Oklahoma Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Revision and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

 Final Scoping Summary Report

US Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

June 2014 

BIA 

BLM 

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS i 

Final Scoping Summary Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. S-1

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

1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose of and Need for the BLM Resource Management Plan ...................... 1-2

1.3 Purpose of and Need for the BIA Action .......................................................... 1-2

1.4 Description of the Planning Area and Decision Area ....................................... 1-3

1.5 Overview of the Public Involvement Process ................................................... 1-3

1.6 Description of the Scoping Process .................................................................. 1-5

1.6.1 Newsletter and Mailing List .................................................................. 1-5

1.6.2 Newspaper Advertisements, Press Release, and Other Media 

Coverage ............................................................................................... 1-6

1.6.3 Project Website ..................................................................................... 1-6

1.6.4 Public Scoping Meetings ...................................................................... 1-6

1.6.5 Notice of Intent ..................................................................................... 1-9

1.7 Collaborative Involvement Process .................................................................. 1-9

1.7.1 Cooperating Agency Coordination ....................................................... 1-9

1.7.2 Collaboration and Consultation with Tribes ....................................... 1-10

2. COMMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Method of Comment Collection and Analysis .................................................. 2-1

2.2 Summary of Public Comments Received ......................................................... 2-2

2.2.1 Written Submissions by Affiliation ...................................................... 2-2

2.2.2 Written Submissions by Geographical Area ......................................... 2-2

2.2.3 Number of Comments by Process Category ......................................... 2-4

2.2.4 Number of Comments by Planning Issue Category .............................. 2-6

3. PLANNING CRITERIA .................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Preliminary Planning Criteria ........................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Additional Suggestions for Planning Criteria ................................................... 3-2

4. PLANNING ISSUE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Planning Issue Development ............................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Planning Issue Statements ................................................................................. 4-2

4.3 Summary of Public Comments by Planning Issue Category ............................ 4-4

4.3.1 Issue 1 ................................................................................................... 4-5

4.3.2 Issue 2 ................................................................................................... 4-6

4.3.3 Issue 3 ................................................................................................... 4-6

4.3.4 Issue 4 ................................................................................................... 4-6

4.3.5 Issue 5 ................................................................................................... 4-7

4.3.6 Issue 6 ................................................................................................... 4-8

4.3.7 Issue 7 ................................................................................................... 4-8

4.3.8 Issue 8 ................................................................................................... 4-9
Table of Contents

ii Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014 

Final Scoping Summary Report

4.3.9 Issue 9 ................................................................................................... 4-9

4.3.10 Issue 10 ............................................................................................... 4-10

4.3.11 Issue 11 ............................................................................................... 4-11

4.3.12 Issue 12 ............................................................................................... 4-11

4.3.13 Issue 13 ............................................................................................... 4-11

4.3.14 Other Issues to Be Addressed in the RMP/EIS ................................... 4-12

4.4 Issues That Will Not Be Addressed in the RMP/EIS ..................................... 4-12

4.5 Decisions to be Made ...................................................................................... 4-13

5. DATA SUMMARY AND DATA GAPS ............................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Summary of Available Relevant Information ................................................... 5-1

5.2 Data Needs ........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.3 Data Gaps .......................................................................................................... 5-2

6. FUTURE STEPS .............................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Future Steps and Public Participation Opportunities ........................................ 6-1

6.2 Contact Information .......................................................................................... 6-2

6.2.1 Contacts................................................................................................. 6-2

6.2.2 Scoping Team ....................................................................................... 6-2

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

APPENDIX A. SCOPING MATERIALS ....................................................................................... A-1

Exhibits Displayed at Oklahoma Scoping Public Meetings ........................................ A-2

Exhibits Displayed at Kansas Scoping Public Meetings ............................................. A-2

Exhibits Displayed at Texas Scoping Public Meetings ............................................... A-2

APPENDIX B. ORAL COMMENTS MADE DURING SCOPING MEETINGS ................................... B-1

APPENDIX C. LIST OF COMMENTERS ..................................................................................... C-1

APPENDIX D. COMMENTS BY PROCESS CATEGORY AND PLANNING ISSUE ........................... D-1

FIGURES Page

1-1 Oklahoma Field Office RMP Planning Area ................................................................ 1-4

2-1 Comments by Commenter Affiliation1 ......................................................................... 2-3

2-2 Commenters by Geographic Area1 ............................................................................... 2-4

2-3 Comments by Planning Issue Category ........................................................................ 2-5

2-4 Comments by Planning Issue Category ........................................................................ 2-7
Table of Contents

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS iii

Final Scoping Summary Report

TABLES Page

1-1 Newspaper Advertisement Publication Dates and Location ......................................... 1-7

1-2 Project Coverage in the Media ...................................................................................... 1-8

1-3 Scoping Public Meetings .............................................................................................. 1-8

2-1 Comments by Commenter Affiliation1 ......................................................................... 2-3

2-2 Commenters by Geographic Area1 ............................................................................... 2-4

2-3 Comments by Process Category ................................................................................... 2-5

2-4 Comments by Planning Issue Category ........................................................................ 2-6

6-1 Agency and EMPSi Scoping Team............................................................................... 6-3

C-1 Commenters .................................................................................................................. C-1

C-2 Form Letter Submissions .............................................................................................. C-6

D-1 Issues Not Related to the Scope of This Project .......................................................... D-3

D-2 Issues Resolved through Policy or Administrative Action .......................................... D-3

D-3 Oklahoma-Texas Boundary Issues .............................................................................. D-4

D-4 General Comments Related to the Project ................................................................... D-7

D-5 Access and Transportation ......................................................................................... D-12

D-6 Issues Not Addressed in Previous RMPs ................................................................... D-13

D-7 Climate Change and Future Water Needs .................................................................. D-13

D-8 Cultural and Historic Resources ................................................................................ D-17

D-9 Energy Development ................................................................................................. D-17

D-10 Fences and Trespassing .............................................................................................. D-31

D-11 Fish and Wildlife........................................................................................................ D-35

D-12 Lands and Realty........................................................................................................ D-38

D-13 Minerals and Mining .................................................................................................. D-40

D-14 Public Health and Safety ............................................................................................ D-41

D-15 Recreation and Other Uses Along the Red River ...................................................... D-46

D-16 Socioeconomics ......................................................................................................... D-55

D-17 Tribal Interests ........................................................................................................... D-58
iv Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014 

Final Scoping Summary Report

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

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

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

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EIS environmental impact statement

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

Oklahoma Field Office 

planning area all lands, regardless of ownership, within the 

United States Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, Oklahoma Field Office

RMP resource management plan

US United States
May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS S-1

Final Scoping Summary Report

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) to guide the management of BLM-administered public resources (BLM-administered 

surface lands and federal minerals) and restricted, trust, and tribal minerals and lands under the 

jurisdiction of the BIA within the states of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. The EIS will result in 

a resource management plan (RMP) that creates the management framework for BLM lands and 

federal minerals under the jurisdiction of the BLM OFO. The RMP, which is developed through 

a public process, will be prepared as a dynamic and flexible plan to reflect the changing needs of 

the planning area. It will replace the 1991 Kansas RMP (BLM 19911), the 1994 Oklahoma RMP

(BLM 1994a), and the 1996 Texas RMP (BLM 1996a), as amended. 

The decision area for the EIS is where either federal or tribal interests exist (excluding US Forest 

Service interests). The decision area is only the BLM- administered and BIA-administered 

surface land and subsurface mineral estate within the planning area. The BLM decision area is 

composed of approximately 104,000 acres of BLM-administered surface lands, 593,000 acres of 

split-estate land (private land with federal mineral interests), and 5,270,000 acres of federal 

mineral estate on lands managed by other federal agencies. The BIA decision areas include 

approximately 621,696 surface acres and 585,000 surface acres for BIA Eastern Oklahoma 

Regional Office and BIA Southern Plains Regional Office, respectively. This acreage includes 

all mineral estate within Osage County, Oklahoma, which is managed by the BIA’s Eastern 

Oklahoma Regional Office.

The BIA’s Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regional Offices are charged with leasing 

Native American minerals in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. As stated above, the Eastern 

Oklahoma Regional Office is also responsible for minerals management in Osage County, 

Oklahoma. Both offices have an obligation to evaluate the potential impacts of their decisions 

 1 References cited are provided in Chapter 7, References.
Summary

S-2 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

under NEPA and are joining the BLM in this EIS process. The joint planning effort will result in 

a joint BLM-BIA EIS and a BLM OFO RMP. BLM interests will be addressed under its 

RMP/EIS Record of Decision; Native American interests will be addressed under either the BIAEastern Oklahoma Record of Decision or the BIA-Southern Plains Record of Decision. These 

documents will comply with NEPA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,

as required under 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1601.0-6. The EIS also will comply

with the BIA NEPA Guidebook, 59 Indian Affairs Manual 3-H (BIA 2012). Finally, the resulting 

OFO RMP will comply with the criteria outlined in the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook H1601-1 (BLM 2005).

GOALS OF THE PUBLIC AND AGENCY COLLABORATION AND COMMUNICATION EFFORTS

BLM and BIA policies are to provide the following stakeholders with opportunities to participate 

meaningfully and substantively and to give comments during EIS preparation: the public, various 

groups, other federal agencies, Native American tribes and governments, and state and local 

governments. The BLM and BIA encourage various partners, cooperating agencies, and 

stakeholders to become involved in the process and provide information on local and regional 

factors unique to the planning area. Local and regional factors include knowledge of area 

customs and culture, community values and traditions, and the social and economic makeup of 

the planning area. 

The BLM’s goal in the public land use planning process is to consider these factors in an

inclusive manner; specifically, key tribal, community, agency, and interest groups and 

individuals are given opportunities to participate in the process and are kept informed of the 

project status. The BLM must also ensure that participants are made aware of the effect their 

involvement will have on the final outcome; follow-through is a key element in meeting the goal 

of collaborative planning. Some agreement among the participants wherever possible is 

desirable; where agreement cannot be reached, the BLM must explore reasonable alternatives 

that have been discussed with the participants. 

Strategies on coordinating with other federal, state, and local agencies, private groups , and 

individuals include conducting public information meetings, workshops, small group 

presentations, and management briefings; hosting field trips; issuing news releases; doing 

mailings; producing newsletters; publishing newspaper notices; making media announcements; 

printing brochures, booklets, and pamphlets; and initiating other informal contacts.

Scoping is the term used in the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing 

NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508). The purpose of scoping is to define the early and open process for 

determining the extent of issues to be addressed in the planning process. The scoping process 

serves a number of purposes. One of these is to involve the public in identifying significant 

issues related to potential land use management actions; another is to help identify any issues 

that are not significant and can thereby be eliminated from detailed analysis. Also, the list of 

stakeholders and other interested parties (individuals or groups) is confirmed and expanded

during the scoping process. 
Summary

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS S-3

Final Scoping Summary Report

PUBLIC SCOPING ACTIVITIES

The formal public scoping period, as required by NEPA, began on July 26, 2013, with the 

publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (78 Federal Register 45266-45628, July 

26, 2013); the scoping period ended on January 31, 2014.

Public outreach for the joint BLM-BIA EIS and the BLM OFO RMP since publication of the 

Notice of Intent has included the following: 

• A newsletter mailed to 1,005 individuals from federal, state, and local agencies, 

tribes, interest groups, and the general public in November 2013

• A press release posted on the OFO website—http://www.blm.gov/nm/oktrmp—on 

November 14, 2013, announcing the publication of the Notice of Intent on July 26, 

2013, and the initiation of the public scoping period for the EIS process

• A newspaper advertisement announcing the scoping public meetings published twice 

in each of 17 local newspapers in November and December 2013 and January 2014 

prior to each of the 17 scoping public meetings 

• 17 scoping public meetings, held in November and December 2013 and January 2014

in Woodward, Weatherford, Oklahoma City, Poteau, Tahlequah, McAlester, Lawton, 

Tulsa, and Pawhuska, Oklahoma; Salina and Liberal, Kansas; and Wichita Falls, Fort 

Worth, Houston, Livingston, Lufkin, and Amarillo, Texas

• A public website—http://www.blm.gov/nm/oktrmp—that provides access to 

materials distributed at scoping meetings and information on the public involvement 

process

The public scoping process provides opportunity for federal, state, and local agencies, interested 

organizations and industries, and the general public to express their comments and to provide 

meaningful input. 

PUBLIC SCOPING RESULTS

During the public scoping period, the BLM received 143 unique written submissions and 2

different form letters, which included 683 unique comments. Members of the general public 

provided 118 written submissions (82.5 percent), organizations or nonprofit groups submitted 10 

comments (7.0 percent), and businesses submitted 10 comments (7.0 percent). One federal 

agency provided 1 written submission (0.7 percent), state agencies provided 2 written 

submissions (1.4 percent), and an elected official provided 1 written submission (0.7 percent). 

The latter group represents a total of 2.8 percent of the submissions. No written submissions 

were received from tribal governments, educational organizations, or local governments. One 

anonymous comment was received (0.7 percent). 

Comments were categorized, coded, entered into a database, tallied, and analyzed. Categories 

were those pertaining to the EIS and RMP planning process (e.g., how the comment relates to the 

EIS process), planning issues, and commenter affiliation. 
Summary

S-4 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

ISSUE SUMMARY

Based on internal (within the BLM OFO and BIA staff) and external scoping, the planning issues 

that follow have been identified. 

1. Energy development

2. Minerals and mining

3. Cultural and historic resources

4. Fences and trespassing

5. Recreation and other uses along the Red River

6. Access and transportation

7. Public health and safety

8. Lands and realty

9. Fish and wildlife

10. Socioeconomics

11. Tribal interests

12. Issues not addressed in previous RMPs

13. Climate change and future water needs

In addition to planning issues, commenters asked about issues that are either already addressed 

or will be addressed outside of the EIS and RMP because they either involve implementationlevel decisions or they are beyond the scope of this EIS or RMP revision.

FUTURE STEPS

Scoping is the first opportunity for public involvement in the EIS process. The BLM and BIA 

will use the information collected during the scoping period and the planning issues to formulate 

alternatives and to prepare the Draft EIS, which is anticipated to be published in 2016. Public 

release of the Draft EIS will be announced in a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register and

in the local media, and it will be posted on the project website (http://www.blm.gov/nm/oktrmp).

Additional public meetings will be held to solicit public comment on the Draft EIS. Public 

comments will be analyzed and used to update alternatives and impacts, where applicable. At the 

conclusion of the public comment period, the Draft EIS will be revised, and a Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS will be published and made available to the public. 

While these are the specific opportunities for public involvement during the EIS process, the 

BLM and BIA will consider input from the public throughout the process.
May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 1-1

Final Scoping Summary Report

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

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

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

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

environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) to guide the management of BLM-administered public resources (BLM-administered 

surface lands and federal minerals) and restricted, trust, and tribal minerals and lands under the 

jurisdiction of the BIA within the states of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. The EIS will result in 

a resource management plan (RMP) that creates the management framework for the BLM lands 

and federal minerals under the jurisdiction of the BLM OFO. The RMP, which is developed 

through a public process, will be prepared as a dynamic and flexible plan to reflect the changing 

needs of the planning area. It will replace the 1991 Kansas RMP (BLM 19911), the 1994 

Oklahoma RMP (BLM 1994a), and the 1996 Texas RMP (BLM 1996a), as amended. 

The BIA’s Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regional Offices are charged with leasing 

Native American minerals in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The Eastern Oklahoma Regional 

Office is also responsible for minerals management in Osage County, Oklahoma. Both agencies 

have an obligation to evaluate the potential impacts of their decisions under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and are joining the BLM in this EIS process. The proposed 

joint planning effort will result in a joint BLM-BIA EIS and a BLM OFO RMP. BLM interests 

will be addressed under its RMP/EIS Record of Decision; Native American interests will be 

addressed under either the BIA-Eastern Oklahoma Record of Decision or the BIA-Southern 

Plains Record of Decision. These documents will comply with NEPA and the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as required under 43 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 1601.0-6. The EIS also will comply with BIA NEPA Guidebook, 59 Indian 

Affairs Manual 3-H (BIA 2012). Finally, the resulting OFO RMP will comply with the criteria 

outlined in the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 (BLM 2005).

 1 References cited are provided in Chapter 7, References.
1. Introduction

1-2 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE BLM RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

An RMP is a land use plan that describes broad multiple-use direction for managing BLMadministered land. The FLPMA directs the BLM to develop such land use plans to provide for 

appropriate uses of BLM-administered land. Decisions in land use plans guide future land 

management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation decisions. These decisions 

establish goals and objectives (desired outcomes) for resource management and the measures 

needed to achieve them. These measures are expressed as actions and allowable uses, such as 

lands that are open or available for certain uses and lands that are closed to certain uses. The 

BLM-administered lands within the Oklahoma RMP planning area are currently managed under

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

RMP (BLM 1996a), as amended.

The need for revising these three OFO RMPs is to respond to:

• New policies on energy

• New policies on climate change

• Demand for limited resources

• Appropriate protection of sensitive resources

• Changing ecological conditions

• Increases in conflict between competing resource values and land uses

• Other issues that have surfaced since approval of the current RMPs

One of the primary objectives of the OFO RMP is to help the BLM 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 will prepare an EIS to evaluate the environmental issues 

and impacts. The NEPA requires the BLM to consider a range of alternatives in its planning 

process and to analyze and disclose the potential environmental impacts of proposed RMP 

decisions. The alternatives and impact analysis 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.

1.3 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE BIA ACTION

The BIA’s Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regional Offices are charged with assisting 

Native American tribes in permitting uses on tribal jurisdictional lands and leasing Native 

American minerals in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office is 

also responsible for minerals management in Osage County, Oklahoma. Therefore, the BIA 

needs to develop overarching guidance for future leasing and development of Indian lands and 

mineral interests.
1. Introduction

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 1-3

Final Scoping Summary Report

The BIA is obligated to evaluate the potential impacts of its decisions under NEPA. The BIA 

Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regional Offices would sign two separate Records of 

Decision on the EIS; these Records of Decision would be in addition to the Record of Decision 

signed by the BLM.

1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA AND DECISION AREA

The planning area encompasses parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas (Figure 1-1, Oklahoma 

Field Office RMP Planning Area). The decision area for the RMP and EIS is where either federal 

or tribal interests exist (excluding US Forest Service interests). The decision area is only the 

BLM- and BIA-administered surface land and subsurface mineral estate within the planning 

area. The BLM decision area is composed of approximately 104,000 acres of BLM-administered 

surface lands, 593,000 acres of split-estate land (private land with federal mineral interests), and 

5,270,000 acres of federal mineral estate on lands managed by other federal agencies. The BIA 

decision areas include approximately 621,696 surface acres and 585,000 surface acres for BIA 

Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office and BIA Southern Plains Regional Office, respectively. This 

acreage includes all mineral estate within Osage County, Oklahoma, which is managed by the 

BIA’s Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office.

1.5 OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

Public involvement entails “The opportunity for participation by affected citizens in rule making, 

decision making, and planning with respect to the public lands, including public meetings or 

hearings... or advisory mechanisms, or other such procedures as may be necessary to provide 

public comment in a particular instance” (FLPMA, Section 103(d)). Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations and BLM planning regulations both provide for specific points of public 

involvement in the land use planning and NEPA processes to address local, regional, and 

national interests (43 CFR 1610.2 and 40 CFR 1506.6). Guidance for implementing public 

involvement can be found in the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 (BLM 2005) and 

BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1 (BLM 2008). Public involvement requirements of both NEPA 

and FLPMA will be satisfied through this joint RMP/EIS process. Guidance for public 

participation on restricted, trust, and tribal minerals and lands under the jurisdiction of the BIA is 

found in Section 8.3 of the BIA NEPA Guidebook, 59 Indian Affairs Manual 3-H (BIA 2012).

Public involvement for this planning effort will include:

• Scoping meetings and other outreach efforts requesting public comments to help 

determine the scope of issues and alternatives to be addressed

• Public outreach via newsletters, news releases, the project website (Section 1.6.3, 

Project Website), and other media

• Public review of the Draft EIS

• Public review and opportunity for protest of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS

This scoping report documents the results of the first component of the public involvement 

process.
1. Introduction

1-4 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

1-1 Oklahoma Field Office RMP Planning Area
1. Introduction

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 1-5

Final Scoping Summary Report

1.6 DESCRIPTION OF THE SCOPING PROCESS

Scoping, as required by 40 CFR 1501.7, is an early and open process for determining the issues 

to be addressed and identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action. Information 

collected during scoping may also be used to develop the alternatives to be addressed in a NEPA 

document. The process has two components: internal scoping and external scoping. Internal 

scoping is conducted within an agency or cooperating agencies to determine preliminary and 

anticipated issues and concerns. An interdisciplinary team of BLM and BIA resource specialists 

held internal scoping meetings to identify the anticipated planning issues and the methods, 

procedures, and data to be used in compiling the EIS.

External scoping is a public process designed to reach beyond the BLM and BIA. Its aim is to 

identify the concerns of high importance to the public. External scoping helps ensure the 

following:

• That planning issues are identified early and properly studied

• That issues of no concern do not consume time and effort

• That the proposed action and alternatives are balanced, thorough, and implementable

In accordance with 43 CFR 1610.2(d), the BLM must document the scoping results. Its Land Use 

Planning Handbook H-1601-1 (BLM 2005) requires the preparation of a scoping summary report 

to capture public input in one document. This report must summarize the separate comments 

received during the formal external scoping period. It also must describe the issues and 

management concerns from public and internal scoping meetings. Finally, it must include a 

discussion of how these comments will be incorporated into the RMP.

The BLM and BIA follow the public involvement requirements documented in Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1501.7 for scoping and Part 

1506.6 for public involvement). The BLM also follows public involvement requirements 

described in its planning regulations (43 CFR 1601-1610). 

The BLM solicits comments from relevant agencies and the public, organizes and analyzes all 

comments received, and then distills them to identify issues that will be addressed during the 

planning process. These issues help define the scope of analysis for the RMP and are used to 

develop alternatives to the proposed action.

1.6.1 Newsletter and Mailing List

In November 2013, the BLM and BIA mailed a newsletter with details about the public scoping 

period for the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP. The newsletter was mailed to 1,005

individuals from the public, agencies, tribes, and organizations. These people all had participated 

in past OFO or BIA activities, had been included on past OFO or BIA distribution lists, or had 

expressed an interest in BLM or BIA land management decisions. Email addresses were also 

available for 379 recipients on the mailing list who were mailed the newsletter, and an email 

with an attached Adobe Acrobat file (.pdf) of the newsletter was sent to these parties on 

November 14, 2013. The newsletter provided the dates and venues for the 17 public scoping 

meetings in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas (see Section 1.6.4, Scoping Public Meetings). It
1. Introduction

1-6 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

described the various methods for submitting comments, including dedicated email and US

Postal Service addresses. 

The BLM and BIA will publish future newsletters at major project milestones and will mail them 

to individuals and organizations on the project mailing list. All newsletters will be posted on the 

project website (Section 1.6.3, Project Website). Participants may request to receive newsletters 

and other project information through electronic or US Postal Service mail. The newsletter is 

included in Appendix A, Scoping Materials.

1.6.2 Newspaper Advertisements, Press Release, and Other Media Coverage

A newspaper advertisement was published in 17 local newspapers in November and December 

2013 and January 2014 prior to the scoping public meetings. Table 1-1, Newspaper 

Advertisement Publication Dates and Location, displays the date each newspaper published the 

advertisement. Each newspaper advertisement was customized and announced the scoping public 

meeting location near that newspaper’s local distribution (see Section 1.6.4, Scoping Public 

Meetings). An example newspaper article is included in Appendix A, Scoping Materials.

On November 14, 2013, the BLM posted a press release on the OFO website (Section 1.6.3, 

Project Website) announcing the publication of the Notice of Intent on July 26, 2013, and the 

initiation of the public scoping period for the RMP/EIS process. The project website also 

provided information on the 17 public scoping meetings (see Section 1.6.4, Scoping Public

Meetings) and described the various methods for submitting comments.

As shown in Table 1-2, Project Coverage in the Media, a total of three articles were known to be 

written about the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP effort by local media outlets.

1.6.3 Project Website

A public website was launched and is regularly updated to provide the public with the latest 

information about the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP process. The website—

http://www.blm.gov/nm/oktrmp—provides background information about 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 newsletter and Notices of Intent. Other 

information that can be found on the website includes a link to the scoping comment form for 

submitting comments about the EIS and RMP process. The dates and locations of all 17 scoping 

public meetings were announced on the website.

1.6.4 Public Scoping Meetings

The BLM and BIA hosted 17 public meetings 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. The Notice of Intent announced that the BLM would hold 

local scoping public meetings. The actual dates, meeting locations and times, and instructions for 

providing comments were announced via a press release, the project newsletter, and the project 

website (Section 1.6.3, Project Website). The details of the public meetings are provided in 

Table 1-3, Scoping Public Meetings.
1. Introduction

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 1-7

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-1

Newspaper Advertisement Publication Dates and Location

Newspaper Location Date(s) Advertisement 

Appeared

Amarillo Globe-News Amarillo, Texas December 24, 2013

December 29, 2013

Fort Worth Star-Telegram Fort Worth, Texas November 27, 2013

December 1, 2013

Houston Chronicle Houston, Texas December 2, 2013

December 8, 2013

Lawton Constitution Lawton, Texas November 28, 2013

December 1, 2013

The Leader & Times Liberal, Kansas December 24, 2013

December 29, 2013

The Lufkin News Lufkin, Texas December 3, 2013

December 8, 2013

McAlester News-Capital McAlester, Oklahoma November 17, 2013

November 20, 2013

The Oklahoman Oklahoma City, Oklahoma November 6, 2013

November 16, 2013

Pawhuska Journal-Capital Pawhuska, Oklahoma January 1, 2014

January 8, 2014

Polk County Enterprise Livingston, Texas December 2, 2013

December 5, 2013

Poteau Daily News Poteau, Oklahoma November 16, 2013

November 20, 2013

Salina Journal Salina, Kansas December 23, 2013

December 30, 2013

Tahlequah Daily Press Tahlequah, Oklahoma November 17, 2013

November 20, 2013

Times Record News Wichita Falls, Texas November 26, 2013

December 1, 2013

Tulsa World Tulsa, Oklahoma December 30, 2013

January 5, 2014

Weatherford Daily News Weatherford, Oklahoma November 5, 2013

November 9, 2013

Woodward News Woodward, Oklahoma November 5, 2013

November 10, 2013

Scoping meetings were held to encourage participants to discuss concerns and questions with 

BLM and BIA staff. At the sign-in station, participants could obtain copies of the first issue of 

the project newsletter, a glossary, blank scoping comment forms, and a guide to providing 

substantive comments. A BLM staff member gave a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation, 

followed by an opportunity for attendees to ask questions. BLM and BIA personnel were present

to discuss issues with attendees one-on-one. Several resource maps were displayed to illustrate 

the current situation and management techniques practiced among different resources and land
1. Introduction

1-8 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table 1-2

Project Coverage in the Media

Publication Name Date of Publication Title of Article

Texoma’s Homepage.com December 11, 2013 Concern Over Property Along Red River

The Hays Daily News January 6, 2014 BLM working on resource management 

plan for federally owned land

High Plains Daily Leader 

& Times

January 11, 2014 Lesser prairie chicken important piece of 

environmental puzzle

Texoma’s Homepage.com January 29, 2014 Residents Along Red River Encouraged 

to Comment on BLM Study

Table 1-3

Scoping Public Meetings

Location (Oklahoma, 

Kansas, and Texas) Venue Date Number of Attendees

Number of 

Completed 

Comment 

Forms 

Received

Woodward, Oklahoma Holiday Inn Express 11/18/2013 0 0

Weatherford, 

Oklahoma

Holiday Inn Express 11/19/2013 1 0

Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma

Best Western Plus –

Saddlebrook Inn and 

Conference Center 

11/20/2013 11 0

Poteau, Oklahoma Buckley Public Library 12/2/2013 3 0

Tahlequah, Oklahoma Holiday Inn Express 12/3/2013 3 0

McAlester, Oklahoma Holiday Inn Express 12/4/2013 4 0

Lawton, Oklahoma Holiday Inn Express 12/10/2013 14 1

Wichita Falls, Texas Courtyard Wichita Falls 12/11/2013 37 0

Fort Worth, Texas Fort Worth Public Library 12/12/2013 7 2

Houston, Texas Looscan Neighborhood 

Library

12/17/2013 8 0

Livingston, Texas Holiday Inn Express 12/18/2013 7 0

Lufkin, Texas Holiday Inn Express 12/19/2013 5 0

Salina, Kansas Courtyard Marriott Salina 1/7/2014 7 0

Liberal, Kansas Liberal Memorial Library 1/8/2014 10 0

Amarillo, Texas Amarillo Public Library 1/9/2014 35 0

Tulsa, Oklahoma Doubletree Downtown 1/14/2014 14 0

Pawhuska, Oklahoma Pawhuska City Library 1/15/2014 6 0

Total 172

Note: Meetings were from 6 to 8 PM.
1. Introduction

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 1-9

Final Scoping Summary Report

areas. Next to the map illustrating fluid mineral leasing stipulations was a handout with 

additional information on stipulations. The resource maps were also posted on the project

website (Section 1.6.3, Project Website) for public review. As shown in Table 1-2, Public 

Scoping Meetings, a total of 172 people attended the 17 public meetings.

Members of the public made oral comments during the scoping meetings. This is not the official 

way of commenting, and attendees were encouraged to write their comments down and to follow 

the formal submission process. However, for information purposes, oral comments were noted 

by the BLM and BIA and contractor staff; a summary of these comments is included in 

Appendix B, Oral Comments Made during Scoping Meetings.

1.6.5 Notice of Intent

The Notice of Intent notifies the public of an agency’s intent to prepare an EIS for a major 

federal action and invites the affected and interested agencies, organizations, and the general 

public to participate in determining the scope and significant issues to be addressed and analyzed 

in the EIS.. The Notice of Intent for this planning effort was published on July 26, 2013 (78 

Federal Register 45266-45628, July 26, 2013). A Notice of Intent to Extend the Public Scoping 

Period was published in December (78 Federal Register 76318-76319, December 17, 2013) and 

extended the formal scoping comment period to January 31, 2014, 190 days following 

publication of the initial Notice of Intent.

All comments received on or before February 28, 2014, are included in this scoping report. The 

BLM and BIA will consider all comments received during the planning process, both before the 

publication of the Notice of Intent and after the end of the official scoping comment period, 

during alternatives formulation and project planning, although the comments may not receive a 

written response and may not be included as part of the RMP and EIS. A link to the Notice of 

Intent is posted on the project website (Section 1.6.3, Project Website).

1.7 COLLABORATIVE INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

In addition to formal scoping, the BLM and BIA have implemented a collaborative outreach and 

public involvement process. As part of this process, the BLM and BIA will work closely with 

cooperating agencies. The BLM and BIA will coordinate with interested agencies and 

organizations throughout the planning process.

1.7.1 Cooperating Agency Coordination

A cooperating agency is any federal, state, or local government agency or Indian tribe that enters 

into a formal agreement with the lead federal agency to help develop an environmental analysis. 

More specifically, cooperating agencies “work with the BLM, sharing knowledge and resources, 

to achieve desired outcomes for BLM-administered lands and communities within statutory and 

regulatory frameworks” (BLM 2005). The benefits of enhanced collaboration among agencies in 

preparing NEPA analyses are as follows:

• Disclosing relevant information early in the analytical process

• Obtaining relevant information, including social conditions, from local communities

• Applying available technical expertise and staff support
1. Introduction

1-10 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

• Avoiding duplication with other federal, state, tribal, and local procedures

• Establishing a mechanism for addressing intergovernmental issues

In March 2014, the BLM wrote to all appropriate local, state, federal, and tribal representatives, 

inviting them to participate as cooperating agencies for the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO

RMP. As of May 20, 2014, , 54 local, state, and federal agencies and tribal entities had accepted 

the BLM-BIA cooperating agency invitation. The BLM and BIA will engage cooperating 

agencies during the RMP/EIS process.

1.7.2 Collaboration and Consultation with Tribes

The BLM and BIA are consulting with the affected Native American tribes identified as having 

interests or traditional cultural properties in the planning area. Consultation is required by the 

National Historic Preservation Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. During 

scoping, the first project newsletter was mailed to 133 contacts associated with tribes. The BLM 

and BIA have held the following meetings with tribes as of March 12, 2014:

• October 28, 2013, meeting with Quapaw Nation

• October 30, 2013, meeting with Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri, Kansas, and 

Nebraska; Potawatomi Nation; Choctaw Nation; and Delaware Nation

• January 7, 2014, meeting with Prairie Band of the Potawatomi and Sac and Fox 

Nation of Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska

No written comments were received from tribal agencies during the scoping period; tribal 

concerns or issues have been typically presented in oral format. The BLM and BIA will continue 

formal consultation with the tribes in 2014 by mailing consultation letters to the affected tribes.

Government-to-government consultation will continue throughout the RMP/EIS process to 

ensure that the concerns of tribal groups are considered as the RMP/EIS is developed.
May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 2-1

Final Scoping Summary Report

CHAPTER 2

COMMENT SUMMARY

2.1 METHOD OF COMMENT COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All written submissions received on or before February 28, 2014, 4 days following the end of the 

formal scoping period on January 31, 2014, were evaluated and are documented in this scoping 

summary report. All comments received during the RMP process will be considered in 

alternative formulation and project planning. While all comments received outside of the formal 

scoping period will be considered in alternatives formulation, they may not receive a written 

response and may not be included as part of the RMP/EIS.

A total of 143 written submissions, resulting in 683 discrete comments, were received during the 

public scoping period. The most common format used for submissions was email. Submissions 

were also sent via the US Postal Service or were faxed to the BLM OFO. Additional comment

forms were completed at the scoping public meetings.

In addition to unique submissions, letter campaigns from individuals resulted in form letter 

submissions for a number of topics. Details of form letter submission are included in Appendix 

C (List of Commenters), Table C-2, Form Letter Submissions. Letters that represented slight 

variations of the form letter without significant additional information were treated as form 

letters. When significant unique comments were added to the form letter, these comments were 

entered into the comment-tracking database. 

Two different form letters were received, neither of which was associated with a particular 

organization. Both form letters focused on the rights of individuals who own property along the 

Red River. They touched on a Supreme Court case, Oklahoma v. Texas, and the Red River 

Boundary Compact. The Oklahoma v. Texas case addressed the controversy over the OklahomaTexas boundary along the Red River. Upon Congressional consent to the Red River Boundary 

Compact in 2000, the Red River Boundary Compact established a new boundary between 

Oklahoma and Texas. One of the form letters was submitted by 50 individuals. The other was 

submitted by five individuals. Form letters are not included in the calculations of affiliation and 

geographic location percentages. A list of commenters and the dates of submittal are provided in 

Appendix C, List of Commenters. Most written submissions included more than one comment, 

so the 143 submissions and form letters yielded 683 discrete comments. The comment forms 
2. Comment Summary

2-2 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

provided instructions for requesting confidentiality and for withholding names or addresses from 

public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, and several commenters 

requested confidentiality. One comment was submitted anonymously (i.e., without name or 

address).

To ensure that public comments were properly registered and that none were overlooked, the 

BLM and BIA used a multiphase management and tracking system. First, written submissions 

were logged and numbered. Once all comments were received and documented, the BLM and 

BIA assigned a planning classification to each issue. These classifications detail which issues 

raised will be resolved through the planning effort. Planning classifications are as follows:

1. Issues that will be resolved in the RMP/EIS

2. Issues that will be addressed through BLM or BIA policy or administrative action 

3. Issues that are beyond the scope of this RMP/EIS that will be considered but not 

addressed

4. Issues about the Oklahoma-Texas boundary

To assist with the analysis, the BLM and BIA entered comments into the public input and

comment tracking database. Staff then organized comments by planning issue categories and 

commenter affiliation. Finally, these identifiers were queried and tallied to provide information

on planning and other issue categories. Details of comments received by planning issue are in 

Section 2.2.4, Number of Comments by Planning Issue Category.

2.2 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED

2.2.1 Written Submissions by Affiliation

The number and proportion of written submissions received from each type of affiliation are 

shown in Table 2-1 and on Figure 2-1, Comments by Commenter Affiliation. Letters on 

business, agency, or organization letterhead, or where commenters signed using their official 

agency title, were considered to represent that organization. All other letters were considered to 

represent individuals. Members of the general public provided 82.5 percent of the total 

comments received during the scoping period. A list of commenters, their affiliations, and the 

submittal date of their comments is in Appendix C, List of Commenters.

2.2.2 Written Submissions by Geographical Area

The number and proportion of written submissions received by the geographic location of the 

sender are shown in Table 2-2 and on Figure 2-2, Commenters by Geographic Area. A total of 

107 commenters (74.8 percent) were from states in the OFO (Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas): 3 

commenters (2.2 percent) were from Kansas, 32 commenters (23.9 percent) were from 

Oklahoma, and 72 commenters (53.7 percent) were from Texas. Of the remaining submissions, 

10 (7.5 percent) were from commenters outside of those states; 17 of the commenters (12.7

percent) did not indicate a geographic origin. These calculations do not include form letter 

submissions. In addition, some commenters made multiple submissions, and some letters had 

more than one signatory; therefore, the total for commenters by geographic area is not equal to 

the total letter submissions.
2. Comment Summary

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 2-3

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-1

Comments by Commenter Affiliation1

Affiliation Number of 

Comment Letters

Percentage of Total 

Comment Letters

Tribal Government 0 0

Federal Government 1 0.7

State Government 2 1.4

Local Government 0 0

Elected Official 1 0.7

Businesses 10 7.0

Educational Organizations 0 0

Other Organizations/Nonprofits 10 7.0

Individuals 118 82.5

Anonymous 1 0.7

Total Unique Submissions 143 100

1

Calculations do not include non-unique form letter submissions.

Figure 2-1

Comments by Commenter Affiliation1

1

Calculations do not include non-unique form letter submissions.
2. Comment Summary

2-4 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-2

Commenters by Geographic Area1

Location Number of 

Commenters

Percentage of 

Total Commenters

Within Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas 107 79.9

Within Kansas 3 2.2

Within Texas 72 53.7

Within Oklahoma 32 23.9

Outside Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas 10 7.5

Unknown 17 12.7

Total 134 100

1

Calculations do not include non-unique form letter submissions or submissions with 

nonsubstantive comments.

Figure 2-2

Commenters by Geographic Area1

1

Calculations do not include non-unique form letter submissions or submissions with nonsubstantive 

comments.

2.2.3 Number of Comments by Process Category

Table 2-3 and Figure 2-3, Comments by Process Category, show the number of issues raised 

that will or will not be addressed in the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP. Of the 683

comments received, 587 (85.9 percent) contained planning issues that will be addressed in the 

joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP (see Section 2.2.4, Number of Comments by Planning 

Issue Category).
2. Comment Summary

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 2-5

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table 2-3

Comments by Process Category

Process Category Code Number of 

Comments

Percent of 

Comments

General comment related to the project 58 8.5

Planning issue 587 85.9

General issue beyond the scope of the joint 

BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP

4 0.6

Issue resolved through BLM or BIA policy or 

administrative action

8 1.2

Issue about the Oklahoma-Texas boundary 26 3.8

Total 683 100

Figure 2-3

Comments by Planning Issue Category

While some comments addressed multiple planning issues, one primary category was selected 

for analysis. These comments are discussed in detail below and in Chapter 4, Planning Issue 

Summary. In addition, 58 comments (8.5 percent) were related to issues that will be addressed in

the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP but do not fall within a specific planning issue 

category. These were general comments on the RMP planning process, alternatives development, 

collaboration, and requirements of NEPA and other regulations (see Section 4.3.14, Other Issues 

to Be Addressed in the RMP/EIS). The remaining 5.6 percent of the comments were about the 

following:
2. Comment Summary

2-6 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

• Issues beyond the scope of the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP (0.6

percent)

• Issues that will be resolved through BLM or BIA policy or administrative action (1.2

percent)

• Issues about the Oklahoma-Texas boundary (3.8 percent)

See Section 4.4, Issues That Will Not Be Addressed in the RMP/EIS, for more detail.

Comments are provided in Appendix D, Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue. 

