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
United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 


Oklahoma Field Office 


BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 


Eastern Oklahoma Region 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Southern Plains Region 

In Reply Refer To 

1610 (00400) September 21, 20 I 8 

Dear Reader: 

Attached for your review and comment is the Oklahoma-Kansas-Texas (OKT) Draft Joint Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS)IBLM Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the BIA Integrated RMP for the BLM Oklahoma Field Office, the BIA 

Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office, and the BIA Southern Plains Regional Office. The BLM and the BIA have jointly 

prepared the OKT EIS/RMP in consultation with 52 cooperating agencies, and in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 

1500-1508); DOl NEPA regulations (43 CFR46); and the requirements ofthe BLM's NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1 and the 

BIA's NEPA Guidebook, 59 Indian Affairs Manual 3-H. 

The BLM decision area includes 15,100 acres of BLM-administered surface lands, plus additional lands in the Red River 

area, and 4,810,900 acres of BLM-administered federal mineral estate. This includes federal lands across Oklahoma, 

Kansas, and Texas planning area. The BIA decision area includes 394,200 surface acres and 2,033,500 mineral estate acres 

in the BIA Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office. Of that, approximately I,474,500 acres of the mineral estate are located in 

Osage County. In Osage County, only non-fluid minerals are included in the decision area for this Integrated RMP. Fluid 

minerals are being addressed separately in the Osage County Oil and Gas EIS. The BlA decision oren also includes 457,500 

surface acres and 632,000 mineral estate acres in the BIA Southern Plains Regional Office. This includes lands and mineral 

estate in Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and Richardson County, Nebraska. 

Upon approval, the BLM RMP will replace the 1994 Oklahoma RMP, as amended; the 1991 Kansas RMP; and the 1996 

Texas RMP, as amended. This revised, consolidated RMP will guide the management of public lands administered by the 

BLM Oklahoma Field Office into the future. When approved, the BIA Integrated RMP will guide management for 

restricted tribal lands and lands administered by the BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regional Offices. It also 

will guide allotted and tribal mineral interests, except for fluid minerals in Osage County. The Oklahoma-Kansas-Texas 

Draft Joint EJS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP and supporting information are available on the project website at: 

hnos:llwww.blm, guv mstptannins-and-ocnatl!!\lns-j,n-de velopmenttncw-mexko/ok!ohonm:rmp 

The BLM and the BIA encourage the public to provide information and comments pertaining to the analysis presented in 

the Oklahoma-Kansas-Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP. Comment submissions should be 

specific and substantive in nature, referencing the document's chapter or appendix and the specific page of the document, 

and address one or more of the following: 

• Identify inaccuracies or discrepancies in information; 

• Identify new information that would have a bearing on the analysis; 

• Identify new impacts, alternatives, or mitigation measures; and, 

• Provide suggestions for improving the proposed resource management plan. 

Comments can be submitted via the BLM ePianning website, email, or a mailing service. For your convenience, the BLM 

and the BIA invite the public to use one of the comment submission options below: 

• BLM ePianning website: 

o bl!ps lav iD&.,hlm ~ov 
• BLM Oklahoma Field Office RMP email address: 

o hlm nm okt rmp@bJ..!n&Qy 

• Comments may abo be submitted by mail to: 

Mr. Patrick R. Rich, EMBA 

RMP Team Lead 

Attn: RMP Comment Submission 

Bureau of Land Management 

Oklahoma Field Office 

201 Stephenson Parkway, Suite 1200 

Norman, OK 73072 

Non-substantive comment submissions based solely on opinion or preference will be considered and included as part of the 

decision-making process and admtnistrative record; however, these types ofcomment submissions will not receive a formal 

response from the BLM as they are not founded on empirical evidence or connected to the prngmatic science-based 

multiple-use and sustained-yield land-use allocation and resource management methodology utilized by the BLM and BIA 

to develop this land-use plan. 

In developing the Final Joint EIS/Proposed BLM RMP and the BIA Integrated RMP, which represents the next phase ofthe 

planning process, the BLM and BIA may select various management decisions from each of the alternatives analyzed in the 

Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and the BIA Integrated RMP for the purpose of creating a 

management strategy that best meets the public's resource use and management needs across the planning area under the 

BLM and the BIA mandates. As a member of the public, your timely input on the Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint 

EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP will aid in formulation of the Final EIS/Proposed BLM RMP and BIA Integrated 

RMP. Comments will be accepted for ninety (90) calendar days following the Environmental Protection Agency's 

publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. The BLM and BIA can best utilize your comments and 

resource information submissions ifreceived within the review period. 

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

comment submission, be advised that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made 

publicly available. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public 

review, neither the BLM nor the BIA can guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

Public meetings intended to provide an overview of the document, respond to questions, and take public comments will be 

announced through local media, the BLM New Mexico website, and/or public mailings at least 15 days in advance. Public 

meetings will be held at a time and date to be determined. 

Copies of the Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Drnft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP hnve been sent to 

affected federal, state, and local government agencies and tribal governments. Printed or electronic copies arc also available 

for public inspection at the following BLM and BIA locations: 

Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Indian Affairs 


New Mexico State Office Southern Plains Region 


30 I Dinosaur Trai I P.O. Box 368 


Santa Fe, NM 87508 Anadarko, OK 73005 


Bureau of Land Management Bureau ofIndian Affairs 


Oklahoma Field Office Eastern Oklahoma Region 


201 Stephenson Parkway, Suite 1200 P.O. Box 8002 


Norman, OK 73072 Muskogee, OK 7440 I 


Thank you for your continued interest in the Oklahoma-Kansas-Texas Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP. The 

Depa11ment ofthe Interior greatly appreciates your input to the land-use planning process. 

For additional information or clarification regarding this document or the planning process, please contact Mr. Patrick R. 

Rich at(405) 579-7154 or blm nm okt mapta'bltn gu · . 
Sincerely, 

...hj Eddie Streater 

BlA Eastern Oklahoma 

Regional Director 

Ja Schock 

BIA Southern Plains 

Regional Director 

BLM New Mexico 

Acting State Director 

Attachment: I· Joint Draft EIS/ BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 

The Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas

Draft Joint Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource Management Plan (RMP) &

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP)

for

The BLM Oklahoma Field Office,

The BIA Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office, and

The BIA Southern Plains Regional Office

BLM/NM/PL-18-02-1610

1. Responsible Agency: US Department of the Interior

BLM, New Mexico State Office, Oklahoma Field Office

BIA, Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office

BIA, Southern Plains Regional Office

2. Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative ( ) 

3. Document Status: Draft (X) Final ( ) 

4. Abstract: The Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

describes and analyzes alternatives for managing BLM-administered and BIA-managed surface lands 

and federal mineral estate in the States of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. 

The BLM decision area includes 15,100 acres of BLM-administered surface lands, plus additional 

lands in the Red River area, and 4,810,900 acres of federal mineral estate.

The BIA decision area includes 394,200 surface acres and 2,033,500 mineral estate acres in the BIA 

Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office. Of the 2,033,500 acres identified, approximately 1,474,500 acres 

of the mineral estate are located in Osage County and are solely under the jurisdiction of the BIA. 

The BLM does not administer fluid minerals in Osage County. In Osage County, only non-fluid 

minerals are included in the decision area for this BIA Integrated RMP. Fluid minerals are being 

addressed separately in the Osage County Oil and Gas EIS. The BIA decision area also includes 

457,500 surface acres and 632,000 mineral estate acres in the BIA Southern Plains Regional Office. 

This includes lands and mineral estate located in the States of Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and 

Richardson County, Nebraska.

5. The BLM is considering four alternatives. The No Action Alternative would continue current 

resource management practices expressed in the existing 1994 Oklahoma RMP, as amended; the 

1991 Kansas RMP; and the 1996 Texas RMP, as amended. Alternative B, the BLM Agency Preferred 

Alternative, emphasizes a balanced approach to resource uses and protections and economic 

development. Under Alternative B, a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) is being

proposed to manage the recreational setting on the Cross Bar Management Area. Alternative C 

emphasizes resource conservation and constrains resource development. An Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) is being proposed on the Cross Bar Management Area under this 

alternative. The ACEC would place restrictions on resource uses to protect relevant and important
values. Under Alternative C, development of an Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA) is 

also being proposed. Alternative D emphasizes resource uses and economic development. Under 

Alternative D, development of an ERMA is being proposed and would also provide additional 

opportunities for motorized recreation.

The BIA is also considering four alternatives. The No Action Alternative would continue current 

management through resource-specific management and current policy and direction. Alternative B 

represents a mix of management actions that resolve issues identified by assessing the need for 

changing management, the concerns raised during public scoping, and future management 

considerations. This alternative would reflect a combination of efficient goals and objectives for all 

values and programs. It complies with the BIA mission and streamlines management of BIA-managed 

surface lands. Alternative C would develop management strategies to preserve and protect 

ecosystem health and resource values across the planning area. It also would provide for 

development of the land in a manner consistent with the mission of the BIA. Alternative D 

emphasizes resource use and economic development for agriculture and energy and mineral 

development. This alternative has the fewest restrictions on development and land use.

6. Review Period: The review period for the Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP 

and BIA Integrated RMP is 90 calendar days from the date the US Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register.

7. For further information, contact: 

Mr. Patrick Rich, RMP Team Lead

Bureau of Land Management 

Oklahoma Field Office 

201 Stephenson Parkway, Suite 1200

Norman, OK 73072

Telephone: (405) 579-7154

FAX: (405) 579-7101

Email: blm_nm_okt_rmp@blm.gov

Web site: https://www.blm.gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/plans-in-development/newmexico/oklahoma-rmp
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
November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 INTRODUCTION

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

Management (BLM), Oklahoma Field Office (OFO), in collaboration with the US 

DOI, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), is preparing a Joint Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). Concurrently, the BLM is writing a Resource Management Plan 

(RMP) for the Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas planning area, while the BIA is 

producing an Integrated RMP for the planning area. The revised BLM RMP will 

guide future management of BLM-administered lands and federal mineral estate

across the planning area. Currently, federal lands within the planning area are 

managed under three discrete RMPs: the 1994 Oklahoma RMP (BLM 1994a);

the 1991 Kansas RMP (BLM 1991); and the 1996 Texas RMP (BLM 1996a), as 

amended (BLM 1994b, 1996b, 2000, 2004a, 2014a). 

The BIA Integrated RMP includes management direction for both allotted and 

tribal mineral interests. It also includes management of restricted tribal lands 

and lands administered by the BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains 

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

The BLM and BIA are acting in the capacity of co-lead planning agencies while

preparing the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP. Based on EIS findings, 

the BLM will sign a Record of Decision (ROD) for BLM-administered lands. The 

BIA will sign two separate RODs for BIA-managed lands within each respective

BIA Regional Office’s jurisdiction. 

This document leverages pragmatic, science-based methodology aligned with 

appropriate laws, regulations, policies, and rules to meet the BLM’s multiple-use 

and sustained-yield mandate for land use allocations. The allocation decisions 

found in this RMP have been designed, developed, and proposed, primarily, to 

meet the public’s broad interest in a balanced approach to resource 

development and resource value protection. Consistent, responsible 
Executive Summary (Introduction)

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

development of America’s natural resources advances our Nation’s position in 

the larger geopolitical context, as it facilitates a stronger national security 

position through sustained economic growth and prosperity, energy 

independence, high-paying employment opportunities, and infrastructure 

improvements. 

When America is growing and national interests are secure, the prosperity that 

naturally emerges adds tremendous value to our rural and agricultural 

communities, where much of America’s food, fiber, forestry, and renewable 

fuels are cultivated. As our Nation continues to develop its natural resource in 

a consistent, responsible manner, our Native American Tribes will continue to 

prosper, and America will continue to succeed in meeting its trust and fiduciary 

responsibility to our Tribal brethren. 

Consistent, responsible development of America's natural resource plays a vital 

role in adding value to every American’s life. From our most pristine national 

parks and monuments to our deepest, most productive coal mines using the 

most advanced technologies, development of America’s natural resources is 

helping turn the economic engine that drives educational opportunities for our 

students in rural and agricultural communities to advance science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics. Even today as technology plays a central role in 

each of our lives, America’s natural resources continue to further our Nation’s 

energy security and tie our people to this amazing land and teach us all the 

importance of Nature’s gifts.

ES.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE LEAD AGENCIES

Bureau of Land Management

The BLM mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public 

lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. As such, the 

agency is responsible for balancing the protection and development of BLMadministered lands according to its multiple use and sustained yield mandate. 

Specifically, the BLM manages federal mineral estate on the following lands:

• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): the BLM has trust, permitting, and

inspection and enforcement responsibilities

• Bureau of Prisons

• Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)

• International Boundary Water Commission (IBWC)

• US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE)

• US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research 

Stations

• US Department of Defense (DOD)
Executive Summary (Description of the Lead Agencies) 

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

• US Department of Energy (DOE) 

• US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Bureau of Indian Affairs

The BIA’s mission is to “enhance the quality of life, to promote economic 

opportunity, and to carry out its responsibility to protect and improve the trust 

assets of American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives.” 

The BIA is the oldest bureau of the US DOI. Established in 1824, BIA currently 

provides services (directly or through contracts, grants, or compacts) to 

approximately 1.9 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. There are 573 

Federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Natives in the United States. The 

BIA is responsible for the administration and management of 55 million surface 

acres and 57 million acres of subsurface mineral estates held in trust by the 

United States for American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives.

A unique relationship, deeply rooted in American history, exists between the 

United States and Tribal governments. Much of federal Indian policy revolves 

around this special relationship, which is expressed in terms of legal duties, 

moral obligations, and expectations arising from the historical dealings between 

Indian tribes and the United States. 

Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is an 

inherently federal responsibility, and tribal government sovereignty provides

substantial authority over environmental protection of Indian lands. This 

authority is distinct from the BIA’s responsibility under NEPA and other federal

laws. Activities affecting the environment on Indian lands often require BIA and 

tribal government approval. 

ES.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AND DECISION AREAS

The planning area (Figure ES-1) is composed of 269,650,000 acres of BLM, 

other federal Surface Management Agency (SMA), tribal trust or restricted, 

allotted, state, county, and private lands across Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and 

Richardson County Nebraska. Table ES-1 identifies specific landowner

acreages.

Management direction and actions provided apply only to the decision area, 

which consists of federal lands, and tribal and allotted interests. The decision 

area covers only the BLM-administered and BIA-managed surface lands and

subsurface mineral estate, with the exception of oil and gas mineral estate in 

Osage County.

Tribal fee lands are not included in the decision area or the impacts analysis. For 

planning purposes, this document assumes that all minerals underlying other 

federal SMAs are BLM-administered federal mineral estate and, as such, are 

included in the impacts analysis. 

Executive Summary (Description of the Planning and Decision Areas)

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

Table ES-1

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

Land 

Status

Surface 

Administration 

(Acres)

Surface 

Percentage of 

Planning 

Area

BLMAdministered 

Mineral 

Estate 

(Acres)1

BLMAdministered 

Mineral Estate 

Percentage of 

Planning Area

BIAManaged 

Mineral 

Estate

BIAManaged 

Mineral 

Estate 

Percentage 

of the 

Planning 

Area

BLM 15,100* 0.01 15,100* 0.01 0 0

BIA 853,000 0.32 N/A N/A 2,667,8004 0.99

Bureau of 

Prisons

3,300 0.00 3,300 0.00 0 0

BOR 219,600 0.08 219,600 0.08 0 0

Department 

of 

Defense

892,900 0.33 892,900 0.33 0 0

Department 

of Energy

15,100 0.01 15,100 0.01 0 0

International

Boundar

y Water 

Commiss

ion

39,900 0.01 107,600 0.04 0 0

National 

Park 

Service

1,338,900 0.50 N/A3 N/A3 0 0

Forest

Service

1,265,900 0.47 N/A3 N/A3 0 0

Agricultural 

Research 

Service

13,700 0.01 13,700 0.01 0 0

USFWS 783,500 0.29 547,400 0.20 0 0

USACE 2,323,000 0.86 2,227,900 0.83 0 0

State 1,951,100 0.72 25,500 0.01 0 0

Private, 

other, or 

unknown

259,935,000 96.40 785,300 0.29 0 0

Total2 269,650,000* 100 4,810,900* 1.80 2,667,800 0.99

Sources: BLM GIS 2016; BIA GIS 2016

1BLM-administered mineral estate acres include split-estate minerals (private surface, federal minerals), public domain lands, and 

segregated coal. 2Totals may not sum correctly because of overlapping surface ownerships.

3National Park Service Lands are Congressionally withdrawn from mineral leasing and minerals under Forest Service Lands are 

covered under their existing land use plans.

*Plus, any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red River and the 

98th Meridian that will be identified and mapped when they are surveyed. 
Executive Summary (Description of the Planning and Decision Areas)

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

Incomplete data sets prevent identification of some actual locations and to what 

extent federal minerals are analyzed. See BLM-Administered Federal Mineral Estate

in Section ES.3.1 for a description of the components in each decision area.

Calculations and acreages presented are based on the decision area being 

comprised of the following four parts:

• BLM-administered surface land

• BLM-administered federal mineral estate, to include federal minerals 

described in Table ES-1

• BIA-managed surface land, including BIA lands identified by the

Southern Plains and Eastern Oklahoma Regions as held in trust 

• BIA-managed mineral estate, to include lands identified by the BLM 

and BIA as BIA-managed mineral estate; these lands are identified 

only when a specific application is made, and additional areas of BIAmanaged mineral estate may exist. Where BIA-managed surface land 

has been identified, BIA-managed mineral estate is assumed to exist. 

All of Osage County is included in the BIA-managed mineral estate;

however, only coal and other solid minerals are covered in this plan.

Acreage calculations for non-mineral resources are derived through overlaying

resource area mapping data onto BLM-administered or BIA-managed surface 

boundaries using Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping technology. 

Mineral resource quantification is more complex, due to the multitude of 

differing types of mineral interests existing within the decision area and the 

various federal and nonfederal surface landownership and administrative 

responsibilities involved. For these reasons, total mineral acreage calculations 

provided in this EIS may vary by resource and resource use. 

GIS has been used in developing all figures and data. The figures provided are 

for illustrative purposes and are subject to the same limitations as identified 

above. The BLM and BIA make no warranty as to the accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data, which may be updated without notice. 

Federal mineral estate beneath lands administered by other federal SMAs, as 

listed in Table ES-1, are analyzed as Federal Minerals Underlying Other Land 

Administered by Federal Surface Management Agencies (Other Federal Surface 

Management Agencies). For a full description of these lands see BLMAdministered Federal Mineral Estate, below.

ES.3.1 BLM Decision Area

The BLM decision area includes BLM-administered surface lands and federal 

mineral estate.
Executive Summary (Description of the Planning and Decision Areas)

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

BLM-Administered Surface Land

The BLM administers approximately 15,100 acres of surface estate within the

decision area, to include small scattered tracts in Oklahoma, the Cross Bar 

Management Area in Texas, and federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the 

Red River between the North Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian

(federal lands along the Red River are not included in the 15,100 acreage total 

because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed).

BLM-Administered Federal Mineral Estate

The BLM-administered federal mineral estate decision area includes 4,810,900 

acres of federal minerals underlying BLM-administered surface land, split-estate 

tracts (federal minerals underlying private or state surface lands), and federal 

minerals underlying land administered by other federal SMAs plus any applicable 

federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North 

Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian. Poster 1 depicts surface 

ownership and BLM-administered federal mineral estate. 

ES.3.2 BIA Decision Area

The BIA decision area includes lands and mineral estate in Oklahoma, Kansas, 

and Texas and Richardson County, Nebraska. The BIA decision area includes

394,200 surface acres and 2,033,500 mineral estate acres in the BIA Eastern 

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

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

County. Poster 2 depicts surface ownership and BIA-managed tribal and 

allotted subsurface mineral estate.

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

estate acres in the BIA Southern Plains Regional Office (BIA GIS 2016). 

BIA trust lands in the Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions include 

multiple tribal jurisdictional boundaries, as shown in Table ES-2.

Table ES-2

Tribal Jurisdictional Boundaries

Jurisdictional Boundary Name BIA Region

Estimated BIAmanaged Surface 

Acres1

Nebraska

Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Southern Plains Region 700

Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas Southern Plains Region 200

Kansas

Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Southern Plains Region 1,900

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo 

Reservation in Kansas

Southern Plains Region 6,400

Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation Southern Plains Region 21,000

Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas Southern Plains Region 100
Executive Summary (Description of the Planning and Decision Areas)

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

Table ES-2

Tribal Jurisdictional Boundaries

Jurisdictional Boundary Name BIA Region

Estimated BIAmanaged Surface 

Acres1

Oklahoma

Cherokee Nation Eastern Oklahoma Region 82,800

Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Eastern Oklahoma Region 800

Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma Eastern Oklahoma Region 500

Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Eastern Oklahoma Region 1,400

Seneca-Cayuga Nation Eastern Oklahoma Region Fewer than 50

Shawnee Tribe Eastern Oklahoma Region 500

The Chickasaw Nation Eastern Oklahoma Region 40,800

The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Eastern Oklahoma Region 66,300

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation Eastern Oklahoma Region 59,100

The Osage Nation Eastern Oklahoma Region 122,800

The Quapaw Tribe of Indians Eastern Oklahoma Region 4,800

The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Eastern Oklahoma Region 14,200

Wyandotte Nation Eastern Oklahoma Region 300

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes Southern Plains Region 74,500

Chilocco Indian School Lands-Cherokee 

Nation (Public Law 90-279 90th

Congress, H.R. 536, March 30th, 1968 

[82 Stat. 70])

Southern Plains Region 100

Chilocco Indian School Lands-Chilocco 

Campus

Southern Plains Region 200

Chilocco Indian School Lands-Kaw Tribe Southern Plains Region 800

Chilocco Indian School Lands-OtoeMissouria TribeSouthern Plains Region 800

Chilocco Indian School Lands-Pawnee Tribe Southern Plains Region 800

Chilocco Indian School Lands-Ponca Tribe Southern Plains Region 800

Chilocco Indian School Lands-Tonkawa 

Tribe

Southern Plains Region 800

Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma Southern Plains Region 15,400

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Southern Plains Region 1,500

Kaw Nation of Oklahoma Southern Plains Region 200

Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Southern Plains Region 6,100

Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Comanche 

Nation, Oklahoma; Apache Tribe of 

Oklahoma

Southern Plains Region 196,200

Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma Southern Plains Region 19,200

Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma Southern Plains Region 19,700

Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Southern Plains Region 13,600

Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma Southern Plains Region 15,900

Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Southern Plains Region 400

Wichita and Affiliated Tribes; Caddo Nation; 

Delaware Nation; Delaware Tribe of 

Indians

Southern Plains Region 55,500
Executive Summary (Description of the Planning and Decision Areas)

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

Table ES-2

Tribal Jurisdictional Boundaries

Jurisdictional Boundary Name BIA Region

Estimated BIAmanaged Surface 

Acres1

Texas

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas Southern Plains Region 4,600

Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas Southern Plains Region 100

Total Approximately 853,000

Source: BLM GIS 2016 1

Rounded to the nearest 100 acres; all lands may not include federal minerals.

ES.4 PURPOSE AND NEED 

ES.4.1 Purpose and Need for the BLM RMP

According to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the BLM 

shall “develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans” (43 US

Code [USC], Subsection 1712[a]). The purpose of this RMP is to ensure BLMadministered lands in the planning area are managed in accordance with the 

multiple-use and sustained-yield principles mandated by the FLPMA. Moreover, 

this RMP provides a comprehensive framework for the BLM’s land use 

allocations and associated management decisions for public lands and resources 

under the jurisdiction authority of the OFO. 

The OFO RMP's primary objective is to review and revise current RMP

management decisions. 

As required by NEPA, the BLM is preparing an EIS to evaluate the 

environmental impacts of the RMP's proposed land use allocations and 

management decisions developed in the range of alternatives. 

ES.4.2 Purpose and Need for the BIA Integrated RMP

The BIA’s Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regional Offices assist 

Federally recognized Indian tribes in issuing permits for activities on tribal 

jurisdictional lands. The regional offices also assist in leasing Native American 

mineral lands in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The Eastern Oklahoma Regional 

Office is also responsible for fluid minerals management in Osage County, 

Oklahoma (this is being addressed in a separate EIS).

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

current DOI policy and guidance; however, the BIA Eastern Oklahoma and 

Southern Plains Regional Offices do not have an overarching planning document 

that outlines the steps in meeting this mission. 

The purpose of the BIA Integrated RMP is to provide a comprehensive 

framework for fulfilling the BIA’s Indian trust responsibilities on tribal and 
Executive Summary (Purpose and Need)

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

allotted lands. This Integrated RMP will create a unifying document that 

resource managers can use to reduce the potential for land use conflicts. 

The NEPA also obligates BIA to evaluate potential environmental impacts

associated with land use management decisions.

ES.5 PLANNING ISSUES

Planning issues and concerns are identified through a scoping process that 

includes the public, Federally recognized Indian tribes, other federal agencies, 

state and local governments, and internal BLM and BIA staff. A range of 

reasonable land use management alternatives has been developed to address 

issues identified during the scoping process. Planning issues identified during

scoping are listed in Table ES-3. 

Table ES-3

Planning Issue Categories and Statements

Issue Planning Issue 

Category Planning Issue Statement

1. Energy development How can the BLM and BIA allow development of federal, tribal, and allotted oil 

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

visual resources, wildlife, water, and the natural environment?

2. Minerals and mining How can the BLM and BIA allow development of federal, tribal, and allotted 

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

and the natural environment?

3. Cultural and historic 

resources

How can the BLM manage cultural and historic resources for public 

enjoyment, while protecting those resources?

How can the BIA manage cultural and historic resources for the benefit of 

tribal members and individual Indian landowners?

4. Fences and 

trespassing on 

federal lands

How should the BLM manage federal lands, according to law, along the 116-

mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red River and the 

98th Meridian (referred to as the “Red River area”) to reduce conflict with 

adjacent landowners?

5. Recreation and 

other uses on federal 

lands

What uses should be allowed on federal lands, according to law, along the 

116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red River 

and the 98th Meridian (referred to as the “Red River area”) and the Cross 

Bar Management Area? What restrictions, if any, should apply to those uses in 

order to protect other uses and resources?

6. Access and 

transportation on 

federal lands

What access points and trails should be open on federal lands, according to 

law, along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of 

the Red River and the 98th Meridian (referred to as the “Red River area”) 

and the Cross Bar Management Area?

7. Public health and 

safety on federal 

lands

How can the BLM minimize public health and safety risks on federal lands, 

according to law, along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the 

North Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian (referred to as the “Red 

River area”)?

8. Lands and realty What criteria should the BLM use for disposing of or acquiring BLMadministered lands?
Executive Summary (Planning Issues)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP ES-11

Table ES-3

Planning Issue Categories and Statements

Issue Planning Issue 

Category Planning Issue Statement

9. Fish and wildlife How should the BLM allow use of the lands it administers for recreation and 

other resource uses, while protecting fish and wildlife?

10. Socioeconomics How can the BLM realize the socioeconomic benefits of the resources in the 

area, while minimizing conflicts with other uses and protecting sensitive 

resources in the planning area?

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

during the hunting season?

12. Issues not addressed 

in previous RMPs

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

13. Climate change and 

future water needs

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

climate change and its effects, including water shortage?

ES.6 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT

RMP and Integrated RMP decisions consist of clearly defined resource 

management goals, objectives, allowable uses, and management actions

required to achieve the defined goals and objectives. These guide future land

use management decisions and site-specific implementation actions.

ES.6.1 Purpose of Alternatives Development

As required under 43 CFR, Section 1610, alternatives development acts as the 

cornerstone of the land use planning process.

The NEPA regulation at 40 CFR, Subpart 1501.2(c), requires federal agencies to 

“study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses 

of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning 

alternative uses of available resources.” Thus, the goal of alternatives

development is to produce distinct management scenarios with the following 

characteristics:

• Meet the planning effort's purpose of and need for action

• Address major planning issues

• Develop a means to effectively execute land use management 

decisions 

• Resolve resource use conflicts

• Are feasible and distinct land use management methods 

The alternatives development process provides the BLM State Director and BIA 

Regional Directors a reasonable range of alternatives from which to make

informed land use resource management decisions.
Executive Summary (Alternatives Development)

ES-12 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

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

BIA Integrated RMP

A BLM and BIA interdisciplinary team (IDT) of subject matter experts employed 

the BLM planning process to develop a reasonable range of alternatives for both 

the RMP and Integrated RMP. 

Using planning issues as a basis for alternatives development, the BLM and BIA 

IDT assessed existing BLM RMP goals, objectives, and actions to inform the 

development process. The IDT then assessed current BIA policy in relation to 

measurement tools, such as land health standards, biological assessments, and 

existing NEPA analyses. This was done to gauge successes and deficiencies in 

addressing the planning issues. This assessment was compiled in the Analysis of 

the Management Situation (BLM 2015b) for the planning area, providing 

information useful to the BLM and BIA for the following purposes:

• Summarizing existing conditions

• Explaining the need for change

• Identifying management opportunities

Between April 26, 2014, and May 10, 2016, the BLM and BIA IDT met to 

develop management goals, objectives, and actions to address the goals within 

their fields of expertise. The IDT developed separate reasonable, distinct

alternatives for the BLM RMP and the BIA Integrated RMP concurrently. For

each RMP, the IDT developed a “no action” alternative (Alternative A) and 

three action alternatives. The action alternatives were designed to meet the 

following land use management goals:

• Meet the multiple use and sustained yield mandates of FLPMA

• Fulfill the purpose and need for the RMP or Integrated RMP

• Address the planning issues developed from public, tribal, and 

cooperating agency input

• Meet the tribal responsibilities of the BIA 

ES.7 BLM ALTERNATIVES

ES.7.1 Management Common to All BLM Alternatives 

Certain allowable land uses and management decisions from existing planning 

documents remain valid and do not require revision. Each proposed BLM 

alternative carries these uses and decisions forward, while other proposed land

uses and management decisions are common only to the proposed action 

alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D).

Although each alternative is distinct in its resource value use or protection, all

four alternatives do the following:
Executive Summary (BLM Alternatives)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP ES-13

• Comply with appropriate state and federal laws, regulations, 

policies, and procedures.

• Implement actions originating from laws, regulations, and policies 

and conform to BLM standards for day-to-day resource 

management, monitoring, and administration.

• Preserve valid existing rights.

• Offer diverse recreational opportunities that foster outdoororiented lifestyles and enhance quality of life.

• Apply best management practices (BMPs) (shown in Appendix B) 

and site-specific mitigation measures to all resource uses.

• Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to historic properties 

found at project locations through consultation with applicable 

SHPOs, THPOs, and interested parties under Section 106 of the 

NHPA. 

• Avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts to paleontological 

resources through compliance with the Paleontological Resources 

Preservation Act (PRPA).

• Apply exceptions, modifications, and waivers to fluid mineral 

leasing stipulations (Appendix D), unless otherwise stated.

• Identify and apply mitigation measures and conservation actions as 

identified by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR, 

Subpart 1508.20).

ES.7.2 BLM Alternative A: No Action

Alternative A meets the NEPA requirement in 40 CFR, Subpart 1502.14, that 

the BLM consider a “no action” alternative. This alternative provides the 

baseline against which the other alternatives are compared. Alternative A would 

continue present management direction and practices, based on existing RMPs 

and RMP amendments. 

ES.7.3 BLM Alternative B: Agency Preferred

Alternative B, the Agency Preferred alternative, proposes a balanced mix of land

use allocations and resource management decisions that resolve the planning

issues and concerns raised during public scoping. This alternative proposes a 

combination of goals and objectives for all land use allocations and resource

values. It emphasizes an intermediate level of protection, restoration, 

enhancement, and resource use. 

The proposed management strategy would be accomplished by using a variety of 

proactive and prescriptive measures to protect vegetation and habitat, while

promoting BLM's multiple-use mandate. A diverse suite of proactive and 

prescriptive management measures would be used to meet the goals and 

objectives. Natural resource development actions would be maintained on 
Executive Summary (BLM Alternatives)

ES-14 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

BLM-administered lands through actions designed to meet resource goals and

objectives. Current and additional recreation opportunities would be managed 

through goals and objectives designed to protect resource values and produce 

positive effects on state and local economies.

ES.7.4 BLM Alternative C

Alternative C would institute goals and objectives designed to preserve and 

protect ecosystem health and resource values across the planning area, while 

providing for multiple uses. Resource development would be more constrained 

than under Alternatives B or D. This proposed alternative includes the most 

special designations.

Alternative C would reduce resource production goals for forage, renewable 

energy, and minerals. Resource production would be secondary to restoring 

and protecting resource values. Sustainable development principles would focus 

on preserving ecological functions. 

ES.7.5 BLM Alternative D

Alternative D emphasizes resource use and development across the planning 

area. Alternative D would institute the fewest restrictions on development and 

land use. Potential impacts on resource values would be mitigated on a case-bycase basis. 

ES.8 BIA ALTERNATIVES

ES.8.1 Management Common to All BIA Alternatives 

Allowable land uses and management decisions in existing BIA planning 

documents and current BIA policies remain valid and do not require revision. 

All proposed alternatives carry these actions forward, while other proposed 

decisions are common only to the action alternatives, Alternatives B, C, and D.

Although each BIA alternative is distinct in the resources and resource uses it 

emphasizes, all four alternatives would do the following:

• Comply with all applicable federal, state, local, and tribal laws and 

regulations, policies, and procedures. 

• Implement actions originating from laws, regulations, and policies 

and conform to day-to-day land-use management, monitoring, and 

administrative functions. Enhance the quality of life, promote 

economic opportunity, and carry out the responsibility to protect 

and improve the trust assets of American Indians.

• Protect and preserve trust lands, resources, and assets, while 

promoting tribal self-governance.

• Support tribes with the meaningful exercise of their treaty fishing, 

hunting, and gathering rights.
Executive Summary (BIA Alternatives)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP ES-15

• Support tribal needs and efforts in the areas of fisheries 

management, wildlife management, outdoor recreation 

management, and related fields.

• Preserve valid existing rights.

• Manage fluid mineral leases, in accordance with BIA’s Fluid Mineral 

Estate Procedural Handbook (BIA 2012c).

• Apply BMPs, as outlined in Appendix C, and other site-specific 

mitigation measures.

• Make every effort to avoid adverse impacts if cultural or 

paleontological sites are found at project locations.

• Consult with the applicable SHPOs and THPOs.

• Develop and institute proactive mitigation measures to achieve 

land use plan goals and objectives. The sequence of mitigation 

actions will be the mitigation hierarchy: avoid, minimize, rectify, 

reduce, eliminate over time, or compensate. 

ES.8.2 BIA Alternative A: No Action

In accordance with the Indian Affairs National Environmental Policy Act 

Guidebook (59 Indian Affairs Manual 3-H; BIA 2012a), the BIA is required to 

consider the “no action” alternative. Under this alternative, the BIA would 

continue current management practices. Alternative A would continue present 

management direction from practices contained in existing laws, regulations, 

policies, and standards. 

ES.8.3 BIA Alternative B: Proposed Action

Alternative B represents a mix of management actions that resolve the issues 

identified by assessing the need for changing management, the concerns raised 

during public scoping, and future management considerations. This alternative 

would reflect a combination of efficient goals and objectives for all values and 

programs. It complies with the BIA mission and streamlines management of BIAmanaged surface lands. 

ES.8.4 BIA Alternative C

Alternative C proposes management strategies that emphasize preserving and 

protecting ecosystem health, resource values, and cultural uses across the 

planning area. It provides for development of the land, consistent with the 

mission of the BIA. Resource development would be slightly more constrained 

than under Alternatives B and D. 

ES.8.5 BIA Alternative D 

Alternative D proposes an emphasis on resource use and economic 

development. It has the fewest restrictions on development and land use and 

provides the most discretion to tribes in land management. Potential impacts 

would be mitigated on a case-by-case basis.
Executive Summary (Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis)

ES-16 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

ES.9 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS

The three action alternatives—Alternatives B, C, and D—for both the BLM 

RMP and BIA Integrated RMP offer a distinct and reasonable range of 

alternatives. While goals are the same, each alternative contains a discrete set 

of objectives and management actions constituting a separate BLM RMP or BIA 

Integrated RMP. Each alternative addresses resource program goals to varying 

degrees, with the potential for different long-range outcomes and conditions. 

The relative emphasis given to particular land use allocations and resource value 

use across the range of alternatives differs. When resource use is mandated by 

law or not tied to planning issues, there are few or no distinctions across the 

range of alternatives. 

Table ES-4 compares the meaningful quantitative differences in allocations 

among the four alternatives.

Table ES-4

Comparative Summary of BLM Alternatives

Alternative (Acres)

A B C D

Decision Areas

BLM surface 15,100* 15,100* 15,100* 15,100*

Coal mineral decision area 1,883,300 1,883,300 1,883,300 1,883,300

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 501,600 501,600 501,600 501,600

State and other federal Surface Management Agencies (SMAs) 1,381,700 1,381,700 1,381,700 1,381,700

Mineral materials, nonenergy leasable, and fluids mineral 

decision area

4,438,100* 4,438,100* 4,438,100* 4,438,100*

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 447,000* 447,000* 447,000* 447,000*

Other federal SMAs 3,991,100 3,991,100 3,991,100 3,991,100

Resources

Visual Resource Management (VRM) Figure 2-12 Figure 2-22 Figure 2-32 Figure 2-22

VRM Class I 0 0 200 0

VRM Class II 1,900* 2,500* 14,200 200

VRM Class III 9,800 12,000 700* 14,000 

VRM Class IV 100 600 0 900* 

Undesignated 3,300 0 0 0

Resource Uses

Coal Acceptable for further consideration for 

leasing - all federal minerals (with coal potential 

and subject to leasing)

Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5 Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5

Acceptable: BLM-administered lands (BLM surface) 0 100 0 100 

surface and underground 0 100 0 100 

only underground 0 0 0 0 

Acceptable: other state and federal SMAs 600 1,206,900 600 1,206,900 

surface and underground 600 2,400 600 2,400 

only underground 0 1,204,500 0 1,204,500 
Executive Summary (Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP ES-17

Table ES-4

Comparative Summary of BLM Alternatives

Alternative (Acres)

A B C D

Acceptable: private surface estate overlying federal 

mineral estate

69,400 464,700 69,400 464,700

surface and underground 69,400 464,700 69,400 464,700

only underground 0 0 0 0

Mineral Materials Figure 2-62 Figure 2-72 Figure 2-82 Figure 2-72

Open for consideration for mineral materials 4,438,100* 4,438,100* 4,427,600 4,438,100* 

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 15,100* 15,100* 4,600 15,100*

Other federal SMAs 4,423,000 4,423,000 4,423,000 4,423,000

Nonenergy Solid Leasable Minerals Figure 2-92 Figure 2-

102

Figure 2-

112

Figure 2-

102

Open for consideration for nonenergy solid leasable 

minerals

4,438,100* 4,438,100* 4,427,600* 4,438,100* 

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 15,100* 15,100* 4,600* 15,100*

Other federal SMAs 4,423,000 4,423,000 4,423,000 4,423,000

Fluid Mineral Leasing Figures 2-

12, 2-15, 

and 

2-19

Figures 2-

13, 2-16, 

and 

2-20

Figures 2-

14, 2-17, 

and 2-21

Figures 2-

13, 2-18, 

and 

2-22

Open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to existing laws, 

regulations, and formal orders

3,976,700* 4,393,300* 3,820,000* 4,393,300* 

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 396,400* 447,000* 396,400* 447,000* 

Other federal SMAs 3,580,300 3,946,300 3,423,600 3,946,300

Open to leasing, subject to standard terms and conditions 

(i.e., not subject to major or moderate constraints)

2,615,100* 2,707,900* 2,174,400 2,709,700* 

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 335,700* 184,900* 147,600 186,700*

Other federal SMAs 2,279,400 2,523,000 2,026,800 2,523,000 

Open to leasing, subject to major constraints (NSO)1 1,362,000* 1,550,600* 1,512,600* 1,550,600* 

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 60,800* 126,900* 115,400* 126,900*

Other federal SMAs3 1,301,200 1,423,700 1,397,200 1,423,700 

Open to leasing, subject to moderate constraints (CSU)1 14,500 191,500* 202,300 179,800* 

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 14,500 191,500* 202,300 179,800* 

Other federal SMAs 0 0 0 0

Closed to fluid mineral leasing 461,400 44,800 618,100 44,800

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 50,600 0 50,600 0

Other federal SMAs 410,800 44,800 567,500 44,800

Livestock Grazing Figures 

2-232, 2-24

Figures 

2-252, 2-24

Figures 

2-232, 2-26

Figures 

2-252, 2-24

Available for all classes of livestock grazing 3,300* 15,100* 0 15,100* 

Unavailable to all classes of livestock grazing 11,800 0 15,100* 0 

Recreation Management Areas (RMAs) No Figure Figure 2-

272

Figure 2-

272

Figure 2-

272

Cross Bar Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA)

(Alternative B) or ERMA (Alternatives C and D)

0 9,900 9,900 9,900
Executive Summary (Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis)

ES-18 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table ES-4

Comparative Summary of BLM Alternatives

Alternative (Acres)

A B C D

Travel, Transportation Management, and Access Figure 2-

282

Figure 2-292 Figure 2-292 Figure 2-292

Off-road vehicle use

Open 15,100* 0 0 0

Closed 0 0 0* 0

Limited 0 15,100* 15,100 15,100* 

Lands and Realty No Figure Figures 

2-302

Figures 

2-312

Figure 

2-302

Right-of-way (ROW) exclusion areas 0 200 200 0

ROW avoidance areas 0 12,700* 14,800* 9,900

Identified as meeting the disposal criteria listed in section 

203 of FLPMA

NA** NA** NA** NA**

Special Designations

ACECs No Figure No Figure Figure 2-

322

No Figure

Cross Bar Management Area 0 0 10,500 0

Eligible (Alternative A) or Suitable (Alternatives B 

and C) Wild and Scenic River (WSR) Study 

Segments

Figure 

2-33

Figure 

2-33

Figure 

2-33

No 

Figure

Canadian River 1,100 1,100 1,100 0

Source: BLM GIS 2016

1Acreages subject to fluid minerals NSO and CSU stipulations may overlap; therefore, acreages do not add up to the mineral estate 

decision area. Under Alternative A there are approximately 14,500 acres of overlap, under Alternative B there are approximately 

69,600 acres of overlap, under Alternative C there are approximately 68,800 acres of overlap, and under Alternative D there are 

approximately 59,700 acres of overlap. 2

Figure displays Cross Bar Management Area allocations only.

3NSO acreages for other SMAs are an estimate used for analysis purposes only; specific NSO stipulations will be determined by 

the SMA at the time of lease sale.

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red River and the 

98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified and mapped when they are surveyed. (No exact acreages of federal lands 

are available at this time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed.) Any such survey would be conducted in 

accordance with applicable law.

**No acreage figures have been provided here. Refer to Appendix N for legal land descriptions of isolated tracts of public land, 

as well as certain lands in the Cross Bar Management Area, which the BLM has identified as meeting the disposal criteria in 

section 203 of FLPMA. Prior to any decision to dispose of public land, the BLM would review the legal land description, and 

conduct a resurvey if necessary. For lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red 

River and the 98th Meridian, such lands would be more specifically identified and mapped when they are surveyed. (No exact 

acreages, and no legal land descriptions of federal lands are available at this time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been 

surveyed). Any such survey would be conducted in accordance with applicable law.

GIS data have been used to calculate acreages and to generate figures in 

Appendix A. Calculations depend on the quality and availability of data.

Calculations in this Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP are rounded to 

the nearest 100 acres or 0.1 mile. Given the scale of the analysis, the 

compatibility constraints between data sets, and the lack of data for some 
Executive Summary (Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP ES-19

resources, all calculations are approximate and serve for comparison and 

analysis only. Likewise, the figures in Appendix A and throughout the 

document are provided for illustrative purposes and are subject to the 

limitations of the GIS software applications utilized to develop the land use 

allocation figures. As the BLM receives additional or updated data, acreages will 

be recalculated and revised. BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D in the Joint EIS/BLM 

RMP and BIA Integrated RMP in Chapter 2 describes the proposed decisions for 

each BIA alternative, including goals, objectives, management actions, and 

allowable uses for individual resource programs.

Unlike those of the BLM, the suite of alternatives developed by the BIA do not, 

with few exceptions, include acreage allocations; therefore, there is no 

equivalent comparative summary table of allocation acres associated with the 

BIA alternatives. They incorporate themes and federal responsibilities common 

to both agencies, yet include elements that reflect the unique mission of the 

BIA.

ES.10 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS

The alternatives below were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis 

because they do not meet the purpose of and need for the BLM RMP or BIA 

Integrated RMP (see Section 1.4), or because they do not fall within technical, 

legal, or policy constraints for BLM resources and resource uses.

ES.10.1 Retain All BLM-Administered Surface Tracts

The alternative to retain all surface tracts in the planning area was considered. 

Some surface tracts are remote and small, and they do not contain high 

resource values. A set of retention criteria was developed by alternative and 

applied to the surface tracts to determine which tracts to retain.

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

Some alternatives and general management options were not considered. Not 

considered were those alternatives proposing exclusive use or maximum 

development, production, or protection of one resource at the expense of 

other resource values. 

As outlined in Section ES.4.1, the purpose of this BLM RMP is to ensure public 

lands are managed in accordance with the intent of Congress, as stated in the 

FLPMA, under the principles of the BLM’s multiple-use and sustained-yield

mandate. While not every use must be allowed on every acre of public land 

under these principles, elimination of all oil and gas leasing from all BLMadministered lands absent of other resource conflicts, or managing those lands 

only for fish, wildlife, and wilderness values to the exclusion of other resource 

considerations, is not warranted. Each alternative considered allows for some 

level of support, protection, or use of resident resource values across the 

planning area. The alternatives analyzed in detail include various considerations 

for individual resource value use in areas where potential resource value

conflicts exist.
Executive Summary (Considerations in Selecting a Preferred Alternative)

ES-20 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

ES.11 CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The proposed alternatives offer a range of separate and distinct strategies for 

resolving existing management issues, identifying opportunities for enhanced 

management, and addressing planning issues identified during internal 

assessment and public scoping. The BLM and BIA carefully considered 

comments submitted by other government agencies, public organizations, state 

and tribal entities, and interested individuals. Public scoping enabled the BLM to 

identify and shape significant issues pertaining to potential ACECs, public land 

access, ecological health restoration, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, land 

tenure, recreation, and other program areas. Cooperating agencies reviewed 

the alternatives and provided comments during the alternatives development 

process. 

Regulations developed by the CEQ and NEPA require the BLM and BIA to 

identify a preferred alternative, if one exists, in the Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and 

BIA Integrated RMP. Formulated by the interdisciplinary team, the preferred

alternative represents those goals, objectives, and actions determined to be 

most effective at resolving planning issues and balancing resource use.

Collaboration was critical in developing and evaluating alternatives; however,

the final designation of a preferred alternative remains the exclusive 

responsibility of the BLM and BIA.

ES.11.1 Recommendation and Resulting Actions

BLM

The BLM Field Manager recommends Alternative B as the preferred alternative.

During public review of this Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP, 

the BLM is seeking constructive input on the proposals for managing resources 

and resource uses. After considering these comments, the BLM will develop a 

Proposed RMP to be evaluated in the Final Joint EIS.

BIA

The BIA Regional Directors consider Alternative B as the proposed action.

During public review of this Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP, 

the BIA is seeking constructive input on the proposals for managing resources 

and resource uses. After considering these comments, the BIA will develop a 

Proposed Integrated RMP to be evaluated in the Final EIS; this Proposed 

Integrated RMP will be identified as the BIA’s preferred alternative.

ES.12 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING OF THE BLM RMP

Implementation of the BLM RMP will begin when the BLM State Office Director 

signs the ROD. Decisions in the RMP will be tied to the BLM budgeting process. 

The BLM will develop an implementation schedule to provide for systematic 

accomplishment of decisions in the approved RMP.

During RMP implementation, the BLM will prepare additional documentation for 

site-specific actions to comply with NEPA. This can vary, from a simple 
Executive Summary (Implementation and Monitoring of the BLM RMP)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP ES-21

statement of conformance with the ROD and adequacy of existing NEPA 

analysis to more complex documents that analyze several alternatives.

The BLM will monitor and periodically evaluate RMP implementation. 

Monitoring is the process of tracking and documenting the implementation (or 

the progress of implementation) of land use plan allocations and management

decisions. Evaluation is the process of reviewing land use plan allocations and 

management decisions for periodic plan monitoring reports. This is done to 

determine whether the land use plan decisions and NEPA analysis are still valid. 

As outlined in the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1, the RMP will

be periodically evaluated to determine whether revisions or amendments may 

be necessary to accommodate changes in resource needs, policies, or 

regulations. Implementation-level decisions would be issued in order to fully 

implement the RMP.

ES.13 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING OF THE BIA INTEGRATED RMP

The following passages are outlined in 30 BIAM Supplemental 10 (BIA 1990). 

This is older guidance that has not yet been replaced with an equivalent chapter 

in the revised Indian Affairs Manual and should be considered as 

recommendations.

“It is the responsibility of the appropriate Bureau and tribal line offices to 

ensure that selected Integrated RMP management alternatives are implemented. 

The agency Superintendent shall be responsible for development of action plans 

for various programs and activities affected by the Integrated RMP. These action 

plans shall ensure the objectives of the Integrated RMP are properly considered 

during development of various programs and projects, budge formulation and 

execution plans, annual work plans, employee performance standards, etc. 

Plan reviews will be conducted annually by the agency office. Reviews shall 

briefly examine current issues, determine the validity of the selected 

alternatives, document corrective action where necessary, and record progress 

of plan implementation. 

The Central/Regional Office shall conduct periodic program reviews of the 

Integrated RMP’s and their implementation. These program reviews shall 

provide a means of evaluating Bureau performance in management of trust 

resources. The objective of the program review is to: 1) determine adequacy of 

plans; 2) determine if selected alternatives have been properly implemented; 3) 

determine if management resources (funding, staffing, etc.) are sufficient to 

implement the selected alternatives; 4) determine if the selected alternatives are 

reasonable, in light of tribal/Bureau program priorities and the competition for 

limited management resources; and 5) determine the need for changes in 

Bureau direction, policy and management practices.”
Executive Summary (Implementation and Monitoring of the BIA Integrated RMP)

ES-22 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

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

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

Management (BLM), Oklahoma Field Office (OFO), in collaboration with the US 

DOI, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), is preparing a Joint Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). Concurrently, the BLM is writing a Resource Management Plan 

(RMP) for the Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas planning area, while the BIA is 

producing an Integrated RMP for the planning area. 

The revised BLM RMP will guide the management of BLM-administered lands 

and federal mineral estate in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. Currently, federal

lands within the planning area are managed under three discrete RMPs: the 1994 

Oklahoma RMP (BLM 1994a); the 1991 Kansas RMP (BLM 1991); and the 1996 

Texas RMP (BLM 1996a), as amended (BLM 1994b, 1996b, 2000, 2004a, 2014a). 

The BIA Integrated RMP includes management direction for allotted and tribal 

mineral interests (except for fluid minerals in Osage County, which are being 

evaluated in a separate EIS process). The Integrated RMP also includes 

management direction for restricted tribal lands and lands administered by the 

BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regional Offices in Oklahoma, 

Kansas, Texas, and Nebraska. 

The BLM and BIA are acting in the capacity of co-lead planning agencies while

preparing the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP. Based on EIS findings, 

the BLM will sign a Record of Decision (ROD) for BLM-administered lands. The 

BIA will sign two separate RODs for BIA-managed lands within each respective

BIA Regional Office’s jurisdiction.

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

of 1969 (NEPA); Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 

implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508); DOI 

NEPA regulations (43 CFR 46); and the requirements of the BLM’s NEPA 
1. Introduction (Introduction)

1-2 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

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

Affairs Manual (IAM) 3-H (BIA 2012a).

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

issued under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (FLPMA; 43 US Code [USC], Section 1701 et seq.), as amended, and the 

BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1 (BLM 2005). The BIA Integrated 

RMP is being prepared using BIA’s guidance document on the preparation of 

Integrated RMPs (30 BIAM Supplemental 10).

To help navigate this document, Diagram 1-1 provides an outline of this Joint

EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP and a description of the information 

found in each section.

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE LEAD AGENCIES

1.2.1 Bureau of Land Management

The BLM mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public 

lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. As such, the 

BLM is responsible for balancing the protection of BLM-administered surface 

lands and managing public recreation and commercial use. In addition, the BLM 

manages the development of federal mineral estate on state lands and other 

federally administered lands. Specifically, in this planning area, the BLM manages 

the development of federal mineral estate on lands managed by the following

surface management agencies:

• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): the BLM has trust, permitting, and

inspection and enforcement responsibilities

• Bureau of Prisons

• Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)

• International Boundary Water Commission (IBWC)

• US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE)

• US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research 

Stations

• US Department of Defense (DOD) 

• US Department of Energy (DOE)

• US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

1.2.2 Bureau of Indian Affairs

The BIA’s 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. 
1. Introduction (Description of the Lead Agencies)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-3 

Diagram 1-1 

Document Organization

VOLUME I

Chapter 1: Introduction

Describes the purpose and need, planning process, and issues to be evaluated in this Joint EIS.

Chapter 2: Alternatives

Describes and compares the proposed management alternatives.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment

Presents existing biological, physical, and socioeconomic resources that could be affected by implementing the 

management alternatives.

VOLUME II

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

Evaluates the impacts of the alternatives on the human and natural environment in terms of environmental, social, 

and economic consequences projected to occur from implementing the alternatives.

Chapter 5: Cumulative Impact Analysis

Evaluates the cumulative impacts of the alternatives on the human and natural environment in terms of 

environmental, social, and economic consequences projected to occur from implementing the alternatives in 

combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination

Describes the scoping and public comment process, agencies contacted, and government-to-government 

consultation, and lists the preparers of the Joint EIS.

Chapter 7: References

Lists the documents and other sources used to prepare the Joint EIS.

Chapter 8: Acronyms and Glossary

Lists the acronyms and abbreviations used in the Joint EIS and provides definitions for important terms used in the 

EIS. 

Chapter 9: Index

Identifies where the issues, resource descriptions, NEPA terms, and agencies and groups discussed can be found in 

the Joint EIS.

VOLUME III

Appendices

A Alternatives A, B, C, and D Figures 

B BLM BMPs and SOPs

C BIA BMPs 

D BLM Mineral Stipulations

E Recreation Management Area

F Baseline Air Quality Report

G Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Report

H Wild and Scenic River Eligibility and Suitability Report 

VOLUME IV

I Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

VOLUME V 

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 Methods and Data

M Coal Development Strategy

N BLM-Administered Surface Tracts Meeting Disposal Criteria Under Section 203 of FLPMA
1. Introduction (Description of the Lead Agencies)

1-4 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

The BIA is the oldest bureau of the US DOI. Established in 1824, BIA currently 

provides services (directly or through contracts, grants, or compacts) to 

approximately 1.9 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. There are 573 

Federally recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Natives in the United States. The 

BIA is responsible for the administration and management of 55 million surface 

acres and 57 million acres of subsurface mineral estates held in trust by the 

United States for American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives.

This unique relationship between the United States and tribal governments is 

deeply rooted in American history. Much of federal Indian policy revolves 

around this special relationship, which is expressed in terms of legal duties, 

moral obligations, and expectations arising from the historical dealings between 

Federally recognized Indian tribes and the federal government.

The scope of BIA programs is authorized by numerous treaties, court decisions, 

and legislation and covers virtually the entire range of federal, state, and local 

government services. Programs administered by either Federally recognized 

Indian tribes or the BIA include an education system, consisting of elementary 

and secondary schools, tribal colleges, universities, tribal technical colleges, and 

post-secondary schools. Other programs administered through the BIA include 

social services, natural resources management, land use and grazing permits, 

economic development, law enforcement and detention services, administration 

of tribal courts, implementation of land and water claims settlements, 

replacement and repair of schools, repair and maintenance of roads and bridges, 

repair of structural deficiencies on high-hazard dams, and land consolidation 

activities. 

The BIA’s Divisions of Tribal Government Services and Self-Determination 

Services promote the sovereignty of Federally recognized Indian tribes, 

consistent with the long-standing federal policy of supporting Indian selfdetermination expressed in the Indian Self-Determination and Education 

Assistance Act (the Act), as amended, Public Law 93-638. The act allows for 

Federally recognized Indian tribes to have greater autonomy and to have the 

opportunity to assume the responsibility for programs and services 

administered to them on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior through 

contractual agreements. Tribal government funds are used to provide staff at 

the BIA agency office or hire staff under a tribal Indian self-determination 

contract to perform tribal government services at the tribal/agency level. 

The BIA Division of Transportation manages and oversees the DOI Road 

Maintenance Program and the Tribal Transportation Program in Indian country. 

These federal-aid, transportation-related program activities are facilitated 

through contracts, grants, compacts, and other appropriate agreements with 

Federally recognized Indian tribes and other public authorities. The BIA, among 

others, shares responsibility for operating and maintaining “BIA-owned” roads 

and transportation facilities on reservations and in tribal communities. Federal-
1. Introduction (Description of the Lead Agencies)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-5

aid Road Maintenance Program funds are administered at the BIA regional 

offices for roads identified as part of the BIA roads system. As a public 

authority, the BIA shares the responsibility with tribal governments for 

maintaining and improving roads and bridges identified as BIA-owned.

Tribal Transportation Program facilities are another class of public roads that 

provide access to and within Indian reservations, Indian trust land, and 

restricted Indian land. The Tribal Transportation Program addresses the 

transportation needs of these facilities by providing federal funds for planning, 

design, construction, and maintenance. The program is jointly administered by 

the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHA) Federals Lands Highway Office and 

the BIA Division of Transportation, in accordance with an interagency 

agreement. 

In the Southern Plains Region, the Branch of Natural Resources manages the 

following programs: Agricultural Resource Management, Fish, Wildlife, and 

Recreation, Water Resources, Forestry, and Wildland Fire Management. The 

purpose of the Agricultural Resource Management Program is to promote the 

protection, conservation, and utilization of Indian agricultural lands and to 

maintain their highest productive potential through sound multiple-use planning, 

development, inventory classification, and management of agricultural resources.

The Fish, Wildlife, and Recreation Program is operated as a competitive grant 

process that supports tribal projects to protect threatened and endangered 

species as well as species of tribal significance, protection of trust resources 

from invasive species, and a Tribal Youth Initiative that is intended to foster 

interest in careers related to natural resource conservation and protection.

The Water Resources Program also operates through a competitive grant 

process that funds studies and research that support the protection and 

development of tribal water resources and the advancement of Federally 

recognized Indian water rights. The purpose of the Forestry Program is to 

maintain, protect, enhance, and develop Indian forest resources through the use 

of sound scientific and economic principles. An essential part of this policy 

provides for management of Indian forest lands under the principle of sustained 

yield, consistent with the beneficial owners’ goals and objectives.

The Wildland Fire Management Program develops policies, standards, and 

guidance for hazardous fuels reduction and is responsible for firefighter safety 

and training, performing hazardous fuels reduction projects, providing wildfire 

prevention through public outreach and education, and responding to active 

wildfires with the goal of wildfire suppression. The Southern Plains Branch of 

Natural Resources also includes Environmental and Cultural Resources 

Management, which is responsible for compliance with all applicable federal, 

state, local, and tribal environmental laws and regulations, NEPA compliance, 

and protection of historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources on 

trust lands.
1. Introduction (Description of the Lead Agencies)

1-6 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

In the Eastern Oklahoma Region, natural resources is managed by the Division 

of Natural Resources. Within this division, the Fish, Wildlife, and Recreation 

Program is operated as a competitive grant process that supports tribal projects 

to protect threatened and endangered species as well as species of tribal 

significance, protection of trust resources from invasive species, Fish Hatcheries 

Maintenance, and a Tribal Youth Initiative that is intended to foster interest in 

careers related to natural resource conservation and protection. The Forestry 

Program maintains, protects, enhances, and develops Indian forest resources 

through the use of sound scientific and economic principles. An essential part of 

this policy provides for management of Indian forest lands under the principle of 

sustained yield, consistent with the beneficial owners’ goals and objectives. The 

Wildland Fire Management Program develops policies, standards, and guidance 

for hazardous fuels reduction and is responsible for firefighter safety and 

training, performing hazardous fuels reduction projects, providing wildfire 

prevention through public outreach and education, and responding to active 

wildfires with the goal of wildfire suppression.

The Eastern Oklahoma Region’s Division of Environmental and Cultural 

Resources Management is responsible for compliance with all applicable Federal, 

State, local and Tribal environmental laws and regulations, NEPA compliance, 

and protection of historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources on 

trust/restricted lands. The Water Resources Program also operates through a 

competitive grant process that funds studies and research that support the 

protection and development of tribal water resources and the advancement of 

federally recognized Indian water rights.

The Division of Real Estate Services’ major responsibilities include ensuring that 

the trust and restricted federal Indian-owned lands are protected, managed, 

accounted for, developed, and utilized in a timely and efficient manner. This 

division is responsible for the following:

• Fee-to-trust/restricted process

• Trust/restricted-to-trust/restricted conveyances from individual 

Indians and Federally recognized Indian tribes

• Trust/restricted-to-fee conveyances from individual Indians to 

Indians, non-Indians, and any entity

• Acquisitions and transfer from federal agencies and the private 

sector

• Surface leases for agricultural, residential, and business (e.g., grazing, 

hunting, and wind farm projects) uses

• Subsurface leases for oil and gas, coal, copper, uranium, and other 

hard rock minerals

• Rights-of-way for roads, fiber optics, pipelines, and energy-related 

activities
1. Introduction (Description of the Lead Agencies)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-7

• Investigation of trespass related to unauthorized use

Recent revisions of 25 CFR 162 for residential, business, and wind and solar 

resource leasing specify the process for obtaining BIA approval of leases for 

residential, business, and wind and solar purposes on Indian land and allow for 

BIA review of a proposed lease before or during preparation of NEPA

documentation and any valuation to identify potential obstacles to BIA approval. 

Decisions and NEPA compliance for leasing the trust mineral estate for fluid and 

solid minerals on reservation land, tribal land, and individual tribal allotments are 

the BIA’s responsibility; however, it often requires coordinating with the BLM 

and other agencies whose roles are specified in an interagency standard 

operating procedure (DOI 2013). For example, the BIA is responsible for fluid 

leasing decisions and NEPA compliance for new lease approvals and assignments, 

and the BLM is responsible for completing the NEPA and other compliance 

actions for Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs). In Osage County, Oklahoma,

the BIA is responsible for both leasing and permitting of oil and gas activities. 

There are other exceptions for Federally recognized Indian tribes and the 

opportunity to agree to share some responsibilities. Coal leasing on tribal lands is 

a BLM decision that is closely coordinated with the BIA (DOI 2013). 

The BIA is responsible for agency reviews, environmental compliance, and 

approvals for the development of wind, solar, and other renewable energy

projects and rights-of-way on tribal lands; however, Federally recognized Indian 

tribes can obtain a tribal energy resource agreement (TERA) granting authority 

for the Federally recognized Indian tribe to review, approve, and manage leases, 

business agreements, and rights-of-way for energy development on tribal lands, 

without BIA approval. 

Under a TERA, a Federally recognized Indian tribe, at its discretion, may enter 

into leases and business agreements to develop energy resources on tribal land 

for extraction, construction, or facilities operation and distribution. Each 

approved TERA must have a provision under which the Federally recognized 

Indian tribe would establish and ensure compliance with an environmental 

review process but would be exempt from NEPA and National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) compliance. 

A recent change also made leasing of tribal lands for other purposes more 

efficient. The Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Home 

Ownership (Hearth Act) was signed into law in 2012, amending the Indian LongTerm Leasing Act of 1955, 25 USC Section 415, and can be used by Federally 

recognized Indian tribes to exercise their inherent sovereignty over their own 

tribal lands. Federally recognized Indian tribes can lease tribal land for business, 

agricultural, recreational, educational, religious, or residential purposes without 

the BIA’s review and approval. Leases of Indian-owned allotments and leases for 

mineral resource exploration, development, and extraction remain subject to 

BIA review and approval. Projects on tribal land remain subject to applicable 
1. Introduction (Description of the Lead Agencies)

1-8 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

federal environmental regulatory requirements, including Clean Water Act

(CWA) and Clean Air Act permits and federal reviews triggered by federal 

agency action. 

To exercise authority under the Hearth Act, Federally recognized Indian tribes 

must adopt tribal leasing regulations, subject to BIA approval and consistent 

with those adopted by the BIA. Tribal regulations must include an 

environmental review process to identify and evaluate “any significant 

environmental effects of the proposed action on the environment.” Tribal 

regulations also must include a process to ensure that the public is informed of 

and has a reasonable opportunity to comment on any significant environmental 

impacts of the proposed action and that the Federally recognized Indian tribe 

responds to relevant and substantive comments before it approves a lease. 

The Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations (Buy-Back Program) implements 

the land consolidation component of the Cobell Settlement, which provides 

funds to purchase fractional interests in trust or restricted land from willing 

sellers at fair market value. Consolidated interests are immediately restored to 

tribal trust ownership for uses benefiting the reservation community and tribal 

members. Mineral rights associated with a property are included in the valuation 

process to determine fair market value paid for the land. Landowners who own 

only mineral rights may sell those rights through the Buy-Back Program to the 

Federally recognized Indian tribe with jurisdiction; however, owners may not 

retain mineral rights while selling the surface interest (BIA 2018). 

While complying with NEPA is an inherently federal responsibility, tribal 

governments also have substantial authority through their retained tribal 

sovereignty for environmental protection on lands within their jurisdiction. This

tribal governmental authority is distinct from the responsibilities of the BIA 

under NEPA and other federal environmental laws. As described above, 

activities affecting the environment on Indian lands often require the approval of 

both the BIA and the tribal government. Tribal governments have been invited 

to serve as cooperating agencies/entities in the joint EIS NEPA process. 

1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AND DECISION AREAS

The planning area is Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and Richardson County, 

Nebraska (Figure 1-1), regardless of landownership. The 269,650,000-acre 

planning area is composed of federal, tribal trust, or restricted (BIA), allotted, 

state, county, and private lands. It encompasses 437 counties (105 in Kansas, 77 

in Oklahoma, 254 in Texas, and 1 in Nebraska). Federal lands in the planning 

area are those administered by the BLM and those under the USDA, Forest

Service (Forest Service); USDA, Agricultural Research Service; US Department 

of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons; US Department of Defense; US 

Department of Energy; USACE; International Boundary and Water Commission; 

and US DOI, National Park Service (NPS), BOR, and USFWS. Table 1-1

identifies the acreage of the various landownerships in the planning area.

1. Introduction (Description of the Planning and Decision Areas)

1-10 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 1-1

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

Land Status

Surface 

Administration 

(Acres)

Surface 

Percentage of 

Planning 

Area

BLMAdministered 

Mineral 

Estate 

(Acres) 1

BLMAdministered 

Mineral 

Estate 

Percent-age 

of Planning 

Area

BIAManaged 

Mineral 

Estate

BIAManaged 

Mineral 

Estate 

Percentage of the 

Planning 

Area

BLM 15,100* 0.01 15,100* 0.01 0 0

BIA 853,000 0.32 N/A N/A 2,667,8004 0.99

Bureau of Prisons 3,300 0.00 3,300 0.00 0 0

BOR 219,600 0.08 219,600 0.08 0 0

Department of 

Defense

892,900 0.33 892,900 0.33 0 0

Department of 

Energy

15,100 0.01 15,100 0.01 0 0

International 

Boundary Water 

Commission

39,900 0.01 107,600 0.04 0 0

National Park 

Service

1,338,900 0.50 N/A3 N/A3 0 0

Forest Service 1,265,900 0.47 N/A3 N/A3 0 0

Agricultural 

Research Service

13,700 0.01 13,700 0.01 0 0

USFWS 783,500 0.29 547,400 0.20 0 0

USACE 2,323,000 0.86 2,227,900 0.83 0 0

State 1,951,100 0.72 25,500 0.01 0 0

Private, other, or 

unknown

259,935,000 96.40 785,300 0.29 0 0

Total2 269,650,000* 100 4,810,900* 1.80 2,667,800 0.99

Sources: BLM GIS 2016; BIA GIS 2016

1BLM-administered mineral estate acres include split-estate minerals (private/state surface and federal minerals), public domain 

lands, and segregated coal. 2 Totals may not sum correctly because of overlapping surface ownerships.

3 National Park Service lands are Congressionally withdrawn from mineral leasing, and minerals under Forest Service lands are 

covered under their existing land use plans. 

4In Osage County, only non-fluid minerals are included in the decision area for this Integrated RMP; fluid minerals are being 

addressed in the Osage County Oil and Gas EIS.

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red River and the 

98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified and mapped when they are surveyed. (No exact acreages of federal lands 

are available at this time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed). Any such survey would be conducted in 

accordance with applicable law.

Management direction and actions provided apply only to the BLM and BIA 

decision areas. The decision areas cover only the BLM-administered and BIAmanaged surface lands and subsurface mineral estate in the planning area, with 

the exception of oil and gas mineral estate in Osage County. All of Osage 

County is included in the BIA-managed federal mineral estate, but only BIA nonfluid minerals would be covered under this plan. Fluid minerals are addressed in 

the Osage County Oil and Gas EIS.
1. Introduction (Description of the Planning and Decision Areas)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-11

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 for analysis. For planning purposes, this document assumes that all 

minerals underlying other federal surface management agencies (SMAs) are 

federal minerals; as such, these areas are included in the analysis of federal

minerals. Due to incomplete data, the actual location and extent of federal 

minerals may vary from the locations analyzed. See Section 1.3.1, BLM Decision 

Area, for a complete description of the federal minerals decision area.

Geographic Information System Data, Calculations, and Graphics 

Most calculations in this EIS are rounded to the nearest 100 acres. The accuracy 

of the calculations presented in the EIS depends on the quality and availability of 

data. Given the scale of the analysis area, the compatibility constraints between 

datasets, and the lack of data for some resource topic areas, all calculations are 

approximate; they are for comparison and analysis only. The calculations and 

acreages presented in this document are based on the decision areas being 

comprised of the following four parts: 

• BLM-administered surface land

• BLM-administered federal mineral estate

• BIA-managed surface land, which includes lands identified by the BIA 

Southern Plains and Eastern Oklahoma Regions as restricted lands 

and those potentially held in trust 

• BIA-managed federal mineral estate, which includes lands identified 

by the BLM and BIA as BIA-managed mineral estate; these lands are 

identified only when a specific application is made, and additional 

areas of BIA-managed mineral estate may exist. Additionally, 

anywhere BIA-managed surface land has been identified, BIAmanaged mineral estate is assumed to exist. All of Osage County is 

included in the BIA-managed federal mineral estate, but only coal

and other solid minerals would be covered under this plan.

Acreage calculations for non-mineral resources are derived by overlaying 

resource area geographic information systems (GIS) data with BLMadministered or BIA-managed surface boundaries. Acreage calculations for 

mineral resources are more complex for the following reasons:

• The federal mineral estate decision area includes different types of 

minerals, including fluid minerals, material minerals, nonenergy 

leasable minerals, and solid minerals (coal). 

• Within BLM-administered federal mineral estate, there are some 

areas of federally segregated coal and asphalt. In these areas, the 

BLM administers coal and asphalt resources but not other minerals. 

In areas outside of segregated coal and asphalt, the BLM administers 

coal and asphalt resources and other minerals.
1. Introduction (Description of the Planning and Decision Areas)

1-12 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• Minerals underlie lands of varying surface ownership. These include 

federal minerals that underlie BLM-administered lands, federal 

minerals that underlie private or state lands (split-estate), and 

federal minerals that underlie lands managed by other federal 

agencies. Depending on landownership, different stipulations 

(conditions of leasing and development) may apply. 

For the reasons described above, total mineral acreage calculations provided in 

this EIS may vary by resource and resource use. Acreages subject to fluid 

minerals no surface occupancy (NSO) and controlled surface use (CSU)

stipulations may overlap; therefore, these acreages do not add up to the mineral 

estate decision area.

GIS has been used in developing all figures and data. The figures provided are 

for illustrative purposes and are subject to the same limitations as identified 

above. The BLM and BIA make no warranty as to the accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data, which may be updated without notice.

Any minerals beneath lands administered by the USFWS are included in the 

BLM-administered federal mineral decision area (see Table 1-2, below). If, in 

the future, any minerals are identified as being on land administered by the 

USFWS, they will be considered on a case-by-case basis and are not analyzed in 

this plan. 

Any minerals beneath lands administered by other federal agencies, as listed in 

the BLM-Administered Mineral Estate (Acres) column in Table 1-1, are shown 

in Table 1-2, Table 1-3, Table 1-4, and Table 1-5. These tables list 

individual units administered by the USFWS, USACE, BOR, and Department of 

Defense, respectively.

Table 1-2

USFWS-Administered Lands with Federal Minerals

USFWS Unit Name Unit Type

Approximate Acres of 

BLM-Administered 

Federal Mineral Estate1

Kansas—USFWS Region 6

Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge 18,600

Great Plains Nature Center 10

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge 10,800

Marais des Cygnes National Wildlife Refuge 7,700

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge 22,200

Oklahoma—USFWS Region 2

Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge 9,900 

Optima National Wildlife Refuge 4,300 

Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge 4,000 

Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge 20,700

Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge 16,400 
1. Introduction (Description of the Planning and Decision Areas)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-13

Table 1-2

USFWS-Administered Lands with Federal Minerals

USFWS Unit Name Unit Type

Approximate Acres of 

BLM-Administered 

Federal Mineral Estate1

Washita National Wildlife Refuge 7,900

Wichita National Wildlife Refuge 59,000

Texas—USFWS Region 2

Aransas National Wildlife Refuge 116,500

Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge 7,600

Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge 11,300

Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge 91,300

Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge 92,400

San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge 51,800 

Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge 2,100

Total 554,500

Source: BLM GIS 2016 1

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

Table 1-3

USACE-Administered Lands with Federal Minerals

USACE Unit Name USACE District

Approximate Acres of BLMAdministered Federal Mineral 

Estate1

Kansas

Clinton Lake Kansas City 22,700

Copan Lake Tulsa 3,700

Council Grove Lake Tulsa 6,200

El Dorado Lake Tulsa 15,600

Elk City Lake Tulsa 19,300

Fall River Lake Tulsa 12,500

Hillsdale Lake Kansas City 13,300

John Redmond Reservoir Tulsa 11,200

Kanopolis Lake Kansas City 21,400

Kaw Lake Tulsa 4,200

Marion Reservoir Tulsa 12,300

Melvern Lake Kansas City 23,700

Milford Lake Kansas City 42,400

Pearson-Skubitz Lake (Big Hill Lake) Tulsa 2,600

Perry Lake Kansas City 40,200

Pomona Lake Kansas City 10,300

Toronto Lake Tulsa 8,500

Tuttle Creek Lake Kansas City 34,500

Wilson Lake Kansas City 22,800

Oklahoma

Broken Bow Lake Tulsa 28,300

Canton Lake Tulsa 19,500
1. Introduction (Description of the Planning and Decision Areas)

1-14 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 1-3

USACE-Administered Lands with Federal Minerals

USACE Unit Name USACE District

Approximate Acres of BLMAdministered Federal Mineral 

Estate1

Copan Lake Tulsa 13,600

Eufaula Lake Tulsa 178,100

Fort Gibson Tulsa 83,400

Fort Supply Tulsa 7,200

Heyburn Lake Tulsa 8,100

Hugo Lake Tulsa 38,900

Kaw Lake Tulsa 36,700

Keystone Lake Tulsa 44,000

Lake Texoma2,3 Tulsa 202,400

McClellan-Kerr Tulsa 18,700

Oologah Lake Tulsa 54,000

Optima Lake4 Tulsa 10,700

Pine Creek Lake Tulsa 26,400

Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam Tulsa 38,000

Sardis Lake Tulsa 21,800

Tenkiller Lake Tulsa 34,000

Waurika Lake Tulsa 21,000

Webbers Falls Lock and Dam Tulsa 8,700

Wister Lake Tulsa 38,100

Texas5

Addicks Dam Galveston 33,400

Aquilla Lake Fort Worth 12,500

Bardwell Lake Fort Worth 8,300

Belton Lake Fort Worth 33,100

Benbrook Lake Fort Worth 11,900

Canyon Lake Fort Worth 15,400

Granger Lake Fort Worth 15,200

Grapevine Lake Fort Worth 18,200

Hords Creek Lake Fort Worth 2,900

Jim Chapman Lake/Cooper Dam Fort Worth 32,300

Joe Pool Lake Fort Worth 17,200

Lake Georgetown Fort Worth 6,000

Lake O’ the Pines Fort Worth 48,200

Lavon Lake Fort Worth 38,600

Lewisville Lake Fort Worth 54,600

Navarro Mills Lake Fort Worth 14,800

O. C. Fisher Lake Fort Worth 18,100

Pay Mayse Lake Tulsa 23,500

Proctor Lake Fort Worth 16,700

Ray Roberts Lake Fort Worth 48,900

Sam Rayburn Lake Fort Worth 187,900

Somerville Lake Fort Worth 33,200
1. Introduction (Description of the Planning and Decision Areas)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-15

Table 1-3

USACE-Administered Lands with Federal Minerals

USACE Unit Name USACE District

Approximate Acres of BLMAdministered Federal Mineral 

Estate1

Stillhouse Hollow Reservoir Fort Worth 16,200

Town Bluff/B. A. Steinhagen Lake Fort Worth 22,700

Waco Lake Fort Worth 22,000

Wallisville Reservoir Galveston 100

Whitney Lake Fort Worth 53,500

Wright Patman Lake Fort Worth 163,000

Total Approximately 2,228,000

Source: BLM GIS 2016 1 Rounded to the nearest 100 acres; all lands may not include federal minerals 2 Portions in Oklahoma and Texas 3 Overlaps with Tishomingo and Hagerman National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) 4 Overlaps with Optima NWR

5 Caddo Lake of the Vicksburg District is not included because no federal minerals are known to occur.

Table 1-4

BOR Lands with Federal Minerals

BOR Unit Name BOR Region

Approximate Acres of 

BLM-Administered 

Federal Mineral Estate1

Kansas

Cedar Bluff Dam (Smoky Hill River) Great Plains 15,100

Cheney Dam (Cheney Reservoir) Great Plains 17,300

Glen Elder Dam (Waconda Lake) Great Plains 26,300

Norton Dam (Keith Sebelius Lake) Great Plains 8,000

Lovewell Dam (Lovewell Reservoir) Great Plains 6,500

Webster Dam (Webster Reservoir Great Plains 9,100

Oklahoma

Fort Cobb Dam (Fort Cobb Reservoir) Great Plains 8,600

Foss Dam (Foss Reservoir) Great Plains 11,400

Altus Dam (Lake Altus) Great Plains 12,200

Norman Dam (Lake Thunderbird) Great Plains 12,000

McGee Creek Dam (McGee Creek Reservoir) Great Plains 17,300

Mountain Park Dam (Tom Steed Reservoir) Great Plains 12,000

Texas

Choke Canyon Dam (Choke Canyon Reservoir) Great Plains 35,300

Sanford Dam (Lake Meredith) Great Plains 8,700

Palmetto Bend Lake/Lake Texana Great Plains 17,500

Twin Buttes Dam (Twin Buttes Reservoir) Great Plains 2,400

Total Approximately 219,600

Source: BLM GIS 2016 1

Rounded to the nearest 100 acres; all lands may not include federal minerals
1. Introduction (Description of the Planning and Decision Areas)

1-16 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 1-5

Department of Defense Lands with Federal Minerals

Department of Defense Unit Name Branch

Approximate Acres of 

BLM-Administered 

Federal Mineral Estate1

Kansas

Fort Leavenworth Army 5,800

Fort Riley Army 101,800

Kansas Army Ammunition Plant Joint Munitions Command 14,000

McConnell Air Force Base Air Force 2,700

Smoky Hill Weapons Range Air Force 33,900

Sunflower Army Ammunitions Plant Army 9,200

Oklahoma

Altus Air Force Base Air Force 3,900

Camp Gruber National Guard 63,600

Fort Sill Military Reservation Army 91,400

Fort Sill Tallgrass Prairie Reserve Army 2,400

McAlester Army Ammunition Plant Army 46,000

Tinker Air Force Base Air Force 4,900

Vance Air Force Base Air Force 2,200

Texas

Auxiliary Landing Field Cabaniss Navy 1,100

Auxiliary Landing Field Orange Navy 1,400

Auxiliary Landing Field Waldron Navy 600

Bergstrom Air Force Base Air Force 3,200

Brooks Air Force Base Air Force 1,300

Camp Bowie National Guard 5,500

Camp Bullis Air Force 28,100

Camp Swift National Guard 12,300

Camp Maxey National Guard 6,600

Dixie Target Range Navy 7,800

Dyess Air Force Base Air Force 5,400

Fort Hood Army 213,100

Fort Wolters National Guard 4,100

Fort Bliss Army 123,100

Goodfellow Air Force Base Air Force 1,500

Grand Prairie Armed Forces Reserve 

Complex

Multiple 600

Joint Base San Antonio Air Force 14,700

Laughlin Air Force Base and #1 Army Air 

Field

Air Force and Army 5,600

Lonestar Army Ammunitions Plant Army 16,000

Longhorn Army Ammunitions Plant Army 9,000

McGregor Naval Industrial Reserve 

Ordnance Plant

Navy 11,800

Naval Air Station Kingsville Navy 4,300

Naval Air Station and Joint Reserve Base 

Fort Worth

Navy 1,800
1. Introduction (Description of the Planning and Decision Areas)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-17

Table 1-5

Department of Defense Lands with Federal Minerals

Department of Defense Unit Name Branch

Approximate Acres of 

BLM-Administered 

Federal Mineral Estate1

Naval Air Station Corpus Christi Navy 2,700

Red River Army Depot Army 19,800

Reese Air Force Base Air Force 2,300

Sheppard Air Force Base Air Force 3,700

Yankee Target Range Navy 4,000

Total Approximately 892,900

Source: BLM GIS 2016 1

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

1.3.1 BLM Decision Area

The BLM decision area includes BLM-administered surface lands and BLMadministered federal mineral estate.

BLM-Administered Surface Land

The BLM decision area includes approximately 15,100 acres of BLMadministered surface lands, including scattered tracts in Oklahoma and the 

Cross Bar Management Area in Texas (Table 1-6, below). There are 166 

scattered BLM-administered surface tracts in Oklahoma, ranging in size from 

155 acres to less than 1 acre. The average parcel size is 21 acres; only 2 parcels 

are greater than 100 acres. The largest surface tract is the Cross Bar 

Management Area (11,800 acres; BLM GIS 2016). The BLM-administered surface 

land decision area also includes federal lands along the 116-mile Red River area

between the North Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian. The Cross Bar 

Management Area and Red River area are described below.

Table 1-6

BLM-Administered Surface Lands

Surface area Acres1

Nebraska 0

Kansas 0

Oklahoma (scattered tracts) 3,300*

Texas (Cross Bar Management Area) 11,800

Texas (outside of Cross Bar Management Area) 0*

Total 15,100*

Source: BLM GIS 2016 1

Rounded to the nearest 100 acres

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the 

North Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified and 

mapped when they are surveyed. (No exact acreages of federal lands are available at this time 

because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed). Any such survey would be conducted 

in accordance with applicable law.
1. Introduction (Description of the Planning and Decision Areas)

1-18 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Cross Bar Management Area

The BLM administers the 11,800-acre Cross Bar Management Area. It is in the 

Texas High Plains ecological subregion, in the transition between the high plains 

and the rolling plains.

Under the acts of February 15, 1928, and January 25, 1929, the United States 

acquired the surface and subsurface estate of the Cross Bar Management Area

from the Humble Oil and Refining Company on March 6, 1931. These acts gave 

the DOI approval to acquire land to produce and transport helium gas. In 1997, 

due to the elimination of the Bureau of Mines, the helium operations portion 

was transferred to the BLM. Those acquired lands and minerals then meet the 

definition of “public land” in the FLPMA.

The Cross Bar Management Area 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 land-based public access; 

however, it is open to visitors for archery hunting, hiking, and general 

recreation. Visitors can reach the property via the Canadian River, which 

borders the area on the north (BLM 2015a).

Federal Land Around the Red River

Federal lands along a 116-mile continuous stretch of the Red River originally 

came into federal ownership in 1803, as part of the Louisiana Purchase from 

France. A series of subsequent treaties with foreign governments in 1819, 1828, 

and 1838 set the south bank of the river as the southern border of the United 

States and the northern border of what is now Texas. In 1867, when a portion 

of this public domain was reserved for the Kiowa-Comanche-Apache 

Reservation, the “middle of the main channel” of the river between the 98th 

Meridian and the north fork of the river was established as the reservation’s 

southern boundary. The remaining land between what is now called “the medial 

line” and the south bank retained its status as public land, which continues to 

the present (United States Congress 2014).

In a series of decisions in the 1920s, the US Supreme Court adopted what is

known as the gradient boundary method for determining the location of the 

border between Texas and Oklahoma along the south bank of the river. In 

certifying the boundary’s location and the extent of tribal holdings, the court’s 

decisions also provided a basis for clarifying private landownership on each side 

of the river. The terminology for determining the location of public domain 

lands and private property boundaries—medial line, cut bank, and gradient 

boundary—has been the accepted standard since the 1920s Supreme Court 

rulings (United States Congress 2014).

In 1981 and 1984, two separate Oklahoma landowners argued in US District 

Court that under riparian law, changes in the river’s location had expanded their 

private holdings, while reducing the acreage of the Texas landowners whose 

properties faced them across the river. In both cases, the District Court 
1. Introduction (Description of the Planning and Decision Areas)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-19

followed the Supreme Court’s established principles concerning the location of 

public and private lands. Private property in Oklahoma extended to the center 

of the river; private property in Texas stopped at the south bank gradient 

boundary, with the remaining land being part of the original public domain in 

Oklahoma.

Despite the court’s identification of a defined border, certain areas along the 

Red River remained in dispute. In 2000, the legislatures of Oklahoma and Texas, 

along with tribal leaders from the neighboring Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache 

Tribes and Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations, attempted to resolve these 

remaining issues by agreeing to the Red River Boundary Compact. Congress 

later consented to the compact. In doing so, it agreed that the jurisdictional 

boundary between the states should be the south bank vegetation line. The 

compact explicitly did not change the title of any person or entity, public or 

private, to any of the lands along the Red River. Although the compact may have 

shifted the boundary between the states, the location and status of lands in the 

public domain remained unchanged (United States Congress 2014). 

In addition to federal, state, and private land in the area, the Chickasaw and 

Choctaw Nations also hold ownership interests east of the 98th Meridian 

intermittently to the border between the states. Tribal landownership extends 

eastward, mostly along the Red River’s medial line, from the 98th Meridian to 

the Arkansas border. There are no current estimates for the total tribal acreage 

in this area (United States Congress 2014).

Most of the boundary of federal lands in the Red River area have not been the 

subject of recent survey. Federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River 

between the North Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian will be more 

specifically identified and mapped when they are surveyed. No exact acreages of 

federal lands are available at this time, because the full 116-mile stretch has not been 

surveyed. Any such survey would be conducted in accordance with applicable 

law.

BLM-Administered Federal Mineral Estate

The BLM-administered federal mineral estate decision area includes 4,810,900

acres of federal minerals underlying BLM-administered surface land, split-estate 

tracts (federal minerals underlying private or state surface lands), and federal 

minerals underlying land administered by other federal SMAs plus any applicable 

federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North 

Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian. Poster 1 depicts surface 

ownership and BLM-administered federal mineral estate. Within the BLMadministered federal mineral estate decision area, there are some areas of 

federal segregated coal and asphalt. In these areas, the BLM administers coal and 

asphalt resources but not other minerals, such as oil and gas. Lands managed by 

other federal agencies not covered under their own land use plan (such as the 
1. Introduction (Description of the Planning and Decision Areas)

1-20 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

BOR) or congressionally withdrawn lands (some USFWS refuges) are included 

in the BLM-administered federal mineral estate. 

1.3.2 BIA Decision Area

The BIA decision area includes 853,000 surface acres and 2,667,800 mineral 

estate acres within two BIA Regions (BIA GIS 2016). The BIA Eastern Oklahoma 

Region includes 394,200 surface acres and 2,033,500 mineral estate acres. Of 

the mineral estate acres, approximately 1,474,500 acres are in Osage County 

and are solely under jurisdiction of the BIA (i.e., the BLM does not administer 

fluid minerals in Osage County like it does for the rest of the BIA decision area). 

In Osage County, only non-fluid minerals are included in the decision area for 

this Integrated RMP; fluid minerals are being addressed in the Osage County Oil 

and Gas EIS. The BIA Southern Plains Region includes 457,500 surface acres and 

632,000 mineral estate acres. The BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains 

Regional boundaries are shown on Figure 1-2. Poster 2 depicts surface 

ownership and BIA-managed tribal and allotted subsurface mineral estate. The 

BIA decision area includes surface lands and mineral estate in Oklahoma, 

Kansas, and Texas and Richardson County, Nebraska. BIA trust lands in the 

Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions include multiple tribal 

jurisdictional boundaries, as shown in Table 1-7. 

Table 1-7 

Tribal Jurisdictional Surface Boundaries1

Jurisdictional Boundary Name BIA Region

Estimated BIAManaged Surface 

Acres2

Nebraska

Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Southern Plains Region 700

Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas Southern Plains Region 200

Kansas

Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Southern Plains Region 1,900

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo 

Reservation in Kansas

Southern Plains Region 6,400

Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation Southern Plains Region 21,000

Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas Southern Plains Region 100

Oklahoma

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of 

Oklahoma and Eastern Shawnee Tribe 

of Oklahoma

Eastern Oklahoma Region 500

Cherokee Eastern Oklahoma Region 82,800

Chilocco Indian School Lands- Cherokee 

Nation (Public Law 90-279 90th

Congress, H.R. 536, March 30th, 1968 

[82 Stat. 70])

Eastern Oklahoma Region 100

Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Eastern Oklahoma Region 800

Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma Eastern Oklahoma Region 500

Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Eastern Oklahoma Region 1,400
1. Introduction (Description of the Planning and Decision Areas)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-21

Table 1-7

Tribal Jurisdictional Surface Boundaries1

Jurisdictional Boundary Name BIA Region

Estimated BIAManaged Surface 

Acres2

Seneca-Cayuga Nation Eastern Oklahoma Region Less than 50

The Chickasaw Nation Eastern Oklahoma Region 40,800

The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Eastern Oklahoma Region 66,300

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation Eastern Oklahoma Region 59,100

The Osage Nation Eastern Oklahoma Region 122,800

The Quapaw Tribe of Indians Eastern Oklahoma Region 4,800

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Eastern Oklahoma Region 14,200

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee 

Indians in Oklahoma

Eastern Oklahoma Region 100

Wyandotte Nation Eastern Oklahoma Region 300

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes Southern Plains Region 74,500

Chilocco Indian School Lands- Chilocco 

Campus

Southern Plains Region 200

Chilocco Indian School Lands- Kaw Tribe Southern Plains Region 800

Chilocco Indian School Lands- OtoeMissouria TribeSouthern Plains Region 800

Chilocco Indian School Lands- Pawnee 

Tribe

Southern Plains Region 800

Chilocco Indian School Lands- Ponca Tribe Southern Plains Region 800

Chilocco Indian School Lands- Tonkawa 

Tribe

Southern Plains Region 800

Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma Southern Plains Region 15,400

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Southern Plains Region 1,500

Kaw Nation Southern Plains Region 200

Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Southern Plains Region 6,100

Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; 

Comanche Nation, Oklahoma; Fort Sill 

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma

Southern Plains Region 196,200

Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma Southern Plains Region 19,200

Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma Southern Plains Region 19,700

Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Southern Plains Region 13,600

Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma Southern Plains Region 15,900

Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Southern Plains Region 400

Wichita and Affiliated Tribes; Caddo Nation 

of Oklahoma; Delaware Nation; 

Delaware Tribe of Indians

Southern Plains Region 55,500

Texas

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas Southern Plains Region 4,600

Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas Southern Plains Region 100

Total Approximately 853,000

Source: BLM GIS 2016 1

Acreages are estimates and may change as lands enter or are removed from trust and as lands are acquired or 

lost.

2

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

1. Introduction (Purpose and Need)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-23

1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED 

1.4.1 Purpose and Need for the BLM RMP

According to the FLPMA, the BLM shall “develop, maintain, and, when 

appropriate, revise land use plans” (43 USC 1712[a]). Accordingly, the purpose 

of this RMP is to ensure that BLM-administered lands in the planning area are 

managed in accordance with the multiple-use and sustained-yield principles 

mandated by the FLPMA (43 USC 1702). 

The purpose of the BLM 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 RMP will also consolidate existing RMPs and 

amendments, reevaluate resource availability, and resolve resource conflicts and

issues.

The need for the RMP is to address significant changes in light of new 

information; changed resources, circumstances, and policies; and other issues 

that have surfaced since the current RMPs were approved. 

One of the primary objectives of the BLM RMP is to update the management 

decisions of the current RMPs. The final RMP will identify desired outcomes and

future conditions to be maintained or achieved. It will specify uses or resource 

allocations that are allowable, restricted, or prohibited. These include any 

restrictions needed to meet desired outcomes.

As part of the RMP process, the BLM is preparing this EIS to evaluate the 

environmental issues and impacts. NEPA requires the BLM to consider a range 

of alternatives when analyzing and disclosing the potential environmental 

impacts of proposed RMP decisions. The alternatives and impact analyses are 

documented in the EIS. 

The RMP development process also provides for the participation of the public,

other federal agencies, and state, local, and tribal governments.

1.4.2 Purpose and Need for the BIA Integrated RMP

The BIA’s Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regional Offices assist 

Federally recognized Indian tribes in issuing permits for activities on tribal 

jurisdictional lands. The regional offices also assist in leasing Native American 

minerals in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The Eastern Oklahoma Regional 

Office is also responsible for all minerals management in Osage County, 

Oklahoma (fluid minerals management will be addressed in the separate Osage 

County Oil and Gas EIS).

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

current policy and guidance; however, the BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern 

Plains Regional Offices do not have an overarching planning document that 

outlines the steps in meeting this mission. 
1. Introduction (Purpose and Need)

1-24 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

The purpose of the BIA Integrated RMP is to provide a comprehensive 

framework for fulfilling the BIA’s Indian trust responsibilities on tribal and 

allotted lands. This Integrated RMP will create a unifying document that 

resource managers can use to reduce the potential for land use conflicts. 

The BIA is obligated to evaluate the potential impacts of its decisions under 

NEPA. The BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regional Offices will sign 

two separate Records of Decision (RODs) on the EIS; these will be in addition 

to the ROD signed by the BLM for the lands under its administration.

1.5 PLANNING PROCESS

The land use planning process is the key tool the BLM uses to manage resources 

and designate uses on the lands it administers. The BLM coordinates throughout 

this process with tribal, state, and local governments; land users; and interested 

members of the public. 

The planning process consists of developing, approving, maintaining, and 

amending or revising an RMP. The BLM carries out this process under the 

authority of Section 202 of the FLMPA and according to the requirements of 

Section 102 of NEPA. The process, which includes a land use planning tier and 

implementation tier, follows BLM planning regulations codified in 43 CFR 1600,

and the CEQ regulations codified in 40 CFR 1500. The BIA does not have a 

codified planning process. For this EIS, the BIA is integrating its resource

management actions with the BLM process, as outlined below. 

A BLM RMP is a land use plan that describes broad multiple-use direction for 

managing BLM-administered land and federal mineral resources. The revision of 

an RMP does not often result in a wholesale change of management direction; 

accordingly, this RMP incorporates new information and regulatory guidance 

that has been adopted since the previous plans were developed. It provides 

management direction where it may be lacking or where it requires clarification 

to resolve land use issues, including conflicts. The BLM is carrying forward 

current management direction regarding several resources, as this direction has 

been proven effective and requires no change, for consideration throughout the 

analysis process.

Decisions in land use plans guide future land management actions and 

subsequent implementation decisions. In the land use planning tier, the BLM 

develops the RMP. The RMP then guides the implementation tier, which 

includes implementation decisions.

Activity or implementation decisions follow the overarching direction identified 

in the RMP while determining site-specific implementation actions for smaller 

geographic units of BLM-administered land in the decision area. Actions

identified in the implementation plan require site-specific decision-making 

supported by separate site-specific NEPA analysis. Implementation decisions

include elements such as recreation area management plans, fluid mineral 
1. Introduction (Planning Process)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-25

development activities, and interdisciplinary or coordinated activity plans 

according to which various land and resource use authorizations may be issued. 

Implementation decisions can also identify specific mitigation and monitoring 

needs.

Development of this RMP is guided by the land use planning procedures outlined 

in the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1; BLM 2005). Because the 

BIA does not have a codified land use planning process, it is following the BLM 

planning process in preparing the Integrated RMP. The BLM planning process is 

outlined in Diagram 1-2, BLM RMP Planning Process, and detailed in Table 

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

documents will include the following:

• Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

• Final Joint EIS/Proposed BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

• ROD with the approved BLM RMP

• RODs for the BIA Integrated RMP (one ROD for each BIA region)

The approved BLM RMP will describe the following:

• Goals and objectives for desired resource conditions

• Allowable resource uses and related levels of production or use to 

be maintained

• Land areas to be managed for limited, restricted, or exclusive 

resource uses or for transfer from BLM administration

• Program constraints and general management practices and 

protocols

• General implementation schedule or sequences

• Intervals and standards for monitoring the RMP

The approved BIA Integrated RMP will describe the following:

• Goals and objectives for desired resource conditions

• Allowable resource uses and related levels of production or use to

be maintained

• Land areas to be managed for limited, restricted, or exclusive 

resource uses

• Program constraints and general management practices and 

protocols

• General implementation schedule or sequences

• Intervals and standards for monitoring the Integrated RMP
1. Introduction (Planning Process)

1-26 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Diagram 1-2

BLM RMP Planning Process
1. Introduction (Planning Process)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-27

Table 1-8

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP Planning Process

Joint EIS/BLM 

RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP

Planning Process 

Step

Description Time Frame

Step 1—Identify 

planning issues

Issues and concerns are identified through a scoping 

process that includes the public, Federally recognized 

Indian tribes, other federal agencies, state and local 

governments, and internal BLM and BIA staff.

July 2013–February 2014

Step 2—Develop 

planning criteria

Planning criteria are created to ensure decisions are 

made to address the issues pertinent to the planning 

effort. Planning criteria are derived from a variety of 

sources, including applicable laws and regulations, 

existing management plans, coordinating other 

agencies’ programs, and the results of public and 

agency scoping. The planning criteria may be updated 

and changed as planning proceeds.

Ongoing

Step 3—Collect 

data and information

Data and information for the resources in the 

planning area are collected based on the planning 

criteria.

Ongoing

Step 4—Analyze 

management 

situation

The current management of resources in the planning 

area is assessed.

November 2014–June

2015

Step 5—Formulate 

alternatives

A range of reasonable management alternatives is 

developed to address issues identified during scoping.

April 2015–September

2016

Step 6—Assess 

alternatives

The effects of each alternative are analyzed. September 2016–January

2017

Step 7—Select 

preferred alternative

The alternative that best resolves planning issues is 

identified as the preferred alternative.

May 20181

Step 8—Select BLM 

RMP/BIA Integrated 

RMP

The following are included in this step:

 A Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP is issued and made available 

to the public for a review period of 90 days. 

 After comments to the draft document have 

been received and analyzed, the Joint 

EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP is 

modified, as necessary. 

 The Final Joint EIS/BLM Proposed RMP and 

BIA Integrated RMP is published and made 

available for a 30-day public review. 

 A 30-day governor’s protest period for BLM 

planning decisions in the Proposed 

RMPs/Joint Final EIS takes place.

 A 60-day governor’s consistency review takes 

place.

 A possible additional 30-day appeal of the 

state director’s governor’s consistency 

Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP

and BIA Integrated RMP: 

June 2018

Final Joint EIS/Proposed 

BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP: 

February 2019

Protest period:

February–March 2019

Governor’s consistency

review: February–May 

2018

3 RODs/Approved BLM 

RMP and BIA Integrated 
1. Introduction (Planning Process)

1-28 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 1-8

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP Planning Process

Joint EIS/BLM 

RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP

Planning Process 

Step

Description Time Frame

resolution could occur.

 Three RODs are signed to approve the Joint 

EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP.

RMP: estimated May 

2019

Step 9—

Implementation

monitoring

Management measures outlined in the approved plan 

are implemented on the ground, and future 

monitoring is conducted to test their effectiveness. 

Changes are made as necessary to achieve desired 

results.

Ongoing after 

ROD/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP approval

1BLM; BIA will select a preferred alternative in the Final EIS

1.6 SCOPING

Public involvement is a vital component of the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP process. Guidance for implementing public involvement under 

NEPA is codified in 40 CFR 1506.6. Section 202 of the FLPMA directs the 

Secretary of the Interior to establish procedures for public involvement during 

land use planning actions on BLM-administered lands. These procedures can be 

found in the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1; BLM 2005).

The policies of the BLM and BIA are to provide opportunities for the public, 

various groups, other federal agencies, Federally recognized Indian tribes, and 

state and local governments to participate meaningfully and substantively. This is 

done by soliciting input and comments while the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP is being prepared.

Public involvement for the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP includes 

the following:

 Before NEPA analysis begins, engage the public to assist the BLM 

and BIA to determine the scope of issues and alternatives to be 

addressed in the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

 Reach out to the public via newsletters, news releases, and updates 

on the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP project website 

(https://www.blm.gov/site-page/programs-planning-and-nepa-plansdevelopment-oklahoma-rmp)

 Collaborate with cooperating agencies/entities (participating federal, 

state, and local governments) and tribal governments

 Publish the Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP, and 

invite comments on the analysis of likely environmental effects and 
1. Introduction (Scoping)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-29

the identification of the BLM’s and BIA’s preferred alternatives, if 

one exists

The public scoping phase of the process is described in detail in Section 1.6.1, 

below. Public outreach and collaboration are ongoing; the public will have 90 

days to review the Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP, following 

its publication.

1.6.1 Scoping Process

The formal scoping period began with publication of the notice of intent (NOI)

in the Federal Register on July 26, 2013 in accordance with 43 CFR 46. The NOI 

informed the public of the BLM’s and BIA’s intent to develop a Joint EIS/BLM 

RMP and BIA Integrated RMP for the planning area. It also identified the 

preliminary issues to be considered in the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP process. An NOI to Extend the Public Scoping Period to January 

31, 2014, was published in December 2013 (78 Federal Register 76318-76319, 

December 17, 2013).

The BLM and BIA hosted 17 scoping meetings throughout November and 

December 2013, and in January 2014, to provide the public with opportunities 

to become involved, to learn about the project and the planning process, to 

meet the BLM and BIA team members, and to offer comments. Full details of 

scoping meeting materials are available in the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP Scoping Summary Report (BLM 2014b).

The Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP website—

https://www.blm.gov/site-page/programs-planning-and-nepa-plans-developmentoklahoma-rmp—provides background information on the project, a public 

involvement timeline and calendar, and maps and photos of the planning area. It 

also includes copies of public information documents, such as the scoping 

report, project newsletters, press releases, and NOIs.

During the public scoping period, the BLM and BIA received 143 written 

submissions, resulting in 683 discrete comments. Most comments were 

submitted via email. Comments were also submitted via the US Postal Service

or fax. Additionally, attendees of the scoping public meetings completed 

comment forms. The BLM and BIA considered all comments received both 

before and during scoping. This includes before the publication of the NOI and 

after the end of the official scoping comment period, during alternatives 

formulation and project planning. Comments received outside official comment 

periods (e.g., public scoping) have been addressed to the extent practicable. The 

main issues raised are summarized in Section 1.7.

The BLM and BIA continue to review all comments received during the Joint 

EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP process. This is to ensure that no key 

issues or concerns have been missed during the planning process. Refer to 
1. Introduction (Scoping)

1-30 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Chapter 6, Consultation and Coordination, for additional information on other 

public participation opportunities.

1.7 ISSUES

Issue identification is the first of the nine-step BLM planning process in the BLM 

Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 (see Table 1-8, Joint EIS/BLM RMP and 

BIA Integrated RMP Planning Process; BLM 2005). As defined in the handbook, 

planning issues include concerns or controversies about the following:

• Existing and potential land and resource allocations

• Levels of resource use, production, and related management 

practices

• Concerns, needs, and opportunities for resource use, development, 

and protection

These issues may stem from new information, changed circumstances, or the 

need to reassess the appropriate mix of allowable uses. The issues can be 

addressed in a variety of ways. To initiate the issue identification process, the 

BLM and BIA identified preliminary planning issues based on BLM RMP 

evaluations, new program guidance, and staff input. These preliminary planning 

issues were included in the NOI and public scoping materials.

From the initial list of preliminary planning issues and management concerns, the 

BLM and BIA used a multistep process to further categorize and distill the issues 

identified during the scoping period. The agencies’ staff took the following 

actions:

• Reviewed the individual scoping comments

• Identified relevant resource concerns

• Categorized comments to identify concerns to be addressed in this 

planning process

• Revised planning issue statements based on new information

The planning issue statements presented in this section encapsulate the issues 

and concerns raised by the public, cooperating agencies and entities, and the 

BLM and BIA during preliminary and internal scoping. Each of the broad planning 

issue statements can be tied to more specific concerns brought forward during 

scoping. 

A more detailed look at individual issues is provided in the Final Joint EIS/BLM 

RMP and BIA Integrated RMP Scoping Report (BLM 2014b). The planning issues

will continue to be adjusted, as needed, during the planning process as the BLM 

and BIA receive additional input from the public and cooperating agencies and

entities.
1. Introduction (Issues)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-31

1.7.1 Issue Identification and Issues Addressed

Broadly defined planning issue statements identified in internal and external 

scoping are listed in Table 1-9. More detailed information on each planning 

issue is included in the Final Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP Scoping 

Summary Report (BLM 2014b).

Table 1-9

Planning Issue Categories and Statements

Issue Planning Issue 

Category Planning Issue Statement

1. Energy development How can the BLM and BIA allow development of federal, tribal, and 

allotted oil and gas resources and honor valid existing lease rights, while 

protecting air, visual resources, wildlife, water, and the natural 

environment?

2. Minerals and mining How can the BLM and BIA allow development of federal, tribal, and 

allotted coal resources and honor valid existing lease rights, while 

protecting air, water, and the natural environment?

3. Cultural and historic 

resources

How can the BLM manage cultural and historic resources for public 

enjoyment, while protecting those resources?

How can the BIA manage cultural and historic resources for the benefit 

of tribal members and individual Indian landowners?

4. Fences and trespassing

on federal lands

How should the BLM manage federal lands, according to law, along the 

116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red 

River and the 98th Meridian (referred to as the “Red River area”) to 

reduce conflict with adjacent landowners?

5. Recreation and other 

uses on federal lands

What uses should be allowed on federal lands, according to law, along 

the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red 

River and the 98th Meridian (referred to as the “Red River area”) and 

the Cross Bar Management Area? What restrictions, if any, should apply 

to those uses in order to protect other uses and resources?

6. Access and 

transportation on federal 

lands

What access points and trails should be open on federal lands, according 

to law, along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North 

Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian (referred to as the “Red 

River area”) and the Cross Bar Management Area?*

7. Public health and safety

on federal lands

How can the BLM minimize public health and safety risks on federal 

lands, according to law, along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River

between the North Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian 

(referred to as the “Red River area”)?

8. Lands and realty What criteria should the BLM use for disposing of or acquiring BLMadministered lands?

9. Fish and wildlife How should the BLM allow use of the lands it administers for recreation 

and other resource uses, while protecting fish and wildlife?

10. Socioeconomics How can the BLM realize the socioeconomic benefits of the resources in 

the area, while minimizing conflicts with other uses and protecting 

sensitive resources in the planning area?

11. Tribal interests How can the BIA minimize trespassing on tribal and allotted lands, 

especially during the hunting season?
1. Introduction (Issues)

1-32 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 1-9

Planning Issue Categories and Statements

Issue Planning Issue 

Category Planning Issue Statement

12. Issues not addressed in 

previous RMPs

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

13. Climate change and 

future water needs

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

climate change and its effects, including water shortage?

1.7.2 Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed 

Approximately 6 percent of the comments were related to issues that will not 

be addressed in the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP. These are

issues resolved through policy or administrative action, those beyond the scope 

of the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP, and issues about the 

Oklahoma-Texas boundary. (Refer to Appendix D, Table D-1, Issues Not 

Related to the Scope of This Project; Table D-2, Issues Resolved through Policy 

or Administrative Action; and Table D-3, Oklahoma-Texas Boundary Issues in 

the Final Joint EIS/BLM RMP Scoping Report [BLM 2014b].)

The management of wild horses and burros was an issue that was internally 

discussed, and it was decided to not bring it forward in the analysis. The DOI, 

through the BLM, protects, manages, and controls wild horses and burros under 

the authority of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. Since 

1971, there have been no herd areas or herd management areas designated by 

the BLM within the planning area; therefore, this resource is not analyzed in the 

RMP.

Wild horses and burros are brought from other public lands and housed in 15 

long-term nonfederal holding facilities in Oklahoma, a short-term holding facility 

(Paul’s Valley) in Oklahoma, and a short-term holding facility in Scott City,

Kansas. The BLM’s Washington, DC office (WO) administers the wild horse and 

burro holding program, including managing the contracts for these large holding 

facilities in Oklahoma and Kansas. As part of the program, WO staff members

stationed in the OFO regularly inspect facilities and hold monthly adoptions and

occasional special adoptions; however, there is no decision space for this activity 

in this planning document. 

Administrative or policy comments included issues pertaining to national BLM 

and BIA policy that will not be addressed during the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP process. Comments included the following: 

• Compensation for landowners whose land is found to be under 

BLM administration

• The BLM’s oil and gas policies and processes
1. Introduction (Issues)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-33

• Opposition to the manner in which the BLM determines property 

boundaries

• Opposition to the land along the Red River being surveyed 

Issues outside the scope of the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP are 

those about land management outside the planning area, comments about other 

government agencies, and opposition to the BLM’s or BIA’s functions. This 

category included comments on issues about which the BLM or BIA have limited 

or no administrative authority. 

1.8 LEGISLATIVE CONSTRAINTS AND PLANNING CRITERIA

Planning criteria guide development of the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP by helping define the range of decisions that can be made. They 

are generally based on the following:

• Applicable laws

• BLM Director and New Mexico State Director guidance

• BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regional Directors 

guidance

• The results of public and governmental participation (43 CFR 

1610.4-2)

The BLM and BIA developed preliminary planning criteria to focus Joint EIS/BLM 

RMP and BIA Integrated RMP planning and to guide decision-making by topic.

The two agencies will complete the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

in compliance with the FLPMA, NEPA, and all other applicable laws, regulations, 

and policies. Impacts from the management alternatives considered in the Joint 

EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP will be analyzed in this EIS developed in 

accordance with regulations at 43 CFR 1601-1610, and 40 CFR 1500-1508. 

The following general planning criteria will be considered in developing the Joint 

EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP:

• Existing laws, regulations, and BLM and BIA policies 

• Valid existing rights 

• Plans, programs, and policies of other federal, state, and local 

governments and Federally recognized Indian tribes

• Public input 

• Input provided by Federally recognized Indian tribes

• Quantity and quality of non-commodity resource values 

• Future needs and demands for existing or potential resource 

commodities and values 
1. Introduction (Legislative Constraints and Planning Criteria)

1-34 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• Past and present use of public and adjacent lands 

• Environmental effects, including those on wildlife, cultural resources, 

and paleontology 

• Social and economic values 

• Environmental justice (EJ)

• Public welfare and safety 

In addition, the following specific preliminary planning criteria have been 

identified: 

• The BLM will not make any recommendations or decisions that 

affect federal mineral estate beyond its explicit authority under the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired 

Lands of 1947, the FLPMA, and other guidance. 

• Final title analysis has not yet been conducted for all federal mineral 

ownership. Although the BLM will plan for these tracts, it will not 

lease, transfer, or otherwise authorize any actions before verifying 

title for the properties. 

• Decisions that remain valid from previous BLM RMPs will be 

incorporated into this RMP. These plans are the Kansas RMP (BLM 

1991), the Oklahoma RMP (BLM 1994a) and subsequent 

amendments (BLM 1994b, 1996b, 2004a, 2014a), and the Texas 

RMP (BLM 1996a) and amendment (BLM 2000). 

• Tracts of BLM-administered surface and subsurface minerals will be 

mapped and listed by legal description. Lands of uncertain title will 

also be listed. 

• BLM-administered surface tracts of land will be identified that meet

disposal criteria pursuant to Section 203 of the FLPMA.

• For federal and Indian oil and gas and other minerals, reasonably 

foreseeable development scenarios will be prepared. 

Identification of any lands for further consideration for federal coal leasing will 

be limited to any areas with development potential, based on the reasonably 

foreseeable development scenarios. 

FLPMA Section 203 Disposal Criteria 

The BLM develops most Resource Management Plans (RMP) to guide land-use 

management decisions for a period of 20-years or more. The Secretary of 

Interior’s policy, generally, is not to dispose of public lands. However, over the 

life of an RMP, situations may arise, especially in areas where public land tracts 

are isolated and difficult or uneconomic to manage, where the BLM may find it 

useful to have identified tracts as suitable for leaving public ownership. 

Therefore, most RMPs include identification of specific tracts of public land that 
1. Introduction (Legislative Constraints and Planning Criteria)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-35

meet the disposal criteria listed in section 203 of FLPMA. This RMP step is just 

an identification of tracts meeting the criteria, not a decision to dispose of public 

lands. Any future decision regarding whether or not to dispose of a certain 

parcel of public land under any particular authority, whether by sale under 

section 203 of FLPMA; exchange under section 206 of FLPMA; or patent under 

the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, as amended, for instance, 

would require site-specific consideration and analysis, including, but not limited 

to, considerations of access, popular recreational uses, the existence of cultural 

resources or habitat for species, and whether or not such a parcel, isolated 

from other public lands, might be better suited for private ownership.

Section 203 of FLPMA specifies the BLM may only sell a tract of public land 

under section 203 of FLPMA if the land tract is identified through the land use 

planning process, pursuant to section 202 of FLPMA, as meeting one or more of 

the disposal criteria listed in section 203. The RMP determination that a 

particular tract meets one or more of the criteria for disposal through sale does 

not necessarily mean the BLM will sell or dispose of the land by another means. 

Rather, the process for disposing of public lands under FLPMA section 203 

(Sales) or section 206 (Exchanges) or any other authority is a lengthy multidecisional process requiring comprehensive site-specific analysis, and cadastral, 

cultural and other resource surveys, when necessary, prior to the sale or 

disposition of a tract of public land. The BLM bases its determination of 

whether or not a tract of public land meets one or more of the FLPMA section 

203 criteria for disposal on its ongoing inventory of all public lands and their 

resource values, conducted pursuant to section 201 of FLPMA. The 

requirement, under FLPMA section 203, that this determination be made 

through land use planning is consistent with the section 202 requirement to 

manage public lands under land-use plans, where these represent a broader 

scope, longer-term approach to management of public lands across an entire 

planning area that takes into consideration a wide variety of possible public lands 

uses. 

In preparation for this land use planning initiative, the BLM conducted an 

inventory of the public lands within the OK-KS-TX planning area to determine 

whether there were any tracts that met one or more of the following FLPMA 

section 203 criteria for disposal out of Federal ownership:

• Such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult 

and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, and is not 

suitable for management by another Federal department or agency; 

or

• Such tract was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no 

longer required for that or any other Federal purpose; or

• Disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, 

including but not limited to, expansion of communities and 
1. Introduction (Legislative Constraints and Planning Criteria)

1-36 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or 

feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other 

public objectives and values, including, but not limited to, recreation 

and scenic values, which would be served by maintaining such tract 

in Federal ownership.

Appendix N provides a list of public land tracts within the OK-KS-TX planning 

area identified as meeting one or more of these FLPMA section 203 criteria for 

disposal, with reference to the FLPMA criteria used for this determination.

1.9 BLM RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS

Since the Oklahoma RMP (BLM 1994a) and Texas RMP (BLM 1996a) were 

developed and approved, the BLM has implemented amendments to provide 

additional land management direction. No amendments have been developed for 

the Kansas RMP. Table 1-10 identifies approved plan amendments 

incorporated into the existing land use plans. They include local RMP-specific 

amendments and those resulting from state- or national-level policy direction.

Table 1-10

BLM RMP Amendments and Implementation-Level Plans

Amendments to BLM Oklahoma RMP

Southeast Oklahoma Coal Leasing Environmental Assessment (EA) and Plan Amendment (BLM 1994b)

Oklahoma Coal Leasing EA and Plan Amendment (BLM 1996b)

Oklahoma Coal Leasing EA and Plan Amendment (BLM 2004a)

Oklahoma Coal Leasing EA and Plan Amendment (BLM 2014a)

Amendments to BLM Texas RMP

Texas Cross Bar Cooperative Management Area EA and Plan Amendment (BLM 2000)

Decision Record and Resource Management Plan Amendment of Fire and Fuels Management on Public 

Land in New Mexico and Texas (BLM 2004)

1.10 COLLABORATION

Effective collaboration among agencies in preparing NEPA analyses, such as for 

this Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP, has many benefits, including the 

following:

• Disclosing relevant information early in the analytical process

• Applying available technical expertise and staff support

• Avoiding duplication with other federal, state, tribal, and local 

agencies’ procedures

• Establishing a mechanism for addressing intergovernmental issues

Additional information about collaborating with governments, agencies, entities, 

and tribal representatives is provided in Chapter 6.
1. Introduction (Collaboration)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-37

1.10.1 Intergovernmental and Interagency

Formal collaboration with other agencies is done by establishing cooperating 

agency and entity status. A cooperating agency or entity is any federal, state, or 

local government agency or Federally recognized Indian tribe that enters into a 

formal agreement with the lead federal agency to develop an environmental 

analysis. More specifically, the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) 

states that cooperating agencies and entities “work with the BLM, sharing 

knowledge and resources, to achieve desired outcomes for public lands and 

communities within statutory and regulatory frameworks.”

The primary role of cooperating agencies and entities is to provide input during 

the EIS process on issues for which they have a special expertise or jurisdiction. 

The representatives meet with the lead agency periodically throughout the EIS 

process to discuss issues as a group. The BLM and BIA invited cooperating 

agencies and entities to participate in the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated 

RMP process at the earliest possible time, including during scoping. Cooperating 

agencies and entities also were invited to be available to enhance the 

interdisciplinary capability of the lead agency by providing needed information 

throughout the NEPA process.

In March 2014, the BLM wrote to all affected local, state, federal, and tribal 

representatives, inviting them to participate as cooperating agencies/entities for 

the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP. To date, the following local, 

state, and federal agencies and tribal entities have accepted the BLM and BIA 

cooperating agency/entity invitation (Table 1-11).

Table 1-11

Cooperating Agencies/Entities

Tribal Entities

Citizen Potawatomie Nation

Muskogee (Creek) Nation

The Osage Nation 

Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma

Federal Agencies

Bureau of Reclamation, Nebraska-Kansas Area Office

Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement Mid Continent Region

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2 Refuges

State Agencies

Kansas Corporation Commission

Kansas Water Office

Oklahoma Department of Mines

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

Oklahoma Geological Survey

University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Climatological Survey

Brazos River Authority

Texas General Land Office

Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board
1. Introduction (Collaboration)

1-38 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 1-11

Cooperating Agencies/Entities

Local Agencies

Barton County, Kansas

Cherokee County, Kansas

Douglas County, Kansas

Hamilton County, Kansas

Sumner County, Kansas

Adair County, Oklahoma

Caddo County, Oklahoma

Choctaw County, Oklahoma

Cleveland County, Oklahoma

Coal County, Oklahoma

Cotton County, Oklahoma

Creek County, Oklahoma

Hughes County, Oklahoma

Latimer County, Oklahoma

Lincoln County, Oklahoma

Love County, Oklahoma

Murray County, Oklahoma

Okfuskee County, Oklahoma

Payne County, Oklahoma

Pontotoc County, Oklahoma

Pushmataha County, Oklahoma

Sequoyah County, Oklahoma

Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Washington County, Oklahoma

Clay County, Texas

Young County, Texas

Cooke County, Texas

Denton County, Texas

Marion County, Texas

Montague County, Texas

Moore County, Texas

Red River Authority of Texas

Scurry County, Texas

Wichita County, Texas

Note: Records show that the following entities have expressed interest in becoming a 

cooperating agency/entity, but they have not signed memoranda of understanding: US Army 

Corps of Engineers; US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; US Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7; Fort Worth District; Forest Service, National Forests and 

Grasslands in Texas; Texas Railroad Commission; Cherokee Nation; Jackson County, 

Kansas; McIntosh County, Oklahoma; and Wilbarger County, Texas. 

The BLM and BIA encourage cooperating agencies and entities to attend 

meetings and provide scoping comments, to assist the BLM and BIA in 

developing alternatives, and to review the Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP materials.
1. Introduction (Collaboration)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-39

The BLM and BIA will seek additional cooperation opportunities with other 

agencies and entities throughout the development process. Project phases 

involving state and local governments, other federal agencies, and tribal 

governments will help provide consistency with other federal, state, and local 

plans. 

1.10.2 Tribal Relationships and Indian Trust Assets

Treaties, statutes, executive orders (EO), judicial decisions, and agreements

define the unique political relationship between the United States government 

and Federally recognized Indian tribes. This relationship has created a special 

federal trust responsibility, involving the legal commitments and obligations of 

the United States toward Federally recognized Indian tribes and their lands and

tribal trust resources and the exercise of tribal rights.

Government-to-government consultation began in September 2013, in concert 

with the FLPMA land use planning and NEPA analysis process, with the BLM and 

BIA sending requests for consultation letters to all area Federally recognized 

Indian tribes (see list of Federally recognized Indian tribes in Chapter 6, Section 

6.3.1). 

Consultation is also required by the NHPA and the American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act (AIRFA). The BLM and BIA are consulting with the affected 

Federally recognized Indian tribes with interests or traditional cultural 

properties (TCPs) in the planning area, as well as the local tribal historic 

preservation officer (THPO) and State Historic Preservation officer (SHPO). 

During scoping, the first project newsletter was mailed to 133 contacts 

associated with Federally recognized Indian tribes. No written comments were 

received from tribal agencies during the scoping period; tribal concerns or 

issues have been typically presented orally. 

See Chapter 6, Section 6.3, Coordination and Consultation for a detailed 

description of steps taken by the BLM and BIA through consultation.

1.11 RELATED LAND USE PLANS

The FLPMA requires that in the development and revision of land use plans, the 

Secretary shall “to the extent consistent with the laws governing the 

administration of the public lands, coordinate the land use inventory, planning,

and management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning and 

management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the 

States and local governments within which the public lands are located...and of 

or for Indian tribes by, among other things, considering the policies of approved 

State and tribal land resource management program.” Land use plans under 

Section 202 of the FLPMA must be consistent with state and local plans to the 

maximum extent the Secretary finds consistent with federal law and the 

purposes of the FLPMA. 
1. Introduction (Related Land Use Plans)

1-40 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

During development of this Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP, the

BLM and BIA have reviewed and considered plans formulated by federal, state, 

local, and tribal governments that relate to land and resource management. 

These plans are detailed below.

1.11.1 Other Federal Plans

US Fish and Wildlife Service

• Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan Associated with Issuance of

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits for the 

American Burying Beetle (proposed for delisting) in Oklahoma

(USFWS 2014a)

Forest Service

• National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Revised Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 1996)

• Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas and Oklahoma Revised Land 

and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service 2005)

• Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Comanche and Cimarron 

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest 

Service 1984)

• Cibola National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Forest Service 1985)

Other

• The Lesser Prairie-Chicken Range-wide Conservation Plan (Van Pelt 

et. al 2013)

• 2008–2012 National Invasive Species Management Plan (NISC 2008)

• Chickasaw National Recreation Area General Management Plan 

(National Park Service 2008)

1.11.2 State Plans

• 2017 Texas State Water Plan (Texas Water Development Board

2017)

• Kansas Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan (Wasson et al.

2005)

• Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) Long-Range 

Transportation Plan 2008 (KDOT 2008)

• Kansas Outdoor Recreation Plan (Kansas Department of Wildlife,

Parks and Tourism [KDWPT] 2009)

• Kansas Recovery Plan for the Snowy Plover, Charadrius alexandrines

(Busby 2003)
1. Introduction (Related Land Use Plans)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-41

• Kansas Recovery Plan for Three Big River Fish Species: Sicklefin 

Chub, Sturgeon Chub, and Western Silvery Minnow (Layher 2003a)

• Kansas Water Plan (Kansas Water Office 2015)

• Natural Resource Coordination Plan (Kansas Natural Resource 

Coalition 2013)

• Oklahoma’s Biodiversity Plan: A Shared Vision for Conserving Our 

Natural Heritage (Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation

[ODWC] 1993)

• Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (Oklahoma Water 

Resources Board 2015)

• Oklahoma Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ODWC

2005)

• Oklahoma Department of Transportation (OKDOT) Long-Range 

Transportation Plan 2010-2035 (OKDOT 2010)

• Oklahoma’s Great Outdoors: The Place, The People, The Providers, 

The Plan (2012 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation 

Plan; Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department 2012)

• Oklahoma Lesser Prairie Chicken Conservation Plan (Haufler et al. 

2012)

• Recovery Plan for Four Freshwater Mussels in Southeast Kansas 

(Obermeyer 2000)

• Recovery Plan for Freshwater Mussels in the Upper Osage River 

System, Kansas (Obermeyer 2003)

• Recovery Plan for Four Salamander Species of Cherokee County,

Kansas (Layher 2002a)

• Recovery Plan for the Arkansas Darter, Etheostoma cragini Gilbert,

in Kansas (Layher 2002b)

• Recovery Plan for the Henslow’s Sparrow, Ammodramus henslowii, in 

Kansas (Layher et. al 2005a)

• Recovery Plan for the Peppered Chub, Macrhybopsis tetranema

Gilbert, in Kansas (Layher and Brinkman 2005)

• Recovery Plan for the Prairie Mole Cricket Gryllotalpa major

Saussure in Kansas (Layher et al. 2005b)

• Recovery Plan for the Scott Riffle Beetle, Optioservus phaeus 

(Gilbert), in Kansas (Layher 2002c)

• Recovery Plan for the Slender Walker Snail, Pomatiopsis lapidaria

(Say) in Kansas (Layher 2003b)
1. Introduction (Related Land Use Plans)

1-42 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

• Recovery Plan for the Topeka Shiner (Notropis topeka) in Kansas

(Mammoliti 2004)

• State of Kansas Implementation Plan for Air Quality (KSDHE 2015)

• State of Oklahoma Implementation Plan for Air Quality (OKDEQ 

2016)

• State of Texas Implementation Plan for Air Quality (Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 2016)

• Texas Conservation Action Plan 2012–2016 (TPWD 2012a)

• Texas Department of Transportation Long Range Transportation 

Plan 2040 (TXDOT 2014)

• Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan (TPWD 2012b)

1.11.3 Local Government Plan

• Oklahoma County Master Plan (OK County 2007)

1.12 IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING OF THE BLM RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Implementation of the RMP will begin when the BLM State Director signs the 

ROD. The BLM will develop an implementation schedule to provide for 

systematic accomplishment of decisions in the approved RMP. 

During RMP implementation, the BLM will prepare additional documentation for 

site-specific actions to comply with NEPA. This can vary from a simple 

statement of conformance with the ROD and adequacy of existing NEPA 

analysis to more complex documents that analyze several alternatives.

The RMP implementation will be monitored and periodically evaluated, based on 

guidance in the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1 (BLM 2005), as 

amended. Monitoring is the process of tracking and documenting the 

implementation (or the progress of implementation) of land use plan decisions. 

Evaluation is the process of reviewing the land use plan and the periodic plan 

monitoring reports to determine whether the land use plan decisions and NEPA

analysis are still valid. The way in which the plan is being implemented is also 

reviewed.

As outlined in the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1, the RMP will

be periodically evaluated, as documented in an evaluation schedule (at a 

minimum, every five years). This is to determine whether revisions or 

amendments to the RMP may be necessary to accommodate changes in 

resource needs, policies, or regulations. Implementation-level decisions would 

be issued in order to fully implement the RMP.

1.13 IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING THE BIA INTEGRATED RMP

The following passages are outlined in 30 BIA Manual Supplement 10 (BIA 

1990). This is older guidance that has not yet been replaced with an equivalent 
1. Introduction (Implementing and Monitoring the BIA Integrated RMP)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 1-43

chapter in the revised Indian Affairs Manual and should be considered as 

recommendations.

“It is the responsibility of the appropriate Bureau and tribal line officers to 

ensure that selected Integrated RMP management alternatives are implemented. 

The agency Superintendent shall be responsible for development of action plans 

for various programs and activities affected by the Integrated RMP. These action 

plans shall ensure the objectives of the Integrated RMP are properly considered 

during development of various programs and projects, budget formulation and 

execution plans, annual work plans, employee performance standards, etc.”

“Plan reviews will be conducted annually by the agency office. Reviews shall 

briefly examine current issues, determine the validity of the selected 

alternatives, document corrective action where necessary, and record progress 

of plan implementation.”

“The Central/Regional Office shall conduct periodic program reviews of the 

Integrated RMPs and their implementation. These program reviews shall provide

a means of evaluating Bureau performance in management of trust resources. 

The objective of the program review is to: 1) determine adequacy of plans; 2) 

determine if selected alternatives have been properly implemented; 3) 

determine if management resources (funding, staffing, etc.) are sufficient to 

implement the selected alternatives; 4) determine if the selected alternatives are 

reasonable, in light of tribal/Bureau program priorities and the competition for 

limited management resources; and 5) determine the need for changes in 

Bureau direction, policy and management practices.”
1. Introduction (Implementing and Monitoring the BIA Integrated RMP)

1-44 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

CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes Alternatives A through D for the Oklahoma, Kansas, and

Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP. It includes references 

to figures identifying where actions would be applicable (Appendix A, 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D Figures). The proposed alternatives were 

formulated in response to issues and concerns identified through internal and 

public scoping. These alternatives resolve issues raised regarding current 

management strategies and explore opportunities for enhanced management of 

resources and resource uses.

This Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP is based on current scientific 

knowledge and the best available data. Effective implementation requires the 

flexibility to adapt the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP in response 

to changing information and conditions. As discussed in Chapter 1, the BLM and 

BIA will periodically review decisions in this Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP to ensure that specified measures continue to support stated 

goals and objectives and that implementation guidance remains adequate. As 

new information becomes available, or as needed to address identified 

deficiencies, the BLM or BIA may update and revise the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and 

BIA Integrated RMP in accordance with the appropriate environmental review 

and documentation processes.

Decision Area for the BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

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

there are federal, tribal, or allottee interests. The decision area covers only the 

BLM-administered and BIA-managed surface lands and subsurface mineral estate 

in the planning area, except for oil and gas mineral estate in Osage County. 

Individual trust lands are held in trust by the United States government for the 

benefit of individual Indian allottees or their heirs.
2. Alternatives (Introduction)

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

The BLM decision area includes approximately 15,100 acres of BLMadministered surface lands plus federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the 

Red River between the North Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian. No 

exact acreages of federal lands in this area are available at this time, because the 

full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed. After surveying, these lands will be

more specifically identified and mapped; any such survey would be conducted in 

accordance with applicable law.

