / 2,204.6 pound of coal x 1 metric ton/1,000 kg = 9.37 x 10-4 metric tons 

Sources 

EIA (2015). Monthly Energy Review. October 2015. Approximate Heat Content of Coal and Coal Coke, Table A5. (1 pp, 73.2 K, About PDF)
 

EPA (2015). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013. Annex 2 (Methodology for estimating CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion), T
 

IPCC (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.
 
Appendix H

Wild and Scenic Rivers Report

US Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Oklahoma Field Office 

BLM Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and BIA 

Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions Joint EIS/BLM 

RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

WILD AND SCENIC RIVER ELIGIBILITY AND SUITABILITY 

REPORT

NOVEMBER 2018

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

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

1.1 Planning Area ................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Why Conduct a WSR Study and Why Now?........................................................................ 1-2

1.3 What is a Wild and Scenic River?............................................................................................. 1-2

1.4 Steps in the Wild and Scenic River Study Process ............................................................... 1-3

1.4.1 Eligibility Inventory ........................................................................................................ 1-3

1.4.2 Classification Inventory ................................................................................................ 1-6

1.4.3 Suitability Phase .............................................................................................................. 1-6

2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Methods Used to Identify River and Stream Segments....................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Geographic Information Systems............................................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 BLM Resource Interdisciplinary Team...................................................................... 2-1

2.1.3 Informational Sources................................................................................................... 2-4

2.2 Eligibility Criteria........................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.2.1 Free-Flowing Criteria.................................................................................................... 2-4

2.2.2 Outstandingly Remarkable Values Criteria and Region of Comparison........... 2-5

2.2.3 Classification Criteria.................................................................................................... 2-8

2.3 Suitability Criteria....................................................................................................................... 2-10

3. ELIGIBILITY AND SUITABILITY DETERMINATIONS ........................................................ 3-1

3.1 Eligibility Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Canadian River ............................................................................................................... 3-3

3.2 Suitability Evaluation..................................................................................................................... 3-5

3.2.1 River Corridor Description ........................................................................................ 3-6

3.2.2 Suitability Criteria........................................................................................................ 3-12

3.2.3 Land Use Plan Alternatives........................................................................................ 3-17

3.2.4 Suitability Determination ........................................................................................... 3-18

4. INTERIM MANAGEMENT AND NEXT STEPS................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Interim Management .................................................................................................................... 4-1

5. LIST OF PREPARERS....................................................................................................... 5-1

6. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 6-1
Table of Contents

ii Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

TABLES Page

2-1 Planning Area Streams Analyzed.............................................................................................................. 2-2

2-2 Outstandingly Remarkable Values Criteria and Region of Comparison......................................... 2-6

2-3 Classification Criteria.................................................................................................................................. 2-8

3-1 Segment Determined Eligible for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.... 3-1

4-1 Interim Protection for Candidate Wild and Scenic Rivers................................................................ 4-2

FIGURES Page

1-1 Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Process.................................................................................................... 1-4

3-1 Canadian River Wild and Scenic River Segment.................................................................................. 3-2

3-2 Special Areas............................................................................................................................................... 3-11
November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

AmFO Amarillo Field Office

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

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

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

EIS environmental impact statement

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

GIS geographic information system

INRMP integrated resource management plan

National System National Wild and Scenic Rivers System

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NPS United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OFO Oklahoma Field Office

ORV outstandingly remarkable value

RMP resource management plan

ROW right-of-way

RRC Railroad Commission of Texas

TDOT Texas Department of Transportation

TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

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

VRM Visual Resources Management

WSR wild and scenic river

WSR Act Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968
Table of Contents

iv Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-1 

SECTION 1 

INTRODUCTION

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

Management (BLM), Oklahoma Field Office (OFO) has completed a wild and 

scenic river (WSR) evaluation as part of its Joint Environmental Impact 

Statement/BLM Resource Management Plan (EIS/RMP) and US Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Southern Plains and Eastern 

Oklahoma Regions Integrated Resource Management Plan (INRMP) process. 

During the identification phase, the BLM examined river and stream segments 

within the OFO boundaries to identify those segments that either pass through 

or are bordered by BLM-administered lands. Once identified, the BLM applied 

standard criteria to determine the eligibility of each segment. 

This report describes the identification process followed, eligibility and tentative 

classification criteria used, and the determinations made during the eligibility 

phase of the WSR evaluation for the OFO. It also describes the suitability phase

for the eligible stream segments in the OFO as part of the EIS/RMP process.

Each eligible river segment will be evaluated for suitability or nonsuitability to 

assess whether or not it is a potential candidate for inclusion in the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System (National System). 

The BIA did not consider eligibility or suitability of streams in its decision area for 

inclusion in the National System. This is because doing so would not be consistent 

with the BIA’s obligation to fulfill its Indian trust responsibilities on tribal and 

allotted lands. 

1.1 PLANNING AREA

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

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 trust or restricted (BIA), allotted, state, county, and private lands and 
1. Introduction

1-2 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

encompasses 437 counties (105 in Kansas, 1 in Nebraska, 77 in Oklahoma, and 

254 in Texas). 

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

federal, tribal, or allotted interests. The decision area covers only the BLMadministered and BIA-managed surface lands and subsurface mineral estate in 

the planning area, with the exception of oil and gas mineral estate in Osage 

County. Individual trust lands are held in trust by the US government for the 

benefit of individual Indian allottees or their heirs. Tribal fee lands are not 

included in the decision area or analysis.

The decision area for this BLM wild and scenic rivers study under the EIS/BLM 

RMP and BIA INRMP is BLM-administered lands within the planning area. 

1.2 WHY CONDUCT A WSR STUDY AND WHY NOW?

Section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (WSR Act) (Public 

Law 90-542; 16 US Code 1271-1287) directs federal agencies to consider 

potential WSRs in their land and water planning processes: “In all planning for 

the use and development of water and related land resources, consideration 

shall be given by all federal agencies involved to potential national wild, scenic, 

and recreational river areas.” To fulfill this requirement, whenever the BLM 

undertakes a land use planning effort such as an RMP, it analyzes river and 

stream segments that might be eligible and suitable for inclusion in the National 

System. 

The OFO is preparing a joint EIS/RMP with the BIA to guide management of 

BLM-administered and BIA-managed lands (surface lands and federal minerals)

within the planning area. 

The purpose of the BLM EIS/RMP is to provide a comprehensive framework for 

the BLM’s management and allocation of public lands and resources under the

jurisdiction of the OFO. The EIS/RMP will also consolidate existing land use 

plans and amendments, will reevaluate resource availability, and will resolve 

resource conflicts and issues.

This WSR study is being conducted now because the BLM is required by the 

WSR Act to assess river and stream segments under its management 

jurisdiction as part of its RMP process. The formal public comment period as 

required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (Public Law 

91-190) began on July 26, 2013, with the publication of a Notice of Intent in the 

Federal Register, and ended on January 31, 2014.

1.3 WHAT IS A WILD AND SCENIC RIVER?

Congress enacted the WSR Act on October 2, 1968, to address the need for a 

national system of river protection. As an outgrowth of a national conservation 

agenda in the 1950s and 1960s, the WSR Act was in response to the dams, 

diversions, and water resource development projects that occurred on 
1. Introduction

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-3

America’s rivers between the 1930s and 1960s. The WSR Act stipulated that 

selected rivers should be preserved in a free-flowing condition and be protected 

for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. Since 1968, the 

WSR Act has been amended many times, primarily to designate additional rivers 

and to authorize the study of other rivers for possible inclusion.

The WSR Act seeks to protect and enhance a river’s natural and cultural values 

and to provide for public use consistent with its free-flowing character, its water 

quality, and its outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs). Designation affords 

certain legal protection from development. For instance, new dams cannot be 

constructed, and federally assisted water resource development projects that 

might negatively affect the designated river values are not permitted. Where 

private lands are involved, the federal managing agency works with local 

governments and landowners to develop voluntary protective measures.

As of February 2018, the National System protects 12,734 miles of 208 rivers in 

40 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; this is a little more than onequarter of 1 percent of the nation’s rivers (Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Coordinating Council 2018). These nationally recognized rivers make up a 

valuable network of natural and cultural resources, scenic beauty, and 

recreational opportunities.

1.4 STEPS IN THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY PROCESS 

The evaluation of a river for possible inclusion in the National System involves a 

three-step process: (1) determination of eligibility; (2) tentative classification 

(wild, scenic, or recreational); and (3) determination of suitability. Evaluations 

were conducted in accordance with BLM Manual 6400, Wild and Scenic 

Rivers—Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, Planning,

and Management (BLM 2012) and with The Wild and Scenic River Study Process 

technical report (Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council 

1999). An overview of the WSR study process is shown in Figure 1-1, Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Study Process. Excerpts from BLM Manual 6400 are presented 

below to explain the process.

The entire river system, including the interrelationship between tributaries and 

the main stem, and its associated ecosystems should be considered when 

identifying the beginning and ending points of the study river. At a minimum, a 

river study area should include the length of the identified river segment and 

extend 1,320 feet in width from the ordinary high-water mark on both sides of 

the river.

1.4.1 Eligibility Inventory

Each identified river segment shall be inventoried to determine whether it is 

eligible for inclusion as a component of the National System. Determinations of 

eligibility shall be documented by the authorized officer (BLM Field Manager or 

District Manager) prior to the formulation of alternatives but no later than the 

release of the draft RMP or RMP amendment.
1. Introduction

1-4 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Figure 1-1

Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Process
1. Introduction

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-5

The eligibility of a river for potential inclusion in the National System is 

determined by applying the following criteria from the WSR Act: the river 

segment must be free flowing (existing or flowing in a natural condition without 

impoundment, diversion, straightening, riprap, or other modification of the 

waterway) and, with its adjacent land area, possess one or more outstandingly 

remarkable values (unique, rare, or exemplary feature that is exceptional at a 

comparative regional or national scale). Criteria for determining outstandingly 

remarkable values include the following: 

1. Scenery—The landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, 

color, and related factors result in notable or exemplary visual 

features and/or attractions (must be scenic quality “A” as defined in 

BLM’s Visual Resource Inventory Handbook).