Comment letters can be viewed in their entirety at the OFO in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

2.2.4 Number of Comments by Planning Issue Category

Table 2-4 and Figure 2-4, Comments by Planning Issue Category, show the number and 

proportion of comments received by planning issue category. The BLM and BIA received 587

planning issue comments and categorized them into the 13 planning issue categories. Chapter 4, 

Planning Issue Summary, provides a detailed analysis of the comments received for each 

planning issue category and subcategory.

Table 2-4

Comments by Planning Issue Category

Planning Issue Category Number of 

Comments

Percent of 

Comments

Issue 1. Energy development 148 25.2

Issue 2. Minerals and mining 5 0.9

Issue 3. Cultural and historic resources 3 0.5

Issue 4. Fences and trespassing 51 8.7

Issue 5. Recreation and other uses along the Red River 156 26.6

Issue 6. Access and transportation 12 2.0

Issue 7. Public health and safety 66 11.2

Issue 8. Lands and realty 40 6.8

Issue 9. Fish and wildlife 39 6.6

Issue 10. Socioeconomics 36 6.1

Issue 11. Tribal interests 1 0.2

Issue 12. Issues not addressed in current RMPs 2 0.3

Issue 13. Climate change and future water needs 28 4.8

Total 587 100
2. Comment Summary

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 2-7

Final Scoping Summary Report

Figure 2-4

Comments by Planning Issue Category
2. Comment Summary

2-8 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

This page intentionally left blank.
May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 3-1

Final Scoping Summary Report

CHAPTER 3

PLANNING CRITERIA

Planning criteria guide development of the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP by helping 

define the range of decisions that can be made; they are generally based on applicable laws, 

BLM Director and New Mexico State Director guidance, BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern 

Plains Regional Directors guidance, and the results of public and governmental participation (43 

CFR 1610.4-2). The BLM and BIA developed preliminary planning criteria to set the sideboards 

for focused planning of the EIS and OFO RMP and to guide decision making by topic. A 

selection of the planning criteria developed is listed below.

The plan will be completed in compliance with the FLPMA, NEPA, and all other applicable 

laws, regulations, and policies. Impacts from the management alternatives considered in the 

revised RMP will be analyzed in an EIS developed in accordance with regulations at 43 CFR 

1601-1610 and 40 CFR 1500-1508. 

The following preliminary criteria were developed internally by the BLM and BIA and were 

presented for public comment. After public input was analyzed, the criteria became proposed 

criteria (Section 3.2, Additional Suggestions for Planning Criteria).

3.1 PRELIMINARY PLANNING CRITERIA

The following general planning criteria will be considered in developing the joint BLM-BIA EIS 

and BLM OFO RMP:

• Existing laws, regulations, and BLM and BIA policies 

• Valid existing rights 

• Plans, programs, and policies of other federal, state, and local governments and 

Native American tribes 

• Public input 

• Quantity and quality of noncommodity resource values 

• Future needs and demands for existing or potential resource commodities and values 
3. Planning Criteria

3-2 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

• Past and present use of public and adjacent lands 

• Environmental effects, including effects on wildlife, cultural resources, and 

paleontology 

• Social and economic values 

• Environmental justice

• 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 land use plans will be incorporated 

into the OFO RMP; these plans are the Kansas RMP (BLM 1991), the Oklahoma 

RMP (BLM 1994a) and subsequent amendments (BLM 1994b, 1996b, 2004, and 

2014), and the Texas RMP (BLM 1996a) and amendment (BLM 2000). 

• Tracts of BLM surface and subsurface minerals will be mapped and listed by legal 

description. Lands of uncertain title will also be listed. 

• 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, as based on the reasonably 

foreseeable development scenarios. 

3.2 ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS FOR PLANNING CRITERIA

No additional planning criteria were suggested by commenters. Therefore, the preliminary 

planning criteria (Section 3.1, Preliminary Planning Criteria) are now the proposed planning 

criteria.
May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 4-1

Final Scoping Summary Report

CHAPTER 4

PLANNING ISSUE SUMMARY

Issue identification is the first of the nine-step BLM planning process in the BLM Land Use 

Planning Handbook H-1601-1 (BLM 2005). As defined in the BLM Land Use Planning 

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

4.1 PLANNING ISSUE DEVELOPMENT

The BLM and BIA enacted a multistep issue-identification process for the joint BLM-BIA EIS 

and BLM OFO RMP. The process began with the creation of an RMP/EIS preparation plan in 

May 2013. The BLM and BIA interdisciplinary team used this plan as a guide for developing the 

RMP/EIS and for the following:

• To establish responsibilities, schedules, and procedures for the project team

• To describe the project team, contact information, and project tasks

• To estimate the schedule

• To highlight anticipated planning issues, management concerns, and preliminary 

planning criteria developed by the BLM and BIA interdisciplinary team during 

internal scoping

In July 2013, the BLM issued the Notice of Intent to prepare the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM 

OFO RMP. This initiated the formal scoping period, as required by NEPA, and solicited written 

public comments (Section 1.6, Description of the Scoping Process). The Notice of Intent was 

amended on December 17, 2013, to extend the public scoping period until January 24, 2014.
4. Planning Issue Summary

4-2 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Public outreach for scoping continued with the release of the first project newsletter in 

November 2013, followed by scoping meetings in November and December 2013 and January 

2014.

Scoping is a collaborative public involvement process. Its purpose is to identify and refine issues 

to address in the planning process. During scoping, tribes were sent the project newsletter, and

the BLM and BIA met with interested tribes during three tribal scoping meetings. 

The BLM and BIA hosted 17 public meetings and solicited written comments from the public 

during the scoping period. This provided additional information on the public’s concerns and 

suggestions about the planning area. 

Information accepted during internal and external scoping was compiled to develop discrete 

planning issue statements (Section 4.2, Planning Issue Statements). The purpose of these 

statements is to highlight the key issues distilled from these initial planning and scoping 

processes. (The issues are also discussed in Section 4.3, Summary of Public Comments by 

Planning Issue Category.) They pertain to the various issue categories and associated comments 

received from interested parties (individuals or groups). The BLM and BIA will use the planning 

issues and associated information to formulate a reasonable range of alternative management 

strategies that will be analyzed during the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP process.

4.2 PLANNING ISSUE STATEMENTS

A planning issue is a conflict or dispute over resource management activities, allocations, or land 

use. It is well defined and deals with only one topic. A number of alternatives can be developed 

to address a planning issue.

The planning issue statements presented below are preliminary and are based on the best 

information gathered to date. These issues will be addressed through the joint BLM-BIA EIS and 

BLM OFO RMP. The process of developing this EIS and RMP will afford many opportunities 

for collaboration with local, state, federal, and tribal governments, with land-management 

agencies, and with public interest groups and BLM-administered and BIA land users. As a result, 

the planning issues and concerns will likely be modified, new issues will be added, and others 

will be deleted as a result of the public scoping process. 

Some of the overarching planning issues that the BLM and BIA will address are listed below. 

Each issue, in turn, has several subtopics, issue questions, and management concerns that address 

more specific uses and resources. As applicable, items listed in Appendix C of the BLM’s Land 

Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 (BLM 2005) will be addressed, and decisions will be made.

Issue 1: How can the BLM and BIA allow development of federal and tribal oil and gas 

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

water, and the natural environment?

• Oil and gas impacts on other resources

• Hydraulic fracturing

• Impacts on private property
4. Planning Issue Summary

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 4-3

Final Scoping Summary Report

Issue 2: How can the BLM and BIA allow development of federal and tribal coal resources and 

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

natural environment?

Issue 3: How can the BLM and BIA manage cultural and historic resources for public 

enjoyment, while protecting those resources?

Issue 4: How should the BLM manage the land it administers in the Red River area to reduce 

conflicts with adjacent property owners?

• Fences/signs

• Trespassing

• Surveys

• Incidents of conflict

Issue 5: What uses should be allowed along the Red River and what restrictions, if any, should 

apply to those uses in order to protect other uses and resources?

• Recreating (hunting, camping, fishing, horseback riding, and hiking)

• Grazing

• Leases

• Access restrictions

Issue 6: What access points and trails should be open in the Red River area?

• Necessary trail requirements for horseback riding and other uses

Issue 7: How can the BLM minimize public health and safety risks in the Red River area?

• Trash/illegal dumping

• Methamphetamine labs

• Patrols

• Fires

• BLM past management

• Quicksand/bogs

• Access for emergency crews

• Abandoned oil and gas wells

• Feral hogs and other predatory wildlife

Issue 8: What criteria should the BLM use for disposing of or acquiring BLM-administered 

lands?
4. Planning Issue Summary

4-4 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Issue 9: How should the BLM allow use of BLM-administered lands for recreation and other 

resource uses, while protecting fish and wildlife?

• Special status species

• Conflicts with renewable energy and other uses

Issue 10: 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?

• Oil and gas (e.g., employment)

• Tourism (e.g., property values)

• Agriculture

Issue 11: How can the BIA minimize trespassing on tribal lands, especially during the hunting 

season?

Issue 12: How will the BLM address resources not addressed in the current RMPs?

• Cave and karst resources

• Salable, locatable, and leasable minerals

• New technology

• New information on diseases

Issue 13: How are the BLM and BIA going to plan for future water needs and for climate change 

and its effects, including water shortage?

• Increased risk of drought

• Fire

• Carbon sequestration

• Renewable energy

4.3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS BY PLANNING ISSUE CATEGORY

Each comment received during public scoping was reviewed and coded. Of the 683 comments 

received, 587 (85.9 percent) were related to one of the 13 planning issues defined above. In 

addition, 58 (8.5 percent) were general comments related to issues that will be addressed in the 

RMP but are not in a specific planning issue category. See Table 2-4, Comments by Planning 

Issue Category, for a breakdown of the number of comments received for each planning issue 

and subcategory.

Summaries of the scoping comments received for each planning issue category, as well as 

general comments, are provided in Section 4.3.1, Issue 1, through Section 4.3.14, Other Issues to 

Be Addressed in the RMP/EIS. These summaries provide details only on comments related to 
4. Planning Issue Summary

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 4-5

Final Scoping Summary Report

issues that will be resolved in the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP. Tables with all 

comments for each planning issue and those for issues that will not be addressed in the RMP are 

included in Appendix D, Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue.

Adjustments or additions may be made to the planning issues. These changes will be made as the 

planning process proceeds and the BLM and BIA continue to review information, meet with the 

interdisciplinary team, and talk with the public.

4.3.1 Issue 1

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

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

natural environment?

The BLM and BIA received 148 comments (25 percent of the planning issue comments) on 

impacts of oil and gas development on other resources in the area. Many of these commenters 

expressed concern over how the oil and gas industry could be impacted by stipulations placed on 

oil and gas activities. Most of these comments were submitted by the oil and gas industry. The 

comments focused on minimizing restrictions on oil and gas and opening up more land, such as 

military installations and wildlife refuges, for oil and gas activities. Some comments also came 

from oil and gas companies requesting that the BLM respond more quickly with stipulations to 

include in a lease when a tract has been nominated. Other commenters stated that the BLM 

cannot attach additional conditions of approval and mitigation measures to existing leases. A few 

commenters also reminded the BLM and BIA of the importance of the oil and gas industry in the 

country’s economic development and movement toward energy independence.

Many commenters stated that the oil and gas industry is negatively affecting the environment. 

Many of the comments under this category expressed concern about oil and gas development 

impacts on air quality, climate change, visual resources, water quality, as well as related human 

health impacts. Commenters were concerned about the following:

• Groundwater and surface water contamination from oil and gas activities

• Soil contamination

• Negative impacts on wildlife and special status species

• Impacts on tribes if oil and gas accidents and injuries occur on tribal land

• Impacts on cultural resources and livestock

• Impacts on wildlife-based tourism, such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing

A few commenters also expressed concern that oil and gas development lowered the value of 

nearby properties.

Many commenters were concerned that hydraulic fracturing would impact human health, the 

environment, and wildlife. Commenters requested baseline water quality assessments around 

proposed drill sites and thorough assessments of hydraulic fracturing impacts. They requested 

that the BLM analyze induced seismicity caused by hydraulic fracturing. Many commenters 

expressed concerns about potential public health impacts from the chemicals used in hydraulic 
4. Planning Issue Summary

4-6 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

fracturing fluid. Others noted a risk of water contamination and stated that the large amount of 

water that hydraulic fracturing uses and how this use of water, particularly during a drought, is 

irresponsible. 

4.3.2 Issue 2

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

valid existing lease rights, while protecting air, water, and the natural environment?

The BLM and BIA received 5 comments (1 percent of the planning issue comments) on the 

impact of coal on other resources in the area. Three of the comments focused on reducing the 

impacts that mining and coal development have on the environment and public health. In 

particular, commenters expressed concern about the following:

• Water contamination from chemicals used in the process 

• Impacts on human health caused by coal dust 

• Environmentally damaging processes used in coal extraction, such as mountaintop 

removal

One of the remaining two commenters asked about mineral exploration on tribal land, and the 

other inquired about acquiring rights to lease and mine in the period before the joint BLM-BIA 

EIS and BLM OFO RMP is completed. 

4.3.3 Issue 3

How can BLM and BIA manage cultural and historic resources for public enjoyment, while 

protecting those resources?

The BLM and BIA received 3 comments (less than 1 percent of the planning issue comments) 

about the management of cultural and historical resources. The commenters were concerned 

about the preservation of the cultural and historical resources along the Red River. One 

commenter also asked that the BLM comply with the National Historic Preservation Act and the 

Oklahoma Statewide Preservation Plan when considering management of historical, cultural, and 

archaeological resources. 

4.3.4 Issue 4

How should the BLM manage the land it administers in the Red River area to reduce conflicts 

with adjacent property owners?

The BLM received 51 comments (9 percent of the planning issue comments) about conflicts 

between the public and property owners in the Red River area. Most of these comments were 

submitted by current landowners. They described the issues they have had in the past with 

trespassers who have threatened landowners’ safety or endangered them or have destroyed or 

stolen property. Many of these commenters believe the current problems they experience with 

trespassers will only be aggravated and increased by opening areas around the Red River for 

public use. 
4. Planning Issue Summary

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 4-7

Final Scoping Summary Report

Commenters tended to be skeptical that the BLM would be able to prevent trespassing and 

enforce laws on the lands it administers. Commenters noted that in the past they have had trouble 

getting law enforcement to address trespassing concerns. Some commenters noted particular 

areas along the Red River that were common points of access for trespassers. 

Many of the commenters also had questions about BLM land surveys that would delineate which 

part of the Red River area is BLM-administered land and which part is private property. 

Commenters were curious about when the surveys would take place, whether the government 

would ask for landowner permission for access before conducting the surveys, and how the 

property lines would be demarcated once they were identified. A few commenters were opposed

to the surveys being conducted. Some commenters were confused as to why the BLM did not 

already know the boundaries of the land it administers. Others were confused about why the 

BLM was asking for feedback without yet knowing what land along the Red River it administers.

Commenters also noted the difficulty in defining property lines based on vegetation lines and the 

river’s location.

4.3.5 Issue 5

What uses should be allowed along the Red River and what restrictions, if any, should apply to 

those uses in order to protect other users and resources?

The BLM received 156 comments (27 percent of the planning issue comments) about what uses 

should be allowed along the Red River and what restrictions should be placed on those uses. 

Many commenters expressed enthusiasm for equestrian trails along the Red River. Equestrian 

groups and other recreation groups and individuals volunteered their time to help clear or plan 

trails. Many commenters had specific suggestions on what kinds of features and facilities would 

be appreciated by recreational users; many were eager to help expedite the creation of more 

recreation opportunities along the river. Some commenters also had opinions about uses that 

would be incompatible, such as the use of trails for both equestrian and bicycle use. Others were 

in support of using the land for hiking, biking, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, camping, and 

livestock grazing. A few requested that the area be restored to short grass prairie. 

Other commenters, many who own land along the Red River, expressed hesitation or opposition 

to opening the Red River to public recreation. Commenters stated that erosion is an issue in the 

area, and public use of the Red River area, in particular by all-terrain vehicle users, contributes to 

the problem. Other commenters were opposed to motorized vehicle travel in the area, noting that 

it leads to extended camping, trespassing, and public safety concerns. 

Many commenters requested that the Red River be closed to the public and to oil and gas leasing. 

They noted that the Red River currently has no management and is being damaged by all-terrain 

vehicle use and litter. These commenters noted that public use of the land could lead to increased 

damage through water pollution, motorized vehicle use, erosion, increased fires, trespassing, 

increased use of the area for illegal drug production, and negative impacts on visual resources 

and wildlife. Many of the landowners expressed concerns that the public was not respectful of 

BLM-administered land and that if the river were opened to the public, it would become 

irreparably damaged.
4. Planning Issue Summary

4-8 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Some of the commenters questioned the kinds of uses that would be allowed and who would 

enforce those allowed uses. Others had logistical suggestions about providing brochures and 

kiosks along the river to disseminate information about allowable uses. Some commenters 

questioned if this was a wise use of federal money. 

Many commenters questioned whether opening the area to the public was worth the risk of 

environmental damage, fire, and trespassing. A few commenters were concerned that their 

livelihoods as ranchers and farmers would be negatively affected by opening the land to public 

use.

Several commenters had suggestions about trail specifications in order to make them the most 

enjoyable, most accessible to users of all ability levels, and safest for users and horses. One 

commenter requested that a study be conducted to determine if the Red River is suitable for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

4.3.6 Issue 6

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

The BLM received 12 comments (2 percent of the planning issue comments) on what access 

points and trails should be open in the Red River area. Commenters suggested various locations 

through which the Red River could be easily accessed. Some commenters also suggested 

locations for parking lots and other facilities. One commenter suggested the BLM develop a tiein with the Northeast Texas Trail if possible, and another suggested that linear equestrian trails 

be developed. Other commenters expressed concern that private land would be used by the 

public to access the Red River if the river were opened for public use.

4.3.7 Issue 7

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

The BLM received 66 comments (11 percent of the planning issue comments) about public 

health and safety risks along the Red River. Most commenters acknowledged that currently there 

are health and safety risks along the river. They expressed concern that these risks would 

increase if the river were opened to the public. Commenters expressed concerns about illegal 

drug labs, theft, fires, aggressive trespassers, illegal dumping, criminal activity, trash, and wild 

parties. Many commenters opposed the idea of opening up the area to hunting and viewed that as 

a public safety hazard. Commenters are also concerned about danger to livestock, trespassers 

hunting at night, and the public hunting while drinking alcohol. Most commenters do not want 

the area opened to the public or to oil and gas leasing.

Several commenters were particularly concerned that the area is more susceptible to wildfire due 

to the drought and that opening it to the public would increase wildfire risk. Commenters stated 

that it would unfairly disadvantage adjacent property owners who would risk property damage 

and loss in the event of a wildfire. 

Many commenters also noted that unlike the landowners along the river, the general public is not 

aware of the array of dangers along the Red River. These include quicksand and bogs, as well as 

feral hogs, mountain lions, and other predatory wildlife. Additionally, many commenters noted 
4. Planning Issue Summary

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 4-9

Final Scoping Summary Report

the difficulty emergency crews have in reaching area properties. Were public access granted 

along the Red River, many landowners are concerned that the public would not be able to receive 

emergency assistance. Reasons cited for this concern were lack of cell phone reception and

access roads for emergency crews, as well as the amount of time emergency crews typically take 

to respond to emergencies in the area. 

Commenters questioned whether the BLM has the funds and staff to enforce area rules and 

public safety were the area opened to the public. Commenters questioned how the BLM would 

deal with health and safety hazards, such as fires or all-terrain vehicles stuck in quicksand. 

Additional commenters noted the inability of Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 

game wardens to effectively address the public safety concerns in the area. One commenter 

suggested the BLM partner with the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation to reduce 

costs of management and to add a law enforcement presence.

4.3.8 Issue 8

What criteria should the BLM use for disposing of or acquiring BLM-administered lands?

The BLM received 40 comments (7 percent of the planning issue comments) on the disposal and 

acquisition of BLM-administered lands. Most of the commenters were opposed to surveying 

lands along the Red River to determine that some lands are BLM administered rather than 

private. Most of the commenters were concerned about how they could maintain ownership and 

use rights of their land. Some desired clarification on how this could happen and what the 

processes are for public domain.

Many commenters think that the land along the Red River should be returned to private 

ownership or kept as is. Several commenters suggested that the land along the Red River be sold

to adjacent landowners. Commenters expressed disappointment and confusion over the idea that 

the BLM could own land to which the commenters have deeds and on which they pay taxes. 

Some think the federal government should compensate landowners if the survey shows the land 

is administered by the BLM. Others were concerned about the socioeconomic impacts they 

would experience as ranchers and farmers if their land were found to be BLM-administered land

open to public use. One commenter believes privately owned wetlands should retain private 

property rights. 

4.3.9 Issue 9

How should the BLM allow use of the lands it administers for recreation and other resource 

uses, while protecting fish and wildlife?

The BLM received 39 comments (7 percent of the planning issue comments) on impacts on fish 

and wildlife from allowing use of BLM-administered lands for recreation and other resource 

uses. Commenters inquired about the presence of endangered or threatened animal species in the 

area. They also expressed concerns about the fish and wildlife impacts that would result from 

opening the Red River to motorized vehicle use, oil and gas development, renewable energy 

development, and hunting. 

Many commenters were concerned that wildlife is being harassed and habitat being destroyed by 

Red River area visitors. They were concerned about poaching along the Red River and the future 
4. Planning Issue Summary

4-10 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

impacts on fish and wildlife if hunting were allowed. One commenter asked that shotgun hunting 

be restricted to nontoxic shot so birds feeding along the river would not be at risk for ingesting 

lead pellets. Specifically, commenters expressed concerns about the status of eagle, sandhill 

crane, bobcat, deer, American burying beetle, piping plover, lesser prairie chicken, quail, 

songbirds, and ducks. 

One commenter was concerned about the growing population of feral hogs in the Red River 

Valley. Another was concerned about the protection of bats and how land use decisions 

impacting surface water would affect bats. This commenter also questioned how the BLM would 

address white-nose syndrome in future management.

Commenters requested that the BLM analyze impacts from oil and gas development on wildlife, 

and in particular on migratory birds and special status species. Commenters also expressed 

concern that water reduction caused by oil and gas development, particularly hydraulic 

fracturing, could impact aquatic and riverine species and habitat. One commenter from an energy 

company requested the avoidance of blanket stipulations to protect threatened and endangered 

species.

Commenters also were concerned that allowing visitors along the Red River would harm habitat 

and drive wildlife out of the area. Commenters were concerned about the impacts of motorized 

vehicles on fish and wildlife, specifically on amphibians and shore bird breeding grounds. One 

commenter suggested the BLM work with landowners along the Red River to preserve and 

restore fish and wildlife habitat. Another recommended the BLM install escape structures on all 

steep-sided livestock troughs and open-topped storage tanks on BLM-administered land to 

minimize wildlife drowning in such structures. Two commenters recommended the Red River be 

managed to emphasize wildlife protection.

4.3.10 Issue 10

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?

The BLM received 36 comments (6 percent of the planning issue comments) on socioeconomics. 

Many of the commenters believe the development of equestrian and hiking trails along the Red 

River would attract tourists, generate jobs, and benefit nearby towns’ economies. However, most 

of the commenters were more concerned about the potential negative socioeconomic impacts of 

new resource and use management included in the RMP revision and EIS.

Many commenters noted the importance of the oil and gas industry to the Oklahoma, Kansas, 

and Texas state economies, to job development, and to the federal government in the way of 

royalties. One commenter suggested that minerals should be the BLM’s primary focus due to 

their economic potential. Other commenters noted the importance of agriculture to the economy 

and feared the impact the RMP revision and EIS would have on that industry.

Commenters also expressed concern about how the RMP revision and EIS would impact their 

livelihoods. Some asked that the BLM quantify the economic impact of restricting such activities 

as timber harvesting, livestock grazing, hunting, and mining in the planning area. Others asked 

that public access to the Red River area be restricted because, if the land were damaged by the 
4. Planning Issue Summary

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 4-11

Final Scoping Summary Report

public, the livelihood of ranchers and farmers would be harmed. Others were worried about their 

farms and livelihoods if their land along the Red River was found to be BLM administered. 

Some commenters were also concerned about how the management of the Red River area would 

impact property values. Others questioned whether doing surveys and then managing the area 

along the Red River for various recreational uses was a good use of federal money, stating that 

there are multiple other federal programs needing funding.

4.3.11 Issue 11

How can the BIA minimize trespassing on tribal lands, especially during the hunting season?

The BLM and BIA received 1 comment (less than 1 percent of the planning issue comments) on 

trespassing on tribal lands. The commenter noted that there is trespassing on tribal land and that 

this is accentuated during hunting season. The commenter would like the BIA to increase 

patrolling and to enforce trespassing laws.

4.3.12 Issue 12

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

The BLM received 2 comments (less than 1 percent of the planning issue comments) on 

resources not addressed in the previous RMP. One commenter expressed concerns about how the 

BLM would ensure the protection of bats in future management. The commenter noted that 

currently the two greatest threats to bats in the US and Canada are wind power and white-nose 

syndrome; these were not primary threats to bats when the previous Kansas, Oklahoma, and 

Texas RMPs were written. The other commenter noted that caves and karst and mines were not 

addressed in the previous RMPs. The commenter would like best management practices 

prescribed in the RMP revision and EIS that consider the role cave, karst, and mines play in bat 

communities and subsequent spread of white-nose syndrome.

4.3.13 Issue 13

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

effects, including water shortage?

The BLM and BIA received 28 comments (5 percent of the planning issue comments) on climate 

change, drought, and future water needs. Most of the comments were focused on the impacts of 

climate change on other resources and stated that the oil and gas industry had a role in causing 

climate change. Many of the comments were focused on the future of the US water supply and 

the impact the oil and gas industry has on water supply and quality. 

Commenters reminded the BLM and BIA of their obligation to consider climate change impacts 

in planning and decision making. They also suggested that the BLM and BIA consider increasing 

renewable energy as a way to mitigate climate change, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and 

decrease future impacts on water supply and quality. One commenter mentioned carbon 

sequestration permits and asked that these be addressed in the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM 

OFO RMP. Many commenters expressed concern about methane levels, tropospheric ozone, and 

black carbon and their impacts on air quality, climate change, crop yields, and public health. 
4. Planning Issue Summary

4-12 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Commenters expressed opposition to hydraulic fracturing and concern that this and other oil and 

gas development impact climate change and air quality. Commenters also requested that the 

BLM and BIA analyze the cumulative and incremental effects of coal and oil and gas 

development on climate change, human health, vegetation and wildlife, water quality and 

quantity, agriculture, and socioeconomics. 

Commenters reminded the BLM and BIA that they are required to protect water from further 

degradation, expressing concern about future water needs in the OFO. Many commenters were 

concerned about the current drought conditions and the associated increased risk of fire. One 

commenter opposed public and government use of streams or rivers next to private property.

Commenters were particularly concerned about the amount of water used in oil and gas 

development. They requested that the BLM and BIA consider the impacts of using water for oil 

and gas development on the availability of water for drinking, ranching, agriculture, wildlife, and 

recreation. Commenters also noted the drought and questioned whether using water for oil and 

gas development is appropriate during drought. Some commenters stated that because chemicals 

are added to the water used in hydraulic fracturing, the water cannot be reused, and that this can 

stress water supplies and increase the concentration of water pollutants. 

4.3.14 Other Issues to Be Addressed in the RMP/EIS

Of the 683 comments received, 85.9 percent were related to planning issues that will be 

addressed in the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP (as discussed in Section 4.3.1, Issue 

1, through Section 4.3.13, Issue 13). Another 58 comments (8.5 percent) focused on other topics, 

such as the planning process in general, alternatives, or the public involvement process. These 

topics will be addressed in the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP, but they do not fit in 

any particular planning issue category. Comments are displayed in Appendix D, Table D-4, 

General Comments Related to the Project.

General comments included the following:

• Issues related to how the BLM and BIA plan to fund the joint BLM-BIA EIS and 

BLM OFO RMP

• Issues about the manner in which the BLM and BIA conducted public scoping and 

suggestions for improving future public outreach

• Comments on FLPMA and the BLM’s multiple-use mandate

4.4 ISSUES THAT WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED IN THE RMP/EIS

Approximately 5.6 percent of the comments were related to issues that will not be addressed in 

the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP. These include issues resolved through policy or 

administrative action, those beyond the scope of the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO 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.
4. Planning Issue Summary

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 4-13

Final Scoping Summary Report

Administrative or policy comments included issues pertaining to national BLM and BIA policy 

that will not be addressed during the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP process.

Comments include questions about the following: 

• Compensation for landowners whose land is found to be under BLM administration

• The BLM’s oil and gas policy and processes

• 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 BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO 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.

4.5 DECISIONS TO BE MADE

BLM interests will be addressed under its RMP/EIS Record of Decision; Native American

interests will be addressed under either the BIA-Eastern Oklahoma Record of Decision or the

BIA-Southern Plains Record of Decision.

The New Mexico BLM State Director will decide whether to approve the RMP. The final RMP 

will identify desired outcomes, future conditions to be maintained or achieved, and specify uses 

or resource allocations that are allowable, restricted, or prohibited, including any restrictions 

needed to meet desired outcomes. The BLM is reviewing the condition of the environment and 

the current management situation to identify which management directions should be continued, 

which should be modified, and which should be developed and added. 

The BIA is cooperating in the preparation of the EIS and will issue separate decisions for the 

restricted, trust, and tribal minerals and lands under its jurisdiction. 

This scoping report does not make any decisions, nor does it change current management 

direction set forth in the current RMPs (BLM 1991, 1994a, and 1996a); instead it summarizes 

those issues identified during the scoping period. The BLM will use planning issues summarized 

in this scoping report, along with subsequently identified issues, planning criteria, and other 

information (such as occurrence and development potential for minerals), to help formulate a 

reasonable range of alternatives during the next phase of the RMP process. Each identified 

alternative (including continuation of existing management practices) will represent a complete 

and reasonable plan for managing the OFO.
4. Planning Issue Summary

4-14 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

This page intentionally left blank.
May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 5-1

Final Scoping Summary Report

CHAPTER 5

DATA SUMMARY AND DATA GAPS

5.1 SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE RELEVANT INFORMATION 

Both new data and existing resource information will be used in formulating management 

alternatives in the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP. To facilitate this process, 

information is being compiled and put into digital format using geographic information systems 

for use in analysis and map production. Because this information is imperative to quantifying 

resources, to updating maps, and to manipulating information during alternative formulation, this 

process must be completed before actual analysis can begin. New data generated during the joint 

BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP process will be used to address planning issues and will 

meet applicable established standards.

5.2 DATA NEEDS

The BLM and BIA have identified the following data needs:

• An assessment of various social and economic parameters will be conducted with

local governments; the results will be documented in a socioeconomic report and

incorporated into the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP. 

• A mineral potential report will be developed in cooperation with the BLM and 

cooperating state and federal agencies. The report will assess the mineral resource 

occurrence and development potential of the area defined for the joint BLM-BIA EIS 

and BLM OFO RMP.

• A Wild and Scenic Rivers eligibility and suitability study will be conducted; the 

results will be documented in a report, incorporated into the BLM OFO RMP

alternatives, and analyzed in the RMP/EIS.

• A focused visual resource inventory will be conducted; the results will be 

documented in a report, incorporated into the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO

RMP alternatives, and analyzed in the RMP/EIS.

• Air quality modeling and impact analysis will be conducted, which will form the 

baseline of the impact analysis in the joint BLM-BIA EIS.
5. Data Summary and Data Gaps

5-2 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

• Climate change data

• A Class I-level cultural resources analysis and consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Office per Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

will be conducted; issues and management considerations provided in the analysis 

and consultation will be included in the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP. 

• Officially nominated areas will be assessed for designation as BLM Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, and the results will inform the special designations section 

of the BLM OFO RMP. (No areas were nominated in scoping comment submissions.)

5.3 DATA GAPS

Data for the EIS will be gathered throughout the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP

process to ensure that data gaps are minimized. 
May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 6-1

Final Scoping Summary Report

CHAPTER 6

FUTURE STEPS

6.1 FUTURE STEPS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITIES

The assessments and studies identified in Section 5.4, Data Needs, will be conducted. In 

addition, the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1 [BLM 2005]) requires the BLM to 

develop a report called the analysis of the management situation. The analysis of the 

management situation describes the current conditions and trends of the resources and resource 

uses/activities in the planning area. It also documents current management and opportunities for 

changes in management. The analysis of the management situation provides the framework from 

which to address the planning issues through the development of alternatives. The BLM will 

develop the analysis of the management situation prior to developing alternatives.

The next phase of the BLM’s planning process is to develop draft alternatives based on the issues 

presented in Section 4.2, Planning Issue Statements, and Section 4.3, Summary of Public 

Comments by Planning Issue Category. These alternatives will address planning issues identified 

during scoping and will meet goals and objectives to be developed by the BLM/BIA

interdisciplinary team. In compliance with NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality

regulations, and BLM and BIA planning regulations and guidance, alternatives should be 

reasonable and capable of implementation. 

An analysis of the alternatives will be documented and the agency’s preferred alternative 

identified in a joint Draft EIS/BLM OFO Draft RMP. The preferred alternative may be

comprised of a combination of management option components from various other alternatives 

to provide the best mix and balance of multiple land and resource uses to address the issues. The 

draft document, anticipated to be published in 2016, will be widely distributed to elected 

officials, regulatory agencies, and members of the public, and it will be available on the project 

website (Section 1.6.3, Project Website). The availability of the draft document will be 

announced via a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register, and a 90-day public comment 

period will follow. Public meetings will be held in the planning area during the 90-day comment 

period. 

At the conclusion of the public comment period, the BLM and BIA will review and analyze 

public comments and determine what changes need to be made to the document. The BLM and 
6. Future Steps

6-2 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

BIA will then revise the Draft EIS and prepare a joint Final EIS/BLM OFO Proposed RMP. The

Final EIS will then be published. The availability of the document will be announced in the 

Federal Register, and a 30-day public protest period regarding the proposed planning level 

decisions (43 CFR 1610.5.2) will follow. Concurrently, the Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas

Governors will review the document for consistency with approved state and local plans, 

policies, and programs. 

At the conclusion of the public protest period and the 60-day Governors’ consistency reviews, 

the BLM and BIA will resolve all protests and any inconsistencies. If necessary, a notice will be 

published in the Federal Register requesting public comment on significant changes made as a 

result of protest. The BLM will then prepare the approved RMP and Record of Decision. The 

BIA will also prepare two Records of Decision: one for the Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office 

and one for the Southern Plains Regional Office. The availability of these documents will be 

announced in the Federal Register. 

All publications, including this report, newsletters, the Draft RMP/EIS, Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS, Approved RMP/Record of Decision, and the Notices of Availability of the Draft RMP/EIS,

the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, and the Approved RMP/Record of Decision, will be published on 

the project website (Section 1.6.3, Project Website). In addition, pertinent dates regarding 

solicitation of public comments will be published on the website.

6.2 CONTACT INFORMATION

The public is invited and encouraged to participate throughout the planning process for the joint 

BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP. Some ways to participate are as follows:

• Review the progress of the joint BLM-BIA EIS and BLM OFO RMP at the project 

website (Section 1.6.3, Project Website), which will be updated with information, 

documents, and announcements throughout the duration of the EIS preparation

• Request to be added to or to remain on the official project mailing list in order to 

receive future mailings and information (email BLM_NM_OKT_RMP@blm.gov)

6.2.1 Contacts

Those wishing to be added to or deleted from the distribution list, wishing to change their contact 

information, or requesting further information may email a request to 

BLM_NM_OKT_RMP@blm.gov or contact Mr. Laurence Levesque, Planning and 

Environmental Coordinator, BLM, 7906 East 33rd Street, Suite 101, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74145, 

phone 918-621-4136. Please provide your name, organization, mailing address, email address, 

and phone number, as well as the preferred method to receive information.

6.2.2 Scoping Team

This scoping report was prepared by the BLM and BIA, with assistance from Environmental 

Management and Planning Solutions, Inc. (EMPSi). Table 6-1, Agency and EMPSi Scoping 

Team, shows the primary BLM, BIA, and EMPSi staff who attended scoping meetings and 

contributed to this report.
6. Future Steps

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 6-3

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table 6-1

Agency and EMPSi Scoping Team

Name Company

Laurence Levesque BLM

David Anderson BIA

Micki Bailey BLM

Dave Goodman BLM

Richard Fields BLM

Matt Flynn BLM

Michael Johnson BLM

Paul McGuire BLM

D. J. Money BLM

Larry Moore BLM

Gabe Morgan BIA

Jonna Polk BIA

Steve Tryon BLM

Angie Adams EMPSi

David Batts EMPSi

Annie Daly EMPSi

Andrew Gentile EMPSi

Jenna Jonker EMPSi

Kate Krebs EMPSi

Laura Long EMPSi

Katie Patterson EMPSi
6. Future Steps

6-4 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

This page intentionally left blank.
May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS 7-1

Final Scoping Summary Report

CHAPTER 7

REFERENCES

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

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

Resources Management, Reston, VA. August 2012. 444 pp.

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

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

Area, OK. September 1991. 148 pp.

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

District, Oklahoma Resource Area, OK. January 1994. 231 pp.

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

Record: Six Coal Lease Applications and One Coal Lease Modification in Southeastern 

Oklahoma. BLM, Tulsa District, Oklahoma Resource Area, OK. August 1994. 124 pp.

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

Oklahoma Resource Area, OK. May 1996. 144 pp.

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

BLM, Tulsa District, Oklahoma Resource Area. September 1996. 42 pp.

_____. 2000. Texas Resource Management Plan Amendment and Finding of No Significant 

Impact for the Cross Bar Cooperative Management Area. BLM, Tulsa District, Oklahoma 

Resource Area, OK. April 2000. 100 pp.

_____. 2004. Oklahoma Resource Management Plan Amendment and Finding of No Significant 

Impact for Three Competitive Coal Lease Sales in Haskell, Latimer, and LeFlore 

Counties, Oklahoma. BLM, Oklahoma Field Office, OK. September 2004. 65 pp.

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

March 11, 2005. 161 pp. 
7. References

7-2 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

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

Washington, DC. January 2008. 184 pp.

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

Leases in Haskell and LeFlore Counties, Oklahoma. BLM, Oklahoma Field Office, OK. 

March 2014. 40 pp.
Appendix A

Scoping Materials 
This page intentionally left blank.
May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS A-1

Final Scoping Summary Report

APPENDIX A

SCOPING MATERIALS 

Public scoping for the OFO RMP/EIS has included a newsletter, 17 scoping public meetings, 

press releases, and a public website (http://www.blm.gov/nm/oktrmp). The formal public 

comment period as required by NEPA began on July 26, 2013, with the publication of a Notice 

of Intent in the Federal Register (78 Federal Register 45266-45628, July 26, 2013), and ended on 

January 31, 2014. However, comments received until February 28, 2014, are considered in this 

report.

Information provided to the public during the public scoping period is included in this appendix. 