Additionally, the BLM decision area includes 4,810,900 acres of federal mineral 

estate. BLM-administered federal mineral estate is composed of split-estate land 

(private surface land over federal minerals, which totals 408,000 acres) and

federal mineral estate under lands managed by other federal agencies not 

covered under a land use plan, such as the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Congressionally withdrawn lands, such as National Park Service and some 

USFWS national wildlife refuges (NWRs) are not included. If, in the future, any 

additional minerals are identified, they will be addressed on a case-by-case basis 

and are not analyzed in this plan.

The BIA decision area includes 394,200 surface acres and 2,033,500 mineral 

estate acres in the BIA Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office. Of that, 

approximately 1,474,500 acres of the mineral estate acres are located in Osage 

County and are solely under jurisdiction of the BIA (i.e., the BLM does not 

administer fluid minerals in Osage County like it does for the rest of the BIA 

decision area). In Osage County, only non-fluid minerals are included in the 

decision area for this Integrated RMP; fluid minerals are being addressed in the 

Osage County Oil and Gas EIS. The BIA decision area also includes 457,500 

surface acres and 632,000 mineral estate acres in the BIA Southern Plains 

Regional Office (BIA GIS 2016). This includes such lands and mineral estate in 

Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas and in Richardson County, Nebraska.

2.2 INTRODUCTION TO BLM RMP AND BIA INTEGRATED RMP ALTERNATIVES

The Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP identify and clearly define goals 

and objectives (desired outcomes) for management of resources and resource 

uses. They identify allowable uses and the management actions necessary to

achieve the goals and objectives. These critical determinations guide future land 

management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation actions to 

meet BLM multiple use and sustained yield mandates, while sustaining land 

health, and to fulfill BIA resource management requirements.

2.2.1 Purpose of Alternatives Development

Alternatives development is the cornerstone of the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP process. Land use planning guidelines and NEPA regulations 

require the BLM and BIA to formulate a reasonable range of alternatives. As 

required under 43 CFR 1610, specific planning criteria guide the alternatives 

development process.
2. Alternatives (Introduction to BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP Alternatives)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-3

The basic goal of alternatives development is to produce distinct potential 

management scenarios that have the following characteristics:

 Address the identified major planning issues

 Explore opportunities to enhance resources and resource use

management

 Resolve conflicts among resources and resource uses

 Meet the purpose of and need for the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP

 Are feasible

The NEPA regulation at 40 CFR 1501.2(c) requires federal agencies to “study, 

develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of 

action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative 

uses of available resources.” This pursuit provides the BLM, BIA, Federally

recognized Indian tribes, and the public with an understanding of the diverse 

ways in which conflicts over resources and resource uses might be resolved. It

offers the BLM State Director and BIA Regional Directors a reasonable range of 

alternatives from which to make informed decisions. The components and 

broad aim of each alternative considered for the Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP are discussed below. 

2.3 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR THE OKLAHOMA, KANSAS, AND 

TEXAS JOINT EIS / BLM RMP AND BIA INTEGRATED RMP

The Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

interdisciplinary team used the BLM planning process (outlined in Table 1-2,

BLM Planning Process) to develop a reasonable range of alternatives for both 

the BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP. The interdisciplinary team is composed 

of personnel from the BLM and BIA with expertise in all areas of resource 

impact analysis. The steps in this process involved reexamination following 

periods of public and staff review.

2.3.1 Identifying Planning Issues

The planning team developed preliminary planning issues to be addressed in the 

Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP. Preliminary planning issues were 

developed by the interdisciplinary team based on their knowledge of concerns 

and controversies related to natural resource and land management conditions 

and trends, and current and potential land and resource uses in the planning 

area. 

During public scoping the public was asked to comment on the preliminary 

planning issues and to submit additional issues and concerns not initially 

identified by the interdisciplinary team. As part of this issue identification 

process, the BLM and BIA sought input from cooperating agencies (see Section 

1.10, Collaboration). The cooperating agencies helped to develop the range of 
2. Alternatives (Alternatives Development Process for the OKT BLM RMP / BIA Integrated RMP)

2-4 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

alternatives for the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP and aimed to 

ensure that the alternatives adequately reflect tribal and public concern. The 

planning team subsequently compiled the public input and cooperating agency 

feedback into 13 planning issues, listed in Section 1.7.1, Issue Identification and 

Issues Addressed.

2.3.2 Analyze the Management Situation

BLM and BIA resource specialists assessed existing BLM RMP goals, objectives, 

and actions and current BIA policy. They also assessed the current condition of 

resources and resource uses by examining existing documentation, such as land 

health standards, biological assessments, and existing NEPA analyses. This 

assessment was compiled in the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS; 

BLM 2015b) for the planning area. It provided the BLM and BIA with useful

information for the following:

 Summarizing existing conditions

 Explaining the need for change

 Identifying management opportunities

2.3.3 Develop a Reasonable Range of Alternatives

Between April 26, 2014, and May 10, 2016, the BLM and BIA interdisciplinary

team met to develop management goals, objectives, and actions to address the 

goals within their fields of expertise. The team members met numerous times 

throughout this period to refine their work. They developed separate 

alternatives for the BLM RMP and the BIA Integrated RMP concurrently. For

both plans they developed one no action alternative (Alternative A) and three

action alternatives. The action alternatives were designed to accomplish the 

following:

 Address the 13 planning issues developed on the basis of public and 

Federally recognized Indian tribal input and cooperating agency

feedback

 Fulfill the purpose and need for the BLM RMP and BIA Integrated 

RMP (outlined in Section 1.4, Purpose and Need)

 Meet the multiple use and sustained yield mandates of FLPMA

 Meet the BIA’s tribal responsibilities 

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS

The three action alternatives—Alternatives B, C, and D—for both the BLM 

RMP and the BIA Integrated RMP offer a range of possible management 

approaches. While the goals are the same across alternatives, each alternative 

contains a discrete set of objectives and management actions, constituting a 

separate BLM RMP or BIA Integrated RMP. Each alternative addresses resource 
2. Alternatives (Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-5

program goals to varying degrees, with the potential for different long-range 

outcomes and conditions. 

The relative emphasis given to particular resources and resource uses across 

the alternatives differs as well, in terms of allowable uses, restoration measures, 

and specific direction for individual resource programs. When resources or 

resource uses are mandated by law or are not tied to planning issues, there are 

typically few or no distinctions among alternatives.

Table 2-1, Comparative Summary of BLM Alternatives, compares the 

meaningful differences in allocations among the four alternatives. Table 2-2, 

Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D, describes the proposed 

decisions for each BLM alternative, including goals, objectives, management 

actions, and allowable uses for individual resource programs. The figures in 

Appendix A provide a visual representation of differences between alternatives. 

In some instances, varying levels of management from different resource 

programs overlap. For example, Alternative C proposes an Extensive 

Recreation Management Area (ERMA) and an Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern (ACEC) for the Cross Bar Management Area. In such instances where 

varying management levels overlap, the stricter management prescriptions 

would apply; however, if the BLM Authorized Officer makes an exception to the 

stricter prescription, then the less strict management prescription would 

prevail.

Table 2-3, Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D, describes the 

proposed goals, objectives, management actions, and allowable uses for 

individual resource programs for each BIA alternative. Unlike those of the BLM, 

the suite of alternatives developed by the BIA do not, with few exceptions, 

include acreage allocations; therefore, there is no equivalent comparative 

summary table of allocation acres associated with the BIA alternatives. They 

incorporate themes and federal responsibilities that are common to both 

agencies but include elements that reflect the unique mission of the BIA and 

features of tribal self-government. 

GIS data have been used to calculate acreages and to generate the figures in 

Appendix A. Calculations depend on the quality and availability of data. Most 

calculations are rounded to the nearest 100 acres or 0.1 mile. Given the scale of 

the analysis, the compatibility constraints between datasets and the lack of data 

for some resources, all calculations are approximate and are for comparison and 

analysis only. Likewise, the figures in Appendix A are provided for illustrative 

purposes and are subject to the limitations discussed above. The BLM may 

receive additional or updated data; therefore, acreages may be recalculated and 

revised at a later date.

In Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, the proposed uses and restrictions

were analyzed to determine where restrictions for one resource might cause
2. Alternatives (Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis)

2-6 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

indirect impacts for another resource not expressly described in this chapter. 

Examples of this are protection of or restrictions on use.

2.4.1 BLM Alternative Summary

Management Common to All Alternatives

Certain allowable uses and management actions from the existing planning 

documents and current BLM policy remain valid and do not require revision. All 

the proposed BLM alternatives carry these forward, while other proposed 

decisions are common only to the action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D).

Although each alternative is distinct in the resources and resource uses it 

emphasizes, all four alternatives do the following:

 Comply with state and federal laws, regulations, policies, and 

standards, including the FLPMA multiple use and sustained yield 

mandates for BLM-administered lands

 Implement actions originating from laws, regulations, and policies 

and conform to day-to-day management, monitoring, and 

administrative functions not specifically addressed

 Preserve valid existing rights, which include any leases, claims, or 

other use authorizations established before a new or modified 

authorization, change in land designation, or new or modified 

regulation is approved; existing fluid mineral leases are managed 

through conditions of approval (COA) outlined in the BLM RMP

 Offer diverse recreational opportunities that foster outdoororiented lifestyles and enhance quality of life

 Apply best management practices (BMPs) and standard operating 

procedures (shown in Appendix B) and other site-specific mitigation 

measures to all resource uses, to promote rapid reclamation, 

maximize resource protection, and minimize soil erosion

 Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects if historic properties 

are found at project locations through consultation with applicable 

SHPOs, THPOs, Federally recognized Indian tribes, and interested 

parties under Section 106 of the NHPA. If cultural resources are 

found that are not listed or eligible historic properties but have 

been identified as having importance to Federally recognized Indian 

tribes or local communities, negative impacts on those sites will be 

avoided to the extent possible

 Avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts on paleontological 

resources through compliance with the Paleontological Resources 

Preservation Act, NEPA, and FLPMA
2. Alternatives (BLM Alternative Summary)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-7

 Utilize collaborative opportunities, partnerships, and 

communications with other agencies and interested parties to 

implement the BLM RMP, including education and outreach and 

project-specific activities

 Apply the exceptions, modifications, and waivers for fluid mineral 

leasing stipulations outlined in Appendix D, unless otherwise stated 

under a specific action

 Identify and apply mitigation measures and conservation actions in 

order to achieve land use plan goals and objectives. The sequence of 

mitigation action will be the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimize, 

rectify, reduce, or eliminate over time, compensate), as identified by 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ; 40 CFR 1508.20)

In addition to the shared elements above, Table 2-2 indicates management 

actions common to all four alternatives by using a single cell across the table 

row.

Alternative A: No Action

Alternative A meets the NEPA requirement in 40 CFR 1502.14 that the BLM 

consider a no action alternative. This alternative provides the baseline against 

which to compare the other alternatives. Under this alternative, the present

management direction and practices would continue, based on existing RMPs 

and RMP amendments. Direction contained in existing laws, regulations, policies, 

and standards would also continue to be implemented, sometimes superseding 

provisions of the RMPs and subsequent RMP amendments. The current levels, 

methods, and mix of multiple-use management of BLM-administered lands in the 

Oklahoma Field Office decision area would continue; resource values would 

continue to receive attention at their present levels.

Alternative B: Agency Preferred

Alternative B, Agency Preferred, represents a mix of management actions that 

resolve issues identified by assessing the need for changing management, 

concerns raised during public scoping, and future management considerations. 

This alternative would reflect a combination of goals and objectives for all values 

and programs. It emphasizes an intermediate level of protection, restoration, 

enhancement, and use of resources and services to meet ongoing programs and 

land uses. 

The management strategy would be accomplished by using a variety of proactive 

and prescriptive measures to protect vegetation and habitat. Moreover, it would 

promote the continuation of multiple-use management. Vegetation and special 

status species habitat would be restored and enhanced to continue the presence 

of an ecologically healthy ecosystem. Restoration would make use of a suite of 

proactive and specific prescriptive management tools and implementation 

measures. Commodity and development-based resources, such as livestock 

grazing and minerals production, would be maintained on BLM-administered 
2. Alternatives (BLM Alternative Summary)

2-8 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

lands through specific actions to meet resource goals and protect ecosystem 

health. 

Management strategies would continue to provide for recreation opportunities 

on and access to BLM-administered lands. Management would take into 

consideration the result of actions on regional community economies and the 

potential for user conflicts. The management strategy would emphasize the 

overarching goal to identify, protect, and preserve cultural properties that are 

considered significant and sacred to Federally recognized Indian tribes as 

established through consultation with THPOs and these tribes. Sustainable 

development concepts would be applied to preserve ecological functions and 

maintain economic productivity.

Alternative C

Alternative C would develop management strategies to preserve and protect 

ecosystem health and resource values across the planning area, while providing 

for multiple uses. Resource development would be more constrained than 

under Alternatives B or D, and in some cases and some areas, uses would be 

excluded to protect sensitive resources. The management strategy for 

Alternative C would also emphasize the overarching goal to identify, protect, 

and preserve cultural properties that are considered significant and sacred to 

Federally recognized Indian tribes, as established through consultation with 

THPOs and these tribes. This alternative includes the most special designations, 

with specific measures to protect or enhance resource values in these areas. 

This alternative emphasizes active and specific measures to protect and enhance 

vegetation and habitat for special status species, fish, and wildlife. Likewise, this 

alternative would reflect a reduction in resource production goals for forage, 

renewable energy, and minerals. Resource production would generally be 

secondary to restoring and protecting important habitats, such as sagebrush and 

riparian areas. Sustainable development principles would focus on preserving 

ecological functions and environmental values.

Alternative D

Alternative D emphasizes resource use and economic development in the 

planning area, such as for livestock grazing, energy and mineral development, 

and recreation. This alternative has the fewest restrictions on development and 

land use. Potential impacts on sensitive resources such as soils and sensitive 

plant habitat would be mitigated on a case-by-case basis. Sustainable 

development concepts are included to maintain economic productivity.
2. Alternatives (BLM Alternative Summary)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-9

Table 2-1

Comparative Summary of BLM Alternatives

Alternative (Acres)

A B C D

Decision Areas

BLM surface 15,100* 15,100* 15,100* 15,100*

Coal mineral decision area 1,883,300 1,883,300 1,883,300 1,883,300

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 501,600 501,600 501,600 501,600

State and other federal Surface Management Agencies (SMAs) 1,381,700 1,381,700 1,381,700 1,381,700

Mineral materials, nonenergy leasable, and fluids mineral 

decision area

4,438,100* 4,438,100* 4,438,100* 4,438,100*

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 447,000* 447,000* 447,000* 447,000*

Other federal SMAs 3,991,100 3,991,100 3,991,100 3,991,100

Resources

Visual Resource Management (VRM) Figure 2-12 Figure 2-22 Figure 2-32 Figure 2-22

VRM Class I 0 0 200 0

VRM Class II 1,900* 2,500* 14,200 200

VRM Class III 9,800 12,000 700* 14,000 

VRM Class IV 100 600 0 900* 

Undesignated 3,300 0 0 0

Resource Uses

Coal Acceptable for further consideration for 

leasing - all federal minerals (with coal potential 

and subject to leasing)

Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5 Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5

Acceptable: BLM-administered lands (BLM surface) 0 100 0 100 

surface and underground 0 100 0 100 

only underground 0 0 0 0

Acceptable: other state and federal SMAs 600 1,206,900 600 1,206,900 

surface and underground 600 2,400 600 2,400 

only underground 0 1,204,500 0 1,204,500 

Acceptable: private surface estate overlying federal 

mineral estate

69,400 464,700 69,400 464,700

surface and underground 69,400 464,700 69,400 464,700

only underground 0 0 0 0

Mineral Materials Figure 2-62 Figure 2-72 Figure 2-82 Figure 2-72

Open for consideration for mineral materials 4,438,100* 4,438,100* 4,427,600 4,438,100* 

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 15,100* 15,100* 4,600 15,100*

Other federal SMAs 4,423,000 4,423,000 4,423,000 4,423,000

Nonenergy Solid Leasable Minerals Figure 2-92 Figure 2-

102

Figure 2-

112

Figure 2-

102

Open for consideration for nonenergy solid leasable 

minerals

4,438,100* 4,438,100* 4,427,600* 4,438,100* 

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 15,100* 15,100* 4,600* 15,100*

Other federal SMAs 4,423,000 4,423,000 4,423,000 4,423,000
2. Alternatives (BLM Alternative Summary)

2-10 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-1

Comparative Summary of BLM Alternatives

Alternative (Acres)

A B C D

Fluid Mineral Leasing Figures 2-

12, 2-15, 

and 

2-19

Figures 2-

13, 2-16, 

and 

2-20

Figures 2-

14, 2-17, 

and 2-21

Figures 2-

13, 2-18, 

and 

2-22

Open to fluid mineral leasing, subject to existing laws, 

regulations, and formal orders

3,976,700* 4,393,300* 3,820,000* 4,393,300* 

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 396,400* 447,000* 396,400* 447,000* 

Other federal SMAs 3,580,300 3,946,300 3,423,600 3,946,300

Open to leasing, subject to standard terms and conditions 

(i.e., not subject to major or moderate constraints)

2,615,100* 2,707,900* 2,174,400 2,709,700* 

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 335,700* 184,900* 147,600 186,700*

Other federal SMAs 2,279,400 2,523,000 2,026,800 2,523,000 

Open to leasing, subject to major constraints (NSO)

1 1,362,000* 1,550,600* 1,512,600* 1,550,600* 

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 60,800* 126,900* 115,400* 126,900*

Other federal SMAs3 1,301,200 1,423,700 1,397,200 1,423,700 

Open to leasing, subject to moderate constraints (CSU)

1 14,500 191,500* 202,300 179,800* 

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 14,500 191,500* 202,300 179,800* 

Other federal SMAs 0 0 0 0

Closed to fluid mineral leasing 461,400 44,800 618,100 44,800

BLM-administered surface land and split-estate 50,600 0 50,600 0

Other federal SMAs 410,800 44,800 567,500 44,800

Livestock Grazing Figures 

2-232, 2-24

Figures 

2-252, 2-24

Figures 

2-232, 2-26

Figures 

2-252, 2-24

Available for all classes of livestock grazing 3,300* 15,100* 0 15,100* 

Unavailable to all classes of livestock grazing 11,800 0 15,100* 0 

Recreation Management Areas (RMAs) No Figure Figure 2-

272

Figure 2-

272

Figure 2-

272

Cross Bar Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA)

(Alternative B) or ERMA (Alternatives C and D)

0 9,900 9,900 9,900

Travel, Transportation Management, and Access Figure 2-

282

Figure 2-292 Figure 2-292 Figure 2-292

Off-road vehicle use

Open 15,100* 0 0 0

Closed 0 0 0* 0

Limited 0 15,100* 15,100 15,100* 

Lands and Realty No Figure Figure

2-302

Figure

2-312

Figure 

2-302

Right-of-way (ROW) exclusion areas 0 200 200 0

ROW avoidance areas 0 12,700* 14,800* 9,900

Identified as meeting the disposal criteria listed in section 

203 of FLPMA

NA** NA** NA** NA**

Special Designations

ACECs No Figure No Figure Figure 2-322 No Figure

Cross Bar Management Area 0 0 10,500 0
2. Alternatives (BLM Alternative Summary)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-11

Table 2-1

Comparative Summary of BLM Alternatives

Alternative (Acres)

A B C D

Eligible (Alternative A) or Suitable (Alternatives B 

and C) Wild and Scenic River (WSR) Study 

Segments

Figure 

2-33

Figure 

2-33

Figure 

2-33

No 

Figure

Canadian River 1,100 1,100 1,100 0

Source: BLM GIS 2016

1Acreages subject to fluid minerals NSO and CSU stipulations may overlap; therefore, acreages do not add up to the mineral estate 

decision area. Under Alternative A there are approximately 14,500 acres of overlap, under Alternative B there are approximately 

69,600 acres of overlap, under Alternative C there are approximately 68,800 acres of overlap, and under Alternative D there are 

approximately 59,700 acres of overlap.

2

Figure displays Cross Bar Management Area allocations only.

3NSO acreages for other SMAs are an estimate used for analysis purposes only; specific NSO stipulations will be determined by 

the SMA at the time of lease sale.

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red River and the 

98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified and mapped when they are surveyed. (No exact acreages of federal lands 

are available at this time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed.) Any such survey would be conducted in 

accordance with applicable law.

**No acreage figures have been provided here. Refer to Appendix N for legal land descriptions of isolated tracts of public land, 

as well as certain lands in the Cross Bar Management Area, which the BLM has identified as meeting the disposal criteria in 

section 203 of FLPMA. Prior to any decision to dispose of public land, the BLM would review the legal land description, and 

conduct a resurvey if necessary. For lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red 

River and the 98th Meridian, such lands would be more specifically identified and mapped when they are surveyed. (No exact 

acreages, and no legal land descriptions of federal lands are available at this time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been 

surveyed). Any such survey would be conducted in accordance with applicable law.

2.4.2 BIA Alternative Summary

Management Common to All Alternatives

Certain allowable uses and management actions from the existing planning 

documents and current BIA policies remain valid and do not require revision. 

All the proposed alternatives carry these forward, while other proposed 

decisions are common only to the action alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D).

Although each BIA alternative is distinct in the resources and resource uses it 

emphasizes, all four alternatives do the following:

 Comply with all applicable federal, state, local, and tribal 

environmental laws and regulations, policies, and standards

 Implement actions originating from laws, regulations, and policies 

and conform to day-to-day management, monitoring, and 

administrative functions not specifically addressed

 Enhance the quality of life, promote economic opportunity, and 

carry out the responsibility to protect and improve the trust assets 

of American Indians
2. Alternatives (BIA Alternative Summary)

2-12 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

 Protect and preserve trust lands, resources, and assets, while 

promoting tribal self-governance

 Support Federally recognized Indian tribes with the meaningful 

exercise of their treaty fishing, hunting, and gathering rights

 Support tribal needs and efforts in the areas of fisheries 

management, wildlife management, outdoor recreation 

management, and related fields

 Preserve valid existing rights, which include any leases, claims, or 

other use authorizations established before a new or modified 

authorization, change in land designation, or new or modified 

regulation is approved

 Manage fluid mineral leases, in accordance with BIA’s Fluid Mineral 

Estate Procedural Handbook (BIA 2012b)

 Apply BMPs, as outlined in Appendix C, and other site-specific 

mitigation measures to all resource uses to promote rapid 

reclamation, maximize resource protection, and minimize soil 

erosion

 Make every effort to avoid adverse impacts if cultural or 

paleontological sites are found at project locations

 Consult with the applicable SHPOs and THPOs to identify, protect,

and preserve cultural properties that are considered significant and 

sacred to Federally recognized Indian tribes

 Utilize collaborative opportunities, partnerships, and 

communications with other agencies and interested parties to 

implement the BIA Integrated RMP, including education and 

outreach and project-specific activities

 Identify and apply mitigation measures and conservation actions to 

achieve land use plan goals and objectives. The sequence of 

mitigation actions will be the mitigation hierarchy: avoid, minimize, 

rectify, reduce, eliminate over time, or compensate. 

In addition to the shared elements above, Table 2-3 indicates management 

actions common to all four alternatives by using a single cell across the table row.

BIA Alternative A: No Action

In accordance with the Indian Affairs National Environmental Policy Act 

Guidebook (59 IAM 3-H; BIA 2012a), the BIA is required to consider a no 

action alternative, which would continue current management, or business as 

usual. Alternative A would continue present management direction from 

practices contained in existing laws, regulations, policies, and standards. 

Alternative A does not allow for a consistent streamlined approach to 

implementation with the BLM or among the two regions.
2. Alternatives (BIA Alternative Summary)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-13

BIA Alternative B: Proposed Action

Alternative B represents a mix of management actions that resolve the issues 

identified by assessing the need for changing management, the concerns raised 

during public scoping, and future management considerations. This alternative 

would reflect a combination of efficient goals and objectives for all values and 

programs. It complies with the BIA mission and streamlines management of BIAmanaged surface lands.

BIA Alternative C

Alternative C would develop management strategies to preserve and protect 

ecosystem health and resource values across the planning area. It also would

provide for development of the land in a manner consistent with the mission of 

the BIA. Resource development would be more constrained than under 

Alternatives B or D.

BIA Alternative D

Alternative D emphasizes resource use and economic development for 

agriculture and energy and mineral development in the planning area. This 

alternative has the fewest restrictions on development and land use. Potential 

impacts on sensitive resources such as soils and sensitive plant habitat would be 

mitigated on a case-by-case basis.

2.5 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS

The alternatives below were considered but eliminated from detailed study 

because they do not meet the purpose of and need for the Joint EIS/BLM RMP 

and BIA Integrated RMP (see Section 1.4), or because they do not fall within 

technical, legal, or policy constraints for BLM resources and resource uses.

2.5.1 Retain All BLM-Administered Surface Tracts

The alternative to retain all surface tracts was considered as an approach to 

manage surface tracts in the planning area; however, some surface tracts are 

remote and small, and they do not contain high resource values. A set of 

retention criteria was developed by alternative and applied to the surface tracts 

to determine which to retain in each alternative. In addition, given recurrent 

questions about the location of the federal lands along the 116-mile Red River

area between the North Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian, the 

public lands that meet the disposal criteria listed in section 203 of FLPMA under 

all of the action alternatives.

2.5.2 Implement Exclusive Use or Protection

Some alternatives and general management options were not considered. 

Specifically, not considered were those that proposed exclusive use or 

maximum development, production, or protection of one resource at the 

expense of other resources or resource uses. 

As outlined in Section 1.4, the purpose of this BLM RMP is to ensure that public 

lands are managed in accordance with the intent of Congress, as stated in the 
2. Alternatives (Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis)

2-14 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

FLPMA, under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. While not 

every use must be allowed on every acre of public land under these principles, 

elimination of all oil and gas leasing from all BLM-administered lands absent of 

other resource conflicts, or managing those lands only for fish, wildlife, and 

wilderness values to the exclusion of other resource considerations is not 

warranted. Each alternative considered allows for some level of support, 

protection, or use of all resources in the planning area. In some instances, the 

alternatives analyzed in detail do include various considerations for eliminating 

or maximizing individual resource values or uses, in specific areas where 

conflicts exist.

2.6 CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING A PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The BLM and BIA alternatives evaluated in this Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP offer a range of discrete strategies for resolving deficiencies in 

existing management, exploring opportunities for enhanced management, and 

addressing issues identified through internal assessment and public scoping. The 

BLM and BIA carefully considered comments submitted by other government 

agencies, public organizations, state and tribal entities, and interested individuals.

Public scoping enabled the BLM to identify and shape significant issues pertaining 

to potential ACECs, public land access and restoring ecological health, wildlife 

habitat, cultural resources, land tenure, and other program areas. Cooperating 

agencies reviewed the alternatives and provided comments during the 

alternatives development process.

NEPA regulations require agencies to identify a preferred alternative, if one 

exists, in the draft EIS. Furthermore, BLM planning regulations at 43 CFR 

1610.4-7 require identification of the preferred alternative in a draft EIS for an 

RMP.

The BLM’s preferred alternative is described in the section below. Formulated 

by the interdisciplinary team, the BLM’s preferred alternative represents those 

goals, objectives, and actions determined to be most effective at resolving 

planning issues and balancing resource use. Collaboration was critical in 

developing and evaluating alternatives; however, the final designation of a BLM 

preferred alternative remains the exclusive responsibility of the BLM.

The BIA has identified its current proposed action and will identify a preferred 

alternative in the final EIS. As described above for the BLM, the BIA’s proposed 

action represents the goals, objectives, and actions determined to be most 

effective at resolving planning issues and balancing resource use. Formulated by 

the interdisciplinary team, the BIA’s proposed action was developed through 

collaboration; however, the final designation of a preferred alternative will 

remain the exclusive responsibility of the BIA.
2. Alternatives (Considerations in Selecting a Preferred Alternative)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-15

2.6.1 Recommendations and Resulting Actions

BLM

The BLM Field Manager recommends Alternative B as the preferred alternative.

During public review of this draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP, 

the BLM is seeking constructive input on the proposals for managing resources 

and resource uses. After considering these comments, the BLM will develop a 

Proposed RMP to be evaluated in the Final EIS.

BIA

The BIA Regional Directors consider Alternative B as the proposed action.

During public review of this Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP, 

the BIA is seeking constructive input on the proposals for managing resources 

and resource uses. After considering these comments, the BIA will develop a 

Proposed Integrated RMP to be evaluated in the Final EIS; this Proposed 

Integrated RMP will be identified as the BIA’s preferred alternative.

2.7 MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE FOR BLM AND BIA ALTERNATIVES A, B, C, AND D

Table 2-2 is a description of all BLM decisions proposed for each alternative, 

including goals and objectives, actions, and allocations; Table 2-3 is a 

description of all BIA decisions proposed for each alternative, including goals 

and objectives. All decisions in these tables are at the planning level.

BLM RMPs identify public lands as open to fluid mineral leasing: subject to 

existing laws, regulations, and formal orders and the terms and conditions of the 

standard lease form; subject to moderate constraints, such as seasonal and 

controlled surface use; or subject to major constraints, such as NSO stipulations 

on an area with protected resources (e.g., wetlands).

These land use plan allocations are expressed as various kinds and levels of 

limits on mineral development in the form of stipulations (such as NSO, CSU, 

and timing limitations [TLs]) that are attached to leases, when issued, of federal 

mineral estate under BLM-administered lands, private lands, and state-owned 

lands but under not National Forest System lands. There are several standard 

stipulations, which apply to all areas identified as open to mineral leasing and 

development (see Appendix D).

Similarly, the BIA alternatives include disclosure statements. These are 

notifications of limitations that already exist in law, lease terms, regulations, or 

operational orders, or limitations that may be added as conditions of approval 

during the BLM permitting phase of development; these are included in Table 

2-3.

Acreages for alternatives in this chapter are calculated based on current 

information and may be adjusted in the future through BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP maintenance and as conditions warrant.
2. Alternatives (Management Guidance for BLM and BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-16 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

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

The following describes how Tables 2-2 and 2-3 are written and formatted to 

show the BLM RMP or BIA Integrated RMP decisions that exist under the no 

action alternative, or as proposed for each action alternative. Refer to 

Diagram 2-1 for an example of how to read these tables (with example text 

included).

 In accordance with Appendix C of BLM Land Use Planning 

Handbook H-1601-1, land use plan decisions are broad-scale 

decisions that guide future land management actions and subsequent 

site-specific implementation decisions. RMP decisions fall into two 

categories that establish the base structure for Tables 2-2 and 2-3: 

desired outcomes (goals and objectives) and allowable uses and 

actions to achieve outcomes. 

– Goals are broad statements of desired outcomes and 

management direction that usually are not quantifiable. 

– Objectives identify specific desired outcomes for resources. 

They may be quantifiable and measurable and may have 

established time frames for being achieved.

– Actions identify measures or criteria to achieve desired 

objectives, including actions to maintain, restore, or 

improve land health. 

– Allowable uses identify uses, or allocations, that are 

allowable, restricted, or prohibited on BLM-administered

lands and mineral estate. 

– Stipulations (NSO, CSU, and TL), which fall under the 

allowable uses category, are applied to BLM fluid mineral 

leases to achieve desired objectives. 

 In general, only those resources and resource uses that have been 

identified as planning issues have notable differences between the 

alternatives. 

 Actions that are applicable to all alternatives are shown in one cell 

across a row. These particular objectives and actions would be 

implemented, regardless of which alternative is ultimately selected. 

 Actions that are applicable to more than one but not all alternatives 

are indicated by either combining cells for the same alternatives, or 

by denoting those objectives or actions as, for example, the “same 

as Alternative B.” 
2. Alternatives (Management Guidance for BLM and BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-17

Diagram 2-1

How to Read Tables 2-2 and 2-3
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-18 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-2

Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) Livestock Grazing Special Status Species

Air Resources Paleontological Resources Travel, Transportation Management, and Access

Cave and Karst Resources Public Health and Safety Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests

Cultural Resources Recreation and Visitor Services Vegetation 

Fish and Wildlife Socioeconomics Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Fluid Leasable Minerals Soil Resources Visual Resources

Forest, Woodland, and Special Products Solid Minerals Water Resources

Lands and Realty, Including Renewable Energy Coal Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs)

Land Use Authorizations Mineral Materials Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

Land Tenure Nonenergy Solid Leasable Minerals

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

Resources

1. Air Resources 

2. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Maintain existing air quality and 

air quality related values, such as 

visibility, by requiring that all BLM 

actions minimize impacts on air quality.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

3. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Maintain the quality of air 

resources and limit impacts on air 

quality to meet National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

individual state air quality 

implementation plans (SIPs) and local 

standards.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

4. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Manage BLM actions and 

land use authorizations to prevent 

significant deterioration of federal Class 

1 areas and from exceeding air quality

standards specified by each individual 

state in the planning area or other 

applicable federal, state, or local air 

quality standards, and conform to 

applicable SIP requirements.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-19

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

5. Action: No similar action. Action: Conduct actions authorized on 

BLM-administered lands in compliance

with Clean Air Act requirements, 

including NAAQS

(Section 109); SIPs (Section 110); 

control of pollution from federal 

facilities (Section 118); prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD), including 

visibility impacts on mandatory federal 

Class I areas (Section 160 et seq.); and 

conformity analyses and determinations 

(Section 176[c]).

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

6. Action: No similar action. Action: Ensure management activities 

and authorized uses are designed to 

comply with federal, state, and local air 

quality regulations, classifications, 

standards, and air pollution 

requirements.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

7. Action: No similar action. Action: Implement mitigation measures 

within the BLM’s authority (BMPs, for 

example) to reduce emissions and work 

cooperatively to encourage industry and 

other permittees to adopt measures to 

reduce emissions. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

8. Action: No similar action. Action: Enhance the existing 

cooperative process that shares air 

quality information with agencies, 

stakeholders, and the public and engages 

other interested agencies

to participate in the development 

process through the air quality

memorandum of understanding (MOU)

for oil and gas development on federal 

lands (USDA, US DOI, and US EPA 

2011).

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-20 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

9. Action: No similar action. Action: Encourage the use of green 

completions (includes recompletions 

and blow-down activities) involving 

recovery and cleanup of natural gas, 

where feasible, for all natural gas and oil 

wells, unless the need for an exemption 

can be documented. 

Action: Use green completions 

(includes recompletions and blowdown activities) involving recovery and 

cleanup of natural gas for all natural gas 

and oil wells. 

Action: No similar action. 

10. Action: No similar action. Action: Minimize fugitive dust during 

construction activities, including well 

drilling, completion, workover, 

production, and road maintenance, 

using appropriate methods, such as 

water or approved chemicals, at 

construction areas and associated roads. 

The BLM Authorized Officer may direct 

the operator to change the level and 

type of treatment if dust abatement 

measures are observed to be insufficient 

to prevent fugitive dust.

Require reapplication, if necessary due 

to the duration of construction 

activities, including well drilling, 

completion, workover, production, and 

road maintenance.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

11. Action: No similar action. Action: Minimize fugitive dust during 

mining operations, including exploration, 

construction, production, and 

reclamation, using appropriate methods, 

such as water or approved chemicals.

The BLM Authorized Officer may direct 

the operator to change the level and 

type of treatment if dust abatement 

measures are observed to be insufficient 

to prevent fugitive dust. 

Require reapplication, if necessary, due 

to the duration of mining operations, 

including exploration, construction, 

production, and reclamation.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-21

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

12. Action: No similar action. Action: Incorporate components of 

the Energy Star standards as BMPs, as 

applicable. 

Action: Require all operators to 

comply with Energy Star standards.

Action: No similar action 

(voluntary program).

13. Soil Resources

14. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Maintain or improve current soil 

productivity and status and minimize 

soil erosion.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

15. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Comply with federal, tribal, state, 

and local government policies to 

protect farmland.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

16. Objective: Manage erodible soils to 

maintain or reduce erosion and to 

improve vegetative ground cover (BLM 

2004a).

Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Same as Alternative A.

17. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Minimize soil compaction 

and soil erosion.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

18. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Minimize the impact of 

BLM-authorized activities that cause or 

allow unnecessary conversion of 

farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

19. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Protect prime and unique 

farmland soils (7 CFR 658). 

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

20. Action: Where necessary, upgrade, 

maintain, and properly surface roads, in 

accordance with the appropriate 

standards (BLM 2004a).

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A.

21. Action: No similar action. Action: Consolidate roads, where 

possible. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

22. Water Resources

23. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Manage surface water and 

groundwater quality to maintain, 

improve, or restore the chemical, 

physical, and biological function of water 

resources. 

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-22 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

24. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Protect aquatic habitats for 

special status species, including fish, 

mussels, turtles, snails, plants, and 

migratory birds.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

25. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Conserve surface water

and groundwater.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

26. Objective: No similar action. Objective: Manage activities that may 

affect Section 303d-listed water bodies 

to minimize contribution to total 

maximum daily load (TMDL)

requirements, as determined by the 

state and approved by EPA.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

27. Action: No similar action. Action: Encourage the reuse of surface 

water and groundwater, in accordance 

with existing regulations.

Action: Require the reuse of surface 

water and groundwater, in accordance 

with existing regulations.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

28. Action: No similar action. Action: Encourage the use of treatable 

nonpotable water for industrial 

purposes, in accordance with existing 

regulations, including dust abatement, 

facility construction, and oil and gas 

operations.

Action: Require the use of treatable 

nonpotable water for industrial 

purposes, in accordance with existing 

regulations, including dust abatement, 

facility construction, and oil and gas 

operations.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

29. Action: No similar action. Action: Allow no mechanized or 

industrial use authorizations within 415

feet of perennial streams, rivers, ponds, 

springs, seeps, reservoirs, 100-year 

floodplains, sole source aquifers, or 

other Waters of the US unless the 

project could be conducted without 

adversely impacting these resources. 

Action: Allow no use authorizations 

within 415 feet of perennial streams, 

rivers, ponds, springs, seeps, 

reservoirs, 100-year floodplains, sole 

source aquifers, or other Waters of 

the US unless the project could be 

conducted without adversely impacting 

these resources.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

30. Vegetation 

31. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Protect, preserve, or enhance 

the health and function of natural 

vegetation communities on BLMadministered surface tracts, with an 

emphasis on high-priority habitats 

identified in the state wildlife action 

plans.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-23

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

32. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Reduce cover of noxious 

weeds and invasive plants in native plant 

communities and prevent establishment 

of new invasive species, especially as a 

result of BLM-permitted activities. 

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

33. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Where applicable, restore 

natural fire regimes in fire-dependent 

plant communities.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

34. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Restore degraded 

vegetation communities to improve 

natural processes and move desired 

future conditions where applicable. 

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

35. Action: No similar action. Action: Use vegetation treatments to 

move toward desired future condition 

according to quantitative objectives.

Monitor using quantitative methods to 

determine if treatment achieved 

objectives. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

36. Action: No similar action. Action: Use prescribed fire, in 

coordination with local landowners and 

partners, to meet resource objectives. 

Mechanical and manual methods may be 

used where prescribed fire is not 

feasible.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

37. Action: No similar action. Action: Allow integrated pest 

management techniques, including use 

of BLM-approved herbicides, manual 

and mechanical treatments, and 

biological controls, to meet resource 

management objectives.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

38. Action: No similar action. Action: Apply herbicides in accordance 

with relevant and approved EISs, 

including: BLM Vegetation Treatments 

Using Herbicides Final Programmatic EIS 

ROD (BLM 2007a) and the Approved 

RMPA/ROD for Vegetation Treatments 

Using Aminopyralid, Fluroxypyr, and 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-24 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

Rimsulfuron on Bureau of Land 

Management Lands in 17 Western 

States (BLM 2016a), including only 

herbicides approved for use on BLMadministered lands.

39. Action: No similar action. Action: Plant or seed native species as 

necessary to restore degraded plant 

communities.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

40. Action: No similar stipulation. Action: Plant native species during 

interim and final reclamation to enhance 

habitat for pollinators, in accordance 

with Instruction Memorandum (IM)

2016-013 and BLM Manual 1745 on 

BLM-administered surface lands.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

41. Action: No similar action. Action: Consult with relevant Federally 

recognized Indian tribes to avoid or 

minimize detrimental disturbance to 

culturally valued plant species (see 

glossary).

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

42. Action: No similar action. Action: Using the landscape approach, 

monitor ecological communities using 

the standard core indicators (e.g., bare 

ground, nonnative invasive species, plant 

species of management concern, 

proportion of large gaps in plant canopy, 

vegetation composition, and vegetation 

height).

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

43. Wetlands and Riparian Areas

44. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: On BLM-administered lands, 

achieve and manage proper functioning 

condition (PFC) of riparian areas. 

Throughout the decision area (on BLMadministered lands and federal mineral 

estate) achieve a no net loss of 

wetlands.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-25

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

45. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Maintain proper 

functionality of riparian and wetland

communities. 

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

46. Action: No similar action. Action: Establish a 415-foot buffer 

around wetland/riparian areas, including 

springs, seeps, playas, and saline lakes, 

for all use authorizations (3,000 acres*). 

Buffer distance will be established based 

on site-specific conditions, such as 

topography and vegetation, other 

resource program objectives, and type 

of use, such as grazing, mining, and 

recreation. The buffer may be 

accomplished by such measures as 

avoidance, fencing, and creating water 

features for livestock grazing.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

47. Fish and Wildlife

48. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Manage BLM-administered 

surface tracts to support native fish and 

wildlife populations.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

49. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Restore and maintain fish 

and wildlife habitat to sustain 

populations. 

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

50. Action: No similar action. Action: Improve wildlife habitat by 

such measures as improving riparian

zones, remediating erosion, and 

stabilizing banks and construct or install 

wildlife features, such as nest 

boxes/platforms, bat towers/boxes, and 

wildlife guzzlers. Work with land 

owners to voluntarily incorporate 

wildlife protection measures (escape 

ramps in troughs, etc.) associated with 

federal mineral estate.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-26 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

51. Action: No similar action. Action: Allow integrated pest 

management techniques to control 

invasive species, including those that 

would control wild hogs.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

52. Action: No similar action. Action: Coordinate with the state 

agencies to support management of 

game and recreational fish species for 

BLM-related actions. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

53. Action: No similar action. Action: Require every project to have 

a site-specific evaluation and clearances 

through applicable agency coordination. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

54. Action: No similar action. Action: Promote activities that benefit 

the perpetuation of pollinators.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

55. Migratory Birds

56. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Protect, restore, and 

conserve populations and habitats of 

migratory birds.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

57. Action: No similar action. Action: Avoid disturbing nesting 

migratory birds, with an emphasis on 

special status species (and birds of 

conservation concern generally from 

March 1–July 31, but times may vary by 

species and seasonal conditions). If 

active nests are observed, adhere to 

USFWS and BLM recommendations and 

mandates in determining appropriate 

buffer distances for species protected 

under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA). Use best available science in 

these determinations.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

58. Wildlife and Habitat

59. Action: No similar action. Action: Develop working relationships 

with local, state, and federal natural 

resource agencies and with universities, 

local schools, and other organizations to 

assist with the overall management of 

the Cross Bar Management Area.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-27

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

60. Action: No similar action. Action: Conduct wildlife surveys on 

the Cross Bar Management Area,

consistent with Texas Park and Wildlife 

Department surveying methods. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

61. Special Status Species

62. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Protect, preserve, and enhance 

federally listed, proposed, and candidate 

species and their habitats and promote 

the recovery of these species for BLMrelated actions, in accordance with 

Section 7 of the ESA, as amended (16 

USC 1531 et seq.).

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

63. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Maintain, protect, and 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.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

64. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Support special status 

species and/or habitat in coordination 

with USFWS and other stakeholders.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

65. Action: Special status species and 

other fish, wildlife, and wetland/riparian

resource concerns are addressed 

through site-specific agency 

coordination (BLM 1991, 1994a, 1996a, 

and 2000).

Action: Perform population 

management, augmentation, and 

reintroduction in support of recovery 

actions, in consultation with the Texas 

Parks and Wildlife Department 

(TPWD), Oklahoma Department of 

Wildlife Conservation (ODWC), or 

Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, 

and Tourism (KDWPT) regional 

biologist and USFWS. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

66. Action: No similar action. Action: Implement recovery and other 

conservation actions on BLMadministered surface lands to support 

special status species, including installing 

wildlife enhancement structures and 

restoring or enhancing riparian zones. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-28 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

67. Action: Every Application for Permit 

to Drill will continue to result in sitespecific agency coordination (such as 

USFWS consultation) and application 

and discussion of any existing lease 

stipulations and notices. (BLM 1991, 

1994a, 1996a, and 2000).

Action: Every project expected to 

include significant surface disturbance 

will be required to have a site-specific 

special status species habitat analysis 

conducted prior to a final decision. The 

proposed action and habitat analysis will 

also be coordinated with the 

appropriate regulatory agencies prior to 

a BLM decision.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

68. Action: No similar action. Action: Before authorizing any surfacedisturbing activity in areas known to 

support ABB, USFWS protocols for 

conserving the ABB would be 

implemented (based on consultation 

with the USFWS). 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

69. Action: Cross Bar Management Area:

Wildlife program coordination, such as 

that needed to conduct special status 

species evaluations, will continue to be 

conducted with the Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Department, USFWS, and 

universities (BLM 2000).

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A.

70. Wildland Fire Ecology and 

Management

71. Goal: Manage fire for one or more 

objectives as they are affected by 

changes in fuels, weather, topography, 

social understanding and tolerance, and 

involvement of other governmental 

jurisdictions. The fire management

priorities are 1) firefighter and public 

life and safety, 2) property protection,

3) fire management and ecosystem 

sustainability.

Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-29

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

72. Objective: Use the wildland fire

situation analysis process to determine 

and document the suppression strategy 

from the full range of responses 

available for suppression operations. 

Objective: Suppress wildland fires in the 

wildland-urban interface. Use the wildland 

fire situation analysis process to 

determine and document the suppression

strategy from the full range of responses 

available for suppression operations.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative A.

73. Action: Pursue fire management

agreements with state or local 

government fire protection agencies, as 

appropriate.

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A.

74. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: For naturally ignited fires, 

allow as appropriate, the ecological role 

of wildfire to maintain and enhance 

resources outside of wild-urban 

interface areas.

Objective: For naturally ignited fires, 

allow fires to continue to their natural 

conclusion (no suppression).

Objective: For naturally ignited 

fires, apply full suppression

objectives and strategies in the 

Red River area and Cross Bar 

Management Area. Same as 

Alternative B for other scattered 

surface tracts.

75. Objective: Hazardous fuels reduction 

treatments will be designed and 

implemented to reduce the risk to and 

consequences of wildfire on 

communities and ecosystems. 

Hazardous fuels treatments may be 

used to restore and maintain healthy 

ecosystems. Hazardous fuels reduction 

should be planned and implemented in 

an interdisciplinary and collaborative 

manner with Federally recognized 

Indian tribes and other federal, state, 

and local partners.

Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Same as Alternative A. 

76. Action: Conduct hazardous fuel 

reduction treatments as directed by an 

approved fire management plan.

Action: Conduct hazardous fuel 

reduction treatments (e.g., thinning, 

mechanical, prescribed fire, and 

chemical) in areas with higher 

probability for catastrophic wildland fire,

and protect values at risk. 

Action: Conduct hazardous fuel 

reduction treatments (e.g., thinning, 

mechanical, prescribed fire, and 

chemical) in areas with higher 

probability for catastrophic wildland 

fire.

Action: Conduct hazardous fuel 

reduction treatments (e.g., 

thinning, mechanical, prescribed 

fire, and chemical) to protect 

values at risk.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-30 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

77. Action: No similar action. Action: With an approved Prescribed 

Fire Burn Plan and appropriate permits, 

allow prescribed burning to meet 

resource management objectives for 

vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B. 

78. Action: Conduct prescribed burning 

for fuels reduction, weed management, 

and range improvement. These 

treatments generally target eastern red 

cedar in the wildland urban interface.

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A. 

79. Cultural Resources

80. Goal: Identify, and when appropriate, 

protect and preserve in place 

representative samples of significant 

cultural resources and ensure that they 

are available for appropriate uses and 

preservation by present and future 

generations.

Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Identify, protect, and preserve in 

place representative samples of 

significant cultural resources and 

ensure that they are available for 

appropriate uses and preservation by 

present and future generations.

Goal: Same as Alternative A.

81. Goal: Reduce imminent threats and 

resolve potential conflicts from natural 

or human-caused deterioration or 

potential conflict with other resource 

uses by ensuring that all authorizations 

for land use and resource use comply 

with applicable laws and regulations, 

such as Section 106 of the NHPA, as 

amended, and the AIRFA. 

Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A.

82. Goal: Allow traditional cultural 

resource uses, while balancing 

preservation. 

Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A.

83. Goal: Protect traditional use sites, 

traditional cultural properties (TCPs), 

and sacred sites.

Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A.

84. Objective: Conduct surveys on 

surface tracts to identify significant 

cultural resources.

Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-31

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

85. Objective: Protect cultural properties, 

places, or objects important to 

Federally recognized Indian tribes to 

the degree possible under law, 

regulations, and guidance. Confidential 

information about tribal practices and 

beliefs, the location with which they are 

associated, and sacred sites would be 

kept confidential and protected from 

public disclosure to the extent allowed 

by law.

Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Same as Alternative A.

86. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Promote partnerships and 

inform and educate the public about the 

protection of cultural resources. 

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

87. Action: Tribal consultations do not 

depend on tribal ownership of mineral 

rights in a development area; instead, 

they result from tribal history, sacred 

or ceremonial areas or unmarked 

graves that are possible in an area of 

development. Consultation would take 

into account the concerns of Federally

recognized Indian tribes involving sites 

or locations of religious significance and 

could result in restrictions of oil and gas 

development or NSO (BLM 1991, 

1994a, 1996a, and 2000).

Action: No similar action (required 

under NHPA, AIRFA and FLPMA). 

Action: No similar action (required 

under NHPA, AIRFA and FLPMA).

Action: No similar action 

(required under NHPA, AIRFA and 

FLPMA).

88. Action: With only specifically defined 

exceptions in the BLM Cultural 

Resource Manual, the Class III inventory 

covering 100 percent of the area on 

foot is required before any surface 

disturbance is allowed (BLM 1994a).

Action: The BLM will make a 

reasonable and good faith effort to 

carry out appropriate identification 

efforts to determine potential to affect 

historic properties per 36 CFR Section 

800.4(b)(1) and the appropriate existing 

laws, regulations, and policies.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

89. Action: Inventory potentially sensitive 

cultural places identified during Native 

American consultation under Section 

110 of the National Historic 

Action: The BLM will meet its Section 

110 responsibilities through actions 

such as, but not limited to, inventory, 

monitoring, stabilization, outreach, and 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B. 
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-32 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

Preservation Act in cooperation and 

coordination with Federally recognized 

Indian tribes.

interpretation.

90. Action: No similar action. Action: Resolve adverse effects on 

cultural viewsheds where visual setting 

contributes to the significance of an 

historic property.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

91. Action: No similar action. Action: Minimize noise around sacred 

sites, TCPs, historic resources, 

cemeteries, and burial sites. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

92. Paleontological Resources

93. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Ensure that fossils of scientific 

interest are not inadvertently damaged, 

destroyed, or removed from public 

ownership as a result of approved land 

uses, such as surface disturbance, 

recreation, or land exchanges in 

accordance with FLPMA, NEPA, and 

Paleontological Resources Preservation 

Act, which states that paleontological 

resources on federal land must be 

managed and protected using scientific 

principles and expertise. 

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

94. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Protect paleontological 

resources from surface-disturbing 

activities. 

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

95. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Complete and maintain an 

inventory of fossil localities and monitor 

known occurrences. 

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

96. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Promote partnerships and 

inform and educate the public about the 

protection of fossil resources. 

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

97. Action: The paleontological resource 

program consists of development or 

review of environmental analysis 

reports, site-specific evaluations or 

inventories of paleontological resources 

Action: Implement the Potential Fossil

Yield Classification System to help 

identify areas that could contain

resources requiring protection or 

mitigation before disturbing the ground 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-33

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

in support of mineral leasing and 

development, and application of terms 

and conditions for impact mitigation or 

to avoid impacts (BLM 1996a).

surface. 

98. Action: The BLM paleontological 

resource management program includes 

the requirement that the BLM be 

notified should paleontological resources 

be encountered during BLM-approved 

operations (BLM 1991, 1994a).

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A.

99. Visual Resources 

100. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: 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. 

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

101. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Manage BLM-administered public 

lands and federal mineral estate in a 

manner that will protect the quality of 

the scenic (visual) values.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

102. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Manage visual resources for 

overall multiple use in accordance with 

VRM classification objectives, currently 

described in the BLM Visual Resource 

Inventory Handbook (H-8410-1, BLM 

1986a).

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

Allowable Use: Manage the Red River

area according to the Proposed 

Oklahoma Resource Management Plan 

and Final EIS (BLM 1993) and the Cross 

Bar Management Area according to the 

Proposed Texas Resource Management 

Plan Amendment and Environmental 

Assessment (EA) (BLM 2000). 

 VRM Class 1: 0 acres

 VRM Class II: 1,900 acres*

Allowable Use: Adopt the VRM

classes, as follows: 

 VRM Class 1: 0 acres

 VRM Class II: 2,500 acres* 

o Visually sensitive areas: Antelope 

Hills, Gloss Mountain, Wichita 

Mountains

o Visual Resource Inventory (VRI) 

Class II areas (unless area 

specifically mentioned as different 

Allowable Use: Adopt the VRM

classes, as follows: 

 VRM Class 1: 200 acres

o Visually sensitive areas: Antelope 

Hills, Gloss Mountain, Wichita 

Mountains

 VRM Class II: 14,200 acres

o VRI Class II and III areas (unless 

area specifically mentioned as 

different VRM class)

Allowable Use: Adopt the VRM

classes, as follows: 

 VRM Class 1: 0 acres

 VRM Class II: 200 acres 

o Visually sensitive areas: 

Antelope Hills, Gloss 

Mountain, Wichita Mountains

 VRM Class III: 14,000 acres

o Cross Bar Management Area

o VRI Class II areas (unless area 
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-34 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

o Red River area

o Cross Bar Management Area

rugged canyon areas and up to 

100-foot dissected bluffs along the 

Canadian River corridor

 VRM Class III: 9,800 acres

o Cross Bar Management Area

generally unmodified and 

characteristically rolling mesquite 

plains

 VRM Class IV: 100 acres

o Cross Bar Management Area

linear area impacted by the 

existing power lines

 Undesignated: 3,300 acres

Figure 2-1, Alternative A: Visual 

Resource Management (Cross Bar 

Management Area); Appendix A.

VRM class)

o Red River area

 VRM Class III: 12,000 acres

o VRI Class III areas

o Cross Bar Management Area

o WSR suitable segments

 VRM Class IV: 600 acres

o VRI Class IV areas

Figure 2-2, Alternatives B and D: 

Visual Resource Management (Cross 

Bar Management Area); Appendix A.

o Cross Bar Management Area

o WSR suitable segments

 VRM Class III: 700 acres*

o Red River area

o VRI Class IV areas

 VRM Class IV: 0 acres

Figure 2-3, Alternative C: Visual 

Resource Management (Cross Bar 

Management Area); Appendix A.

specifically mentioned as 

different VRM class)

 VRM Class IV: 900 acres*

o Red River area

o VRI Class III and IV areas

Figure 2-2, Alternatives B and D: 

Visual Resource Management

(Cross Bar Management Area); 

Appendix A.

103. Action: No similar action. Action: Cross Bar Management Area:

Develop user facilities, such as 

trailheads, nonmotorized trails, 

campgrounds, roads, utilities, and 

interpretive areas, to take advantage of 

scenic and historic landscapes in such a 

way that visual quality is protected. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

104. Action: No similar action. Action: For all surface-disturbing 

projects or activities, regardless of size 

or potential impact, incorporate visual 

design considerations, consistent with 

the Visual Resource Contrast Rating 

Manual H-8431-1, to meet VRM class 

objectives for the area.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-35

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

105. Cave and Karst Resources

106. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Manage and protect significant 

cave and cave-related resources, 

including unique geological features, 

biological resources, and cultural 

properties.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

107. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Encourage practices and 

policies that are adequate to ensure 

long-term protection of cave and karst 

systems, including sinkholes, overhangs, 

and underground drainage systems.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

108. Action: No similar action. Action: Before permitting any use 

authorizations, the BLM would assess 

the potential of and associated impacts 

on cave and karst resources. Avoidance 

would be considered as the primary 

means of mitigating potential impacts. 

Apply COAs as necessary, if avoidance 

is not practical.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

109. Solid Minerals

110. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Provide for solid mineral leasing, 

exploration, and development, while 

protecting resources.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

111. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Provide for environmentally 

sound exploration and development of 

mineral resources.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

112. Action: No similar action. Action: Coordinate with the applicable 

SMA to determine mining exclusion 

zones, such as no surface, underground, 

or quarry operations, within the 

jurisdictional boundary of the SMA to 

protect human health and safety, 

operations, and infrastructure.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

113. Action: No similar action. Action: Coordinate with the applicable 

SMA to determine the appropriate type 

of mining methods within the 

jurisdictional boundary of the SMA to 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-36 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

protect human health and safety and 

infrastructure.

114. Coal

115. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: To provide for the leasing 

of federal coal deposits while protecting 

natural resources. 

Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

116. Allocation: BLM-Administered 

Lands. 

Zero acres (all in Oklahoma) shall be 

acceptable for further consideration for 

leasing for development by other than 

underground techniques (i.e., surface 

mining and underground mining could 

be used).

Further acceptability for further 

consideration for leasing on additional 

acres will be evaluated in subsequent 

NEPA analysis and an RMP amendment.

Allocation: BLM-Administered Lands

100 acres shall be acceptable for further 

consideration for leasing for 

development by other than 

underground techniques (i.e., surface 

mining and underground mining could 

be used).

Zero acres shall be acceptable for 

further consideration only for 

development by underground 

techniques (i.e., only underground 

mining could be used).

Note: The unsuitability criteria in 43 CFR 

3461.5 will be reapplied to all parcels 

before leasing. Federal minerals beneath 

incorporated cities, towns and villages; 

national historic trails; and national wildlife 

refuges are not subject to leasing, per 43 

CFR 3400.2.

Allocation: BLM-Administered 

Lands

Zero acres covered by existing coal

leases shall be acceptable for further 

consideration for leasing for 

development by other than 

underground techniques (i.e., surface 

mining and underground mining could 

be used).

No further leasing allowed, including 

existing applications.

Allocation: BLM-Administered 

Lands

Same as Alternative B.

117. Allocation: State and Other 

Federal SMA Lands

600 acres of State and other federal 

SMA lands with BLM-administered 

federal mineral estate shall be 

acceptable for further consideration for 

leasing for development by other than 

underground techniques (i.e., surface 

mining and underground mining could 

be used). 

Allocation: State and Other 

Federal SMA Lands

1,206,900 acres of State and other 

federal SMA lands with BLMadministered federal mineral estate shall 

be acceptable for further consideration 

for leasing, as follows:

2,400 acres shall be acceptable for 

further consideration for leasing for 

development by other than 

Allocation: State and Other 

Federal SMA Lands

600 acres of State and other federal 

SMA lands with BLM-administered 

federal mineral estate shall be 

acceptable for further consideration 

for leasing for development by other 

than underground techniques (i.e., 

surface mining and underground mining 

could be used).

Allocation: State and Other 

Federal SMA Lands

Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-37

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

Further acceptability for further 

consideration for leasing on additional 

acres will be evaluated in subsequent 

NEPA analysis and an RMP amendment.

underground techniques (i.e., surface 

mining and underground mining could 

be used).

1,204,500 acres shall be acceptable for 

further consideration only for 

development by underground 

techniques (i.e., only underground 

mining could be used).

Note: Federal minerals beneath 

incorporated cities, towns and villages; 

national historic trails; and national wildlife 

refuge are not subject to leasing, per 43 

CFR 3400.2.

No further leasing allowed, including 

existing applications.

118. Allocation: Private Surface Estate 

Overlying Federal Mineral Estate

69,400 acres of private surface estate 

with BLM-administered federal mineral 

estate shall be acceptable for further 

consideration for leasing for 

development by other than 

underground techniques (i.e., surface 

mining and underground mining could 

be used). 

Further acceptability for further 

consideration for leasing on additional 

acres will be evaluated in subsequent 

NEPA analysis and an RMP amendment.

Figure 2-4, Alternatives A and C: 

Coal; Appendix A.

Allocation: Private Surface Estate 

Overlying Federal Mineral Estate

464,700 acres of private surface estate 

with BLM-administered federal mineral 

estate shall be acceptable for further 

consideration for leasing, as follows:

464,700 acres shall be acceptable for 

further consideration for leasing for 

development by other than underground 

techniques (i.e., surface mining and 

underground mining could be used).

Zero acres shall be acceptable for 

further consideration only for 

development by underground techniques 

(i.e., only underground mining could be 

used).

Figure 2-5, Alternatives B and D: Coal; 

Appendix A.

Note: The unsuitability criteria in 43 CFR 

Allocation: Private Surface Estate 

Overlying Federal Mineral Estate

69,400 acres of private surface estate 

with BLM-administered federal mineral 

estate shall be acceptable for further 

consideration for leasing for 

development by other than 

underground techniques (i.e., surface 

mining and underground mining could 

be used).

No further leasing allowed, including 

existing applications.

Figure 2-4, Alternatives A and C: 

Coal; Appendix A.

Allocation: Private Surface 

Estate Overlying Federal 

Mineral Estate

Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-38 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

3461.5 will be applied to all parcels 

before leasing. For federal mineral estate

beneath privately owned parcels where 

the surface is owned by qualified surface 

owners (per 43 CFR 3000.0-5 (gg) (1) 

and (2)), no leases for surface mining (i.e., 

mining by other than underground 

methods) would be issued without 

qualified surface owner consent. Federal 

minerals beneath incorporated cities, 

towns, and villages; national historic 

trails; and national wildlife refuges are 

not subject to leasing, per 43 CFR 

3400.2.

119. Mineral Materials (MM)

120. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Provide for mineral 

material sales while protecting natural 

resources. 

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

121. Allocation: Manage 15,100 acres* of 

BLM surface and 4,423,000 acres of 

BLM-administered federal minerals as 

open to mineral material disposal and 

zero acres as closed to mineral material 

disposal.

Figure 2-6, Alternative A: Mineral 

Materials (Cross Bar Management 

Area); Appendix A.

Allocation: Manage 15,100 acres* of 

BLM surface and 4,423,000 acres of 

BLM-administered federal minerals as 

open to mineral material disposal

subject to special considerations, as 

applicable. See Appendix D for detailed 

special consideration description.

Figure 2-7, Alternatives B and D: 

Mineral Materials (Cross Bar 

Management Area); Appendix A.

Allocation: Manage 4,600 acres of 

BLM surface and 4,423,000 acres of 

BLM-administered federal minerals as 

open to mineral material disposal

subject to special considerations, as 

applicable. See Appendix D for detailed 

special consideration description. 

Manage 10,500 acres* as closed to 

mineral material disposal.

Figure 2-8, Alternative C: Mineral 

Materials (Cross Bar Management 

Area); Appendix A.

Allocation: Manage 15,100 acres*

of BLM surface and 4,423,000 

acres of BLM-administered federal 

minerals as open to mineral 

material disposal subject to special 

considerations, as applicable. See 

Appendix D for detailed special 

consideration description.

Figure 2-7, Alternatives B and D: 

Mineral Materials (Cross Bar 

Management Area); Appendix A.

122. Action: No areas managed as closed to 

mineral material disposal.

Action: Manage the following areas as 

open to mineral material disposal with a 

special consideration: 

 Cross Bar SRMA

Action: Manage the following areas as 

closed to mineral material disposal: 

 Cross Bar ERMA

 Cross Bar Management Area ACEC

 Red River area

 WSR suitable segments

Action: Manage the following 

areas as open to mineral material 

disposal with a special 

consideration:

 Cross Bar ERMA
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-39

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

123. Action: No similar action. Action: New pits (caliche, sand, gravel, 

etc.) would be permitted as appropriate 

after detailed analysis of existing pit 

locations. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative A.

124. Nonenergy Solid Leasable Minerals

(Gypsum, Sodium, Potassium, Phosphate)

125. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Provide for development of 

mineral resources, while protecting 

natural resources.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

126. Allocation: Manage 15,100 acres* of 

BLM surface and 4,423,000 acres of 

BLM-administered federal minerals as 

open to nonenergy solid leasable 

mineral development and 0 acres as 

closed to nonenergy solid leasable 

mineral development.

Figure 2-9, Alternative A: Nonenergy 

Solid Leasable Minerals (Cross Bar 

Management Area); Appendix A.

Allocation: Manage 15,100 acres* of 

BLM surface and 4,423,000 acres of 

BLM-administered federal minerals as 

open to nonenergy solid leasable 

mineral development subject to 

stipulations, as applicable. See Appendix 

D for detailed stipulation descriptions. 

Figure 2-10, Alternatives B and D: 

Nonenergy Solid Leasable Minerals

(Cross Bar Management Area); 

Appendix A.

Allocation: Manage 4,600 acres* of 

BLM surface and 4,423,000 acres of 

BLM-administered federal minerals as 

open to nonenergy solid leasable 

mineral development subject to 

stipulations, as applicable. See Appendix 

D for detailed stipulation descriptions.

Manage 10,500 acres as closed to 

nonenergy solid leasable mineral 

development.

Figure 2-11, Alternative C: 

Nonenergy Solid Leasable Minerals

(Cross Bar Management Area); 

Appendix A.

Allocation: Manage 15,100 acres*

of BLM surface and 4,423,000 

acres of BLM-administered federal 

minerals as open to nonenergy 

solid leasable mineral development 

subject to stipulations, as 

applicable. See Appendix D for 

detailed stipulation descriptions.

Figure 2-10, Alternatives B and 

D: Nonenergy Solid Leasable 

Minerals (Cross Bar Management 

Area); Appendix A.

127. Action: No areas managed as closed to 

nonenergy solid leasable mineral 

development.

Action: Manage the following areas as 

open to nonenergy solid leasable 

mineral development with a CSU 

stipulation: 

 Cross Bar SRMA

Action: Manage the following areas as 

closed to nonenergy solid leasable 

mineral development:

 Cross Bar ERMA

 Cross Bar Management Area ACEC

 WSR suitable segments

Action: Manage the following 

areas as open to nonenergy solid 

leasable mineral development with 

a CSU stipulation: 

 Cross Bar ERMA

128. Fluid Leasable Minerals (oil and gas, 

geothermal, tar sands)

129. Goal: Provide for fluid mineral 

exploration and development, 

consistent with other resource 

objectives.

Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-40 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

130. Objective: Provide for 

environmentally sound exploration and 

development of fluid mineral resources, 

while protecting natural resources.

Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Same as Alternative A.

131. Action: When drilling and abandoning 

wells, infiltration of oil, gas, or water 

into mineral deposits, mines, or 

workings must be prevented.

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A. 

132. Open to Fluid Mineral Leasing, subject to 

standard terms and conditions

133. Allocation:

Manage 2,615,100 acres* of BLMadministered minerals as open to fluid 

mineral leasing subject to standard 

terms and conditions: 

 BLM, split-estate, state managed 

surface (335,700 acres*)

 Other federal SMAs (2,279,400 

acres)

Allocation:

Manage 2,707,900 acres* of BLMadministered minerals as open to fluid 

mineral leasing subject to standard 

terms and conditions: 

 BLM, split-estate, state managed 

surface (184,900 acres*)

 other federal SMAs (2,523,000 acres)

Allocation:

Manage 2,174,700 acres* of BLMadministered minerals as open to fluid 

mineral leasing subject to standard 

terms and conditions: 

 BLM, split-estate, state managed 

surface (147,600 acres*)

 Other federal SMAs (2,026,800 

acres)

Allocation:

Manage 2,709,700 acres* of BLMadministered minerals as open to 

fluid mineral leasing subject to 

standard terms and conditions: 

 BLM, split-estate, state managed 

surface (186,700 acres*)

 Other federal SMAs (2,523,000 

acres)

134. Open with Major Stipulations

135. Allocation:

Manage 60,800** acres* of BLMadministered federal mineral estate and 

1,301,200** acres of federal mineral 

estate with other federal SMAs as open 

to fluid mineral leasing subject to major 

constraints, as applicable. See Appendix 

D for detailed stipulation description. 

Figure 2-15, Alternative A: BLM Fluid 

Mineral Leasing- Subject to Major 

Constraints (NSO); Appendix A.

**Not all of areas listed are mapped; 

calculation is based on available data. 

Allocation:

Manage 126,900** acres* of BLMadministered federal mineral estate* and 

1,423,700** acres of federal mineral 

estate with other federal SMAs as open 

to fluid mineral leasing subject to major

constraints, as applicable. See Appendix 

D for detailed stipulation description.

Figure 2-16, Alternative B: BLM Fluid 

Mineral Leasing- Subject to Major 

Constraints (NSO); Appendix A.

**Not all of areas listed are mapped; 

calculation is based on available data. 

Allocation:

Manage 115,400** acres* of BLMadministered federal mineral estate and 

1,397,200** acres of federal mineral 

estate with other federal SMAs as open 

to fluid mineral leasing subject to major

constraints, as applicable. See Appendix 

D for detailed stipulation description.

Figure 2-17, Alternative C: BLM Fluid 

Mineral Leasing- Subject to Major 

Constraints (NSO); Appendix A.

**Not all of areas listed are mapped; 

calculation is based on available data. 

Allocation:

Manage 126,900** acres* of BLMadministered federal mineral estate

and 1,423,700** acres of federal 

mineral estate with other federal 

SMAs as open to fluid mineral 

leasing subject to major

constraints, as applicable. See 

Appendix D for detailed stipulation 

description.

Figure 2-18, Alternative D: BLM 

Fluid Mineral Leasing- Subject to 

Major Constraints (NSO); 

Appendix A.

**Not all of areas listed are mapped; 

calculation is based on available data. 
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-41

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

136. Open with Moderate Stipulations

137. Allocation:

Manage 14,500** acres of BLMadministered federal mineral estate and 

0 acres of federal mineral with other 

federal SMAs estate as open to fluid 

mineral leasing, subject to moderate 

constraints, as applicable. See Appendix 

D for detailed stipulation description. 

Figure 2-19, Alternative A: BLM Fluid 

Mineral Leasing- Subject to Moderate 

Constraints (CSU); Appendix A.

**Not all of areas listed are mapped; 

calculation is based on available data.

Allocation:

Manage 191,500** acres* of BLMadministered surface and 0** acres of 

the federal mineral estate with other 

federal SMAs as open to fluid mineral 

leasing, subject to moderate constraints, 

as applicable. See Appendix D for 

detailed stipulation description.

Figure 2-20, Alternative B: BLM Fluid 

Mineral Leasing- Subject to Moderate 

Constraints (CSU); Appendix A.

**Not all of areas listed are mapped; 

calculation is based on available data.

Allocation:

Manage 202,300** acres of BLMadministered surface and 0** acres of 

the federal mineral estate with other 

federal SMAs as open to fluid mineral 

leasing subject to moderate

constraints, as applicable. See Appendix 

D for detailed stipulation description.

Figure 2-21, Alternative C: BLM Fluid 

Mineral Leasing- Subject to Moderate 

Constraints (CSU); Appendix A.

**Not all of areas listed are mapped; 

calculation is based on available data.

Allocation:

Manage 179,800** acres* of BLMadministered surface and 0** acres 

of the federal mineral estate with 

other federal SMAs as open to 

fluid mineral leasing subject to 

moderate constraints, as 

applicable. See Appendix D for 

detailed stipulation description.

Figure 2-22, Alternative D: BLM 

Fluid Mineral Leasing- Subject to 

Moderate Constraints (CSU); 

Appendix A.

**Not all of areas listed are mapped; 

calculation is based on available data.

138. Allocation:

Manage federal mineral estate as open 

to fluid mineral leasing subject to TLs,

as applicable (see Appendix D for full 

descriptions of Alternative A TLs).

Allocation:

Manage federal mineral estate as open 

to fluid mineral leasing subject to TLs, as 

applicable (see Appendix D for full 

descriptions of Alternative B TLs).

Allocation:

Manage federal mineral estate as open 

to fluid mineral leasing subject to TLs,

as applicable (see Appendix D for full 

descriptions of Alternative C TLs).

Allocation:

Manage federal mineral estate as 

open to fluid mineral leasing 

subject to TLs, as applicable (see 

Appendix D for full descriptions of 

Alternative D TLs).

139. Closed to Fluid Mineral Leasing

140. Allocation:

Manage 50,600 acres of BLMadministered surface and federal 

mineral estate as closed to fluid mineral 

leasing in the 

 Cross Bar Management Area.

Manage 410,800** acres of federal 

mineral estate with other federal SMAs 

as closed to fluid mineral leasing, as 

identified in the Oklahoma, Texas, and 

Kansas RMPs and RMP Amendments: 

Allocation:

Manage 0 acres of BLM-administered 

surface and federal mineral estate as 

closed to fluid mineral leasing.

Manage 44,800** acres of federal 

mineral estate with other federal SMAs 

as closed to fluid mineral leasing: 

 Department of Defense

Figure 2-13, Alternatives B and D: 

BLM Fluid Mineral Leasing; Appendix A.

Allocation:

Manage 50,600 acres of BLMadministered surface and federal 

mineral estate as closed to fluid 

mineral leasing in the Cross Bar

Management.

Manage 567,500** acres of federal 

mineral estate with other federal SMAs 

as closed to fluid mineral leasing: 

 Department of Defense:

 USDA Research Stations

Allocation: Same as Alternative 

B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-42 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

 Department of Defense

 USDA/Agricultural Research Station:

 Department of Justice/ Bureau of 

Prisons

 USFWS

Figure 2-12, Alternative A: BLM Fluid 

Mineral Leasing; Appendix A.

**Not all of areas listed are mapped; 

calculation is based on available data. 

**Not all of areas listed are mapped; 

calculation is based on available data. 

 Department of Justice lands

 National Wildlife Refuges

Figure 2-14, Alternative C: BLM Fluid 

Mineral Leasing; Appendix A.

**Not all of areas listed are mapped; 

calculation is based on available data. 

141. Lease Notices

142. LNs may apply to future leases (see 

Appendix D for full descriptions of 

Alternative A LNs).

 LNs may apply to future leases (see 

Appendix D for full descriptions of 

Alternative B LNs).

 LNs may apply to future leases (see 

Appendix D for full descriptions of 

Alternative C LNs).

 LNs may apply to future leases 

(see Appendix D for full 

descriptions of Alternative D 

LNs).

143. Livestock Grazing 

144. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Provide for livestock grazing by 

applying proper grazing management to 

maintain or improve the condition of 

vegetation; contribute to healthy 

sustainable ecosystems, clean water, and 

functional watersheds in accordance 

with 43 CFR 4180.1. 

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

145. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Improve/maintain rangeland 

health in accordance with Fundamentals 

of Rangeland Health and Standards and 

guidelines for grazing administration 

(see 43 CFR 4180) to ensure properly 

functioning ecosystems and to provide a 

sustainable forage base.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

146. Action: No similar action. Action: Develop Rangeland Health 

Standards in accordance with BLM 

standards and guidelines for grazing 

administration. Interim management will 

follow fallback standards and guidelines 

identified in BLM standards and 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-43

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

guidelines for grazing administration. 

See 43 CFR 4180.2 (f)(1) and (f)(2) for 

further information.

147. Allowable use: Continue to manage 

livestock grazing as follows: 

 3,300 acres* available

 11,800 acres unavailable

Livestock grazing would be managed in 

accordance with fallback standards and 

guidelines until specific standards and 

guidelines are developed.

Figure 2-23 and Figure 2-24,

Alternative A: Livestock Grazing; 

Appendix A.

Allowable use: Manage livestock 

grazing as follows: 

 15,100 acres* available

 0 acres unavailable

Livestock grazing would be managed in 

accordance with fallback standards and 

guidelines until specific standards and 

guidelines are developed. 

Figure 2-25 and Figure 2-24,

Alternative B: Livestock Grazing; 

Appendix A.

Allowable use: Manage livestock 

grazing as follows: 

 0 acres available

 15,100 acres* unavailable

Figure 2-23 and Figure 2-26,

Alternative C: Livestock Grazing; 

Appendix A.

Allowable use: Same as 

Alternative B. 

148. Allowable use: The Cross Bar 

Management Area is unavailable for 

permitted livestock grazing. Use of 

livestock for vegetation manipulation 

purposes is allowed. 

Allowable use: The Cross Bar 

Management Area (11,800 acres) is 

available for livestock grazing. (animal 

unit months [AUMs] to be based on 

forage production surveys).

Allowable use: Same as Alternative 

A.

Allowable use: Same as 

Alternative B. 

149. Allowable Use: The Red River area is 

available for livestock grazing.

Allowable Use: Same as Alternative A. Allowable Use: The Red River area is 

unavailable for livestock grazing.

Allowable Use: Same as 

Alternative A.

150. Action: No similar action. Action: Coordinate with local 

landowners to obtain and secure access 

to existing grazing allotments. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

151. Action: Current AUMs in existing 

allotments:

 36 AUMs in Blaine Allotment

 51 AUMs Tillman 1 Allotment

 36 AUMs Tillman 2 Allotment

 15 AUMs Jefferson Allotment

Action: Proposed AUMs in existing 

allotments:

 36 AUMs in Blaine Allotment

 51 AUMs Tillman 1 Allotment

 36 AUMs Tillman 2 Allotment

 15 AUMs Jefferson Allotment

 All other lands available for grazing

AUMs to be determined based on 

forage production.

Action: Proposed AUMs in existing 

allotments:

 0 AUMs in Blaine Allotment

 0 AUMs Tillman 1 Allotment

 0 AUMs Tillman 2 Allotment

 0 AUMs Jefferson Allotment

Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-44 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

152. Action: No similar action. Action: If new areas are opened for 

grazing, determine AUMs on a case-bycase basis, based on range conditions 

and other factors related to grazing 

management. Authorized AUMs will be 

adjusted based on monitoring results 

and resource conditions.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

153. Action: No similar action. Action: Use prescriptive grazing as 

necessary for vegetation manipulation 

outside of grazing leases to meet 

project objectives.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

154. Action: No similar action. Action: Range improvements will be 

authorized as necessary to facilitate 

proper grazing management and to 

maintain and enhance rangeland health.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

155. Recreation and Visitor Services

156. Goal: The FLPMA provides for 

management of outdoor recreation on 

public lands. Section 202(c)(9) calls for 

land use planning consistent with 

statewide outdoor recreation plans. 

Recreation use is managed in order to 

protect the health and safety of visitors 

and to protect natural, cultural, and 

other resource values to facilitate public 

enjoyment of public lands and to 

resolve user conflicts. Providing 

opportunities for unconfined recreation 

close to major urban areas is stressed 

(BLM 2000).

Goal: Provide for a diversity of 

recreational opportunities that add to 

the recreation participant’s quality of 

life, while protecting natural and cultural 

resources. 

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

157. Action: Recreational target shooting 

shall be conducted in accordance with 

Federal and State laws. 

Action: Recreational target shooting 

shall be conducted in accordance with 

Federal and State laws, regulations, and 

management policies and proscriptions.

Action: Recreational target shooting 

would be prohibited in the decision 

area (15,100 acres*).

Action: Same as Alternative A.

158. Action: Cross Bar Management Area:

Recreation resources are evaluated on 

a case-by-case basis as a part of projectAction: Designate a portion of the 

Cross Bar Management Area as an 

SRMA (9,900 acres).

Action: Designate a portion of the 

Cross Bar Management Area as an 

ERMA (9,900 acres).

Action: Designate a portion of

the Cross Bar Management Area

as an ERMA (9,900 acres).
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-45

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

level planning. Such evaluation considers 

the significance of the proposed project 

and the sensitivity of recreation 

resources in the affected area. 

Stipulations are attached, as 

appropriate, to ensure compatibility of 

projects with recreation management 

objectives (BLM 2000).

SRMA specific outcome-focused 

objectives, proposed recreation setting 

characteristics, and the management 

framework can be found in Appendix E, 

Recreation Management Areas. 

Manage as:

 Off-road vehicle use is limited (see 

Chapter 8, Glossary for definition of 

limited)

 NSO fluid minerals

 Open to mineral material disposal

with a special consideration

 Open to nonenergy leasables with a 

CSU

 ROW avoidance

 Manage as VRM Class III

 Recommend for retention

Figure 2-27, Alternatives B, C, and D: 

Recreation Management Areas; 

Appendix A.

ERMA specific outcome-focused 

objectives, proposed recreation setting 

characteristics, and the management 

framework can be found in Appendix 

E, Recreation Management Areas. 

Manage as:

 Off-road vehicle use is limited (see 

Chapter 8, Glossary for definition of 

limited)

 Closed to fluid mineral leasing 

 Closed to mineral material disposal

and nonenergy leasables

 ROW avoidance

 Manage as VRM Class II

 Recommend for retention

Figure 2-27, Alternatives B, C, and D: 

Recreation Management Areas; 

Appendix A.

ERMA specific outcome-focused 

objectives, proposed recreation 

setting characteristics, and the 

management framework can be 

found in Appendix E, Recreation 

Management Areas. 

Manage as:

 Same as Alternative B.

Figure 2-27, Alternatives B, C, 

and D: Recreation Management 

Areas; Appendix A.

159. Travel, Transportation 

Management, and Access

160. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Manage off-road vehicle access 

that would balance resource protection 

and uses. 

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

161. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Minimize user conflicts. Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Allow maximum use, 

while minimizing user conflict.

162. Off-Road Vehicle Use

163. Allowable use: Manage BLMadministered surface lands as the 

following: 

 15,100 acres*: open to all types of 

vehicle use

 0 acres: closed to off-road vehicle

use 

Allowable use: Manage BLMadministered surface lands as the 

following: 

 0 acres: open to all types of vehicle 

use

 0 acres: closed to off-road vehicle use

 15,100 acres*: off-road vehicle use is 

Allowable use: Manage BLMadministered surface lands as the 

following: 

 0 acres: open to all types of vehicle 

use

 Red River Area*: closed to off-road 

vehicle use

Allowable use: Same as 

Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-46 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

 0 acres: off-road vehicle use is limited 

(see Chapter 8, Glossary for 

definition of limited)

Figure 2-28, Alternative A: Travel, 

Transportation Management, and 

Access (Cross Bar Management Area); 

Appendix A.

limited (see Chapter 8, Glossary for 

definition of limited)

Figure 2-29, Alternatives B, C, and D: 

Travel, Transportation Management, 

and Access (Cross Bar Management 

Area); Appendix A.

 15,100 acres: off-road vehicle use is 

limited (see Chapter 8, Glossary for 

definition of limited)

Figure 2-29, Alternatives B, C, and D: 

Travel, Transportation Management, 

and Access (Cross Bar Management 

Area); Appendix A.

164. Allowable use: Cross Bar 

Management Area: The use of off-road 

vehicles on BLM-administered land is 

regulated in accordance with the 

authority and requirements of 

Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 and 

regulations contained in 43 CFR 8340. 

These regulations and Executive Orders 

require that off-road vehicle use not 

cause significant adverse impacts on 

resource values, that conflicts between 

visitors be minimized, and that public 

hazards be identified, and public safety 

be promoted (BLM 2000).

Allowable use: Manage BLMadministered surface lands as the 

following at the Cross Bar Management 

Area: 

 0 acres: open to vehicle use

 0 acres: closed to off-road vehicle use 

(except for the access road, which is 

open for administrative use)

 11,800 acres: off-road vehicle use is 

limited (see Chapter 8, Glossary for 

definition of limited)

Allowable use: Manage BLMadministered surface lands as the 

following at the Cross Bar Management 

Area: 

 0 acres: open to all types of vehicle 

use

 0 acres: closed to off-road vehicle

use

 11,800 acres: off-road vehicle use is 

limited (see Chapter 8, Glossary for 

definition of limited)

Allowable use: Same as 

Alternative B. 

165. Allowable use: Continue to manage

the Red River area as open to all types 

of vehicle use.

Allowable use: Manage BLMadministered surface lands as the 

following for off-road vehicle use in the 

Red River area:

 Off-road vehicle use is limited (see 

Chapter 8, Glossary for definition of 

limited)

Allowable use: Manage BLMadministered surface lands as the 

following for off-road vehicle use in the 

Red River area:

 Closed to off-road vehicle use

Allowable use: Same as 

Alternative B. 

166. Access

167. Action: No similar action. Action: Obtain permanent access to 

isolated BLM-administered surface 

parcels. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

168. Action: No similar action. Action: If property has no legal access, 

manage the area as closed to off-road 

vehicle use. If legal access is obtained, 

manage the area as limited for off-road 

vehicle use. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-47

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

169. Lands and Realty, Including 

Renewable Energy (Wind, Solar, 

Hydro, and Biomass)

170. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Manage land tenure adjustment

and use of public lands to meet the 

needs of internal and external 

customers, to maintain or preserve 

important resource values, and to 

provide better access for managing and 

protecting public lands. Obtain 

permanent access to isolated BLMadministered surface parcels.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

171. Land Use Authorizations

172. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Address the needs of 

industry, utilities, the public, Federally 

recognized Indian tribes, and 

government entities for land use 

authorizations, while minimizing adverse 

impacts on other resource values.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

173. Action: No similar action. Action: Encourage applicants to locate 

new facilities within previously disturbed 

areas or adjacent similar ROWs.

Action: Require that new facilities or 

upgrades to existing facilities be built in 

areas with previous disturbance and 

existing facilities, as determined 

practical and consistent with other 

resource values. If existing 

facilities/disturbance do/does not exist, 

the area would be excluded from 

development. 

Action: Same as Alternative B.

174. Allowable Use: No similar allowable 

use.

Allowable Use: Manage the following 

areas as ROW exclusion areas for new 

land use authorizations (200** acres):

 Significant cultural properties and 

sacred cultural sites allocated to 

conservation for future use, traditional 

use (e.g., TCPs), and public use

 Burial sites

 Designated critical habitat

Allowable Use: Same as Alternative 

B. Plus:

 Any special status species habitat

 Cemeteries

 Occupied buildings

Note: Not all of areas listed are mapped; 

calculation is based on available data. 

Allowable Use: No similar 

allowable use.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-48 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

**Not all of areas listed are mapped; 

calculation is based on available data. 

175. Allowable Use: No similar allowable 

use.

Allowable Use:

Manage the following areas as ROW

avoidance areas for new land use 

authorizations (12,700** acres*):

 Cross Bar SRMA

 WSR suitable segments

 Highly erodible soils

 Riparian-wetland areas

 Any special status species habitat

 VRM Class 1 and II

 Floodplains

 Cemeteries 

 Occupied buildings

 IBAs

Figure 2-30, Alternatives B and D: 

Right-of-Way (Cross Bar Management 

Area); Appendix A.

**Not all of areas listed are mapped; 

calculation is based on available data. 

Allowable Use:

Manage the following areas as ROW

avoidance areas for new land use 

authorizations (14,800** acres*):

 Cross Bar Management Area ACEC

 Cross Bar ERMA

 WSR suitable segments

 Highly erodible soils

 Prime farmlands

 Riparian-wetland areas

 VRM Class 1 and II

 Floodplains

 IBAs

Figure 2-31, Alternative C: Right-ofWay (Cross Bar Management Area); 

Appendix A.

**Not all of areas listed are mapped; 

calculation is based on available data. 

Allowable Use: Manage the 

following areas as ROW avoidance 

areas for new land use 

authorizations (9,900 acres):

 Cross Bar ERMA

176. Land Tenure

177. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Make land tenure

adjustments for public benefit, in order 

to consolidate land patterns, ensure 

effective administration, improve 

resource management, maintain public 

values and access to the BLMadministered lands, and support 

community development.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

178. Action: Isolated tracts of BLMadministered federal surface estate 

meet the disposal criteria listed in 

section 203 of FLPMA (see Appendix 

N). There may also be additional tracts 

Action: Appendix N lists legal land 

descriptions of isolated tracts of public 

land, as well as certain lands in the 

Cross Bar Management Area, which the 

BLM has identified as meeting the 

Action: Appendix N lists legal land 

descriptions of isolated tracts of public 

land, as well as certain lands in the 

Cross Bar Management Area, which 

the BLM has identified as meeting the 

Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-49

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

of public land in the state that are 

presently unidentified due to 

deficiencies in existing land status 

records.

Any unidentified tracts detected would 

be disposed of through procedures 

outlined in 43 CFR 2710, Sales, or 43 

CFR 2740. If at some future date, 

abandoned railroad corridors revert to 

federal ownership, the corridors would 

be evaluated for potential rails-to-trails 

projects, with full public participation as 

required by law (BLM 1991). 

The BLM would pursue disposal of all 

town site reserves. Those in 

incorporated towns or cities would be 

transferred to those towns or cities 

that desire such a transfer. The 

remaining parcels would then be 

offered, based on the “needs of federal, 

state, and local governments, adjoining 

landowners, historical uses, and 

competitive interests.” This would 

result in first making these parcels 

available to other federal agencies, 

followed respectively by offerings to the 

State of Oklahoma and then local 

government entities that are in vicinity 

of the lands for augmentation or 

implementation of their specific 

missions. The lands would next be 

offered to adjoining landowners and 

finally to individuals and the general 

public. Disposal would be through sales, 

the Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

of 1976, and the Color-of Title Act 

disposal criteria in section 203 of 

FLPMA. 

Consider the following when evaluating 

surface lands for disposal:

 Public resource values, including but 

not limited to:

o Threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species habitat

o Developed recreation and 

recreation access sites

o Class A scenery

o Energy and mineral potential

o Significant cultural properties, 

TCPs, and cultural sites 

o Other statute-authorized 

designations (e.g., National 

Historic and Scenic Trails) 

 Accessibility of the land for public 

uses 

 Amount of public investment in 

facilities or improvements and the 

potential for recovering those 

investments

 Difficulty or cost of administration 

(manageability) 

 Suitability of the land for management 

by another federal agency

 Encumbrances, including:

o Recreation and public purposes 

and small tract leases

o Withdrawals

o Other leases or permits 

 Consistency of the decision with 

cooperative agreements and plans or 

policies of other agencies

 Suitability and need for change in 

disposal criteria in section 203 of 

FLPMA.

Disposals would not be considered on 

lands that meet one or more of the 

criteria in Alternative B. Those lands 

would be retained. This list is not 

considered all-inclusive but represents 

the major factors to be evaluated. 

These criteria may be modified in the 

future to ensure consistency with BLM 

policy. 
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-50 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

(BLM 1994a). landownership or use for such 

purposes as community expansion or 

economic development, such as 

industrial, residential, or agricultural 

(other than grazing) development.

179. Action: No similar action. Action: Pursue acquisitions as 

opportunities arise through exchange or 

purchase with willing proponents or 

sellers. Any new acquisitions would 

have to include permanent public access

to those parcels. The emphasis for 

acquisition would be on parcels that 

meet the following criteria:

 Is within or adjacent to BLMadministered surface estate for 

improved management and meeting 

resource objectives

 Provides access to BLM-administered 

surface estate

 Provides resource value that benefits 

the public, including: 

o Threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species habitat

o Riparian areas

o Fisheries, nesting/breeding habitat 

for game animals

o Key big game seasonal habitat

o Developed recreation and 

recreation access sites

o Class A scenery

o Energy and mineral potential

o Significant cultural properties, 

TCPs, and cultural sites 

o Other statute-authorized 

designations (e.g., National 

Historic and Scenic Trails) 

 Accessibility of the land for public 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: No similar action. 
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-51

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

uses 

 Amount of public investments in 

facilities or improvements and the 

potential for recovering those 

investments

 Difficulty or cost of administration 

(manageability) 

180. Forest, Woodland, and Special 

Products 

181. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Provide opportunities for 

traditional and nontraditional uses of 

forest and woodland products on a 

sustainable and multiple-use basis. 

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

182. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Manage timberland and 

woodland resources in tandem with 

other natural resources, with respect 

for traditional, religious, and cultural 

uses and values.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

183. Action: No similar action. Action: For areas identified with 

harvest potential, inventory and develop 

the probable sale quantity. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

184. Allowable Use: No similar allowable 

use. 

Allowable Use: All areas with viable 

timber stands are available for harvest, 

except in RMAs. Identify and preserve 

(avoid, minimize, or mitigate) areas with 

historic properties, including TCPs or 

sacred sites, through consultation with 

Federally recognized Indian tribes.

Allowable Use: No similar allowable 

use. No areas would be available for 

commercial harvest. 

Allowable Use: Same as 

Alternative B.

185. Special Designations

186. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)

187. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: ACECs would be managed to 

protect the important biological, 

cultural, paleontological, scenic, and 

historic resources that meet the criteria 

for relevance and importance and 

require special management attention. 

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-52 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

188. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Protect the relevant and 

important values of each designated 

ACEC, as appropriate: historic, cultural, 

paleontological, scenic, fish or wildlife 

resources natural systems or processes 

and natural hazard values in designated 

ACECs.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

189. Action: No similar action. Action: No similar action. Action: Manage the Cross Bar 

Management Area as an ACEC (10,500 

acres), except for Management Units 

19 and 21.

Figure 2-32, Alternative C: ACEC

(Cross Bar Management Area); 

Appendix A.

Action: No similar action.

190. Action: No similar action. Action: No similar action. Action: Manage the Cross Bar 

Management Area ACEC as follows: 

 Off-road vehicle use is limited (see 

Chapter 8, Glossary for definition of 

limited)

 Closed to fluid mineral leasing 

 Closed to mineral material disposal

and nonenergy leasables

 ROW avoidance

 Manage as VRM Class II

 Recommend for retention

Action: No similar action.

191. Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSRs)

192. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Protect the fish, wildlife, cultural, 

historic, paleontological, scenic, 

geological, and other resource values as 

appropriate to those rivers that are 

eligible, suitable, or designated as part of 

the National WSR system. 

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

193. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Maintain or enhance 

outstandingly remarkable values 

(ORVs), free-flowing character, water 

quality, and tentative classification of 

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-53

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

designated and suitable National WSR 

system segments. 

194. Action: Manage the Canadian River as 

eligible for inclusion in the National 

WSR System (see Table 2-4). 

Figure 2-33, Alternatives A, B, and C: 

Wild and Scenic Rivers; Appendix A.

Action: Determine the 7.25-mile 

Canadian River segment as preliminarily 

suitable for Congressional designation 

and inclusion into the National WSR 

System (see Table 2-4). 

Figure 2-33, Alternatives A, B, and C: 

Wild and Scenic Rivers; Appendix A.

Action: Same as Alternative B (see 

Table 2-4).

Action: Determine the Canadian 

River segment as not suitable for 

inclusion in the National WSR 

System and release from interim 

protective management.

195. Action: Apply interim protective 

management to preserve the freeflowing nature, outstandingly 

remarkable values, and preliminary 

classification. 

Action: Manage this segment (1,100 

acres) as follows:

 Preliminary classification: 

Recreational

 VRM Class III

 ROW avoidance

Action: Manage this segment (1,100 

acres) as follows:

 Preliminary classification: 

Recreational

 VRM Class II

 ROW avoidance

Action: No similar action. 

196. Socioeconomics

197. Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests

198. Goal: Ensure government-togovernment consultation with Federally 

recognized Indian tribes that explicitly 

identifies and addresses extant tribal 

treaty rights for all impacted Federally 

recognized Indian tribes and provides 

an opportunity for tribal issues and 

concerns to be identified and accounted 

for in planning.

Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A.

199. Objective: Protect cultural properties, 

places, or objects important to Federally

recognized Indian tribes to the degree 

possible under law, regulations, and 

guidance. Confidential information about 

tribal practices and beliefs, the location 

with which they are associated, and 

sacred sites would be kept confidential 

and protected from public disclosure to 

the extent allowed by law.

Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Same as Alternative A.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-2: Description of BLM Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-54 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BLM Preferred) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation)

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

200. Action: Identify places of importance 

to Federally recognized Indian tribes, 

ethnic communities, historic 

communities of practice, and other 

appropriate groups, through public 

outreach, public involvement, and other 

consultation processes. Account for 

impacts of proposed actions on the 

social and economic setting of 

traditional communities and Federally 

recognized Indian tribes.

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A.

201. Action: Consider impacts on social 

conditions for all impacted cultural and 

ethnic groups, assess impacts to market 

and non-market economics within all 

planning areas, and identify and assess 

impacts to environmental justice

communities in all NEPA and BLM 

planning documents.

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A.

202. Public Health and Safety

203. Goal: No similar goal. Goal: Provide for public health and 

safety, especially in areas of concern, in 

development sites and areas of 

concentrated use.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

204. Objective: No similar objective. Objective: Adhere to applicable and 

relevant rules and regulations regarding 

public health and safety on BLMadministered lands. 

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Same as Alternative B.

205. Action: No similar action. Action: Require operators to educate 

the public of hazardous conditions 

through appropriate means, such as 

posting signs.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

206. Action: No similar action. Action: Require operators to 

implement project-specific health and 

safety plans. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Same as Alternative B.

 Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian that will be 

more specifically identified and mapped when they are surveyed. (No exact acreages of federal lands are available at this time because the full 116-mile 

stretch has not been surveyed.) Any such survey would be conducted in accordance with applicable law.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-55

Table 2-3

Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Air Resources Minerals (Fluid and Solid) Travel, Transportation Management, and Access

Cave and Karst Resources Oil and Gas Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests

Cultural Resources Solid Leasable Minerals Vegetation

Fish, Wildlife, and Recreation Paleontological Resources Forest, Woodlands, and Special Products

Migratory Birds Public Health and Safety Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

Recreation and Visitor Services Soils, Agriculture, and Livestock Grazing Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants 

Lands and Realty Soils and Agriculture Visual Resources

Land Use Authorizations Livestock Grazing Water Resources

Land Tenure Special Status Species Wildland Fire Ecology and Fuels Management

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

Resources

1. Air Resources

2. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Maintain existing air quality and 

air quality related values, such as 

visibility, by requiring that the BIA 

minimize impacts on air quality and 

comply with all applicable air quality 

laws, rules, and regulations.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

3. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Mainstream climate 

considerations into BIA actions at the 

project level through leadership, 

delivery of tools and data, training, and 

tribal capacity building.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

4. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Improve agency environmental 

performance to meet Executive Order

13693 sustainability goals.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

5. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Maintain the quality of air 

resources and limit impacts on air 

quality to meet NAAQS and tribal 

directives. 

Objective: Pursue actions that will 

improve the quality of air resources 

and avoid impacts on air quality to 

meet NAAQS and tribal directives.

Objective: Allow temporary 

adverse impacts on air quality and 

air quality related values, to the 

extent allowed by applicable law, 

when necessary to promote mineral 

or other resource development.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-56 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

6. Objective: Implement sustainable 

practices for energy efficiency, 

greenhouse gas emission reduction, 

renewable energy, water conservation, 

pollution and waste minimization, 

recycling, reduction or elimination of 

toxic or hazardous chemicals,

reduction in petroleum products use, 

and green purchasing, among others.

Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Develop agency 

sustainability plans and goals that 

exceed Executive Order 13693 

expectations.

Objective: No BIA sustainability 

program or objectives.

7. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Manage BIA actions and 

land use authorizations to prevent 

significant deterioration of federal

Class 1 areas and exceeding air quality

standards in the planning area by other 

applicable federal or tribal air quality 

standards.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Defer to other agencies 

with primary jurisdiction for air.

8. Action: Hazardous fuels reduction (for 

example, prescribed burns) should be 

planned and implemented in an 

interdisciplinary and collaborative 

manner with Federally recognized Indian 

tribes and other federal, state, and local 

partners that prevents deterioration of 

air quality and NAAQS violations and 

addresses visibility impacts on Class 1 

federal areas, in accordance with 

regional air rules.

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Avoid air impacts from fire by 

avoiding prescribed burns as a 

hazardous fuels reduction method–

utilize only where there is an 

immediate public safety concern.

Action: Prioritize and enhance 

prescribed burns to reduce 

hazardous fuels to maximum extent, 

unless prohibited by law.

9. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Ensure management activities 

and authorized uses are designed to 

comply with federal, state, and tribal 

air quality regulations, classifications, 

standards, and air pollution 

requirements as applicable.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Defer air decisions to 

agencies with primary jurisdiction.

10. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Implement BMPs to reduce 

emissions and encourage industry and 

other permittees to adopt measures to 

reduce emissions. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Only adopt such measures 

as are needed to meet minimum 

requirements of applicable law.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-57

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

11. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Implement BMPs as 

appropriate to discourage fugitive dust

during ground-disturbing activities. 

BMP examples are as follows:

 Reduce dirt loading on windy days 

(greater than 20 mph)

 Water roads

 Emergency contour tillage

(see Appendix C, BMPs)

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Only adopt such measures 

as are needed to meet minimum 

requirements of applicable law.

12. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Coordinate with Federally 

recognized Indian tribes to develop a 

strategic climate change program.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: No BIA climate 

program. All funding directed to 

Federally recognized Indian tribes.

13. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Implement strategic climate 

change program assessments and 

action plans for interested Federally 

recognized Indian tribes.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: No BIA program. Assist 

Federally recognized Indian tribes 

upon request.

14. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Partner with Federally 

recognized Indian tribes and the 

Climate Science Center to identify one 

critical sector for a regional 

vulnerability analysis. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: No BIA climate program.

15. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Participate in Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives and 

Climate Science Centers. 

Action: Prioritize work with USDA,

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives 

and Climate Science Centers.

Action: Reduce BIA participation 

in climate change-related activities.

16. Action: Distribute funding from the 

BIA Climate Change Program to 

Federally recognized Indian tribes,

based on program guidelines.

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Actively seek additional 

funding for Federally recognized Indian 

tribes.

Action: Disengage in climate 

change funding program; redirect 

efforts to resource development.

17. Water Resources

18. Goal Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Manage surface and 

groundwater quality to maintain, 

improve, or restore chemical, physical, 

and biological function of water 

resources.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-58 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

19. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Protect aquatic habitats, in 

accordance with established water 

quality standards.

Objective: Actively develop, improve, 

and enforce BMPs and permit 

conditions to comply with applicable 

water quality standards.

Objective: Defer to other agencies 

with primary jurisdiction for aquatic 

habitats.

20. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Minimize the use of surface 

water and groundwater (e.g., during 

agricultural and fluid mineral 

development).

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Prioritize mineral 

development and utilize water as 

needed.

21. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Manage activities that may 

affect impaired (303d-listed) water 

bodies and minimize contribution to 

total maximum daily load (TMDL)

requirements.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Defer water quality

impairment concerns to agencies 

with primary jurisdiction.

22. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Encourage the use of 

treatable nonpotable water for 

industrial purposes, including dust 

abatement, facility construction, 

agriculture, and oil and gas operations.

Action: When possible, require the 

use of treatable nonpotable water for 

industrial purposes, through permit 

conditions or enforceable BMPs.

Action: Take no action.

23. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Impose buffers when 

appropriate and necessary to prevent 

adverse water quality impacts and 

adverse impacts on water bodies and 

springs. Buffer sizes will be adjusted as 

necessary, based on site-specific 

conditions and tribal consultation 

around perennial streams, rivers, 

ponds, springs, seeps, reservoirs, 100-

year floodplains, or other Waters of 

the US, unless the project could be 

conducted without adversely impacting 

these resources. 

Action: Pending consultation, allow no 

site-specific activities within 415 feet of 

perennial streams, rivers, ponds, 

springs, seeps, reservoirs, 100-year 

floodplains, or other Waters of the US

unless it is demonstrated that the 

project can be conducted without 

adversely impacting these resources.

Action: Pending consultation, no 

site-specific activities within 660 

feet of perennial streams, rivers, 

ponds, springs, seeps, reservoirs, 

100-year floodplains, or other 

Waters of the US would be 

approved, unless the project could 

be conducted without adversely 

impacting these resources.

24. Disclosure Statement: No similar 

disclosure statement. 

Disclosure Statement: All or 

portions of the lands under this lease 

lie in or next to a major watercourse 

and are subject to periodic flooding.

Surface development in these areas 

may be restricted or relocated in the 

lease area during the subsequent 

Disclosure Statement: All or 

portions of the lands under this lease 

lie in or next to a major watercourse 

and are subject to periodic flooding.

Surface occupancy of these areas will 

not be allowed without the specific 

approval during the subsequent 

Disclosure Statement: All or 

portions of the lands under this 

lease lie in or next to a major 

watercourse and are subject to 

periodic flooding. Surface 

occupancy of these areas may be 

allowed on a case-by-case basis 
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-59

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

permitting and NEPA process. 

Note: There is an exception/

modification for drilling and boring, as long 

as it does not affect hydrology.

permitting and NEPA process. pending the subsequent permitting 

and NEPA process.

25. Action: Distribute funding from the 

BIA Water Program to assist Federally 

recognized Indian tribes in evaluating 

water resources and rights.

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Prioritize this program and 

seek additional funding sources for the 

Federally recognized Indian tribes.

Action: Same as Alternative A.

26. Vegetation

27. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Promote the health and function 

of natural vegetation communities, with 

an emphasis on high-priority habitats 

or species identified in the federal, 

state, and tribal wildlife action plans.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

28. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented

regional objective.

Objective: Avoid actions that would 

degrade the health and function of 

existing natural vegetation 

communities.

Objective: Avoid actions that would 

degrade and take actions that will 

improve degraded vegetation 

communities to promote natural 

processes and move toward historical 

native plant communities.

Objective: Comply with minimum 

standards set forth in executive 

orders, laws, regulations, guidance, 

and court decrees.

29. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Use vegetation treatments 

(e.g., mechanical, chemical, and 

biological) to move toward historical

native plant community, as identified 

through consultation with THPOs and 

interested Federally recognized Indian 

tribes.

Action: Use vegetation treatments 

(e.g., mechanical and biological but no 

chemical) to move toward historical

native plant community, including 

active planting of native species, as 

identified through consultation with 

THPOs and Federally recognized Indian

tribes.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

30. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Avoid or minimize 

disturbance to culturally valued plant 

species, based on consultation with 

THPOs, interested Federally 

recognized Indian tribes, and 

landowners.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Mitigate disturbance to 

culturally valued plant species,

based on consultation with THPOs, 

interested Federally recognized 

Indian tribes, and landowners.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-60 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

31. Forests, Woodlands, and Special Products

32. Objective: Manage and protect all 

woodlands on Indian forest lands by 

applying sound silvicultural principles.

Protect forest and woodlands that are 

culturally significant and to protect 

TCPs as identified through consultation 

with THPOs and interested Federally

recognized Indian tribes.

Objective: Manage and protect all 

woodlands on Indian forest lands, in 

collaboration with Federally recognized 

Indian tribes, by applying sound 

silvicultural principles. Protect forest 

and woodlands that are culturally 

significant and to protect TCPs as 

identified through consultation with 

THPOs and interested Federally

recognized Indian tribes.

Objective: Prioritize woodland

protection as part of a natural 

ecosystem; improve and update 

silvicultural principles applied when it is 

necessary or appropriate to actively 

manage woodlands for commercial 

purposes or to meet sustainable forest 

objectives. Protect forest and 

woodlands that are culturally significant 

and to protect TCPs as identified 

through consultation with THPOs and 

interested Federally recognized Indian 

tribes.

Objective: Allow and promote 

woodland uses for the greatest 

immediate economic gain, including 

clearcutting and monoculture.

Protect forest and woodlands that 

are culturally significant and to 

protect TCPs as identified through

consultation with THPOs and 

interested Federally recognized 

Indian tribes.

33. Wetlands and Riparian Areas

34. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Protect and improve 

riparian and wetland communities to 

ensure ecological function and to meet 

cultural traditions.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Meet minimum 

requirements for protection of 

wetland and riparian communities. 

Consult with affected Federally 

recognized Indian tribe(s) to 

determine whether mineral and/or 

other development should have 

higher priority.

35. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Allow for cultural harvesting 

of riparian vegetation (e.g., willows and 

river cane).

Action: Allow for cultural harvesting 

of riparian vegetation (e.g., willows and 

river cane), to the extent it does not 

have a significant adverse impact on a 

species or community.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

36. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Avoid impacts to maintain 

proper functionality of riparian and 

wetland communities.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Meet minimum 

requirements for protection of 

wetland and riparian communities. 

Consult with affected Federally 

recognized Indian tribe(s) to 

determine whether mineral and/or 

other development should have

higher priority, after considering 

appropriate factors such as wetland 

values.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-61

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

37. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Establish buffers. Buffer sizes 

will be adjusted, as necessary, based on 

site-specific conditions and tribal 

consultation around wetland/riparian

areas (including springs and seeps),

unless the project could be conducted 

without adversely impacting these 

resources. 

Action: Pending consultation, no sitespecific activities within 415 feet of 

riparian and wetland areas would be 

approved unless the project could be 

conducted without adversely impacting 

these resources.

Action: Pending consultation, no 

site-specific activities within 660 

feet of riparian and wetland areas 

would be approved unless the 

project could be conducted without 

adversely impacting these 

resources, or unless USACE and 

the Federally recognized Indian 

tribe approve, or unless, for nonjurisdictional wetlands, the Federally 

recognized Indian tribe approves.

38. Disclosure Statement: No similar 

disclosure statement.

Disclosure Statement: All or 

portions of the lands under this lease 

contain wetland or riparian areas or 

both. Surface development of these 

areas and within a designated buffer 

may be restricted or relocated in the 

lease area during the subsequent 

permitting and NEPA process. Avoid 

or mitigate any potential impacts on or 

disturbance to wetlands and riparian 

habitats on this lease. Develop any 

required mitigation during the 

Application for Permit to Drill process.

Exception/modification for drilling and 

boring as long as not to affect riparian

wetland function.

Disclosure Statement: All or 

portions of the lands under this lease 

contain wetland or riparian areas or 

both. Surface occupancy of these areas 

and within a designated buffer will not 

be allowed without specific approval 

during the subsequent permitting and 

NEPA process. Avoid or mitigate any 

impacts on or disturbance to wetlands 

and riparian habitats on this lease.

Develop the mitigation during the 

Application for Permit to Drill. 

Disclosure Statement: Same as 

Alternative B.

39. Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

40. Objective: Implement BIA programs 

to prevent the introduction and spread 

of invasive and noxious weeds, to 

monitor for and rapidly respond to the 

presence of noxious weeds, and to 

promote the restoration of native 

species and habitats in ecosystems that 

have been impaired by noxious weed 

infestation.

Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Prioritize protection and 

restoration activities.

Objective: Allocate minimal 

funding for these programs and 

revise priorities.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-62 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

41. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Conduct noxious weed

program to reduce noxious weeds, 

through fuels management, weed 

management, and range improvements.

Action: Allow no chemical treatment,

which could adversely affect other 

species and/or cultural resources.

Action: Allow all treatments 

available to control noxious weeds.

42. Action: Require a restoration and 

reclamation plan as a component of 

nonagricultural leases of tribal land, for 

example, wind energy evaluation leases 

and wind and solar resource leases.

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Require bonds or other 

financial assurance to ensure 

restoration or reclamation attained.

Action: Same as Alternative A.

43. Action: Distribute funding from the 

BIA Noxious Weed Management 

Program through a local prioritysetting process determined by the BIA 

and the Federally recognized Indian 

tribe to fund tribal activities in 

controlling noxious weeds.

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Develop a long-term 

management plan for noxious weed

management and enhance funding and 

tribal partnership opportunities.

Action: Have any funding go 

directly to Federally recognized 

Indian tribes and reduce BIA 

involvement to the extent 

practicable.

44. Fish, Wildlife, and Recreation 

45. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Manage BIA-managed surface

lands to support native fish and wildlife.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

46. Objective: Protect Indian fish, wildlife,

and outdoor recreation resources as 

trust assets, and ensure that tribal and 

landowner input is obtained for all 

agency actions and decisions that may 

affect these assets (IAM: Part 56, 

Chapter 3. Fish, Wildlife, and 

Recreation Policies).

Objective: Protect Indian fish and

wildlife resources as trust assets, and 

ensure that tribal and landowner input 

is considered for all agency actions and 

decisions that may affect these assets.

Objective: Same as Alternative B, and 

also prioritize and seek additional 

funding for programs that help protect 

and enhance Indian fish and wildlife 

resources. 

Objective: Allow affected 

Federally recognized Indian tribes

to make final decisions that may 

permanently adversely impact fish 

and wildlife assets in favor of shortterm economic gain from mineral 

or other development.

47. Objective: Provide for the 

conservation, prudent management, 

enhancement, orderly development,

and wise use of fish, wildlife, and 

outdoor recreation resources that

hunting, fishing, gathering, and related 

rights depend on and that the 

associated resource management 

programs require. 

Objective: Provide for the 

conservation, prudent management, 

enhancement, orderly development,

and wise use of fish and wildlife 

resources that hunting, fishing, 

gathering, and related rights depend on 

and that the associated resource 

management programs require.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Provide for the 

conservation, prudent management, 

enhancement, orderly development,

and wise use of fish and wildlife 

resources that hunting, fishing, 

gathering, and related rights depend 

on and that the associated resource 

management programs require, but 

allow affected Federally recognized 
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-63

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

Indian tribes to make final decisions 

that may permanently adversely 

impact these trust assets in favor of 

short-term economic gain from 

mineral or other development.

48. Objective: All BIA-managed surface 

lands that contain fish, wildlife, and 

outdoor recreation values suitable for 

management and development will 

have, with the consent and 

participation of the Federally 

recognized Indian tribes, an active 

program for managing associated 

resources, consistent with other land 

uses. To the maximum extent possible, 

this will be accomplished through 

direct tribal participation and capability 

development in establishing and 

implementing integrated resource 

management plans, codes, ordinances, 

regulations, harvest management 

programs, population and habitat 

management strategies, and other 

activities required for effective 

management.

Objective: Promote tribal 

stewardship for the conservation, 

prudent management, enhancement, 

orderly development, and wise use of 

fish and wildlife resources that hunting, 

fishing, gathering, and related rights 

depend on and that the associated 

resource management programs 

require.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Promote the tribal 

stewardship for the conservation, 

prudent management, enhancement, 

orderly development, and wise use 

of fish and wildlife resources that

hunting, fishing, gathering, and 

related rights depend on and that 

the associated resource 

management programs require, but 

allow affected Federally recognized 

Indian tribes to make final decisions 

that may permanently adversely 

impact these trust assets in favor of 

short-term economic gain from 

mineral or other development.

49. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Wildlife habitat will be 

sustained or improved by implementing 

fuels and vegetation treatments. 

Action: Wildlife habitat will be 

sustained or improved by implementing

fuels and vegetation treatments, with 

natural (non-chemical) treatments and 

methods being favored.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

50. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Coordinate with the USFWS 

and state and tribal wildlife agencies to 

manage invasive fish and wildlife 

species.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Defer such activities to 

Federally recognized Indian tribes 

and other agencies.

51. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Apply tribal codes, as 

appropriate, to support management of 

game and recreational fish species on 

BIA-managed surface lands.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Apply tribal codes, as 

appropriate, to support 

management of game and 

recreational fish species on BIA-
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-64 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

managed surface lands, if required 

by law and consistent with other 

resource uses such as minerals 

development.

52. Action: Distribute funding from the 

BIA Fisheries, Wildlife and Parks 

program to Federally recognized Indian 

tribes based on program guidelines.

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Encourage maximum tribal 

participation in the BIA Fisheries, 

Wildlife and Parks program and assist 

Federally recognized Indian tribes to 

identify projects that qualify for funding 

under the program guidelines.

Action: Distribute any funds to all 

Federally recognized Indian tribes 

on a per capita or land base 

formula.

53. Migratory Birds

54. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Protect, restore, and

conserve populations and habitats of 

migratory birds, in accordance with

current laws and regulations.

Objective: Protect, restore, and

conserve populations and habitats of 

migratory birds, in accordance with

current laws and regulations. Prioritize 

this objective to avoid any 

development activity that might be in 

conflict.

Objective: Protect, restore, and

conserve populations and habitats 

of migratory birds, in accordance 

with current laws and regulations, 

to the extent required by law.

55. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Avoid disturbing nesting

migratory birds, with an emphasis on 

special status species and birds of 

conservation concern (generally from 

March 15 to June 1, but periods may 

vary by species and seasonal 

conditions). If active nests are 

observed, adhere to USFWS and 

Federally recognized Indian tribal 

recommendations and mandates in 

determining appropriate buffer 

distances for species protected under 

the MBTA. Use the best available 

science when making these 

determinations.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Mitigate to minimize 

disturbance to nesting migratory 

birds if necessary to comply with

USFWS and Federally recognized 

Indian tribal recommendations.

56. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: In the project area, to protect 

special status species, follow guidance 

in the USFWS Oklahoma Ecological 

Services Field Office Migratory Bird 

and Eagle Impact Avoidance Measures 

Action: Avoid special status species

according to USFWS and Federally 

recognized Indian tribal 

recommendations.

Action: In the project area, to 

protect special status species, 

follow guidance in the USFWS 

Oklahoma Ecological Services Field 

Office Migratory Bird and Eagle 
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-65

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

for Actions Associated with Oil and 

Gas Projects (USFWS 2014b) or 

similar guidance from other state and 

Federally recognized Indian tribal 

governments.

Impact Avoidance Measures for 

Actions Associated with Oil and 

Gas Projects (USFWS 2014b) or 

similar guidance from other state 

and Federally recognized Indian 

tribal governments. If necessary, 

mitigate disturbance to nesting 

eagles to comply with USFWS and 

Federally recognized Indian tribal 

recommendations.

57. Recreation and Visitor Services

58. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Manage BIA-managed surface

lands to support Federally recognized 

Indian tribe-approved recreation 

opportunities. 

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

59. Objective: Support tribal needs and 

efforts in the areas of fisheries 

management, wildlife management, 

outdoor recreation management, and 

related fields. Federally recognized 

Indian tribes determine the specific 

scope of program activity for their 

respective reservations and programs.

Objective: Promote tribal 

stewardship for the conservation, 

prudent management, enhancement, 

orderly development, and wise use of 

fish and wildlife resources that

recreational uses depend on and that 

the associated resource management 

programs require.

Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Allow programs, plans, 

codes, and decisions of affected 

Federally recognized Indian tribes

to implement actions that may 

permanently adversely impact these 

trust assets in favor of short-term 

economic gain from recreational 

uses.

60. Action: Through the Tribal 

Management/Development Program,

assist with the management of tribal 

fish and game programs on Indian trust 

allotted or restricted lands (e.g.,

hunting and fishing enforcement),

where applicable. 

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Avoid disturbance of listed 

species and tribal special status species.

Action: Mitigate disturbance of 

listed species and tribal special 

status species.

61. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: For all undertakings, integrate 

the Section 106 and tribal consultation 

process, requiring surveys for cultural 

resources. In most cases if a site is 

discovered, it should be avoided.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: For all undertakings, 

integrate the Section 106 and tribal 

consultation process, requiring 

surveys for cultural resources. In 

most cases if a site is discovered, it 

should be mitigated.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-66 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

62. Allowable use: No similar allowable 

use. 

Allowable use: Allow transportation 

access to hunting areas, in accordance 

with recommendation of the THPOs, 

interested Federally recognized Indian 

tribes, and landowners.

Allowable use: Same as Alternative 

B. 

Allowable use: Allow 

transportation access to hunting 

areas, in accordance with

recommendation of the THPOs, 

interested Federally recognized 

Indian tribes, and landowners.

63. Special Status Species

64. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Protect, preserve, and enhance 

federally listed, proposed, or candidate 

species, and tribally significant species 

and their habitats, and promote the 

recovery of these species for BIA 

actions, under Section 7 of the ESA, as 

amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.).

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B. 

65. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Support special status 

species by implementing recovery and 

other conservation actions for BIAauthorized actions, in coordination 

with the USFWS, THPOs, interested 

Federally recognized Indian tribes, and 

other stakeholders.

Objective: Coordinate with USFWS,

THPOs, and interested Federally

recognized Indian tribes to develop 

regional plans and schedules for 

implementing recovery and 

conservation actions to support 

identified special status species.

Objective: When required, 

support special status species by 

implementing recovery and other 

conservation actions for BIAauthorized actions, in coordination 

with THPOs and interested 

Federally recognized Indian tribes.

66. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Every project is required to 

have a site-specific evaluation and 

obtain clearances through applicable 

agency coordination. 

Southern Plains Region: Ensure 

compliance with any stipulations or 

BMPs, where applicable.

Action: Every project is required to 

have a site-specific evaluation and 

obtain clearances through applicable 

agency coordination. Ensure 

compliance with any stipulations or 

BMPs, where applicable.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

67. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Avoid disturbing nesting 

migratory birds, with an emphasis on 

special status species and birds of 

conservation concern (generally from 

March 15 to June 1, but periods may 

vary by species and seasonal 

conditions). If active nests are 

observed, adhere to USFWS and 

Federally recognized Indian tribal 

recommendations and mandates in 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Mitigate to minimize 

disturbance to nesting migratory 

special status species birds, in 

compliance with USFWS and 

Federally recognized Indian tribal 

recommendations.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-67

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

determining appropriate buffer 

distances for species protected under 

the MBTA. Use the best available 

science in these determinations.

68. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: In the project area, to protect 

special status species, follow guidance 

in the USFWS Oklahoma Ecological 

Services Field Office Migratory Bird 

and Eagle Impact Avoidance Measures 

for Actions Associated with Oil and 

Gas projects (USFWS 2014b), or 

similar guidance from other state and 

THPOs and interested Federally

recognized Indian tribes.

Action: Avoid according to USFWS 

and Federally recognized Indian tribal 

recommendations.

Action: In the project area, to 

protect special status species, 

follow guidance in the USFWS 

Oklahoma Ecological Services Field 

Office Migratory Bird and Eagle 

Impact Avoidance Measures for 

Actions Associated with Oil and 

Gas Projects (USFWS 2014b) or 

similar guidance from other state 

and THPOs and interested 

Federally recognized Indian tribes. If 

necessary, mitigate disturbance to 

nesting eagles to comply with

USFWS and tribal 

recommendations.

69. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Apply Federally recognized 

Indian tribal codes, as appropriate, to 

support game and recreational fish 

species management on BIA-managed 

surface lands.

Action: Coordinate to develop 

Federally recognized Indian tribal codes 

appropriate to support game, 

recreational fish, and other aquatic 

species management, on BIA-managed 

surface lands.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

70. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Promote recovery and other 

conservation actions to support special 

status species and restore or enhance 

riparian zones.

Action: Implement recovery and 

other conservation actions to support 

special status species, including

installing wildlife enhancement 

structures (e.g., RCW recruitment 

structures, bat roosting structures, and

protective fencing or enclosures) and 

restore or enhance riparian zones.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

71. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Use the USFWS’s Information 

for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) 

website, or equivalent, for endangered 

species, migratory birds, wildlife 

refuges, and wetland listings, and 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Use the USFWS’s IPaC

website, or equivalent, for 

endangered species, migratory 

birds, wildlife refuges, and wetland

listings, and consultation with 
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-68 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

consultation with Federally recognized 

Indian tribal environmental 

professionals and THPOs, as applicable.

Federally recognized Indian tribal 

environmental professionals and 

THPOs, except where the action 

does not affect listed species or 

species eligible for listing.

72. Wildland Fire Ecology and Fuels 

Management

73. Goal: Manage fire for one or more 

objectives as they are affected by 

changes in fuels, weather, topography, 

social understanding and tolerance, and 

involvement of other governmental 

jurisdictions. 

Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A.

74. Objective: Use the wildland fire

situation analysis process to determine 

and document the suppression strategy 

from the full range of responses 

available for suppression operations. 

Objective: Suppress wildland fires in 

the wildland-urban interface. Use the 

wildland fire situation analysis process 

to determine and document the 

suppression strategy from the full range 

of responses available for suppression 

operations. Fire management priorities 

are 1) firefighter and public life and 

safety, 2) property protection, and 3) 

fire management and ecosystem 

sustainability.

Objective: Same as Alternative B, 

except fire management priorities are 

1) firefighter and public life and safety, 

and 2) fire management and ecosystem 

sustainability.

Objective: Prioritize selection of 

treatment activities in the wildlandurban interface with a focus to the 

urban side. The fire management

priorities are 1) firefighter and 

public life and safety, and 2) 

property protection.

75. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: For naturally ignited fires, 

assess and monitor risks and significant 

and sensitive cultural resources to 

determine the appropriate suppression

(for Eastern Oklahoma Region only).

Objective: Allow fires to continue to 

their natural conclusion.

Objective: Same as Alternative B.

76. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Pursue fire management

agreements with state or local 

government fire protection agencies, as 

appropriate.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Pursue additional fire 

management staff to fully cover the 

Region’s jurisdictional area.

77. Objective: Hazardous fuels reduction 

treatments will be designed and 

implemented to reduce the risk to and 

consequences of wildfire on 

Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Hazardous fuels 

reduction treatments will be 

designed and implemented to 

reduce the risk to and 
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-69

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

communities and ecosystems. 

Hazardous fuels treatments may be 

used to restore and maintain healthy 

ecosystems. Hazardous fuels reduction 

should be planned and implemented in 

an interdisciplinary and collaborative 

manner with Federally recognized 

Indian tribes and other federal, state, 

and local partners.

consequences of wildfire on

communities and ecosystems.

78. Action: In consultation with THPOs 

and Federally recognized Indian tribes, 

conduct hazardous fuel reduction 

treatments as directed by an approved 

fire management plan.

Action: In consultation with THPOs 

and Federally recognized Indian tribes, 

conduct hazardous fuel reduction 

treatments (e.g., mechanical, 

prescribed fire, and chemical) in areas 

with higher probability for catastrophic 

wildland fire, and protect values at risk. 

Action: In consultation with THPOs 

and Federally recognized Indian tribes, 

conduct mechanical hazardous fuel 

reduction treatments (no prescribed 

fire or use of chemicals) in areas with 

higher probability for catastrophic 

wildland fire.

Action: In consultation with 

THPOs and Federally recognized 

Indian tribes, conduct hazardous 

fuel reduction treatments (e.g., 

mechanical, prescribed fire, and 

chemical) to protect values at risk.

79. Southern Plains Action: No similar 

action. 

Southern Plains Action: With a 

permit, allow prescribed burning to 

meet resource management objectives 

for vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

Southern Plains Action: Same as 

Alternative A. 

Southern Plains Action: Same as 

Alternative B. 

80. Action: In consultation with THPOs 

and Federally recognized Indian tribes, 

conduct prescribed burning for fuels 

reduction, weed management, and 

range improvement. These treatments 

generally target eastern red cedar in 

the wildland/urban interface.

Action: In consultation with THPOs 

and Federally recognized Indian tribes,

control hazardous fuels using BMPs

(e.g., prescribed fire or mechanical or 

chemical means) to protect the 

wildland/urban interface. 

Action: Do not use prescribed fire or 

chemicals to control hazardous fuels in 

wildland/urban interface areas. 

Action: Same as Alternative A. 

81. Cultural Resources

82. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Identify, protect, and preserve, 

in place, representative samples of 

significant cultural resources and 

ensure that they are available for 

appropriate uses by present and future 

generations. For prehistoric, 

protohistoric, and tribal historic 

cultural resources, identification, 

protection, and preservation efforts 

will be conducted in collaboration with 

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-70 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

THPOs and interested Federally

recognized Indian tribes.

83. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Reduce eminent threats and 

resolve potential conflicts from natural 

or human-caused deterioration or 

potential conflict with other resource 

uses by ensuring that all authorizations 

for land use and resource use comply 

with applicable laws and regulations 

(e.g., the NHPA of 1966 Section 106

and the AIRFA).

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

84. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Allow traditional cultural 

resource uses, while protecting 

traditional use sites, where appropriate, 

including known TCPs and sacred sites. 

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

85. Objective: Protect against the loss, 

infringement, and abrogation of 

hunting, fishing, gathering, and related 

rights guaranteed to Federally

recognized Indian tribes through 

treaty, statute, or executive order and 

support fulfilling tribal co-management 

responsibilities associated with the 

exercise of such rights.

Objective: When appropriate, 

protect against the loss, infringement,

and abrogation of hunting, fishing, 

gathering, and related rights guaranteed 

to Federally recognized Indian Tribes 

through treaty, statute, or executive 

order and support fulfilling tribal comanagement responsibilities associated 

with the exercise of such rights.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Allow adverse impacts 

to the hunting, fishing, and gathering 

rights to the extent allowed by 

applicable laws, rules, and 

regulations, when necessary to 

promote development.

86. Action: Integrate the Section 106 and 

tribal consultation process with the 

Application for Permit to Drill process 

for oil and gas development, requiring 

surveys for cultural resources. In most 

cases if a site is discovered, it should 

be avoided.

Action: For all undertakings, integrate 

the Section 106 and tribal consultation 

process, requiring surveys for cultural 

resources. In most cases if a site is 

discovered, it should be avoided.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: For all undertakings, 

integrate the Section 106 and tribal 

consultation process, requiring 

surveys for cultural resources. In 

most cases if a site is discovered, it 

should be mitigated.

87. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Conduct surveys on surface 

tracts to identify historic properties.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Conduct surveys when 

appropriate to identify historic 

properties.

88. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Action: Avoid inadvertent damage to 

cultural resources.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Mitigate inadvertent 

damage to cultural resources.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-71

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

89. Disclosure Statement: No similar 

disclosure statement. 

Disclosure Statement: A 

preconstruction survey would be 

required, and a buffer may be applied 

during the permitting stage, based on 

site type and site-specific conditions.

For prehistoric, protohistoric, and 

tribal historic cultural resources,

buffers will be established in 

consultation with interested THPOs 

and Federally recognized Indian tribes.

Disclosure Statement: Same as 

Alternative B.

Disclosure Statement: Same as 

Alternative B.

90. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: For all activities, base buffers 

around cultural sites on the results of 

the preconstruction survey. Buffer 

sizes will vary, based on site type, and 

they may be adjusted as needed, based 

on site-specific conditions. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: For all activities, base 

buffers around cultural sites on the 

results of the preconstruction 

survey. Buffer sizes will vary, based 

on site type, and they may be 

adjusted as needed, based on sitespecific conditions. When mitigated, 

cultural sites would not have a 

buffer.

91. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: A pedestrian survey is 

required to cover 100 percent of the 

area of potential effect, as part of the 

Class III inventory, before any surface 

disturbance is allowed.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Conduct pedestrian 

surveys when appropriate as part of 

the Class III inventory before any 

surface disturbance is allowed.

92. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Through consultation, if 

cultural viewsheds are affected, 

mitigate to reduce impacts on the 

historic viewshed. 

Action: Through consultation, if 

cultural viewsheds are present, avoid

to the extent possible, any impacts on 

the historic viewshed.

Action: Same as Alternative B. 

93. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Through consultation, 

minimize noise around TCPs, historic 

properties, cemeteries, and burial sites. 

Action: Through consultation, avoid

noise around TCPs, historic properties, 

cemeteries, and burial sites.

Action: Same as Alternative B. 

94. Paleontological Resources

95. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Promote stewardship, 

conservation, and appreciation for 

paleontological resources. 

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-72 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

96. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Through consultation, 

determine the disposition of 

paleontological resources. 

Objective: Disposition of 

paleontological resources not allowed.

Objective: Same as Alternative B.

97. Action: Before any person excavates 

or removes any imbedded fossil from 

Indian lands, the BIA would issue a 

permit under the authority of the 

Secretary of the Interior. 

Action: Follow laws, regulations, and 

policies. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Allow affected Federally 

recognized Indian tribes to make 

final decisions that may permanently 

adversely impact these trust assets 

in favor of short-term economic 

gain from development.