2. Recreation—Recreational opportunities (including, but not limited 

to, sightseeing, interpretation, wildlife observation, camping, 

photography, hiking, fishing, hunting, and boating) within the subject 

river corridor are, or have the potential to be, popular enough to 

attract visitors from throughout or beyond the region or are unique 

or rare within the region.

3. Geology—The river area contains one or more examples of a 

geologic feature, process, or phenomenon that is unique or rare 

within the region of comparison.

4. Fish—Fish values include the merits of either fish populations or 

habitat, or a combination of these river-related conditions: 

populations (important national or regional producer of indigenous 

resident and/or anadromous fish species) or habitat (provides 

exceptionally high-quality habitat for fish species indigenous to the 

region of comparison).

5. Wildlife—Wildlife values include either terrestrial or aquatic wildlife 

populations or habitat, or a combination of these conditions:

populations (contains nationally or regionally important populations 

of indigenous wildlife species dependent on the river environment) 

or habitat (provides exceptionally high-quality habitat for wildlife of 

national or regional significance or may provide unique habitat or a 

critical link in habitat conditions for federally or state-listed or 

candidate, threatened, endangered, or BLM sensitive species).

6. Historical—The river, or area within the river corridor, has 

scientific value or contains a rare or outstanding example of a 

district, site, building, or structure that is associated with an event, 

person, or distinctive style.

7. Cultural—The river, or area within the river corridor, contains rare 

or outstanding examples of historic or prehistoric locations of 

human activity, occupation, or use, including locations of traditional 
1. Introduction

1-6 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

cultural or religious importance to specified social and/or cultural 

groups.

8. Other Values—While no specific national evaluation guidelines have 

been developed for the category of other values, assessments of 

additional river-related values consistent with the foregoing 

guidance may be developed as part of the eligibility process,

including, but not limited to, hydrological and paleontological 

resources or scientific study opportunities.

It may be necessary to divide a study river into segments to determine eligibility 

and assign a tentative classification. The following should be considered in 

defining segment termini: (1) obvious changes in land status or ownership; (2) 

changes in river condition, such as the presence of dams and reservoirs; (3) 

significant changes in the types or amounts of development; and (4) the 

presence of important resource values. If the boundary of the river includes 

private lands, BLM should only consider the presence of values on BLMadministered lands and related waters. A river segment should be long enough 

to enable the protection of the outstandingly remarkable values if the area were 

managed as a wild, scenic, or recreational river.

Of the segments identified and evaluated, two separate stream segments were 

determined to be free flowing and possessing one or more ORVs necessary for 

WSR eligibility: Red River and Canadian River. The Red River was not brought 

forward for eligibility analysis, however, as the BLM does not know the acreage 

or location of tracts it would administer along the river. 

1.4.2 Classification Inventory

If the eligibility phase determines segments to be eligible, the BLM assigns a 

tentative classification and identifies the management measures needed to 

ensure appropriate protection of the values supporting the eligibility and 

classification determinations. This is based on the condition of the river and the 

adjacent lands as they exist at the time of the study. 

There are three classification categories for eligible rivers: wild, scenic, and 

recreational. Classes are based on the type and degree of human development 

and access associated with the river and adjacent lands at the time of the 

eligibility determination. Table 2-3, Classification Criteria, in Section 2 of this 

report lists the interagency guidelines on these classification categories. The 

tentative classification assigned during the eligibility phase establishes a guideline 

for management until either a suitability determination or designation decision is 

reached. Final classification is a congressional legislative determination, along 

with designation of a river segment as part of the National System.

1.4.3 Suitability Phase

The purpose of the suitability phase is to determine whether eligible river 

segments are suitable or not suitable for inclusion in the National System per 
1. Introduction

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-7

the criteria of the WSR Act and BLM Manual 6400 (BLM 2012). This analysis 

provides the basis for determining which rivers to recommend to Congress as 

potential additions to the National System. Suitability considerations include the 

environment and economic consequences of designation and the manageability 

of a river if Congress were to designate it. 

The suitability evaluation does not result in actual designation but only a 

suitability determination for designation. The BLM cannot administratively 

designate a stream via a planning decision or other agency decision into the 

National System, and no segment studied is or will be automatically designated 

as part of the National System. Only Congress can designate a WSR. In some 

instances, the Secretary of the Interior may designate a WSR when the 

governor of a state, under certain conditions, petitions for a river to be 

designated. 
1. Introduction

1-8 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-1

SECTION 2

METHODOLOGY

This section describes the methodology used to identify river and stream 

segments to be evaluated for eligibility. The methods used to identify river and 

stream segments are those described in BLM Manual 6400 (BLM 2012).

2.1 METHODS USED TO IDENTIFY RIVER AND STREAM SEGMENTS 

All rivers in the planning area that may have potential for WSR designation were 

identified and evaluated. Care was taken to avoid overlooking any river segment 

on BLM-administered lands. To accomplish this, the BLM relied on several 

sources, including geographic information systems (GIS) data, OFO and BLM 

Amarillo Field Office (AmFO) resource specialists, and public input. The result 

was a list of 10 individual streams, or segments, to be considered for eligibility.

Table 2-1, Planning Area Streams Analyzed, presents the results from the 

identification effort.

2.1.1 Geographic Information Systems

GIS data compiled by the US Geological Survey were used to generate a table of 

all the perennial stream segments that contain BLM-administered land adjacent 

to at least one bank of the stream. 

2.1.2 BLM Resource Interdisciplinary Team

The BLM interdisciplinary team consisted of resource specialists from both the 

OFO and AmFO. The interdisciplinary team reviewed the initial GIS table with 

the purpose of identifying all the segments that potentially contained ORVs. 

These segments were then further evaluated for eligibility. In addition to 

considering perennial segments, the interdisciplinary team added any 

nonperennial segments potentially containing ORVs for further consideration.
2. Methodology

2-2 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-1

Planning Area Streams Analyzed

River or Creek Name1

Portion of 

Segment 

Occurring on 

BLMAdministered

Lands (Miles)

Free-Flowing 

Determination

Outstandingly Remarkable Values2

Notes3

ScenicRecreationalGeologicalFishWildlifeHistoricCulturalOther

Barren Fork Creek, Oklahoma 0 N/A

OK Scenic River; not on BLMadministered lands, not assessed 

for free-flowing determination or 

ORVs

Canadian River, Texas 7.25 Yes X X X Segment abuts BLM-administered 

surface at Cross Bar Ranch

Cimarron River, Oklahoma 0.354 Yes

Unknown if segment contains BLMadministered land adjacent to at 

least one bank of the stream.

4

Segment not assessed for ORVs or 

carried forward for eligibility 

analysis.

Flint Creek, Oklahoma 0 N/A

OK Scenic River; not on BLMadministered lands, not assessed 

for free-flowing determination or 

ORVs

Illinois River, Oklahoma 0 N/A

OK Scenic River; not on BLMadministered lands, not assessed 

for free-flowing determination or 

ORVs

Lee Creek, Oklahoma 0 N/A

OK Scenic River; not on BLMadministered lands, not assessed 

for free-flowing determination or 

ORVs

Little Lee Creek, Oklahoma 0 N/A

OK Scenic River; not on BLMadministered lands, not assessed 

for free-flowing determination or 

ORVs
2. Methodology

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-3

Table 2-1

Planning Area Streams Analyzed

River or Creek Name1

Portion of 

Segment 

Occurring on 

BLMAdministered

Lands (Miles)

Free-Flowing 

Determination

Outstandingly Remarkable Values2

Notes3

ScenicRecreationalGeologicalFishWildlifeHistoricCulturalOther

Mountain Fork, Oklahoma 0 N/A

OK Scenic River; not on BLMadministered lands, not assessed 

for free-flowing determination or 

ORVs

Red River, Texas/Oklahoma Unknown Yes

As discussed in Section 1.4.1, the 

Red River was not brought 

forward for eligibility analysis

because the BLM does not know 

the acreage or location of tracts it 

would administer along the river.

Rio Grande River, Texas 0 N/A

Wild and Scenic River; not on 

BLM-administered lands, not 

assessed for free-flowing 

determination or ORVs 1 Shading = Segment determined eligible

2 X = Value determined to meet ORV criteria

3 OK Scenic River = Oklahoma state-designated scenic river under Oklahoma’s Scenic Rivers Act (Oklahoma Statute Title 82, Sections 1451-1471) 4 There is a discrepancy between the surface tract’s title plat and current aerial imagery in the GIS; therefore, the segment length is approximate. Due to 

this discrepancy, it is not known if the segment contains BLM-administered land adjacent to at least one bank of the stream; therefore, it is not carried 

forward to the eligibility phase of this analysis. 
2. Methodology

2-4 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

2.1.3 Informational Sources

The BLM used a number of informational sources and publications to identify 

potential river and stream segments. These sources are as follows:

• GIS data for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (Rivers.gov 

GIS 2009)

• US Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS)

Nationwide Rivers Inventory (US Geological Survey GIS 1996)

• Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Ecological Significant 

Stream Segments (TPWD 2016)

• Oklahoma Scenic Rivers (OSRC 2016)

• Geographic Information Systems data for BLM “eroded tracts” in 

Oklahoma (BLM GIS 2016)

• Any river segments identified during the public scoping process

(BLM and BIA 2014)

2.2 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Each identified river segment in the field offices’ planning areas must be 

evaluated to determine whether or not it is eligible for inclusion in the National 

System. To be eligible, a river segment must be “free-flowing” and must possess 

at least one ORV. These criteria are described below.