Material includes the following:

1. Federal Register Notice of Intent (78 Federal Register 45266-45628, July 26, 2013)

(3 pages)

2. Press release that was mailed in November 2013 to all the major local and regional 

newspapers and other media outlets throughout Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas (1 

page)

3. Project newsletter (4 pages)

4. Federal Register Notice of Intent to Extend the Public Scoping Period (78 Federal 

Register 76318-76319, December 17, 2013) (2 pages)

5. Example of the newspaper advertisement that was published in 17 local newspapers

(1 page)

6. Scoping meeting handouts (6 pages)

7. Scoping meeting presentation (5 pages)

8. Scoping meeting comment form (2 pages)

Exhibits presented at the scoping meetings included the following. All exhibits are available on 

the project website (http://www.blm.gov/nm/oktrmp).
A. Scoping Materials

A-2 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

EXHIBITS DISPLAYED AT OKLAHOMA SCOPING PUBLIC MEETINGS

• Oklahoma Aquifers

• Oklahoma Geologic Basins and Features

• Oklahoma Wild Horse and Burro Holding Facilities and Grazing Allotments 

• Oklahoma Surface Ownership 

• Example Oil and Gas Lease Restrictions in Oklahoma

• Oklahoma Oil and Gas Wells

• Oklahoma Active Oil and Gas Wells

• Oklahoma Directional/Horizontal Oil and Gas Wells

• Oklahoma Subsurface Minerals with BLM Oversight

• Oklahoma Surface Water 

• Oklahoma BIA Tribal Jurisdictional Boundaries

• Oklahoma Critical Habitat and Level III Ecoregions 

• Red River Area 

EXHIBITS DISPLAYED AT KANSAS SCOPING PUBLIC MEETINGS

• Kansas Aquifers 

• Kansas Geologic Basins and Features 

• Helium Pipeline

• Kansas Surface Ownership

• Kansas Oil and Gas Wells

• Kansas Active Oil and Gas Wells

• Kansas Directional/Horizontal Oil and Gas Wells

• Example Oil and Gas Lease Restrictions in Kansas 

• Kansas Salt Resources

• Anticipated Activity on Federal Salt in Kansas 

• Kansas Subsurface Minerals 

• Kansas Surface Water

• Kansas BIA Tribal Jurisdictional Boundaries)

• Kansas Critical Habitat and Level III Ecoregions

EXHIBITS DISPLAYED AT TEXAS SCOPING PUBLIC MEETINGS

• Red River Area 

• Texas Aquifers 

• Texas Geologic Basins and Features 
A. Scoping Materials

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS A-3

Final Scoping Summary Report

• Texas Surface Ownership 

• Example Oil and Gas Lease Restrictions in Texas

• Texas Oil and Gas Wells 

• Texas Active Oil and Gas Wells 

• Texas Directional/Horizontal Oil and Gas Wells 

• Texas Surface Water Subsurface Minerals 

• Texas BIA Tribal Jurisdictional Boundaries 

• Texas Critical Habitat and Level III Ecoregions 
A. Scoping Materials

A-4 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

This page intentionally left blank.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

45266 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Notices 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted to the Bureau of Land 

Management, Southeastern States Field 

Office, 411 Briarwood Drive, Suite 404, 

Jackson, MS 39206 or via email: 

gtaylor@blm.gov or via fax: 918–621– 

4130. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

Taylor or Randall Mills, Southeastern 

States Field Office at 601–977–5400 or 

by email at gtaylor@blm.gov or 

ramills@blm.gov. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

to contact the above individual during 

normal business hours. The FIRS is 

available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 

to leave a message or question with the 

above individual. You will receive a 

reply during normal business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The coal 

lease application, filed by Best Coal, 

Inc., is located in Jefferson County, 

Alabama. The lease application area is 

approximately 5 miles north of Mt. 

Olive, Alabama, on Glovers Bend Road. 

The proposed lease area, totaling 160 

acres, is described as follows: 

Township 15 South, Range 4 West, 

Huntsville Meridian 

Section 24, SW1/4NW1/4, N1/2SW1/ 

4, SE1/2SW1/4. 

The applicant proposes to mine the 

Federal coal in the lease application 

area by surface methods. The surface 

estate overlying the lease application 

area is privately owned. The BLM has 

the responsibility to address coal lease 

applications on Federal mineral estate 

under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 

as amended. The Office of Surface 

Mining, in coordination with the State 

of Alabama, has responsibility to issue 

Mine Permits under the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act. 

An interdisciplinary team will 

prepare the RMP Amendment and 

associated EA for the lease application. 

Preliminary issues, subject to change as 

a result of public input, are (1) Potential 

impacts of coal development on the 

surface and subsurface resources; and 

(2) Consideration of restrictions on lease 

rights to protect surface resources. 

Preliminary planning criteria 

developed to guide the preparation of 

the planning analysis, subject to change 

as a result of public input, are as 

follows: 

1. Land use planning and 

environmental analysis will be 

conducted in accordance with laws, 

regulations, executive orders and 

manuals. Planning will be conducted for 

the Federal coal mineral estate (Federal 

leasable mineral estates such as coal are 

under the administration of the BLM). 

2. A mine plan scenario will be 

prepared for the Federal coal resource as 

an analytical tool to inform the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

analysis. 

3. Resource data needed to evaluate 

the impacts of coal mining will be 

collected. 

4. The planning team will work 

cooperatively with (a) Federal, State, 

county, and local governments and 

agencies; (b) Tribal governments; (c) 

Groups and organizations; and (d) 

Individuals. Comments relating to the 

preliminary issues and planning criteria 

should be submitted in writing to the 

address provided above. 

An individual, business entity, or 

public body may participate in this 

process by providing information 

regarding coal or other resource 

information to assist in determining 

conflicts that may result from issuance 

of the coal lease. For other resource 

information, participants are asked to 

identify the particular resource value, to 

provide the reason that the resource 

would conflict with coal development 

and provide a map (minimal scale 

1:24,000) showing the location of the 

resource. 

The information available to the 

interdisciplinary team will be 

considered in addressing the specific 

resources and uses identified in the 20 

Unsuitability Criteria listed at 43 CFR 

subpart 3461. Screening of the Federal 

coal lands in the application area 

through the Unsuitable Criteria will 

result in a determination as to which 

lands are (1) Acceptable for further 

leasing consideration with standard 

stipulations; (2) Acceptable for further 

leasing consideration with special 

stipulations; or (3) Unacceptable for 

further consideration for leasing. 

Written comments should address one 

or more of the following: (1) Issues to be 

considered; (2) Whether the preliminary 

planning criteria are adequate for the 

issues; (3) Feasible and reasonable 

alternatives to examine; or (4) Relevant 

coal or other resource information. 

The BLM will utilize and coordinate 

the NEPA commenting process to satisfy 

the public involvement process for 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) as 

provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). 

Native American tribal consultations 

were conducted in accordance with 

policy, and tribal concerns will be given 

due consideration, including impacts on 

Indian trust assets. Federal, State, and 

local agencies, along with other 

stakeholders that may be interested or 

affected by the BLM’s decision on this 

project, are invited to participate in the 

scoping process and, if eligible, may 

request or be requested by the BLM to 

participate as a cooperating agency. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority: 43 CFR 1610.2(c). 

John Lyon, 

State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17977 Filed 7–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–GJ–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLNM004410.L16100000.DO0000.LXSSG0 

690000] 

Notice of Intent To Prepare a Resource 

Management Plan for the Oklahoma, 

Kansas, and Texas Planning Area and 

an Associated Environmental Impact 

Statement 

AGENCIES: Bureau of Land Management, 


Interior. 


ACTION: Notice of Intent. 


SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended (NEPA), and the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma, intends to prepare a 

Resource Management Plan (RMP) with 

an associated Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the Oklahoma, 

Kansas, and Texas planning area. This 

notice announces the beginning of the 

scoping process to solicit public 

comments and identify issues. The RMP 

will replace the existing Oklahoma RMP 

(1994), the Kansas RMP (1991), and the 

Texas RMP (1996), and the associated 

EIS for the RMP will also analyze 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

management decisions for lands and 

minerals managed by the BIA in the 

three states. 

DATES: This notice initiates the public 

scoping process for the RMP with an 

associated EIS. Comments on issues 

may be submitted in writing until 

August 26, 2013]. The dates and 

locations of any scoping meetings will 

be announced at least 15 days in 

advance through local media, 

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Notices 45267 

newspapers, and the BLM Web site at 

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

order to be included in the Draft EIS, all 

comments must be received prior to the 

close of the 30-day scoping period or 15 

days after the last public meeting, 

whichever is later. The BLM will 

provide additional opportunities for 

public participation upon publication of 

the Draft EIS. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on issues and planning criteria related 

to the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP by 

any of the following methods: 

• Web site: http://www.blm.gov/nm/ 

oktrmp. 

• Email: 

BLM_NM_OKTRMP@blm.gov. 

• Fax: 918–621–4130; Attention: 

Laurence Levesque. 

• Mail: Oklahoma Field Office, BLM, 

7906 East 33rd Street, Suite 101, Tulsa, 

OK 74145; Attention: RMP Comments. 

Documents pertinent to this proposal 

may be examined at the Oklahoma Field 

Office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurence Levesque, Planning and 

Environmental Specialist; telephone 

918–621–4136; address 7906 East 33rd 

Street, Suite 101, Tulsa, OK 74145; 

email BLM_NM_OKTRMP@blm.gov. 

Contact Mr. Levesque to have your 

name added to our mailing list. Persons 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 

800–877–8339 to contact the above 

individual during normal business 

hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a 

day, 7 days a week, to leave a message 

or question with the above individual. 

You will receive a reply during normal 

business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document provides notice that the BLM 

Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma, intends to prepare an RMP 

with an associated EIS for the 

Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas planning 

area RMP; announces the beginning of 

the scoping process; and seeks public 

input on issues and planning criteria. 

The EIS for the RMP will also analyze 

decisions for Indian mineral interests 

administered by the BIA Eastern 

Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regional 

Offices. The BLM will be the lead 

agency in the RMP development effort, 

and the BIA will participate as a 

cooperating agency and sign a separate 

Record of Decision for management 

decisions for Indian mineral interests 

administered by the BIA Eastern 

Oklahoma and Southern Plains Regional 

Offices. 

The planning area encompasses about 

100,000 acres of public land; 5,863,000 

acres of Federal mineral interests; and 

670,000 acres of Indian mineral 

interests. The BLM and the BIA will 

work collaboratively with interested 

parties to identify the management 

decisions that are best suited to local, 

regional, and national needs and 

concerns. The purpose of the public 

scoping process is to determine relevant 

issues that will influence the scope of 

the environmental analysis, including 

alternatives, and guide the planning 

process. 

Preliminary issues for the planning 

area have been identified by the BLM 

and BIA personnel; Federal, State, and 

local agencies; and other stakeholders. 

The issues include: 

1. How should the BLM and the BIA 

facilitate energy development, both 

renewable and non-renewable, while 

allowing for multiple uses and 

appropriate protection of public lands 

and resources? 

2. What management actions, best 

management practices, and mitigation 

measures are necessary to protect or 

enhance resources, such as, visual, air 

quality, groundwater, watersheds and 

riparian areas, recreational areas, 

vegetation, soils, cultural sites, special 

designations, wildlife and special status 

species habitat, and rangeland health? 

3. Where are helium resources located 

and how can these reserves, as well as 

the Federal Helium Plant, be best 

managed for the public? 

4. How should the BLM address longterm grassland pasture facilities for wild 

horses and burros transferred from 

western rangelands? 

5. Which public lands should be 

identified for retention, proposed for 

withdrawal, disposal, or acquisition to 

facilitate more efficient land 

management? 

6. Which public lands should be 

identified as open, limited, or closed to 

motorized vehicle travel to meet 

resource and recreational demands? 

Preliminary planning criteria include: 

1. The RMP will be in compliance 

with FLPMA, NEPA, and all other 

applicable laws and regulations. 

2. Land use decisions in the RMP will 

apply to the surface and subsurface 

estate managed by the BLM and the BIA. 

The BLM will not make any 

recommendations or decisions that 

affect Federal mineral estate beyond its 

explicit authority under applicable laws 

and regulations. 

3. Public participation and 

collaboration will be an integral part of 

the planning process. 

4. The BLM and the BIA will work 

cooperatively and collaboratively with 

cooperating agencies and all other 

interested groups, agencies, and 

individuals. 

5. The RMP will incorporate, where 

applicable, management decisions 

brought forward from existing planning 

documents. 

6. Identification of any lands for 

further consideration for coal leasing 

will be limited to any areas with 

development potential. 

7. 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 action(s) 

prior to verification of title for the 

properties. 

You may submit comments on issues 

and planning criteria in writing to the 

BLM at any public scoping meeting, or 

by using one of the methods listed in 

the ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ section above. To be 

most helpful, you should submit 

comments by the close of the 30-day 

scoping period or within 15 days after 

the last public meeting, whichever is 

later. Before including your address, 

phone number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. The BLM will evaluate identified 

issues and will place them into one of 

three categories: 

1. Issues to be resolved in the plan; 

2. Issues to be resolved through policy 

or administrative action; or 

3. Issues beyond the scope of this 

plan. 

The BLM will provide an explanation 

in the Draft RMP/EIS as to why an issue 

was placed in category two or three. The 

public is also encouraged to help 

identify any management questions and 

concerns that should be addressed in 

the plan. The BLM will work 

collaboratively with interested parties to 

identify the management decisions that 

are best suited to local, regional, and 

national needs and concerns. 

The BLM will use NEPA public 

participation requirements to assist the 

agency in satisfying the public 

involvement requirements under 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 

470(f)) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). 

The information about historic and 

cultural resources within the area 

potentially affected by the proposed 

action will assist the BLM in identifying 

and evaluating impacts to such 

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

45268 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2013 / Notices 

resources in the context of both NEPA 

and Section 106 of the NHPA. 

The BLM will consult with Indian 

tribes on a government-to-government 

basis in accordance with Executive 

Order 13175 and other policies. Tribal 

concerns, including impacts on Indian 

trust assets and potential impacts to 

cultural resources, will be given due 

consideration. Federal, State, and local 

agencies, along with tribes and other 

stakeholders that may be interested in or 

affected by the proposed action that the 

BLM is evaluating, are invited to 

participate in the scoping process and, 

if eligible, may request or be requested 

by the BLM to participate in the 

development of the environmental 

analysis as a cooperating agency. 

The BLM will use an interdisciplinary 

approach to develop the plan in order 

to consider the variety of resource issues 

and concerns identified. Specialists 

with expertise in the following 

disciplines will be involved in the 

planning process: minerals and geology, 

archaeology, wildlife and fisheries, 

lands and realty, hydrology, soils, 

livestock grazing, recreation, sociology, 

and economics. 

Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7; 43 CFR 1610.2 

Jesse J. Juen, 

State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17981 Filed 7–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–FB–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLCAD07000, 

L51010000.FX0000.LVRWB10B4050] 

Notice of Availability of the San Diego 

Gas & Electric Ocotillo Sol Solar 

Project Final Environmental Impact 

Statement and Proposed California 

Desert Conservation Area Plan 

Amendment, CA 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 


Interior. 


ACTION: Notice of Availability. 


SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended, and the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976, as 

amended, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) has prepared a 

Proposed California Desert Conservation 

Area (CDCA) Plan Amendment and 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the San Diego Gas & Electric 

(SDG&E) Ocotillo Sol Solar Project in 

Imperial County, California, and by this 

notice is announcing its availability. 

DATES: BLM planning regulations state 

that any person who meets the 

conditions as described in the 

regulations may protest the Proposed 

CDCA Plan Amendment. A person who 

meets the conditions and files a protest 

must file the protest within 30 days of 

the date that the Environmental 

Protection Agency publishes its notice 

of availability for the EIS in the Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Ocotillo Sol 

Solar Project Final EIS/Proposed CDCA 

Plan Amendment have been sent to 

affected Federal, State, and local 

government agencies and to other 

stakeholders, including tribal 

governments. Copies are also available 

in the BLM California Desert District 

Office at 22835 Calle San Juan de los 

Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 92553 and at 

the El Centro Field Office, 1661 S. 4th 

Street, El Centro, CA 92243. 

Interested persons may also review 

the Final EIS/Proposed CDCA Plan 

Amendment on the Internet at http:// 

www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/ 

nepa/ocotillosol.html. All protests must 

be in writing and mailed to one of the 

following addresses: 

Regular Mail: BLM Director (210), 

Attention: Brenda Williams, P.O. Box 

71383, Washington, DC 20024–1383. 

Overnight Mail: BLM Director (210), 

Attention: Brenda Williams, 20 M Street 

SE., Room 2134LM, Washington, DC 

20003. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Noel 

Ludwig, Project Manager, telephone 

951–697–5368; address 22835 Calle San 

Juan de Los Lagos, Moreno Valley, CA 

92553; or email CA_BLM_Ocotillo_Sol_ 

Comments@blm.gov. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

to contact the above individual during 

normal business hours. The FIRS is 

available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 

to leave a message or question with the 

above individual. You will receive a 

reply during normal business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM 

has received a right-of-way (ROW) 

application from SDG&E to construct, 

operate, maintain, and decommission 

the Ocotillo Sol Solar Project, a solar 

photovoltaic (PV) power plant facility, 

on approximately 115 acres of BLMadministered public lands in Imperial 

County, California. The site for the solar 

facility would be adjacent to the existing 

Imperial Valley Substation (IVS), 4 

miles south of Interstate 8, 

approximately 5 miles north of the 

United States-Mexico border, 5 miles 

south of Seeley, 9 miles southwest of El 

Centro, and 82 miles east of San Diego. 

The proposed project site is located 

within the BLM’s CDCA, the BLM’s 

Yuha Basin Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern, and the Yuha 

Desert Management Area for flat-tailed 

horned lizard. A portion of the northsouth running Juan Bautista de Anza 

National Historic Trail lies 

approximately 5 miles southwest of the 

project site at its closest point. The 

Jacumba Mountains Wilderness lies 11.7 

miles to the west of the project site. 

All proposed project components, 

including a temporary 15-acre 

construction laydown area, would be 

located on BLM-administered lands. 

The proposed Ocotillo Sol project 

components would include the PV 

modules and mounting structures, a 

maintenance building with an 

associated parking area, internal roads, 

inverters, transformers, and the 

combining switchgear. An existing road 

to the IVS would provide access to the 

proposed project site. New minor 

internal roads would be constructed 

between the module rows. The 

interconnection to the IVS would be via 

underground trench. Once approved 

and operational, the proposed Ocotillo 

Sol project is expected to have an 

average generating capacity of 15 to 18 

megawatts (MW), depending on the 

specific technology chosen, with a peak 

output of up to 20 MW. 

In connection with its decision on the 

proposed Ocotillo Sol project, the BLM 

will also include potential amendments 

to the CDCA Plan, as analyzed in the 

Final EIS. The CDCA Plan, while 

recognizing the potential compatibility 

of solar energy facilities on public lands, 

requires that all sites associated with 

power generation or transmission not 

identified in the Plan be considered 

through the land use plan amendment 

process. The BLM is deciding whether 

to amend the CDCA Plan to identify the 

Ocotillo Sol project site as suitable or 

unsuitable for solar energy 

development. 

The Final EIS describes the following 

three alternatives: (1) A No Action/No 

CDCA Plan Amendment; (2) The 

Applicant’s Proposed Project to 

construct, operate, maintain, and 

decommission a 100-acre solar PV 

facility on BLM-managed lands under 

an authorized ROW, plus utilization of 

a 15-acre temporary ROW for 

construction laydown; and (3) A 

Reduced Footprint Alternative which 

would retain the 100-acre facility but 

reduce the laydown area from 15 acres 

to 2 acres. All of the alternatives except 

the No Action/No CDCA Plan 

Amendment would include an 

amendment to the CDCA Plan. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT NEWS RELEASE Oklahoma Field Office 

Release Date: 11/14/13 

Contacts: Laurence Levesque, (918) 621-4136. News Release No. 001-2014 

BLM Seeks Public Comment on the Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and 


Environmental Impact Statement 


Tulsa , Okla .--The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Oklahoma Field Office is seeking public comments to identify issues and 

concerns that should be analyzed in the Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). A Notice of Intent to prepare the RMP and conduct an EIS was published in the Federal Register on July 26, 

2013, formally opening a 190-day public scoping period which will end January 31, 2014. 

Seventeen public scoping meetings will be held across Oklahoma , Kansas, and Texas. The BLM will announce meeting dates 

and locations in local newspapers at least 15 days prior to each meeting. Meeting details are also available in the project 

newsletter and on the project website: http://www.blm.gov/nm/oktrmp. 

Comments are welcomed, reviewed, and considered throughout the planning process. Comments may be submitted by e-mail 

to BLM_ NM_OKT_RMP@blm .gov. Alternatively, comments can be made by printing and filling out the mail-in (or fax-in) comment 

form, available from the project website. Comment forms may be delivered to the BLM at 7906 East 33rd Street, Ste 101, 

Tulsa, OK 74145, Attn: Laurence Levesque; or faxed to (918) 621-4130, Attn: Laurence Levesque. 

For more information regarding the public meetings or the proposed project, call Laurence Levesque at (918) 621-4136. 

The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land, the most of any Federal agency. This land , knoV><l as the National System of 

Public Lands, is primarily located in 12 Western states, including Alaska. The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral 

estate throughout the nation. The BLM's mission is to manage and conserve the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations under our mandate of multiple-use and sustained yield. In Fiscal Year 2013, the BLM generated $4.7 billion in receipts from 

public lands . 

--BLM--

Last updated: 11 - 14 -20 1 3 

USA .GO V I No Fear Act I DOl I Disclaimer I About BLM I Notices I Social Media Policy 

Pnvacy Polley 1 FOIA 1 K1ds Pol1cy I Contact Us I Access1b1lity 1 S1te Map I Home 
The Oklahoma Field Office The Oklahoma Field Office

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management RMP Newsletter wsletter

Bureau of Indian Affairs Issue 1, November 2013 

Introduction 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Oklahoma Field 

Office (OFO) in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) Eastern Oklahoma and Southern Plains 

Regional Offices, is preparing an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA), to guide the management of BLM 

administered public resources (BLM-administered surface 

lands and federal minerals) and restricted, trust, and tribal 

minerals and lands under the jurisdiction of the BIA within 

the states of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. 

The EIS will result in a BLM Resource Management Plan 

(RMP), which creates the management framework for the 

OFO. The RMP/EIS will be prepared as a dynamic and 

flexible plan to allow management to reflect the changed 

needs of the planning area. The RMP will replace the 

existing 1991 Kansas RMP, 1994 Oklahoma RMP, as 

amended, and 1996 Texas RMP, as amended. 

The need for the OFO RMP is to respond to new policies 

including but not limited to energy, demand for limited 

resources, appropriate protection of sensitive resources, 

increases in conflict between competing resource values 

and land uses, and other issues that have surfaced since 

approval of the existing RMPs. The overall objective of the 

OFO RMP planning effort is to provide a collaborative 

planning approach that assists the BLM in updating the 

management decisions of the current RMPs. As such, early 

public involvement is crucial to identify various RMP-level 

issues that should be addressed through the process. The 

scoping period provides the public with an opportunity to 

learn about the OFO RMP, to help identify issues and 

concerns to be addressed in the EIS, and to provide input 

used in developing alternatives. 

The final RMP will identify desired outcomes, future 

conditions to be maintained or achieved, and specify uses 

or resource allocations that are allowable, restricted, or 

prohibited, including any restrictions needed to meet 

desired outcomes. Public input on issues related to these 

decisions is essential and encouraged. 

OFO Planning Area 

The planning area encompasses 411,585 square miles (263 

million acres) across the states of Oklahoma, Kansas, and 

Texas, and contains a population of over 32 million people. 

The planning area comprises federal, state, and 

private lands, as well as Native American reservations, 

hundreds of counties, and thousands of municipalities. The 

decision area is only the surface land and subsurface 

mineral estate within the planning area for which the BLM 

or BIA have authority to make land use and management 

decisions. The BLM decision area is comprised of 104,000 

acres of BLM-administered surface lands, 593,000 acres of 

split-estate land (private land with federal mineral 

interests), and an additional 5,270,000 acres of federal 

mineral estate on lands managed by other federal 

agencies. The BIA decision areas include 621,696 acres 

and 479,015 acres for BIA Eastern Oklahoma and BIA 

Southern Plains, respectively. 

The Oklahoma Field 

Office planning area 

encompasses 

Oklahoma, 

Kansas, and Texas. 

What is a Resource 

Management Plan? 

An RMP, similar to a county master plan, is a land use plan 

that describes broad multiple-use guidance for managing 

public lands administered by the BLM. The Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act directs the BLM to develop 

such land use plans and to provide for appropriate uses of 

public lands. Decisions in land use plans guide future land 

management actions and subsequent site-specific 

implementation decisions. 

The BLM land use (or RMP) planning process, explained in 

43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1600, BLM 1601 

Manual, and BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1), 

falls within the framework of the NEPA environmental 

analysis and decision making process described in the 

Council of Environmental Quality regulations of 40 CFR 

1500-1508, the Department of the Interior NEPA Manual 

(516 DM 17), and BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How Can You Participate? 

Public involvement is an integral part of preparing the OFO RMP/EIS and BIA EIS. This public scoping period gives the 

public and other interested agencies and organizations the opportunity to provide comments on issues to be addressed and 

methods to be used in the EIS before the BLM and BIA begin drafting it. The official scoping period began with the 

publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on July 26, 2013, and will continue for 190 days (ending on 

January 31, 2014). During the scoping period, the BLM and BIA will host 17 public open houses across the planning area. 

Notices directing the public to the RMP/EIS website, which has information on these meetings, will be published in local 

newspapers. 

The public is formally invited and encouraged to participate in the planning process for the RMP/EIS during the public 

scoping period. Some ways you can participate are: 

Attending one or more of the open house meetings to learn about the project and planning process and to meet BLM 

and BIA representatives; 

Reviewing the progress of the RMP/EIS on-line at the OFO RMP/EIS website at: http://www.blm.gov/nm/oktrmp. The 

website will be updated with information, documents, and announcements throughout the RMP/EIS preparation; 

Completing an online comment form on the website; 

Mailing or emailing a comment to the RMP/EIS address or email address (see below); and 

Joining the OFO RMP mailing list in order to receive future mailings and information, by: 

– E-mailing us at BLM_NM_OKT_RMP@blm.gov; or 

– Contacting Laurence Levesque at (918) 621-4136. 

 Mark Your Calendar! 

 Upcoming Open Houses 

Each meeting will start with an open house at 6 pm that will be followed by a presentation from 6:15 to 6:45. A brief discussion session will follow. The remainder of the meeting time will be for submission of oral comments, browsing the information stations that will be set up, having conversations with BLM and BIA staff, and for preparing written comments for 

those who seek to do so at the meeting. 

Monday, November 18, 2013 

Holiday Inn Express 

3333 Williams Ave., Woodward, OK 

Tuesday, November 19, 2013 

Holiday Inn Express 

3825 E Main St., Weatherford, OK 

Wednesday, November 20, 2013 

Best Western PLUS - Saddlebrook Inn and 

 Conference Center 

4300 SW 3rd St., Oklahoma City, OK 

Monday, December 2, 2013 

Buckley Public Library 

408 Dewey Ave., Poteau, OK 

Tuesday, December 3, 2013 

Holiday Inn Express 

701 Holiday Dr., Tahlequah, OK 

Wednesday, December 4, 2013 

Holiday Inn Express 

1811 Peaceable Rd,. McAlester, OK 

Tuesday, December 10, 2013 

Holiday Inn Express 

209 SE 8th St., Lawton, OK 

Wednesday, December 11, 2013 

Courtyard Witchita Falls 

3800 Tarry Street, Wichita Falls, TX 

Thursday, December 12, 2013 

Fort Worth Public Library 

4001 Library Ln., Fort Worth, TX 

Tuesday, December 17, 2013 

Looscan Neighborhood Library 

2510 Willowick Rd, Houston, TX 

Wednesday, December 18, 2013 

Holiday Inn Express 

120 Southpoint Dr., Livingston, TX 

Thursday, December 19, 2013 

Holiday Inn Express 

4404 S 1st St., Lufkin, TX
 

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 

Courtyard Marriott Salina 

3020 Riffel Dr., Salina, KS 

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 

Liberal Memorial Library 

519 N. Kansas Ave., Liberal, KS 

Thursday, January 9, 2014

 Amarillo Public Library 

413 SE 4th Ave., Amarillo, TX 

Tuesday, January 14, 2014 

Doubletree Downtown 

616 W. 7th St., Tulsa, OK 

Wednesday, January 15, 2014 

Pawhuska City Library 

1801 Lynn Ave., Pawhuska, OK 
Preliminary Planning Issues 

Planning issues are conflicts or concerns over a resource 

management topic that is well defined and entails 

alternative actions or decisions. Based on the lands and 

resources that we manage, the BLM and BIA have identified 

categories of issues, or issue statements (see box below). 

We expect most public issues and concerns to fall within 

one of these statements; however, we do not presume 

that they are all-encompassing. The issue statements may 

be revised based on the comments we receive, and new 

issue statements may be added. The BLM requests your 

comments on these or other issues on BLM-administered 

lands, split-estate lands, and federal mineral estate within 

the planning area. The BIA requests your comments on 

issues relating to Native American-allotted or tribal 

minerals, lands, and other resources within the planning 

area. 

Issue 1. Restoring Ecological Health 

Issue 2. Air 

Issue 3. Water 

Issue 4. Cultural Resources, Native American Concerns and 

Paleontology Resources 

Issue 5. Visual Resource Management 

Issue 6. Special Status Species 

Issue 7. Fish and Wildlife 

Issue 8. Wild Horses and Burros 

Issue 9. Fire Management 

Issue 10. Livestock Grazing 

Issue 11. Recreation and Visitor Services 

Issue 12. Lands and Realty 

Issue 13. Mineral Resources (includes Oil, Gas, Geothermal, 

Coal, Saleable, and Solid Leasable except coal), and Locatable 

Issue 14. Hazardous Materials 

Issue 15. Special Designations (such as ACECs) 

Issue 16. Renewable Resources 

Issue 17. Socio-Economics 

Issue 18. Environmental Justice 

Issue 19. Comprehensive Travel and Transportation 

Management 

Preliminary Planning Criteria 

Planning criteria guide development of the RMP/EIS by 

helping define the decision space; they are generally based 

on applicable laws, BLM Director and New Mexico State 

Director guidance, BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern 

Plains Regional Directors guidance, and the results of 

public and governmental participation (43 CFR 1610.4-2). 

The BLM and BIA developed preliminary planning criteria 

to set the sideboards for focused planning of the OFO 

RMP/EIS and to guide decision making by topic. A 

selection of the planning criteria developed by OFO are 

listed below: 

 Existing laws, regulations, and BLM and BIA policies 





















Valid existing rights 

Plans, programs, and policies of other federal, state, 

and local governments, and Native American Tribes 

Public input 

Quantity and quality of non-commodity resource 

values 

Future needs and demands for existing or potential 

resource commodities and values 

Past and present use of public and adjacent lands 

Environmental effects, including effects on wildlife, 

cultural resources, and paleontology 

Social and economic values 

Environmental justice 

Public welfare and safety 

The Red River is a 

popular recreation 

area for 

Oklahomans and 

Texans alike. 

Portions of these 

lands are managed 

by the BLM and also 

have values as 

critical habitat for 

threatened and 

endangered 

species. 

July 2013 

NOI Published in 

Federal Register 

November 2013—

January 2014 

Public Scoping 

Summer 2014 

Formulate 

Alternatives and 

Prepare Draft RMP/ 

Draft EIS 

Fall 2016 

Draft RMP/Draft EIS

Available for 90-day 

Public Review & 

Comment 

Summer 2017 

Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS Available for 30-

day Public Review & 

Protest 

Fall 2017 

Record of Decision 

& Approved RMP 
 

 

Newsletter Index
 

Introduction ....................................................................... 1 

Oklahoma Field Office Planning Area .......................... 1 

What is a Resource Management Plan? ....................... 1 

How Can You Participate? ............................................. 2 

Mark your Calendar ......................................................... 2 

Preliminary Planning Issues ............................................. 3 

Preliminary Planning Criteria ......................................... 3 

Planning Process Timeline .............................................. 3 

How to Contact Us ......................................................... 4 

Commonly Used Acronyms 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NOI Notice of Intent 

OFO Oklahoma Field Office 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

RMP/EIS Process Flowchart 

Printed on Recycled Paper 

How to contact us 

If you have questions about the 

RMP, please contact: 

Mr. Laurence Levesque 

Bureau of Land Manageme nt 

7906 East 33rd Street, Ste 101 

Tulsa, OK 74145 

(9 18) 6 21– 4136 

US Department of the Interior 

Bu reau of Land Man agement 

c/o EMPSi* 

26 O’Farrell Street 7th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

*Acting as contracted agent for the Bureau of Land Management 

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

76318 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2013 / Notices 

methods, including public notices in 

local newspapers and a notice in the 

Federal Register (77 FR 26569, May 4, 

2012). We held a public meeting to 

solicit comments on the Draft EIS/EIR 

on May 30, 2012. We identified and 

analyzed four alternatives in the Draft 

EIS/EIR. 

Following public review of the Draft 

EIS/EIR, the Service and CDFW, in 

coordination with PCGID–PID, River 

Partners, and the design engineers, 

identified the preferred alternative, 

which includes installation of 

traditional riprap on the northwest bank 

of the Riparian Sanctuary, including a 

low berm along the gravel bar and a toe 

trench just off the gravel bar; removal of 

upstream rock; and site-specific 

plantings on the Riparian Sanctuary. A 

notice of availability of the Final EIS/ 

EIR was published in the Federal 

Register on March 15, 2013. The record 

of decision documents our decision to 

support the implementation of the 

preferred alternative described in the 

Final EIS/EIR. 

We provide this notice under 

regulations in the Code of Federal 

Regulations for implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act (40 

CFR 1506.6). 

Alexandra Pitts, 

Acting Regional Director, Pacific Southwest 

Region . 

[FR Doc. 2013–30016 Filed 12–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[AA–10555, AA–10575, AA–10601; LLAK– 

944000–L14100000–HY0000–P] 

Alaska Native Claims Selections 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 


ACTION: Notice of decision approving 


lands for conveyance. 


SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 

2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

will issue an appealable decision to 

Koniag, Inc. The decision will approve 

conveyance of only the surface estate in 

certain lands pursuant to the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 

1601, et seq.). The lands are located on 

Kodiak Island, Alaska, and aggregate 

45.57 acres. Notice of the decision will 

also be published once a week for four 

consecutive weeks in the Anchorage 

Daily News. 

DATES: Any party claiming a property 

interest in the lands affected by the 

decision may appeal the decision in 

accordance with the requirements of 43 

CFR part 4 within the following time 

limits: 

1. Unknown parties, parties unable to 

be located after reasonable efforts have 

been expended to locate, parties who 

fail or refuse to sign their return receipt, 

and parties who receive a copy of the 

decision by regular mail which is not 

certified, return receipt requested, shall 

have until January 16, 2014 to file an 

appeal. 

2. Parties receiving service of the 

decision by certified mail shall have 30 

days from the date of receipt to file an 

appeal. 

Parties who do not file an appeal in 

accordance with the requirements of 43 

CFR part 4 shall be deemed to have 

waived their rights. Notices of appeal 

transmitted by electronic means, such as 

facsimile or email, will not be accepted 

as timely filed. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may 

be obtained from: Bureau of Land 

Management, Alaska State Office, 222 

West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, 

AK 99513–7504. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

BLM by phone at 907–271–5960 or by 

email at blm_ak_akso_public_room@ 

blm.gov. Persons who use a 

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

to contact the BLM during normal 

business hours. In addition, the FIRS is 

available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 

to leave a message or question with the 

BLM. The BLM will reply during 

normal business hours. 

Dina L. Torres, 

Land Transfer Resolution Specialist, Division 

of Lands and Cadastral. 

[FR Doc. 2013–29982 Filed 12–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–JA–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLNM004410.L16100000. 

DO0000.LXSSG0690000] 

Notice of Intent To Extend the Public 

Scoping Period for the Oklahoma, 

Kansas, and Texas Resource 

Management Plan and Call for Coal 

Information 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 


Interior. 


ACTION: Notice of Intent. 


SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is 

extending the scoping period for the 

Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas planning 

area, which was originally initiated on 

July 26, 2013 (78 FR 45266). The 

purpose of the ongoing scoping process 

is to solicit public comments and 

identify issues. The BLM is also 

soliciting resource information for coal 

and other resources in the planning 

area. 

DATES: This notice extends the scoping 

period for the Resource Management 

Plan (RMP) with an associated 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

Comments on issues may be submitted 

in writing until January 24, 2014. The 

date(s) and location(s) of scoping 

meetings will be announced at least 15 

days advance through the local media, 

newspapers and the BLM Web site at: 

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

order to be included in the Draft EIS, all 

comments must be received prior to the 

close of the scoping period or 15 days 

after the last public meeting, whichever 

is later. We will provide additional 

opportunities for public participation 

upon publication of the Draft EIS. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on issues and planning criteria related 

to the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP by 

any of the following methods:

• Web site: http://www.blm.gov/nm/ 

oktrmp. 

• Email: BLM_NM_OKT_RMP@ 

blm.gov.

• Fax: 918- 621–4130; Attention: 

Laurence Levesque.

• Mail: Oklahoma Field Office, BLM, 

7906 East 33rd Street, Suite 101, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma 74145; Attention: Laurence 

Levesque. 

Documents pertinent to this proposal 

may be examined at the Oklahoma Field 

Office at the above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurence Levesque, Planning and 

Environmental Specialist; telephone 

918–621–4136; address 7906 East 33rd 

Street, Suite 101, Tulsa, OK 74145; 

email laurence_levesque@blm.gov. 

Contact Mr. Levesque if you wish to 

have your name added to our mailing 

list. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

to contact the above individual during 

normal business hours. The FIRS is 

available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 

to leave a message or question with the 

above individual. You will receive a 

reply during normal business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document provides notice that the BLM 

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2013 / Notices 76319 

Oklahoma Field Office, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma, is extending the scoping 

period for an RMP with an associated 

EIS for the Oklahoma, Kansas, and 

Texas planning area. The EIS will also 

analyze decisions for Indian lands and 

mineral interests administered by the 

BIA Eastern Oklahoma and Southern 

Plans Regional Offices. The BLM will be 

the lead agency in the RMP/EIS 

development effort, and the BIA will 

participate as a cooperating agency and 

sign a separate Record of Decision for 

management decisions for Indian lands 

and mineral interests. For additional 

information regarding the planning area, 

issues, and planning criteria, please 

refer to the original Notice of Intent 

published on July 26, 2013 (78 FR 

45266). 

You may submit comments on issues 

and planning criteria in writing to the 

BLM at any public scoping meeting, or 

you may submit them to the BLM using 

one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section above. To be most 

helpful, you should submit comments 

by the close of the 30 day scoping 

period or within 15 days after the last 

public meeting, whichever is later. 

Parties interested in leasing and 

development of Federal coal in the 

planning area should provide coal 

resource data for their area(s) of interest. 

Specifically, information is requested on 

the location, quality, and quantity of 

Federal coal with development 

potential, and on surface resource 

values related to the 20 coal 

unsuitability criteria described in 43 

CFR part 3461. This information will be 

used for any necessary updating of coal 

screening determination (43 CFR 

3420.1–4) in the Decision Area and in 

the environmental analysis for the RMP. 

In addition to coal resource data, the 

BLM seeks resource information and 

data for other public land values (e.g., 

air quality, cultural and historic 

resources, fire/fuels, fisheries, forestry, 

lands and realty, non-energy minerals 

and geology, oil and gas, paleontology, 

rangeland management, recreation, soil, 

water, and wildlife) in the planning 

area. The purpose of this request is to 

assure that the planning effort has 

sufficient information and data to 

consider a reasonable range of resource 

uses, management options, and 

alternatives for the public lands. 

The BLM will use an interdisciplinary 

approach to develop the plan in order 

to consider the variety of resource issues 

and concerns identified. Specialists 

with expertise in the following 

disciplines will be involved in the 

planning process: Minerals and geology, 

archaeology, wildlife and fisheries, 

lands and realty, hydrology, soils, 

livestock grazing, recreation, sociology, 

and economics. 

Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7, 43 CFR 1610.2 

Sheila K. Mallory, 

Acting State Director, Minerals. 

[FR Doc. 2013–29964 Filed 12–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–FB–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLMT921000–12–L13200000–EL0000–P; 

MTM 106757] 

Notice of Invitation—Coal Exploration 

License Application MTM 106757, 

Montana 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 


Interior. 


ACTION: Notice. 


SUMMARY: Members of the public are 

hereby invited to participate with Signal 

Peak Energy, LLC on a pro rata cost 

sharing basis in a program for the 

exploration of coal deposits owned by 

the United States of America in lands 

located in Yellowstone and Musselshell 

Counties, Montana, encompassing 

2,039.64 acres. 

DATES: Any party seeking to participate 

in this exploration program must send 

written notice to both the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) and Signal 

Peak Energy, LLC as provided in the 

ADDRESSES section below no later than 

January 16, 2014 or 10 calendar days 

after the last publication of this Notice 

in the Roundup Record Tribune and 

Winnett Times newspaper, whichever is 

later. This Notice will be published 

once a week for 2 consecutive weeks in 

the Roundup Record Tribune and 

Winnett Times, Roundup, Montana. 

Such written notice must refer to serial 

number MTM 106757. 

ADDRESSES: The proposed exploration 

license and plan are available for review 

from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, in the public room at the BLM 

Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate 

Drive, Billings, MT. The exploration 

license application and exploration plan 

are also available for viewing on the 

Montana State Office coal Web site at 

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/prog/ 

energy/coal.html. 