98. Action: No permit is required for 

exploration or surface collecting of 

non-imbedded fossils; however, these 

exempted activities are subject to tribal 

jurisdiction and landowner consent.

Action: Follow laws, regulations, and 

policies. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Allow affected Federally 

recognized Indian tribes to make 

final decisions that may permanently 

adversely impact these trust assets 

in favor of short-term economic 

gain from development.

99. Visual Resources 

100. Goal Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Maintain the scenic quality and 

natural aesthetics of cultural landscapes 

and other areas with high-quality visual 

resources that are considered 

important for their social, economic, 

and environmental benefits. 

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

101. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Promote visual resources 

for overall multiple use in accordance 

with Federally recognized Indian tribes 

and landowner priorities.

Objective: Promote and prioritize 

protection of visual resources, avoiding 

potential adverse effects.

Objective: Promote visual 

resources for overall multiple use in 

accordance with tribal/ landowner

priorities, while mitigating potential 

effects.

102. Disclosure Statement: No similar 

action.

Disclosure Statement: In areas of 

high visual sensitivity, development 

associated with leases may be subject 

to additional NEPA and permitting 

processes.

Disclosure Statement: Same as 

Alternative B.

Disclosure Statement: Same as 

Alternative B.

103. Cave and Karst Resources

104. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Protect significant cave and 

cave-related resources, including 

unique geological features, biological

resources, and cultural properties.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-73

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

105. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Encourage practices and 

policies that are adequate to ensure 

long-term protection of cave and karst 

systems (including sinkholes, 

overhangs, and underground drainage 

systems). 

Objective: Require practices and 

policies that are adequate to ensure 

long-term protection of cave and karst 

systems (including sinkholes, 

overhangs, and underground drainage 

systems).

Objective: Same as Alternative B.

106. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Before approving any 

activities, the BIA will assess the 

potential of and associated impacts on 

cave and karst resources. The primary 

detection method is to review the BIA 

or other records on the presence of 

caves or karst features in the area of 

interest, in conjunction with a field 

exam to determine the presence of 

unrecorded cave or karst features. 

Depending on the results of cave 

detection, avoidance would be 

considered as the primary means of 

mitigating potential impacts. 

In most cases, caves and karsts would 

be avoided by relocating the proposed 

project or activity, which is often done 

in consultation with the proponent, 

Federally recognized Indian tribe, 

THPO, and/or landowner at the time 

of a field examination. Additional 

mitigation may be required.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Before approving any 

activities, the BIA will assess the 

potential of and associated impacts 

on cave and karst resources. The 

primary detection method is to

review the BIA or other records on 

the presence of caves or karst 

features in the area of interest, in 

conjunction with a field exam to 

determine the presence of 

unrecorded cave or karst features. 

Depending on the results of cave 

detection, avoidance or other 

means may be used to mitigate 

potential impacts.

107. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Coordinate with THPOs, 

interested Federally recognized Indian 

tribes, including the tribal wildlife 

department, and the USFWS when 

caves are discovered, to determine 

appropriate management for the 

cultural and biological resources.

Action: Coordinate with THPOs, 

interested Federally recognized Indian 

tribes, including the tribal wildlife 

department, and the USFWS when 

caves are discovered, to determine 

appropriate management for the 

cultural and biological resources.

Action: Determine appropriate 

management for biological 

resources.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-74 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

108. Minerals (Fluid and Solid)

109. Goal: Ensure accurate energy and 

minerals accountability for onshore 

federal and Indian leases.

Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A.

110. Objective: Approve leases of the 

trust mineral estate in a manner that 

best helps Tribes access their mineral 

resources in an environmentally 

responsible manner.

Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Same as Alternative A; 

ensure that no other natural resources 

or trust assets are permanently 

adversely impacted by minerals 

development.

Objective: Allow affected Tribes 

to make final decisions that may 

permanently adversely impact other 

natural resources and trust assets in 

favor of short-term economic gains 

from minerals development.

111. Disclosure Statement: No similar 

disclosure statement.

Disclosure Statement: Additional 

analyses may be required as part of the 

permitting process.

Disclosure Statement: Same as 

Alternative B.

Disclosure Statement: Same as 

Alternative B.

112. Oil and Gas

113. Action: All oil and gas leasing and 

lease operations are conducted 

following procedures established in the 

BIA’s Fluid Mineral Estate Procedural 

Handbook (BIA 2012b) and Onshore 

Energy and Mineral Lease Management 

Interagency Standard Operating 

Procedures (except in Osage County).

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Allow affected Tribes to 

make final decisions that may 

permanently adversely impact the 

trust assets in favor of short-term 

economic gains from development.

114. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Incorporate disclosure 

statements identified in this matrix for

specific resource programs.

Action: Incorporate disclosure 

statements identified above under 

specific resource programs.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

115. Solid Leasable Minerals

(gypsum, sodium, potassium, 

phosphate, sandstone, gravel and other 

minerals under 25 CFR)

116. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Avoid disturbing nesting 

migratory birds, with an emphasis on 

special status species and birds of 

conservation concern (generally from 

March 15 to June 1, but periods may 

vary by species and seasonal 

conditions). If active nests are 

observed, adhere to USFWS and 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Mitigate to minimize 

disturbing nesting migratory and 

special status species birds, in 

compliance with USFWS and 

Federally recognized Indian tribal

recommendations.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-75

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

Federally recognized Indian tribal

recommendations and mandates in 

determining appropriate buffer 

distances for species protected under 

the MBTA. Use best available science

in these determinations.

117. Action: Follow 25 CFR 214 in Osage 

County and the Onshore Energy and 

Mineral Lease Management Interagency 

Standard Operating Procedures,

excluding Osage County.

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Allow affected Tribes to 

make final decisions that may 

permanently adversely impact the 

trust assets in favor of short-term 

economic gains from development.

118. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Avoid disturbing Federally 

recognized Indian tribal-identified sites 

(e.g., burial sites). Buffer sizes will vary,

based on site type, and they may be 

adjusted as needed, based on sitespecific conditions. Avoidance and/or 

buffering will be established in 

consultation and concurrence with 

THPOs and interested Federally 

recognized Indian tribes.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Mitigate disturbed

Federally recognized Indian tribalidentified sites (e.g., burial sites). 

Buffer sizes will vary, based on site 

type, and they may be adjusted as 

needed, based on site-specific 

conditions.

119. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Avoid or minimize 

disturbance to culturally valued plant 

species, based on consultation with 

THPOs, interested Federally

recognized Indian tribes, and surface 

owners during solid mineral 

development.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Minimize or mitigate 

disturbance to culturally valued 

plant species, based on tribal/

landowner consultation during solid 

mineral development.

120. Disclosure Statement: No similar 

action.

Disclosure Statement: Should 

proposed additional development or 

modification of the lease result in 

additional disturbance to vegetation, 

wildlife, cultural resources, or soils, 

notify the lessee that additional 

consideration under NEPA, NHPA, 

ESA, and other applicable laws may be 

necessary.

Disclosure Statement: Conduct 

regular reviews of mining activities to 

ensure they are within original planned 

footprint. Require supplement or 

update to EA/EIS and other 

appropriate reviews/surveys if any 

activity falls outside the original 

footprint. 

Disclosure Statement: Same as 

Alternative B. 
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-76 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

121. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Avoid impacts on significant 

or unevaluated cultural resources for 

solid mineral leasing. If cultural 

resources are discovered during 

development of the lease, stop work 

and notify the BIA, THPO, interested 

Federally recognized Indian tribes, and 

SHPO, as appropriate.

Action: Avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

impacts on significant or unevaluated 

cultural resources for solid mineral 

leasing. If cultural resources are 

discovered during development of the 

lease, stop work and notify the BIA,

THPO, interested Federally recognized 

Indian tribes, and SHPO, as 

appropriate.

Action: Mitigate impacts on

significant or unevaluated cultural 

resources for solid mineral leasing. 

If cultural resources are discovered 

during development of the lease,

stop work and notify the BIA, 

THPO, interested Federally 

recognized Indian tribes, and SHPO,

as appropriate.

122. Action: Require inclusion of Federally

recognized Indian tribes’ and/or states’

water standards during solid mineral 

development.

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A. 

123. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Prevent discharge of 

pollutants (including sediment) from 

the allotted trust and restricted lands 

into Federally recognized Indian tribedesignated Outstanding Resource 

Waters (OAC 785:45 or other tribal 

and state requirements) in the project 

area. 

Action: Prohibit the point source 

discharge of any pollutants to 

Outstanding Resource Waters, High 

Quality Waters, and Sensitive Public 

and Private Water Supplies, according 

to federally approved or other 

Federally recognized Indian tribal 

standards or laws applicable in the 

project area.

Action: Discourage the discharge 

of pollutants (including sediment) 

from allotted, trust, and restricted 

lands into Federally recognized 

Indian tribe-designated Outstanding 

Resource Waters (OAC 785:45 or 

other tribal and state requirements) 

in the project area.

124. Soils, Agriculture, and Livestock 

Grazing

125. Soils and Agriculture

126. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Comply with federal and tribal 

government policies to protect 

farmland.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

127. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Maintain or improve soil 

productivity and maintain or minimize 

accelerated soil erosion.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

128. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Minimize soil compaction 

and soil erosion.

Objective: Avoid soil compaction and 

soil erosion.

Objective: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-77

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

129. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Minimize conversion of 

farmland, including prime and unique 

farmland, to non-agricultural uses (7 

CFR 658).

Objective: Avoid conversion of 

farmland, including prime and unique 

farmland, to non-agricultural uses (7 

CFR 658).

Objective: Same as Alternative B.

130. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Encourage rotational cropping, 

in conjunction with a vegetative cover 

system, to protect soil productivity. 

Action: Require rotational cropping,

in conjunction with a vegetative cover 

system, to protect soil productivity.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

131. Disclosure Statement: No similar 

disclosure statement.

Disclosure Statement: Follow 

approved tillage and residue 

management practices in all farming 

operations.

Disclosure Statement: Submit 

proposed tillage and residue 

management practices for approval 

prior to conducting farming operations 

and submit a report after operations 

are complete that documents such 

practices were followed.

Disclosure Statement: Same as 

Alternative B. 

132. Disclosure Statement: No similar 

disclosure statement.

Disclosure Statement: During the 

first year of lease and if requested, 

tenants will furnish the BIA with a copy 

of soil test results for each cropland 

field and improved pastures.

Disclosure Statement: Tenants will 

furnish BIA with a copy of soil test 

results for each cropland field and 

improved pastures during the first year 

of lease, and thereafter within 60 days 

if BIA requests additional tests.

Disclosure Statement: Same as 

Alternative B. 

133. Disclosure Statement: No similar 

disclosure statement.

Disclosure Statement: Tenants are 

required to maintain improved 

pastures in a productive and vigorous 

condition.

Disclosure Statement: Same as 

Alternative B. 

Disclosure Statement: Same as 

Alternative B. 

134. Disclosure Statement: No similar 

disclosure Statement. 

Disclosure Statement: If any 

archaeological remains are exposed 

during ground-disturbing activity, such 

as bone, pottery, chipped stone, tools, 

charcoal stains, historic artifacts such 

as metal, glass, wood, brick, historic 

pottery, or unrecorded cemeteries, or 

marked or unmarked graves, all activity 

must cease in the immediate vicinity of 

the remains, and the BIA line officer, 

BIA Regional Archaeologist, THPOs, 

interested Federally recognized Indian 

tribes, and the state archaeologist must 

be notified to verify the artifacts and/or 

Disclosure Statement: Same as 

Alternative B. 

Disclosure Statement: Same as 

Alternative B. 
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-78 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

human remains, record the site, and 

determine the disposition of any 

human remains identified.

135. Livestock Grazing

136. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Manage to protect, conserve, 

use, and maintain the highest 

productive potential on Indian grazing 

lands, by applying sound multipleresource conservation planning and 

practices to the development, 

inventory, classification, management, 

and administration of grazing 

resources. 

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

137. Objective: Assist and manage trust 

and restricted Indian landowners in 

permitting their grazing lands for a 

reasonable annual return, consistent 

with prudent management and 

conservation practices, as well as 

community goals, as expressed by 

landowners and in applicable tribal 

management plans and ordinances.

Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Same as Alternative A.

Implement a program to ensure 

carrying capacity is not exceeded, and 

that important native habitat is 

conserved whenever possible, including 

protection of riparian areas and 

waterways by fencing and providing 

alternative sources of water.

Objective: Assist and manage trust 

and restricted Indian landowners in 

permitting their grazing lands for a 

reasonable annual return. Allow 

adverse effects on land and grazing 

resources to the extent allowed by 

applicable laws, rules, and 

regulations when necessary and 

appropriate to promote short-term 

maximum benefits.

138. Action: Monitor lessees’/tenants’

adherence to the provisions of their 

grazing permits, including complying

with requirements described in 

conservation plans.

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Monitor lessees’/tenants’

adherence to the provisions of their 

grazing permits.

139. Action: Monitor the results of 

management and administrative 

decisions against projected outcomes 

in order to strengthen future decisions.

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Monitor the results of 

management and administrative 

decisions and actual outcomes 

against projected outcomes in 

order to strengthen future 

decisions.

140. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: On lands leased for grazing 

only, maintain boundary fences to BIA 

standards. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: On lands leased for grazing 

only, require landowner or lessees 

to demonstrate that they are 
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-79

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

maintaining boundary fences to BIA 

standards.

141. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Continue to provide support 

to landowners for water development 

on grazing leases. 

Action: Assist and support 

development of ponds and alternative 

water sources for livestock and fencing 

to protect natural streams and 

waterways.

Action: Allow adverse effects on 

land to extent allowed by applicable 

laws, rules, and regulations when 

necessary and appropriate to 

promote other development.

142. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Work with the 

landowner/lessee to preserve current 

composition of native grass pastures. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Allow adverse effects on 

land to extent allowed by applicable 

laws, rules, and regulations when 

necessary and appropriate to 

promote other development.

143. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Permanent native grass 

pastures will be unavailable to plowing 

and tilling.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: All lands will be available 

to plowing and tilling.

144. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Implement forage height 

requirements and stocking rates to 

sustain or improve the rangeland 

condition.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Take no action.

145. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Require lessee to maintain 

existing conservation infrastructure 

(e.g., ponds, terraces, and drainage 

channels). 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Take no action.

146. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Require lessee to maintain

and protect permanent structures (e.g., 

home sites, burials, cemeteries, cultural 

resources, and fences), based on

guidance from THPOs, interested 

Federally recognized Indian tribes, and 

landowner guidance.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Take no action.

147. Travel, Transportation 

Management, and Access

148. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Manage off-road vehicle use and

access that would balance resource 

protection and uses.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

149. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

Objective: Incorporate Federally 

recognized Indian tribes’ and interested 

Objective: Prioritize Federally

recognized Indian tribal and interested 

Objective: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-80 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

regional objective. parties’ recommendations into travel 

and transportation management.

parties’ recommendations in travel and 

transportation management.

150. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Support the BIA Tribal 

Transportation Program (or 

equivalent), incorporating tribal design 

standards that are consistent with or 

exceed applicable federal standards.

Disclosure Statement: Certain 

exceptions may apply (see 25 CFR 

170.456).

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Support the BIA Tribal 

Transportation Program (or 

equivalent), incorporating tribal 

design standards that are consistent 

with applicable federal standards.

Disclosure Statement: Certain 

exceptions may apply (see 25 CFR 

170.456).

151. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: For all undertakings, integrate 

the Section 106 and tribal consultation 

process, requiring surveys for cultural 

resources. In most cases if a site is 

discovered, it should be avoided.

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: For all undertakings, 

integrate the Section 106 and tribal 

consultation process, requiring 

surveys for cultural resources. In 

most cases if a site is discovered, it 

should be mitigated.

152. Lands and Realty 

153. Goal Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Administer lands and realty 

authorizations (ROWs, business leases

and easements), acquisitions, and 

disposals for the benefit of Federally

recognized Indian tribes and 

landowners.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

154. Land Use Authorizations

155. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Process land use 

authorizations to address the needs of 

Federally recognized Indian tribes or 

landowners, while minimizing adverse 

impacts on other resource values.

Objective: Process land use 

authorizations to address the needs of 

Federally recognized Indian tribes or 

landowners, while avoiding adverse 

impacts on other resource values.

Objective: Process land use 

authorizations to address the needs 

of Federally recognized Indian tribes

or landowners, while mitigating

adverse impacts on other resource 

values.

156. Allowable Use: No similar allowable 

use.

Allowable Use: Based on site-specific

conditions, manage individual areas as 

ROW, business lease, or easement 

avoidance for new land use 

authorizations, such as the following:

 Significant and National Register of 

Allowable Use: Based on site-specific

conditions, manage individual areas as 

ROW, business lease, or easement 

exclusion for new land use 

authorizations, such as the following:

 Significant and NRHP-listed historic 

Allowable Use: Same as 

Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-81

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

Historic Places (NRHP)-listed 

historic properties and cultural sites 

allocated to conservation for future 

use and traditional use

 TCPs

 Cemeteries

 Burials

 Occupied dwellings

properties and cultural sites 

allocated to conservation for future 

use and traditional use

 TCPs

 Cemeteries

 Burials

 Occupied dwellings

157. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Encourage applicants to locate 

new facilities in previously disturbed 

areas or near similar ROWs or

easements.

Action: Require new facilities or 

upgrades to existing facilities to be in 

areas with previous disturbance, as 

determined practical, consistent with 

other resource values.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

158. Land Tenure

159. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Make land tenure

adjustments for Federally recognized 

Indian tribes’ and landowner benefit, in 

order to consolidate land patterns and 

ensure effective administration.

Objective: Make land tenure

adjustments for Federally recognized 

Indian tribes’ and landowner benefit, in 

order to consolidate land patterns, 

ensure effective administration, and 

improve resource management.

Objective: Same as Alternative B.

160. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Promote fee-to-trust 

acquisitions as opportunities arise 

through exchange or purchase with 

willing proponents or sellers.

Action: Pursue fee-to-trust 

acquisitions as opportunities arise 

through exchange or purchase with 

willing proponents or sellers.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

161. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Promote disposal of tribal 

trust, restricted, or government-owned 

properties on a case-by-case basis.

Action: Avoid disposal of tribal trust, 

restricted, or government-owned 

properties when possible.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

162. Forest, Woodland, and Special 

Products 

163. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Incorporate an ecosystembased, multiple-use philosophy for 

forest and woodland management,

focused on sustainable resource 

management practices that addresses 

Federally recognized Indian tribes’ and 

landowner goals. 

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-82 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

164. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Manage timberland and 

woodland resources in conjunction

with other natural resources, with 

respect for traditional, religious, and 

cultural uses and values.

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Manage timberland and 

woodland resources, considering 

other natural resources, traditional, 

religious, and cultural uses and 

values when required by law

165. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Develop and maintain 

relationships with Federally recognized 

Indian tribes or agencies for managing 

environmental and natural resources. 

Objective: Develop and coordinate 

specific MOUs with Federally 

recognized Indian tribes or agencies for 

managing environmental and natural 

resources.

Objective: Same as Alternative B.

166. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Maintain a viable seed tree 

crop where forestry projects take 

place. 

Objective: Maintain a viable native 

seed tree crop.

Objective: Same as Alternative B.

167. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Support existing and new 

forest management plans that contain 

ecological restoration and management 

programs.

Action: Support existing and new 

forest management plans.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

168. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Provide timely responses to 

allottees and Federally recognized 

Indian tribes seeking to manage or 

protect their forest resources. 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Support allottees and 

Federally recognized Indian tribes 

seeking to manage or protect their 

forest resources.

169. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: In the Eastern Oklahoma 

Region, develop and/or incorporate 

forestry management BMPs, utilizing

the Oklahoma Forestry Services BMPs 

(Oklahoma Forestry Services 2008).

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Defer forestry decisions to 

agencies with primary jurisdiction.

170. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Incorporate management 

direction identified in the BIA Forest

Management Handbook (BIA 2009).

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Defer forestry decisions to 

agencies with primary jurisdiction.

171. Allowable use: No similar allowable 

use. 

Allowable use: All areas with viable 

timber stands are available for harvest. 

Identify and preserve (avoid, minimize, 

and mitigate) areas with historic 

properties, including TCPs, burials, or 

sacred sites, through consultation with 

the THPOs and Federally recognized 

Indian tribes.

Allowable use: Same as Alternative 

B.

Allowable use: All areas with 

viable timber stands are available 

for harvest.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-83

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

172. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Use a variety of silvicultural 

tools, such as commercial harvesting, 

pre-commercial thinning, prescribed 

fire, site preparation, and natural and 

artificial regeneration, to move stand 

structure, composition, and other 

characteristics toward that of a target 

forest (e.g., old growth, hardwood, and 

pine). 

Action: Same as Alternative B. Action: Defer forestry decisions to 

agencies with primary jurisdiction.

173. Socioeconomics

174. Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests

175. Goal: Work with Federally recognized 

Indian tribes on a government-togovernment basis to address issues 

concerning Indian tribal selfgovernment, tribal trust resources, and 

Indian tribal treaty and other rights and 

to establish regular and meaningful 

consultation and collaboration with 

tribal officials to develop federal 

policies that have tribal implications, to 

strengthen the United States 

government-to-government 

relationships with Federally recognized 

Indian tribes, and to reduce the 

imposition of unfunded mandates on 

Indian Tribes.

Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A. Goal: Same as Alternative A.

176. Objective: Protect against the loss, 

infringement, and abrogation of 

hunting, fishing, gathering, and related 

rights guaranteed to Federally

recognized Indian tribes by the United 

States through treaty, statute, or 

executive order and support fulfilling 

tribal co-management responsibilities 

associated with the exercise of such 

rights.

Objective: Same as Alternative A. Objective: Protect against the loss, 

infringement, and abrogation of 

hunting, fishing, gathering, and related 

rights guaranteed to Federally

recognized Indian tribes by the United 

States through treaty, statute, or 

executive order. Consult with each 

Federally recognized Indian tribe to 

identify what rights that tribe has. 

Ensure federal co-management 

Objective: Same as Alternative A.
2. Alternatives (Table 2-3: Description of BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

2-84 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Alternative A

(No Action)

Alternative B

(BIA Proposed Action) 

Alternative C

(Resource Conservation) 

Alternative D

(Resource Use)

responsibilities associated with the 

exercise of such rights are fulfilled.

177. Action: Consider impacts on social 

economics and environmental justice in 

all NEPA documents.

Action: Same as Alternative A. Action: Require consideration of

impacts on social economics and 

environmental justice in all NEPA

documents.

Action: Allow affected Federally 

recognized Indian tribes to make 

final decisions that may permanently 

adversely impact their trust assets 

in favor of short-term economic 

gains from development.

178. Public Health and Safety

179. Goal: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional goal.

Goal: Manage BIA-managed surface

lands to protect the health and safety 

of individuals.

Goal: Same as Alternative B. Goal: Same as Alternative B.

180. Objective: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional objective.

Objective: Identify and adhere to 

relevant rules and regulations regarding 

public health and safety on BIAmanaged surface lands. 

Objective: Same as Alternative B. Objective: Comply only with 

minimum legal requirements 

regarding public health and safety 

on BIA-managed surface lands.

181. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Require operators to educate 

the public of hazardous conditions 

through appropriate means, such as 

posting signs.

Action: Require operators to educate 

the public of hazardous conditions 

through appropriate means, such as 

posting signs, public safety 

announcements, and newspaper ads.

Operators must submit to BIA a copy 

of the proposed education plan and a 

report showing its timely 

implementation.

Action: Same as Alternative B.

182. Action: Currently operating under 

national guidance without documented 

regional action.

Action: Require operators to 

implement project-specific health and 

safety plans. 

Action: Require operators to 

implement project-specific health and 

safety plans. Mandate regular health 

check-ups of all project staff. Require 

operators to file safety plans and 

annual reports with BIA.

Action: Same as Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (Management Guidance for BLM and BIA Alternatives A, B, C, and D)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-85

Table 2-4

Segments Determined Eligible for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System

River Segment

Length on BLMAdministered Land 

(Miles)

Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values

Tentative 

Classification

Canadian River 7.25 miles

 Recreational

 Fish 

 Cultural

Recreational
2. Alternatives (Comparison of Impacts)

2-86 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

2.8 COMPARISON OF IMPACTS

The environmental consequences analysis in this Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP is a description of the potential for significant impacts on the 

human environment. CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA state that the 

human environment is the natural and physical environment and the relationship 

of people to that environment (40 CFR 1508.14). 

The alternatives describe the BLM’s and BIA’s options under consideration for 

the BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP. The approved BLM RMP will guide 

future land use actions for the BLM-administered lands and federal mineral 

estate in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas managed by the BLM Oklahoma Field 

Office. The approved BIA Integrated RMP will guide future land use actions for 

the BIA-managed surface lands in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas and Nebraska

managed by the BIA Eastern Oklahoma (outside of fluid minerals in Osage 

County) and Southern Plains Regional Offices.

Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, and Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts, 

evaluate the likely direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the human and 

natural environment. The impacts were analyzed in terms of environmental, 

social, and economic consequences that are projected to occur from 

implementing the alternatives. 

Table 2-5, BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, 

C, and D, summarizes the environmental consequences for BLM resources and 

resource uses per alternative. Table 2-6, BIA Summary of Environmental 

Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D, summarizes the environmental 

consequences for BIA resources and resource uses per alternative. A complete 

discussion of environmental consequences is contained in Chapter 4 and 

Chapter 5.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-87

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

BLM RESOURCES

Air Resources

No direct impacts from oil and gas 

leasing. Subsequent oil and gas 

development would emit criteria 

pollutants and greenhouse gases; 

these emissions would be 

approximately 1 percent or less of 

statewide oil and gas emissions in 

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. 

Similarly, coal leasing would have no 

direct impacts, but subsequent coal 

mining would be a source of air 

pollutants and greenhouse gas 

emissions. Other indirect impacts 

include downstream uses of oil and 

gas and coal. Under Alternative A, 

the BLM would apply the fewest 

stipulations to oil and gas 

development and the fewest actions 

to protect air quality during mining. 

While air quality standards must be 

met, this alternative has the 

potential for the greatest impact on 

air quality. 

BLM-authorized surface uses such 

as motorized vehicle use and ROW

development would be a small 

contributor of air pollutant 

emissions given that BLMadministered surface estate is less 

than 1 percent of lands in the 

No direct impacts from oil and gas 

leasing. Indirect impacts from 

subsequent oil and gas 

development would be similar to 

Alternative A, with emissions 

representing 1 percent or less of 

statewide oil and gas emissions in 

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. 

Similarly, there would be no direct 

impacts from coal leasing but 

subsequent coal mining would be a 

source of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gas emissions. Other 

indirect impacts include 

downstream uses of oil and gas and 

coal. Under Alternative B, there 

would be more acres available for 

energy development, but more 

stipulations applied to these areas, 

which may limit the amount of 

development. In addition, there 

would be more actions to protect 

air quality than under Alternative 

A, particularly reducing volatile 

organic compound and particulate 

emissions. These include 

encouraging the use of green 

completions, minimizing fugitive 

dust during development and 

mining operations, and 

incorporating components of 

No direct impacts from oil and gas 

leasing. Indirect impacts from 

subsequent development would be 

similar to Alternative A, with 

emissions from development 

representing 1 percent or less of 

statewide oil and gas emissions in 

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. 

Similarly, there would be no direct 

impacts from coal leasing but 

subsequent coal mining would be a 

source of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gas emissions. Other 

indirect impacts include 

downstream uses of oil and gas and 

coal. Under Alternative C, there 

would be slightly fewer lands 

available for energy development 

than under Alternative A and more 

lands closed to fluid mineral leasing. 

The same actions to protect air 

quality described in Alternative B 

would be required rather than 

encouraged under Alternative C.

BLM-authorized surface uses would 

have impacts less than Alternative 

A for travel management due to 

closures to off-road vehicle use in 

the Red River area and similar to 

Alternative B for lands and realty 

No direct impacts from energy 

development. Indirect impacts from 

subsequent development would be 

similar to Alternative A, with 

emissions from development 

representing 1 percent or less of 

statewide oil and gas emissions in 

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. 

Similarly, there would be no direct 

impacts from coal leasing but 

subsequent coal mining would be a 

source of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gas emissions. Other 

indirect impacts include 

downstream uses of oil and gas and 

coal. Under Alternative D, more 

lands would be available for energy 

development than under 

Alternative A. However, the BLM 

would apply more stipulations on 

development than under 

Alternative A. Compared with 

Alternatives B and C, there would 

be fewer actions to protect air 

quality. Impacts under Alternative 

D would be similar to those under 

Alternative A.

BLM-authorized surface uses would 

have impacts similar to Alternative 

A for travel management and lands 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-88 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

planning area. The greatest source 

of emissions are likely to be 

prescribed burns; these would be 

subject to permit conditions that 

would minimize the impact on air 

quality.

Energy Star standards as BMPs.

BLM-authorized surface uses would 

have impacts similar to Alternative 

A for travel management and 

potentially less for lands and realty 

actions from designating ROW

exclusion and avoidance areas.

designations. and realty actions.

Geology 

Oil and gas development and 

associated wastewater injection is 

projected to continue at a rate of 

up to 85 new wells drilled per year 

on federal minerals in the planning 

area (BLM 2016b). There is

potential for induced seismicity as a 

result of wastewater injection; 

however, the potential cannot be 

estimated at the planning stage. 

Risks of induced seismicity will be 

evaluated at the leasing and 

permitting stage should a parcel be 

leased, and a development proposal 

submitted. 

Impacts on geologic resources 

would be the same as under 

Alternative A.

Impacts on geologic resources 

would be the same as under 

Alternative A.

Impacts on geologic resources 

would be the same as under 

Alternative A.

Soil Resources

Under Alternative A, the BLM

would continue to maintain or 

improve current soil productivity 

and status and minimize soil 

compaction and erosion.

Surface-disturbing activities 

associated with fluid minerals

Under Alternative B, the BLM

would manage soil resources to 

mitigate impacts and maintain or 

improve soil productivity. 

Management actions, such as BMPs

and mitigation measures and CSU

stipulations, to prioritize sensitive 

Under Alternative C, the BLM

would prioritize designated areas 

for resource protection, minimize 

overall ground disturbance, and 

prioritize previously degraded areas 

for soil restoration. Sensitive soils, 

including biological soil crusts,

Under Alternative D, the BLM

would maximize land areas available 

for resource uses and ensure that 

surface disturbance does not 

accelerate erosion. Management 

under Alternative D would mitigate 

impacts on sensitive soils and soils 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-89

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

development and coal leasing 

would cause impacts due to the 

potential to disturb or degrade 

erodible soils. 

Management of the entire decision 

area as open to vehicle use would 

allow surface disturbance to soils 

and would leave sensitive soils 

vulnerable to impacts from use.

Livestock grazing may result in 

declining soil health. Impacts on soil 

health would be mitigated by the 

BLM by managing allotments to 

meet the standards outlined in 43 

CFR, Part 4180.

The entire decision area is open to 

minerals material disposal and 

nonenergy solid leasables, which 

has the potential to increase 

disturbance levels on soils and 

cause impacts on soil resources 

from minerals development. 

No areas are managed as ROW

exclusion or avoidance, potentially 

destabilizing soils and increasing 

erosion. 

Under Alternative A, the BLM

would manage areas as available for 

timber harvest on a case-by-case 

basis. Timber harvest includes road 

areas for soil protection, including 

biological soil crusts and sensitive 

soils, would reduce the potential 

for impacts on sensitive soils in 

these areas.

Authorized disturbances would 

require plans for reclamation, and 

site-specific reclamation actions 

would reflect the environmental 

concerns and reclamation potential 

of the site. This would decrease the 

potential and magnitude of localized 

declines in soil health and 

productivity.

Under Alternative B, the BLM

would close fewer acres to fluid 

minerals leasing compared with 

Alternative A; however, more 

areas would be managed with CSU

stipulations to maintain or improve 

current soil productivity and status 

and minimize soil compaction and 

erosion. Impacts would be similar 

to those under Alternative A, with 

more protections for erodible soils.

The BLM would manage more 

acres as acceptable for further 

consideration for coal leasing than 

under Alternative A. Coal 

stipulations to protect other 

resources (e.g., cultural and 

would be protected as described 

for Alternative B.

Under Alternative C, the BLM

would close the same areas of BLM 

and split estate to fluid minerals

leasing as Alternative A, though 

more acres would be closed on 

other federal surface management 

areas. More areas would be 

managed with NSO or CSU

stipulations. The increase in 

restrictions on fluid minerals 

development would result in the 

disturbance of fewer acres and 

would be more protective of soil 

health than Alternative A. 

The BLM would manage the same 

number of acres as acceptable for 

further consideration for coal

leasing as under Alternative A. Coal 

stipulations to protect other 

resources (e.g., cultural and 

biological) would reduce the most 

indirect impacts when compared 

with Alternative A, because the 

most acres would be subject to 

stipulations that reduce soil 

disturbance. 

Impacts on soil resources from 

travel management would be 

similar to those under Alternative 

prone as described for Alternative 

B. 

Compared with Alternative A, 

more areas would be managed as 

NSO and CSU for fluid minerals

leasing. This would reduce the 

potential for disturbing soils or 

sensitive soils, which could maintain

soil health and productivity. 

The BLM would manage the same 

number of acres as acceptable for 

further consideration for coal

leasing as under Alternative B. 

Impacts would be the same as 

Alternative B. 

The BLM would manage more 

areas as limited for off-road vehicle

use under Alternative D than 

Alternative A, Limiting soil 

disturbance in these areas reduces 

overall impacts on soils.

Impacts from livestock grazing 

would be the same as under 

Alternative B.

Impacts from minerals material 

disposal and nonenergy solid 

leasables would be the same as 

those under Alternative B.

Impacts on soil resources from 

ROW management would be 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-90 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

building and vegetation clearing, 

which can cause soil compaction 

and instability and increase erosion 

rates. Impacts would be localized.

No ACECs would be managed 

under Alternative A and no special 

management would be assigned 

that could restrict surface 

disturbance that would reduce 

impacts on soil resources.

Under Alternative A, the BLM

would manage 1,900 acres, plus 

federal land in the Red River area

as VRM Class II. This would restrict 

surface-disturbing activities from 

vehicle travel, trail use, ROW

authorizations, and mineral 

development in these areas and 

indirectly reduce impacts on soils. 

biological) would reduce indirect 

impacts when compared with 

Alternative A, because more acres 

would be subject to stipulations 

that reduce soil disturbance. 

Management of the decision area as 

limited for off-road vehicle use 

would be more restrictive than 

under Alternative A, reducing the 

likelihood impacts on soil 

resources.

Compared with Alternative A, 

more acres would be available for 

grazing and could cause more soil 

disturbance from livestock grazing;

however, a buffer would be applied 

around wetland and riparian areas, 

which would decrease the potential 

for erosion in these areas.

Management under Alternative B 

restricts minerals material disposal

and nonenergy leasables more than 

under Alternative A. Impacts on 

sensitive soils would be reduced.

Compared with Alternative A, 

Alternative B would increase 

protection of soils and sensitive 

soils from surface-disturbing 

activities by managing more areas 

as ROW exclusion and highly 

B, though soil health and 

productivity would improve from 

closures.

Management of the entire decision 

area as unavailable to grazing would 

decrease impacts on soil resources, 

compared with Alternative A.

Management under Alternative C 

would be more protective of soil 

resources than Alternative A due 

to the increase in acres closed to 

minerals development. Impacts on 

soil resources from nonenergy 

leasable minerals would be the 

same as those described under 

Alternative B.

Impacts on soil resources from 

ROW management would be 

similar to those described under 

Alternative B; however, an 

additional 2,100 acres would be 

managed as ROW avoidance which 

would protect soil resources.

Closing the planning area to timber 

harvest would protect soils from 

surface disturbances associated 

with timber management. 

Most of the Cross Bar Management 

Area would be managed as an 

ACEC, which would restrict 

similar to those described under 

Alternative B; however, 2,800

fewer acres would be managed as 

ROW avoidance which would 

provide less protection to soil 

resources.

Under Alternative D, the BLM

would manage commercial timber 

harvest the same as Alternative B;

however, more land would be

available for timber harvest, 

resulting in fewer protections to 

soils resources. 

Impacts from not bringing forward 

and managing ACECs would be the 

same as under Alternative A. 

Fewer acres would be managed as 

VRM Class II under Alternative D 

than under Alternative A, which 

could limit surface-disturbing 

activities in these areas, therefore 

impacts on soils would be greater 

than under Alternative A. 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-91

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

erodible soils as ROW avoidance.

Under Alternative B, the SRMA

would be closed to timber harvest, 

protecting these areas from 

impacts related to timber 

management more than Alternative 

A. 

Impacts from not bringing forward

and managing ACECs would be the 

same as under Alternative A. 

Approximately 600 additional acres

would be managed as VRM Class II 

compared to Alternative A, 

restricting actions that may impact 

sensitive soils in these areas.

surface-disturbing activities and 

reduce impacts on sensitive soils.

Visually sensitive areas in the 

Antelope Hills, Gloss Mountain, 

and Wichita Mountains would be 

managed as VRM Class I, 

maintaining sensitive soils in these 

areas more than under Alternative 

A. Other impacts from VRM Class 

II management would be similar to 

Alternative B. 

Water Resources

Surface Water. Under Alternative 

A, the BLM would manage soil 

resources to maintain or improve 

soil conditions, which would 

continue to reduce impacts on 

surface water quality by reducing 

and preventing erosion. 

All lands would be open to vehicle

travel. Potential impacts would 

continue and could increase due to 

increased use.

ROW actions could impact surface 

water depending on the type and 

Surface Water. Compared with 

Alternative A, potential impacts on 

water resources would be reduced 

under Alternative B.

All lands would be managed as 

limited for off-road vehicle use, 

minimizing impacts on water 

resources.

Compared with Alternative A, 

more lands would be managed as 

ROW exclusion or avoidance, 

reducing impacts on water 

resources from ROW 

Surface Water. Compared with 

Alternative A, management under 

Alternative C would conserve and 

protect water resources the most. 

Impacts from off-road vehicle use 

would be similar to Alternative B, 

though closing Red River to offroad vehicle use under Alternative 

C would reduce potential impacts 

on water quality from recreation.

Impacts on water resources from 

ROW authorizations would be 

similar to those described under 

Surface Water. Under Alternative 

D, the impacts on water resources 

from management activities would 

be similar to those under 

Alternative B. 

Off-road vehicle use under 

Alternative D would reduce 

potential impacts on water quality

from recreation the same as

Alternative B.

Compared with Alternative A, 

more lands would be managed as 

ROW avoidance, reducing impacts 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-92 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

intensity of development and sitespecific conditions. 

Fluid minerals management includes 

stipulations for floodplains, wetland

and riparian areas, and reservoirs, 

minimizing the potential for impacts

on water quality.

Under Alternative A, continuing 

solid minerals and nonenergy 

leasing and potential future 

development as well as mineral 

material disposal could reduce 

water availability and degrade 

water quality, increasing sediment 

and turbidity. Additional coal

leasing, could occur on a case by 

case basis with an RMP 

amendment, however coal 

stipulations to protect other 

resources (e.g., cultural and 

biological) would reduce indirect 

impacts. Livestock grazing would 

continue to be allowed on 3,300 

acres plus federal lands in the Red 

River area; however, most impacts 

on water quality from grazing 

would be localized, as there are 

only four active grazing leases in 

the decision area.

Interim protective management to 

preserve the free-flowing nature, 

authorizations. 

Additional fluid minerals

stipulations for water resources 

would reduce impacts on water 

resources compared with 

Alternative A.

The BLM would manage more 

acres as acceptable for further 

consideration for coal leasing on 

BLM surface, split-estate, and other 

SMA lands than under Alternative 

A, which would increase potential 

impacts on water resources. Coal 

stipulations to protect other 

resources (e.g., cultural and 

biological) would reduce indirect 

impacts because more acres would 

be subject to stipulations that 

reduce soil disturbance. 

Under Alternative B, impacts from 

nonenergy leasables, and minerals 

material disposal would be less than

those described under Alternative 

A as more lands would be 

restricted.

Under Alternative B, 11,800 more 

acres would be available for 

livestock grazing than under 

Alternative A, although the impacts

would be similar to those described 

under Alternative A. Impacts on 

Alternative B, except to a greater 

extent.

Impacts associated with fluid 

minerals management would be 

similar to those described in 

Alternative A, although additional 

restrictions apply, providing more 

surface water protections.

The BLM would manage the same 

number of acres as acceptable for 

further consideration for coal

leasing as under Alternative A and 

impacts would be the same. 

However, no additional areas 

would be acceptable for further 

consideration for leasing, and more 

coal stipulations would be applied 

to protect wetlands and riparian

areas and other resources. This 

would reduce indirect impacts,

when compared with Alternative A.

Under Alternative C, fewer lands 

would be open to nonenergy 

leasables and minerals material 

disposal. The impacts from solid 

minerals leasing and development 

would be less than those described 

under Alternative A.

Under Alternative C, there would 

be no impacts on water resources 

from livestock grazing, as there 

on water resources from ROW 

authorizations. 

Impacts associated with fluid 

minerals management would be 

similar to those described in 

Alternative B.

Impacts from solid minerals leasing 

would be similar to those under 

Alternative B. The BLM would 

manage the same number of acres 

as acceptable for further 

consideration for coal leasing as 

under Alternative B and impacts 

would be the same. 

Impacts from nonenergy leasables 

and minerals material disposal

would be the same as those under 

Alternative B.

Livestock grazing impacts on water 

resources under Alternative D 

would be the same as those 

described under Alternative B. 

By determining that the Canadian 

River segment is not suitable for 

inclusion in the National WSR 

System, management to protect the 

ORV’s would not be implemented 

and indirect impacts that would 

protect water quality would also 

not occur under Alternative D. 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-93

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

outstanding remarkable values 

(ORVs), and preliminary 

classification of the Canadian River

eligible segment would protect the 

eligible segment from land use 

changes and surface-disturbing 

activities that could affect surface 

water by altering water quality and 

the free-flowing character.

Ground Water. Groundwater

resource protection and 

groundwater overdraft prevention 

would be implemented in 

accordance with existing laws and 

policies.

water quality would still generally 

occur in localized areas along the 

Red River area.

Impacts from managing the 

Canadian River as suitable for 

inclusion in the National Wild and 

Scenic River System (NWSRS)

would be the same as under 

Alternative A, because the BLM 

would not authorize activities that

would affect the ORVs, free-flowing 

nature, or preliminary classification 

of the river segment.

Ground Water. Water depletions 

for oil and gas hydraulic fracturing 

would continue to occur; however, 

the reuse of surface water and 

groundwater would be encouraged, 

and groundwater resource 

protection and groundwater 

overdraft prevention would be 

emphasized compared with 

Alternative A.

would be no BLM-administered 

lands available for grazing.

Impacts from the management of 

Wild and Scenic Rivers would be 

the same as described under 

Alternative B.

Ground Water. Water depletions 

for oil and gas hydraulic fracturing 

would continue to occur, but reuse 

of surface water and groundwater

would be required, in accordance 

with current regulation, and there 

would be additional stipulations for 

water resources to the greatest 

extent under Alternative C, 

compared with Alternative A.

Ground Water. Water depletions 

for oil and gas hydraulic fracturing 

would continue to occur; however, 

the reuse of surface water and 

groundwater would be encouraged, 

and groundwater resource 

protection and groundwater 

overdraft prevention would be 

emphasized compared with 

Alternative A.

Vegetation

Upland Vegetation

Impacts on upland vegetation may 

occur on 335,700 acres of BLM

surface and split-estate lands plus a 

portion of the federal lands in the 

Red River area open to fluid 

minerals leasing with standard 

Impacts on upland vegetation may 

occur on 184,900 acres of BLM

surface and split-estate lands open 

to fluid minerals leasing with 

standard terms and conditions; 

2,523,000 acres open to fluid 

Impacts on upland vegetation may 

occur on 147,600 acres of BLM

surface and split-estate lands open 

to fluid minerals leasing with 

standard terms and conditions; 

2,026,800 acres open to fluid 

Impacts on upland vegetation may 

occur on 186,700 acres of BLM

surface and split-estate lands open 

to fluid minerals leasing with 

standard terms and conditions; 

2,523,000 acres open to fluid 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-94 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

terms and conditions; 2,279,400

acres open to fluid minerals leasing 

on other federal SMA lands; 70,000

acres of BLM-administered, splitestate, and other SMA lands 

acceptable for coal leasing. 

Approximately 3,300 acres are also 

available for livestock grazing, 

including allotments in the Red 

River area. Impacts may include 

vegetation loss, conversion, 

fragmentation, spread of noxious 

and invasive plants and changes in 

vegetation communities.

Alternative A would be open to all 

types of vehicle use outside of 

Cross bar management area. 

Impacts include breaking or 

crushing vegetation, increasing

noxious weed and invasive plant

spread, and increasing the potential 

for soil compaction and erosion, 

leading to vegetation loss.

Upland vegetation would be 

maintained on the 1,900 acres that 

would be managed as VRM Class II. 

BLM-administered lands in the Red 

River area would also be managed 

as VRM Class II. 

No ACECs would be managed 

under Alternative A and no special 

minerals leasing on other federal 

SMA lands. Stipulations would 

restrict development in certain 

areas. As a result, impacts would be 

reduced, compared with

Alternative A.

Approximately 1,671,700 acres of 

BLM-administered, split-estate, and 

other SMA lands would be 

acceptable for coal leasing. While 

the nature of impacts on upland 

vegetation from coal leasing and 

development would be similar to 

Alternative A, additional coal 

stipulations applied under 

Alternative B would reduce impact 

intensity.

Impacts from livestock grazing 

would be the similar to Alternative 

A; however, 15,100 acres would 

available for livestock grazing (5 

times as many as Alternative A).

Under Alternative B, off-road 

vehicle use would be limited at the 

Cross Bar Management Area and 

federal lands of the Red River area. 

Such management would reduce 

impacts on upland vegetation

compared with Alternative A.

Approximately 600 additional acres 

of upland vegetation would be 

minerals leasing on other federal 

SMA lands. The added increase in 

closures and acres subject to NSO

stipulations would result in less 

disturbance and loss of upland 

vegetation, compared with 

Alternative A.

Impacts from identifying lands as 

acceptable for further 

consideration for coal leasing

would be similar to Alternative A, 

However, no additional areas

would be acceptable for further 

consideration for leasing, which 

would reduce potential indirect 

impacts, when compared with 

Alternative A.

The Cross Bar Management Area

would be limited for off-road 

vehicle use, and all federal lands in 

the Red River area would be closed 

to off-road vehicle use, and all of 

the decision area would be made 

unavailable for livestock grazing, 

thereby reducing the potential for 

vegetation community damage and 

loss from these uses. 

Visually sensitive areas in the 

Antelope Hills, Gloss Mountain, 

and Wichita Mountains would be 

managed as VRM Class I, 

minerals leasing on other federal 

SMA lands. While fluid mineral 

leasing would be allowed in more 

areas, these areas would generally 

be subject to increased major 

stipulations. As a result, impacts 

would likely be reduced, compared 

with Alternative A.

Impacts from coal development, 

livestock grazing, and travel and 

transportation would be the same 

as Alternative B. 

Upland vegetation would be 

maintained on the 200 acres that 

would be managed as VRM Class II. 

Impacts from not bringing forward 

and managing ACECs would be the 

same as under Alternative A. 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-95

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

management would be assigned 

that could restrict surface 

disturbance that would reduce 

impacts on upland vegetation.

managed as VRM Class II compared 

to Alternative A, restricting actions 

that may impact upland vegetation 

in these areas.

Impacts from not bringing forward 

and managing ACECs would be the 

same as under Alternative A. 

BLM management would include 

several provisions to enhance 

vegetation communities. Vegetation 

management would emphasize 

high-priority habitats identified in 

state wildlife action plans.

maintaining upland vegetation in 

these areas. Other impacts from 

VRM Class II management would 

be similar to Alternative B. 

Most of the Cross Bar Management 

Area would be managed as an 

ACEC, which would restrict 

surface-disturbing activities and 

reduce disturbance to vegetation 

communities.

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

Fluid and solid minerals 

development (including coal) may 

increase the potential for the 

introduction and spread of noxious 

weeds and invasive plants; leasing 

stipulations (such as NSO) would 

minimize potential for surface 

disturbance and reduce spread of 

noxious weeds and invasive plants. 

Disposing of BLM-administered 

surface estate to nonfederal 

entities could result in land use 

changes and development leading 

to the invasion of noxious weeds

or invasive plants.

Land use authorizations resulting in 

While more acres are open to fluid 

and solid mineral development 

(including coal), increased acreage 

of stipulations for mineral 

management would help maintain 

vegetation and reduce disturbance. 

This would also reduce the spread 

of noxious weeds and invasive 

plants that could change the 

character of native vegetation 

communities more than under 

Alternative A. 

Disposing of additional BLMadministered surface estate 

compared to Alternative A could 

result in increased noxious weeds

or invasive plant establishment and 

Impacts from fluid and solid mineral 

development (including coal) would 

be similar to those described for 

Alternative A, though the acreage 

under leasing stipulations (such as 

NSO) on BLM surface and mineral 

estate would be greatly increased 

under this alternative, leading to a 

reduced potential for spread of 

noxious weeds or invasive plants in 

these areas.

Disposing of additional BLMadministered surface estate 

compared to Alternative A could 

result in increased noxious weeds

or invasive plant establishment and 

Impacts on noxious weeds and 

invasive plants from fluid and solid 

mineral management would be 

similar to those described for 

Alternative B. Similar acreage 

would be closed to fluid and solid 

mineral leasing or under NSO

stipulations on BLM surface and 

mineral estate. Impacts would likely 

be reduced, compared with 

Alternative A.

Impacts from land and realty, 

vegetation management, livestock 

grazing, travel, and recreation 

would be the same as under 

Alternative B. 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-96 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ROW development can have 

similar impacts, due to surface 

disturbance during infrastructure 

construction. Linear features like 

roads can facilitate noxious weed

and invasive species spread over 

long distances.

Noxious and invasive plants would 

continue to be spread in areas 

open to all types of vehicle use. 

Livestock grazing would continue in 

the four existing allotments and be 

available on 3,300 acres. Noxious 

and invasive plants can be spread 

through livestock trailing, however 

adherence to fallback rangeland 

health standards in 43 CFR Part 

4180.2(f)(1)(f)(2) for livestock 

grazing would reduce impacts. 

Surface-disturbing activities would 

be limited in VRM Class II areas, 

and soil resources would be 

managed to maintain or reduce 

erosion and improve vegetation 

cover. Such management would 

reduce vegetation disturbance and 

limit weed invasion of native 

communities.

spread.

Impacts would also occur from 

livestock grazing management, 

infrastructure development, and 

other resource uses on BLMadministered surface and mineral 

estate.

The BLM would reduce cover of 

noxious weeds and invasive plants

in native plant communities and 

would manage to prevent 

establishment of new noxious 

weeds and invasive species. 

Furthermore, the BLM would 

restore natural fire regimes in fireprone areas, which would limit the 

potential for weed introduction and 

spread that could change the 

character of native vegetation 

communities.

Managing BLM-administered lands 

as limited to off-road vehicle use 

under Alternative B would reduce 

the spread of noxious and invasive 

plants more than Alternative A.

Additional VRM Class II areas 

would reduce potential for weed 

establishment and spread. 

spread.

The closure of BLM-administered 

lands to grazing under this 

alternative could reduce the spread 

of noxious weeds and invasive 

plants carried by livestock; 

however, it also could contribute 

to weed growth, since livestock 

would not be available to forage on 

these species.

The Cross Bar Management Area

would be limited for off-road 

vehicle use, and all federal lands in 

the Red River area would be closed 

to off-road vehicle use reducing the 

spread of noxious and invasive 

plants more than Alternative A. 

Additional VRM Class I and II areas 

would reduce potential for weed 

establishment and spread.

Fewer VRM Class II areas (and no 

VRM Class I) would increase 

potential for weed establishment 

and spread. 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-97

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Soils, vegetation, fish and wildlife, 

and special status species 

management may maintain wetland

and riparian vegetation and result 

in movement toward proper 

functioning condition (PFC) where 

they occur in wetland and riparian 

areas.

Closures to solid and fluid minerals

leasing and major stipulations 

would continue to be applied to 

limit disturbance to riparian and 

wetland vegetation. 

Riparian and wetland vegetation 

would be maintained along the 

Canadian River that would be 

managed as eligible for inclusion in 

the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System.

Impacts would continue to occur 

where riparian and wetland

vegetation would be available for 

livestock grazing, and in areas open 

to motorized travel. 

No ACECs would be managed and 

no special management would be 

assigned that could restrict surface 

disturbance and reduce impacts on 

riparian and wetland vegetation.

Soils, vegetation, fish and wildlife, 

and special status species 

management would help to 

maintain and move riparian and 

wetland areas toward PFC by 

improving vegetation composition 

and reducing erosion. Alternative B 

would establish a year-round, 415-

foot buffer around wetland and 

riparian areas to protect them from 

impacts of resource uses, livestock 

grazing, and recreation.

More areas would be open to solid 

and fluid minerals leasing compared 

with Alternative A, but additional 

major stipulations would be applied 

in riparian and wetland areas to 

reduce impacts.

Riparian and wetland vegetation 

would be maintained along the 

Canadian River that would be 

managed as preliminarily suitable

for inclusion in the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System.

Impacts would be reduced 

compared to Alternative A on the 

Cross Bar Management Area and 

Red River area, where off-road 

vehicle use would be limited and 

Soils, vegetation, fish and wildlife, 

and special status species 

management would help to 

maintain and move riparian and 

wetland areas toward PFC by 

improving vegetation composition 

and reducing erosion. Alternative C 

would establish a year-round, 415-

foot buffer around wetland and 

riparian areas to protect them from 

impacts of resource uses and 

recreation. All areas would be 

made unavailable to livestock 

grazing, allowing for the movement 

of riparian and wetland areas 

toward PFC.

Minerals management includes 

similar impacts described under 

Alternative B, but the application of 

a 415-foot buffer would further 

reduce changes to wetland and 

riparian areas.

Riparian and wetland vegetation 

would be maintained along the 

Canadian River that would be 

managed as preliminarily suitable

for inclusion in the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System.

Impacts from travel and 

transportation would be similar to 

Soils, vegetation, fish and wildlife, 

and special status species 

management would help to 

maintain and move riparian and 

wetland areas toward PFC by 

improving vegetation composition 

and reducing erosion. Alternative D 

would establish a year-round, 415-

foot buffer around wetland and 

riparian areas to protect them from 

impacts on resource uses, livestock 

grazing, and recreation.

Minerals management under 

Alternative D could cause impacts 

similar to those described under 

Alternative B. Application of a 415-

foot buffer would reduce wetland

and riparian vegetation loss and 

movement away from PFC in more 

areas, compared with Alternative 

A.

By determining that the Canadian 

River segment is not suitable for 

inclusion in the National WSR 

System, management to protect the 

ORV’s would not be implemented 

and indirect impacts that would 

extra protection of riparian and 

wetland vegetation would also not 

occur under Alternative D. 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-98 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

lands would be managed as ROW

avoidance and exclusion.

Impacts from not bringing forward 

and managing ACECs would be the 

same as under Alternative A. 

Alternative B, though closing Red 

River to off-road vehicle use would 

reduce potential impacts on 

wetland and riparian vegetation 

more than under Alternative B.

Managing the Cross Bar 

Management Area as an ACEC

would restrict resource uses 

compared with Alternative A, 

leading to long-term maintenance 

of wetland and riparian vegetation.

Impacts from livestock grazing and 

travel and transportation would be 

the same as Alternative B. 

Impacts from not bringing forward 

and managing ACECs would be the 

same as under Alternative A. 

Special Status Plant Species

Managing soils to reduce erosion 

and improve vegetative ground 

cover would help to maintain cover 

for special status plants. Impacts 

would continue to occur from 

permitted land-disturbing activities.

Fluid or solid minerals development

(including coal) and areas open to

off-road vehicle use could result in 

direct loss of special status plants, 

habitat disturbance or loss, or 

increased competition from weeds.

Fluid and solid minerals stipulations 

would prevent or minimize surface 

disturbance in sensitive habitats. 

Impacts from livestock grazing 

could occur on the available areas 

and are most likely to occur on 

Soil, fish and wildlife, and special 

status species management would 

help to maintain and expand special 

status plant populations relative to 

Alternative A. 

More areas would be open to fluid

and solid minerals leasing (including 

coal) compared with Alternative A, 

but additional stipulations would be 

applied that would reduce impacts 

on special status plants.

While the entire decision area 

would be available to livestock 

grazing, development and 

adherence to fallback rangeland 

health standards in 43 CFR Part 

4180.2(f)(1)(f)(2) for livestock 

grazing would protect special status 

plant populations in grazing leases. 

Soil, fish and wildlife, and special 

status species management would 

help to maintain and expand special 

status plant populations relative to 

Alternative A.

Impacts would be reduced on the 

lands that would have NSO

stipulations applied and would be 

closed to fluid minerals leasing, 

compared with Alternative A. More 

closures would result in less 

disturbance and associated 

reduction or loss of special status 

plants in the development area.

Impacts from coal development 

would be similar to Alternative A;

however, no new leases would be 

allowed, limiting these impacts. 

Impacts on special status plant 

species from soils, fish and wildlife, 

livestock grazing, recreation, travel, 

and special status species 

management under Alternative D 

would be the same as described 

under Alternative B.

While more areas would be open to 

fluid and solid mineral leasing 

(including coal), more areas would 

also be managed with NSO

stipulations applied compared with 

Alternative A, leading to potentially 

lower levels of vegetation damage 

and loss. Applying a 415-foot buffer 

around riparian and wetland areas 

would reduce changes to special 

status plant populations within this 

buffer compared with Alternative A.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-99

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

those special status plant species in 

native prairie grasslands and 

riparian areas that are available to 

livestock grazing; however, 

adherence to fallback rangeland 

health standards in 43 CFR part 

4180.2(f)(1)(f)(2) could reduce 

these impacts. 

No ACECs would be managed and 

no special management would be 

assigned that could restrict surface 

disturbance and reduce impacts on 

special status plants.

Areas managed as VRM Class II 

help to maintain special status plant 

populations and distribution by 

preventing ground-disturbing 

actions.

Impacts would be reduced on the 

Cross Bar Management Area and 

Red River area, where off-road 

vehicle use would be limited and

lands would be managed as ROW

avoidance or exclusion.

Impacts from not bringing forward 

and managing ACECs would be the 

same as under Alternative A. 

Additional VRM Class II areas 

would prevent or minimize surface 

disturbance in sensitive habitats, 

helping to maintain habitat and 

populations.

Impacts from travel and 

transportation would be similar to 

Alternative B, though closing Red 

River to off-road vehicle use would 

reduce potential impacts on special 

status plants more than under 

Alternative B.

All areas would be made 

unavailable to livestock grazing, 

resulting in the maintenance of 

special status plant populations and 

distribution in the long term.

Impacts would be reduced in the 

Cross Bar Management Area

ACEC, which would restrict 

surface-disturbing activities and

help to maintain habitat and 

populations.

Additional VRM Class I and II areas 

would prevent or minimize surface 

disturbance in sensitive habitats, 

helping to maintain habitat and 

populations.

Impacts from not bringing forward 

and managing ACECs would be the 

same as under Alternative A. 

Fewer VRM Class II (and no Class 

I) areas could increase impacts on 

habitat and populations. 

Fish and Wildlife

Fisheries

Under Alternative A, there are no 

goals, objectives, or actions specific 

to fish.

Water depletions associated with 

oil and gas hydraulic fracturing on 

Alternative B includes goals, 

objectives, and actions specific to 

fish and wildlife. This includes 

managing BLM-administered surface 

tracts to support native fish 

populations and improving riparian

The impacts of fish and wildlife 

management on fisheries also 

would be the same as described 

under Alternative B.

Impacts from fluid minerals

The impacts of fish and wildlife 

management on fisheries also 

would be the same as described 

under Alternative B.

Impacts from fluid minerals
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-100 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

both BLM-administered and splitestate lands would continue in 

areas open to oil and gas leasing, 

which may impact hydrology in fishbearing streams and reservoirs. 

NSO stipulations for floodplains, 

wetlands and riparian areas, 

reservoirs, and other site-specific 

areas that encompass fisheries 

would minimize the potential for 

impacts on water quality.

Solid minerals leasing and potential 

future development on BLMadministered and split-estate lands 

could continue to alter fish habitat 

and increase sediment and 

turbidity.

The Red River area would continue 

to be managed as open to all 

vehicle use under Alternative A. 

Impacts from off-road vehicle use 

and other recreation could include 

loss or reduction in streamside 

vegetation in localized areas.

Managing soil resources to maintain 

or reduce erosion and improve 

vegetation ground cover would 

help to preserve streamside 

vegetation. Impacts would continue 

to occur from permitted landdisturbing activities.

zones and bank stabilization, which 

would help to preserve streamside 

vegetation and cover.

Impacts from fluid minerals

development would be similar to 

those described under Alternative 

A; however, implementing a 415-

foot NSO stipulation surrounding 

wetland and riparian areas would 

help to preserve streamside 

vegetation and reduce the risk of 

water quality alteration to a greater 

extent than under Alternative A. 

The types of impacts from solid 

minerals leasing and development 

would be the same as those 

described under Alternative A.

Limiting off-road vehicle use in the 

Red River area would reduce the 

potential for streamside vegetation 

removal.

Compared with Alternative A, 

there would be additional 

stipulations specific to soil 

resources under Alternative B. In 

these areas, there would be less 

potential for sediment loading in 

adjacent waters.

Impacts from not bringing forward 

and managing ACECs would be the 

development would be similar to 

those described under Alternative 

A; however, implementing a 415-

foot NSO stipulation surrounding 

wetland and riparian areas would 

help to preserve streamside 

vegetation to a greater extent than 

under Alternative A.

The types of impacts from solid 

minerals leasing and development 

would be the same as those 

described under Alternative A.

Closing BLM-administered lands 

along the Red River area to offroad vehicle use would reduce the 

potential for streamside vegetation 

removal and sedimentation into 

waterways.

The impacts of soil resource 

management would be the same as 

described under Alternative B.

Managing the Cross Bar 

Management Area as an ACEC

would restrict resource uses 

compared with Alternative A, 

leading to long-term maintenance 

of streamside vegetation.

The impacts of WSR management 

on fisheries would be the same as 

described under Alternative B.

development would be similar to 

those described under Alternative 

A; however, implementing a 415-

foot NSO stipulation surrounding 

wetland and riparian areas would 

help to preserve streamside 

vegetation and reduce the risk of 

water quality alteration.

The impacts from solid minerals 

leasing and development would be 

the same as described under 

Alternative A.

Impacts from travel and 

transportation management would 

be the same as described under 

Alternative B.

Impacts from soil resources 

management would be the same as 

described under Alternative B.

Impacts from not bringing forward 

and managing ACECs would be the 

same as under Alternative A.

The Canadian River would no 

longer be managed as eligible for 

inclusion in the NWSRS, and 

interim protective management to

preserve the free-flowing nature, 

ORVs, and preliminary classification

would cease. This would remove 

protections from land use changes 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-101

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

No ACECs would be managed 

under Alternative A and no special 

management would be assigned 

that could restrict surface 

disturbance that would reduce 

impacts on fisheries.

The Canadian River would be 

managed as eligible for inclusion in 

the NWSRS. Interim protective 

management would protect the 

eligible segment from land use 

changes and surface-disturbing 

activities that could impact fisheries 

by altering the watershed

hydrology and sediment regimes.

same as under Alternative A.

Determining the Canadian River

segment as suitable for inclusion in 

the NWSRS would have impacts as 

described for Alternative A.

and surface-disturbing activities that 

impact fisheries by altering the 

watershed hydrology and sediment 

regimes.

Wildlife and Migratory Birds

Alternative A contains one 

stipulation for migratory birds, 

requiring migratory bird surveys 

prior to surface-disturbing 

activities. In addition, open earthed 

pits and open topped tanks would 

be required to be netted or 

otherwise covered and maintained. 

Stipulations for wetland, floodplain, 

and riparian areas under 

Alternative A would help maintain 

habitat for wildlife and migratory 

birds that use or depend on 

riparian habitats or aquatic habitats. 

There are no goals, objectives, or 

actions specific to wildlife. 

Objectives and actions specific to 

migratory birds and wildlife under 

Alternative B would reduce the 

amount of disturbance or loss of 

habitat. Managing Important Bird 

Areas (IBAs) as ROW avoidance

would reduce the likelihood of 

collision with overhead power lines 

or loss of cover. Additional 

stipulations for wetlands, riparian

areas, and water bodies would help 

to preserve plant communities, 

food supplies, and cover for wildlife 

and migratory birds that use these 

habitats.

The impacts of fish and wildlife 

management would be similar to 

those described under Alternative 

A; however, an additional NSO

stipulation along migratory bird 

pathways would reduce the 

likelihood of disturbance in IBAs.

Impacts from fluid minerals

development would be similar to 

those described under Alternative 

A; however, implementing a 

migratory bird pathway NSO

stipulation would help to maintain 

cover and would reduce the 

potential for impacts on movement 

The impacts of fish and wildlife 

management would be the same as 

described under Alternative B.

Impacts from fluid minerals

development would be similar to 

those described under Alternative 

A; however, impacts on wildlife and 

migratory birds could occur in 

more areas, as more areas would 

be open to leasing. In areas open to 

leasing, timing limitations and CSU

stipulations would minimize 

potential impacts.

The impacts from solid minerals 

leasing and development would be 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-102 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Fluid and solid minerals 

development on BLM-administered 

and split-estate lands could result in 

the disturbance or loss of plant 

communities, food supplies, cover, 

or breeding sites for wildlife and 

migratory birds, particularly in 

areas that are open to such 

development.

Managing soils to reduce erosion 

and improve vegetative ground 

cover would help to maintain cover 

for wildlife and migratory birds. 

Impacts would continue to occur 

from permitted land-disturbing 

activities.

The Red River area would continue 

to be managed as open to all 

vehicle use and dispersed 

recreation under Alternative A. 

Potential impacts on wildlife and 

migratory birds include habitat 

disturbance and avoidance.

No ACECs would be managed 

under Alternative A and no special 

management would be assigned 

that could restrict surface 

disturbance that would reduce 

impacts on wildlife and migratory 

birds.

Impacts from fluid minerals

development would be similar to 

those described under Alternative 

A. Impacts would be reduced by 

implementing timing limitations for 

nesting migratory birds, nesting 

raptors, and eagle nests.

The types of impacts from solid 

minerals leasing and development 

would be the same as described 

under Alternative A.

There would be additional 

stipulations specific to soil 

resources under Alternative B, 

compared with Alternative A. In 

these areas, there would be less 

disturbance or loss of plant 

communities that provide cover for 

wildlife and migratory birds.

Managing the Cross Bar SRMA

would impact fish and wildlife 

greater than Alternative A because 

of the limited access to CBMA 

under Alternative A. 

Limiting off-road vehicle use in the 

Red River area reduce the potential 

for loss of plant communities or 

cover for wildlife and migratory 

birds.

Impacts from not bringing forward 

patterns. Timing limitations for 

nesting migratory birds, nesting 

raptors, and eagle nests would help 

to maintain seasonally important 

habitats from potential disturbance.

The types of impacts from solid 

minerals leasing and development 

would be the same as described 

under Alternative A.

Managing the Cross Bar ERMA

would impact fish and wildlife 

greater than Alternative A because 

of the limited access to CBMA 

under Alternative A. 

Closing BLM-administered lands 

along the Red River area to offroad vehicle use would reduce the 

potential for loss of wildlife or 

migratory bird cover.

The impacts of soil resource 

management would be the same as 

described under Alternative B.

Managing the Cross Bar 

Management Area as an ACEC

would maintain cover for wildlife 

and migratory birds.

Other impacts would be similar to 

those described for Fisheries.

the same as described under 

Alternative A.

Impacts from Cross Bar ERMA and 

travel and transportation 

management would be the same as 

described under Alternative B.

Impacts from soil resources 

management would be the same as 

described under Alternative B.

Impacts from not bringing forward 

and managing ACECs would be the 

same as under Alternative A. 

By not managing the Canadian 

River as eligible for inclusion in the 

NWSRS, protections from land use 

changes and surface-disturbing 

activities that alter cover and food 

supplies would no longer occur.

Other impacts would be similar to 

those described for Fisheries.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-103

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Other impacts would be similar to 

those described for Fisheries.

and managing ACECs would be the 

same as under Alternative A. 

Other impacts would be similar to 

those described for Fisheries. 

Special Status Species

Fluid minerals leasing and 

development could cause direct 

mortality, particularly for the 

American burying beetle (proposed 

for delisting); reduce water quality

for aquatic special status species, 

such as the Arkansas River shiner; 

and degrade or remove burrows 

and vegetation for black-tailed 

prairie dogs. Stipulations specific to 

individual special status species 

would mitigate impacts.

The Red River area would continue 

to be managed as open to all 

vehicle use. The interior least tern

(proposed for delisting) is known 

to occur along the Red River; 

therefore, ongoing off-road vehicle

use could result in noise and 

habitat avoidance.

Solid minerals development could 

affect special status species habitat, 

including loss, reduced 

effectiveness, modification and 

degradation, fragmentation, 

Alternative B includes goals, 

objectives, and actions specific to 

fish, wildlife, and special status 

species that are not included under 

Alternative A. Managing BLMadministered surface tracts to 

support native fish populations, 

improve riparian zones, and 

stabilize banks would help to 

preserve habitat for aquatic special 

status species, specifically the 

Arkansas River shiner. Additional 

stipulations for wetlands, riparian 

areas, and water bodies would help 

to preserve habitat for some 

special status species.

The type of impacts associated with 

fluid minerals development would 

be similar to those described under 

Alternative A; however, additional 

stipulations for special status 

species would reduce the potential 

for disturbance or loss of 

important habitat components.

Limiting off-road vehicle use within 

the Red River area would reduce 

The impacts of fish and wildlife 

management would be similar to 

those described under Alternative 

A; however, an additional NSO

stipulation along migratory bird 

pathways would reduce the 

likelihood of disturbance or habitat 

avoidance in IBAs.

Impacts from fluid minerals

development would be similar to 

those described under Alternative 

A; however, additional acres would 

be NSO for leasing in counties 

where American burying beetle

(proposed for delisting), blackcapped vireo, interior least tern

(proposed for delisting), and redcockaded woodpecker (RCW) are 

believed or known to occur, 

helping to maintain habitat for 

these species.

Closing BLM-administered lands 

within the Red River area to offroad vehicle use would reduce the 

potential for interior least tern 

The impacts of fish and wildlife 

management would be the same as 

those described under Alternative 

A.

Impacts from fluid minerals

development would be similar to 

those described under Alternative 

A; however, more acres would be 

NSO for leasing in counties where 

American burying beetle (proposed 

for delisting), black-capped vireo, 

interior least tern (proposed for 

delisting), and RCW are believed 

or known to occur, helping to 

maintain habitat for these species.

The impacts from travel and 

transportation management would 

be the same as described for 

Alternative B.

The impacts from solid minerals 

leasing and development would be 

the same as described for 

Alternative A.

Under Alternative D, potential 

impacts from disturbance on special 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-104 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

avoidance, and interference with 

movement patterns.

ROW development could impact 

special status species through 

direct habitat disturbance or 

impeding movement.

There are no goals, objectives, or 

actions specific to wildfire ecology 

and management under Alternative 

A. Wildfire could directly impact 

special status species by removing 

vegetation and food supplies and 

reducing or eliminating cover, 

depending on the severity of the 

fire. Lack of fire would continue to 

affect habitat suitability for some 

special status species such as red 

cockaded woodpecker and 

American burying beetle.

The Canadian River would be 

managed as eligible (1,100 acres) 

for inclusion in the NWSRS, which 

would help maintain important 

habitat components for the 

Arkansas River shiner, such as 

seasonally variable temperatures 

and shallow braided channels.

the potential for noise disturbance 

to the interior least tern (proposed 

for delisting), compared with 

Alternative A.

The impacts associated with solid 

minerals leasing and development 

would be the same as described 

under Alternative A.

Placing ROW restrictions under 

Alternative B would reduce 

potential impacts on special status 

species when compared with 

Alternative A, particularly for the 

ABB, lesser prairie-chicken, blackcapped vireo, and interior least 

tern. 

Wildfire management would allow 

for more opportunities to restore 

important habitat components for 

special status species, such as the 

American burying beetle (proposed 

for delisting) and red cockaded 

woodpecker, than under 

Alternative A.

Impacts from WSR management 

would be the same as described for 

Alternative A.

habitat disturbance.

The impacts associated with solid 

minerals leasing and development 

would be the same as described 

under Alternative A. 

Placing ROW restrictions under 

Alternative C would reduce 

potential impacts on special status 

species when compared with 

Alternative A, particularly for the 

ABB, lesser prairie-chicken, blackcapped vireo, and interior least 

tern.

The impacts from wildfire ecology 

and management would be the 

same as described under 

Alternative B.

Impacts from WSR management 

would be the same as described for 

Alternative A.

status species habitat in these areas 

would be less when compared with 

Alternative A for the lesser prairiechicken. 

The impacts from wildfire ecology 

and management would be the 

same as described under 

Alternative B.

The Canadian River would no 

longer be managed as eligible for 

inclusion in the NWSRS. Important 

habitat components for the 

Arkansas River shiner, such as 

seasonally variable temperatures 

and shallow braided channels, 

would no longer be maintained as 

an indirect benefit of such 

management.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-105

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Cultural Resources

Alternative A maintains cultural 

resource compliance actions to 

address impacts on cultural 

resources. A lease notice would be 

implemented on leases specifically 

to preserve significant cultural 

resource values and to ensure that 

cultural resources in lease areas are 

identified, historic properties are 

evaluated, and adverse impacts are 

resolved. Lands closed to leasing 

and minerals development, and 

stipulations to preserve other 

resource values would provide 

incidental protection to cultural 

resources and their settings.

Cultural resources would not be 

affected on the 50,600 acres closed 

to fluid minerals leasing. NSO

restrictions on 60,800 acres of 

would provide incidental 

protection to cultural resources.

For coal, 600 acres of SMA lands 

are acceptable for further 

consideration for coal leasing and 

additional lands are available on a 

case-by-case basis. The potential 

for impact would be evaluated in in 

separate cultural resource 

compliance actions.

Alternative B provides additional

measures and stipulations to 

reduce the risk of impacts on 

cultural resources and historic 

properties. It includes a similar 

lease notice, an NSO for historic 

trails, and additional actions such as 

minimizing noise around sensitive 

cultural sites and protecting 

cultural viewsheds compared with 

Alternative A. Stipulations to 

minimize disturbance of highly 

erodible soils and implement an

NSO stipulation with a 415-foot 

buffer to protect water bodies, 

riparian areas, and wetlands would 

provide additional incidental 

protection.

No acres would be closed to fluid 

minerals leasing, but 126,900 acres

would be subject to NSO

restrictions. Cultural resources 

would not be affected in these 

areas. 

For coal, 100 acres of BLMadministered land, 1,206,900 acres 

of SMA lands, and 464,700 acres of 

private would be acceptable for 

further consideration for leasing. 

More stipulations would be applied

cultural resources on leased areas.

Alternative C prioritizes resource 

protection over resource uses and 

includes more limitations on 

ground disturbance than the other 

alternatives. It includes the same 

cultural resource-related lease 

notice, NSO for historic trails, CSU

for sensitive soils, and 415-foot 

buffer to protect water bodies, 

riparian areas, and wetlands as 

Alternative B .

Alternative C would close the most 

acres to fluid mineral leasing. For 

coal, no additional acres would be 

available for consideration for 

leasing. Incidental protections from 

closure and stipulations would be 

greatest under this alternative.

Alternative C would manage the 

most acres as VRM Classes I or II, 

protecting cultural resources 

where the visual setting contributes 

to the significance of the property 

or the traditional use in those 

areas.

Designating the Cross Bar ERMA

would have the same impacts as 

described under Alternative B, 

except the area would be closed to 

rather than NSO for fluid minerals

Alternative D prioritizes making 

lands available for resource uses. It 

includes the same cultural 

resource-related lease notice, NSO

for historic trails, and additional 

actions as Alternative B, including

the same CSU for highly erodible 

soils, and 415-foot buffer to 

protect water bodies, riparian

areas, and wetlands.

No acres would be closed to fluid 

minerals leasing, and 126,900 acres

would be subject to NSO

restrictions. Cultural resources 

would not be affected in these 

areas. 

Impacts from coal would be the 

same as described for Alternative 

B. 

Alternative D would manage the 

fewer acres as VRM Class I or II, 

with greater potential for impact to 

the visual setting. 

No ACECs would be designated 

under Alternative D. Designating 

the Cross Bar ERMA would have 

the same impacts as described 

under Alternative B.

Under Alternative D, all lands 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-106 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

VRM Class II designations on 1,900 

acres, plus additional federal lands 

in the Red River area, would 

protect cultural resources where 

the visual setting contributes to the 

significance of the property or the 

traditional use.

No ACECs would be designated 

under Alternative A and no special 

management would be assigned 

that could restrict surface 

disturbance that would reduce 

impacts on cultural impacts. No 

RMAs would be developed.

Managing the decision area lands as 

open to off-road vehicle use could 

damage cultural resources through 

surface disturbance.

Potential disposal of 3,300 acres 

would remove federal protections 

for these lands. No ROW

exclusion or avoidance areas would 

be allocated.

Managing the Canadian River

segment as eligible for inclusion in 

the NWSRS would protect this 

corridor from surface disturbance 

and provide incidental protection 

to cultural resources.

The potential for impact would be 

evaluated in in separate cultural 

resource compliance actions.

VRM Class II designations on 2,500 

acres, plus additional federal lands 

in the Red River area, would 

protect cultural resources where 

the visual setting contributes to the 

significance of the property or the 

traditional use.

No ACECs would be designated 

under Alternative B. The 

designation of the Cross Bar SRMA

would open the area to public 

recreational use, increasing the 

intensity of permitted use of these 

areas and the risk for direct, 

indirect, and inadvertent damage to 

cultural resources but also 

increasing access for traditional 

cultural uses. Conversely, it would 

restrict mineral materials disposal

and nonenergy solid leasables and 

place an NSO stipulation for fluid 

minerals in the SRMA.

Managing BLM-administered lands 

as limited for off-road vehicle use 

would reduce the potential for

damage to cultural resources 

through surface disturbance

compared with Alternative A, 

leasing. Designating the Cross Bar 

Management Area ACEC, which 

overlaps the ERMA plus 600 

additional acres, would increase 

protections by managing this area 

to protect its relevant and 

important values, including cultural 

values.

Under Alternative C the Red River

area would be closed to off-road 

vehicle use, reducing the potential 

for impacts on cultural resources 

more than under the other 

alternatives. In other areas BLMadministered lands would be 

managed as limited for off-road 

vehicle use, with effects similar to 

those described for Alternative B.

Impacts from land tenure actions 

would be similar to those under 

Alternative B, as similar lands and 

acreage would be identified as 

meeting disposal criteria listed in 

section 203 of FLPMA . More acres 

would be exclusion or avoidance 

than under the other alternatives, 

increasing incidental protections 

compared with the other 

alternatives.

Managing the Canadian River

segment as suitable for inclusion in 

except the Cross Bar ERMA would 

be identified as meeting disposal

criteria listed in section 203 of 

FLPMA , potentially removing 

federal protections for the most 

acres of land of all the alternatives. 

ROW avoidance on 9,900 acres 

would provide incidental 

protections on more acres than 

Alternative A but fewer acres than 

Alternatives B or C.

Managing the Canadian River as 

not suitable for inclusion in the 

NWSRS under Alternative D 

would remove the incidental 

protections to cultural resources 

described under the other 

alternatives.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-107

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

especially in the Red River area. In 

the Cross Bar SRMA, which has no 

public vehicular access under 

current conditions, this designation 

would prevent cross-country travel 

and associated impacts on cultural 

resources in the newly opened 

SRMA.

More lands that meet disposal

criteria listed in section 203 of 

FLPMA are identified under 

Alternative B than under 

Alternative A, which would remove 

federal protections for more lands 

than Alternative A. Allocating 200

acres of ROW exclusion and 

12,700 acres plus federal lands in

the Red River area of ROW 

avoidance areas would exclude or 

limit surface-disturbing activities in 

those areas and reduce the 

potential for impacts on cultural 

resources.

Managing the Canadian River

segment as suitable for inclusion in 

the NWSRS would protect this 

corridor from surface disturbance 

and provide incidental protection 

to cultural resources, similar to 

Alternative A.

the NWSRS would protect this 

corridor from surface disturbance 

and provide incidental protection 

to cultural resources, similar to 

Alternatives A and B.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-108 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Paleontological Resources

Alternative A maintains the BLM 

policy to manage paleontological 

resources for scientific, educational, 

and recreational values and to 

protect or mitigate these resources 

from adverse impacts.

Soil protection measures could 

preserve the integrity of 

paleontological deposits and 

prevent accelerating damage from 

natural processes. There are 

currently no management goals, 

objectives, or actions for cave and 

karst resources.

Paleontological resources would 

not be affected on the 50,600 acres 

closed to fluid minerals leasing. 

NSO restrictions on 60,800 acres 

of would provide incidental 

protection to resources.

For coal, 600 acres of SMA lands 

are acceptable for further 

consideration for coal leasing and 

additional lands are available on a 

case-by-case basis. There would be 

potential for impacts on 

paleontological resources from 

surface disturbance, access, and 

erosion.

No ACECs would be designated 

Alternative B maintains BLM policy 

to manage paleontological 

resources for scientific, educational, 

and recreational values and to 

protect or mitigate these resources 

from adverse impacts. It adds 

measures to compile and maintain 

an inventory of fossil localities and 

to implement the PFYC system to 

help identify areas that could 

contain resources requiring 

mitigation before disturbing the 

ground surface. It adds a lease 

notice to operators pertaining to 

protection of paleontological 

resources.

Soil protection measures and an 

additional stipulation to protect 

sensitive soils could preserve the 

integrity of paleontological deposits 

and prevent accelerating damage 

from natural processes more than 

Alternative A.

Actions and a lease notice under 

Alternative B to manage and 

protect significant cave and karst

resources would provide incidental 

protection of any paleontological 

resources associated with these 

resources.

Alternative C would maintain the 

same goals, objectives, and actions

as Alternative B, but with a CSU

instead of a lease notice for 

paleontological resources. Overall,

potential impacts on 

paleontological resources would be 

less than those described for the 

other alternatives.

Measures under Alternative C to 

minimize or mitigate disturbance of 

highly erodible soils would be the 

same as Alternative B, adding CSU

stipulations for areas at risk for 

paleontological damage.

Actions to protect cave and karst 

resources and associated incidental 

protections would be the same as 

described for Alternative B.

Alternative C would close the most 

acres to fluid mineral leasing, and 

the most acres would be subject to 

NSO restrictions of all the 

alternatives. For coal, no additional 

acres would be available for 

consideration for leasing. Incidental 

protections from closure and NSO 

stipulations would be greatest 

under this alternative.

Designating the Cross Bar ERMA

Alternative D prioritizes making 

lands available for resource uses. It 

includes the same lease notice to 

operators pertaining to protection 

of paleontological resources as 

Alternative B.

Measures under Alternative D to 

minimize or mitigate disturbance of 

highly erodible soils would be the 

same as described for Alternative 

B.

Actions to protect cave and karst 

resources and associated incidental 

protections would be similar to 

Alternative B, but without the lease 

notice for cave and karst 

resources.

No acres would be closed to fluid 

minerals leasing and 126,900 acres

would be subject to NSO

restrictions. Paleontological 

resources would not be affected in 

these areas. 

Impacts from coal would be the 

same as described for Alternative 

B. 

No ACECs would be designated 

under Alternative D. Designating 

the Cross Bar ERMA would have 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-109

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

under Alternative A and no special 

management would be assigned 

that could restrict surface 

disturbance and incidentally reduce 

impacts on paleontological impacts.

No RMAs would be designated.

Managing the decision area lands as 

open to off-road vehicle use could 

damage paleontological resources 

through surface disturbance.

Public land tracts that meet 

disposal criteria listed in section 

203 of FLPMA could remove 

federal protections for any 

significant paleontological 

resources. No ROW exclusion or 

avoidance areas would be allocated.

Managing the Canadian River

segment as eligible for inclusion in 

the NWSRS would protect this 

corridor from surface disturbance 

and provide incidental protection 

to paleontological resources.

No acres would be closed to fluid 

minerals leasing, but 126,900 acres

would be subject to NSO

restrictions. Paleontological 

resources would not be affected in 

these areas. 

For coal, 100 acres of BLMadministered land, 1,206,900 acres 

of SMA lands, and 464,700 acres of 

private would be acceptable for 

further consideration for leasing, 

with an increased potential for 

impacts on paleontological 

resources compared with 

Alternative A.

No ACECs would be designated 

under Alternative B. The 

designation of the Cross Bar SRMA

would open the area to public 

recreational use, increasing the 

intensity of permitted use of these 

areas and the risk for direct, 

indirect, and inadvertent damage to 

paleontological resources. 

Conversely, it would restrict 

mineral materials disposal and 

nonenergy solid leasables and place 

an NSO stipulation for fluid 

minerals in the SRMA.

Managing BLM-administered lands 

as limited for off-road vehicle use 

would have the same impacts as 

described under Alternative B, 

except the area would be closed to 

rather than NSO for fluid minerals

leasing. Designating the Cross Bar 

Management Area ACEC, which 

overlaps the ERMA plus 600 

additional acres, would increase 

protections by managing this area 

to protect its relevant and 

important values.

Under Alternative C the Red River

area would be closed to off-road 

vehicle use, reducing the potential 

for impacts on paleontological 

resources more than under the 

other alternatives. In other areas 

BLM-administered lands would be 

managed as limited for off-road 

vehicle use, with effects similar to 

those described for Alternative B.

Impacts from land tenure actions 

would be similar to those under 

Alternative B, as similar lands and 

acreage would be identified as 

meeting disposal criteria listed in 

section 203 of FLPMA . More acres 

would be exclusion or avoidance 

than under the other alternatives, 

increasing incidental protections 

compared with the other 

the same impacts as described 

under Alternative B.

Under Alternative D, all lands 

except the Cross Bar ERMA would 

be identified as meeting disposal

criteria listed in section 203 of 

FLPMA, potentially removing 

federal protections for the most 

acres of land of all the alternatives. 

ROW avoidance on 9,900 acres 

would provide incidental 

protections on more acres than 

Alternative A but fewer acres than 

Alternatives B or C.

Managing the Canadian River as 

not suitable for inclusion in the 

NWSRS under Alternative D 

would remove the incidental 

protections to paleontological 

resources described under the

other alternatives.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-110 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

would reduce the potential for

damage to paleontological 

resources through surface 

disturbance compared with 

Alternative A, especially in the Red 

River area. In the Cross Bar SRMA, 

which has no public vehicular 

access under current conditions, 

this designation would prevent 

cross-country travel and associated 

impacts on paleontological 

resources in the newly opened 

SRMA.

Lands identified in Appendix N that 

meet disposal criteria listed in 

section 203 of FLPMA could 

remove federal protections for 

more lands than Alternative A. 

Allocating 200 acres of ROW

exclusion and 12,700 acres plus 

federal lands in the Red River area 

of ROW avoidance areas would 

exclude or limit surface-disturbing 

activities in those areas and reduce 

the potential for impacts on 

paleontological resources.

Managing the Canadian River

segment as suitable for inclusion in 

the NWSRS would protect this 

corridor from surface disturbance 

and provide incidental protection 

alternatives.

Managing the Canadian River

segment as suitable for inclusion in 

the NWSRS would protect this 

corridor from surface disturbance 

and provide incidental protection 

to paleontological resources, 

similar to Alternatives A and B.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-111

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

to paleontological resources, 

similar to Alternative A.

Visual Resources

Under Alternative A, the BLM 

would not comprehensively manage 

visual resources using VRM, except 

for federal lands in the Red River

area (managed as VRM Class II) and 

Cross Bar Management Area

(managed as VRM Class II [1,900 

acres], III [9,800 acres], and IV [100 

acres]). The remaining 3,300 acres

of BLM-administered lands do not 

have an assigned VRM class; these 

areas would not be required to 

meet VRM class objectives. Some 

areas would be managed as a higher 

(less protective) VRM class than 

their visual resource inventory

(VRI) class and some areas would 

not be managed for VRM objectives 

at all. In these areas, this 

management could degrade the 

scenic quality so as to change the 

VRI class of these lands in future 

inventories.

Under Alternative A, areas closed 

to fluid mineral development would 

have no impacts to visual resources 

from this type of development. 

NSO stipulations would limit the 

potential for impacts from fluid 

Under Alternative B, all areas 

would be managed for VRM

objectives, which could guide 

management to preserve visual 

resources. Some areas, such as the 

Cross Bar Management Area, 

would be managed as a higher (less 

protective) VRM class than their 

VRI class, (VRI Class II managed as 

VRM Class III). In these areas, this 

management could degrade the 

scenic quality so as to change the 

VRI class of these lands in future 

inventories.

Under Alternative B, no BLMadministered surface lands and split 

estate would be closed to fluid 

mineral development; some lands 

of other federal surface 

management agencies would be 

closed; however, some VRI Class I 

and II areas would be open or open 

with stipulations; scenic quality 

could be degraded in these areas. 

Compared with Alternative A, 

management under Alternative B 

would reduce the potential for 

visual resource impacts by applying 

NSO stipulations to more VRI 

Under Alternative C, all areas 

would be managed for VRM

objectives, as described for 

Alternative B. Most areas would be 

managed as VRM Class I or II, 

which would limit the potential for 

impacts on visual resources.

Under Alternative C, some areas of 

BLM-administered surface lands 

and split estate and lands of other 

federal surface management 

agencies would be closed to fluid 

mineral development; scenic quality 

would be preserved in these areas; 

however, some VRI Class I and II 

areas would be open or open with 

stipulations; scenic quality could be 

degraded in these areas. Compared 

with Alternative A, management 

under Alternative C would reduce 

the potential for visual resource 

impacts by applying stipulations to 

and making less areas completely 

open to development in more VRI 

Class I and II areas. This would limit 

the impacts.

Impacts from coal management

under Alternative C would be the 

Under Alternative D, all areas 

would be managed for VRM

objectives but most areas would be 

managed as VRM Class III or IV. 

Objectives of these management 

classes allow for moderate or high 

changes to the characteristic 

landscape. Some areas, such as the 

Cross Bar Management Area and 

federal lands in the Red River area, 

would be managed as a higher (less 

protective) VRM class than their 

VRI class. In these areas, this 

management could degrade the 

scenic quality so as to change the 

VRI class of these lands in future 

inventories.

Under Alternative D, no BLMadministered surface lands and split 

estate would be closed to fluid 

mineral development; some lands 

of other federal surface 

management agencies would be 

closed; however, some VRI Class I 

and II areas would be open or open 

with stipulations; scenic quality 

could be degraded in these areas.

Compared with Alternative A, 

Alternative D would reduce the 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-112 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

minerals development on visual 

resources, particularly in VRI Class 

II areas. Impacts on visual 

resources would be greatest in 

areas open to fluid mineral 

development, which under 

Alternative A includes 300 acres of 

VRI Class I lands and 193,700 acres, 

plus federal lands in the Red River

area, of VRI Class II lands.

Under Alternative A, impacts from 

coal development would be 

greatest in VRI Class II areas that 

are acceptable for further 

consideration for coal leasing (600 

acres of federal and state surface 

management agencies and 69,400 

acres of private surface ownership). 

Allowing this type of development 

in VRI Class II areas could degrade 

the scenic quality so as to change 

the VRI class of these lands in 

future inventories.

Mineral materials and nonenergy 

solid leasable development would be 

allowed in 300 acres of VRI Class I 

lands and 288,700 acres, plus federal 

lands in the Red River area, of VRI 

Class II lands. Scenic quality could be 

degraded in these areas. 

Land use authorizations, including 

Class II areas of the BLMadministered surface and splitestate decision area. This would 

limit the impacts.

Compared with Alternative A, 

management under Alternative B 

would increase the potential for 

visual resource impacts from coal

management since more areas are 

acceptable for this development. 

Under Alternative B, restricting 

mineral materials and nonenergy 

solid leasable minerals

development, such as at the Cross 

Bar SRMA, would protect scenic 

quality in those areas more than 

under Alternative A, where this 

development would be permitted.

Compared with Alternative A, 

under Alternative B, the BLM

would reduce the potential for 

ROW development by managing 

areas as ROW avoidance or 

exclusion. Impacts on visual 

resources caused by travel 

management would be less than 

under Alternative A since 

Alternative B would limit travel to

certain times, in certain areas, 

and/or to certain vehicular use

throughout all BLM-administered 

same as under Alternative A since 

the management actions are the 

same.

Closing areas to mineral materials

and nonenergy solid leasable 

minerals development, such as at 

the Cross Bar ERMA and Cross 

Bar Management Area ACEC, 

would protect scenic quality in 

those areas more than under 

Alternative A, where this 

development would be permitted.

Alternative C would result in 

nearly identical impacts on visual 

resources as Alternative B from 

ROW development by managing 

almost the same amount BLMadministered surface lands in the 

decision area as either ROW 

avoidance or exclusion. Impacts on 

visual resources from travel, 

transportation, and access would 

be less under Alternative C than 

Alternative A because there would 

be no potential for off-road vehiclerelated impacts on the federal lands 

in the Red River area where this 

mode of travel would not be 

allowed. Travel would be limited to

certain times, in certain areas, 

and/or to certain vehicular use in 

the remainder of BLM-administered 

potential for visual resource 

impacts by applying NSO

stipulations to more VRI Class II 

areas of the BLM-administered 

surface and split-estate decision 

area. This would limit the impacts; 

however, there would be no BLMadministered surface and splitestate completely closed to 

development under Alterative D; 

this would exacerbate impacts 

compared to Alternative A.

Alternative D would have the same 

impacts from coal management as 

Alternative B since the 

management actions are the same.

Restricting mineral materials and 

nonenergy solid leasable minerals

development in the Cross Bar

ERMA would protect scenic quality 

in that area more than under 

Alternative A, where this 

development would be permitted.

Impacts from ROW management 

and not bringing forward ACECs

would be the same as under 

Alternative A.

Impacts from travel, transportation 

management, and access; and 

livestock grazing would be the 

same as described under 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-113

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

ROW development, would be 

allowed on all BLM-administered 

surface lands and federal lands in 

the Red River area. All areas would 

be open to all modes of travel. This 

would have the potential to affect 

visual resources.

Under Alternative A, 3,300 acres of 

BLM-administered surface lands 

and federal lands in the Red River

area would be available for 

livestock grazing, 2,400 acres of 

which are VRI Class II, plus federal 

lands in the Red River area. 

There would be no ACECs

designated under Alternative A; 

therefore, there would be no 

impacts on visual resources from 

ACEC management.

Alternative A would manage the 

Canadian River as eligible for 

inclusion in the NWSRS. To the 

extent that cultural resources rely 

on the scenic integrity of the 

landscape, protection of this ORV 

could preserve scenic quality in the 

short and long term.

surface lands. 

Management under Alternative B 

would increase the potential for 

livestock grazing to alter visual 

resources compared to Alternative 

A because all of the BLMadministered surface lands in the 

decision area plus federal lands in 

the Red River area are available for 

grazing.

Impacts from not bringing forward 

any ACECs would be the same as 

under Alternative A.

Under Alternative B, managing the 

Canadian River segment as suitable

for inclusion in the NWSRS would 

have the same impacts as described

under Alternative A.

surface lands. 

Management under Alternative C 

would eliminate the potential for 

livestock grazing to alter visual 

resources on BLM-administered 

lands in the decision area by

managing all BLM- administered 

surface lands plus federal lands in 

the Red River area as unavailable 

for grazing.

Under Alternative C, the BLM 

would designate 10,500 acres of 

the Cross Bar Management Area as 

an ACEC, which is entirely within 

VRI Class II areas. As described in 

Nature and Types of Impacts, 

ACEC management would limit or 

prohibit surface disturbance and 

associated changes to vegetation 

and soil characteristics. The ACEC 

would also be managed as VRM

Class II, which would preserve the 

scenic quality.

Impacts from WSRs would be the 

same as under Alternative B.

Alternative B.

Under Alternative D, the Canadian 

River segment would not be 

suitable for inclusion in the 

NWSRS. Therefore, Alternative D 

would not provide the scenic 

quality preservation afforded under 

Alternatives A, B, and C.

Wildfire Management

Alternative A has the highest 

potential for suppression

operations to access areas where 

Alternative B would include actions 

to consolidate roads where 

possible. With fewer roads 

Alternative C would include actions 

to consolidate roads, with impacts 

Alternative D would include 

actions to consolidate roads, with 

impacts as described for 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-114 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

wildfires occur.

Some restrictions on fuels 

treatments would be applied to 

protect special status species and 

aquatic habitat, wildlife, waterways, 

and cultural and visual resources.

Few fire restrictions would apply, 

however, allowing for more 

flexibility in the tactical placement 

of fuels treatments

Fire management would include full 

suppression tactics. Hazardous 

fuels reduction treatments would 

be designed and implemented to 

reduce the risk to and 

consequences of wildfire to 

communities and ecosystems. 

Hazardous fuels treatments may be 

used to restore and maintain 

healthy ecosystems.

Livestock grazing on 3,300 acres 

available for livestock grazing would 

reduce fuels loads, resulting in lower 

wildfire intensity and spread in areas 

and closing of areas, which would 

help ensure that seeded species 

become established and would 

improve the potential for 

rehabilitation success following 

wildfires. This would also occur on 

federal lands along the 116-mile Red 

available, access to wildfires could 

be limited, potentially increasing 

response times compared with 

Alternative A.

Protections for special status 

species and aquatic habitat, wildlife, 

waterways, and cultural and visual 

resources could limit fire 

suppression operations and restrict 

placement of fuels treatments. 

Larger fires could occur compared 

with Alternative A.

Integrated pest management 

techniques to control noxious 

weeds and invasive plants would 

help control the spread and 

intensity of wildfires by limiting 

fuels.

Planting and seeding with native 

species would increase seeding 

costs and the availability of seed for 

emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation and fuels treatments. 

Successful revegetation would 

decrease future fire risk and 

severity compared with Alternative 

A.

Hazardous fuels reduction 

treatments would be designed and 

implemented in the same manner 

as under Alternative A and would 

as described for Alternative B.

Impacts on fire suppression and 

fuels treatments from protections 

for special status species and 

aquatic habitat, wildlife, waterways, 

and cultural and visual resources 

would be similar to Alternative B, 

with the most acres protected.

Impacts from integrated pest 

management techniques would be 

the same as Alternative B.

Alternative C would restrict fire 

suppression operations in order to 

allow fires to continue to their 

natural conclusion, which would 

increase risks to firefighters and 

public safety compared with 

Alternative A. This could also be in 

conflict with the Federal Wildfire 

Management Policy, land use plans, 

and fire management plans.

Fire management tactics and 

objectives under Alternative C 

would be expanded to allow fire to 

enhance resources, as appropriate. 

This would enhance opportunities 

for habitat restoration and 

reduction of fuels loading, when 

compared with Alternative A.

Hazardous fuels reduction 

treatments would have the same 

Alternative B.

Impacts on fire suppression and 

fuels treatments from protections 

for special status species and 

aquatic habitat, wildlife, waterways, 

and cultural and visual resources 

would be similar to Alternative B, 

with less acres protected.

Impacts from integrated pest 

management techniques would be 

the same as Alternative B.

Impacts from livestock grazing 

would be the same as identified 

under Alternative B.

The impacts from off-road vehicle

travel would be the same as those 

under Alternative B.

Impacts from not bringing forward 

ACECs under Alternative D would 

be the same as under Alternative 

A.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-115

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

River area between the North Fork 

of the Red River and the 98th 

Meridian. Prescriptive grazing would 

not be available as a tool for fuels 

treatments under Alternative A. 

Under Alternative A, 15,100 acres 

plus lands in the Red River area

would be managed as open to 

vehicle use, so travel management

would not restrict access to fire 

suppression operations; however, 

the potential for human-caused 

fires would exist under this 

alternative, due to the potential for 

increased public use and crosscountry travel associated with the 

travel management designations.

No ACECs would be prioritized 

for fire suppression or fuels 

treatments, and there would be no 

impacts on fire management.

result in the same impacts on fire 

management.

Fire management tactics and 

objectives would be expanded 

under Alternative B to allow fire to 

enhance resources, as appropriate. 

This would enhance opportunities 

for habitat restoration and 

reduction of fuels loading, when 

compared with Alternative A. 

All BLM-administered lands would 

be available to livestock grazing. 

Fuels treatment methods would be 

expanded to include prescriptive 

grazing to reduce hazardous fuels, 

increasing the BLM’s ability to 

reduce hazardous fuels when 

compared with Alternative A.

Alternative B proposes the entire 

decision area as limited for off-road 

vehicle use. There is the potential 

for fewer travelers under 

Alternative B, as well as fewer 

ignitions from off-road vehicle

travel; therefore, the potential for 

human-caused fire would be lower 

than under Alternative A.

Impacts from not bringing forward 

ACECs under Alternative B would 

be the same as under Alternative 

A.

impacts as under Alternative A.

Prescriptive grazing would be 

allowed, providing for a reduction 

in fuels loading that is not an option 

under Alternative A; however, the 

reduced level of overall grazing in 

the planning area when compared 

with Alternative A could result in 

increased fuels loads in some 

locations, because all BLMadministered lands would be 

unavailable to livestock grazing.

The impacts from off-road vehicle

travel would be the same as those 

under Alternative B, except in the 

Red River area, which would be 

closed to off-road vehicle use. The 

potential for fewer travelers and

fewer ignitions from off-road 

vehicle travel would be greatest 

under this alternative.

The Cross Bar Management Area

ACEC would become a priority 

suppression and fuels treatment 

area. Treatments would be 

implemented to reduce fuels 

loading and reduce the risk and 

severity of wildfire, and full 

suppression would be used in the 

area to protect resources.

Prohibiting target shooting in the 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-116 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

planning area would reduce the 

potential for human-caused fires 

compared with Alternative A.

Cave and Karst Resources

Under Alternative A, significant 

caves and karsts would continue to 

receive recognition and appropriate 

protection in the planning area, 

though there are no current 

management goals, objectives, or 

actions for this resource. This 

would reduce the potential for 

caves to lose special resource 

integrity or biological communities. 

Alterative A would manage all 

BLM-administered lands as open to 

vehicle use. Areas open to vehicle

use would increase the potential 

for accidental discoveries and the 

potential for damage to cave 

resources.

Under Alternative A, the BLM

would manage 50,600 acres as 

closed to fluid minerals leasing, 

60,800 acres as NSO, and 14,500 

acres as CSU. This could prevent 

fluid minerals impacts on caves and 

karsts, including their wildlife and 

cultural resources, in these areas; 

however, unknown cave and karsts 

may be impacted from directional 

Management under Alternative B 

may increase protections of caves 

and karsts over Alternative A. 

Before permitting any use 

authorizations, the BLM would 

assess the potential of any 

associated impacts on caves and 

karsts. Avoidance would be 

considered as the primary means of 

mitigating any potential impacts. If 

avoidance were not possible, 

COAs would be applied.

Under Alternative B, all BLMadministered lands would be 

managed as limited for off-road 

vehicle use, which may reduce the 

potential for accidental cave 

discoveries and subsequently the 

potential for damage to their 

resources. 

Alternative B would close fewer 

acres to fluid minerals leasing than

Alternative A. Unknown caves and 

karsts could lose integrity from 

potential dewatering and 

contamination from fluid minerals 

exploration and development in the 

Under Alternative C, the BLM 

would manage caves and karsts the 

same as under Alternative B, but 

with an emphasis on maximum 

resource protection. This could 

protect any potential bat habitat

more than the other alternatives.

Federal lands in the Red River area

would be managed as closed to offroad vehicle use. This would

reduce the potential for accidental 

cave discoveries and the potential 

for damage to their resources

more than under the other 

alternatives. Other areas would be 

managed as limited for off-road 

vehicle use, and impacts would be 

the same as described for 

Alternative B.

Under Alternative C, the BLM 

would close the same number of 

acres of BLM-administered surface 

land and split-estate to fluid 

minerals leasing as Alternative A

but manage the most acres as NSO

and CSU. This would prevent 

actions that could release 

Management under Alternative D 

would emphasize resource use, 

which would generally increase the 

potential for the discovery of caves 

compared with Alternative A. 

Impacts from managing all BLMadministered lands as limited for

off-road vehicle use would be the 

same as Alternative B.

Impacts from fluid mineral leasing 

would be the similar to Alternative 

B, but with fewer areas subject to 

NSO and CSU stipulations. 

Under Alternative D, the same 

acres would be acceptable for 

further consideration for coal

leasing as under Alternative B, so 

the impacts to cave and karst 

resources are the same as under 

Alternative B.

Special status bats would be 

protected the same as under 

Alternative B.

Under Alternative D, the BLM

would not manage any ACECs and 

impacts would be the same as 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-117

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

drilling originating from locations 

outside the stipulation area.

Under Alternative A, 600 acres of 

state and other federal SMA lands 

and 69,400 acres of private surface 

estate overlying federal mineral 

estate would be acceptable for 

further consideration for coal

leasing. Coal leasing in these areas 

could result in accidental discovery 

similar to fluids minerals 

development.

Under Alternative A, the BLM

would not designate any ACECs or 

RMAs.

areas open to leasing. Alternative B 

would manage more acres as NSO

and CSU, which may protect cave 

and karst resources more than 

under Alternative A; however, 

unknown cave and karsts may be 

impacted from directional drilling

originating from locations outside 

the stipulation area.

Under Alternative B, 100 acres of 

BLM-administered lands, 1,206,900 

acres of state and other federal 

SMA lands, and 464,700 acres of 

private surface estate would be 

acceptable for further 

consideration for coal leasing. Coal 

leasing in these areas could result 

in accidental discovery similar to 

fluids minerals development. More 

lands are acceptable for further 

coal leasing than under Alternative 

A, so the potential for accidental 

discovery is more than under 

Alternative A.

Under Alternative B, special status 

bats would be protected within a 

415-foot radius. If a cave were to 

be closed, then its associated 

biological resources would be 

preserved, and the introduction of 

visual or audible elements and loss 

pollutants capable of contaminating 

aquifers during drilling or 

groundwater recharge; however, 

unknown cave and karsts may be 

impacted from directional drilling

originating from locations outside 

the stipulation area.

The number of acres acceptable for 

further consideration for coal

leasing would be the same as under 

Alternative A, but no additional 

areas would be acceptable for 

further consideration. Coal 

development and the potential for 

accidental discovery would likely be 

less than under the other 

alternatives.

Special status bats would be 

protected the same as under 

Alternative B.

The Cross Bar Management Area

would be managed as an ACEC, 

which would further protect cave 

values. The additional protections 

offered from protecting ACEC 

values may result in protection of 

discoverable caves and karsts.

Establishing the Cross Bar ERMA

would have the same impacts and 

protections as described for 

Alternative A.

Establishing the Cross Bar ERMA

would have the same impacts and 

protections as described for 

Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-118 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

of integrity would be prevented.

Impacts from ACEC management 

would be the same as those under 

Alternative A since there would be 

no ACEC designated under either 

alternative.

Designating the Cross Bar SRMA

would open this area to public 

recreational use and access. Travel 

would be managed as limited for 

off-road vehicle use, which would 

reduce the potential for impact. In 

addition, the SRMA would remain 

closed to fluid mineral leasing, 

similar to Alternative A, and 

mineral materials disposal and 

nonenergy leasables would be 

restricted, which would protect 

cave and karst resources more 

than under Alternative A if such 

resources exist.

Alternative B.

BLM RESOURCE USES

Energy and Minerals 

Coal

Under Alternative A, approximately 

4 percent of the BLM coal decision 

area would remain acceptable for 

further consideration for leasing. 

Coal leasing on areas not identified 

as acceptable for further 

consideration for leasing could 

Under Alternative B, approximately 

89 percent of the BLM coal

decision area would be acceptable

for further consideration for 

leasing. The remaining 211,700 

acres are not subject to leasing in 

accordance with 43 CFR 3400.2. 

Acceptability for further 

consideration for coal leasing 

would be the same as under 

Alternative A.

However, all remaining acres in the 

BLM coal decision area would be 

eliminated from further 

Acceptability for further 

consideration for coal leasing 

would be the same as under 

Alternative B, with the same 

impacts.

The same amount of area would be 

acceptable by underground 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-119

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

occur only after additional coal 

screening and NEPA analysis for 

those areas. No decisions in this 

plan would prevent coal leasing in 

these areas.

Coal leasing and development 

cannot occur in these areas.

Managing 1,204,500 acres (64 

percent) of the coal resources on 

the BLM-administered federal 

mineral estate (including 58 percent 

of the volatile bituminous coal in 

the decision area) as acceptable for 

further consideration only for 

development by underground 

techniques (i.e., only underground 

mining could be used) could reduce 

the total amount of coal 

development in the decision area

because it could prevent the 

development of some near-surface 

coal resources.

Applying additional stipulations to 

coal leasing, based on site-specific 

conditions, would continue to limit 

coal development.

consideration for leasing. Pending 

lease applications would not be 

approved. As a result, coal 

development would likely decrease 

compared with Alternative A. This 

alternative would be the most 

restrictive on coal leasing out of all 

the alternatives.

methods as described for 

Alternative B, with the same 

impacts.

Applying additional stipulations to 

coal leasing, based on site-specific 

conditions, would limit coal 

development.

Fluid Minerals

Approximately 2,615,100 acres of 

the BLM-administered fluid 

minerals decision area, plus 

additional federal lands in the Red 

River area, would continue to be 

open, subject to standard terms 

and conditions, under Alternative 

A. This includes 430,000 acres of 

the oil and gas high-potential areas,

Under Alternative B, approximately 

2,707,900 acres of the BLMadministered fluid minerals decision 

area, plus additional federal lands in 

the Red River area, would be open, 

subject to standard terms and 

conditions. This would include 

371,300 acres of the oil and gas 

high-potential areas in the decision 

Under Alternative C, 

approximately 2,174,400 acres of 

the BLM-administered fluid 

minerals decision area, plus 

additional federal lands in the Red 

River area, would be open, subject 

to standard terms and conditions. 

This would include 343,300 acres 

of the oil and gas high-potential 

Under Alternative D, 

approximately 2,709,700 acres of 

the BLM-administered fluid 

minerals decision area, plus 

additional federal lands in the Red 

River area, would be open, subject 

to standard terms and conditions. 

This is 4 percent more acres than 

are open subject to standard terms 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-120 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

401,800 acres of the moderate-tohigh-potential areas, and 551,600

acres of the moderate-potential 

areas; however, these numbers 

may be lower, as additional 

stipulations are applied to leases at 

the site-specific level. 

Approximately 456,400 acres of 

the BLM-administered fluid 

minerals decision area, plus 

additional federal lands in the Red 

River area, would continue to be 

closed to fluid minerals leasing 

under Alternative A. This includes 

17,900 acres of oil and gas highpotential areas, 89,600 acres of 

moderate-to-high-potential areas, 

and 163,500 acres of moderatepotential areas.

Approximately 10,800 acres of

federal mineral estate in helium 

areas would continue to be closed 

to fluid minerals development. 

Approximately 2,500 acres of 

federal mineral estate in helium 

areas would be subject to NSO

stipulations. Extraction of helium in 

these areas would continue to be 

limited.

Under Alternative A, approximately 

2,615,100 acres of geothermal

area. This would represent an 

approximately 14 percent decrease 

in high-potential areas open, 

subject to standard terms and 

conditions, compared with 

Alternative A.

Approximately 44,800 acres of the 

BLM-administered fluid minerals

decision area would be closed to 

fluid minerals leasing under 

Alternative B. This is approximately 

10 times fewer acres than are 

closed under Alternative A. This 

decrease is mostly because more 

acres would be subject to NSO and 

CSU stipulations under Alternative 

B.

Under Alternative B, no federal 

mineral estate in helium areas 

would be closed to fluid minerals

development. Approximately 5,600

acres of federal mineral estate in 

helium areas would be subject to 

NSO stipulations. Additionally, 

approximately 40,200 acres of 

federal mineral estate in helium 

areas would be subject to CSU

stipulations. Impacts of restrictions 

on helium development would 

decrease overall compared with 

Alternative A because of the 

areas in the decision area. This 

would represent an approximately

20 percent decrease in total highpotential areas open subject to 

standard terms and conditions, 

compared with Alternative A.

Approximately 618,100 acres of 

the BLM-administered fluid 

minerals decision area, plus 

additional federal lands in the Red 

River area, would be closed to fluid 

minerals leasing under Alternative 

C. This is approximately 35 percent 

more acres than are closed under 

Alternative A. The greatest 

increase in these closures would be 

for no potential areas of the 

decision area.

Approximately 15,100 acres of 

federal mineral estate in helium 

areas would be closed to fluid 

minerals development. 

Approximately 5,300 acres of 

federal mineral estate in helium 

areas would be subject to NSO

stipulations. Compared with 

Alternative A, this is approximately 

2 times more acres subject to NSO 

stipulations.

Approximately 2,175,500 acres of 

geothermal resources in the BLMand conditions under Alternative A. 

This would include 371,300 acres 

of the oil and gas high-potential 

areas in the decision area. Only 

moderate- and low-potential areas 

would see an increase in acres 

open subject to standard terms and 

conditions. For other levels of 

potential, the acres subject to this 

management would decrease under

Alternative D compared with 

Alternative A.

Approximately 44,800 acres of the 

BLM-administered fluid minerals

decision area would be closed to 

fluid minerals leasing under 

Alternative D. This is 

approximately 10 times fewer acres 

than are closed under Alternative 

A. This decrease is mainly due to 

the increase in acres open, subject 

to NSO and CSU stipulations, 

under Alternative D.

As with Alternative B, under 

Alternative D, no federal mineral 

estate in helium areas would be 

closed to fluid minerals

development. Approximately 5,600

acres of federal mineral estate in 

helium areas would be subject to 

NSO stipulations. This is over 

twice as many acres subject to 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-121

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

resources in the BLM-administered 

fluid minerals decision area, plus 

additional federal lands in the Red 

River area, would continue to be 

open to geothermal leasing, subject 

to standard terms and conditions. 

This includes 51,700 acres of the 

high geothermal potential areas, 

293,800 acres of the highmoderate-potential areas, and

213,000 acres of the moderatepotential areas.

Approximately 461,400 acres of 

geothermal resources in the BLMadministered fluid minerals decision 

area, plus additional federal lands in 

the Red River area, would continue 

to be closed to fluid minerals 

leasing under Alternative A. This 

includes 218,300 acres of high 

geothermal potential areas and 

136,500 acres of high-moderatepotential areas.

Applying NSO, CSU, and TL

stipulations would continue to limit 

oil and gas, helium, and geothermal

development in the areas where 

they are applied. Additional areas 

may be subject to stipulations on a 

site-specific basis.

decrease in closures.

Approximately 2,708,000 acres of 

geothermal resources in the BLM 

fluid minerals decision area would 

be open, subject to standard terms 

and conditions. This would include 

228,600 acres of the high 

geothermal potential areas. This 

represents approximately four 

times as many high-potential areas 

open, subject to standard terms 

and conditions, compared with 

Alternative A.

Approximately 44,800 acres of 

geothermal resources in the BLM 

fluid minerals decision area would 

be closed to fluid minerals leasing 

under Alternative B. This is 10 

times fewer acres than are closed 

under Alternative A. This decrease 

is mostly because more acres 

would be subject to NSO and CSU

stipulations under Alternative B.

Applying NSO, CSU, and TL

stipulations would continue to limit 

oil and gas, helium, and geothermal

development in the areas where 

they are applied. Additional areas 

may be subject to stipulations on a 

site-specific basis.

administered fluid minerals decision 

area, plus additional federal lands in 

the Red River area, would be open, 

subject to standard terms and 

conditions. This would include 

22,100 acres of the high 

geothermal potential areas in the 

decision area. This would represent 

approximately half as many highpotential areas open, subject to 

standard terms and conditions, 

compared with Alternative A.

Approximately 618,100 acres of 

the BLM-administered fluid 

minerals decision area would be 

closed to fluid minerals leasing 

under Alternative C. This is 34 

percent more acres than are closed 

under Alternative A. The greatest 

increase in these closures would be 

for low- and moderate-lowgeothermal potential areas of the 

decision area.

Applying NSO, CSU, and TL

stipulations would continue to limit 

oil and gas, helium, and geothermal

development in the areas where 

they are applied. Additional areas 

may be subject to stipulations on a 

site-specific basis.

NSO stipulations, compared with 

Alternative A. Impacts of 

restrictions on helium development 

would decrease overall compared 

with Alternative A because of the 

decrease in closures.

Under Alternative D, 

approximately 2,709,800 acres of 

geothermal resources in the BLMadministered fluid minerals decision 

area, plus additional federal lands in 

the Red River area, would be open, 

subject to standard terms and 

conditions. This is approximately 4 

percent more acres than are open 

subject to standard terms and 

conditions under Alternative A. 

The greatest increase in acres 

open, subject to standard terms 

and conditions, would be for high 

geothermal potential areas of the 

decision area. Under Alternative D, 

approximately 4 times more highpotential areas would be open, 

subject to standard terms and 

conditions, compared with 

Alternative A.

Approximately 44,800 acres of 

geothermal resources in the BLMadministered fluid minerals decision 

area would be closed to fluid 

minerals leasing under Alternative 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-122 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

D. This is 10 times fewer acres 

than are closed under Alternative 

A. This decrease is mainly due to 

the increase in acres open subject 

to NSO and CSU stipulations 

under Alternative D.

Applying NSO, CSU, and TL

stipulations would continue to limit 

oil and gas, helium, and geothermal

development in the areas where 

they are applied. Additional areas 

may be subject to stipulations on a 

site-specific basis.

Mineral Materials

The BLM would continue to 

manage the entire decision area as 

open to mineral materials disposal.

The ability of the mineral materials 

program to meet demand would 

not be impacted by this 

management.

Additional restrictions on mineral 

materials development would be 

applied, but impacts would be 

unlikely due to the lack of 

anticipated mineral materials 

development in the decision area.

All federal mineral estate along the 

Red River would be closed under 

this alternative. Because this area is 

the only part of the decision area 

with mineral materials, this closure 

could reduce mineral material 

development; however, because 

mineral materials development is 

not expected in the next 20 years, 

impacts are unlikely.

Additional restrictions on mineral 

materials development would be 

applied, but impacts would be 

unlikely due to the lack of 

anticipated mineral materials 

development in the decision area.

Nonenergy Leasables

Under Alternative A, the BLM 

would continue to manage the 

entire decision area as open to 

nonenergy solid minerals leasing. 

The ability of the nonenergy 

leasables program to meet demand 

Under Alternative B, the BLM

would place a CSU on 9,900 acres 

of the decision area to nonenergy 

solid minerals leasing. The 9900 

acres contain salt resources. These 

acres may also contain sand, gravel, 

Under Alternative C, the BLM 

would close 10,500 acres to 

nonenergy solid mineral leasing. All 

of these acres contain salt 

resources. These acres may also 

contain sand, gravel, and other 

Management of nonenergy leasables

under Alternative D would be 

similar to that described under 

Alternative B. Compared with 

Alternative A, placing a CSU in the 

Cross Bar ERMA could decrease 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-123

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

would not be impacted by this 

management.

and other mineral materials that 

are leasable because they are 

acquired minerals. None of the 

acres that could be restricted 

contain any other nonenergy 

leasables. Restricting these areas 

could decrease nonenergy leasable 

activity, compared with Alternative 

A.

mineral materials that are leasable 

because they are acquired minerals. 

None of the acres that would be 

closed contain any other nonenergy 

leasables. Compared with 

Alternative A, closing these areas 

could decrease nonenergy leasable 

activity.

nonenergy leasable activity. 

Renewable Energy

Alternative A would allow 

renewable energy development on 

all of the BLM-administered surface 

decision area. Managing all areas as 

open to ROW development would 

allow the BLM to fully 

accommodate demand for 

renewable energy ROWs. It would 

also allow ancillary ROWs to 

support renewable energy 

development, such as transmission 

lines and roads.

The BLM would manage 1,900 

acres as VRM Class II, plus federal

lands in the Red River area, 9,800 

acres as VRM Class III, and 100 

acres as VRM Class IV. Visual 

resource management objectives 

would affect renewable energy

development in VRM Class II areas, 

because VRM Class II objectives 

would discourage visual 

Compared with Alternative A, 

Alternative B would reduce the 

potential for new wind or solar 

energy development by avoiding

wind and solar energy ROW

development on 12,700 acres plus 

additional federal lands in the Red 

River area of the BLM-administered 

surface decision area. Avoidance 

areas would include 10,500 acres 

plus additional federal lands in the 

Red River area of lands classified as 

having high wind resource potential 

and 12,100 acres plus additional 

federal lands in the Red River area 

with high photovoltaic solar 

resource potential. An additional 

200 acres would be managed as 

ROW exclusion areas, including 

100 acres classified as having high 

wind potential and high 

photovoltaic solar resource

Impacts on new wind or solar 

energy development from 

establishing ROW exclusion areas 

would be the same as described for 

Alternative B; however, there 

would be 2,100 more acres, plus 

additional federal lands in the Red 

River area, designated as ROW 

avoidance areas. Alternative C

would manage the most areas of 

high wind and photovoltaic solar 

resources as ROW avoidance 

areas. This would limit, but not 

eliminate, opportunities for new 

renewable energy development. 

Under Alternative C, the BLM

would manage 200 acres as VRM

Class I and 14,200 acres, plus 

additional federal lands in the Red 

River area, as VRM Class II. 

Alternative C would manage the 

most areas as VRM Class II, 

Of the action alternatives, 

Alternative D would manage the 

fewest acres as ROW avoidance or 

exclusion. Impacts from ROW 

exclusion would be the same as 

Alternative A; however, managing 

9,900 acres as ROW avoidance 

under Alternative D would limit 

opportunities for new renewable 

energy development compared 

with Alternative A. There would be 

8,600 acres of high wind potential 

areas and 9,900 acres of high solar 

photovoltaic potential areas in 

ROW avoidance areas. This would 

reduce, but not eliminate, the 

likelihood of future wind and solar 

energy development in the decision 

area. 

Under this alternative, the BLM

would manage the fewest acres as 

VRM Class II; the impacts from 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-124 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

modifications, such as energy 

generation facilities and 

transmission lines, to the landscape. 

VRM Classes III and IV would allow 

for visual modifications. Impacts on 

renewable energy development 

would be less in these areas.

Because 3,300 acres are managed 

as undesignated, there would 

continue to be no VRM class 

objectives in these areas that would 

impact renewable energy 

development.

Managing the Canadian River

corridor as eligible for inclusion in 

the NWSRS would preclude

opportunities for renewable energy

development or related 

infrastructure in the corridor.

potential. Compared with

Alternative A, Alternative B would 

reduce the areas of high wind and 

photovoltaic solar resources 

available for renewable energy

development.

Under Alternative B, the BLM

would manage 2,500 acres, plus 

additional federal lands in the Red 

River area, as VRM Class II, 

including 1,600 acres, plus 

additional federal lands in the Red 

River area, in areas with high wind 

resource potential and 1,800 acres,

plus additional federal lands in the 

Red River area, in areas with high 

photovoltaic solar resource 

potential. Managing nearly all of the 

BLM-administered surface decision 

areas as ROW exclusion and 

avoidance would likely preclude any 

new renewable energy

development. Therefore, VRM 

management would have negligible 

additional effect on future 

development.

Managing the Canadian River

corridor as suitable for inclusion in 

the NWSRS would preclude

opportunities for renewable energy

development or related 

resulting in the greatest potential 

for restrictions on development.

Because nearly all of the BLMadministered surface decision areas 

would be managed as ROW

exclusion and avoidance, VRM 

management would have negligible 

additional effect on future 

development.

Impacts from managing the 

Canadian River corridor (as 

suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS

would be the same as described for 

Alternative B.

VRM management objectives would 

be less than under Alternative A. 

Managing 14,000 acres as VRM 

Class III could allow for new 

renewable energy development 

without conflicting with VRM 

objectives. 

The Canadian River corridor (1,100 

acres) would not be managed as 

eligible or suitable for inclusion in 

the NWSR; impacts described 

under Alternative A would not 

occur under Alternative D.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-125

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

infrastructure in the corridor, 

similar to Alternative A.

Recreation and Visitor Services

SRMAs and ERMAs. There would 

continue to be no SRMAs or 

ERMAs in the decision area and, 

therefore, no impacts on desired 

recreation setting characteristics 

(RSCs) or recreational 

opportunities.

Decision Area. BLM management 

would emphasize other resource 

and resource use programs over 

recreation and visitor services, and 

the BLM would have limited ability 

to manage for desired outcomes or 

activities. There would be greater 

opportunity for conflict with other 

resource uses and among 

recreationists in areas where there 

is concentrated use, such as the 

Red River area.

Public access to the Cross Bar 

Management Area would continue 

to be limited to a trail along the 

Canadian River, which would 

prevent vehicle access. This would 

minimize the potential for conflict 

among users, but would limit 

overall visitation to the area.

Managing BLM-administered lands 

SRMAs. The Cross Bar SRMA 

would be managed to attain RSCs 

that support horseback riding, 

mountain biking, hiking, and wildlife 

viewing, while emphasizing 

conservation. Restrictions in the 

SRMA would limit development 

that could reduce the amount or 

quality of these activities and shift 

RSCs toward middle or front 

country settings. Conflicts from 

development on these activities

would be less than under 

Alternative A.

Visitors’ ability to experience the 

SRMA would largely depend on 

constructing an access road for 

public access to the SRMA. If the 

access road was constructed, it 

would improve visitation over the 

long term without altering the 

administrative or physical RSCs.

ERMAs. There would be no ERMAs 

in the decision area. 

Decision Area. Most recreation 

outside the Cross Bar SRMA would 

continue. 

SRMAs. There would be no SRMAs 

designated. 

ERMAs. Cross Bar ERMA would be 

managed to provide recreation 

opportunities that are compatible 

with other resources and uses. This 

would result in impacts similar to 

Alternative B, but with lesser focus 

on attaining RSCs. Closing the 

ERMA for fluid minerals leasing, and 

managing the ERMA as unavailable 

for grazing would provide stronger 

protection of recreation 

opportunities than the other 

alternatives. Designating the Cross 

Bar ACEC and avoiding new ROW

development would further 

support and not conflict with those 

opportunities.

Decision Area. Impacts would be 

similar to Alternative B, except 

there would be no impacts from 

grazing on recreation and visitor 

services and managing more areas 

as ROW avoidance would reduce 

the potential for conflicts. 

Managing 15,100 acres as limited to 

off-road vehicle travel would result 

SRMAs. There would be no SRMAs 

designated.

ERMAs. Impacts on recreation in 

the Cross Bar ERMA would be 

similar to those described under 

Alternative B, but there would be 

less emphasis on conservation. 

Less-restrictive management could 

result in a long-term shift in RSCs, 

if resource extraction were to 

introduce additional noise or 

surface disturbance.

Decision Area. Impacts would be 

similar to Alternative B, except less 

restrictive management for fluid 

minerals would increase the 

potential for those uses to reduce 

or eliminate basic recreation and 

visitor services and resource 

stewardship needs throughout the 

decision area.

Managing 15,100 acres, plus federal

lands in the Red River area, as 

limited to off-road vehicle travel 

would result in the same impacts as 

Alternative B.

Opportunities for target shooting 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-126 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

as open to all types of vehicle travel 

would maintain opportunities for 

trail-based and cross-country 

motorized travel. However, there 

would be the potential for crosscountry off-road vehicle use to 

conflict with other non-trail-based 

recreation activities, such as 

camping, hunting, and sightseeing.

There would continue to be no 

RMP-level guidance for issuing 

SRPs, leading to possible conflicts 

among commercial outfitters and 

other resource programs if the 

demand for SRPs increases.

A continuation of current 

management would provide no 

specific direction for target 

shooting.

Impacts from recreation user 

conflicts on BLM-administered 

lands are expected to decrease due 

to changing travel management

from open to limited for off-road 

vehicles, and the Red River area

being identified within this land use 

plan as meeting disposal criteria 

listed in section 203 of FLPMA.

Minimizing environmental impacts 

when issuing SRPs may result in the 

issuance of fewer permits, but it 

would improve user experiences 

over the long term.

Developing outreach opportunities 

and partnerships could improve 

recreation opportunities over the 

long term.

Closing specific areas, including the 

Cross Bar SRMA, to target 

shooting would eliminate

opportunities for that activity.

in the same impacts as Alternative 

B. Closing the Red River area to 

off-road vehicle use would 

eliminate motorized recreational 

opportunities but would reduce the 

potential for conflicts with other 

non-motorized activities.

Minimizing environmental impacts 

when issuing SRPs may result in the 

issuance of fewer permits, but it 

would improve user experiences 

over the long term.

Developing outreach opportunities 

and partnerships could improve 

recreation opportunities over the 

long term.

Closing the decision area to target 

shooting would eliminate 

opportunities for that activity.

would be the same as Alternative 

A.

Travel, Transportation Management, and Access

Management of BLM-administered 

surface lands as open to all vehicle 

use would result in a long-term 

continuation of access; it also 

would result in the continued 

potential for accidents, due to 

vehicles traveling cross-country.

Compared with Alternative A, 

limiting off-road vehicle use 

throughout the decision area would 

help achieve the objective of 

minimizing user conflicts. This is 

because there would be less risk of 

safety concerns associated with offroad vehicle use. While off-road

Impacts from limiting off-road 

vehicle use outside the Red River

area would be the same as 

described under Alternative B. 

Closing the Red River area would 

reduce access and shift travel to 

other portions of the decision area 

Impacts from limiting off-road 

vehicle use would be the same as 

described under Alternative B. 

Impacts on access to isolated 

parcels would be the same as those 

under Alternative B.

The Canadian River corridor would 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-127

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

There would continue to be no 

RMP-level direction to coordinate 

access to isolated parcels of BLMadministered surface land with 

surrounding landowners. Public 

access to the isolated parcels 

would be at the discretion of the 

adjacent private landowners. This 

could reduce access to portions of 

the decision area over the long 

term if surrounding landowners 

block access to adjacent BLMadministered surface lands.

Management of the Canadian River

as eligible for inclusion in the 

NWSRS would limit activities that 

would change these qualities, such 

as limiting off-road vehicle use or

other travel within the river 

segment.

vehicle use would be limited, users 

could continue to access the 

decision area, providing a similar 

level of access compared with 

Alternative A.

The BLM would attempt to obtain 

permanent public access to isolated 

BLM-administered parcels, but 

public parcels that have no legal 

access would be closed to off-road 

vehicle use. Over the long term, 

the level of access to these 

portions of the decision area would 

depend on the policies of 

landowners who manage 

surrounding lands. For example, 

access would be reduced,

compared with Alternative A, if the 

BLM is unable to obtain permanent 

public access and these parcels are 

closed.

Management of the Canadian River

as suitable for inclusion in the 

NWSRS would have impacts similar 

to Alternative A.

and/or planning area.

Impacts on access to isolated 

parcels would be the same as 

described under Alternative B.