2.2.1 Free-Flowing Criteria

The OFO applied the definition of free-flowing described in the WSR Act and 

BLM guidance in order to make a free-flowing determination for each of the 

segments containing at least one ORV. Free-flowing is defined by Section 16(b) 

of the WSR Act as “existing or flowing in natural condition without 

impoundment, diversion, straightening, riprapping, or other modification of the 

waterway.”

The existence of small dams, diversion works, or other minor structures at the 

time the river segment is being considered shall not automatically disqualify it 

for consideration as a potential addition to the National System. Congress did 

not intend to require rivers to be “naturally flowing,” in other words, flowing 

without any upstream manipulation except by nature. 

The presence of impoundments above and/or below the segment (including 

those that may regulate the flow regime through the segment), existing minor 

dams, and diversion structures within the study reach will not by themselves 

render a river ineligible. There are many segments in the National System that 

are downstream from major dams or are between dams.

Additionally, a river need not be “boatable or floatable” in order to be eligible. 

For purposes of eligibility determination, the volume of flow is sufficient if it is 

enough to maintain the ORVs identified within the segment. Rivers with 
2. Methodology

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-5

intermittent flows exist within the National System, and rivers representative of 

desert ecosystems having outstanding ecological or other values should be 

considered.

The BLM guidance contained in BLM Manual 6400 (BLM 2012) states:

...As a general rule, the segment should contain regular and predictable 

flows (even though intermittent, seasonal, or interrupted). This flow 

should derive from naturally occurring circumstances (e.g., aquifer 

discharge, seasonal melting from snow or ice, normal precipitation, or 

instream flow from spillways or upstream facilities). Caution is advised 

in applying the free-flow criterion to water courses that only flow 

during flash floods or unpredictable events. The segment should not be 

ephemeral (flow lasting only a few days per year in direct response to 

precipitation). Evaluation of flows should focus on normal water years, 

with consideration of drought or wet years during the inventory.

2.2.2 Outstandingly Remarkable Values Criteria and Region of Comparison

The determination of whether a river area contains “outstandingly remarkable” 

values is a professional judgment and is documented in this report. To be 

considered as outstandingly remarkable, a river-related value must be a unique, 

rare, or exemplary feature that is significant at a comparative regional or 

national scale (region of comparison). Values are scenic, recreational, geological, 

fish related, wildlife related, historic, cultural, botanical, hydrological, 

paleontological, scientific, or other values. While the spectrum of resources that 

may be considered is broad, all values should be directly river related; that is, 

they should have one or more of the following characteristics: 

• Be located in the river or on its immediate shorelands (within 1,320

feet of either side of the river)

• Contribute substantially to the functioning of the river ecosystem

• Owe their location or existence to the presence of the river

Table 2-2, below, displays the criteria for each ORV and the comparative 

region by value that should be considered in the analysis. Only one ORV is 

needed for eligibility. These criteria are based on the guidelines described in 

BLM Manual 6400 (BLM 2012).
2. Methodology

2-6 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-2

Outstandingly Remarkable Values Criteria and Region of Comparison

Outstandingly

Remarkable 

Value

Criteria Region of Comparison

Scenic The landscape elements of landform, vegetation, 

water, color, and related factors must result in 

notable or exemplary visual features and/or 

attractions within the geographic region. The 

Visual Resource Inventory may be used in 

assessing the visual quality; the rating area must 

be scenic quality “A” as defined by the BLM Visual 

Resource Inventory Handbook, H-8410-1 (BLM 

1986). When analyzing scenic values, additional 

factors such as seasonal variations in vegetation, 

scale of cultural modifications, and length of time 

negative intrusions are viewed may be 

considered. Scenery and visual attractions may be 

highly diverse over the majority of the river 

segment length and not common to other rivers 

in the geographic region.

The region of comparison is 

within three physiographic 

provinces: western Kansas, the 

Oklahoma Panhandle, and west 

Texas are in the Great Plains 

province; north-central Texas, 

central Oklahoma, and eastern 

Kansas and Nebraska are in the 

Central Lowland province; and 

east/southeast Texas and far 

southeast Oklahoma are in the 

Coastal Plain province. A very 

small portion of eastern 

Oklahoma is also in the 

Ouachita and Ozark Plateaus 

provinces (US Geological Survey 

1946).

Recreational Recreational opportunities, including interpretive 

opportunities, are or have the potential to be 

unusual enough to attract visitors to the 

geographic region. Visitors are willing to travel 

long distances to use the river resources for 

recreational purposes. Recreation-related 

opportunities could include, but are not limited 

to, sightseeing, wildlife observation, camping, 

photography, hiking, fishing, hunting, and boating. 

The river may provide or have the potential to 

provide settings for national or regional 

commercial usage or competitive events. In 

addition, the river may be eligible if it is 

determined to provide a critically important 

regional recreation opportunity, or be a 

significant component of a regional recreation 

opportunity spectrum setting.

The region of comparison is 

people’s willingness to travel 

long distances to access and 

recreate on a particular segment 

(e.g., tourism markets 

internationally, nationwide, and 

within the states of Oklahoma, 

Kansas, and Texas).

Geologic The river or the area within the river corridor 

contains examples of a geologic feature, process, 

or phenomenon that is rare, unusual, or unique 

to the geographic region. The features may be in 

an unusually active stage of development, 

represent a textbook example, and/or represent 

a unique or rare combination of geologic features 

(erosional, volcanic, glacial, and other geologic 

structures).

The region of comparison is 

areas of state or regional 

geologic importance.
2. Methodology

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-7

Table 2-2

Outstandingly Remarkable Values Criteria and Region of Comparison

Outstandingly

Remarkable 

Value

Criteria Region of Comparison

Fish Fish values may be judged on the relative merits 

of either fish populations or habitat, or a 

combination of these river-related conditions:

a. Populations. The river is nationally or 

regionally one of the top producers of 

resident, indigenous, and/or anadromous 

fish species. Of particular significance may 

be the presence of wild or unique stocks, 

or populations of state or federally listed 

threatened and endangered species.

b. Habitat. The river provides exceptionally 

high quality habitat for fish species 

indigenous to the region. Of particular 

significance is habitat for state or federally 

listed threatened and endangered species.

The region of comparison is 

based on each species.

Wildlife Wildlife values may be judged on the relative 

merits of either wildlife populations or habitat, or 

a combination of these conditions.

a. Populations. The river or area within the 

river corridor contains nationally or 

regionally important populations of resident 

or indigenous wildlife species dependent on 

the river environment. Of particular 

significance may be species considered to be 

unique or populations of state or federally 

listed threatened and endangered species.

b. Habitat. The river or area within the river 

corridor provides exceptionally high-quality 

habitat for wildlife of national or regional 

significance, or may provide unique habitat 

or a critical link in habitat conditions for 

state or federally listed threatened and 

endangered species. Contiguous habitat 

conditions are such that the biological needs 

of the species are met.

The entire range of that species, 

especially threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive 

species.

Cultural The river or area within the river corridor 

contains a site where there is evidence of 

occupation or use by Native Americans. Sites 

must be rare, have unusual characteristics, or 

exceptional human-interest value. Sites may have 

national or regional importance for interpreting 

prehistory; may be rare; may represent an area 

where culture or cultural period was first 

identified and described; may have been used 

National scale using National 

Register of Historic Places

(NRHP) criteria
2. Methodology

2-8 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-2

Outstandingly Remarkable Values Criteria and Region of Comparison

Outstandingly

Remarkable 

Value

Criteria Region of Comparison

concurrently by two or more cultural groups; or 

may have been used by cultural groups for rare 

or sacred purposes.

Historic The river or area within the corridor contains a 

site or feature associated with a significant event, 

an important person, or a cultural activity of the 

past that was rare, or unusual in the region. Sites 

or features listed in, or eligible for inclusion in, 

the NRHP, may be of particular significance.

National scale using NRHP 

criteria

Other Similar 

Values

While no specific evaluation guidelines have been 

developed for the “other similar values” category, 

additional values deemed relevant to the eligibility 

of the river segment should be considered in a 

manner consistent with the foregoing guidance. 

Other similar values may include, but are not 

limited to, hydrologic, ecological/biological

diversity, paleontological, botanic, and scientific 

study opportunities.

Varies, depending on the factor 

considered

Source: BLM 2012

2.2.3 Classification Criteria

If a river segment is considered eligible, it is inventoried for and assigned a 

tentative classification. The criteria for classification used in this evaluation are 

defined in Section 2(b) of the WSR Act. Table 2-3, below, displays the criteria 

from the WSR Act and the guidance provided in the 1982 Interagency 

Guidelines for interpreting the criteria.

Table 2-3

Classification Criteria

River Classification 

Attribute Wild Scenic Recreational

Water resources 

developments, such 

as impoundments and 

diversions

Free of impoundment Free of impoundment Some existing diversion or

impoundment. 

N/A N/A The existence of low dams, 

diversions, or other 

modifications of the 

waterway is acceptable, 

provided the waterway 

remains generally natural 

and riverine in appearance.
2. Methodology

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-9

Table 2-3

Classification Criteria

River Classification 

Attribute Wild Scenic Recreational

Shoreline 

development

Essentially primitive. Little 

or no evidence of human 

activity. 

Largely primitive and 

undeveloped. No 

substantial evidence of 

human activity.

Some development. 

Substantial evidence of 

human activity. 

The presence of a few 

inconspicuous structures, 

particularly those of 

historic or cultural value, is 

acceptable. 

The presence of small 

communities or dispersed 

dwellings or farm 

structures is acceptable. 

The presence of extensive 

residential development and 

a few commercial structures 

is acceptable. 