A written notice to participate in the 

exploration licenses should be sent to 

the State Director, BLM Montana State 

Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, 

MT 59101–4669 and Signal Peak 

Energy, LLC, 100 Portal Drive, 

Roundup, MT 59072. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Drake by telephone at 406–896– 

5349 or by email at cdrake@blm.gov; or 

Connie Schaff by telephone at 406–896– 

5060 or by email at cschaff@blm.gov. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the 

above individual during normal 

business hours. The FIRS is available 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a 

message or question with the above 

individual. You will receive a reply 

during normal business hours. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

exploration activities will be performed 

pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act of 

1920, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 201(b), and 

to the regulations at 43 CFR part 3410. 

The purpose of the exploration program 

is to gain additional geologic knowledge 

of the coal underlying the exploration 

area for the purpose of assessing the 

coal resources. The exploration program 

is fully described and will be conducted 

pursuant to an exploration license and 

plan approved by the BLM. The 

exploration plan may be modified to 

accommodate the legitimate exploration 

needs of persons seeking to participate. 

The lands to be explored for coal 

deposits in exploration license MTM 

106757 are described as follows: 

Principal Meridian, Montana 

T. 5 N., R. 27 E., 

Sec. 4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, S1⁄2; 

T. 6 N., R. 27 E., 

Sec. 24, NE1⁄4, W1⁄2, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4, and 

S1⁄2SE1⁄4; 


Sec. 32, SW1⁄4; 


Sec. 34, SE1⁄4; 


T. 6 N., R. 28 E., 

Sec. 18, lots 1 thru 4, inclusive, E1⁄2, and 

E1⁄2W1⁄2. 


Containing 2,039.64 acres. 


The Federal coal within the lands 

described for exploration license MTM 

106757 is currently unleased for 

development of Federal coal reserves. 

Phillip C. Perlewitz, 

Chief, Branch of Solid Minerals. 

[FR Doc. 2013–29965 Filed 12–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–DN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLCA942000 L57000000.BX0000] 

Filing of Plats of Survey: California 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 


Interior. 


ACTION: Notice. 


SUMMARY: The plats of survey of lands 

described below are scheduled to be 

officially filed in the Bureau of Land 
Notice of Public Scoping 

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management is soliciting comments as it begins the public seeping 

process for the Oklahoma , Kansas , and Texas Resource Management Plan (RMP) revisions . 

Comments will be accepted through January 31, 2014 and may be submitted by email to 

BLM_NM_OKT_RMP@blm .gov or by mail to the address below. 

Seeping is a collaborative public involvement process to identify planning issues to be addressed 

in the planning process. Planning issues are disputes or controversies about existing and 

potential land and resource allocations , levels of resource use , production , and related 

management practices. Issues include resource use, development, and protection opportunities 

for consideration in the preparation of the RMPs . 

17 public seeping meetings will be held across the tri-state region . For further information on the 

public seeping meetings, RMP process, or to have your name added to the project mailing list, 

visit the project website at: http://www.blm .gov/nm/oktrmp . You may also contact Laurence 

Levesque, Planning and Environmental Specialist; telephone 918-621-4136; address 7906 East 

33rd Street, Suite 101 , Tulsa , OK 74145 . 
 

 

 

 

COMMON BLM ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase 

ACEC area of critical environmental concern 

ACOE Army Corps of Engineers 

AUM Animal Unit Month 

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

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

BMP best management practice 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CSU controlled surface use 

CTTM comprehensive trails and travel management 

decision area public lands and mineral estate managed by BLM 

DOI United States Department of the Interior 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

ERMA extensive recreation management area 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

FMP Fire Management Plan 

FWS US Fish and Wildlife Service 

GIS Geographic Information System 

HA Herd Area 

HMA Herd Management Area 

LHA land health assessment 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOA Notice of Availability 

NPS United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service 

NSO no surface occupancy 

OFO Oklahoma Field Office 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

PFC proper functioning condition 

planning area OFO boundary, 

including all lands, regardless of land ownership 

RECLAMATION US Bureau of Reclamation 
 

 

RMP resource management plan 

ROD record of decision 

ROW right-of-way 

SRMA special recreation management area 

SRP special recreation permit 

TCP Traditional Cultural Property 

TL timing limitation 

US United States 

USC United States Code 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

US Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

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

VI visual inventory 

VRM visual resource management 

WH&B Wild Horse and Burros 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

WSR Wild and Scenic River 

WUI wildland-urban interface 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Types of Requirements Applied to Oil and Gas Leases to Protect 

Resources in the Oklahoma Field Office Decision Area
 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) currently manages oil and gas development in the Oklahoma 

Field Office (OFO) under three existing Resource Management Plans. Each of these plans places 

requirements and stipulations on oil and gas development on federal mineral estate. Some of these 

requirements, stipulations, or notices apply to all federal mineral estate in the OFO, while others apply 

only where a certain resource (e.g. wetlands, floodplains) or use conflict (e.g. recreation, coal mining) 

exists. 

In many cases, the BLM does not manage the surface overlying federal mineral estate. Other federal 

agencies, such as the US Army Corps of Engineers may manage surface lands, but the federal minerals 

beneath those lands are still managed by the BLM. Federal minerals can also lie beneath state- or 

privately-owned surface lands. Lands where the surface is owned by the state or a private individual and 

the minerals are federally owned are called split-estate lands. 

Wherever the surface lands overlying federal mineral estate are managed or owned by someone other 

than the BLM, the surface management agency may apply additional restrictions on the development of 

federal oil and gas resources beneath their lands. The table below describes some of the restrictions 

that are applied to oil and gas development in the OFO by the BLM and other surface owners or 

management agencies. 

Resource(s) or 

Interest 

Protected 

Surface 

Owner/Management 

Agency 

Requirement Where it applies 

Floodplains BLM Controlled Surface Use stipulation: 

BLM approval required for surface 

occupancy 

Lands subject to 

periodic flooding that 

are in or adjacent to 

a major watercourse 

Wetland/riparian 

areas 

BLM Controlled Surface Use stipulation: 

BLM approval required for surface 

occupancy; avoid or mitigate impacts 

through site-specific measures 

identified during the Application for 

Permit to Drill (APD) process 

Wetland and riparian 

areas 

Wildlife and 

recreation 

BLM Controlled Surface Use stipulation: No 

surface occupancy from February 15 to 

May 15 or during hunting seasons 

without BLM approval (exception for 

except operation and maintenance of 

production facilities) 

Could be applied in 

wildlife habitat and 

areas used for 

recreation 

Threatened and 

endangered species 

BLM Consultation requirement: Surveys and 

consultation with the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service are required if any 

federal and/or state-listed threatened 

or endangered species or their habitat 

is found on the lease. Restrictions or 

prohibitions on development could 

result. 

All federal mineral 

estate 
 

Resource(s) or 

Interest 

Protected 

Surface 

Owner/Management 

Agency 

Requirement Where it applies 

Birds and bats BLM Construction standards: Facilities must 

be constructed to prevent or 

discourage birds and bats from 

perching or entering. Use netting or 

other covering over open pits and 

open top tanks. 

All federal mineral 

estate 

Coal BLM Lease is subject to alteration in order 

to prevent conflict with coal 

development 

Federal mineral estate 

with coal resources 

Cultural resources BLM Consultation requirement: 

Consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Office and Tribes is 

required if tribal historic properties or 

other cultural resources are found on 

the lease. Restrictions or prohibitions 

on development could result. 

All federal mineral 

estate 

Water resources US Army Corps of 

Engineers 

No Surface Occupancy stipulation: No 

surface occupancy below the elevation 

of 2,764 feet. All drilling sites and 

production facilities must be at least 

200 meters from the high water line of 

the lake (waiver, exception, or 

modification of these requirements 

may be allowed) 

Within the normal 

flood pool of Optima 

Reservoir 

Dams, spillways, 

levees, etc. 

US Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE) 

No Surface Occupancy stipulation: No 

surface occupancy stipulation within 

3,000 horizontal feet of these facilities 

Federal surface lands 

managed by the COE 

within 3,000 feet of a 

prime facility critical 

to the operation of a 

project 

Use not compatible 

with oil and gas 

development 

BLM No Surface Occupancy stipulation Could be applied 

wherever conflicting 

uses exist 

Surface 

Management 

Agency (SMA) 

interests 

Sabine River Authority Sabine River Authority/COE 

notification of drilling prior to 

application approval 

Minerals under the 

Toledo Bend/Sabine 

River Reservoir 

Toledo Bend 

Lakeshore 

Sabine River Authority Controlled Surface Use between 172 

feet and 175 feet above mean sea level 

(MSL) and within 200 meters of the 

175-foot MSL contour 

Toledo Bend 

Lakeshore protection 

General resource 

protection 

Texas Military Facilities 

Commission (TMFC) 

All drilling on the lease must occur 

from a single well pad 

Texas State lands 

managed by the 

TMFC 

SMA interests Agricultural Research 

Service 

No directional drilling without prior 

approval 

Southern Plains Range 

Research Station 

lands protection 

SMA interests and 

general resource 

protection 

Oklahoma State 

University (OSU) 

Any site-specific stipulations necessary 

to assure reasonable protection of 

Lake Carl Blackwell and associated 

OSU facilities 

Oklahoma State lands 

managed by OSU 

PÙÊò® ¥¥ã®ò ÊÃÃÄãÝ

- 

BLM OKLAHOMA FIELD OFFICE 

Providing Comments 

During Public Scoping 

Steve Tryon, OFO Manager 

7906 E. 33rd Street, Suite 101 

Tulsa, OK 74145 1352 

Office hours are 7:30 am to 4:30 pm 

Phone: (918) 621-4100 

FAX: (918) 621-4130 

The BLM Oklahoma Field Office (OFO) is developing the Resource Management Plan (RMP) for 

the OFO planning area. The OFO RMP will provide detailed information about the current state 

of resources on public lands within the planning area, and set forth a plan of action for managing 

those resources for the next twenty or so years under the BLM’s multiple use mandate. 

Many public land users, organizations, and individuals want to provide comments to help in the OFO 

RMP planning effort. The best and most useful comments are substantive comments; that is, those 

that have substance. Try not to provide comments that offer opinion only.
 

Substantive comments during scoping do one or more of the following: 



















Raise issues BLM has not considered; reinforce issues BLM has already identified 

Identify additional planning criteria 

Present information that can be used when developing alternatives 

Present reasonable alternatives 

Present information that can be used when BLM considers impacts of alternatives 

Raise concerns, with reasoning, regarding public land resources within the planning area 

Raise concerns, with reasoning, regarding uses of public lands within the planning area 

Recommend specific changes to the landscape or management actions 

Question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information in a report already created 

Comments that are not substantive include: 

 Comments in favor of or against an action without any reasoning (such as “I don’t like” 

without providing any rationale) 









Comments that only agree or disagree with BLM policy 

Comments without justification or supporting data (such as “allow more grazing ”)
 

Comments that don’t pertain to the planning area (such as “the government should eliminate 

all dams throughout the west”)
 

Comments that take the form of vague, open-ended questions.
 

Please provide substantive comments, which will be the most useful kind during this planning effort. 

Thank you for your interest in the OFO RMP.
 

OFO RMP Webpage: 

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

oktrmp 

 

Comments can also be mailed 

to:
 

Larry Levesque
 

RMP Project Manager
 

7906 E. 33rd Street, Suite 101 

Tulsa, OK 74145
 

Email address for public

comments: 

BLM_NM_OKT_RMP@blm.gov 

 

Providing Comments During Public Scoping 
Development of an 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Federal and American Indian 

Resource Management 

in Oklahoma, Kansas, & Texas 

November 2013- january 20 14 

BLM Oklahoma Field Office 

BIA Eastern Oklahoma Region 

BIA Southern Plains Region 

BLM Mission o The BLM is a small agency with a big mission: management (or muhiple 

uses of nearly 250 million acres of public land and 700 million acres of 

mineral estate. 

o These multiple uses are diverse, including energy development. 

livestock grazing, recreational activities, and conservation. 

o BLM's overall budgetvs. revenue (FY 2011): $1 .8 billion vs. $4. 1 billion 

BLM Oklahoma Field Office 

Mission • 	 Multiple Use Management 

Under FLPMA 

Part of the NM BLM 

Organization 

Covers OK-KS-TX 

Management responsibility 

for Federal mineral estate, 

and surface management 

on public domain tracts in 

OK 

Permitting responsibility 

for BIA-issued oil and gas 

leases 

• 	

• 	

• 	

• 	

BLM Oklahoma Field Office 

Mission -Oil & Gas Management 

The OFO's three-state jurisdiction 

overlaps three of the nation's top 

natural gas producing states: Texas, 

Oklahoma, and Kansas. 

• 	

• 	

• 	

• 	

Leasing of Federal Minerals and 

Pre-Leasing Review of Indian 

Minerals 

Permitting of Federal and Indian 

Minerals 

Revenue-Sharing Agreements 

Inspections and Enforcement on 

-15,000 O&G wells, incl. 

production on -$324 million in 

royalties (20 I0 estimate) 

Current Federal and Indian 

OiI & Gas Production (Fv 2o12) -·-----'tt"i!ti! Federal KS 483 125,103 440 110,112 266,363 

Federal OK 1,304 326,295 919 136,106 272,602 

Federal TX 70S 423,037 274 165,669 382,904 

TOTAL' 2,492 874,435 1,633 411,887 921,869 65,074,833 

Indian KS N /A 

Indian OK 6,480 1,216,463 2,260 265,848 N /A 

Indian TX N /A 

TOTAL' 6,480 1,216,463 2,260 265,848 

BLM Oklahoma Field Office 

Mission -Coal Management 

.---------------,. 	 2 Active Coal 

Mines Produced 

451,000 tons of 

Federal Coal in 

FY 2012 

• 	 5 Inactive Mines 

r-' .-J" • 4 Mines 

" Currently 

Seeking 

Approval 

'---------------'• 	 Other Mines 

Pursuing 

Exploration 
BLM Oklahoma Field Office 

Mission -Other Solid Minerals 

• Federal and 

Indian Sand 

and Gravel, 

Limestone, 

Asphalt 

Operations in 

Oklahoma. 

• Potential for 

Salt 

Development 

in Kansas. 

• 

• 	

• 	

• 	

• 	

BLM Oklahoma Field Office 

Mission -Surface Management 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Management of 

I 16 miles ofthe 

Red River. 

Recreation and 

Public Purposes 

Act Requests. 

Rights-of-Way 

Livestock Grazing 

BLM Oklahoma Field Office 

Mission -Wild Horse and Burro 

Management 20 pe rcent of BLM's national 

adoption program. 

Adoption 

complianc e. 

Partners hip with 

Hutchinson 

Correctional 

Facility & U.S. 

Bor der Patr ol. 

Youth Education 

I short-term and 25 long-te rm 

~~dtif<.~ cilities in 

BIA Mission 

• 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 

What is an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS)? 

• 

• 

• 

A detailed report identifying effects on the 

human environment resulting from decisions 

and actions of the Federal government. 

A requirement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

The purpose of NEPA is to help make 

informed decisions while concurrently 

protecting the environment. 

Why Are BLM and BIA 

Conducting an EIS? 

• 

• 

• 

• 	

• 	

• 	

The EIS will enable BLM and BIA to better 

manage resource use decisions within the 

planning area. 

BLM and BIA work collectively on permitting 

of Indian & Tribal mineral development. 

Resources 

include: 

Oil & Gas 

Soli d Minerals 

Lands 

• 

•

•

•

Resource Uses 

Include: 

Recreatio n 

Livestoc k grazing 

Other uses 
BLM RMP/EIS & BIA EIS 

Decision Area 

BLM 	

• 

• 

• 

I 04,000 acres of BLM 

administered surface lands 

593,000 acres of split estate

•

•

land (private land with 

Federal mine ral inte rests) 

5,270,000 acres of Federal 

mineral estate on lands 

managed by other Federal 

agencies 


BIA 

Eastern Oklahoma 

20 Tribes 

o 	 621 ,696 acres 

l:l 	 Eastern OK

Southern Plains 

o 	 24 Tribes 

o 479,015 acres 


W este rn OK , KS. & TX 

• 	

• 

Oklahoma 

---- ­ ::::="==5'?==· oil 

Kansas Texas 

What is a BLM Resource 

Management Plan? 

Is the primary tool guiding BLM 

management activities in support of the 

dual mandate of multiple use and 

sustained yield. 

Establishes goals and objectives for 

resource management and the measures 

needed to achieve them. 

What is a Resource Management 

Plan? (continued) 

• 

• 

Identifies lands that are open and 

available for certain uses, including any 

restrictions, and lands that are closed to 

certain uses. 

Provides comprehensive management 

direction for and/or allocates use of 

resources. 
• 	

• 

• 

• 	

• 	

• 	

• 	

EIS and RMP 

Purpose and Need 

BLM 	

• To revise outdated plans: 

o 	 Kansas 1991 RMP 

o 	 Oklahoma 1994 RMP 

o 	 Texas 1996 RMP 

To support future leasing and permitting decisions 

To include/update resource uses

and incorporate new data 

To allocate other resources not included in original RMPs 

BIA 

Leasing and development of 

Indian mineral interests will be 

strengthened when addressed in 

an EIS-Ievel analysis 

BIA EO & SP would sign separate 

Indian EIS and Record of 

Decisions 

Strengthens future leasing by BIA 

or individual Tribes 

Through tiering, strengthens 

permitting by BLM for Indian and 

Tribal mineral development 

Issues to be Addressed • Air Resources 

• 	 Fluid Minerals 

• 	 Wildlife and Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

• 	 Cultural Resources and Native 

American Religious Concerns 

• 	 Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

• 	 National Historic Trails 

• 	 Solid Minerals 

• 	 Recreation/ Visitor Service s 

• 	 Riparian/Wetlands/ Floodplains 

• 	 Groundwater Resources 

• 	 Land Tenure 

• 	 Livestock Grazing 

• 	 Vegetation 

• 	 Visual Resources 

Socio-Economics and 

Environmental Justice 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Wild Horse and Burro 

Helium Resources 

Potential for Rights of Way. 

Realty Actions, Business 

Leases 

Planning Support: 

Reasonably 

Foreseeable 

Development 

o Historical well and production 

data have been co llected, 

compil ed, a nd assimilated for GIS 

analysis 

o W ill delineate a reas of potential 

mineral/energy development 

(high, medium, low, non e), 

including O&G, solid minera ls, 

wind energy. 

o 	 W ill describe f ederal and Indian 

development poten tial v. all 

e ne rgy reso ur ces. 


Will assist in identifying multipl e 

us e manage ment a reas. 


o Will serve as basis for impa ct 

analysis in the EIS 

Planning Support: Southern Great 

Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment 

• Projected to be 

completed in 

2015 

• Will add 

information about 

the effect of 

change agents on 

conservation 

elements at a 

landscape scale. 

anning Support At a Landscape Leve 

The Southern Great Plains REA may be used to: 

• 	 Help project siting (e.g., oil and gas well pads) 

• 	 Prepare land use plans and cumulative 

impacts analyses 

• 	 Develop off-site mitigation strategies 

• 	 Identify policy and program development needs 

• 	 Facilitate interagency discussions about critical 

ecosystem processes and thresholds and about 

research and data needs 

• 	

• 

• 

• 

• 

What is Seeping? 

• The early and open process for identifying actions, 

impacts, and issues that will be addressed in a NEPA 

document. 

• Engages public, federal, state, and local agencies, 

organizations, and other stakeholder groups in the 

collaborative planning process. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 >>> 

Bureau of Land Management Oklahoma Field Office RMP/EIS 

For the BLM to formally consider your comments regarding the Notice of Intent for the Oklahoma Field Office to prepare a 

Resource Management Plan, written comments are required. To assure consideration you should provide your comments by January 

31, 2014. Please fax this completed form to (918) 621-4130 or mail it to the following address: 

Oklahoma Field Office RMP Comments
 

c/o Larry Levesque
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Oklahoma Field Office
 

7906 E. 33rd Street, Suite 101 

Tulsa, OK 74145-1352
 

You may e-mail comments to BLM_NM_OKT_RMP@blm.gov or complete an online comment form at 

http://www.blm.gov/nm/oktrmp. In order to continue receiving information and future mailings about the Oklahoma 

Field Office RMP, you must ask to be added to the official RMP mailing list by submitting this form by January 31, 

2014. 

* Denotes required fields. 

Your Name* Today’s Date* 

Please indicate your affiliation by checking one of the following boxes: 

 Individual (no affiliation) 

Confidentiality Request: 

Please indicate if you wish to withhold your name or address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act. This request does not preclude the need to complete the required information below. 

A request for confidentiality will be honored to the extent allowed by law. Anonymity is not allowable for submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or 

businesses. 

No selection indicates you do not wish to withhold your information. 

 Please withhold my name only  Please withhold my address only 

 Please withhold my name and address 

 Private Industry  Citizen’s Group 

 Elected Representative  Federal, state, tribal, or local government 

 Regulatory Agency 

Name of company, group, government, agency or organization (if applicable) 

Mailing Address* 

City* State* Zip Code* 

Telephone (optional) E-mail Address (optional) 

Would you like to be added to or remain on the OFO RMP/EIS mailing list to receive future project-related information? 

Yes  No 

Continued on next page
 

 

 

 

 

Bureau of Land Management Oklahoma Field Office RMP/EIS 

Please mark the appropriate category below and write your comments on the lines provided. Feel free to attach additional pages if 

necessary. 

 Access/Transportation  Recreation/OHV (Hunting, Fishing, Hiking, Biking, etc.) 

 Energy (Wind, Geothermal, Solar, etc.)  Social/Economic Concerns 

 Fire Management  Vegetation/Noxious Weeds 

 Historic, Cultural & Paleontologic Resources/Traditional Values  Wild Horses & Burros 

 Land Tenure (Retention/Acquisition/Disposal)  Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas & Other Special 

Designations  Livestock Grazing 

 Minerals (Hardrock, Oil & Gas)  Wildlife/Sensitive Species 

 Planning/RMP Process  Other Concerns (please define) 

 Soil / Water / Air / Visual Resources 

Public comments submitted for this planning review, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available fo r public review at the Oklahoma Field Office, 7906 E. 

33rd Street, Suite 101, Tulsa, OK 74145-1352, during regular business hours (7:30 AM to 4:30 PM), Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. Individual respondents may 

request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name or address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently in 

your written comments. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. Anonymity is not allowable for submissions from organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses. 
Appendix B

Oral Comments Made during Scoping Meetings
This page intentionally left blank.
May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS B-1

Final Scoping Summary Report

APPENDIX B

ORAL COMMENTS MADE DURING SCOPING

MEETINGS

The following are the verbal comments made during the OFO RMP scoping meetings in 

November 2013, December 2013, and January 2014. 

Woodward, Oklahoma – November 18, 2013

No comments or questions were received in Woodward because there were no attendees.

Weatherford, Oklahoma – November 19, 2013

The single attendee expressed concern that public did not understand what scoping was and did 

not respond to the newspaper advertisement because of it. 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma – November 20, 2013

Attendees wondered if the US Environmental Protection Agency would be asked to be a 

cooperating agency.

Attendees asked if Osage County would be included in the EIS.

Attendees expressed interest in how environmental justice issues would be considered.

Attendees expressed concern about considerations for various species, particularly the American 

burying beetle.

Attendees asked if meeting materials would be posted on the project website.

Attendees asked when the Rapid Ecoregional Assessment would be ready, and whether 

recommendations from the Rapid Ecoregional Assessment would be incorporated into the RMP, 

and if the Rapid Ecoregional Assessment would be done with Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 

Conservation. 

Attendees asked who will be doing the EIS.
B. Oral Comments Made during Scoping Meetings

B-2 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Attendees expressed concerns about the ongoing litigation between the state and federal 

agencies, specifically regarding the issues around air permitting in Osage County.

Attendees wondered whether a consultant will do the invasive species analysis.

Attendees asked about surface rights in Osage County.

Attendees asked about whether Fort Reno is available for oil and gas development.

Attendees asked about whether scoping comments submitted in August 2013 are already 

available on the project website.

Attendees asked about if US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service is involved in 

the scoping meetings.

Attendees expressed concerns about how climate change will be analyzed.

Poteau, Oklahoma – December 2, 2013

Attendees expressed concerns about the BLM’s ability to fund the project the entire way 

through.

Attendees expressed concerns about how coal will be evaluated and whether the evaluation will 

be more comprehensive than the evaluation done in the 1994 RMP.

Attendees asked if federal lands currently allocated will be carried forward in the next RMP.

Attendees asked about whether the new plan will recognize the deficiencies of the 1994 RMP.

Attendees asked about whether the public can get access to US Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service American burying beetle maps.

Tahlequah, Oklahoma – December 3, 2013

Attendees expressed satisfaction with the way the BLM is currently operating.

Attendees expressed concern over the interpretation of the Stigler Act and desire that the 

ambiguity surrounding BLM’s role under Section 11 of the Stigler Act be clarified.

Attendees expressed concern that materials distributed by the BLM to the Cherokee Nation may 

not be reaching the Cherokee Nation due to issues with mail flow in the Cherokee Nation.

Attendees expressed concerns about a lock being installed on the Arkansas River and a port 

being put in at Chickasaw and Choctaw tribal lands.

Attendees expressed concern about the Cherokee Nation struggling to find funding to finish land 

surveys for the Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Choctaw tribal lands.

Attendees asked questions about the Cherokee Nation and their ability to put in a power plant.
B. Oral Comments Made during Scoping Meetings

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS B-3

Final Scoping Summary Report

Attendees expressed concerns about the interstate transmission line crossing the Arkansas River.

Attendees expressed concerns about the limestone lease in eastern Oklahoma.

Attendees asked about forest leases and about the need for a forestry management plan within 

the Cherokee Nation.

McAlester, Oklahoma – December 4, 2013

Attendees asked about wild pigs by the Red River.

Attendees asked about whether the RMP would include coal that is currently leased, but the lease 

would be expiring.

Attendees expressed concerns about international interest in local coal.

Attendees expressed concern about whether the public will be able to understand the RMP/EIS

when it is completed.

Lawton, Oklahoma – December 10, 2013

Attendees asked questions about whether the public can get copies of maps shown at the scoping 

meetings.

Attendees expressed concerns about how the public will be notified about upcoming 

opportunities to comment, and whether the notification will come via US Mail.

Attendees asked questions about access points in Texas to the Red River, and whether people 

accessing the Red River through Texas are doing so legally.

Attendees expressed concerns about the legality and presence of hunting leases along the Red 

River.

Attendees asked questions about how the BLM is going to determine what is BLM-administered

property versus what is private property along the Red River.

Attendees asked questions about the status of the Red River land survey.

Attendees asked questions about the BLM partnering with other organizations, specifically 

whether they have talked to the Oklahoma Audubon Society about a partnership.

Attendees asked questions about the future potential of more organized/managed recreational 

activities in the Red River area. 

Attendees asked questions about the availability of the geographic information system files used 

to create the maps displayed at scoping.

Attendees asked questions about where commercial hunting is allowed in the area.
B. Oral Comments Made during Scoping Meetings

B-4 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Attendees asked questions about when the RMP would go into effect and when the public would 

be allowed to participate in various uses of the Red River.

Attendees asked questions about who is responsible for keeping the public off private land.

Attendees asked questions about how the public would reach public land without crossing 

private land.

Wichita Falls, Texas – December 11, 2013

Attendees expressed concerns about landowners along the Red River losing their land during the 

RMP process.

Attendees asked whether the border compact between Texas and Oklahoma clarifies the 

confusion the BLM has over which lands are private and which lands are administered by the 

BLM.

Attendees asked questions about how the BLM expects the public to comment on the land 

around the Red River if the BLM does not know what land around the Red River is actually 

administered by the BLM.

Attendees expressed concerns about the lack of a survey of the land along the Red River.

Attendees questioned the reason this RMP and survey of the Red River is necessary when the 

current management seems to be adequate.

Attendees asked how the BLM can tell private land owners that, despite earlier court rulings, 

their land actually is administered by the BLM.

Attendees asked questions about who would be held responsible in the event of an out-of-control 

BLM-prescribed fire.

Attendees asked questions about how the BLM plans to manage the Red River.

Attendees commented on the BLM’s current sub-par land management and questioned why the 

BLM would be allowed to administer more land when the BLM is not doing a good job 

managing the land they already administer.

Attendees expressed concerns that the public will litter and abuse land along the Red River.

Commenters expressed that it felt unfair that if the land along the Red River were opened to 

public use, the land owners that have properties that abut the river would experience a loss (e.g.,

abuse from the public, a decrease in solitude, and an increased risk of trespassing) and the public 

would experience only the benefit of free use of that land. 

Attendees asked questions about how trespassing on private land would be prevented and 

whether signs would be put up by the BLM to discourage trespassing.
B. Oral Comments Made during Scoping Meetings

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS B-5

Final Scoping Summary Report

Attendees questioned whether the BLM would sell to a private company those parcels of land 

that are too small for BLM to efficiently administer.

Attendees were concerned about losing their land that backs to Red River access points.

Attendees asked questions about where to submit scoping comments.

Attendees questioned the logistics of the land survey along the Red River and whether the 

government would need access to the land in order to survey it.

Attendees asked who would police such a land closure.

Attendees asked if allowable uses would apply to the entire Red River or if different segments 

would be designated for different allowable uses.

Attendees expressed a desire for property owners along the Red River to have sole access rights 

to the BLM-administered lands along the river, and asked whether there was a mechanism to 

achieve that goal.

Fort Worth, Texas – December 12, 2013

Attendees asked if any of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act leases were close to a potential 

trail on BLM-administered lands and expressed a desire to build up any such land for equestrian

access along the Red River.

Houston, Texas – December 17, 2013

Attendees primarily expressed interest in (1) environmental issues, (2) preservation of natural 

areas, and (3) areas to ride horses.

Attendees expressed concern about designating the Red River area as an official recreation area, 

which would attract recreationalists and would increase trespassing on private property.

Attendees asked about the presence of Native American lands along the Red River and if any 

Tribes want recreation areas along the Red River to be made official.

Attendees asked about how much the BLM compensates private land owners for taking care of 

wild horses.

Attendees asked if wind is the only renewable energy resource being considered and encouraged 

the examination of solar energy as well. 

Livingston, Texas – December 18, 2013

Attendees expressed a desire for BLM-administered lands on which they can ride their horses.

Lufkin, Texas – December 19, 2013

Attendees asked about the management of playas and whether the BLM would have any 

jurisdiction over their management.

Attendees asked whether the BLM would have any jurisdiction over private coal.
B. Oral Comments Made during Scoping Meetings

B-6 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Attendees asked if this project would affect cultural resources legislation and implementation.

Salina, Kansas – January 7, 2014

Attendees suggested that ranchers should get credit for water banking (i.e., allowing rainwater to 

percolate into the ground on one part of their land) to allow them to withdraw and use more on 

another part of their land.

Attendees expressed desire for more multiple-use recreational areas at Kanopolis Lake.

Liberal, Kansas – January 8, 2014

Attendees asked about the wild horse hosting program and where to get more information.

Attendees asked about a candidate conservation agreement in relation to lesser prairie chicken 

and how it affects oil and gas leases.

Attendees asked about what happens if the lesser prairie chicken is added to the Endangered 

Species list in March 2014.

Amarillo, Texas – January 9, 2014

Attendees asked several questions about Cross Bar Ranch related to access, funding, permits, 

how different groups or clubs can assist the BLM in its development, and policing versus selfpolicing of off-road vehicle users.

Attendees talked about policing versus self-policing issues at the Red River.

Attendees expressed interest in access to both the Red River and Crossbar Ranch for equestrian 

use.

Tulsa, Oklahoma – January 14, 2014

Attendees asked about the division of responsibility between BIA and BLM on oil and gas 

leases.

Attendees asked if the BLM has any authority over district court leases.

Attendees asked if there was a possibility of BLM and BIA standardizing lease stipulations.

Attendees asked about the future of the BLM wild horse and burro program.

Attendees asked if this RMP revision would affect current permitting.

Attendees asked if the BLM has the expertise to conduct an economic analysis of the resources 

and resource uses being considered.

Attendees asked if the BLM has a trust responsibility to Tribes.

Pawhuska, Oklahoma – January 15, 2014

Attendees asked if there is any uranium in the planning area and whether it would be addressed 

in the EIS.
B. Oral Comments Made during Scoping Meetings

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS B-7

Final Scoping Summary Report

Attendees asked if the EIS would consider impacts on tribal lifeways and animals, plants, and 

other resources.

Attendees asked if the BLM has a stewardship program to help individuals acquire lands for 

stewardship purposes.

Attendees asked if the BLM is doing anything related to the Zone 5 Choctaw Nation economic 

development zone announced by President Obama.

Attendees asked if Pitcher and Tar Creeks minerals would ever become viable, and, if so, if the 

BLM would be involved.

Attendees asked a variety of questions about the wild horse and burro program.
B. Oral Comments Made during Scoping Meetings

B-8 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C

List of Commenters 
This page intentionally left blank.
May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS C-1

Final Scoping Summary Report

APPENDIX C

LIST OF COMMENTERS 

The formal public comment period as required by NEPA began on July 26, 2013, with the 

publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (78 Federal Register 45266-45628, July 

26, 2013), and ended on January 31, 2014. Table C-1, Commenters, lists the commenters who 

submitted written submissions to the BLM for the OFO RMP/EIS as part of the public scoping 

process. All comments received on or before February 28, 2014, are included in this scoping 

report. The commenters within each affiliation are listed in chronological order based on when 

their comments were received. Form letters submissions are not included in Table C-1, 

Commenters. Table C-2, Form Letter Submissions, includes a brief description of the form 

letters received, including number of form letters received.

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name1 Affiliation Date Received

(Month/Day/Year)

Federal Government Agency

1. Lawrence Emmons US DOI Office of Surface Mining 1/31/2014

State Government Agency

1. Dawn R. Sullivan Oklahoma Department of Transportation 1/30/2014

2. Richard Hatcher Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 

Conservation

2/03/2014

3. Steve Sowers Oklahoma Energy Resources Board 2/03/2014

Elected Official

1. Mac Thornberry House of Representatives 1/30/2014

Business/Commercial Sector (if applicable)

1. Randy Bolles Devon Energy Production Company 8/26/2013 & 

1/31/2014

2. Robert P. Cooper Farrell-Cooper Mining Co. 1/23/2014

3. Daniel J. Redetzke Independent Salt Company 1/29/2014

4. Donny Worthington XTO Energy Inc. 1/29/2014
C. List of Commenters

C-2 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name1 Affiliation Date Received

(Month/Day/Year)

5. Monica Griffin Reagan Smith Energy Solutions 1/30/2014

6. Martin Schardt American Association of Professional 

Landmen

1/31/2014

7. Joe Icenogle Apache 1/31/2014

8. Linda McDonald SandRidge Energy 1/31/2014

9. Brian Woodard Oklahoma Independent Petroleum 

Association

1/31/2014

10. Francis B. Barron Cimarex Energy Co. 1/31/2014

11. Nina Hutton XTO Energy Inc. 1/31/2014

Organization (non-profit, citizen’s group)

1. J. Keith Shelton De Kalb (TX) Industrial Foundation 12/17/2013

2. Tina Taylor Arkansas Trail Riding Association 1/14/2014

3. Steven E. Lindsey Back Country Horsemen of Kansas 1/27/2014

4. Linda Moore Cross Timbers 1/30/2014

5. Michelle Ellis Lake Ray Roberts Equestrian Trail 

Association

1/30/2014

6. Marla R. Peek Oklahoma Farm Bureau 1/31/2014

7. Josh Marks Osage County Cattlemen’s Association 1/31/2014

8. Gene Richardson Texas Farm Bureau 1/31/2014

9. Laurie Williams The Sierra Club 1/31/2014

10. Dan Taylor Bat Conservation International 2/1/2014

Individual

1. Eleanor Crow 12/9/2013

2. Information Withheld 12/10/2013

3. Darren Meeks 12/11/2013

4. Dee Murphy 12/11/2013

5. Rose Marie Molsbee 12/11/2013

6. Freddie Paul 12/12/2013

7. Jean Green 12/12/2013

8. Misty Valdez 12/12/2013

9. Peggie Kimberlin 12/12/2013

10. Cindy Kerl 12/13/2013

11. Scott E. Nelson 12/13/2013

12. Bill Lockwood 12/14/2013

13. Jackie Smith 12/16/2013

14. Information Withheld 12/16/2013 & 

1/19/2014

15. Information Withheld 12/20/2013 & 

1/30/2014

16. Information Withheld 12/20/2013

17. Tommy Henderson 12/20/2013
C. List of Commenters

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS C-3

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name1 Affiliation Date Received

(Month/Day/Year)

18. Information Withheld 12/26/2013

19. Information Withheld 12/26/2013

20. J.B. Riley Riley Property Co., Ltd 12/27/2013

21. Information Withheld 12/28/2013

22. Fred Vinson 12/29/2013

23. Kevin and Elizabeth

Hunter

12/29/2013 & 

1/15/2014

24. Information Withheld 1/2/2014

25. James R. Bell 1/5/2014

26. Information Withheld 1/8/2014

27. Information Withheld 1/11/2014

28. Jonelle McCoy McCoy's Gaited Horse Artworks 1/11/2014

29. Information Withheld 1/13/2014

30. Information Withheld 1/14/2014

31. Charlotte Spragus 1/15/2014

32. Information Withheld 1/15/2014

33. Lance Spragins 1/15/2014

34. Information Withheld 1/15/2014

35. Phil Blackmore 1/15/2014

36. Bing D. Miller 1/16/2014

37. Carole Brown 1/16/2014

38. Delby and Suzanne Darr 1/17/2014

39. Donald Schoppa 1/17/2014

40. Information Withheld 1/17/2014

41. Information Withheld 1/17/2014

42. Information Withheld 1/17/2014

43. Randy Aaron 1/17/2014

44. Information Withheld 1/17/2014

45. Carole G. Smith 1/18/2014

46. Doyle R. Smith Jr. 1/18/2014

47. Information Withheld 1/18/2014

48. Information Withheld 1/18/2014

49. Information Withheld 1/20/2014

50. Information Withheld 1/20/2014

51. Information Withheld 1/20/2014

52. Michelle 1/20/2014

53. Muskogee Farmers 1/20/2014

54. Peggy Sasser PNS Farms 1/20/2014

55. Information Withheld 1/20/2014

56. Rodney R. Kee 1/21/2014
C. List of Commenters

C-4 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name1 Affiliation Date Received

(Month/Day/Year)

57. Glenn Payton 1/22/2014

58. Information Withheld 1/22/2014

59. Information Withheld 1/22/2014

60. Information Withheld 1/22/2014

61. Information Withheld 1/22/2014

62. Catharine Wood Oklahoma Historical Society 1/23/2014

63. Kyle Wells 1/23/2014

64. Marleen Parker 1/23/2014

65. Information Withheld 1/23/2014

66. Carolyn Lalk 1/24/2014

67. Donna Condry 1/24/2014

68. Information Withheld 1/24/2014

69. Information Withheld 1/24/2014

70. Information Withheld 1/24/2014

71. Kenneth T. Scott 1/24/2014

72. Information Withheld 1/24/2014

73. William Lalk 1/24/2014

74. Deborah Alley 1/25/2014

75. Karen Slagle 1/25/2014

76. Mike Slagle 1/25/2014

77. Mary J. Edwards 1/26/2014

78. Information Withheld 1/26/2014

79. Amy Jo Love Mekusukey Oil Company, LLC 1/27/2014

80. Barbara Knudsen 1/27/2014

81. Clay Stewart 1/27/2014

82. Karen Budd-Falen 1/27/2014

83. Laci Lawrence 1/27/2014

84. Laura Burt 1/27/2014

85. Information Withheld 1/27/2014

86. Nancy Farmer 1/27/2014

87. Phyllis Petronella Trail Gaiters and Friends Riding Club 1/27/2014

88. Information Withheld 1/28/2014

89. Information Withheld 1/28/2014

90. Information Withheld 1/28/2014

91. Jimmy Smith 1/28/2014

92. Joe Parker 1/28/2014

93. Information Withheld 1/28/2014

94. LeeAnna Covington 1/28/2014

95. Michael L. Carnes RPL 1/28/2014

96. Nancy Angell 1/28/2014
C. List of Commenters

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS C-5

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name1 Affiliation Date Received

(Month/Day/Year)

97. Nathan Widener 1/28/2014

98. Sylvia Sazama 1/28/2014

99. Trevor Lulk 1/28/2014

100. Information Withheld 1/28/2014

101. Dave Lilley The Lilley Land and Livestock Co. 1/29/2014

102. Jillian Lalk 1/29/2014

103. Information Withheld 1/29/2014

104. John Wright 1/29/2014

105. Melissa Monson 1/29/2014

106. Information Withheld 1/29/2014 & 

1/31/2014

107. Bert L. and Marion Jo

Williamson

Deep Creek Enterprises Inc. 1/30/2014

108. Billy T. Elder Elder, Bickings & Spurgers 1/30/2014

109. Bob and Kim Arnold 1/30/2014

110. Information Withheld 1/30/2014

111. David Matlock 1/30/2014

112. Information Withheld 1/30/2014

113. Information Withheld 1/30/2014

114. Information Withheld 1/30/2014

115. Kathy Williamson 1/30/2014

116. Information Withheld 1/30/2014

117. Mark and Karla Monson 1/30/2014

118. Marvin Carr 1/30/2014

119. Information Withheld 1/30/2014

120. Information Withheld 1/30/2014

121. Information Withheld 1/30/2014 & 

2/3/2014

122. Aaron Kim Ludeke 1/31/2014

123. Alyssa Irlbeck 1/31/2014

124. Information Withheld 1/31/2014

125. Charles W. Manning 1/31/2014

126. Charlie Miller Wolfe Place Ranch LLC 1/31/2014

127. Chris James 1/31/2014

128. Christian Marlin 1/31/2014

129. Daniel Field 1/31/2014

130. Information Withheld 1/31/2014

131. David Dickerson 1/31/2014

132. David Doughty 1/31/2014

133. Delby and Suzanne Darr 1/31/2014
C. List of Commenters

C-6 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table C-1

Commenters

Commenter Name1 Affiliation Date Received

(Month/Day/Year)

134. Donna Dow 1/31/2014

135. Donnie McGill 1/31/2014

136. Information Withheld 1/31/2014

137. Information Withheld 1/31/2014

138. Janet Tregallas 1/31/2014

139. Jerry Pennartz 1/31/2014

140. Information Withheld 1/31/2014

141. Joy Cowan 1/31/2014

142. Information Withheld 1/31/2014

143. Marlene Oxford 1/31/2014

144. Michael Kelsey Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association 1/31/2014

145. Information Withheld 1/31/2014

146. Richard M. Foshee 1/31/2014

147. Steven McCullough 1/31/2014

148. Danny Clack 2/3/2014

149. David McCarley 2/3/2014

150. Jimmy Ray Lalk 2/3/2014

151. Kenneth Davis 2/3/2014

152. Randall O. Lovelady 2/3/2014

153. Rex Lalk 2/3/2014

154. Wilma Lalk 2/3/2014

155. Marie Wells and family 2/28/2014

Table C-2

Form Letter Submissions

Organization 

Identified

(if any)

Number of Form 

Letters Received Description of Form Letter Contents

(none identified) 50 Comments related to land ownership along the 

Red River

(none identified) 5 Comments related to land ownership along the

Red River
Appendix D

Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue 
This page intentionally left blank.
May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-1

Final Scoping Summary Report

APPENDIX D

COMMENTS BY PROCESS CATEGORY AND 

PLANNING ISSUE

The BLM received 683 discrete comments during the OFO RMP scoping period. These 

comments were classified by RMP process category and by planning issue. Comments for each 

the RMP process categories and for planning issue categories are included in this appendix. 