Managing the Canadian River as 

suitable under the NWSRS would 

have the same impacts as 

Alternative B.

not be managed as eligible or 

suitable for inclusion in the 

NWSRS; impacts described under 

Alternative A would not occur 

under Alternative D.

Lands and Realty

Land Tenure

Under Alternative A, the BLM has 

identified acres of the decision area 

as meeting disposal criteria listed in 

section 203 of FLPMA (see 

Impacts related to land tenure

under Alternative B would be 

similar to those under Alternative 

A, however more lands would be 

Impacts related to land tenure

under Alternative B would be 

similar to those under Alternative 

A, however more lands would be 

Impacts would be the same as 

Alternative B. 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-128 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Appendix N); however, only the 

Cross Bar Management Area would 

be specifically identified for 

retention. While subsequent 

disposal of BLM-administered lands 

that are surrounded by non-BLMadministered lands or have limited 

access would consolidate 

ownership and make it more 

efficient to manage those lands, 

disposing of more lands could 

reduce opportunities for resource 

protection and the development 

and use of public lands in these 

areas. 

identified as meeting disposal 

criteria listed in section 203 of 

FLPMA (see Appendix N).

identified as meeting disposal 

criteria listed in section 203 of 

FLPMA (see Appendix N).

Land Use Authorizations

No ROW avoidance or exclusion 

areas would be designated. The 

BLM would continue to allow land 

use authorizations on all BLMadministered surface lands. This 

would allow the BLM to fully 

accommodate demand for all types 

of authorized land uses. 

Mineral development would 

indirectly affect the lands and realty 

program by maintaining and 

increasing the need for roads, 

transmission lines, pipelines, and 

other ROWs required to support 

mineral development.

BLM would manage 12,700 acres of 

BLM-administered surface lands as 

ROW avoidance, which would limit 

the location, extent, and types of 

new development in the decision 

area. 

Management of more acres as NSO

for fluid minerals would reduce 

indirect impacts from minerals

activity, with correspondingly less 

demand on land use authorizations 

compared with Alternative A. 

There would be no impacts from 

ACECs under Alternative B and 

impacts would be the same as 

Impacts from establishing ROW

avoidance areas would be similar as 

described for Alternative B, but 

would apply to 2,100 more acres. 

Management of the most acres as 

NSO for fluid minerals would lead 

to a reduced potential for minerals 

development in the decision area, 

with correspondingly less demand 

on land use authorizations 

compared with Alternative A.

In addition to being managed as a 

ROW avoidance area, the BLM 

would discourage any new ROW 

development in the Cross Bar

Impacts from the designation of 

ROW avoidance areas would be 

similar to those described for 

Alternative B, but would apply to 

2,800 fewer acres.

Management of 66,100 more acres 

as NSO for fluid minerals would 

lead to a reduced potential for 

minerals development in the 

decision area, with correspondingly 

less demand on land use 

authorizations compared with 

Alternative A.

There would be no impacts from 

ACECs under Alternative D and 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-129

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

No ACEC would be designated; 

land use authorizations would not 

be hindered by managing for 

relevant and important values. 

The Canadian River corridor would 

be managed as eligible for inclusion 

in the NWSRS. Interim protective 

management to preserve the freeflowing nature, ORVs, and 

preliminary classification would 

prohibit activities that would 

change these qualities, including 

ROW development.

under Alternative A.

Managing the Canadian River

corridor as suitable for inclusion in 

the NWSRS would have impacts 

similar to Alternative A.

ACEC that would conflict with the 

ACEC’s relevant and important 

values. 

Impacts from managing the 

Canadian River corridor as suitable 

for inclusion in the NWSRS would 

be the same as described under 

Alternative B.

impacts would be the same as 

under Alternative A.

Under Alternative D, Canadian 

River corridor would not be found 

suitable for inclusion in the 

NWSRS. Impacts described under 

Alternative A related to this 

management would not occur 

under Alternative D.

Livestock Grazing

Under Alternative A, livestock 

grazing would continue on the four 

allotments in the decision area, and 

grazing would be available on 3,300 

acres of BLM-administered surface 

lands plus federal lands in the Red 

River area. Interest in grazing is 

expected to continue to be limited.

Prescriptive grazing for the 

purposes of vegetation 

manipulation, research, and 

demonstration would continue to 

occur through annual 

authorizations rather than term 

grazing leases. While this allows for 

forage-based income for some 

livestock operators, the impacts 

Managing the Cross Bar 

Management Area as available to 

grazing leases could provide a 

larger area for operators to 

supplement their base operations.

Temporary impacts from 

prescriptive grazing would continue 

to be the same as Alternative A.

Other resource uses could conflict 

with livestock grazing and cause 

impacts on forage and harassment 

of livestock on a case-by-case basis; 

impacts would be similar to 

Alternative A. 

Similar to Alternative A, all areas 

available for livestock grazing are 

Alternative C would be the most 

restrictive on grazing management; 

no grazing would be available or

authorized, following a standard 2-

year notice to cancel existing 

leases. Discontinuing livestock 

grazing would result in economic 

impacts on lessees; however, only 

four allotments are currently 

leased, so impacts would be 

limited. Overall, impacts on grazing 

would be greater than under

Alternative A.

Existing structures under 

Alternative C could be required to 

be modified or removed. For 

example, fencing may be required 

Impacts from making the Cross Bar 

Management Area available for 

grazing leases would be the same as 

identified under Alternative B.

Temporary impacts from 

prescriptive grazing would be the 

same as Alternatives A and B.

Similar to Alternative A, all areas 

available for livestock grazing are 

also open for fluid mineral 

development under Alternative D.

Impacts from allocating areas as

acceptable for further 

consideration for coal leasing 

would be the same as those 

described under Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-130 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

are temporary and minimal. 

Protecting other resources would 

have some potential for short-term 

limitations on livestock grazing 

management on a site-specific basis.

Other resource uses could conflict 

with livestock grazing and cause 

impacts on forage and harassment 

of livestock on a case-by-case basis.

All areas available for livestock 

grazing are also open for fluid 

mineral development under 

Alternative A. Impacts from fluid 

mineral development include loss 

of forage and disturbance to 

livestock.

Under Alternative A, no surface 

lands acceptable for further 

consideration for coal leasing 

would overlap areas available to 

grazing on BLM-administered 

surface lands. Therefore, 

development on existing coal leases 

would not impact grazing. 

The potential for conflicts with 

livestock grazing and recreation as 

well as travel management would 

continue. Impacts along the Red 

River area, and in particular in the 

existing allotments on the Red 

also open for fluid mineral 

development under Alternative B. 

Impacts from allocating areas as 

acceptable for further 

consideration for coal leasing 

would be greater than those 

described under Alternative A as 

100 more acres of available grazing 

areas would be acceptable for 

further consideration for coal 

leasing. 

Protecting other resources would 

have some potential for shortterm limitations on livestock 

grazing management on a sitespecific basis; however, fish and 

wildlife management would help to 

promote healthy forage over the 

long term.

Under Alternative B, all areas 

available to livestock grazing would 

be managed as limited for off-road 

vehicle use. This would reduce

impacts on livestock grazing, 

compared with Alternative A.

Management of the Canadian River

as suitable for inclusion in the 

NWSRS could impede 

development of range improvement 

projects or location and timing of 

to prevent livestock from 

trespassing onto lands where 

grazing is excluded.

Management actions to protect fish 

and wildlife and special status 

species would restrict grazing 

practices in the short term but 

would promote healthy forage in 

the long term more than 

Alternative A.

Under Alternative D, impacts from 

limiting off-road vehicle use would 

be the same as Alternative B.

Under Alternative D, the Canadian 

River would not be managed as 

suitable under the NWSRS, and 

therefore would be no impacts on 

livestock grazing.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-131

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

River, would include harassment of 

livestock, reduced forage, and 

impacts on water quality.

Management of the Canadian River

as eligible for inclusion in the 

NWSRS would have no impacts on 

grazing, as this area is unavailable 

for grazing under Alternative A. 

grazing within the river segment.

BLM Special Designations

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under Alternative A, the BLM 

would not designate any ACECs.

There would be no special 

management to protect relevant 

and important values in the 

decision area from resource uses.

Lands with identified relevant and 

important values could be 

conveyed out of federal ownership.

Impacts would be the same as

under Alternative A, because there 

would be no special management 

to protect relevant and important 

values in the decision area.

Alternative C would designate the 

10,500-acre Cross Bar Management 

Area ACEC to protect its relevant 

and important scenic and 

recreational values. Compared with 

the other alternatives, designation 

of the ACEC would increase 

management attention and 

awareness of the area’s relevant 

and important values. Restrictions 

on resource uses would prevent 

those uses from diminishing the 

ACEC’s relevant and important 

values. 

Alternative C would also eliminate 

the potential for impacts from 

livestock grazing and fluid minerals. 

This is because the BLM would 

manage the ACEC as unavailable 

for grazing and closed to fluid 

minerals leasing.

Impacts would be the same as

under Alternative A, because there 

would be no special management 

to protect relevant and important 

values in the decision area.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-132 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

The relevant and important scenic 

and recreational values of this area 

would be protected more than 

under Alternative A.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Under Alternative A, the Canadian 

River would be eligible for inclusion 

in the NWSRS. Managing for this 

would prevent or restrict surfacedisturbing activities in the 1,100-

acre study corridor to protect the 

ORVs, free-flowing nature, and 

tentative classification.

The Canadian River corridor would 

be open to some resource uses, 

such as minerals leasing, ROWs,

and off-road vehicle use; however, 

because the BLM would not 

authorize actions that change an 

eligible segment’s ORVs, freeflowing nature, or tentative 

classification, there would be no 

impacts. 

Under Alternative B, the Canadian 

River would be determined to be 

preliminarily suitable for inclusion 

in the NWSRS. It would be 

managed to protect the ORVs, 

free-flowing nature, and tentative 

classification. The BLM would not 

permit activities that would change 

these qualities.

The BLM would apply restrictions 

on resource uses within the 

Canadian River corridor, including 

implementing a special 

consideration for minerals material 

disposal and placing a CSU on 

nonenergy leasables, major 

stipulations for fluid mineral leasing, 

exclusion for ROWs, and limiting 

off-road vehicle use. Such 

management would retain the 

ORVs more than Alternative A by 

keeping them intact and protecting 

them from human disturbance.

Impacts from WSR management 

would be the same as described for 

Alternative B.

The BLM would apply additional 

restrictions on resource uses 

within the Canadian River corridor, 

including closure to minerals 

material disposal and nonenergy 

leasables, major stipulations, 

exclusion for ROWs, and managing 

as closed to off-road vehicle use. 

Impacts from management would 

be the same as described in 

Alternative B.

The Canadian River would be 

determined to not be suitable for 

inclusion in the NWSRS. It would 

be released from interim protective 

management. Provisions would

remain to protect the river 

corridor under a combination of 

existing plans, policies, and the 

actions under this alternative of the 

RMP. Lasting protections afforded 

designated streams would not be 

put in place.

The Canadian River corridor would 

be open to fluid and solid mineral 

leasing with major stipulations, 

ROW development, livestock 

grazing, and would be managed as 

limited for off-road vehicle use. 

Impacts on the river-related values 

from management would likely be 

increased compared to the other 

alternatives.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-133

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

National Historic Trails

Under all alternatives there would 

be minimal impacts on NHTs from 

BLM actions. There would be no 

NHT segments crossing BLMadministered surface lands under 

any alternative, and less than 1 

percent of each trail’s corridor in 

the planning area would cross BLMadministered split-estate. 

There would be little to no direct 

impact on NHTs because the 

requirements in the National Trails 

System Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-

543) and subsequent designating 

legislation for each trail would 

prevent any actions that would 

directly affect the physical 

conditions of the trail and would 

require the approving agency to 

consider mitigation to protect the 

scenic or historic characteristics 

for which the trails were 

designated. 

Impacts on NHT resources would 

be the same as under Alternative 

A.

Impacts on NHT resources would 

be the same as under Alternative 

A.

Impacts on NHT resources would 

be the same as under Alternative 

A.

BLM Social and Economic Conditions

Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests

Alternative A maintains current 

management of BLM-administered 

lands and resources regarding tribal 

treaty rights, tribal interests, 

natural resources, and 

accommodation of traditional uses 

Alternative B maintains current 

management of BLM-administered 

lands and resources regarding tribal 

treaty rights, tribal interests, 

natural resources, and 

accommodation of traditional uses 

Alternative C prioritizes resource 

protection over resource uses and 

includes more limitations on 

ground disturbance. Overall 

potential impacts on tribal treaty 

rights, tribal interests, natural 

Alternative D maintains current 

management of BLM-administered 

lands and resources regarding tribal 

treaty rights, tribal interests, 

natural resources, and 

accommodation of traditional uses 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-134 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

and practices.

Tribal interests would not be 

affected on the 50,600 acres closed 

to fluid minerals leasing or on the 

60,800 acres of NSO restrictions.

Potential impacts from mineral 

exploration, development, 

operations, and reclamation are 

ground disturbance, erosion, and

intrusions to the setting and 

interference with traditional uses; 

there would be further review at 

each stage of fluid mineral 

exploration and development.

For coal, 600 acres of SMA lands 

are acceptable for further 

consideration for coal leasing and 

additional lands are available on a 

case-by-case basis. The potential 

for impact would be evaluated in in 

separate cultural resource 

compliance actions.

No ACECs or RMAs would be 

developed. The Cross Bar 

Management Area would continue 

to have limited public access.

Managing the decision area lands as 

open to off-road vehicle use could 

affect Native American resources 

through direct disturbance, soil 

and practices. Additional measures 

and stipulations regarding the 

management and consideration of

impacts on treaty rights and trust 

resources, traditional uses, and 

areas of traditional cultural and 

religious importance would be

implemented.

Under Alternative B, the BLM 

would implement an NSO

stipulation with a 415-foot buffer to 

protect water bodies, riparian

areas, and wetlands and an NSO 

around surface drinking water 

supplies and an NSO around 

municipal water wells. Protecting

and maintaining these water 

features and native plant and animal 

natural resources would help 

preserve these tribal values and 

traditional resources.

No BLM-administered surface land 

and split-estate would be closed to 

fluid minerals leasing, but 126,900

acres would be subject to NSO

restrictions. This would provide 

incidental protection to tribal 

interests and their settings. 

For coal, 100 acres of BLMadministered land, 1,206,900 acres 

of SMA lands, and 464,700 acres of 

resources, and accommodation of 

traditional uses and practices would 

be less than the other alternatives.

Under Alternative C, the BLM 

would implement an NSO

stipulation with a 415-foot buffer to 

protect water bodies, riparian

areas, and wetlands and an NSO 

around surface drinking water 

supplies and an NSO around 

municipal water wells, providing 

the most incidental protections for 

tribal values and traditional 

resources of all the alternatives.

Alternative C would close the most 

acres to fluid mineral leasing, and 

the most acres would be subject to 

NSO restrictions of all the 

alternatives. For coal, no additional 

acres would be available for 

consideration for leasing. The risk 

of impacts on tribal interests from 

surface disturbance, erosion, 

access, and alteration to the setting 

would be least under Alternative C.

Designating the Cross Bar ERMA

would have the same impacts as 

described under Alternative B. 

Designating the Cross Bar 

Management Area ACEC, which 

overlaps the ERMA plus 600 

and practices. Additional measures 

and stipulations regarding the 

management and consideration of

impacts on treaty rights and trust 

resources, traditional uses, and 

areas of traditional cultural and 

religious importance would be 

similar to Alternative B.

Under Alternative D, the BLM

would implement the same NSO

around surface drinking water 

supplies and NSO around municipal 

water wells as described for 

Alternative B. It would require a 

415-foot buffer around water 

sources, riparian areas, and wetland

communities. This would still 

reduce the potential for new 

surface disturbance in these areas,

when compared with management 

under Alternative A.

No BLM-administered surface land 

and split-estate would be closed to 

fluid minerals leasing and 126,900 

acres would be subject to NSO

restrictions. This would provide 

incidental protection to tribal 

interests and their settings.

Impacts from coal would be the 

same as described for Alternative 

B. 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-135

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

compaction, altered surface water

drainage, erosion, intrusions to the 

setting, and access.

Lands that meet disposal criteria 

listed in section 203 of FLPMA

could remove federal protections 

for these lands. No ROW

exclusion or avoidance areas would 

be allocated.

Managing the Canadian River

segment as eligible for inclusion in 

the NWSRS would protect the 

eligible segment from land use 

changes and surface-disturbing 

activities by including explicit 

consideration of cultural values and 

incidental protection of any 

associated areas of traditional 

cultural and religious importance.

private would be acceptable for 

further consideration for leasing. 

More stipulations would be applied

cultural resources on leased areas.

The potential for impact would be 

evaluated in in separate cultural 

resource compliance actions.

No ACECs would be designated 

under Alternative B. The 

designation of the Cross Bar SRMA

would open the area to public 

recreational use, increasing

potential impact on traditional 

resources and the cultural setting 

but also increasing access for 

traditional cultural uses. 

Managing BLM-administered lands 

as limited for off-road vehicle use 

would reduce the potential for

damage to tribal interests and 

setting.

Lands identified as meeting disposal

criteria listed in section 203 of 

FLPMA including federal lands in 

the Red River area would remove 

federal protections for more lands 

than Alternative A. Allocating 200

acres of ROW exclusion and 

12,700 acres plus federal lands in 

the Red River area of ROW 

avoidance areas would exclude or 

additional acres, would increase 

protections by managing this area 

to protect its relevant and 

important values, including cultural 

values.

Under Alternative C the Red River

area would be closed to off-road 

vehicle use, reducing the potential 

for impacts on tribal interests more 

than under the other alternatives. 

In other areas BLM-administered 

lands would be managed as limited 

for off-road vehicle use, with 

effects similar to those described 

for Alternative B.

Impacts from land tenure actions 

would be similar to those under 

Alternative B, as similar lands and 

acreage would be identified as

meeting disposal criteria listed in 

section 203 of FLPMA . More acres 

would be exclusion or avoidance 

than under the other alternatives, 

increasing incidental protections 

compared with the other 

alternatives.

Impacts from managing the 

Canadian River as suitable for 

inclusion in the NWSRS would be 

the same as under Alternatives A 

and B.

No ACECs would be designated 

under Alternative D. Designating 

the Cross Bar ERMA would have 

the same impacts as described 

under Alternative B.

Under Alternative D, all lands 

except the Cross Bar ERMA would 

be identified as meeting disposal

criteria listed in section 203 of 

FLPMA , potentially removing 

federal protections for the most 

acres of land of all the alternatives. 

ROW avoidance on 9,900 acres 

would provide incidental 

protections on more acres than 

Alternative A but fewer acres than 

Alternatives B or C.

Managing the Canadian River as 

not suitable for inclusion in the 

NWSRS under Alternative D 

would remove the incidental 

protections described under the 

other alternatives.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-136 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

preventing or reducing surfacedisturbing activities in those areas 

and minimizing impacts on settings 

that may be important for cultural 

resource protection or Native 

American uses.

Impacts from managing the 

Canadian River as suitable for 

inclusion in the NWSRS would be 

the same as under Alternative A.

Public Health and Safety

Indirect impacts from solid (coal) 

and fluid minerals management 

would occur by exposing the public 

to safety hazards associated with 

exploration and mining.

No RMAs would be proposed, and 

there would be no restrictions on 

target shooting. The potential for 

conflicts between users would be 

the highest, increasing the potential 

for public safety issues.

Continuing to manage all areas as 

open to vehicle use would result in 

the highest potential for conflicts 

between users, as well as the 

highest potential for users to 

access hazardous areas. 

Management of the Cross Bar

SRMA, including providing more 

recreation facilities and limitations 

on target shooting, would reduce 

the potential for conflicts and 

public safety issues compared with 

Alternative A.

Impacts from solid mineral 

development (coal) as identified 

under impacts common to all 

alternatives would occur on all 

acres acceptable for further 

consideration for leasing in the 

decision area. Public health and 

safety impacts would occur on 

more acres than under Alternative 

A.

Managing the entire BLMadministered surface lands decision 

area as limited for off-road vehicle

No target shooting would be 

allowed; only archery would be 

allowed for hunting within the 

Cross Bar Management Area. The 

potential for conflicts and risks to 

public safety would be less than 

under Alternative A.

Impacts from solid mineral 

development (coal) as identified 

under impacts common to all 

alternatives would continue on 

leased parcels; however, unlike 

Alternative A other available acres 

in the decision area would not be 

leased.

Under Alternative C, The Cross 

Bar Management Area would be 

managed as an ERMA. Impacts on 

public health and safety could be 

slightly less than described in 

Under Alternative D, all areas 

would be open to target shooting. 

The potential for conflicts and risks 

to public safety would be the same 

as Alternative A.

Impacts from solid mineral 

development (coal) would be the 

same as Alternative D.

Under Alternative D, The Cross 

Bar Management Area would be 

managed as an ERMA. Impacts on 

public health and safety could be 

slightly more than described in 

Alternative B, because ERMA 

would promote less intensive 

recreation management allowing 

for greater user conflicts.

Alternative D proposes all areas to 

be managed as limited for off-road 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-137

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

use would result in fewer use 

conflicts and less access to 

hazardous areas; therefore, risks to 

public health and safety would be 

less than under Alternative A.

Public health and safety 

management under Alternative B 

would include adhering to rules and 

regulations, requiring operators to 

educate the public about hazards, 

and developing project-specific 

health and safety plans. It is 

assumed that BLM already does this

under Alternative A; therefore, 

impacts on public health and safety 

would be the same as Alternative 

A.

Alternative B, because even though 

the ERMA would promote less 

intensive recreation management 

allowing for greater user conflicts, 

the area would also be managed as 

an ACEC which would place 

restrictions on uses. 

Under Alternative C, 15,100 acres 

would be managed as limited for 

off-road vehicle travel. This 

alternative would result in fewer 

use conflicts and less access to 

hazardous areas; therefore, risks to 

public health and safety would be 

less than under Alternative A.

Impacts from public health and 

safety management under 

Alternative C would be the same as 

Alternative A.

vehicle use. Impacts would be the 

same as Alternative B.

Impacts from public health and 

safety management under 

Alternative D would be the same 

as under Alternative A.

Socioeconomics

Coal

Under Alternative A, approximately 

70,000 acres of federal minerals 

would be classified as acceptable

for further consideration for coal

leasing, including 69,400 acres of 

private surface estate overlying 

federal mineral estate and an 

additional 600 acres under other 

state and federal surface 

management agencies. All new 

Under Alternative B, approximately 

1,671,700 acres of federal minerals 

would be classified as acceptable

for further consideration for coal

leasing, including 100 acres on 

BLM-administered surface, 464,700 

acres of private surface estate 

overlying federal mineral estate

would be classified as acceptable 

for further consideration for coal 

Acres available for further 

consideration for coal leasing 

would be the same as described 

under Alternative A. Under 

Alternative C, only current leases 

would be available for 

development. As a result, no 

additional direct or indirect 

economic contributions for lease 

development would occur. Impacts 

Impacts would be the same as that 

described under Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-138 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

leases would be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis; therefore, the 

potential for jobs and economic 

contributions from development of 

new leases could be limited. The 

anticipated rate of coal production 

for the decision area over the life 

of the plan is not known; however, 

the RFDS suggests that federal coal 

production is anticipated to remain 

relatively flat. The maximum 

anticipated coal production is likely 

to be no more than 1 million short 

tons annually and an average of 

approximately 730,000 short tons 

annually (BLM 2016b). Using the 

2012 rate of 3,080 tons of coal 

produced per job in the study area, 

the current coal production on 

BLM-administered lands supports 

an estimated 158 direct jobs, and 

forecasted production would 

support between 237 and 325 

direct jobs. 

leasing, and an additional 1,206,900 

acres under other state and federal 

surface management agencies. All 

potential areas would be available 

for future leasing. The level of 

economic contributions from new 

leasing would be dependent upon 

market conditions for coal, with 

potential for short-term economic 

contributions from development.

Coal production under all 

alternatives would remain relatively 

flat based on the RFDS; therefore, 

socioeconomic impacts from 

production would be similar to 

those discussed under Alternative 

A.

from production impacts would be 

the same as that described under 

Alternative A.

Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative A, drilling and 

production of oil and gas from BLM 

managed minerals would continue 

to support direct and indirect jobs 

and economic contributions in the 

planning area. It is estimated that 

the maximum level of forecast 

Under Alternative B, impacts from 

fluid minerals would be similar to 

those discussed under Alternative 

A; however, decreased acres 

closed to fluid mineral leases could 

support increased drilling and 

development and related economic 

Direct and indirect economic 

contributions under Alternative C 

would decrease from Alternative A. 

This would be due to reduced acres 

available for development. This 

alternative represents the highest 

level of limitations on location and 

Under Alternative D, as under 

Alternative B, decreased acres 

closed to fluid mineral leasing could 

support increased drilling and 

development and related economic 

contributions in Tiers 1 to 3. 

Application of additional NSO and 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-139

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

drilling would support 91-361 

annual jobs and production 215-

851 annual jobs in the planning 

area. Taxes and royalties associated 

with fluid minerals development 

would also be collected and 

distributed.

Impacts would be concentrated in 

counites identified as Tiers 1 to 3, 

based on fluid mineral potential and 

location of mineral estate. 

contributions in Tiers 1 to 3. 

Application of additional NSO and 

CSU stipulations may minimize 

increases in economic 

contributions. 

Increased potential for 

development may also increase 

potential impacts from 

development on quality of life 

factors such as water quality, noise, 

and visual impacts. Impacts could 

be minimized due to application of 

additional stipulations.

timing of development, potentially 

reducing total production and 

impacting costs for development; 

however, impacts from oil and gas 

development on quality of life 

factors, such as water quality, noise, 

and visual impacts, would be 

decreased, as compared with 

Alternative A.

CSU stipulations may minimize 

increases in economic 

contributions. 

Increased potential for 

development may also increase 

potential impacts from 

development on quality of life 

factors such as water quality, noise, 

and visual impacts. Impacts could 

be minimized due to application of 

additional stipulations.

Other Minerals

Under Alternative A, all acres 

would be open for consideration 

for nonenergy solid leasable 

minerals. There are no producing 

nonenergy leases on federal lands; 

however, there is recent interest in 

leasing federal lands in Kansas for 

salt development. It is estimated 

that there could be up to two 

additional leases in the decision 

area, and the annual production 

could range from 750,000 to 

1,000,000 tons per year. Job and 

employment estimates are not 

available.

Under Alternative B, the BLM 

would restrict 9,900 acres of the 

decision area to nonenergy solid 

minerals leasing. All of these acres 

contain salt resources. There could 

be reduced economic output 

compared with Alternative A.

Under Alternative C, the BLM 

would close 10,500 acres of the 

decision area to nonenergy solid 

minerals leasing. All of these acres 

contain salt resources. There could 

be reduced economic output 

compared with Alternative A.

Impacts would be the same as 

those described under Alternative 

B.
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-140 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Recreation

Under Alternative A, the BLM 

would have limited ability to 

manage for desired outcomes or 

activities, and there would be 

greater opportunity for conflict 

with other resource uses and 

among recreation user groups in 

areas receiving concentrated use. 

Current levels of recreation and 

associated economic impacts are

anticipated to continue. Social 

concerns with recreation would 

continue in some portions of the 

planning area, notably along the 

Red River. Implementation-level 

policy would be developed to 

minimize resource utilization 

conflicts.

Under Alternative B, the Cross Bar 

Management Area would be 

managed as an SRMA to support 

horseback riding, mountain biking, 

hiking, and wildlife viewing. 

Developing user facilities would 

support increased visitation to the 

area and associated spending. 

Economic contributions would be 

greater than under Alternative A.

Limiting off-road vehicle use on 

BLM-administered lands in the Red 

River area and the Cross Bar

SRMA would result in some social 

changes for recreation users in 

particular portions of the planning 

area, compared with Alternative A. 

The level of impacts would depend 

upon the specific restrictions put in 

place during travel management

planning. Prohibiting recreational 

target shooting in the Cross Bar 

SRMA could reduce economic 

contributions associated with this 

activity and limit options for 

recreationalists.

Increased recreation use on BLMadministered surface lands presents 

a potential for increased 

recreation-related conflicts.

Implementation-level policy will be 

Under Alternative C, the Cross Bar 

Management Area would be 

managed as an ERMA to support 

hiking and wildlife viewing; 

however, it would limit recreation 

opportunities and related spending 

for other activities, as compared 

with Alternative A. Prohibiting 

target shooting in the decision area 

would limit recreation spending 

from this activity, as compared with 

Alternative A. Limiting off-road 

vehicle use in the Cross Bar 

Management Area would result in 

some social changes for recreation 

users as discussed under 

Alternative A.

Managing the federal lands in the 

Red River area as closed to offroad vehicle use would reduce 

economic contributions, as 

compared with Alternative A; 

however, it would also reduce 

resource and user conflict 

concerns brought forward by 

attendees of economic workshops.

Increased recreation use on BLMadministered surface lands presents 

a potential for increased 

recreation-related conflicts.

Implementation-level policy will be 

Under Alternative D, the Cross 

Bar Management Area would be 

managed as an ERMA. Under 

Alternative D, impacts on 

recreation in the Cross Bar 

Management Area would be similar 

to those described under 

Alternative B; however, an ERMA 

would promote less intensive 

recreation management allowing 

for a more multi use area. 

Permitting horseback riding, 

mountain biking, and other 

nonmotorized activities would 

support recreation spending for 

these activities.

Impacts from limiting off-road 

vehicle travel in would be the same 

as described under Alternative B. 

Retaining target shooting in the 

federal lands of the Red River area

and Cross Bar Management Area

would support recreational 

spending for this activity.

Increased recreation use on BLMadministered surface lands presents 

a potential for increased 

recreation-related conflicts.

Implementation-level policy will be 

developed to minimize resource 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-141

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

developed to minimize resource 

utilization conflicts and preserve 

the BLM’s multi-use sustained yield 

mandate.

developed to minimize resource 

utilization conflicts and preserve 

the BLM’s multi-use sustained yield 

mandate.

utilization conflicts and preserve 

the BLM’s multi-use sustained yield 

mandate.

Other

Under Alternative A, the BLM 

would manage 3,300 acres of BLMadministered surface lands and 

federal lands in the Red River area

as available for livestock grazing. 

Due to the scattered nature of 

these BLM-administered lands in 

the planning area, it is unlikely that 

grazing on federal lands would 

increase significantly. Economic 

contributions from grazing would 

be minimal.

Under Alternative A, no ROW

avoidance or exclusion areas would 

be established; therefore, impacts 

on minerals transportation or 

other ROW uses would be 

minimized. Title transfer of the 

isolated tracts of BLM-administered 

federal surface estate to other than 

federal ownership would be 

considered on 3,300 acres. Should 

this occur, there could be localized 

impacts on BLM-administered 

surface uses, including grazing and 

recreation, and the associated 

Under Alternative B, the BLM 

would manage all of the surface 

lands it administers in the decision 

area plus federal lands in the Red 

River area as available for grazing. 

The level of permitted AUMs has 

not been determined, which limits 

the ability to perform quantitative 

analysis. However, making the 

Cross Bar Management Area

available for grazing is likely to 

result in additional economic 

output, compared with Alternative 

A. That is because this area 

represents one of the few larger 

tracts of BLM-administered surface 

estate in the planning area. It 

represents a potential for active

grazing use, should grazing leases 

be issued.

Under Alternative B, 200 acres 

would be managed as ROW

exclusion areas (compared with no 

acres under Alternative A) and 

12,700 acres plus federal lands in 

the Red River area as ROW 

avoidance areas (compared with no 

Under Alternative C, all BLMadministered surface estate and 

federal lands in the Red River area

would be made unavailable for 

grazing. Due to the limited current

grazing in the decision area, direct 

impacts would be contained to the 

loss of the 18 to 51 AUMs and 

associated economic contributions; 

however, additional indirect 

impacts would be the loss of 

potential future grazing on other 

portions of the decision area and 

the associated economic impacts. 

Impacts on economic contributions 

would be slightly greater than 

under Alternative A.

Under Alternative C, 200 acres and 

special species habitat would be 

managed as ROW exclusion areas 

(compared with no acres under 

Alternative A); 14,800 acres plus 

federal lands in the Red River area

would be managed as ROW 

avoidance areas (compared with no 

acres under Alternative A). There 

would be the potential for an 

Impacts from grazing would be the 

same as those described under 

Alternative B. 

Under Alternative D, no acres 

would be managed as ROW

exclusion areas (same as 

Alternative A), but 9,900 acres 

would be managed as ROW 

avoidance areas (compared with no 

acres under Alternative A). There 

would be some limited potential 

for an increase in the cost of fluid 

mineral transportation and ROW 

development for renewables, as 

compared with Alternative A. 

However, economic impacts for 

the planning area as a whole would 

be limited, due to minimal surface 

land.

Under Alternative D, identified 

parcels that meet disposal criteria

listed in section 203 of FLPMA

would make would support 

transferring these lands to local 

individuals and communities and 

might increase their potential for 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

2-142 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

economic impacts. acres under Alternative A). There 

is a potential for impacts on the 

cost of fluid mineral transportation 

and ROW development for 

renewables; however, the 

economic impacts would be limited 

due to minimal surface land acres. 

Under Alternative B, lands 

identified in Appendix N meet 

disposal criteria listed in section 

203 of FLPMA. This would increase 

the opportunity, compared with 

Alternative A, for land swaps with 

counties and other entities.

increase in the cost of fluid mineral 

transportation and ROW 

development for renewables, as 

compared with Alternative A. 

However, economic impacts for 

the planning area as whole would 

be limited, due to minimal surface 

land.

Impacts from identifying lands that 

meet disposal criteria listed in 

section 203 of FLPMA would be 

the similar to those discussed 

under Alternative B. However, land 

tenure actions slightly reduce 

opportunities for lands that meet 

disposal criteria listed in section 

203 of FLPMA.

economic development of 

transferred lands. Transferring 

lands, should it occur, would result 

in a loss of economic contributions 

and nonmarket contributions from 

current surface uses.

Stakeholder Groups

With respect to social impacts, 

social structure would probably not 

change under Alternative A. This is 

because any population gains from 

BLM actions would be small, and 

the areas that would see the most 

new wells are already active oil and 

gas production areas.

Under Alternative B, the oil and gas 

stakeholder category would be 

affected by additional restrictions 

on oil and gas development. This 

would be the result of decreased 

provisioning services from minerals. 

Social structure could be affected

on the site-specific level. This 

would be the outcome if direct and 

secondary employment and 

spending were affected by changes 

in the level of development. 

Decreased development would 

support values held by those in the 

Under Alternative C, decreased 

total production and increased 

costs for development would result 

in impacts on oil and gas 

stakeholder values. As under 

Alternative B, social structure 

could be affected on the sitespecific level. Decreased 

development would support values 

held by those in the conservation 

stakeholder category, such as 

support for regulating services. 

Values for residents, including 

cultural and localized regulating 

Under Alternative D, permitting oil 

and gas development to a greater 

extent than under Alternative A, 

but applying additional stipulations, 

would result in variable impacts 

throughout the planning area. 

Likewise, impacts for oil and gas 

stakeholders would vary. 

Employment, income, and the 

current social setting would likely 

be preserved due to continued 

development. Although continued 

development would not support 

values held by those in the 
2. Alternatives (BLM Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-143

Table 2-5

BLM Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

conservation stakeholder category, 

such as support for regulating 

services.

services, would be increased. conservation stakeholder category, 

increased stipulations would reduce 

impacts on other values, such as 

regulating services. Values for 

residents, including cultural and 

localized regulating services, would 

be maintained.

Environmental Justice

There is potential under any alternative that management decisions that impact the local economy could impact these populations. Low-income or 

minority populations identified in Tiers 1, 2, and 3 are more likely to be affected by proposed management activities due to the greater importance of 

federal mineral estate and related minerals production in these areas. The extent to which existing minority or low-income populations are 

disproportionately affected by high and adverse human health or environmental impacts depends on the existence of high and adverse human health 

or environmental impacts from management alternatives on any of the resources analyzed, and whether minority populations are particularly 

vulnerable to these impacts or more likely to be exposed to such impacts.
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

2-144 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

BIA RESOURCES

Air Resources

Under current management, the 

BIA would continue to comply with 

all applicable air quality laws, rules, 

and regulations. Specific actions 

include planning and implementing 

prescribed burns in an 

interdisciplinary and collaborative 

manner that prevents deterioration 

of air quality and National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

violations and addresses visibility 

impacts on Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Class 1 federal areas. 

This action would continue to 

ensure that prescribed burns are 

carried out in accordance with 

regional air rules designed to 

reduce impacts on air quality and 

visibility from this activity.

The BIA would conduct hazardous 

fuels reduction treatments to 

reduce the risk to and 

consequences of wildfire on 

communities and ecosystems. 

These treatments may also be used 

to restore and maintain healthy 

ecosystems. Over the long term, 

fuels reduction treatments would 

reduce the potential for wildfire—

and the associated impacts on air 

Under Alternative B, the BIA would 

manage its actions and land use 

authorizations to maintain the 

quality of air resources, prevent 

significant deterioration of federal 

Class I areas, and prevent the 

exceedance of federal and tribal air 

quality standards in the planning 

area. Specific actions include 

planning and implementing 

prescribed burns in a manner that 

prevents deterioration of air quality 

and NAAQS violations and 

addresses visibility impacts on Class 

1 federal areas, implementing BMPs

to reduce emissions and encourage 

industry and other permittees to 

adopt measures to reduce 

emissions, and implementing BMPs 

to discourage fugitive dust during 

ground-disturbing activities. These 

actions, where implemented, would 

reduce air pollutant emissions, 

particularly fugitive dust emissions, 

more than under Alternative A.

The BIA would conduct hazardous 

fuels reduction treatments, 

including mechanical, prescribed 

fire, and chemical, in areas with 

higher probability for catastrophic 

Under Alternative C, the BIA 

would manage its actions and land 

use authorizations to improve the 

quality of air resources, prevent 

significant deterioration of federal 

Class I areas, and prevent the 

exceedance of federal and tribal air 

quality standards in the planning 

area. Specific actions include 

avoiding prescribed burns as a 

hazardous fuels reduction tool, 

implementing BMPs to reduce 

emissions and encourage industry 

and other permittees to adopt 

measures to reduce emissions, and 

implementing BMPs to discourage 

fugitive dust during grounddisturbing activities. These actions, 

where implemented, would reduce 

air pollutant emissions more under 

than under Alternative A.

The BIA would conduct hazardous 

fuels reduction treatments in areas 

with higher probability for 

catastrophic wildland fire and to 

protect the wildland/urban 

interface using only mechanical 

methods. Short-term impacts from 

treatments would be less than 

under Alternative A, because 

Under Alternative D, the BIA 

would have a goal to maintain 

existing air quality and air quality 

related values by requiring that the 

BIA minimize impacts on air quality 

and comply with all applicable air 

quality laws, rules, and regulations. 

It would allow temporary adverse 

impacts on air quality and air 

quality values, to the extent 

allowed by applicable law, when 

necessary to promote mineral or 

other resource development. It 

would prioritize and enhance 

prescribed burns to reduce 

hazardous fuels to the maximum 

extent, unless prohibited by law, 

and it would adopt BMPs only as 

needed to meet minimum 

requirements of applicable law. 

These actions, taken together, 

would increase short-term, direct 

emissions of criteria air pollutants 

more than under Alternative A. 

Over the long term, direct 

emissions of air pollutants from 

resource development may be 

greater than under Alternative A to 

the extent that mineral 

development activity increased.
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-145

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

quality and visibility—in treated 

areas.

There would be no direct impacts 

on air quality from BIA leasing 

actions. Indirect impacts on air 

quality from subsequent energy 

development would be the same as 

those described for the BLM, as the 

BLM administers permitting of oil 

and gas on BIA-managed surface 

lands except in Osage County.

wildland fire. This would be done 

to protect values at risk and to 

protect the wildland/urban 

interface. Fire management

objectives would be expanded to 

allow fire to enhance resources, as 

appropriate, when compared with 

Alternative A. Alternative B may 

result in more short-term air 

pollutant emissions from 

treatments, including prescribed 

fire, but reduced impacts over the 

long term.

There would be no direct impacts 

on air quality from BIA leasing 

actions. Indirect impacts from 

subsequent energy development 

would be similar to Alternative A, 

though energy development may be 

reduced to the extent that ROW,

easement, and business lease 

avoidance areas reduce the amount 

of mineral development in the BIA 

decision area by making 

development impractical or 

uneconomical.

neither chemical treatments nor 

prescribed fire would be allowed. 

Over the long term, limitations on 

fuels reduction methods would 

increase impacts on air quality if 

areas remained susceptible or 

became more susceptible to 

wildfire.

There would be no direct impacts 

on air quality from BIA leasing 

actions. Indirect impacts from 

subsequent energy development 

would be similar to Alternative A, 

though energy development may be 

reduced to the extent that ROW,

easement, and business lease 

avoidance areas reduce the amount 

of mineral development in the BIA 

decision area by making 

development impractical or 

uneconomical in some areas.

Under Alternative D, the BIA 

would suppress fires in the 

wildland/urban interface and 

determine suppression in other 

areas for naturally ignited fires. Fire 

suppression levels, and associated 

impacts from suppression activities, 

would be similar to those described 

under Alternative A. Hazardous 

fuels reduction treatments would 

emphasize prescribed fire more 

than under Alternative A, resulting 

in greater short-term, direct 

impacts on air quality and visibility 

from hazardous fuels treatments 

than under Alternative A.

There would be no direct impacts 

on air quality from BIA leasing 

actions. Indirect impacts from 

subsequent energy development 

would be similar to Alternative A, 

though energy development may be 

reduced to the extent that ROW

avoidance areas reduce the amount 

of mineral development in the BIA 

decision area by making 

development impractical or 

uneconomical in some areas.
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

2-146 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Geology 

Impacts on geology are not addressed, because resource management is not expected to affect geology at the project area scale.

Oil and gas leasing would have no direct impacts on geologic hazards. Indirect impacts on geologic hazards would be the same as those identified 

under the BLM analysis above.

Soil Resources

Impacts on soil resources would be 

similar in type to those described 

for Alternative A under the BLM 

analysis above.

Under Alternative B, the BIA would 

emphasize crop rotation to protect 

and improve soil productivity, 

more than under Alternative A.

The BIA would also require tenants 

to provide it with soil test results

for each cropland field and 

improved pasture, which would 

minimize impacts on soil resources 

by maintaining these areas in a 

productive and vigorous condition. 

Alternative C includes an emphasis 

on avoiding soil compaction, 

erosion, and loss of soil 

productivity, which would protect 

soil resources more than under 

Alternative A.

The BIA would emphasize 

protecting prime farmland and 

avoiding prime and unique farmland 

conversion to nonagricultural uses, 

minimizing additional surface 

disturbance, and improving soil 

productivity, compared with 

Alternative A.

Alternative D is similar to 

Alternative B but with disclosures 

on soil tests required of tenants, 

the same as under Alternative B.

Water Resources

Under Alternative A, the BIA 

would not have any measures 

specifically aimed at protecting 

water resources other than 

complying with federal, tribal, state, 

and local government policies. 

Water quality may be protected 

through the treatment of noxious 

weeds and invasive plants and 

hazardous fuels reduction 

Under Alternative B, the BIA would 

manage activities that may affect 

impaired (Clean Water Act Section 

303d-listed) water bodies and 

minimize contributions to total 

daily maximum load (TMDL)

requirements. It would also impose 

buffers when appropriate and 

necessary to prevent adverse water 

quality impacts. Buffers would also 

Under Alternative C, the BIA 

would manage activities that may 

affect impaired (Clean Water Act

Section 303d-listed) water bodies 

and minimize contribution to 

TMDL requirements. Pending 

consultation, the BIA would allow 

no site-specific activities within 415

feet of perennial streams, rivers, 

ponds, springs, seeps, reservoirs, 

Under Alternative D, the BIA 

would defer water quality

impairment concerns to agencies 

with primary jurisdiction. Also, 

pending consultation, no sitespecific activities within 660 feet of 

perennial streams, rivers, ponds, 

springs, seeps, reservoirs, 100-year 

floodplains, or other Waters of the 

United States would be approved. 
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-147

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

treatments that would improve 

vegetative communities. On the 

other hand, treatments can also 

contaminate water quality.

Surface-disturbing activities (e.g., 

development of oil and gas well 

pads, road, and power lines) could 

impact water quality through 

increased opportunities for runoff 

and sedimentation.

be established for other resources, 

such as riparian/wetland

communities, Furthermore, the BIA

would consider tribal and state 

water standards during all activities 

that may affect water bodies. 

Compared with Alternative A, 

impacts on water resources would 

be reduced.

100-year floodplains, or other 

Waters of the United States.

Buffers would also be established 

for other resources, such as 

riparian/wetland communities. 

Furthermore, it would require 

inclusion of tribal and state water 

standards during solid mineral 

development. Compared with 

Alternative A, impacts on water 

resources would be reduced.

Buffers would also be established 

for other resources, such as 

riparian/wetland communities.

Furthermore, it would consider 

tribal and state water standards 

during solid mineral development. 

Also, BIA management actions 

would impose buffers to keep 

project activities from altering the 

physical characteristics of water 

sources. Compared with 

Alternative A, impacts on water 

resources would be reduced.

Vegetation

Upland Vegetation

Loss or damage to upland 

vegetation communities in cultural 

resource areas would be reduced 

by following provisions of the BIA’s 

Indian Affairs Manual Part 56. The 

NHPA Section 106 tribal 

consultation process would 

preserve important cultural sites 

and vegetation in these areas.

Monitoring livestock grazing 

conservation plans would reduce 

impacts on rangeland vegetation 

communities. 

Woodland product harvest areas 

would be subject to tree removal 

and loss of and damage to 

Under Alternative B, additional 

protective measures for 

environmental resources would be 

applied, including preventing 

pollutant discharge into tribal 

waters; buffers around prehistoric, 

protohistoric, and tribal historic 

cultural resources; and limiting

disturbance to culturally valued 

plant species during solid mineral 

development. 

Livestock grazing under Alternative 

B would sustaining native grasses 

and forage grass heights. 

The BIA would encourage 

collocation of ROWs to reduce 

Under Alternative C, additional 

protections would ensure 

vegetation is not permanently, 

adversely affected by minerals 

development. Buffers would be 

observed around sensitive areas to 

protect vegetation from damage, 

and pollutant discharge would be 

prohibited. Soil compaction and 

erosion would be avoided more 

strongly under this alternative, 

which would reduce soil loss and 

limit vegetation community loss.

Under Alternative C, the BIA 

would require collation of ROWs

to reduce damage and loss of 

Under Alternative D, Federally 

recognized Indian tribes would be 

able to permanently, adversely 

impact trust assets in favor of 

short-term economic gains from 

mineral leasing and development. 

Buffers would be observed for 

sensitive areas; however, for 

general vegetation communities, 

tribal decisions would increase 

potential damage to vegetation 

communities compared with 

Alternative A. 

Under Alternative D, the NHPA 

Section 106 tribal consultation 

process would mitigate for loss of a 
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

2-148 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

vegetation communities from tree 

removal and road construction.

vegetation removal, soil 

disturbance, and weed spread into 

undisturbed areas. BIA 

management would also include 

several provisions to enhance 

vegetation communities under 

Alternative B. 

The BIA would manage timberland 

and woodland resources with a 

sustainable, multiple-use 

philosophy, which would protect 

vegetation communities from loss 

more than under Alternative A.

native vegetation communities, soil 

disturbance, and weed 

establishment and spread.

Impacts from vegetation 

management, livestock grazing, 

woodland resources management, 

and cultural resources management 

under Alternative C would be the

same as those under Alternative B. 

site rather than preserve it. In 

addition, Alternative D would allow 

adverse impacts on hunting, fishing, 

and gathering rights in order to 

promote development. 

Livestock grazing impacts on 

vegetation under Alternative D 

would be similar to those under 

Alternative A. Impacts on 

vegetation from lands and realty 

management under Alternative D 

would be the same as described 

under Alternative B. 

Woodland management under 

Alternative D would promote 

woodland use for economic gain, 

including clear-cutting and 

monoculture. Thus, loss of trees 

and damage to woodland 

vegetation communities under this 

alternative would increase 

compared with Alternative A. 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

The BIA would implement fuels 

management, weed management, 

and range improvements to

prevent the introduction and 

spread of noxious weeds and 

invasive plants; monitor and 

address the presence of noxious 

weeds; and promote restoration of 

Management would maintain 

existing vegetation and reduce 

disturbance, thereby reducing the 

spread of noxious weeds and 

invasive plants. In addition, under 

Alternative B, the BIA would 

observe buffers around sensitive 

areas, apply limits on grazing, and 

Under Alternative C, more 

resources would be allocated to 

prevent and limit weed spread. 

Management under Alternative C 

could be more effective in reducing 

the invasion of noxious weeds and 

invasive plants. However, chemical 

treatments for weed control would 

Actions under Alternative D 

contributing to vegetation loss 

would also contribute to weed 

invasion and spread. In addition, 

Alternative D would minimally fund 

programs to control weed spread. 

Thus, management to limit weed 

spread under Alternative D would 
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-149

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

native species and habitats in 

impaired ecosystems. The BIA

would provide funding to Federally 

recognized Indian tribes to carry 

out these programs—and may also 

assist with herbicide purchase via 

funding distribution—and provide 

technical assistance with weed 

treatments. 

increase restoration for native 

vegetation. Compared with

Alternative A, these actions would 

reduce the establishment and 

spread of noxious weeds and 

invasive plants in native plant 

communities.

not be allowed. Thus, vegetation 

treatments could be less effective 

or would take longer to control 

weed spread. On balance, impacts 

would be similar to those under 

Alternative B. 

be less effective, and weed spread 

would be likely to increase, relative 

to Alternative A. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Indian fish, wildlife, and outdoor 

recreation are managed as trust 

assets under Alternative A, in 

accordance with existing policy 

(e.g., Indian Affairs Manual Part 56).

Where fish and wildlife programs 

and outdoor recreation occur in 

wetland and riparian habitat, shortterm wetland and riparian 

vegetation could be lost during 

habitat restoration. Similarly, 

monitoring of livestock grazing 

lessees’ and tenants’ permits and 

conservation plans would reduce 

loss of wetland and riparian 

vegetation. Displacement of 

wetland and riparian vegetation or 

loss of function could occur from 

management of lands and realty or 

forest and woodland products; 

however, in the long term, 

management would maintain or 

Under Alternative B, the BIA would 

impose site-specific buffers to avoid 

water quality impacts, which would 

also protect wetlands and riparian

areas near these waters. Where 

vegetation projects could impact 

wetland and riparian vegetation, 

project buffers would be 

established based on site conditions 

and tribal consultation. Fuels and 

vegetation treatments would 

sustain or improve wildlife habitat, 

including in riparian and wetland 

areas. The potential for short-term 

wetland and riparian vegetation and 

function loss would be reduced, 

compared with Alternative A. In 

the long term, vegetation projects 

would maintain or improve wetland 

and riparian extent and function. 

Under Alternative C, the BIA 

would impose a 415-foot buffer to 

avoid water quality impacts. The 

large buffers would reduce the 

potential for wetland and riparian

vegetation and function loss.

Fish and wildlife and outdoor 

recreation management, special 

status species management, cultural 

and heritage resources 

management, livestock grazing 

management, and timber and 

woodland resources management 

under Alternative C would have 

impacts on wetland and riparian

vegetation, as described under 

Alternative B. 

Under Alternative C, the BIA 

would require applicants to 

collocate ROWs in previously 

disturbed areas to reduce the 

Under Alternative D, the BIA 

would impose a 660-foot buffer to 

avoid water quality impacts. This 

buffer would reduce the potential 

for wetland and riparian vegetation 

and function loss, compared with 

Alternative A.

Fish and wildlife, outdoor 

recreation, and special status 

species management under 

Alternative D would have impacts 

on wetland and riparian vegetation 

similar to Alternative B. Livestock 

grazing impacts on wetland and 

riparian vegetation under 

Alternative D would be the same 

as described under Alternative A. 

Impacts from lands and realty and 

timberland and woodland

resources management under 
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

2-150 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

expand wetland and riparian 

vegetation and function. 

Under Alternative B, the BIA would 

encourage applicants to collocate 

ROWs in previously disturbed 

areas to reduce the potential for 

wetland and riparian vegetation and 

function loss, unlike under 

Alternative A.

Special status species management 

would incorporate conservation 

actions for riparian-dependent 

special status species. Where 

cultural sites are found in wetland

and riparian areas, they would be 

avoided to maintain wetland and 

riparian vegetation and function in 

more areas, compared with 

Alternative A.

Livestock grazing management

would sustain native grass and 

implement forage heights to 

improve rangeland condition. These 

actions would reduce erosion and 

runoff, foster native species, and 

reduce weed cover. 

potential for wetland and riparian

vegetation and function loss, unlike 

under Alternative A. 

Alternative D would be the same 

as under Alternative B. 

Under Alternative D, the BIA 

would integrate the NHPA Section 

106 and tribal consultation process 

into all projects. Where cultural 

sites are found in wetland and 

riparian areas, mitigation, as 

opposed to avoidance, of cultural 

sites would result in long-term 

impacts similar to those described 

in Alternative B; however, in the 

short term, the potential for 

wetland and riparian vegetation and 

function loss would increase due to 

vegetation removal and soil 

disturbance.

Special Status Plant Species

Indian fish, wildlife, and outdoor 

recreation are managed as trust 

assets in accordance with existing 

policy (such as Indian Affairs 

Manual Part 56). Where fish and 

wildlife programs and outdoor 

Under Alternative B, project 

buffers would be established in 

special status plant habitat to 

protect populations from 

vegetation removal and surface 

disturbance. Where fuels and 

Under Alternative C, wetland and 

riparian buffers for site-specific 

activities would be 415 feet. By 

imposing a large buffer, the 

potential for impacts on special 

status plant species in riparian and 

Under Alternative D, wetland and 

riparian vegetation would be 

managed to meet the minimum 

requirements for vegetation 

protection. Project buffers for sitespecific activities would be 660 feet. 
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-151

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

recreation occur in occupied or 

suitable special status plant habitat, 

there would be the potential for 

short-term reductions in special 

status plant populations. 

Where special status plant species 

occur in special status species 

management areas, there could be 

short-term reductions in special 

status plant populations. In the long 

term, fish and wildlife and special 

status species management would 

maintain or increase special status 

plant populations by improving 

habitat.

Monitoring of livestock leases and 

conservation plans would reduce 

potential for special status plant 

loss, while lands and realty 

management and forest and 

woodland product management 

could increase impacts on special 

status plants.

vegetation treatments occur in 

habitat for special status plant 

species, long-term improvements in 

habitat quality would result. 

Special status species management 

under Alternative B would 

incorporate conservation actions 

for riparian-dependent special 

status species. Where cultural sites 

are found to overlap with special 

status plant species, avoiding them 

would maintain special status plant 

populations and distribution. 

Adhering to a sustainable, multipleuse philosophy in forest

management areas would lessen 

potential impacts on special status 

plant populations. 

Livestock grazing management

under Alternative B would reduce 

erosion and runoff, foster native 

species assemblages, and reduce 

weed cover and competition with 

special status plants. Thus, special 

status plant populations and 

distribution would be maintained in 

the long term where they occur in 

livestock grazing allotments. 

The BIA would encourage 

applicants to collocate ROWs in 

disturbed areas to lessen the 

wetland areas would be lessened, 

compared with Alternative A. 

Management for fish and wildlife 

and outdoor recreation, special 

status species management, cultural 

and heritage resources, livestock 

grazing, and timberland and 

woodland resources under 

Alternative C would have impacts 

on special status plants, as 

described under Alternative B. 

Under Alternative C, the BIA 

would require applicants to 

collocate ROWs in previously 

disturbed areas. Compared with 

Alternative A, this would reduce 

special status plant impacts from 

ROWs.

The potential for special status 

plant population reductions would 

be lower than under Alternative A.

Under Alternative D, the BIA 

would integrate the NHPA Section 

106 and tribal consultation process 

into all projects. Mitigation of 

cultural sites would result in similar 

impacts on special status plants as 

described under Alternative B. 

Fish and wildlife, outdoor 

recreation, special status species, 

lands and realty, and timberland 

and woodland resources 

management under Alternative D 

would have impacts on special 

status plant species, as described 

under Alternative B. 

Livestock grazing impacts on special 

status plant species under 

Alternative D would be the same 

as those under Alternative A.
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

2-152 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

potential for reductions in special 

status plant populations. 

Fish and Wildlife

Oil and gas leasing operations 

would be conducted following the 

BIA’s Fluid Minerals Estate 

Procedural Handbook (BIA 2012c). 

Accidental releases of wastewater 

used in drilling operations could 

alter water quality in fish-bearing 

streams and reservoirs. Water 

depletions from these sources 

would continue to occur over the 

long term. 

Under Alternative A, the BIA 

would monitor lessees’ adherence 

to livestock grazing conservation 

plans. This monitoring would 

reduce the potential for loss of 

cover on rangelands. 

Indian forests and woodlands 

would be managed with sound 

silvicultural principles; however, 

harvest areas may result in loss of 

seasonally important wildlife 

habitats from tree removal and 

road construction.

Indian fish, wildlife, and outdoor 

recreation are managed as trust 

assets. The BIA would protect 

Under Alternative B, additional 

protective measures would 

indirectly prevent discharging 

pollutants into tribal waters, 

provide a buffer around prehistoric, 

protohistoric, and tribal historic 

cultural resources, and limit 

disturbance to culturally valued 

plant species during solid mineral 

development. These provisions may 

minimize disturbance or loss of 

plant communities used by wildlife. 

Livestock grazing management

would preserve native grasses and 

forage grass heights to reduce 

disturbance to plant communities 

and to help maintain cover for 

ground-nesting birds.

The BIA would encourage 

applicants to collocate ROWs in 

order to minimize disturbance or 

loss of wildlife habitat in 

undisturbed areas. The BIA would 

manage timberland and woodland

resources with a sustainable, 

multiple-use philosophy, taking into 

account sensitive natural resources 

in management areas. BIA-managed 

Under Alternative C, fluid and solid 

mineral leasing would be managed 

the same as under Alternative A,

but buffers would be observed 

around sensitive sites to protect 

plant communities used by wildlife 

from disturbance. Riparian buffers 

would be the largest under this 

alternative. The BIA would also 

require applicants to collocate 

ROWs and associated facilities; 

however, new ROWs could still 

result in disturbance or loss of 

plant communities used by wildlife, 

even when collocated with existing 

ROWs. 

Impacts from vegetation, fish and 

wildlife, recreation, special status 

species, livestock grazing, woodland

resources, and cultural and heritage 

resources management under 

Alternative C would be the same as 

under Alternative B. 

Under Alternative D, Federally 

recognized Indian tribes would be 

able to permanently, adversely 

impact trust assets in favor of 

short-term economic gains from 

fluid and solid mineral leasing and 

development. Buffers would be 

observed for sensitive areas; 

however, for other habitat areas, 

tribal decisions would increase 

potential damage or loss of wildlife 

habitat, such as disturbance to plant 

communities, food supplies, cover, 

breeding sites, and other important 

habitat components, compared 

with Alternative A. 

The NHPA Section 106 tribal 

consultation process would 

mitigate for loss of a site rather 

than preserve it. In addition, 

Alternative D would allow adverse 

impacts on hunting, fishing, and 

gathering rights in order to 

promote development, increasing 

potential impacts on wildlife 

habitat. 

Livestock grazing impacts under 

Alternative D would be similar to 
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-153

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

these trust assets while providing 

conservation, management, 

enhancement, and wise use of the 

resources. This would help 

maintain populations of fish and 

wildlife, including the aquatic, 

seasonally important, and 

movement corridor habitats that 

support these populations.

surface lands would be managed to 

support fish and wildlife; fuels and 

vegetation treatments would be 

used to sustain or improve wildlife 

habitat. Wildlife species 

management would incorporate 

conservation actions for special 

status species.

those under Alternative A. Impacts 

from lands and realty management 

under Alternative D would be the 

same as described under 

Alternative B. 

Woodland management under 

Alternative D would promote 

woodland use for economic gain, 

including clear-cutting and 

monoculture. Thus, loss of 

woodland and nesting habitat 

would increase compared with 

Alternative A. 

Special Status Species

Oil and gas leasing operations 

would be conducted following the 

BIA’s Fluid Minerals Estate 

Procedural Handbook (BIA 2012c)

and could impact special status 

species through disturbance or loss 

of plant communities, food supplies, 

cover, or breeding sites. Use of 

vehicles and heavy equipment 

during operations could also result 

in direct mortality, particularly for 

the ABB.

Under Alternative A, the BIA 

would monitor lessees’ adherence 

to livestock grazing conservation 

plans. This monitoring would 

reduce the potential for loss of 

Under Alternative B, additional 

protective measures would prevent 

discharging pollutants into tribal 

waters; provide a buffer around 

prehistoric, protohistoric, and 

tribal historic cultural resources; 

and limit disturbance to culturally 

valued plant species during solid 

mineral development. These 

provisions may minimize 

disturbance or loss of special status 

species habitat. 

Livestock grazing management

would preserve native grasses and 

forage grass heights to reduce 

disturbance to plant communities, 

Under Alternative C, oil and gas 

leasing would be managed as under 

Alternative A, but buffers would be 

observed around sensitive sites to 

protect special status species 

habitat from disturbance more than 

under Alternative A. Riparian

buffers would be the largest under 

this alternative. The BIA would also 

require applicants to collocate 

ROWs and associated facilities; 

however, new ROWs could still 

result in disturbance or loss of 

plant communities used by special 

status species, even when 

collocated with existing ROWs. 

Under Alternative D, Federally 

recognized Indian tribes would be 

able to permanently, adversely 

impact trust assets in favor of 

short-term economic gains from 

fluid and solid mineral leasing and 

development. Buffers would be 

observed for some sensitive areas; 

however, for other habitat areas, 

tribal decisions would increase 

potential damage or loss of special 

status species habitat, such as 

disturbance to plant communities, 

food supplies, cover, breeding sites, 

and other important habitat 

components, compared with 

Alternative A. 
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

2-154 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

cover for special status species. 

Indian forests and woodlands 

would be managed with sound 

silvicultural principles; however, in 

harvest areas special status species 

habitats may be lost from tree 

removal and road construction.

Indian fish, wildlife, and outdoor 

recreation are managed as trust 

assets. Under Alternative A, special 

status species management, lands 

and realty management, and forest

management would be on a caseby-case basis, in accordance with 

existing policy and law.

and help maintain cover for special 

status species.

The BIA would encourage

applicants to collocate ROWs in 

order to minimize disturbance or 

loss of special status species habitat 

in undisturbed areas. The BIA 

would manage timberland and 

woodland resources with a 

sustainable, multiple-use 

philosophy.

BIA-managed surface lands would 

be managed to protect, preserve, 

and enhance special status species 

and promote their recovery. 

Special status species management 

would incorporate conservation 

actions for special status species in 

coordination with the USFWS, 

Federally recognized Indian tribes, 

and other stakeholders. 

Management also includes 

requirements for site-specific 

evaluations and clearances to 

protect special status species. 

These actions would help maintain 

or improve special status species 

populations and the habitats that 

support these populations.

Impacts from vegetation, fish and 

wildlife, recreation, special status 

species, livestock grazing, woodland

resources, and cultural and heritage 

resources management under 

Alternative C would be the same as 

under Alternative B. 

The NHPA Section 106 tribal 

consultation process would 

mitigate for loss of a site rather 

than preserve it. In addition, 

Alternative D would allow adverse 

impacts on hunting, fishing, and 

gathering rights in order to 

promote development, increasing 

potential impacts on wildlife 

habitat. 

Livestock grazing impacts under 

Alternative D would be similar to 

those under Alternative A. Impacts 

from lands and realty management 

under Alternative D would be the 

same as under Alternative B. 

Woodland management under 

Alternative D would promote 

woodland use for economic gain, 

including clear-cutting and 

monoculture. Thus, loss of trees 

providing potential nesting habitat 

for the RCW and other special 

status species would likely increase 

compared with Alternative A. 
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-155

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Cultural Resources

Cultural resource compliance 

actions would continue under

Alternative A. 

The BIA would continue to manage 

resources in a manner that 

accommodates Native American 

religious traditions, practices, and 

beliefs and respects tribal trust 

resources. The BIA would continue 

to identify, protect, and preserve 

TCPs, sacred and religious sites, or 

special use areas through site- and 

project-specific modification or 

mitigation on a case-by-case or 

project-by-project consultation 

basis.

Cultural resource compliance 

actions would continue under

Alternative B. Alternative B 

provides additional explicit actions 

in the minerals and other 

authorized actions to reduce the 

risk of impacts on cultural 

resources and historic properties. 

These actions would further 

reduce the risks of impacts on 

cultural resources compared with

Alternative A.

Additional disturbance buffers that 

protect and maintain water 

features and native plant and animal 

natural resources would help 

preserve these tribal values and 

traditional resources relative to 

Alternative A. 

Management and protection of cave 

and cave-related resources would 

provide incidental protection of 

cultural resources that are often 

associated with these features, 

reducing the potential risk of 

impacts on cultural resources 

compared with Alternative A.

Alternative C prioritizes resource 

protection over resource uses and 

includes more limitations on 

ground disturbance.

Additional disturbance buffers that 

protect and maintain water 

features and native plant and animal 

natural resources would help 

preserve these tribal values and 

traditional resources more than 

under Alternative A.

Overall impacts on cultural 

resources are similar to those 

described for Alternative B for 

most actions but with fewer 

restrictions, fewer required actions, 

and reduced buffers in some cases. 

When compared with Alternative 

A, Alternative D reduces the risk 

of impacts on cultural resources 

from surface disturbance, erosion, 

access, and alterations to the 

setting.

Impacts on cultural resources 

would be similar to those under 

Alternative B, but additional 

decision-making discretion would 

be given to the affected Federally 

recognized Indian tribe.

Because tribal trust rights and 

resources are often connected with 

traditional cultural practices and 

resources, there is the potential for 

loss of these resources in the 

interest of promoting tribal 

development.

Additional disturbance buffers that 

protect and maintain water 

features and native plant and animal 

natural resources would help 

preserve these tribal values and 
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

2-156 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

traditional resources more than 

under Alternative A.

Paleontological Resources

The BIA would continue to follow 

laws, regulations, and policies 

related to the protection of 

paleontological resources, and 

consideration of impacts on 

paleontological resources would 

occur in site-specific analyses when 

actions subject to federal review 

are proposed. These actions would 

reduce the risk of impacts on 

paleontological resources, allow 

mitigation to avoid impacts, and/or 

preserve these resources or their 

information potential.

Alternative B would maintain

current compliance actions to 

address impacts on paleontological 

resources.

Additional disturbance buffers and 

closures to surface uses to protect 

other resources would provide 

incidental protections to 

paleontological resources from 

surface disturbance and erosion 

compared with Alternative A.

Alternative C prioritizes resource 

protection over resource uses and 

includes more limitations on 

ground disturbance.

Additional disturbance buffers and 

closures to surface uses to protect 

other resources would provide 

incidental protections to 

paleontological resources from 

surface disturbance and erosion 

compared with Alternative A.

Disposition of paleontological 

resources would not be allowed, 

which may require curation on-site 

and limit access for study or 

recovery. When compared with 

Alternative A, Alternative C 

reduces the risk of impacts on 

paleontological resources from 

surface disturbance, erosion, and 

access.

Overall impacts on paleontological 

resources are similar to those 

described for Alternative B for 

most actions but with fewer 

restrictions, fewer required actions, 

and reduced buffers in some cases. 

When compared with Alternative 

A, Alternative D reduces the risk 

of impacts on paleontological 

resources from surface 

disturbance, erosion, and access.

Alternative D would explicitly allow 

Federally recognized Indian tribes

to permanently, adversely impact 

trust assets (including 

paleontological resources) in favor 

of short-term gain from 

development. The integrity of the 

resource could be permanently 

lost, but recovery of the fossils and 

scientific information may occur. 

There is no similar management 

proposed under Alternative A.

Additional disturbance buffers and 

closures to surface uses to protect 

other resources would provide 

incidental protections to 

paleontological resources from 
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-157

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

surface disturbance and erosion 

compared with Alternative A.

Visual Resources

Under Alternative A, there would 

be no management objectives for 

visual resources. The BIA would 

consider potential impacts on 

scenic quality from other 

management actions on a case-bycase basis; the BIA would 

determine mitigation requirements 

on a project-by-project basis.

Alternative A would allow new 

surface-disturbing activities 

throughout BIA-managed surface 

lands. These activities would alter 

the visual resource conditions in 

the decision area and could prompt 

changes in VRI classifications for 

future inventories.

Mitigation measures to reduce 

impacts on farmlands would 

minimize changes to visual 

resources. 

There would be no specific 

management for forest and 

woodland products and special 

products under Alternative A.

Alternative B would reduce the 

potential for changes to visual 

resources by avoiding or minimizing 

activities that would disturb 

sensitive cultural, vegetation, or 

wildlife habitat areas. In areas of 

high visual sensitivity, the BIA may 

require that development 

associated with leases be subject to 

additional NEPA and permitting 

processes. 

Encouraging ROW applicants to 

locate projects in existing disturbed 

areas and avoiding development 

near culturally sensitive areas 

would reduce the potential for new 

surface disturbance and associated 

visual resource changes.

Avoidance or minimization of

disturbance to culturally valued 

resources and Federally recognized 

Indian tribe-identified sites could 

reduce the amount of surface 

disturbance from mineral activity 

compared with Alternative A.

Minimizing the conversion of prime 

and unique farmland to 

Impacts on visual resources would 

be similar to those under 

Alternative B; however, avoiding 

surface disturbance from ROW

development and changes to 

nonagricultural uses would further 

maintain the visual resources.

Alternative D would reduce the 

potential for changes to visual 

resources by mitigating the impacts 

of activities that would disturb 

sensitive cultural, vegetation, or 

wildlife habitat areas.

Impacts from land use 

authorizations would be the same 

as under Alternative B.

Alternative D, which would 

mitigate disturbance to culturally 

valued resources and Federally 

recognized Indian tribe-identified 

sites, could reduce the amount of 

surface disturbance from mineral 

activity in the long term, compared 

with Alternative A.

Forest and woodland product and 

special product management under 

Alternative D would allow timber 

harvesting in all areas with viable 

timber stands. Where forests 

contribute to visual quality, changes 

in timber density, health, or type 

would alter visual resources.

Impacts from the management of 

prime and unique farmlands would 
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

2-158 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

nonagricultural uses would reduce, 

but not avoid, changes to pastoral 

visual qualities on BIA-managed 

surface lands.

Forest and woodland product and 

special product management under 

Alternative B would allow timber 

harvesting in all areas with viable 

timber stands, with the exception 

of TCPs and sacred sites. Where 

forests contribute to visual quality, 

changes in timber density, health, 

or type would alter visual 

resources, though restoration 

would reduce these impacts.

be the same as under Alternative B.

Wildland Fire Ecology and Fuels Management

Complying with federal, state, and 

local air quality regulations, 

standards, and requirements would 

affect smoke management 

objectives. Fire management would 

include developing action plans to 

address climate change.

Use restriction buffers near surface 

waters, wetlands, and riparian areas 

would be determined on a case-bycase basis. There would be the 

fewest restrictions on fire 

management in the planning and on 

fuels treatments near these areas.

Impacts from air quality and climate 

change would be similar to those 

under Alternative A; however, 

Alternative B would implement 

strategic climate change program 

assessments and action plans for 

interested Federally recognized 

Indian tribes. If these plans required 

reduction in fire-related GHG

emissions in the short term, this

may lead to increased fire 

suppression and limit fuels 

treatment methods to meet 

stricter GHG emissions 

requirements outlined in the plans.

Impacts from air quality and climate 

change would be similar to those 

under Alternative A; however, 

under Alternative C, air quality 

management would avoid the use 

of prescribed burns as a hazardous 

fuels reduction method. Therefore, 

this strategy may not be 

emphasized in long-term climate 

management plans. As with 

Alternative B, this would limit fuels 

treatment methods and may result 

in long-term fuels increases.

Establishing buffers around surface 

waters, wetlands, and riparian areas

Impacts from air quality and climate 

change would be similar to those 

under Alternative A. Under 

Alternative D, use of prescribed 

burns to reduce hazardous fuels 

would be maximized. As a result, 

fuels reduction and return to 

historical vegetative reference 

conditions would be maintained or 

increased as compared with 

Alternative A.

Establishing buffers around surface 

waters, wetlands, and riparian areas

for all use authorizations would 

restrict the fuels treatments near 
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-159

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Noxious weeds and invasive plants

would be controlled through a local 

priority-setting process determined 

by the BIA and the Federally 

recognized Indian tribe to fund 

such activity.

Establishing buffers around surface 

waters, wetlands, and riparian areas

treatments would not affect fire 

management planning and fuels 

treatments if the treatments would 

not cause adverse impacts on these 

resources. Otherwise, creation of 

buffers might be more restrictive 

than under Alternative A and could 

limit fire management, which would 

not occur under Alternative A.

Impacts from fire management

would be the same as described 

under the BLM analysis. Alternative 

B would manage naturally ignited 

fires to achieve the ecological role 

of wildfire to maintain and enhance 

resources (for the BIA Eastern 

Oklahoma Region only) outside of 

wildland-urban interface areas. Fire 

management tactics and objectives 

would be expanded to allow fire to 

enhance resources, as appropriate 

when compared with Alternative A.

Controlling noxious weeds and 

invasive plants through fuels 

management would reduce fuels

loads compared with Alternative A.

for all use authorizations would 

restrict the fuels treatments near 

these areas and would be more 

restrictive than under Alternative 

A.

Alternative C would restrict fuels 

treatments to control noxious 

weeds and invasive plants using 

chemicals. Fuels treatment 

objectives may not be achieved or 

not be cost effective to achieve 

desired results. Impacts on fuels 

management would be greater than 

under Alternative A, which does 

not specify such a restriction.

these areas and would be more 

restrictive than under Alternative 

A.

As under Alternatives A and B, 

Alternative D would provide

flexibility for fuels management by 

allowing use of a full suite of 

vegetation treatment methods to 

achieve fuels treatment objectives.
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

2-160 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Cave and Karst Resources

Continuing to recognize and 

protect discovered cave and karst 

areas would reduce the potential 

for caves to lose special resource 

integrity or biological communities.

Fluid minerals leasing in the 

planning area could result in the 

potential discovery of unknown 

karsts during fluid minerals 

exploration and development.

The BIA would increase 

protections of caves and karsts 

over Alternative A by assessing the 

potential of and associated impacts 

on them. To avoid future impacts, 

the BIA would coordinate with 

THPOs, interested Federally

recognized Indian tribes, including 

the Tribal wildlife department, and 

the USFWS when caves are 

discovered, to determine 

appropriate management for the 

cultural and biological resources.

Impacts from fluid minerals leasing 

would be the same as described for 

Alternative A. 

Special status bats would be 

protected within a 415-foot radius. 

If a cave were to be closed, then its 

associated biological resources 

would be preserved, and the 

introduction of visual or audible 

elements and loss of integrity 

would be prevented.

The BIA would require practices 

and policies to prevent long-term 

degradation of caves and karsts 

from sinkholes, overhangs, and 

underground drainage systems. To 

avoid future impacts, the BIA 

would coordinate with THPOs, 

interested Federally recognized 

Indian tribes, including the Tribal 

wildlife department, and the 

USFWS when caves are discovered. 

This would be done to determine 

appropriate management for 

biological resources.

Practices and policies for the 

protection of cave and karst 

systems are the same as those 

under Alternative B.

Additional detection methods and 

field studies would reduce impacts 

on cave and karst resources 

compared with Alternative A.

Depending on the results of cave 

detection, avoidance or other 

means would be used to mitigate 

potential impacts, thereby reducing 

potential impacts compared with 

Alternative A.
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-161

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

BIA RESOURCE USES

Energy and Minerals 

Fluid Minerals

The BIA would continue to manage 

its entire surface decision area as 

open to ROW, easement, and 

business lease authorizations. This 

management would not affect fluid 

minerals development.

The BIA would continue to allow 

fluid minerals leasing without 

planning-level restrictions or 

closures. This management would 

not affect oil and gas development 

in the BIA decision area.

Restrictions may continue to be 

applied on a case-by-case basis.

The BIA would manage areas for 

ROW, easement, and business 

lease avoidance based on sitespecific conditions. This could limit 

options for transporting minerals, 

resulting in increased impacts 

compared with Alternative A.

Management of fluid minerals

leasing and the resulting impacts 

would be the same as those 

discussed under Alternative A.

The BIA would manage areas for 

ROW, easement, and business 

lease exclusion based on sitespecific conditions. This could limit 

options for transporting minerals, 

resulting in increased impacts 

compared with Alternative A.

Management of fluid minerals

leasing and the resulting impacts 

would be the same as those 

discussed under Alternative A.

Impacts from management of land 

use authorizations under Alternative 

D would be the same as those 

described under Alternative B.

Management of fluid minerals leasing 

and the resulting impacts would be 

similar to that discussed under 

Alternative A. The exception is that 

placing additional priority on shortterm resource development may 

increase oil and gas development in 

the BIA decision area, compared 

with Alternative A.

Solid Leasable Minerals

The BIA would continue to manage 

its entire surface decision area as 

open to ROW, easement, and 

business lease authorizations. This 

management would not affect solid 

leasable minerals development.

The BIA would continue to allow 

solid minerals leasing without 

planning-level restrictions or 

closures. This management would 

not impact solid leasable mineral 

development in the BIA decision 

The BIA would manage areas for 

ROW, easement, and business 

lease avoidance based on sitespecific conditions. This could limit 

options for transporting minerals, 

resulting in increased impacts 

compared with Alternative A.

The BIA would apply restrictions 

that could affect the siting, timing, 

or operations of solid leasable 

mineral activity, resulting in 

increased impacts compared with 

Alternative A.

The BIA would manage areas for 

ROW, easement, and business 

lease exclusion based on sitespecific conditions. This could limit 

options for transporting minerals, 

resulting in increased impacts 

compared with Alternative A.

Impacts on solid leasable minerals

under Alternative C would be 

similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B. The exception is that 

restrictions to protect cultural 

resources and water quality would 

Impacts from management of land 

use authorizations under 

Alternative D would be the same 

as those described under 

Alternative B.

Impacts on solid leasable minerals

under Alternative D would be 

similar to those described under 

Alternative A. The exception is that 

mitigation may be required under 

Alternative D, causing an increase 

in impacts compared with 

Alternative A.
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

2-162 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

area. Restrictions may continue to 

be applied on a case-by-case basis.

be slightly more stringent under 

Alternative C; therefore, they 

could increase impacts on the solid 

leasable minerals program.

Renewable Energy

There would be no restrictions on 

ROW, easement, and business 

leases under Alternative A. 

Restrictions may continue to be 

applied on a case-by-case basis and 

would be applied to be in 

compliance with other applicable 

laws and regulations (such as the 

ESA and NHPA). This could 

incidentally impact renewable 

energy development such as 

minimizing or avoiding surface 

disturbance of if protections would 

overlap with areas with renewable 

development potential. 

ROW avoidance areas to protect 

cultural resources would indirectly 

limit new or expanded 

development, decreasing the BIA’s 

ability to accommodate future 

renewable energy testing and 

development compared with

Alternative A.

ROW exclusion areas to protect 

cultural resources would prevent 

new or expanded development, 

decreasing the BIA’s ability to 

accommodate future renewable 

energy testing and development 

compared with Alternative A.

Impacts would be the same as 

those described under Alternative 

B.

Travel, Transportation Management, and Access

Impacts on TTMA would include 

physical changes to roads, 

additional traffic on local roads, or 

changes in traffic volumes. Changes 

in road condition and traffic can 

indirectly increase the risk of 

vehicle collisions and impede 

access; however, BMPs outlined in 

the BIA tribal transportation 

program enhance the 

Impacts would be the same as 

those described under Alternative

A.

Prioritizing tribal and other entity 

suggestions may delay 

transportation projects compared 

with Alternative A, because more 

time would be required for 

coordination during the design 

process; however, this 

coordination may streamline the 

tribal and public participation 

process in the long term.

Impacts would be the same as 

those described under Alternative

A.
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-163

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

transportation network on BIAmanaged roads. This program 

would continue to provide federalaid funding to tribal governments.

Lands and Realty

Land Use Authorizations

Managing all areas as open to ROW

development would allow for all 

new ROWs, including renewable 

energy ROWs, transmission lines, 

and roads. Restrictions may 

continue to be applied on a caseby-case basis.

ROW avoidance for cultural 

resources would limit the location, 

extent, and types of new ROW 

development compared with

Alternative A.

ROW exclusion for cultural 

resources would reduce the 

portion of the decision area 

available for new or upgraded 

ROWs compared with Alternative 

A.

Impacts would be the same as 

those under Alternative B.

Land Tenure

There would be no impacts on 

lands and realty from land tenure

actions under Alternative A.

Alternative B would promote 

acquisitions and disposals as 

opportunities arise and where the 

land tenure adjustment would be in 

the best interest of the Federally 

recognized Indian tribe and 

landowner. Over the long term, 

Alternative B would result in a 

more consolidated landownership 

pattern, create more contiguous 

ownership patterns, and protect 

sensitive resources.

Impacts on lands and realty from 

land tenure actions involving 

acquisitions would be the same as 

those under Alternative B. 

Alternative C could increase the 

amount of tribal trust land, 

compared with Alternative A. This 

would be when it is combined with 

management that would avoid land 

tenure adjustments involving the 

disposal of tribal trust, restricted, 

or government-owned properties.

Impacts would be the same as 

those under Alternative B.

Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing would continue 

to be managed to promote benefits 

for the landowner and lessee.

Livestock grazing management

under Alternative B would focus on 

preserving native grasses and 

forage grass heights. Management 

Livestock grazing would be 

managed to ensure carrying 

capacity is not exceeded, and that 

Livestock grazing impacts under 

Alternative D would be similar to 

those under Alternative A. Impacts 

on rangeland and grazing resources 
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

2-164 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Under Alternative A, the BIA 

would monitor lessees’ adherence 

to livestock grazing conservation 

plans. The plans could affect grazing 

practices in localized areas, but 

they would promote healthy forage 

and water in the long term. 

Management to protect natural 

resources may alter grazing 

practices in the short term and 

promote healthy forage and water 

sources for grazing in the long 

term.

Fluid (outside of Osage County) 

and solid minerals development

under Alternative A may disturb 

livestock and their forage and may 

affect the quality and quantity of 

grazing water sources.

Management of areas open to land 

use authorizations could create 

conflicts with grazing and remove 

forage.

to preserve native grasses and 

forage grass heights, enhance 

vegetation communities, and 

protect natural resources would 

limit grazing opportunities in the 

short term but would promote a 

healthier forage base in the long 

term compared with Alternative A.

Indirect impacts from solid and 

fluid mineral leasing would be 

similar to those under Alternative 

A, but additional protective 

measures for environmental 

resources would be applied. 

Encouraging collocation of ROWs

and associated facilities would 

reduce conflicts with grazing and 

promote a healthier forage base to a 

greater extent than under 

Alternative A.

important native habitat is 

conserved whenever possible, 

Management to protect natural 

resources would be similar to 

those under Alternative B, but 

buffers would be larger under 

Alternative C. This would protect 

livestock and their forage from 

disturbance in affected areas to a 

greater extent.

Under Alternative C, impacts from 

solid and fluid mineral leasing 

would be similar to Alternative B, 

but buffers would be observed 

around sensitive sites, which would 

protect livestock and their forage 

from disturbance in these areas to 

a greater extent.

Requiring collocation of ROWs and 

associated facilities would reduce 

conflicts with grazing and promote a 

healthier forage base to a greater 

extent than under Alternative A.

would be allowed to the extent 

allowed by applicable laws, rules, 

and regulations. The intent would 

be to promote benefits for the 

landowner and lessee.

Buffers and protection for natural 

resources would have impacts as 

described under Alternative B.

Federally recognized Indian tribes

would be able to make decisions to 

permanently, adversely affect trust 

assets in favor of short-term 

economic gains from solid and fluid 

mineral leasing and development.

This could lead to livestock 

disturbance or loss of forage 

compared with Alternative A.

Impacts from land use 

authorizations would have impacts 

as described under Alternative B. 

Prime and Unique Farmlands and Agriculture

Continuing to approve leases of the 

trust mineral estate would continue 

to result in impacts on farmland, 

because accessing mineral 

resources can involve converting 

farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Impacts from mineral leasing would 

have impacts as described under 

Alternative A. 

Compared with Alternative A, 

Alternative B would improve 

opportunities for protecting 

Impacts from mineral leasing would 

be reduced compared with 

Alternative A, because no natural 

resources would be allowed to be 

permanently, adversely affected by 

minerals development.

Impacts from mineral leasing would 

be increased compared with 

Alternative A, because there would 

be less focus on mineral resources 

development in an environmentally 

responsible manner.
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-165

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Continuing to have no goals, 

objectives, or actions for soils and 

agriculture would result in impacts 

on farmland, because opportunities 

for protecting farmland from soil 

compaction and erosion and 

improving farmland from rotational 

cropping would be limited.

Continuing to have no goals, 

objectives, or actions for lands and 

realty would limit protection of 

farmland from land uses.

Impacts from travel and 

transportation can involve clearing 

or disturbing farmland during road 

construction. Restrictions may 

continue to be applied on a caseby-case basis.

farmland from soil compaction and 

erosion and improving farmland 

from rotational cropping.

Impacts from road development 

would be avoided by supporting the 

BIA Tribal Transportation Program 

(or equivalent), leading to the 

proper planning and development 

of road networks. 

Encouraging collocation of ROWs

would minimize impacts by 

controlling the spread of new 

facilities capable of disturbing 

farmland.

Compared with Alternative A, 

Alternative C would improve 

opportunities for protecting 

farmland from soil compaction and 

erosion and improving farmland 

from rotational cropping.

Alternative C would have the same 

impacts on farmland from travel 

and transportation as under 

Alternative B.

Requiring collocation of ROWs

would minimize impacts by 

preventing the spread of new 

facilities capable of disturbing 

farmland.

Alternative D would have the same 

impacts on farmland from soil 

compaction and erosion and 

rotational cropping as under 

Alternative B.

With the maximum development of 

new roads occurring under 

Alternative D, more roads could be 

developed than under Alternative 

A. Therefore, there would be more 

impacts on farmland from travel

and transportation.

Alternative D would have the same 

impacts on farmland from new 

facilities as under Alternative B.

BIA SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

National Historic Trails

NHTs in the decision area would 

continue to be vulnerable to 

indirect impacts from ROW

authorizations, oil and gas 

development, and other uses on 

tribal trust and non-tribal lands. 

The BIA would consider mitigation 

on a case-by-case basis to reduce 

direct and indirect impacts on the 

NHTs, consistent with the 

designating legislation.

There would be slightly greater 

protection of NHT resources than 

under Alternative A because 

Alternative B would avoid ROW

development near cultural 

resources. Impacts from other 

resource uses on NHT values 

would be the same as under 

Alternative A.

Impacts would be similar to those 

described under Alternative B.

There would be slightly greater 

protection of NHT resources than 

under Alternative A because 

Alternative C would exclude ROW

development near cultural 

resources.

Impacts on NHT resources would 

be the same as those under 

Alternative B.
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

2-166 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

National and State Scenic Byways

Under Alternative A, such activities 

as ROW and mineral development 

on tribal trust lands could modify 

the visual landscape next to 

national and state scenic byways in 

the decision area.

There would be slightly greater 

protection of national and state 

scenic byways than under 

Alternative A because Alternative B 

would avoid ROW development 

near cultural resources. Impacts 

from other resource uses on 

national and state scenic byways 

values would be the same as under 

Alternative A.

Impacts would be similar to those 

described under Alternative B. 

There would be slightly greater 

protection of national and state 

scenic byways than under 

Alternative A because Alternative 

C would exclude ROW

development near cultural 

resources.

Impacts on national and state 

scenic byways would be the same 

as those under Alternative B.

BIA Social and Economic Conditions

Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests

Impacts on treaty rights and trust 

resources, traditional uses, and 

areas of traditional cultural and 

religious importance are similar to 

those described for the BLM 

analysis above.

Indian fish, wildlife, and outdoor 

recreational assets are managed as 

tribal trust assets in accordance 

with existing policy. Tribal 

stewardship of these resources

helps maintain cultural traditional 

uses and use areas, and protects 

cultural sites.

Under all alternatives there would 

continue to be impacts on tribal 

interests from poor air quality,

dust, hazardous particulates, noise, 

Alternative B maintains current 

cultural resource compliance 

actions to address impacts on 

treaty rights and trust resources, 

traditional uses, and areas of 

traditional cultural and religious 

importance as described for 

Alternative A.

Alternative B provides additional 

explicit actions for minerals and 

other authorized actions to reduce 

the risk of impacts on treaty rights 

and trust resources, traditional 

uses, and areas of traditional 

cultural and religious importance.

Additional buffers and measures to 

protect natural resources would 

help preserve these tribal values 

Alternative C prioritizes resource 

protection over resource uses and 

includes more limitations on 

ground disturbance.

Impacts from natural resources 

management would be the same or 

similar to those described for 

Alternative B. Alternative C would 

continue to allow harvesting of 

riparian vegetation to maintain 

cultural practices. Larger buffers 

around water sources, riparian 

areas, and wetland communities 

would help preserve these tribal 

interests and maintain the setting. 

Alternative D prioritizes making 

lands available for resource uses 

and providing more discretion to 

affected Federally recognized Indian 

tribes in decisions that affect their 

trust resources.

When compared with Alternative 

A, Alternative D increases the risk 

of impacts on cultural resources 

and tribal interests from surface 

disturbance, erosion, access, and 

alterations to the setting.

Alternative D would explicitly allow 

Federally recognized Indian tribes

to permanently, adversely impact 

trust assets in favor of short-term 

gain from development. Likewise, it 

provides for allowing discretion for 
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-167

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

local traffic, induced seismicity, and 

hazardous materials and wastes 

associated with ongoing drilling, 

mineral development, operations,

and road maintenance.

and traditional resources compared 

with Alternative A.

Management and protection of cave 

and cave-related resources would 

provide incidental protection of 

tribal interests that may be 

associated with these features.

affected Federally recognized Indian 

tribes to make decisions that 

permanently, adversely impact 

hunting, fishing, gathering, and 

minerals to the extent allowed by 

applicable laws, rules, and 

regulations.

Impacts from natural resources 

management would be the same or 

similar to those described for 

Alternative B. Smaller buffers 

would be required around water 

sources, riparian areas, and wetland

communities but would reduce the 

potential for new surface 

disturbance in these areas and 

provide incidental protections for 

any cultural resources compared 

with Alternative A.

Public Health and Safety

Impacts from management of air quality, soils, water resources, vegetation, fish and wildlife, special status species, cultural resources, wildfire, cave and 

karst resources, lands and realty, and public health and safety would be the same as those described under the BLM analysis above.

Impacts from management of solid and fluid minerals in the Southern Plains Region would be the same as those described under the BLM analysis 

above.

Impacts from management of solid and fluid minerals in the Eastern Oklahoma Region (except for fluid minerals in Osage County) would be the same 

as those described under the BLM analysis above.

Impacts on public health and safety from recreation and visitor services management would be similar to those described under the BLM analysis

above, with the exception that the BIA does not manage RMAs, so the associated impacts from RMA management would not occur.

Impacts on public health and safety from travel and transportation management would be similar to those described under the BLM analysis above, 

with the exception that the BIA does not manage vehicle use as open, closed, or limited. 
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

2-168 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Impacts on public health and safety from fire management would be similar to those described under the BLM analysis above. The exception under 

Alternative C is that the BIA would avoid using prescribed fire for public safety. This would result in safer conditions for the public than under 

Alternative A; however, by restricting prescribed fires, there would be long-term public safety risks due to an increase of hazardous fuels buildup.

Socioeconomics

Fluid Minerals

Under Alternative A, the 

production of oil and gas resources 

would have direct socioeconomic

impacts. The incremental increase 

in oil and gas exploration and 

production would provide or 

maintain jobs, direct and indirect 

spending, and taxes for local, state, 

and tribal governments. Leasing 

Indian trust minerals results in 

employment and income for local 

workers, both tribal and non-tribal.

Management of fluid mineral leasing 

and the resulting impacts would be 

similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A. Implementing BMPs

and other measures to reduce 

emissions, discourage fugitive dust,

and protect other resources could 

restrict fluid mineral development. 

This could impact economic 

output; however, compared with 

Alternative A, BMPs would also 

reduce impacts on local 

populations from development.

Management of fluid mineral leasing 

and the resulting impacts would be 

as discussed under Alternative A. 

Impacts from applying BMPs would 

be as discussed under Alternative 

B.

Management of fluid mineral leasing 

and the resulting economic impacts 

would be similar to those discussed 

under Alternative A; the exception 

is that placing additional priority on 

short-term resource development 

may increase oil and gas 

development in the BIA decision 

area, compared with Alternative A. 

Increased development would 

increase opportunities for 

employment and mineral royalty 

revenues distributed to individuals 

and Federally recognized Indian 

tribes, compared with Alternative 

A. This would support the 

Federally recognized Indian tribes

ability to provide more services to 

the communities in the area from 

local, state, and tribal governments.

Other Minerals

The BIA would continue to allow 

solid minerals leasing without 

planning-level restrictions or 

closures. This management would 

not impact solid leasable mineral 

Under Alternative B, the BIA would 

apply restrictions that could affect 

the siting, timing, or operations of 

solid leasable mineral activity and 

the related economic contributions. 

Impacts on solid leasable minerals

under Alternative C would be 

similar to those discussed under 

Alternative B; the exception is that 

restrictions to protect cultural 

Impacts on solid leasable minerals

under Alternative D would be 

similar to those described under 

Alternative A; the exception is that 

additional mitigation may be 
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 2-169

Table 2-6

BIA Summary of Environmental Consequences of Alternatives A, B, C, and D

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

development in the BIA decision 

area. Solid minerals development 

would have the same type of 

socioeconomic impact described 

for Fluid Minerals.

Although the extent of these 

restrictions is unknown at the 

planning level, these actions would 

impact the solid leasable minerals

program. The level of restrictions 

on development and related 

economic impacts would increase, 

compared with Alternative A.

resources and water quality would 

be slightly more stringent under 

Alternative C. Therefore, this could 

increase impacts on the solid 

leasable minerals program. The 

impacts on development and related 

economic output would increase, 

compared with Alternative A.

required under Alternative D. 

Mitigation may increase the costs 

for development and could 

decrease production, compared 

with Alternative A.

Environmental Justice

Continuing to allow fluid mineral 

leasing and providing royalties 

would prevent adverse economic 

impacts on minority, low-income, 

or tribal populations. 

Some potential for adverse impacts 

is present at the site-specific level 

due to disturbance from 

development, though intensity and 

location of development cannot be 

determined at the planning level; 

instead it would be examined in a

site-specific analysis.

Impacts from fluid mineral 

development would be similar to 

those described under Alternative A.

Implementation of BMPs and other 

measures to reduce emissions, 

discourage fugitive dust, and protect 

other resources could result in 

restrictions on fluid mineral 

development. This could affect 

economic output for all populations; 

however, BMPs would also reduce 

potential impacts on health and 

quality of life for local populations 

from development relative to 

Alternative A, including impacts on 

low-income, minority, and tribal 

populations.

Under Alternative C, impacts from 

fluid mineral development would be 

similar to those described under 

Alternative A. Impacts from the 

application of BMPs would be as 

discussed under Alternative B.

Management of fluid mineral leasing 

and the resulting impacts would be 

similar to those discussed under 

Alternative A. The emphasis on 

short-term resource development 

could increase economic 

contributions to all individuals and 

communities, including low-income, 

minority, or tribal populations; 

however, the potential for sitespecific impacts on quality of life 

and human health from 

development would also increase 

compared with Alternative A.
2. Alternatives (BIA Comparison of Impacts)

2-170 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

CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the existing biological, physical, and 

socioeconomic characteristics of the planning area. These include human uses 

that could be affected by implementing the alternatives described in Chapter 2. 

Discussions are divided into BLM resources, resource uses, special designations, 

and social and economic conditions and BIA resources, resource uses, special 

designations, and social and economic conditions. Where appropriate, topic 

areas include both a description of current conditions and a characterization of 

trends that express the direction of change between the present and the past.

Unless otherwise noted, descriptions of BLM-administered federal mineral 

estate include the maximum BLM-administered federal minerals decision area, as 

described in Chapter 1.

Certain resources may not be present or managed under the jurisdiction of the 

Oklahoma Field Office or the BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains 

Regions and therefore are not carried forward in this analysis. The level of 

information presented in this chapter is sufficient to assess potential effects 

discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences and Chapter 5, 

Cumulative Impacts based on the alternatives presented in Chapter 2.

Table 3-1 presents resources and resource uses that are not carried forward 

for analysis, along with the justification.

Acreage figures and other numbers used are approximate projections; readers 

should not infer that they reflect exact measurements or precise calculations. 

Acreages were calculated using GIS technology, and there may be slight 

variations in total acres among resources.
3. Affected Environment (Introduction)

3-2 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-1

Resources not Carried Forward for Analysis

Resource or Resource Use Justification

Lands with wilderness characteristics In accordance with Manual 6310, the BLM conducted a GIS 

analysis for 5,000 acres of contiguous lands that it administers. 

It determined that no such lands were present in the planning 

area. There are also no BLM-administered lands contiguous 

with lands that have been formally determined to have 

wilderness or potential wilderness values; therefore, there 

are no lands with wilderness characteristics in the planning 

area.

BLM backcountry byways There are no BLM backcountry byways in the planning area 

(BLM 2004b).

Wild horses and burros As stated in Chapter 1, the contracts for wild horse and

burro long-term holding facilities are administered by the 

BLM Washington, DC, Office; therefore, they not part of this 

decision space.

Wilderness The Black Fork Mountain Wilderness, Upper Kiamichi River 

Wilderness, and Wichita Mountains Wilderness overlap BLMadministered federal mineral estate (Wilderness.net GIS 

2014). The BLM does not have surface management 

responsibilities. According to the Wilderness Act of 1964, 

except where there are valid existing rights, the minerals in 

designated wilderness areas are withdrawn from all forms of 

appropriation under the mining laws and from disposition 

under all laws pertaining to mineral leasing (Public Law 88-

577); therefore, the NEPA analysis did not result in any 

decisions that would impact these areas.

Wilderness study areas There are no wilderness study areas in the planning area. 

3.1.1 Regional Context

The planning area is primarily in the following geographic provinces: 

 Western Kansas, the Oklahoma panhandle, and west Texas are in 

the Great Plains province.

 North-central Texas, central Oklahoma, and eastern Kansas and 

Nebraska are in the Central Lowland province.

 East-southeast Texas and far southeast Oklahoma are in the Coastal 

Plain province.

 A very small portion of eastern Oklahoma is also in the Ouachita 

and Ozark Plateaus provinces.

Ecoregions defined by the US EPA are derived from the seminal work Ecoregions 

of the Conterminous United States (Omernik 1987). These ecoregions form a 

framework for researching, assessing, managing, and monitoring environmental 

resources. Ecoregions denote areas where the ecosystems are generally similar. 
3. Affected Environment (Introduction) 

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

In ecoregions, the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources are 

also similar. 

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

2005; Chapman et al. 2001; Griffith et al. 2004; EPA 2013a). Acres of each 

ecoregion in the planning and decision areas are summarized in Table 3-2, 

below, and are shown in Figure 3-1, Level III Ecoregions. 

The Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment (REA)—PreAssessment Report area (Assal et al. 2015) encompasses nearly 180 million 

acres in the south-central United States. It is in portions of five states: the 

northern Texas panhandle, western Oklahoma, eastern New Mexico, eastern 

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

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

Central Great Plains, the High Plains or Western High Plains, and the 

Southwestern Tablelands. 

Assal et al. (2015) identify 19 conservation elements, which are ecological 

resources of concern, including 6 ecological community conservation elements. 

These are mixed-grass prairie, short-grass prairie, riparian areas and wetlands, 

playas and saline lakes, lakes and reservoirs, and prairie streams and rivers. 

These conservation elements are described in detail in Assal et al.’s REA (2015).

Table 3-2

Ecoregions in the Planning and Decision Areas

Ecoregion 

(Ecoregion 

Number)

Planning 

Area

(Acres)

BLMAdministered 

Surface 

Lands

(Acres)

BLMAdministered 

Federal 

Mineral 

Estate

(Acres)

BIAManaged

Tribal and 

Allotted 

Lands

(Acres)

BIA-Managed

Tribal and 

Allotted 

Subsurface 

Minerals 

Estate (Acres)

Arizona/New 

Mexico

Mountains (23)

52,400 0 0 0 0

Chihuahuan 

Deserts (24)

22,632,200 0 185,800 0 0

High Plains (25) 33,675,300 30 103,700 0 0

Southwestern 

Tablelands (26)

19,458,200 11,900 101,100 0 0

Central Great 

Plains (27)

53,137,200 3,000* 646,200* 381,200 653,400

Flint Hills (28) 6,902,200 0 251,000 53,200 522,700

Cross Timbers 

(29)

21,791,800 100 827,500 217,200 1,130,700

Edwards 

Plateau (30)

18,524,000 0 51,500 0 0
3. Affected Environment (Introduction)

3-4 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-2

Ecoregions in the Planning and Decision Areas

Ecoregion 

(Ecoregion 

Number)

Planning 

Area

(Acres)

BLMAdministered 

Surface 

Lands

(Acres)

BLMAdministered 

Federal 

Mineral 

Estate

(Acres)

BIAManaged

Tribal and 

Allotted 

Lands

(Acres)

BIA-Managed

Tribal and 

Allotted 

Subsurface 

Minerals 

Estate (Acres)

Southern Texas 

Plains (31)

13,201,000 0 117,100 100 100

Texas Blackland 

Prairies (32)

10,719,900 0 198,100 0 0

East-Central 

Texas Plains 

(33)

13,776,800 0 137,400 600 3,300

Western Gulf 

Coastal Plain 

(34)

14,769,400 0 349,700 0 0

South-Central 

Plains (35)

17,423,100 0 552,300 27,000 49,000

Ouachita 

Mountains (36)

2,589,300 0 95,300 21,100 35,600

Arkansas Valley 

(37)

3,077,300 70 629,100 42,600 104,900

Boston 

Mountains (38)

530,500 0 91,900 16,900 23,900

Ozark 

Highlands (39)

1,548,200 0 27,900 55,400 59,300

Central 

Irregular Plains 

(40)

10,722,600 0 371,200 15,700 62,900

Western Corn 

Belt Plains (47)

2,635,000 0 17,800 22,000 22,000

Source: EPA GIS 2013

*Plus, any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red 

River and the 98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified and mapped when they are surveyed. (No 

exact acreages of federal lands are available at this time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed.) 

Any such survey would be conducted in accordance with applicable law.

3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

3-6 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

3.2 BLM RESOURCES

This section contains a description of the biological and physical resources of 

the BLM decision area and follows the order of topics addressed in Chapter 2:

 Section 3.2.1, Air Resources 

 Section 3.2.2, Geology

 Section 3.2.3, Soil Resources

 Section 3.2.4, Water Resources

 Section 3.2.5, Vegetation

 Section 3.2.6, Fish and Wildlife

 Section 3.2.7, Special Status Species

 Section 3.2.8, Cultural Resources

 Section 3.2.9, Paleontological Resources

 Section 3.2.10, Visual Resources

 Section 3.2.11, Wildland Fire Management

 Section 3.2.12, Cave and Karst Resources

3.2.1 Air Resources

Air quality, air quality related values, and climate are components of air 

resources that may be affected by BLM activities and resource management; 

therefore, the BLM must consider and analyze the potential effects of BLM and 

BLM-authorized activities on air resources as part of the planning and decisionmaking process. More detailed information on air quality and air quality related 

values may be found in the AMS report (BLM 2015b) and in the Baseline Air 

Quality in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas Technical Report, prepared in support 

of this EIS and included as Appendix F (Vijayaraghavan et al. 2016a). 

Additional information on climate may be found in the Greenhouse Gas and 

Climate Change Report, prepared in support of this EIS and included as 

Appendix G (Cosic and Vijayaraghavan 2016).

Air Quality

Air quality in the United States is regulated by both federal and state legislation. 

The Clean Air Act (42 USC, Sections 7401-7642) is the primary federal 

legislation and provides the framework for protecting air quality at the national, 

state, and local level. The act designates the US EPA as the chief governing body 

of air resources in the United States. While the EPA retains authority for 

certain air quality rules, including most pertaining to emission standards for 

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

to implement portions of the Clean Air Act.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-7

The EPA has approved Oklahoma’s, Kansas’s, and Texas’s state implementation 

plans, which means those states may implement certain provisions of the Clean 

Air Act. There are no tribes in the planning area that have requested or been 

granted authority to implement portions of the Clean Air Act.

Air quality is measured by the concentration of air pollutants and visual 

appearance within a geographic area. Wind, temperature, humidity, geographic 

features, vegetation, and wildfire are factors that have the potential to affect the 

resource. Indicators of impacts on air quality include both an inability to meet 

NAAQS and a degradation of air quality related values. 

Regulatory Considerations

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Under the authority of the Clean Air Act, the EPA has set time-averaged 

NAAQS for six air pollutants considered to be key indicators of air quality: 

carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, lead, and two 

categories of particulate matter (particulate matter less than 10 microns in 

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

[PM2.5]). 

The NAAQS consist of primary and secondary standards, with the former 

providing requirements for public health, particularly sensitive populations such 

as asthmatics, children, and the elderly, and the latter incorporating public 

welfare provisions such as the protection of visibility, wildlife, crops, vegetation, 

and buildings. NAAQS are shown in Table 3-3.

In addition to the NAAQS shown in Table 3-3, states and tribes can develop 

and enforce their own air quality standards and regulations within their area of 

jurisdiction. While states may set their own ambient air quality standards, they 

must be at least as stringent as the national standards. If actions on lands within 

the boundaries of Indian reservations differ from the state standards, then the 

national standards apply.

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

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

other serious health effects or adverse environmental impacts. The hazardous 

air pollutant regulatory process identifies specific chemical substances that are 

potentially hazardous to human health and sets emission standards to regulate 

the amount of those substances that can be released by individual facilities or by 

specific types of equipment. 

Controls are usually required at the source to limit the release of these air 

toxics into the atmosphere. Federal emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants have been promulgated as National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants and as Maximum Available Control Technology standards.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

3-8 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-3

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging 

Time

National Standards

Primary Secondary Form

Ozone 8-hour 0.070 ppm1 Same as 

primary

Annual 4th-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour concentration, 

averaged over 3 years

Carbon 

monoxide

8-hour 9 ppm — Not to be exceeded more than 

1-hour 35 ppm — once per year

Nitrogen 

dioxide

Annual 

(arithmetic mean)

53 ppb Same as 

primary

Annual mean

1-hour 100 ppb — 98th percentile, averaged over 3 

years

Sulfur dioxide 3-hour — 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year

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

maximum concentrations, 

averaged over 3 years

Particulate 

Matter (PM10)

24-hour 150 μg/m3* Same as 

primary

Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year, on average, over 3 

years

Particulate 

Matter (PM2.5)

Annual 

(arithmetic mean)

12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged over 3 

years

24-hour 35 μg/m3 Same as 

primary

98th percentile, averaged over 3 

years

Lead3 Rolling 3-month 

average

0.15 μg/m3 Same as 

primary

Not to be exceeded

Source: EPA 2016b

1

ppm—parts per million. Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015. The previous (2008) 

ozone standards additionally remain in effect in some areas. Revocation of the 2008 ozone standards and 

transitioning to the 2015 standards will be addressed in the implementation rule for the current standards.

2

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

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

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

nonattainment for the 1971 standards, where those standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain 

or maintain the 2010 standard are approved.

3μg/m3—micrograms per cubic meter. Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3

) 

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

designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, where that standard remains in effect until implementation plans 

to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

Clean Air Act General Conformity

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

appropriate state implementation plan. The EPA has promulgated rules 

establishing conformity analysis procedures for transportation-related actions 

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

The EPA general conformity rule requires a formal conformity determination 

document for federal agency actions that are undertaken, approved, or funded 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-9

in federal nonattainment (areas that do not meet the NAAQS) or maintenance 

areas (areas that have been redesignated from nonattainment to attainment). 

This rule applies when the total net change in direct and indirect emissions of 

nonattainment pollutants (or their precursors) exceeds specified thresholds. 

As discussed under Current Conditions, below, most of the planning area is in 

attainment with the NAAQS, and Clean Air Conformity would not apply to 

federal actions in these areas. In nonattainment or maintenance areas, Clean Air 

Act conformity would be assessed during project-specific analyses. 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Regulations

In addition to the NAAQS, the Clean Air Act has PSD provisions. They establish 

a permitting process intended to limit incremental increases of specific pollutant 

concentrations above a legally defined baseline level. They apply to new or 

modified major stationary sources in areas that are in attainment with the 

NAAQS or areas that are unclassifiable (monitoring data do not exist to show 

attainment, but the area is treated as attainment for regulatory purposes).

The PSD regulations prevent areas that are in attainment of the NAAQS from 

being polluted up to the level of the standards. PSD increments are the 

maximum increases in ambient pollutant concentrations allowed over baseline 

concentrations for a pollutant, while ensuring that an area continues to meet 

the NAAQS. PSD increments are codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and vary by 

pollutant/pollutant averaging time and by class, as defined below.

The Clean Air Act directs the EPA to classify areas as Class I, Class II, or Class 

III. Class I areas allow for minimal degradation of air quality to preserve the 

condition of those areas; as such, PSD increments are most stringent in Class I 

areas. Class II areas allow for a moderate degradation of air quality to allow for 

industrial growth; PSD increments are less stringent in Class II areas. Class III 

areas allow for the greatest level of degradation; no Class III areas have been 

designated in the United States. 

Class I areas include national parks over 6,000 acres and wilderness areas and 

memorial parks over 5,000 acres that were established as of 1977, or additional 

areas such as national monuments and wildlife refuges or tribal areas that have 

since been designated by federal regulation. There are four Class 1 air sheds in 

the planning area: two in Oklahoma and two in Texas (there are none in Kansas 

or Nebraska). 

The North Mountain Unit and the Charons Garden Unit of the Wichita 

Mountains Wilderness are in southern Oklahoma; Big Bend National Park and 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park are in western Texas. In addition, Carlsbad 

Caverns National Park in New Mexico is within 62 miles of the planning area 

boundary (BLM 2015b). Section 164 of the Clean Air Act gives tribes the ability 

to request designation as a nonfederal Class I area; there are no tribal Class 1 

areas in the planning area (NPS 2011a). 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

3-10 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Class II areas are the remaining areas in the United States (outside 

nonattainment and maintenance areas). All of the planning area that has not 

been designated as a Class I area is considered a Class II area. 

Federal land managers (National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

Forest Service) may identify Class II lands under their jurisdiction that are 

sensitive to the effects of air pollution. These areas are referred to as sensitive 

Class II areas. 

The following sensitive Class II areas were identified in the planning area during 

the air quality monitoring performed for this RMP/EIS (Jung et al. 2016): 

Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve and Fort Larned National Historic Site in 

Kansas; Washita Battlefield National Historic Site and Chickasaw National 

Recreation Area in Oklahoma; and Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, 

Amistad National Recreation Area, Big Thicket, Fort Davis National Historic 

Site, Lake Meredith, Lyndon B. Johnson, Padre Island National Seashore, Palo 

Alto Battlefield National Historical Park, and San Antonio Missions.

The New Source Review Program addresses requirements for new major sources 

or modifications to an existing source’s permit application in a nonattainment 

area. As the air quality standard is already exceeded in a nonattainment area, 

compliance is demonstrated through the most stringent emission limitations; that 

is, through installation of the lowest achievable emission rate and emission offsets, 

where the increase in emissions from the new or modified source must be 

balanced by equivalent or greater reductions from existing sources.

Current Conditions

The planning area encompasses Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and Richardson 

County, Nebraska.

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

quality in violation of federal standards, using monitoring data collected through 

state monitoring networks, as follows:

 Areas that violate air quality standards are designated as 

nonattainment for the relevant criteria air pollutants; they may be 

further classified by the severity of the nonattainment designation.

 Areas that comply with air quality standards are designated as 

attainment for the relevant criteria air pollutants.

 Areas that have been redesignated from nonattainment to 

attainment are considered maintenance areas.

 Areas of uncertain status are generally designated as unclassifiable 

but are treated as attainment areas for regulatory purposes.

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

unclassified for the NAAQS. All counties in Oklahoma are either in attainment 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-11

or unclassified. Several counties and portions of counties in Texas and one 

portion of a county in Kansas are not in attainment (see Table 3-4, below). 

Richardson County, Nebraska, is in attainment for the NAAQS.

Table 3-4

Nonattainment Areas in the Planning Area

County Part of County Designated 

Nonattainment Pollutant Status1

Kansas

Saline County Saline County* Lead (2008) --

Texas

Anderson County Anderson County* Sulfur Dioxide (2010) --

Brazoria County Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hr. Ozone (1997) Severe 15

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hr. Ozone (2008) Marginal

Chambers County Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hr. Ozone (1997) Severe 15

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hr. Ozone (2008) Marginal

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

Frisco* Lead (2008) --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fort Bend County Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hr. Ozone (1997) Severe 15

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hr. Ozone (2008) Marginal

Freestone County Freestone County Sulfur Dioxide (2010) --

Galveston County Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hr. Ozone (1997) Severe 15

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hr. Ozone (2008) Marginal

Harris County Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hr. Ozone (1997) Severe 15

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hr. Ozone (2008) Marginal

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

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

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

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

Liberty County Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hr. Ozone (1997) Severe 15

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hr. Ozone (2008) Marginal

Montgomery County Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hr. Ozone (1997) Severe 15

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hr. Ozone (2008) Marginal

Panola County Panola County* Sulfur Dioxide (2010) --

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

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

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

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

Rusk County Rusk County* Sulfur Dioxide (2010) --

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

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

Titus County Titus County* Sulfur Dioxide (2010) --

Waller County Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hr. Ozone (1997) Severe 15

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 8-Hr. Ozone (2008) Marginal
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

3-12 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-4

Nonattainment Areas in the Planning Area

County Part of County Designated 

Nonattainment Pollutant Status1

Wise County Dallas-Fort Worth 8-Hr. Ozone (2008) Moderate

Source: EPA 2016c

*Only a portion of the county is designated nonattainment.

1Status:

8-Hour Ozone (2008 Standard) Classifications: Extreme: Area has a design value of 0.175 ppm and above; Severe 17: Area has 

a design value of 0.119 up to but not including 0.175 ppm; Severe 15: Area has a design value of 0.113 up to but not 

including 0.119 ppm; Serious: Area has a design value of 0.100 up to but not including 0.113 ppm; Moderate: Area has a 

design value of 0.086 up to but not including 0.100 ppm; Marginal: Area has a design value of 0.076 up to but not including 

0.086 ppm.; 

8-Hour Ozone (1997 Standard) Classifications: Extreme: Area has a design value of 0.187 ppm and above; Severe 17: Area has 

a design value of 0.127 up to but not including 0.187 ppm; Severe 15: Area has a design value of 0.120 up to but not 

including 0.127 ppm; Serious: Area has a design value of 0.107 up to but not including 0.120 ppm; Moderate: Area has a 

design value of 0.092 up to but not including 0.107 ppm; Marginal: Area has a design value of 0.085 up to but not including 

0.092 ppm.

States maintain networks of air monitoring stations that measure concentrations 

of one or more criteria pollutants. The Air Quality System database, maintained 

by the EPA, is a national database of ambient monitoring data compiled from 

these nationwide monitoring stations. There are more than 300 monitoring 

stations in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas (Vijayaraghavan et al. 2016a). Data 

from these monitoring stations were reported in the AMS report prepared in 

support of this joint EIS/ BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP (BLM 2015b; Table 

2-3). 

While most of the monitoring stations did not report exceedances of the 

NAAQS, monitors in all three states reported exceedances of the NAAQS for 

ozone and lead; one PM2.5 monitor in Harris County, Texas, reported 

exceedances of PM2.5. 

National Emissions Inventory

The EPA prepares a national emissions inventory every 3 years to provide a 

comprehensive and detailed estimate of emissions from all air emission sources 

in the country. The inventories are based on emission estimates and model 

inputs provided by state, local, and tribal air agencies for sources in their 

jurisdictions, supplemented by data developed by the EPA. Table 3-5

summarizes the emissions that occurred in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas in 

2014, the date of the most recent inventory. 

Table 3-5

2014 Emissions in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas by Source Category (tons)

Source Category VOCs CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Kansas

Fuel Combustion-Electrical Utility 686 13,525 26,612 31,565 1,618 1,231 

Fuel Combustion-Industrial 2,527 13,525 36,097 2,852 1,250 916 

Fuel Combustion-Other 4,881 31,531 5,996 162 4,587 4,560 

Chemical Manufacturing 1,184 1,610 744 2,361 339 257 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-13

Table 3-5

2014 Emissions in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas by Source Category (tons)

Source Category VOCs CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Metals Processing 223 595 50 38 863 737 

Petroleum and Related Industries 98,685 90,345 62,515 1,289 2,153 2,102 

Other Industrial Processes 3,033 5,758 3,741 726 6,497 2,812 

Solvent Utilization 44,134 12 13 0 366 311 

Storage and Transport 10,540 112 74 1 506 168 

Waste Disposal and Recycling 977 10,437 475 130 2,123 1,835 

Highway Vehicles 27,504 259,692 67,615 321 3,970 2,239 

Off-Highway 16,485 146,004 71,185 608 4,226 4,005 

Natural Resources 487,430 141,126 53,623 0 0 0

Miscellaneous 67,997 351,957 8,561 3,378 775,510 145,050 

Kansas Total 766,288 1,066,231 337,300 43,431 804,008 166,222 

Oklahoma

Fuel Combustion-Electrical Utility 790 14,966 39,333 76,789 4,413 3,527 

Fuel Combustion-Industrial 14,657 54,642 69,413 3,987 4,128 3,683 

Fuel Combustion-Other 1,963 12,919 6,300 95 1,662 1,625 

Chemical Manufacturing 970 1,774 3,277 6,001 487 389 

Metals Processing 270 1,147 62 36 179 150 

Petroleum and Related Industries 196,494 86,477 79,026 10,496 3,012 2,757 

Other Industrial Processes 5,573 8,031 9,218 6,584 9,628 3,499 

Solvent Utilization 42,036 0 0 0 24 20 

Storage and Transport 27,106 106 35 0 698 252 

Waste Disposal and Recycling 1,766 21,621 1,312 272 4,340 3,632 

Highway Vehicles 36,249 359,678 91,919 503 5,890 3,099 

Off-Highway 23,648 182,779 43,690 578 2,922 2,760 

Natural Resources 1,036,172 160,219 37,854 0 0 0

Miscellaneous 111,238 505,736 9,707 4,362 861,432 148,969 

Oklahoma Total 1,498,931 1,410,094 391,147 109,705 898,815 174,363 

Texas

Fuel Combustion-Electrical Utility 3,287 167,966 119,598 343,722 18,520 13,336 

Fuel Combustion-Industrial 16,984 86,034 132,836 35,718 10,875 10,190 

Fuel Combustion-Other 7,169 86,034 21,765 436 5,990 5,903 

Chemical Manufacturing 15,820 9,538 5,129 15,364 1,329 1,104 

Metals Processing 943 6,992 1,452 668 1,296 818 

Petroleum and Related Industries 1,103,562 177,231 260,946 44,296 7,080 6,708 

Other Industrial Processes 15,467 41,054 29,312 15,614 52,365 19,699 

Solvent Utilization 241,207 133 123 2 142 112 

Storage and Transport 75,828 933 234 471 1,662 778 

Waste Disposal and Recycling 13,397 153,881 5,817 1,649 19,920 15,861 

Highway Vehicles 142,891 1,511,091 378,187 2,408 23,802 12,703 

Off-Highway 86,127 717,443 223,678 3,779 15,068 14,429 

Natural Resources 4,881,910 910,322 100,863 0 0 0

Miscellaneous 139,393 616,756 9,701 4,840 2,246,193 322,410 

Texas Total 6,743,983 4,485,410 1,289,643 468,966 2,404,242 424,051 

Source: EPA 2015j
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

3-14 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Trends

Using the nationwide network of monitoring sites, the EPA has developed 

ambient air quality trend data for distinct climatic regions in the contiguous 

United States. Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi are 

part of the South Region (Vijayaraghavan et al. 2016a). The regional trends are 

developed for all criteria air pollutants, with the exception of lead, the ambient 

concentration of which is highly site specific. 

Based on national monitoring data for the 2000-2013, air quality trends for the 

South Region are as follows (Vijayaraghavan et al. 2016a):

 The average regional ozone concentration decreased by 21 percent.

 The average regional nitrogen dioxide concentration decreased by 

24 percent. 

 The average regional sulfur dioxide concentration decreased by 66 

percent. 

 The average regional carbon monoxide concentration decreased by 

66 percent. 

 The average regional PM2.5 concentration decreased by 27 percent.

 The average regional PM10 concentration increased by 4 percent. 

While the trends data show decreases in most criteria pollutant concentrations 

averaged across the South Region, some planning area counties have exceeded 

the ozone and lead NAAQS over the past 5 years. Above average temperatures 

and drought may have contributed to the exceedances in the NAAQS for 

ozone.

Air Quality Related Values

Air quality related values are unique attributes/resources of federally mandated 

Class I areas or other Class II areas of special national, regional, natural, scenic, 

recreational, or historic value, that can be adversely affected by a change in air 

quality. Air quality related values include visibility, deposition, and the terrestrial 

impacts of ground-level ozone. 

Regulatory Considerations

Visibility. Visibility impairment, known also as regional haze, occurs as a result of 

light scattering and absorption by particles and gases in the atmosphere. It is 

caused by accumulation and chemical transformation of pollutants from various 

sources and over a wide geographic region. 

Visibility in federal Class I areas is monitored through the Interagency Monitoring 

for the Protection of Visual Environments monitoring program. This program 

evaluates current visibility conditions and identifies chemical species and emission 

sources responsible for visibility impairment in federal Class I areas. 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-15

In 1999, the EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule, which requires states to 

develop long-term strategies for making reasonable progress in preventing any 

future and remedying any existing visibility impairment in Class I areas resulting 

from human-made air pollution. The haze rule requires states to establish 

reasonable progress goals for each affected Class I area. These include 

improving visibility on the 20 percent haziest (most impaired) days and ensuring 

that no degradation occurs on the 20 percent clearest (least impaired) days. The 

goal is to reach natural background conditions by 2064.

Deposition. Deposition of airborne pollutants through precipitation (rain or 

snow) or dry deposition (as particulates or gases) can result in acidification of 

water and soil resources, adversely affecting terrestrial and aquatic species. 

Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide are the main precursors of acidic and acidforming pollutants, which can affect forested landscapes and aquatic ecosystems 

in rural and remote locations, far from the sources of pollution. 

Deposition is measured through two networks: 1) The National Acid 

Deposition Program/National Trends Network 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. 2) The Clean Air Status and Trends Network 

(CASTNET) measures air quality and deposition trends in rural areas. In 

conjunction with other national monitoring networks, CASTNET data are used 

to assess relationships between regional pollution and total deposition patterns, 

and to evaluate the effectiveness of national and regional emission control 

programs.

There are no standards for acidic deposition of sulfur and nitrogen compounds. 

Their impact is site and region specific and depends on the natural ability of soil 

or water to neutralize acidity. Each ecosystem has its own specific critical load.1

Deposition rates and exposure higher than critical load may cause adverse and 

irreversible impacts on a habitat. 

Critical loads of a specific habitat can be determined by observing or measuring 

a response of an ecosystem to a given deposition load. These site-specific 

critical loads can be used as a reference to which actual deposition rates of 

sulfur and nitrogen are compared for evaluating the potential impact of acid 

deposition on local habitats.

In addition to sulfur and nitrogen, mercury, which is emitted primarily by coalfired utilities, may enter lakes and streams as mercury deposition. Mercury can 

bioaccumulate and biomagnify through the food chain in fish, humans and other 

animals.

 

1Maximum amount of a pollutant that can be deposited or taken up by the system, below which there are no 

significant harmful impacts on the system.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

3-16 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Terrestrial Impact of Ground-Level Ozone. Exposure to ground-level ozone has 

been associated with a wide range of negative impacts on vegetation and 

ecosystems. Some of the impacts observed are reduced growth, visible damage 

to leaves, and interference with the ability of plants to produce and store food. 

This is measured by the W126 index value, which represents a seasonal 

aggregate of daytime (8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.), hourly ozone concentrations 

designed to measure the cumulative impacts of ozone exposure on vegetation. 

Current Conditions

Visibility. Visibility data are collected as a part of the Interagency Monitoring for 

the Protection of Visual Environments Program at the three federal Class I areas 

and at five Class II areas in the planning area. Class I area monitoring sites are in 

the Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area in Oklahoma and the Big Bend and

Guadalupe Mountains National Parks in Texas. Class II area monitoring sites are 

in the following locations (Vijayaraghavan et al. 2016a):

 Ellis County Wildlife Management Area, Stilwell, Oklahoma

 Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma

 Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve, Cedar Bluff State Park, and Sac 

and Fox in Kansas

Figures 3-2 through 3-4 show the deciviews2 at these sites over time, while 

the Trends section, below, describes the changes in visibility at the sites. 

Deposition. There are three National Acid Deposition Program/National 

Trends Network sites in Oklahoma, three in Kansas, and nine in Texas that 

monitor wet deposition. There is one CASTNET site in Oklahoma, one in 

Kansas, and three in Texas that measure dry deposition. Wet deposition of 

sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, and total inorganic nitrogen measured in 2013 at the 

15 National Acid Deposition Program monitoring stations show that on 

average, the highest wet deposition fluxes of sulfates, nitrates, and ammonia are 

measured at monitoring sites in Kansas and Oklahoma (Vijayaraghavan et al. 

2016a). 

Table 3-6 compares the total annual deposition of sulfur and nitrogen in five 

Class I and Class II areas to their measured or estimated critical loads. As 

shown in this table, the total sulfur and nitrogen deposition fluxes measured and 

estimated at all sites were well below the critical loads determined for those 

habitats. This suggests that no adverse impacts are expected on their 

ecosystems as a result of acidic deposition in the areas (Vijayaraghavan et al. 

2016a).

 

2A measure of visibility, with a lower value indicating clearer visibility conditions.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-17

Figure 3-2 Visibility in Class I Areas in the Planning Area
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

3-18 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Figure 3-3 Visibility in Kansas Sensitive Class II Areas
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-19

Figure 3-4 Visibility in Oklahoma Sensitive Class II Areas
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

3-20 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 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

Site

Sulfur 

Total 

(kg/ha)1

Critical 

Load for 

Sulfur 

(kg/ha)

Total Sulfur 

Flux Exceeds 

Critical Load 

for Sulfur?

Nitrogen 

Total 

(kg/ha)

Critical Load 

for Nitrogen

(kg/ha)

Total 

Nitrogen Flux 

Exceeds 

Critical Load 

for Nitrogen?

Kansas

Konza Prairie 2.602 33.71 No 6.048 30.07 No

Oklahoma

Cherokee 

Nation 3.693 31.11 No 6.109 17.52 No

Texas

Big Bend 

National Park 1.877 38.44 No 4.426 34.21 No

AlabamaCoushatta 4.517 41.13 No 4.836 122 No

Palo Duro 1.066 28.63 No 1.781 25.63 No

Source: Vijayaraghavan et al. 2016a

1 Kilograms per hectare

2 The lower of the calculated and empirical critical load of nitrogen 

As described previously, mercury may enter lakes and streams as mercury 

deposition, where it can bioaccumulate in fish and biomagnify in humans and 

other animals. This is of concern in the planning area, particularly Oklahoma, as 

this affects traditional tribal food sources. There are no standards or critical 

loads for mercury deposition.

Terrestrial Impact of Ground-Level Ozone. Terrestrial ozone levels (W126 

values) are measured at CASTNET monitoring locations and are mapped by the 

EPA, using ozone ambient concentrations observed at air monitoring stations in 

the planning area. The general pattern, distribution, and magnitude of terrestrial 

ground-level ozone using these two methods were comparable. 

High W126 levels were observed in areas with high atmospheric ozone

concentrations, such as in and around nonattainment areas in Dallas-Fort 

Worth, Tulsa, and Oklahoma City. In addition, high cumulative exposures were 

observed in the northwest region of Texas. The cumulative exposure observed 

in the west region of Oklahoma (Cherokee Nation) was at the upper end of the 

proposed protective range (Vijayaraghavan et al. 2016a).

Trends

Visibility. Visibility trends in the Class I areas, as shown in Figures 3-2 through 

3-4, are as follows (Vijayaraghavan et al. 2016a):
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-21

 Visibility trends in Big Bend National Park show improving visibility 

for the 20 percent best days and no change for the 20 percent 

worst days between 1989 and 2014.

 Visibility trends in Guadalupe Mountains National Park show 

improving visibility for the 20 percent best days and diminishing 

visibility for the 20 percent worst days between 1989 and 2014.

 Visibility trends in the Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area show 

flat to slightly improving visibility for the 20 percent best days and 

improving visibility for the 20 percent worst days between 1989 and 

2013.

Most Class II sites in Kansas (Tallgrass Prairie National Park, Cedar Bluff, and 

Sac and Fox) and Oklahoma (Ellis County Wildlife Management Area, Cherokee 

Nation, and Stillwater) exhibit similar visibility trends. Visibility trends show flat 

to slightly improving visibility for the 20 percent best days (Figure 3-3) and 

improving visibility for the 20 percent worst days (Figure 3-4). Most sites also 

show distinct peaks of poor visibility on the 20 percent worst days in 2005, 

2007, and 2011. This suggests that visibility during the most impaired days at 

these sites may have been affected by a common source or sources 

(Vijayaraghavan et al. 2016a). 

Deposition. Trends in wet, dry, and total deposition are described in detail in 

the Baseline Air Quality in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas Technical Report 

(Vijayaraghavan et al. 2016a). 

Maps of wet deposition of sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, and total inorganic 

nitrogen extrapolated over the planning area were shown in the Baseline Air 

Quality Technical Report (Vijayaraghavan et al. 2016a, Figures 3-22 through 2-

25) for 1990, 2000, and 2013. Sulfate wet deposition decreased in some areas,

while it increased in other areas. On average, sulfate wet deposition decreased 

by 32 percent across the planning area. Nitrate wet deposition trends mirrored 

sulfate depositions, though at a lower rate. Across the planning area, nitrate 

deposition decreased on average by 17 percent. 

Ammonium deposition increased across the planning area, especially in 

Oklahoma and Kansas, with certain areas of Oklahoma experiencing increases 

of nearly 130 percent. On average, ammonium wet deposition increased by 22 

percent across the planning area. Total nitrogen deposition decreased 

approximately 5 percent over the entire planning area (Vijayaraghavan et al. 

2016a).

Maps of dry deposition and total (wet plus dry) deposition for 2000 and 2013 

were also shown in the Baseline Air Quality Technical Report (Vijayaraghavan et 

al. 2016a, Figures 2-26 through 2-29). Both dry sulfur deposition and total sulfur 

deposition decreased across most of the planning area between 2000 and 2013. 