A limited amount of 

domestic livestock grazing 

or hay production is 

acceptable. 

The presence of grazing, 

hay production, or row 

crops is acceptable. 

Lands may have been 

developed for the full range 

of agricultural and forestry 

uses. 

Little or no evidence of 

past timber harvest. No 

ongoing timber harvest.

Evidence of past or 

ongoing timber harvest is 

acceptable, provided the 

forest appears natural 

from the riverbank.

May show evidence of past 

and ongoing timber harvest.

Accessibility Generally inaccessible 

except by trail. 

Accessible in places by 

road. 

Readily accessible by road 

or railroad. 

No roads, railroads, or 

other provision for 

vehicular travel within the 

river area. A few existing 

roads leading to the 

boundary of the river area 

are acceptable.

Roads may occasionally 

reach or bridge the river. 

The existence of short 

stretches of conspicuous 

or longer stretches of 

inconspicuous roads or 

railroads is acceptable.

The existence of parallel 

roads or railroads on one 

or both banks as well as 

bridge crossings and other 

river access points is 

acceptable.

Water quality Meets or exceeds federal

criteria or federally 

approved state standards 

for aesthetics, for 

propagation of fish and 

wildlife normally adapted 

to the habitat of the river, 

and for primary contact 

recreation (swimming), 

except where exceeded by 

natural conditions.

No criteria prescribed by the WSR Act. The Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 have 

made it a national goal that all waters of the US are

made fishable and swimmable; therefore, rivers will not 

be precluded from scenic or recreational classification 

because of poor water quality at the time of their study, 

provided a water quality improvement plan exists or is 

being developed in compliance with applicable federal 

and state laws.

Source: BLM 2012
2. Methodology

2-10 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

2.3 SUITABILITY CRITERIA

The purpose of the suitability phase of the study process is to determine 

whether eligible rivers would be appropriate additions to the National System

by considering tradeoffs between corridor development and river protection. 

Suitability considerations include the environment and economic consequences 

of designation and the manageability of a river if Congress were to designate it.

A suitability study is designed to answer the following questions:

• Should the river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and ORVs 

be protected, or are one or more other uses important enough to 

warrant doing otherwise?

• Will the river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and ORVs be 

protected through designation?

• Is designation the best method for protecting the river corridor?

• Is there a demonstrated commitment to protect the river by any 

nonfederal entities that may be partially responsible for 

implementing protective management?

With the above guidance in mind, the following 13 suitability criteria factors, 

identified in BLM Manual 6400 (BLM 2012), were applied to each eligible river 

segment in the suitability study: 

1. Characteristics that do, or do not, make the area a worthy addition 

to the National System. These characteristics (free flow and ORVs) 

are described in the WSR Act and may include additional factors. 

2. The current status of landownership and use in the area. 

3. The reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water that 

would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were 

included in the National System. 

4. The federal agency that will administer the area should it be added 

to the National System. 

5. The extent to which the agency proposes that administration of the 

river, including the costs thereof, is shared by state and local 

agencies. 

6. The estimated cost to the US of acquiring necessary lands or 

interests in land within the corridor, as well as the cost of 

administering the area should it be added to the National System. 

7. A determination of the extent that other federal agencies, the state, 

or its political subdivisions might participate in the preservation and 

administration of the river should it be proposed for inclusion in the 

National System. 
2. Methodology

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-11

8. An evaluation of local zoning and other land use controls in 

protecting the river’s ORVs and preventing incompatible 

development. 

9. The state/local government’s capacity to manage and protect the 

ORVs on nonfederal lands. This factor requires an evaluation of the 

river protection mechanisms available through the authority of state 

and local governments. Such mechanisms may include, for example, 

statewide programs related to population growth management, 

vegetation management, water quantity or quality, or protection of 

river-related values such as open space and historic areas. 

10. The existing support or opposition of designation. Assessment of 

this factor will define the political context. The interest in 

designation or non-designation by federal agencies; state, local, and 

tribal governments; national and local publics; and the state’s 

congressional delegation should be considered. 

11. The consistency of designation with other agency plans, programs, 

and policies in meeting regional objectives. Designation may help or 

impede the goals of tribal governments or other federal, state, or 

local agencies. For example, designation of a river may contribute to 

state or regional protection objectives for fish and wildlife 

resources. 

Similarly, adding a river that includes a scarce recreation activity or 

setting to the National System may help meet statewide recreation 

goals. Designation might, however, limit irrigation and/or flood 

control measures in a manner inconsistent with regional 

socioeconomic goals. 

12. The contribution to river system or basin integrity. This factor 

reflects the benefits of a “systems” approach (e.g., expanding the 

designated portion of a river in the National System or developing a 

legislative proposal for an entire river system—headwaters to 

mouth—or watershed). Numerous benefits may result from 

managing an entire river or watershed, including the ability to design 

a holistic protection strategy in partnership with other agencies and 

the public. 

13. The potential for water resources development. Identify any 

proposed water resource projects that may be foregone, as 

designation may limit development of water resources projects as 

diverse as irrigation and flood control measures, hydropower 

facilities, dredging, diversion, bridge construction, and 

channelization.
2. Methodology

2-12 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-1

SECTION 3

ELIGIBILITY AND SUITABILITY DETERMINATIONS

3.1 ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION

The segment listed in this section has been determined to meet the eligibility 

criteria described in Section 2.2, Eligibility Criteria. In accordance with Section 

3.1 of BLM Manual 6400 (BLM 2012), the BLM does not have the authority to 

evaluate the presence, absence, or quality of values that occur on private lands; 

however, the boundary of that river may include private lands. As such, the 

eligibility determinations in this report are only for those portions of rivers or 

streams that occur on BLM-administered lands. Eligibility determinations have 

not been made on portions of rivers or streams occurring on state or private 

lands.

Of the segments identified and evaluated, one segment in the planning area was

determined to be eligible for study (see Table 3-1, Segment Determined 

Eligible for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System). Figure 3-

1, below, depicts the eligible segment. Refer to Section 2.1, Methods Used to 

Identify River and Stream Segments, for a summary of segments determined not 

to meet the eligibility criteria.

Table 3-1

Segment Determined Eligible for Inclusion in the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System

River Segment

Length on BLMAdministered

Land (Miles)

Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values

Tentative 

Classification

Canadian River 7.25 Recreational, fish, cultural Recreational

3. Eligibility and Suitability Determinations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-3 

3.1.1 Canadian River

Location: Potter County, Texas. See Figure 3-1, Canadian River

Total Segment Length: 7.25 miles Total Segment Area: 2,200 acres

Length on BLM- 7.25 miles Area on BLM Land: 1,100 acres1

Administered Land:

Tentative Classification: Recreational

ORVs: Recreational, Fish, Cultural

Description of Outstandingly Remarkable Values

Scenic

There is considerable diversity of scenery and visual attractions along the 

segment, particularly on the Cross Bar Ranch portion of the study segment 

buffer; however, due to the extensive off-highway vehicle use on the north side 

of the river, and within the riverbed, the scenery and visual attractiveness within 

the study corridor is somewhat deteriorated. 

Additionally, highly visible mineral extraction operations (i.e., limestone and 

caliche quarries and oil and gas development) that are located north of the 

Canadian River on private lands further detract from the scenery and visual 

attractiveness. The corridor is also crossed by transmission lines, and a railroad 

trestle located just outside the study corridor is visible from within the 

corridor. 

The visual resources inventory indicates the study segment is located in the 

Canadian Breaks area with a Scenic Quality Rating of 20, a relatively low scenic

quality rating. For these reasons, the interdisciplinary team determined that the 

study segment does not qualify for a scenic ORV. 

Recreational

This southern half of the study corridor is located on the Cross Bar 

Management Area, the northern boundary of which abuts the Canadian River 

gradient boundary.2 The segment is located approximately 2.8 miles upstream of 

the NPS Lake Meredith National Recreational Area, Rosita Off-Road Vehicle 

Area. The Cross Bar Management Area river shoreline and area within the 

1,320-foot buffer of the segment offers diverse recreational opportunities like 

hiking, sight-seeing, fishing, hunting, and photography. These represent significant

and unique recreational opportunities that are otherwise not available in the 

 

1 The acreage of BLM-administered lands in the study corridor is approximate and measured from the medial line 

of the Canadian River and buffered by 1,320 feet; however, BLM ownership actually extends to the gradient 

boundary of the Canadian River, which is not surveyed. 2 See TPWD’s description of the gradient boundary in the Texas River Guide, available at the following website: 

http://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/nonpwdpubs/water_issues/rivers/navigation/riddell/gradientboundary.phtml. 
3. Eligibility and Suitability Determinations

3-4 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

region. Further, as nonmotorized multi-use trails and improved public access are 

developed within the study corridor, it is anticipated that this area will become 

an increasingly popular recreational destination. As such, recreation qualifies as 

an ORV. 

Geologic

There are no visible geologic features, processes, or phenomena that are unique 

to the study segment region. The study segment does not exhibit any unusual 

active stages of geologic development, nor represent a classic example of, or 

contain a unique or rare combination of, geologic features. For these reasons, 

the interdisciplinary team determined that the study segment does not qualify 

for a geologic ORV. 

Fish

The length of the Canadian River in Texas and several tributaries thereof are

known habitat for the federally listed threatened Arkansas River shiner (Notropis 

girardi). During periods of relatively warm spring flows, the Arkansas River

shiner may utilize the study segment for spawning, including within West 

Amarillo Creek (a tributary of the Canadian River) on the Cross Bar 

Management Area. The study corridor is in a segment of the Canadian River 

that is a TPWD Ecologically Significant Stream, as it supports the Arkansas River 

shiner (TPWD 2016). For these reasons, the study segment qualifies for a fish 

ORV. 