Comments are included verbatim from the comment letters; however, information in letters that 

was not considered a comment is not included here. Comments are included for the following 

groups:

Comments by Process Category

Table D-1 Issues Not Related to the Scope of This Project (page D-3)

Table D-2 Issues Resolved through Policy or Administrative Action (page D-3)

Table D-3 Oklahoma-Texas Boundary Issues (page D-4)

Comments by Planning Issue Category

Table D-4 General Comments Related to the Project (page D-7)

Table D-5 Access and Transportation (page D-12)

Table D-6 Issues Not Addressed in Previous RMPs (page D-13)

Table D-7 Climate Change and Future Water Needs (page D-13)

Table D-8 Cultural and Historic Resources (page D-17)

Table D-9 Energy Development (page D-17)

Table D-10 Fences and Trespassing (page D-31)

Table D-11 Fish and Wildlife (page D-35)
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-2 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-12 Lands and Realty (page D-38)

Table D-13 Minerals and Mining (page D-40)

Table D-14 Public Health and Safety (page D-41)

Table D-15 Recreation and Other Uses along the Red River (page D-46)

Table D-16 Socioeconomics (page D-55)

Table D-17 Tribal Interests (page D-58)
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-3

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-1

Issues Not Related to the Scope of This Project

In SE Oklahoma we had the Honobia Creek WMA. This WMA was 275,000 acres and open to the public. 90% of this land was 

sold to others outside the state and is now under a timber company. The land is stripped and sprayed. The Little River is filling w/ 

debris. We have less fish. The economy has dropped. Some of the land is leasted then sub-leasted for hunting but fewer and 

fewer locals can afford the cost. There is less money coming in the area because the only thing tourist can do is drive threw. 

Camp areas have closed. Cabin rental is down. I have tried to talk w/our State reps in the past, but they do not want to hear from 

our area. Not enough folks live out here to make a difference. This area would have been a great addition to the Ouachita NF. OK 

has a lost a gem. We use to have hunter, hikers, horseback riders and campers year around. Now a few during hunting season. 

Deer population will be suffering soon.

If you do not want us to drill on BLM land then here's a suggestion: STOP HOLDING LEASE SALES! You cannot have your 

cake (accepting lease bonus and annual rentals) and eat it to (never approving a APD).

Comment 7 - Migratory Bird. Please clarify the policy on Migratory Bird Treaty Act in regards to Oil and Gas operations. This 

has been a source of confusion for many years.

All the while, we currently have an agency who identified an issue over a decade ago and subsequently identified effective 

strategies to minimize permitting delays to meet federal statutory guidelines, yet who have not implemented such guidance, who 

continue to slip further away from meeting their targeted permitting timelines, who continue to push for additional regulations 

which further complicate and slow the process. Along with this, these same agencies are now requesting additional actions, Best 

Management Practices and impositions further delaying the prudent development of this nation’s national resources which may 

offset our nation’s growing debt and enhance our nation’s national security by reducing our reliance on imported fuels from 

politically unstable countries while creating more jobs and lowering our trade deficit. OIPA struggles to understand why the 

federal government expects so much from this industry, yet can’t meet their own statutory obligations for permit issuance 

established by EPACT’ 05.

Table D-2

Issues Resolved through Policy or Administrative Action

If the BLM owns land that they have sold or let be sold, and recorded on public record, taxes be paid on, land allowed to be used 

for years with no legal notification of wrong doing, how will the deed owner be compensated.

Please use federal money where it is really needed. Why neglect our wonderful National Parks that we already have?

For these and other reasons, I believe that the Red River BLM land should not be surveyed and opened to the public.

I hope you will consider the land owners who have paid thousands of dollars for the land.

The law has been established (see the Red River Compact finalized in Washington, D.C. in the year 2000) that the vegetation line 

should be respected which nullifies the number of "90,000" acres being involved. As hard as it seems sometimes, as law-abiding 

citizens, we really do expect our U.S. government would also follow the rules. Isn’t the BLM part of our government? Why 

would it override decisions that have already been made? Why would it take land that we have been paying taxes on and 

preserving all these years?

In his letter, Mr. Wyrick describes his concerns related to the BIA’s authorization of the unpermitted use of surface water in 

Osage County and notes that the BIA seemingly attempts to preempt the State of Oklahoma’s regulatory authority, and it does so 

with no basis in law. We believe this issue may be overcome through the joint agencies recognition that the use of water 

resources shall be in accordance with the laws of the State of Oklahoma.

Furthermore, we recommend that the agency evaluate past strategies contemplated to expedite the APD process, including: 

processing and conducting environmental analyses on multiple permit applications with similar characteristics; implementing 

geographic area development planning for an oil and gas field or an area within a field; establishing a standard operating practice 

agreement that identifies surface and frilling practices by oil and gas operators; allowing for a block survey of cultural resources; 

promoting consistent procedures; revising relevant BLM manuals; and dropping their proposed hydraulic fracturing rules for 

federal and tribal lands in an effort to meet their federally codified requirements of issuing APD’s within 30 days.

Individuals who purchased land adjacent to the red river basin did so under the right of personal property ownership and while 

landowners in North Texas and Southern Oklahoma have been disputing the actual state/land border for 100+ years, the ever 

changing path of the red river has essentially had the final determination in the actual definition of the property. I would like 

clarification on how the BLM expects to define the public area in the red river basin given the ever changing path of the actual 

river. Even in my 42 years I have seen the actual river substantially north or south (almost 1 mile) and have witnessed the major 

changes in the rivers path that occurred after the flooding in the 1980’s.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-4 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-3

Oklahoma-Texas Boundary Issues

Again, we ask, What is the motive here? The law has been established (see the Red River Compact finalized in Washington, D.C. 

in the year 2000) that the vegetation line should be respected which nullifies the number of "90,000" acres being involved. As 

hard as is seems sometimes, as law-abiding citizens, we really do expect out U.S. government would also follow the rules. Isn’t 

the BLM part of our government? Why would it override decisions that have already been made? Why would it take land that we 

have been paying taxes on and preserving all these years?

In essence, the BLM has already represented to the general public and thus agreed that it would be bound by the Compact, as 

shown on its own RMP. The Compact established the vegetation line as the northern boundary of Texas and as represented by its 

prior RMP, this would prevent the BLM from now claiming any land with vegetation on it as Public Domain. Any other 

interpretation by the BLM would be in direct contradiction to its own prior RMP. It would also be inconsistent with either the 

Supreme Court decision or the intent of the Compact. Additionally, this would open the door for extensive litigation, which the 

Compact was intended to prevent.

It is our understanding that the BLM is or may be taking the position that much of the vegetated land along the Red River is 

within the public domain and that the BLM is taking action with the intent to manage the land within the public domain. It is also 

my understanding that the BLM might take the position that the south geologic high bank or bluffs is the boundary line between 

the public domain and the State of Texas. I would point out to you that such a position is contrary to the established state of the 

law as set forth in the Supreme Court decision of Oklahoma vs. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923) and the subsequent survey ordered 

by the Court and performed by Arthur D. Kidder and Arthur A. Stiles from 1924 to 1927. We also believe that such a position 

would be contrary to the recent Red River Boundary Compact, which established the constant vegetation line as the TexasOklahoma Boundary line.

The report of the Boundary Commissioners that were appointed to conduct the survey pursuant to the 1923 U.S. Supreme Court 

Case described the boundary between Oklahoma and Texas as being: The boundary line is a gradient of the flowing water in the 

river. It is located midway between the lower level of it that just reaches the cut bank, and the higher level of it that just does not 

overtop the cut bank. The physical top of the cut bank being very uneven in profile, cannot be a datum for locating the boundary 

line; but a gradient along the bank must be used for the purpose. The highest point on this gradient must not be higher than the 

lowest acceptable point on the bank in that vicinity. The boundary line has been determined accordingly. This is consistent with 

the Supreme Court decision when it stated that: This survey of the physical situation demonstrates that the banks of the river are 

neither the ranges of bluffs which mark the exterior limits of the valley, nor the low shifting elevations within the sand bed 

(emphasis added). And that this is the natural and reasonable view of the situation is illustrated by a long course of public and 

private action. The valley land always has been dealt with as upland.. Our conclusion is that the cut bank along the southerly side 

of the sand bed constitutes the south bank of the river, and that the boundary is on and along that bank at the mean level of the 

water, when it washes the bank without overflowing it.

As you know, since that Supreme Court decision which set the Texas-Oklahoma boundary, the state of Oklahoma and the State 

of Texas have entered into the Red River Boundary Compact ("Compact") which was confirmed by Congress in Joint Resolution 

72. We believe that the Compact as ratified by Congress clearly establishes the boundary line between the State of Oklahoma and 

Texas as the constant vegetation line of the South Bank. This would clearly place all of the lands south of the vegetation line 

within the State of Texas regardless of ownership. As a result, none of the lands with constant vegetation thereon would be within 

the Bureau’s planning area and thus would not be within the public domain. In other words, if the constant vegetation line is the 

boundary line between the State of Oklahoma and Texas, the Bureau would own no public lands South of that vegetation line and 

as such, that land would not be included in the public domain.

It is my understanding that the Bureau of Land Management ("Bureau") has or may take the position that much of the land along the 

Red River is within the public domain and that the Bureau is taking action with the intent to manage the land within the public 

domain. It is also my understanding that the Bureau intends to use the south geologic high cut bank as the boundary between the 

public domain and the State of Texas. This would be in direct contradiction of both the Supreme Court Case and the recent Red

River Boundary Compact. As I am sure you are aware, a survey was conducted pursuant to a 1923 U.S. Supreme Court Case which 

described the boundary between Oklahoma and Texas as being the gradient boundary line along the south bank. This Supreme Court 

decision determined that the boundary is on and along the bank at the average or mean level attained by the waters in the periods 

when they reach and wash the bank without overflowing it (gradient line). It is arguable that the gradient line remains the actual 

boundary as between Texas and Oklahoma, and not the vegetation line. However, it is our position that the Red River Boundary 

Compact ("Compact") was signed for the specific purpose of re-establishing a new Oklahoma/Texas boundary line as the vegetation 

line. In either case, gradient line or vegetation line, the boundary line for the State of Texas would be far to the north of the south 

geologic cut bank. This same case described the bed of the river as that area which is kept practically bare of vegetation by the wash 

of the waters of the river from year to year. This distinction is extremely relevant in light of the Texas-Oklahoma Boundary 

Compact, when ascertaining the river bed, which is claimed to be public domain.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-5

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-3

Oklahoma-Texas Boundary Issues

In April of 1993, the Tulsa District of the Bureau of Land Management published a Draft of the Oklahoma Resource 

Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (“RMP”). In that RMP, the BLM acknowledged the existence of the 

Texas and Oklahoma Commissions and how the final outcome of any Compact would affect the Bureau’s actions. The RMP 

stated that the BLM’s actions would be dependent on the outcome of the Commissions (See Page S-2 thereof) The BLM 

recognized the existence of 3 different fact scenarios. (1) One being tied to legislation resulting from an agreement of the 

Commissions, (2) One being tied to the expiration of the Boundary Commissions with no consensus and no agreement and (3) 

One being tied to Legislation establishing the south geologic cut bank as the boundary between the States of Oklahoma and 

Texas. By its use of the south geologic cut bank as the boundary line, the BLM is ignoring the 1923 Supreme Court decision and 

the fact that the Boundary Commissions were successful in making an agreement; and with the Congress’s ratification, legislated 

the boundary line to be the vegetation line of the south bank. In that same RMP, the BLM contemplated a certain action in the 

event the Boundary Commission was able to reach an agreement, wherein stated on page 1-7 under Issue 4 that: PD (Public 

Domain) lands occur along the Red River in Oklahoma from the 98th Meridian of the West Longitude to the mouth of the North 

Fork of the Red River, between the medial line of the river and the northern border of Texas (emphasis added). The lack of a 

permanent fixed boundary between these two states has resulted in a history of dispute and conflict over this area. The Red River 

Management Area (RRMA) will include those PD lands identified by the survey method agreed to by both Oklahoma and Texas 

as a resolution to the Red River boundary issue (emphasis added).

In other words, the Supreme Court ruled that the boundary for the state of Oklahoma and the state of Texas is a gradient line that 

is determined by the mean water level along the south cut bank and not the geologic cut bank or bluffs. This same Supreme Court 

decision described the bed of a river as that area which is kept practically bare of vegetation by the wash of the waters of the river 

from year to year. Using this as the status of the law prior to the Red River Compact, the public domain area would be limited to 

the gradient line which represents the Texas boundary and the medial line of the river, which consists primarily of bare ground. It 

is our position that the Red river Boundary Compact ("Compact") was signed and ratified for the specific purpose of the reestablishing a new Oklahoma/Texas boundary line. This Compact set the vegetation line and not the gradient line as the boundary 

line. In either case, gradient line or vegetation line, the boundary line for the State of Texas would still be far to the north of the 

south geologic cut bank. Since the 1923 Supreme Court decision, the state of Oklahoma and the State of Texas have entered into 

the Red River Boundary Compact (“Compact”) which was confirmed by Congress in Joint Resolution 72. We believe that the 

Compact as ratified by Congress clearly establishes the boundary line between the State of Oklahoma and Texas as the constant 

vegetation line of the South Bank. Thereby legislatively changing the boundary line. This would clearly place all of the lands 

south of the vegetation line within the State of Texas and not part of any public domain. As a result, none of the lands with 

constant vegetation thereon would be within the BLM’s planning area and thus would not be within the public domain. In other 

words, if the constant vegetation line is the boundary line between the State of Oklahoma and Texas, the BLM would have no 

jurisdiction to manage lands South of that vegetation line and as such, that land would not be included in the public domain.

Texas and Oklahoma agreed that the "survey method" to be used would be that no survey would be needed, since the constant 

vegetation line is readily identifiable. The States also agreed that accretion or erosion may cause a change in the boundary 

between the states if it caused a change in the vegetation line. We believe the only property within the public domain would be 

limited to that area from the constant vegetation line along the South Bank of the Red River north to the Meridian Line of the 

River. The same area that is kept virtually bare of vegetation by the wash of the waters of the river from year to year. The same 

land as identified in the 1923 decision as the river bed itself. Therefore, any land South of the vegetation line along the South 

Bank should not be included within any of the Bureau’s planning area and any ownership therefore would be determined by 

Texas law.

In April of 1993, the Tulsa District of the Bureau of Land Management published a Draft Oklahoma Resource Management Plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement ("RMP"). In that RMP, the Bureau acknowledged the existence of the Texas and Oklahoma 

Commissions and how the final outcome of any Compact would affect the Bureau’s actions. The RMP stated that the Bureau’s 

actions would be dependent on the outcome of the Commissions (See Page S-2 thereof). The Bureau recognized the existence of 

3 different fact scenarios. (1) One being tied to legislation resulting from an agreement of the Commissions, (2) one being tied to 

the expiration of the Boundary Commissions with no consensus and no agreement and (3) One being tied to Legislation 

establishing the south geologic cut bank as the boundary between the States of Oklahoma and Texas. By your use of the south 

geologic cut bank as the boundary line, you are ignoring the 1923 Survey and the fact that the Boundary Commissions were 

successful in making an agreement and by the Congress’s ratification, legislated the boundary line to be the vegetation line of the 

south bank. In that same RMP, the Bureau contemplated a certain action in the event the Boundary Commission was able to 

reach an agreement, wherein it stated on page 1-7 under Issue 4 that: PD (Public Domain) lands occur along the Red River in 

Oklahoma from the 98th Meridian of West Longitude to the mouth of the North Fork of the Red River, between the medial line 

of the river and the northern border of Texas (emphasis added). The lack of a permanent fixed boundary between these two states 

has resulted in a history of dispute and conflict over this area. The Red River Management Area (RRMA) will include those PD 

lands identified by the survey method agreed to by both Oklahoma and Texas as a resolution to the Red River boundary issue 

(emphasis added). In essence, the Bureau has already agreed that it would be bound by the Compact, as shown on its own RMP 

and that the Compact establishes the vegetation line as the northern boundary of Texas. By your own RMP, this would prevent 
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-6 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-3

Oklahoma-Texas Boundary Issues

the Bureau from now claiming it as Public Domain. Any other interpretation by the Bureau would be in direct contraction to its 

prior RMP and would be inconsistent with the intent of the Compact. Additionally, this would open the door for extensive 

litigation, which the Compact was intended to prevent.

The border between Oklahoma and Texas is a constantly moving boundary line found to exist along the water's edge on the south

side of the Red River. This belief is based upon the 1923 U.S. Supreme Court Case, as well as the Red River Boundary Compact 

("Compact") which was ratified by both the states of Texas and Oklahoma along with the US Congress in Joint Resolution 72. It 

is my understanding that the BLM will attempt to survey and establish a permanent boundary and mark property that it feels 

should be under BLM supervision. In my opinion as a lifelong resident of this region, trying to mark a permanent boundary in 

conjunction with two moving ones is fraught with difficulties. Knowing the rugged environment that exists along the Red, I feel 

these attempts will be futile and without logic resulting in costs that will far exceed the benefit.

The decisions of the US Supreme Court Case Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923) and the Red River Boundary Compact 

should stand as sufficient boundary guidelines for properties located along the Red river. Any changes to this by BLM would be 

interfering with privately owned land and a violation of the landowners Constitutional rights.

Most, if not all, of the current landowners, the county governments, and I are opposed to any expansion of control or 

management from BLM over lands on the Texas side of the border. Although BLM currently manages public and tribal lands in 

Oklahoma, we believe that BLM has no federal claim to land on the Texas side of the border along the 116 mile stretch of the 

Red River, especially any that are further south of the southern bank of the river.

I would think that better judgment and common sense would prevail before the above had to be asserted and that the Executive 

branch would not want to go down that road. Efficiency is but one measurement of effective government. A democracy is by its 

very nature less efficient than a dictatorship. Our forefathers designed a system that protects the individual from authoritarian use 

of power. Ultimately, it is as classic conflict involving the separation of powers and the members of Congress and the Supreme 

Court, regardless of their office or source of their appointment, would not take kindly to the Executive Branch intentionally 

ignoring the Supreme Court’s clear mandate resolving the boundary issue dating back to 1923 or Congress’ ratification of the 

Boundary Compact.

On behalf of the landowners, county governments, and constituents in Texas, I ask that the BLM take no action that would 

expand the management or control of any land south of the Texas-Oklahoma border.

Both of these items reinforce that the BLM has not and should not have any legitimate claim to private land on the Texas side of 

the border that extends any further than the gradient boundary and/or the vegetation line on the south bank of the river. It is also 

evident that if BLM already has on file recently completed cadastral surveys, that there would be no reason to believe that the 

boundary should be extended any further south into private lands in Texas.

I have studied the Supreme Court decision of Oklahoma vs. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923) and the accompanying reports from the 

Surveyors and I believe that the border is well settled law and not subject to further interpretation, except as amended by the 

recent Boundary Compact adopted to by the State of Oklahoma and Texas and ratified by Congress. In either event, the boundary

line is either the vegetation line along the south bank or the gradient line along the south bank (which according to all of the 

surveyors that I have spoken with is very close to the vegetation line). It is my opinion that the Texas land owners should be in

prime position for a summary judgment ruling on all fact issues as having already been resolved as a matter of law. If the land is 

in the State of Texas it is not federal land. The cases in Clay County, Texas mentioned in the public hearings will be of no

assistance to you since they were exceptions to the general rule, because they dealt specifically with an avulsion and not gradual 

accretion and erosion of the river.

What y’all are considering is why there is so much bitterness toward government. You know where the boundry is, but now 

trying to claim the hard tree line as the boundry, which is usually the bluff. We have deeds that go well north of the Bluffs, but 

that doesn’t matter to y’all.

As you are aware, the BLM currently has on file numerous cadastral surveys, some completed as recently as 2008, from the 

adjacent counties on the Oklahoma side of the river that delineates the Oklahoma-Texas border pursuant to the 1924 Supreme 

Court decision. Several of these cadastral surveys completed in 2008 echo the same language verbatim that "the gradient 

boundary monumented and described within has not been changed since it was established and declared to be the true boundary 

by the Supreme Court on June 9, 1924." Additionally, H.J. Res. 72, which was signed into federal law on October 10, 2000, 

ratified the Red River Boundary Compact agreed upon by the states that sets the Red River boundary at the vegetation line on the 

south bank.

I am against the Texas, Oklahoma Land grab for the following reasons. The intention is to re-establish the boundary line between 

the state of Oklahoma and Texas. This disregards the land owner's deeds and the boundary established and ratified by Congress

in joint resolution 72. We believe the compact as ratified by Congress clearly establishes the boundary line between the State of 
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-7

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-3

Oklahoma-Texas Boundary Issues

Oklahoma and Texas as the constant vegetation line of the South bank. This would clearly put all land south of the vegetation

line within the state of Texas regardless of ownership. This affects thousands of acres owned by Texans.

The Supreme Court of the USA has ruled about the Red River area in the OFO RMP. In 1923, USA Supreme Court Case 

Oklahoma vs Texas, 260 US 606 (1923) and the Red River Boundary guidelines for Properties located along the Red River. Any 

changes to this by the BLM would be interfering with privately owned land and any BLM action would appear to be a violation 

of the landowners constitutional rights.

Existing law has determined ownership of this property and project OFO and RMP. The Supreme Court of the USA has ruled 

about the Red River area in the OFO RMP. In 1923 USA Supreme Court case Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 US 606 (1923) and the 

Red River Boundary guidelines for Properties located along the Red River. Any changes to this by the BLM would be interfering 

with privately owned land (in this area which is developed farm land, mineral production, ranch land, etc.) and any BLM action 

would appear to be a violation of the landowners constitutional rights.

Doesn't this say WHO owns that land? The Red River area in dispute is an unnavigatable stream so the US has no ownership 

whatsoever. Excerpts from the Supreme Court ruling in 1922 copied below.

U.S. Supreme Court; Oklahoma v. Texas, 258 U.S. 574 (1922); Oklahoma v. Texas; No. 20, Original; Argued December 13, 14, 

1921; Decided May 1, 1922; 258 U.S. 574; Syllabus; When this Court, in an original suit involving title to land claimed by two 

states against each other and by the United States against both, has appointed a receiver who has possession of the land and of 

funds derived therefrom, its control over such subject matter is exclusive and it has ancillary jurisdiction to determine particular 

claims thereto irrespective of whether, considered apart, they would lie within its original jurisdiction. P. 258 U. S. 581.; The 

former decree ( 252 U. S. 252 U.S. 372) having determined the boundary between Oklahoma and Texas to be along the 

south bank of the Red River, Texas and its grantees and licensees have no proprietary interests in the riverbed or in the 

proceeds of oil and gas taken therefrom. P. 258 U. S. 582 .

Property Ownership: Has the BLM considered that the decisions of the US Supreme Court Case, Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 

606 (1923) and the Red River Boundary Compact (1999) stand as sufficient boundary guidelines and further the understanding of 

private ownership of the entire area along the Red River considered by the BLM NM OKT RMP? Any changes to this current 

legal standing would be interfering with privately owned land and a violation of the land-owners constitutional rights that protect 

private property in this specific RMP.

The Red River Area has seen a 99% increase in motorized vehicular travel since lands were acquired by BLM due in part to the 

high availability of off road vehicles, ease of access, and the lack of enforcement of current posting by BLM, Texas law 

enforcement, wildlife and sheriff, Okla. Law enforcement wildlife and sheriff. The motorized vehicles have led to and are 

causing the following. - Land survey used in establishing boundaries was and is incorrect, the wrong north bank was used.

Table D-4

General Comments Related to the Project

Further, the BLM should not expend unnecessary resources attempting to analyze the potential impacts of oil and gas 

development on a site-specific basis. Individual development projects will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis if and when 

operations are actually proposed. Based on the BLM's own policies and binding legal precedent, the BLM should ensure that the 

agency does not utilize the land use planning process to impose site-specific conditions of approval ("COAs") or unreasonably 

limit future management actions when revising the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP.

Given its nature and purpose, the BLM should consider what decisions need to be made in the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP. 

When preparing the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP, the BLM should not attempt to make site-specific decisions, but should 

develop only broad management goals and objectives.

Further, given the fact the public lands must be managed for multiple uses, including oil and gas development, and given the fact 

that lands managed by the Oklahoma Field Office are currently leased for oil and gas development, alternatives that prohibit or 

eliminate all oil and gas development within the area are neither practical nor reasonable and need not be studied in detail by the 

agency.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-8 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-4

General Comments Related to the Project

In the process of drafting the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP, the BLM will prepare a Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

Scenario ("RFD Scenario") in order to estimate the potential future environmental impacts of oil and gas operations within the 

Oklahoma Field Office. When discussing the RFD Scenario, the BLM must be aware, and carefully describe to the public, that 

the RFD Scenario is not a limit or threshold on future development. Rather, the RFD Scenario is a tool utilized by the BLM to

estimate the potential impacts of oil and gas development.

The BLM should explain to the public during scoping meetings and in the EIS for the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP that oil and 

gas development activities are not prohibited during the RMP process. The position that the BLM must suspend all management 

decisions while a RMP is being revised has been rejected by numerous federal courts and the IBLA. See ORNC Action v. Bureau 

of Land Management, 150 F. 3d 1132, 1139 41 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that neither FLPMA nor the applicable regulations 

require the BLM to institute a moratorium on activities pending completion of an EIS for an updated or revised RMP); Western 

Land Energy Project v. Dombeck, 47 F.Supp.2d 1196, 1213 (D. Ore. 1999) (same); Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 163 

IBLA 14, 28 (2004); Wyoming Outdoor Council, et al., 156 IBLA 377, 384 (2002); Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc., 124 

IBLA 130, 140 (1992). The Washington Office of the BLM has issued a specific guidance noting that the BLM is authorized to 

approve and analyze oil and gas projects on a site-specific basis while a RMP amendment is underway.

Please keep me informed of what I can do to help in this area of Clay, Montague, and Cook counties in Texas.

Equestrian trail riding. As the stages of development of the Red River BLM trails progresses, I'd enjoy being part of desigining 

the trails.

The BLM did not contact land owner along the Red River, most all people at the meeting were called by a neighbor that day. All 

landowners are on public record in county court houses, they can be identified on a computer. If this lack of effort is how the 

BLM works how can we have any confidence in anything they do, or tell us.

I would be willing to help clear and cut trails.

You need to check mailing addresses on web-site, as they are the same for 2 different cities.

You have the same address: 7906 E. 33rd Street Suite 101 listed on the web-site but in two different cities: Tulsa, OK and Battle 

Mountain, NV.

In these times of financial instability of the US when all nonessential spending should be halted, it would seem the cost making a 

strip of unstable sand available to the public is an extreme error in judgement.

If a camp (or several) could be built, there would be no shortage of willing equestrian people to build and maintain the trails.

We would also like to know if the Attorney General of the State of Texas has been informed of the Bureau’s intentions, that 

would affect Texas land and Texas landowners.

Every opportunity for volunteers to work on the trails should be pursued, as volunteer labor maximizes return on investment and 

"invests" the volunteers with a sense of ownership and purpose in maintaining the trails. The trails I ride today were built by 

someone else- we as riders need to "pay it forward" and build trails for our children and grandchildren to enjoy.

Prior to the survey the BLM should issue news releases to notify the public of the proposed survey. They should also post notices 

of the survey at the four public access points (US 183, I-44, OK 79 and US 81). This will inform the public of what is going to 

happen and give them a chance to comment.

We can certainly assist the BLM in developing trails, trail heads and camp sites in the Red River Proposal.

Back Country Horsemen will certainly cooperate and assist with the BLM in any planning effort that would allow horsemen to 

utilize this and other BLM surface rights.

there are groups of people that would work with you to develop it after careful planning. I do not know how big this piece of land 

is but I know we’d be game to sit down and talk to you about its use for equestrians.

[Comment made in reference to the BLM putting horse trails in along the Red River] We just want you to know we need these 

trails and would be willing to put in volunteer hours to make it happen.

I believe that conbining the agencies of the Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Land Management would be a total injustice to the 

oil and gas industry and to the entire citizens of the United States.

As an agency the BLM should work to preserve and protect our resources. Not go backwards.

On the subject of contacting people Steve asked how they could do better and I gave him my suggestion. His response was: That

would be impossible, It would be to expensive, to time consuming, and to many man hours involved, we do not have that in our 
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-9

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-4

General Comments Related to the Project

budget. But your telling us as landowners you want to possibly impose your bounderies overiding our deeded bounderies 

according to the State of Texas, that we bought in good faith with a certified survey, that we pay property taxes on, That we

develope and maintain.

At your meeting in Wichita falls TX A meeting that was not announced or publicized adequately or properly. The location 

changed after 4:30 pm. I had been informed by a neighbor about the meeting time and Place around 2:00 PM that day. When I 

got home at 4:45 PM I called the Wichita Falls Library to confirm the room and time, and was given the information by the lady 

at the library. So I proceeded to contact other neighbors for the next 45’-1hr. I left my house and traveled only 1 mile when I got

a phone call that the location had changed. So I started calling nieghbors again to inform them. This is not fair or right to us 

landowners. You as an agency that is proposing to impose your boundry’s across our Deeded property should legally send us a 

notice in the mail to our legal mailing residence address. Not everyone reads the paper, or watches the news, or have the Internet, 

but we all go to our mailbox.

And why couldn't you have sent a postcard to these rural post offices to deliver to us small landowners on the river to let us know 

about your meetings?

We look forward to reviewing the scoping project when it is completed and are ready to assist in an equestrian trail project.

The Oklahoma DOT has mission critical interests and infrastructure overlaying areas covered by the RMP to be developed. The 

ODOT is interested in continuing to coordinate with BLM to achieve both agencies goals and objectives.

I also would like more information on exactly what public domain is and how it affects an individual land owner.

OIPA seeks reassurance from the BLM that they will uphold the policy and true intent of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976, ensuring the continuation of a multiple-use strategy which mandates: management on the basis of 

multiple use and sustained yield..in addition to a continuation of the policy that public lands be managed in a manner which 

recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals. We also hope that BIA will remain consistent in upholding an 

integral component of their mission statement which is the promotion of economic opportunity.

OIPA and its member companies were also troubled that this scoping period may not adequately account for the extensive 

technological advancements and innovation our industry has achieved over the past decade and are fearful that the lack of 

advanced consultation with our industry as it relates to the historical well and production data used in supporting the joint

agency’s foreseeable development assessment may be significantly underestimated and ill-informed in serving as the foundation 

for planning purposes over the next twenty years.

FLPMA does not mandate that every use be accommodated on every piece of land; rather, delicate balancing is required. See 

Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55, 58 (2004). "’Multiple use’ requires management of the public lands and 

their numerous natural resources so that they can be used for economic, recreational, and scientific purposes without the infliction 

of permanent damage." Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287, 1290 (10th Cir. 1999) (citing 43 U.S.C. 1702 (c )). As 

held by the Tenth Circuit, "[i]f all the competing demands reflected in FLPMA were focused on one particular piece of public 

land, in many instances only one set of demands could be satisfied. A parcel of land cannot both be preserved in its natural 

character and mined." Rocky Mtn. Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Watt, 696 F.2d 734, 738 n. 4 (10th Cir. 1982)(quoting Utah v. Andrus, 486

F. Supp. 995, 1003 (D. Utah 1979)); see also 43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(8) (stating, as a goal of FLPMA, the necessity to "preserve and 

protect certain public lands in their natural condition"); Pub. Lands Council, 167 F.3d at 1299 (citing 1701(a)(8)).

Kindly maintain the current accessibility status. No changes.

Devon reiterates that when preparing the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP, the BLM should not attempt to make site-specific 

decisions and should develop only broad management goals and objectives. The BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook specifies 

that RMPs are not normally used to make site-specific implementation decisions. See BLM Handbook H-1601-1, II.B.2.a., pg. 13 

(Rel. 1-1693 3/11/05). Further, the BLM should not expend unnecessary resources attempting to analyze the potential impacts of 

oil and gas development on a site-specific basis. Individual development projects will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis if and 

when operations are actually proposed. Based on the BLM’s own policies and binding legal precedent, the BLM should ensure 

that the agency does not utilize the land use planning process to impose site-specific conditions of approval ("COAs") or 

unreasonable limit future management actions.

To initiate, service, and oversee increased Federal Land will take more money and man-power than the BLM or any other federal 

entity has right now due to our current economic condition. Most constituents would be unhappy to know that while Farm Bill 

issues, Healthcare Reform, Unemployment Rates, and Inflation stand at the forefront of their concerns, those in elected offices 

are more concerned with re-drawing governmental boundaries of land already being taken care of by property owners who paid 

for and were given Insured Title Policies for their land.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-10 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-4

General Comments Related to the Project

When considering potential mitigation measures, the BLM must consider whether the requirements materially restrain valid and 

existing rights to develop its leases through COAs, or other means. See Colorado Environmental Coal, et al., 165 IBLA 221, 228 

(2005) (citing Colorado Environmental Coal., 135 IBLA 356, 360 (1996) aff’d, Colorado Environmental Coal. v. Bureau of Land 

Management, 932 F.Supp. 1246 (D.Colo. 1996). Further, the Secretary of the Interior and the federal courts have interpreted the 

phase "valid existing rights" to mean that BLM cannot impose stipulations or conditions of approval that make development on 

existing leases either uneconomic or unprofitable. See Utah v. Andrus, 486 F.Supp. 995, 1011 (D. Utah 1979).

Cimarex believes the BLM should recognize and implement multiple-use goals of developing Federal lands.

The RMP should discuss the potential for new technology to provide cleaner use of resources and how that will impact the 

decision to lease.

The RMP should detail what considerations could determine whether some or all of the available resources can be used or 

extracted. What are the reasons that a resource would not be made available for lease or sale?

The RMP should outline the priority given to each of multiple resources when there is more than one resource value available 

(coal, gas, recreational, special habitat).

We would first like to note that both the BLM and BIA failed to meet the requisite noticing requirements mandated under the 

Administrative Procedures Act, requirements for which were identified within the original NOI Published in the Federal Register 

on July 26, 2013 (78 Fed. Reg. 45266.) Although OIPA sent multiple emails to the Oklahoma Field Office requesting advance 

notice of scoping, we were ultimately contacted about the meeting via a phone call received on November 20 from Mr. Larry 

Levesque, the morning of the meeting. While it was unclear if there as a court reporter present taking an account of comments

made, we certainly hope alternatives offered during the meeting were accounted for within the official docket record. 

Furthermore, we’ve yet to identify the announcement of such meeting 15 days prior to November 20 within any local media, 

newspapers or date-stamped on BLM’s website devoted to this Plan development.

It was also OIPA’s expectation that the BLM would provide an engaging and informative forum in which to actively discuss the 

scope of the proposed action, as is typical of other scoping meetings (in accordance with DOI policy) and as the White House 

Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ") prescribes. See FWS NEPA Manual, Part 550, Ch. 2, 2.3(B) (Draft Revisions); 40 

C.F.R. 1501.7. OIPA and representatives of its member companies were surprised and disappointed by the lack of information 

available at this stage in the process concerning the proposed action. This was especially troubling given that industry members 

comprise a significant portion of the applicants to whom this action is directed.

Texas Farm Bureau represents more than 500,000 member families in Texas, many of whom are landowners. Some of these 

members actively farm and ranch along the Red River. It would seem that the proposed monumental undertaking by the Bureau 

of Land Management to conduct a cadastral survey along a 116-mile stretch of the Red River affecting private land would 

generate a legal public notice sent to agriculture organizations such as ours.. We only learned of this undertaking on January 29, 

2014. Whenever any federal or state agency embarks on such a large undertaking, Texas Farm Bureau is called. The lack of 

knowledge of this issue in the landowner community lends credence to the fact that the Bureau of Land Management did not 

properly advertise the meetings. Had it not been for Oklahoma Farm Bureau's notification, this comment would not have met the 

deadline.

On behalf of the members of the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association, we appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the 

proposed plan. We regret that we were not aware of this comment period until this week however. As well, our members along 

the north side of the river have not been adequately notified and thus have not had time to study the plan. Therefore we request 

that BLM extend the comment period for an additional 90 days. Further we request that BLM host a series of public input 

sessions specific to this proposal in immediate locations along the north and south side of the river. The sessions held earlier were 

bit adequately publicized. were not specific to this proposal and several were held quite far from the citizens that will be most 

affected. We would like to publicize the comment period and input sessions to our members in our newsletter media which will 

not cost the agency any funds.

The information provided at the seeping meetings was lacking much detail in providing information on the proposed action. We 

would therefore request an additional comment period be made available as soon as you have more substantive information 

available to the public.

The terms "held by production" and "paying quantities," if used, needs to be specific in the relevant amount and not left as a 

vague statement for questionable interpretation.