In limited areas, including east Oklahoma and the southeast corner of Kansas, 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

3-22 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

total sulfur levels increased moderately, driven by the increase in wet sulfate 

deposition in those areas. 

Dry and total nitrogen deposition varied across the planning area. In Kansas and 

Oklahoma, there was no consistent trend in dry nitrogen deposition levels, 

though total nitrogen deposition in the two states increased, driven by the 

increase in wet ammonia deposition. In most of Texas, especially southern 

Texas, dry and total nitrogen deposition decreased, while the northwest portion 

of the state saw increases in dry and total nitrogen deposition. 

Climate 

Climate is defined as the generally prevailing weather conditions of a particular 

region throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. Climate is both a 

driving force and a limiting factor for biological, ecological, and hydrologic 

processes, as well as for resource management of public lands.

The planning area is classified as part of the Great Plains region. The climate of 

the planning area tends to be characterized by long hot summers and severe 

winters. Annual average temperatures in the Great Plains region range from 

40oF to more than 70oF, with extremes as low as -70oF and as high as 121oF 

(National Climate Assessment 2014). Average annual rainfall tends to be less 

than 30 inches, with some areas receiving more than 50 inches and some 

receiving less than 15. The region tends to be susceptible to droughts (National 

Climate Assessment 2014). 

Table 3-7, below, shows climate normal data for four representative cities in 

the planning area, from 1981 to 2010. Climate normals are three-decade 

averages of climatological variables, produced every ten years by the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Climatic Data 

Center.

Table 3-7

Average Temperatures and Precipitation in the Planning Area (1981-2010)

Location

Average Maximum 

Temperature (°F)

Average Minimum 

Temperature (°F)

Precip.

(in.)

Average Annual 

Wind1

Jan. July Annual Jan. July Annual Annual Speed

(mph)

Prevailing

Direction

Wichita, KS 42.5 92.3 67.9 21.9 69.8 45.9 32.64 12.3 South

Galveston, TX 61.0 89.2 76.4 45.1 77.9 62.8 43.05 13.6 Southwest

Muskogee, OK 48.4 92.5 71.4 26.1 71.2 48.9 45.26 12.2 South

Falls City, NE 36.0 88.8 63.9 17.0 66.3 41.75 34.78 20.6 South

Source: NOAA 2015

1Climate normals for wind are only reported for some weather stations; wind data only reported for the Wichita, 

Kansas weather station. Average annual wind data for Amarillo, Texas; and Omaha, Nebraska shown as 

representative of planning area conditions.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-23

Climate change represents any deviation from the average climate, whether 

warming or cooling; such variability has been happening continuously since the 

formation of the Earth and its early atmosphere billions of years ago. 

The earth has a natural greenhouse effect, wherein naturally occurring 

greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and 

nitrous oxide, absorb and retain heat. This “heat trapping” effect, also known as 

the greenhouse effect, results in the warming of the earth and the atmosphere. 

Increased levels of GHGs trap more heat in the atmosphere, rather than 

allowing it to escape into space. 

Globally, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased from an 

estimated 277 parts per million before 1750 to approximately 395 parts per 

million in 2013 (Global Carbon Project 2014). From pre-industrial times until 

2013, the global average concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 

increased by over 40 percent, methane increased by over 150 percent, and 

nitrous oxide increased by over 20 percent (IPCC 2014). The earth’s surface 

has become incrementally warmer in the past three decades compared to any 

preceding decade since 1850. The globally averaged combined land and ocean 

surface temperature data show a warming of 0.85° Celsius (°C) (1.5° Fahrenheit 

[°F]) over the period 1880 to 2012. The increase between the average of the 

1850 to 1900 period and the 2003 to 2012 period is 0.78°C (1.4°F). 

For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently 

complete (1901 to 2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface 

warming (IPCC 2014). On a global scale, the ocean surface has warmed by 

0.11°C (0.2°F) per decade over the period 1971 to 2010, and since 1901, 

average sea level has increased by 7.5 inches. Late summer Arctic Ocean sea ice 

coverage has decreased by half since 1979, and glaciers have receded and lost 

significant mass since the 1970s (IPCC 2014).

Following decades of extensive and focused research and a growing body of 

evidence, the scientific community has reached a consensus that the climate is 

changing (NASA 2016). 

Current Condition

Climate variability in the Great Plains region is described on the National Climate 

Assessment website (National Climate Assessment 2014). This website provides 

an overview of how climate variability is affecting the region in five key topic areas, 

as follows:

 Energy, Water, and Land Use: Rising temperatures are leading to 

increased demand for water and energy. In parts of the region, this 

will constrain development, stress natural resources, and increase 

competition for water among communities, agriculture, energy 

production, and ecological needs.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

3-24 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

 Sustaining Agriculture: Changes to crop growth cycles due to 

warming winters and alterations in the timing and magnitude of 

rainfall events have already been observed; as these trends continue, 

they will require new agriculture and livestock management 

practices.

 Conservation and Adaptation: Landscape fragmentation is 

increasing, for example, in the context of energy development 

activities in the northern Great Plains. A highly fragmented 

landscape will hinder adaptation of species when climate change

alters habitat composition and timing of plant development cycles.

 Vulnerable Communities: Communities that are already the most 

vulnerable to weather and climate extremes will be stressed even 

further by more frequent extreme events occurring within an 

already highly variable climate system.

 Opportunities to Build Resilience: The magnitude of expected 

changes will exceed those experienced in the last century. Existing 

adaptation and planning efforts are inadequate to respond to these 

projected impacts.

Trends

Over the past 100 years, annual temperatures have increased, and climate 

models predict that they will continue to increase through the twenty-first 

century. Extreme weather events, such as severe drought and intense rainfall, 

are also expected to increase in frequency (National Conference of State 

Legislatures 2008). According to the EPA’s website (EPA 2016e):

 Increases in average global temperatures are expected to be within 

the range of 0.5°F to 8.6°F by 2100, with a likely increase of at least 

2.7°F for all scenarios except the one representing the most 

aggressive mitigation of GHG emissions.

 By 2100, the average US temperature is projected to increase by 

about 3°F to 12°F, depending on emissions scenario and climate 

model.

 Northern areas are projected to become wetter, especially in the 

winter and spring. Southern areas, especially the Southwest, are 

projected to become drier.

 The proportion of precipitation falling as rain rather than snow is 

expected to increase, except in far northern areas.

In the Great Plains region, climate projections indicate that droughts, heat 

waves, and extreme rainfall would occur with greater frequency and intensity. 

This would likely result in challenges related to water quantity and agriculture 

(National Climate Assessment 2014). The southern portion of the Great Plains 

has an average of 7 days a year where maximum temperatures exceed 100oF. 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-25

Mid-century projections show the number of days with temperatures exceeding 

100oF will quadruple. 

Changing extremes in precipitation are projected across all seasons, including 

higher likelihoods of both increasing heavy rain and snow events and more 

intense droughts. Projections show an increase in the length of dry spells in 

Texas and Oklahoma (National Climate Assessment 2014). Additionally, 

projected sea level rise would increase the potential for storms to damage the 

Gulf Coast of Texas (National Climate Assessment 2014).

The trend toward more dry days and higher temperatures across the Southern 

Plains will increase evaporation, decrease water supplies, reduce electricity 

transmission capacity, and increase cooling demands. These changes will add 

stress to limited water resources and affect management choices related to 

irrigation, municipal use, and energy generation (EPA 2016e).

In the Central and Southern Plains, projected declines in precipitation and 

greater evaporation due to higher temperatures will increase irrigation demand 

and exacerbate current stresses on agricultural productivity. Increased water 

withdrawals from the Ogallala and High Plains Aquifers would accelerate 

depletion of the aquifers and limit the ability to irrigate., Holding other aspects 

of production constant, the climate impacts of shifting from irrigated to dryland 

agriculture would reduce crop yields by about a factor of two (EPA 2016e).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GHGs are gases that trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere. Some GHGs occur 

both naturally and through human activities, while others are created and 

emitted solely through human activities. Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous 

oxide are produced naturally by the following processes:

 Respiration and other physiological processes of plants, animals, and 

microorganisms 

 Decomposition of organic matter

 Volcanic and geothermal activity

 Naturally occurring wildfires 

 Natural chemical reactions in soil and water

Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are also produced by industrial 

processes, motor vehicles and other transportation sources, urban 

development, agricultural practices, and other human activities. 

GHG Emissions

Global Emissions. The World Resources Institute (WRI)’s Climate Analysis 

Indicators Tool provides data on GHG emissions from 186 countries and all 50 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

3-26 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

US states (WRI 2016). In 2012, global GHG emissions were 46,049 million 

metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). From 1990 to 2010, 

global GHG emissions increased by 42 percent or at an average annual rate of 

1.9 percent. From 1970 to 2000, GHG emissions increased at an average annual 

rate of 1.3 percent, while from 2000 to 2010 these emissions increased at an 

average annual rate of 2.2 percent (IPCC 2014).

From 1970 to 2010, the biggest contributors to global carbon dioxide emissions 

have been fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes, which accounted for 

78 percent of the total GHG emissions. From 2000 to 2010, GHG emissions 

increased in all sectors except in agriculture, forestry, and other land use. In 

2010, electricity and heat production accounted for 25 percent of direct GHG 

emissions; agriculture, forestry and other land use accounted for 24 percent; 

industry accounted for 21 percent; and transportation accounted for 14 percent 

(IPCC 2014).

US Emissions. The WRI’s Climate Analysis Indicators Tool reports total US 

GHG emissions of 5,420.7 million MMT CO2e in 2012 (WRI 2016); this 

represented nearly 12 percent of the total global emissions. 

The GHG emission inventory prepared by the EPA reported that US GHG 

emissions were 6,870 MMT CO2e in 2014. From 1990 to 2010, total US GHG 

emissions have increased by 7.4 percent; this corresponds to an annual average 

increase of 0.3 percent. Electricity generation, transportation and industry were 

the largest sources of GHGs in 2014, at 30 percent (2,080.7 MMT CO2e), 26

percent (1,810.3 MMT CO2e), and 21 percent (1,461.7 MMT CO2e), 

respectively. The contribution from the energy sector in 2014 was nearly 84 

percent (5,746.2 MMT CO2e) of total US emissions. The energy sector includes 

fossil fuel combustion, non-energy fuel use, natural gas systems, petroleum 

systems, coal mining, and waste incineration.

Planning Area Emissions. The WRI’s Climate Analysis Indicators Tool reports 

2012 statewide GHG emissions in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas of 102.1 MMT 

CO2e, 139.4 MMT CO2e, and 804.8 MMT CO2e, respectively; these account for 

1.6 percent, 2.2 percent, and 12.5 percent of total US GHG emissions, 

respectively. Between 1990 and 2012, GHG emissions increased by 4.1 percent 

in Kansas, by 18.1 percent in Oklahoma, and by 14.9 percent in Texas. 

Electricity generation, transportation, and industry have been the primary 

contributors to the GHG emissions in the three states. In 2012, these sectors 

accounted for the following percent of statewide GHG emissions: 

 Kansas: electricity 30 percent, transportation 18 percent, and 

industry 14 percent

 Oklahoma: electricity 34 percent, transportation 23 percent, and 

industry 16 percent
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-27

 Texas: electricity 28 percent, transportation 25 percent, and 

industry 30 percent

In 2011, the most recent year for which state data are available, GHG emissions 

were 140 MMT CO2e in Oklahoma, 105 MMT CO2e in Kansas, and 790 MMT 

CO2e in Texas (WRI 2016). These equate to 2 percent, 0.2 percent, and 12 

percent of US GHG emissions in 2011, respectively (6,555 million metric tons 

CO2e; WRI 2016).

Sources of GHG emissions in the planning area are oil and natural gas 

development, coal mining, mineral development, wildfires, vehicle use, and 

livestock grazing. Emissions from oil and gas and coal mining in the planning area 

have been quantified as part of this joint EIS/ BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP

process.

Emissions Inventories

Oil and Gas Emissions Inventory. A GHG emissions inventory for the oil and gas 

sector in the planning area was developed, as reported in the GHG emissions 

and climate change report (Cosic and Vijayaraghavan 2016). This inventory 

included upstream and midstream sources, including well sites, compressor 

stations, gas plants, and off-road equipment. Table 3-8 shows total oil and gas 

GHG emissions for each state by mineral estate in 2011 and 2015. These 

emissions are the emissions from the production of oil and gas resources; 

downstream uses of oil and gas, such as for energy generation, would be an 

additional source of GHG emissions.

In Kansas, there are no oil and gas emissions from Indian mineral estate and less 

than 1 percent of the emissions are from federal mineral estate. In Oklahoma, 

more than 96 percent of oil and gas emissions are from private/state fee mineral 

estate, with contributions of 2 percent or less from Osage Indian mineral estate, 

1.5 percent or less from other Indian mineral estimate, and 1 percent or less 

from federal mineral estate. In Texas, close to 100 percent of oil and gas 

emissions are from private/state fee land, with very small contributions from 

federal and Indian mineral estate.

Table 3-8

Estimated Oil and Gas GHG Emissions by Mineral Estate in Kansas, 

Oklahoma, and Texas in 2011 and 2015

Mineral Designation

CO2e

(Million Metric Tons/Year)

2011 2015

Kansas

Federal 0.2 0.3

State and Private 29.8 35.9

Indian - -

Totals State-wide 30.0 36.2
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

3-28 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-8

Estimated Oil and Gas GHG Emissions by Mineral Estate in Kansas, 

Oklahoma, and Texas in 2011 and 2015

Mineral Designation CO2e

(Million Metric Tons/Year)

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

Source: Cosic and Vijayaraghavan 2016

Coal Mining Emissions Inventory. 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 two mines on 

federal mineral estate that are operating (Bull Hill #2 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. 

GHG emissions for coal mining sectors were estimated for methane venting and 

off-road equipment associated with mining activities (Cosic and Vijayaraghavan 

2016). Table 3-9 shows coal mining emissions in 2011 and 2015 by state and 

mineral designation. These emissions are the emissions from the mining of coal; 

downstream use of coal, such as for energy generation, would be an additional 

source of GHG emissions.

Table 3-9

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 tons/year)

Kansas

Federal1 2011 0 0 0 0

2015 0 0 0 0

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
3. Affected Environment (BLM Air Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-29

Table 3-9

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 tons/year)

Texas

Federal1 2011 0 0 0 0

2015 0 0 0 0

Private 2011 435,718 19,217 11.04 834

2015 391,147 17,248 9.91 749

Source: Cosic and Vijayaraghavan 2016

1No federal emissions

CO2=carbon dioxide, CH4=methane, N2O=nitrous oxide

State-level contributions to methane emissions are generally indicative of coal

mining activity by state. In 2015, it is estimated that 70 percent of methane 

mining emissions are from Texas (all private mineral estate), 30 percent are 

from Oklahoma (where 88 percent of the state emissions are from mines on 

federal estate), and less than 1 percent are from Kansas (all from private estate). 

While Oklahoma represents less than 3 percent 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. 

In 2015, total methane coal mining emissions in the three-state planning area are 

estimated to be about 560,000 metric tons CO2e; this represents less than 1 

percent of the total US mining emissions in 2014 (EPA 2016d).

Trends

Total US GHG emissions decreased from 2011 to 2012, largely due to 

reductions in power plant GHG emissions. Fossil fuel combustion and other 

human-caused GHG-producing activities are ongoing, although public awareness 

and future regulations may reduce annual GHG emissions. However, due to the 

long atmospheric lifetime of most GHGs, climate change impacts will continue 

to increase for many years after GHG emissions decrease. Climate change may 

increase air pollution levels if temperatures increase and droughts are extended. 

3.2.2 Geology

Geologic resources are defined through descriptions of the geology of the 

planning area and identification of geologic hazards. Geologic hazards are 

adverse geologic conditions that are capable of causing damage or loss of 

property and life. Geologic information is used to evaluate the potential 

development of mineral resources and to regulate land uses based on slope 

stability and accessibility. Several geologic type localities and areas of 

paleontological significance occur in the planning area. Mineral occurrence and 

management is discussed in detail in Section 3.3.1, and paleontological resources 

are discussed in Section 3.2.9.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Geology) 

3-30 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

Current Condition 

The planning area is composed of five geophysical provinces: the Central 

Lowlands, the Coastal Plains, the Great Plains, the Ouachita, and the Ozark 

Plateau (USGS 1946). 

The Central Lowlands and Great Plains were once covered by a vast inland 

extension of the Gulf of Mexico. They are composed of sedimentary rock from 

material eroded from the Appalachian Mountains, the Rocky Mountains, and 

ancient upland areas near the Great Lakes (Lew 2004). The plains were under 

swampy conditions during the Carboniferous period; this has resulted in large 

deposits of coal, oil, and natural gas spanning from Texas through Alberta, 

Canada (Lew 2004). 

The Coastal Plains were gradually built up by unconsolidated sediments washed 

out from the Appalachian Mountains, Central Lowlands, and Great Plains. The 

Coastal Plains are composed of successive layers of sedimentation, with 

swamps, marshes, and lagoons fronted by sand bars and reefs (Lew 2004). 

The Ozark Plateau and Ouachita Mountains consist of a group of low 

mountains, sometimes referred to as the interior highlands. These features are 

the result of intense folding of sedimentary rocks and do not exceed 2,700 feet 

in elevation (Lew 2004). 

The geology in the planning area is diverse, with rock deposits ranging from the 

late Proterozoic (2.5 billion to 540 million years ago) to Quaternary (2 million 

years ago to the present; see Figure 3-5, Geology). While the surface geology 

of the planning area is composed of sedimentary rocks deposited since the 

middle Proterozoic, the planning area is predominantly composed of the North 

American Craton, or continental crust, which has remained relatively stable for 

the last 600 million years. The geologic history of the planning area is discussed 

in detail in the Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFDS) prepared 

by the BLM OFO (Appendix I).

Areas in the planning area with mineral potential are those of high, medium, and 

low oil and gas potential, coal deposits, evaporate deposits, and sand and gravel 

resources. Mineral potential and resources are discussed in Section 3.3.1, 

Energy and Minerals. 

There are several geological hazards associated with oil and gas deposits, 

including the presence of hydrogen sulfide, zones of loss circulation and 

overpressure, and the potential to impact subterranean water resources, mainly 

aquifers, by altering the feature or introduction of materials. Additional geologic 

hazards in the planning area are earthquakes centralized in Oklahoma and faults 

throughout the area. 

3. Affected Environment (BLM Geology)

3-32 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Hydrogen Sulfide

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless gas, with the characteristic foul odor of 

rotten eggs. It is heavier than air, corrosive, flammable, explosive, and very 

poisonous. At low concentrations, it can irritate the eyes and act as a depressant; 

at high concentrations, it can irritate the upper respiratory tract and, during long 

exposure, can lead to pulmonary edema (USGS 2010). A 30-minute exposure to 

500 ppm (parts per million) results in headache, dizziness, excitement, staggering 

gait, and diarrhea, followed sometimes by bronchitis or bronchopneumonia 

(USGS 2010).

The Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 6, Hydrogen Sulfide Operations (43 CFR, 

Part 3160), delegates the BLM to protect public health and safety and personnel 

essential to maintain control of the well emitting H2S. The order identifies 

national requirements and minimum standards of performance expected when 

conducting operations involving oil or gas wells known to contain or, reasonably 

expected to contain, H2S. These requirements and standards also pertain to the 

emission of sulfur dioxide as a result of flaring H2S. Corrective actions may be 

required for violations. 

Overpressure Zones

Overpressure zones are areas where subsurface pressure is abnormally high and 

exceeds hydrostatic pressure at a given depth, usually in buried fluid-filled 

sediments. This could result in the rapid escape of the over-pressured fluids, 

leading to a well blowout, which can harm individuals on the drilling rig 

(Schlumberger 2015). 

Zones of Loss Circulation

Lost circulation is the reduced or total absence of returning fluid flow during 

drilling, generally classified as seepage (less than 3 cubic meters per hour 

[m3/hr]), partial loss returns (greater than 3 m3/hr), and total loss returns, 

where no fluid returns (Schlumberger 2015). The loss of fluid generally 

translates into financial loss to the drilling company, well damage, and potential 

risk to the drilling rig and personnel. Depending on the area being drilled, the 

lost fluid could adversely affect karsts or aquifers. 

Groundwater

Additional federal and state regulations and restrictions are applied to the lease 

stipulations and applications for permit to drill in areas with known groundwater

features. These areas are not considered geologic hazards but are considered 

areas of heightened concern, due to appropriate geology, resulting in the 

existence of water resources. Water resources and their management are 

discussed in detail in Section 3.2.4, and the location of water resources in the 

planning area are shown in that section.

Fault and Earthquakes

Faults are discontinuous features in a volume or rock, typically expressed as a 

fracture or break, with a fault line on the surface. Faults are rarely individual 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Geology) 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-33

occurrences; they are more typically formed in a fault zone and result when a 

body of rock breaks under stress, which most often manifests in an earthquake 

(see Figure 3-6, Fault Features).

Earthquakes are ground-shaking events that occur at various magnitudes. They 

are a result of movement within the earth’s crust that releases seismic waves. 

Earthquakes can vary from slight tremors to building-collapsing events, as shown 

on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale in Table 3-10. Management for 

earthquake occurrence is at the county level and includes building code 

modifications to withstand earthquake activity. 

Earthquake potential for the planning area is high, with the most violent 

earthquakes (see Figure 3-7, Probabilistic Seismic Hazards) occurring in central 

Oklahoma; here, peak horizontal acceleration reaches 40 to 50 percent. This 

means very strong perceived shaking and moderate to heavy damage to 

structures; it corresponds to a VIII on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. In 

2015, there were 312 earthquakes in central Oklahoma, with magnitudes of 

between 3 and 4.3; this corresponds to II to IV on the Modified Mercalli 

Intensity Scale (unfelt to moderately perceived shaking, with no to very light 

damage; USGS 2015a). Table 3-11, below, is a comparison of the Mercalli 

Intensity Scale and the Richter magnitude scale. 

Earthquake rates have increased markedly in the planning area, especially since 

2010, and scientific studies have linked most of this increased activity to 

wastewater injection in deep disposal wells (Ellsworth 2013; Keranen et al. 

2014; Walsh and Zoback 2015; Weingarten et al. 2015). More than 70 percent 

of the produced water from north-central Oklahoma is disposed of into the 

Arbuckle Group, where it rests on Precambrian basement rock. This increases 

pore pressure in the Arbuckle Group, which releases pre-existing stresses along 

faults in the basement rock (Weingarten et al. 2015). 

The USGS concluded that it is possible that earthquakes were induced by oil 

production activities in Oklahoma as early as the 1920s and that much of the 

earthquake activity in the 1950s and 1980s-1990s was induced by oil production 

activities. 

From 1980 to 2010, earthquake rates in the central and eastern United States 

were relatively stable, but recent rates in some areas have increased by more 

than an order of magnitude. Increased seismic activity, whether defined as 

induced (attributed to human activities) or natural, presents a high hazard. 

Conversion of ground shaking to seismic intensity indicates that some places in 

Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Arkansas may 

experience damage if the induced seismicity continues unabated. The chance of 

having Modified Mercalli Intensity VI or greater (damaging earthquake shaking) is 

5 to 12 percent per year in north-central Oklahoma and southern Kansas 

(USGS 2016a). 


3. Affected Environment (BLM Geology)

3-36 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-10

Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale

I 

Value

Peak

Acceleration 

(g)

Perceived 

Shaking

Potential 

Damage

Full Description (Shortened from 

Elementary Seismology)

1

I <0.17 None felt None Not felt.

II 0.17-1.4 Weak None Felt by people seated or those on the upper 

floors of buildings.

III 0.17-0.14 Weak None Felt by almost all people indoors. Hanging 

objects swing. Vibration is like that of a passing 

light truck. It may not be recognized as an 

earthquake.

IV 1.4-3.9 Light None Vibration feels like a passing heavy truck. 

Stopped cars rock; hanging objects swing; 

windows, dishes, and doors rattle and glasses 

clink. In the upper range of IV, wooden walls 

and frames creak.

V 3.9-9.2 Moderate Very light Felt outdoors. Sleepers are wakened. Liquids 

are disturbed, and some are spilled. Small 

unstable objects are displaced or upset. Doors 

swing; pictures move; pendulum clocks stop.

VI 9.2-18 Strong Light Felt by all. People walk unsteadily. Many 

become frightened. Windows crack; dishes, 

glassware, knickknacks, and books fall off 

shelves; pictures fall off walls; furniture is 

moved or overturned. Weak plaster, adobe 

buildings, and some poorly built masonry 

buildings crack. Trees and bushes shake visibly.

VII 18-34 Very 

Strong

Moderate Difficult to stand or walk and is noticed by 

drivers. Furniture is broken. Poorly built 

masonry buildings are damaged. Weak 

chimneys break at roof line. Plaster, bricks, 

stones, tiles, cornices, unbraced parapets, and 

porches fall. Some cracks appear in better 

masonry buildings. Waves are generated on 

ponds.

VIII 34-65 Severe Moderate/

Heavy

Drivers’ ability to steer is affected. Extensive 

damage to unreinforced masonry buildings, 

including partial collapse, and some masonry 

walls fall. Chimneys and monuments are twisted 

and fall. Wood-frame houses move on 

foundations if not bolted; loose partition walls 

are thrown out. Tree branches break.

IX 65-124 Violent Heavy General panic. Damage to masonry buildings 

ranges from collapse to serious damage, unless 

buildings are of modern design. Wood-frame 

structures rack and, if not bolted, shift off 

foundations. Underground pipes break.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Geology)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-37

Table 3-10

Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale

I 

Value

Peak

Acceleration 

(g)

Perceived 

Shaking

Potential 

Damage

Full Description (Shortened from 

Elementary Seismology)

1

X >124 Extreme Very Poorly built structures are destroyed with their 

foundations. Even some well-built wooden 

structures and bridges are heavily damaged and 

need to be replaced. Water is thrown on water 

body banks.

XI >124 Not mapped because these 

intensities are typically 

limited to areas with 

ground failure.

Rails are bent greatly. Underground pipelines 

are completely out of service.

XII >124 Not mapped because these 

intensities are typically 

limited to areas with 

ground failure.

Damage is nearly total. Large rock masses are 

displaced. Lines of sight and level are distorted. 

Objects are thrown into the air.

Sources: USGS 2000; 1Richter 1958

Table 3-11

Mercalli Intensity and Richter 

Magnitude Scale Comparison

Richter 

Magnitude

Mercalli 

Intensity

1.0-1.9 I

2.0-2.9 I to II

3.0-3.9 III to IV

4.0-4.9 IV to VI

5.0-5.9 VI to VIII

6.0-6.9 VII to X

7.0 or greater VIII or greater

Source: USGS 2000

Trends

An increased understanding of area geology and geologic hazards can be 

expected as more knowledge is gained through oil and gas exploration and 

drilling and through geologic mapping.

Key Features

Sound geologic information is used for effective planning to develop mineral 

resources and to avoid and mitigate for geologic hazards. The planning area has 

been assessed for mineral potential under the RFDS. Geologic information 

should be gathered and shared to improve planning for development of other 

mineral resources and natural gas production. 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Soil Resources) 

3-38 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

3.2.3 Soil Resources 

Soils in the planning area are diverse. Soil development is influenced by the 

length of time the soil has been forming and the surrounding climate, 

topography, ecosystems, and organic and mineral material (parent material) 

deposited during formation. These variables create complex and diverse soil 

patterns that influence the use and management of the soil resource. They 

provide the foundation for other resources and resource uses. 

The characteristics and distribution of soil types in the planning area affect the 

use and management of the land and the quality of surface water, air, forage, and 

tree growth. Soil characteristics are important to consider when siting 

construction activities, such as oil and gas well development, road construction, 

and building placement. They are also important considerations when planning 

recreation, such as off-road vehicle access and trail development, rangeland and 

timber stand improvements, surface water quality protection by minimizing 

erosion, and surface stabilization. 

Current Condition 

To broadly characterize the soils in the planning area, the highest level of soil 

taxonomy—soil orders—were used. Soils are classified into 12 soil orders and 

have been mapped for the United States by the USDA, NRCS. Nine of the soil 

orders are found in the planning area (see Figure 3-8, Soil Orders; NRCS 

2015a), with seven found in the BLM and BIA decision areas: alfisols, aridisols, 

entisols, inceptisols, mollisols, ultisols, and vertisols (see Table 3-12, Soil 

Orders in the BLM and BIA Decision Areas). 

Miscellaneous or null areas, for example rock outcrops, have little or no soil 

material and thus support scant or no vegetation. Additionally, these areas may 

be water features, such as reservoirs. The composition of soil series in each 

association is variable and is based on the overall map unit. 

Alfisols have clay-enriched subsoils and are also important for agricultural 

production. They are considered to be fertile, but their nutrients may be 

moderately leached or have been lost (University of Idaho 2013). 

Aridisols are calcium carbonate-containing soils that are characterized as dry 

most of the year. As a result, they have limited leaching, and so have a 

subsurface horizon, in which clays, calcium carbonate, silica, salts, and gypsum 

can accumulate (University of Idaho 2013). 

Entisols are a catch-all for soils that do not fit in the other eleven soil orders. 

They are described as new soils developed in unconsolidated parent material 

that usually do not have genetic horizons, except for horizon A (University of 

Idaho 2013). 

3. Affected Environment (BLM Soil Resources)

3-40 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-12

Soil Orders in the BLM and BIA Decision Areas

Soil Order

BLMAdministered 

Surface Lands

(Acres)

BLMAdministered 

Federal Mineral 

Estate

(Acres)

BIA-Managed

Tribal and 

Allotted Lands

(Acres)

BIA-Managed Tribal 

and Allotted 

Subsurface Minerals 

Estate

(Acres)

Kansas

Alfisols 0 14,600 less than 50 less than 50

Aridisols 0 900 0 0

Entisols 0 75,400 600 600

Inceptisols 0 3,600 300 300

Mollisols 0 446,200 28,900 28,900

Vertisols 0 13,700 0 0

Null 0 164,100 0 0

Nebraska

Alfisols 0 0 less than 50 less than 50

Entisols 0 0 100 100

Inceptisols 0 0 100 100

Mollisols 0 0 700 700

Oklahoma

Alfisols 100 440,300 181,500 812,000

Aridisols 0 1,900 0 0

Entisols 2,200* 155,200* 90,300 141,700

Inceptisols 100 68,500 81,800 266,100

Mollisols 300 396,300 338,200 1,135,300

Utisols 0 196,000 55,600 72,900

Vertisols less than 50 40,000 36,600 86,600

Null 600* 583,800* 32,500 116,500

Texas

Alfisols 700 302,400 1,600 1,700

Aridosols 0 67,600 0 0

Entisols 400 219,400 600 700

Inceptisols 1,800 97,400 1,800 1,800

Mollisols 8,400 377,600 100 100

Utisols 0 42,900 900 900

Vertisols 0 200,600 100 100

Null 500 897,100 900 900

Sources: NRCS GIS 2015; BLM GIS 2016; BIA GIS 2016

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red 

River and the 98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified and mapped when they are surveyed. (No 

exact acreages of federal lands are available at this time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed.) 

Any such survey would be conducted in accordance with applicable law.

Inceptisols are soils that exhibit minimal horizon development. They are slightly 

more developed than entisols but still lack the features and characteristics of 

other soil orders. They are often found on fairly steep slopes, on young 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Soil Resources) 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-41

geomorphic surfaces, and on erosion-resistant parent materials (University of 

Idaho 2013). 

Mollisols are soils that have a dark-colored surface horizon. They are fertile or 

have a high capacity to support plant growth, due to appropriate chemical, 

physical, and biological characteristics. These qualities are attributable to the 

long-term addition of organic materials derived from plant roots (University of 

Idaho 2013). As such, mollisols are considered to be among the most important 

and productive agricultural soils. 

Ultisols are strongly leached, acid forest soils with relatively low fertility. They 

are found in older stable landscapes where primary minerals have weathered 

intensely and much of the calcium, magnesium, and potassium have leached out 

(University of Idaho 2013). 

Finally, vertisols are clay-rich soils with high shrink and swell potential. This 

prevents the formation of distinct and well-developed horizons and can create 

serious engineering problems (University of Idaho 2013). 

The NRCS has also conducted soils surveys. It has classified soils into map units, 

broken out by land resource region at a scale of 1:10,000,000, major land 

resource areas at a scale of 1:7,500,000, and land resource units at a scale of 

1:250,000. These units are derived from the aggregation of map units from the 

State Soils Geographic Database. Map units are identified during soil surveys at 

the county level, which can be used for management involving site-specific 

disturbance. Soil map units may be designated based on the soil’s series, slope, 

aspect, or texture. 

Soil series are two or more geographically associated soils that have similar 

formation, chemistry, or physical properties. Examples of soil series properties 

are runoff capabilities, erosion hazards, associated native vegetation, wildlife 

habitat, and suitability for community development. In the planning area there 

are eight land resource regions, comprising 49 major land resource areas 

(Center for Environmental Informatics 2015) and over 1,200 different map units, 

consisting of associations of different major soil series, as found in the NRCS 

SURRGO2 Data. 

NRCS Soil Survey Geographic Database (SURRGO) data attributes have been 

used to determine areas susceptible to soil erosion. Table 3-13, below, and 

Figure 3-9, Areas Susceptible to Soil Erosion, show the areas identified by the 

BLM as having a susceptibility to soil erosion. The following NRCS attributes 

were used by the BLM to define the areas susceptible to erosion: erosion class 

of 3 or 4, wind erodibility group of 1 or 2, or geomorphic attributes of dune, 

erosion remnants, interdunes, sand sheets, and terraces on river valleys. In the 

planning area, wind erosion has the greatest impact on soil resources in the 

region. Such actions as removing existing vegetation decrease the ability of the 

soil resources to withstand wind and have the greatest potential for impacts. 

3. Affected Environment (BLM Soil Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-43

Table 3-13

Areas Susceptible to Soil Erosion

Susceptible to 

Soil Erosion in 

the Planning 

Area (Acres)

BLMAdministered 

Surface Lands

(Acres)

BLMAdministered 

Federal Mineral 

Estate

(Acres)

BIA-Managed

Tribal and 

Allotted Lands

(Acres)

BIA-Managed Tribal 

and Allotted 

Subsurface Minerals 

Estate

(Acres)

37,687,800 2,200* 542,500* 115,400 231,000

Sources: BLM GIS 2016; NRCS GIS 2015 

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red 

River and the 98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified and mapped when they are surveyed. (No 

exact acreages of federal lands are available at this time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed.) 

Any such survey would be conducted in accordance with applicable law.

Ecological site descriptions were developed for the soils in each major land 

resource areas (NRCS 2015b). These are a description of the original or natural 

plant community that can be supported at a given site, based on multiple 

environmental factors, such as soils, topography, climate, and fire. State and 

transition models have been developed for some areas and are being developed 

in others. These models describe the variability of a particular site and can help 

determine if an ecological threshold has been crossed. This type of knowledge 

can be invaluable for habitat restoration and surface management planning.

Trends

Localized impacts on soil resources may develop as a result of the following:

 Increased mineral activity

 Off-road vehicle use and other recreation use

 Recreation facilities development, such as trails or campgrounds

 Livestock grazing

 ROW development

Increased mineral development, recreation, and the continued dependence on 

other natural resources would place an increased demand on public lands and 

the soil resource. 

The most significant regional or national demand placed on soils in the planning 

area results from the development of fluid and nonfluid mineral resources. 

Minerals extraction generally involves disturbing the surface and impacting soil 

resources; it can be long term. Disturbance is associated with such activities as 

pipeline installation, power line construction, seismic exploration, and 

exploratory drilling. The development of ROWs can include a number of 

surface-disturbing activities, such as road building, trenching, and construction 

site clearing. 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Soil Resources)

3-44 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

All of these activities have the potential to create both short- and long-term 

impacts on soils. The cumulative amount of surface disturbance or vegetation 

manipulation that can be supported by soils in the planning area has not been 

determined; however, it is widely recognized that there is a limit to the level of 

disturbance that can accumulate in any watershed before natural flow conditions 

are significantly affected. The initial disturbance caused by these activities creates 

the larger impact; over the long term, these disturbance values diminish due to 

the estimated results of such best management practices as interim reclamation 

over the life of the plan.

The effects of climate change on soil resource may be subtle and could be 

difficult to detect until a change threshold has been crossed. Land uses could 

result in greater impacts on the soil resource. This would be the case 

particularly of those lands with surface disturbance, when combined with

warmer temperatures and changes in rainfall and runoff and the resulting shifts 

in vegetation communities.

Key Features

Demands are placed on soil resources when other resources are developed. 

The most significant regional or national demand placed on soils in the planning 

area results from the development of fluid and nonfluid mineral resources. Soil 

can be disturbed by a variety of surface uses, such as livestock grazing, off-road 

vehicle use, recreation facilities development, such as trails and campgrounds, 

and ROW and mineral development. 

The initial disturbances are generally offset through the use of conditions of 

approval, consultation with THPOs and interested Federally recognized Indian 

tribes, best management practices, and other mitigation measures assessed and 

assigned through NEPA and the permitting process.

3.2.4 Water Resources

The planning area is in multiple physiographic provinces that are differentiated 

on the basis of landform and geology. The physiographic features vary greatly 

and range from the low, flat Coastal Plain Province, through the high, gently 

rolling High Plains Province, to mountain ranges in the Quachita and Basin and 

Range provinces. 

The State of Kansas uses its water plan to coordinate the management, 

conservation, and development of its water resources (Kansas Water Office 

2009). The plan recommends ways that the State can best achieve the proper 

use and control of water resources and contains hydrologic, climatic, and 

demographic characteristics. 

The plan contains the following statewide management categories and policies: 

 Water resource objectives
3. Affected Environment (BLM Water Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-45

 Water management and conservation

 Public water supply and quality

 Flood, wetland, and riparian management

 Water-based recreation

 Data and research

 Public information and education

 Enhanced stream corridor and wetland management to address 

reservoir sedimentation

Additionally, the water plan contains twelve river basin plans (containing basin 

plan description, basin management categories, and basin priority issues). Also 

included is a Kansas water plan atlas, containing statewide and basin-specific 

maps, illustrating various resource conditions (Kansas Water Office 2015). The 

Kansas Water Office, in coordination with local, state, federal, and interstate 

partners, is developing the 5-year update of the Kansas Water Plan.

The Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan contains technical data, information, 

and policy recommendations in an executive report, 13 companion watershed

planning region reports, and additional technical study findings and reports. The 

final 2012 Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Update Executive Report is a 

concise compilation of technical and policy information. In addition to 

background information on water planning and management in Oklahoma, the 

executive report includes a statewide assessment of water supplies, future 

projections of demand, and potential options to alleviate anticipated deficits of 

particular concern. 

Thirteen regional planning reports, including 82 basin/watershed reports, 

provide the major technical component of the 2012 Oklahoma Comprehensive 

Water Plan Update. Each watershed planning region report presents 

information from both a regional and local perspective, including water supply 

and demand analysis results, forecasted water supply shortages, potential supply 

solutions and alternatives, and supporting technical information (Oklahoma 

Water Resources Board 2015).

In addition to incorporating the regional water plans, the 2012 State Water Plan 

in Texas is a guide to state water policy. It includes legislative recommendations 

that the Texas Water Development Board believes are needed and desirable to 

facilitate voluntary water transfers. The plan also identifies river and stream 

segments of unique ecological value and sites of unique value for constructing 

reservoirs that the Texas Water Development Board recommends for 

protection (Texas Water Development Board 2015a). 

The primary message of Texas’s 2012 water plan is that, in serious drought 

conditions, Texas does not and will not have enough water to meet the needs 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Water Resources)

3-46 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

of its people, its businesses, and its agricultural enterprises. The plan presents 

the information regarding the recommended conservation and other types of 

water management strategies that would be necessary to meet the state’s needs 

in drought conditions, the cost of such strategies, and estimates of the state’s 

financial assistance that would be required to implement these strategies. The 

plan contains descriptions of population and water demand projections, climate, 

water supplies, water supply needs, and water management strategies (Texas 

Water Development Board 2015b).

Current Condition

Precipitation

Precipitation, as rain and snow, is the primary source of water in Kansas and 

Nebraska. Average annual precipitation from 1951 to 1980 increases from west 

to east and ranges from about 16 to 40 inches. Streamflow volume in eastern 

Kansas is much greater than it is in the west, due to greater total precipitation. 

The climate of the western third of Kansas and Nebraska, where the average 

annual precipitation generally is less than 20 inches per year, is considered to be 

semiarid. This area receives little precipitation chiefly because it is distant from 

the Gulf of Mexico, which is the principal source of moisture-laden air for 

Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. Scant precipitation is also partly because the 

area is in the rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains. 

Much of the precipitation is returned to the atmosphere by evapotranspiration. 

Some of the precipitation either flows directly into streams as overland runoff 

or percolates into the soil. Then it moves downward into aquifers, where it is 

stored for a time and subsequently released as base flow to streams. Average 

annual runoff (the total discharge into a stream from surface and groundwater

sources) increases from west to east and ranges from about 0.2 to 5 inches in 

Kansas. Runoff is less than precipitation everywhere. Evapotranspiration rates 

are high, especially in the western three-quarters of Kansas. Only a small 

percentage of the precipitation is available to recharge aquifers in most places 

(Miller and Appel 1997).

Precipitation is the primary source of surface water and groundwater recharge 

in Oklahoma and Texas. Water from precipitation flows into rivers and streams 

as overland runoff or as base flow that discharges from aquifers where the 

water has been stored for some time. Average annual precipitation ranges from 

about 8 inches in southwestern Texas to about 56 inches in southeastern Texas. 

Average annual precipitation in Oklahoma ranges from about 17 inches in the 

far western panhandle to about 56 inches in the far southeast. West Texas 

streams flow only part of the year or intermittently, while east Texas streams 

flow year-round, due to differences in precipitation and evaporation rates. In 

general, precipitation increases rather uniformly from west to east in the two 

states. 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Water Resources) 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-47

Average annual runoff in the two-state area ranges from about 0.2 inches in the 

western part of the Oklahoma panhandle and parts of west Texas to about 20 

inches in southeastern Oklahoma. Precipitation is greater than runoff 

everywhere in the two states. Much of the precipitation that falls is returned to 

the atmosphere by evapotranspiration. Part of the precipitation percolates 

downward through the soil and permeable rocks and is available for aquifer 

recharge throughout the area (Ryder 1996). 

Surface Water 

The USGS delineated watersheds in the United States, using a national standard 

hierarchical system. This is based on surface hydrologic features that are 

classified into hydrologic units: first field (region), second field (subregion), third 

field (accounting unit), and fourth field (cataloguing unit). Each hydrologic unit is 

identified by a unique hydrologic unit code: 2-digit (region), 4-digit (subregion), 

6-digit (accounting unit), and 8-digit (cataloging unit). 

The Missouri Region, the Arkansas-White-Red Region, the Texas-Gulf Region, 

and the Rio Grande Region intersect the planning area. The planning area is in 

Region 11 Arkansas-White-Red and Region 12 Texas-Gulf. The Arkansas River, 

White River, and Red River drain eastward toward the Mississippi River in 

Region 11. Rivers in Region 12 drain southeastward toward the Gulf of Mexico. 

The second level of classification divides the regions into subregions. The third 

level of classification further subdivides many of the subregions into accounting 

units. The accounting units nest in or are equivalent to the subregions. The 

fourth level of classification is the cataloging unit, which subdivides the 

subregions and accounting units into smaller areas. 

A cataloging unit is a geographic area representing part or all of a surface 

drainage basin, a combination of drainage basins, or a distinct hydrologic feature 

(USGS 2015b). Cataloging units sometimes are called watersheds. A cataloguing 

unit is the most widely used hydrological unit in water resource planning, 

management, and policy (Daniels et al. undated). The accounting units in Kansas, 

Oklahoma, and Texas are displayed in Figure 3-10, Hydrologic Accounting 

Units. 

The Southern Great Plains REA—Pre-Assessment Report (Assal et al. 2015) 

covers eastern Colorado and New Mexico, western Kansas and Oklahoma, and 

northern Texas. Streams and rivers of the Southern Great Plains ecoregion are 

highly variable in size, type, and flow patterns; however, their hydrologic and 

geomorphic characteristics change progressively along a predictable and 

consistent gradient, from their headwaters to the main-stem rivers. Small 

headwater streams of the Southern Great Plains undergo intermittent channel 

drying, especially in areas that lack the groundwater springs that typically 

promote more consistent flows. 

3. Affected Environment (BLM Water Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-49

The drainage area of medium-sized reaches in the middle sections of a 

watershed can be engulfed by storms and thus are more prone to flooding than 

the upper reaches. In contrast, most of the large main-stem rivers in the 

Southern Great Plains are buffered against all but the largest floods by virtue of 

their floodplains, where water can dissipate laterally when large flows do occur. 

These larger river sections also are less likely to undergo periods of channel 

drying than upstream sections. 

The channel geomorphology of streams and rivers in the Southern Great Plains 

can be coarsely described as meandering and braided, with channel-bed 

substrates of mostly sand (Assal et al. 2015).

Perennial streams contain water throughout the year, intermittent streams 

contain water during wet portions of the year, and ephemeral channels contain 

water only during and immediately after rainstorms. The number of miles of 

these stream types is shown in Table 3-14.

Table 3-14

Streams in the BLM Decision Area

State

BLM-Administered Surface Lands 

in Miles

BLM-Administered Federal Mineral 

Estate in Miles

Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral

Kansas 0 0 0 365.6 1,550.6 3.7

Oklahoma 0* 0* 0 1,521.8* 3,486.7* 6.8

Texas 0* 0* 0 1,055.4 3,572.4* 0

Nebraska 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sources: National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) GIS 2013; BLM GIS 2016

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red 

River and the 98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified and mapped when they are surveyed. (No 

exact acreages of federal lands are available at this time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed.) 

Any such survey would be conducted in accordance with applicable law.

Water quality standards consist of beneficial uses designation, water quality 

criteria to protect the designated uses, and anti-degradation policies. Under 

Section 303(d) of the CWA, states, territories, and authorized tribes are 

required to develop lists of impaired waters that are too polluted or otherwise 

degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or 

authorized tribes. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish priority 

rankings for waters on the lists and develop total maximum daily loads for these 

waters. The latter is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a 

water body can receive and still safely meet water quality standards (EPA 

2015a). 

There are 472 stream segments in the BLM decision area in Kansas, Oklahoma, 

and Texas that are on the 303(d) list of impaired waters (see Table 3-15, 

below; EPA GIS 2015).
3. Affected Environment (BLM Water Resources) 

3-50 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

Table 3-15

Stream Segments on the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters in the BLM 

Decision Area 

State BLM-Administered 

Surface Land (Miles)

BLM-Administered Federal 

Mineral Estate (Miles)

Kansas 0 413.6

Oklahoma 0* 1448*

Texas 0.4 683.0 

Sources: EPA GIS 2015; BLM GIS 2016

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the 

North Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified 

and mapped when they are surveyed. (No exact acreages of federal lands are available at 

this time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed.) Any such survey would 

be conducted in accordance with applicable law.

Sole source surface drinking water supplies and public municipal water wells are 

protected by existing state regulations in Texas and Oklahoma (respectively). 

No such regulations exist within Kansas. The State of Texas, in 30 TAC Section 

307.10(2) limits oil and gas activities within 1,000 feet of sole source surface 

drinking water supplies. The State of Oklahoma, in OAC 785:45 limits oil and 

gas activities within 1 mile of public municipal water wells. Public, domestic, and 

municipal groundwater wells, such as the public municipal water wells in 

Oklahoma are discussed in the section below. 

Groundwater 

Groundwater is an important source of water in the planning area. The actual 

volume of groundwater that is removed from aquifers is highly variable, 

depending on the type and place of use. Domestic use includes the use of water 

for household purposes, for farm and domestic animals up to the normal grazing 

capacity of the land, and for the irrigation of land in area for the growing of 

gardens, orchards, and lawns. Domestic use also includes water used for 

agricultural purposes, use for fire protection, and use by non-household entities 

for drinking water, restrooms, and watering of lawns (Oklahoma Water 

Resources Board 2016). 

Private wells do not serve public water supply systems and are primarily 

unregulated. Domestic well owners do not have any federal or state 

requirements for monitoring drinking water quality, unlike public water supply 

systems which do. Figure 3-11, Domestic Water Wells, shows the high density 

of water wells in the planning area that are used for domestic use. Domestic 

wells can be subject to ground water contamination from seepage through 

landfills, failed septic tanks, underground storage tanks, fertilizers and pesticides, 

and runoff from urban areas (EPA 2015b). 

3. Affected Environment (BLM Water Resources) 

3-52 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

An aquifer system is a grouping of two or more aquifers and can be of two 

types, as follows (Ryder 1996): 

 Vertically stacked aquifers—These are separated by confining units 

but are hydraulically connected; in other words, their flow systems 

function in a similar manner, and a change in conditions in one 

aquifer affects the others. 

 A set of disconnected aquifers—These are not physically connected 

but share common geologic and hydrologic characteristics and can 

thus be studied and described together. 

Both types of aquifer systems are in Oklahoma and Texas. They are in geologic 

units that range from unconsolidated sand along major streams to consolidated 

carbonate rocks and sandstones that extend over wide areas. These aquifers are 

grouped into 16 major aquifers or aquifer systems on the basis of differences in 

their rock types and groundwater flow systems. Alluvial aquifers occur along 

major streams. Where they are exposed at the land surface, the aquifers 

generally contain water that is fresh to slightly saline (Ryder 1996). 

The aquifers in the Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska area vary in composition, 

such as unconsolidated sand and gravel, semi-consolidated sediments, or 

consolidated sandstone, limestone, or dolomite. The aquifers have been defined 

primarily on the basis of differences in their rock types and groundwater flow 

systems and secondarily by the chemical quality of water they contain. 

Some of the aquifers are grouped into systems of two or more aquifers that are 

hydraulically connected. Portions of the High Plains aquifer, the Great Plains 

aquifer system, and the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system are in Kansas. One 

additional aquifer system, the Western Interior Plains, is present only in the 

subsurface; it contains saline water or brine and is not as well-known as the 

aquifers that primarily contain freshwater (Miller and Appel 1997). 

The High Plains aquifer underlies parts of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New 

Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming (Robson and Banta 

1995). The Ogallala aquifer is the leading geologic formation in the High Plains 

aquifer system. The Great Plains aquifer system underlies most of Nebraska, 

about half of Kansas, the eastern third of Colorado, and small parts of New 

Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, South Dakota, and Wyoming (Miller and Appel 

1997). The Western Interior Plains aquifer system underlies most of Kansas, the 

eastern and southern parts of Nebraska, and a small area in west-central 

Missouri (Miller and Appel 1997). Aquifers are listed in Table 3-16 and are 

shown in Figure 3-12, Aquifers. 

3. Affected Environment (BLM Water Resources) 

3-54 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

Table 3-16

Aquifers in the BLM Decision Area

Aquifer Name BLM-Administered 

Surface Lands (Acres)

BLM-Administered Federal 

Mineral Estate (Acres)

Ada-Vamoosa 0 21,800 

Blaine less than 50 7,200 

Central Oklahoma less than 50 18,200 

Coastal lowlands aquifer system 0 418,900 

Edwards-Trinity aquifer system 0 285,300 

High Plains (Ogallalla) 100 156,300 

Lower Cretaceous 0 52,900 

Mississippi embayment aquifer system 0 400 

Ozark Plateaus 0 5,900 

Rio Grande 0 122,300

Rush Springs less than 50 8,900 

Seymour less than 50 400 

Texas coastal uplands aquifer system 0 421,900 

Sources: USGS GIS 2003; BLM GIS 2016

Sole Source Aquifers 

The EPA has the authority to designate aquifers as sole source aquifers under 

Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-523, 42 

USC, Section 300 et seq.). A sole source aquifer supplies at least 50 percent of 

drinking water for its service area. Should it become contaminated, there would 

be no reasonably available drinking water source. 

The Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer of south-central Oklahoma, Edwards aquifer 

(Austin area), and Edwards aquifer (San Antonio area) are designated sole source 

aquifers in the project area, as shown in Figure 3-13, Sole Source Aquifers. 

The Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer provides water for public supply, farms, mining, 

wildlife conservation, and recreation and covers approximately 520 square miles 

in Carter, Coal, Johnston, Murray, and Pontotoc counties. The ArbuckleSimpson Aquifer is the principal water source for approximately 39,000 people 

in the cities of Ada and Sulphur. This aquifer is also the source of springs in the 

region, including Byrds Mill Spring, Ada’s primary drinking water source, and 

those in the Chickasaw National Recreation Area. Groundwater in the 

Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer moves from areas of high water elevation to low 

water elevation along streams and springs. The potentiometric surface in the 

eastern Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer slopes from a topographic high from 

northwest to the southeast, indicating that regional groundwater flow is 

predominantly toward the southeast. 

Freshwater is known to extend beyond the aquifer outcrop near the City of 

Sulphur, Oklahoma, and Chickasaw National Recreation Area (Christenson et al. 

2011). Water is discharged naturally from the aquifer by numerous springs and 

3. Affected Environment (BLM Water Resources)

3-56 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

seeps; much of this discharge becomes the base flow of streams. Springs that 

issue from the aquifer discharge up to 19,000 gallons per minute (USGS 2016b).

The Edwards Aquifer is the sole source of drinking water for more than 1.5 

million people in Bexar, Comal, Hays, Medina, and Uvalde Counties and is also 

the primary water supply for agriculture, business, and industry in the area 

(Puente 1978). The aquifer incorporates an area of approximately 4,350 square 

miles that extends into parts of 11 counties. It is hydrologically separated into 

the Austin and San Antonio regions by a groundwater divide near the town of 

Kyle in Hays County. 

The Edwards aquifer feeds the Comal and San Marcos springs and provides 

spring flow for recreational and downstream uses in the Nueces, San Antonio, 

Guadalupe, and San Marcos river basins. The San Antonio segment of the 

aquifer extends in a 160-mile arch-shaped curve, from Brackettville in the west 

to near Kyle in the northeast and between 5 and 40 miles wide at the surface. 

Most groundwater recharge to the Edwards Aquifer occurs in the unconfined 

(recharge) zone where water from streams flows underground and into the 

aquifer system. Groundwater withdrawals contribute to groundwater losses 

throughout the region and the aquifer is susceptible to anthropogenic 

contaminants from both urban and rural land use (USGS 2016c). 

Range Improvements Involving Water

The two types of range improvements are nonstructural and structural (BLM 

2015c). Seedings and prescribed burns are examples of nonstructural range 

improvements; fences and wells or water pipelines are examples of structural 

improvements. Many structural improvements are considered permanent, 

because they are not easily removed from the land. There are currently no 

water-related range improvements on BLM-administered grazing allotments.

The following fundamentals of rangeland health must exist on BLM-administered 

lands (43 CFR, Part 4100, Subpart 4180):

 Watersheds are in or are making significant progress toward being 

in properly functioning physical condition. This is characterized by 

their upland, riparian-wetland, and aquatic components; the soil and 

plant conditions that support infiltration, soil moisture storage, and 

the release of water, all of which are in balance with climate and 

landforms and maintain or improve water quality, water quantity, 

and timing and duration of flow.

 Ecological processes, including the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, 

and energy flow, are maintained, or there is significant progress 

toward their maintenance, in order to support healthy biotic 

populations and communities.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Water Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-57

 Water quality complies with state water quality standards and 

achieves, or is making significant progress toward achieving, 

established BLM management objectives, such as meeting wildlife 

needs.

Floodplains

A floodplain is a geographic area of relatively level land that is occasionally 

subject to inundation by surface water from rivers or streams. A 100-year flood 

has a 1 percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in magnitude in any given 

year; a 100-year floodplain is covered by water in the event of a 100-year flood. 

The number of acres in 100-year floodplains is shown in Table 3-17, below.

Table 3-17

100-Year Floodplains in the BLM Decision Area*

State

Acres of BLMAdministered Surface 

Land (Acres)

Acres of BLMAdministered Federal 

Mineral Estate (Acres)

Kansas 0 162,600

Oklahoma 1,100** 521,500**

Texas 1,000** 800,200**

Source: FEMA GIS 2013

*Includes counties where data are available. 

**Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the 

North Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified 

and mapped when they are surveyed. (No exact acreages of federal lands are available at 

this time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed.) Any such survey would 

be conducted in accordance with applicable law.

Water Use

One of the primary responsibilities of the BLM in the planning area is leasing 

coal and leasable minerals, such as oil and gas. These activities use water, 

generate contaminated water, and use substances capable of contaminating 

water. Releasing contaminated water or substances capable of contaminating 

water can affect the quality of surface water and groundwater and, therefore, 

their uses, such as for domestic water consumption.

A federal coal lease grants the right to explore for, extract, remove, and dispose 

of some or all of the coal deposits that may be found on the leased lands. Coal 

leases are granted on the condition that the lessee will obtain the appropriate 

permits and licenses from the BLM, the Office of Surface Mining, and any 

affected state and local governments. 

In some areas, development of coal resources may conflict with the protection 

and management of other resources, including cultural resources or public land 

uses. In such cases, the BLM in consultation with THPOs and Federally

recognized Indian tribes may identify mitigating measures on leases as either 

stipulations to uses or restrictions on operations. If the lessee fails to comply 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Water Resources)

3-58 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

with the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, or fails to 

comply with any applicable regulations, lease terms, or stipulations, the BLM 

may take legal steps to cancel the lease (BLM 2015d). 

Large quantities of water are often needed to remove impurities from the coal. 

In addition, coal-fired power plants use large quantities of water for producing 

steam and for cooling. The development of coal is discussed further in Section 

3.3.1, Energy and Minerals, Coal.

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and the Mineral Leasing Act for 

Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended, give the BLM responsibility for oil and gas 

leasing on about 564 million acres of BLM-administered lands, national forest

lands, and other federal lands across the nation. The BLM’s jurisdiction extends 

to state and private surface lands, where the federal government has retained 

the mineral rights. 

While the BLM provides technical assistance to Indian tribes and Indian mineral 

owners, it does not lease Indian minerals (BLM 2015e). Oil and gas leases in 

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas are identified in Table 3-18, below. The 

development of oil and gas is discussed further in Section 3.3.1, Energy and 

Minerals, Fluid Minerals.

Table 3-18

Oil and Gas Statistics (Fiscal Year 2015)

State

Total Number 

of Oil and Gas 

Leases in Effect

Total Number of Acres 

Under Lease as of the Last 

Day of Fiscal Year 2015

Kansas 464 120,402

Oklahoma 1,250 286,488

Texas 712 416,895

Sources: BLM 2015f, 2015g

The Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration 

and Development (commonly referred to as the Gold Book; BLM 2007b) was 

developed to assist operators. It provides information on the requirements for 

obtaining permit approval and conducting environmentally responsible oil and 

gas operations on federal lands and on private surface over federal minerals 

(split-estate). 

In 2007, the Gold Book was updated to incorporate changes resulting from the 

new Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 regulations (BLM 2015f). The Gold 

Book contains information on conducting operations to minimize impacts on 

water resources.

Hydraulic fracturing, directional drilling, and other advanced technologies have 

allowed the production of oil and gas from rock formations that previously 

could not be developed. As a result, so-called unconventional resources, such as 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Water Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-59

shale gas and shale oil, are among the fastest growing energy sources in the 

United States. Unconventional gas accounts for over 60 percent of the US gas

supply. 

Hydraulic fracturing is a technique used in unconventional gas production. Also 

referred to as hydrofracking, hydrofracturing, and fracking, hydraulic fracturing 

is a well development process that involves injecting water under high pressure 

into a bedrock formation via the well. It is used to increase oil or gas flow to a 

well from petroleum-bearing rock formations (USGS 2015c). 

Hydraulic fracturing produces fractures in a rock formation in order to 

stimulate the flow of natural gas or oil, thereby increasing the volumes of gas or 

oil that can be recovered. Wells may be drilled vertically hundreds to thousands 

of feet below the surface and may include horizontal or directional sections, 

extending thousands of feet (EPA 2015c).

Fractures are created by pumping large quantities of fluids at high pressure 

down a wellbore and into the target rock formation. Hydraulic fracturing fluid 

commonly consists of three components, as follows:

 Water

 Proppant (such as sand, ceramic pellets, or other small 

uncompressible particles that hold open the newly created fractures 

[EPA 2015c])

 Chemical additives that open and enlarge fractures in the rock 

formation that can extend several hundred feet from the well bore

Once the injection process is completed, the internal pressure of the rock 

formation causes fluid to return to the surface through the wellbore. This fluid 

is known as flowback or produced water. It may contain the injected chemicals, 

plus naturally occurring materials, such as brines, metals, radionuclides, and 

hydrocarbons. The flowback is typically stored on-site in tanks or pits before 

treatment, disposal, or recycling. 

The BLM’s 2015 proposed hydraulic fracturing rule would have required that 

produced water be stored almost exclusively in tanks. In many cases, it is 

injected underground for disposal. In areas where that is not an option, it is

treated and reused or processed by a wastewater treatment facility and then 

discharged to surface water (EPA 2015c). The BLM’s hydraulic fracturing rule 

was finalized but was enjoined and the BLM published a proposed rule to 

rescind the 2015 final rule in the Federal Register on July 25, 2017 (82 FR 

34464).

Protecting underground sources of drinking water from hydraulic fracturing is 

focused in the EPA Underground Injection Control Program, which regulates 

the subsurface emplacement of fluid. While the Safe Drinking Water Act 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Water Resources)

3-60 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

specifically excludes hydraulic fracturing from underground injection control 

regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1421 (d)(1), the use of 

diesel fuel during hydraulic fracturing is still regulated by the Underground 

Injection Control Program (EPA 2015d). The EPA conducted a study to better 

understand any potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on 

drinking water resources (EPA 2015e).

The EPA has issued a proposed rule to amend the Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Category (40 CFR, Part 

435). The final rule was published June 28, 2016. The rule addresses discharges 

of wastewater pollutants from onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction 

facilities to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The EPA rule proposes 

to prohibit discharges to POTWs, reflecting current industry practice. Because 

onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction facilities have discharged to 

POTWs in the past, and because the potential remains that some facilities can 

consider discharging to POTWs in the future, the EPA proposed this rule (EPA 

2015f).

In Oklahoma, estimated total withdrawals from surface water and groundwater

sources during 2005 were approximately 1,559 million gallons/day: 989 million 

gallons/day, or 63 percent, from surface water sources and 570 million 

gallons/day, or 37 percent, from groundwater sources. The three largest water 

use categories are as follows:

 Public supply, about 646 million gallons/day, or 41 percent of total 

withdrawals

 Irrigation, 495 million gallons/day, or 32 percent of total 

withdrawals

 Livestock and aquaculture, 181 million gallons/day, or 12 percent of 

total withdrawals

All other categories, such as thermo-electric power generation, self-supplied 

domestic and commercial, and industrial and mining, were 237 million 

gallons/day, or 15 percent of total withdrawals (Tortorelli 2009). As some 

domestic and tribal water uses are not always permitted or reported, they are 

not included in this estimate.

Trends

Urban and agricultural development and energy infrastructure and development 

(especially for coal, oil, and gas) have influenced the quantity and quality of water 

in the planning area.

Streams and rivers of the Southern Great Plains have been severely affected by 

multiple stressors that have profoundly changed the ways in which these 

systems function. Dominant agents of change are agricultural development and 

associated activities, although energy development and urbanization contribute 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Water Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-61

to the degradation and fragmentation of streams and rivers. In particular, urban 

centers have led to the channelization of many Southern Great Plains rivers and 

streams, which decreases habitat heterogeneity and severs important 

connections with floodplains. 

Projected average temperatures and precipitation patterns associated with 

climate change also represent significant potential agents of change to streams 

and rivers (Assal et al. 2015).

Development has frequently included dams, ditches, groundwater pumping, and 

other human alteration. This has altered the hydrology, thereby affecting the 

flow regime, reducing water tables, and increasing sedimentation (Assal et al. 

2015).

Lakes are water impoundments created by natural processes along stream 

courses and in depressions on landscapes. Reservoirs are human-made 

impoundments, developed to control flooding, to enhance water storage for use 

off stream (for example, irrigation), and to create hydraulic head for electric 

power generation. Many natural lakes, such as Lake Meredith in Texas, were 

converted to reservoirs by dam construction. 

In addition to Lake Meredith, other large reservoirs created by damming rivers 

or converting large lakes to reservoirs in the Southern Great Plains are Cedar 

Bluff and Cheney Reservoirs in Kansas, Tom Steed Reservoir and Great Salt 

Plains Lake in Oklahoma, and Lake Kemp in Texas (Assal et al. 2015). 

Groundwater withdrawal for irrigating crops and providing livestock watering 

ponds is an important driver of change for saline lakes. The discharge rates in 75 

percent of the saline lakes on the Llano Estacado (part of which is in northern

Texas) are greatly diminished, or the springs have dried up altogether. Another 

negative outcome of overdrawing groundwater is saltwater intrusion into 

underlying aquifers in the region. 

Playas that receive irrigation tail water from croplands may remain wetter 

longer than they did historically. Tail water also carries pesticides, heavy metals, 

sediments, and excessive nutrients into the wetlands (Assal et al. 2015).

Playa lakes are integral wetlands of the Southern Great Plains. They are found in 

semiarid environments throughout the world but are most numerous in the 

Playa Lakes Region of southwestern Kansas, southeastern Colorado, the 

Oklahoma Panhandle, eastern New Mexico, and northwestern Texas. Threats 

to playas are physical alteration; direct application of agricultural chemicals; 

concentrated, animal feeding operation runoff and wastewater application; 

overgrazing; and sedimentation. Of these, sedimentation is the most serious. 

Approximately 90 percent of playas surrounded by cropland have lost their 

original volume due to sedimentation (Wishart 2011).
3. Affected Environment (BLM Water Resources)

3-62 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

The infrastructure used to support industrial activities across the prairie 

landscape has redistributed water resources, for drilling, hydraulic fracturing, 

and coal bed methane extraction. The hydrology of major streams in the region 

has been altered by impoundments, withdrawals (municipal and irrigation), 

groundwater depletion, and a multitude of upland land use changes. As a result, 

timing and flow, water temperature, dissolved nutrients, and sediment levels 

have been altered (Assal et al. 2015). 

Water quality in the region has been affected by herbicides, urban pollutants, 

and fecal contamination. Groundwater depletion is a regional major concern. It 

is centered on the Ogallala aquifer, which declined by an average of 10 feet 

during a 40-year period in the middle of the twentieth century (Assal et al. 

2015).

Oklahoma’s climate ranges from humid subtropical in the east to semiarid in the 

west. The semiarid landscape nonetheless supports landscape-scale agricultural 

production, and irrigation demand is high. To irrigate croplands, surface waters 

are diverted and groundwater is pumped to the surface, fundamentally altering 

the flow regimes of Southern Great Plains streams and rivers (Assal et al. 2015).

In Oklahoma, public-supply water withdrawals increased steadily from 1990 to 

2000 and then decreased slightly in 2005, mainly because of a decrease in 

surface water withdrawals. Irrigation water withdrawals increased to about 864 

million gallons/day, or 44 percent, from 1990 to 1995 and then decreased 

steadily to 495 million gallons/day in 2005. Total livestock and aquaculture water 

withdrawals steadily increased from 1990 to 2005. The largest increase in the 

other water use categories was thermo-electric power generation, which has 

steadily increased and almost doubled from 1990 to 2005 (Tortorelli 2009).

3.2.5 Vegetation

Upland Vegetation

Vegetation provides an enormous variety of functions in an ecosystem and also 

provides for a variety of human and animal uses. Vegetation stabilizes soils, 

prevents erosion, uses carbon dioxide, releases oxygen, increases species 

diversity, and provides habitat and food for animals and resources for humans. 

Ecosystems reflect complex sets of interactions among plants, animals, soil, 

water, air, temperature, topography, fire, and humans. Influences exerted on 

one component affect other components in the system. 

Vegetation provides many functions in ecosystems. Many of the BLM’s land 

management policies are directed toward managing for healthy vegetation 

communities, which support resistant and resilient ecological systems.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-63

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

Noxious weeds are native or invasive plants that are unwanted in a particular 

area at a particular time, as designated by each state in the planning area. 

Although noxious weeds are usually invasive, a distinction is made in this 

document because they can also include undesirable native plants. Invasive plants 

have the potential to disrupt or alter the natural ecosystem function, 

composition, or diversity of the site they occupy. These species can complicate 

the use of local natural resources and may interfere with management 

objectives for the site. 

Invasive plants are widespread and can damage crops, affect entire industries, 

and harm the environment and public health. 

Prevention is generally the most cost-effective and efficient method of reducing 

the likelihood for weed introduction and spread, as opposed to eradication and 

control (Davies and Sheley 2007). One way to target prevention is to identify 

vectors that are major dispersers of an invasive plant species, such as 

attachment on animals or humans, transportation via wind or water, and selfpropulsion (Davies and Sheley 2007). 

On BLM-administered lands, the degree of impact from invasive plants depends 

on the growth characteristics of that species, the density and size of infestation, 

the land cover type being invaded, the resources threatened and potential 

economic impacts, and cost of control or eradication. Noxious weeds

documented on BLM-administered lands in the planning area are musk thistle 

(Carduus nutans) and salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) and an additional native, invasive 

plant, mesquite (Prosopis spp.).

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Riparian areas are zones in or near rivers, creeks, lakes, springs, and wetlands

that occupy the space between upland and aquatic ecosystems. Riparian areas 

occur where water is perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral. The BLM defines 

riparian areas as “a form of wetland transition between permanently saturated 

wetlands and upland areas. These areas exhibit vegetation or physical 

characteristics reflective of permanent surface or subsurface water influence. 

Lands along, adjacent to, or contiguous with perennially and intermittent flowing 

rivers and streams, glacial potholes, and the shores of lakes and reservoirs with 

stable water levels are typical riparian areas” (Leonard et al. 1992). 

Wetlands occur between terrestrial and aquatic systems, where the water table 

is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water 

(Cowardin et al. 1979, USACE 1987). Soil, water conditions, and vegetation type 

distinguish wetlands from all other ecosystems. 

When proposed projects involve discharge of fill material into streams or 

wetlands, the project should be coordinated with the USACE to determine if 

the proposed project requires a Section 404 permit under the CWA which 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

3-64 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United 

States (WOUS), including wetlands, streams, and other special aquatic sites. 

A jurisdictional delineation for all WOUS will be included in discussions and will 

confirm the presence or absence of such areas and help determine the need for 

a permit. If a permit is required, the EPA will review the project for compliance 

with Federal Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill 

Materials in accordance with 40 CFR 230, promulgated pursuant to Section 

404(b)(1) of the CWA. Subsequent requirement of Section 404(b)(1) of CWA 

compliance will also be discussed.

Both riparian areas and wetlands are composed of vegetation adapted to 

perennial, seasonal, or intermittent aquatic conditions, with unique soil 

characteristics that developed under the influence of water. The increased 

moisture found in these areas generally produces unique plant communities that 

differ noticeably from the surrounding upland vegetation. 

Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation, 

landform, or large woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy 

associated with high water flows. The presence of debris has the following 

benefits (BLM 1998a):

 Reduces erosion, improves water quality, filters sediment, captures 

bedload, and aids floodplain development

 Improves floodwater retention and groundwater recharge

 Promotes root mass development, which stabilizes streambanks 

against cutting action

 Develops diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the 

habitat and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary 

for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses

 Supports greater biodiversity

No proper functioning condition assessments have been completed in the BLM 

decision area.

Special Status Plant Species

Special status species are federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and 

state-listed species. Other sensitive species are those designated by the BLM 

and special management species. 

The BLM focuses on protecting and enhancing the habitats of threatened, 

endangered, and other special status species to ensure their continued 

existence. BLM special status species are the following: 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation) 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-65

 Species listed under or proposed for listing under the ESA—The act 

provides a program for conserving threatened and endangered 

plants and animals and their habitats. The lead federal agencies for 

implementing the ESA are the USFWS and the NOAA, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

 Species designated as sensitive by the BLM State Director—These 

require special management consideration to promote their 

conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing 

under the ESA. All federal candidate species, proposed species, and 

species delisted for 5 years or less are considered BLM sensitive 

species. 

Only small fragments of native prairie ecosystem remain in the Southern Great 

Plains region (Assal et al. 2015). Much of the region has been converted to 

farmland or grazed by domestic livestock. Livestock grazing and associated 

activities have influenced native prairie ecosystems and habitats by altering fire 

regime and species composition. Grazing generally has not resulted in 

irreversible changes to these ecosystems and habitats because these systems 

evolved under bison and other large ungulate herbivory on the great plains. 

Upland Vegetation 

The planning area contains 9 land cover classes denoted by the USGS National 

Gap Analysis Program. These land cover data provide a detailed, consistent map 

of vegetation associations for the United States. These data are intended for 

planning and management use on a regional or larger scale. USGS Land Cover 

Classes are depicted in Figure 3-14, Land Cover Classes, and are summarized 

in Table 3-19, below. Classes depict vegetation–dominant, general growth 

forms adapted to basic moisture, temperature, and substrate or aquatic 

environments. 

Descriptions of vegetation in USGS land cover classes are given in the US 

National Vegetation Classification (USNVC 2016). Vegetation in land cover 

classes in the planning area are briefly described below. 

Forest and Woodland. Temperate forests and woodlands include temperate 

rainforests, temperate deciduous forests, and temperate evergreen forests and 

woodlands. They are dominated by broad-leaved or needle-leaved growth 

forms. Temperate broad-leaved deciduous and needle-leaved forests and 

woodlands grow in cool-temperate continental climates, with summer rainfall 

and cold winters, during which the broad-leaved trees lose their leaves. 

Shrubland and Grassland. The vegetation varies, from grasslands of open to 

dense bunch or sod grasses, often with scattered shrubs, to low open to dense 

shrublands and drought-deciduous scrub. The surface layer contains a thin to 

thick litter layer, in contrast to desert grassland and scrub, where the surface 

layer may be bare or contain a biological crust. 

3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-67

Table 3-19

Land Cover Classes

Land Cover 

Class

BLMAdministrated 

Surface Lands

(Acres)

BLMAdministrated 

Federal Mineral 

Estate (Acres)

BIA-Managed

Tribal and 

Allotted Lands

(Acres)

BIA-Managed

Tribal and 

Allotted 

Subsurface 

Minerals Estate

(Acres)

Forest and 

Woodland

1,000* 1,687,500* 298,500 809,500

Shrubland and 

Grassland

11,700* 680,100* 164,600 798,500

Semi-desert 0 239,900 100 100

Open Water 200* 1,115,400* 9,900 74,200

Introduced and 

Semi-natural 

Vegetation

1,600* 177,000* 99,500 344,600

Nonvascular and 

Sparse Vascular 

Rock Vegetation

0* 400* 0 0

Developed and 

Other Human Use

100* 271,100* 44,200 132600

Recently Disturbed 

or Modified

200* 181,300* 12,700 23,600

Agricultural 300* 456,800* 223,500 484,600

Sources: BLM GIS 2016; BIA GIS 2016; USGS GIS 2001

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red 

River and the 98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified and mapped when they are surveyed. (No 

exact acreages of federal lands are available at this time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed.) 

Any such survey would be conducted in accordance with applicable law.

Semi-desert. Vegetation is dominated by plants adapted to dry conditions. It 

varies from open to closed woodlands and open shrub-scrub to complexes of 

succulents, thornscrub, and small-leaved subshrubs. Ephemeral herbaceous 

growth forms may also be present. 

Several other land cover classes shown in Table 3-19 occur in the planning 

area. These are generally areas that have been modified by human use from 

development or intensive agricultural operations, areas of native vegetation that 

have been invaded by noxious weeds or invasive plant species, or recently 

disturbed or bare areas.

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

2005; Chapman et al. 2001; Griffith et al. 2004; EPA 2013a). Ecoregions defined 

by the EPA denote areas whose ecosystems are generally similar, including the 

type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. The number of acres of 

each ecoregion (and its associated ecoregion number) in the planning and 

decision areas are summarized in Table 3-2. Ecoregions in the planning area 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation) 

3-68 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

are shown in Figure 3-1; those in the BLM decision area are briefly described 

below. 

Chihuahuan Deserts. This desert ecoregion is generally a continuation of 

basin and range terrain, although the pattern of alternating mountains and 

valleys is not as pronounced. Outside the major river drainages, such as the Rio 

Grande and Pecos River in New Mexico and Texas, the landscape is largely 

internally drained. Vegetation is predominantly desert grassland and arid 

shrubland. In the planning area, this ecoregion is limited to southwest Texas. 

High Plains. Much of the High Plains is characterized by smooth to slightly 

irregular plains, having a high percentage of cropland. Grama grass (Bouteloua 

gracilis)-buffalo grass (B. dactyloides) is the potential natural vegetation in this 

region. In the planning area, this ecoregion occupies the eastern portions of 

Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. 

Southwestern Tablelands. The Southwestern Tablelands flank the High 

Plains (25) with red-hued canyons, mesas, badlands, and dissected river breaks. 

Little of the Southwestern Tablelands is in cropland. Much of this region is in 

sub-humid grassland and semiarid range land. The potential natural vegetation is 

grama-buffalo grass, with some mesquite (Prosopis spp.)-buffalo grass in the 

southeast, juniper-scrub oak (Quercus gambellii)-middle-grass savanna on 

escarpment bluffs, and shinnery (mid-grass prairie with open low and shrubs) 

along the Canadian River. In the planning area, this ecoregion occupies portions 

of the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles and a portion of southern-central 

Kansas. 

Central Great Plains. The Central Great Plains are slightly lower, receive 

more precipitation, and are somewhat more irregular than the High Plains (25) 

to the west. Much of this ecological region was converted to cropland from 

grassland. In the planning area, it occupies much of central Oklahoma and 

Kansas and a portion of north-central Texas. 

Flint Hills. The Flint Hills is a region of rolling hills with rocky soils. In contrast 

to surrounding ecological regions that are mostly in cropland, most of the Flint 

Hills region is grazed by cattle. In the planning area, this ecoregion occupies a 

portion of eastern Kansas and a small area of northeast Oklahoma. 

Cross Timbers. The Cross Timbers ecoregion is a transition area. It is 

between what was once prairie and what is now winter wheat-growing regions 

to the west and the forested low mountains or hills of eastern Oklahoma and 

Texas. Transitional “cross-timbers” is the native vegetation (little bluestem 

[Schizachyrium scoparium] grassland with scattered blackjack oak [Quercus 

marilandica] and post oak [Q. stellata]). In the planning area, this ecoregion 

occupies a portion of central Oklahoma and north-central Texas and a small 

area in southeast Kansas. 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-69

Edwards Plateau. This ecoregion is largely a dissected limestone plateau with 

a sparse network of perennial streams. Due to karst topography and resultant 

underground drainage, the streams are relatively clear and cool. Originally 

covered by juniper-oak savanna and mesquite-oak savanna, most of the region is 

used for grazing beef cattle, sheep, goats, and wildlife. This ecoregion is limited 

to south-central Texas. 

Southern Texas Plains. This rolling to moderately dissected plain was once 

covered with grassland and savanna vegetation that varied during wet and dry 

cycles. Following long, continued grazing and fire suppression, the predominant 

vegetation type is now thorny brush, such as mesquite. This ecoregion is limited 

to south-central Texas.

Texas Blackland Prairies. The Texas Blackland Prairies form a disjunct 

ecological region, distinguished from surrounding regions by its fine-textured 

clayey soils and predominantly prairie, potential natural vegetation. This region 

now contains a higher percentage of cropland than adjacent regions; pasture and 

forage production for livestock is common. Large areas of the region are being 

converted to urban and industrial uses. This ecoregion is limited to eastern 

Texas.

East-Central Texas Plains. Also called the Post Oak Savanna or the Claypan 

Area, this region of irregular plains was originally covered by post oak savanna 

vegetation. Many areas have a dense underlying clay pan, affecting water 

movement and available moisture for plant growth. The bulk of this ecoregion is 

now used for pasture and range. It is limited to eastern Texas and a small 

portion of southeast Oklahoma.

Western Gulf Coastal Plain. The principal distinguishing characteristics of 

the Western Gulf Coastal Plain are its relatively flat coastal plain topography and 

mainly grassland potential natural vegetation. Urban and industrial land uses have 

expanded greatly in recent decades, and oil and gas production is common. This 

ecoregion is limited to southern Texas.

South-Central Plains. Locally termed the “piney woods,” this region of 

mostly irregular plains represents the western edge of the southern coniferous 

forest belt. Once blanketed by a mix of pine and hardwood forests, much of the 

region is now in loblolly (Pinus taeda) and shortleaf pine (P. echinata) plantations.

This ecoregion is limited to eastern Texas and a small portion of southeastern 

Oklahoma.

Ouachita Mountains. This ecological region is made up of sharply defined 

east-west trending ridges, formed through erosion of compressed sedimentary 

rock formations. Potential natural vegetation is oak-hickory (Carya spp.)-pine

forest. Most of this region is now in loblolly and shortleaf pine plantations. This 

ecoregion is limited to southeastern Oklahoma.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

3-70 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Arkansas Valley. A region of mostly forested valleys and ridges, the 

physiography of the Arkansas Valley is much less irregular than that of the 

Boston Mountains (38) to the north and the Ouachita Mountains (36) to the 

south; it is more irregular than the ecological regions to the west and east. This 

ecoregion is limited to southeastern Oklahoma.

Boston Mountains. This ecological region consists of a deeply dissected 

sandstone and shale plateau, originally covered by oak-hickory forests. Red oak 

(Quercus rubra), white oak (Q. alba), and hickory remain the dominant 

vegetation, although shortleaf pine and eastern red cedar are found in many of 

the lower areas. This ecoregion is limited to eastern Oklahoma.

Ozark Highlands. The Ozark Highlands ecoregion has a more irregular 

physiography and is generally more forested than adjacent regions. Karst 

features, including caves, springs, and spring-fed streams, are found throughout. 

Most of the region is forested; oak is the predominant forest type, but mixed 

stands of oak and pine are also common. This ecoregion is limited to 

northeastern Oklahoma, with a very small portion in southeastern Kansas.

Central Irregular Plains. The potential natural vegetation of this ecological 

region is a grassland/forest mosaic, with wider forested strips along the streams, 

compared to the Western Corn Belt Plains (47) to the north. This ecoregion is 

limited to eastern Oklahoma and Kansas.

Western Corn Belt Plains. Once mostly covered with tall-grass prairie, over 

80 percent of the Western Corn Belt Plains is now cropland, and much of the 

remainder is forage for livestock. This ecoregion is limited to a portion of 

northeastern Kansas and southeastern Nebraska.

The Southern Great Plains REA—Pre-Assessment Report (Assal et al. 2015) 

area encompasses nearly 180 million acres in the south-central United States, in 

portions of five states: the northern Texas panhandle, western Oklahoma, 

eastern New Mexico, eastern Colorado, and western Kansas. The area includes 

three EPA Level III ecoregions: the Central Great Plains, the High Plains or 

Western High Plains, and the Southwestern Tablelands. It includes six ecological 

community conservation elements: mixed-grass prairie, short-grass prairie, 

riparian areas and wetlands, playas and saline lakes, lakes and reservoirs, and 

prairie streams and rivers (Assal et al. 2015). 

Oklahoma

Oklahoma’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ODWC 2005) 

identifies and discusses upland habitats in the state. Upland habitats are shortgrass, mixed-grass, and tall-grass prairies, shinnery oak, sand sagebrush, sand 

plum, sumac, and mesquite shrublands. Other examples of upland habitat are 

post oak, blackjack oak, pinyon pine, shortleaf pine, loblolly pine, juniper 

savannahs and woodlands, and oak, hickory, and mixed deciduous forests. These 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-71

habitats are fully described in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy (ODWC 2005).

Kansas

Kansas’s Comprehensive Wildlife Plan (Wasson et al. 2005) identifies and discusses 

upland habitats in the state. These include short-grass, mixed-grass, and tall-grass 

prairies, sand prairie, sandsage shrubland, and deciduous forest. These habitats are 

fully described in the Comprehensive Wildlife Plan (Wasson et al. 2005).

Additionally, the Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory (2012a) maintains a list of 

rare natural plant communities in the state. The inventory includes several 

upland vegetation communities, including varieties of short-grass, mixed-grass, 

and tall-grass prairies, sandsage-grass shrubland associations, and maple, 

basswood, oak, and dogwood forests. 

Texas

The Texas Conservation Action Plan (TPWD 2012a) lists many upland 

vegetation communities in the state, including native grasslands. These habitats 

are fully described in the Conservation Action Plan (TPWD 2012a).

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

No proper functioning condition assessments have been completed in the 

analysis area. Wetlands and riparian areas occur throughout the analysis area 

(Table 3-20, Areas of Riparian or Wetland Vegetation, below), and these 

habitats are discussed generally for the states in the planning area, below. 

Table 3-20

Areas of Riparian or Wetland Vegetation

Total Acres of 

Riparian or 

Wetland

Vegetation in the 

Planning Area

BLMAdministered 

Surface Lands

(Acres)

BLMAdministered 

Federal 

Mineral Estate

(Acres)

BIA-Managed

Tribal and 

Allotted Lands

(Acres)

BIA-Managed

Tribal and Allotted 

Subsurface 

Minerals Estate

(Acres)

11,044,800 1,700* 1,519,900* 34,200 107,700

Sources: BLM GIS 2016; BIA GIS 2016; National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) GIS 2016

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red 

River and the 98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified and mapped when they are surveyed. (No exact 

acreages of federal lands are available at this time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed.) Any such 

survey would be conducted in accordance with applicable law.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (ODWC 2005) 

discusses conservation landscapes, or habitats, in the state. Wetlands and 

riparian areas, as described in the document, are herbaceous wetlands, small 

and large rivers, sloughs, ponds, and sandy-bottom and gravel-bottom streams 

and associated riparian forests, oak and hickory bottomland hardwood forests, 

and limestone caves, seeps, and springs.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

3-72 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Kansas

Kansas’s Comprehensive Wildlife Plan (Wasson et al. 2005) discusses key 

habitats in the state. Wetlands and riparian areas are playa lakes, herbaceous 

wetlands, seeps and springs, small and large rivers, and deciduous floodplain 

forests. Additionally, the Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory (2012a) lists rare 

natural plant communities in the state. The inventory includes many wetland or 

riparian communities, such as freshwater and alkaline wetlands, playas, and 

marshes and willow, cottonwood, oak, hickory, ash, and elm floodplain forests. 

Texas

Wetland and riparian habitats addressed in the Texas Conservation Action Plan 

(TPWD 2012a) are desert cienegas,3 plains playas, forested bottomlands, bogs 

and fens, and freshwater and saltwater marshes. Riparian plant communities in 

Texas are woodlands and forests, dominated by cottonwood, ash, willow, 

hackberry, walnut, sycamore, cypress, and other trees.

Red River Area, Oklahoma/Texas

According to the Texas Conservation Action Plan (TPWD 2012a), the Red 

River area contains periodically flooded or sub-irrigated (i.e., subsurface water 

flooded) woodlands, and forests containing oak, juniper, elm, and other species. 

Associated instream and adjacent wetlands are common. 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

Noxious weeds can directly or indirectly injure or damage crops, livestock, or 

other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, natural resources, or public 

health. Noxious weeds designated by Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas 

are summarized in Table 3-21, below.

Table 3-21

Noxious Weeds Potentially in the Planning Area

Scientific Name 

(Synonym) Common Name

Noxious 

Weeds in 

Oklahoma

Noxious 

Weeds in 

Kansas

Noxious 

Weeds 

in Texas

Noxious 

Weeds in 

Nebraska

Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed — NW — —

Alhagi maurorum (A. 

camelorum)

Camelthorn — — NP —

Alternanthera 

philoxeroides

Alligatorweed — — NP —

Ambrosia grayi Bur ragweed — NW — —

Arundo donax Giant reed — — NP —

Calystegia sepium Hedge bindweed — — NP —

Cardaria draba Hoary cress — NW — —

Cardiospermum 

halicacabum

Balloonvine — — NP —

 

3A spring or marshy area where groundwater bubbles to the surface.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-73

Table 3-21

Noxious Weeds Potentially in the Planning Area

Scientific Name 

(Synonym) Common Name

Noxious 

Weeds in 

Oklahoma

Noxious 

Weeds in 

Kansas

Noxious 

Weeds 

in Texas

Noxious 

Weeds in 

Nebraska

Carduus acanthoides Plumeless thistle — — — NW

C. nutans Musk thistle, nodding 

plumeless thistle

NW NW — —

Centaurea biebersteinii Spotted knapweed — — — NW

C. diffusa Diffuse knapweed — — — NW

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle NW NW — NW

C. vulgare Bull thistle — CO — —

Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed — NW NP —

Cuscuta japonica Japanese dodder — — NP —

Eichhornia azurea Rooted 

waterhyacinth

— — NP —

E. crassipes Floating water 

hyacinth

— — NP —

Elymus repens

(Agropyron r.)

Quackgrass — NW — —

Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge — NW — NW

Hoffmannseggia glauca Pignut, hog potato — NW — —

Hydrilla verticillata Hydrilla — — NP —

Ipomoea aquatica Water spinach — — NP —

Lagarosiphon major Lagarosiphon — — NP —

Landoltia punctata

(Spirodelta oligorrhiza)

Giant duckweed — — NP —

Lespedeza cuneata Chinese lespedeza — NW — —

Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife — — NP NW

Melaleuca quinquenervia Paperbark — — NP —

Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil — — NP —

Nassella trichotoma Serrated tussock — — NP —

Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle NW — — —

Orobanche ramosa Branched broomrape — — NP —

Panicum repens Torpedograss — — NP —

Pistia stratiotes Waterlettuce — — NP —

Pueraria lobata Kudzu — NW NP —

Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose — CO — —

Rottboellia 

cochinchinensis

Itchgrass — — NP —

Salvinia spp. Salvinia — — NP —

Schinus terebinthifolus Brazilian peppertree — — NP —

Solanum viarum Tropical soda apple — — NP —

Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass — NW — —

Tamarix spp. Saltcedar — — NP NW
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

3-74 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-21

Noxious Weeds Potentially in the Planning Area

Scientific Name 

(Synonym) Common Name

Noxious 

Weeds in 

Oklahoma

Noxious 

Weeds in 

Kansas

Noxious 

Weeds 

in Texas

Noxious 

Weeds in 

Nebraska

Triadica sebifera (Sapium 

sebiferum)

Chinese tallow tree — — NP —

Sources: NRCS 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d; Kansas Department of Agriculture 2014; Oklahoma State University 

2012

Noxious weed codes: 

NW—Oklahoma, Kansas, or Nebraska noxious weed

NP—Texas noxious plant 

CO—Kansas county option (each county in the state has the option to list the weed as noxious).

In addition to noxious weeds, other invasive plants can be problematic. Many 

invasive plants were formerly planted forage species that are now recognized as 

invasive (Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council 2014); as such, they are now 

widespread due to ranching and grazing. Many of these species have the ability 

to displace native plants (Kansas Native Plant Society 2006) and have apparent, 

substantial, or severe ecological impacts (Texas Invasive Plant and Pest Council 

2011). Table 3-22, below, summarizes invasive plants that could occur in the 

planning area. Not all of the invasive plants listed in the table necessarily occur 

in the planning area, though all have the potential to occur in portions of it, 

depending on soil, disturbance, and hydrologic regimes and current and past 

land uses.

The Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council maintains a list of problem and watch list 

species that pose a potential threat of invasion in the state (Oklahoma Invasive 

Plant Council 2014). It is based on a 2009 invasive plant audit for Oklahoma 

conducted by The Nature Conservancy (Pruett 2009). These invasive plants are 

in addition to the Oklahoma-, Kansas-, and Texas-listed noxious weeds

described above.

Table 3-22

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants Potentially Found in the Planning Area

Scientific Name Common Name Status1

Acer ginnala Amur maple NE-2

Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed NE-2

Ailanthus altissima Tree of heaven OK-WL, TX-Mod

Alliaria petiolata Common garlic-mustard KS-Inv, NE-2

Albizia julibrissin Mimosa, silk tree OK-PS

Alternanthera philoxeroides Alligator weed OK-PS, TX-Mod

Arundo donax Giant reed OK-WL, TX-High, NE-1

Bothriochloa bladhii Caucasian bluestem OK-PS, KS-Inv, NE-2

B. ishaemum Yellow bluestem, OK-PS, KS-Inv, NE-2

Bromus inermus Smooth brome KS-Inv

B. japonicus Japanese brome OK-PS, KS-Inv
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-75

Table 3-22

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants Potentially Found in the Planning Area

Scientific Name Common Name Status1

B. racemosus Meadow brome OK-PS

B. tectorum Cheatgrass OK-PS, KS-Inv

Broussonetia papyrifera Paper mulberry OK-WL, TX-Mod

Carduus nutans Musk thistle, nodding plumeless thistle OK-PS, KS-Inv

Centaurea melitensis Malta star-thistle TX-Mod

C. moncktonii Black knapweed NE-2

C. solstitialis Yellow star-thistle KS-Inv, NE-2

Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental bittersweet NE-1

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle OK-PS, KS-Inv 

C. vulgare Bull thistle OK-PS

Clematis terniflora Sweet autumn virgin’s-bower NE-2

Colocasia esculenta Elephant ears TX-Mod

Conium maculatum Poison hemlock OK-PS

Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed OK-PS, KS-Inv

Cryptostegia grandiflora Palay rubbervine TX-High

Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass TX-Mod

Cynoglossum officinale Houndstongue NE-2

Cyperus rotundus Nut grass OK-WL

Dipsacus fullonum Fuller’s teasel KS-Inv

D. lacinatus Cut-leaf teasel KS-Inv, NE-2

Egeria densa Brazilian water weed OK-WL

Eichhornia crassipes Water hyacinth OK-WL, TX-High, NE-1

Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive OK-WL, KS-Inv

E. pungens Thorny olive OK-WL

E. umbellatum Autumn olive OK-WL, KS-Inv

Erodium cicutarium Red stem stork’s bill OK-WL

Euonymus fortune Chinese spindle-tree KS-Inv

Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge KS-Inv

Falcaria vulgaris Sickleweed NE-2

Firmiana simplex Chinese parasoltree TX-Mod

Galega officinalis Goat’s-rue NE-2

Galium verum Yellow bedstraw NE-2

Hydrilla verticillata Hydrilla OK-PS, TX-High, NE-1

Hypericum perforatum St. John’s wort NE-2

Imperata cylindrical Cogongrass TX-High

Kochia scoparia Fireweed OK-PS

Lespedeza cuneata Sericea lespedeza OK-PS, KS-Inv

Ligustrum japonicum Japanese privet OK-WL, TX-Mod

L. lucidum Glossy privet TX-High

L. sinense Chinese privet OK-PS

Lolium arundinaceum Tall fescue OK-WL

L. pretense Meadow ryegrass OK-WL

L. temulentum Darnel ryegrass OK-WL

Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle OK-PS, KS-Inv, NE-2

L. mackii Bush honeysuckle OK-WL, KS-Inv
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

3-76 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-22

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants Potentially Found in the Planning Area

Scientific Name Common Name Status1

L. tatarica Tatarian honeysuckle KS-Inv

Lygodium japonicum Japanese climbing fern OK-WL, TX-High

Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife OK-PS, KS-Inv

Macfadyena unquis-cati Catclaw vine TX-Mod

Melia azedarach Chinaberry tree OK-WL, TX-High

Microstegium vimineum Nepalese browntop OK-PS

Mililotus officinalis Yellow sweet clover OK-WL

Myriophyllum aquaticum Parrot’s feather OK-PS, TX-High

M. spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil OK-PS, KS-Inv, NE-2

Najas minor Brittle naiad NE-1

Nandina domestica Heavenly bamboo TX-Mod

Paulownia tomentosa Princess tree OK-WL

Perilla frutescens Beefsteak plant OK-PS

Phyllostachys aurea Golden bamboo TX-High

Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistache TX-Mod

Potentilla recta Sulphur cinquefoil OK-PS

Pueraria lobata Kudzu OK-PS, TX-High, NE-2

Pyracantha coccinea Scarlet firethorn TX-Mod

Pyrus calleryana Callery pear OK-WL

Rapistrum rugosum Bastard cabbage TX-High

Rhamnus cathartica Common buckthorn KS-Inv

Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose OK-PS, KS-Inv

Saccharum ravennae Revennagrass OK-PS

Salsola tragus Russian thistle, tumbleweed OK-PS

Salvinia molesta Giant salvinia NE-1

Schedonorus arundinaceus Tall mountain-fescue KS-Inv

S. pratensis Meadow mountain-fescue KS-Inv

Securigera varia Common crown-vetch KS-Inv, NE-2

Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass OK-PS, KS-Inv, TX-High

Tamarix chinensis Chinese salt cedar OK-PS

T. parviflora Small-flowered tamarisk OK-PS, KS-Inv

T. ramosissima Salt cedar, tamarisk OK-PS, KS-Inv, TX-High

Triadica sebifera (Sapium sebiferum) Chinese tallow tree TX-Mod

Ulmus pumila Siberian elm OK-WL

Verbascum thapsus Common mullein OK-PS

Sources: Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council 2014; Kansas Native Plant Society 2006; Texas Invasive Plant and Pest 

Council 2011; Nebraska Weed Control Association 2014 

1

Status Codes: 

OK-PS—Oklahoma problem species

OK-WL—Oklahoma watch list species

KS-Inv—Kansas invasive weed

TX-Mod—Texas moderate rated

TX-High—Texas high rated

NE-1—Invasive plant not currently documented in Nebraska but would pose a significant risk if introduced

NE-2—Top priority invasive species
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-77

The Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council lists 32 problem species and 21 watch list 

species (see Table 3-22). Additionally, the Council maintains a list of noxious 

weeds and invasive plants in states bordering Oklahoma: Kansas, Missouri, 

Arkansas, Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado. This list can be found on the 

Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council noxious weed and invasive plant database 

(Oklahoma Invasive Plant Council 2014).

The Kansas Native Plant Society maintains an invasive plant list for the state 

(Kansas Native Plant Society 2006). These invasive species are in addition to the 

state-listed noxious weeds summarized above. The Kansas Native Plant Society 

lists 30 of the most invasive plant species in the state (see Table 3-22).

The Nebraska Weed Control Association maintains a watch list for invasive 

plant species by ecoregion in Nebraska; these invasive species are in addition to 

the state-listed noxious weeds summarized in Table 3-22 (Nebraska Weed 

Control Association 2014). There are 25 category 1 and 2 invasive plants listed 

for regions of Nebraska containing the planning area.

The Texas Invasive Plant Inventory (Texas Invasive Plant and Pest Council 2011) 

categorizes invasive plants that threaten the state’s wildlands. Categorization is 

based on an assessment of the ecological impacts of each plant. The inventory 

lists 29 species and assigns a ranking to each, based on the level of threat to the 

ecological health of wildlands presented by each species. Threat is determined 

by evaluating that species’ ecological impact, its ability to invade natural 

vegetation communities, and the current extent of invasion. Moderate-rated 

species can have a substantial and apparent ecological impact on physical 

processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. High-rated 

species can have severe ecological impacts on these systems. Texas moderateand high-rated invasive species are listed in Table 3-22, above.

Though many noxious weeds and invasive plants have been documented in or 

have the potential to occur in the planning area, certain key species present 

management challenges on BLM-administered lands there. Historically, native 

grassland (prairie) ecosystems were maintained by naturally occurring or 

managed low-intensity fire and grazing by native herbivores (Assal et al. 2015). 

Fires restricted the extent of native invasive woody shrubs, including eastern 

redcedar (Juniperus virginiana) and mesquite (Prosopis spp.). Fires removed 

seedlings and saplings, while native grassland plants and perennial grasses 

survived, because they are adapted to frequent, low-severity fires (Barbour et al. 

1999, in Assal et al. 2015). 

Woodlands have now expanded at the expense of native prairie grasslands, as a 

result of altered fire regimes and fire suppression, livestock grazing, climate 

change, and removal of native herbivores (Weltzin et al. 1997). These invasive 

woody species have been documented on BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

3-78 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

One non-woody noxious weed is also especially problematic in the region. Musk 

thistle (Carduus nutans) is extremely prolific and invades native meadows and 

grasslands. Because it is unpalatable to cattle, selective grazing leads to severe 

degradation of native vegetation and a competitive advantage to musk thistle. 

Musk thistle has been documented in BLM-administered lands in the planning area.

In riparian systems, flow regime alterations and soil disturbance facilitate 

invasion by the noxious weed salt cedar (Tamarix spp.). Tamarisk growth further 

alters water and nutrient availability, reduces habitat for sensitive wildlife, and 

facilitates fires and floods. 

Special Status Plant Species

Federally and state-listed plant species documented in or with the potential to 

occur in the planning area are listed in Table 3-23, below; key species for the 

planning area are described in detail.

Table 3-23

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

in the Planning Area

Scientific Name (Synonym) Common Name Federal 

Status1

State Status1

(State where 

Listed)

Abronia macrocarpa Largefruit sand verbena E SE (TX)

Ambrosia cheiranthifolia Rio Grande ragweed E SE (TX)

Asclepias meadii Mead’s milkweed T

Astrophytum asterias Sanddollar E SE (TX)

Ayenia limitaris Rio Grande ayenia E SE (TX)

Callirhoe scabriuscula Texas poppymallow E SE (TX)

Coryphantha ramillosa Whiskerbush T ST (TX)

Cryptantha crassipes Terlingua Creek cryptantha E SE (TX)

Echinocereus chisoensis var. c Chisos Mountain hedgehog cactus T ST (TX)

E. fendleri ssp. fendleri (E. f. var.

kuenzleri)

Pinkflower hedgehog cactus E

E. reichenbachii ssp. fitchii (E. r. var. 

albertii)

Fitch’s hedgehog cactus E SE (TX)

E. viridiflorus var. davisii Davis’ hedgehog cactus E SE (TX)

Echinomastus mariposensis (Neolloydia 

m.)

Lloyd’s fishhook cactus T ST (TX)

Escobaria minima (Coryphantha m.) Nellie cory cactus E SE (TX)

E. sneedii var. sneedii (Coryphantha s.) Sneed’s pincushion cactus E SE (TX)

Festuca ligulata Guadalupe fescue C

Frankenia johnstonii Johnston’s seaheath E SE (TX)

Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis Colorado butterfly plant T

Geocarpon minimum Tinytim T

Helianthus paradoxus Paradox sunflower T ST (TX)

Hibiscus dasycalyx Neches River rose-mallow T

Hoffmannseggia tenella Slender rushpea E SE (TX)
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-79

Table 3-23

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

in the Planning Area

Scientific Name (Synonym) Common Name Federal 

Status1

State Status1

(State where 

Listed)

Hymenoxys texana Prairiedawn E SE (TX)

Leavenworthia texana Texas golden gladecress E

Lesquerella pallida White bladderpod E SE (TX)

L. thamnophila Zapata bladderpod E SE (TX)

Manihot walkerae Walker’s manihot E SE (TX)

Penstemon haydenii Blowout beardtongue E SE (NE)

Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis Texan phlox E SE (TX)

Platanthera leucophaea Eastern prairie fringed orchid T ST (OK)

P. praeclara Western prairie fringed orchid T ST (OK, NE)

Potamogeton clystocarpus Little aguja pondweed E SE (TX)

Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella E E (OK)

Quercus hinckleyi Hinckley oak T ST (TX)

Schwalbea americana Chaffseed E

Sclerocactus brevihamatus ssp. tobuschii 

(Ancistrocactus t.)

Shorthook fishhook cactus E SE (TX)

Spiranthes diluvialis Ute ladies’-tresses T ST (NE)

Spiranthes parksii Navasota lady’s tresses E SE (TX)

Streptanthus bracteatus Bracted twistflower C

Styrax platanifolius ssp. texanus (S. t.) Texas snowbell E SE (TX)

Thymophylla tephroleuca Ashy pricklyleaf E SE (TX)

Trifolium stoloniferum Running buffalo clover E

Zizania texana Texas wildrice E SE (TX)

Source: NRCS 2014e, 2014f, 2014g, 2015c

1

Status Codes: 

E—Federal Endangered, T—Federal Threatened, C—Federal Candidate

SE—State Endangered, ST—State Threatened 

Several key special status plant species are described below. While this is not an 

official designation, these species are relatively important in the planning area for 

several reasons. They occur in native prairie grasslands (eastern and western 

prairie fringed orchids) and riparian areas (harperella), which are some of the 

most threatened habitats in the planning area. These species have the potential 

to occur in portions of the planning area—the Central Great Plains ecoregion—

where most of the BLM-administered and BIA-managed surface lands are 

located. Finally, these species are the only threatened or endangered species

listed by the State of Oklahoma, which is where most BLM activities in the 

planning area occur.4

 

4George Thomas, BLM, personal communication via e-mail with Kevin Rice, EMPSi, regarding special status species

list and definition, February 13, 2015.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

3-80 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea), Federal

Threatened, State Threatened (Oklahoma). This is a perennial herb in 

the orchid family (Orchidaceae) that flowers in late June or early July. Plants 

grow from an underground tuber and regenerate vegetatively through the tuber 

rootstock and buds and by seed. Successful seedling establishment requires 

development of a mycorrhizal association with a favorable soil-inhabiting fungus. 

Disturbance, either from animals or the death of other plants, appears to be 

important in seedling establishment (USFWS 1999). Occasionally, plants will 

enter dormancy and not emerge aboveground during the growing season 

(Bowles et al. 1992). Dormancy in this species is not well understood (USFWS 

1999). Eastern prairie fringed orchid occurs in a wide variety of habitats, from 

mesic prairie to wetland communities, such as sedge meadows, marsh edges, 

and even bogs, with sunny open conditions (USFWS 1999). The species 

formerly occurred from eastern Iowa, Missouri, and Oklahoma, eastward across 

southern Wisconsin, northern and central Illinois, southern Michigan, northern 

Indiana and Ohio, and northwestern Pennsylvania to western New York and 

southern Ontario. Disjunct populations also occurred in New Jersey, Virginia, 

and Maine.

Eastern prairie fringed orchid has declined more than 70 percent from original 

county records in the United States; at the time of listing 59 populations were 

extant in 6 states (USFWS 1999). The species’ distribution has not changed 

appreciably since 1991 (USFWS 2010). Declines in populations have mainly been 

due to conversion of habitat to cropland and pasture (USFWS 1999). Remaining 

populations continue to be threatened by succession to woody vegetation, 

competition from invasive species, pesticide impacts on pollinators, overcollection, drainage and development of wetland habitats, and climate change

(USFWS 1999, 2010). 

Western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara), Federal

Threatened, State Threatened (Oklahoma, Nebraska). This is a terrestrial 

perennial herb in the family Orchidaceae that flowers from mid-June to late July. 

Plants grow from an underground tuber and regenerate vegetatively through the 

tuber rootstock and buds, as well as via seed. Successful seedling establishment 

requires development of a mycorrhizal association with a favorable soil-inhabiting 

fungus. Dormancy in the species generally lasts between 1 and 3 years (Sather 

1997, as referenced in USFWS 2009a), though more than half of dormancy 

episodes are less than 1-year long (Quintana-Ascencio et al. 2004, as referenced in 

USFWS 2009a). 

Western prairie fringed orchid is known to occur only west of the Mississippi 

River. It occurs most often in unplowed, calcareous, tallgrass prairie and sedge 

meadows and also in disturbed sites, including borrow pits, previously cultivated 

fields, and roadside ditches (USFWS 1996). Extant populations in eastern Kansas 

occur in mesic (moderately moist) to wet-mesic upland prairies. It was found 

historically along the floodplains of several larger rivers (USFWS 1996; Freeman 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-81

and Brooks 1989, as referenced in USFWS 2009a). Although moist soil near the 

ground surface is critical to maintain western prairie fringed orchid populations, 

standing water may adversely affect populations, depending on the depth and 

duration of flooding (USFWS 2009a). Drought has significant and, in some cases, 

widespread impacts on western prairie fringed orchid flowering and survival 

(USFWS 2009a). Threats identified are conversion of habitat to cropland, 

overgrazing, invasive species, over-collection, climate change, and herbicide and 

pesticide impacts on the plant and its pollinators (USFWS 2009a).

Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum), Federal Endangered, State 

Endangered (Oklahoma). This is an annual aquatic herb in the carrot family 

(Apiaceae) that blooms from May to October. Harperella occurs in seasonally

flooded rocky streams and coastal plain ponds. Population sizes may vary 

dramatically from year to year in response to water levels (USFWS 1990). Only 

45 occurrences in 24 watersheds are known, with the largest concentration 

found along the Maryland/West Virginia border and in Arkansas. Around 25 

percent of known occurrences have not been seen in 20 years (Oklahoma 

Biological Survey 2013).

In Oklahoma, harperella occurs in the southeastern portion of the state in

riverine habitat and includes two stands of approximately 500 plants). Threats to 

the species are fluctuating water levels from dredging; dam and reservoir 

construction and wetland draining; reductions in water quality from pollution, 

algae, erosion, and siltation from logging and road construction; and invasive. 

Specific threats in Oklahoma are increased siltation from timber harvesting, runoff 

from ranching and poultry farming, the possibility of out-of-state water transfers, 

and recreation). The region has experienced drought conditions since 2010, 

which could eventually affect river flow. (Oklahoma Biological Survey 2013)

Additional Rare Plant Species 

In addition to federally and state-listed species, the Oklahoma Natural Heritage 

Inventory maintains a list of Oklahoma rare and vulnerable plant species 

(Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory 2005). Similarly, the Kansas Natural 

Heritage Inventory maintains a list of Kansas rare plants (Kansas Natural 

Heritage Inventory 2012b). Nearly 400 species, in addition to the three federally 

listed species, are on the Kansas tracking list. Each species is assigned a global 

and state conservation status rank, based on the NatureServe system 

(NatureServe undated). 

Neither Oklahoma nor Kansas lists special status plant species in their 

respective wildlife action plans (ODWC 2005; Wasson et al. 2005). The Texas 

Conservation Action Plan (TPWD 2012a) lists 445 plant species of greatest 

conservation need (inclusive of federally and state-listed species).
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

3-82 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Trends

Upland Vegetation

Upland vegetation in the analysis area has been heavily impacted by human 

settlement and associated development, agricultural conversion, grazing, 

woodland and invasive species spread and altered fire regimes. 

Native grassland systems in particular are considered one of the most at-risk 

habitats in the analysis area (Assal et al. 2015). Short-grass, mixed-grass, and tallgrass prairie in the analysis area have been converted into a mosaic of cultivated 

croplands, prairie remnants, and expanding woodlands (Samson and Knopf 

1994). In the southern Great Plains ecoregion, approximately 40 to 90 percent 

of mixed-grass and 50 to 75 percent of short-grass prairie has been under 

cultivation at some point since European settlement (Bragg and Steuter 1996; 

Weaver et al. 1996). 

Most areas of the prairie that have not been cultivated are grazed by domestic 

cattle. The impacts of grazing and grazing management on plant and animal 

communities can include loss of riparian vegetation, removal of vegetation 

cover, and dispersal of seeds from invasive plant species (Chaney et al. 1990; 

Vavra et al. 2007); however, grazing can produce a grassland vegetation 

structure preferred by some avian species. Grazing lands are often positively 

associated with bird presence, particularly if the intensity of grazing pressure is 

varied to increase landscape heterogeneity (Derner et al. 2009). 

The frequency and extent of fire in these systems has dramatically declined as a 

result of fire suppression and fuels reduction due to grazing. This can give rise 

to changes in the plant community and invasions of native or nonnative species, 

including juniper, mesquite, and eastern redcedar (Bidwell et al. 1996; Weaver 

et al. 1996). 

Many land managers across the southern Great Plains ecoregion have restored 

the historical disturbance processes in prairie management by using fire, grazing, 

or both (Assal et al. 2015). When well-managed, these processes can mitigate 

adverse impacts by benefitting species composition and diversity, primary 

productivity, and habitat structure and by helping to control invasive plant 

species (Brudvig et al. 2007).

Prairie restoration vegetation treatments are ongoing on the BLM Cross Bar 

Management Area in Texas. Native and invasive woody shrubs, including 

mesquite and salt cedar are being treated by spot and broadcast herbicide 

application (BLM 2011), mechanical treatments (2011), and prescribed burning 

(BLM 2015h).

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Wetlands in the planning area are generally under the jurisdiction of the USACE 

regulatory division. USACE is responsible for protecting aquatic resources, 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-83

including wetlands, in the planning area, while allowing reasonable development 

through informed permit decisions. Wetlands at the highest risk may be those 

considered by the USACE to be nonjurisdictional and isolated. These are not 

protected under any federal regulation and typically are unique and are some of 

the most important wetlands, disconnected from river and stream systems as 

stand-alone features; examples are playas, some bogs, and fens. 

Generally, wetland permit decisions issued by the USACE are not valid until 

certified by the state in which the permit is issued. In Oklahoma, the 

Department of Environmental Quality has regulatory authority over such permit 

decisions. In Kansas, the Department of Agriculture – Division of Water 

Resources and in Texas, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality have 

regulatory authority. Wetlands that the USACE considers to be 

nonjurisdictional and isolated may also be under the jurisdiction of these state 

agencies. 

Riparian areas throughout the analysis area are fertile and often are valued as 

prime farmland. Many riparian areas on nonfederal lands have been cleared for 

use as pastureland or for row crops or other agricultural activities. Many of 

these activities use fertilizers and pesticides, increasing the potential for both 

groundwater and surface water pollution. Developers of private lands often 

consider riparian areas as prime waterfront property. Urban encroachment, 

channelization, and other water resource development have contributed to the 

destruction and alteration of native riparian areas. Additionally, hydrology in 

many of the major streams in the region has been altered, as a result of 

impoundments, withdrawals, and adjacent upland land use changes. 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

Invasive plants are generally spreading or increasing in density in some parts of 

the planning area, especially in oil and gas fields, along roadways, transmission 

lines, and other ROWs, and at the margins of agricultural operations. Typically, 

as ground disturbance increases in areas of known populations, the likelihood 

that invasive plants would move into this disturbance area increases. Noxious 

weeds and native, invasive species have been documented on BLM-administered 

lands in the planning area, as discussed above. These weeds will continue to be 

treated in accordance with applicable land use planning documents and 

regulations.

Efforts have limited the spread and reduced the size of invasive plant 

populations in other areas. Such efforts are spot treating noxious weeds, 

applying herbicide before seeding, mowing or Dixie harrowing and seeding, 

using prescribed fire, and follow-up seeding with native species post-treatment. 

Special Status Plant Species

Special status plant habitat, particularly native prairie grassland, shrubland, 

wetland, and riparian habitats, have been impacted by similar land uses, as 

described above. These land uses are development, agricultural conversion, 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Vegetation)

3-84 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

grazing, woodland and invasive species spread, altered fire regimes, and drought 

and other climate change-related effects.

3.2.6 Fish and Wildlife

Current Condition

Fisheries

The BLM manages subsurface minerals for reservoirs throughout Kansas, 

Oklahoma, and Texas and small isolated tracts of surface estate that overlap or 

border fish-bearing streams. These lands contain a diverse assortment of game 

and nongame fish species. 

Common fish species found throughout the planning area are largemouth bass 

(Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (M. dolomieui), spotted bass (M. 

punctulatus), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), white bass (M. chrysops), channel 

catfish (Ictalurus punchtatus), blue catfish (I. furcatus), flathead catfish (Pylodictis 

olivaris), walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), black 

crappie (P. nigromaculatus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), green sunfish (L. 

cyanellus), and redear sunfish (L. microlophus).

The BLM does not manage fish populations or habitat for reservoirs in the 

planning area; instead, state wildlife departments manage these populations and 

habitat, in coordination with the surface owner or land manager.

Great Plains stream fishes evolved under connected riverscapes characterized 

by fluctuating environmental conditions, including frequent disturbance regimes 

such as floods and droughts; however, current riverscapes in this region are 

highly fragmented and are characterized by regulated stream flows with 

dampened flooding (Perkin et al. 2014). 

Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), an invasive species, have been found in 

Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. They are known to inhabit planning area 

waterways, such as Lake Texoma, Lake Belton, Lake Stillhouse Hollow, Lake 

Georgetown, Canyon Lake, Lake Lewisville, Lake Bridgeport, Ray Roberts Lake, 

Lavon Lake, Waco Lake, Benton Lake, Kaw Lake, Keystone Lake, Eufaula Lake, 

Oologah Lake, McClellan-Kerr Navigation System, Clinton Lake, Council Grove 

Lake, El Dorado Reservoir, John Redmond Reservoir, Kanopolis Lake, Marion 

Lake, Melvern Lake, Milford Lake, Perry Lake, Pomona Lake, and Wilson Lake;

they are also found in various streams and rivers (USGS 2015d; Kansas 

Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism 2014). Zebra mussels may affect 

native aquatic biota by altering food web dynamics and competing with native 

mussels (TPWD 2010). 

Other aquatic nuisance species of significance that occur in the planning area are 

the plants hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) and golden algae (Prymnesium parvum). 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Fish and Wildlife)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-85

Wildlife

Upland Game

Important upland game species in the planning area are bobwhite quail (Colinus 

virginianus), scaled quail (Callipepla squamata), greater prairie-chicken 

(Tympanuchus cupido), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), mourning dove (Zenaida 

macroura), white-winged dove (Z. asiatica), and chachalacas (Ortalis vetula). In 

addition, the ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), an invasive species, is an 

important game bird in the region.

Big Game

Big game species in the planning area are white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus), mule deer (O. hemionus), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), javelina 

(Tayassu tajacu), black bear (Ursus americanus), and elk (Cervus elaphus). 

Distribution and abundance of big game species varies by habitat type and 

ecoregion. White-tailed deer, mule deer, pronghorn, and elk are found in all 

four states in the planning area, whereas the javelina range is restricted to 

Texas. 

Small Mammals

Bats are found throughout the planning area, with approximately 22 species in 

Oklahoma, 31 in Texas, and 15 in Kansas (Kansas State University Agricultural 

Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service 2005; ODWC 2014; 

TPWD 2007). Roost sites are widely distributed and include rock crevices, 

trees, caves, buildings, and bridges. The location and distribution of cave and 

karst resources in the decision area are described under Section 3.2.12. Whitenose syndrome—a fungal disease that affects hibernating bats—was detected in 

bats in early 2015. 

Terrestrial mammals, such as squirrels, cottontails, mice, raccoons, bobcats, and 

coyotes, are also common throughout much of the decision area. In 

southeastern Oklahoma, Clark et al. (1998) found that relative abundances of all 

small mammals were significantly greater in fencerows, in lowland prairie, and in 

lowland prairie with more forbs and shrubs than upland prairie. 

Amphibians and Reptiles

A rich diversity of amphibians and reptiles is found throughout the decision 

area. Aquatic environments, such as streams and reservoirs with subsurface 

BLM management, provide habitat for numerous species of turtles, frogs, 

salamanders, skinks, snakes, toads, and other amphibians and reptiles. 

Invasive Wildlife 

Feral hogs (Sus scrofa) occur throughout much of the planning area, with 

populations concentrated in Texas and Oklahoma. In Texas, feral hogs generally 

inhabit white-tailed deer range, with the highest population densities occurring 

in eastern, southern, and central Texas. The species inhabits most of Oklahoma, 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Fish and Wildlife)

3-86 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

with the exception of the panhandle region. Feral hogs can damage wetlands and 

riparian areas by excessive rooting and wallowing (TPWD 2016). 

Invertebrates

Invertebrates in the planning area are arthropods, crustaceans, isopods, 

hexapods, beetles, bees, wasps, flies, butterflies, moths, skippers, damselflies, 

dragonflies, grasshoppers, katydids, crickets, caddisflies, millipedes, bivalves, 

gastropods, and planarians. The planning area is also part of the Monarch flyway 

which spans from overwintering sites in Mexico to the northern US and Canada.

Stopover sites along this flyway are important for successful migration.

Areas such as the Blue River and Mountain Fork River in Oklahoma provide 

habitat for diverse groups of aquatic invertebrates. 

Pollinators

Pollinators such as bees, butterflies, moths, flies, bats, hummingbirds, and beetles 

occur throughout the planning area, and contribute to the food production 

systems and economic vitality of the agricultural sector (USDA 2015). 

Pollination and the formation of viable seed are critical to native plan 

persistence and propagation. Commonly found native plants for pollinators in 

the planning area include but are not limited to Helianthus spp., Aster spp., 

Baptisia spp., and Asclepias spp (Redhage and McDermott 2015).

Migratory Birds

Lands within the decision area are used for nesting and foraging grounds by 

large numbers of migratory birds.

5 There are over 60 breeding bird survey 

routes in Oklahoma and in Kansas and approximately 200 in Texas (Pardieck et 

al. 2014). Data are available online by survey route at 

https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS/PublicDataInterface/index.cfm. The planning area 

occurs in the Central Flyway for migratory birds, which includes the following 

US states: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, 

Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico. This Flyway, which is one of four 

designated flyways in the US, is based on migration paths as birds move between 

nesting and wintering areas.

The 2008 USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern report identifies migratory 

nongame birds that, without additional conservation action, are likely to become 

candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2008a). For 

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, a total of 117 birds are on this list from ten 

regions. 

The regions in Kansas are short-grass prairie, central mixed-grass prairie, and 

eastern tall-grass prairie. In Oklahoma, the regions are short-grass prairie, 

central mixed-grass prairie, oaks and prairies, eastern tall-grass prairie, 

 

5Migratory bird survey data are collected by the USGS Wildlife Research Center in Patuxent, Maryland.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Fish and Wildlife)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-87

Mississippi alluvial valley, and west Gulf coastal plain. In Texas, the regions are 

short-grass prairie, central mixed-grass prairie, Chihuahuan desert, Edwards 

plateau, oaks and prairies, west Gulf coastal plain, Tamaulipan brushlands, and 

Gulf coastal prairie (USFWS 2008a). Table 3-24, below, shows the birds of 

conservation concern in each region.

Table 3-24

USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern

Bird of Conservation 

Concern

Shortgrass PrairieCentral MixedGrass PrairieEdwards PlateauOaks and PrairiesEastern Tallgrass PrairieMississippi Alluvial PlanWest Gulf Coastal PlainChihuahuan DesertTamaulipan Brushlands Gulf-Coastal Prairie

Acadian flycatcher x

Altamira oriole x

American bittern x x x

American kestrel x

American oystercatcher x

Audubon’s oriole x

Audubon’s shearwater x

Bachman’s sparrow x

Baird’s sparrow x

Bald eagle x x x x x x x x x

Band-rumped storm-petrel x

Bell’s vireo x x x x x x

Bendire’s thrasher x

Bewick’s wren x x

Black rail x x x x x

Black skimmer x

Black tern x

Black-billed cuckoo x

Black-chinned sparrow x

Black-crowned night-heron x

Blue-winged warbler x

Botteri’s sparrow x

Brown-headed nuthatch x

Buff-bellied hummingbird x

Buff-breasted sandpiper x x x x x x

Burrowing owl x x x

Cassin’s sparrow x x x

Cerulean warbler x x x

Chestnut-collared longspur x x x x x

Chuck-will’s widow x

Colima warbler x

Common black-hawk x
3. Affected Environment (BLM Fish and Wildlife)

3-88 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-24

USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern

Bird of Conservation 

Concern

Shortgrass PrairieCentral MixedGrass PrairieEdwards PlateauOaks and PrairiesEastern Tallgrass PrairieMississippi Alluvial PlanWest Gulf Coastal PlainChihuahuan DesertTamaulipan Brushlands Gulf-Coastal Prairie

Common tern x

Curve-billed Thrasher x

Dickcissel x x x x

Elf owl x x

Ferruginous hawk x

Field sparrow x

Flammulated owl x

Golden eagle x x

Grace’s warbler x

Grasshopper sparrow x x

Gray vireo x x

Green parakeet x

Gull-billed tern x x

Harris’s hawk x

Harris’s sparrow x x x

Henslow’s sparrow x x x x x x

Hooded oriole x

Horned grebe x

Hudsonian godwit x x x x x x

Kentucky warbler x x x

Lark bunting x x x x

Least bittern x x x x

Least tern x

Leconte’s sparrow x x

Lesser prairie-chicken x x

Lesser yellowlegs x x

Lewis’s woodpecker x

Little blue heron x x x

Loggerhead shrike x x x x x x

Long-billed curlew x x x x x x x

Louisiana waterthrush x

Lucifer hummingbird x

Marbled godwit x x x x

McCown’s longspur x x x x

Mississippi kite x

Mountain plover x x x x x x

Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow x

Northern beardless-tyrannulet x
3. Affected Environment (BLM Fish and Wildlife)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-89

Table 3-24

USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern

Bird of Conservation 

Concern

Shortgrass PrairieCentral MixedGrass PrairieEdwards PlateauOaks and PrairiesEastern Tallgrass PrairieMississippi Alluvial PlanWest Gulf Coastal PlainChihuahuan DesertTamaulipan Brushlands Gulf-Coastal Prairie

Northern flicker x

Orchard oriole x x x x x

Painted bunting x x x x x

Peregrine falcon x x x x x x

Pied-billed Grebe x

Prairie falcon x

Prairie warbler x

Prothonotary warbler x x x x

Red knot x x

Red-billed pigeon x

Red-crowned parrot x

Reddish egret x

Red-faced warbler x

Red-headed woodpecker x x x x x

Rose-throated becard x

Rufous-crowned sparrow x

Rusty blackbird x

Sandwich tern x

Scissor-tailed flycatcher x x

Seaside sparrow x

Sedge wren x x

Short-billed dowitcher x x x x

Short-eared owl x x x

Smith’s longspur x x x x

Snowy plover x x x x x

Solitary sandpiper x x x x x

Sprague’s pipit x x x x x x x

Summer tanager x

Swainson’s hawk x x

Swainson’s warbler x x x x

Swallow-tailed kite x x x x

Tropical parula x

Upland sandpiper x x x x x x

Varied bunting x x

Verdin x

Virginia’s warbler x

Whimbrel x x

Whip-poor-will x
3. Affected Environment (BLM Fish and Wildlife)

3-90 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-24

USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern

Bird of Conservation 

Concern

Shortgrass PrairieCentral MixedGrass PrairieEdwards PlateauOaks and PrairiesEastern Tallgrass PrairieMississippi Alluvial PlanWest Gulf Coastal PlainChihuahuan DesertTamaulipan Brushlands Gulf-Coastal Prairie

White-collared seedeater x

White-tailed hawk x

Willow flycatcher x

Wilson’s plover x

Wood thrush x x x

Worm-eating warbler x

Yellow rail x x x

Yellow warbler x

Yellow-billed cuckoo x

Source: USFWS 2008a

The 2016 Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan (Rosenberg et al. 2016) 

identifies migratory bird joint ventures, which are collaborative regional 

partnerships that conserve habitat for the benefit of priority bird species and 

other wildlife. The following regional joint ventures occur wholly or partially in 

the planning area:

 Central Hardwoods (Kansas): This region is interspersed with 

grasslands, woodlands, and forests. Grassland and shrub species 

such as prairie warbler (Setophaga discolor), field sparrow (Spizella 

pusilla), Bachman’s sparrow (Peucaea aestivalis), and northern 

bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) have experienced notable declines in

this region, in part due to agricultural conversion and fire 

suppression.

 Gulf Coast (Texas): This region stretches from the Texas-Mexico 

border to the Alabama-Florida border. The region supports 

breeding land birds and is critically important to Neotropical 

migrants during spring and fall migration. The primary stressors in 

this region are coastal erosion, subsidence, sea-level rise, 

conversion to row-crop agriculture, and human development.

 Lower Mississippi Valley (Texas, Oklahoma): The Lower Mississippi 

Valley Joint Venture is composed of two distinctly different 

ecological landscapes: the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and the West 

Gulf Coastal Plains/Ouachitas. Threats to bird populations in this 

region include reservoir creation, conversion of native habitats, and 

reduced fire regimes. 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Fish and Wildlife)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-91

 Oaks and Prairies (Texas, Oklahoma): The Oaks and Prairies Joint 

Venture consists of 45 million acres, which was historically 

characterized by tallgrass prairie patches intermixed with patches of 

shrub and forest habitats. Threats to birds in the region include 

urbanization and agricultural conversion. 

 Playa Lakes (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas): This region extends from 

western Nebraska south through the Texas panhandle and is 

composed of native short and mixed-grass prairies and shrublands. 

It supports over 520 species of birds during some portion of their 

life-cycle. The region is critical to maintaining linkages between 

breeding areas in the northern plains and wintering areas as far 

south as Argentina. Loss of habitat has resulted in steep and 

consistent decline for many species. 

 Rio Grande (Texas): The Rio Grande Joint Venture covers the 

southwest section of the planning area and encompasses a range of 

habitats from oak forests and brush to coastal prairie and barrier

islands to montane ponderosa pine forests and grassland habitat. 

Over 700 species of birds have been found in the region, and 75 

percent are land birds. Riparian species in this region are impacted 

by changing water availability, invasive species, grazing in the flood 

zone, and habitat loss. 

 Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes (Kansas): This region is 

characterized by crop-producing areas, forest communities, and 

grasslands and pastures, including the Flint Hills regions in Kansas 

and Nebraska. More than 500 species of bird breed, winter, or 

migrate through the region. The region is of particular importance 

for Kirtland’s warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii) and Golden-winged 

warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), as most of the global populations of 

these species breed in this region. Habitat loss and fragmentation is

primarily due to urbanization, conversion to row-crop agriculture, 

and invasive species.

The IBAs Program is an effort by the National Audubon Society and local 

partners to identify and conserve areas vital to birds and other species in the 

habitat. Identifying vital areas worldwide is an important step to improving 

public awareness and support and ensuring that all IBAs are properly managed 

and conserved.

Bird habitats are threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation from human 

development. Coupled with global warming and introduced predators, these 

factors pose serious threats to populations of birds across America and around 

the world. By working to identify and implement conservation strategies in IBAs, 

Audubon and partners hope to avoid additional populations being listed as 

endangered or threatened or dropping to dangerously low levels. Approximately 

441,400 acres of BLM-administered federal mineral estate lands overlap with IBAs 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Fish and Wildlife)

3-92 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

in the planning area. No BLM-administered surface lands in the planning area are 

IBAs (see Table 3-25, below; National Audubon Society 2015). 