Wildlife

Habitat within the study corridor supports common wildlife species 

representative of this region, including, but not limited to, coyotes (Canis 

latrans), bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus), mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), 

scissor-tailed flycatchers (Tyrannus forficatus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), 

white-tailed deer (O. virginianus), and pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) 

(BLM 2011). The study segment is also used by migratory birds, as it is located 

on the central flyway migratory path (BLM 2015). 

Ongoing wildlife habitat improvement projects (BLM 2011, 2015) have occurred 

in the study segment corridor, including noxious weed and invasive plant 

control using herbicides and prescribed fire. While the study corridor provides 

excellent habitat for common wildlife species and migratory birds, wildlife of 

national or regional significance have not been documented, and the study 

corridor is unlikely to provide a unique habitat or a critical link in habitat 

conditions for state- or federally listed threatened and endangered species. (The 

federally listed endangered Arkansas River shiner occurs in the Canadian River; 

it is discussed under the Fish ORV, above.) For these reasons, the 

interdisciplinary team determined that the study segment does not qualify for 

the wildlife ORV. 
3. Eligibility and Suitability Determinations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-5

Historic

Several historic sites have been documented on the Cross Bar Management 

Area (SRI 2016). The most common uses of historical-period sites were with 

Civilian Conservation Corps activities, including check dams, or occupation and 

use of the Cross Bar Ranch complex, both of which were relatively recent. The 

ranch complex is no longer standing, but ranch house foundations, a water 

trough, cistern, corral, dumps, and other scattered artifacts of the complex have 

been recorded on the property (SRI 2016); however, these historic resources 

are not necessarily associated with a significant event, an important person, or a 

cultural activity of the past that was rare or unusual in the region; therefore, the

interdisciplinary team determined that the study segment does not qualify for a 

historic ORV.

Cultural

The Cross Bar Management Area has been subjected to numerous projects; 

many of these have been conducted to meet National Historic Preservation Act 

Sections 106 and 110 obligations, and some research-oriented projects have 

also been undertaken. Most of the larger projects have been along the Canadian 

River and its tributaries. The projects conducted along the Canadian River have 

contributed most to the current understanding of settlement, landscape use, 

subsistence, and other topics in this region. 

Seventy-four sites have been recorded on the Cross Bar Ranch property to 

date; these site identifications have resulted from less than a dozen different 

efforts (SRI 2016). Site types range from lithic scatters and burned-rock clusters 

to stone-slab architectural features, and most sites are along intermittent and 

permanent water courses including the Canadian River and its tributaries. For 

these reasons, the study segment qualifies for a cultural ORV.

Tentative Classification

The tentative classification for this segment is recreational. While the study 

segment is free from impoundment or diversion, it shows evidence of 

development and sees substantial human activity. The northern portion of the 

study corridor, and the river bottom itself, is readily accessible by off-highway 

vehicles. In addition, the southern portion of the study corridor on BLMadministered lands is accessible to nonmotorized recreational pursuits, including 

hiking and hunting. Anticipated development of additional nonmotorized multiuse trails and improved public access will increase accessibility for recreational 

uses on BLM-administered lands in the study corridor.

3.2 SUITABILITY EVALUATION

After a suitability analysis, which is documented in this section, the eligible 

segment was found preliminarily suitable for inclusion in the National System. 

The suitability criteria presented in this section are summarized from the 

criteria presented in Section 2.3, Suitability Criteria.
3. Eligibility and Suitability Determinations

3-6 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

3.2.1 River Corridor Description

Landownership and Land Uses

The BLM administers approximately 1,100 acres (50 percent) of the study 

corridor, which totals approximately 2,200 acres. BLM-administered lands in the 

study corridor include the Cross Bar Management Area, the northern boundary 

of which is the gradient boundary of the Canadian River. The riverbed is owned 

by the state, held in trust for the public.

Cross Bar Management Area

The Cross Bar Management Area tract was originally purchased by the federal 

government in 1931 as part of a program to establish a strategic helium reserve. 

The Cross Bar Management Area overlies an active gas field and helium storage 

dome. The Cross Bar Management Area lands were acquired from Humble Oil 

and Refining Company in 1931, under the Acts of February 15, 1928, and 

January 25, 1929, which gave the US Department of the Interior approval to 

acquire land to produce and transport helium gas. 

In 1997, due to the elimination of the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Mines, the Helium Operations portion was transferred to the BLM. As part of 

the BLM, those acquired lands and minerals then came under the jurisdiction of 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). 

The Cross Bar Management Area is surrounded by private lands. It was 

completely closed to all public use from its acquisition in 1931 until 1997, when 

the Bureau of Mines office in Amarillo became part of the BLM. The property 

has no legal physical public access; however, it is open to visitors for archery 

hunting, hiking, and general naturalizing. Visitors can reach the property via the 

Canadian River, which borders the Cross Bar Management Area on the north. 

Improved public access easements are in the planning stage.3

Management of the Cross Bar Management Area is subject to conformance with 

the Texas RMP (BLM 1996), as amended (BLM 2000), as discussed in the Joint 

EIS/BLM RMP and BIA INRMP. Today the Cross Bar Management Area is used 

for a variety of ecological and archeological research projects and for public 

recreation.

Private Lands in the Study Corridor

The remaining approximately 1,100 acres (50 percent) of the study corridor not 

in the Cross Bar Management Area is private land on the northern side of the

Canadian River. The portion of the study corridor on private land would be 

subject to subdivision regulations, as required by state law (Title 7 Subtitle B 

Chapter 232) when a landowner divides a tract of land into two or more parts. 

Subdivision regulations typically ensure land parcels have adequate access, traffic 

 3 Adrian Escobar, BLM Natural Resource Specialist, telephone call with Morgan Trieger, EMPSi, August 30, 2016. 
3. Eligibility and Suitability Determinations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-7

circulation, room for installation of utilities, and related considerations, but 

provide few restrictions on the types of land uses allowed; however, if a 

subdivision proposes groundwater use, it is subject to review and approval by 

the state; therefore, land uses on private lands could have direct bearing on 

maintaining the free-flowing character or ORV protection if lands were 

subdivided and groundwater use was proposed under the subdivision. Such uses 

could include, but are not limited to, protection or development of mineral 

resources, ranch or farm type agricultural production, other development, or

protection of important wildlife and aquatic habitats. 

Mineral and Energy Resource Activities

The study corridor vicinity overlies an inactive gas field and helium storage 

dome. The Cross Bar Ranch was a former federal strategic helium reserve. 

Several oil and gas wells and other energy infrastructure exist in the Cross Bar 

Management Area portion of the study corridor. These include wells, risers, and 

a pipeline. According to the Texas RMP amendment (BLM 2000), the gas estate 

within the Cross Bar Management Area is owned by the federal government but 

is not subject to lease by the BLM under the Mineral Leasing for Acquired 

Minerals Act (43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Part 3100.3-3(b)(2)(v)). 

There are few oil and gas wells on private lands in the study corridor north of 

the Canadian River. Oil and gas wells, including directional wells, are more 

numerous on private lands outside of the study corridor (RRC 2016a).

Mineral quarries exist on the private lands north of the Canadian River, 

including within portions of the study corridor. Limestone and caliche is 

quarried from these operations, and associated roads, infrastructure, and an 

approximately 7-acre detention/settling pond exist in the study corridor north 

of the Canadian River.

Water Resources Development

There are no diversions or bank modifications within the study segment. 

An approximately 7-acre detention/settling pond is located on private lands in 

the northwest portion of the study corridor, as described above.

Transportation, Facilities, and Other Developments

US Route 87/287 runs north-south and crosses the Canadian River 

approximately 1 mile east, or downstream, of the study segment. It is not in the 

study corridor.

A Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad segment crosses the Canadian 

River just outside of the downstream end of the study segment (TDOT 2016). 

This segment originates in Amarillo, Texas, and continues north to Dumas, 

Texas, before continuing further north into Oklahoma. In the study corridor 

vicinity, it roughly parallels US Route 87/287. It crosses the Canadian River via a 

1,700-foot-long truss bridge, which sits on large concrete footings, several of 
3. Eligibility and Suitability Determinations

3-8 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

which are located in the active floodplain of the river. A 400-foot-wide right-ofway (ROW) was granted to the North Plains and Santa Fe Railroad on July 17, 

1933 (BLM 2000). BNSF now manages the easement. 

No passenger rail exists in the vicinity of the study corridor (TDOT 2016).

A 230-kilovolt transmission line and an associated dirt access road traverse 

north-south through the Cross Bar Management Area and Canadian River (BLM 

GIS 2016). BLM identified the management action of designating an electrical 

transmission line ROW in the Texas RMP Amendment (BLM 2000). The 

transmission line extends into the private lands on the north side of the 

Canadian River. 

There are several unpaved roads on both BLM-administered and private lands in 

the study corridor. Roads on the private lands north of the Canadian River are 

heavily used by off-highway vehicles. No off-highway vehicle allocations or other 

vehicular use exists on the BLM-administered lands in the study corridor, but 

the roads are used by hunters and naturalists.

Recreation Activities

The Cross Bar Management Area Canadian River shoreline and area within the 

study corridor offer diverse recreational opportunities such as fishing, hiking, 

sight-seeing, hunting, and photography. These represent significant recreational 

opportunities that are otherwise not available in the region. No developed 

recreation facilities exist in the study corridor, and informal, hike-in access is the 

only recreation access on BLM-administered lands. 

The BLM is developing plans for approximately 25 miles of mixed-use,

nonmotorized trails in the Cross Bar Management Area. Trails would be 

concentrated along the river cliff edges, including along the Canadian River 

breaks and along other tributary stream cliff edges in the study corridor.4 The 

BLM is also planning improved public access via an easement through private 

property; this would likely improve and increase public access to the study 

corridor.