We requested information about whether the BLM pays in lieu of ad valorem taxes in Tillman, Cotton and Jefferson Counties, 

however, at the time of this writing that information was not available. Ad valorem taxes are important to support local schools 

and county government. OKFB supports government-owned land paying in lieu of ad valorem taxes to counties.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-11

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-4

General Comments Related to the Project

Finally, we would like to see BLM and BIA discuss the possible delegation of the enforcement/environmental protection role to 

BLM, as BIA simply lacks the capacity to fulfill this duty. Specifically, the BIA in Osage County does not presently have 

competent personnel to review permit plans, well casing designs, or NEPA and EIS documents. The office also lacks normal well 

record and regulatory management software tools utilized by all other oil and gas regulatory bodies. Without the expertise of

geologists, petroleum engineers and properly trained inspection staff along with technological management tools, even if 

adequate rules are finally adopted it is questionable if sufficient improvements will be made. Conversely, BLM has more 

technical and financial resources to more effectively protect the natural and human environment from the impacts of oil and gas 

development, and it appears that an effective transition of the enforcement role to this sister federal agency, which already

oversees oil and gas development on Indian Lands throughout the rest of Oklahoma, could occur relatively seamlessly.

Furthermore, due to the aforementioned issues, OIPA requests that the BLM/BIA’s scoping process and opportunity for comment 

is extended to more adequately support its intended purpose of allowing affected stakeholder to make informed decisions and 

raise alternatives for the agency’s consideration. With this, OIPA requests that this public comment period remain open for an 

additional 90 days thereby allowing the joint agencies to provide additional information as it relates to the proposed action so that 

our industry can make informed comments and provide thoughtful and meaningful alternatives to such proposed actions. 

Currently, however, it is difficult to offer insightful comments with such a limited overview of the proposed RMP and actions 

evaluated under the EIS. OIPA looks forward to contributing and commenting further as the EIS for the RMP continues.

OIPA has been part of past discussions where novel ideas were mentioned, including the BLM offering opportunities to develop 

the Red River Management Area under a limited lease rate and acting under a NEPA Categorical Exclusion in exchange for 

accepting certain restoration liabilities of historical impacts to the surface. Novel ideas such as this that may help facilitate the 

exploration of an undeveloped area for oil and gas should persist throughout this RMP.

OIPA would like to acknowledge our historical concern, dissatisfaction and general unrest as it relates to tribal allotments 

administered by the BIA’s Eastern Oklahoma Regional Office. Obtaining a map identifying tribal allotments throughout Eastern 

Oklahoma has historically proven to be an insurmountable hurdle, thereby requiring extensive land title analysis resulting in

limited benefit. While the Southern Plains Regional office has operated in a transparent and balanced manner, the Eastern 

Oklahoma Regional Office cannot ascertain a similar standard. Furthermore, they’ve struggled to ensure compliance and 

adequately enforce their existing regulations for multiple decades. OIPA would like to see this RMP evaluate combining these 

two agencies or allowing the BLM to administer the Eastern Regional Office’s duties going forward.

Certain lands in the planning area should be permanently protected and removed from further oil and gas leasing and 

development through the RMP. BLM is uniquely empowered to make this determination and, as codified in the agency’s organic 

act, the Federal Land and Policy Management Act ("FLPMA") of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et. seq., taking such action is part of 

BLM’s mandate. FLPMA’s congressional declaration states: It is the policy of the United States that..the public lands be 

managed in a manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, 

water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural 

condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor 

recreation and human occupancy and use. 43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(8).

As discussed below, to ensure compliance with the mandates of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 

et seq, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq, the RMP and EIS must thoroughly analyze and 

weigh the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with fossil fuel development on the lands at issue, including but not 

limited to impacts to air quality, climate, water, and seismic activity. Moreover, in light of these impacts, the RMP should 

prioritize development of renewable energy resources and related transmission needs, and ensure robust preservation of land for 

wildlife and recreational purposes in keeping with the BLM’s multi-use mandate.

The RMP revision process, undertaken pursuant to FLPMA, requires BLM to engage in the type of foundational land use 

planning that is intended to give context to the agency’s multiple use mandate. 43 U.S.C. 1712(c )(1). Accordingly, FLPMA 

provides specific criteria for land use plan revisions, requiring consideration of things such as: observation of the principles of 

multiple use and sustained yield; integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences; reliance on 

public lands resources and other values; consideration of present and future uses of the public lands; consideration of the relative 

scarcity of resource values; and weighing the long-term benefits to the public against the short-term benefits. See 43 U.S.C. 

1712(c )(1)-(9). Consideration of these criteria must drive BLM’s RMP revision.

BLM needs to consider an alternative that includes improved preservation of land for wildlife and recreation. Failing to consider 

an alternative leaves BLM without the legally required range of reasonable alternatives in violation of NEPA. See California v. 

Block, 690 F.2d 753, 768-69 (9th Cir. 1982)(Forest Service violated NEPA in failing to address more environmentally protective 

alternatives in programmatic EIS); Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, 177 F.3d 800, 812-24 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(rejecting a Forest Service EIS which failed to "even consider[]more protective land use options").
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-12 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-4

General Comments Related to the Project

Accordingly, the RMP must consider, on equal footing, the value of permanent protection and preservation of public lands in the 

planning area, along with industry pressure to lease and develop these lands. The RMP revision process is the perfect opportunity 

for BLM to re-evaluate these competing resources and give suitable weight to FLPMA’s mandate to, where appropriate, preserve 

and protect public lands in their natural condition. See 43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(8).

Please let me encourage the Dept of the Interior, the BLM, and the BIA to make every effort to notify and include all landowners 

on both the Oklahoma and Texas sides of the river in the planning area. It was random happenstance that I learned of the meeting 

and my family owns land in Clay County north of Charlie, Texas, along the Red River. Please use the resources, such as county 

tax offices, etc. to gather names and addresses of stakeholders and impacted landowners in the planning area and notify them as 

the planning process moves forward.

Finally, ODWC reiterates our willingness to serve as a partner agency with BLM as the RMP revision process moves forward. 

We look forward to continuing our good working relationship with BLM to help in any way we can to ensure that the RMP 

adequately and thoroughly addresses conservation of wildlife and other natural resources in Oklahoma.

We will work closely with BLM to help with management planning efforts to ensure responsible management of the fish, wildlife

and other natural resources, as well as assist with enforcement of regulations set forth for this area, as well as any other areas 

under management authority of BLM in Oklahoma.

Table D-5

Access and Transportation

A "linear" equestrian trail would be a unique feature for OK/TX area and a great way to show off this beautiful area of the Red 

River.

Are you aware of the 132 mile Northeast Texas Trail that is a coalition of 7 contiguous rail-banked corridors that runs from 

Farmersville (TX) to Paris (TX) to New Boston (TX)? We understand that the BLM is seeking to develop a trail system that will 

roughly parallel the Red River on the north. Is this information accurate? If so, is there anyway that we can have BLM help south 

of the Red River, and also develop some type of tie-in to the NETT with the BLM trail from the Oklahoma side of the river? Here 

is the website for the NETT: www.northeasttexastrail.org, and the FB supporters page is "NE TEXAS TRAIL". There has just 

been an explosion of interest in our trail in the past year. We even had the Best of America By Horseback TV Show (RFD-TV) 

come and do a full feature show on our section of the trail at De Kalb.

I-44 bridge south of Randlett, OK - there is a paved road, about 0.15 mile long, east of the northbound lane of I-44 dead-ending at 

the "south cut bank" of the Red River that could be used/developed for parking. Depending on where the southern boundary of 

Oklahoma is determined to be access could be from that parking area. Or, if the boundary is to the north of the parking area an 

easement might be obtained from the private landowner.

US 183 bridge south of Davidson, OK- A closed but intact 2-lane bridge is a few yards west of the US 183 bridge. There is a 0.2 

mile section of paved road that leads from the Texas side of the bridge to a barrier on the bridge and about a 0.1 mile section on 

the north side of the river that also leads to a barrier. Those areas could be used/developed for parking. Depending on where the 

southern boundary of Oklahoma is determined to be, access could be from the south "parking" area. Or, if the boundary is to the 

north of the parking area, a stairway could be constructed from the bridge down to the river bed, at an appropriate point.

Concern 3- Develop access points and erect entrance kiosks at each. Develop parking areas for several vehicles at each of the 

four points where public roads cross the Red River (US 183, I-44, OK 79 and US 81) and erect entrance kiosks. Identify and 

develop new access points from the Oklahoma side that are between the access points on the Texas side. This will aid in 

distributing users and provide access to a larger portion of the area.

US 81 bridge south of Terral, OK - No obvious access points to the riverbed.

OK 79 bridge southwest of Waurika, OK - The obvious access is through a locked gate just south of the Red River on the east 

side of the highway. Numerous ORV/ATV trails are evident beyond the gate. An easement would have to be obtained from the 

private landowner.

I would like very much to obtain access to the Cross Bar area north of Amarillo that is managed by the BLM. 8. Access from 

hwy. 87/287 would seem the most feasible to me. The Amarillo area presents very few places for public access for outdoor use.

The Cross Bar area would be a real treasure that could be enjoyed by many. Obviously, access is paramount.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-13

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-5

Access and Transportation

To make it user friendly, I would like to see a road to drive in on, a parking lot, working windmills for watering the horses and 

wildlife, and lots of trails.

I own some land near Garfield, Oklahoma on the Red River. It is remote. I am land locked. Part of my land is adjacent to BLM 

land. Acess for the public would be difficult.

I am concerned as a river frontage landowner in Texas, about the detrimental effect of open public access across land I own.

Proposed Recommended changes include the following options: - Option 2 Enforce the no motorized vehicles policy. 99% of the 

traffic comes off of Highway 79 bridge. With a simple guard rail placed at the end of the bridge and the state of Texas enforcing 

a no parking zone at the end of the bridge in the right of way would eliminate most traffic onto BLM lands.

Table D-6

Issues Not Addressed in Previous RMPs

The management and protection of subterranean resources, primarily caves and mines were not addressed in the current RMP’s. 

In the revised RMP, where karst, volcanic, or sedimentary geology provides cavernicolous habitat for bats, Best Management 

Practices (BMP’s) should be included to minimize impacts from land management activities, recreation, and other human 

disturbances, including steps to prevent the spread of WNS.

Since the current Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas RMP’s were published in 1991, 1994, and 1996, respectively, our knowledge of bat 

ecology and natural history- while still lagging behind that of game and more visible nongame species - has increased considerably. 

More importantly, the two greatest threats to bats at this time in the U.S. and Canada, White-nose Syndrome (WNS), and the 

expansion of wind power, were either non-existent (WNS), or insignificant (Wind Power) when the current plans were written.

Table D-7

Climate Change and Future Water Needs

Comment 12- Carbon Sequestration Permits Pending. There are currently permits pending, this operation needs to be addressed 

and contemplated in the RMP.

There are dead trees, tall grasses and dried weeds. If a fire occurred, moving fire fighting equipment in or near the sandy area 

would be nearly impossible. These conditions plus water shortage would mean devastating losses for the land owners.

There are dead trees, tall grasses and dried weeds. If a fire occurred, moving fire fighting equipment in or near the sandy area 

would be nearly impossible. These conditions plus water shortage would mean devastating losses for the land owners.

Given BLM’s mandate under NEPA, FLPMA, and MLA to weigh the impacts from GHG pollution and to prevent waste, where 

the OFO allows oil and gas development in the RMP, there are numerous measures to reduce or eliminate emissions that BLM 

should require as stipulations to BLM leases. Consequently, it is critical that the OFO take a hard look in the RMP at methods to 

reduce GHG emissions and at how authorizations and management activities will ensure implementation of feasible GHG 

emission reduction strategies. The agency has ample means, including binding commitments in the Draft RMP, lease stipulations, 

and conditions on approval to drill, that would ensure that such authorizations and management activities implement feasible 

GHG emission reduction strategies and prevent waste.

Preventing GHG pollution and waste is particularly important in the natural gas context, where there is an absence of meaningful 

lifecycle analysis of the GHG pollution emitted by the production, processing, transmission, distribution, and combustion of 

natural gas. Although natural gas is often touted as a "cleaner" alternative to dirty coal, recent evidence indicates that this may 

not, in fact be the case- and, at the least, indicates that we must first take immediate, common sense action to reduce GHG 

pollution from natural gas before it can be safely relied on as an effective tool to transition to a clean energy economy (a noted 

priority of this Administration). A recent report by Climate Central addresses the leak rates estimated by various sources and the 

impacts of this new information on assertions that natural gas is a cleaner fuel than coal, ultimately concluding that given the 

losses from oil and gas sources it would be decades before switching electricity generation from coal to natural gas could bring 

about significant reductions in emissions. Considering alternatives to prevent or abate these emissions, in particular through 

enforceable stipulations required in the RMP to attach to subsequent oil and gas leases and through prioritization of renewable 

energy development, as detailed below, is therefore reasonable and prudent.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-14 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-7

Climate Change and Future Water Needs

Moreover, the federal working group addressing the social cost of carbon ("SCC") has released new estimates that revise 

significantly upward the costs associated with GHG pollution, with median impacts pegged at $43 and $65 per ton. Accordingly, 

the RMP should also contemplate a transition to renewable energy generation, not only as an alternative which may eventually 

suppress demand for oil and gas resources, but also as a pathway toward mitigating climate change as it relates to agency decision 

making on federal lands. Specifically, the practical applications of BLM’s GHG pollution mandate are manifest through the GHG

emissions and methane waste that will result from any oil and gas development authorized by the RMP and EIS. To this end, 

BLM must consider the relationship between GHG emissions and the RMP decision made, and must identify alternatives or 

mitigation of GHG emissions from oil and gas development in the RMP.

We own land on the Red River and because we are in the 5th year of an unprecedented drought, there is a huge danger for fire on 

the river (lots of dead trees and dried underbrush). Those of us who live and own land on the river understand the danger and how 

devastating a wild fire could be, so we take extraordinary precautions.. It has rained less than 2 inches here in the last six months, 

and there is also a shortage of water to fight fires. We have had problems with people visiting the river using fireworks, dumping 

trash and unwanted junk, shooting livestock, hunting at night, and drinking and hunting. For the above reasons, I wish there was 

limited access to the river bottom. I love and appreciate the Red River, it is still a wonderful, mysterious place, but I fear what 

others may do, especially with fire the fire danger.

Increases in ground-level ozone not only impact regional haze and visibility, but can also result in dramatic impacts to human 

health. According to the EPA: Breathing ground-level ozone can result in a number of health effects that are observed in broad 

segments of the population. Some of these effects include: - Induction of respiratory symptoms; - Decrements in lung function; -

Inflammation of airways. Respiratory symptoms can include: - Coughing; - Throat irritation; - Pain, burning or discomfort in the 

chest when taking a deep breath; - Chest tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In addition to these effects, evidence from 

observational studies strongly indicates that higher daily ozone concentrations are associated with increased asthma attacks, 

increased hospital admissions, increased daily mortality, and other markers of morbidity. The consistency and coherence of the 

evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggests that ozone can make asthma symptoms worse and can increase sensitivity to 

asthma triggers.

As explained above, BLM is empowered and obligated pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act ("FLPMA") 

and the Mineral Leasing Act ("MLA") to ensure that its management decisions conserve natural resources and do not degrade 

public lands. Pursuant to FLPMA, BLM must "take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary to undue degradation of the 

[public] lands." 43 U.S.C. 1732(b). This protective mandate applies to BLM’s planning and management decisions. See Utah 

Shared Access Alliance v. Carpenter, 463 F.3d 1125, 1136 (10th Cir. 2006). GHG pollution may cause "undue" degradation, even 

if the activity causing the degradation is "necessary." Where GHG pollution is avoidable, it is "unnecessary" degradation. 43 

U.S.C. 1732(b). At minimum, BLM must analyze GHG pollution as a cumulative impact, although much evidence demonstrates 

that development activities directly contribute to GHG pollution, such as methane waste associated with fracking.

Secretarial Order 3226 (January 19, 2001) (reinstated and expanded upon in Secretarial Order 3289 (Feb. 22, 2010) ("SO 3226")

commits the Department of the Interior to address climate change through its planning and decision making processes. SO 3226 

provides that "climate change is impacting natural resources that the Department of the Interior ("Department") has the 

responsibility to manage and protect." Sec. Or. 3226, 1. SO 3226 also "ensures that climate change impacts are taken into account 

in connection with Department planning and decision making." Id. SO 3226 obligates BLM to "consider and analyze potential 

climate change impacts" in four situations: (1) "when undertaking long-range planning exercises"; (2) "when setting priorities for 

scientific research and investigations"; (3) "when developing multi-year management plans, and/or" (4) "when making major 

decisions regarding the potential utilization of resources under the Department’s purview." Id. 3. SO 3226 specifically provides 

that "Departmental activities covered by this Order" include "management plans and activities developed for public lands" and

"planning and management activities associated with oil, gas and mineral development on public lands." Id. (emphasis added). 

The analysis and decision making at the RMP level are thus contemplated by and subject to section 3 of the Order, and, 

accordingly, must be considered in BLM’s NEPA analysis for the RMP.

As a prime contributor to short-term climate change over the next few decades, methane is a prime target for near-term GHG 

reductions. In fact, there are many proven technologies and practices already available to reduce significantly the methane 

emissions from oil and gas operations. These technologies also offer opportunities for significant cost-savings from recovered 

methane gas. Moreover, new research indicates that tropospheric ozone and black carbon ("BC") contribute to both degraded air

quality and global warming, and that emission control measures can reduce these pollutants using current technology and 

experience. Employment of these strategies will annually avoid a substantial number of premature deaths from outdoor air 

pollution, as well as increase annual crop yields by millions of metric tons due to ozone reductions. Indeed, reducing methane 

emissions is important not only to better protect the climate, but also to prevent waste of the oil and gas resource itself and the 

potential loss of economic value, including royalties. BLM should evaluate these technologies, analyzing the benefits of 

technological implementation versus current agency requirements.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-15

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-7

Climate Change and Future Water Needs

Property Adjacent to Water - We are opposed to any state or federal agency proposal to use property adjacent to streams or rivers 

for public and government use.

BLM must also consider an alternative that includes leasing a lesser amount of land for fossil fuel development, and increased 

development of renewable energy resources wherever feasible. See California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 ,768-69; Muckleshoot 

Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, 177 F.3d 800, 812-24. This includes development of federal lands for sources such as wind, 

solar, and geothermal electricity generation, as well as development of transmission lines to bring that power to the electric grid.

Oklahoma is experiencing an unprecedented boom in wind energy development, and this development shows no sign of slowing. 

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has noted that for most of Kansas, Oklahoma, and northwestern Texas, "a 

large fraction of the land area is well exposed to power-producing winds." Oklahoma’s tremendous wind capacity is evidenced by 

the fact that Oklahoma has more than 3,000 MW of installed wind capacity as of 2013, ranking it 6th in the nation. Wind power 

in Oklahoma has been demonstrated a least-cost resource. For example, AEP-PSO recently signed agreement to purchase nearly 

600 MW of wind energy from facilities under development in northwestern Oklahoma and the panhandle, citing "extraordinary 

pricing opportunities" that will lower utility costs by an estimated $53 million in the first year and more thereafter. According to 

PSO, "prices under these contracts are at historically low levels and are expected to remain far lower than the forecast price of 

natural gas.." Given the significant wind potential in Oklahoma, and the fact that wind resources avoid the impacts to air quality, 

climate change, and water associated with fossil fuel development, renewable energy resource development should be prioritized 

in the RMP and EIS wherever feasible.

The alternatives analysis of renewables should also account for the historic drought that much of Oklahoma and Texas have been 

under since 2011, and the forecasts by U.S. federal scientists that climate change is likely to reduce rainfall amounts in these 

states in coming decades. Renewable power sources require essentially zero additional water resources, unlike typical fossil fuel 

fired plants that require large amounts of water for cooling, scrubbing, and other uses. The ability to produce electric power 

without further stressing our diminishing water resources is a tremendous benefit to renewable sources and further supports the 

BLM prioritizing renewable development.

The alternatives analysis of renewables should also account for the historic drought that much of Oklahoma and Texas have been 

under since 2011, and the forecasts by U.S. federal scientists that climate change is likely to reduce rainfall amounts in these 

states in coming decades. Renewable power sources require essentially zero additional water resources, unlike typical fossil fuel 

fired plants that require large amounts of water for cooling, scrubbing, and other uses. The ability to produce electric power 

without further stressing our diminishing water resources is a tremendous benefit to renewable sources and further supports the 

BLM prioritizing renewable development.

Renowned NASA climatologist, Dr. James Hansen, analogizes climate change to loaded dice: while variability remains, climate 

change is making these extreme events ever more common. In turn, climatic change and GHG emissions are having dramatic 

impacts on plant and animal species and habitat, threatening both human and species resiliency and the ability to adapt to these 

changes. According to experts at the Government Accountability Office ("GAO"), federal land and water resources are 

vulnerable to a wide range of effects form climate change, some of which are already occurring. These effects include, among 

others, "(1) physical effects, such as droughts, floods, glacial melting, and sea level rise; (2) biological effects, such as increases

in insect and disease infestations, shifts in species distribution, and changes in the timing of natural events; and (3) economic and 

social effects, such as adverse impacts on tourism, infrastructure, fishing, and other resource uses." As discussed below, BLM not 

only has the authority, but an obligation to address GHG emissions and methane waste. Furthermore, the OFO must consider not 

only the cumulative impact of the GHG emissions authorized by the revised RMP, it must also consider those emissions 

combined with other activity in the area. As noted above, "[t]he impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change is 

precisely the kind of cumulative impacts analysis that NEPA requires agencies to conduct." Ctr. For Biological Diversity, 538 

F.3d 1172, 1217.

Moreover, with GHG pollution and climate change, it is not only the contribution to climate change that must be considered, but 

also the combined impact of the authorized activity and climate change to specific resources, such as water resources, vegetation, 

farmlands, wildlife and endangered species.

The recent drought/unpredictable precipitation in North Central Texas and Southern Oklahoma has increased the fire danger to 

levels that have never been witnessed in my or my parents lifetime. Historically, public access has been proven to increase the 

danger of wildfire in a given area. Under the right conditions, an accidental wildfire could destroy immense amounts of wildlife, 

grassland, livestock and potentially human lives. I urge the BLM to maintain the red river basin as limited access, to allow 

farmers/ranchers to still be able to drive cattle using the river basin.

On January 15, 2014, the US Department of Agriculture designated 20 counties in Oklahoma as primary natural disaster areas 

due to drought, qualifying ranchers and farmers to financial assistance. From northern Texas to central Oklahoma, 90-day 

precipitation has totaled 50% of normal or less, and topsoil and subsoil moisture remain limited. Indeed, as the Department of 

Energy has recognized, "[a]vailable surface water supplies have not increased in 20 years, and groundwater tables and supplies 
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-16 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-7

Climate Change and Future Water Needs

are dropping at an alarming rate." Because of the chemicals that are added to fracking water, the water may not be reused. 

Removing water for fracking can stress existing water supplies by lower water tables and dewatering aquifers, decreasing stream 

flows, and reducing water in surface reservoirs. This can result in changes to water quality, and it can also alter the hydrology of 

water systems, and it can increase concentrations of pollutants in the water.

The RMP and EIS must also analyze cumulative and incremental effects of coal, oil and gas development on climate change. 

EPA has determined that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global warming that is harmful to human health and 

welfare. The D.C. Circuit has upheld this decision as supported by the vast body of scientific evidence on the subject. See Coal 

for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. E.P.A., 684 F. 3d 102, 120-22 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Indeed, EPA could not have found otherwise, 

as virtually every climatologist in the world accepts the legitimacy of global warming and the fact that human activity has 

resulted in atmospheric warming and planetary climate change. The world’s leading minds and most respected institutionsguided by increasingly clear science and statistical evidence - agree that dramatic action is necessary to avoid planetary disaster. 

GHG concentrations have been steadily increasing over the past century, and our insatiable consumption of fossil fuels is pushing 

the world to a tipping point where, once reached, catastrophic change will be unavoidable. In fact, the impacts from climate 

change are already being experienced, with drought and extreme weather events becoming increasingly common.

To comply with its legal mandates, OFO must include mandatory requirements to control GHG emissions resulting from 

development authorized in the planning area, including methane waste. Oil and natural gas systems are the biggest contributor to 

methane emissions in the United States, accounting for over one quarter of all methane emissions.

Section 303 of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. 1313, requires each State to institute comprehensive standards 

established water quality goals for all intrastate waters, and requires that such standards "consists of the designated uses of the 

navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses." 33 U.S.C. 1313(c )(2)(A). A 1987 

amendment to the CWA makes clear that section 303 also contains an "antidegradation policy" - that is, a policy requiring that 

state standards be sufficient to maintain existing beneficial uses of navigable waters, preventing their further degradation. 33 

U.S.C 1313 (d)(4)(B); see also PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Dept. of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 705 (1994). 

Accordingly, EPA’s regulations implementing the CWA require that state water quality standards include "a statewide 

antidegradation policy" to ensure that "[e]xisting instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect [those] 

uses [are] maintained and protected." 40 C.F.R. 131.12(a)(1). At a minimum, state water quality standards must satisfy these 

conditions. The CWA also allows States to impose more stringent water quality controls. See 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)©, 1370; see 

also 40 CFR 131.4(a) ("As recognized by section 510 of the Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. 1370], States may develop water quality 

standards more stringent than required by this regulation"). BLM also holds independent authority to protect water quality above 

and beyond what the CWA may require or authorize. 43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(8), 1702©, 1732(b).

OFO thus must consider the potential sources of water in the planning area that would be used for oil and gas development, and 

the impacts of these water withdrawals on water availability for drinking, ranching, agriculture, wildlife, and recreation. The 

analysis must further address the impacts to water quantity at different annual, seasonal, monthly, and daily time scales because 

the impacts of such water withdrawals could be more acute during times, months, and seasons of scarcity. For example, increased 

withdrawal and irretrievable contamination of waters will be particularly harmful during times- like the present- when much of 

Oklahoma is experiencing drought conditions.

OFO thus must consider the potential sources of water in the planning area that would be used for oil and gas development, and 

the impacts of these water withdrawals on water availability for drinking, ranching, agriculture, wildlife, and recreation. The 

analysis must further address the impacts to water quantity at different annual, seasonal, monthly, and daily time scales because 

the impacts of such water withdrawals could be more acute during times, months, and seasons of scarcity. For example, increased 

withdrawal and irretrievable contamination of waters will be particularly harmful during times- like the present- when much of 

Oklahoma is experiencing drought conditions.

In light of serious controversy and uncertainties regarding GHG pollution from oil and gas development, BLM’s quantitative 

assessment should account for methane’s long-term (100-year) global warming impact and, also, methane’s short-term (20-year) 

warming impact using the latest peer-reviewed science to ensure that potentially significant impacts are not underestimated or 

ignored. See 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(a)(requiring consideration of "[b]oth short- and long-term effects").

EPA’s GHG Inventory assumes that methane is 21 times a potent as carbon dioxide ("CO2") over a 100-year time horizon, a 

global warming potential ("GWP") based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s ("IPCC") Second Assessment 

Report from 1996. However, recent peer-reviewed science demonstrates that gas-aerosol interactions amplify methane’s impact 

such that methane is actually 33 times as potent as carbon dioxide over a 100-year time period, and 105 times as potent over a 

twenty year time period. This information suggests that EPA has significantly underestimated near-term impacts of methane 

emissions. See 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(a) Further, by extension, it has significantly underestimated the near-term benefits of keeping 

methane emissions out of the atmosphere. 40 C.F.R. 1502.16(e), (f); id. At 1508.27. These estimates are important given the 

noted importance of near term action to ameliorate climate change- near term action that scientists say should focus, inter alia, on 
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-17

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-7

Climate Change and Future Water Needs

preventing the emission of short-lived but potent GHGs like methane, while, at the same time, stemming the ongoing increase in 

the concentration of carbon dioxide. These uncertainties necessitate analysis in the RMP and EIS. 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(a), (b)(4)-

(5).

On January 15, 2014, the US Department of Agriculture designated 20 counties in Oklahoma as primary natural disaster areas 

due to drought, qualifying ranchers and farmers to financial assistance. From northern Texas to central Oklahoma, 90-day 

precipitation has totaled 50% of normal or less, and topsoil and subsoil moisture remain limited. Indeed, as the Department of 

Energy has recognized, "[a]vailable surface water supplies have not increased in 20 years, and groundwater tables and supplies 

are dropping at an alarming rate." Because of the chemicals that are added to fracking water, the water may not be reused. 

Removing water for fracking can stress existing water supplies by lower water tables and dewatering aquifers, decreasing stream 

flows, and reducing water in surface reservoirs. This can result in changes to water quality, and it can also alter the hydrology of 

water systems, and it can increase concentrations of pollutants in the water.

Table D-8

Cultural and Historic Resources

My husband and I like to camp, trail ride our horses. The closest place to do that right now is LBJ Grasslands in Wise County. 

The area of the Red River interests me due to the fact it has a lot of history that comes with it. The Red River Station is not far 

from our home, within a hour's ride by horseback. We have been part of the celebrations to acknowledge the Station and what it 

stood for in our history of our area. I would love to be a small part of sharing some of this with fellow equestrains.

Cultural resource management of historic resources, which includes buildings, structures, archaeological sites, objects and 

districts, should be considered carefully and be constructed in a way that follows the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

and the Oklahoma Statewide Preservation Plan (http://www.okhistory.org/shpo/stateplan.htm?full).

This area is rich and abundant with wildlife, history of both Native Americans and Pioneers, and loved and stewarded by 

generations of farmers and ranchers. The current management of this stretch of the River has preserved all these attributes, even 

as dams, droughts, and floods have impacted the landscape.

Table D-9

Energy Development

The BLM recognized the nature of existing oil and gas lease rights in the Pinedale RMP issued by the BLM in November of 

2000. "Existing oil and gas or other mineral lease rights will be honored. When an oil and gas lease is issued, it constitutes a valid 

existing right; BLM cannot unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the lease..Surface use and timing restrictions from this 

RMP cannot be applied to existing leases." Pinedale RMP, 2-19. Similar language exists in the December 2008 Rawlins RMP. 

Rawlins RMP, pg. 20. Devon encourages the Oklahoma Field Office to include similar language in its RMP.

Devon recognizes the difficult task the BLM faces to manage public lands in the Oklahoma Field Office for multiple use, but 

encourages the BLM to remember that oil and gas development is a crucial part of the BLM's multiple use mandate. The BLM 

must ensure that oil and gas development is not unreasonably limited in the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP.

When drafting the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP, the BLM must also acknowledge existing rights, including oil and gas lease 

rights. Once the BLM has issued a federal oil and gas lease without "no surface occupancy" stipulations, and in the absense of a 

nondiscretionary statutory prohibition against development, the BLM cannot completely deny development on the leasehold. See 

e.g. National Wildlife Federation, et al., 150 IBLA 385, 403 (1999). Only Congress has the right to completely prohibit 

development once a lease has been issued. Western Colorado Congress, 130 IBLA 244, 248 (1994). Further, the BLM cannot 

take Devon's valid and existing lease rights.

The Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP cannot defeat or materially restrain Devon's valid and existing rights to develop its leases 

through COAs or other means. See Colorado Environmental Coal, et al., 165 IBLA 221, 228 (2005) (citing Colorado 

Environmental Coal., 135 IBLA 356, 360 (1996) aff'd, Colorado Environmental Coal. V. Bureau of Land Management, 932 F. 

Supp. 1247 (D. Colo. 1996).
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-18 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-9

Energy Development

The BLM must management the Oklahoma Field Office for multiple use- including oil and gas development. The development 

of oil and gas resources from public lands is a critical part of the BLM's responsibilities. See, e.g., 43 U.S.C. 1702(l) (defining 

mineral exploration and development as a principal or major use of public lands).

In the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP and accompanying environmental impact statement ("EIS") the BLM should state clearly 

that an oil and gas lease is a contract between the federal government and the lesee, and that the lessee has certain rights 

thereunder.

The BLM should not limit or restrict oil and gas development during the amendment process. This is particularly important in the 

Oklahoma Field Office where several oil and gas projects are ongoing.

When drafting the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP the BLM should ensure that stipulations developed for future oil and gas 

leasing are the least restrictive necessary to adequately protect other resource values.

When revising the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP, the BLM should keep the vast majority of the Planning Area open to rights-ofway for both pipelines and roads.

Devon encourages the BLM not to adopt rights-of-way avoidance or exclusion limitations as they may adversely impact oil and 

gas development in the area.

The BLM does not have the authority to regulate emissions. When drafting the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP, the BLM must be 

cognizant of its limited authority to regulate air quality. The BLM does not have direct authority over air quality or air emissions 

under the Clean Air Act ("CAA"). 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Under the express terms of the CAA, the Environmental Protection 

Agency ("EPA") has the authority to regulate air emissions. With respect to potential visibility impacts, the BLM’s authority is 

also limited by existing federal law. Under the CAA, a federal land manager’s authority is strictly limited to considering whether 

a "proposed major emitting facility will have an adverse impact" on visibility within designated Class 1 areas. 42 U.S.C. 

7475(d)(2)(B). Oil and gas operations do not meet the definition of a major emitting facility. Further, under the CAA, the 

regulation of potential impacts to visibility and authority over air quality in general, rests with the states of Texas, Oklahoma, and 

Kansas. 42 U.S.C. 7407(a). The goal of preventing impairment of visibility in Class 1 areas will be achieved through the regional 

haze state implementation plans ("SIPs") that are being developed. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(J). Rather than attempting to regulate air 

quality in the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP, Devon encourages the BLM to participate in and abide by the regulatory processes 

currently underway in those states. Any attempt by the BLM to regulate air quality could lead to inconsistent, confusing, and 

possibly illegal standards if imposed by the BLM.

Fracking should be limited and regulated. This process is putting the water supply at risk and possibly causing earthquakes.

In short using the red river as a revenue source at the cost of the inherit animals and people would be dangerous. There have been 

over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling. The drilling contaminates cause sensory, 

respiratory and nuerological damage. Lead, mercury, ethylene glycol, methanol, hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde, radium, 

uranium are just the short list of dangerous chemicals used in the fracking process.

I am in favor of open with limitations. To adjacent land owners and surrounding communities the effects of mining the minerals 

from the red river would be devastating. The fracking fluids and its toxins would not only hurt fish and wildlife but the family’s 

with water wells for livestock and themselves. Gravel mining if any would affect the flow of the river causing an unnatural 

course.

I am in favor of open with limitations. To adjacent land owners and surrounding communities the effects of mining the minerals 

from the red river would be devastating. The fracking fluids and its toxins would not only hurt fish and wildlife but the family’s 

with water wells for livestock and themselves. Gravel mining if any would affect the flow of the river causing an unnatural 

course.

Weigh the surface usage specific to each area with the amount of oil and gas production. For instance, when considering 

changing rules for the surface due to hiking, ATV use, fishing, etc., make note of where a rule might most be effective and how 

much production is presently occurring instead of applying a blanket rule to all lands.

2. Consider actual scientific facts in regard to hydraulic fracturing..

Mineral management should be the prime directive of the BLM. Restriction to these valuable resources is a disservice to the 

American people who are provided a better way of life through their development. With today’s drilling technology of horizontal 

drilling and hydraulic fracturing, more oil and gas can be produced with minimal impact to the surface estate. The Oil and Gas 

Industry has displayed, from Alaska to Louisiana, that it is a responsible and capable industry. It has brought industry and wealth 

to those areas where it is allowed to operate and can enhance the prosperity of all people if allowed to develop State and Federal 

lands.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-19

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-9

Energy Development

We are just now beginning to show signs of becoming self sufficient in the production of oil and gas. With the limitations that 

this would impose, it would prove to be a hardship on the entire country. There is no need for our country to be dependent on

foreign countries when we can improve our own standards.

How will the BLM and BIA assess the increased energy potential of unconventional reservoirs and the application of new 

technology such as horizontal drilling?

How will the plans ensure oil and gas producers have reasonable access to conduct operations that are required to protect new or 

existing leases from drainage by operators that are subject to different requirements in the plan?

How will the plans ensure oil and gas owners, lessees and operators have the ability, without unreasonable burdens or delays, to 

determine the potential of their properties and to exercise their rights to develop those properties?

How will the plans, including the associated species management plans, provide for reasonable access to develop, produce, and

transport oil and gas resources within all areas being managed?

Comment 6 - Drilling Under Great Salt Plains Wildlife Refuge. Currently, the BLM does not allow drilling under the Great Salt 

Plains. These minerals could be developed without surface occupancy within Great Salt Plains. We request that Great Salt Plains 

Wildlife Refuge be opened for leasing with stipulations from the Surface Managing Agency.

Comment 5 - Drilling in City Limits. Currently, the BLM does not allow drilling within city limits. This prevents private 

minerals from being developed that may be near the BLM minerals. It also prevents revenue for the cities that allow drilling 

within city limits. The current policy does not take into account that long laterals would be drilled under the city from well pads 

located outside the city limits. We request that BLM minerals within city limits be opened for leasing and treat the City as a 

Surface Managing Agency to place stipulations on the lease or in the alternative place No Surface Occupancy stipulations on the 

lease.

Comment 4- Surface Managing Agency Response Time. Currently, there is no set time frame that a Surface Managing Agency 

must respond to BLM with stipulations to include in the lease once a tract has been nominated. This often delays the sale that the 

tract is placed on. We request BLM set up a time frame that the Surface Managing Agency must respond with stipulations or 

state on the lease that the lessee must comply with the Surface Managing Agency Conditions of Approval.

Comment 3 - ORA-3 Season of Use. The current ORA-3 restricts season of use on the surface of the lease in Page 12 of the 

current Resource Management Plan. This restriction does not make sense regarding split estate situations with private surface

owner.

Comment 1 - Visual Resources. Please clarify if Visual Resource Policies are applicable to oil and gas operations located on 

private lands. Often times the private landowner requests are counter to the BLM visual resource policies. On split estates, 

deference should be given to the private landowner regarding visual resources and conservation and erosion mitigation.

Comment 15- Lease Sale Time Frames. The new rotational lease sale policy will cause delays in drilling and development of 

BLM minerals. It also makes it very difficult to develop private minerals in sections with BLM minerals. We request that the 

Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma tracts be allowed to be nominated on a quarterly basis.

Comment 8- COE Stipulations. The COE needs to clarify the rule regarding the restriction on drilling near dams. Is it 2,000 feet 

in all directions (spherically)? Or 2,000 feet in all directions on the surface and to the center of the earth under the structure as to 

prevent any directional drilling under that protected structure.

Comment 14 - Water Use. Federal Surface Water and stream water within BIA and BLM drilling units shall be made available 

for all oil and gas activities within that unit with conditions: fair market value is paid to the surface managing agency based on 

local prices. There is enough water available for the oil gas activity as well as the current everyday use. Federal Surface water 

and stream water outside of BIA and BLM drilling units shall also be made available under the same conditions as above.

Comment 13 - Fracking Procedures and Proposed Rule. The RMP should address fracking in so far as it related to any federal 

rule that has been proposed or may be proposed. The RMP should follow the BLM rule, otherwise, the RMP should follow the 

state rules regarding all aspects of fracking.

Comment 10 - Overhead Power Lines. Installing underground power lines is not always feasible as it is costly and can reduce the 

amount of electricity that actually reaches the well over long distance. We request clarification on the installation of overhead 

power lines for use in oil and gas operations. We request that a broader more reasonable approach be taken in regards to power 

line stipulations. In areas where a power company would most likely install a power line above ground, for example next to a 

county road, then above ground power lines should be permitted. Especially in areas where there are no listed species that would 

be negatively by above ground power lines.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-20 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-9

Energy Development

Comment 9 - Drilling under Military Installations. Currently, oil and gas development under military installations such as Fort 

Reno and McAlester Ammo Plant are prohibited. There are large amounts of BLM minerals that could be developed safely. It is 

possible to develop these minerals without surface occupancy within the military installation. We request that BLM minerals 

located under military installments be opened for leasing.

The content of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Fluid Mineral Estate Procedural Handbook, dated August 14, 2012 and the 

Procedural Handbook, Grants of Easement for Right-of-Way on Indian Lands, dated March 6, 2006 should be included as a 

stipulation in the content of stipulations for oil and gas leases.