Table 3-25

Important Bird Areas in the Planning Area

Name Importance Acreage Notes

Kansas

Cheyenne Bottoms Preserve and 

Wildlife Area

Global 27,552 Whooping crane and 47 other bird 

species

Cimarron National Grassland Global 108,178 Lesser prairie-chicken, golden eagle,

3 other species

Flint Hills Region Global 3,300,112 Sprague’s pipit, greater prairiechicken and 13 other species

John Redmond Reservoir and Flint 

Hills National Wildlife Refuge

State 18,464 Snow goose

Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge State 10,779 Not available 

Marais des Cygnes Wildlife Area 

and National Wildlife Refuge 

Global 15,145 Red-headed woodpecker and 2 

other species

Neosho Wildlife Area State 3,247 

Quivira National Wildlife Refuge Global 22,136 Whooping crane and 3 other bird 

species

Red Hills Region Global 2,298,319 Lesser prairie-chicken

Oklahoma

Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge Global 32,000 Whooping crane and 5 other species

Selman Ranch State 13,998 Lesser prairie-chicken and 4 other 

species

Tallgrass Prairie Preserve Global 38,702 Greater prairie-chicken and 5 other 

species

Wichita Mountains National 

Wildlife Refuge 

Global 59,021 Painted bunting and 3 other species

Texas

Balcones Canyonlands National 

Wildlife Refuge

Global 80,003 Golden-cheeked warbler

Balcones Canyonlands Preserve Global 27,928 Golden-cheeked warbler, dicksissel, 

and 120 other species

Blackjack Peninsula of Aransas 

National Wildlife Refuge

Global 70,504 Whooping crane and 4 other species

Brown Property Global 321 Golden-cheeked warbler

Columbia Bottomlands State 177,004 Bell’s vireo, bald eagle, hooded 

warbler, and 5 other species

Deadman Island/Long Reef State 5 Black skimmer, Sandwich tern, and 

14 other species

Dressing Point Global 5 Black skimmer and 4 other species

Fort Hood Global 217,008 Golden-cheeked warbler

Green Island Global 25 Reddish egret and 4 other species

Jigsaw Islands Global 2 Black skimmer, royal tern, and 5 

other species
3. Affected Environment (BLM Fish and Wildlife)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-93

Table 3-25

Important Bird Areas in the Planning Area

Name Importance Acreage Notes

Katy Prairie Conservancy Global 17,500 Buff-breasted sandpiper, northern 

bobwhite, wood stork, and 5 other 

species

Laguna Vista Spoils Global 2 Black skimmer and 4 other species

Lavaca Bay Spoils Global 12 Black skimmer and 4 other species

Little Pelican Island State N/A Black skimmer, brown pelican, and 3 

other species

Mustang Bayou Island State 2 Royal tern, brown pelican, and 16 

other species

Nature Conservancy Dolan Falls 

Preserve

Global 18,523 Golden-cheeked warbler, Bell’s 

Vireo, painted bunting

Nature Conservancy 

Independence Creek Preserve 

Global 19,741 Painted bunting, Bell’s vireo

Nature Conservancy Love Creek 

Preserve 

Global 1,401 Golden-cheeked warbler, Bell’s 

vireo, painted bunting, olive-sided 

flycatcher 

North Deer Island Global 143 Brown pelican and 4 other species

Port Bolivar Bird Sanctuaries—

Bolivar Flats

Global 1,796 Clapper rail, snowy plover, and 20 

other species

Port Bolivar Bird Sanctuaries—

Horseshoe Marsh 

State N/A Piping plover, brown pelican, and 11 

other species

Sabal Palm Sanctuary State 526 Green kingfisher, buff-bellied 

hummingbird, and 8 other species

Southernmost Edwards Plateau Global 15,308 Golden-cheeked warbler

Sundown Island Global 69 Black skimmer, brown pelican, and 

15 other species

Yoakum Dunes Preserve Global 7,099 Lesser prairie-chicken

Source: National Audubon Society 2015

In addition to the IBAs in the planning area, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird 

Reserve Network designated the 3.7-million-acre Flint Hills area as a Landscape 

of Hemispheric Importance. This tallgrass prairie landscape in northeastern 

Oklahoma and eastern Kansas represents a vast area of importance for nesting 

shorebirds.

Trends

Fisheries and Aquatic Invertebrates

Dams, diversions, and alterations of instream flow, in combination with and 

independent of adjacent land use activities, have historically affected fish and 

other aquatic invertebrates in the planning area. This has created unsuitable 

conditions for some species (Anderson et al. 1995). For example, freshwater 

mussel populations along the Blue River and Mountain Fork River in Oklahoma 

have experienced long-term population declines, due to increased siltation and 

runoff from agricultural activities (Spooner and Vaughn 2007). 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Fish and Wildlife)

3-94 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

In Great Plains stream systems, an estimated 65 percent reduction of endemic 

species has occurred due to fragmentation. Community-wide population and 

abundance changes are particularly evident for historically abundant smallbodied fishes, such as pelagic-spawners (Perkin et al. 2014). Water retention 

structures (e.g., large reservoirs) and extraction structures (small dams) 

fragment longitudinal river connectivity and reduce streamflow. Even small dams 

(less than 16.4 feet in height) have caused longitudinal fragmentation of fish 

communities in a manner consistent with much larger structures (Perkin et al. 

2014).

Additionally, the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species has 

disrupted ecological processes and displaced native species in both lentic and 

lotic systems. 

Droughts have occurred throughout the planning area, affecting fisheries 

through decreasing surface area/volume and increasing extremes of physical and 

chemical water quality parameters. Such conditions have led to increased 

mortality and migration rates, as aquatic organisms seek refuge from disturbance 

(Magoulick and Kobza 2003). Droughts, in combination with increased air 

temperatures and local water management practices, such as decreased 

reservoir releases, have led to declines in thermally sensitive freshwater mussel 

communities in the planning area (Galbraith et al. 2010).

Wildlife and Migratory Birds

For the short-grass prairie (high plains) in western Oklahoma, Texas Panhandle 

and western Kansas, invasive weeds, water quality changes, and habitat loss and 

fragmentation threaten habitat for migratory birds. The trend for most species 

is unknown, but many species appear to be declining (ODWC 2005). In Kansas, 

agricultural practices and poorly managed grazing systems are the primary 

causes of habitat fragmentation (Wasson et al. 2005). 

Similar trends are apparent in the mixed-grass prairie of western Oklahoma, the 

tall-grass prairie, and Osage Plain regions. Certain areas also face water quality

decline (often nutrient loading microbial pathogens, pharmaceuticals, and other 

waste inputs from concentrated animal feeding operations) and habitat loss and 

fragmentation. These are mixed-grass prairie and oak woodland habitat of 

central Oklahoma and northern Texas and the western Gulf coastal plain and 

mountains of eastern Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. Agricultural practices are a 

primary driver of fragmentation (Wasson et al. 2005). These threats, as well as 

heavy recreational use, impact the Ozark Mountains area of northeastern 

Oklahoma (ODWC 2005).

Climate conditions play an important role in wildlife production and habitat 

quality and quantity. Persistent droughts have contributed to range-wide 

bobwhite quail population declines since the 1960s (ODWC 2011). Similar 

declines have been observed with greater prairie-chickens, due to woody 

encroachment of native grasslands, which can reduce suitable habitat (Kansas 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Fish and Wildlife)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-95

Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism 2014). Climate change also 

influences the range of wildlife species. For example, the range of the ninebanded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) has expanded northward over the past

two decades. In large part, this is due to changes in minimum winter 

temperatures and precipitation patterns (Taulman and Robbins 2014).

For other upland game species, such as the wild turkey, long-term population 

numbers have generally increased since the second half of the twentieth 

century, in part due to restocking and restoration. Private landowner 

conservation programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program, have helped 

to preserve wildlife habitat on nonfederal lands in the planning area. These 

programs offer eligible farmers and ranchers monetary incentives for protecting 

their land. 

Variable changes in bat abundance over a 40-year survey period have been 

documented in the Red Hill region of Kansas and Oklahoma, an area that lies at 

the peripheries of four bat species’ distributions. Increasing abundance of some 

hibernacula may reflect range expansions or changes in the quality of 

hibernacula or other habitat aspects (Prendergast et al. 2010). Lands within the 

decision area in this region are primarily restricted to BLM subsurface tracts. 

Factors contributing to the decline of bat populations are loss of habitat from 

surface mining operations, urbanization, lake and reservoir construction, cave 

commercialization, and vandalism (ODWC 2014). Bat fatalities are also 

associated with wind energy operations (Arnett et al. 2009). White-nose 

syndrome—a fungal disease that affects hibernating bats—was detected in bats 

in Oklahoma in 2015. 

A study in southeastern Oklahoma found that the abundance and distribution 

trends of other terrestrial small mammals are largely influenced by humans and 

vary by species (Clark et al. 1998). For example, deer mice (Peromyscus 

maniculatus) populations have responded positively to agricultural conversion 

and livestock grazing, whereas western harvest mice (Reithrodontomys megalotis) 

have been reduced in cultivated areas (Clark et al. 1998).

Feral hogs continue to expand their range in much of the planning area, 

particularly in Oklahoma and Texas. This is due to the limited number of natural 

predators and the hogs’ high reproductive potential. Habitat and agricultural 

commodities have been destroyed in occupied areas (TPWD 2016).

3.2.7 Special Status Species

Special status species are those that are considered sufficiently rare that they 

require special consideration and protection. Federal or state governments, or 

both, have listed or should list these species as threatened or endangered. The 

authority for this policy and guidance regarding the evaluation of special status 

species comes from the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; the 

FLPMA; and BLM Special Status Species Management (Manual 6840; BLM 2008a).
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

3-96 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Current Condition

Federally Listed and Proposed Species

According to the ESA, an endangered species is any that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range; a threatened 

species is any that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

The OFO manages habitats for species listed by the USFWS as endangered, 

threatened, or proposed under the authority of the ESA. For federally listed and 

proposed species occurring within the planning area, see Table 3-26, below. 

The USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system contains 

spatial occurrence data for federally threatened, endangered, and proposed 

species, and this tool was used to generate the list of species in Table 3-26.

Table 3-26

Federally Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Federal 

Status*

Other 

Status* 

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Amphibians Houston toad Anaxyrus houstonensis E SE (TX) TX

Amphibians Salado salamander Eurycea chisholmensis T TX

Amphibians San Marcos salamander E. nana T ST (TX) TX

Amphibians Georgetown salamander E. naufragia T TX

Amphibians Texas blind salamander E. rathbuni E SE (TX) TX

Amphibians Barton Springs 

salamander

E. sosorum E SE (TX) TX

Amphibians Jollyville salamander E. tonkawae T TX

Amphibians Austin blind salamander E. waterlooensis E SE (TX) TX

Birds Sprague’s pipit Anthus spragueii C BCC OK, TX

Birds Rufa red knot Calidris canutus rufa T TX

Birds Piping plover C. melodus T ST (OK, 

TX, NE)

OK, KS, 

TX

Birds Mountain plover C. montanus C ST (NE), 

BCC, SINC 

(KS)

OK, KS

Birds Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus 

occidentails

T BCC TX

Birds Golden-cheeked 

warbler

Dendroica chrysoparia E SE (TX) TX

Birds Southwestern willow 

flycatcher

Empidonax traillii 

extimus

E SE (TX), 

BCC

TX

Birds Northern aplomado 

falcon

Falco femoralis 

septentrionalis

E SE (TX) TX

Birds Whooping crane Grus americana E SE (OK, 

TX, NE)

OK, KS, 

TX

Birds Eskimo curlew Numenius borealis E SE (TX, 

NE)

KS, TX
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-97

Table 3-26

Federally Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Federal 

Status*

Other 

Status* 

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Birds Red-cockaded 

woodpecker

Picoides borealis E SE (TX), 

REA

OK, TX

Birds Least tern (proposed 

for delisting)

Sterna antillarum E SE (KS), 

BCC

KS

Birds Interior least tern

(proposed for delisting)

S. antillarum 

athalassos

E SE (KS, TX, 

NE), BCC

OK, KS, 

TX

Birds Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida T ST (TX) TX

Birds Attwater’s greater 

prairie chicken

Tympanuchus cupido 

attwateri

E SE (TX) TX

Birds Black-capped vireo6 Vireo atricapilla E SE (TX) OK, KS, 

TX

Fishes Ozark cavefish Amblyopsis rosae T OK

Fishes Leon Springs pupfish Cyprinodon bovinus E SE (TX) TX

Fishes Comanche Springs 

pupfish

C. elegans E SE (TX) TX

Fishes Devils River minnow Dionda diaboli T ST (TX) TX

Fishes Arkansas darter Etheostoma cragini C ST (KS) OK, KS

Fishes Fountain darter E. fonticola E SE (TX) TX

Fishes Big Bend gambusia Gambusia gaigei E SE (TX) TX

Fishes San Marcos gambusia 

(extinct)

G. georgei E SE (TX) TX

Fishes Clear Creek gambusia G. heterochir E SE (TX) TX

Fishes Pecos gambusia G. nobilis E SE (TX) TX

Fishes Rio Grande silvery 

minnow

Hybognathus amarus E SE (TX) TX

Fishes Smalleye shiner Notropis buccula E TX

Fishes Arkansas River shiner N. girardi T SE (KS), ST 

(TX)

OK, KS, 

TX

Fishes Sharpnose shiner Notropis oxyrhynchus E TX

Fishes Topeka shiner N. topeka E ST (KS) SE 

(NE)

KS

Fishes Neosho madtom Noturus placidus T ST (KS) OK, KS

Fishes Leopard darter Percina pantherina T OK

Fishes Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata E SE (TX) TX

Fishes Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus E E (KS, NE) KS, NE

Invertebrates Ouachita Rock 

pocketbook

Arkansia wheeleri E OK

Invertebrates Pecos assiminea snail Assiminea pecos E SE (TX) TX

Invertebrates Coffin Cave mold beetle Batrisodes texanus E TX

Invertebrates Helotes mold beetle B. venyivi E TX

 

6

Species proposed for delisting on March 14, 2018
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

3-98 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-26

Federally Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Federal 

Status*

Other 

Status* 

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Invertebrates Robber baron cave 

meshweaver

Cicurina baronia E TX

Invertebrates Madla Cave 

meshweaver

C. madla E TX

Invertebrates Bracken bat cave 

meshweaver

C. venii E TX

Invertebrates Government Canyon 

bat cave meshweaver

C. vespera E TX

Invertebrates Warton Cave 

meshweaver

C. wartoni C TX

Invertebrates False Spike Fusconaia mitchelli C TX

Invertebrates Diminutive amphipod Gammarus hyalleloides E SE (TX) TX

Invertebrates Pecos amphipod G. pecos E SE (TX) TX

Invertebrates Comal Springs riffle 

beetle

Heterelmis comalensis E SE (TX) TX

Invertebrates Texas fatmucket Lampsilis bracteata C ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Neosho mucket Lampsilis 

rafinesqueana

E SE (OK, 

KS)

OK, KS

Invertebrates Scaleshell Leptodea leptodon E SE (NE) OK

Invertebrates American burying beetle

(proposed for delisting)

Nicrophorus 

americanus

E SE (KS, NE) OK, KS, 

TX

Invertebrates Rattlesnake masterborer mothPapaipema eryngii C OK

Invertebrates Texas hornshell Popenaias popeii P ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Diamond Y spring snail Pseudotryonia 

adamantina

E SE (TX) TX

Invertebrates Phantom Cave snail Pyrgulopsis texana E SE (TX) TX

Invertebrates Golden orb Quadrula aurea C ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Rabbits-foot mussel Q. cylindrica T SE (KS) KS

Invertebrates Winged mapleleaf Q. fragosa E OK

Invertebrates Smooth pimpleback Q. houstonensis C ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Texas pimpleback Q. petrina C ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates A ground beetle Rhadine exilis E TX

Invertebrates A ground beetle R. infernalis E TX

Invertebrates Tooth Cave ground 

beetle

R. persephone E TX

Invertebrates Peck’s Cave amphipod Stygobromus pecki E SE (TX) TX

Invertebrates Comal Springs dryopid 

beetle

S. comalensis E SE (TX) TX

Invertebrates Tooth Cave 

pseudoscorpion

Tartarocreagris 

texana

E TX

Invertebrates Gov. Canyon bat cave 

spider

Tayshaneta microps E TX
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-99

Table 3-26

Federally Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Federal 

Status*

Other 

Status* 

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Invertebrates Tooth Cave spider T. myopica E TX

Invertebrates Kretschmarr Cave mold 

beetle

Texamaurops reddelli E TX

Invertebrates Cokendolpher Cave 

harvestman

Texella cokendolpheri E TX

Invertebrates Reddell harvestman T. reddelli E TX

Invertebrates Bone Cave harvestman T. reyesi E TX

Invertebrates Texas fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon C ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Phantom spring snail Tryonia cheatumi E SE (TX) TX

Invertebrates Gonzales springsnail T. circumstriata E SE (TX) TX

Mammals Finback whale Balaenoptera physalus E SE (TX) TX

Mammals Gray wolf Canis lupus E SE (TX) TX

Mammals Red wolf C. rufus E SE (TX) TX

Mammals Ozark big-eared bat Corynorhinus 

townsendii ingens

E OK

Mammals Jaguarundi Herpailurus yaguarondi E SE (TX) TX

Mammals Ocelot Leopardus pardalis E SE (TX) TX

Mammals Mexican long-nosed bat Leptonycteris nivalis E SE (TX) TX

Mammals Humpback whale Megaptera 

novaeangliae

E SE (TX) TX

Mammals Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes E SE (KS, NE) KS

Mammals Gray myotis Myotis grisescens E SE (KS) OK, KS

Mammals Northern long-eared 

Bat

M. septentrionalis PE OK, KS

Mammals Indiana bat M. sodalis E OK

Mammals Jaguar Panthera onca E SE (TX) TX

Mammals West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus E SE (TX) TX

Reptiles Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas T ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E SE (TX) TX

Reptiles Atlantic hawksbill sea 

turtle

Eretmochelys imbricata E SE (TX) TX

Reptiles Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E SE (TX) TX

Reptiles Louisiana pine snake Pituophis ruthveni T ST (TX) TX

Plants Large-fruited sandverbenaAbronia macrocarpa E SE (TX) TX

Plants South Texas ambrosia Ambrosia 

cheiranthifolia

E SE (TX) TX

Plants Mead’s milkweed Asclepias meadii T KS

Plants Star cactus Astrophytum asterias E SE (TX) TX

Plants Texas ayenia Ayenia limitaris E SE (TX) TX

Plants Texas poppy-mallow Callirhoe scabriuscula E SE (TX) TX
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

3-100 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-26

Federally Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Federal 

Status*

Other 

Status* 

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Plants Bunched cory cactus Coryphantha ramillosa 

ssp. ramillosa

T ST (TX) TX

Plants Terlingua Creek cat’seyeCryptantha crassipes E SE (TX) TX

Plants Chisos mountains 

hedgehog cactus

Echinocereus 

chisoensis var. 

chisoensis

T ST (TX) TX

Plants Davis’s green pitaya E. viridiflorus var.

davisii

E SE (TX) TX

Plants Black lace cactus E. reichenbachii ssp.

fitchii (E. r. 

var. albertii)

E SE (TX) TX

Plants Lloyd’s fishhook cactus Echinomastus 

mariposensis 

(Neolloydia m.)

T ST (TX) TX

Plants Nellie’s cory cactus Escobaria minima 

(Coryphantha m.)

E SE (TX) TX

Plants Sneed’s pincushion 

cactus

E. sneedii var. sneedii 

(Coryphantha s.)

E SE (TX) TX

Plants Guadalupe fescue Festuca ligulata C TX

Plants Johnston’s frankenia Frankenia johnstonii SE (TX) TX

Plants Earth fruit Geocarpon minimum T ST (TX) TX

Plants Pecos sunflower Helianthus paradoxus T ST (TX) TX

Plants Neches River rosemallowHibiscus dasycalyx T TX

Plants Slender rushpea Hoffmannseggia 

tenella

E SE (TX) TX

Plants Texas prairie dawn Hymenoxys texana E SE (TX) TX

Plants Texas golden gladecress Leavenworthia texana E SE (TX) TX

Plants Walker’s manioc Manihot walkerae E SE (TX) TX

Plants Texas trailing phlox Phlox 

nivalis ssp. texensis

E SE (TX) TX

Plants White bladderpod Physaria 

pallida (Lesquerella p.)

E SE (TX) TX

Plants Zapata bladderpod P. thamnophila 

(Lesquerella t.)

E SE (TX) TX

Plants Eastern prairie-fringed 

orchid

Platanthera 

leucophaea

T ST (OK) OK

Plants Western prairie-fringed 

orchid

P. praeclara T ST (OK, 

NE)

OK

Plants Little aguja pondweed Potamogeton 

clystocarpus

E SE (TX) TX

Plants Harperella Ptillium nodosum E SE (OK) OK
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-101

Table 3-26

Federally Listed and Proposed Species Occurring in the Planning Area

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym)

Federal 

Status*

Other 

Status* 

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Plants Hinckley’s oak Quercus hinckleyi T ST (TX) TX

Plants Chaffseed Schwalbea americana E TX

Plants Tobusch fishhook cactus Sclerocactus 

brevihamatus ssp. 

tobuschii 

(Ancistrocactus t.)

E SE (TX) TX

Plants Lloyd’s mariposa cactus Sclerocactus 

mariposensis

T ST (TX) TX

Plants Navasota ladies’-tresses Spiranthes parksii E SE (TX) TX

Plants Bracted twistflower Streptanthus 

bracteatus

C TX

Plants Texas snowbells Styrax 

platanifolius spp.

texanus (S. t.)

E SE (TX) TX

Plants Ashy dogweed Thymophylla 

tephroleuca

E SE (TX) TX

Plants Running buffalo-clover Trifoloium stoloniferum E KS

Plants Texas wild-rice Zizania texana E SE (TX) TX

Sources:7 USFWS 2008a; NRCS 2016a, 2016b, 2016c; Nebraska Natural Heritage Program 2013; TPWD 2016

*Status Codes: 

E—Federally listed Endangered, T—Federally listed Threatened, C—Federally listed Candidate, P—Proposed for 

Listing, BCC—Bird of Conservation Concern, SE—State Endangered, ST—State Threatened

SINC—Species in Need of Conservation; REA—Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment 

In addition, the USFWS has designated critical habitat in the BLM-administered 

federal mineral estate decision area for the following species (USFWS GIS 2016; 

BLM GIS 2016): 

 Two species of beetles (Rhadine exilis and R. infernalis; fewer than 50

acres)

 Arkansas River shiner (700 acres)

 Houston toad (fewer than 50 acres)

 Whooping crane (101,200 acres)

 Piping plover (46,400 acres)

 Zapata bladderpod (5,100 acres)

 Leopard darter (100 acres)

 

7George Thomas, BLM, personal communication via e-mail with Kevin Rice, EMPSi, regarding special status species 

list and definition, February 13, 2015.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

3-102 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

 Georgetown salamander (200 acres)

 Neosho mucket (6.3 linear miles)

 Rabbitsfoot (1,056 linear feet)

Federally listed and candidate key species, including those listed in the Southern 

Great Plains REA—Pre-Assessment Report or with known occurrences in the 

decision area, are discussed in detail below. See Table 3-27, below. 

Table 3-27

Key Special Status Species

Group Common Name

Scientific 

Name

(Synonym)

Federal 

Status*

Other 

Status* 

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Birds Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia - BCC, REA OK, KS, TX

Birds Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis - BCC, SINC 

(KS), REA

OK, KS, TX

Birds Mountain plover Charadrius 

montanus

- BCC, REA OK, KS, TX

Birds Snowy plover C. nivosus - BCC, REA OK, KS, TX

Birds Whooping crane Grus americana E SE (OK, TX, 

NE)

OK, KS, TX

Birds Long-billed curlew Numenius 

americanus

- BCC, SINC 

(KS), REA

OK, KS, TX

Birds Red-cockaded 

woodpecker

Picoides borealis E SE (TX), 

REA

OK, TX

Birds Interior least tern

(proposed for 

delisting)

Sterna antillarum 

athalassos

E SE (KS, TX, 

NE), BCC

OK, KS, TX

Birds Greater prairie 

chicken

Tympanuchus 

cupido

- SINC (OK) OK

Birds Lesser prairie-chicken T. pallidicinctus - BCC (OK, 

TX), REA

OK, TX

Birds Black-capped vireo Vireo atricapilla E SE (TX) OK, KS, TX

Fishes Arkansas River shiner Notropis girardi T SE (KS), ST 

(TX)

OK, KS, TX

Invertebrates American burying 

beetle (proposed for 

delisting)

Nicrophorus 

americanus

E SE (KS, NE) OK, KS, TX

Mammals Black-tailed prairie 

dog

Cynomys 

ludovicianus

- SINC (OK), 

REA

OK
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species) 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-103 

Table 3-27

Key Special Status Species

Group Common Name

Scientific 

Name

(Synonym)

Federal 

Status*

Other 

Status* 

(State)

State 

Where 

Present

Mammals Swift fox Vulpes velox - REA, SE 

(NE)

OK, KS, TX

Sources:8 USFWS 2008a; NRCS 2016a, 2016b, 2016c; Nebraska Natural Heritage Program 2013; TPWD 2016

*Status Codes: 

E—Federally listed Endangered, T—Federally listed Threatened; BCC—Bird of Conservation Concern; SE—State 

Endangered, ST—State Threatened; SINC—Species in Need of Conservation; REA—Southern Great Plains Rapid 

Ecoregional Assessment 

American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus). Federally listed as endangered 

(proposed for delisting).

This beetle is approximately 1.0 to 1.5 inches in length, the largest member of 

its genus in North America. The species is identifiable by its large size and by a 

large orange-red pronotal disk9 (USFWS 1988). Once widely distributed 

throughout eastern North America, populations have disappeared from most of 

their historical range. The species occupies a range of habitats, such as tall-grass 

prairie, woodlands, and forests. 

In the planning area, the ABB is found primarily in eastern Oklahoma (USFWS 

2015), although field surveys have documented occurrences in Kansas and Texas 

(USFWS 2008b; see Figure 3-15, American Burying Beetle). In Oklahoma, the 

highest concentration of beetles is found at Camp Gruber, 32,000 acres of 

cross-timber habitat, with an oak-hickory forest and tall-grass prairie mosaic 

pattern (USFWS 2008b). This area contains BLM-administered federal mineral 

estate lands within the decision area. 

In total, the ABB is known or believed to occur in 52 counties in the planning 

area, as depicted in Figure 3-15. 

Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardi). Federally listed as threatened. 

This is a small streamlined minnow found in the Arkansas River Basin. The 

species inhabits shallow braided channels with pool, riffle, run, and backwater 

components. Water quality is characterized by low contaminant concentration 

and seasonally variable temperature, turbidity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, 

and pH (USFWS 2001). 

 

8George Thomas, BLM, personal communication via e-mail with Kevin Rice, EMPSi, regarding special status species 

list and definition, February 13, 2015. 

9The flat, upper-most part of the prominent plate-like structure that covers all or part of the thorax of some 

insects.

3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species) 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-105 

Historically, the Arkansas River shiner was widespread and abundant 

throughout the Arkansas River basin in Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and 

Texas; however, the species has been reduced from more than 80 percent of its 

original range. Current populations are almost entirely restricted to 

approximately 500 miles of the Canadian River in Oklahoma, Texas, and New 

Mexico (USFWS 1998; see Figure 3-16, Arkansas River Shiner, for critical 

habitat distribution in the planning area). In total, the Arkansas River shiner is 

known or believed to occur in 24 counties in the planning area. 

The construction of reservoirs has fragmented, inundated, dewatered, or 

otherwise directly affected habitat for the Arkansas River shiner, and depletions 

and diversions continue to threaten the species. Water quality degradation, 

caused by concentrated animal feeding, municipal sewage effluent, and other 

sources, have impacted aggregations (USFWS 2009b). 

Black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla). Federally listed as endangered. 

This vireo has white eye rings, olive upper parts, a white breast and belly with 

yellowish flanks, and a black head (in adult males). It is similar in appearance to 

the solitary vireo but somewhat smaller. A long-distance migrant, it nests in 

Texas and Oklahoma and winters in Mexico. It feeds on insects (especially 

caterpillars), spiders, and fruits. It is found in shrubland and chaparral habitat, in 

dense low thickets and oak scrub, mostly on rocky hillsides or steep ravines in 

rugged terrain. Nests are in tangles of shrubby growth close to the ground in 

small trees or shrubs, with vegetation extending to the ground, among barren 

or less vegetated areas. 

Historically the black-capped vireo was found from south-central Kansas 

through central Oklahoma and Texas into northeastern Mexico. Its present 

range extends from Blaine County, Oklahoma (two locations, though only the 

Wichita Mountains has substantial numbers), south through central and western 

Texas into Mexico, where it is thought to be more prevalent. 

Threats are habitat loss and degradation from human development, fire 

suppression, grazing impacts, and range management practices that remove low 

woody vegetation and promote juniper (Juniperus sp.) invasion. In addition, it is a 

frequent host of the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), which may reduce 

nesting success by 80 to 100 percent in some years (NatureServe 2015; see 

Figure 3-17, Black-capped Vireo, for the species’ range in the planning area). In 

total, the black-capped Vireo is known or believed to occur in 78 counties in 

the planning area. 

Interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos). Federally listed as endangered 

(proposed for delisting). 

Interior least terns nest locally along the Colorado, Red, Arkansas, Missouri, 

Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers. Least terns nesting on the California coast and 

along interior rivers are listed as endangered by the USFWS, except areas 


3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species) 

3-108 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

within 50 miles of the Texas coast. The least tern is the smallest North 

American tern, gray above, with a black cap and nape, white forehead, and a 

black line running from the crown through the eye to the base of the bill. 

Interior populations mainly eat aquatic invertebrates, primarily minnows. 

They nest in shallow depressions on the ground on sandy beaches, salt flats, or 

sparsely vegetated river or lake banks in North America; they winter in Mexico 

and Central America. 

Least terns were formerly more widespread and common but now survive only 

in scattered remnants. Their habitat has been decimated by human use of 

beaches and sandbars and by upstream dams that remove alluvium and create 

scour in river channels, reducing sandbars and beaches used by least terns for 

nesting (NatureServe 2015; see Figure 3-18, Interior Least Tern, for the 

species range in the planning area). The interior least tern is known to occur 

along the Red River; however, the extent of occupied or potential habitat on 

federal surface land is unknown. In total, the interior least tern is known or 

believed to occur in 111 counties in the planning area. 

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). Federally listed as endangered.

This is a small woodpecker, closely related to the hairy woodpecker (P. villosus). 

Adult males have red streaks (cockades) on either side of the head. They live in 

groups, unlike other woodpeckers, with a single breeding pair and sometimes 

helpers, which incubate eggs, feed nestlings and fledglings, and defend territories. 

The species roosts in cavities excavated in mature pine trees. Rat snake 

predation takes a heavy toll on nestlings, and flying squirrels (Gluacomys volans) 

may seize and destroy nests. Nesting groups are highly territorial, and 

competition for cavities is strong with other woodpeckers and flying squirrels. 

Home ranges are approximately 100 to 125 acres. Historically found from New 

Jersey to Texas, this species is now reduced to small fragmented populations in the 

southeastern United States. It is highly imperiled in Oklahoma and Texas; Kansas 

and Nebraska are not part of its range (see Figure 3-19, Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker). In total, the red-cockaded woodpecker is known or believed to 

occur in 19 counties in the planning area. It requires mature old growth pine trees 

for cavity nesting and foraging. Deforestation and short rotation timber 

management practices have removed habitat, while fire suppression has allowed 

pine stands to be invaded by hardwoods (NatureServe 2015). 

Whooping crane (Grus americana). Federally listed as endangered. 

The whooping crane is a tall, mostly white, long-legged bird with red facial skin. 

During summer, it feeds on insects, crustaceans, and berries; its winter diet also 

includes grains, acorns, fishes, amphibians, and marine worms. 


3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species) 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-111 

The species’ preferred habitat is wetland, lagoon, riparian tidal flat and shallow 

water, and grassland or cropland. It nests in dense emergent vegetation, such as 

bulrushes in shallow ponds, marshes, wet prairies, and lake margins. The nest is 

made of marsh vegetation, rising about 8 to 20 inches above the surrounding 

water level. Breeding territories are very large, averaging 1,900 acres, and pairs 

mate for life. Habitat during migration and winter includes marshes, shallow lakes, 

lagoons, salt flats, grain and stubble fields, and barrier islands. The remaining birds 

migrate mainly through the Great Plains south to Texas for the winter. Mated 

pairs and families establish and defend winter territories on coastal marshes in 

Texas. Pairs or family groups begin northward migration in April. 

The whooping crane is endangered; the wild population reached a low of 14 

birds and has since improved to over 400, with intensive captive breeding, 

including migration, led by ultralight aircraft. This aircraft acts as a surrogate 

parent and guides captive-hatched whooping cranes along a planned migration 

route. At present, one self-sustaining population nests in Canada and winters 

along the Texas coast; two additional reintroduced populations exist: one 

migrates from Wisconsin to Florida, and one in Florida does not migrate. 

Historically, whooping cranes suffered from hunting and habitat loss from 

conversion of prairie to cropland. The remaining wild cranes are vulnerable to 

catastrophic natural events. Ongoing human threats are loss of coastal wetlands, oil 

spills, collisions with power lines and structures during migration, and poaching. In 

addition, because of delayed sexual maturity and low annual reproductive output, 

the population of this species grows slowly and is especially vulnerable to poor 

survivorship. The population shrinking to such small numbers results in a loss of 

genetic variability that increases the birds’ vulnerability to disease. 

The Aransas reintroduced population migrates through western Kansas and 

Oklahoma and central Texas, en route to its wintering ground at Aransas 

National Wildlife Refuge on the coast in south Texas, a distance of 2,485 miles 

(NatureServe 2015; see Figure 3-20, Whooping Crane, for the species range in 

the planning area). In total, the whooping crane is known or believed to occur in 

8 counties in the planning area. 

Other Special Status Species 

Special status species are those that are not listed under the Endangered Species 

Act but still warrant some protection or for which insufficient data have been 

collected for the USFWS to make a determination for listing. These include 

state threatened and endangered species, species of greatest conservation 

concern, and rare plant communities. Federal land management agencies are 

mandated to manage special status species so that they should not need to be 

listed under the ESA in the future. 

3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-113

Lists of other special status species are maintained by Kansas, Oklahoma, and 

Texas. In coordination with the state heritage programs, the OFO has identified 

those species in the planning area, as shown in Table 3-28, Special Status 

Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on the ESA, below.

Table 3-28

Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on the ESA

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym) Status* (State)

State 

Where 

Present

Amphibians Green toad Bufo debilis ST (KS) KS

Amphibians Red-spotted toad B. punctatus SINC (KS) KS

Amphibians Cascade Caverns 

salamander

Eurycea latitans ST (TX) TX

Amphibians Longtail salamander E. longicauda ST (KS) KS

Amphibians Cave salamander E. lucifuga SE (KS) KS

Amphibians Blanco blind salamander E. robusta ST (TX) TX

Amphibians Comal blind salamander E. tridentifera ST (TX) TX

Amphibians Eastern narrowmouth 

toad

Gastrophryne 

carolinensis

ST (KS) KS

Amphibians Sheep frog Hypopachus 

variolosus

ST (TX) TX

Amphibians White-lipped frog Leptodactylus fragilis ST (TX) TX

Amphibians Black-spotted newt Notophthalmus 

meridionalis

ST (TX) TX

Amphibians Eastern newt N. viridescens 

louisianensis

ST (KS) KS

Amphibians Spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer SINC (KS) KS

Amphibians Strecker’s chorus frog P. streckeri ST (KS) KS

Amphibians Crawfish frog Rana areolata SINC (KS) KS

Amphibians Green frog R. clamitans melanota ST (KS) KS

Amphibians Mexican burrowing 

toad

Rhinophrynus dorsalis ST (TX) TX

Amphibians South Texas siren 

(large form)

Siren sp. ST (TX) TX

Amphibians Mexican treefrog Smilisca baudinii ST (TX) TX

Amphibians Grotto salamander Typhlotriton spelaeus SE (KS) KS

Birds Bachman’s sparrow Aimophila aestivalis ST (TX), BCC, REA TX

Birds Botteri’s sparrow A. botterii arizonae ST (TX), BCC TX

Birds Texas Botteri’s sparrow A. b. texana ST (TX), BCC TX

Birds Henslow’s sparrow Ammodramus 

henslowii

BCC, SINC (KS) KS

Birds Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BCC, SINC (OK, KS) OK, KS, TX

Birds Short-eared owl Asio flammeus BCC, SINC (KS) KS

Birds Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, REA OK, KS, TX

Birds White-tailed hawk Buteo albicaudatus ST (TX), BCC TX

Birds Zone-tailed hawk B. albonotatus ST (TX) TX

Birds Gray hawk B. nitidus ST (TX) TX
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

3-114 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-28

Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on the ESA

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym) Status* (State)

State 

Where 

Present

Birds Ferruginous hawk B. regalis BCC, SINC (KS), REA OK, KS, TX

Birds Whip-poor-will Camprimulgus 

vociferus

BCC, SINC (KS) KS

Birds Northern beardlesstyrannuletCamptostoma 

imberbe

ST (TX), BCC TX

Birds Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC, REA OK, KS, TX

Birds Black tern Chlidonias niger BCC, SINC (KS) KS

Birds Chihuahuan raven Corvus cryptoleucus SINC (KS) KS

Birds Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus SINC (KS) KS

Birds Reddish egret Egretta rufescens ST (TX), BCC TX

Birds Swallow-tailed kite Elanoides forficatus ST (TX), BCC TX

Birds American peregrine 

falcon

Falco peregrinus 

anatum

ST (TX), BCC TX

Birds Cactus ferruginous 

Pygmy-owl

Glaucidium 

brasilianum cactorum

ST (TX) TX

Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

ST (TX), BCC SINC 

(OK, KS)

OK, KS, TX

Birds Black rail Laterallus jamaicensis BCC, SINC (KS) KS

Birds Wood stork Mycteria americana ST (TX) TX

Birds Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus BCC, SINC (KS), REA OK, KS, TX

Birds Rose-throated becard Pachyramphus aglaiae ST (TX), BCC TX

Birds Tropical parula Parula pitiayumi ST (TX), BCC TX

Birds White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi ST (TX) TX

Birds Cerulean warbler Setophaga cerulea BCC, SINC (KS) KS

Birds Yellow-throated 

warbler 

S. dominica SINC (KS) KS

Birds Sooty tern Sterna fuscata ST (TX) TX

Birds Curve-billed thrasher Toxostoma curvirostre BCC, SINC (KS) KS

Birds Greater prairie chicken Tympanuchus cupido SINC (OK) OK

Birds Lesser prairie-chicken T. pallidicinctus BCC (OK, TX), REA OK, TX

Fishes Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens SINC (KS), ST (NE) KS

Fishes River goby Awaous banana ST (TX) TX

Fishes Mexican stoneroller Campostoma 

ornatum

ST (TX) TX

Fishes Highfin carpsucker Carpiodes velifer SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Southern redbelly dace Chrosomus 

erythrogaster

SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Banded sculpin Cottus carolinae SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Mexican goby Ctenogobius claytonii ST (TX) TX

Fishes Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus ST (TX), SINC (KS) KS, TX

Fishes Proserpine shiner Cyprinella proserpina ST (TX) TX

Fishes Spotfin shiner C. spiloptera SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Conchos pupfish C. eximius ST (TX) TX
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-115

Table 3-28

Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on the ESA

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym) Status* (State)

State 

Where 

Present

Fishes Pecos pupfish C. pecosensis ST (TX) TX

Fishes Gravel chub Erimystax x punctatus SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus ST (TX) TX

Fishes Greenside darter Etheostoma 

blennioides

SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Bluntnose darter E. chlorosoma SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Slough darter E. gracile SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Rio Grande darter E. grahami ST (TX) TX

Fishes Sunburst darter E. mihileze SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Johnny darter E. nigrum SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Highland darter E. teddyroosevelt SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Redfin darter E. whipplei SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Banded darter E. zonale SINC (KS) KS

Fishes San Felipe gambusia Gambusia clarkhubbsi ST (TX) TX

Fishes Blotched gambusia (wild 

extinct)

G. senilis ST (TX) TX

Fishes Rio Grande chub Gila pandora ST (TX) TX

Fishes Western silvery 

minnow

Hybognathus argyritis ST (KS) KS

Fishes Plains minnow H. placitus ST (KS) KS

Fishes Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon 

castaneus

SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Cardinal shiner Luxilus cardinalis SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Striped shiner L. chrysocephalus SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Common shiner L. cornutus SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Sturgeon chub Macrhybopsis gelida ST (KS), SE (NE) KS

Fishes Shoal chub M. hyostoma ST (KS) KS

Fishes Sicklefin chub M. meeki SE (KS) KS

Fishes Silver chub M. storeriana SE (KS) KS

Fishes Arkansas River 

speckled (peppered) 

chub

M. tetranema SE (KS) KS

Fishes Opossum pipefish Microphis brachyurus ST (TX) TX

Fishes Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops SINC (KS) KS

Fishes River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Black redhorse M. duquesnei SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Redspot chub Nocomis asper ST (KS) KS

Fishes Hornyhead chub N. biguttatus ST (KS) KS

Fishes Tadpole madtom Norturus gyrinus SINC (KS) KS

Fishes River shiner Notropis blennius SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Bigeye shiner N. boops SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Chihuahua shiner N. chihuahua ST (TX) TX
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

3-116 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-28

Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on the ESA

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym) Status* (State)

State 

Where 

Present

Fishes Ozark minnow N. nubilus SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Silverband shiner N. shumardi SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Bluntnose shiner 

(extinct)

N. simus ST (TX) TX

Fishes Brindled madtom Noturus miurus SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Black-sided darter Percina maculata ST (OK, KS, TX) OK, KS, TX

Fishes Long-nosed darter P. nasuta SE (OK) OK

Fishes River darter P. shumardi SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Flathead chub Platygobio gracilis ST (KS) KS

Fishes Paddlefish Polyodon spathula ST (TX) TX

Fishes Bluehead shiner Pteronotropis hubbsi ST (TX) TX

Fishes Western blacknose 

dace

Rhinichthys obtusus SINC (KS) KS

Fishes Widemouth blindcat Satan eurystomus ST (TX) TX

Fishes Shovelnose sturgeon Scaphirhynchus 

platorynchus

ST (TX) TX

Fishes Toothless blindcat Trogloglanis pattersoni ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Mucket mussel Actinonaias 

ligamentina

SE (KS) KS

Invertebrates Elktoe mussel Alasmidonta 

marginata

SE (KS) KS

Invertebrates Flat floater mussel Anodonta 

suborbiculata

SE (KS) KS

Invertebrates Cylindrical papershell 

mussel

Anodontoides 

ferussacianus

SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Rock pocketbook 

mussel

Arcidens confragosus ST (KS) KS

Invertebrates Oklahoma Cave 

crayfish

Cambarus tartarus SE (OK) OK

Invertebrates Western fanshell 

mussel

Cyprogenia aberti SE (KS) KS

Invertebrates Butterfly mussel Ellipsaria lineolata ST (KS) KS

Invertebrates Spike mussel Elliptio dilatata SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Snuffbox mussel Epioblasma triquetra SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Texas pigtoe Fusconaia askewi ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Wabash pigtoe mussel F. flava SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Triangle pigtoe F. lananensis ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Prairie mole cricket Gryllotalpa major SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Sandbank pocketbook Lampsilis satura ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Fat mucket mussel L. siliquoidea SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Yellow sandshell 

mussel

L. teres SINC (KS), REA OK, KS, TX

Invertebrates Fluted-shell mussel Lasmigona costata ST (KS) KS
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-117

Table 3-28

Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on the ESA

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym) Status* (State)

State 

Where 

Present

Invertebrates Washboard mussel Megalonaias nervosa SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Southern hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Optioservus riffle 

beetle

Optioservus phaeus SE (KS) KS

Invertebrates Neosho midget crayfish Orconectes macrus SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Round pigtoe mussel Pleurobema 

coccineum

SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Louisiana pigtoe P. riddellii ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Sharp hornsnail Pleurocera acuta ST (KS) KS

Invertebrates Slender walker snail Pomatiopsis lapidaria SE (KS) KS

Invertebrates Texas heelsplitter Potamilus 

amphichaenus

ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Salina mucket P. metnecktayi ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Delta hydrobe Probythinella 

emarginata

ST (KS) KS

Invertebrates Ouachita kidneyshell 

mussel

Ptychobranchus 

occidentalis

ST (KS) KS

Invertebrates Giant floater Pyganodon grandis REA OK, KS, TX

Invertebrates False spike Quadrula mitchelli ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Wartyback mussel Q. nodulata SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Ozark emerald 

dragonfly

Somatochlora 

ozarkensis

SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Creeper mussel Strophitus undulatus SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Gray petaltail dragonfly Tachopteryx thoreyi SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Mexican fawnsfoot Truncilla cognata ST (TX) TX

Invertebrates Fawnsfoot mussel T. donaciformis SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Deertoe mussel T. truncata SINC (KS) KS

Invertebrates Pondhorn Uniomerus 

tetralasmus

REA OK, KS, TX

Invertebrates Ellipse mussel Venustaconcha 

ellipsiformis

SE (KS) KS

Mammals Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SINC (KS), REA OK, KS, TX

Mammals Rafinesque’s big-eared 

bat

Corynorhinus 

rafinesquii

ST (TX) TX

Mammals Townsend’s big-eared 

bat

C. townsendii SINC (KS), REA OK, KS, TX

Mammals Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus SINC (OK), REA OK

Mammals Texas kangaroo rat Dipodomys elator ST (TX) TX

Mammals Spotted bat Euderma maculatum ST (TX) TX

Mammals Pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata ST (TX) TX

Mammals Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans SINC (KS), ST (KS) KS

Mammals Short-finned pilot whale Globicephala 

macrorhynchus

ST (TX) TX
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

3-118 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-28

Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on the ESA

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym) Status* (State)

State 

Where 

Present

Mammals Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps ST (TX) TX

Mammals Dwarf sperm whale K. simus ST (TX) TX

Mammals Eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis REA OK, KS, TX

Mammals Southern yellow bat L. ega ST (TX) TX

Mammals River otter Lutra canadensis ST (NE) NE

Mammals Gervais’s beaked whale Mesoplodon 

europaeus

ST (TX) TX

Mammals White-nosed coati Nasua narica ST (TX) TX

Mammals Killer whale Orcinus orca ST (TX) TX

Mammals Coues’s rice rat Oryzomys couesi ST (TX) TX

Mammals Texas mouse Peromyscus attwateri SINC (KS) KS

Mammals Palo duro mouse P. truei comanche ST (TX) TX

Mammals False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens ST (TX) TX

Mammals Franklin’s ground 

squirrel

Spermophilus 

franklinii

SINC (KS) KS

Mammals Eastern spotted skunk Spilogale putorius ST (KS) KS

Mammals Atlantic spotted dolphin Stenella frontalis ST (TX) TX

Mammals Rough-toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis ST (TX) TX

Mammals Southern bog lemming Synaptomys cooperi SINC (KS) KS

Mammals Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis REA OK, KS, TX

Mammals Black bear Ursus americanus ST (TX; due to 

similarity to Louisiana 

black bear)

TX

Mammals Swift fox Vulpes velox REA, SE (NE) OK, KS, TX

Mammals Goose-beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris ST (TX) TX

Plants American ginseng Panax quinquefolium ST (NE) NE

Reptiles Glossy snake Arizona elegans SINC (KS) KS

Reptiles Scarlet snake Cemophora coccinea ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Reticulated gecko Coleonyx reticulatus ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Black-striped snake Coniophanes 

imperialis

ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus ST (TX), SINC (KS) KS, TX

Reptiles Reticulate collared 

lizard

Crotaphytus 

reticulatus

ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Texas indigo snake Drymarchon 

melanurus erebennus

ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Speckled racer Drymobius 

margaritiferus

ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Broadhead skink Eumeces laticeps ST (KS) KS

Reptiles Texas tortoise Gopherus berlandieri ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Cagle’s map turtle Graptemys caglei ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Common map turtle G. geographica ST (KS) KS
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-119

Table 3-28

Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area but not Listed on the ESA

Group Common Name Scientific Name

(Synonym) Status* (State)

State 

Where 

Present

Reptiles Western hognose 

snake 

Heterodon nasicus SINC (KS) KS

Reptiles Eastern hognose snake H. platirhinos SINC (KS) KS

Reptiles Chihuahuan night snake Hypsiglena jani SINC (KS) KS

Reptiles Chihuahuan mud turtle Kinosternon hirtipes 

murrayi

ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Northern cat-eyed 

snake

Leptodeira 

septentrionalis

ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Smooth green snake Liochlorophis vernalis ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Alligator snapping turtle Macrochelys 

temminckii

ST (TX), SINC (KS) KS, TX

Reptiles Brazos water snake Nerodia harteri ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Mountain short-horned 

lizard

P. hernandesi ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Texas blind snake (New 

Mexico blind snake)

Rena dissecta ST (KS) KS

Reptiles Longnose snake Rhinocheilus lecontei SINC (KS) KS

Reptiles Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus ST (NE) NE

Reptiles Redbelly snake Storeria 

occipitomaculata

SINC (KS) KS

Reptiles Checkered garter snake Thamnophis 

marcianus

ST (KS) KS

Reptiles Chihuahuan desert lyre 

snake

Trimorphodon 

vilkinsonii

ST (TX) TX

Reptiles Rough earth snake Virginia striatula SINC (KS) KS

Reptiles Smooth earth snake V. valeriae SINC (KS) KS

Sources:10 USFWS 2008a; Nebraska Natural Heritage Program 2013; TPWD 2016; Assal et al. 2015

*Status Codes: 

BCC—Bird of Conservation Concern, SE—State Endangered, ST—State Threatened

SINC—Species in Need of Conservation, REA—Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment 

Other key special species, including those listed in the Southern Great Plains 

REA—Pre-Assessment Report or with known occurrences in the decision area, 

are discussed in detail below.

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Bird of Conservation Concern, Draft 

Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment species.

This is a small ground-dwelling owl, with long legs, white chin stripe, round 

head, and stubby tail. The burrowing owl may be observed perching on the 

 

10George Thomas, BLM, personal communication via e-mail with Kevin Rice, EMPSi, regarding special status species

list and definition, February 13, 2015.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

3-120 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

ground, on fence posts, or on mounds in open spaces. Burrowing owls are not 

highly territorial and may share a common foraging area with other nesting 

pairs.

Habitat includes open grasslands, prairie, plains, and savanna and sometimes 

vacant lots near human habitation or airports. This owl spends much time on 

the ground or on low perches, such as fence posts or dirt mounds. It nests in 

abandoned burrows dug by prairie dogs, ground squirrels, foxes, woodchucks, 

or badgers. In Oklahoma, burrowing owls are highly associated with prairie dog 

colonies. Their diet includes large insects, rodents, and sometimes birds and 

amphibians. Widely distributed through the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains 

in the United States and Canada, the burrowing owl’s numbers have been 

greatly reduced by habitat loss, due to intensive agriculture, degradation via 

human control of prairie dogs and other small burrowing mammals, and 

fragmentation from conversion to agriculture (NatureServe 2015). Spatial 

occurrence data for the entire planning area is unavailable for the species. 

Lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus). Bird of Conservation

Concern, Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment—PreAssessment Report species.

This species is characterized by brown and buff barring, similar in appearance to 

the greater prairie-chicken but slightly smaller. It inhabits mixed-grass/dwarf 

shrub communities that occur on sandy soils. Principally these communities are 

the sand sagebrush-bluestem (Artemisia filifoilia-Andropogon spp.) association in

Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma, and to a lesser extent Texas and New 

Mexico. Leks typically occur on knolls or ridges, with relatively short or sparse 

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia).

Bird of Conservation Concern, Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional 

Assessment—Pre-Assessment Report species

This is a small ground-dwelling owl, with long legs, white chin stripe, round head, 

and stubby tail. The burrowing owl may be observed perching on the ground, on 

fence posts, or on mounds in open spaces. Burrowing owls are not highly 

territorial and may share a common foraging area with other nesting pairs. 

Habitat includes open grasslands, prairie, plains, and savanna and sometimes 

vacant lots near human habitation or airports. This owl spends much time on 

the ground or on low perches, such as fence posts or dirt mounds. It nests in 

abandoned burrows dug by prairie dogs, ground squirrels, foxes, woodchucks, 

or badgers. In Oklahoma, burrowing owls are highly associated with prairie dog 

vegetation. Nesting sites are in sand sagebrush or shinnery oak grasslands, with 

high canopy cover in relatively tall dense vegetation. The species’ diet is insects, 

seeds, acorns, vegetation material, and cultivated grains, such as sorghum. 

In spring and fall, adults congregate on leks, where males engage in communal 

courtship displays; the number of males attending a lek is influenced by habitat 

and population density. Droughts and hot dry weather during nesting season 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species) 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-121 

negatively impact grass height and may reduce hatching success. Lesser prairiechickens form flocks in fall and winter and generally do not migrate. Males and 

females both demonstrate strong site fidelity. 

The lesser prairie-chicken has a small, fragmented range in the southwestern 

Great Plains region. Distribution and abundance have declined, due to habitat 

loss, degradation, and fragmentation. Causes are conversion of native rangelands 

to cropland, spread of invasive species, and cumulative habitat degradation. The 

last is caused by inappropriate livestock grazing practices, energy development, 

woodland spread due to fire suppression, and structural and transportation 

developments (NatureServe 2015). 

Additionally, aboveground vertical structures, such as power poles, fence posts, 

and oil and gas wells, provide a perch for raptors and can cause general habitat 

avoidance and displacement (NatureServe 2015). In the planning area, 

populations are primarily concentrated in western Kansas and the Oklahoma 

and Texas Panhandle region (see Figure 3-21, Lesser Prairie-Chicken). The 

historic range of the lesser prairie-chicken covered 178 counties in the planning 

area. Now, crucial habitat for the species covers 78 counties. 

In 1998, the USFWS announced that listing the lesser prairie-chicken was 

warranted but that it was precluded by other higher priority actions; instead, 

the agency identified the species as a candidate species for federal listing. In 

2012, the USFWS proposed to list the lesser prairie-chicken as a threatened 

species under the ESA, and in 2014 the agency published the final rule for 

determination of threatened status; however, in September 2015, a federal 

court in Texas vacated the USFWS decision to list the species as threatened and 

the USFWS delisted the species in July 20, 2016. 

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis). Bird of Conservation Concern, Southern Great 

Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment—Pre-Assessment Report species. 

With a rusty back and shoulders, pale head, and white tail, the ferruginous hawk 

winters in Texas and Oklahoma in grassland and desert shrub areas. It prefers 

open country, primarily prairies, plains, and badlands, sagebrush, saltbushgreasewood shrubland, periphery of pinyon-juniper and other woodland, and 

desert. It nests in tall trees or willows along streams or on steep slopes, on cliff 

ledges, hillsides, on power line towers, sometimes on sloped ground on the 

plains or on mounds in open desert. It avoids agriculture and human activity. 

Ferruginous hawks may maintain several nests in a territory and alternate their 

use. Clutch size varies with availability of prey, especially ground squirrels 

(Spermophilus spp.) and jackrabbits (Lepus spp.). Home range size varies widely, 

from 3 to 30 square miles in some areas. Uncommon but widespread in suitable 

habitat in the western United States and Canada, ferruginous hawk numbers 

have declined in local areas. It is highly sensitive to human disturbance and 

subject to continuing habitat loss from agricultural development and forest 

3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-123

incursion into grasslands (NatureServe 2015). Spatial occurrence data for the 

entire planning area is unavailable for the species.

Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus). Bird of Conservation Concern, 

Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment—Pre-Assessment Report

species.

This is a large dusky shorebird, with black barring and a long decurved bill for 

probing the mud for food. It is a long-distance migrant that breeds on prairies 

and grassy meadows, generally near water. It nests on the ground, usually in a 

flat area with short grass, sometimes on more irregular terrain, often near 

rocks, in prairies and meadows. In winter, it is often found on beaches and 

mudflats. 

It is an opportunistic feeder, ranging from insects, such as beetles and 

grasshoppers, to berries, crabs, small toads, and snails. It is found widely across 

the western United States and Canada, but its range is diminishing. It occurs in 

the decision area in northern Texas through southwestern Kansas but is 

vulnerable or imperiled throughout these areas. Its populations have declined 

from hunting, and habitat has been lost to cultivation, which has led to localized 

declines (NatureServe 2015). Spatial occurrence data for the entire planning 

area is unavailable for the species.

Mountain plover (Charadrius montanus). Bird of Conservation Concern, Southern 

Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment—Pre-Assessment Report species.

The mountain plover has a brown back, mainly white undersides, and a dark 

crown. It is a long-distance migrant, wintering along the Pacific Coast and 

nesting in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains, on the ground in bare or 

sparsely vegetated areas. It is found in croplands, deserts, and grassland areas 

and nests in short-grass prairie and sagebrush habitat, sometimes in prairie dog 

towns. Nests are on the ground in shallow depressions in dry soils. Nest 

predation is high, mainly from foxes and coyotes, and nests may be lost by being 

located in fallow fields that subsequently are planted with millet or sunflowers. 

Mountain plovers feed primarily on insects, including grasshoppers, crickets, 

beetles, flies, and ants. Preferred winter habitat consists of short-grass plains and 

fields, plowed fields, and sandy deserts, where they forage and roost in loose 

flocks that may exceed 1,000 birds on the southern Great Plains.

Mountain plovers’ numbers have been greatly reduced by hunting, and habitat 

has been lost by conversion of short-grass prairie to cropland or tall grasses, 

orchards, or developments. In the plains, many nests are in prairie dog towns, 

which have declined greatly from human removal but are now increasing in 

abundance again. The USFWS declined to list the mountain plover under the 

Endangered Species Act (NatureServe 2015). Spatial occurrence data for the 

entire planning area is unavailable for the species.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

3-124 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus). Bird of Conservation Concern, Southern 

Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment—Pre-Assessment Report species.

This is a small, pale plover, with a thin dark bill, white underside, and a breast 

band and dark ear patch. It nests on the ground in loose colonies on shorelines, 

mud or salt flats, and sandy or sparsely vegetated shores of rivers, lakes, and 

ponds. Nest predation by gulls, common raven, red fox, skunk, raccoon, and 

coyote results in a high rate of loss in some areas. 

Most populations are migratory, and in winter, this species is found on beaches, 

in salt ponds, and on estuarine sand and mud flats. They eat insects, small 

crustaceans, and other invertebrates in the mud or near shallow water. 

They have a large, scattered range, from Texas and Oklahoma, west to 

California. Populations are declining in many areas, due to habitat loss and 

degradation, especially from development and disturbance by humans in 

shoreline areas, as well as from predators. On the Great Plains, habitat has been 

lost to invasive tamarisk (NatureServe 2015). The Pacific Coast population is 

listed as threatened under the ESA. Spatial occurrence data for the entire 

planning area is unavailable for the species.

Greater prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus cupido). Bird of Conservation Concern.

This is a chunky, hen-like bird, barred with dark brown, cinnamon, and pale buff 

coloring. It is slightly larger, darker, and more barred than the lesser prairiechicken and sharp-tailed grouse. Its preferred habitat is grasslands with 

herbaceous cover, but it may also be found in cultivated lands and pastures. As 

with lesser prairie-chicken, males gather in leks for communal courtship, and 

females nest in the vicinity, in a scrape on the ground lined with vegetation. Both 

sexes show site fidelity, and most do not migrate. Ranges vary from 25 to 500 

acres. The diet consists primarily of insects, especially grasshoppers in summer. 

At other times of the year it eats fruit, leaves, flowers, shoots, and grain. 

Formerly widespread in grasslands of Canada and the western United States, the 

greater prairie-chicken is now found in greatly reduced numbers in the Great 

Plains, south to Texas. Decline is mainly the result of loss and fragmentation of 

tall-grass prairie. The largest remaining populations are in Kansas, Nebraska, 

Oklahoma, and South Dakota. The closely related lesser prairie-chicken is also 

diminished in range. The subspecies, Tympanuchus cupido (heath hen) of the 

eastern seaboard, has been extinct since the 1930s (NatureServe 2015). Spatial 

occurrence data for the entire planning area is unavailable for the species.

Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus). Species in Need of Conservation

(Oklahoma), Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment—PreAssessment Report species.

Black-tailed prairie dog is a diurnal rodent, approximately 15 inches in length. It 

lives in colonies or towns, which can cover up to thousands of acres of 

grassland habitat (Arizona Game and Fish Department 1999). Well-drained and 

medium-textured soils are required for burrow excavation. 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-125

Declines in populations in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas have been attributed to 

population control, habitat destruction, fragmentation by agricultural 

conversion, and plague (Arizona Game and Fish Department 1999). Prairie dogs 

provide important habitat and feeding grounds for other species, including the 

endangered black-footed ferret, which uses prairie dog burrows for shelter and 

depend on prairie dogs for food. Activities that affect black-tailed prairie dog 

populations or habitat may also affect black-footed ferrets (USFWS 2013). 

Spatial occurrence data for the entire planning area is unavailable for the 

species.

Swift fox (Vulpes velox), Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment—

Pre-Assessment Report species.

This is the smallest fox in North American, found primarily in short-grass and 

mixed-grass prairies. It relies on dens year-round for shelter, escape from 

predators, and rearing of young (Meyer 2009). Coyotes are the primary 

predator, and badgers and raptors are also responsible for some swift fox 

mortality. Threats are trapping, poisoning, vehicle collision, expansion into red 

fox range, coyotes, and habitat loss and degradation (Meyer 2009). The swift fox 

is found in northern Texas, the Oklahoma Panhandle, and western Kansas. 

Spatial occurrence data for the entire planning area is unavailable for the 

species.

Trends

Special status species diversity and abundance is directly related to maintaining 

habitat availability, diversity, and quality. Of the species described above, each 

has its own specialized habitat requirements. In many instances, these habitat 

types have been drastically altered or reduced from the historic native ranges. 

Continuing threats to native ecosystems and species diversity in the planning 

area are fragmentation and loss of critical or important habitat due to human 

activities. 

The ABB remains extirpated from approximately 90 percent of its historic range 

based on the most recent USFWS 5-year review (USFWS 2008b), despite 

discovery of new populations. Little is known about population size and trends 

in much of the species range (USFWS 2008b).

In Kansas, a 2005 reevaluation of the status of fishes found that 54 of the 116 

native fish species should be assigned special conservation status due to 

substantial declines in distribution or abundance or their rarity (Haslouer et al. 

2005). Habitat disturbances, including instream flow alteration, water diversions, 

eutrophication, and exotic species introductions, have resulted in unsuitable 

conditions for some fish and aquatic invertebrates in the planning area (Assal et 

al. 2015). These disturbances also affect amphibians, which rely on aquatic 

environments for breeding habitat.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

3-126 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Historically abundant, freshwater special status mussels face anthropogenic 

threats from habitat degradation and water quality issues such as dam 

construction, impoundments, agricultural activities, and energy and 

infrastructure. Mussels have biological and behavioral characteristics that make 

them less able to respond quickly to disturbance. They are relatively immobile 

and cannot easily move to new habitats if their current habitats become 

unsuitable. Because many species are long lived and have slow and complicated 

reproduction cycles, the effects of disturbances are often delayed and recovery 

can be very slow. In general, mussel beds are now smaller in size than historic 

mussel bed records (Assal et al. 2015).

Trends for special status mammals are linked to the trends for the natural 

habitats they are found in. For special status mammals found in shortgrass 

prairie habitats such as the swift fox (a key special status species), declines have 

been attributed to conversion of native grasslands to cropland, trapping, and 

poisoning. Altered grazing regimes may also have contributed to swift fox 

declines; however, populations are viable and stable or increasing in the core of 

the species’ distribution (Assal et al. 2015).

In Oklahoma, 26 species of breeding land birds have experienced population 

declines of 45 percent or more between 1968 and 2003 (ODWC 2005). 

Additionally, channelization and impoundment of rivers has directly eliminated 

nesting habitat for such species as the least tern; however, listed species, such as 

the whooping crane and bald eagle, which have benefitted from extensive 

conservation efforts, have been recovering in the region (ODWC 2005; 

Wasson et al. 2005; USFWS 2012). Bald eagles have recovered from a low of 

nine pairs to approximately 150 breeding pairs in Oklahoma today.11

In eastern Texas, red-cockaded woodpeckers experienced severe population 

declines in the 1980s. Management activities on federal surface lands, such as 

thinning projects and translocations, have helped to reverse this trend; 

nevertheless, loss of forested habitat, inadequate fire regimes to control 

hardwood midstory, and demographic dysfunction remain as obstacles to 

recovery, particularly on private and state-owned surface lands (Conner et al. 

2006).

Federally threatened and endangered species are subject to proactive federal 

management and Section 7 consultation with the USFWS, which is the 

mechanism by which Federal agencies ensure the actions they take, including 

those they fund or authorize, do not jeopardize the existence of any listed 

species. Federal lands are managed for a variety of uses that could impact special 

status species. Examples of these uses are mineral exploration and development, 

new land authorizations such as ROWs or wind energy facilities, grazing, and 

 

11Don Wolfe, Biologist at Sutton Avian Research Center in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, personal communication with 

Liza Wozniak, EMPSi Biologist, January 2015.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Special Status Species)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-127

recreation. The demand for these activities is anticipated to continue on public 

lands.

3.2.8 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources are locations of human activity, occupation, or use. They 

include expressions of human culture and history in the physical environment, 

such as archaeological sites, historic buildings and structures, and historic trails. 

Cultural resources can also be natural features, plants, and animals or places 

that are considered to be traditionally important or sacred to a culture, 

subculture, or community. The significance of these places is derived from the 

role the property plays in a community’s cultural identity, as defined by its 

beliefs, practices, history, and social institutions. 

The BLM is responsible for managing cultural resources on public lands in 

accordance with the regulations, statutes, and policies described in detail in the 

BLM Manual 8100 series. The BLM is required by 54 USC Section 306108 

(commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act) to 

take into consideration the effect of its undertakings on historic properties, 

regardless of jurisdiction, including non-federal lands overlying federal mineral 

estate or tribal trust minerals. 

Cultural resources represent a fragile and irreplaceable part of American 

heritage. They are identified through field inventories, historical documentation, 

or oral evidence (BLM Manual 8110, Identifying and Evaluating Cultural 

Resources [BLM 2004c]). 

Archaeological resources are a subset of cultural resources. They are any 

material remains of human life or activities that have the following 

characteristics:

 Are at least 50 years old for historic properties (under the NHPA)

 Are at least 100 years old (under the provisions of the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 [ARPA])

 Are of archaeological interest (as defined in 43 CFR, Subpart 7.3)

Native American religious concerns, a critical element noted in Appendix 5 of 

the BLM NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1 (BLM 2008b), are addressed in Section 

3.5.1, Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests.

Historic properties are cultural resources that meet specific criteria for 

eligibility for listing on the NRHP. The regulations found at 36 CFR, Part 800, 

Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties, outline the steps for identifying 

and evaluating historic properties, for assessing the impacts of federal actions on 

historic properties, and for consulting to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse 

effects. This process does not require historic properties to be preserved or 

even nominated for listing, but it does ensure that the decisions of federal 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Cultural Resources)

3-128 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

agencies concerning the treatment of these places result from meaningful 

consideration of cultural and historic values and the options available to protect 

the properties. 

These regulations stipulate that cultural resources must be assessed for integrity 

of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A 

property may be considered eligible for listing on the NRHP if it retains 

sufficient integrity of these elements and meets certain criteria outlined in 

National Register Bulletin 15 (NPS 1997). The quality of significance in American 

history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in 

districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. 

As outlined in 36 CFR 60.4, historic properties include prehistoric and historic 

archaeological sites and places considered important to Native Americans; they 

must meet a specific set of criteria, as follows (NPS 1997):

 Association with events that have made a significant contribution to 

the broad patterns of our history: or

 Association with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

 Embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or 

method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or 

that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and 

distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual 

distinction; or

 Yielding, or may be likely to yield, information important in 

prehistory or history

The decision area for the BLM and BIA in the four states consists of a mix of 

BLM-administered and BIA-managed surface lands, split-estate, federal mineral 

estate on lands managed by other federal agencies, and surface and mineral 

estate on tribal lands. 

The BLM is responsible for all proactive cultural resource management 

requirements under the NHPA, FLPMA, Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA), ARPA, AIRFA, and other applicable 

laws and executive orders where BLM manages the surface. It is also responsible 

for completing the Section 106 review process for all actions, including leasing 

and APDs for the lands that the agency administers. For split-estate federal, 

state, and private lands, where the BLM manages the subsurface minerals only, it 

is responsible for completing the Section 106 process for leasing decisions and 

APDs. 

The BIA is responsible for proactive cultural resource management on tribal 

trust lands and reservations. It is also responsible for Section 106 compliance 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Cultural Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-129

for leasing on these lands and split-estate Indian subsurface minerals; however, 

the BLM is responsible for completing the Section 106 process for APDs, except 

in Osage County, where the BIA is responsible (DOI 2013). 

Current Condition

A Class I cultural resource inventory was prepared in support of this study (SRI 

2016). The purpose of the Class I inventory is to broadly document and 

characterize the nature and extent of known cultural resources in and next to 

BLM-administered and BIA-managed surface lands and split-estates where the 

agencies have compliance responsibilities for leasing the mineral estate. This 

provides management directions and guidance for relevant lands in the planning 

area. The results of the inventory were not used to quantify potential impacts 

on cultural resources, 

The limited inventory is a compilation of site data from cultural resource files 

maintained by the relevant state repositories. It does not supplement these data 

with additional searches of files maintained by individual tribes or tribal 

consultations. Such inventories identify known resources and define appropriate 

research contexts and themes within which the significance of such resources 

can be evaluated. They do not replace site-specific consideration of undertakings 

that may affect cultural resources.

The Class I inventory is a review and compilation of existing recorded data. 

The goals of the inventory are to identify gaps in knowledge of the past within 

the Class I inventory area and possible gaps in archaeological data. In particular, 

locations that may be important to Native American tribes for spiritual or 

traditional cultural uses are unlikely to be recognized, mapped, or recorded in 

the repositories that were cited. Typically, these locations are confidential and 

are disclosed only through consultation with the affected tribe when the 

resource is directly threatened (SRI 2016).

As part of the overall project, the BLM and BIA initially consulted the tribes 

before scoping began and again in December 2014. The purpose was to solicit 

tribal involvement on a government-to-government basis. Tribal workshops 

were conducted in January 2015. In March 2016, the draft Class 1 Inventory was 

distributed to tribes, along with another invitation to consult. This was followed 

up with another distribution in July 2016. The BLM and BIA are continuing to 

consult with tribes on a government-to-government basis on a wide range of 

issues (see Section 1.10.2). 

In addition to compiling site information, the study includes environmental 

contexts, culture history, regional cultural overviews, and historic context. This 

information provides the BLM and BIA with background for both large-scale and 

site-specific cultural resource planning, evaluation, and compliance. The Class I 

inventory does not preclude the need for site-specific investigation to determine 

the presence and impacts of federal actions or decisions on historic properties. 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Cultural Resources)

3-130 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

The portions of the planning area that were subject to the Class I inventory are 

BLM-administered and BIA-managed surface lands, potential lands, and splitestate properties, totaling approximately 3,475,177 acres. Also included is a 

2,640-foot buffer around all but the split-estate properties, bringing the total 

coverage of the Class I inventory to 7,332,944 acres. With 6,888,293 acres, 

lands in Oklahoma dominate the inventory, followed by lands in Texas (250,141 

acres). These lands are mostly scattered throughout the states, as described 

below (SRI 2016). 

In a cultural resource Class I inventory, buffers are typically researched 

regardless of ownership or management to better characterize the resource 

potential. This does not imply federal jurisdiction over surface lands or 

management of buffer lands or minerals. 

Parcels Researched

Oklahoma

About 300 separate surface, split-estate, or buffer parcels are in Oklahoma. 

Totaling 6,888,293 acres, these parcels are distributed across all 77 counties. 

The predominant type of land status in the western third to half of the state, 

including the Panhandle, is BLM-administered split-estate lands. BIA-managed

split-estate lands predominate in the eastern half of the state. 

BLM-administered split-estate lands total 570,837 acres, and surface lands, 

scattered primarily along major watercourses in the western half and 

southeastern quarter of the state, total 13,811 acres. BIA-managed split-estate 

lands total 1,794,175 acres, and surface lands total 816,695 acres. Buffers 

around the BLM and BIA surface lands total 3,692,757 acres. Finally, a small 

amount of acreage consists of overlapping BIA-managed and BLM-administered 

surface or split-estate lands. 

As part of the 2015-2016 cultural research overview, the boundary area 

between Oklahoma and Texas was researched for previously recorded cultural 

resources. Research included the boundary area between Oklahoma and Texas 

and a defined buffer zone along the boundary that extended equally in each 

direction from the boundary’s centerline (SRI 2016).

Texas

There are more than 1,000 separate surface, split-estate, and buffer parcels in 

Texas. These total 250,141 acres and are distributed across 48 counties, 

primarily in the Panhandle and the north-central to northeastern and eastcentral to southeastern parts of the state. A few scattered parcels are also in 

the central and southwestern parts of Texas. The predominant property type is 

BLM split-estate lands, which total 142,000 acres. BLM-administered surface 

lands total 32,845 acres. BIA-managed surface lands total 5,962 acres, and BIAmanaged split-estate lands total 319 acres. Buffers around the BLM-administered 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Cultural Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-131

and BIA-managed surface lands total 68,997 acres. Lastly, about 18 acres consist 

of overlapping BIA-managed and BLM-administered surface lands. 

As part of the 2015-2016 cultural research overview, the boundary area 

between Oklahoma and Texas was researched for previously recorded cultural 

resources. Research included the boundary area between Oklahoma and Texas 

and a defined buffer zone along the boundary that extended equally in each 

direction from the boundary’s centerline (SRI 2016).

Kansas

All property types, as defined above, are represented among the Kansas parcels, 

which total 188,322 acres across 59 counties. As with those in Nebraska, some 

straddle state lines and extend into both Nebraska to the north and Oklahoma 

to the south. Solely counting the portions of all parcels in Kansas, the clear 

majority are in the northwestern and southwestern parts of the state and are 

predominantly BLM-administered split-estate lands. These total 67,824 acres; 

two small tribal split-estate parcels total 17 acres. 

In the northeastern part of the state are BIA-managed surface lands of the 

Prairie Band Potawatomi of Kansas, in Jackson County; the Kickapoo Tribe in 

Kansas, in Brown County; and the continuation of the Sac and Fox Nation of 

Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska Reservation in Brown County, and the Iowa 

Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska in Brown and Doniphan Counties. Finally, at the 

southeastern border of the state, along the Oklahoma state line, are also 2640-

foot buffers around BIA-managed surface lands in Oklahoma. These areas are in 

Cowley, Chautauqua, and Cherokee Counties. 

The BIA-managed surface parcels total 29,742 acres, and their buffers are 

89,571 acres. A few small BLM-administered surface-land parcels are also 

included in Kansas, totaling less than 1.5 acres; their buffers encompass an 

additional 1,168 acres (SRI 2016).

Nebraska

The Nebraska study areas are all in the far southern tier of counties and total 

6,188 acres. All parcels are tribal lands, except a tiny BLM-administered splitestate parcel in the far southwestern part of the state, and each has a 2,640-foot

buffer around it. All BIA parcels and their buffers are in Richardson County, in 

the far southeastern corner of the state. Most are within the boundary of the 

Sac (also Sauc or Sauk) and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska 

Reservation, which continues southward into Kansas. The Nebraska parcels 

total 914 acres, and the buffers add 5,274 acres (SRI 2016). 

Culture History

There is no comprehensive cultural chronology that is completely applicable to 

this large and geographically diverse decision area; however, the area shares a 

broad, general Prehistoric and Historic period sequence that is briefly outlined 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Cultural Resources)

3-132 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

in Table 3-29, below. That sequence is as follows: pre-Paleo-Indian period, 

Paleo-Indian period, Archaic period, Late Prehistoric period, Protohistoric 

period, and Historical period; however, it is known that there is a full range of 

cultural resources that may date to over 10,000 years ago and continue through 

multiple eras and cultures to today. 

Table 3-29

Broad Temporal Framework with Date Ranges for the Planning Region

Period Date Range

Historical AD 1750 to the present

Protohistoric AD 1500–1750

Late Prehistoric II, Plains Village AD 800/1200–1700

Late Prehistoric I, Woodland AD 1/500–800/1200

Archaic

Late Archaic 2500 BC–AD 1/500

Middle Archaic 4500–2500 BC

Early Archaic 6000–4500 BC

Paleo-Indian

Late Paleo-Indian 8000–6000 BC

Middle Paleo-Indian 8800–8000 BC

Early Paleo-Indian 9500–8800 BC

Pre-Clovis 18,000–9500BC

Source: SRI 2016

Inventory Results

Data for the inventory were accumulated by consulting site-compilation records 

from repositories in each state. For Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas, these data 

were accessible either through secure online databases or by requesting that 

such data be sent electronically. For Oklahoma, the data were primarily 

accessed through on-site searches of maps and databases. According to records 

obtained from the four states’ repositories, within the project boundary, 3,607 

sites are in Oklahoma, 247 are in Texas, 61 are in Kansas, and 11 are in 

Nebraska (SRI 2016). A geodatabase has been prepared to assist cultural 

resource managers in efficiently researching individual parcels and recorded 

sites.

Archaeological sites make up most of the recorded cultural resources. They are 

the most likely cultural resources to be identified and encountered in federal 

actions involving mineral estate or land use decisions. Survey coverage overall 

for the decision area has not been calculated but is expected to be very low 

relative to its size. The Class 1 Survey did not include delineation or calculation 

of field survey coverage performed to current standards. This is also 

complicated by the availability of maps at the repositories, by small parcels 

surrounded by larger buffers, and by the split-estates. 

Cultural resources typically are inventoried in advance of a particular project or 

permit application; thus, they are higher in areas where such development has 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Cultural Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-133

occurred. Survey coverage is most complete where blocks of land are surveyed, 

instead of individual drill sites or small parcels; therefore, some areas of active 

recent development would likely have a higher percentage of completed 

compliance surveys. 

Under the NHPA, potentially affected tribes are notified and invited to consult 

when a federal undertaking may affect historic properties of importance to 

tribes. Sometimes tribal land is involved, sometimes the undertaking (such as a 

permit to drill) may disturb the ground, or there may be other impacts in an 

area where the tribe has interests from past occupancy or use. As noted 

previously, the data compilation from the states did not include tribal 

repositories or site-specific consultation for future ground-disturbing activities. 

A variety of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites are in the Class 1 study

area. In total, 48 distinctive types of sites were noted during the records search. 

Many of the sites are multicomponent and represent a range and combinations 

of distinct site types. Site types and associated cultural affiliation records vary 

greatly between states, mostly because of differing recording procedures and 

state site forms. Discrepancies can also be attributed to the presence of distinct 

culture areas and activities associated with differing environments and available 

resources.

Oklahoma

In Oklahoma, the results of the inventory of the study area parcels are 

categorized by regions. Western Oklahoma reflects a considerable diversity of 

documented resources in the parcels: Out of 867 sites recorded there, 512 

(59.1 percent) of the sites consist solely of prehistoric components, 271 (31.3 

percent) are historical period, 69 (8.0 percent) are multicomponent sites with 

both prehistoric and historical-era components, and 15 (1.7 percent) are not 

defined or are unknown. 

The eastern Oklahoma section contains the largest sample size of cultural 

resources in the entire Class 1 study area. Out of 2,568 sites in the eastern 

Oklahoma portion of the study area, 1,508 (58.7 percent) have only prehistoric 

components, 810 (31.5 percent) are historical period, 241 (9.4 percent) are 

multicomponent sites with both prehistoric and historical period components, 

and 9 (0.4 percent) are not defined or are unknown.

The Oklahoma/Red River section is much smaller than the eastern or western 

Oklahoma section, but it still contains more resources than the portions of the 

study area in Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas combined. Out of 172 sites in the 

southern Oklahoma/Red River portion of the study area, 100 (58.1 percent) 

consist of prehistoric components only, 47 (27.3 percent) consist of historical 

period components only, 21 (12.2 percent) are multicomponent sites with both 

prehistoric and historical period components, and 4 (2.3 percent) are of

unknown temporal affiliation.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Cultural Resources)

3-134 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Most sites in Oklahoma can be best described as artifact scatters, some which 

include structural remains. Many sites are characterized by unassigned 

prehistoric temporal affiliations; however, their dates range from as early as the 

Early Archaic period to as late as the Protohistoric/historical period. 

Additional common prehistoric site types include open habitations with mounds, 

prehistoric quarries/workshops, rockshelters, burials, earthen mounds, 

specialized-activity sites, mound complexes, burned-rock concentrations, and 

petroglyphs/pictographs. Less common prehistoric site types recorded in the 

study area are a handful of caves, stone mounds/rock piles, rock alignments, 

campsites, and kill sites.

The most common historical period sites in Oklahoma are farmsteads, 

homesteads, cabins, and dugouts, in addition to historical period trash dumps 

and cemeteries. Many historical period industrial sites are also present 

throughout the study area. Examples are mills, irrigation/land-modification 

works associated with water-management activities, schoolhouses, and historical 

period towns/settlements. Less common historical period site types found in the 

Oklahoma portions of the study area are historical period forts or other 

military sites, trading posts, churches, missions, oil well sites, bridges, 

transportation-related sites, post offices, historical period ceremonial sites, 

historical period ranches and ranch-related-activity sites, a Plains Indian village, 

and a reservoir (SRI 2016).

Texas

Most of the prehistoric site types found across the widely scattered Texas 

parcels consist of campsites or prehistoric quarries/workshops/ceramic scatters. 

These sites range in age from the Paleo-Indian period to the Late Prehistoric 

periods. Village sites have also been recorded in the study area, dating from the 

Late Archaic to the Late Prehistoric periods, as well as late prehistoric hamlets 

and habitation sites. 

Additional prehistoric sites types are a few rock rings, shell middens, a rock 

shelter, two kill sites, earthen mounds, isolated burials, specialized-activity sites, 

and burned-rock concentrations. One of the sites was defined as an isolated 

find, consisting of a fluted biface,12 such as would be attributed to a Paleo-Indian 

period technological organization. Most of these sites are unknown prehistoric. 

The mounds that lack temporal determinations are most likely Late Prehistoric 

Period. One of the kill sites was assigned to the Paleo-Indian period, and one of 

the shell middens was assigned to the Archaic period. 

Historical period sites in Texas are mostly dams and water-control features and 

residential sites, such as homesteads, farmsteads, cabins, and dugouts. A smaller 

 

12A large projectile point, longer in length than width, sharpened on both sides and thinned with a groove in the 

center.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Cultural Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-135

number of historical period sites are sawmills and related logging features, trash 

dumps, ranch-related areas, forts or other military features, a historical period 

townsite, a cemetery, a historical period petroglyph, an oil well site, a rock wall, 

a few railroad grades, and a shipwreck (SRI 2016).

Kansas

Site types represented in the Kansas portion of the study area primarily are of 

prehistoric habitation locales. Most are campsites, with a range of temporal 

affiliations, potentially from the Archaic period to the historical period. Late 

Prehistoric (Ceramic) period villages and habitations and historical period 

homestead/farmstead/agrarian sites are the second most common site types. 

Additional site types are historical period cemeteries, a Ceramic period camp, a 

Grasshopper Falls phase camp, a Late Prehistoric I hamlet, historical period 

trash dumps, an oil well site, isolated burials, and lithic quarries/workshops. 

handful few of the site records from Kansas represent isolated projectile point 

finds (SRI 2016).

Nebraska

The range of site types represented in the Nebraska portion of the study area 

are mostly prehistoric habitation locales, most of which are related to the Late 

Prehistoric period. Only a few additional prehistoric sites types have been 

documented in the Nebraska portion of the study area: an isolated burial site, a 

village with known burials, a petroglyph, and a historical period cemetery.

Condition of Cultural Resources

The condition of cultural resources in the decision area is variable. Where there 

is federal surface and mineral estate management, there is cultural resource 

review of all authorized projects and permitted activities. This requirement 

includes not only lands administered by the BLM and BIA, but all federal lands. 

Where surface management is private or the responsibility of other entities, 

impacts on cultural resources are not necessarily considered, except when 

there is a federal action, such as an application for permit to drill. 

In all cases, there can be impacts on cultural resources resulting from any 

activity or construction that is not subject to review. This can include dispersed 

recreation, unauthorized collection, vandalism, and natural processes, such as 

erosion. Where the BLM administers surface estate, proactive management of 

cultural resources can address these impacts.

Because of increases in oil and gas development in recent years, there have been 

many surveys for cultural resources, and many new sites have been recorded. 

Only a relatively few sites in the planning area and buffers have been evaluated 

or formally nominated for listing on the NRHP. Many more may meet the 

eligibility criteria but have not been evaluated. Sites that have been evaluated 

and determined not eligible do not need to be avoided or managed by the 

agency unless other circumstances apply.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Cultural Resources)

3-136 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Within the decision area and buffers, 58 archaeological sites and 157 historic 

buildings and structures in Oklahoma are listed on the NRHP. Additionally, 61 

sites in Oklahoma are eligible for listing on the NRHP. One multicomponent 

Plains village and historic farmstead site is also designated as a National Historic 

Landmark. In Texas, eight historic buildings and structures are listed on the 

NRHP, and eight archaeological sites have been determined eligible. Two 

archaeological sites and two historic buildings and structures are listed in 

Kansas, and one archaeological site has been determined eligible. One 

archaeological site in Nebraska is listed on the NRHP (SRI 2016). 

The Cross Bar Management Area is an 11,800-acre property administered by 

the BLM. It is highlighted here because it is rich in known prehistoric and 

historic cultural resources and is considered in this RMP for special 

management. Sections 106 and 110 and research-oriented projects have been 

undertaken along the Canadian River and its tributaries and the adjacent 

uplands. These projects have contributed to our understanding of settlement, 

landscape use, subsistence, and other topics in this region. 

Seventy-four sites have been recorded on the Cross Bar Management Area to 

date; these site identifications have resulted from fewer than a dozen different 

studies. Archaeological site types range from lithic scatters and burned-rock 

clusters to stone slab architectural features; most sites are along intermittent 

and permanent water courses (SRI 2016).

Consistent with 36 CFR, Part 800.6, it is the BLM’s and BIA’s policy in

consultation with SHPO/THPO and other consulting parties, including Federally 

recognized Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, adverse effects to 

historic properties be resolved through avoidance, minimization, or mitigation. 

Archaeological site mitigation, when necessary, most often takes the form of 

data recovery through excavation; however, it can also include alternative 

mitigations, such as detailed site documentation or off-site mitigation. Site 

identification, impact determinations, and adverse effects resolution are 

conducted in consultation with tribes, the SHPO, and THPO, depending on the 

location and jurisdiction.

Current practices comply with cultural resource laws and BLM and BIA planning 

guidance. The BLM and the BIA have efficient practices and workflow for 

coordinating Section 106 review of applications for permits to drill. The BLM

Oklahoma Field Office does not currently take advantage of the national 

programmatic agreement negotiated by the national office. This is unlike in 

other states, where the BLM operates under a national programmatic 

agreement and state implementation protocols that give it more opportunities 

for enhanced efficiency for routine undertakings when complying with Section 

106; however, this may change in the future. In these four states, the BLM and 

BIA complete Section 106 review following the regulations at 36 CFR 800, 

Subpart B. 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Cultural Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-137

Trends

Cultural resources are archaeological and historical sites that are non-renewable 

resources affected continually by natural processes such as weathering, erosion, 

wildfires, and animal activity. They also face a wide variety of challenges from 

human activities ranging from recreational activities, illegal collecting, off-highway 

vehicle use, and energy development. Consequently, most sites tend deteriorate 

over time. The degree to which natural processes and human activities affect a 

site depends on the site type, the setting (i.e. diversity of terrain, 

geomorphology, access, visibility, and past and current land use patterns), and 

the nature of the process or activity.

Archaeological sites are the most common cultural resource type. Trends that 

affect the condition and integrity of cultural resources are similar throughout 

the planning area; however, they vary, due to such factors as land management, 

level of development, level of public access and use, and natural events and 

processes. 

The BLM and BIA decision authority involves a very small percentage of the 

overall planning area and consist of undertakings on surface-managed lands and 

federal mineral estate. Historic properties on BLM-administered and BIAmanaged surface lands and those that could be affected by permitting actions as 

part of the federal mineral estate are subject to federal management and the 

completion of the Section 106 process for any undertakings that may affect 

historic properties. 

Public and tribal lands are managed for a variety of uses that could impact 

cultural resources. Examples of these uses are oil and gas development, mineral 

exploration and development, wind energy development, linear ROWs, road 

construction, grazing, recreation, off-road vehicle travel, fire use, vegetation 

treatments, and habitat improvement projects. The demand for these activities 

is anticipated to continue on public and tribal lands. Any adverse effects on 

historic properties resulting from these undertakings would be avoided, 

minimized, or mitigated. 

Where the BLM or another other federal agency manages the surface, proactive 

management of historic properties can address these effects through monitoring 

and enforcing restrictions on incompatible activities. Measures are in place to 

identify threats to resources and to prioritize management actions; however, 

enforcing measures to monitor and protect cultural resources and places 

important to tribes becomes more difficult, as population, recreation, and 

demand for economic uses increases. 

According to the RFDS (Appendix I), mineral and energy development and 

production is expected to increase throughout the planning area. In areas where 

there is a federal nexus, the trend would be toward increasing the number of 

sites that would be recorded through compliance surveys and more intensive 

survey methods, adding to the cumulative knowledge base. Additional
3. Affected Environment (BLM Cultural Resources)

3-138 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

information valuable to archaeological and historic research would be gained by 

compiling and synthesizing data from these inventories and mitigations. 

The effects of federal undertakings under Section 106 for mineral and energy 

development and other actions would continue to be considered on a case-bycase basis, and adverse effects would be avoided, minimized, or mitigated as 

appropriate 

3.2.9 Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources are any fossilized remains or traces of organisms that 

are preserved in or on the earth’s crust, that are of scientific interest and that 

provide information about the history of life. Paleontological resources, whether 

invertebrate, plant, trace, or vertebrate fossils, constitute a fragile and 

nonrenewable record of the history of life. Paleontological resources are 

managed for their scientific, educational, and recreational values and, to the 

extent possible, are protected from adverse impacts. Recreational values can 

include the casual collection of common invertebrate and plant fossils.

On BLM-administered lands, the public is allowed to collect (free use) limited 

amount of petrified wood for personal use without a permit. Typically, the BLM 

considers fossilized wood a mineral material, rather than a paleontological 

resource. The quantity of petrified wood to be collected without permit is 

regulated in accordance with 43 CFR, Part 3620. 

Resource condition is assessed by field observations, paleontological reports, 

commercial site reports, and project review. The primary resource indicator is 

whether there is a loss of those characteristics that make the fossil locality or 

feature important for scientific use. Natural weathering, decay, erosion, 

improper collection, and vandalism can remove or damage those characteristics 

that make the paleontological resource scientifically significant.

The BLM considers vertebrate fossils or their traces and noteworthy 

occurrences of invertebrate and plant fossils to be scientifically significant. 

Invertebrate and plant fossils are typically more abundant, so the BLM does not 

ordinarily consider them to be scientifically significant; however, rare 

occurrences of plant or invertebrate fossils can be considered to be scientifically 

significant.

The significance of paleontological resources is assessed as follows:

 Type of fossil resource present (vertebrate, invertebrate, plant, or 

trace)

 Prevalence of the fossil resource in the area

 Geologic formations in the planning area likely to contain fossils
3. Affected Environment (BLM Paleontological Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-139

 Physical condition of the fossil

 Scientific, educational, or recreational merit of the resource

Geologic units are the basic unit of geology, indicating a discrete rock type and 

representing a certain depositional environment or method of development. 

Paleontological resources are closely tied to the geologic formations containing 

them; rocks of different age contain fossils of different types. A basic tenet in 

paleontology holds that if fossils are found in a formation in one area, they could 

also occur in the same formation in other areas.

The PFYC is a system for categorizing the probability of geologic units to 

contain scientifically significant paleontological resources. This system has been 

developed to estimate the potential for discovering significant fossils in specific 

geologic units. 

The PFYC has five levels or classes, with Class 1 applied to geologic units that 

are not likely to contain significant fossils through Class 5 for geologic units that 

have a high potential to yield scientifically significant fossils (see BLM Instruction 

Memorandum No. 2016-124). This classification does not reflect rare or 

isolated occurrences of significant fossils or individual localities; it refers only to 

the relative occurrence on a mappable geologic unit-wide basis. 

Each class is defined briefly as follows (BLM IM 2016-124):

 Class 1, Very Low Potential—Geologic units that are not likely 

to contain recognizable paleontological resources

 Class 2, Low Potential—Geologic units that are not likely to 

contain paleontological resources

 Class 3, Moderate Potential—Sedimentary geologic units, where 

fossil content varies in significance, abundance, and predictable 

occurrence

 Class 4, High Potential—Geologic units that are known to 

contain a high occurrence of paleontological resources

 Class 5, Very High Potential—Highly fossiliferous geologic units 

that consistently and predictably produce significant paleontological 

resources

 Class U, Unknown Potential—Geologic units that receive an 

informed PFYC assignment

Most fossils occur in sedimentary rock units, where they may be distributed 

extensively, both vertically and horizontally, throughout the geologic unit, or 

they may occur in discontinuous pockets. Few geologic units are uniformly rich 

in fossils throughout, and some are richer in fossils than others. Experienced 

paleontologists can predict which geologic units will contain fossils and, in 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Paleontological Resources)

3-140 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

general, what types of fossils will be found, based on the age of the formation 

and its depositional environment; however, predicting the exact location where 

fossils will be found without field surveys is not possible.

Current Condition

The geologic history of the four-state area manifests a variety of changing 

environments and life forms preserved in the fossil record. During the early and 

middle Paleozoic, a shallow sea covered most of the planning area and 

supported small marine animals, such as brachiopods, trilobites, mollusks, and 

crinoids. Late in the Paleozoic (Carboniferous/Pennsylvanian), vast swampy 

deltas were deposited by rivers supporting amphibians and early reptiles and 

developing a rich growth of vegetation that would later become coal seams. 

Periodically, the sea would alternately return and retreat. 

Other fossils of the late Paleozoic include insects, marine invertebrates, and 

fishes, such as sharks. Permian sedimentary rocks in central and western Oklahoma and the Panhandle contain various fossils and minerals. Fossils, though 

rare, include vertebrates (e.g., fish, amphibians, and reptiles), insects, and a few 

marine invertebrates. Permian reptile fossils and trackways have been reported 

from Kay and Noble Counties in north-central Oklahoma. A limestone quarry 

near Fort Sill is one of the richest deposits of Permian reptile and amphibian 

fossils in the world (OGS 1999, 2008). 

During the Mesozoic, parts of the planning area in the west were generally 

above sea level, and sands and shales were deposited by large river systems. 

River and floodplain deposits in the panhandle of Oklahoma include dinosaur 

footprints and fossils, crocodiles, turtles, and fish. During the Late Mesozoic 

(Cretaceous), sea levels fluctuated and marine fossils were also deposited. In 

Kansas, the sea deepened, and sharks, mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, turtles, fish, and 

numerous invertebrates are part of the fossil record.

During the Early Cenozoic (Tertiary), the Rocky Mountains were being pushed 

up to the west, causing a period of broad gentle uplift in Oklahoma, Kansas, and 

Texas. Rivers draining off the rising mountains carried extensive sand and gravel 

deposits and filled wide shallow valleys. These sediments and rocks contain a 

rich vertebrate fossil record, including a large assortment of fossil mammals and 

petrified wood. 

During the Late Cenozoic (Quaternary), glaciers covered a portion of Kansas. 

Quaternary fossils in the planning area are clams, snails, and the teeth and bones 

of horses, camels, bison, mastodons, saber-tooth cats, and mammoths (The 

Paleontology Portal 2015).

PFYC maps have not been completed for the decision area. The BLM has not 

done a paleontological investigation in the decision area, because of the limited 

surface management and the types of activities that it typically permits. There is 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Paleontological Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-141

a potential for fossils geologically, especially for Pennsylvanian epoch fossils 

associated with coal, but there has been relatively little formal investigation. 

Trends

The BLM manages fossils to promote their use in research, education, and 

recreation in accordance with the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 

2009 (PRPA); Subtitle D of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 

(16 USC, Sections 470aaa through 470aaa-11); and the general guidance of FLPMA

and NEPA. The PRPA does not apply to fossils on BIA-managed surface lands.

BLM paleontology coordinators ensure that paleontological resources are 

addressed in NEPA documents and act as a liaison between paleontological 

permittees and the BLM field and regional offices.

The BLM has developed objectives for paleontological resources (Manual H8270-1, General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management 

[BLM 1998b]) to protect the resources. New regulations are under review. It is 

the BLM’s policy to manage paleontological resources for scientific, educational, 

and recreational values and to avoid or mitigate impacts on them. 

Qualitative observation indicates the condition has remained stable for 

paleontological resources to be protected from actions that the BLM permits. In 

accordance with the 1994 RMP, the BLM paleontological resource management 

program requires that it be notified if paleontological resources are 

encountered during approved operations. It also requires that the resources be 

mitigated through the permitting process and other standard operating 

procedures (e.g., pre-disturbance assessment) associated with federal 

management actions. In these cases, the trend is toward conservation and 

scientific study.

3.2.10 Visual Resources

Visual resources are features on a landscape, such as land, water, vegetation, 

animals, and structures. These features contribute to the landscape’s scenic or 

visual quality and appeal (BLM 1984).

Visual impact is the creation of an intrusion or perceptible contrast that affects 

the scenic quality of a landscape. A visual impact can be perceived by an 

individual or group as either positive or negative, depending on a variety of 

factors or conditions, such as personal experience, time of day, and weather or 

seasonal conditions (BLM 1984).

The BLM VRM system is a way to identify and evaluate visual resources in order 

to determine appropriate levels of management. The objective of the VRM 

system is to manage BLM-administered lands to protect the quality of the scenic 

values of those lands. 

The VRM system is a tool to identify and map essential landscape settings to 

meet public preferences and recreational experiences today and in the future. It 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Visual Resources)

3-142 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

helps to ensure that actions taken on BLM-administered lands today will benefit 

the visual qualities associated with the landscapes, while protecting these visual 

resources for years to come. 

The BLM’s management of visual resources consists of assigning VRI classes, 

designating VRM classes as a part of the land use planning process,

implementation of the land use plan using visual contrast rating to disclose visual 

impacts and ensure conformance with the land use plan, monitoring, and 

updating the VRI through future inventories.

The VRI involves identifying the visual resources of an area and assigning them 

to inventory classes using the BLM’s VRI process. The process involves rating 

the visual appeal of a tract of land (scenic quality), measuring public concern for 

scenic quality (visual sensitivity), and determining whether the tract of land is 

visible from travel routes or observation points (distance zone). This process is 

described in detail in Handbook H-8410-1, Visual Resource Inventory (BLM 

1986a). 

The VRI class is an assigned visual value. Three of the VRI classes (VRI Class II, 

III, and IV) are derived from an overlay of the three inventory factors and 

spatially delineate the general distribution of the relative visual resource values. 

VRI Class II represents areas of highest value, while VRI Class IV is of lower 

value. VRI Class I is assigned to inventoried lands where a nondiscretionary land 

management decision has been made that clearly directs the BLM to preserve 

the natural landscape under a VRM Class I, such as wilderness areas.

Class assignments are informational and provide the basis for considering visual 

values during the RMP process. The inventory assigns visual value to the 

landscape and is baseline for existing conditions on which land use decisions that

may affect visual resources are made. Decisions on managing visual values are 

termed VRM class objectives. VRM classes are established through the RMP 

process for all BLM-administered lands and direct the management of visual 

resources. Surface-disturbing activities must meet the VRM class objectives in 

order to be in conformance with the RMP. 

The visual resource contrast rating process is used to properly plan a project 

proposal to meet the RMP’s VRM class objectives and assess visual resource 

impacts associated with the proposed project. The visual resource contrast 

rating process is also used to resolve or minimize visual impacts even when the 

proposed project is in conformance with the RMP’s VRM class objective. The 

process compares the project features with the existing landscape features, 

using basic elements of form, line, color, and texture. It is described in detail in 

Handbook H-8431-1, 30 Visual Resource Contrast Rating (BLM 1986b).

Current Conditions

The BLM Oklahoma and Amarillo Field Offices and BIA Southern Plains and 

Eastern Oklahoma Regions completed a VRI of the planning area in April 2016 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Visual Resources) 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-143 

(DOI 2016a). The inventory used the process and guidelines established by 

Manual Handbook H-8410-1 (BLM 1986a). 

The results of the VRI become an important component of the RMP. The VRI 

serves as the principal consideration when making VRM decisions that protect 

or affect the landscape character and its scenic integrity during land use 

planning. The inventory values are considered in combination, as a unit (VRI 

classes), and independently (individual factors of scenic quality, sensitivity, and 

distance zones), when developing and evaluating land use plan alternatives and 

making land use plan decisions. Visual values coexist with other resource values 

on BLM-administered public lands. Other resource values have management 

objectives that may or may not coincide with the protection of visual resources. 

Decisions on VRM class objectives result from a coordinated and detailed 

examination of a range of alternatives that allow for the protection of visual 

values while also considering legislative mandates or program directives that 

require protective visual management (e.g., national historic trails), as well as 

achieve compatibility with other resource use allocations (e.g., fluid minerals).

Based on the three inventory components, lands in the planning area were 

placed into one of four VRI classes, as shown in Figure 3-22, Visual Resource 

Inventory Class. These class assignments are informational and provide the basis 

for considering visual values during the RMP process. The scenic quality, 

sensitivity, distance zones, and resulting VRI class distribution for the BLM 

decision area are presented in Table 3-30, below. See also Figure 3-23, Visual 

Scenic Quality Rating, Figure 3-24, Visual Sensitivity Rating, and Figure 3-25, 

Visual Distance Zones. The VRI report (DOI 2016a) describes the results of the 

inventory in detail. The following sections describe general results for the 

planning area. 

Scenic Quality 

Scenic quality evaluation rates the visual appeal of the inventory area, based on 

vegetation, landform, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural 

modifications. Scenic quality is rated as A, B, or C. 

The highest scenic quality rating is in the Ouachita Mountains unit, because of a 

combination of mountainous terrain, lush vegetation, and large water bodies. In 

particular, the mountainous terrain is rare in the planning area and is visible 

from far distances. A common theme among units with a scenic quality 

classification of A is the occurrence of significant water features: large rivers, 

reservoirs, and lakes. Vegetation is frequently near these water bodies, and the 

aggregate of high vegetation and water features often leads to a high scenic 

classification. Areas with a scenic quality classification of C are defined as having 

no water features, insignificant vegetation, and flat terrain. The lack of water, 

barren landscape, and uniform topography also contributes to low color, 

adjacent scenery, and scarcity scores. 




3. Affected Environment (BLM Visual Resources)

3-148 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-30

Visual Resource Inventory Component Distribution

Visual Resource Inventory

Component Total Planning Area Acres Acres of BLMAdministered Surface

Scenic Quality

A 105,142,400 14,200*

B 113,774,000 800

C 50,730,800 100

Sensitivity

High 47,448,300 300

Moderate 128,857,000 14,000

Low 93,342,000 800*

Distance Zones

Foreground/middle ground 26,380,900 3,600*

Background 25,918,400 1,500*

Seldom seen 217,350,700 10,000*

VRI Class

Class I 137,100 0

Class II 107,426,800 14,200*

Class III 9,501,800 300

Class IV 152,582,500 600

Source: BLM GIS 2016

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red River and the 

98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified and mapped when they are surveyed. (No exact acreages of federal lands 

are available at this time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed.) Any such survey would be conducted in 

accordance with applicable law. All of the Red River area lands are VRI Class II, scenic quality A, and low sensitivity. 

Portions of the Red River area were categorized within all distance zones. 

Sensitivity

A sensitivity level analysis assesses public concern of the inventory area’s scenic 

quality and the public’s sensitivity to potential changes in the visual setting. The 

evaluation is based on types of users, level of use, public interest (local, regional, 

national, and international), adjacent land uses, and the presence of special areas. 

Sensitivity level is rated as high, moderate, or low.

Areas identified for sensitivity concerns are as follows:

 National Park Service units, including national historic parks, historic 

sites, memorials, monuments, park units, preserves, recreation 

areas, and seashores

 Forest Service units, including national grasslands, national forests, 

and inventoried Roadless areas

 USFWS national wildlife refuges

 Designated wilderness areas

 Federally designated wild and scenic rivers

 State-designated wild and scenic rivers
3. Affected Environment (BLM Visual Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-149

 National Park Service Nationwide Rivers Inventory segments

 Federal designated scenic byways

 State-designated scenic byways

 National scenic, historic, and recreation trails

 State forests, historic sites, natural areas, parks, and recreation 

areas

 Other areas identified as sensitive by BLM and BIA staff, in 

consultation with THPOs and interested Federally recognized Indian 

tribes, such as cultural sites and viewsheds, archaeological sites, and 

sites considered sensitive by local communities

The visually important features or viewsheds in the planning area are as follows:

 Gloss Mountain State Park

 Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge

 Cimarron River

 Glover River

 Oklahoma designated scenic rivers (Flint Creek, Illinois River, 

Barren Fork Creek, Upper Mountain Fork River, Big Lee’s Creek, 

and Little Lee’s Creek)

 National and state scenic byways

 Chickasaw National Recreation Area

The areas with higher sensitivity ratings contain more of these features. 

Distance zones

A delineation of distance zones indicates the relative visibility of the inventory 

area’s landscape from primary travel routes or observation points in the 

foreground-middle ground zone (less than 3 to 5 miles away), background zone 

(to a distance of 15 miles away), and seldom seen zone (more than 15 miles 

away or hidden from view in any zone).

Eighty-one percent of the planning area was found to be in the seldom seen 

distance zone, less than 1 percent of which is under BLM surface management 

or BIA surface management. These areas fall within the seldom seen 

classification, due to the relatively flat and open terrain of the planning area and 

the dispersion of large population centers and transportation routes. In most of 

the inventory area, the public is not commonly present to view the landscape.

Management of Visual Resources

The designation of VRM classes is ultimately based on management decisions 

made during the RMP process, which must take into consideration the value of 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Visual Resources)

3-150 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

visual resources. During the process, inventory class boundaries can be adjusted 

as necessary to reflect these resource allocation decisions. The goal of VRM is 

to minimize the visual impacts of all surface-disturbing activities, regardless of 

the class to which an area is assigned. 

The objectives for each of the four VRM classes are as follows:

 Class I—To preserve the existing character of the landscape. This 

class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not 

preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to 

the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract 

attention.

 Class II—To retain the existing character of the landscape. The level 

of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Any 

changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and 

texture found in the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape.

 Class III—To partially retain the existing character of the landscape. 

The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be 

moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should 

not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should 

repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features 

of the characteristic landscape.

 Class IV—To provide for management activities that require major 

modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of 

change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These 

management activities may dominate the view and be the major 

focus of viewer attention; however, every attempt should be made 

to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, 

minimal disturbance, and basic element repetition.

Proposed actions on the land use allocations within the RMP are required to 

conform to the VRM class objectives. The VRM objectives are area specific and 

provide visual resource standards for planning, designing, and evaluating 

proposed development projects. Proper implementation of VRM principles and 

procedure help prevent unnecessary and undue environmental degradation and 

maintain important resource values. 

Currently only a portion of BLM-administered lands have VRM designations: 

federal lands in the Red River area (managed as VRM Class II) and the Cross Bar 

Management Area (managed as VRM Class II [1,900 acres], III [9,800 acres], and 

IV [100 acres]). The remaining 3,300 acres of BLM-administered lands do not 

have an assigned VRM class. For these areas, visual resources are considered on 

a case-by-case basis during the environmental evaluation of a project.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Visual Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-151

Trends

In portions of the decision area, coal, natural gas, and oil development have 

impacted the visual landscape. These activities result in surface disturbance, 

which removes or disturbs the top layers of soil or vegetation to reveal colors 

that contrast with the surrounding landscape. Infrastructure associated with this 

development, such as utility lines, roads, and mineral resource extraction 

structures, add cultural modifications to the landscape and create disturbances 

that change the vegetation pattern, texture, and color of the area.

The planning area is largely modified by agriculture. Agriculture also adds 

cultural modifications to the landscape and creates disturbances that change the 

vegetation pattern, texture, and color of the area.

3.2.11 Wildland Fire Management

The BLM is responsible for wildland fire management on the land it administers. 

Fire management is guided by the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy of 

1995 (DOI and USDA 1995), with subsequent updates and implementation 

strategies developed in 2001 and 2009 (DOI and USDA 2001, 2009). Wildland 

fire management is also guided by land use plans that identify strategies to meet 

land use goals and objectives related to wildland fire management, including 

strategies for unplanned ignitions and hazardous fuel treatments. 

The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy establishes the 17 guiding 

principles and policies that are to be used to achieve fire management goals and 

objectives identified in land use plans or specific fire management plans. These 

principles and policies address the following:

 Firefighter and public safety

 Fire management and ecosystem sustainability

 Response to wildland fire

 Use of wildland fire

 Rehabilitation and restoration

 Protection priorities

 Wildland urban interface

 Planning, science preparedness, suppression, and prevention 

standardization

 Interagency cooperation and coordination

 Communication and education

 Agency administrator and employee roles and evaluation

In addition, fire management is guided by specific RMPs and fire management 

plans (FMPs). These plans provide the basis for developing fire management 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Wildland Fire Management)

3-152 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

goals and objectives for the fire in designated planning areas. Fire management 

planning adheres to guidance provided in the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 

H-1601-1 (BLM 2005) and the BLM Fire Planning Handbook H-9211-1 (BLM 

2012a). Fire management plans provide the necessary tools for implementing 

on-the-ground, fire-related direction from land use plans. Other fire 

management direction is provided through regulatory compliance and statute 

requirements and applicable manuals and handbooks.

Fire Managers use a decision support process to guide and document wildfire 

management decisions. The current process, titled The Wildland Fire Decisions 

Support System (WFDSS), is used to evaluate risk and document decisions 

associated with wildfire. Included in the WFDSS process are fire behavior and 

spread prediction models, information on values at risk, and land use plan 

resource management objectives. 

In accordance with the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy, response to 

wildland fires is based on the ecological, social, and legal consequences of the 

fire. The circumstances under which a fire occurs dictate the appropriate 

response to the fire. Also taken into consideration are the likely consequences 

on firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources, and 

values to be protected. 

Management response to a wildland fire on federal land is based on objectives 

established in the applicable RMP and FMP. The Cross Bar Management Area

fire management plan includes fire management objectives recognizing naturally 

ignited fire as an essential ecological process and natural change and is allowed 

to meet natural resource benefits. 

Suppression strategies prioritize firefighter and public safety, protection of 

human communities and infrastructure, natural and cultural resources 

threatened, and circumstances under which a fire occurs. Suppression includes 

the use of fire engines, aircraft, hand crews, and heavy equipment (such a 

bulldozers) to suppress wildfire. Use of fire retardant and foam is an important 

part of fire suppression operations. 

To promote efficient wildland fire management, the BLM enters into 

cooperative wildland fire management agreements or MOUs between other 

federal, state, tribal, and local agencies and private entities. These agreements 

facilitate the coordination and exchange of personnel, equipment, supplies, 

services, and funds to effectively suppress wildfires. They also aid in hazardous 

fuels removal and support prevention preparedness and communication. 

Notable cooperative agreements are as follows: 

 Southern Area Master Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and 

Stanford Act Response Agreement #13-FI-11083150-001 between 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Wildland Fire Management)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-153

the BIA, the National Park Service, the USFWS, and the Forest

Service (2013)

 The Kansas Statewide Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and 

Stafford Act Response Agreement between the National Park 

Service, the USFWS, the BIA, the Forest Service, and the State of 

Kansas, Kansas State University, and Kansas Forest Service (2012)

 The Master Cooperative Wildland Fire Management and Stafford 

Act Response Agreement between the BLM, the National Park 

Service, the BIA, the USFWS, the Forest Service, and the State of 

Texas, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and Texas A&M 

Forest Service

Another important agreement applicable to Texas is the 2014 MOU between 

the NPS Lake Meredith National Recreation Area and the BLM Amarillo Field 

Office. This MOU covers fire management responsibilities for fire management 

units in the BLM Amarillo Texas Field Office (Cross Bar Management Area).

Fire history—Fire history data for the BLM shows no wildfire occurrences or 

fires being reported on BLM-administered lands in the planning area or 

Oklahoma, Kansas, or Texas (NIFC 2017). 

Vegetation and Fuels

Vegetation and fuel types in the planning area vary by state and are mostly defined 

by the amount of precipitation, soil characteristics, geology, physiography, and 

climate. There are 14 vegetation types applicable to Oklahoma, which include 

Oak-Hickory Forests, Oak Pine, Blackjack Oak, Lablolly Pine, Bottomland 

Hardwood Forest, Pinyon Pine, and Eastern Redcedar Forests. Oklahoma grasses 

are Tallgrass Prairie, Shortgrass Prairie, Mixed Grass (Eroded Plains), Sandsage 

Grassland, Mesquite Grassland, Shinnery Oak Grassland, and Stabilized Dune 

(Oklahoma Forestry Services 2010 and Tyrl et al. 2007). 

Vegetation associated with Kansas is Shortgrass Prairie, Sand and Sandsage 

Prairie, Mixed Prairie, Tallgrass Prairie, Cross Timbers, Oak-Hickory Forest, mix 

of Tallgrass Prairie and Oak-Hickory Forest, and Floodplain vegetation. (Kansas 

Native Plant Society 2012). 

Texas vegetation is Piney Woods, Gulf Prairies and Marshes, Post Oak 

Savannah, Blackland Prairies, Cross Timbers and Prairies, South Texas Plains, 

Edwards Plateau, Rolling Plains, High Plains, and Trans-Pecos Mountains and 

Basins (Texas State Historical Association 2017). For additional information 

concerning vegetation in the planning area, see Section 3.2.5, Vegetation).

Hazardous Fuels Management

In accordance with the Health Forests Restoration Act of 2003, the BLM 

administers hazardous fuels using coarse-scale spatial data for historical natural 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Wildland Fire Management) 

3-154 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

fire regimes and fire regime vegetation condition classes (VCCs; formerly fire 

regime condition classification [FRCC]) system). 

Natural fire regimes are determined based on the frequency of fire, combined 

with the severity of fire on the dominant overstory vegetation, see Table 3-31, 

below, and Figure 3-26, Fire Regimes. The historical natural fires for most of 

the planning area are in Fire Regimes II and III, and some are in Fire Regime I on 

the eastern edges of Oklahoma and Texas (see Table 3-32; Schmidt et al. 

2002). 

VCCs are qualitative measurements that determine the degree of departure of 

vegetation from historical fire regimes. This could alter key ecosystem 

components, such as species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy 

closure, and fuel loadings. 

VCCs range from 1 to 3 and are displayed in Figure 3-27, Vegetation 

Condition Class. Classes are described as follows (Schmidt et al. 2002): 

 VCC 1—Fire regimes are within a historical range, and the risk of 

losing key ecosystem components is low. 

 VCC 2—Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their 

historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is 

moderate. 

 VCC 3—Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their 

historical range. Risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. 

Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by 

multiple return intervals. 

The VCCs in the planning area are shown below in Table 3-33, Vegetative 

Condition Class. 

Current Condition 

VCCs of vegetation in the planning area are variable across the landscape. Many 

factors have altered fire regime condition classes from historical regimes to 

VCC 2 or 3 (see Figure 3-27). Examples are wildfire management (aggressive 

suppression), climate, human disturbances (agriculture, energy development, 

transportation corridors), and invasive species. 

In general, agriculture, range management, and logging of forested areas have 

altered historical vegetation in large portions of the planning area. The eastern 

portion of Kansas includes areas where departure from historical ranges has 

transitioned to VCC 3. There is VCC 1 on the western edges of Kansas and 

Oklahoma and throughout Texas. VCC 2 occurs throughout Kansas and the 

western edge of central Texas (Schmidt et al. 2002). 


3. Affected Environment (BLM Wildland Fire Management)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-157

Table 3-31

Fire Regimes

Fire Regime Group

BLMAdministered 

Surface (acres)

BLM-Administered 

Federal Minerals 

(All) (acres)

Kansas and Nebraska

Barren 0 1,200

I 0 30,800

II 0 358,000

III 0 38,500

IV 0 35,000

V 0 5,400

Indeterminate fire regime 

characteristics

0 77,500

Water 0 172,000

Total 0 718,400

Oklahoma

Barren 100* 3,400*

I 1,900* 854,400*

II 600* 450,900*

III 0 119,800

IV 400 26,400

V 0 100

Indeterminate fire regime 

characteristics

0 0

Water 200* 426,600*

Total 3,200* 1,881,600*

Texas

Barren 0 54,400*

I 500* 636,000*

II 10,000* 519,300*

III 1,000* 351,300*

IV 400* 6,600*

V 0 104,800

Indeterminate fire regime 

characteristics

0 30,400

No data 0 600

Sparsely vegetated 0 100

Water 0 507,400*

Total 11,900* 2,210,900*

Source: LANDFIRE GIS 2015

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North 

Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified and mapped 

when they are surveyed. (No exact acreages of federal lands are available at this time because the 

full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed.) Any such survey would be conducted in accordance 

with applicable law.

Note: Acres are rounded to the nearest 100. 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Wildland Fire Management)

3-158 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-32

Fire Regime Descriptions

Fire Regime

Group Description

I 0-35 year frequency,1 low severity2

II 0-35 year frequency, stand-replacement severity

III 35-100+ year frequency, mixed severity

IV 35-100+ year frequency, stand-replacement severity

V 200+ year frequency, stand-replacement severity

Source: Schmidt et al. 2002

1

Fire frequency is the average number of years between fires.

2

Severity is the effect of the fire on the dominant overstory vegetation.

Table 3-33

Vegetative Condition Class

VCC

BLMAdministered 

Surface (acres)

BLM-Administered 

Federal Minerals 

(All) (acres)

Kansas and Nebraska

Barren 0 1,200

Burnable agriculture 0 74,800

Burnable urban 0 39,800

Non-burnable agriculture 0 66,200

Non-burnable urban 0 31,400

Sparsely vegetated 0 0

1.A 0 0

1.B 0 8,000

2.A 0 69,900

2.B 0 199,700

3.A 0 6,500

3.B 0 47,500

Water 0 172,000

Total 0 717,000

Oklahoma

Barren 100* 3,400* 

Burnable agriculture 0 172,200*

Burnable urban 300* 117,300*

Non-burnable agriculture 100* 51,700* 

Non-burnable urban 100* 62,700* 

1.A 100* 10,600* 

1.B 1,400* 147,300*

2.A 700* 114,300*

2.B 200* 598,000*

3.A 0 116,700*

2.B 0 60,700* 

Water 200* 419,600 *

Total 3,200* 1,874,500*
3. Affected Environment (BLM Wildland Fire Management)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-159

Table 3-33

Vegetative Condition Class

VCC

BLMAdministered 

Surface (acres)

BLM-Administered 

Federal Minerals 

(All) (acres)

Texas

Barren 0 33,500*

Burnable agriculture 0 54,200*

Burnable urban 0 108,500* 

Non-burnable agriculture 0 35,700* 

Non-burnable urban 0 91,900* 

Sparsely vegetated 0 500* 

1.A 500* 139,600* 

1.B 0 427,300* 

2.A 11,300* 247,200* 

2.B 0 261,100* 

3.A 0 138,400* 

3.B 0 100,200* 

Water 0 495,600* 

Total 11,800* 2,133,700*

Source: LANDFIRE GIS 2015

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River

between the North Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian that will be more 

specifically identified and mapped when they are surveyed. (No exact acreages of 

federal lands are available at this time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been 

surveyed.) Any such survey would be conducted in accordance with applicable law.

Note: Acres are rounded to the nearest 100. 

VCC 2 occurs in the West Amarillo Creek, Horse Creek, and Ranch Creek 

FMUs in the Amarillo Texas Field Office (Cross Bar Management Area). Most of 

the flatlands Fire Management Unit is in VCC 3 (BLM 2015a).

The BLM uses an integrated vegetation management approach to achieve 

hazardous fuels management objectives. Common management actions are 

vegetation manipulation to remove hazardous fuels. This is done to reduce the 

severity, intensity, and spread of wildfire, to provide for firefighter and public 

safety, and to protect property and natural and cultural resource values. 

Common hazardous fuels treatment methods are hand thinning, prescribed fire, 

chemical treatments (herbicides), mechanical treatments (mowing), seeding, and 

biological treatments. These methods are intended to create fuel breaks and 

green strips and to improve vegetative and ecosystem health. Treatments are 

strategically placed to support suppression and to protect human communities, 

infrastructure, and important resources. 

Vegetation manipulation treatments also improve vegetation health by enhancing 

species diversity and sustainability and by improving vegetation from VCC 3 to 

VCC 1 and VCC 2 over time. Fuel treatments may be seeded, where residual 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Wildland Fire Management)

3-160 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

vegetation is not adequate to naturally revegetate areas, and to prevent annual 

invasive species from becoming reestablished.

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation management includes planned actions 

to minimize the threats to life and property resulting from the effects of wildfire 

and to stabilize and prevent unacceptable degradation of natural and cultural 

resources from the effects of wildfire. Treatments used to stabilize or 

rehabilitate burned areas are the following:

 Installing erosion control structures, such as culverts

 Removing hazardous trees

 Replacing facilities

 Constructing fences

 Using soil stabilization treatments, such as seeding, planting, and 

mulching

 Stabilizing roads

 Controlling invasive plants and weeds

 Closing areas to users

Prevention Education Mitigation and Community Assistance

Prevention Education Mitigation and Community Assistance includes promoting 

public understanding and facilitating citizen-driven efforts to reduce the threat 

and impact of wildfire through community planning, education, prevention, local 

cooperator assistance, and fuels management on nonfederal land. It fosters and 

promotes fuels management and community assistance coordination, 

cooperation, and partnerships with other federal, state, tribal, local government, 

non-governmental organizations, universities, and private entities. BLM develops 

partnerships with communities in the Wildland Urban Interface to develop 

Community Wildfire Protection Plans, reduce fuels, and educate the public 

about fire mitigation and resilient landscapes. Mitigation and education activity

plans are developed to educate home owners and communities about practices 

that make their homes more fire resistant and fire safe, and to promote shared 

responsibility through creation of defensible space.

Trends

In general, change agents will continue to alter vegetation communities from 

historic regimes to VCCs 2 and 3. Examples of these changes are agricultural 

development, range management, logging, energy development (oil and gas), 

transportation corridor construction, community expansion and growth, 

establishment and spread of invasive species, and aggressive fire suppression. 

Change agents remove historical vegetation and disturb soils, which can increase 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Wildland Fire Management)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-161

erosion, alter vegetation communities, including allowing the buildup of 

hazardous fuels, and make areas vulnerable to invasive species. 

In the past, applying full suppression objectives has reduced fire size but has also 

contributed to fuels buildup, especially of woody vegetation, such as mesquite, 

creosote, and red cedar. These species now dominate previous grassland areas. 

The resulting expansion increases the buildup in fuels, causing hotter fires and 

greater plant mortality (USGS 2015d). Human-caused fires should continue to 

be the primary source of ignition.

3.2.12 Cave and Karst Resources

With the passage of the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 

(CRPA), Sec.3(1), Congress declared that significant caves on federal lands are 

an invaluable and irreplaceable part of the nation’s natural heritage. It recognized 

that significant caves may be threatened due to improper use, recreational 

demand, urban spread, and lack of protection. The purpose of the CRPA is to 

secure, protect, and preserve significant caves on federal lands for the perpetual 

use, enjoyment, and benefit of all people. 

The CRPA’s other purpose is to foster increased cooperation and exchange of 

information between governmental authorities and those who use caves on 

federal lands for science, education, and recreation. With the CRPA, Congress 

established policy that federal lands be managed in a manner that protects and 

maintains, to the extent practical, significant caves.

The CRPA defines a cave as any naturally occurring void, cavity, recess, or 

system of interconnected passages beneath the surface of the earth or within a 

cliff or ledge that is large enough to permit an individual to enter, whether the 

entrance is naturally formed or human made. A karst is an area of irregular 

limestone or carbonate in which erosion has produced fissures, sinkholes, 

underground streams, and caverns. Pseudo-karst features are similar in form or 

appearance to karst features but are created by different mechanisms. 

Caves and karsts may be considered nonrenewable resources due to the nature 

of the animal and plant life, paleontological deposits, biological resources, and 

minerals. Cave and karst resources are many times considered sacred spaces for 

tribes and burials often occur in these features.

It is the policy of the Secretary of the Interior that federal lands be managed in a 

manner that, to the extent practical, protects and maintains significant caves and 

cave resources (43 CFR, Subpart 37.2). The type and degree of protection is 

determined through the local agency resource management planning process, 

with full public participation.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Cave and Karst Resources) 

3-162 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

Under the CRPA, a cave is considered significant if it meets one or more of the 

following six criteria: 

 Biota—The cave serves as seasonal or yearlong habitat for 

organisms or animals, or contains species or subspecies of flora or 

fauna native to caves, or is sensitive to disruption, or contains 

species found on state or federal sensitive, threatened, or 

endangered species lists. 

 Cultural—The cave contains historic or archaeological resources 

listed or eligible for inclusion on the NRHP because of its research 

importance for history or prehistory, its historic association, or 

other historic or traditional significance. 

 Geological/mineralogical/paleontological—The cave possesses one 

or more geological or mineralogical features that are fragile or 

exhibit interesting formations. 

 Hydrological—The cave is part of a hydrological system or contains 

water important to humans, biota, or the development of cave 

resources. 

 Recreational—The cave provides or could provide recreation 

opportunities or scenic values. 

 Educational or scientific—The resource offers opportunities for 

educational or scientific use or is in a virtually pristine state, lacking 

evidence of contemporary human disturbance or impact, or the 

length, height, volume, total depth, or similar measurements are 

notable (43 CFR, Part 37). 

Current Condition 

Cave features or caves of significance have not been identified on BLMadministered surface lands or lands with BLM subsurface mineral estate in the 

planning area. The USGS has identified karst features and pseudo karst features 

in the planning area, based on regional geology (see Figure 3-28, Karst 

Features).

Trends 

Caves and karsts are expected to be discovered more frequently as activities 

such as mineral exploration occur over a larger expanse of federally 

administered lands. As caves are identified, they will be examined for significance 

or avoided or mitigated where they occur on BLM-administered surface or 

mineral estate. 

3. Affected Environment (BLM Energy and Minerals)

3-164 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

3.3 BLM RESOURCE USES

This section contains a description of the human uses of resources in the BLM 

decision area and follows the order of topics addressed in Chapter 2:

 Section 3.3.1, Energy and Minerals

 Section 3.3.2, Renewable Energy

 Section 3.3.3, Recreation and Visitor Services

 Section 3.3.4, Travel, Transportation Management, and Access

 Section 3.3.5, Lands and Realty

 Section 3.3.6, Livestock Grazing

 Section 3.3.7, Prime and Unique Farmlands and Agriculture

3.3.1 Energy and Minerals

The sections below are discussions of current conditions and forecasts on BLMadministered surface and federal mineral estate. The BLM also has some 

jurisdiction over permitting of minerals on tribal lands (see Section 3.6.13, 

Energy and Minerals). The Onshore Energy and Mineral Lease Management 

Interagency Standard Operating Procedures lay out the responsibilities between 

different agencies and bureaus under the Department of the Interior for federal 

and Indian onshore lease management and accounting (DOI 2013).

Coal

Current Condition

Coal resources exist in all four states in the planning area. Table 3-34, below, 

shows the types of economically valuable coal found on BLM-administered 

federal mineral estate in each of the four states. It also breaks down the surface 

ownership over those coal resources. Approximately 100 acres of BLMadministered surface lands overlie federal coal resources, but the resources are 

of doubtful value.

The bulk of coal resources on BLM-administered federal mineral estate in the 

decision area are in Oklahoma. Most of the valuable coal there is volatile 

bituminous and occurs relatively evenly beneath privately owned surface. BLMadministered federal mineral estate in Texas contains a large amount of 

relatively low-value lignite.

Oklahoma’s coal resources are found in the eastern portion of the state in a 

coalfield spanning 27 counties. Nine of these counties contain federal coal 

resources. Oklahoma contains the most significant deposits of bituminous coal 

west of the Mississippi River and east of the Rocky Mountains (Oklahoma 

Department of Mines 2016). Approximately 0.1 percent of the estimated US 

recoverable coal reserves are at producing mines in the state. Most of the coal 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Energy and Minerals)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-165

Table 3-34

Coal Resources in the BLM Decision Area

Coal Type

Total Acres of BLMAdministered 

Federal Mineral 

Estate

Acres 

Beneath 

BLMAdministered 

Surface

Acres 

Beneath 

Privately 

Owned 

Surface

Acres 

Beneath State 

and Other 

Federal SMA 

Surface

Kansas

Lignite 2,100 0 0 2,100

Volatile bituminous 238,100 0 38,000 200,100

Oklahoma

Lignite 4,900 0 4,900 0

Volatile bituminous 787,200 100 300,000 487,200

Non-volatile bituminous 107,700 0 88,700 19,000

Texas

Lignite 730,500 0 66,300 664,200

Volatile bituminous 11,500 0 2,400 9,100

Source: BLM GIS 2016

1 Approximately 1,100 acres within the BLM coal decision area beneath private surface do not have known coal 

potential but are surrounded by areas that do have coal resources. These acres are not included in the table 

above.

resources on BLM-administered federal mineral estate in the decision area (73 

percent) are beneath state-owned surface or surface administered by other 

federal SMAs. With the exception of the approximately 100 acres beneath BLMadministered surface, the remaining federal coal resources are beneath privately 

owned parcels. Because most privately owned parcels over BLM-administered 

federal mineral estate are small scattered tracts of less than one acre throughout 

the planning area, the federal coal resources beneath these parcels are less likely 

to be leased and developed. This is because coal mines typically involve multiple 

acres of surface disturbance and/or mineral extraction.

Oklahoma produced approximately 800,000 tons of coal in 2015. Coal was 

produced from four Oklahoma counties in 2015: LeFlore, Haskell, Craig, and 

Okmulgee (Oklahoma Department of Mines 2015). 

There are eight federal coal leases in Oklahoma as of 2016, covering 

approximately 13,000 acres. Three of the leases, all in LeFlore County, are in 

production, and six are inactive. Five more federal coal leases are pending in 

Oklahoma (BLM GIS 2016; BLM 2016b). Oklahoma coal is mined by both 

surface and underground methods (Oklahoma Department of Mines 2016). 

Approximately 60 percent of the coal mined in Oklahoma is used in lime and 

cement kilns in Oklahoma and surrounding states. The remainder is used for 

electricity generation at one power plant in Oklahoma and one plant in Missouri 

(Oklahoma Department of Mines 2016). 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Energy and Minerals)

3-166 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Trends

Approximately 1.6 billion tons of economically recoverable coal reserves remain 

in Oklahoma. While large deposits remain to be produced, extracting these 

resources will require significant capital investments. Production and market 

issues affect whether some coal reserves are economical to mine. Regulations 

concerning mining and reclamation requirements also impact coal activity in the 

state. 

Future activity will hinge on developing additional markets for high sulfur coal

and the increased use and development of clean coal technology at coal-fired 

utilities in Oklahoma and surrounding states. These facilities are close enough to 

Oklahoma’s coal reserves to continue to serve as a market for its coal if it can 

be burned cleanly enough to comply with federal and state air quality standards 

(Oklahoma Department of Mines 2016). 

Oklahoma coal could also be exported for steel making or electricity 

production if demand in the international market were to increase; however, 

slowdowns in such developing economies as China, combined with increased 

domestic coal production and stricter air quality regulations in those countries, 

has decreased the demand for US coal exports in the last 2 years (Layden 2014; 

EIA 2016).

Fluid Minerals

Fluid minerals in the planning area are helium, oil and gas, and geothermal

resources. Each of these resources is discussed below.

Current Condition

Helium

Natural gas fields in the western portion of the planning area contain unusually 

high concentrations of helium (from 0.3 to 2.7 percent). These fields constitute 

the largest source of helium in the United States (BLM 2016c). The BLM 

operates and maintains a helium storage reservoir, known as the Cliffside 

Storage Facility, along with an enrichment plant and pipeline system near 

Amarillo, Texas. The Cliffside Storage Facility is a natural geologic unit known as 

the Bush Dome. Helium from this storage facility supplies over 40 percent of 

domestic helium demand. The BLM supplies crude helium to private helium 

refining companies, which in turn refine the helium and market it to consumers 

(BLM 2016c). 