There is no current management allocation for off-highway vehicle use in the 

Cross Bar Management Area. The area is surrounded by private land, though an 

easement is planned that will improve public access in the future.5 If access is 

improved, there will likely be an increased demand for creating designated 

routes for motorized and nonmotorized use. 

Chapter 90 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code contains a prohibition against 

operating a wheeled or tracked motor vehicle in the “protected freshwater 

 4 Adrian Escobar, BLM Natural Resource Specialist, telephone call with Morgan Trieger, EMPSi, August 30, 2016 5 Ibid.
3. Eligibility and Suitability Determinations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-9

area” (the bed, bottom, and banks up to the gradient boundary) of a stream 

navigable by statute; however, the Canadian River is not governed by this law, 

under an exception for a river with headwaters and a confluence in a state 

other than Texas. Off-highway vehicle use on the riverbed within the study 

corridor is high.

Private lands north of the Canadian River are used extensively by off-highway 

vehicles and other forms of motorized recreation. There is no formal 

management for these recreation activities. Recreationists routinely cut fence 

lines on private property to gain access to the river area; eventually, private 

landowners pulled back fence lines to prevent further vandalism.6 This has 

resulted in increased off-highway vehicle use on these private lands.

Other Resource Activities

All of the study corridor in the Cross Bar Management Area was grazed heavily 

by livestock from 1932 until 1993. A specific carrying capacity for cattle grazers 

was never determined or implemented. Consequently, successful bidders ran as 

many as 2,000 head of cattle on land that should not have carried more than 

300 at any given time. From 1993 until 1999, 8,078 acres ceased to be grazed by 

cattle, while from 1993 until 1999, 3,755 acres continued to be grazed by cattle. 

Since 1999, no cattle grazing has occurred on these lands (BLM 2000).

The BLM is negotiating a grazing lease on the Cross Bar Management Area for 

the purposes of research for prairie restoration and weed control. If grazing is 

resumed, sensitive riparian vegetation along the Canadian River would be 

excluded from livestock grazing.

Livestock also graze in the study corridor on private lands north of the 

Canadian River and within the riverbed itself. The number of head of cattle and 

season of use are not known.7

The Canadian River, including the study segment, is known habitat for the 

federally and state-listed Arkansas River shiner. The federally listed threatened

Arkansas River shiner is protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(ESA). The purpose of the ESA is to protect and recover imperiled species and 

the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA protects endangered and 

threatened species and their habitats by prohibiting the “take”8 of listed animals 

and the interstate or international trade in listed plants and animals, including 

their parts and products, except under federal permit.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the Arkansas River shiner as 

threatened under the ESA in 1998 (63 Federal Register 64772, November 23,

 6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Generally, to capture, trap, injure, harass, kill, etc.
3. Eligibility and Suitability Determinations

3-10 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

1998). The USFWS is undergoing a 5-year status review, initiated on February 

11, 2009, of 23 southwestern listed species, including the Arkansas River shiner 

(74 Federal Register 6917, February 11, 2009). Critical habitat was designated in 

2005 for this species (70 Federal Register 59808, October 13, 2005), but no 

critical habitat is in the Canadian River watershed within Texas. The nearest 

designated critical habitat is in the Canadian River in Oklahoma, approximately 

200 air miles downstream of the study corridor. 

It is BLM policy that actions authorized by BLM shall further the conservation of 

federally listed and other special status species and shall not contribute to the 

need to list any special status species under provisions of the ESA, or designate 

additional sensitive species under provisions of BLM Manual 6840, Special Status 

Species Management (BLM 2001).

Habitat restoration, including noxious weed and invasive plant management, is 

ongoing in the Cross Bar Management Area. Noxious weeds targeted for 

treatment are generally native and nonnative, invasive woody shrubs, including 

mesquite (Prosopis spp.) and salt cedar (Tamarix spp.). Treatments have included 

spot application of herbicide (BLM 2011) and prescribed burning (BLM 2015).

Future treatments may also include prescribed livestock grazing. 

Special Areas

BLM Manual 6400 (BLM 2012) gives several examples of special areas, which can 

include, but are not limited to, designated wilderness, wilderness study areas, 

National Recreation Areas, Scenic Byways, archaeological sites or districts, 

research natural areas, state waterways, and other areas of special designation. 

A special area near the study corridor is the Lake Meredith National Recreation 

Area, administered by the NPS. It is approximately 2.8 miles downstream of the 

study corridor. 

Another special area near the study corridor is the Alibates Flint Quarries 

National Monument, which abuts the Lake Meredith National Recreation Area 

on the south shore of Lake Meredith. It is about 15 miles northeast of the study 

corridor. The monument contains quarries that provided an extensive resource 

of raw lithic material for stone tool-making during the Antelope Creek phase of 

human settlement in the area (SRI 2016). It provides excavation, research, and 

educational opportunities. The Lake Meredith National Recreation Area and 

Alibates Flint Quarries National Monuments are depicted on Figure 3-2,

Special Areas. 

No sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places are in the study 

corridor; the nearest sites are in the Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, 

approximately 12 miles northeast of the study corridor (BLM 2000).

3. Eligibility and Suitability Determinations

3-12 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Socioeconomic Environment

Potter County, Texas, is in the northern Texas Panhandle. The county was 

created in 1876 and organized in 1887 (Long 2008), and Amarillo is the county 

seat. In 1900 the county’s primary economy was in agriculture. Since that time, 

rapid population growth has occurred; this trend is expected to continue in and 

around Amarillo and southern Potter County (Potter County 2016). 

The Potter County population was 121,073 people in 2010, which is a 7 percent 

increase since 2000. The population density is approximately 133 people per 

square mile. Potter County is the thirty-third most populous of Texas’s 254 

counties. As of 2011, US Department of Labor “Super Sectors” most

represented in the Potter County workforce were Education and Health 

Services; Trade, Transportation, and Utilities; and Manufacturing (Philips, no 

date).

Personal income by place of residence (which includes all wage earners living 

within a single household), based on the 2000 US Bureau of Economic Analysis 

estimates, was roughly $66,865 for the Potter County region. This compares to 

$78,626 statewide. Per capita personal income for 2005 was $26,219 in Potter 

County, while Texas statewide had a per capita income of $32,460 (Philips, no 

date). Approximately 19.9 percent of the population fell below the poverty level 

(Philips, no date). Unemployment rates have generally decreased over the past 

several years, with a low of 3.4 percent in 2015 and a high of 6.3 percent in 

2010 (TWC 2016). 

Current Administration and Funding Needs if Designated

The BLM and private owners administer land with the river study corridor. The 

BLM would work with interested landowners as necessary to determine 

administrative needs if designated.

3.2.2 Suitability Criteria

Characteristics that do, or do not, make the area a worthy addition to the 

National System

The study segment shoreline and corridor within the Cross Bar Management 

Area offer diverse recreational opportunities such as hiking, sight-seeing, 

hunting, and photography. These represent significant recreational opportunities 

that are otherwise not available in the region. Further, as multi-use trails are 

designed and constructed in the Cross Bar Management Area and public access 

is improved, it is anticipated that this area will become an increasingly popular 

recreational destination.

The Canadian River, including the study segment, is known habitat for the 

federally listed threatened Arkansas River shiner, which spawns in the river 

during periods of relatively warm spring flows. The TPWD considers this 

segment of the Canadian River ecologically significant, as it supports this fish 

species.
3. Eligibility and Suitability Determinations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-13

Cultural sites along the Canadian River have contributed significantly to the 

current understanding of settlement, landscape use, subsistence, and other 

topics in this region. Sites concentrated along the Canadian River in the Cross 

Bar Management Area range from lithic scatters and burned-rock clusters to 

stone-slab architectural features.

Current status of landownership and use in the area

The BLM manages approximately 1,100 acres (50 percent) of the study corridor, 

which totals approximately 2,200 acres. BLM-administered lands in the study 

corridor include the Cross Bar Management Area, the northern boundary of 

which is the gradient boundary of the Canadian River. The riverbed is owned by 

the state, held in trust for the public. 

Reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water that would 

be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the 

National System

Recreational use of the river would be enhanced through WSR designation by 

potentially allowing the BLM to manage the river to provide for an exceptional 

recreational experience. The TPWD ecologically significant segment designation 

would also be enhanced as protections on BLM-administered land related to 

WSR designation helped to improve water quality and habitat for the Arkansas 

River shiner in the segment. 

The understanding of cultural resources within the study corridor would also be 

enhanced by designation. Designation would prohibit ground-disturbing activities 

within the corridor on BLM-administered lands that may damage or destroy 

such resources.

As described in Section 3.2.3, Land Use Plan Alternatives, designation would 

close BLM-administered lands in the study corridor to mineral material disposal 

and nonenergy leasable minerals. Designation would also exclude new ROWs

on BLM-administered lands.

Enhancements and foreclosures discussed above would not apply on study 

segment private lands on the north side of the Canadian River.

If designated, it is unlikely that there would be new water appropriations along 

the corridor; however, because the water in the Canadian River is heavily, if not 

fully, allocated, this is not likely to be an issue. This is discussed further under 

The potential for water resources development, below.

The federal agency that will administer the area should it be added to the 

National System

Because the only federal agency managing land in the study corridor is the BLM, 

the BLM would administer the area if it is added to the National System, unless 

Congress designated another agency. 
3. Eligibility and Suitability Determinations

3-14 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

The extent to which the agency proposes that administration of the river, 

including the costs thereof, is shared by state and local agencies

The BLM would encourage state and local agency cooperation in the 

management and maintenance of the river corridor, where appropriate, to meet 

overall goals of river protection. Sharing administration with USFWS and/or 

TPWD may be feasible because the river segment supports the federally and 

state-listed Arkansas River shiner and the state owns the riverbed. 