The visibility protection program under sections 169A, 169B, and 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA is designed to protect Class 1 areas 

from impairment due to manmade air pollution. The current regulatory program addresses visibility impairment in these areas 

that is "reasonably attributable" to a specific source or small group of sources, such as, here, air pollution resulting from coal, oil 

and gas development and operations that may be authorized by the RMP. Moreover, EPA finds the visibility protection 

provisions of the CAA to be quite broad. Although EPA is addressing visibility protection in phases, the national visibility goal in 

section 169A calls for addressing visibility impairment generally, including regional haze. See e.g., State of Maine v. Thomas, 

874 F.2d 883, 885 (1st Cir. 1989) ("EPA’s mandate to control the vexing problems of regional haze emanates directly from the 

CAA, which ‘declares as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility 

in Class 1 areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.’")(internal citation omitted).

Oklahoma’s Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge is a federal Class 1 area, as is the Caney Creek Wilderness Area in 

Arkansas, which lies in the pattern of the predominant wind direction across Oklahoma. The agency must take meaningful steps 

in the RMP to stem direct and indirect impacts to these areas from the burning of fossil fuels, including coal, obtained from 

federal lands in Oklahoma. This must include the application of air quality modeling tools to assess the impacts on air quality of 

the alternatives considered in the EIS.

As part of the RMP and EIS process that BLM and BIA, respectively, will be conducting, (which also needs to involve the active 

participation of other federal agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Geological Survey), the OCCA would like to 

see that impacts to the following resources, and measures to mitigate or eliminate such impacts, be thoroughly evaluated: 3.

Contamination and sterilization of soil and rangeland from oil, gas and saltwater leaks and spills and associated reduction in 

range fertility and livestock raising/production.

As part of the RMP and EIS process that BLM and BIA, respectively, will be conducting, (which also needs to involve the active 

participation of other federal agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Geological Survey), the OCCA would like to 

see that impacts to the following resources, and measures to mitigate or eliminate such impacts, be thoroughly evaluated: 4.

Impacts from all phases of oil and gas development and operations to game and non-game wildlife, migratory birds and 

threatened and endangered species of wildlife.

Until such agencies are able to unilaterally meet the requirements and expectations for which Congress delegated to them nearly 

a decade ago, there should be no additional requirements placed on this industry further burdening the process.

In particular, the EIS must assess the impacts to air quality associated with oil, gas, and coal development. Oil and gas 

development is one of the largest sources of VOCs, ozone, and sulfur dioxide emissions in the United States.

Research indicates a strong correlation between oil and gas development and increased ozone concentrations -particularly in the 

summer when warm, stagnant conditions yield an increase in ozone formation from oil and gas emissions.

OIPA is indifferent to the joint agencies’ management of motorized vehicles on federal and tribal lands so long as they allow

continued access for members of our industry who have paid to develop federal and tribal leasehold and have invested 

significantly in an area in their pursuit of developing its hydrocarbon resources. These companies should be entitled to adequate 

access allowing them to continue development and sustain production from such leases.

The OFO must consider foreseeable impacts to visibility and air quality degradation that will result from any development 

authorized by the RMP and EIS within the planning area. 40 C.F.R. 1508.8. In particular, the OFO must consider the air quality 

impacts from coal, oil and gas development in the planning area. Such impacts include contribution to regional haze, ozone 

pollution, and fugitive dust emissions, among others. Moreover, this analysis must account for emissions outside the planning

area that may affect air quality in the planning area. These emissions include, but are not limited to, emissions from nearby coalfired power plants, as well as oil and gas development activities, including exploration, production, and processing.

An electronic well completion report or recompletion report and log must be submitted to the pertinent tribal office for wells 

drilled on Trust or restricted Indian land.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-21

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-9

Energy Development

That the pertinent Tribe shall not be responsible for damages to property or injuries to persons which may arise from or be 

incident to the use and occupation of the lease premises, or for damages to the property of the lessee, or for injuries to the person 

of the lessee’s officers, agents, or employees, or others who may be on the lease premises for any reason.

Lessee shall be liable for royalty payments on all oil and gas lost or wasted from a lease site when such loss or waste was due to 

negligence on part of the operator for all leases on Trust or Restricted Indian land.

Lessor reserves the right to ensure the production is sold at reasonable prices and to prevent monopoly.

Lessee shall commence drilling and production activities necessary to protect leased lands from mineral drainage or pay 

compensatory royalties for mineral drainage in amounts determined by the tribe or SMA for leases on Trust or Restricted Indian 

land.

Drilling diligence must be exercised within 90 days and production must commence within 120 days of granting of the lease for

those located on Trust or Restricted Indian land.

The pertinent tribe shall have the right to enter onto the lease premises, at any time, to inspect both the installation and operation 

activities of the lessee for leases on Trust or Restricted Indian land.

An "Explosives-Use" plan must be submitted with the operation plan.

The pertinent tribal office for wells located on Trust or Restricted Indian land reserves the right to shut down any operation being 

performed on such land. This includes term violations of the lease.

The Operator and SMA will immediately report undesirable events to the pertinent tribal office for wells located on Trust or 

Restricted Indian land.

When the SMA conducts an annual compliance inspection, a tribal representative will also be present.

For wells on Trust or Restricted Indian land, the operator will electronically submit a monthly Report of Operation. Report 

content items will be determined by the pertinent tribal office.

Upon granting the operator permission to plug or abandon a well, the SMA will electronically inform the pertinent tribal office 

for wells located on Trust or Restricted Indian land.

The operator must submit daily electronic drilling reports, while drilling and completing the well, to the pertinent Indian office or 

person, for wells located on Trust or Restricted Indian land.

The approval of an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) extension must be approved by the mineral owner for leases on Trust or 

Restricted Indian land. This is in addition to the Surface Management Agency (SMA) approval.

During the EA process, a base-line water quality assessment needs to be conducted for all residential water delivery systems 

within a three mile radius of a proposed drill site in which hydraulic fracturing will be performed in the drilling process.

During the Environmental Assessment (EA) process of an oil and gas lease procedure, a tribal representative needs to be member 

of the EA team for all leases on Trust or Restricted Indian land. The "on-foot" location inventory needs to include a cultural 

preservation representative for the tribe which has territorial jurisdiction of the lease area. This requirement is for all lease-types 

on federal property.

Gathering pipelines need to be addressed in regards to their installation and operation on Trust or Restricted Indian land.

All oil and gas leases need to include a requirement that all daily production or storage measurements be recorded and 

transmitted over digital devices in order to gain more accurate daily measurements.

The content of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Law, Title 43, Oil and Gas, should be included as a stipulation in the content of 

stipulations for oil and gas leases within the Territorial Boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

Given that this RMP considers multiple uses over a twenty year period, OIPA is opposed to limiting development under a 

multiple use scenario across lands given due consideration for extensive technological advances and a minimized surface 

footprint associated with our operations.

A five day start up notice must also be electronically sent to the pertinent tribal office for wells planned to be drilled on Trust or 

Restricted Indian land.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-22 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-9

Energy Development

The OFO thus must consider the current and potential impacts of authorizing oil and gas and coal development through this RMP

process. Not only is BLM OFO mandated to follow antidegradation and water quality standards under the CWA and state law, 

but it must also take a NEPA "hard look" at any impacts that may be related to these water quality standards as well.

As part of the RMP and EIS process that BLM and BIA, respectively, will be conducting, (which also needs to involve the active 

participation of other federal agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Geological Survey), the OCCA would like to 

see that impacts to the following resources, and measures to mitigate or eliminate such impacts, be thoroughly evaluated: 6.

Damage to visual and aesthetic resources of the landscape from temporary and permanent oil and gas infrastructure, most notably 

above-ground pumping units and overhead power lines.

Rights-of-Way: The BLM must analyze the significant extent that limitations on future rights-of-way ("ROW") will have upon 

oil and gas operations. The BLM must be willing to work with oil and gas lessees and operators to design access routes for 

proposed oil and gas development projects. Future limitations on road construction could impact Devon’s valid and existing lease 

rights or its rights as the operator of a federal exploratory unit. While the issuance of an oil and gas lease does not guarantee 

access to the leasehold, a federal lessee is entitled to sue such part of the surface as may be necessary to produce the leased 

substance. 43 C.F.R. 3101.1-2.

As it revises the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP, the BLM must not unreasonably limit motorized travel to existing roads and 

trails. Devon and other oil and gas operators routinely are required to travel off existing roads and trails when evaluating and 

selecting potential new locations for oil and gas development. In the past, this type of use has been considered casual use and has 

not required BLM approval or been subject to timing limitations. Devon also opposes seasonal road closures. As the BLM is 

aware, many types of routine oil and gas operations and maintenance activities occur year-round on active, producing oil and gas 

wells. BLM must recognize the routine nature of these activities, many of which do not even require BLM approval prior to the

operations. See 43 C.F.R. 3162.3-2 (subsequent well operations). In certain circumstances, the inability to quickly conduct 

repairs and other operations on producing wells may even lead to loss of a well or permanent damage to a reservoir. The ability 

to conduct repair and maintenance operations is also a significant safety and environmental issue because as issues arise, 

operators need to be able to quickly respond to the situation. Forcing operators to comply with seasonal limitations for these 

otherwise routine issues may create or exacerbate significant safety and environmental issues.

Finally, any fossil fuel development must include stipulations that will minimize the impacts discussed above.

The EIS and RMP must also take a hard look at potential seismic impacts associated with oil and gas development. The U.S. 

Geological Survey ("USGS") recently released a report that links a series of earthquakes in Oklahoma, in January 2011, to a 

fracking operation underway there. The USGS determined after analyzing earthquake data that "the character of seismic 

recordings indicate that they are both shallow and unique." The report continues, providing: "Our analysis showed that shortly 

after hydraulic fracturing began small earthquakes started occurring, and more than 50 were identified, or which 43 were large 

enough to be located. Most of these earthquakes occurred within a 24-hour period after hydraulic fracturing operations had 

ceased." According to USGS, "the analysis suggests that a contributing factor to the increase in earthquakes triggers may be from 

activities such as wastewater disposal- a phenomenon known as injection-induced seismicity."

Existing lease rights. Devon reiterates that when preparing Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP, the BLM must acknowledge existing 

rights, including oil and gas lease rights. Once the BLM has issued a federal oil and gas lease without no surface occupancy 

("NSO") stipulations, and in the absence of a nondiscretionary statutory prohibition against development, the BLM cannot 

completely deny development on the leasehold. The BLM must ensure that it does not limit, constrain, or deprive Devon of its 

existing lease rights.

The EIS and RMP must also take a hard look at potential seismic impacts associated with oil and gas development. The U.S. 

Geological Survey ("USGS") recently released a report that links a series of earthquakes in Oklahoma, in January 2011, to a 

fracking operation underway there. The USGS determined after analyzing earthquake data that "the character of seismic 

recordings indicate that they are both shallow and unique." The report continues, providing: "Our analysis showed that shortly 

after hydraulic fracturing began small earthquakes started occurring, and more than 50 were identified, or which 43 were large 

enough to be located. Most of these earthquakes occurred within a 24-hour period after hydraulic fracturing operations had 

ceased." According to USGS, "the analysis suggests that a contributing factor to the increase in earthquakes triggers may be from 

activities such as wastewater disposal- a phenomenon known as injection-induced seismicity."

FLPMA also requires the Secretary of the Interior to comply with specified procedural requirements before making a 

management decision that totally eliminates a principal or major use of the public lands for a period of two or more years on a 

tract of land more than 100,000 acres in size. 43 U.S.C. 1712(e). Oil and gas development is defined as a principal or major use 

of the public lands. 43 C.F.R. 1702(l).
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-23

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-9

Energy Development

Cimarex believes that the benefit of mineral development, especially as it applies to our national security, energy independence, 

and economic development, should be considered in developing and implementing the EIS.

Proven science should be the determining factor as to the use of hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands, and full consideration 

should be given to mineral development where it may be done responsibly. In particular, we urge you to consider the advances 

made in the oil and gas industry to reduce the impacts of exploration and development activities through, among other things,

drilling multiple wells from one drill site and using centralized facilities to reduce surface disturbance and the use of green 

completions and enhanced vapor recovery units and other technologies to reduce air emissions. These and other techniques allow 

the responsible development of all our resources while preserving lands for multiple uses.

The oil and gas industry is the cornerstone of the state’s economy and is an important component of the U.S. energy industry.

Oklahoma is the third largest producer of natural gas in the U.S. and remains a significant producer of crude oil.

In addition to impacts on water quality, mineral development processes, and particularly fracking, may result in significant 

impacts on water quantity. To frack a single well one time requires 2-4 million gallons. Annually, the EPA estimates that 70-140 

billion gallons of water are used to frack wells in the United States- enough to supply drinking water to 40-80 cities of 50,000. 

This massive use of water is of particular concern in states like Oklahoma, where water supplies are scarce and already stretched.

In addition to those impacts to groundwater from hydraulic fracturing, as discussed above, such contamination may result during 

the following processes: (1) the state of the chemical mixing due to spills, leaks, and transportation accidents; (2) during the 

fracking process due to well malfunctions, migration of fracking fluids or fluids from the fractured formation to aquifers, and 

mobilization of subsurface materials to aquifers; (3) during flowback due to releases, leakage of on-site storage, and spills from 

pits (caused by improper construction, maintenance, or closure); and (4) during wastewater disposal due to discharges of 

wastewater into groundwater, incomplete treatment, and transportation accidents.

It is understood, that tribal use of any Trust or Restricted Indian land, under lease, is superior to any other use.

Federal lands offered for lease have decreased since 2008. Moreover, approved permits to drill on Federal lands have decreased 

as well. The BLM should recognize the importance of developing domestic energy in an environmentally responsible manner and 

the benefit to the nation, including jobs for American citizens and revenues paid to the Federal Treasury by the energy industry.

Air quality: The BLM does not have direct authority to regulate air quality or air emissions under the Clean Air Act ("CAA"). 42 

U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Under the express terms of the CAA, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has the authority to

regulate air emissions. The BLM’s authority to regulate potential visibility impacts is also limited by federal law. Air quality 

matters should be regulated by the appropriate entity with authority to carry out the terms of the CAA [and applicable state air 

quality statutes.

Accordingly, the RMP revision must consider, on equal footing, the value of permanent protection and preservation of public 

lands in the planning area, and resist industry pressure to lease and develop these lands. The RMP revision process is the perfect 

opportunity for BLM to re-evaluate these competing resources and give suitable weight to FLPMA’s mandate to, where 

appropriate, preserve and protect public lands in their natural condition. See 43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(8).

Oil and gas development also threatens the area’s abundant wildlife, would fragment and destroy increasingly scarce habitat and 

wildlife corridors. Oil and gas development would also threaten tourism based on wildlife viewing, fishing, and hunting.

While certain lands may indeed be appropriate for responsible oil and gas leasing and development, it is equally evident that 

there are lands where other resource values should prevail. FLPMA affords BLM great authority to appropriately balance these 

competing interests, which expressly includes the responsibility to "preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural 

condition." 43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(8). Moreover, FLPMA further delegates BLM authority to permanently withdraw lands from 

consideration. See 43 U.S.C. 1714. This ability authorizes the Secretary to "make, modify, extend, or revoke withdrawals." Id. In 

either event, BLM OFO cannot prioritize oil and gas leasing and development above with other resource values at stake. The 

RMP revision process should be used to provide a framework where BLM can more fully realize its multiple use mandate now 

and into the future.

While certain lands may indeed be appropriate for responsible fossil fuel resource development, it is equally evident that there are 

lands where other resource values should prevail. FLPMA affords BLM great authority to appropriately balance these competing 

interests, which expressly includes the responsibility to "preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition." 43 

U.S.C. 1701(a)(8). Moreover, FLPMA further delegates BLM authority to permanently withdraw lands from consideration. See 

43 U.S.C. 1714. This ability authorizes the Secretary to "make, modify, extend, or revoke withdrawals." Id. In either event, 

BLM’s OFO cannot continue its practice of prioritizing coal, oil and gas leasing and development above the other resource values 

at stake. The RMP revision process should be used to provide a framework where BLM can more fully realize its multiple use 

mandate now and into the future.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-24 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-9

Energy Development

When preparing the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP, the BLM must ensure that it has sufficient flexibility. The IBLA has 

recognized that a federal oil and gas lease does not limit development to one particular formation or type of development, but 

instead allows lessees to develop any hydrocarbons within the leased premises. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, et al., 169 IBLA 146, 152-

153 (2006) (holding that federal lease applies to all fluid minerals unless specifically excepted). The IBLA has further recognized 

that the BLM appropriately develops programmatic-level EISs analyzing the general impacts of hydrocarbon development 

allowing specific decisions to a later date when site-specific authorizations are filed. Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, 174 

IBLA 1, 16 (2008) (quoting ‘Ilio’ulaokalani Coal. v. Rumsfeld, 464 F.3d 1083, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2006)). The BLM must allow 

itself sufficient flexibility to tier to and utilize the analyses in the EIS regardless of whether the operators pursue the development 

of natural gas or oil. See 40 C.F.R. 1502.20 (encouraging the use of tiering in NEPA documents); 43 C.F.R. 46.140 (same).

Throughout the RMP process, the BLM should state clearly that an oil and gas lease is a contract between the federal government 

and the lessee, and that the lessee has certain rights thereunder The BLM cannot modify Devon’s valid and existing lease rights 

through later project-level documents. In fact, the BLM has recognized that it cannot modify existing lease rights. BLM 

Instruction Memorandum 92-67 states that "[t]he lease contract conveys certain rights which must be honored through its term, 

regardless of the age of the lease, a change in surface management conditions, or the availability of new data or information. The 

contract was validly entered based upon the environmental standards and information current at the time of the lease issuance." 

As noted in the BLM’s Instruction Memorandum, the lease constitutes a contract between the federal government and the lessee 

which cannot be unilaterally altered or modified by the BLM.

Further, BLM must recall that it cannot impose new, unreasonable mitigation requirements on existing leases. Courts have 

recognized that once the BLM has issued an oil and gas lease conveying the right to access and develop the leasehold, the BLM 

cannot later impose unreasonable mitigation measures that take away those rights. See Conner v. Burford, 84 F.2d 1441, 1449-50 

(9th Cir. 1988); 43 C.F.R. 3101.1-2 (BLM can impose only "reasonable mitigation measures..to minimize adverse impacts..to the 

extent consistent with lease rights granted").

The exploration and production of oil and gas is a highly regulated activity that requires compliance with numerous federal, state, 

and local regulations, and permits issued pursuant to those regulations. These regulations, along with the oil and gas industry’s 

commitment to environmental stewardship, ensure that the land and water are protected; that wastes, emissions, and surface 

disturbances are minimized: and that land is returned to a natural state as soon as possible after development activity.

Water quality: As the BLM is well aware, multiple federal and state statutes and regulations such as the Clean Water Act and 

Safe Drinking Water Act govern water quality. In addition, operators must adhere to strict water standards to ensure that oil and 

gas development does not adversely impact underground drinking water. See, e.g., Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1, 72 Fed. 

Reg. 10308 (Mar. 7, 2007); 43 C.F.R. 3162.1, 3162.3-1, 3162.4-2, 3162.5-1, 3162.5-2(d).

Mitigation measures: When revising the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP, the BLM must ensure that stipulations developed for 

future oil and gas leasing are the least restrictive as necessary to adequately protect other resource values. Section 363 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 required the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into a Memorandum of 

Understanding ("MOU") regarding oil and gas leasing and to ensure that lease stipulations are applied consistently, coordinated 

between agencies, and "only as restrictive as necessary to protect the resources for which the stipulations are applied." Energy 

Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 363(b)(3), 119 Stat. 594, 722 (2005). The MOU required by 363 of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 was finalized in April of 2006 as BLM MOU WO300-2006-07.

The BLM must consider the Energy Policy Act MOU when revising the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP.

Special Designations Species Habitat Protection: When revising the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP, BLM should minimize the 

use of buffer zones around special designations. Devon sees no justification for the BLM to expand the boundaries of existing

special designations.

Closing an area to fluid mineral leasing constitutes a withdrawal under FLPMA. Because closing areas to oil and gas leasing 

constitutes a withdrawal, the Department of the Interior must comply with the procedural provisions of section 204 of FLPMA. 

43 U.S.C. 1714. Further, the BLM cannot escape the withdrawal requirements imposed by FLPMA by suggesting lands are not 

"closed" to development, but merely "administratively unavailable" to leasing for several reasons. First, the BLM’s Land Use 

Planning Handbook does not recognize or authorize the BLM to make lands administratively unavailable. Rather, the Handbook 

only recognized closed or open with varying levels of constraint. BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601, Appd. C.II.H., 

pgs. 23-24 (Rel. 1-1693 03/11/05).

Closing an area to fluid mineral leasing constitutes a withdrawal under FLPMA. Because closing areas to oil and gas leasing 

constitutes a withdrawal, the Department of the Interior must comply with the procedural provisions of section 204 of FLPMA. 

43 U.S.C. 1714. Further, the BLM cannot escape the withdrawal requirements imposed by FLPMA by suggesting lands are not 

"closed" to development, but merely "administratively unavailable" to leasing for several reasons. First, the BLM’s Land Use 

Planning Handbook does not recognize or authorize the BLM to make lands administratively unavailable. Rather, the Handbook 
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-25

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-9

Energy Development

only recognized closed or open with varying levels of constraint. BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601, Appd. C.II.H., 

pgs. 23-24 (Rel. 1-1693 03/11/05).

The BLM often cites a relatively recent decision from the IBLA for the proposition that the agency can impose COAs on existing 

leases. Yates Petroleum Corp., 176 IBLA 144 (2008). The Yates decision does not stand for the proposition that BLM can 

impose COAs whenever it deems necessary or in broad programmatic documents such as the Buffalo RMP. Rather, in Yates, the 

IBLA merely affirmed the imposition of an additional COA based on site-specific information, including recent and directly 

applicable scientific research. Yates, 176 IBLA at 157; William P. Maycock, 177 IBLA 1, 16-17 (2009). The Yates decision does 

not authorize the BLM to ignore relevant lease terms or the BLM regulations at 43 C.F.R. 3101.1-2.

In addition to the land and water contamination issues, at each stage of production and delivery tons of toxic volatile compounds, 

including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, etc., and fugitive natural gas (methane), escape and mix with nitrogen oxides 

from the exhaust of diesel-driven, mobile and stationary equipment to produce ground-level ozone. Ozone combined with 

particulate matter less than 2.5 microns produces smog (haze). Gas field produced ozone has created a serious air pollution 

problem similar to that found in large urban areas, and can spread up to 200 miles beyond the immediate region where gas is 

being produced. Ozone not only causes irreversible damage to the lungs, it is equally damaging to conifers, aspen, forage, alfalfa, 

and other crops commonly grown in the West. Adding to this is the dust created by fleets of diesel-driven water trucks working 

around the clock hauling the constantly accumulating condensate water from well pads to central evaporation pits.

"the regulatory changes being proposed by the BIA do not adequately consider the concerns of any major constituencies that will 

be future affected by the changes, nor do they provide any additional protection to the BIA against litigation over the same issue." 

Furthermore, Oklahoma’s congressional delegation goes on to state, "the best way to do this is to ensure that the new regulations 

encourage the maximum possible oil and gas development in the Nation, with royalty rates being paid to the Nation that are 

commensurate and competitive with those found in the region and in similar plays around the country" and they duly note that, 

"these issues will never be adequately addressed by simply adding more regulations to the volumes that already exist. The quality 

of regulation governing surface use is not the primary issue; the quality of management and enforcement is."

In developing a 20-year Resource Management Plan, the joint agencies should consult with our industry to adequately assess any 

existing shortcomings pertaining to regulatory, administrative or enforcement matters which currently exist within the region and 

engage in a proactive discussion to achieve a balanced approach to alleviate these issues.

Additionally, a twenty-year plan must account for regulatory flexibility to ensure fair and equitable treatment of correlative rights 

given due consideration for industry’s increased utilization of horizontal drilling and ever-increasing lateral lengths from 

horizontal and directional wellbores which may likely result in the need for broader spacing units and refined communization 

agreements that will conform with evolving state spacing standards.

Additionally, the federal government has continued to miss their federally mandated requirement of permit issuance within a 30-

day period due to restrictive permit reviews coupled with excessive regulatory burdens. It seems feasible that this RMP and its 

associated EIS may seek to alleviate some of the historical "red tape" for permitting within this region by comprehensively 

addressing certain NEPA criteria up front and streamlining the permit process so as to allow producers to forego certain actions 

in the future.

the existing regulatory structure under the various environmental acts is sufficient, if not overly cumbersome, at protecting and/or 

enhancing the natural resources within the region that are managed by the joint agencies. Our member companies must already 

comply with a checkerboard of regulations required under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLMPA), the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), among dozens of additional acts and 

state and local requirements, each of which impose a plethora of restrictive and burdensome compliance requirements for which

our industry must comply with on a daily basis.

Despite the energy industry’s explanation that a thick layer of bedrock safely separates the gas-containing rock layer being 

fractured from ground-water used for drinking and surface water sources, evidence that contaminants from gas wells are making 

their way into groundwater is mounting. The EIS must thoroughly evaluate and weigh these impacts in its EIS.

OIPA is greatly concerned about additional rulemaking further slowing the issuance of APD’s on federal and tribal lands, which 

seem to be contributing to a great irony about the need to further regulate without the identification of a problem (e.g. Hydraulic 

fracturing and groundwater contamination).

Performing a historical "snapshot" review of past oil and gas development and attempting to extrapolate and project those 

impacts in the future will not adequately provide the joint agencies with an ample assessment of future surface implications. This 

is especially true given consideration of a twenty year planning period for which to analyze future impacts of surface lands within 
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-26 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-9

Energy Development

the RMP’s range. Due to this, the joint agencies must engage in collaborative manner with industry throughout the region to gain 

a better understanding of development moving forward.

Furthermore, we respectfully request that the joint agencies support a consultation with the U.S. FWS under Section 7 of the ESA 

to support development of the nation’s oil and gas resources and help operators overcome any permitting delays that may be 

associated with the process.

OIPA would also respectfully request that the joint agencies consider the recent Petition for Review of a Final Rule by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit who ruled in favor of the state in ODEQ v. EPA and Navajo Nation, et al. which was decided on 

January 17, 2014, as it relates to the Clean Air Act. It is OIPA’s belief that this same decision may be reached upon 

contemplation of similar merits and findings within the realm of other federal environmental acts, including, but not limited to 

the CWA. In its conclusion, the court made the following statement: "We hold a state has regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean 

Air Act over all land within its territory and outside the boundaries of an Indian reservation except insofar as an Indian tribe or 

the EPA has demonstrated a tribe has jurisdiction. Until such a demonstration has been made, neither a tribe nor the EPA 

standing in the shoes of a tribe may displace a state’s implementation plan with respect to a non-reservation area of the state."

In addition, a recent study indicates a "clear potential for oil and gas development to negatively affect regional ozone 

concentrations in the western United States, including several treasured national parks and wilderness areas in the Four Corners 

region. It is likely that accelerated energy development in this part of the country will worsen the existing problem." Id. Although 

these findings are based on a case study in the Four Corners region in the neighboring state of New Mexico, the applicability of 

this research is far broader and should be considered by the OFO here.

OIPA would like to make our position very clear that we do not believe Environmental Justice (EJ) correlates in any way, shape 

or form with the pursuit of hydrocarbons in subsurface geological reservoirs. We do not believe the joint agencies should waste 

taxpayers hared-earned dollars evaluating whether or not our industry creates an EJ "imbalance" as our industry targets 

subsurface reservoirs and is indifferent as to the socioeconomic status of those who reside above such resources.

The oil and natural gas industry includes a wide range of operations and equipment, from wells to natural gas gathering lines and 

processing facilities, to storage tanks, and transmission and distribution pipelines. The industry is the largest industrial source of 

emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a group of chemicals that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone 

(smog). Exposure to ozone is linked to a wide range of health effects, including aggravated asthma, increased emergency room 

visits and hospital admissions, and premature death. EPA estimates VOC emission from the oil & natural gas industry at 2.2 

million tons a year in 2008. The oil and natural gas industry also is a significant source of emissions of methane, a greenhouse 

gas that is more than 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide. Emissions of air toxics such as benzene, ethylbenzene, and n-hexane, 

also come from this industry. Air toxics are pollutants known, or suspected of causing cancer and other serious health effects.

While OIPA does not have a specified position directing the BLM’s use of long-term grassland pasture facilities for wild horses, 

we do believe that the exploration and production of oil and gas resources on the lands in question may coexist and can be 

mutually beneficial. Revenues generated from federal royalties may assist the BLM in their endeavors to sustain a healthy and 

viable population of these wild species.

The imposition of additional measures on these federal, tribal, or split estate lands will only further delay economic development 

and the implementation of BLM’s multiple use strategy. As noted within a recent report published by the Congressional Research 

Service entitled, "U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in Federal and Non-Federal Areas," the report asserts that a major 

issue the current Congress may wish to address is streamlining the processing of applications for permits to drill (APDs). Some 

members contend that this would be one way to help boost energy production on federal lands. After a lease has been obtained, 

either competitively or non-competitively, an application for a permit to drill (APD) must be approved for each oil and gas well. 

Despite the new timeline for review (under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, P.L. 109-58), it took an average of 307 days for all 

parties to process (approve or deny) an APD in 2011, up from an average of 218 days in 2006. The difference, however, is that in 

2006 it took the BLM an average of 127 days to process an APD, while in 2011 it took BLM 71 days. In 2006, the industry took 

an average of 91 days to complete an APD, but in 2011, industry took 236 days. The BLM stated in its FY2012 and FY2013 

budget justifications that overall processing times per APD have increased because of the complexity of the process. OIPA might 

add that the BLM and BIA are currently missing their required APD issuance deadlines, and this is prior to the finalization of 

BLM’s proposed rulemaking for Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands, which is certain to further complicate the 

process and lead to additional delay!

We do believe that eliminating federal stipulations for no-drill areas may support BLM’s charge of multiple-use in addition to 

enhancing BIA’s mission promoting economic opportunities. There are numerous federal land holdings throughout the state of 

Oklahoma, among others, that are currently denoted as Surface Management Agency Stipulations which carry "off limits" or "No 

Surface Occupancy/No Drilling "NSO/ND" stipulation for oil and gas development. These lands include those held by the U.S. 

Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the United States Department of Agriculture (Ft. Reno), in addition to many more.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-27

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-9

Energy Development

Fracking fluid is a conglomeration of many highly toxic chemicals and compounds. The Endocrine Disruption Exchange 

("TEDX") has documented nearly 1,000 products energy companies inject into the ground in the process of extracting natural 

gas. Many of these products contain chemicals that are harmful to human health. According to TEDX: In the 980 products 

identified [for use during natural gas operations], there were a total of 649 chemicals. Specific chemical names and CAS numbers 

could not be determined for 286 (44%) of the chemicals, therefore, the health effects summary is based on the remaining 362 

chemicals with CAS numbers..Over 78% of the chemicals are associated with skin, eye or sensory organ effects, respiratory 

effects, and gastrointestinal or liver effects. The brain and nervous system can be harmed by 55% of the chemicals. These four 

health effect categories..are likely to appear immediately or soon after exposure. They include symptoms such as burning eyes, 

rashes, coughs, sore throats, asthma-like effects, nausea, vomiting, headaches, dizziness, tremors, and convulsions. Other effects, 

including cancer, organ damage, and harm to the endocrine system, may not appear for months or years later. Between 22% and 

47% of the chemicals were associated with these possibly longer-term health effects. Forty-eight percent of the chemicals have 

health effects in the category labeled ‘Other.’ The ‘Other’ category includes such effects as changes in weight, or effects on teeth 

or bones, for example, but the most often cited effect in this category is the ability of the chemical to cause death.

Fracking fluid is a conglomeration of many highly toxic chemicals and compounds. The Endocrine Disruption Exchange 

("TEDX") has documented nearly 1,000 products energy companies inject into the ground in the process of extracting natural 

gas. Many of these products contain chemicals that are harmful to human health. According to TEDX: In the 980 products 

identified [for use during natural gas operations], there were a total of 649 chemicals. Specific chemical names and CAS numbers 

could not be determined for 286 (44%) of the chemicals, therefore, the health effects summary is based on the remaining 362 

chemicals with CAS numbers..Over 78% of the chemicals are associated with skin, eye or sensory organ effects, respiratory 

effects, and gastrointestinal or liver effects. The brain and nervous system can be harmed by 55% of the chemicals. These four 

health effect categories..are likely to appear immediately or soon after exposure. They include symptoms such as burning eyes, 

rashes, coughs, sore throats, asthma-like effects, nausea, vomiting, headaches, dizziness, tremors, and convulsions. Other effects, 

including cancer, organ damage, and harm to the endocrine system, may not appear for months or years later. Between 22% and 

47% of the chemicals were associated with these possibly longer-term health effects. Forty-eight percent of the chemicals have 

health effects in the category labeled ‘Other.’ The ‘Other’ category includes such effects as changes in weight, or effects on teeth 

or bones, for example, but the most often cited effect in this category is the ability of the chemical to cause death.

The EIS and the RMP must account for impacts to water associated with hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Sobering new research 

shows that chemically concentrated fracking fluids can migrate into groundwater aquifers within a matter of years- directly 

refuting industry claims that rock layers separating aquifers are impervious to these pollutants. The dangers and impacts of 

fracking are not only limited to extraction, but can be found at every stage of the production cycle. For example, fracking’s waste 

stream can result in dramatic impacts- requiring onsite waste injection, trucking frack fluids offsite, and in some cases even the 

direct release of fracking waste into watercourses- the impacts of which can be compounded by ineffective or nonexistent 

regulation. As detailed herein, natural gas production itself can be inefficient and wasteful- with practices such as the venting of 

methane (discussed above) and the use of vast quantities of water in the fracking process.

The EIS and the RMP must account for impacts to water associated with hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Sobering new research 

shows that chemically concentrated fracking fluids can migrate into groundwater aquifers within a matter of years- directly 

refuting industry claims that rock layers separating aquifers are impervious to these pollutants. The dangers and impacts of 

fracking are not only limited to extraction, but can be found at every stage of the production cycle. For example, fracking’s waste 

stream can result in dramatic impacts- requiring onsite waste injection, trucking frack fluids offsite, and in some cases even the 

direct release of fracking waste into watercourses- the impacts of which can be compounded by ineffective or nonexistent 

regulation. As detailed herein, natural gas production itself can be inefficient and wasteful- with practices such as the venting of 

methane (discussed above) and the use of vast quantities of water in the fracking process.

In addition to air and climate impacts, the EIS and RMP must also address direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to water 

associated with any fossil fuel development authorized in the planning area, including groundwater and surface water 

contamination and overuse.

Both the BLM and BIA should take note of the success demonstrated on behalf of state oil and gas regulatory agencies such as 

the Oklahoma Corporation Commission and the Texas Railroad Commission. These agencies have demonstrated their unique 

ability to provide information, permitting, investigation, and compliance services to the oil and gas industry, mineral interests, 

landowners, and the general public so together we can develop the oil and gas resources of the states in a fair and orderly manner 

while protecting the environment and ensuring public safety.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-28 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-9

Energy Development

Research conducted by the National Research Council has confirmed the fact that the negative impacts of energy generation from 

fossil fuels are not represented in the market price for such generation. In other words, failing to internalize the externalities of 

energy generation from fossil fuels - such as the impacts to climate change and human health -has resulted in market failure that 

requires government intervention. BLM should be mindful of this cost failure as it evaluates our nation’s dependence on dirty 

energy from oil and gas- particularly as it relates to other incompatible resource values deserving protection in the RMP.

Increases in ground-level ozone not only impact regional haze and visibility, but can also result in dramatic impacts to human 

health. According to the EPA: Breathing ground-level ozone can result in a number of health effects that are observed in broad 

segments of the population. Some of these effects include: - Induction of respiratory symptoms; - Decrements in lung function; -

Inflammation of airways. Respiratory symptoms can include: - Coughing; - Throat irritation; - Pain, burning or discomfort in the 

chest when taking a deep breath; - Chest tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In addition to these effects, evidence from 

observational studies strongly indicates that higher daily ozone concentrations are associated with increased asthma attacks,

increased hospital admissions, increased daily mortality, and other markers of morbidity. The consistency and coherence of the 

evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggests that ozone can make asthma symptoms worse and can increase sensitivity to 

asthma triggers.

To assist with the analysis of the aforementioned impacts, operational improvements and best management practices, we would 

strongly suggest that both BL and BIA engage STRONGER, a non-profit organization specializing in the review and 

improvement of existing oil and gas regulatory regimes throughout the U.S. We believe STRONGER has the technical and 

regulatory depth, breadth, expertise and experience to ensure no stone is left unturned in this collective effort to vastly reduce the 

environmental impacts of oil and gas drilling in Osage County.

We also request that operation improvements and best management practices be evaluated for implementation across the entirety

of the oil and gas program in Osage County, including without limitation: 1. Proper casing and cementing of all wellbores. 2.

Baseline testing of proximate groundwater wells. 3. Installation of plastic liners at all existing and new drilling pits and tank 

battery pits holding hydrocarbons, produced water, and saltwater. 4. Installation of French drains along perimeters of existing 

unlined tank batteries to intercept and properly dispose of subsurface seepage of pit fluids until such time as plastic liners are 

installed. 5. Installation of netting over all pits and tanks to prevent landing and deaths of migratory and other birds. 6. Closed 

loop system installation to capture and reuse or re-inject all fugitive gases from oil and gas wells so that no such gases need be 

combusted. 7. Reuse and reduction of all frac and produced water to reduce virgin surface and ground water needed for drilling 

and frac-ing of wells. 8. Where feasible, use of submersible pumping units for all production wells. 9. Where feasible, burial of 

power lines. 10. Remediation of all historic and ongoing brine scarring and removal of all unused/abandoned drilling equipment 

and infrastructure. 11. Regular monitoring and inspection of drilling and production activities.

As part of the RMP and EIS process that BLM and BIA, respectively, will be conducting, (which also needs to involve the active 

participation of other federal agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Geological Survey), the OCCA would like to 

see that impacts to the following resources, and measures to mitigate or eliminate such impacts, be thoroughly evaluated: 7.

Noise, dust, erosion and light pollution from roads, vehicular traffic and drilling and operational activities.

Moreover, potential impacts from oil and gas operations continue to be further mitigated by technological developments and 

innovation by industry leaders. The footprints of drilling operations are decreasing due to innovative advancements in the 

industry such as horizontal and directional drilling that allow multiple wells to be drilled in numerous directions from a single 

pad. Siting multiple wells from a single pad significantly reduces both the number of well pads as well the amount of supporting 

infrastructure needed to support those well pads. The ability to reduce the number of drill pads also minimizes vehicle traffic to 

field locations. Based on these measures in addition to continued innovation within our industry, the exploitation of fossil fuel 

reserves can coexist with multiple land uses, without infringing on additional, non-extractive beneficial uses of these lands.

As part of the RMP and EIS process that BLM and BIA, respectively, will be conducting, (which also needs to involve the active 

participation of other federal agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Geological Survey), the OCCA would like to 

see that impacts to the following resources, and measures to mitigate or eliminate such impacts, be thoroughly evaluated: 2.

Impacts to ground and surface water, including riparian and other areas of concern, from spills, leaks and migration of oil, gas, 

saltwater and other contaminants from wells, faulty casing, tank batteries and other infrastructure; this should include a 

comprehensive evaluation of groundwater contamination from all existing wells, whether active, temporarily abandoned or 

permanently plugged.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-29

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-9

Energy Development

Even setting aside the issue of climate change, every ton of methane emitted to the atmosphere from oil and gas development is a 

ton of natural gas lost. Every ton of methane lost to the atmosphere is therefore a ton of natural gas that cannot be used by

consumers. Methane lost from federal leases may also not yield royalties otherwise shared between federal, state, and local 

governments. This lost gas reflects serious inefficiencies in how BLM oil and gas leases are developed. Energy lost from oil and 

gas production- whether avoidable or unavoidable- reduces the ability of a lease to supply energy, increasing the pressure to drill 

other lands to supply energy to satisfy demand. 40 C.F.R. 1502.16(e)-(f). In so doing, inefficiencies create indirect and 

cumulative environmental impacts by increasing the pressure to satisfy demand with new drilling. 40 C.F.R. 1508.7, 1508.8(b).