Four helium areas overlap BLM-administered surface lands and federal mineral 

estate in the western portion of the planning area: Hugoton/Panoma/Panhandle, 

Greenwood/Keyes, Bradshaw, and Cliffside. These areas contain natural gas 

fields with high concentrations of helium. The Cliffside area is the storage 

reservoir for the federal helium reserve. Table 3-35 shows the number of 

acres of each helium area that overlaps the BLM decision area.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Energy and Minerals) 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-167 

Table 3-35

Helium Areas

Helium Area Name State

Acres of BLMAdministered 

Surface Lands

Acres of BLMAdministered 

Federal Mineral 

Estate

Hugoton/Panoma/Panhandle Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas 100 68,800 

Greenwood/Keyes Kansas, Oklahoma 0 1,500 

Bradshaw Kansas 0 1,500

Cliffside Texas less than 50 10,800 

Source: BLM GIS 2016

In recent decades, private sector demand for helium has begun to exceed 

federal demand, where it is used for defense and aerospace purposes. In 

response, Congress redefined the government’s role in helium production by 

passing the Helium Privatization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-273, 110 Statute 

3315). The BLM was given responsibility for operating the federal helium 

reserve to provide enriched crude helium to private refiners. The Helium 

Stewardship Act of 2013 (Public Law 113-40, 127 Statute 534) was passed to 

allow for a smooth transition to private helium production as the federal helium 

reserve is steadily drawn down. Under this act, all of the federal helium reserve 

and federally owned facilities associated with the federal helium system must be 

disposed of by September 30, 2021. 

In 2000, the Texas RMP was amended to analyze the BLM’s proposed actions to 

manage the Cross Bar Management Area for helium storage and sale. The BLM 

prepared EAs in 2006 to document the transfer of the Amarillo Helium Plant 

and Exell Helium Plant to the General Services Administration (GSA) for 

closure and disposal. Because helium storage, transportation, and sale are 

governed by statutes, this EIS does not analyze direct and indirect impacts on 

the federal helium reserve or impacts of its management; however, management 

of the federal helium reserve is discussed in cumulative impacts. Direct and 

indirect impacts of fluid mineral leasing allocations on helium areas are analyzed 

in Section 4.2.2.1, Energy and Minerals.

Oil and Gas 

The planning area contains approximately 40 existing and potential oil and gas 

plays across all four states (see Figure 3-29, Existing and Potential Oil and Gas 

Plays). Some of these play areas are on a decline or near the end of their life, 

whereas others are relatively new (BLM 2016b). Portions of eight plays overlap 

BLM-administered surface lands, and 26 plays overlap BLM-administered federal 

mineral estate. BLM-administered surface lands overlap plays almost exclusively 

in Oklahoma, but some overlapping also occurs in Texas. BLM-administered 

federal mineral estate overlaps oil and gas plays in all four states in the planning 

area (BLM GIS 2016). 

3. Affected Environment (BLM Energy and Minerals)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-169

For detailed information on production, well completions, and oil and gas 

development potential, refer to the RFDS (Appendix I) prepared by the

Oklahoma Field Office (BLM 2016b). The current condition discussion below 

summarizes the information provided in the RFDS. This discussion does not 

include specific numbers reflecting oil and gas activity in Osage County, as that 

will be discussed in the pending Osage County Oil and Gas EIS.

Overall oil production in the planning area declined from 1993 to 2004. 

Production remained steady from 2004 to 2009 and began to rapidly increase 

from 2009 to 2013. The most significant increases in oil production have been in 

southern and western Texas. Most of the increase in southern Texas has been 

from horizontal wells, while the increase in western Texas is largely 

conventional wells (BLM 2016b). 

Despite the overall increase in oil production in the planning area, oil 

production on BLM-administered federal mineral estate has not surpassed 1993 

levels of 1.1 million oil barrels. Production in 2012 approached 1993 levels, at 

946,000 oil barrels, but 2013 production dropped to 661,000 oil barrels (BLM 

2016b).

Allocated oil production comes from wells on private land but for which the 

BLM shares production through a communitization or unitization agreement. 

This has also declined since 1993, at a greater rate than the decline in 

production from wells on BLM-administered federal mineral estate. Most oil 

production from BLM-administered federal mineral estate has been in 

Oklahoma, although production on federal mineral estate in Texas spiked in 

1997 (BLM 2016b).

Overall gas production in the planning area was relatively stable from 1993 to 

2005. Production peaked in 2008 and 2012 at over 10 billion thousand cubic 

feet (MCF) and remained at nearly 10 billion MCF of gas in 2013. Most of the 

increase in gas production since 2005 has been in eastern Texas. Gas 

production in Oklahoma and Kansas has remained relatively stable since 1993. 

Kansas produced by far the least amount of gas in the planning area over this 

time, with less than 1 billion MCF per year. Like horizontal oil, horizontal gas 

production in the planning area has been rapidly increasing since 2003, in Texas 

and Oklahoma (BLM 2016b).

Gas production from federal and Indian minerals in the planning area accounts 

for approximately 0.7 percent of total gas production in the planning area. Gas 

production from BLM-administered federal mineral estate in the planning area 

peaked in 1996 at approximately 123 million MCF. Production hit a smaller peak 

in 2012 at approximately 79 million MCF and fell to 64 million MCF in 2013. As 

is the case with the general planning area, Texas is largely responsible for the 

peaks in gas production from BLM-administered federal mineral estate in 1996 

and 2012. Kansas has had the least gas production from BLM-administered 

federal mineral estate. 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Energy and Minerals)

3-170 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

According to Chart 11 of the RFDS, between 2009 and 2012, 80,334 oil and gas 

wells were completed in the planning area, over 20,000 of which are horizontal 

or directional (BLM 2016b). Of the 80,334 oil and gas wells completed in the 

planning area during that time, 295 (less than 1 percent) are on BLMadministered federal or tribal mineral estate. Approximately 194 (66 percent) of 

those wells are horizontal (BLM 2016b). 

Injection wells have also been drilled in the BLM decision area. As of 2016, there 

were six injection wells on BLM-administered surface lands in Texas (plus one in 

Oklahoma) and 499 injection wells on BLM-administered federal mineral estate

across all four states (BLM GIS 2016).

Geothermal Resources

The most favorable portions of the planning area with geothermal energy 

potential are along its southern border and in eastern Texas. In Texas, three 

regions prevail for geothermal potential and development:

 Trans-Pecos Region – West Texas

 Gulf Coast Region – Texas

 East Texas Region

In West Texas along the Rio Grande River in the Trans-Pecos region, geothermal

resources are described as both hydrothermal and hot dry rock in nature. These 

resources are associated with the southern end of the Rio Grande Rift. This area 

shows promise for enhanced geothermal systems and co-produced geothermal 

development. Tertiary and older geopressured formations along the Gulf Coast 

and east Texas make these areas good candidates for co-produced and hybrid 

geothermal production (BLM 2016b). Northern Oklahoma and central Kansas 

also have moderately favorable geothermal potential (BLM GIS 2016). 

Table 3-36 shows the acres of BLM-administered surface lands and federal 

mineral estate with varying levels of geothermal resource potential. 

Table 3-36

Geothermal Potential in the BLM Decision Area

Geothermal Potential Acres of BLM-Administered 

Surface Lands

Acres of BLM-Administered 

Federal Mineral Estate

High 0 333,700

High-moderate 0 660,100 

Moderate 0 223,900 

Moderate-low 800* 1,690,300* 

Low 14,300* 1,530,100* 

Source: BLM GIS 2016

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of the Red 

River and the 98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified and mapped when they are surveyed. (No 

exact acreages of federal lands are available at this time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed.) 

Any such survey would be conducted in accordance with applicable law.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Energy and Minerals) 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-171 

The USGS is also directed to assess trends in global demand for helium and to 

prepare a 10-year forecast of domestic helium demand. These efforts are 

ongoing. 

Construction and expansion of international helium plants, combined with new 

domestic helium production from outside the planning area, has resulted in an 

over 50 percent decrease in demand for helium stored in the federal helium 

facilities between 2014 and 2016 (USGS 2016d). 

Oil and Gas 

The BLM has classified the planning area by oil and gas development potential, 

ranging from no potential to high potential (see Figure 3-30, Oil and Gas 

Development Potential). Table 3-37, below, shows the number of acres with 

oil and gas development potential on BLM-administered surface lands and 

subsurface mineral estate in the planning area. As shown in the table, about half 

of the BLM decision area has moderate or greater oil and gas potential. Most of 

these areas are on BLM-administered federal mineral estate. 

Table 3-37

Oil and Gas Development Potential in the BLM Decision Area

Potential Level

Acres of BLMAdministered Surface 

Lands

Acres of BLMAdministered Federal 

Mineral Estate

High 1,600 601,400 

Moderate to high 3,300* 589,300* 

Moderate 6,100* 909,900* 

Low to moderate 100 542,300 

Low 3,900* 1,715,600* 

None 0 79,500 

Source: BLM GIS 2016

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the 

North Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified 

and mapped when they are surveyed. (No exact acreages of federal lands are available at this 

time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed.) Any such survey would be 

conducted in accordance with applicable law.

The Energy Information Administration predicts that nationwide oil prices will rise 

between 0.8 and 1.4 percent per year between 2012 and 2040 (in 2012 dollars; 

EIA 2014). Natural gas prices are predicted to rise at a rate of 3.7 percent per 

year between 2012 and 2040 (in 2012 dollars; EIA 2014). Based on the oil and gas 

development potential and predicted nationwide price increases, oil and gas 

activity in the BLM decision area is expected to increase over the next 20 years. 

The RFDS prepared by the BLM for the planning area estimates that 

approximately 1.9 million barrels of oil will be produced from federal and Indian 

minerals in the planning area in 2040; this is a 27 percent increase over 2013 

3. Affected Environment (BLM Energy and Minerals)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-173

production levels for the BLM and BIA decision areas. The RFDS also estimates 

that 126 million MCF of gas will be produced from federal and Indian minerals in 

the planning area in 2040; this is a 40 percent increase over 2013 production 

levels for the BLM and BIA decision areas (BLM 2016b).

Geothermal Resources

Future development of geothermal energy in Texas is expected to include geoexchange systems (heat pumps), direct use, and electric power generation. The 

most likely use of federal geothermal resources will be for electric power 

generation, which has not yet become commercially established in the state 

(Erdlac 2007). Although portions of the BLM decision area have moderately high 

geothermal resource potential, geothermal resource development in the 

decision area is not expected in the next 20 years.

Mineral Materials

Current Condition

The planning area contains numerous mineral materials, such as sand and gravel, 

limestone, granite, chalk, and pumice; however, because most of the BLMadministered federal mineral estate in the decision area is acquired, mineral 

materials that would normally be disposed of through the Mineral Materials Act 

of 1947, as amended (30 USC, Section 601 et seq.) are leased under 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (5 USC, Appendix). See Section 3.3.1, Energy 

and Minerals, Nonenergy Leasables, for more information on these leasable 

mineral materials.

Public domain federal mineral estate (mineral estate that has always been 

federal, rather than having been acquired by the federal government) does exist 

along the Red River in the BLM decision area along the Texas/Oklahoma 

border. Mineral materials in this area would be disposed of under the Mineral 

Materials Act of 1947, as amended. Sand and gravel are the most common 

mineral materials in this area (Johnson 2008); however, no mineral material 

activity has occurred on BLM-administered surface or federal mineral estate in 

this area to date.

Trends

Due to the small area of public domain federal mineral estate in the BLM 

decision area, mineral material activity is not expected to be significant in the 

next 20 years. Because mineral materials often provide construction and road 

building materials, demand is largely driven by proximity to construction 

projects; therefore, if projects were to occur near the public domain federal 

mineral estate along the Red River, the BLM could dispose of mineral materials 

in the area.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Energy and Minerals)

3-174 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Nonenergy Leasables

Current Condition

As mentioned under Mineral Materials, mineral materials on acquired BLMadministered federal mineral estate in the planning area would be leased under 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (5 USC, Appendix). This is also true for 

hardrock minerals; however, there has been very little hardrock or mineral 

material activity in the decision area. In the past, companies showed interest in 

chromium and palladium deposits on BLM-administered federal mineral estate in 

the Ouachita Mountains in southeastern Oklahoma, but the minerals did not 

exist in economic quantities. 

Mineral materials exist throughout the planning area (BLM 2016b). Development 

of these types of materials is generally driven by demand from nearby 

construction projects. In addition to mineral materials, the following minerals 

exist in the planning area (BLM 2016b): barium, beryllium, magnesium, 

strontium, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, titanium, zirconium, 

vanadium, gold, mercury, platinum palladium, silver, tungsten, aluminum, 

bismuth, lead, zinc, tin, antimony, arsenic, silicon, bromine, fluorine, fluorite, 

iodine, nitrogen/nitrates, phosphorus/phosphates, sulfur, rare earth elements, 

thorium, and uranium, and evaporites, such as halite, gypsum, salt, and 

potassium.

The primary nonenergy leasable minerals in the planning area are evaporites, 

which include salt and gypsum, along with other minerals that are less 

commercially viable. Large salt deposits lie beneath western Texas, western 

Oklahoma, and western and central Kansas. Although no salt deposits are being 

developed in the decision area, the Kanopolis Salt Mine outside Salina, Kansas, is 

mining salt resources close to BLM-administered federal mineral estate. 

Approximately 1,726,300 acres of BLM-administered federal mineral estate and 

14,000 acres of BLM-administered surface lands contain evaporite resources,

plus additional Federal lands in the Red River area (BLM GIS 2016). 

Trends

Based on low historical demand and the widespread availability of hardrock 

minerals and mineral materials on private minerals, the BLM does not expect 

leasing activity associated with hardrock minerals and mineral materials in the 

next 20 years.

3.3.2 Renewable Energy

Renewable energy is that produced from wind, solar, and biomass generation.

Current Condition

Wind energy development is a rapidly growing industry throughout the planning 

area. Reliable wind resources throughout the Great Plains, combined with 

federal incentives for renewable energy development as part of the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act, led to a proliferation of new and expanded 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Renewable Energy) 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-175 

wind energy generation facilities in Kansas, western Oklahoma, northwestern 

Texas, and the Texas gulf coast. 

Within the four-state planning area, there are 214 individual wind energy 

project locations (NREL 2017). Project locations contain as few as one turbine, 

but many have 50 or more. Individual turbine sizes and generation capacities 

vary, but typical commercial-scale turbines are between 200 and 300 feet tall, 

with +/-100-foot-long rotors and generation capacities between 1.5 and 3 

megawatts. 

Wind and solar energy development potential exists in the decision area, as 

shown in Figure 3-31, Relative Wind Potential, Figure 3-32, Relative 

Concentrated Solar Potential, and Figure 3-33, Relative Photovoltaic Solar 

Potential, and Table 3-38, Relative Wind Potential in the BLM Decision Area, 

Table 3-39, Relative Concentrated Solar Potential in the BLM Decision Area, 

and Table 3-40, Relative Photovoltaic Solar Potential in the BLM Decision 

Area. 

Table 3-38

Relative Wind Potential in the BLM Decision Area

Potential Level

Acres of BLMAdministered Surface 

Lands

Acres of BLMAdministered Federal 

Mineral Estate

High 12,700* 1,176,900* 

Medium 2,400 3,269,400 

Low 0 364,600 

Source: BLM GIS 2016

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the 

North Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified 

and mapped when they are surveyed. (No exact acreages of federal lands are available at this 

time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed.) Any such survey would be 

conducted in accordance with applicable law.

Table 3-39

Relative Concentrated Solar Potential in the BLM Decision Area

Potential Level

Acres of BLMAdministered Surface 

Lands

Acres of BLMAdministered Federal 

Mineral Estate

High 0 145,000 

Medium 1,700* 429,200* 

Low 13,400* 4,236,100* 

Source: BLM GIS 2016

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the 

North Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified 

and mapped when they are surveyed. (No exact acreages of federal lands are available at this 

time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed.) Any such survey would be 

conducted in accordance with applicable law.



3. Affected Environment (BLM Renewable Energy)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-179

Table 3-40

Relative Photovoltaic Solar Potential in the BLM Decision Area

Potential Level

Acres of BLMAdministered Surface 

Lands

Acres of BLMAdministered Federal 

Mineral Estate

High 14,300* 844,300

Medium 800* 3,965,900* 

Low 0 0 

Source: BLM GIS 2016

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the 

North Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified 

and mapped when they are surveyed. (No exact acreages of federal lands are available at this 

time because the full 116-mile stretch has not been surveyed.) Any such survey would be 

conducted in accordance with applicable law.

While areas of high potential for wind and photovoltaic solar exist in the 

decision area, there are no wind or solar energy ROWs on BLM-administered 

lands or split-estate lands where the BLM manages the subsurface mineral 

estate. There are no biomass facilities in the decision area. 

While wind resources in the planning area are generally favorable for utilityscale wind energy development, the scattered nature of BLM-administered and 

BIA-managed land limits the likelihood of future development in the decision 

area. Legal access to BLM-administered and BIA trust lands further complicates 

renewable energy development opportunities in the decision area. Within the 

planning area, wind energy development is most likely where wind resources 

are highest and where energy generation is compatible with the existing land 

use, such as agriculture.

3.3.3 Recreation and Visitor Services

Recreation on BLM-administered lands in the 269-million-acre planning area is 

primarily concentrated along stretches of the Red River area. For example, the 

area south of Waurika, Oklahoma, next to State Route 79, receives extensive 

recreational use. 

Off-road vehicle riding is especially popular, and users ride both cross-country 

and on a series of user-created trails; the small number of signs makes it difficult 

for users to determine land management boundaries and results in frequent 

trespass onto private land. Likewise, the series of unofficial trails that users 

follow often requires traversing private land. Some users also camp in this area 

during multi-day trips. 

Bird-watching and wildlife viewing are also common activities along portions of 

the Red River. User conflict occurs where cross-country off-road vehicle

recreation interferes with other recreation activities in this area. Other than 

posting signs, the BLM does not have an active day-to-day management presence 

along the river.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Recreation and Visitor Services)

3-180 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

The Cross Bar Management Area, an 11,800-acre parcel near Amarillo, is the 

only BLM-administered surface land in Texas. It was originally acquired as a 

strategic helium reserve; today it also serves as an ecological research area. The 

ranch is surrounded by private land, and public access to the ranch is limited to 

hiking in, along the Canadian River. As a result, recreation use levels on the 

ranch are low. The primary recreation on the ranch is archery hunting. 

Dispersed recreation also occurs on isolated parcels of BLM-administered lands 

and federal mineral estate elsewhere in the planning area. Activities in these 

areas include low levels of hiking, hunting, camping, sightseeing, and driving for 

pleasure, primarily along the Canadian River corridor and existing roads. There 

are no developed recreation sites on BLM-administered land in the planning 

area.

Recreation, including hunting, fishing, and boating, occurs on reservoirs, state 

parks, wildlife refuges, and other parcels where the BLM administers federal 

mineral estate but does not manage any surface uses. Surface management 

agencies in these areas are the USFWS, USACE, the Bureau of Reclamation, and 

the State of Oklahoma.

Recreational target shooting occurs throughout the decision area and includes 

the discharge of any firearm for any lawful, recreational purpose other than the 

taking of a game animal. The BLM allows recreational shooting on public lands, 

except in areas that are closed to public access or where shooting is prohibited 

by statute. The activity typically involves shooting objects, such as bottles, cans, 

and ceramic discs, which can result in the accumulation of litter at popular 

shooting locations. 

3.3.4 Travel, Transportation Management, and Access

Off-Highway Vehicle Management Areas

Off-highway vehicle is synonymous with off-road vehicle. Off-road vehicle is 

defined in 43 CFR, Subpart 8340.0-5(a), as any motorized/battery-powered 

vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over land, water, or 

other natural terrain. It excludes the following:

 Any non-amphibious registered motorboat

 Any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle, while 

being used for emergencies

 Any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the BLM 

Authorized Officer or otherwise officially approved

 Vehicles in official use;

 Any combat or combat-support vehicle, when used in times of 

national defense emergencies
3. Affected Environment (BLM Travel, Transportation Management, and Access)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-181

Types of off-road vehicles commonly used on BLM-administered lands are dirt 

motorcycles, dune buggies, sand rails, jeeps, four-wheel-drive vehicles, 

snowmobiles, and all-terrain vehicles. 

The BLM’s regulations for off-road vehicle management, 43 CFR, Subpart 

8342.1, stipulate “the Authorized Officer shall designate all BLM lands as either 

open, limited, or closed to [off-road vehicles].” As such, all BLM-administered 

lands in the planning area need to be designated in one of three off-road vehicle 

designation categories, as follows:

 Open area designations are used for intensive off-road vehicle or 

other transportation use areas, where there are no special 

restrictions or where there are no compelling resource protection 

needs, user conflicts, or public safety issues to warrant limiting 

cross-country travel. 

 Limited area designations are used where travel must be restricted 

to meet specific resource or resource use objectives. In accordance 

with BLM Travel and Transportation Manual 1626, in areas classified 

as limited, the BLM must consider a full range of possibilities, 

including travel that will be limited to types or modes of travel, such 

as pedestrian, equestrian, bicycle, and motorized. Other possibilities 

are travel limited to designated roads and trails, to time or season 

of use, to certain types of vehicles (e.g., motorcycles, all terrain, and 

high clearance), to licensed or permitted vehicles or users, to BLM 

administrative use only. 

In addition, the BLM must provide specific guidance about the process 

for managing motorized vehicle access for authorized, permitted, or 

otherwise approved vehicles for those specific categories of 

motorized vehicle uses that are exempt from a limited designation.

 Closed area designations prohibit all motorized travel and 

transportation. Areas or trails are designated closed if closure to all 

vehicular use is necessary to protect resources, to promote visitor 

safety, or to reduce use conflicts. 

Off-highway vehicle use on the Cross Bar Management Area has historically 

been low due to limited public access. However, the Lake Meredith National 

Recreation Area, located approximately six miles northeast of the Cross Bar 

Management Area, provides abundant public recreational opportunities for offhighway vehicle use near the southern portion of the Lake Meredith National 

Recreation Area along the Canadian River corridor.

Current Condition

There is no management framework for travel and transportation in the BLM 

decision area; BLM-administered lands are managed as open to off-road vehicle

use. 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Travel, Transportation Management, and Access)

3-182 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

While there is little to no travel on most scattered parcels of BLM-administered 

land, off-road vehicle use, hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding have 

become popular along stretches of the Red River. For example, the area near 

Waurika, Oklahoma, is a popular recreation destination; the proliferation of offroad vehicle use in this area has increased the risk of collisions and other safety 

concerns for other users. 

BLM staff have also reported incidents of vehicles and horses becoming stuck in 

the thick mud in the riverbed. None of the routes in this area have been 

designated for public use, and the area has not previously been analyzed for offroad vehicle use or associated management allocations. 

Likewise, there is no current management allocation for off-road vehicle use in 

the Cross Bar Management Area. The ranch is surrounded by private land, 

though an easement has been acquired that may provide public access in the 

future. If access is improved, there will likely be an increased demand for 

creating designated routes for off-road vehicle use on the ranch. There are 26.6 

miles of unimproved roads at the Cross Bar Management Area, though they are 

not designated for specific types of vehicles or uses (BLM GIS 2016).

3.3.5 Lands and Realty

Land Use Authorizations

Current Condition

On BLM-administered lands, the BLM authorizes certain land use activities, 

mainly by issuing ROWs and leases. Examples of ROWs are roads (e.g., 

highways), electrical distribution and transmission lines, pipelines, and wind and 

solar energy generation facilities. The BLM typically issues leases for 

communication sites. 

The following analysis describes these types of land uses generally for the broad 

planning area and more specifically for BLM-administered lands. For analysis of 

wind and solar energy ROWs, see Section 3.3.2, Renewable Energy. 

Kansas

Kansas has an average population density of 35 people per square mile, which is

below the national average of 87 people per square mile. The largest population 

centers in the planning area are Wichita and Topeka, which have populations of

382,400 and 127,500, respectively (US Census Bureau 2010a). Major land use 

authorizations, such as highways, electrical transmission lines, pipelines, and 

communication equipment, are more concentrated near these and other smaller 

urban centers. In general, rural areas have a lower density of ROWs and other 

infrastructure. In rural areas, most roads, power lines, and other linear features 

follow Public Land Surveying System section lines. Infrastructure-related land 

uses on the surface consist of power lines, pipelines, roadways, and 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Lands and Realty)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-183

communication facilities, agricultural lands, undeveloped open space, and typical 

urban and suburban development. 

Oklahoma

The population per square mile in Oklahoma is 55, which is below the national 

average of 87 people per square mile. The largest population centers in the 

planning area are Oklahoma City and Tulsa, which have populations of 580,000

and 391,900, respectively (US Census Bureau 2010a). Major land use 

authorizations are more concentrated near these and other smaller urban 

centers, while rural areas have a lower density of ROWs and other 

infrastructure. In rural areas, most roads, power lines, and other linear features 

follow Public Land Surveying System section lines.

BLM-administered lands along the Oklahoma and Texas boundary consist of 

numerous contiguous and non-contiguous parcels. Generally, these parcels 

contain few roads, rights-of-way, or other similar uses.

Infrastructure-related land uses consist of a variety of power lines, pipelines, 

roadways, and communication facilities, as well as typical urban development, 

agricultural lands, and undeveloped open space. 

Texas

Texas has a population density of 96 people per square mile, which is more than 

the national average of 87, for a total population in 2016 of 27,860,000. Cities 

such as Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin are some of the most rapidly 

growing urban areas in the country. Between 2010 and 2016, for example, the 

population of Austin grew by 16.2 percent. With a total population of 2,303,000, 

Houston is the fourth most populous city in the country. 

Regional road, electrical, gas, oil, and communication infrastructure in place to 

support these large and expanding urban areas is substantial, with infrastructure 

systems extending far beyond the cities’ geographic centers. In rural areas, 

infrastructure is a less dominant element of the overall landscape. Infrastructure 

patterns in Texas are also less predictable because it largely did not use the 

Public Land Surveying System to allocate landownership. Roads and other linear 

features tend to cross the landscape in an assortment of directions, rather than 

the grid pattern characteristic throughout the northern portion of the planning 

area, in Oklahoma and Kansas. 

Approximately 11,800 acres of BLM-administered surface lands is the Cross Bar 

Management Area, located northwest of Amarillo. There are two large 

transmission lines that cross through the center of a portion of the Cross Bar 

Management Area, from north to south (BLM GIS 2016). There are also several 

unpaved access roads in this area. 

The current management direction for lands and realty is considered adequate 

to ensure continued management of lands in the planning area. Management 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Lands and Realty)

3-184 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

decisions could identify ROW avoidance or exclusion areas to better protect 

resources. Public utility corridors for power lines, pipelines, communication 

sites, and communication ROWs could be identified as well. 

Throughout the planning area, unauthorized uses on BLM-administered lands 

are an ongoing management concern. The BLM is aware of approximately 10 

pipelines crossing the Red River and potentially affecting BLM-administered 

lands that have not been formally authorized through the BLM ROW process. 

Other potential unauthorized uses and trespass cases are thought to be present; 

however, the BLM is unclear of the nature and extent of these issues. 

Due to the isolated and scattered nature of the BLM-administered land pattern

in the planning area, access to those lands is also a management concern. The 

BLM is aware that people trespass across adjacent private lands to reach federal 

lands. This is especially prevalent along the Red River. 

Land Tenure

Current Condition

The distribution of landownership directly influences the current level and 

locations of uses influencing BLM management in the planning area. Surface land in 

the planning area is administered by or owned by numerous federal agencies and 

tribal, state, and private entities (Table 1-1). BLM-administered surface lands are 

highly scattered and represent less than 1 percent of the total landownership in 

the planning area. Most of the BLM-administered surface lands in the planning area 

are along the Red, Canadian, and Cimarron Rivers in Oklahoma. 

The BLM administers approximately 4,810,900 acres of subsurface mineral 

estate in the planning area. Surface uses vary in ownership and types and 

intensity of uses, which may limit opportunities for developing the underlying 

mineral resources. In split-estate areas, where there is surface mineral 

development, landowners have the responsibility to consider the compatibility 

of any surface land uses with the existing mineral development. In some areas, 

incompatible uses, such as electrical or transportation infrastructure, could be 

prevented, or proponents would be required to use an alternative design to 

avoid conflict with any subsurface mineral development. 

In the planning area, there are six National Forest System national grasslands 

and five national forests. In addition, the Big Bend National Park in Texas near 

the Mexican border and the eastern portion of Guadalupe Mountains National 

Park in far northwestern Texas are in the planning area. The BLM does not 

manage Forest Service minerals, just the permits. The BLM is the leasing agent 

for the Forest Service, but the Forest Service plans and stipulates the 

restrictions for the leases; however, the BLM does manage the subsurface 

mineral split-estate within the administrative boundaries of all six national 

grasslands and five national forests in the planning area.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Lands and Realty)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-185

BLM-administered lands are retained in federal ownership, as mandated by the 

FLPMA, except for lands identified in a land use plan that meet disposal criteria 

listed in section 203 of FLPMA. To be eligible for disposal, lands must meet 

certain FLPMA criteria, such as being isolated or difficult to manage, or they 

must have the potential to support community expansion, economic 

development, or other public purposes. Withdrawn BLM-administered lands 

remain under title with the BLM; however, they are managed by another federal 

entity and are not available for sale or exchange. 

In accordance with the 1987 Planning Analysis for Proposed Disposal of Public 

Lands in Kansas and 1988 Supplemental Planning Analysis, all BLM-administered 

lands in Kansas were disposed of through procedures outlined in 43 CFR, Parts 

2710 or 2740. At the time of the 1987 and 1988 analyses, the BLM had not 

identified all public lands in the state. In Oklahoma, similar direction provided by 

the BLM Director in 1982 initiated a program to dispose of the remaining 8,200 

acres of identified lands. Subsequent BLM analyses between 1982 and 1994 

identified town sites that had not been patented and remained in public 

ownership. 

The BLM also conducted a landownership analysis, as part of this Joint EIS/BLM 

RMP and BIA Integrated RMP, which identified 2,200 acres of BLM-administered 

surface estate and 4,400 acres of land that had been conveyed out of federal 

ownership (BLM GIS 2016). 

The BLM continues to administer lands along the Canadian River. These lands, 

which are subject to continual erosion and subsequent accretion from the 

Canadian River, are the only BLM-administered lands in the planning area for 

which ownership is retained following erosion and subsequent accretion. 

One of the primary mechanisms the BLM uses to dispose of federal lands in the 

planning area is the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926 (44 Statute 741; 

43 USC 869 et seq.). Through this act, the BLM can sell or lease federal lands to 

state and local governments or qualified nonprofit organizations for a range of 

public or recreational purposes. Examples of these uses are public parks, 

campgrounds, schools, and landfills, and for other public service facilities, such as 

police and fire stations. 

Recipients of lands transferred out of federal ownership via the Recreation and 

Public Purposes Act maintain a patent (title of ownership) under certain 

provisions or clauses. If such provisions are not complied with, it may result in 

reversion of title. One condition is that the lands be used for the specified 

public purpose. If the new owner fails to conform with the approved plan of 

development and management plan or use for the purpose that the lands were 

transferred, then the lands may revert to federal ownership. 

Over the past 25 years, the BLM has issued Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

patents for approximately 2,200 acres in the planning area. Of these, 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Lands and Realty) 

3-186 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

approximately 900 acres have either reverted to federal ownership or have an 

unknown or unresolved landownership status. 

Withdrawals 

The BLM has no land withdrawals, and no future land withdrawals are proposed 

in the planning area. 

3.3.6 Livestock Grazing 

Current Condition 

There are four BLM grazing leases being administered in Oklahoma. Three of 

these lie along the north bank of the Red River (in the Red River area): two in 

Tillman County and one in Jefferson County. The public lands in the Red River 

area do not currently possess great value for livestock grazing, because they lack 

a consistent source of water. 

Mesquite encroachment is significant to the point that forage production is 

dropping drastically. Combatting mesquite would be a huge undertaking, 

considering the size of the allotments and resources available in the OFO to 

complete such vegetation projects. In addition, there are no fences around the 

allotments, and keeping fences up in the river/sandy soil would be a challenge. 

The fourth grazing lease is on the South Canadian River in Blaine County (see 

Table 3-41, BLM Grazing Allotments*, below, and Figure 3-34, BLM Grazing 

Allotments). The Blaine allotment is suspended for use, based on the area being 

severely eroded along the bank of the river. 

Table 3-41

BLM Grazing Allotments*

Allotment Name Total Acres Season of Use Total Animal 

Unit Months

Tillman 1 147 March 1 to February 28 51

Tillman 2 92 March 1 to February 28 36

Blaine 1 29 March 1 to February 28 36

Jefferson 1 167 March 1 to February 28 15

Source: BLM 2015b13

*All grazing allotments are for cattle.

3.3.7 Prime and Unique Farmlands and Agriculture 

The planning area contains soils that are considered suitable for farmland 

applications and are protected by the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 USC, 

Section 4201 et seq.), under the Agricultural and Food Act of 1981 (PL 97-98). 

 

13Melinda Fisher, BLM, personal communication via e-mail to Holly Prohaska, EMPSi, regarding OKT RMP Livestock 

Grazing and Wild Horses, January 20, 2015. 

3. Affected Environment (BLM Prime and Unique Farmlands and Agriculture) 

3-188 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

Farmlands are classified as prime or unique or as farmlands of state or local 

importance. Prime and unique farmlands are those that have the best 

combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, 

fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops, with minimum inputs of fuel, 

fertilizers, pesticides, and labor. The Farmland Protection Policy Act is intended 

to minimize impacts of federal programs by reducing the unnecessary and 

irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. If a project has the 

potential to convert important farmland to nonagricultural uses, then the 

project proponent must submit a farmland conversion impact rating form to the 

NRCS. 

Current Condition 

On BLM-administered lands in the decision area, according to NRCS data, there 

are prime farmlands, prime farmlands of statewide importance, prime farmlands 

if drained or irrigated, and prime farmlands if protected from flooding, as shown 

in in Table 3-42, Prime Farmlands in the BLM Decision Area, below, and 

Figure 3-35, Prime Farmland. 

Table 3-42

Prime Farmlands in the BLM Decision Area

Farmland Type

BLM-Administered 

Surface Lands 

(acres)

BLM-Administered 

Federal Mineral Estate

(acres)

Kansas

Prime farmland 0 246,600

Farmland of statewide importance 0 131,100

Prime farmland if drained 0 21,100

Prime farmland if irrigated 0 8,500

Not prime farmland 0 311,100

Nebraska

Prime farmland 0 0

Farmland of statewide importance 0 0

Not prime farmland 0 0

Oklahoma

Prime farmland 200 437,400

Not prime farmland 3,100* 1,444,600*

Texas

Prime farmland 4,700 361,300

Prime farmland if drained 0 15,100

Prime farmland if irrigated 0 41,700

Prime farmland if protected from flooding 0 2,500

Not prime farmland 7,000 1,784,400

Source: BLM GIS 2016; NRCS GIS 2015

*Plus any applicable federal lands along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River between the North Fork of 

the Red River and the 98th Meridian that will be more specifically identified and mapped when they are 

surveyed. (No exact acreages of federal lands are available at this time because the full 116-mile stretch 

has not been surveyed.) Any such survey would be conducted in accordance with applicable law.

3. Affected Environment (BLM Prime and Unique Farmlands and Agriculture)

3-190 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Trends

Between 1982 and 2012, 554,500 acres in Oklahoma, 363,200 acres in Kansas, 

and 3,027,800 acres in Texas were converted from agricultural land to 

developed land (Farmland Information Center 2016a, 2016b, 2016c). It is 

unknown if BLM-administered surface lands or BLM-administered federal 

mineral estate experience the same conversion rates as these statewide rates. 

BLM-administered surface lands or BLM-administered federal mineral estate

could be converted from agricultural land to developed land if, for example, 

mineral development is allowed to occur on agricultural land or the agricultural 

land is transferred out of public ownership and then converted to nonagricultural uses. The planning area is projected to have high levels of new oil 

and gas activity. Soils with farmland characteristics are generally avoided when 

siting oil and gas or other development features.

3.4 BLM SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

This section is a description of the BLM special designation areas in the planning 

area and follows the order of topics addressed in Chapter 2:

 Section 3.4.1, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

 Section 3.4.2, Wild and Scenic Rivers

 Section 3.4.3, National Historic Trails

 Section 3.4.4, National, State, and BLM Scenic Byways

3.4.1 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

An ACEC is defined in FLPMA, Section 103(a). It is an area within BLMadministered lands where special management attention is required to protect 

and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values 

and fish and wildlife resources, or to other natural systems or processes, or to 

protect life and safety from natural hazards. BLM regulations for implementing 

the ACEC provisions of the FLPMA are found in 43 CFR, Subpart 1610.7-2(b).

To be eligible for consideration as an ACEC, an area must meet criteria of 

relevance and importance found in 43 CFR, Subpart 1610-7-2(a)(b). An ACEC 

possesses significant historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish or wildlife resources 

(including habitat, communities, or species), natural processes or systems, or 

natural hazards. In addition, the significance of these values and resources must 

be substantial in order to satisfy the importance criteria.

There are no designated ACECs in the planning area. No external (public) 

nominations for ACECs have been received to date.

3.4.2 Wild and Scenic Rivers

WSRs are streams or stream segments designated by Congress under the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 USC, Sections 1271-1287; Public Law 90-542, 

as amended). The purposes of WSR designation are to preserve the stream or 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Wild and Scenic Rivers)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-191

stream section in its free-flowing condition and to preserve water quality. The 

act’s other purpose is to protect outstandingly remarkable values, which are 

identified on a segment-specific basis. They may include scenic, recreational, 

geological, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. 

Section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act directs federal agencies to 

consider potential WSRs in their land and water planning process. To fulfill this 

requirement, the BLM evaluates streams when developing or revising its RMPs. 

In order to fulfill its obligations under Section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act, the OFO is considering the eligibility and suitability of streams in the 

planning area for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 

(NWSRS). The BIA did not consider eligibility or suitability of streams in its 

decision area for inclusion in the NWSRS. This was because doing so would not 

be consistent with the BIA’s obligation to fulfill its Indian trust responsibilities on 

tribal and allotted lands. 

Determination of Wild and Scenic River Eligibility

The initial step in the eligibility phase of the WSR analysis is to generate an 

inventory of streams. Every known stream with a perennial or intermittent flow 

regime in the planning area was identified using a variety of BLM and other data 

sources. The stream segments were then evaluated to determine whether they 

meet the dual criteria of being free flowing and possessing one or more 

outstandingly remarkable values, as defined in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Eligible segments were preliminarily classified as wild, scenic, or recreational, 

based on water quality and level of human development along the river 

corridor.

From 2014 through 2016, the BLM performed an eligibility analysis on streams 

in the planning area. The Final Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Report for the 

Oklahoma Field Office (Appendix H) details stream segments determined to be 

eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS, as defined by the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act of 1968. 

Determination of Wild and Scenic River Suitability

One stream segment was inventoried and found to be eligible for inclusion in 

the NWSRS and is carried forward to the suitability phase of the WSR river 

analysis. The suitability phase considers tradeoffs between corridor 

development and stream protection by applying eight criteria to each eligible 

segment. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility Report for the Oklahoma Field 

Office details the suitability study process and the draft suitability 

determinations for each eligible segment in the field office (see Appendix H). 

Though final determination of suitability and recommendation to the Secretary 

of Interior for solicitation of congressional designation and inclusion into the 

NWSRS will be issued in the Record of Decision for this Joint EIS/RMP, the BLM 

has no plan to recommend this 7.3 mile section of the Canadian River to either 

the US Congress or the Secretary of Interior for its inclusion into the NWSRS.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Wild and Scenic Rivers) 

3-192 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

Current Conditions 

There are no WSRs in Oklahoma or Kansas, as designated under the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Council 2018). In 

Texas, 191.2 miles of the Rio Grande are designated; 95.2 miles are classified as 

wild and 96 miles are classified as scenic (Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Council 2018). No portions of this WSR overlap with BLM-administered federal 

mineral estate. 

However, there are state-designated scenic river areas that overlap with BLMadministered federal mineral estate. Designated under Oklahoma’s Scenic Rivers 

Act (Oklahoma Statute Title 82, Sections 1451-1471), scenic river areas are to 

be preserved as part of Oklahoma’s diminishing resource of free-flowing rivers 

and streams (Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Act 1983). These rivers were found to 

possess unique natural scenic beauty, water conservation, fish, wildlife, and 

outdoor recreational values of present and future benefit. A total of 31.6 miles 

of Oklahoma’s scenic river areas overlap BLM-administered federal mineral 

estate; none overlap BLM-administered surface lands (see Table 3-43, 

Oklahoma Scenic River Areas, below, and Figure 3-36, Designated Wild and 

Scenic Rivers). The rivers were considered during the inventory phase of the 

WSR eligibility evaluation. 

Table 3-43

Oklahoma Scenic River Areas

River Name Total Miles

Miles on BLMAdministered Federal 

Mineral Estate

Illinois River 62.9 5.2

Baron Fork 29.4 3.8

Mountain Fork 48.5 22.5

Lee Creek 17.9 0

Little Lee Creek 25.9 0.1

Total 184.6 31.6

Sources: Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Act 1983; NHD GIS 2013

Note: Miles are rounded to the nearest 1/10th. 

After evaluating all streams identified during the inventory phase, 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 suitability, however, as the BLM does 

not know the acreage or location of tracts it would administer along the river. 

The Canadian River is the only eligible stream segment in the planning area; it is 

being studied for suitability analysis. Outstandingly remarkable values are 

recreation, fish, and cultural resources. Its preliminary classification is 

recreational. Approximately 7.3 miles of the Canadian River is adjacent to BLMadministered land (see Figure 2-56, Cross Bar Management Area Alternatives 

A, B, and C: Wild and Scenic Rivers, in Appendix A). 

3. Affected Environment (BLM Wild and Scenic Rivers) 

3-194 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

Interim Protection 

The BLM’s policy goal for eligible and suitable rivers is to manage their freeflowing condition, water quality, tentative classification, and any ORVs. This is to 

ensure a decision on suitability can be made for eligible rivers. To that end, the 

BLM has broad discretionary authority, on a case-by-case basis, through projectlevel decision-making and the NEPA process, not to impact river values or make 

decisions that might lead to a determination of ineligibility or nonsuitability (BLM 

2012b). 

3.4.3 National Historic Trails 

Congress designates national historic trails under the National Trails System Act 

of 1968. BLM Manual 6250, National Scenic and Historic Trail Administration 

(2012c), and Manual 6280, Management of National Scenic and Historic Trails 

and Trails Under Study or Recommended as Suitable for Congressional 

Designation (2012d), contain policy for the management and administration of 

congressionally designated national historic trails. BLM Manual 6100, National 

Landscape Conservation System Management (2012e), also provides guidance 

on managing the areas as part of the National Landscape Conservation System. 

National historic trails closely follow historic trails or routes of travel of 

national significance. Congress identifies and protects historic routes, historic 

remnants, and artifacts for public use and enjoyment. They must meet the 

following criteria listed in Section 5(b)(11) of the National Trails System Act: 

 Follow actual documented route of historic use 

 Be of national significance 

 Possess significant potential for public recreation and interpretation 

There are nine national historic trails in the planning area (two of which are 

under study), covering 4,761.6 miles (see Table 3-44, National Historic Trails, 

below, and Figure 3-37, National Historic Trails). Of these, 70.7 miles are on 

BLM-administered federal mineral estate; none are on BLM-administered surface 

lands. The following national historic trails have comprehensive management 

plans: Santa Fe National Historic Trail (NPS 1990), Trail of Tears National 

Historic Trail (NPS 1992), California National Historic Trail (NPS 1999), Lewis 

and Clark National Historic Trail (NPS 1982), Oregon National Historic Trail 

(NPS 1999), Pony Express National Historic Trail (NPS 1999), and El Camino 

Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail (NPS 2011b).

3. Affected Environment (BLM National Historic Trails) 

3-196 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

Table 3-44

National Historic Trails

Trail Name Miles in 

Planning Area

Miles on BLMAdministered 

Federal Mineral 

Estate

Oklahoma

Butterfield Overland National Historic Trail (trail 

under study)

185.6 19.9

Chisholm National Historic Trail (trail under study) 282.9 0.7

Santa Fe National Historic Trail 76.3 1.4

Trail of Tears National Historic Trail 94.4 23.7

Total 639.2 45.7

Kansas

California National Historic Trail 346 2.0

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail 48.6 2.2

Oregon National Historic Trail 179.7 2.0

Pony Express National Historic Trail 132.7 0

Santa Fe National Historic Trail 985.6 2.7

Total 1,692.9 8.9

Texas

Chisholm National Historic Trail (trail under study) 1.4 0

El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail 2,428.1 16.1

Total 2,429.5 16.1

Sources: NPS 2010; BLM GIS 2016

Note: Miles are rounded to the nearest 1/10th. 

3.4.4 National, State, and BLM Scenic Byways 

National and State Scenic Byways 

The National Scenic Byways Program was established under the Intermodal 

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; it was reauthorized in 1998 under 

the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. The program recognizes 

certain roads as national scenic byways or all-American roads, based on their 

archaeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities. AllAmerican roads must exhibit multiple intrinsic qualities to be considered for 

inclusion in the program. A highway must provide safe passage for passenger 

cars year-round, be designated a state scenic byway, and have a current 

corridor management plan in place. Off-site outdoor advertising (such as 

billboards) is not allowed along scenic byways. 

Scenic byways are found throughout the planning area. There are 7 in 

Oklahoma, 11 in Kansas, and 10 in Texas. Figure 3-38, Byways, and Table 

3-45, Scenic Byways Crossing Federal Mineral Estate, describe byways that 

cross federal mineral estate. 

3. Affected Environment (BLM National, State, and BLM Scenic Byways)

3-198 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-45

Scenic Byways Crossing Federal Mineral Estate

Byway Name Designation Type

Miles in 

Planning 

Area

Miles on BLMAdministered 

Surface Lands

Miles on BLMAdministered 

Federal Mineral 

Estate

Oklahoma

Cherokee Hills Byway National scenic 

byway

84.7 0 6.6

Historic Route 66—

Oklahoma

All-American road, 

national scenic 

byway

391.6 0.1 2.7

Mountain Gateway 

Scenic Byway

State byway 22.9 0 2.0

Mountain Pass Scenic 

Byway

State byway 23.2 0 0

Osage Nation Heritage 

Trail Byway

State byway 65.7 0 0

Talimena Scenic 

Drive—Oklahoma

National scenic 

byway

34.7 0 0

Wichita Mountains 

Byway

National scenic 

byway

105.4 0 23.5

Total (Oklahoma) 728.3 0.1 34.8

Kansas

Flint Hills Scenic Byway National scenic 

byway

43.1 0 0

Frontier Military 

Historic Byway

State byway 172.2 0 0.1

Glacial Hills Scenic 

Byway

State byway 62.3 0 0

Gypsum Hills Scenic 

Byway

State byway 35.9 0 0

Kansas Historic Route 

66 Byway

State byway 11.3 0 0

Native Stone Scenic 

Byway

State byway 48.5 0 0

Post Rock Scenic 

Byway

State byway 14.7 0 2.3

Prairie Trail Scenic 

Byway

State byway 55.8 0 2.8

Smoky Valley Scenic 

Byway

State byway 60.9 0 3.4

Western Vistas 

Historic Byway

State byway 93.3 0 0.3

Wetlands and Wildlife 

Scenic Byway

National scenic 

byway

75.9 0 4.1

Total (Kansas) 673.8 0 13.0
3. Affected Environment (BLM National, State, and BLM Scenic Byways)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-199

Table 3-45

Scenic Byways Crossing Federal Mineral Estate

Byway Name Designation Type

Miles in 

Planning 

Area

Miles on BLMAdministered 

Surface Lands

Miles on BLMAdministered 

Federal Mineral 

Estate

Texas

Texas Brazos Trail State byway 471.2 0 16.6

Texas Forest Trail State byway 836.4 0 35.8

Texas Forts Trail State byway 673.6 0 3.8

Texas Hill Country 

Trail

State byway 634.6 0 0.3

Texas Independence 

Trail

State byway 717.9 0 2

Texas Lakes Trail State byway 650.3 0 18

Texas Mountain Trail State byway 688.7 0 2.3

Texas Pecos Trail State byway 696.1 0 5.3

Texas Plains Trail State byway 684.1 0 0.4

Texas Tropical Trail State byway 673 0 12.6

Total (Texas) 6,725.8 0 97.1

Sources: Scenic Byways 2015; FHA 2015; Scenicbyways.info GIS 2015; BLM GIS 2016

Note: Miles are rounded to the nearest 1/10th. 

3.5 BLM SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

This section describes the social and economic history, context, and conditions 

in the planning area and includes the following subsections:

 Section 3.5.1, Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests

 Section 3.5.2, Public Health and Safety

 Section 3.5.3, Socioeconomics

 Section 3.5.4, Environmental Justice

The social, cultural and economic development of the planning area was shaped 

by its history over the past 500 years. There were indigenous Native Americans 

occupying land in Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas and southern Nebraska long 

before contact with Euro-Americans and the forced relocation of other tribes in 

the nineteenth century.

Early Spanish and French explorers of the southern Great Plains and northcentral Texas documented contacts in the sixteenth through the eighteenth

centuries. Specifically, these contacts were with the Southern Athapaskanspeaking Apaches (e.g., Kiowa Apaches and Lipan Apaches), the Pawnee, which 

were Caddoan speakers residing along the Platte, Loup, and Republican Rivers in 

Nebraska and northern Kansas. Caddoan speakers of Pawnee descent (e.g.,

Teyas and Wichita) and the Comanches, a Shoshonean group, ranged over a 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Social and Economic Conditions)

3-200 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

large territory in southeastern Colorado, western Kansas, eastern New Mexico, 

and the Texas Panhandle. 

By 1700, bands of Comanches had fully incorporated the horse into their 

culture and had displaced the Apaches. They consisted of loosely organized 

bands known for their raiding and enslavement of Spanish, Mexican, and 

American settlers.

The French and the Spanish were the most active Euro-American explorers and 

traders in the planning area before the nineteenth century. Unlike the Spanish 

who traveled overland, the French arrived by canoe from the south via the Red 

and Arkansas Rivers. The French were heavily involved with the fur trade and 

set up trading posts and a few larger settlements. After the initial explorations, 

the Spanish pursued a highly organized policy of establishing settlements through 

land grants along their trade routes. These were in their New World colonies in 

neighboring New Mexico and, to a lesser extent, in Texas. 

In 1803, the French sold the Louisiana Territory to the United States. It included 

the northern part of Texas and all of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska. 

By 1821, Mexico obtained its independence from Spain and established a more 

lenient land grant policy and an opening of trade with the United States. Almost 

immediately after Mexican independence, the Santa Fe Trail opened between 

Missouri and Santa Fe, passing through Kansas. This opened the area to US 

goods, merchants, and settlers. In 1836, American settlers established the 

Republic of Texas, which lasted until Texas joined the United States in 1845. 

Texas did not cede any public lands within its current boundaries; consequently, 

the lands in Texas owned by the federal government are those that it

purchased. American encroachment on Mexican territory continued in the 

Southwest, leading to the US-Mexican War of 1846–1848. The US-Mexican 

War ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and resulted in Mexico 

relinquishing much of the West and Southwest to the United States. 

As a result of the treaty and removal policies of the United States, including the 

Indian Removal Act of 1830, tribes living east of the Mississippi River were 

relocated to “Indian Territory,” first in Kansas and Oklahoma and then, after the 

1850s, almost entirely in Oklahoma. Even before its establishment as Indian 

Territory, several eastern groups (the Delaware, the Kickapoo, and the 

Shawnee) had voluntarily moved into the Canadian River valley in western 

Oklahoma in order to avoid and escape conflicts elsewhere. 

In Oklahoma, the territory was split first among the “Five Civilized Tribes” from 

the east and southeast: the Cherokees, the Choctaws, the Chickasaws, the 

Creeks, and the Seminoles. After the United States Civil War, the demand for 

land grew, and more resettlement was required for greater expansion. 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Social and Economic Conditions)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-201

The large allotments of land given to the five original groups were split among 

individual citizens, thus freeing up more land in the territory. More indigenous 

groups were resettled on smaller reservations. An exception was a large parcel

in an area around present-day Oklahoma City, which became known as the 

“Unassigned Lands.” That became the first available parcel in the first of five land 

rushes that began in 1889. 

Resettlement of numerous American Indian groups from the eastern woodlands

to eastern Kansas and Nebraska began during the late 1820s and 1830s. These

groups were the Ottawa, the Potawatomi, the Sac and Fox Nation, the Illinois, 

the Cherokee, the Chippewa, the Iowa, the Miami, the Munsee, the Delaware, 

the Shawnee, the Otoe, the Quapaw, the Kickapoo, the Osage, and the 

Wyandot. 

Oklahoma was central to much of the Euro-American expansion westward. 

Numerous trails were established that crossed the state and extended to both 

the south and the west. Trails going the south connected Texas to Kansas for 

driving cattle to market (e.g., the Chisholm and Dodge City Trails); trails going 

west, such as the California Trail, connected parts of the East and Southeast 

with California and Santa Fe. Several of these became major transportation 

corridors; as a result, forts, outposts, and trading posts were set up across the 

state to protect migrants from indigenous groups and indigenous groups from 

each other. 

In 1863, Congress granted Kansas land for railroads. The railroads promoted 

land sales and brought in new settlers. Most of the major towns in Kansas were 

initially situated to be rail links. In western Oklahoma, there were only three 

railways prior to 1893 and no rail links with western Texas to the south. By 

1898, several projects were underway, as the result of the clamor of 

businesspeople eager to open the state to trade. The building of numerous 

railroads created a thriving economic atmosphere, and enormous amounts of 

money were spent on labor and supplies. Developments in communications 

closely followed the expansion of the railroads, first with the telegraph, then the 

telephone. 

Throughout most of the area’s history, agriculture has remained the most 

important source of revenue, with the number of farms consistently rising. In 

Texas, the range-cattle industry expanded rapidly between 1836 and the time of 

the US Civil War. Annual cattle drives were made from points in south-central 

Texas to New Orleans, Little Rock, Fort Smith, and various cities in Mississippi. 

By the 1850s, markets had shifted, and Texas herds were sold in Chicago, 

California, and Iowa.

Early on, cotton was the leading cash crop; however, in the drier western parts 

of the state, drought-resistant sorghum crops, such as milo maize and kaffir 

corn, were favored. Extreme fluctuations in the prices of farm goods additionally 

hampered economic development and stagnated incomes. The Great 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Social and Economic Conditions)

3-202 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Depression in 1929 and 1930 and drought created even more dire conditions 

for farmers in the planning area. Many abandoned the study region during the 

Dust Bowl years, between 1935 and 1940. The post-World War II years saw 

drastic improvements, mainly brought about by a surge in productivity and rising 

prices for farm goods. 

In addition to agriculture, oil has played a tremendous role in the industrial 

development of the planning area. Oil production began with Lewis Ross, who 

discovered oil while drilling for brine salt. Following the realization that oil was 

at hand, the Cherokee Nation organized a prospecting company, and Edward 

Byrd secured his first well in 1889. In 1897, James Keeler brought in the Nellie 

Johnstone No. 1 well by employing a liquid-nitroglycerin torpedo. That ushered 

in the giant Bartlesville-Dewey Field, whereby Oklahoma’s oil production grew 

from 1,000 barrels to over 43 million barrels annually. In the 10 years between 

the Nellie Johnstone No. 1 well and statehood, Oklahoma became the largest 

oil-producing entity in the world (SRI 2016).

3.5.1 Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests

Native American tribal uses and interests in the decision area include both the 

exercise of economic and resource rights and those uses and resources that are 

tied to traditional cultural practices. Under the federal government’s trust 

responsibilities to tribes, the BLM and the BIA have an obligation to exercise 

statutory and other legal authorities to protect tribal resources and rights. 

These agencies also have a duty to carry out the mandates of federal law with 

respect to American Indians. 

Indian trust assets are legal interests managed by the federal government for 

Federally recognized Indian tribes or nations or for individual Indians. Native 

American economic rights and uses include using the mineral resources and 

Indian trust surface lands in the decision area. The Secretary of the Interior has 

specific trust responsibilities, including holding land and resources in trust and 

maintaining monetary accounts for tribes and individual tribal citizens. Protecting 

these economic rights and uses are most directly the responsibility of the BIA. 

That agency helps to fulfill the trust responsibility of the United States under 

specific treaties, public laws, and regulations. Such instruments apply to tribal 

lands held in trust, individual restricted allotments, certain mineral resources, 

and other trust resources. 

Development and production from the mineral estate provides an important 

source of income for many tribal citizens. With the emphasis on Indian selfgovernance and self-determination, many of the tribes have initiated other 

economic development enterprises, including alternative energy, commercial 

facilities, gaming, and tourism. 

One issue that has constrained tribal economic development is the divided 

ownership of Indian lands, the result of land parcels (allotments) passing to 

numerous heirs over generations. The land itself is not physically divided; rather, 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-203

the heirs of an original allottee own undivided interests in the allotment. Many 

allotments now have hundreds and even thousands of individual owners. 

Divided ownership makes it difficult, if not impossible, to use the land for any 

beneficial purpose. In order to make decisions regarding the use of a given tract 

of fractionated land, a required percentage of the individual owners must 

consent to the decision. As a general matter, the percentage of co-owner 

consent, as well as the steps and type of approval and documentation required, 

depend on the intended land use (e.g., a tract of land could be used for 

residential, business, agricultural, or grazing purposes).

Several land uses require majority consent, while other uses entail consent 

thresholds that depend on the number of owners for that tract. As a result, 

fractionated allotments often lie idle rather than being utilized for agricultural, 

recreational, cultural, commercial, or even residential purposes. Even when a 

lease or permit can be obtained, highly divided ownership often results in 

individual owners receiving only nominal lease returns.

In 2010 Congress passed the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, which provided 

$3.4 billion for the settlement of the Cobell v. Salazar class action trust case. 

Among the provisions of the settlement are for the government to buy highly 

fractionated land from Indian owners and return it to communal tribal trust 

ownership. Mineral rights associated with a property are included in the 

valuation process to determine fair market value paid for the land. Landowners 

who own only mineral rights may sell those rights through the Buy-Back 

Program to the tribe with jurisdiction; however, owners may not retain mineral 

rights while selling the surface interest. Tribes in the planning area that have 

participated in the buy-back program include the Cheyenne, Arapaho, Ponca 

Nation, and Osage Nation (BIA 2018).

The BLM assesses the impacts of its programs, permits, and projects on tribal 

trust resources, but it does not administer tribal trust accounts. Both the BLM 

and BIA engage Federally recognized tribal governments and consult with tribes 

on a government-to-government level. This consultation takes place whenever 

the agencies’ actions could affect trust resources or non-trust resources of 

traditional interest to tribes and policies that may have tribal implications. This is 

required under the US Constitution, treaties, court decisions, and Executive 

Order 13175.

Federally recognized tribes are sovereign nations within the boundary of the 

United States. Tribal sovereignty refers to tribes’ right to self-government and 

to define their own membership, manage tribal property, and regulate tribal 

business and domestic relations. 

Today the United States limits tribal sovereignty under treaties, acts of 

Congress, executive orders, federal administrative agreements, and court 

decisions; nevertheless, what remains is protected and maintained by the 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests)

3-204 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Federally recognized Indian tribes against further encroachment by other 

sovereigns, such as the states. Tribal sovereignty ensures that any decisions 

about the tribes with regard to their property and citizens are made with the 

tribes’ participation and consent.

Tribes in the planning area often have unique traditions and practices associated 

with their culture. Traditional lifeways may include uses of certain waters, 

plants, animals, and earth resources; particular locations or features of the 

landscape may have ceremonial or religious importance. Intrusion into such 

important areas or disruption of tribal lifeways and culture can have devastating 

impacts. Examples of these areas are natural landscape features, ceremonial and 

worship places, plant gathering locations, ancestral archaeological sites, artisan 

material locations, natural springs, landscapes, and rock art. 

The boundaries of these resources and impact areas are often difficult to assess. 

They are often identified through government-to-government consultation, 

when federal agencies undertake rulemaking and planning activities and must 

comply with NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA. Cultural resources that meet 

the criteria for eligibility for listing on the NRHP are referred to as traditional 

cultural properties. For tribes, maintaining confidentiality and customs regarding 

traditional knowledge may take precedence over identifying and evaluating these 

resources, unless they are in imminent danger of damage or destruction.

In the decision area, there is extensive geographic, environmental, historic, 

economic, social, ethnic, and religious diversity that is reflected in the tribal 

interests and traditional cultural resources that may be valued by Native 

Americans. There is no comprehensive way to define all of the resources on 

this broad scale, especially where confidentiality is typically required. There may 

also misunderstandings between what an outsider or another tribe may define 

as strictly economic interests or natural resource issues and ones that have 

religious and traditional cultural meaning to a tribe.

BLM follows guidance and policy contained in Manual MS-1780, Tribal Relations, 

effective as of December 2016. MS-1780 calls for on-going, government-togovernment consultation between the BLM and Federally recognized Indian 

tribes. This type of consultation allows for explicit recognition of tribal

sovereignty, and provides tribes opportunities to voice their concerns and 

issues as relationships and project evolve. 

In addition, Section 101(d) of the NHPA requires that federal agencies consult 

with Federally recognized Indian tribes who historically occupied the area of the 

undertaking or who may attach significance to resources in the region. 

Provisions of NEPA also require that agencies consult with Federally recognized 

Indian tribal leaders. This typically occurs during such undertakings as reviewing 

an application for a permit to drill, when the BLM or BIA requests that a tribe 

identify any areas of interest that may be affected by its action. 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-205

If a tribe has a certified THPO, federal agencies seek concurrence from the 

THPO when there is an undertaking on tribal land. When an undertaking is not 

on tribal land, the SHPO has Section 106 responsibilities, although the federal 

agency consults with designated tribal leadership. The NHPA applies to all 

federal undertakings and the BLM or the BIA has the authority and the 

responsibility to take reasonable measures to avoid or minimize adverse effects 

on historic properties that may result from mineral leasing or permitting 

activities.

Table 3-46, below, lists the tribes with potential interest in the planning and 

decision areas of the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP. Tribes have 

been given the opportunity to review the Class I cultural resource inventory 

and have also been invited to participate in regional tribal socioeconomic

workshops to present their concerns. 

Table 3-46

Tribes with Potential Interest in the Planning and Decision Areas

Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma

Alabama Quassarte Tribal Town Miami Tribe of Oklahoma

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma

Caddo Nation of Oklahoma Muscogee (Creek) Nation

Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma The Osage Nation

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma

Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma 

Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma

Comanche Nation, Oklahoma Ponca Nation of Indians of Oklahoma

Delaware Nation, Oklahoma Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation

Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma 

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Sac and Fox Nation, Oklahoma

Euchee (Yuchi) Tribe (not federally recognized) Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and 

Nebraska

Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Seminole Nation of Oklahoma

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma

Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Shawnee Tribe

Jena Band of the Choctaw, Louisiana Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Oklahoma

Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma

Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in 

Oklahoma

Kaw Nation, Oklahoma Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, Oklahoma

Kialegee Tribal Town, Oklahoma Wyandotte Nation

Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas

Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo 

Reservation in Kansas

Source: BIA 2014
3. Affected Environment (BLM Public Health and Safety)

3-206 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

3.5.2 Public Health and Safety

The BLM has a mission to sustain public lands for the use and enjoyment of 

present and future generations. Its responsibility is to minimize and reduce 

threats from releases of hazardous substances that could have an impact on the 

health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands, as well as on the health 

and safety of the individuals who use and work on these lands. 

In addition, the FLPMA requires that BLM actions comply with approved 

standards for public health and safety. Common public health and safety issues 

associated with the public lands and that have been specifically identified through 

the public scoping process for the Federal lands along the 116-mile Red River

area between the North Fork of the Red River and the 98th Meridian, are illegal 

dumping, criminal activities, such as methamphetamine labs, wildfire, and 

recreational shooting. 

When public health and safety hazards occur on public lands, they are identified, 

reported, secured, or cleaned up, in accordance with federal and state laws and 

regulations, including the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) enacted in 1976. The law describes the waste management program 

mandated by Congress that gave EPA authority to develop the RCRA program. 

EPA regulations carry out the congressional intent by providing explicit, legally 

enforceable requirements for waste management. These regulations can be 

found in 40 CFR, Parts 239 through 282 (EPA 2018). RCRA Subtitles C and D 

specifically govern the disposal of solid and hazardous waste.

BLM law enforcement responsibilities include providing for public safety on 

public lands to address criminal activities. It cooperates with other federal, state, 

and local law enforcement agencies. The Wildland Fire Management policy of 

1995, with subsequent updates and implementation strategies developed in 2001 

and 2009, provides the BLM with guidance and implementation strategies to 

provide for firefighter and public safety and to protect human communities. 

Notable BLM safety concerns are as follows:

 Public safety related to abandoned mines

 Unexploded ordnance

 Solid waste

 Hazardous materials associated with energy development and 

hydraulic fracturing

 Hydrogen sulfide gas

 Recreational use of firearms outside of designated shooting ranges

The goals of public safety management are as follows:
3. Affected Environment (BLM Public Health and Safety)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-207

 Protect public health and safety and environmental resources by 

minimizing environmental contamination from past and present land 

uses on public lands, such as abandoned mine lands, and on BLMadministered and operated facilities

 Comply with federal, state, and local hazardous materials 

management laws and regulations

 Maintain the health of ecosystems through assessing, cleaning up, 

and restoring contaminated lands

 Manage the costs, risks, and liabilities associated with hazardous 

materials so that the responsible parties, and not the government, 

bear the brunt of financial liabilities

 Integrate into BLM activities environmental protection and 

compliance with all environmental statutes

Abandoned Mines

The Abandoned Mine Lands Program is a national and state BLM safety priority. 

In the planning area, abandoned mine land issues are focused on lands with 

private surface ownership. This is because sites on BLM-administered surface 

lands either are reclaimed or would be managed appropriately on discovery. 

Abandoned mine land sites may pose environmental and physical safety hazards 

to employees and visitor health and safety. Open mines are unstable; openings 

or tunnels may collapse, internal supports may fail, and mine shafts (vertical 

openings) may be obstructed or unseen. Oxygen levels can be at lethally low

levels, or toxic gases could be present at high concentrations. Hazardous 

wastes, such as containers of explosives and chemicals used in milling or drilling, 

could be present. Illegal dumping of hazardous wastes in abandoned mines is 

also a possibility. Changes in the chemical composition or soil loss near 

abandoned mines can result in alterations to or loss of natural habitat for native 

wildlife. 

Environmental hazards resulting from abandoned mine land sites are 

contaminated/acidic surface water and groundwater, stockpiled waste rock, and 

mill tailing piles. Ensuring public safety and protecting watersheds from 

hazardous materials and mine drainage is emphasized. 

At the field office level, the purpose of the program is to identify and 

characterize inactive mine sites. Hazards or potential hazards to human health, 

safety, and the environment are inventoried, and data are stored in a national or 

state database, such as the database maintained through the BLM abandoned 

mine program (BLM 2018). Specific sites may be closed or remediated in order 

to protect human health or the environment. The presence of a large number of 

abandoned mine lands that are not being monitored, restored, or reclaimed 

would indicate a public health and safety risk.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Public Health and Safety)

3-208 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Unexploded Ordnance

The BLM may accept lands from other federal agencies that were used by the 

Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps and that have been returned to the 

public domain. As part of the management of these lands, the BLM collaborates 

with the Department of Defense and the USACE to address public lands that 

may contain munitions or explosives of concern. The presence of unexploded 

ordnance or of lands in the planning area that were used by military services 

would indicate a potential public safety risk. Such areas potentially include Camp 

Gruber Training Center and the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, both 

located in Oklahoma, and Camp Roberts, in the Rita Blanca National Grasslands 

in north Texas. 

Solid Waste 

Solid waste is defined by the RCRA (Subtitle D) (42 USC, Section 6901) as any 

solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material deemed to be waste. Solid 

waste is further defined as abandoned piles of household garbage, bags of yard 

waste, discarded appliances, old barrels, used tires, and demolition debris that 

can threaten the health of humans, wildlife, and the environment. 

A few commonly found, illegally dumped items, such as vehicles, boats, trailers, 

and motorhomes, can be identified as an environmental type of solid or 

hazardous wastes; this would depend on the condition of the items found, when 

it was reported, and when it is cleaned up. For example, rubber car tires or an 

intact fiberglass boat found in the desert do not pose much of a threat as a solid 

waste; however, if the rubber tires or fiberglass are set on fire and burned, they 

become a hazardous waste.

Petroleum Wastes

Petroleum wastes are those substances included in the meaning of the 

petroleum exclusion to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA; 42 USC, Section 9601). This 

is petroleum that is not specifically listed or designated as a hazardous 

substance. 

Hazardous substance is defined by the CERCLA. There are thousands of 

hazardous substances, but in general they can be categorized as ignitable, 

corrosive, reactive, or toxic. Release, as defined by the CERCLA, means any 

spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, 

escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing of (including abandoning) a hazardous 

substance. 

The presence of oil and gas development in the planning area poses the 

potential for public safety and health risks if the public were to come in contact 

with any petroleum wastes or other hazardous substances. The BLM requires all 

oil and gas operators to comply with applicable regulations designed to protect 

the environment and the public (e.g., the BLM’s Onshore Orders 1, 2, and 7). 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Public Health and Safety)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-209

The operators also must comply with additional BLM requirements as part of 

the drilling permit or lease or ROW grant. 

Spills of oil and gas wastes and chemicals used in production can contaminate 

surface water, groundwater, and soil. Active wells can produce hazardous 

chemical emissions through well control valves (e.g., venting pressurized well 

gas), leaking equipment (e.g., well heads), water or condensate tanks (e.g., 

entrained gas can flash or evaporate), and gas compressors. Well work can also 

release hazardous chemicals.

Hydraulic Fracturing

New technologies in oil and gas development have led to increased concern about 

the impacts on public health and safety. Many of the chemicals used in hydraulic 

fracturing are considered hazardous under 40 CFR, Part 302, Section 302.4. If the 

public were to come in contact with hydraulic fracturing injection chemicals, it 

could result in health and safety impacts.

Hydraulic fracturing has been used for more than 50 years to enhance the 

recovery of oil and gas from bedrock by creating small fractures that function as 

preferential flow paths of fluids toward the borehole. The fractures are generally 

more permeable to fluid flow than the pore spaces in sedimentary rocks 

containing the hydrocarbons; this is because these spaces are filled with a 

natural cementing agent, typically calcite or silica.

Recent advances in hydraulic fracture and horizontal drilling technology have 

opened to development large reserves of domestic oil and natural gas reserves 

that previously could not be extracted from the rock. This advance has been 

realized primarily in “tight” formations, particularly deep marine shales and 

marlstones that have very low permeability, due to very small grain size, in 

addition to the pressure from thousands of feet of overlying strata. 

Public concern about the use of hydraulic fracturing has been focused on the 

potential for it to contaminate freshwater aquifers and to impact domestic and 

municipal water wells. An associated concern has involved the potential for 

mini-earthquakes, caused by creating enough pressure in the formation to cause 

fractures. 

Hydrogen Sulfide Gas

H2S is a colorless gas with the characteristic foul odor of rotten eggs. It is 

heavier than air and is corrosive, flammable, explosive, and very poisonous. At 

low concentrations it can irritate the eyes and act as a depressant; at high 

concentrations it can irritate the upper respiratory tract and, during long 

exposure, lead to pulmonary edema14 (USGS 2010). A 30-minute exposure to 

500 ppm results in headache, dizziness, excitement, staggering gait, and diarrhea, 

 

14Fluid in the lungs.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Public Health and Safety)

3-210 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

followed sometimes by bronchitis or bronchopneumonia (USGS 2010). Areas 

with H2S that are not being monitored would indicate a public health and safety 

risk.

3.5.3 Socioeconomics

A socioeconomic study area is defined as the area where social and economic 

conditions may affect or be affected by the BLM’s or BIA’s land use and 

management decisions (including fire management and noxious weeds programs 

and activities), as well as mineral leasing decisions. This area is invariably larger 

than the decision area because decisions can affect conditions on adjacent 

parcels, communities, and beyond. A socioeconomic study area may differ from 

the planning area, depending on social and economic relationships across 

communities, regions, and states. In addition, the geographic basis on which 

social and economic data are available may affect the determination of a 

socioeconomic study area’s boundaries. For example, while impacts of decisions 

may be mostly experienced within a few communities, counties are often the 

smallest geographic units for which important data are available.

For each state in the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP, the 

socioeconomic study area was determined by the distribution of surface land 

and areas for which the BLM or BIA administers the federal mineral leasing 

program. Because these areas are distributed across major portions of the state, 

the socioeconomic study area is defined as a statewide area. 

For some indicators, information is broken down by both metropolitan (metro) 

and non-metro populations to provide insight into the role of BLM-administered 

lands and BIA-managed minerals. Data for metro areas is provided based on the 

US Census Bureau definition of metro areas. This definition includes counties 

that have at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more population, plus 

adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with 

the core as measured by commuting ties. All other areas are defined as nonmetro areas.

The planning area represents a vast four-state area. The important economic 

sectors, cultural settings, historic influences, and social setting vary throughout 

the area. An overview of the cultural setting in the planning area is included in 

Section 3.2.8, Cultural Resources. Each state specific overview includes 

population data, housing data, and income and employment statistics. 

In addition, an overview of other key demographics which can provide insight 

into the social setting for an area are included. These community indicators, 

include age of population, education attainment level, and language spoken at 

home. Information is also included for public finances that have the potential to 

be impacted by proposed management, including taxes and federal mineral 

royalties.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-211

Existing Conditions—Kansas Overview

The Kansas economy was originally based on agriculture. Today industry sectors 

include bioscience, especially in the animal health area, transportation, advanced 

manufacturing due to numerous aerospace and automotive products, food 

processing and distributing, and energy technology, particularly wind energy. 

Much of the state’s economic growth has been based on abundant mineral 

deposits. 

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, coal, oil and natural 

gas, lead and zinc, salt, and many other natural resources were extracted from 

the earth. In varying degrees, most of these resources continue to be of 

importance to the state’s economy. 

The cost of living in Kansas is nearly 8.74 percent below the national average, 

ranking the state sixth lowest for cost of living in the United States. Housing 

costs are especially low, with the median value of owner-occupied homes below 

the national average by a factor of over 200 (Kansas Department of Commerce 

2015).

Approximately 29,700 acres of BIA-managed surface lands and mineral estate 

are found in Kansas. In total, Kansas has 718,400 acres of BLM-administered 

minerals but has no surface lands administered by the BLM. 

Population and Migration

The total population in Kansas in 2013 was 2,868,107, up approximately 6.7 

percent since 2000. In comparison, the US population as a whole increased 10.7 

percent between 2000 and 2013 (Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional 

Economic Accounts, Washington, DC, Table CA-30, as reported by Headwater 

Economics 2015). Overall, population increases in the state have come from 

births; more people are moving out of the state than into the state, based on 

average annual net migration data (see Table 3-47).

Similar trends in population change are anticipated over the next 20 years. The 

state’s population is projected to increase approximately 9.4 percent by 2030, as 

compared to 29.2 percent for the United States as a whole (see Table 3-48). 

Information on ethnicity and race in area populations is addressed in Section 

3.5.4, Environmental Justice.

Table 3-47

Components of Population Growth, 2000-2013—Kansas

Change 2000-2013

Average annual population change (natural change and net migration) 13,396

Average annual natural change (births and deaths) 15,698

Average annual net migration (international and domestic) -2,423

Source: US Census Bureau Population Division 2014, as reported by Headwater Economics 2015
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-212 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-48

Population and Population Projections—Kansas

Kansas Three-State Region United States

Population (2013) 2,868,107 32,293,222 311,536,594

Population (2000) 2,688,418 26,990,892 281,421,906

Population change (2000-2013) 179,689 5,302,330 30,114,688

Population percent change (2000-2013) 6.7 19.6 10.7

Projected population change (2010-2030) 251,666 N/A 82,162,529

Projected percent change (2010-2030) 9.4 N/A 29.2

Source: US Census Bureau 2000 Census and 2013 American Community Survey data, as reported in Headwater 

Economics 2015; US Census Bureau 2005

N/A: not available (the source does not provide aggregate area population projections)

Community Indicators

The population of Kansas, with a median age of 36 years in 2013, was slightly 

younger on average than the US population (median age 37.3). In general, the 

non-metro population (43.4 median age) was older than the metro population 

(33.8 median age; US Census Bureau 2013, as reported in Headwater Economics 

2015).

The population in Kansas had a slightly higher level of people who had 

bachelor’s degrees, as compared to the four-state region for the metro area 

population; this was slightly below that of the four-state region for the nonmetro population (see Table 3-49).

Table 3-49

Educational Attainment—Kansas

Kansas Metro Kansas NonMetro

Three-State 

Region

United 

States

Total Population 25 or 

older

1,338,759 511,251 20,394,615 206,587,852

No high school degree 142,242 46,030 3,551,747 28,887,721

10.6% 9.0% 17.4% 14.0%

High school graduate 1,196,517 465,221 16,842,868 177,700,131

89.4% 91.0% 82.6% 86.0%

Associate’s degree 97,737 42,943 1,353,982 16,135,795

7.3% 8.4% 6.6% 7.8%

Bachelor’s degree 283,053 80,333 3,601,803 37,286,246

21.1% 15.7% 17.7% 18.0%

Graduate or professional 

degree

160,301 36,128 1,822,464 22,296,892

12.0% 7.1% 8.9% 10.8%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Most residents in Kansas speak only English, and the percentage of those who 

speak English less than very well is below that of the three-state average and 

national average (see Table 3-50).
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-213

Table 3-50

Language Spoken at Home—Kansas

Kansas 

Metro

Kansas NonMetroMetro/NonMetro RegionUnited 

States

Population 5 or older 1,967,797 697,549 29,891,329 291,484,482

Speak only English 1,705,827 665,601 21,032,653 231,122,908

86.7% 95.4% 70.4% 79.3%

Speak a language other than 

English

261,970 31,948 8,858,676 60,361,574

13.3% 4.6% 29.6% 20.7%

Speak English less than very well 110,504 9,828 3,633,524 25,148,900

5.6% 1.4% 12.2% 8.6%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015.

Housing 

Housing availability and cost has the potential to be impacted by development 

and associated population changes. Housing occupancy information in the 

planning area is displayed in Table 3-51. Approximately 8.9 percent of housing 

in metro areas and 13.3 percent in non-metro areas is vacant. This rate is 

similar to the three-state region and US national average.

Table 3-51

Housing Occupancy—Kansas

Kansas 

Metro

Kansas NonMetroThree-State 

Region

United 

States

Total Housing Units 901,803 333,682 12,976,016 132,057,804

Occupied 821,161 289,279 11,440,992 115,610,216

91.1% 86.7% 88.2% 87.5%

Vacant 80,642 44,403 1,535,024 16,447,588

8.9% 13.3% 11.8% 12.5%

For rent 23,746 3,998 406,597 3,230,123

2.6% 1.2% 3.1% 2.4%

Rented, not occupied 4,821 825 67,837 599,884

0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5%

For sale only 11,220 4,249 151,989 1,682,020

1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.3%

Sold, not occupied 2,921 1,229 54,530 608,590

0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5%

For seasonal, recreational, 

occasional use

4,603 9,876 290,284 5,122,778

0.5% 3.0% 2.2% 3.9%

For migrant workers 207 180 3,913 34,233

0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Other vacant 33,124 24,046 559,874 5,169,960

3.7% 7.2% 4.3% 3.9%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-214 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Housing costs for rent and mortgage in Kansas are below that of the national 

average for both metro and non-metro areas (see Table 3-52).

Table 3-52

Housing Costs—Kansas

Kansas 

Metro

Kansas NonMetroThree-State 

Region

United 

States

Owner-occupied housing units 

with a mortgage

346,708 126,857 4,503,350 49,820,840

Monthly cost <15% of household 

income

77,453 32,247 992,414 9,215,740

22.3% 25.4% 22.0% 18.5%

Monthly cost >30% of household 

income

86,584 32,074 1,316,380 17,636,343

25.0% 25.3% 29.2% 35.4%

Specified renter-occupied units 309,100 51,603 4,098,967 40,534,516

Gross rent <15% of household 

income

38,892 9,949 505,289 4,355,942

12.6% 19.3% 12.3% 10.7%

Gross rent >30% of household 

income

136,095 14,593 1,824,871 19,581,493

44.0% 28.3% 44.5% 48.3%

Median monthly mortgage cost $1,322 $1,204 N/A $1,540

Median gross rent $750 $607 N/A $904

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Income and Employment

Both total employment and total personal income in Kansas has increased more 

rapidly than population change from 2000 to 2013 (see Table 3-53).

Unemployment in Kansas generally followed national trends, peaking in 2010-

2011, but remained below the national average. Unemployment over the past 5 

years is shown in Table 3-54.

Table 3-53

Population, Employment, and Income Trends, 2000-2013—Kansas

2000 2013 Change 

2000-2013

Percent 

Change

2000-2013

Population1 2,688,418 2,868,1072 179,689 6.7 

Employment (full and part-time jobs)2 1,760,325 1,869,343 109,018 6.2

Personal income (thousands of 2013 

dollars)2

104,379,050 132,683,659 18,304,609 27

Average earnings per Job (thousands 

of 2013 dollars)2

$43,838 $52,367 $8,529 19

Per capita income (thousands of 2013 

dollars)2

$38,749 $45,865 $7,119 18

Source: 1US Census Bureau 2000, and US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2009-2013 as reported in 

Headwater Economics 2015; 2Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014, Regional Economic Accounts, Table S30
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-215

Table 3-54

Average Annual Unemployment—

Kansas

Kansas United States

2015 4.2% 5.3%

2014 4.6% 6.2%

2013 5.4% 7.4%

2012 5.8% 8.1%

2011 6.5% 8.9%

2010 7.1% 9.6%

2009 7.1% 9.3%

2008 4.4% 5.8%

2007 4.1% 4.6%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014a, 

2016

Income distribution for 2009-2013 American Community Survey data is 

demonstrated in more detail for both metro and non-metro populations in 

Table 3-55, Household Income Distribution—Kansas. Per capita income in 

Kansas was slightly lower than that of the US average. Median household 

income was slightly higher than the US average in metro areas and slightly lower 

in non-metro populations.

Table 3-55

Household Income Distribution—Kansas

Kansas 

Metro

Kansas NonMetroThree-State 

Region

United 

States

Median household income (in 2013 dollars) $50,317 $53,847 N/A $53,046

Total Households 821,161 289,279 11,440,992 115,610,216

Less than $10,000 58,060 13,463 847,123 8,380,364

7.1% 4.7% 7.4% 7.2%

$10,000 to 14,999 43,889 13,692 624,251 6,214,548

5.3% 4.7% 5.5% 5.4%

$15,000 to 24,999 92,496 29,675 1,280,481 12,468,604

11.3% 10.3% 11.2% 10.8%

$25,000 to 34,999 91,818 32,045 1,249,592 11,929,761

11.2% 11.1% 10.9% 10.3%

$35,000 to 49,999 121,977 44,189 1,613,499 15,723,148

14.9% 15.3% 14.1% 13.6%

$50,000 to 74,999 153,313 61,612 2,069,926 20,744,045

18.7% 21.3% 18.1% 17.9%

$75,000 to 99,999 99,930 39,878 1,347,052 14,107,031

12.2% 13.8% 11.8% 12.2%

$100,000 to 149,999 97,678 36,345 1,402,947 14,858,239

11.9% 12.6% 12.3% 12.9%
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-216 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-55

Household Income Distribution—Kansas

Kansas 

Metro

Kansas NonMetroThree-State 

Region

United 

States

$150,000 to 199,999 32,853 10,058 511,090 5,651,848

4.0% 3.5% 4.5% 4.9%

$200,000 or more 29,147 8,322 495,031 5,532,628

3.5% 2.9% 4.3% 4.8%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Defining and comparing general categories of industry allows for identification of 

key sectors of the economy for any given planning area. Based on 2013 data, top 

economic sectors are trade, transportation, and utilities, government, education 

and health, and manufacturing. It is worth noting that average annual wages were 

lower than average levels for trade and government and higher than average for 

education and manufacturing (see Table 3-56, Employment and Wages by 

Industry—Kansas). 

Table 3-56

Employment and Wages by Industry—Kansas

Employment

Percent 

of Total 

Employment

Average 

Annual 

Wages 

(Metro)

Average 

Annual 

Wages 

(NonMetro)

Average 

Annual 

Wages 

(State)

Percent 

Above 

or 

Below 

Average

Total 1,337,168 $44,790 $33,403 $41,546

Private 1,093,116 81.7 $42,442 $31,234 $42,294 1.8

Non-Services-Related 241,371 18.1 $65,945 $51,190 $51,059 22.9

Natural resources/mining 21,512 1.6 $49,381 $39,044 $45,599 9.8

Agriculture, forestry, 

fishing, and hunting

11,049 0.8 $36,122 $28,325 $36,115 -13.1

Mining (including fossil 

fuels)

10,463 0.8 $45,153 $34,112 $55,614 33.9

Construction 56,855 4.3 $56,586 $42,635 $47,895 15.3

Manufacturing (including 

forest products)

163,003 12.2 $48,525 $44,609 $52,883 27.3

Services-related 851,745 63.7 $39,029 $35,762 $39,811 -4.2

Trade, transportation, 

and utilities

254,212 19.0 $60,267 $54,799 $37,985 -8.6

Information 27,548 2.1 $48,965 $44,538 $68,033 63.8

Financial activities 70,727 5.3 $60,003 $42,199 $58,475 40.7

Professional and business 161,716 12.1 $42,542 $30,218 $51,913 25.0

Education and health 182,646 13.7 $38,800 $33,184 $38,952 -6.2

Leisure and Hospitality 121,337 9.1 $74,662 $39,058 $14,411 -65.3

Other services 33,559 2.5 $62,690 $40,770 $29,324 -29.4

Unclassified 0 0.0 $54,526 $36,384 N/A N/A
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-217

Table 3-56

Employment and Wages by Industry—Kansas

Employment

Percent 

of Total 

Employment

Average 

Annual 

Wages 

(Metro)

Average 

Annual 

Wages 

(NonMetro)

Average 

Annual 

Wages 

(State)

Percent 

Above 

or 

Below 

Average

Government 244,053 18.3 $41,964 $31,883 $38,194 -8.1

Federal 25,382 1.9 $15,350 $11,833 $61,452 47.9

State 40,691 3.0 $31,155 $25,661 $47,679 14.8

Local 177,980 13.3 N/A N/A $32,709 -21.3

Source: US Department of Labor 2014, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 

Washington, DC, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Note: This table shows wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which does not report data for proprietors 

or the value of benefits and uses slightly different industry categories than the US Census or Bureau of Economic 

Analysis data.

In 2013 the three industry sectors with the most jobs were government 

(296,431), health care, social assistance (194,872), and retail trade (183,224). 

From 2001 to 2013, the three industry sectors that added the most new jobs 

were health care, social assistance (29,508), mining (including fossil fuels; 25,309), 

and finance, insurance (23,811).

Total personal income by industry provides additional information on key 

economic sectors. In 2013, the three industry sectors with the largest personal 

income were government ($16,321.3 million), manufacturing (including forest

products; $12,975.8 million), and health care, social assistance ($9,667.1 million). 

From 2001 to 2013, the three industry sectors that added the most new 

personal income in real terms were government ($3,144.9 million), farm 

($2,512.7 million), and health care, social assistance ($2,323.6 million; see Table 

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

Kansas).

Table 3-57

Personal Income by Industry 2001-2013 (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars), Kansas

2001 2013 Change 

2001-2013

Labor earnings 79,046,306 93,063,676 14,017,370

Non-services related 20,861,800 24,825,948 3,964,148

Farm 1,530,127 4,042,790 2,512,663

Forestry, fishing, and related activities 247,177 516,653 269,476

Mining (including fossil fuels) 814,874 2,363,628 1,548,754

Construction 4,816,283 4,927,057 110,774

Manufacturing 13,453,339 12,975,820 -477,519

Services related 45,008,139 51,916,458 6,908,319

Utilities 838,148 1,038,267 200,119

Wholesale trade 4,336,473 4,893,810 557,337
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-218 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-57

Personal Income by Industry 2001-2013 (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars), Kansas

2001 2013 Change 

2001-2013

Retail trade 5,603,178 5,276,719 -326,459

Transportation and warehousing 3,263,232 3,471,380 208,148

Information 3,981,383 2,442,177 -1,539,206

Finance and insurance 4,129,278 5,362,230 1,232,952

Real estate and rental and leasing 1,218,288 1,244,046 25,758

Professional and technical services 4,637,996 5,966,214 1,328,218

Management of companies and enterprises 1,115,149 1,624,865 509,716

Administrative and waste services 2,529,029 3,939,882 1,410,853

Educational services 581,511 785,353 203,842

Health care and social assistance 7,343,548 9,667,124 2,323,576

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 380,867 461,991 81,124

Accommodation and food services 2,139,585 2,364,565 224,980

Other services, except public administration 2,910,474 3,377,835 467,361

Government 13,176,366 16,321,270 3,144,904

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, Washington, DC. Table CA05N, as reported 

in Headwater Economics 2015

All employment data are reported by place of work. Estimates for data that were not disclosed are indicated 

with ~.

Income can be separated into two main sources, labor income, (i.e. income 

from a source of employment) and non-labor income, which includes money 

earned from investments (dividends, interest, and rent) as well as transfer 

payments (including government retirement and disability insurance benefits, 

medical payments such as mainly Medicare and Medicaid, income maintenance 

benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, etc.).

Labor is the main source of income for Kansas, comprising 67.1 percent and 

61.8 percent for metro and non-metro populations. Non-labor income is of 

increasing importance nationally and may provide locally important sources of 

income. This is particularly the case in non-metro areas, which have a higher 

dependence on non-labor income than the average or the three-state region 

and the national average. For more details regarding income source, refer to 

Table 3-58, Study Area Labor and Non-labor Income—Kansas (in Thousands 

of 2013 Dollars).

Table 3-58

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

Kansas 

Metro

Kansas 

Non-Metro

Three-State 

Region United States

Total personal income 

($1,000)

88,651,992 39,888,573 1,449,807,346 14,151,427,000

Non-labor income 29,151,871 15,223,571 460,289,630 5,085,220,000

32.9% 38.2% 31.7% 35.9%
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-219

Table 3-58

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

Kansas 

Metro

Kansas 

Non-Metro

Three-State 

Region United States

Dividends, interest, and rent 16,873,737 7,896,376 243,340,439 2,670,719,000

19.0% 19.8% 16.8% 18.9%

Transfer payments 12,278,134 7,327,195 216,949,191 2,414,501,000

13.8% 18.4% 15.0% 17.1%

Labor earnings 59,500,121 24,665,002 989,517,716 9,066,207,000

67.1% 61.8% 68.3% 64.1%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Note: Non-labor income and labor earnings may not add to total personal income because of adjustments made by 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis. This was to account for contributions from Social Security, cross-county 

commuting, and other factors. 

Public Finance

Components of public finance related to management of federal lands and 

mineral resources in the planning area primarily include federal mineral royalty 

payments and other taxes collected from the extraction and sale of mineral 

resources. These categories are explained in detail below.

Taxes

The severance tax in Kansas was 8 percent on gross value of oil or gas, with 

exemptions for low producing oil and gas wells. Money for refunds distributed 

into the mineral production tax refund fund. Of the remaining revenues, 7 

percent were deposited in the special county mineral production tax fund; the 

remaining revenues were deposited in a general state fund with surplus money 

in special funds if available (National Conference of State Legislatures 2012). In 

2011, approximately $128 million was collected in severance taxes (Kansas 

Independent Oil and Gas Association 2012).

Ad valorem property taxes are charged on oil and gas equipment and on oil and 

gas produced. The unit of taxation for property taxes is the mil, defined as onethousandth of a currency unit. To calculate the property tax, the authority 

multiplies the assessed value of the property by the mil rate and then divides it 

by 1,000. For example, a property with an assessed value of $50,000 located in a 

municipality with a rate of 20 mils would have a property tax bill of $1,000 per 

year. 

Kansas has an oil and gas conservation fee of 91 mils per barrel for oil and 12.9 

mils per MCF for gas (National Conference of State Legislatures 2012).

Approximately $225 million dollars in ad valorem taxes were collected in 2011 

(Kansas Independent Oil and Gas Association 2012).

Federal Mineral Royalties

Federal revenues from oil and gas are derived from bonus bids, rents, and 

royalties paid by producers on public lands. These revenues are collected by the 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-220 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) within the DOI. The ONRR 

distributes approximately 50 percent of the revenues to the state of origin and 

remainder to the US Treasury. States have discretion on further distribution of 

these funds. 

All federal lease revenues in Kansas flow to the state general fund. For energy 

and mineral production on tribal lands, the DOI disburses 100 percent of the 

revenues received directly to the tribes and individual mineral owners through 

the BIA and the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians (OST). Tribes 

then distribute the revenues among all tribal citizens; alternately they apply the 

revenues to health care, infrastructure, education, and other critical community 

development programs, such as senior centers, public safety projects, and youth 

initiatives. Many individual mineral owners use these revenues as a major source 

of income to support their families and communities. 

Royalties collected in Kansas is shown in Table 3-59, Production Volume, 

Sales, and Rents, Royalties, and Bonus Revenue Collected—Kansas (FY 2014). 

Kansas’s state share of federal mineral royalty revenue disbursement for fiscal 

year 2014 was $1,354,119. 

Table 3-59

Production Volume, Sales, and Rents, Royalties, and 

Bonus Revenue Collected—Kansas (FY 2014)

Gas (MCF*) volume 4,050,842

Gas sales $13,443,499

Gas royalties $1,650,579

Oil (oil barrels) volume $193,600

Oil sales $18,630,063

Oil royalties $2,391,248

Rents $45,014

Bonuses $18,000

Other Revenue $8,348.38

Source: Office of Natural Resources Revenue 2015

Note: ONNR data includes Federal on-shore and tribal wells

*MCF = thousand cubic feet

Existing Conditions—Oklahoma Overview

Historically, agriculture has been a dominant economic activity in Oklahoma; 

however, in the 1900s, agriculture’s share of employment dropped from 70 

percent to 37 percent as employment in other sectors, including oil and gas 

mining and petroleum refineries, began to grow (Oklahoma Historical Society 

2009). 

According to the State Chamber of Oklahoma Research Foundation, the oil and 

gas industry has doubled in size in the past decade and has an outsized influence 

on overall state economic activity; oil and gas firms account for only 3.2 percent 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-221

of all business establishments but hire 5 percent of wage and salary workers. 

The oil and gas industry produces 10 percent of state gross domestic product 

and generates 13.5 percent of total earnings statewide (State Chamber of 

Oklahoma Research Foundation 2014).

Approximately 3,300 acres of BLM-administered surface lands, plus federal lands 

in the Red River area, and 816,500 acres of BIA-managed surface lands are 

found in Oklahoma. In total, Oklahoma has 1,881,700 acres, plus federal lands in 

the Red River area, of BLM-administered minerals and 2,630,900 acres of BIAmanaged minerals. 

Population and Migration

The total population in Oklahoma in 2013 was 3,785,742, an approximately 9.7 

percent increase since 2000. This is compared to the increase of 10.7 percent in 

the US population as a whole over the same time period (US Census Bureau 

2014). Population increases in the state have come from both births (62 

percent) and migration of people into the area (42 percent; see Table 3-60).

Table 3-60

Components of Population Growth—Oklahoma, 2000-2013

Change 2000-2013

Average annual population change (natural change and net migration) 26,958

Average annual natural change (births and deaths) 16,903

Average annual net migration (international and domestic) 11,625

Source: US Census Bureau Population Division 2014, as reported by Headwater Economics 2015

The state’s population is projected to increase approximately 13.4 percent by 

2030, as compared to 29.2 percent for the United States as a whole (see Table 

3-61, Population and Population Projections—Oklahoma). Information on 

ethnicity and race in area population is addressed in Section 3.5.4, 

Environmental Justice.

Table 3-61

Population and Population Projections—Oklahoma

Oklahoma Three-State 

Region United States

Population (2013) 3,785,742 32,293,222 311,536,594

Population (2000) 3,450,654 26,990,892 281,421,906

Population change (2000-2013) 335,088 5,302,330 30,114,688

Population percent change (2000-2013) 9.7 19.6 10.7

Projected population change (2010-2030) 462,597 N/A 82,162,529

Projected percent change (2010-2030) 13.4 N/A 29.2

Source: US Census Bureau 2000 Census and 2013 American Community Survey data, as reported in Headwater 

Economics 2015; US Census Bureau 2005
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-222 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Community Indicators

The population of Oklahoma, with a median age of 36.2 years in 2013, was 

slightly younger on average than the US population (median age 37.3). In 

general, the non-metro population (41.2 median age) was older than the metro 

population (33.9 median age; US Census Bureau 2014).

Oklahoma had a slightly lower percent of people with bachelor’s degrees or 

higher in the metro area compared to the three-state region and the US 

average. For non-metro populations, the rate was 10 percent below the US 

average (see Table 3-62, Educational Attainment—Oklahoma). Most residents 

in Oklahoma speak only English, and the percentage of those who speak English 

less than very well is below that of the three-state and national averages (see 

Table 3-63, Language Spoken at Home—Oklahoma).

Table 3-62

Educational Attainment—Oklahoma

Oklahoma

Metro

Oklahoma 

Non-Metro

Three-State

Region

United 

States

Total Population 25 or older 1,591,754 872,544 20,394,615 206,587,852

No high school degree 211,482 123,749 3,551,747 28,887,721

13.3% 14.2% 17.4% 14.0%

High school graduate 1,380,272 748,795 16,842,868 177,700,131

86.7% 85.8% 82.6% 86.0%

Associate’s degree 114,094 57,901 1,353,982 16,135,795

7.2% 6.6% 6.6% 7.8%

Bachelor’s degree 279,677 108,208 3,601,803 37,286,246

17.6% 12.4% 17.7% 18.0%

Graduate or professional degree 140,496 50,076 1,822,464 22,296,892

8.8% 5.7% 8.9% 10.8%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Table 3-63

Language Spoken at Home—Oklahoma

Oklahoma 

Metro

Oklahoma

Non-Metro

Metro/NonMetro RegionUnited 

States

Population 5 or older 2,319,106 1,202,477 29,891,329 291,484,482

Speak only English 2,041,976 1,148,100 21,032,653 231,122,908

88.1% 95.5% 70.4% 79.3%

Speak a language other than English 277,130 54,377 8,858,676 60,361,574

11.9% 4.5% 29.6% 20.7%

Speak English less than very well 123,390 15,251 3,633,524 25,148,900

5.3% 1.3% 12.2% 8.6%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-223

Housing 

Housing occupancy information in the planning area is displayed in Table 3-64, 

Housing Occupancy—Oklahoma. Approximately 11.6 percent of housing in 

metro areas and 17.2 percent in non-metro areas is vacant compared to the 

three-state average of 11.8 percent and the national average of 12.5 percent.

Table 3-64

Housing Occupancy—Oklahoma

Oklahoma

Metro

Oklahoma

Non-Metro

Three-State 

Region

United 

States

Total Housing Units 1,095,047 574,781 12,976,016 132,057,804

Occupied 968,134 475,947 11,440,992 115,610,216

88.4% 82.8% 88.2% 87.5%

Vacant 126,913 98,834 1,535,024 16,447,588

11.6% 17.2% 11.8% 12.5%

For rent 35,700 7,777 406,597 3,230,123

3.3% 1.4% 3.1% 2.4%

Rented, not occupied 7,567 1,560 67,837 599,884

0.7% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5%

For sale only 15,753 7,396 151,989 1,682,020

1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.3%

Sold, not occupied 4,709 3,909 54,530 608,590

0.4% 0.7% 0.4% 0.5%

For seasonal, recreational, 

occasional use

7,523 31,952 290,284 5,122,778

0.7% 5.6% 2.2% 3.9%

For migrant workers 424 322 3,913 34,233

0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Other vacant 55,237 45,918 559,874 5,169,960

5.0% 8.0% 4.3% 3.9%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Housing cost for rent and mortgage, which are important indicators of cost of 

living, are below that of the national average for both metro and non-metro 

areas (see Table 3-65, Housing Costs—Oklahoma).

Table 3-65

Housing Costs—Oklahoma

Oklahoma

Metro

Oklahoma

Non-Metro

Three-State 

Region

United 

States

Owner-occupied housing units with 

a mortgage

373,182 196,425 4,503,350 49,820,840

Monthly cost <15% of household income 91,270 53,188 992,414 9,215,740

24.5% 27.1% 22.0% 18.5%

Monthly cost >30% of household income 97,939 52,330 1,316,380 17,636,343

26.2% 26.6% 29.2% 35.4%
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-224 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-65

Housing Costs—Oklahoma

Oklahoma

Metro

Oklahoma

Non-Metro

Three-State 

Region

United 

States

Specified renter-occupied units 385,134 90,211 4,098,967 40,534,516

Gross rent <15% of household income 50,701 15,078 505,289 4,355,942

13.2% 16.7% 12.3% 10.7%

Gross rent >30% of household income 171,449 26,890 1,824,871 19,581,493

44.5% 29.8% 44.5% 48.3%

Median monthly mortgage cost $1,165 $1,078 N/A $1,540

Median gross rent $717 $611 N/A $904

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Income and Employment

Both total employment and total personal income in Oklahoma increased more 

rapidly than population change from 2000 to 2013 (see Table 3-66, Population, 

Employment and Income Trends 2000–2013—Oklahoma). 

Table 3-66

Population, Employment and Income Trends 2000–2013—Oklahoma

2000 2013

Change 

2000–

2013

Percent 

Change 

2000–2013

Population 3,450,654 3,785,742 335,654 9.7

Employment (full and part-time jobs) 1,994,390 2248933 255,543 12.8

Personal income (in thousands of 2013 dollars) 113,019,600 164,437,285 51,417,685 45.5

Average earnings per job (in thousands of 2013 

dollars)

$40,543 $52,829 $12,376 30.6 

Per capita income (in thousands of 2013 dollars) $32,718 $42,713 $9,995 30.6

Source: 1US Census Bureau 2000, and US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2009-2013 as reported in 

Headwater Economics 2015; 2Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014, Regional Economic Accounts, Table S30

Note: population statistics vary from those reported in table

Income distribution for 2009–2013 data is shown for both metro and nonmetro populations in Table 3-67, Household Income Distribution—Oklahoma. 

Both per capita income and median household income were lower in Oklahoma 

metro and non-metro areas than in the United States.

Table 3-67

Household Income Distribution—Oklahoma

Oklahoma 

Metro

Oklahoma

Non-Metro

Three-State 

Region

United 

States

Median household income (in 

2013 dollars)

$44,468 $47,143 N/A $53,046

Total households 968,134 475,947 11,440,992 115,610,216

Less than $10,000 84,245 33,829 847,123 8,380,364

8.7% 7.1% 7.4% 7.2%
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-225

Table 3-67

Household Income Distribution—Oklahoma

Oklahoma 

Metro

Oklahoma

Non-Metro

Three-State 

Region

United 

States

$10,000 to 14,999 61,160 30,554 624,251 6,214,548

6.3% 6.4% 5.5% 5.4%

$15,000 to 24,999 121,576 58,311 1,280,481 12,468,604

12.6% 12.3% 11.2% 10.8%

$25,000 to 34,999 118,243 55,792 1,249,592 11,929,761

12.2% 11.7% 10.9% 10.3%

$35,000 to 49,999 146,996 71,337 1,613,499 15,723,148

15.2% 15.0% 14.1% 13.6%

$50,000 to 74,999 176,266 93,128 2,069,926 20,744,045

18.2% 19.6% 18.1% 17.9%

$75,000 to 99,999 106,833 57,351 1,347,052 14,107,031

11.0% 12.0% 11.8% 12.2%

$100,000 to 149,999 95,854 50,608 1,402,947 14,858,239

9.9% 10.6% 12.3% 12.9%

$150,000 to 199,999 29,136 14,037 511,090 5,651,848

3.0% 2.9% 4.5% 4.9%

$200,000 or more 27,825 11,000 495,031 5,532,628

2.9% 2.3% 4.3% 4.8%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013 as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Unemployment in Oklahoma generally followed national trends, peaking in 2010, 

but it remained below the national average. Since 1990, the annual 

unemployment rate ranged from a low of 3.1 percent in 2000 to a high of 6.9 

percent in 2010. Unemployment over the past 5 years is shown in Table 3-68, 

Average Annual Unemployment—Oklahoma.

Table 3-68

Average Annual Unemployment—Oklahoma

Oklahoma United 

States

2015 4.2% 5.3%

2014 4.5% 6.2%

2013 5.4% 7.4%

2012 5.4% 8.1%

2011 5.9% 8.9%

2010 6.9% 9.6%

2009 6.7% 9.3%

2008 3.7% 5.8%

2007 4.1% 4.6%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014a, 2016
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-226 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Defining and comparing general categories of industry allows for identification of 

key sectors of the economy for any given planning area. Based on 2013 data, top 

economic sectors in percent of employment were trade, transportation, and 

utilities, government, education and health, and professional and business 

services.

Average annual wages were lower than average levels for trade and government 

and higher than average for education and manufacturing (see Table 3-69, 

Employment and Wages by Industry, 2013 (in 2013 Dollars)—Oklahoma).

Table 3-69

Employment and Wages by Industry, 2013 (in 2013 Dollars)—Oklahoma

Employment

Percent of 

Total 

Employment

Average 

Annual 

Wages

Percent 

Above 

or Below 

Average

Total 1,560,843 $42,451

Private 1,240,974 79.5 $42,733 0.7

Non-services-related 280,403 18.0 $58,627 38.1

Natural resources and mining 69,696 4.5 $85,551 101.5

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 10,262 0.7 $33,565 -20.9

Mining (including fossil fuels) 59,434 3.8 $94,527 122.7

Construction 74,477 4.8 $46,045 8.5

Manufacturing (including forest products) 136,230 8.7 $51,731 21.9

Services-related 960,571 61.5 $38,093 -10.3

Trade, Transportation, and utilities 292,881 18.8 $38,810 -8.6

Information 21,807 1.4 $53,313 25.6

Financial activities 77,747 5.0 $50,476 18.9

Professional and business services 180,114 11.5 $47,316 11.5

Education and health services 200,985 12.9 $40,252 -5.2

Leisure and hospitality 151,399 9. $16,006 -62.3

Other services 35,582 2.3 $30,849 -27.3

Unclassified 55 0.0 $69,854 64.6

Government 319,870 20.5 $41,357 -2.6

Federal government 47,144 3.0 $62,988 48.4

State government 72,101 4.6 $43,493 2.5

Local government 200,625 12.9 $35,506 -16.4

Source: US Department of Labor 2014, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 

Washington, DC, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Note: This table shows wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which does not report data for proprietors 

or the value of benefits and uses slightly different industry categories than the US Census or Bureau of Economic 

Analysis data.

In 2013 the three industry sectors with the largest number of jobs were 

government (369,501), retail trade (220,147), and health care, social assistance 

(213,636). From 2001 to 2013, the three industry sectors that added the most 

new jobs were mining, including fossil fuels (79,420), health care, social 

assistance (40,111), and government (34,737).
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-227

Total personal income by industry provides additional information on key 

economic sectors. In 2013, the three industry sectors with the largest personal 

income were government ($21,204.2 million), mining, including fossil fuels 

($14,735.5 million), and health care, social assistance ($11,013.0 million). From 

2001 to 2013, the three industry sectors that added the most new personal 

income in real terms were mining, including fossil fuels ($8,426.8 million), 

government ($4,154.6 million), and health care, social assistance ($3,191.1 

million; see Table 3-70). 

Table 3-70

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

2001 2013 Change 2001-2013

Labor Earnings 88,458,239 114,699,262 26,241,023

Non-services-related 24,554,566 33,990,458 9,435,892

Farm 1,072,055 1,128,307 56,252

Forestry, fishing, and related activities 198,244 267,650 69,406

Mining (including fossil fuels) 6,308,665 14,735,514 8,426,849

Construction 5,196,449 7,295,564 2,099,115

Manufacturing 11,779,153 10,563,423 -1,215,730

Services-related 46,854,088 59,504,620 12,650,532

Utilities 1,200,360 1,573,284 372,924

Wholesale trade 3,784,759 4,558,635 773,876

Retail trade 6,606,891 7,328,920 722,029

Transportation and warehousing 4,002,498 5,738,541 1,736,043

Information 2,310,613 1,756,007 -554,606

Finance and insurance 3,654,657 4,603,017 948,360

Real estate and rental and leasing 1,496,404 2,292,357 795,953

Professional and technical services 4,691,182 6,057,297 1,366,115

Management of companies and enterprises 1,061,810 1,597,976 536,166

Administrative and waste services 3,438,254 4,354,373 916,119

Educational services 614,113 855,034 240,921

Health care and social assistance 7,821,878 11,012,997 3,191,119

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 397,392 682,254 284,862

Accommodation and food services 2,320,715 3,051,769 731,054

Other services, except public administration 3,452,561 4,042,159 589,598

Government 17,049,585 21,204,184 4,154,599

Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014, as reported in Headwater Economics 

2015

One important economic sector, particularly for Indian tribes, is gaming. Gaming 

is typically included in the leisure and hospitality sector. There are two 

racetrack casinos and 114 tribal casinos in the state. From 2011 to 2012, 

consumer spending on commercial casino gambling increased 6.4 percent, from 

$106.23 million to $113.06 million. In 2012, commercial casino tax revenue was 

$20.38 million, a growth of 11.4 percent from 2011. There were 870 

commercial casino jobs in Oklahoma in 2012, a decrease of 3.9 percent from 

905 jobs in 2011 (American Gaming Association 2013).
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-228 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Tribes that operate covered games in accordance with state-tribal gaming 

compacts pay a monthly exclusivity fee to the State of Oklahoma for the 

exclusive right to operate compacted gaming. Exclusivity fees paid to the state 

are calculated as follows:

 4 percent of the first $10 million of annual adjusted gross revenues 

(the total, minus prize payouts)

 5 percent of the next $10 million of annual adjusted gross revenues

 6 percent of adjusted gross revenues over $20 million

In 2011, approximately $122 million was collected in exclusivity fees, a growth 

of 3.3 percent from 2011 in which approximately $118 million was collected 

(Oklahoma Office of State Finance 2015).

Labor is the main source of income for Oklahoma, comprising 67.1 percent and 

58.7 percent for metro and non-metro populations. Nonlabor income is of 

increasing importance nationally and may provide locally important sources of 

income, particularly in non-metro areas, which have a higher dependence on 

nonlabor income from transfer payments than the average or the three-state 

region and the national average. For more details regarding income source, 

refer to Table 3-71.

Table 3-71

Non-Labor Share of Total Personal Income—Oklahoma 

Oklahoma 

Metro

Oklahoma 

Non-Metro

Three-State 

Region United States

Total personal income (in 

thousands of 2013 dollars)

111,591,055 49,596,858 1,449,807,346 14,151,427,000

Non-labor income 36,828,448 20,477,538 460,289,630 5,085,220,000

33.0% 41.3% 31.7% 35.9%

Dividends, interest, and rent 19,184,334 8,945,475 243,340,439 2,670,719,000

17.2% 18.0% 16.8% 18.9%

Transfer payments 17,644,114 11,532,063 216,949,191 2,414,501,000

15.8% 23.3% 15.0% 17.1%

Labor earnings 74,762,607 29,119,320 989,517,716 9,066,207,000

67.0% 58.7% 68.3% 64.1%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Note: Non-labor income and labor earnings may not add to total personal income because of adjustments made by 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis to account for contributions from Social Security, cross-county commuting, and 

other factors. 

Public Finance

Components of public finance related to managing federal lands and mineral 

resources in the planning area primarily include federal mineral royalty payments 

and other taxes collected from the extraction and sale of mineral resources. 

These categories are explained in additional detail below. 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-229

Taxes

Taxes collected on mineral production in Oklahoma include a gross production 

tax and petroleum excise tax. No ad valorem production tax is collected in the 

state on oil and gas production or equipment. The gross production severance 

tax in Oklahoma is variable, based on an average price of crude oil and natural 

gas in a calendar month. The severance tax rate in a month is determined by the 

average production price in the prior 3 months. 

For gas, the gross production tax rate is 7 percent, if the statewide average 

price of Oklahoma gas equals or exceeds $2.10 per MCF, 4 percent if greater 

than $1.75 per MCF but less than $2.10 per MCF, and 1 percent if less than 

$1.75 per MCF. For oil, the gross production tax rate is 7 percent if the average 

price of Oklahoma oil equals or exceeds $17 per oil barrel, 4 percent if the 

average price is less than $17 per oil barrel but equal to or exceeds $14 per oil 

barrel, and 1 percent if the average price is less than $14 per oil barrel 

(Oklahoma Tax Commission 2012; National Conference of State Legislatures 

2012). 

In fiscal year 2012, the gross production severance tax was constant at 7 

percent, and approximately $703 million was collected (Oklahoma Tax 

Commission 2013). All oil and gas products produced in Oklahoma also incur a 

petroleum excise tax of 0.095 percent of the same taxable value used to 

compute the gross production severance tax (Oklahoma Tax Commission 

2012). In fiscal year 2013, approximately $13 million was collected in petroleum 

excise taxes (Oklahoma Tax Commission 2013).

Federal Mineral Royalties

Federal revenues from oil and gas are derived from bonus bids, rents, and 

royalties paid by producers on public lands. These revenues are collected by the 

ONRR within the DOI. The ONRR distributes approximately 50 percent of the 

revenues to the state of origin and remainder to the US Treasury. States have 

discretion on further distribution of these funds. Federal oil and gas lease 

revenue flows to the general fund in Oklahoma.

Outside of Osage County, the DOI disburses 100 percent of the revenues 

received from energy and mineral production on tribal lands directly to the 

tribes and individual mineral owners through the BIA and the OST. Tribes then 

distribute the revenues among all citizens or apply the revenues to health care, 

infrastructure, education, and other critical community development programs, 

such as senior centers, public safety projects, and youth initiatives. Many 

individual mineral owners use these revenues as a major source of income to 

support their families and communities.

Royalties collected in Oklahoma are shown in Table 3-72. Oklahoma’s state 

share of federal mineral royalty disbursement for fiscal year 2014 was 

$5,353,242. A portion of this amount is then disbursed to the counties of origin.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-230 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-72

Production Volume, Sales, and Rents, Royalty, and Bonus 

Revenue Collected—Oklahoma (FY 2014)*

Oklahoma

Gas (MCF) volume 41,207,754

Gas sales $189,711,741

Gas royalties $32,421,925

Oil (oil barrel) volume 1,775,706

Oil sales $170,314,276

Oil royalties $25,780,515

Coal (tons) volume 563,275

Coal sales $30,286,733

Coal royalties $713,196

Rents $619,527

Bonuses $821,220

Other Revenue $2,069,741

Source: Office of Natural Resources Revenue 2015

Note: ONNR data includes Federal on-shore and tribal wells

*Excludes revenue from BIA administered leases of the Osage Mineral Estate.

In Osage County, the BIA and the OST receive all royalties, rents, and bonus 

revenue and disburse it to the Osage Minerals Council and individual Osage 

shareholders. Indian royalty disbursement information is not available due to the 

proprietary nature of the data, but due to the large amount of Indian minerals in 

the area, the amount has significant importance for some individuals and tribes 

in the state.

Existing Conditions—Texas Overview

Texas industries with the greatest concentrations of employment are biotech 

and life sciences, information and electronics, professional and financial services, 

aerospace and aviation, industrial manufacturing, petroleum and chemical 

products, logistics and transportation, and food and beverage processing (Office 

of the Governor 2012). Historically, the oil industry has been a significant 

economic sector in Texas. When the sector gained prominence in the twentieth 

century, petroleum began to displace agriculture as the principal economic 

driver of the state (Texas Almanac 2015). 

Today, Texas is the nation’s leading producer of oil and gas, refined products, 

and chemicals. It is the nation’s largest chemicals producer, manufacturing 14 

percent of the nation’s value of chemical output (Office of the Governor 2005). 

In 2011, Texas had the fourth largest percentage of jobs directly attributable to 

the oil and natural gas industry’s operations, with 13.6 percent of jobs in that 

sector (American Petroleum Institute 2013). 

Texas has approximately 11,800 acres of BLM-administered surface lands 

(primarily at the Cross Bar Management Area) and 6,000 acres of BIA-managed
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-231

surface lands. In total 2,210,800 acres, plus federal minerals in the Red River

area, of BLM-administered minerals and 6,300 acres of BIA-managed minerals 

are in Texas. 

Population and Migration

The total population in Texas in 2013 was 25,639,373. The population increased 

approximately 23 percent over the last decade, double the percent change in 

population in the United States. Population projections for Texas estimate a 

continued population influx, with approximately 60 percent population change 

predicted by 2030, compared to a 29 percent increase for the United States 

(see Table 3-73). 

Population increases in the state have come from both births (54 percent) and 

migration of people into the area (46 percent; see Table 3-74). Ethnicity and

race in area population are addressed in Section 3.5.4, Environmental Justice.

Table 3-73

Population and Population Projections—Texas

Texas Three-State 

Region United States

Population (2013) 25,639,373 32,293,222 311,536,594

Population (2000) 20,851,820 26,990,892 281,421,906

Population change (2000-2013) 4,787,553 5,302,330 30,114,688

Population percent change (2000-2013) 23.0 19.6 10.7

Projected population change (2010-2030) 12,465,924 N/A 82,162,529

Projected percent change (2010-2030) 59.8 N/A 29.2

Source: US Census Bureau 2000 Census and 2013 American Community Survey data, as reported in Headwater 

Economics 2015; US Census Bureau 2005.

Table 3-74

Components of Population Growth—Texas, 2000-2013

Change 2000-2013

Population growth 5,502,230

Average annual population change (natural change and net migration) 419,256

Average annual natural change (births and deaths) 227,287

Average annual net migration (international and domestic) 192,999

Source: US Census Bureau, Population Division 2014, as reported by Headwater Economics 2015

Community Indicators

The population of Texas was overall the youngest in the planning area, with a 

median age of 33.8 in 2013, younger on average than the US population (median 

age 37.3). In general, the non-metro population (41.0 median age) was older 

than the metro population (32.7 median age; US Census Bureau 2014).
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-232 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Texas had a lower level of those with bachelor’s degrees or higher in both 

metro and non-metro populations, compared to the three-state average and 

national average (see Table 3-75, Educational Attainment—Texas).

Table 3-75

Educational Attainment—Texas

Texas

Metro

Texas NonMetroThree-State

Region

United 

States

Total population 25 or older 13,428,682 2,651,625 20,394,615 206,587,852

No high school degree 2,564,817 463,427 3,551,747 28,887,721

19.1% 17.5% 17.4% 14.0%

High school graduate 10,863,865 2,188,198 16,842,868 177,700,131

80.9% 85.2% 82.6% 86.0%

Associate’s degree 861,623 179,684 1,353,982 16,135,795

6.4% 6.8% 6.6% 7.8%

Bachelor’s degree 2,501,143 349,389 3,601,803 37,286,246

18.6% 13.2% 17.7% 18.0%

Graduate or professional degree 1,284,267 151,196 1,822,464 22,296,892

9.6% 5.7% 8.9% 10.8%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Texas had a high rate of residents who speak a language other than English, 

compared to the three-state and national average and based on 2013 data. The 

percentage of those who speak English less was also above the three-state 

average and national average (see Table 3-76).

Table 3-76

Language Spoken at Home—Texas

Texas 

Metro

Texas

Non-Metro

Metro/NonMetro RegionUnited 

States

Population 5 or older 20,040,637 3,663,763 29,891,329 291,484,482

Speak only English 12,466,128 3,005,021 21,032,653 231,122,908

62.2% 82.0% 70.4% 79.3%

Speak a language other than English 7,574,509 658,742 8,858,676 60,361,574

37.8% 18.0% 29.6% 20.7%

Speak English less than very well 3,140,103 234,448 3,633,524 25,148,900

15.7% 6.4% 12.2% 8.6%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Housing 

Housing occupancy information in the planning area is displayed in Table 3-77, 

Housing Occupancy—Texas. Approximately 10.2 percent of housing in metro 

areas and 19.5 percent in non-metro areas is vacant, as compared to the threestate average of 11.8 percent and the national average of 12.5 percent.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-233

Table 3-77

Housing Occupancy—Texas

Texas

Metro

Texas

Non-Metro

Three-State 

Region

United 

States

Total housing units 8,367,394 1,703,309 12,976,016 132,057,804

Occupied 7,514,794 1,371,677 11,440,992 115,610,216

89.8% 80.5% 88.2% 87.5%

Vacant 852,600 331,632 1,535,024 16,447,588

10.2% 19.5% 11.8% 12.5%

For rent 315,669 19,707 406,597 3,230,123

3.8% 1.2% 3.1% 2.4%

Rented, not occupied 49,195 3,869 67,837 599,884

0.6% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5%

For sale only 88,251 25,120 151,989 1,682,020

1.1% 1.5% 1.2% 1.3%

Sold, not occupied 28,569 13,193 54,530 608,590

0.3% 0.8% 0.4% 0.5%

For seasonal, recreational, 

occasional use

97,499 138,831 290,284 5,122,778

1.2% 8.2% 2.2% 3.9%

For migrant workers 1,578 1,202 3,913 34,233

0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Other vacant 271,839 129,710 559,874 5,169,960

3.2% 7.6% 4.3% 3.9%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Housing costs for rent and mortgage are similar to the national average for 

metro areas and below the national average for non-metro areas (see Table 

3-78).

Table 3-78

Housing Costs—Texas

Texas

Metro

Texas

Non-Metro

Three-State 

Region

United 

States

Owner-occupied housing units 

with a mortgage

2,912,427 547,751 4,503,350 49,820,840

Monthly cost <15% of household 

income

600,305 137,951 992,414 9,215,740

20.6% 25.2% 22.0% 18.5%

Monthly cost >30% of household 

income

892,121 155,332 1,316,380 17,636,343

30.6% 28.4% 29.2% 35.4%

Specified renter-occupied units 3,013,509 249,410 4,098,967 40,534,516

Gross rent <15% of household 

income

352,088 38,581 505,289 4,355,942

11.7% 15.5% 12.3% 10.7%

Gross rent >30% of household 

income

1,397,662 78,182 1,824,871 19,581,493

46.4% 31.3% 44.5% 48.3%

Median monthly mortgage cost $1,467 $1,290 N/A $1,540

Median gross rent $858 $736 N/A $904

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-234 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Income and Employment

Both total employment and total personal income in Texas has increased more 

rapidly than population change from 2000 to 2013 (see Table 3-79).

In general, average annual unemployment in Texas has remained lower than the 

national average but has followed similar trends. Since 1990, the annual 

unemployment rate ranged from a low of 4.4 percent in 2000 to a high of 8.2 

percent in 2010. See Table 3-80 for a comparison of Texas and US average 

unemployment over the past 5 years.

Table 3-79

Population, Employment and Income Trends, 2000-2013—Texas

2000 2013 Change 

2000-2013

Percent Change 

2000-2013

Population1 20,851,820 25,639,373 4,787,553 23.0

Employment (full and part-time 

jobs)2

12,138,877 15,536,503 3,397,626 28.0

Personal income (in thousands of 

2013 dollars)2

804,183,830 1,148,928,546 344,744,716 42.8

Average earnings per job (in 

thousands of 2013 dollars)2

$53,887 $56,568 $2,681 5.0

Per capita income (in thousands of 

2013 dollars)2

$38,396 $43,390 $4,994 13

Source: : 1US Census Bureau 2000, and US Census Bureau American Community Survey 2009-2013 as reported in 

Headwater Economics 2015; 2Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014, Regional Economic Accounts, Table S30

Table 3-80

Average Annual Unemployment—Texas

Texas United States

2015 4.5% 5.3%

2014 5.1% 6.2%

2013 6.3% 7.4%

2012 6.8% 8.1%

2011 7.9% 8.9%

2010 8.2% 9.6%

2009 7.5% 9.3%

2008 4.9% 5.8%

2007 4.4% 4.6%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014a, 2016

Income distribution for 2009-2013 is demonstrated in more detail for both 

metro and non-metro population in Table 3-81. Per capita income was lower 

in Texas metro and non-metro areas compared to the US average. Median 

household income was similar to the national average for non-metro areas and 

was lower in metro areas.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-235

Table 3-81

Household Income Distribution—Texas

Texas Metro Texas

Non-Metro

Three-State 

Region United States

Median household income 

(in 2013 dollars)

$51,665 $53,191 N/A $53,046

Total households 7,514,794 1,371,677 11,440,992 115,610,216

Less than 10,000 570,070 87,456 847,123 8,380,364

7.6% 6.4% 7.4% 7.2%

$10,000 to 14,999 403,190 71,766 624,251 6,214,548

5.4% 5.2% 5.5% 5.4%

$15,000 to 24,999 827,626 150,797 1,28,481 12,468,604

11.0% 11.0% 11.2% 10.8%

$25,000 to 34,999 806,019 145,675 1,249,592 11,929,761

10.7% 10.6% 10.9% 10.3%

$35,000 to 49,999 1,038,681 190,319 1,613,499 15,723,148

13.8% 13.9% 14.1% 13.6%

$50,000 to 74,999 1,330,875 254,732 2,069,926 20,744,045

17.7% 18.6% 18.1% 17.9%

$75,000 to 99,999 870,094 172,966 1,347,052 14,107,031

11.6% 12.6% 11.8% 12.2%

$100,000 to 149,999 941,276 181,186 1,402,947 14,858,239

12.5% 13.2% 12.3% 12.9%

$150,000 to 199,999 362,479 62,527 511,090 5,651,848

4.8% 4.6% 4.5% 4.9%

$200,000 or more 364,484 54,253 495,031 5,532,628

4.9% 4.0% 4.3% 4.8%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Based on 2013 data, top economic sectors in Texas were government, trade, 

transportation, and utilities, and professional and business services. It is worth 

noting that average annual wages were higher than average levels for 

professional services and lower for trade and government. The mining sector, 

which includes oil and gas, had a notably higher average annual wage (see Table

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

In 2013 the three industry sectors with the largest number of jobs were 

government (1,973,911), retail trade (1,510,502), and health care, social 

assistance (1,500,081). From 2001 to 2013, the three industry sectors that 

added the most new jobs were health care, social assistance (504,210), finance, 

insurance (352,378), and accommodation, food services (313,294).

In 2013, the three industry sectors with the largest personal income were 

government ($125,628.5 million), manufacturing ($82,393.7 million), and 

professional, scientific, and technical services ($81,184.9 million). From 2001 to 

2013, the three industry sectors that added the most new personal income 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-236 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-82

Employment and Wages by Industry—Texas (in 2013 Dollars)

Employment

Percent 

of Total 

Employment

Average 

Annual 

Wages

Percent 

Above or 

Below 

Average

Total 11,036,121 $51,187

Private 9,262,091 83.9 $52,146 1.9

Non-services-related 1,833,539 16.6 $71,405 39.5

Natural Resources and Mining 347,411 3.1 $105,413 105.9

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 57,864 0.5 $30,928 -39.6

Mining (including fossil fuels) 289,547 2.6 $120,299 135.0

Construction 612,682 5.6 $55,738 8.9

Manufacturing (including forest products) 873,446 7.9 $68,869 34.5

Services-related 7,428,552 67.3 $47,392 -7.4

Trade, transportation, and utilities 2,225,210 20.2 $46,849 -8.5

Information 200,822 1.8 $75,536 47.6

Financial activities 670,725 6.1 $69,768 36.3

Professional and business services 1,458,998 13.2 $63,510 24.1

Education and health services 1,423,098 12.9 $42,851 -16.3

Leisure and hospitality 1,138,859 10.3 $18,995 -62.9

Other services 306,725 2.8 $33,857 -33.9

Unclassified 4,116 0.0 $44,008 -14.0

Government 1,774,031 16.1 $46,183 -9.8

Federal government 197,038 1.8 $70,094 36.9

State government 348,938 3.2 $49,676 -3.0

Local government 1,228,055 11.1 $41,353 -19.2

Source: US Department of Labor 2014, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 

Washington, DC, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Note: This table shows wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which does not report data for proprietors 

or the value of benefits and uses slightly different industry categories than the US Census or Bureau of Economic 

Analysis data.

(in real terms) were mining, including fossil fuels ($49,458.3 million), 

government ($30,484.7 million), and health care, social assistance ($26,691.4 

million; see Table 3-83, Personal Income by Industry—Texas (in Thousands of 

2013 Dollars).Labor is the main source of income for Texas, comprising 70.3 

percent and 57.9 percent for metro and non-metro populations. Non-labor 

income is of increasing importance nationally and may provide locally important 

sources of income. This is particularly the case in non-metro areas, which have a 

higher dependence on non-labor income than the average for the three-state 

region and the nation. For more details regarding income source, refer to 

Table 3-84, Non-labor Share of Total Personal Income—Texas.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-237

Table 3-83

Personal Income by Industry—Texas (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)

2001 2013 Change 

2001-2013

Labor earnings 683,283,413 888,747,947 205,464,534

Non-services-related 172,770,102 234,130,996 61,360,894

Farm 5,242,962 4,368,353 -874,609

Forestry, fishing, and related activities 1,462,602 1,567,377 104,775

Mining (including fossil fuels) 30,940,843 80,399,099 49,458,256

Construction 50,248,044 65,402,439 15,154,395

Manufacturing 84,875,652 82,393,728 -2,481,924

Services-related 415,369,460 528,988,434 113,618,974

Utilities 8,357,805 8,407,367 49,562

Wholesale trade 42,765,377 54,590,626 11,825,249

Retail trade 47,430,397 51,356,632 3,926,235

Transportation and warehousing 38,091,551 43,099,932 5,008,381

Information 24,960,690 19,610,290 -5,350,400

Finance and insurance 43,825,874 51,529,082 7,703,208

Real estate and rental and leasing 17,613,093 18,333,995 720,902

Professional and technical services 57,931,987 81,184,922 23,252,935

Management of companies and enterprises 3,466,252 11,411,928 7,945,676

Administrative and waste services 26,043,190 37,453,164 11,409,974

Educational services 5,029,704 8,288,228 3,258,524

Health care and social assistance 52,323,124 79,014,481 26,691,357

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 4,473,834 5,891,776 1,417,942

Accommodation and food services 19,207,868 25,535,001 6,327,133

Other services, except public administration 23,848,715 33,281,010 9,432,295

Government 95,143,850 125,628,517 30,484,667

Data Sources: US Department of Commerce 2014, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, 

Washington, DC; Table CA25N, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Table 3-84

Non-labor Share of Total Personal Income—Texas 

Texas Metro Texas NonMetro

Three-State 

Region

United 

States

Total personal income (in 

thousands of 2013 Dollars)

1,044,931,932 115,146,936 1,449,807,346 14,151,427,000

Non-labor income 310,100,137 48,508,065 460,289,630 5,085,220,000

29.7% 42.1% 31.7% 35.9%

Dividends, interest, and rent 168,779,428 21,661,089 243,340,439 2,670,719,000

16.2% 18.8% 16.8% 18.9%

Transfer payments 141,320,709 26,846,976 216,949,191 2,414,501,000

13.5% 23.3% 15.0% 17.1%

Labor earnings 734,831,795 66,638,871 989,517,716 9,066,207,000

70.3% 57.9% 68.3% 64.1%

Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Note: Non-labor income and labor earnings may not add to total personal income because of adjustments made by 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis to account for contributions from Social Security, cross-county commuting, and 

other factors. 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-238 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Public Finance

Components of public finance related to managing federal lands and mineral 

resources in the planning area are primarily federal mineral royalty payments 

and other taxes collected from the extraction and sale of mineral resources. 