Administration and funding would be determined in cooperation with state and 

local agencies after designation.

The estimated cost of acquiring necessary lands or interests in land within 

the corridor, as well as the cost of administering the area should it be 

added to the National System

Designation could bring increased levels of visitors. If that occurred, the cost of 

administering the area could increase from the present level to provide 

adequate facilities for visitors. The need for BLM presence for activities such as 

monitoring and law enforcement could also increase from the present level. 

Conversely, the BLM could offset the costs by collecting fees for camping, 

specialized programs, and services. 

The BLM may be interested in acquiring adjacent land in the area from willing 

sellers if the segment is designated. It is unknown if designation would facilitate 

acquisition of lands by making it easier to get funding and gain public support.

No detailed cost analysis or estimate was prepared as part of this study.

The extent that other federal agencies, the state, or its political 

subdivisions might participate in the preservation and administration of 

the river should it be proposed for inclusion in the National System

The Canadian River is a TPWD ecologically significant segment, as it supports 

Arkansas River Shiner. Additionally, the state owns the riverbed, which is held in 

trust for the public. The TPWD may participate in the preservation and 

administration of the river should it be proposed for inclusion in the National 

System.

An evaluation of local zoning and other land use controls in protecting the 

river’s outstandingly remarkable values and preventing incompatible 

development

Management of the Cross Bar Management Area is subject to conformance with 

the Texas RMP (BLM 1996), as amended (BLM 2000), as discussed in the joint 

EIS/BLM RMP and BIA INRMP. Today, the Cross Bar Management Area is used 

for a variety of ecological and archeological research projects and for public 

recreation, which are uses compatible with the study segment’s ORVs.

The portion of the study corridor on private land would be subject to 

subdivision regulations, as required by state law (Title 7 Subtitle B Chapter 232). 

Subdivision regulations provide few restrictions on the types of land uses 
3. Eligibility and Suitability Determinations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-15

allowed; however, if a subdivision proposed groundwater use, it would be

subject to review and approval by the Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality and Texas Water Development Board. Review and approval by state 

agencies would likely help protect those ORVs directly related to groundwater 

availability and quality. 

Chapter 90 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code contains a prohibition against 

operating a wheeled or tracked motor vehicle in the “protected freshwater 

area” (the bed, bottom, and banks up to the gradient boundary) of a stream 

navigable by statute; however, the Canadian River is not governed by this law, 

under an exception for a river with headwaters in a state other than Texas and 

a confluence in another state.

The state/local government’s capacity to manage and protect the ORVs 

on nonfederal lands

State and local government does not have the capacity to directly manage and 

protect ORVs within the study segment due to lack of surface administration; 

however, several resource programs on both BLM-administered and private 

lands in the study corridor are under the purview of state regulations, as 

described below. These regulations would provide incidental protections to 

several of the ORVs. 

The Arkansas River shiner, in addition to being federally listed under the ESA, is 

a Texas-listed threatened species under the jurisdiction of the TPWD. TPWD 

regulations (Texas Administrative Code Title 31 Sections 65.171-65.176 and 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Code Chapter 68) prohibit take of any of the animal 

species designated by state law as endangered or threatened without the 

issuance of a permit. Activities in the study corridor (on both BLM-administered 

and private lands) with the potential to impact the Arkansas River shiner would 

require approval from TPWD. This would help protect the fish ORV.

Mineral estate on the private lands north of the Canadian River is managed by 

the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC), through its Oil and Gas Division. 

RRC regulates the exploration, production, and transportation of oil and natural 

gas in Texas, including preventing pollution of surface and groundwater 

resources through well plugging and site remediation funded by industry fees

and taxes (RRC 2016b). Water pollution prevention management associated 

with oil and gas production on these lands would likely provide some incidental

protections for the fish and recreation ORVs by maintaining surface and 

groundwater quality. 

The portion of the study corridor on private land would also be subject to 

subdivision regulations, as required by state law (Title 7 Subtitle B Chapter 232). 

Subdivision regulations require a subdivision proposing groundwater use to be

subject to review and approval by the Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality and Texas Water Development Board. Review and approval by state 
3. Eligibility and Suitability Determinations

3-16 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

agencies would likely help protect those ORVs directly related to groundwater 

availability and quality, such as the fish ORV.

The existing support or opposition of designation

At a public meeting in Amarillo, Texas, on January 9, 2014, several attendees 

asked several questions about the Cross Bar Management Area related to public 

access, funding, permits, and off-road vehicle use (BLM and BIA 2014). No 

comments were recorded regarding support of or opposition to evaluation of 

the Canadian River for designation or protection of ORVs. 

The consistency of designation with other agency plans, programs, and 

policies in meeting regional objectives

The Arkansas River shiner, which occurs in the study segment, is protected 

under the federal ESA and TPWD regulations (Texas Administrative Code Title 

31 Sections 65.171-65.176 and Texas Parks and Wildlife Code Chapter 68). It is 

BLM policy that actions authorized by BLM shall further the conservation of 

federally listed and other special status species and shall not contribute to the 

need to list any special status species under provisions of the ESA, or designate 

additional sensitive species under provisions of BLM Manual 6840, Special Status 

Species Management (BLM 2001;. thus, designation of the study segment and 

subsequent management to protect the fish ORV would ensure consistency 

with the ESA and TPWD regulations regarding Arkansas River shiner.

The study corridor is in a segment of the Canadian River that is a TPWD 

Ecologically Significant Stream, so designated because it supports the Arkansas 

River shiner (TPWD 2016). The segment is from the confluence with Camp 

Creek in the Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, upstream to the New 

Mexico border. Designation as ecologically significant means that a state agency 

or political subdivision of the state may not finance construction of a reservoir 

in a designated segment. Designation as suitable would not conflict with state 

policies for Ecologically Significant Streams. 

The Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, approximately 2.8 miles 

downstream of the study segment, and the Alibates Flint Quarries National 

Monument, approximately 15 miles northeast of the study corridor, are

governed by the CFRs. Designation of the study segment would not be 

inconsistent with any guiding management of the Lake Meredith National 

Recreation Area or the Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument. 

The contribution to river system or basin integrity

The study segment is approximately 7.25 miles long, which represents 

approximately 0.8 percent of the total length (approximately 906 miles) of the 

Canadian River from its headwaters to the confluence with the Arkansas River

in Oklahoma. As such, beneficial contributions to river system or basin integrity 

from study segment designation would be limited.
3. Eligibility and Suitability Determinations

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-17

The Canadian River, from the confluence (upstream end) of Lake Meredith, 

upstream to the New Mexico state line, is listed on the Texas 303(d) list for 

chloride (Segment 0103_01, 0103_02, and 0103_03; TCEQ 2015). This listed 

reach includes the study corridor. The most recent year of listing was 2014; 

these segments were first listed in 2006. Previously, the study segment was 

listed for the water quality indicator “pathogens” (BLM 2000), but this listing has 

been removed. 

As summarized in Table 2-3, water quality impairment does not preclude the 

Recreational classification, provided a water quality improvement plan exists or 

is being developed in compliance with applicable federal and state laws. These 

segments are listed in the TCEQ (2015) report as Category 5c, meaning that 

additional data or information needs to be collected and/or evaluated before a 

management strategy is selected.

The potential for water resources development

The study segment is a TPWD ecologically significant segment. Per 16.051(f) of 

the Texas Water Code, this designation means that a state agency or political 

subdivision of the state may not finance the actual construction of a reservoir in 

a designated segment.

Water appropriation within the Canadian River is guided by the Canadian River 

Compact, signed in 1950 between representatives of the states of New Mexico, 

Texas, and Oklahoma, and the United States. Water from the study segment is 

allocated by the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority, which supplies 

water to 11 member cities in the Texas Panhandle and South Plains via a 358-

mile aqueduct constructed by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Reclamation in the 1960s. The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority’s 

current source of water is Lake Meredith and the John C. Williams Aqueduct 

and Wellfield in the Texas Panhandle.

According to the Canadian River Compact, New Mexico can hold 200,000 acrefeet from the Canadian River (in Ute Reservoir) before it would have to release 

water to Texas. Any water stored above that level must be released to the 

Canadian River and will eventually make its way to Lake Meredith. Texas can 

hold 500,000 acre-feet in Lake Meredith before water must be released for 

Oklahoma (Canadian River Municipal Water Authority 2016). 

There is little chance for new water resources development on the river. Calls 

for downstream water by both Texas and Oklahoma under the Canadian River 

Compact generally keep adequate flows running through the study segment to 

support the ORVs.

3.2.3 Land Use Plan Alternatives

The Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA INRMP evaluated a range of alternatives 

for the study segment, which are summarized in this section. 
3. Eligibility and Suitability Determinations

3-18 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the eligible segment would be managed according to 

interim management for eligible segments (see Section 4.1, Interim 

Management). This would be done to maintain the free-flowing character, 

ORVs, water quality, and tentative classifications. No suitability determination is 

made.

Alternative B

Under Alternative B the segment would be determined to be preliminarily 

suitable for congressional designation and inclusion in the National System, with 

a tentative classification of recreational. The suitable segment would be as 

follows: 

• Managed as Visual Resources Management (VRM) Class III

• Closed to mineral material disposal and nonenergy leasable minerals

• Managed as ROW avoidance

Alternative C

The Canadian River segment would be managed similar to Alternative B; 

however, under Alternative C, the preliminarily suitable segment would be 

managed as VRM Class II. 

Alternative D

The Canadian River segment would be determined to be not suitable for 

inclusion in the National System and would be released from interim protective 

management.