These categories are explained in detail below.

Taxes

The baseline gross production severance tax in Texas is 7.5 percent of market 

value of gas produced and saved and 4.6 percent of market value of oil produced. 

There is a condensate production tax of 4.6 percent of market value (National 

Conference of State Legislatures 2012). Taxable barrels of oil are subject to a 

regulatory tax and fee assessment of 0.008125 cents, which consists of 3/16 of a 

cent ($.001875) per barrel plus 5/8 of a cent ($0.00625) per barrel, totaling 

0.008125 cents (Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts 2013). There is an oilfield 

cleanup regulatory fee of 5/8 of $0.01/barrel and 1/15 of $0.01 per MCF of gas 

(National Conference of State Legislatures 2012). In 2013, approximately $4.6 

billion was collected in severance taxes in Texas (US Census Bureau 2014). 

In addition to severance taxes, ad valorem property taxes are levied at the 

county level. This tax is payable only when minerals are producing. The market 

value that county ad valorem tax is assessed is the value of the discounted cash 

flow estimated from future production, which is based on production profile, 

operating expenses, oil and gas prices, and the discount rate (MineralWise 

2011). 

In Texas, oil and gas mineral interests are also assessed an annual ad valorem 

tax at the county level based on market value of an individual interest in a given 

lease. The market value of future lease reserves is based on the appraiser’s 

projection as to how each lease will perform in the future using a statemandated appraisal method. This method includes examining factors such as 

start rate and decline of production, price operating expense, and discount rate 

to determine the fair market value of the lease in the market place (Pritchard 

and Abbott, Inc. 2009). Oil and gas equipment are also subject to county ad 

valorem taxes.

Federal Mineral Royalties

Federal revenues from oil and gas are derived from bonus bids, rents, and 

royalties paid by producers on public lands. These revenues are collected by the 

ONRR within the DOI. The ONRR distributes approximately 50 percent of the 

revenues to the state of origin and remainder to the US Treasury. 

States have discretion on further distribution of these funds. In Texas, all funds are 

allocated to counties where production took place, with levels varying based on 

production. The county is obligated to distribute those funds as follows: 50 

percent to school districts within the county, 35 percent to counties, and 15 

percent to municipalities within the county (TX Government Code, Title 4, 

Subtitle A, Section 403.104). 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-239

The US Department of the Interior disburses 100 percent of the revenues 

received for energy and mineral production on tribal lands directly to the tribes 

and individual mineral owners through the BIA and the OST. Tribes then 

distribute the revenues among all citizens or apply them to health care, 

infrastructure, education, and other critical community development programs, 

such as senior centers, public safety projects, and youth initiatives. Many 

individual mineral owners use these revenues as a major source of income to 

support their families and communities.

Royalties collected from onshore oil and gas development in Texas is provided 

in Table 3-85. Texas’s share of onshore federal minerals royalty revenue 

disbursement for fiscal year 2014 was $10,730,021. 

Table 3-85

Production Volume, Sales, and Rents, Royalty, and Bonus 

Revenue Collected—Texas (FY 2014)

Texas

Gas (MCF) sales volume $48,092,356

Gas sales $215,930,532

Gas royalties $25,416,705

Oil (oil barrel) volume $489,691

Oil sales $46,686,490

Oil royalties $5,465,102

Rents $493,651

Bonuses $2,552,315

Other Revenue $78,068

Source: Office of Natural Resources Revenue 2015

Note: ONNR data includes Federal on-shore and tribal wells

Social and Economic Activity Related to BLM/BIA Management Actions

Energy and Minerals

Energy and mineral development represents a key economic sector for states in 

the planning area. In Kansas, however, this sector is of lesser economic 

importance than in Texas and Oklahoma. The percent of private employment in 

mining is notably higher than the national average in all three states, but 

particularly in Oklahoma and Texas. Employment in the mining sector is broken 

out by sector in Table 3-86, Employment in Mining, 2012. The BLMadministered and BIA-managed minerals represent only a fraction of total oil 

and gas production in all three states; over the past 20 years, federal and Indian 

wells accounted for just for 0.3 percent of the wells drilled in the three-state 

planning area. Table 3-87, Active and Inactive Oil and Gas Wells (2010-2014),

shows active and inactive oil and gas wells in the planning area by state as of 

December 2014. Based on preliminary estimates from production models, 

production for both oil and gas is anticipated to increase over the next 20-year 

time frame.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-240 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-86

Employment in Mining, 2012

Oklahoma 

Metro

Oklahoma 

NonMetro

Texas 

Metro

Texas 

NonMetro

Kansas 

Metro

Kansas

NonMetro

United 

States

Total private 

employment

909,682 372,334 8,304,745 732,385 792,031 327,076 115,938,468

Mining 2.80% 5.30% 1.60% 6.60% 0.30% 2.00% 0.60%

All oil and 

gas 

2.80% 5.00% 1.50% 6.20% 0.20% 1.80% 0.40%

Oil and 

gas

extraction

1.40% 1.10% 0.40% 1.00% 0.10% 0.40% 0.10%

Drilling oil 

and gas 

wells

0.50% 1.00% 0.30% 1.30% 0.10% 0.50% 0.10%

Support 

for oil and 

gas 

operations

0.90% 2.90% 0.80% 4.00% 0.10% 0.90% 0.20%

Coal mining 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10%

Metal ore 

mining

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Non-metallic 

minerals 

mining

0.10% 0.30% 0.00% 0.20% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10%

Mining-related 0.50% 0.80% 0.70% 1.50% 0.10% 0.90% 0.20%

Oil and gas 

pipeline and 

related 

construction

0.40% 0.50% 0.50% 1.10% 0.00% 0.30% 0.10%

Pipeline 

transportati

on

0.10% 0.20% 0.20% 0.40% 0.10% 0.60% 0.00%

Non-mining 96.70% 93.90% 97.70% 91.90% 99.60% 97.10% 99.20%

Source: US Census Bureau, County Business Patterns as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Table 3-87

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

Kansas 

Federal

Oklahoma

Federal

Texas 

Federal

Oklahoma 

Indian 

Trust

Texas 

Indian 

Trust

Actual Active Wells 394 387 490 1,760 9

Actual Inactive Shut-in Wells 21 66 49 261 0

Allocated Active Wells 553 2,053 200 4,267 0

Allocated Inactive Shut-in Wells 36 203 61 571 2

Source: BLM 2014c

Notes: Data are current as of December 2014. Excludes Osage County wells.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-241

Coal production in the planning area as of 2016, is limited to eight authorized 

federal leases and two active mines in Oklahoma, covering 13,000 acres. Five 

more federal coal leases are pending in Oklahoma (BLM GIS 2016; BLM 2016b). 

Coal was produced from four Oklahoma counties in 2015: LeFlore, Haskell, 

Craig, and Okmulgee. In 2012 total production was 1,075,100 tons, and federal 

leases production was 487,000 tons. In 2015, total production was reduced to

800,000 tons of coal. The BLM has provided estimates for economic 

contributions from oil and gas in the three states in the planning area (see 

Table 3-88). Note that contributions from BIA-managed mineral development 

are not included in this analysis). Contributions represent spending directly 

related to BLM mineral extraction (direct), as well as secondary income and 

spending as a result of the direct contributions (total). Contributions to state 

and local economies are jobs, income, taxes, and royalty revenue disbursement, 

as discussed in detail in state summary sections.

Table 3-88

Estimated BLM Economic Direct, Indirect, and Total Output (Fiscal Year 2012)

Kansas (in 

Millions of 

Dollars)

Oklahoma (in 

Millions of Dollars)

Texas (in Millions of 

Dollars)

Oil and gas

Direct $47.2 $337.9 $236

Total $71.3 $466.8 $408

Coal

Direct $0 $7.6 $0

Total $0 $11.2 $0

Source: BLM 2013

Note: Data in 2013 dollars. Direct represents economic benefits directly associated with activities on BLMadministered lands. Total represents direct, indirect and induced spending. 

Additional mineral development includes mineral materials. BIA managed

minerals included 1,917,300 tons of sand and $60,700 tons of gravel with total 

sales value of $433,500 from 2009-2014. Mineral materials may also have 

additional economic importance for local communities as the materials are 

important for road construction and other construction activities.

The BLM Helium reserve near Amarillo, Texas, houses the national helium 

reserves. As dictated by the Helium Stewardship Act of 2013, the helium 

program is being privatized, with all helium resources and dispose of all facilities, 

equipment, and other real and personal property, administered by the United 

States in the Federal Helium System. The act designates that stored helium be 

auctioned off at annual rates and that the facility close by September 30, 2021. 

The first auction in June 2014 resulted in $14,972,568 in revenue. Cumulative 

revenue for 2014—2016 auctions was approximately $86 million.

Potential for other mineral development is present in the planning area including 

but not limited to salt.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-242 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Agriculture

Agriculture and livestock grazing played a traditional role in the study area 

economy and continue to be important in some areas today, particularly in nonmetro areas. There were 390,800 farms, totaling 164,556,000 acres, in the study 

area in 2012 (USDA, National Agricultural Statistical Service 2012). Agricultural 

data are presented in Table 3-89, below. 

Due to the limited BLM-administered surface lands in the planning area, BLM 

management actions have had only a minor role in livestock grazing to this 

point. There are four allotments with a total of 138 animal unit months, in the 

planning area on BLM-administered lands, all in Oklahoma. Economic 

contributions from grazing on BLM-administered lands are negligible for the 

planning area as a whole because of the low level of grazing. Additional grazing 

occurs on BIA-managed surface lands in the area, and there is potential for 

grazing to increase on both public and BIA-managed surface lands in the future.

Table 3-89

Summary of Socioeconomic Study Area Agriculture (2012)

State Number of 

Farms

Acres in 

Farms

Market Value 

(Crop Sales)

Market Value 

(Livestock 

Sales)

Kansas 61,773 46,137,295 6,983,993,000 11,476,571,000

Texas 248,809 130,153,438 7,366,993,000 18,008,588,000

Oklahoma 80,245 34,356,110 1,875,569,000 5,254,015,000

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistical Service 2012

Recreation

Recreation plays an important role in some areas in the three-state region. 

Estimated economic impacts from area recreation are shown in Table 3-90, 

below. Due to the scattered nature of surface lands in the area and legal access 

issues, recreation has not historically been a major land use in the area on public 

lands; its use has not been closely tracked or managed. There is potential for 

management of recreation, including off-road vehicles in the planning area.

Table 3-90

Summary of Planning Area Outdoor Recreation Economic Impacts

State

Consumer 

Spending for 

Outdoor 

Recreation

Direct Jobs 

Generated 

from Outdoor 

Recreation

Wages and 

Salaries Related 

to Outdoor 

Recreation

State and Local 

Tax Revenue 

from Outdoor 

Recreation

Kansas $7.1 billion 85,000 $2 billion $477,000,000

Texas 28.7 billion 277,000 8.9 billion 1.9 billion

Oklahoma 8.4 billion 95,000 2.5 billion 584,000,000

Source: Outdoor Industry Association 2014
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-243

Wild Horse and Burros

The wild horse and burro program in the three-state region consists of a 

regional holding facility at Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, the adoption team based in 

Moore, Oklahoma, and long- and short-term holding at private ranches through 

contracts with the BLM.

Of the 77.2 million appropriated for the national wild horse and burro program 

in fiscal year 2014, holding costs accounted for $43.235 million (64 percent). 

Contracts for private ranchers to use their properties as holding facilities for 4 

year periods are available for bid for properties meeting specific criteria. 

Payment in contracts is generally around $1.35 per head/per day and can 

provide an important source of income for some area ranchers. 

Visitation opportunities are available at the BLM’s regional holding facility in Pauls 

Valley, Oklahoma. A drive-up interpretation center situated near the pastures 

allows visitors to view the animals as they leisurely roam and graze on the land.

Through a Joint partnership with the Kansas Department of Corrections,

Kansas Correctional Industries, and the Mustang Heritage Foundation, horses 

are trained for adoption and sold for the minimum price of $125.

Social Conditions and Non-Market Values 

Social Setting

Much of the planning area was historically based on a rural agricultural 

economy. In certain local communities and regional centers such as Dallas, 

Houston, and Oklahoma City, oil and gas development have an important 

economic role. Cycles in oil and gas prices and level of development and 

employment can result in swings in population. This may strain public services 

and introduce large influxes of people from outside the region, potentially 

straining the social setting in smaller communities and rural areas. 

Large population changes may alter perceptions of the friendliness, 

neighborliness, and trustworthiness of other residents. It also could change the 

perception of security, safety, and risk of victimization by crime and the 

satisfaction level of community life in general (Smith et al. 2001). 

Changes to the social setting are more likely to occur when development and 

associated population change is introduced to communities that do not have a 

long history of natural resource development. With changes in technology, 

different portions of the planning area may be impacted by development. 

Changes to the social setting can also impact the ability of different groups to 

adopt historic land uses. In addition, the planning area contains multiple TCPs

that may be impacted by development activities. The National Park Service has 

defined TCPs as follows: 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-244 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

“A traditional cultural property can be defined generally as one [a 

property] that is eligible for the National Register because of its 

association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that 

(a) are rooted in that community’s history, and (b) are important in 

maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community” (National 

Register Bulletin 38). 

TCPs typically include prehistoric and historic Native American archaeological 

sites but may also include culturally important sites with limited archaeological 

significance. In addition, there are good reasons to expect that non-Native 

American communities may have TCPs in the planning area. 

At socioeconomic workshops held in February 2015, representatives from local 

communities and interest groups provided input on important community social 

and economic values. Participants had various views on important factors for 

their communities for the next 20 years. Key issues of concern varied by state 

and among participants and are summarized below. Additional details are 

provided in the Socioeconomic Workshop Summary Report (BLM and BIA 

2015a). 

Kansas

 Maintaining a viable oil industry

 Growth and expansion of the local tax base 

 Potential impacts of regulation on the tax base

 Slow but steady growth in population and finances 

 Protection of water quality and quantity for both surface water and 

groundwater

 Air quality and nonattainment areas

 Work force, including level of training and turnover rates

 Impacts on private land, including changes to traditional land uses 

(e.g., family ranches are not being passed down to families that 

ranch, and wind turbines are popping up on old ranch lands)

 Disproportionate impacts on small communities as a result of lack

of re-permitting for current activities 

 Helium pipeline and the fate of the current easements for the 

helium pipeline.

Oklahoma

 Recreation, including trespass and enforcement issues and a need 

for more infrastructure to facilitate more and better recreation 

opportunities
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-245

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

development

 Water quality and quantity issues, including water use for mineral 

development and renewable energy

 Health issues, including poverty and food scarcity

 Continued leasing and permitting of mineral development, and 

streamlining the process for developers

 Education of workforce and turnover; Oklahoma needs trained 

people to improve socioeconomic conditions; turnover is an issue in 

particular business sectors, such as the packing plant and casinos

 Quality of life balance

 Potential for economic diversity

 Tribal casinos, particularly for some Texas/Oklahoma border 

counties such as Cotton County; potential impacts on local economy

 Slow steady growth, while meeting the needs of citizens was cited 

as key for some communities

Texas

 Sustainable economy and economic diversification, including smaller 

companies and opportunities for entrepreneur development

 Management of off-road vehicle use and creation of rules for users; 

provide recreation on public lands for people from metro areas to 

use off-road vehicles for recreation; legal and safe places for 

recreationists to go (i.e., places that are managed and maintained 

and that have rules and provide a safe environment); in particular 

for the Red River area, impacts of recreation, including trespass 

issues and burdens on public health and safety resources

 Water quality and quantity issues, including groundwater and water 

use, water availability, water disposal, brine spills from salt water 

flow lines, and sediment runoff

 Special status species, including impacts from recreation (i.e., offroad vehicle use affecting interior least terns)

 Carbon sequestration

 Impacts of BLM management actions on other agencies (i.e., impacts 

on the Army’s mission from development)

 Population growth and increase in housing costs

 Equestrian trails are a major recreation use in some areas, such as 

Wise County
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-246 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

 Balance of less regulation-government assistance vs. government 

management

 Drilling in north Texas runs the gamut from being done in very rural 

areas to highly urbanized areas, such as Fort Worth, so the impacts 

will vary considerably across the region

 Concerns about land disputes in the Red River area

Non-Market Values

Many of the quality of life components brought forward in meetings can be 

discussed in terms of non-market values. Non-market values are the benefits 

derived by society from the uses or experiences that are not dispensed through 

markets and do not require payment. 

Two categories of non-market values include use and non-use. The use value of 

a non-market good is the value to society from the direct use of the asset 

through recreation, such as hiking, bird watching, and off-road vehicle use. The 

use of non-market goods often requires consumption of associated market 

goods, such as lodging and gas. Non-use, or passive use, values of a non-market 

good reflect the value of an asset beyond its current use, due to willingness to 

preserve a resource for potential future use and for the benefit of preserving an 

asset for future generations to enjoy. This can include values such as scenic 

views and preservation of plant and animal habitat that are not currently 

providing economic benefits. 

Indirect uses of resources can also provide non-market benefits. Indirect use of 

the resources, include providing watershed protection for downstream 

communities, or protecting nearby scenic landscapes for residential property. 

These indirect uses typically reflect nonmarket values, though they might be 

related to market decisions

Ecosystem Services

The concept of ecosystem services has emerged as a way of framing and 

describing the comprehensive set of benefits that people receive from nature, 

including both non-market and market components. Ecosystem processes are 

the complex physical and biological cycles and interactions that underlie what is 

observed as the natural world; ecosystem services are the specific results of 

those processes that either directly sustain or enhance human life or maintain 

the quality of ecosystem goods (Brown et al. 2007; Costanza et al. 1997; Daily 

et al. 1997; Kline 2013). 

Ecosystem services can include items measured in the traditional economic 

market, as well as those not directly relatable to dollars spent or received, 

which contribute to improving the quality of life for area communities (nonmarket contributions). The degree to which any given ecosystem service is a 

benefit depends on the combined influences of stakeholders’ preferences for the 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-247

ecosystem service, its scarcity and accessibility to the public, and how many 

people value it.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) Classification System (MEA 2005) 

developed a frequently referenced classification of ecosystem services into four 

categories: provisioning, supporting, regulating, and cultural services/ Each is 

summarized below. 

Provisioning services—These are broadly described as products derived from 

ecosystems. They can include a broad spectrum of products from raw materials, 

minerals and energy products, water, and medicines. In the planning area, due to 

the minimal surface acreage, mineral and energy products represent the primary 

provisioning services from BLM-administered lands. 

Supporting services—These are the underlying natural processes that sustain 

ecosystems and enable the production of all other ecosystem services, such as 

nutrient recycling and soil formation. These processes, in turn, support plants 

and animals, which support habitat and species diversity, abundance, and 

distribution. Due to the limited surface tracts, contributions from public lands 

are site specific and limited. 

Regulating services—These are defined as benefits obtained from the regulation of 

ecosystem processes. Examples are carbon sequestration and climate regulation, 

waste decomposition and detoxification, and water and air purification. Due to the 

limited surface tracts, contributions from public lands are site specific and limited.

Cultural services—These are defined as the benefits that people obtain from 

ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, 

recreation, and aesthetic experiences. In the planning area, specific locations 

may represent areas with cultural services for some groups and individuals, such 

as recreation in the Red River area and the historic importance of the CrossBar Management Area). 

In addition, certain locations may be associated with cultural services for Native 

American populations. Specifically, landscapes may be associated with traditional 

beliefs, sacred sites, resource gathering areas, hunting and fishing areas, water 

sources, ancestral sites, human remains, trails, and trust or treaty assets (see 

Section 3.5.1 for additional details). 

Affected Groups and Individuals 

The socioeconomic study area is a diverse setting with portions having suburban 

or urban character and experiencing rapid development in the past decades. It 

includes other areas that retain rural character and traditional land uses, 

including ranching and mineral development. 

Groups and individuals who have similar values but may not represent a physical 

community or region, but rather a specific group for whom management of
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-248 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

public or BIA-managed land or minerals is of particular interest. These groups 

are discussed below.

Oil and Gas Leaseholders—Development of mineral resources is of primary 

importance in the planning area economy. Details of the contributions of these 

resources are discussed above, under Regional Demographics and Economic 

Context. Leaseholders are particularly interested in keeping restrictions on 

leasing minimal in order to keep the costs and delays of production low. Mineral 

development represents a historic land use in some parts of the planning area, 

and it is closely tied to social setting. Mineral extraction represents a provision 

category of ecosystem services.

Local Residents and Private Landowners—Landowners next to public lands and 

BIA-managed surface lands are an important group to consider in the planning 

process. Residences/ landowners are concerned about how management 

decisions may impact the quality or quantity of local natural resources. Some 

common concerns are quality and quantity of water and the protection of 

adjacent lands from wildland fire. Additional planning issues of importance are 

impacts of development on adjacent lands, and public land recreation 

opportunities. Non-market values of interest are rural lifestyle preservation and 

visual setting. All ecosystem categories may be of importance to adjacent 

landowners. Some key categories are regulating services, such as local 

contributions to water quality and quantity, and cultural services, such as 

recreational opportunities and heritage values.

Ranchers—Ranching and agriculture are a part of the planning area’s history, 

culture, and economy. Due to the limited BLM-administered surface lands, 

ranching has not traditionally been impacted by BLM land management 

decisions. Livestock graze on BIA-managed surface lands to a greater extent and 

may represent a locally important source of income. Ranchers face such 

challenges as fluctuating livestock prices, increasing equipment and operating 

costs, fluctuating water availability, and changing federal regulations. Additional 

income sources are often necessary to continue ranching, and ranchers or their 

family members may also work in other sectors of the economy. 

Ranching is tied to non-market values and ecosystem services. It represents a 

traditional land use with important cultural values for some areas, which 

qualifies as a cultural ecosystem service. Ranchers are also interested in 

preserving the quantity and quality of forage (a provisioning service).

Recreational Users—Recreational use of public lands in the planning area has been 

limited in the past due to the scatted nature of parcels and the lack of public 

access. One exception is within the Red River area bordering Oklahoma and 

Texas. Recreational users in the area have the potential to be impacted by BLM 

management decisions. In the Red River area, recreational users are concerned 

with management changes impacting cultural ecosystem services, particularly as 

related to the recreational setting and types of recreation.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-249

Potential Renewable Energy Leaseholders—Renewable energy, particularly wind 

energy, is of increasing importance in certain portions of the planning area, 

notably Kansas. While wind energy is not a traditional land use, management 

decisions on BLM-administered or BIA-managed surface lands may impact the 

ability of this industry to grow in those lands in the planning area.

Individuals and Groups Who Prioritize Resource Protection—Various 

individuals and groups at the local, regional, and national levels are interested in 

how the BLM manages public lands. Many of their concerns are in regard to oil 

and gas development and impacts on water and air quality and visual quality. 

They value public lands for such features as open space, wildlife, recreation, and 

scenic qualities. They are particularly interested in maintaining or enhancing 

contributions of public lands to cultural, regulation, and supporting ecosystem 

services, particularly those associated with non-use values.

Individuals and Groups Who Prioritize Resource Use—Due to the long history 

of fossil fuel development in the planning area, the local, state, and regional 

economy is tied to fossil fuels development. Interested parties include local, 

regional, and national energy development companies, as well as local retailers 

who directly support construction, drilling, and operations for the industry. 

In addition, local retailers that offer lodging, food, and other services to oil and 

gas employees have an interest in management decisions impacting the level of 

permitted development. Fossil fuel development on public lands and minerals 

and BIA-managed minerals represents only a small fraction of total fossil fuels 

development but may have local or regional impacts. These stakeholders are 

primarily interested in the provisioning sector of ecosystem services.

Federally recognized Indian tribes—Land held in trust for Federally recognized 

Indian tribes and land held by individual Indian allottees has an important role in 

the planning area. Native Americans have a unique relationship with, lands based 

on traditional uses and cultural values. The value they place on public lands 

includes extractive resource use and may have religious, spiritual, and traditional 

aspects, all of which may be affected by BLM or BIA resource management 

decisions. 

These values are defined solely by the concerned tribes and are integral to tribal 

history, sense of place, and community identity. They represent the cultural 

sector of ecosystem services. As noted in Section 3.5.1, there are also Native 

American tribal uses and interests associated with the cultural practices or 

beliefs. These include natural landscape features, ceremonial and worship places, 

and plant gathering locations.

Development of oil and gas resources can impact Federally recognized Indian 

tribes by affecting development potential on all landownership in the area (due 

to changes in infrastructure and supply), by affecting employment opportunities, 
3. Affected Environment (BLM Socioeconomics)

3-250 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

and by potentially impacting traditional important or sacred places and land 

uses.

3.5.4 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice first became a required consideration for federal agencies 

with the publication of EO 12898 on February 11, 1994. Environmental justice 

refers to the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless 

of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, 

or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative 

environmental consequences of industrial, municipal, and commercial operations 

or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies (BLM 

2005) Guidance on environmental justice terminology developed by the 

President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ 1997) is discussed below.

 Low-income population—This is determined based on annual 

statistical poverty thresholds developed by the US Census Bureau. 

In 2013, the poverty level was based on total income of $11,888 for 

an individual and $23,624 for a family of four (US Census Bureau 

2013). A low-income community may include either a group of 

individuals living in geographic proximity to one another or 

dispersed individuals, such as migrant workers or Native Americans.

 Minority—Minorities are individuals who are members of the 

following population groups: American Indian, Alaskan Native, 

Asian, Pacific Islander, Black, or Hispanic. 

 Minority population area—A minority population area is so 

defined if either the aggregate population of all minority groups 

combined exceeds 50 percent of the total population in the area or 

if the percentage of the population in the area comprising all 

minority groups is meaningfully greater than the minority population 

percentage in the broader region. Like a low-income population, a 

minority population may include either individuals living in 

geographic proximity to one another or those who are dispersed.

 Tribal population—Tribal groups and individuals represent a 

unique group with common cultural ties that may not be adequately 

identified by standard CEQ minority population criteria.

 Comparison population—For the purpose of identifying a 

minority population or a low-income population concentration, 

state populations are compared to the US population. For counties, 

populations are compared to the respective state population 

average.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice) 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-251 

Low-Income Populations 

Summary state-level poverty data is displayed in Table 3-91, Study Area 

County Population in Poverty in 2013, Table 3-92, Percent of Individuals below 

the Poverty Level in Counties of Oklahoma, Table 3-93, Percent of Individuals 

below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas, and Table 3-94, Percent of 

Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Kansas. The percent of 

individuals in poverty was lowest for the Kansas non-metro area population (9.5 

percent) and highest for the Texas metro population (18.3 percent). In general, 

metro areas in all three states had higher percentage of people in poverty than 

non-metro populations. 

Table 3-91

Study Area County Population in Poverty in 2013

Oklahoma 

Metro

Oklahoma 

Non-Metro

Texas 

Metro

Texas

NonMetro

Kansas 

Metro

Kansas 

NonMetro

United 

States

Percent of individuals 

in poverty 

18 14.6 18.3 13.9 15.2 9.5 15.4

Percent of families in 

poverty 

13.6 10.8 14.4 10.1 10.4 6.5 11.3

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015.

Table 3-92, Table 3-93, and Table 3-94 show the percent of individuals below 

the poverty level for each county in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas, respectively. 

Counties with levels above the state average are shaded. These would be areas of 

focus for ensuring that residents of these counties do not have disproportionately 

negative economic and social impacts from decisions in the Joint EIS/BLM RMP 

and BIA Integrated RMP. Figure 3-39, Percent of Individuals below the Poverty 

Level, shows a map of each states’ counties and comparative poverty levels. 

An average of 16.9 percent of the population of Oklahoma has an annual income 

below the federally determined poverty level (US Census Bureau 2010b). Table 

3-92 shows the percent of individuals below the poverty level for each county 

in Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, 35 counties have a percentage of individuals living 

below the poverty line that is higher than the state average. 

An average percent of 17.9 percent of the population of Texas has annual 

income levels below the federally determined poverty level(US Census Bureau 

2010b). Table 3-93 shows the percent of individuals below the poverty level 

for each county in Texas. In Texas, 102 counties have a percentage of individuals 

living below the poverty line that is higher than the state average. 

An average of 13.6 percent of the population of Kansas has annual income levels 

below the federally determined poverty level(US Census Bureau 2010b). Table 

3-94 shows the percent of individuals below the poverty level for each county 

in Kansas. In Kansas, 35 counties have a percentage of individuals living below 

the poverty line that is higher than the state average. 

3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-253

Table 3-92

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Oklahoma

County Percent of Individuals Below the Poverty 

Level*

Adair 24.8

Alfalfa 11.2

Atoka 22.6

Beaver 13.2

Beckham 15.8

Blaine 15.6

Bryan 20.0

Caddo 20.9

Canadian 7.8

Carter 16.2

Cherokee 25.8

Choctaw 25.5

Cimarron 23.7

Cleveland 12.1

Coal 23.5

Comanche 16.9

Cotton 13.8

Craig 15.0

Creek 14.2

Custer 17.7

Delaware 20.7

Dewey 12.9

Ellis 15.3

Garfield 16.3

Garvin 15.0

Grady 14.3

Grant 11.6

Greer 11.0

Harmon 30.6

Harper 11.6

Haskell 12.7

Hughes 23.3

Jackson 18.9

Jefferson 18.4

Johnston 22.6

Kay 18.3

Kingfisher 10.4

Kiowa 21.2

Latimer 14.2

Le Flore 20.9

Lincoln 14.8

Logan 14.9

Love 16.0

Major 10.4
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

3-254 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-92

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Oklahoma

County Percent of Individuals Below the Poverty 

Level*

Marshall 14.3

Mayes 17.9

McClain 11.6

McCurtain 27.6

McIntosh 22.2

Murray 15.7

Muskogee 21.1

Noble 13.7

Nowata 16.3

Okfuskee 23.7

Oklahoma 17.3

Okmulgee 19.4

Osage 13.6

Ottawa 18.8

Pawnee 17.7

Payne 23.2

Pittsburg 17.4

Pontotoc 17.5

Pottawatomie 17.6

Pushmataha 27.2

Roger Mills 14.1

Rogers 9.9

Seminole 22.4

Sequoyah 19.0

Stephens 13.0

Texas 14.6

Tillman 21.7

Tulsa 15.1

Wagoner 12.1

Washington 13.3

Washita 15.4

Woods 15.8

Woodward 12.4

Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey GIS 2015; US Census Bureau 2010b

*Counties with levels above the state average are shaded.

Table 3-93

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the Poverty 

Level*

Anderson 18.8

Andrews 17.0

Angelina 18.4
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-255

Table 3-93

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the Poverty 

Level*

Aransas 17.6

Archer 13.1

Armstrong 11.1

Atascosa 17.7

Austin 9.3

Bailey 19.2

Bandera 17.4

Bastrop 14.2

Baylor 15.8

Bee 20.6

Bell 14.8

Bexar 17.1

Blanco 8.1

Borden 0.0

Bosque 15.2

Bowie 18.4

Brazoria 10.7

Brazos 29.7

Brewster 13.9

Briscoe 22.9

Brooks 39.6

Brown 17.1

Burleson 13.3

Burnet 14.0

Caldwell 20.7

Calhoun 16.7

Callahan 12.7

Cameron 34.9

Camp 18.6

Carson 6.5

Cass 18.9

Castro 24.6

Chambers 8.3

Cherokee 22.3

Childress 12.5

Clay 10.4

Cochran 16.2

Coke 13.6

Coleman 30.8

Collin 7.3

Collingsworth 26.8

Colorado 15.7

Comal 9.5

Comanche 23.4
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

3-256 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-93

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the Poverty 

Level*

Concho 21.7

Cooke 13.6

Coryell 14.1

Cottle 13.3

Crane 19.3

Crockett 18.0

Crosby 27.4

Culberson 32.3

Dallam 12.3

Dallas 18.3

Dawson 20.6

Deaf Smith 16.8

Delta 20.2

Denton 7.9

DeWitt 14.7

Dickens 20.5

Dimmit 33.0

Donley 12.5

Duval 22.8

Eastland 19.5

Ector 16.2

Edwards 20.8

El Paso 25.0

Ellis 11.4

Erath 19.5

Falls 23.6

Fannin 15.3

Fayette 12.8

Fisher 13.6

Floyd 21.8

Foard 21.7

Fort Bend 8.3

Franklin 13.4

Freestone 14.0

Frio 22.1

Gaines 19.0

Galveston 13.1

Garza 22.5

Gillespie 9.1

Glasscock 5.1

Goliad 13.8

Gonzales 22.3

Gray 14.6

Grayson 14.4
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-257

Table 3-93

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the Poverty 

Level*

Gregg 16.6

Grimes 15.6

Guadalupe 9.7

Hale 20.0

Hall 25.9

Hamilton 12.5

Hansford 13.3

Hardeman 22.2

Hardin 11.5

Harris 17.3

Harrison 14.5

Hartley 8.0

Haskell 17.0

Hays 16.4

Hemphill 16.5

Henderson 16.0

Hidalgo 35.3

Hill 16.3

Hockley 16.0

Hood 11.3

Hopkins 18.2

Houston 20.7

Howard 19.7

Hudspeth 44.7

Hunt 18.3

Hutchinson 14.9

Irion 3.4

Jack 16.6

Jackson 12.5

Jasper 17.5

Jeff Davis 9.7

Jefferson 18.9

Jim Hogg 9.9

Jim Wells 22.9

Johnson 10.8

Jones 13.0

Karnes 22.7

Kaufman 11.8

Kendall 8.9

Kenedy 19.1

Kent 7.0

Kerr 14.1

Kimble 17.4

King 5.5
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

3-258 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-93

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the Poverty 

Level*

Kinney 27.9

Kleberg 24.8

Knox 18.9

La Salle 24.3

Lamar 17.0

Lamb 21.1

Lampasas 15.3

Lavaca 10.1

Lee 12.5

Leon 17.5

Liberty 16.2

Limestone 19.1

Lipscomb 14.7

Live Oak 14.6

Llano 13.1

Loving 16.1

Lubbock 19.1

Lynn 18.5

Madison 22.7

Marion 22.6

Martin 11.5

Mason 13.2

Matagorda 21.2

Maverick 31.5

McCulloch 20.8

McLennan 21.7

McMullen 15.2

Medina 16.6

Menard 19.3

Midland 11.5

Milam 17.0

Mills 16.8

Mitchell 13.3

Montague 13.1

Montgomery 11.5

Moore 15.1

Morris 17.4

Motley 21.6

Nacogdoches 24.1

Navarro 20.0

Newton 17.4

Nolan 18.9

Nueces 18.8

Ochiltree 21.6
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-259

Table 3-93

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the Poverty 

Level*

Oldham 20.0

Orange 13.6

Palo Pinto 15.8

Panola 12.8

Parker 10.9

Parmer 19.7

Pecos 17.0

Polk 19.9

Potter 22.7

Presidio 22.9

Rains 11.8

Randall 9.4

Reagan 10.8

Real 25.1

Red River 16.8

Reeves 28.4

Refugio 16.8

Roberts 10.2

Robertson 22.1

Rockwall 5.5

Runnels 20.0

Rusk 13.5

Sabine 21.8

San Augustine 27.2

San Jacinto 17.7

San Patricio 17.3

San Saba 22.0

Schleicher 22.4

Scurry 18.5

Shackelford 13.0

Shelby 24.5

Sherman 14.0

Smith 15.5

Somervell 9.0

Starr 36.3

Stephens 14.9

Sterling 14.7

Stonewall 18.9

Sutton 11.7

Swisher 17.2

Tarrant 14.2

Taylor 16.5

Terrell 14.0

Terry 16.7
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

3-260 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-93

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Individuals Below the Poverty 

Level*

Throckmorton 13.3

Titus 18.3

Tom Green 15.9

Travis 16.6

Trinity 16.6

Tyler 19.2

Upshur 13.0

Upton 13.7

Uvalde 27.7

Val Verde 23.0

Van Zandt 15.9

Victoria 17.1

Walker 23.4

Waller 18.3

Ward 14.2

Washington 14.3

Webb 30.6

Wharton 17.5

Wheeler 12.3

Wichita 13.9

Wilbarger 20.6

Willacy 42.3

Williamson 6.3

Wilson 10.1

Winkler 15.6

Wise 10.0

Wood 14.8

Yoakum 22.4

Young 16.6

Zapata 36.7

Zavala 39.0

Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey GIS 2015; US Census Bureau 2010b

*Counties with levels above the state average are shaded.

Table 3-94

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Kansas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level*

Allen 15.4

Anderson 12.8

Atchison 13.0

Barber 11.0

Barton 12.7
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-261

Table 3-94

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Kansas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level*

Bourbon 15.9

Brown 20.2

Butler 7.6

Chase 13.3

Chautauqua 14.7

Cherokee 15.4

Cheyenne 10.3

Clark 12.2

Clay 11.6

Cloud 16.2

Coffey 9.9

Comanche 6.3

Cowley 16.8

Crawford 19.1

Decatur 9.6

Dickinson 10.3

Doniphan 12.5

Douglas 19.0

Edwards 15.4

Elk 19.3

Ellis 15.4

Ellsworth 6.2

Finney 15.1

Ford 15.5

Franklin 10.2

Geary 12.5

Gove 9.4

Graham 10.5

Grant 13.2

Gray 7.6

Greeley 6.2

Greenwood 18.1

Hamilton 8.8

Harper 13.9

Harvey 11.1

Haskell 11.8

Hodgeman 5.2

Jackson 9.5

Jefferson 6.3

Jewell 10.6

Johnson 5.9

Kearny 9.5

Kingman 11.4

Kiowa 13.2
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

3-262 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-94

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Kansas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level*

Labette 16.1

Lane 15.8

Leavenworth 8.8

Lincoln 11.5

Linn 10.9

Logan 11.3

Lyon 21.2

Marion 10.2

Marshall 11.8

McPherson 8.6

Meade 10.0

Miami 8.4

Mitchell 8.3

Montgomery 15.3

Morris 7.8

Morton 5.3

Nemaha 11.2

Neosho 16.8

Ness 7.4

Norton 12.7

Osage 10.8

Osborne 14.2

Ottawa 9.9

Pawnee 6.5

Phillips 12.7

Pottawatomie 6.8

Pratt 7.6

Rawlins 13.5

Reno 13.0

Republic 12.4

Rice 14.7

Riley 23.6

Rooks 15.5

Rush 13.5

Russell 13.9

Saline 13.9

Scott 7.2

Sedgwick 14.0

Seward 16.2

Shawnee 14.7

Sheridan 13.4

Sherman 19.9

Smith 13.8

Stafford 11.2
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice) 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-263 

Table 3-94

Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level in Counties of Kansas

County Percent of Individuals Below the 

Poverty Level*

Stanton 4.6

Stevens 12.8

Sumner 12.6

Thomas 7.8

Trego 9.4

Wabaunsee 6.7

Wallace 14.1

Washington 12.3

Wichita 13.0

Wilson 13.3

Woodson 18.6

Wyandotte 21.9

Source: US Census Bureau American Community Survey GIS 2015; US Census Bureau 2010b

*Counties with levels above the state average are shaded.

Minority Populations 

Based on 2013 data, the population of Kansas had minority populations below 

that of the national average; Oklahoma populations were similar to the national 

average, while Texas had minority populations above that of the national 

average. Federally recognized Indian tribes are a significant minority in 

Oklahoma. The largest minority groups outside of tribal groups were 

Hispanics/Latinos, particularly of note in Texas. 

Table 3-95, Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of 

Oklahoma, Table 3-96, Percent of Native American Population in Oklahoma

Table 3-97, Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Kansas, 

and Table 3-98, Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of 

Texas, show the aggregate minority population percentage, or the percentage of 

the population identifying as one or more racial or ethnic minorities (non-white) 

for each county in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas, respectively. This is found by 

taking the total population minus the non-Hispanic white population. Counties 

with levels above the state average are shaded. 

Counties having an aggregate minority population percentage higher than the state 

average percentage are considered to be potential environmental justice 

populations. These counties would be the focus of efforts to determine if 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority populations might result 

from management decisions and actions based on this Joint BLM EIS/RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP. Figure 3-40, Aggregate Minority Population, shows a map of each 

states’ counties and aggregate minority population percentages. The minority 

population for metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas for each state is displayed 

in Table 3-99, Study Area Population by Race/Ethnicity (2012). For all three states, 

the metropolitan areas have lower poverty levels than the non-metropolitan areas. 

3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-265

The average percent of aggregate minority population in Oklahoma is 31.3 

percent (US Census Bureau 2010c). Table 3-95 shows the percent of aggregate 

minority population for each county in Oklahoma. Twenty-five counties in 

Oklahoma have a percentage of aggregate minority population that is higher 

than the state average. As previously stated, people of Native American descent 

make up a significant minority group in Oklahoma. In 2010 data, 12.9 percent of 

people identified themselves as Native American in the state overall. In total, 37 

counties (48 percent) had a percentage of Native American population that is 

higher than the state average (see Table 3-96).

Table 3-95

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Oklahoma

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Population*

Adair County 57.9

Alfalfa County 12.7

Atoka County 27.2

Beaver County 23.5

Beckham County 21.1

Blaine County 37.1

Bryan County 26.2

Caddo County 40.5

Canadian County 20.3

Carter County 27.5

Cherokee County 49.8

Choctaw County 36.3

Cimarron County 23.5

Cleveland County 24.3

Coal County 26.9

Comanche County 41.1

Cotton County 20.8

Craig County 34.4

Creek County 21.6

Custer County 26.6

Delaware County 34.1

Dewey County 14.0

Ellis County 9.4

Garfield County 19.5

Garvin County 21.0

Grady County 16.4

Grant County 8.5

Greer County 21.6

Harmon County 37.1

Harper County 19.8

Haskell County 26.7

Hughes County 33.2

Jackson County 34.2
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

3-266 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-95

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Oklahoma

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Population*

Jefferson County 19.4

Johnston County 28.3

Kay County 22.4

Kingfisher County 20.0

Kiowa County 22.7

Latimer County 30.8

Le Flore County 26.9

Lincoln County 15.4

Logan County 21.5

Love County 23.7

Major County 11.9

Marshall County 30.2

Mayes County 33.1

McClain County 19.0

McCurtain County 34.2

McIntosh County 30.6

Murray County 24.1

Muskogee County 41.7

Noble County 16.7

Nowata County 32.2

Okfuskee County 36.8

Oklahoma County 40.7

Okmulgee County 35.6

Osage County 35.3

Ottawa County 32.6

Pawnee County 20.3

Payne County 20.3

Pittsburg County 28.1

Pontotoc County 30.7

Pottawatomie County 25.6

Pushmataha County 26.1

Roger Mills County 12.7

Rogers County 26.3

Seminole County 32.8

Sequoyah County 34.8

Stephens County 17.5

Texas County 47.2

Tillman County 35.4

Tulsa County 34.8

Wagoner County 26.6

Washington County 24.1

Washita County 14.1
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-267

Table 3-95

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Oklahoma

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Population*

Woods County 13.4

Woodward County 17.2

Sources: US Census Bureau GIS 2010; US Census Bureau 2010c

*Counties with levels above the state average are shaded.

Table 3-96

Percent of Native American Population in Oklahoma

County

Percent of Population Native American or 

Alaskan Native (Including People of One or 

More Races)*

Adair County 53.4

Alfalfa County 4.4

Atoka County 20.3

Beaver County 2.4

Beckham County 4.3

Blaine County 10.5

Bryan County 19.3

Caddo County 29.7

Canadian County 7.5

Carter County 14.1

Cherokee County 42.6

Choctaw County 21.8

Cimarron County 1.7

Cleveland County 8.2

Coal County 24.1

Comanche County 8.5

Cotton County 13.5

Craig County 28.2

Creek County 15.8

Custer County 8.8

Delaware County 29.8

Dewey County 8.2

Ellis County 2.4

Garfield County 4.1

Garvin County 11.6

Grady County 8.8

Grant County 3.6

Greer County 4.7

Harmon County 3

Harper County 1.8

Haskell County 22.4

Hughes County 24.2
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

3-268 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-96

Percent of Native American Population in Oklahoma

County

Percent of Population Native American or 

Alaskan Native (Including People of One or 

More Races)*

Jackson County 3.7

Jefferson County 9.9

Johnston County 22.5

Kay County 13.6

Kingfisher County 5.2

Kiowa County 9.1

Latimer County 27.8

Le Flore County 17.3

Lincoln County 10.6

Logan County 6

Love County 9.7

Major County 10.8

Marshall County 20.4

Mayes County 24.9

McClain County 3.4

McCurtain County 14.5

McIntosh County 29.9

Murray County 17.8

Muskogee County 24.6

Noble County 11.7

Nowata County 27.6

Okfuskee County 25.4

Oklahoma County 6.4

Okmulgee County 23.2

Osage County 20.9

Ottawa County 25.6

Pawnee County 16.9

Payne County 8.3

Pittsburg County 20.4

Pontotoc County 23.7

Pottawatomie County 18

Pushmataha County 22.8

Roger Mills County 7.6

Rogers County 20.4

Seminole County 24.2

Sequoyah County 29.3

Stephens County 8.6

Texas County 2.3

Tillman County 5.4

Tulsa County 10.1

Wagoner County 16.2

Washington County 15.2

Washita County 5.2
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-269

Table 3-96

Percent of Native American Population in Oklahoma

County

Percent of Population Native American or 

Alaskan Native (Including People of One or 

More Races)*

Woods County 4.2

Woodward County 4.4

Source: US Census Bureau 2010c

*Counties with levels above the state average are shaded.

The average percent of aggregate minority population in Kansas is 21.8 percent 

(US Census Bureau 2010c). Table 3-97 shows the percent of aggregate 

minority population for each county in Kansas. Sixteen counties in Kansas have a 

percentage of aggregate minority population that is higher than the state 

average.

Table 3-97

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Kansas

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Population*

Allen County 8.1

Anderson County 4.0

Atchison County 10.5

Barber County 5.2

Barton County 16.6

Bourbon County 8.0

Brown County 16.0

Butler County 9.0

Chase County 6.9

Chautauqua County 10.3

Cherokee County 10.8

Cheyenne County 6.7

Clark County 11.2

Clay County 4.1

Cloud County 5.2

Coffey County 4.9

Comanche County 5.7

Cowley County 17.8

Crawford County 11.0

Decatur County 3.1

Dickinson County 7.3

Doniphan County 8.3

Douglas County 18.3

Edwards County 19.5

Elk County 6.5

Ellis County 8.3

Ellsworth County 11.8
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

3-270 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-97

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Kansas

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Population*

Finney County 53.6

Ford County 56.0

Franklin County 8.1

Geary County 40.1

Gove County 2.9

Graham County 9.2

Grant County 45.8

Gray County 15.9

Greeley County 15.3

Greenwood County 6.5

Hamilton County 33.0

Harper County 7.5

Harvey County 15.4

Haskell County 28.7

Hodgeman County 8.8

Jackson County 14.1

Jefferson County 5.0

Jewell County 3.8

Johnson County 18.0

Kearny County 31.5

Kingman County 4.7

Kiowa County 6.9

Labette County 14.5

Lane County 7.0

Leavenworth County 19.7

Lincoln County 3.9

Linn County 4.9

Logan County 5.3

Lyon County 26.7

Marion County 5.3

Marshall County 3.9

McPherson County 6.9

Meade County 17.8

Miami County 6.3

Mitchell County 2.8

Montgomery County 19.1

Morris County 5.9

Morton County 23.7

Nemaha County 3.3

Neosho County 8.3

Ness County 9.0

Norton County 8.9

Osage County 4.5

Osborne County 3.0
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-271

Table 3-97

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Kansas

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Population*

Ottawa County 4.3

Pawnee County 13.7

Phillips County 4.4

Pottawatomie County 8.9

Pratt County 8.7

Rawlins County 4.7

Reno County 13.9

Republic County 2.6

Rice County 13.9

Riley County 20.5

Rooks County 3.9

Rush County 4.3

Russell County 4.7

Saline County 17.9

Scott County 17.0

Sedgwick County 30.1

Seward County 64.0

Shawnee County 24.4

Sheridan County 4.7

Sherman County 13.2

Smith County 3.7

Stafford County 14.2

Stanton County 39.6

Stevens County 34.6

Sumner County 8.7

Thomas County 7.1

Trego County 3.3

Wabaunsee County 5.5

Wallace County 8.8

Washington County 4.2

Wichita County 26.3

Wilson County 5.8

Woodson County 5.1

Wyandotte County 56.7

Sources: US Census Bureau GIS 2010; US Census Bureau 2010c

*Counties with levels above the state average are shaded.

The average percent of aggregate minority population in Texas is 54.7 percent 

(US Census Bureau 2010c). Table 3-98 shows the percent of aggregate 

minority population for each county in Texas. Fifty-nine counties in Texas have a 

percentage of aggregate minority population that is higher than the state 

average.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

3-272 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-98

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Populations*

Anderson County 38.8

Andrews County 52.1

Angelina County 36.7

Aransas County 29.4

Archer County 9.6

Armstrong County 9.3

Atascosa County 63.7

Austin County 34.3

Bailey County 61.7

Bandera County 19.1

Bastrop County 42.8

Baylor County 15.5

Bee County 65.6

Bell County 49.3

Bexar County 69.7

Blanco County 20.6

Borden County 15.9

Bosque County 19.3

Bowie County 33.7

Brazoria County 46.8

Brazos County 40.9

Brewster County 45.7

Briscoe County 29.0

Brooks County 92.1

Brown County 25.3

Burleson County 31.9

Burnet County 23.9

Caldwell County 55.8

Calhoun County 54.2

Callahan County 10.9

Cameron County 89.3

Camp County 41.1

Carson County 11.5

Cass County 22.8

Castro County 62.7

Chambers County 29.4

Cherokee County 37.3

Childress County 38.5

Clay County 7.5

Cochran County 57.5

Coke County 20.2

Coleman County 19.9

Collin County 36.9

Collingsworth County 36.6
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-273

Table 3-98

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Populations*

Colorado County 40.1

Comal County 28.7

Comanche County 27.4

Concho County 55.7

Cooke County 21.3

Coryell County 38.0

Cottle County 30.7

Crane County 59.7

Crockett County 64.7

Crosby County 56.7

Culberson County 79.0

Dallam County 44.4

Dallas County 66.9

Dawson County 60.9

Deaf Smith County 69.3

Delta County 16.8

Denton County 35.6

DeWitt County 42.9

Dickens County 34.9

Dimmit County 87.8

Donley County 14.7

Duval County 89.8

Eastland County 17.8

Ector County 58.9

Edwards County 52.7

El Paso County 86.9

Ellis County 34.5

Erath County 22.5

Falls County 47.5

Fannin County 19.1

Fayette County 26.5

Fisher County 29.6

Floyd County 56.9

Foard County 18.6

Fort Bend County 63.8

Franklin County 18.9

Freestone County 31.1

Frio County 83.8

Gaines County 39.4

Galveston County 40.7

Garza County 54.2

Gillespie County 21.6

Glasscock County 32.7

Goliad County 39.8
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

3-274 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-98

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Populations*

Gonzales County 55.4

Gray County 30.9

Grayson County 21.3

Gregg County 39.2

Grimes County 39.4

Guadalupe County 45.2

Hale County 62.4

Hall County 40.4

Hamilton County 12.0

Hansford County 45.0

Hardeman County 29.0

Hardin County 12.0

Harris County 67.0

Harrison County 35.0

Hartley County 32.2

Haskell County 29.7

Hays County 41.4

Hemphill County 30.2

Henderson County 19.1

Hidalgo County 92.2

Hill County 26.4

Hockley County 48.6

Hood County 12.9

Hopkins County 24.6

Houston County 37.6

Howard County 46.3

Hudspeth County 81.9

Hunt County 25.2

Hutchinson County 25.6

Irion County 27.9

Jack County 19.4

Jackson County 37.1

Jasper County 24.6

Jeff Davis County 36.4

Jefferson County 55.4

Jim Hogg County 93.7

Jim Wells County 80.3

Johnson County 23.4

Jones County 37.9

Karnes County 59.8

Kaufman County 30.0

Kendall County 22.9

Kenedy County 79.3

Kent County 17.2
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-275

Table 3-98

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Populations*

Kerr County 27.8

Kimble County 25.1

King County 15.4

Kinney County 58.4

Kleberg County 76.7

Knox County 36.9

La Salle County 87.0

Lamar County 23.9

Lamb County 56.9

Lampasas County 24.6

Lavaca County 23.8

Lee County 35.0

Leon County 22.2

Liberty County 30.8

Limestone County 38.3

Lipscomb County 33.0

Live Oak County 41.0

Llano County 10.4

Loving County 26.8

Lubbock County 42.7

Lynn County 49.6

Madison County 41.2

Marion County 28.3

Martin County 46.3

Mason County 22.9

Matagorda County 52.6

Maverick County 97.1

McCulloch County 32.8

McLennan County 41.1

McMullen County 38.9

Medina County 53.5

Menard County 36.4

Midland County 46.8

Milam County 34.5

Mills County 18.5

Mitchell County 49.5

Montague County 12.0

Montgomery County 28.8

Moore County 61.8

Morris County 33.2

Motley County 16.3

Nacogdoches County 38.5

Navarro County 40.1

Newton County 25.1
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

3-276 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-98

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Populations*

Nolan County 39.6

Nueces County 67.1

Ochiltree County 50.5

Oldham County 17.2

Orange County 17.0

Palo Pinto County 21.9

Panola County 26.4

Parker County 14.7

Parmer County 61.6

Pecos County 72.1

Polk County 27.7

Potter County 51.0

Presidio County 85.5

Rains County 12.5

Randall County 21.8

Reagan County 63.8

Real County 27.5

Red River County 26.1

Reeves County 80.5

Refugio County 54.8

Roberts County 9.5

Robertson County 40.9

Rockwall County 25.9

Runnels County 34.9

Rusk County 33.9

Sabine County 12.5

San Augustine County 30.3

San Jacinto County 23.4

San Patricio County 57.8

San Saba County 32.6

Schleicher County 45.9

Scurry County 42.2

Shackelford County 12.3

Shelby County 35.0

Sherman County 41.9

Smith County 37.9

Somervell County 22.3

Starr County 96.0

Stephens County 24.3

Sterling County 35.9

Stonewall County 19.1

Sutton County 60.3

Swisher County 48.8

Tarrant County 48.2
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-277

Table 3-98

Percent of Aggregate Minority Population in Counties of Texas

County Percent of Aggregate Minority 

Populations*

Taylor County 33.0

Terrell County 49.7

Terry County 54.6

Throckmorton County 11.5

Titus County 50.8

Tom Green County 42.1

Travis County 49.5

Trinity County 19.0

Tyler County 19.6

Upshur County 17.9

Upton County 52.0

Uvalde County 71.0

Val Verde County 82.5

Van Zandt County 14.2

Victoria County 52.1

Walker County 41.5

Waller County 55.4

Ward County 53.8

Washington County 33.6

Webb County 96.7

Wharton County 52.3

Wheeler County 28.9

Wichita County 31.6

Wilbarger County 36.6

Willacy County 89.9

Williamson County 36.2

Wilson County 41.3

Winkler County 57.5

Wise County 20.3

Wood County 15.1

Yoakum County 60.8

Young County 19.4

Zapata County 93.9

Zavala County 94.5

Sources: US Census Bureau GIS 2010; US Census Bureau 2010c

*Counties with levels above the state average are shaded.
3. Affected Environment (BLM Environmental Justice)

3-278 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-99

Study Area Population by Race/Ethnicity (2012)

Population Oklahoma 

Metro

Oklahoma 

NonMetro

Texas 

Metro

Texas 

NonMetro

Kansas 

Metro

Kansas 

NonMetro

United 

States

Total 

Hispanic or 

Latino ethnicity 

of any race

11.5% 4.5% 40.6% 22.6% 12.9% 4.4% 16.6%

White alone 71.6% 77.3% 71.9% 88.1% 82.2% 94.6% 74.0%

Black or African 

American alone

9.7% 2.4% 13.0% 5.4% 7.4% 0.9% 12.6%

American Indian 

or Alaskan

Native alone

5.6% 10.0% 0.5% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 0.8%

Asian alone 2.5% 0.5% 4.6% 0.7% 3.2% 0.4% 4.9%

Native Hawaiian 

and Other 

Pacific Islander 

alone

0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2%

Some other race 3.1% 1.4% 7.5% 3.5% 2.8% 0.9% 4.7%

Two or more 

races

7.4% 8.5% 2.4% 1.7% 3.6% 2.2% 2.8%

Aggregate 

minority 

population

35.2% 25.1% 59.7% 30.2% 27% 8.5% 36.7%

Source: Headwater Economics 2015

Tribal Populations

Recent guidance in the EPA’s EJ 2020 Action Agenda notes the importance of 

identifying and coordinating with potentially impacted tribal populations. 

Traditional CEQ minority population criteria may not accurately identify all 

tribes potentially impacted by proposed actions; therefore, the EPA has created 

additional screening tools to identify potentially impacted populations, notably 

the EJ mapping and screening tool (EPA 2016f). Tribes in the planning area are 

defined in Section 3.5.1, Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests. Because the planning 

area covers four states, the use of EJ screening or other tools is not practical at 

the planning area level. As further discussed in Chapter 4, identifying potentially 

impacted tribal populations would be required at the site-specific level in 

subsequent NEPA actions.

3.6 BIA DECISION AREA

This section contains a description of the biological and physical resources, 

resource uses, special designations, and social and economic features of the BIA 

decision area and follows the order of topics addressed in Chapter 2:
3. Affected Environment (BIA Decision Area)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-279

 Section 3.6.1, Air 

Resources

 Section 3.6.2, Geology

 Section 3.6.3, Soils 

Resources

 Section 3.6.4, Water 

Resources

 Section 3.6.5, Vegetation

 Section 3.6.6, Fish and 

Wildlife

 Section 3.6.7, Special Status 

Species

 Section 3.6.8, Cultural 

Resources

 Section 3.6.9, 

Paleontological Resources

 Section 3.6.10, Visual 

Resources

 Section 3.6.11, Wildland 

Fire Management

 Section 3.6.12, Cave and 

Karst Resources

 Section 3.6.13, Energy and 

Minerals

 Section 3.6.14, Renewable 

Energy

 Section 3.6.15, Recreation 

and Visitor Services

 Section 3.6.16, Travel, 

Transportation 

Management, and Access

 Section 3.6.17, Lands and 

Realty 

 Section 3.6.18, Livestock 

Grazing

 Section 3.6.19, Prime and 

Unique Farmlands and 

Agriculture

 Section 3.6.20, National 

Historic Trails

 Section 3.6.21, National and 

State Byways

 Section 3.6.22, Treaty 

Rights and Tribal Interests

 Section 3.6.23, Public 

Health and Safety

 Section 3.6.24, 

Socioeconomics

 Section 3.6.25, 

Environmental Justice

The BIA decision area, like the BLM decision area described in Sections 3.2 

through 3.5, includes lands in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. In addition, it 

includes lands administered by the BIA Southern Plains Region in Richardson 

County, Nebraska. The following sections identify where the resources in the 

BIA decision area are the same as described for the BLM decision area and 

provide additional information where the resources differ. 

3.6.1 Air Resources

Air Quality

Air quality on BIA-managed surface lands is the same as described under Section 

3.2.1, BLM Resources, Air Resources, for the Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas 

planning area. Air quality in Richardson County, Nebraska, was not included in 

Section 3.2.1 and is described below.
3. Affected Environment (BIA Air Resources)

3-280 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

There are no Class I areas in Richardson County, nor are there any tribal Class 

I areas in the Nebraska BIA decision area (BLM 2015b). All of Richardson 

County is classified as a Class II area. 

Nebraska has adopted the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants. These standards 

are listed in Table 3-3. There are no nonattainment areas in Richardson 

County (EPA 2016c), and no air quality monitoring stations (EPA 2016g). The 

EPA has approved Nebraska’s State Implementation Plan.

Trends and forecast for air resources are the same as discussed in Section 3.2.1.

Climate

Climate resources are the same as described under Section 3.2.1, BLM 

Resources, Air Resources.

3.6.2 Geology

The geology and associated geologic hazards are the same as described under 

Section 3.2.2, BLM Resources, Geology. 

3.6.3 Soil Resources

Soil resources are the same as described under Section 3.2.3, BLM Resources, 

Soil Resources. 

3.6.4 Water Resources

To qualify to administer the water quality standards program, a tribe needs to 

develop and submit an application to the appropriate regional EPA office. The 

basic requirements for applying to administer the water quality standards 

program are described in 40 CFR, Subpart 131.8, of the water quality standards 

regulation. Briefly, these requirements state that the tribe must conform to the 

following:

 Be recognized by the federal government

 Have a governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties 

and powers over a federal Indian reservation

 Have appropriate authority to regulate the quality of reservation 

waters

 Be capable of carrying out the functions of an effective water quality

standards program

For this last bullet item, a tribe must have either the technical capability for 

administering the program or must provide a plan showing how it will get such 

capability.

If a tribe has applied for the authorization to administer other Clean Water Act

programs, it need only supply additional materials relevant to the water quality

standards program that it had not previously submitted (EPA 2015g).
3. Affected Environment (BIA Water Resources) 

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-281 

Current Condition 

Because water resources such as hydrologic units, streams, and aquifers cross 

various land jurisdictions, water resource descriptions are the same as 

described under Section 3.2.4, BLM Resources, Water Resources. Water 

resources information is provided below specific to the BIA decision area. 

Surface Water 

Due to the large number of watersheds in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, 

accounting units are displayed in Figure 3-10, Hydrologic Accounting Units. 

The miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream types in the BIA 

decision area is shown in Table 3-100, below; the number of miles of streams 

on the 303(d) list is shown in Table 3-101, also below. 

Table 3-100

Miles of Streams in the BIA Decision Area

State

BIA-Managed Tribal and Allotted 

Lands

BIA-Managed Tribal and Allotted 

Subsurface Minerals Estate

Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral 

Kansas 44.6 84.0 0 44.6 83.9 0

Oklahoma 802.4 2,291.3 0.1 1,915.1 7,981.6 0.2

Texas 10.3 6.2 0 10.4 6.2 0

Nebraska 0.8 2.6 0 0.8 2.6 0

Source: NHD GIS 2013

Table 3-101

Miles of Stream Segments on the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters in 

the BIA Decision Area

State BIA-Managed Tribal and 

Allotted Lands

BIA-Managed Tribal and 

Allotted Subsurface 

Minerals Estate

Kansas 3.2 3.2 

Oklahoma 215.0 590.5 

Texas 3.6 3.6 

Source: EPA GIS 2015

For the Southern Plains, Federally recognized Indian tribes have no water 

management plans or established water rights. Adjudication of water rights 

either has not been successful or is in progress.15

 

15David Anderson, Regional Environmental Scientist, Southern Plains Region, BIA, personal communication with 

Derek Holmgren, EMPSi, February 12, 2015. 
3. Affected Environment (BIA Water Resources)

3-282 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

For eastern Oklahoma, the Cherokee tribe has water rights along the Arkansas 

River, from the Canadian River to Three Forks.16 Below the Canadian River 

confluence to the state line, riverbed rights are shared. Tribal water right 

allocations in the Arkansas River are not fully adjudicated. The United States 

also exercises navigation rights on the Arkansas River. 

In August 2016, the State of Oklahoma, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the 

Chicksaw Nation, and the City of Oklahoma City researched an agreement over 

water resources in south-central and southeastern Oklahoma (Water Unity 

Oklahoma 2016). Water resources were allocated in this agreement in the 

Choctaw and Chicksaw treaty territory, resolving conflicts in the Kiamichi Basin 

and Sardis Lake Settlement Area. 

Groundwater

Aquifers are listed in Table 3-102, below. For the Southern Plains, some 

residents are served by water wells for domestic and livestock use.17

Table 3-102

Aquifers in the BIA Decision Area

Aquifer Name

BIA-Managed Tribal 

and Allotted Lands 

(Acres)

BIA-Managed Tribal and 

Allotted Subsurface 

Mineral Estate (Acres)

Ada-Vamoosa 82,200 600,100 

Arbuckle-Simpson 2,400 8,500 

Central Oklahoma 24,400 32,700 

Coastal lowlands aquifer system 4,600 4,700 

Edwards-Trinity aquifer system 12,500 36,400 

Ozark Plateaus 52,700 54,600 

Rush Springs 76,600 108,100 

Texas coastal uplands aquifer system 0 0 

Sources: USGS GIS 2003; BIA GIS 2016

Floodplains

The number of acres in 100-year floodplains is shown in Table 3-103, below. 

For the Southern Plains, flood control structures and farm ponds are sources of 

water for livestock use.18

 

16Mosby Halterman, former Environmental Protection Specialist and Regional Water Coordinator, Eastern 

Oklahoma Region, BIA, personal communication with Derek Holmgren, EMPSi, February 18, 2015.

17Anderson.

18Anderson.
3. Affected Environment (BIA Water Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-283

Table 3-103

100-Year Floodplains in the Decision Area*

State

BIA-Managed Tribal 

and Allottee Lands 

(Acres)*

BIA-Managed Tribal and 

Allotted Subsurface 

Minerals Estate (Acres)

Kansas 2,400 2,400

Oklahoma 107,900 323,600

Texas 2,100 2,400

Source: FEMA GIS 2013

*Counties where data are available.

Trends

The trends for water resources are the same as described under Section 3.2.4, 

BLM Resources, Water Resources. Additional trends in the BIA-decision area 

are described below.

For eastern Oklahoma, tribes value water conservation. There is concern for 

the Tar Creek Superfund site in Ottawa County. Chat19 piles from previous 

mining operations are contaminating the soil, groundwater, surface water, and 

drinking water aquifer with lead, zinc, and other metals. Other concerns for 

eastern Oklahoma are runoff from chicken farms into the Illinois River and into 

the water supply for Sardis Lake. The Choctaw and Chickasaw Tribes are 

seeking water rights to Sardis Lake for domestic water use and to preserve 

water levels for recreation.20

Key features for water resources are described in Section 3.2.4. Also, for the 

Southern Plains Region, some tribes have lands on shores of rivers and lakes.21

For the Southern Plains Region, water from the Delaware River is treated by 

the Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas at a water treatment plant. The tribe uses the 

treated water for domestic use.22

Grand Lake and Sardis Lake are key water features. The impoundment of the 

Neosho River created Grand Lake, and the impoundment of Jackfork Creek 

created Sardis Lake. Other key water features are the Illinois, Arkansas, and 

Canadian Rivers.23 Additional water features are Broken Bow Lake, Glover 

River, Little River, Mountain Fork River, Arbuckle Lake and its tributaries, Saline 

Creek, Spring River, and 13 Mile Creek.

 

19 Chat is a fine gravel waste, which is a byproduct of lead and zinc mining which may contain dangerous levels of 

zinc, lead, and cadmium. Chat piles from previous mining operations are contaminating the soil, groundwater, 

surface water, and drinking water aquifer with lead, zinc, and other metals.

20Halterman.

21Anderson.

22Anderson.

23Halterman.
3. Affected Environment (BIA Vegetation) 

3-284 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

3.6.5 Vegetation 

Vegetation is described under Section 3.2.5, BLM Resources, Vegetation. Where 

vegetation information is different for the BIA decision area, that information is 

provided below. 

Current Condition 

Upland Vegetation 

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

2005; Chapman et al. 2001; Griffith et al. 2004; EPA 2013a). The acres of each 

ecoregion in the planning area and the BIA decision area are summarized in 

Table 3-2, Ecoregions in the Planning and Decision Areas; ecoregions in the 

planning area are shown in Figure 3-1, Level III Ecoregions. 

The BIA supports tribes through forestry management planning.24 According to 

the national Indian forestry database, the Eastern Oklahoma Region contains 

approximately 123,800 acres of forested lands, and the Southern Plains Region 

contains approximately 99,230 acres of forested land.25 

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants 

In addition to the noxious weeds and invasive plants described under Section 

3.2.5, BLM Resources, Vegetation, some species are designated as noxious in 

Nebraska but not in Oklahoma, Kansas, or Texas. These species include 

plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides), spotted knapweed (Centaurea 

biebersteinii), and diffuse knapweed (C. diffusa; NRCS 2014d). 

Special Status Plant Species 

In addition to the special status plant species described under Section 3.2.5, 

American ginseng (Panax quinquefolium) is known to occur in Richardson 

County, Nebraska, and is a state threatened species (Nebraska Natural Heritage 

Program 2013). American ginseng was previously listed as a candidate species 

under the Endangered Species Act. It was subsequently removed from 

candidacy, when the USFWS determined it was more abundant or widespread 

than previously thought (50 Federal Register 39526). Special status plant species 

are also considered culturally significant by the BIA or tribes in the planning 

area. This information is considered sensitive and is therefore not published in 

this document. 

Wetlands and Riparian Areas 

The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for certifying 

USACE wetland permit decisions in the state. As discussed in Section 3.2.5, BLM 

 

24Robert Nix, BIA, personal communication via e-mail to Holly Prohaska, EMPSi. containing information on 

forested lands in the Eastern Oklahoma Region from the National Indian Forestry Database, May 29, 2015. 

25Mark Sahmaunt, BIA, personal communication via e-mail to Holly Prohaska, EMPSi, containing information on 

forested lands in the Southern Plains Region from the National Indian Forestry Database, May 29, 2015. 
3. Affected Environment (BIA Vegetation)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-285

Resources, Vegetation, this agency may also have jurisdiction over those 

wetland areas that the USACE considers to be non-jurisdictional.

Trends

Upland Vegetation

Acres of tallgrass prairie have declined greatly, due to agricultural conversion 

throughout the region; however, large expanses of this vegetation type still 

occur in Osage County and adjacent counties in Oklahoma (Hoagland 2008). 

The Osage grasslands were historically used largely for pasture (Duck and 

Fletcher 1943). This practice led to the conversion to exotic pasture grasses 

(yellow bluestem, Bermuda grass [Cynodon dactylon], and weeping lovegrass 

[Eragrostis curvula]; Hoagland 2000) and is an ongoing threat in tallgrass prairie 

and other vegetation types in the region.

3.6.6 Fish and Wildlife

Fish and wildlife are described under Section 3.2.6, BLM Resources, Fish and 

Wildlife. Where information is different for the BIA decision area, that 

information is provided below.

BIA surface and subsurface trust lands provide habitat for fish and wildlife 

throughout the planning area. Lands in Caddo and Osage Counties in Oklahoma 

are of particular importance, as they contain more acres of BIA subsurface and 

surface trust lands than any other counties in the decision area.

3.6.7 Special Status Species

Special status species are described under Section 3.2.7, BLM Resources, Special 

Status Species. Where information is different for the BIA decision area, that 

information is provided below.

Current Condition

Designated critical habitat for federally listed species in the BIA-managed

minerals decision area are as follows (USFWS GIS 2016; BIA GIS 2016): 

 Arkansas River shiner (Notropis giradi; 300 acres)

 Leopard darter (Percina pantherina; fewer than 50 acres)

 Neosho mucket (1.5 linear miles)

 Rabbitsfoot (2,460 linear feet)

Additionally, special status species that occur in Richardson County, Nebraska, 

and not in the BLM decision area are massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus) and river 

otter (Lutra canadensis). Both species are Nebraska threatened species

(Nebraska Natural Heritage Program 2013). Special status species also are those 

considered culturally significant by the BIA or tribes in the planning area. This 

information is considered sensitive and is therefore not published in this 

document. 
3. Affected Environment (BIA Special Status Species) 

3-286 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

BIA surface and subsurface trust lands provide habitat for special status species 

throughout the planning area. Lands in Caddo and Osage Counties in Oklahoma 

are of importance, as they contain more acres of BIA subsurface and surface 

trust lands than any other counties in the decision area. Additionally, the 

following Oklahoma counties contain critical habitat for federally listed fish 

species on BIA surface and subsurface trust lands: Blaine, Canadian, Cleveland, 

Grady, Hughes, McClain, McCurtain, McIntosh, Pittsburg, Pontotoc, and 

Seminole (USFWS GIS 2016). 

3.6.8 Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources are described under Section 3.2.8, BLM Resources, Cultural 

Resources. BIA policy and guidance for managing cultural resources is found in 

the Indian Affairs Manual: Part 59, Chapter 8—Protection of Historical and 

Archaeological Resources. 

3.6.9 Paleontological Resources 

Paleontological resources are described under Section 3.2.9, BLM Resources, 

Paleontological Resources. The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act 

does not apply to fossils on BIA-managed surface lands. BIA policy and guidance 

for managing paleontological resources is found in the Indian Affairs Manual: Part 

59, Chapter 7—Paleontological Resources. 

3.6.10 Visual Resources 

Visual resources refer to the visible features on a landscape, such as land, water, 

vegetation, animals, and structures. These features contribute to the scenic or 

visual quality and appeal of the landscape (BLM 1984). 

Current Condition 

The BIA does not have a visual resource management system, nor does it 

maintain a visual resources inventory. The same inventory described in Section 

3.2.10, BLM Resources, Visual Resources, was used to complete a VRI of BIAmanaged surface lands. 

VRI Results 

The results of the VRI presented in the Scenic Quality, Sensitivity, and Distance 

Zones subsections of Section 3.2.10, apply to the planning area and include BIAmanaged surface lands. The scenic quality, sensitivity, distance zones, and 

resulting VRI Class distribution for the BIA decision area are presented in 

Table 3-104, below. See also Figure 3-23, Visual Scenic Quality Rating, 

Figure 3-24, Visual Sensitivity Rating, and Figure 3-25, Visual Distance Zone. 

The VRI report (DOI 2016a) describes the results of the inventory in detail. 

VRM classes are not assigned to BIA-managed surface lands. 
3. Affected Environment (BIA Visual Resources)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-287

Table 3-104

Visual Resource Inventory Component Distribution

Visual Resource Inventory

Component

Acres of BIAManaged Tribal 

and Allotted 

Lands

Total Percent of 

Decision Area

Scenic Quality

A 676,500 79

B 176,500 21

C 100 less than 1

Sensitivity

High 181,400 21

Moderate 499,400 59

Low 172,200 20

Distance Zones

Foreground/middle ground 112,300 13

Background 92,800 11

Seldom seen 647,900 76

VRI Class

Class I 0 0

Class II 676,500 79

Class III 12,000 1

Class IV 164,600 19

Sources: DOI 2016a; BIA GIS 2016

Trends

In the decision area, human activities have impacted the visual landscape. These 

include natural gas and oil development, wind turbines, roads, and utility lines. 

They disturb the surface, which removes or disturbs the top layers of soil or 

vegetation to reveal colors that contrast with the surrounding landscape. 

Infrastructure, such as roads, utility lines, and communication towers to support 

mineral activity and urban development throughout the planning area, adds 

cultural modifications to the landscape and creates disturbances that change the 

vegetation pattern, texture, and color of the area.

3.6.11 Wildland Fire Management

The BIA is responsible for managing tribal lands in the assessment area. As 

described in Section 3.2.11, BLM Resources, Wildland Fire Management, fire is 

guided by the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy of 1995, with 

subsequent updates and implementation strategies developed in 2001 and 2009. 

Wildland fire management is also guided by land use plans that identify strategies 

to meet land use goals and objectives related to wildland fire management. This 

includes strategies for unplanned ignitions and hazardous fuel treatments. The 

BIA assists with fire management on tribal lands, whether they are held in trust, 

are restricted, or are owned in fee.
3. Affected Environment (BIA Wildland Fire Management)

3-288 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Wildland fire management resources on federal lands are described under 

Section 3.2.11, BLM Resources, Wildland Fire Management, except as described 

below.

BIA Fire History

In the planning area for the BIA, there were a total of 7,111 fires between 2006 

and 2015. The total area burned was 888,986 acres of BIA-managed surface 

lands in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas (see Table 3-105, Table 3-106, and 

Table 3-107, below).

Table 3-105

Bureau of Indian Affairs Wildfires, Oklahoma

Year Number of 

Wildfires Acres Burned

2006 1,556 200,777

2007 94 14,786

2008 1,319 79,520

2009 718 90,271

2010 662 37,813

2011 900 138,347

2012 620 122,696

2013 152 12,686

2014 448 112,596

2015 497 74,172

Total 6,966 883,664

Source: NIFC 2017

Table 3-106

Bureau of Indian Affairs Wildfires, Kansas

Year Number of 

Wildfires Acres Burned

2006 21 503

2007 14 150

2008 4 7

2009 14 525

2010 4 758

2011 9 983

2012 15 1,164

2013 4 2

2014 11 375

2015 26 758

Total 122 5,225

Source: NIFC 2017
3. Affected Environment (BIA Wildland Fire Management)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-289

Table 3-107

Bureau of Indian Affairs Wildfires, Texas

Year Number of 

Wildfires Acres Burned

2006 1 50

2007 5 13

2008 1 3

2009 8 16

2010 5 7

2011 0 0

2012 0 0

2013 3 8

2014 0 0

2015 0 0

Total 23 97

Source: NIFC 2017

Hazardous Fuels Management

The BIA manages hazardous fuels using coarse-scale spatial data for historical 

natural fire regimes and fire regime VCCs. Table 3-108 shows the BIAmanaged fire regimes in its assessment area.

Table 3-108

Fire Regimes

Fire Regime Group BIA-Managed

Surface

BIA-Managed

Minerals

Kansas and Nebraska

Barren 0 0

I 3,200 3,200

II 22,000 22,000

III 200 200

IV 0 0

V 0 0

Indeterminate fire regime 

characteristics 5,100 5,100

Water 100 100

Total 30,600 30,600

Oklahoma

Barren 1,500 2,700

I 412,600 1,251,300

II 360,600 1,241,500

III 22,800 44,000

IV 6,800 10,400

V 300 300

Indeterminate fire regime 

characteristics 1,900 2,000

Water 10,000 78,600

Total 816,500 2,630,800
3. Affected Environment (BIA Wildland Fire Management)

3-290 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-108

Fire Regimes

Fire Regime Group BIA-Managed

Surface

BIA-Managed

Minerals

Texas

Barren 200 300

I 3,900 4,100

II 0 0

III 1,700 1,700

IV 0 0

V 0 0

Indeterminate fire regime 

characteristics

0 0

No data 0 0

Sparsely vegetated 0 0

Water 200 200

Total 6,000 6,300

BIA GIS 2016; LANDFIRE GIS 2015

Beginning in 2015, the BIA fire program expanded to allow for hazardous fuels 

treatments on fee lands for treating and restoring tribal landscapes in and next 

to reserved treaty right lands. Treatment priorities include protecting and 

enhancing health and resiliency of natural resources for religious and cultural 

use, hunting, fishing, and gathering in areas at high risk of wildland fire.

VCCs are qualitative measurements that determine the degree of departure of 

vegetation from historical fire regimes. This could alter key ecosystem 

components, such as species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy 

closure, and fuel loadings. VCCs in the decision area are described in Section 

3.2.11 and are shown in Table 3-109, below.

Table 3-109

Vegetative Condition Class

VCC BIA-Managed

Surface

BIA-Managed

Minerals

Kansas and Nebraska

Barren 0 0

Burnable agriculture 15,700 15,900

Burnable urban 2,300 3,200

Non-burnable agriculture 4,800 5,100

Non-burnable urban 900 1,100

Sparsely vegetated 0 0

I.A 0 0

I.B 500 800

II.A 0 100

II.B 6,300 11,400

III.A 0 400

III.B 0 0

Water 100 100

Total 30,600 38,100
3. Affected Environment (BIA Wildland Fire Management)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-291

Table 3-109

Vegetative Condition Class

VCC BIA-Managed

Surface

BIA-Managed

Minerals

Oklahoma

Barren 1,500 2,700

Burnable agriculture 46,400 146,700

Burnable urban 71,900 258,500

Non-burnable agriculture 152,100 249,100

Non-burnable urban 26,600 92,700

I.A 1,600 3,600

I.B 61,500 143,800

II.A 26,200 43,000

II.B 341,300 1,478,900

III.A 42,700 85,800

II.B 33,600 38,800

Water 9,900 78,500

Total 815,300 2,622,100

Texas

Barren 200 200

Burnable agriculture 600 600

Burnable urban 200 200

Non-burnable agriculture 200 200

Non-burnable urban 400 400

Sparsely vegetated 0 0

I.A 0 0

I.B 1,500 1,800

II.A 0 0

II.B 1,900 1,900

III.A 1,100 1,100

III.B 0 0

Water 200 300

Total 6,300 6,700

BIA GIS 2016; LANDFIRE GIS 2015

3.6.12 Cave and Karst Resources

Cave and karst resources are described under Section 3.2.12, BLM Resources, 

Cave and Karst Resources. Cave and karst resources are many times 

considered sacred spaces for tribes and burials often occur in these features. 

Where cave and karst resources information is different for the BIA decision 

area, that information is provided below.

Current Condition

The BIA has recently made a cave discovery within its administered lands. 

Further exploration and information on this discovery will need to be gathered. 

Trends

As caves are identified, they will be examined for significance and will be 

documented. 
3. Affected Environment (BIA Energy and Minerals)

3-292 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

3.6.13 Energy and Minerals

The BIA minerals program is managed in accordance with 25 CFR parts 162 

(leasing and permits), 170 (Indian Roads Reservation Program), 211 (Oil/gas 

tribal lands and mentions BLM relationship), 212 (oil/gas allotted), 213 (Five 

Civilized Tribes), and 214 (Osage solid minerals).

Coal

Current Condition

Coal resources are found in all three states in the planning area, plus Nebraska. 

Table 3-110, below, shows the types of economically valuable coal found on 

BIA-managed tribal and allotted surface and mineral estate in Kansas, Oklahoma, 

Nebraska, and Texas. 

Table 3-110

Coal Resources in the BIA Decision Area

Coal Type

Acres of BIA-Managed

Tribal and Allotted 

Lands

Acres of BIA-Managed

Tribal and Allotted 

Subsurface Mineral Estate

Nebraska

Volatile bituminous 800 800

Kansas

Lignite 0 0

Volatile bituminous 7,700 7,700

Oklahoma

Lignite 0 0

Volatile bituminous 203,700 1,354,600

Non-volatile bituminous 14,500 15,700

Texas

Lignite 4,600 4,700

Volatile Bituminous 100 100

Source: BIA GIS 2016; BLM GIS 2016

Note: Osage County is included in these acreages.

The bulk of coal resources in the BIA decision area are in Oklahoma, on both 

BIA-managed tribal and allotted surface and subsurface mineral estate. Most of 

the valuable coal in the Oklahoma portion of the BIA decision area is medium 

and high volatile bituminous.

Because most coal resources in the BIA decision area are in Oklahoma, coal 

occurrence and activity in that state only are discussed below. 

Coal resources are found in the eastern portion of Oklahoma, in a coalfield 

spanning 27 counties. Oklahoma contains the most significant deposits of 

bituminous coal west of the Mississippi River and east of the Rocky Mountains 

(Oklahoma Department of Mines 2016). Approximately 0.1 percent of the 

estimated US recoverable coal reserves are in the state’s producing mines. 
3. Affected Environment (BIA Energy and Minerals)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-293

Oklahoma coal operations produced approximately 1.1 million tons of coal in 

2013 (BLM 2016b). Coal was produced from five Oklahoma counties in 2013: 

LeFlore, Haskell, Craig, Rogers, and Okmulgee (Oklahoma Department of Mines 

2013). 

Oklahoma coal is mined by both surface and underground methods (Oklahoma 

Department of Mines 2016). Approximately 60 percent of the coal mined in 

Oklahoma is used in lime and cement kilns in Oklahoma and surrounding states. 

The remainder is used for electricity generation at one power plant in 

Oklahoma and one plant in Missouri (Oklahoma Department of Mines 2016). 

There are no active coal leases in the BIA decision area, and coal is not 

discussed in the BIA impact analysis, due to a lack of expected development in 

the next 20 years.

Fluid Minerals

Fluid minerals in the BIA decision area are oil and gas and geothermal resources. 

Each is discussed below.

Current Condition

Oil and Gas

The planning area contains approximately 40 existing and potential oil and gas 

plays across all three states. Some of these plays are in decline or are near the 

end of their lives, whereas others are relatively new (BLM 2016b). Portions of 

12 plays overlap BIA-managed tribal and allotted surface and subsurface mineral 

estate. These, in turn, overlap plays almost exclusively in Oklahoma, but some 

also overlap areas in Texas. No BIA-managed tribal or allotted surface or 

subsurface mineral estate overlaps oil and gas plays in Kansas or Nebraska (BLM 

GIS 2016). 

Detailed information on production, well completions, and oil and gas 

development potential is contained in the RFDS prepared by the OFO (BLM 

2016b; Appendix I). The current condition discussion below presents a 

summary of the information provided in the RFDS. This discussion does not 

include oil and gas activity in Osage County, because it is the focus of the 

pending Osage County Oil and Gas EIS. Other minerals in Osage County (e.g., 

nonenergy solid minerals) are included in the analysis in this EIS.

Overall oil production in the planning area declined from 1993 to 2004. 

Production remained steady from 2004 to 2009 and began to rapidly increase in 

2009. The most significant increases in oil production have been in southern and 

western Texas. Most of the increase in production in southern Texas has been 

from horizontal wells, while the increase in western Texas is largely from 

conventional wells (BLM 2016b). 

Despite the overall increase in oil production in the planning area, oil 

production on BIA-managed tribal and allotted subsurface mineral estate spiked 
3. Affected Environment (BIA Energy and Minerals)

3-294 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

in 1997 at 2.3 million oil barrels; it has been gradually declining since then, to a 

2013 level of 790,000 oil barrels (BLM 2016b). Most oil production from federal 

and Indian minerals has been in Oklahoma, although production of federal and 

Indian minerals in Texas spiked in 1997 (BLM 2016b).

Overall gas production in the planning area was relatively stable from 1993 to 

2005. Production peaked in 2008 and 2012 at over 10 billion MCF and remained 

at nearly the same amount in 2013. Most of the increase in gas production since 

2005 has been in eastern Texas. Gas production in Oklahoma has remained 

relatively stable since 1993. Like horizontal oil production, horizontal gas 

production in the planning area has been rapidly increasing since 2003 in Texas 

and Oklahoma (BLM 2016b).

Gas production from federal and Indian minerals in the planning area accounts 

for approximately 0.7 percent of total gas produced in the planning area. Gas 

production from BIA-managed tribal and allotted subsurface mineral estate 

peaked around 1989, 1997, and 2011, at between 41 and 32 million MCF per 

year. Gas production in 2013 from BIA-managed tribal and allotted subsurface 

mineral estate was approximately 26 million MCF. As is the case with the 

general planning area, Texas was largely responsible for the peaks in gas 

production from BIA-managed tribal and allotted subsurface mineral estate in 

1996 and 2012. 

In 2011, the BIA Southern Plains Regional Office issued 854 oil and gas leases 

covering approximately 45,300 acres. This was the most leasing activity in the 

last 5 years. In 2015, the office issued 246 leases covering approximately 17,200 

acres.

According to Chart 11 of the RFDS, between 2009 and 2012, 80,334 oil and gas 

wells were completed in the planning area, over 20,000 of which are horizontal 

or directional (BLM 2016b). Of the 80,334 oil and gas wells completed in the 

planning area during that time, 295 (less than 1 percent) are on BLMadministered federal or tribal mineral estate (not including wells in Osage 

County, which will be analyzed in a separate EIS). Approximately 194 (66 

percent) of those wells are horizontal (BLM 2016b). 

Injection wells have also been drilled in the decision area: 319 on BIA-managed

tribal and allotted lands and 449 on BIA-managed tribal and allotted subsurface 

mineral estate in the BIA decision area as of 2016. All injection wells in the BIA 

decision area are in Oklahoma. 

Geothermal Resources

The most favorable portions of the planning area with geothermal energy 

potential are along the southern border of Texas and in the state’s eastern 

portion. 

In Texas, three regions prevail for geothermal potential and development:
3. Affected Environment (BIA Energy and Minerals)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-295

 Trans-Pecos Region – West Texas

 Gulf Coast Region – Texas

 East Texas Region

In West Texas along the Rio Grande River in the Trans-Pecos region, 

geothermal resources are described as both hydrothermal and hot dry rock in 

nature. These resources are associated with the southern end of the Rio 

Grande Rift. This area shows promise for enhanced geothermal systems and coproduced geothermal development. 

Tertiary and older geopressured formations along the Gulf Coast and east 

Texas make these areas good candidates for co-produced and hybrid 

geothermal production (BLM 2016b). Northern Oklahoma and central Kansas 

also have moderately favorable geothermal potential (BLM GIS 2016). Table 

3-111, below, shows the acres of BIA-managed tribal and allotted lands and 

mineral estate with varying levels of geothermal resource potential. 

While portions of the BIA decision area overlie areas with geothermal resource 

potential, there has never been any geothermal leasing or activity in the decision 

area.

Table 3-111

Geothermal Potential in the BIA Decision Area

Geothermal Potential 

Acres of BIA-Managed

Tribal and Allotted 

Lands

Acres of BIA-Managed

Tribal and Allotted 

Subsurface Minerals

High 0 0

High-moderate 8,500 8,500

Moderate 1,000 1,500 

Moderate-low 341,800 1,806,100 

Low 29,600 854,700 

Source: BLM GIS 2016; BIA GIS 2016

Note: Osage County is included in these acreages.

Trends

Oil and Gas

The BLM has classified the planning area by oil and gas development potential, 

ranging from no potential to high potential. Table 3-112, below, shows the 

number of acres with oil and gas development potential on BIA-managed tribal 

and allotted lands and subsurface mineral estate.

As shown in Table 3-112, most of the BIA decision area has moderate or 

greater oil and gas potential. 
3. Affected Environment (BIA Energy and Minerals)

3-296 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-112

Oil and Gas Development Potential in the BIA Decision Area

Potential Level

Acres of BIA-Managed

Tribal and Allotted 

Lands

Acres of BIA-Managed Tribal 

and Allotted Subsurface Mineral 

Estate 

High 223,000 265,900 

Moderate to high 272,600 389,400 

Moderate 141,600 219,600 

Low to moderate 4,200 13,700 

Low 209,400 302,800 

None 1,400 2,500 

Source: BLM GIS 2016; BIA GIS 2016

Note: Osage County is included in these acreages.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA 2014) predicts that nationwide oil 

prices will rise between 0.8 and 1.4 percent per year between 2012 and 2040 

(in 2012 dollars). Natural gas prices are predicted to rise at a rate of 3.7 percent 

per year between 2012 and 2040 (in 2012 dollars; EIA 2014). Based on the oil 

and gas development potential and predicted nationwide price increases, oil and 

gas activity in the BIA decision area is expected to increase over the next 20 

years.

In its RFDS prepared for the planning area, the BLM estimates that 

approximately 1.9 million oil barrels will be produced from federal and Indian 

minerals in the planning area in 2035; this is a 27 percent increase over 2013 

production levels for the BIA decision area. In its RFDS, the BLM also estimates 

that 126 million MCF of gas will be produced from federal and Indian minerals in 

the planning area in 2035; this is a 40 percent increase over 2013 production 

levels for the BIA decision area (BLM 2016b).

Geothermal Resources

Future development of geothermal energy in Texas is expected to include geoexchange systems (heat pumps), direct use, and electric power generation. The 

most likely use of federal geothermal resources is for electric power generation, 

which has not yet become commercially established in the state (Erdlac 2007). 

Although portions of the BIA decision area have moderately high geothermal 

resource potential, geothermal resources in the decision area are not expected 

to be developed during the next 20 years. 

Nonenergy Solid Minerals

Current Condition

Mineral materials exist throughout the planning area (BLM 2016b). Development 

of these types of materials is generally driven by demand from nearby 

construction projects. In addition to mineral materials, the following minerals 

exist in the planning area (BLM 2016b): barium, beryllium, magnesium, 

strontium, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, titanium, zirconium, 
3. Affected Environment (BIA Energy and Minerals)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-297

vanadium, gold, mercury, platinum palladium, silver, tungsten, aluminum, 

bismuth, lead, zinc, tin, antimony, arsenic, silicon, bromine, fluorine, fluorite, 

iodine, nitrogen/nitrates, phosphorus/phosphates, sulfur, rare earth elements, 

thorium, uranium, and evaporites, such as halite, gypsum, salt, and potassium.

Limestone/dolomite operations use blasting and crushing techniques to produce 

crushed gravel from limestone formations at or near the surface. There are 

three limestone/dolomite leases in Osage County, totaling 770 acres. There is 

one sand and gravel lease in Cotton County, Oklahoma, totaling 160 acres and 

another sand and gravel lease in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, totaling 100 acres. 

Sandy soil operations are similar to sand and gravel pits, where unconsolidated 

material at or near the surface is removed and hauled away. In Osage County 

much of the sand is mixed with topsoil or sub-soil and therefore cannot be 

called a sand lease. This typically includes road fill material as well, even though 

such material might contain either sandstone, limestone, or both. There are 

four sandy soil leases in Osage County, totaling approximately 490 acres.

Informal sandstone operations are those where a lessee selects and removes 

only certain sandstone blocks based on appearance and demand. There is little 

or no surface disturbance, and even after an area is mined, there may be many 

pieces of rock that were not removed. There are three sandstone leases in 

Osage County, totaling 225 acres.

There is a business lease on the Arkansas Riverbed in Leflore and Sequoyah 

Counties, Oklahoma. The lease allows a third party the right to purchase and 

transfer dredged materials from the Arkansas River.

Large deposits of salt and other evaporites lie beneath western Texas, western 

Oklahoma, and western and central Kansas. Approximately 207,000 acres of 

BIA-managed tribal and allotted lands and 292,000 acres of BIA-managed tribal 

and allotted subsurface mineral estate contain evaporite resources.

Trends

Levels and locations of nonenergy solid mineral activity in the BIA decision area 

are expected to remain the same throughout the life of the RMP.

3.6.14 Renewable Energy

Renewable energy is described under Section 3.3.2, BLM Resource Uses, 

Renewable Energy. Where information is different for the BIA decision area, 

that information is provided below. 

Current Condition

Wind and solar energy development potential exists on tribal trust lands, 

including 316,800 acres of high wind potential areas and 295,100 acres of high 

photovoltaic solar potential areas. There are no areas with high concentrated 
3. Affected Environment (BIA Renewable Energy) 

3-298 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

solar potential. See Table 3-113 through Table 3-115 and Figure 3-31, 

Relative Wind Potential, Figure 3-32, Relative Concentrated Solar Potential, 

and Figure 3-33, Relative Photovoltaic Solar Potential. There are no wind, 

solar, or biomass facilities on tribal trust lands in the decision area. 

Table 3-113

Relative Wind Potential in the BIA Decision Areas

Potential Level

Acres of BIA-Managed

Tribal and Allotted 

Lands

Acres of BIA-Managed

Tribal and Allotted 

Subsurface Mineral Estate

High 316,800 670,100 

Medium 505,100 1,954,800 

Low 31,200 42,800 

Sources: BLM GIS 2016; BIA GIS 2016

Table 3-114

Relative Concentrated Solar Potential in the BIA Decision Areas

Potential Level

Acres of BIA-Managed

Tribal and Allotted 

Lands

Acres of BIA-Managed

Tribal and Allotted 

Subsurface Mineral Estate

High 0 0 

Medium 77,800 117,900 

Low 775,300 2,549,800 

Sources: BLM GIS 2016; BIA GIS 2016

Table 3-115

Relative Photovoltaic Solar Potential in the BIA Decision Areas

Potential Level

Acres of BIA-Managed

Tribal and Allotted 

Lands

Acres of BIA-Managed

Tribal and Allotted 

Subsurface Mineral Estate

High 295,100 429,700 

Medium 558,000 2,238,100 

Low 0 0 

Sources: BLM GIS 2016; BIA GIS 2016

3.6.15 Recreation and Visitor Services 

The BIA does not manage trust land for recreation. 

3.6.16 Travel, Transportation Management, and Access 

The BIA Office of Indian Affairs, Division of Transportation manages and 

oversees federal-aid road maintenance and road construction programs in 

Indian Country in accordance with 25 CFR part 170 (Indian Roads Reservation 

Program). These transportation-related program activities are provided directly 
3. Affected Environment (BIA Travel, Transportation Management, and Access)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-299

and through contracts, grants, compacts, and other appropriate agreements to 

American Indians (BIA 2016).

Federal-aid road maintenance program funds are administered at the BIA 

regional offices for the maintenance of roads identified as part of the BIA roads 

system. The BIA roads system is part of the National Tribal Transportation 

Facility Inventory (NTTFI). As public facilities, BIA roads and bridges are often 

major corridors that provide access for tribal communities through which 

medical, educational, commercial, and recreational services and opportunities 

are delivered or made available to tribal citizens and the general public. 

Additionally, other tribal transportation facilities provide access to Indian 

communities and trust and fee lands. As a public authority, the BIA shares

responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of “BIA-owned” roads and 

bridges.

The Tribal Transportation Program addresses transportation needs of tribes by 

providing federal-aid funds for the planning, design, construction, and 

maintenance activities on tribal transportation facilities identified within the 

NTTFI.

Current Condition

Many BIA roads are in poor condition. In fiscal year 2012, only 17 percent of 

BIA roads were considered to be in acceptable condition based on the BIA 

Service Level Index condition assessment criteria. The remaining roads were in 

unacceptable condition. The status of Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains 

Regional roads can be found online in the Tribal Transportation Facility 

Inventory: https://itims.bia.gov/reports.shtml.

3.6.17 Lands and Realty

Land Use Authorizations

Current Condition

On BIA-managed surface lands, the agency issues land use authorizations for 

certain activities mainly as ROWs. Examples of ROWs are roads, electrical 

distribution and transmission lines, pipelines, and wind and solar energy

generation facilities. In accordance with 23 CFR, Part 169, ROWs can be issued 

on tribal trust lands only when there is written consent of the landowners and 

the Secretary of the Interior. The types of land uses found throughout the 

broad planning area and on tribal trust lands are discussed below. For analysis of 

wind and solar energy ROWs, see Section 3.6.14, Renewable Energy. In the 

broader planning area, major land use authorizations, such as highways, 

electrical transmission lines, pipelines, and communication equipment, are more 

concentrated near urban centers, such as Oklahoma City and Tulsa. In general, 

rural areas have a lower density of ROWs and other infrastructure. In rural 
3. Affected Environment (BIA Lands and Realty)

3-300 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

areas, most roads, power lines, and other linear features follow Public Land 

Surveying System section lines. 

Of the 269,650,000 total acres in the planning area, 853,000 are BIA-managed

surface lands, with 394,200 acres in the Eastern Oklahoma Region and 457,500 

acres in the Southern Plains region of Oklahoma and Kansas. Tribal trust lands 

generally consist of scattered lands in northeastern Oklahoma, with two small 

but contiguous groups of land in Kansas, north of Topeka. In general, tribal trust 

lands contain few roads, pipelines, communication sites, transmission lines, and 

other authorizations. 

Land Tenure

Current Condition

BIA land tenure authorizations are managed in accordance with 25 CFR Parts 

151 (acquisitions), 152 (acquisition and disposal), and 158 (Osage acquisition and 

disposal),

The distribution and types of landownership directly influence the current level 

and locations of uses influencing tribal trust lands in the planning area. Tribal 

trust lands represent less than 1 percent of the total landownership in the 

planning area. The most concentrated areas of contiguous tribal trust lands are 

in northeastern Oklahoma and northeastern Kansas. In addition to tribal trust 

lands, surface ownership in the planning area is under the BLM, US Bureau of 

Reclamation, USACE, Forest Service, National Park Service, Department of 

Defense, and state and private entities (see Table 1-1). The Standards for 

Indian Trust Lands Boundary Evidence Handbook (BIA 2012c) provides a 

standardized system of identifying and documenting tribal trust lands, as well as 

differentiating those lands from individual trust lands and restricted lands.

Withdrawals

By default, tribal trust lands are withdrawn from the public domain. Conversion 

of allotted trust lands or restricted to fee simple status (i.e., where an individual 

holds title to the land outside of a trust) is the primary means by which land 

status changes. Tribes can also request to convert fee simple status lands to 

trust, but the land remains withdrawn from the public domain. 

Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing is described in Section 3.3.6, BLM Resource Uses, Livestock 

Grazing. Where information is different for the BIA decision area, that 

information is provided below.

Current Condition

Both the BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions process grazing 

leases for restricted and trust lands. Grazing leases vary in size, from as little as 

5 to 10 acres and up. The leases are normally executed for 3 to 5 years. At this
3. Affected Environment (BIA Lands and Realty)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-301

time, the total number of leases that are administered in the two regions is 

unknown.

3.6.18 Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing is described in Section 3.3.6, BLM Resource Uses, Livestock 

Grazing. Where information is different for the BIA decision area, that 

information is provided below.

Current Condition

The BIA livestock grazing program is managed in accordance with 25 CFR part 

166. Both the BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regions process 

grazing leases for restricted and trust lands. Grazing leases vary in size, from as 

little as 5 to 10 acres and up. The leases are normally executed for 3 to 5 years. 

At this time, the total number of leases that are administered in the two regions 

is unknown. 

3.6.19 Prime and Unique Farmlands and Agriculture

Prime and unique farmlands and agricultural resources are described in Section 

3.3.7, BLM Resource Uses, Prime and Unique Farmlands. Where information is 

different for the BIA decision area, it is provided below.

BIA staff provide technical assistance to tribal landowners, tribal governments, 

and land users. They help develop, update, and amend land use plans, under the 

principle of sustainable yield management, to ensure adequate resources in the 

future (BIA 2015). 

Current Condition

According to NRCS data, on BLM-administered and BIA-managed surface lands

in the decision area, there are prime farmlands, prime farmlands of statewide 

importance, prime farmlands if drained or irrigated, and prime farmlands if 

protected from flooding (see Table 3-116).

Table 3-116

Farmlands in the BIA Decision Area

Farmland Type BIA-Managed Tribal and 

Allotted Lands (acres)

BIA-Managed Tribal and 

Allotted Subsurface 

Minerals Estate (acres)

Kansas

Prime farmland 7,600 7,600

Farmland of statewide importance 19,700 19,700

Prime farmland if drained 1,000 1,000

Prime farmland if irrigated 0 0

Not prime farmland 1,500 1,500

Nebraska

Prime farmland 200 200

Farmland of statewide importance 200 200

Not prime farmland 500 500
3. Affected Environment (BIA Prime and Unique Farmlands and Agriculture)

3-302 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-116

Farmlands in the BIA Decision Area

Farmland Type BIA-Managed Tribal and 

Allotted Lands (acres)

BIA-Managed Tribal and 

Allotted Subsurface 

Minerals Estate (acres)

Oklahoma

Prime farmland 379,700 957,100

Not prime farmland 435,400 1,672,400

Texas

Prime farmland 1,600 1,700

Prime farmland if drained 0 0

Prime farmland if irrigated 100 100

Prime farmland if protected from 

flooding

0 0

Not prime farmland 2,900 3,000

Source: BIA GIS 2016; NRCS GIS 2015

Trends

Between 1982 and 2012, 554,500 acres in Oklahoma, 363,200 acres in Kansas, 

and 3,027,800 acres in Texas were converted from agricultural land to 

developed land (Farmland Information Center 2016a, 2016b, 2016c). It is 

unknown if BIA-managed surface lands experience the same conversion rates as 

these statewide rates. BIA-managed surface lands could experience conversion 

of agricultural land to developed land if, for example, mineral development is 

allowed to occur on agricultural land or the agricultural land is transferred out

of tribal ownership and then converted to non-agricultural uses.

3.6.20 National Historic Trails

National historic trails are described in Section 3.4.3, BLM Special Designations, 

National Historic Trails. Where information is different for the BIA decision 

area, it is provided below.

Of the six national historic trails in the planning area, 18.5 miles are on BIAmanaged tribal and allotted lands and 38.1 miles are on BIA-managed tribal and 

allotted subsurface minerals estate (see Table 3-117, below; Scenicbyways.info 

GIS 2015). 
3. Affected Environment (BIA National Historic Trails)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-303

Table 3-117

National Historic Trails on BIA-Managed Tribal and Allotted Lands or Subsurface Mineral 

Estate

Trail Name

Miles in 

Planning 

Area

Miles on BIAManaged

Tribal and 

Allotted 

Lands

Miles on BIAManaged Tribal and 

Allotted Subsurface 

Minerals Estate

Oklahoma

Butterfield Overland National Historic Trail 

(proposed)

185.6 0.2 1.6

Chisholm National Historic Trail (proposed) 282.9 2.6 6.2

Santa Fe National Historic Trail 76.3 0 0

Trail of Tears National Historic 94.4 15.5 30.1

Total (Oklahoma) 639.1 18.3 37.9

Kansas

California National Historic Trail 346.3 0 0

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail 48.6 0 0

Oregon National Historic Trail 179.7 0 0

Pony Express National Historic Trail 132.7 0.2 0.2

Santa Fe National Historic Trail 985.6 0 0

Total (Kansas) 1,692.9 0.2 0.2

Texas

Chisholm National Historic Trail (proposed) 1.4 0 0

El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic 

Trail

2,428.1 0 0

Total (Texas) 2,429.5 0 0

Nebraska

Lewis and Clark Trail 9.8 0 0

Total (Nebraska) 9.8 0 0

Sources: NPS 2010; BLM GIS 2016

Note: Miles are rounded to the nearest 1/10th. 

3.6.21 National and State Byways

National and state byways are described in Section 3.4.4, BLM Special 

Designations, National, State, and BLM Byways. Where information is different 

for the BIA decision area, it is provided below.

Of the scenic byways in the planning area, 22 miles are on BIA-managed tribal 

and allotted lands, and 95.4 miles are on BIA-managed tribal and allotted 

subsurface minerals estate (see Table 3-118, Scenic Byways Crossing BIAManaged Tribal and Allotted Lands or Subsurface Mineral Estate; 

Scenicbyways.info GIS 2015).
3. Affected Environment (BIA National and State Byways)

3-304 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-118

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

Estate

Byway Name Designation Type

Miles in 

Planning 

Area

Miles on BIAManaged

Tribal and 

Allotted 

Lands

Miles on BIAManaged 

Tribal and 

Allotted 

Subsurface 

Minerals 

Estate

Oklahoma

Cherokee Hills Byway National Scenic Byway 84.7 1.3 1.3

Historic Route 66—

Oklahoma

All-American Road, 

National Scenic Byway

391.6 3.8 5.3

Mountain Gateway Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 22.9 0 0

Mountain Pass Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 23.2 0.5 0.5

Osage Nation Heritage 

Trail Byway

State Byway 65.7 1.2 64.9

Talimena Scenic Drive—

Oklahoma

National Scenic Byway 34.7 0 0

Wichita Mountains Byway National Scenic Byway 105.4 13.8 21.8

Total (Oklahoma) 728.3 20.6 93.8

Kansas

Flint Hills Scenic Byway National Scenic Byway 43.1 0 0

Frontier Military Historic 

Byway

State Byway 172.2 0 0

Glacial Hills Scenic Byway State Byway 62.3 0 0

Gypsum Hills Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 35.9 0 0

Kansas Historic Route 66 

Byway

State Byway 11.3 0 0

Native Stone Scenic Byway State Byway 48.5 0 0

Post Rock Scenic Byway State Byway 14.7 0 0

Prairie Trail Scenic Byway State Byway 55.8 0 0

Smoky Valley Scenic 

Byway

State Byway 60.9 0 0

Western Vistas Historic 

Byway

State Byway 93.3 0 0

Wetlands and Wildlife 

Scenic Byway

National Scenic Byway 75.9 0 0

Total (Kansas) 673.8 0 0

Texas

Texas Brazos Trail State Byway 471.2 0 0

Texas Forest Trail State Byway 836.4 1.4 1.4

Texas Forts Trail State Byway 673.6 0 0

Texas Hill Country Trail State Byway 634.6 0 0
3. Affected Environment (BIA National and State Byways)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-305

Table 3-118

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

Estate

Byway Name Designation Type

Miles in 

Planning 

Area

Miles on BIAManaged

Tribal and 

Allotted 

Lands

Miles on BIAManaged 

Tribal and 

Allotted 

Subsurface 

Minerals 

Estate

Texas Independence Trail State Byway 717.9 0 0

Texas Lakes Trail State Byway 650.3 0 0

Texas Mountain Trail State Byway 688.7 0 0

Texas Pecos Trail State Byway 696.1 0 0

Texas Plains Trail State Byway 684.1 0 0

Texas Tropical Trail State Byway 673 0 0

Total (Texas) 6,725.8 1.4 1.4

Sources: Scenic Byways 2015; FHA 2015; Scenicbyways.info GIS 2015

Note: Miles are rounded to the nearest 1/10th.

3.6.22 Treaty Rights and Tribal Interests 

Federally recognized Indian tribal rights, uses and interests are described in 

Section 3.5.1, BLM Social and Economic Conditions, Treaty Rights and Tribal 

Interests.

3.6.23 Public Health and Safety

Public health and safety concerns on BIA-managed surface lands are the same as 

those described in Section 3.5.2, BLM Social and Economic Conditions, Public 

Health and Safety. In addition, the BIA provides health and safety to employees, 

tribal citizens, and the public through the federal Occupational, Safety and 

Health Act, Bureau of Indian Affairs Safety and Health Handbook for Field 

Operations #13-2, and the BIA Road Maintenance Manual #58. The BIA road 

system covers roads and bridges to provide medical, public, and recreation 

access to Federally recognized Indian tribal communities.

3.6.24 Socioeconomics

The socioeconomic conditions and trends for Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas are 

described in Section 3.5.3, BLM Social and Economic Conditions, 

Socioeconomics. The following describes socioeconomic conditions for 

Richardson County, Nebraska, which is part of the planning area. This county 

only includes BIA surface and subsurface minerals. The same indicators as used 

in the socioeconomics sections for Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas (Section 3.5.3) 

are used to describe conditions in Richardson County, Nebraska.

Existing Conditions—Nebraska Overview 

Agriculture was a historically important sector for Nebraska, with commercial 

apple orchards being a popular crop in the 1900s (Save America’s Heritage 
3. Affected Environment (BIA Socioeconomics)

3-306 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

1993). In the 1930s, abandonment of railroad lines and drought resulted in 

economic and population decline in the county. Richardson County’s first oil 

boom was from 1938 to 1942; the first oil strike in Nebraska was in Falls City, 

within Richardson County (Schottenhamel 1979; Nebraska Energy Quarterly 

2015). Production in Richardson County peaked in 1941 with 1.88 million 

barrels just 2 years after this first strike (Nebraska Energy Quarterly 2015); 

however, today the state’s leaders in oil production are Red Willow and 

Hitchcock Counties (Nebraska Energy Quarterly 2015). Today, trade, 

transportation, and utilities are important economic sectors in Richardson 

County.

Community Indicators

The population of Richardson County, with a median age of 46.7 years in 2013, 

was older on average than the US population (median age 37.3; US Census 

Bureau 2013, American Community Survey Office, as reported by Headwater 

Economics 2015). Richardson County had fewer people who held a bachelor’s 

degree as compared to the United States, but more high school graduates and 

people who held an associate degree (see Table 3-119).

Table 3-119

Education Attainment

Richardson County, NE United States

Total Population 25 or older 6,038 206,587,852

No high school degree 459 28,887,721

7.6% 14.0%

High school graduate 5,579 177,700,131

92.4% 86.0%

Associate’s degree 564 16,135,795

9.3% 7.8%

Bachelor’s degree 820 37,286,246

13.6% 18.0%

Graduate or professional degree 317 22,296,892

5.3% 10.8%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, American Community Survey Office, as reported by 

Headwater Economics 2015

Most residents in Richardson County speak only English, and the percentage of 

those who speak English less than very well is below that of the national average 

(see Table 3-120).

Table 3-120

Language Spoken at Home

Richardson County, NE United States

Population 5 or older 7,896 291,484,482

Speak only English 7,777 231,122,908

98.5% 79.3%
3. Affected Environment (BIA Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-307

Table 3-120

Language Spoken at Home

Richardson County, NE United States

Speak a language other than English 119 60,361,574

1.5% 20.7%

Speak English less than very well 17 25,148,900

0.2% 8.6%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, American Community Survey Office, as reported by 

Headwater Economics 2015

Housing

Housing availability and cost can be impacted by development and associated 

population changes. Housing occupancy information is displayed in Table 

3-121, Housing Occupancy. Approximately 13.9 percent of housing in 

Richardson County is vacant. This rate is similar to the national average (12.5 

percent). Housing costs for rent and mortgage in Richardson County are almost 

half of the national average costs (see Table 3-122, Housing Costs).

Table 3-121

Housing Occupancy

Richardson County, NE United States

Total Housing Units 4,387 132,057,804

Occupied 3,779 115,610,216

86.1% 87.5%

Vacant 608 16,447,588

13.9% 12.5%

For rent 53 3,230,123

1.2% 2.4%

Rented, not occupied 0 599,884

0.0% 0.5%

For sale only 129 1,682,020

2.9% 1.3%

Sold, not occupied 0 608,590

0.0% 0.5%

For seasonal, recreational, 

occasional use

93 5,122,778

2.1% 3.9%

For migrant workers 0 34,233

0.0% 0.0%

Other vacant 333 5,169,960

7.6% 3.9%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, American Community Survey Office, as reported by 

Headwater Economics 2015
3. Affected Environment (BIA Socioeconomics)

3-308 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-122

Housing Costs

Richardson County, NE United States

Owner-occupied housing units with a mortgage 1,290 49,820,840

Monthly cost <15% of household income 443 9,215,740

34.3% 18.5%

Monthly cost >30% of household income 294 17,636,343

22.8% 35.4%

Specified renter-occupied units 871 40,534,516

Gross rent <15% of household income 277 4,355,942

31.8% 10.7%

Gross rent >30% of household income 243 19,581,493

27.9% 48.3%

Median monthly mortgage cost $773 $1,540

Median gross rent $490 $904

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, American Community Survey Office, as reported by Headwater Economics 2015

Population and Migration

The total population in Richardson County in 2013 was 8,125, down 

approximately 17 percent since 2000. In comparison, the US population 

increased 10.7 percent between 2000 and 2013 (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

Regional Economic Accounts, Washington, DC, Table CA-30, as reported by 

Headwater Economics 2015). Population decline in the county is due to more 

deaths than births and more people moving out of the county than into the 

county, based on average annual net migration data (see Table 3-123, below).

Table 3-123

Components of Population Growth, 2000-2013

Change 2000-2013

Population decline -1,378

Average annual population change (natural change and net migration) -134

Average annual natural change (births and deaths) -52

Average annual net migration (international and domestic) -76

Source: US Census Bureau Population Division 2014, as reported by Headwater Economics 2015

Population decline is projected to slow in the next 20 years in Richardson 

County. The county’s population is expected to decrease approximately 3.3 

percent by 2030, while the population in the Unites States as a whole is 

expected increase by 29.2 percent (see Table 3-124, Population and 

Population Projections). Information on ethnicity and race in area populations is 

addressed in Section 3.6.25, Environmental Justice.
3. Affected Environment (BIA Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-309

Table 3-124

Population and Population Projections

Richardson County, NE United States

Population (2013) 8,125 311,536,594

Population (2000) 9,507 281,421,906

Population change (2000-2013) -1,382 30,114,688

Population percent change (2000-2013) -17.0 10.7

Projected population change (2010-2030) 7,398 82,162,529

Projected percent change (2010-2030) -3.3 29.2

Sources: US Department of Commerce 2014, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, 

Washington, DC, Table CA-30, as reported by Headwater Economics 2015; Prochaska and Associates 2013

Income and Employment

Total employment in Richardson County has decreased at almost the same rate 

as population change between 2000 and 2013, while total personal income has 

increased more rapidly than population change during the same timeframe (see 

Table 3-125).

Unemployment in Richardson County has generally followed national trends, 

peaking in 2010-2011, but remained below the national average. Unemployment 

over the past 5 years is shown in Table 3-126, Average Annual 

Unemployment.

Income distribution for 2009-2013 American Community Survey data is 

demonstrated in more detail in Table 3-127, Household Income Distribution. 

Per capita income in Richardson County was slightly lower than that of the US 

average. Median household income was much lower than the US average.

Based on 2013 data, top economic sectors in Richardson County are trade, 

transportation, and utilities, local government, education and health, and 

manufacturing. It is worth noting that average annual wages were much higher 

than average levels for information services and much lower than average for 

leisure and hospitality services (see Table 3-128, Employment and Wages by 

Industry, 2013). In 2013 the three industry sectors with the most jobs were 

trade, transportation, and utilities (526); government (590); and education and 

health (466).

Total personal income by industry provides additional information on key 

economic sectors. In 2013, the three industry sectors with the largest personal 

income were farm ($73.4 million), government ($27.3 million), and health care 

and social assistance ($17.8 million). From 2001 to 2013, the three industry 

sectors that added the most new personal income in real terms were farm 

($41.8 million), health care and social assistance ($2.7 million), and construction 

($1.6 million; see Table 3-129, Personal Income by Industry 2001-2013 (in 

Thousands of 2013 Dollars)).
3. Affected Environment (BIA Socioeconomics)

3-310 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-125

Population, Employment, and Income Trends, 2000-2013

2000 2013 Change 

2000-2013

Percent 

Change

2000-2013

Population 9,507 8,125 -1,382 -14.5 

Employment (full and part-time jobs) 4,947 4,247 -700 -14.1

Personal income (in thousands of 

2013 dollars)

314,245 377,691 63,446 20.2

Average earnings per Job $31,545 $47,551 $16,006 50.7

Per capita income $33,054 $46,485 $13,431 40.6

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, as reported by Headwater Economics 2015

Table 3-126

Average Annual Unemployment

Richardson County, NE United States

2015 3.2% 5.3%

2014 3.6% 6.2%

2013 5.3% 7.4%

2012 5.3% 8.1%

2011 6.4% 8.9%

2010 6.6% 9.6%

2009 6.1% 9.3%

2008 4.3% 5.8%

2007 4.1% 4.6%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016

Table 3-127

Household Income Distribution

Richardson County, NE United States

Median household income (in 2013 dollars) $38,582 $53,046

Total Households 3,779 115,610,216

Less than $10,000 275 8,380,364

7.3% 7.2%

$10,000 to 14,999 277 6,214,548

7.3% 5.4%

$15,000 to 24,999 522 12,468,604

13.8% 10.8%

$25,000 to 34,999 703 11,929,761

18.6% 10.3%

$35,000 to 49,999 685 15,723,148

18.1% 13.6%

$50,000 to 74,999 542 20,744,045

14.3% 17.9%
3. Affected Environment (BIA Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-311

Table 3-127

Household Income Distribution

Richardson County, NE United States

$75,000 to 99,999 432 14,107,031

11.4% 12.2%

$100,000 to 149,999 240 14,858,239

6.4% 12.9%

$150,000 to 199,999 62 5,651,848

1.6% 4.9%

$200,000 or more 41 5,532,628

1.1% 4.8%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, American Community Survey Office, as reported by as reported by 

Headwater Economics 2015

Table 3-128

Employment and Wages by Industry, 2013

Employment

Percent of 

Total 

Employment

Average 

Annual 

Wages

Percent 

Above or 

Below 

Average

Total 2,434 $28,495

Private 1,844 75.8 $28,045 -1.6

Non-Services-Related 360 14.8 $36,223 27.1

Natural resources/mining 39 1.6 $23,126 -18.8

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and 

hunting

33 1.4 $23,642 -17.0

Mining (including fossil fuels) 5 0.2 $24,342 -14.6

Construction 81 3.3 $31,530 10.7

Manufacturing (including forest

products)

240 9.9 $39,935 40.1

Services-related 1,484 61.0 $26,061 -8.5

Trade, transportation, and utilities 526 21.6 $27,020 -5.2

Information 22 0.9 $72,845 155.6

Financial activities 103 4.2 $36,027 26.4

Professional and business 99 4.1 $28,393 -0.4

Education and health 460 18.9 $29,168 2.4

Leisure and Hospitality 220 9.0 $10,019 -68.8

Other services 54 2.2 $13,267 -53.4

Unclassified 0 0.0 N/A N/A

Government 590 24.2 $29,901 4.9

Federal 36 1.5 $40,215 41.1

State 33 1.4 $30,861 8.3

Local 521 21.4 $29,127 2.2

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014b
3. Affected Environment (BIA Socioeconomics)

3-312 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-129

Personal Income by Industry 2001-2013 (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)

2001 2013 Change 

2001-2013

Labor earnings 152,965 201,948 48,983

Non-services related 52,103 93,785 41,682

Farm 31,656 73,403 41,747

Forestry, fishing, and related activities N/A N/A N/A

Mining (including fossil fuels) 249 240 -9

Construction 5,737 7,297 1,560

Manufacturing 14,461 12,845 -1,616

Services related 59,665 61,394 1,729

Utilities N/A N/A N/A

Wholesale trade 6,710 8,234 1,524

Retail trade 13,011 11,184 -1,827

Transportation and warehousing N/A N/A N/A

Information 3,291 2,150 -1,141

Finance and insurance 5,578 4,461 -1,117

Real estate and rental and leasing 692 1,088 396

Professional and technical services 3,307 3,521 214

Management of companies and enterprises N/A N/A N/A

Administrative and waste services N/A N/A N/A

Educational services 1,144 1,144 0

Health care and social assistance 15,115 17,844 2,729

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 203 391 188

Accommodation and food services 3,189 3,015 -174

Other services, except public administration 7,426 8,362 936

Government 26,873 27,343 470

Source: US Department of Commerce 2014, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, 

Washington, DC. Table CA05N, as reported in Headwater Economics 2015

Note: All employment data are reported by place of work. 

Labor is the main source of income for Richardson County, comprising 62.1 

percent of total personal income. Non-labor income is of increasing importance 

nationally and may provide locally important sources of income. Non-labor income 

in Richardson County makes up about the same percentage of total personal 

income as the national average. For more details regarding income source, refer to 

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

Table 3-130

Labor and Non-labor Income (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)

Richardson County, NE United States

Total personal income ($1,000) 377,691 14,151,427,000

Non-labor income 143,157 5,085,220,000

37.9% 35.9%

Dividends, interest, and rent 66,617 2,670,719,000

17.6% 18.9%
3. Affected Environment (BIA Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-313

Table 3-130

Labor and Non-labor Income (in Thousands of 2013 Dollars)

Richardson County, NE United States

Transfer payments 76,540 2,414,501,000

20.3% 17.1%

Labor earnings 234,534 9,066,207,000

62.1% 64.1%

Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014, Regional Economic Accounts, as reported by Headwater 

Economics 2015

Public Finance

Components of public finance related to management of federal lands and 

mineral resources in the planning area primarily include federal mineral royalty 

payments and other taxes collected from the extraction and sale of mineral 

resources. These categories are explained in detail below.

Taxes

The severance tax in Nebraska is 3 percent on value for natural gas and nonstripper oil severed and 2 percent on value for stripper oil severed (National 

Conference of State Legislatures 2012). In 2006, approximately $2.8 million was 

collected in severance taxes in Nebraska (Nebraska Department of Revenue 

2006). In addition to severance tax, oil and gas is subject to conservation tax, 

which is based on the value at the well of all oil and gas produced, saved, and 

sold or transported from Nebraska. The conservation tax rate is 0.40 percent 

and is deposited in the Oil and Gas Conservation Fund. In 2006, approximately 

$484,000 was collected in conservation tax (Nebraska Department of Revenue 

2006).

Federal Mineral Royalties

As discussed in Section 3.5.3, additional revenues from oil, gas, and coal

extraction come from rents and royalties paid by producers for development of 

federal or Indian minerals. Mineral lease revenues are collected by the Office of 

Natural Resources Revenue within the Department of the Interior. Royalties 

collected in Nebraska are shown in Table 3-131, Rents, Royalties, and Bonus 

Revenue Collected. 

The Department of the Interior disburses 100 percent of the revenues received 

for energy and mineral production on tribal lands directly to the tribes and 

individual mineral owners through the BIA and the OST. Tribes then distribute 

the revenues among all citizens. Alternately, they apply the revenues to health 

care, infrastructure, education, and other critical community development 

programs, such as senior centers, public safety projects, and youth initiatives. 

Many individual mineral owners use these revenues as a major source of income 

to support their families and communities.
3. Affected Environment (BIA Socioeconomics)

3-314 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018

Table 3-131

Rents, Royalties, and Bonus Revenue Collected (Fiscal 

Year [FY] 2014)

Gas (MCF1) volume 1,330

Gas sales $5,330

Gas royalties $5,064

Oil (oil barrels) volume 24,681

Oil sales $ 2,190,827

Oil royalties $ 274,123

Coal (tons) volume 0

Coal sales 0

Coal royalties 0

Rents $ 7,605

Bonuses $ 48,544

Other Revenue $46,214

Source: Office of Natural Resources Revenue 2015

1MCF = thousand cubic feet

Nebraska’s state share of federal mineral royalty revenue disbursement for fiscal 

year 2014 was $38,770. A portion of this amount is then disbursed to counties 

of origin (Office of Natural Resources Revenue 2015).

Social and Economic Activity Related to BIA Management Actions

Energy and Minerals

Employment in the mining sector in Nebraska represented only 0.6 percent 

(1,811) of the total private employment in 2012, less than that in Oklahoma, 

Kansas, or Texas. BIA-managed minerals represent only a fraction of total oil 

and gas production Nebraska.

Agriculture

Agriculture and livestock grazing played a traditional role in the study area 

economy and continue to be important in some areas today, particularly in nonmetro areas. There were 736 farms, totaling 318,179 acres, in the Richardson 

County in 2012 (USDA, National Agricultural Statistical Service 2012). 

Agricultural data are presented in Table 3-132, Summary of Socioeconomic

Study Area, Agriculture (2012). Additional grazing occurs on BIA-managed 

surface lands in the area, and there is potential for grazing to increase on both 

public and BIA-managed surface lands in the future. 

Table 3-132

Summary of Socioeconomic Study Area, Agriculture (2012)

Area Number of 

Farms

Acres in 

Farms

Market Value 

(Crop Sales)

Market Value 

(Livestock Sales)

Richardson County 736 319,179 $114,978,000 $47,045,000

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistical Service 2012
3. Affected Environment (BIA Socioeconomics)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-315

Recreation

Recreation plays an important role in some local areas. Estimated economic 

impacts from area recreation are included below in Table 3-133. 

Table 3-133

Summary of Outdoor Recreation Economic Impacts in the Planning Area

State

Consumer 

Spending for 

Outdoor 

Recreation

Direct Jobs 

Generated 

from Outdoor 

Recreation

Wages and 

Salaries Related 

to Outdoor 

Recreation

State and Local 

Tax Revenue 

from Outdoor 

Recreation

Nebraska $5.7 billion 74,000 $1.7 billion $396,000,000

Source: Outdoor Industry Association 2014

Social Conditions and Non-Market Values

An overview of social conditions and non-market values is provided in Section 

3.5.3.

Tribal socioeconomic workshops were held in January 2015 to collect input 

from tribes on social and economic considerations important to tribes in the 

planning area. A summary of key concerns from participants at the tribal 

socioeconomic workshops is included below; full details are provided in the 

Socioeconomic Workshop Summary Report (BLM and BIA 2015a). Details for 

general socioeconomic workshops conducted in February 2015, which also 

included some tribal citizens’ participation, are included in Section 3.5.3 and in 

the Workshop Summary Report (BLM and BIA 2015a).

 Tribal gaming was cited as a big economic driver for many tribes.

 Tourism is becoming more important to some tribes, such as the 

Choctaw Nation and Absentee Shawnee. 

 Participants noted that there is interest in wind development. There 

are at least three tribes that have proposed over 90 turbine wind 

farms. There will be five to seven wind farm developments in the 

next 5 years.

 Social concerns were getting people working and addressing 

domestic violence.

 Many of the 24 tribes in the Southern Plains rely on their oil and gas 

royalties. Eastern Oklahoma (which has mainly gas) has been in a 

slower growth rate as the price of gas has been low, and now with 

oil prices going down, western Oklahoma (mainly oil) will likely slow 

down too.

 Employment in tribal government and business ventures represents 

a major employer in some areas.

 Livestock graze on tribal lands and can be locally important for 

some tribes. 
3. Affected Environment (BIA Environmental Justice) 

3-316 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP November 2018 

3.6.25 Environmental Justice 

The environmental justice conditions and trends for Oklahoma, Kansas, and 

Texas are described in Section 3.5.4, BLM Social and Economic Conditions, 

Environmental Justice. The following describes environmental justice conditions 

for Richardson County, Nebraska, which is part of the planning area. This 

county only includes BIA surface and subsurface minerals. The same indicators 

as used in the environmental justice sections for Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas 

(Section 3.5.4) are used to describe conditions in Richardson County, Nebraska. 

Low-Income Populations 

A summary of poverty data for Richardson County is displayed in Table 3-134. 

The percent of individuals in poverty in Richardson County is slightly higher 

than the national average. The percent of families in poverty in Richardson 

County is about the same as the national average. 

Table 3-134

Richardson County Population in Poverty in 2013

Richardson County, NE United States

Percent of individuals in poverty 17.2 15.4

Percent of families in poverty 11.2 11.3

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, American Community Survey Office, as reported by 

Headwater Economics 2015

The average percent of individuals below the poverty level in Nebraska is 12.9 

percent (US Census Bureau 2010c). Individual poverty in Richardson County is 

therefore higher than the state average. This would be an area of focus for 

ensuring that residents of this county do not have disproportionately negative 

economic and social impacts from decisions in the Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA 

Integrated RMP. Figure 3-39, Percent of Individuals below the Poverty Level, 

showed a map of Nebraska counties and comparative poverty levels. 

Minority Populations 

Based on 2013 data, the population of Richardson County had mostly minority 

populations below that of the national average (see Table 3-135, Richardson 

County Population by Race/Ethnicity (2012)). The exceptions are American 

Indian and individuals with two or more races, both of which were higher than 

the national average. 

The average percent of aggregate minority population in Nebraska is 17.9 

percent (US Census Bureau 2010b). Richardson County is therefore much 

lower than the state average. Figure 3-40, Aggregate Minority Population, 

showed a map of Nebraska counties and comparative aggregate minority 

populations. 
3. Affected Environment (BIA Environmental Justice)

November 2018 Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas Draft Joint EIS/BLM RMP and BIA Integrated RMP 3-317

Table 3-135

Richardson County Population by Race/Ethnicity (2012)

Population Richardson County, NE United States

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity of 

any race

5.7% 16.6%

White alone 88.9% 74.0%

Black or African American alone 0.0% 12.6%

American Indian alone 7.0% 0.8%

Asian alone 0.0% 4.9%

Native Hawaiian and Other 

Pacific Islander alone

0.0% 0.2%

Some other race 0.0% 4.7%

Two or more races 4.0% 2.8%

Aggregate minority population 6% 36.7%

Source: US Census Bureau 2013, American Community Survey Office, as reported by 

Headwater Economics 2015
3. Affected Environment (BIA Environmental Justice)

3-318 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