3.2.4 Suitability Determination

The Canadian River segment was found preliminarily suitable for inclusion in the 

National System. The BLM will manage the suitable river segment to protect the 

free-flowing condition, ORVs, and water quality and to maintain the tentative

classification. Congressional legislation is required for actual designation and final 

classification of suitable river segments.
November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 4-1

SECTION 4

INTERIM MANAGEMENT AND NEXT STEPS

4.1 INTERIM MANAGEMENT

River segments determined to be eligible are afforded interim protective 

management until a suitability study is completed. The BLM’s policy is to protect 

any ORVs identified in the eligibility determination process to assure a decision 

on suitability can be made, or in the case of suitable rivers, until Congress 

designates the river or releases it for further uses (BLM 2012). 

The BLM has broad discretion authority to not impact river values or make 

decisions that might lead to a determination of ineligibility or nonsuitability. It is 

the BLM’s policy to manage and protect the free-flowing condition, tentative 

classification, and identified ORVs of eligible rivers according to the decisions in

the associated RMP. This protection occurs at the point of eligibility 

determination, so as not to adversely constrain the suitability assessment, and at 

the point of suitability determination and subsequent recommendation to 

Congress.

The BLM may protect river values using NEPA, FLPMA, and other existing 

authorities such as the ESA, Clean Water Act, or Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act. Wild and scenic river issues involving NEPA supplementation 

are the same as for other resource values. When the BLM considers a proposal 

that could constitute a major federal action that significantly affects the quality of 

the human environment, the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations 

require NEPA compliance before the BLM can act on the proposal (40 CFR, 

Part 1506.1). Eligible river segments determined to be unsuitable through a land

use plan decision are subject to the direction and management decisions 

contained in the RMP/EIS.

Table 4-1, below, describes the interim protection standards for eligible and 

suitable segments.
4. Interim Management and Next Steps

4-2 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 4-1

Interim Protection for Candidate Wild and Scenic Rivers

Issue Management Prescription/Action

Study Boundary Minimum of 1,320-foot from ordinary high-water mark

Boundary may include adjacent areas needed to protect identified values 

Tentative Classification

(Section 2(b) of WSR Act)

3 classes: wild, scenic, recreational (defined by statute)

Criteria for classification described in Interagency Guidelines and BLM 

Manual 6400 (BLM 2012)

Manage at recommended classification 

Study Report Review 

Procedures

Notice of study report/Draft EIS published in Federal Register

Comments/response from federal, state, and local agencies and the 

public included in the study report/Final EIS transmitted to the 

President and Congress

Private Land:

• Administration

• Acquisition

Affect private land uses through voluntary partnership with state or 

local governments and landowners

No regulatory authority

Typically an evaluation of the adequacy of local zoning and land use 

controls is a component of suitability determination1

No ability to acquire interest in land under the WSR Act’s authority 

prior to designation

Water Resources Project River’s free-flowing condition protected to the extent of other agency 

authorities; not protected under the WSR Act 

Land Disposition Agency discretion to retain lands within river corridor in federal 

ownership 

Mining and Mineral Leasing Protect free flow, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values

through other agency authorities 

Actions of Other Agencies Affect actions of other agencies through voluntary partnership

Protect Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values

No regulatory authority conferred by the WSR Act; agency protects 

through other authorities

Section 11(b)1: Limited financial or other assistance to encourage 

participation in the acquisition, protection, and management of river 

resources2

Source: Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council 1999

1

For an agency-identified study river that includes private lands, there is often the need to evaluate existing state 

and local land use controls and, if necessary, assess the willingness of state and local governments to protect 

river values.

2

Section 11(b)1 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture, or the head of any other 

federal agency, to provide for “limited financial or other assistance to encourage participation in the acquisition, 

protection, and management of river resources.” This authority “applies within or outside a federally 

administered area and applies to rivers which are components of the National System and to other rivers.” The 

recipients of federal assistance include states or their political subdivisions, landowners, private organizations, or 

individuals. Some examples of assistance under this section include, but are not limited to, riparian restoration, 

riparian fencing to protect water quality and riparian vegetation, or vegetative screening to enhance 

scenery/recreation experience.
4. Interim Management and Next Steps

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 4-3 

In addition to the general interim management afforded to eligible and suitable 

segments, the RMP identifies specific management for suitable segments. The 

BLM Preferred Alternative of the Draft RMP/EIS (Alternative B) identifies the 

management described below for the Canadian River. Congressional legislation

is required for actual designation and final classification of suitable river 

segments.

Canadian River

• Tentative Classification: Recreational

• Manage as VRM Class III

• Close to mineral material disposal and nonenergy leasable minerals 

• Manage as ROW avoidance
4. Interim Management and Next Steps

4-4 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 5-1

SECTION 5

LIST OF PREPARERS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Name Title/Role

Adrian Escobar Natural Resource Specialist, Amarillo Field Office

Lori Whitehorse Planning and Environmental Coordinator, Oklahoma Field Office

CONTRACTOR

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING SOLUTIONS, INC.

www.empsi.com

Name Role/Responsibility Education

Jenna Jonker Geographic Information Systems BA, Geography

Kate Krebs QA/QC BA, Environmental Studies, Spanish

Holly Prohaska RMP/EIS Project Manager MS, Environmental Management, BA, Marine 

Science/Biology

Morgan Trieger WSR Eligibility and Suitability BS, Conservation and Resource Studies
5. List of Preparers

5-2 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 6-1

SECTION 6

REFERENCES

BLM (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1986. Manual H-8410-1—Visual 

Resource Inventory. Rel. 8-28. BLM, Washington, DC.

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

Oklahoma. 

_____. 2000. Proposed Texas Resource Management Plant Amendment and Environmental Assessment. 

BLM Amarillo Field Office, Amarillo, Texas.

_____. 2001. Manual 6840—Special Status Species Management. Rel. 6-121, January 17, 2001. BLM, 

Washington, DC.

_____. 2011. Environmental Assessment. Cross Bar Cooperative Management Area: Mesquite, Salt 

Cedar, and Cholla Cactus Eradication Project. BLM Amarillo Field Office, Amarillo, Texas. DOIBLM-NM-060-2011-02.

_____. 2012. Manual 6400—Wild and Scenic Rivers—Policy and Program Direction for Identification, 

Evaluation, Planning, and Management. Rel. 6-136. BLM, Washington, DC. July 13, 2012.

_____. 2015. Record of Decision. Prescribed Burning on the Cross Bar Management Area. BLM 

Amarillo Field Office, Amarillo, Texas. DOI-BLM-NM-0060-2015-2-EA.

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

System). 2016. Base GIS data on file with the BLM’s eGIS server used for calculations or figures; 

includes data prepared for the RFDS and Version 07_02 of the decision area. BLM, Oklahoma 

Field Office, Tulsa.

BLM and BIA (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and US Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs). 2014. Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement. Final Scoping Summary Report.
6. References

6-2 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Canadian River Municipal Water Authority. 2016. Canadian River Municipal Water Authority. Internet 

website: http://www.crmwa.com/. 

Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council. 1999. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Study 

Process, Technical Report. Washington, DC.

_____. 2018. River Mileage Classifications for Components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. Updated February 2018. Internet website: https://www.rivers.gov/

documents/rivers-table.pdf. 

Long, J. H. (Ed.). 2008. Texas: Individual County Chronologies. Internet website: 

http://publications.newberry.org/ahcbp/documents/TX_Individual_County_Chronologies.htm. 

OSRC (Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission). 2016. Scenic Rivers. Internet website: 

https://ok.gov/osrc/Scenic_Rivers/index.html. 

Philips, B. U. No date. Community Health Assessment – Potter County. F. Marie Hall Institute for Rural 

and Community Health, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

Potter County. 2016. Potter County, Texas. Internet website: 

http://www.co.potter.tx.us/default.aspx?Potter_County/About.PotterCounty. 

RRC (Railroad Commission of Texas). 2016a. Public GIS Viewer. Internet website: 

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/about-us/resource-center/research/gis-viewers/. 

_____. 2016b. Oil and Gas Division. Internet website: http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/about-us/organizationactivities/divisions-of-the-rrc/oil-gas-division/. 

Rivers.gov GIS. 2009. GIS data of designated wild and scenic rivers. Data last updated 2009. Internet 

website: www.rivers.gov.

SRI (Statistical Research Inc.). 2016. Class 1 Cultural Resources Survey of BLM and BIA Lands in 

Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Edited by Christine Ward, with contributions by A. M. 

Hernandez, P. O. Leckman, T. M. Mills, M. L. Murrell, D. T. Unruh, C. Ward, and R. Wells. 

Prepared for the BLM Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa, and (EMPSi) Environmental Management 

and Planning Solutions, Inc., Boulder, Colorado.

TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). 2015. 2014 Texas Integrated Report – Texas 

303(d) list (Category 5). Internet website : https://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/assessment/

14twqi/14txir. 

TDOT (Texas Department of Transportation). 2016. Texas Rail Plan – Maps. Internet website: 

http://www.txdot.gov/government/reports/texas-rail-plan/maps.html. 

TPWD (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department). 2016. Ecologically Significant Stream Segments. Internet 

website: http://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/water/conservation/water_resources/water_quantity/

sigsegs/. 
6. References

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 6-3

TWC (Texas Workforce Commission). 2016. Unemployment (LAUS). Internet website: 

http://www.tracer2.com/cgi/dataanalysis/AreaSelection.asp?tableName=Labforce. 

US Geological Survey. 1946. Nevin M. Fenneman, 1946, Physical Divisions of the United States: US 

Geological Survey, scale 1:7,000,000. Internet website: http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/

metadata/usgswrd/XML/physio.xml#stdorder. 

US Geological Survey GIS. 1996. Nationwide Rivers Inventory for Continental US. Internet website: 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/nrdata.
6. References

6-4 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

This page intentionally left blank.

BLM/NM/PL-18-02-1610