BLM should support the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Lesser Prairie Chicken. Range-wide Conservation 

Plan that was endorsed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service on October 23, 2013. Considering the amount of research, 

collaboration, and commitment made by Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas and several entities (including the oil and gas industry), 

BLM should respect this effort by not adding any additional stipulations or burdens concerning the Lesser Prairie Chicken and its' 

habitat.

AAPL believes the BLM should recognize and implement multiple-use goals of developing Federal lands. Federal lands offered 

for lease have decreased since 2008. Moreover, approved permits to drill on Federal lands have decreased as well. The BLM 

should recognize the importance of developing domestic energy and the benefit to the nation, including jobs for American 

citizens and revenues paid to the Federal Treasury by the energy industry.

Water Use Related to Energy Development -It is a recognized and economic practice to use surface and/or subsurface water from 

the drillsite or pooled lands in conjunction with drilling and completion activities in exploring for and producing oil and natural 

gas. This prevents unneeded acquisition of useable water from offsite sources, as well as wasted extra expense, manpower time, 

road/bridge damages, and air pollution because of a perceived need to import water from off-lease areas when plentiful water 

exists on-lease.

Hydraulic Fracturing- Many oil and gas resource plays are only economical if hydraulic fracturing is utilized. This country is 

beyond almost all of the easy-to-access liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons. In many cases this already-expensive process is 

scrutinized and regulated by state regulatory agencies. The federal government should not add another layer of bureaucracy and 

expense to completion of vital subsurface energy resources.

Question- Why does the BLM already require so much paperwork regarding wells where federal minerals are put into 

production with no surface activities, constructions, traffic, or any other expression of surface use is conducted? Will the federal 

government compensate a lessee for the loss of abutting private leases which expire due to bureaucratic demands placed on 

operators in such a manner as to cause the private leasehold to expire?

Lease of Federal Lands- My comment is restricted to oil and gas leases. This process needs to be streamlined. I personally have 

nominated several tracts in the Sabine National Forest with the longest amount of time between my nomination letter and the 

0ffer to lease" being five plus years. From experience, assembling a lease block that contains both federal and private lands has 

become impractical due to the uncertainty of delays in both the lease acquisition and development of the federal land/minerals.

As part of the RMP and EIS process that BLM and BIA, respectively, will be conducting, (which also needs to involve the active 

participation of other federal agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Geological Survey), the OCCA would like to 

see that impacts to the following resources, and measures to mitigate or eliminate such impacts, be thoroughly evaluated: 1. Air 

quality and odor impacts from illegal/improper venting, open flaring/combustion and emissions of hydrogen sulfide, methane, 

sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and other gaseous emissions from wells, tank batteries, vehicles and other oil 

and gas infrastructure, and associated threats to public and wildlife health from such impacts.

Apache is pleased to see that BLM has prepared a Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFD) covering the RMP area 

and has advised the public the RFD is for impact analysis. Apache recommends the RMP EIS clearly states that the RFD does not 

establish a cap or maximum amount of wells that can be drilled within the RMP area.

Apache respectfully reminds BLM that a new or revised RMP cannot amend existing BLM oil and gas leasehold rights as stated 

in BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 92-67. BLM is limited to the 200 meter/60 day rule if current lease stipulations don't 

adequately protect subsequently unidentified resource values.

Prior to commencement of any surface disturbing work, a surface use and operation plan must be filed with the pertinent tribal 

office for leases on Trust or Restricted Indian land. This includes any seismographic work.

Any new stipulations that adversely affect access to BLM administered minerals must have a scientific basis. Any scientific 

research that BLM relies upon should be peer-reviewed and published. In this regard, a qualified scientist in a special field (e.g. 

biology) should be able to replicate the same findings as the original scientist using the same methodology employed in the 

applicable research paper.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-30 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-9

Energy Development

Will existing federal leases be subject to a new battery of rules, regulations, and dictates imposed by this new RMP/EIS? If so, 

what has happened to the sanctity of a contractual relationship between the federal government and private industry?

Additionally, regardless of how much effort is put into a plan up front, there must be opportunity for regulatory flexibility to 

allow for the progress that we all know will take place but can't adequately identify 20 years in the future.

For nearly 100 years, these surface estates have been impacted by oil and gas development pursuant to leases of the mineral 

estate by the Osage Nation to third party oil and gas companies. The range of impacts from this development includes physical 

impacts to land caused by drilling pads, roads, power lines and pipelines; pollution of surface and subsurface land as well as 

surface and ground water from oil, gas and saltwater leaks and spills; pollution of air from hydrogen sulfide, methane, sulfur 

dioxide and other gaseous emissions, with hydrogen sulfide emissions in recent years damaging the health of the surface 

landowners and their employees; damage to wildlife, both game and non-game; damage to livestock; and reduction of property 

values. The reason for the breadth and depth of these impacts are threefold; first, the rules governing the oil and gas development, 

contained in Section 226 of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"), are woefully inadequate and outdated; second, 

the enforcement of the CFR by the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") has been severely lacking; and third, the BIA has failed to 

adequately assess and mitigate the environmental impacts, on both a site specific and programmatic level, of the oil and gas 

development.

Overall, AAPL believes that the benefits of mineral development, especially as it applies to our national security, energy 

independence, and economic development, should be considered in developing and implementing the EIS. As is the case with 

many of these public comment periods,submissions tend to deal primarily with surface issues and the perceived negative effects 

that mineral development will have on surface and water resources, rather than presenting the entire picture. Proven science 

should be the determining factor as to the use of hydraulic fracturing on Federal lands, and full consideration should be given to 

mineral development where research findings have deemed it prudent.

First, we would like to encourage the BLM to recognize the importance of their multiple use mandate for public lands and ensure 

that it protects the continued development of oil and gas natural resources in three of the nation's top producing states of Texas, 

Oklahoma and Kansas.

One of the important aspects of this planning is accurately identifying the foreseeable development assessment and we 

encourage the BLM to seek input from the industry prior to trying to move forward with that key element of the assessment. An 

inadequate assessment could put thousands of jobs and economic development in the states at substantial risk.

Another issue identified in the Notice cites the Bureau of Indian Affairs for Eastern Oklahoma and their management decisions 

for Indian mineral interests. Indian mineral interests affect landowners in Osage County who own their land in fee simple. It is 

our understanding the price paid to landowners for surface damages is well below the rates being paid in other counties. 

Additionally our members have complained of a lack of compliance with environmental standards relating to energy production. 

Please see OKFB’s policy on the Osage issue below. Osage County. In light of the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision which

upheld that Osage County is not a reservation, all oversight and enforcement of regulations pertaining to the exploration and 

production of all minerals, including oil and gas, shall be subject to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC), except in 

cases where the activity is upon allotments or other tribal restricted lands. All lands owned "in fee simple" whether the owner is 

an Osage Nation member or not, shall be regulated by the OCC. Furthermore, the federal government shall not be able to 

document or in any other manner set prices for surface damages. Damages between landowners and mineral producers shall be 

set by the open market. The federal government (Bureau of Indian Affairs) has for decades proven its inability to manage the 

Osage Nation mineral estate and enforce production regulations, many of which are decades out-of-date with current OCC laws, 

as well as other federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management.

The current RMP for Kansas addresses wetland habitats, and the OK and TX RMP’s addresses wetlands and reference the 

BLM’s National Riparian Management Policy. These issues are also addressed in lease operations and stipulations. The revised 

RMP should provide additional detail and focus on wetland and riparian area conservation relative to energy development, 

grazing management, drought, and climate change. Protecting and maintaining riparian values will be dependent on the proper 

(seasonal) timing and duration of use as well as the stocking rate.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-31

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-10

Fences and Trespassing

The BLM said they wanted to take over land that they claim to protect it for best use. The gov't cannot take care of land along the 

Rio Grande and protect it from illegal intruders, the interest of the whole nation.

The problem was that many of the people had no respect for the land owners near the river and the Federal property. There were 

many fires that got out of control that burned fences, pasture land and put livestock in danger and caused land owners many 

problems. We continually had people trespass on our property and had our fences cut. People hunted and fished on our property

with no regard for the law. Some of my neighbors had their cattle shot and their homes broken into. Drinking was always a big 

problem and the bottles and cans were everywhere.

Public access to BLM land on the river would endanger our land from fires and trespassers.

We have been bothered by trespassers on occasion and have had our fences cut by ATV riders. Our river-bottom land is leased 

for hunting and these people keep motion-sensing cameras aimed at their deer feeders. Numerous times they have gotten pictures 

of armed trespassers. With only two access points, (Interstate 44 and State Hiway 79) we shouldn’t have that much activity along 

the river. Our only allie has been the danger of quick sand. If open public access is ever allowed, our problem will increase tenfold. At present, as pointed out that the public meeting on Dec. 11th in Wichita Falls, as low as the river has been in recent years, 

ATV’s have access from Oklahoma or anywhere else they can get to the river. It was never addressed in the meeting and some 

have questioned if the BLM plans to fence this property when it is identified. Obviously some of the boundaries will be in the 

river which will prevent this, but if land-owners are to maintain their private land fences, we would hope this wasn’t the only 

barrier to trespassers.

Every land-owner whose land lies adjacent to land which is deemed BLM land has a fear of what open access will mean to us in 

regard to keeping trespassers off our private land and the danger of fires set which can destroy our pastures and livelihood.

There would little if any protection for our land if public access is allowed all along the river bottom.

One thing that needs to be in BLM's future plans is to survey out what is actually BLM land. There is no visible boundary 

between private property and BLM property in most cases. This invites violation or trespass laws if the BLM ever decides to 

allow public use of the BLM lands. Not having a clear boundary presents problems to private landowners if tracts of land are 

bought or sold.

The new BLM lands need to have a limited entry system and no ATV’s or vehicle use inside the acreage. Since there is a 

combination of land, BLM, Indian and private, a distinctive, visible boundary system must be in place to avoid trespass issues.

Where we have fenced, fences get washed out or bikers and others cut the fences. There were 4 Texas lawmen at the meeting 

BLM held in Wichita Falls. They also asked WHO has jurisdiction? We asked WHO is going to protect the landowner when the 

recreational "users" come to our homes demanding help or access to the river? Who pays for our cut fences or lost cattle when 

there is disrespect for any boundaries?

The use of dogs, ATVs and air boats are on the rise and causing problems due to accesibility and no enforcement.

There are many issues that arise out of the BLM seizing this land. Due to the hazardous terrain and the flow of the River I view it 

IMPOSSIBLE for the land to be properly marked and fenced to insure that those operating in the region can clearly distinguish

BLM property from private ownership. There have been issues in the past with law enforcement along the River and those issues 

have been resolved when the Compact was put into place. It seems that the BLM coming in will only revive those problems and 

bring new fuel to the fire.

When land is designated "Public", it holds to certain inherent values or truths. I realize there are issues on both sides of the fence 

as to detrimental affects by allowing the public access but I believe as the title given to this land says, it is "Public Land" and 

therefore I believe the "Public"are entitled to its rights and privileges as those who are in care of it at the present time. Fences are 

designed for a specific purpose. If a landowner actually owns the land he/she fences it off. I believe this to be an easy way to 

achieve balance on both sides. If it is "Public land", it should be fenced off. Boundary markers would also be helpful.

It is recommended that public access to the BLM land east of highway 79 be closed. There is no management by BLM to protect 

damage to the land by unlimited use of ATM vehicles. This creates hazards to the public due to accidents which have occurred 

and required air evacuation. There are no signs to differentiate between BLM land and private land. This promotes trespassing on 

the private land.

Concern 2- Identify and post the boundary, and develop a map. The most immediate concern for on the ground management is to 

survey and post the boundary. This is needed so a map can be developed that shows public users where they are allowed. Posting 

will aid in conveying the message that the southern part of the Red River floodplain is public land and that the Bureau of Land 

Management will be starting active management.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-32 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-10

Fences and Trespassing

Mention was made that a single ranger could manage the site from horseback. I doubt that would be possible, though a start. The 

160 miles would require several rangers to patrol. Most trail development could be done with volunteers after a master plan was 

developed. There would be a cost to development. Often gravel is needed to support boggy terrain. Bridges are rarely used but 

sometimes necessary. Camping sites though often primitive do require all weather roads and toilet facilities. Often potable water 

is required. The history of the area would require survey and documentation, and likely fencing to avoid trespass to private 

property.

Remember as a parent or guardian you should only allow you children to handle what they handle responsibly. Some people say 

"Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves". totally WRONG. You should use a chain and give only one link at a 

time. and if they do not handle the next link responsibly then take it back. You are the guardian and the public is your child "Do 

the right thing". Our lives are full of rules, and everyday we have rules broken by the public. Citations, fines, penalties are the 

punishment. You have the option here. And the evidence is clear from the Byers TX Land. The public does not exercise 

responsible behavior with what they already have.

Sometimes when you catch someone at the fence. They say I just want to get to the river and ride to Byres Tx. Now it’s roughly 

25-40 miles from here by river. They don’t care if they cross your property to access the river. And I explain to them that I do not 

even go out on the river from my property. The reason is that if I was to make a trail down my river bank for one, It leads to 

eroision and as a land owner I can not afford to loose any more land to the river. 2) If I make a trail on my river bank, People who 

ride the river say "Hey there’s a trail lets follow it. They don’t ever stop and think, Is this wrong? Is this someones land? Could I 

get in trouble? Nope crosses their mind. I know this to be true cuz when they access my property from the river it becomes a 

problem. Sometimes I put fencing up, sometimes I pile dirt up. But whatever I do it has to be done. If not like cancer it grows.

Can you imagine not being able to access the alleyway behind your home, For the worry of if I go out here someone else will 

come back in.

That nite after the meeting in Wichita Falls, I watched the newstory on the meeting. I told my wife afterwards it won’t be long till 

the idiots who watched the news start coming. And low and behold around 2:00 PM the next day my wife had an encounter with 

6 young men in their 20’s. She caught them at the fence with 6 - 4 wheelers and fence cutting pliers about to cut our fence. When 

she confronted them they told her. "We saw it on the news the river is public land and we are going riding. She explained "Do

you see those No Tresspassing signs? This is private property That when the argument started 4 of the young men got angry and 

cussed my wife explicitly. F___ You Why don’t you quite being a bitch lady and so forth. They told her she did have a right to 

keep them out. Once she started dialing the police the 2 other guys convinced them it was time to leave. But my wife said she 

was afraid and fearful for the way things were going she was definietly outnumbered. Would you want your spouse or children to 

be in her shoes in your own yard that you have a deed for?

Another day I came across a married couple digging up trees to take home to plant in thier yard. I called the police and they asked 

them Did they know They had Tresspassed and was stealing. They answered yes to Tresspassing but No to stealing cuz the river 

bottom was Public. I agreed to resititution charges of 125.00 for the damaged trees and not to prosecute, for the fact that I did not 

feel they could afford 2 tresspassing fines. Now why should a landowner have to bend to help someone who knowingly 

Tresspassed. The fact is we have to police our land along the river and we have to use good and wise judgement. Remain calm 

and clearheaded in all situations. We have to deal with people along this river who do not have any regard for us as landowners.

Every day we face a new challenge with these people. And the majority of these people don’t have any respect for the river and 

the land around it.

As I made a pass a young man with a back pack and a rifle and a dog came out. I stopped and asked what he was doing in those 

trees. (The ones where I had just shot a coyote) He told me "It was none of my buisness." I explained he was tresspassing He told 

me "No he wasn’t" I questioned him more and found out he was hiking along the river and Hunting and had spent the nite in 

those same trees. I asked if he heard my shots? He said "yes" I asked if he was worried I might had shot him He said "nope".

Still I had problem. Numbers of times at the bridge people would be shooting the bridge colums or shooting bottles with no 

regard where their bullets went. And when you hear a bang and then your hear beside you or above you a buzzing (tumbling 

bullet in air) sound your life is in danger. When I would confront everyone of these people they all said the same thing "Go to 

Hell old man you don’t own this land it’s all public." and when I would ask "Did you see the signs?" Answer: Yeah so what f__k 

__u. I have been threatened so many times over my land. Countless time I have had to seek cover for me, my wife, children, and 

grandchildren. After another couple hundred idiots I finally started prosecuting anybody and everybody.

But like always people don’t respect landowners. When I moved to this property 8 yrs ago Vandalism, Poachers, Crystal Meth 

cookers, Trash dumpers and tresspassers were a daily problem I faced.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-33

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-10

Fences and Trespassing

Al ot of people I confronted were armed either a gun, knife, or a machete. I was armed also with a pistol, camera, cellphone. This 

is a shame that a landowner should have to dress like his life depends on it. In the beginning I just ran people off. (The first 200-

300 peple) Then in time I started having the police come out and ban the people from the property. If they are banned and caught 

for a second time they would go to jail for trespassing.

TX and OK have done an excellent job preventing poaching and trespassing.

Cadastral Survey in Wilbaqev, Wichita and Clay Counties. I completely oppose the proposed survey.

What recourse do land-owners have when the public trespasses? What about damages? Can we have a guarentee that there will 

be none of the above? What rights do we have? Can we call you and will you come right then to help when problems arise?

We already have people that trespass on our land. They leave gates open letting our stock out, leave their trash, even camp and 

COOK in OUR pastures (regardless of the burn ban), etc. If landowners could control who and what the public did, it might be 

different..but I doubt we will have any voice or recourse and there certainly is not enough security or wardens to enforce any Use 

Rules. In fact, if we needed the Sheriff, it would take them 25 minutes to get here. And we've never seen a warden.

Reasons for opposition to opening the Red River to the public. Currently as it is I don’t have to worry about fences being cut as 

before by poachers

Reasons for opposition to opening the Red River to the public. Currently as it is the crime rate has dropped off ie; DUI’s, 

assaults, trespassing and stolen vehicles. Currently as it is now land owners along the Red River don’t have to worry about 

poaching and taking of wildlife resources without land owners consent.

They make campfires and shoot deer or cattle for their camp meat. YES, this has happened. The public also destroy our fences 

that are there to corral our cattle.

Several of my neighbors and myself had fences cut so trespassers could gain access to our land and destroy our property. We had 

cattle shot and homes were broken into. Our privacy was invaded as people came and went as they pleased. Most of the time 

these people were drunk and obnoxious.

Comment 11- River Surveys and Communitization Agreements. We request that BLM issue a policy regarding when a new river 

survey is needed and how those will be approved.

I would NOT like to see the land OPEN to THE PUBLIC. My family has ran cattle on that river bottom since the late 1800's. 

Poachers and rustlers have trespassed on this land ALWAYS and with the price of cattle and the low level of the river this 

activity has WORSENED. The OPENING of this land to the PUBLIC would be a nightmare to our cattle operation.

I also feel that it would IMPOSSIBLE to keep said PUBLIC OUT of MY ownership boundaries.

A land owner should have the right to control who goes in and out of there property that is fenced by them. No one person should 

enter the property without the permission of the land owners. Land under fence is for the use of the land owner only.

Invasion of privacy/property rights/safety concerns. Many of the land owners along the red river basin purchased that land and 

built their homestead for the scenic tranquility that area provides. Allowing public access to the river basin will only result in 

more trespassing, potential loss of livestock due to fence damage, and safety/security concerns for those who live in that fairly 

remote area including increasing land owners potential liabilities from trespassing individuals.

The Red River Area has seen a 99% increase in motorized vehicular travel since lands were acquired by BLM due in part to the 

high availability of off road vehicles, ease of access, and the lack of enforcement of current posting by BLM, Texas law 

enforcement, wildlife and sheriff, Okla. Law enforcement wildlife and sheriff. The motorized vehicles have led to and are 

causing the following. - Fences separating private property cut and livestock shot. - Lack of clearly defined boundaries

The BLM cannot establish any survey that will rightfully establish the federal and private property owners land rights due to the 

ever-changing flow of the river and other water ways. To try to establish a concrete boundary on a changing landscape is 

impossible and results in unreasonable expenses to governmental agencies.

Entrance Opposed - We oppose the entrance of private property by government agencies or individuals without permission or 

warrants, except for emergency responses.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-34 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-10

Fences and Trespassing

I also wonder if the BLM has well-documented maps of the lands in their holdings or will expensive surveys be required to 

determine the boundaries separating BLM lands from the private lands of ranchers in the Red River floodplain. Once demarcated 

who will fence and then maintain the fences of the property boundaries in these flood-prone lands? Will the BLM be trying to 

purchase additional access? I assume that will only be from willing sellers. Is there any likelihood that Congress will allocate 

funds for such purchases?

The BLM land that is in our area [along the Red River in Tillman County, OK] has little to no access without trespassing.

Under "Recreation Resources", "Public parking and trailheads for equestrian and foot access could be provided at each of the 3 

highway bridges which cross PD along the river. Acquisition of private land adjacent to PD could be pursued as needed to reduce 

user conflicts and enhance recreational opportunities." The problem with public access at highway bridges is that persons can 

veer from the PD property and onto private property claiming they are unaware of private property boundaries.

Where we have fenced, the fences get washed out or bikers and others cut the fences.

WHO has jurisdiction? We ask WHO is going to protect the landowner when the recreational "users" come to our homes 

demanding help or access to the river? Who pays for our cut fences or lost cattle when there is disrespect for any boundaries?

Anyone entering stream or river property without written permission from the landowner that borders that area will be considered 

as trespassing.

I feel that the land should be closed to the general public due to the fact that trespassing is alredy an issue on private land. By 

opening it up to the public will almost certainly increase tresspassing along with theft and the making of illegal drugs. By 

allowing the land to be opened it would ultimately put a burden on local agencies that are alredy under staffed and over budget to 

police these areas.

Under "Recreation Resources", "Public parking and trailheads for equestrian and foot access could be provided at each of the 3 

highway bridges which cross PD along the river. Acquisition of private land adjacent to PD could be pursued as needed to reduce 

user conflicts and enhance recreational opportunities." The problem with public access at highway bridges is that persons can

veer from the PD property and onto private property claiming they are unaware of private property boundaries.

First, concerning the BLM tract along the Red River, the boundary of that tract must be accurately determined, and clearly and 

delineated in such manner that there is no confusion on the part of any stakeholder as to what and where the boundary is. Once 

the boundary has been determined and has been marked or delineated in such a way that any user can know with certainty 

whether they are on BLM or private property, ODWC is willing, and desires to work with the BLM as a partner agency, to help 

determine feasible uses of that property.

We need less people squatting and making false claims on our property.

These are three families all from the State of Texas where by the documentation of boundary's is the south vegetation of the Red 

River. If this is true and you are developing issues in and on the border then the legal issues of boundaries should be foremost in 

your decision making.

In 1951 R.M. Wells Sr. purchased land on the Red River that was annotated as Texas land in 1891 Federal Land Grants. This 

land has been in our family all these years and the warranty deed stated the land was to the vegetation on the south side of the 

river the taxes were paid and the land was utilized by our family, until 2005 when my husband died and an unscrupulous 

Oklahoma attorney and his father-in-law we discovered claimed this land and the river as Oklahoma land with an Oklahoma 

warranty deed and sold 1700 plus acres of our land and two other neighbors with a quit claim deed. This has been happening up 

and down the river in Hardeman/Childress county's. This land dispute is in 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and has been in litigation 

for almost 10 years and has cost more than half a million dollars in court costs. I can provide any documentation attachments of 

our land, and now we face the federal government, when and where does this stop.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-35

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-11

Fish and Wildlife

Animals such as bobcats, deer and duck are presently being poached as more and more people hunt along the river out of season.

Working with private land owners to restore and preserve the red river would prevent further damage to sensitive species of fish 

and wildlife and restrore the Red River and its natural habitants.

open with limitations- The hunting and fishing is a major concern for the red river area. If the proposed area is opened to all 

public the sensitive species would be reduced drastically and the crucial unaltered wading ground for waterfowl and other 

migratory birds will be disturbed.

Working with private land owners to restore and preserve the red river would prevent further damage to sensitive species of fish 

and wildlife and restrore the Red River and its natural habitants.

Are there any endangered or threatened plant or animal species on the area?

6-4. All shotgun hunting should be restricted to federally approved nontoxic shot. Waterfowl and wading birds feed along the 

river and may ingest lead pellets.

I would like very much to obtain access to the Cross Bar area north of Amarillo that is managed by the BLM. 5. Wildlife -

management and restoration and protection

It has come to my attention that the Cross Bar north of Amarillo, TX belongs to the BLM. My wants and desires are listed below:

5. Wild life

This stretch of the Red River was abused by oilfield exploration in the past. Now with better regulations the land has recovered. 

And with more time this landscape can prosper. And also the wildlife can continue to multiply. Along my small stretch you can

find Raccoons, Opposum, White-Tail Deer, Feral Hogs, Fox, Coyote, Bobcats, Quail Migratory Birds such as Ducks of all kinds, 

Dove, Black Tipped Pelican, Sand Hill Cranes, Bald Eagles. I fish for Sand Bass, Catfish, stripers, needlenose gar, carp, Buffalo, 

Asian Carp, Crappie, Perch, Drum and more. Birds who live here round year Red Tail Hawks, Crows, Horned Owls, Barn Owls, 

Screech Owls, Falcon, and many more. When you go to the Byers Land you’re limited on numbers of these species. The land 

there is just flat out over used.

Wildlife pays the price also. Animals cross this river back and forth, for feeding, for bedding areas. Sometimes younger animals 

get separated by the 4 wheelers I’ve watched does and fawns be crossing or just getting water. When the riders come zooming up 

and spooks the deer. The does go south to Texas and the fawns goes north or vice versa. And if they stay visible the riders chase 

after them. The same for wild pigs except if the riders have guns they start shooting with no regard that a landowner my been in

the background.

Wildlife would be subject to HUNTERS. My land has never been hunted by me or ANY of our family. Our land is a safe 

santuary for ALL wildlife.

Reasons for opposition to opening the Red River to the public: 1. Environmental. Disturbing the natural peace of the wildlife

Quail were once plentiful on the Red River. There are a few left and land owners in this area are working to help them come 

back We feed deer, turkey and trap the hogs. Song birds come to these feeding stations. The public would destroy the good that 

has been accomplished.

As an MLD participant, I am concerned about managing the wildlife and the resources/habitat that supports a variety of species.

Comment 2 - Proposed, Threatened and Endangered Species. Due to the changes in policies regarding the species habitat, season 

of use and mitigation requirements, we request that any statements or requirements regarding T&E Species be flexible to account 

for the ongoing changes in policy and mitigation requirements. Strict season of use, as stated in the current policy, does not 

account for new science and new information that may come about after the Resource Management Plan is issued. Please avoid 

blanket stipulations for the entire county based on current survey protocols or data. We request a statement that operator must 

follow current USFWS protocol regarding listed species.

The Red River Area has seen a 99% increase in motorized vehicular travel since lands were acquired by BLM due in part to the 

high availability of off road vehicles, ease of access, and the lack of enforcement of current posting by BLM, Texas law 

enforcement, wildlife and sheriff, Okla. Law enforcement wildlife and sheriff. The motorized vehicles have led to and are 

causing the following. - Disruption of Amphibian and shore bird breeding grounds. Critical nesting habitat gets destroyed as 

vehicles travel the bars and shallow waters. The amount of overall wildlife has decreased in recent year all due to the access of 

motor vehicles to critical wildlife sensitive areas.

The Red River Area has seen a 99% increase in motorized vehicular travel since lands were acquired by BLM due in part to the 

high availability of off road vehicles, ease of access, and the lack of enforcement of current posting by BLM, Texas law 

enforcement, wildlife and sheriff, Okla. Law enforcement wildlife and sheriff. The motorized vehicles have led to and are 
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-36 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-11

Fish and Wildlife

causing the following. - Wildlife harassment and destruction, the number of southern bald eagles wintering along the red river 

has been decreased dramatically, a critical habitat to these birds has now been removed by all of the vehicular traffic. In years 

past before the eagles would arrive the sandhill crane would be found resting and feeding along the banks and bars of the red

river but no more.

The impact of visitors on the wilderness and wildlife should be given a high priority when decisions are made with regard to 

where public access is permitted. Our grandchildren and their children deserve to see this river as it exists, intact and unspoiled!

As part of the RMP and EIS process that BLM and BIA, respectively, will be conducting, (which also needs to involve the active 

participation of other federal agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Geological Survey), the OCCA would like to 

see that impacts to the following resources, and measures to mitigate or eliminate such impacts, be thoroughly evaluated: 5.

Illegal taking of endangered American Burying Beetles by combustion of H2S gas as well as from drilling pads, roads, power 

lines and pipelines.

It is our understanding the BLM is not currently conducting control measures for feral hogs in the Red River Valley. Feral hogs 

are flourishing in that area of the state. Feral hogs are harmful to pastures and cropland. They can only be managed through 

systematic control.

As part of the RMP and EIS process that BLM and BIA, respectively, will be conducting, (which also needs to involve the active 

participation of other federal agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Geological Survey), the OCCA would like to 

see that impacts to the following resources, and measures to mitigate or eliminate such impacts, be thoroughly evaluated: 4.

Impacts from all phases of oil and gas development and operations to game and non-game wildlife, migratory birds and 

threatened and endangered species of wildlife.

Wild game and animals are always our concerns. We don’t allow poaching on this land and if its opened up that will happen. 

Most land owners are the best conservationists and letting them maintain control is the only way it will work. Please don’t 

destroy our work.

Proposed Recommended changes include the following options: - Make Red River Management area into a wildlife protected 

area No motorized vehicles and limited hunting, remove the firearms from the land by making the area a Bow and Arrow only 

managed area allowing both Texas and Oklahoma to enforce.

The Red River Area has seen a 99% increase in motorized vehicular travel since lands were acquired by BLM due in part to the 

high availability of off road vehicles, ease of access, and the lack of enforcement of current posting by BLM, Texas law 

enforcement, wildlife and sheriff, Okla. Law enforcement wildlife and sheriff. The motorized vehicles have led to and are 

causing the following. - Fish kills have been occurring in the red river unexplainably for the last 3 years, scientists have yet to 

find an explanation. The vehicular travel tough the shallow waters of the red river is changing the ecosystem of the water by

adding contaminants and increasing the turbidity of the water aiding in the creation of toxic algae.

There is also potential for the reductions in water quantity to impact aquatic and riverine species and habitat by affecting water 

flows and natural river processes: this, in turn, could lead to fish declines, changes to riparian plant communities, and alternations 

to sediment.

I am concerned of the impact of opening the BLM lands to increased public access. I am most concerned about the impact on 

endangered species such as the piping plover. Increased hunting and four-wheeler activity can only negatively impact the longterm survival of this species.

Endangered Species - We are opposed to the use of government funds and eminent domain to acquire land believed to be the 

habitat of endangered species.

OIPA would like to confirm that BLM and BIA are working with our state wildlife agency, the Oklahoma Department of 

Wildlife Conservation, in their analysis and development of the Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment effort?

One item OIPA respectfully requests the joint agencies to consider is the approval or acceptance of any wildlife conservation

plan that receives approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Although certain plans may not contain an accompanying 

Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA), we would ask the joint agencies to support and embrace these plans and to use them 

to meet overarching species conservation goals across the region.

Guidelines and stipulations such as netting and covers that prevent access to produced water and other fluids from oil and gas 

production should also prevent bat access.

Bats are particularly prone to water loss, and are therefore especially dependent on surface water for drinking. Range water 

developments have become an important water source for bats, but bats, birds, and other wildlife can drown in livestock troughs 

if they fall in while drinking or attempting to bathe and an adequate escape structure is not installed. Because they drink while in 
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-37

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-11

Fish and Wildlife

flight, fencing, bracing, and other obstructions can make these water sources difficult to access for bats as well as swallows, 

swifts , and nighthawks. Wildlife escape structures (ramps) are inexpensive, easy to install, and long-lasting. All steep-sided 

livestock troughs and open-topped storage tanks on BLM-administered lands should have wildlife escape structures installed. 

Fencing and bracing can be configured to facilitate access while still meeting livestock management objectives. Information on 

increasing access and safety for bats and other wildlife at livestock water developments is available online at 

http://www.batcon.org/pdfs/water/bciwaterforwildlife.pdf

In addition, since the publication of the current RMP’s, there have been changes to the list of federal and state endangered,

threatened, and sensitive species or Species of Greater Conservation Need (SGCN), including bats. Of the 28 bat species known 

or expected to occur in Texas, 18 are considered SGCN, and one is federally listed. One of Kansas’ 14 bat species is listed as 

Endangered, and two are SGCN. Three of Oklahoma’s 20 bat species are listed as Endangered, two are proposed for listing, and 

six are SGCN.

Other essential habitats for bats in the KS, OK, TX, RMP planning area include cave and abandoned mine roosting habitat, 

riparian foraging habitat, and pooled surface water for drinking.

Since the current Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas RMP’s were published in 1991, 1994, and 1996, respectively, our knowledge of 

bat ecology and natural history- while still lagging behind that of game and more visible nongame species - has increased 

considerably. More importantly, the two greatest threats to bats at this time in the U.S. and Canada, White-nose Syndrome 

(WNS), and the expansion of wind power, were either non-existent (WNS), or insignificant (Wind Power) when the current plans 

were written.

The average cumulative wind power capacity in megawatts in 2001 was 4,137, and had increased to 60,007 in 2012, a 1,400% 

increase. All three of these states, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas have seen an expansion in wind power, with Texas leading the

nation. During that same time period, estimates of bat fatalities at wind farms across the U.S. and Canada range from 500,000 to 

1.6 million. While these fatalities have included at least 21 bat species, more than 78% of the mortalities are comprised by three 

species, hoary, red, and silver-haired bats, all three species occurring in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

WNS is a fatal disease caused by an invasive and introduced fungus found in caves and abandoned mines where bats hibernate, 

first detected in New York State in 2006. Since that time, the disease has spread, primarily by bats, but likely by humans as well, 

to 22 states and 5 Canadian Provinces, killing more than 5.7 million bats in the Midwest and eastern U.S. WNS is suspected from 

Oklahoma, and known from the adjacent states of Arkansas and Missouri. The states of Oklahoma and Kansas could potentially 

link infected eastern and Midwestern bat populations with currently uninfected populations to the west.

BCI strongly encourages the Oklahoma Field Office to consider the potential impacts to bats from wind power and WNS in the 

KS, OK, TX RMP revision process, both through Program Activities and energy lease operations and stipulation guidelines. 

Information on strategies for minimizing the impact of wind turbines on bat populations, including wind power siting guidelines 

and mitigation measures can be found at the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC) page, www.batsandwind.org. 

Comprehensive guidelines can also be found at http://nationalwind.org/wpcontent/uploads/assets/publications/Comprehensive_Guide_to_Studying_Wind_Energy_Wildlife_Interactions_2011_Updated.pd

f and in the USFWS’ Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines, http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/WEG_final.pdf

Information on the USFWS’ national protocols for slowing the spread of WNS, including guidelines for cave and abandoned 

mine management and decontamination procedures can be found at http://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/.

A second issue that we ask BLM to consider is the management of the Lesser Prairie-chicken (LEPC) on lands for which the 

BLM holds management authority. The LEPC is a candidate for listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(ESA), and is an indicator species for overall grassland health. Recently, members of the 5 states in which LEPC occurs (CO, KS, 

NM, OK, and TX), working with the Western Governors Association and other interested stakeholders, prepared a Range-wide 

Conservation Plan (RWP) for LEPC. The conservation strategy put forth in the RWP is designed to ensure that LEPC survive and 

thrive, and addresses a wide range of conservation issues and concerns pertinent to LEPC. We ask that BLM consider and include 

the RWP in the Resource Management Plan for Oklahoma, and that BLM, through the RMP, requires all developers whose 

activities have potential to impact LEPC and their habitat to abide by the avoidance, minimization and mitigation strategies 

identified in the RWP.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-38 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-12

Lands and Realty

One news report said the "Landowners along the Red River are upset over the fact that a federal agency could possibly make a 

portion of their land public domain." My question is: How is this to be "made" public domain? I take it that it is not currently 

'public domain' but possibly could be. How does that occur? In other words, from what level of BLM is this designation made? 

Or, has this been made already?

I feel that the land along Red River should be returned to private ownership. 1st choice should go to people who havea deed to 

the acreage. 2nd should go to adjacent land owners. 3rd if any is left it should be sold at auction.

The land should be returned to private ownership along Red River.

I own a Texas ranch in Wichita County; therefore I want the current policy of adjacent landowners controlling the river bottom 

land to stand as is, without additional policies or laws from the Federal Government.

I am concerned BLM and BIA keep public lands public.

Please find attached hereto a copy of our client’s survey which describes his land, part of which is below the bluffs, but well 

south of the vegetation line of the south bank. We believe it clearly shows that none of the surveyed land lies north of either the 

gradient line or the vegetation line and is thus not within any public domain area. [this comment came with a map attached 

which can be found under cfc0034_raaron_20140117]

Texas and Oklahoma agreed that the “survey method” to be used would be that no survey would be needed, since the constant 

vegetation line is readily identifiable, much more so than the gradient boundary line. The States also agreed that accretion or 

erosion may cause a change in the boundary between the states if it caused a change in the vegetation line, which is consistent 

with the Supreme Court decision. We believe the only property within the public domain would be limited to that area from the 

constant vegetation line along the South Bank of the Red River north to the Median Line of the River. The same area that is kept 

virtually bare of vegetation by the wash of the waters of the river from year to year. The same land as identified in the 1923 

Supreme Court decision as the river bed itself. Therefore, any land South of the vegetation line along the South Bank should not 

be included within any of the BLM’s planning area and any ownership of such land with vegetation would be determined by 

Texas law. We would also like to know if the Attorney General of the State of Texas has been notified of the BLM’s intentions, 

since any decision of the BLM would affect Texas land and Texas landowners.

Do not take the lands that belong to the ranchers and farmers that own land along both sides of the Red River that forms the 

boundary between Texas and Oklahoma.

Do not take the lands that belong to the ranchers and farmers that own land along both sides of the Red River that forms the 

boundary between Texas and Oklahoma.

This great nation was founded on a principle of private property ownership. Thus, it behooves the BLM to work tirelessly to 

return ALL lands possible to private ownership, with first prioirty being to those individuals who possess deeds or have 

contribued in some way to the property through improvements or taxes paid. Other properties should be placed at public auction 

and the ownership returned to private taxpaying citizens, including the Crossbar Ranch.

If the BLM persists in its quest to take over this land then I feel strongly that those individuals who most recently controlled the 

property should be given first priority for use through leasing.

Permanent solution to the BLM land would be to survey the land and offered for sale to the adjoining landowners. -> Permanent 

Solution<-

We as landowners have all invested our money, heart, and soul into what we have. This land of ours is our life. I know that the 

BLM does not understand our passion. The difference is this is your job. You do it and go home. We live here we work here, we 

sweat here. We freeze here, we laugh here and we cry here. This is our home. We also understand the river moves, and we accept 

that. Some of us understand this better than others. When some of us bought our property’s some of our deeded land was on the 

other side of river. Survey crews won’t cross the river. My parcel’s title (deed) originally had 100 more acres. I knew the prior 

land owners and had been on that 100 acres before but the river change course in time.

I bought this land in good faith with a deed from the state. I pay my taxes on my land. I respect and protect the wildlife here and 

only take what I eat. I am fortunate to have a Bald Eagle that comes in late winter to nest along the river. A symbol of freedom 

that reminds me how lucky I am. If you open this river this beautiful bird will move on. His or Her freedom will be in danger as 

well as mine and my family and my neighbors.

My 10 yr old grandson asked me how is this fair? Do you feel sort like the Indians. I responded I don’t think it’s fair son, and 

Yeah. I worked my whole life to have the opportunity to own land on the river.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-39

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-12

Lands and Realty

We as landowners are in fear that we could become the next Tommy Henderson of Texas. The name should ring a bell. Tommy 

used to own land where this Byers land is. He lost his legal battle to the BLM. But yet he did the right thing and paid his bank 

note for the land he bought. The land that the State of Texas gave him a deed for The land that the State of Texas gave him a deed 

for. The land he paid taxes on. And no his warranty deed did not cover this. I too have these same things, and I loose sleep 

everyday as I look out across my land. The unknowing, the uncertain. People ask me all the time. What’s going to happen? What 

are you gonna do? How do you handle this?

In closing I hope that I have helped you understand. What we as landowners along the Red River face day to day. I could not give 

you and account of every single incident that I have had. But stop and think. That what I have gave you. Is only in a 1 mile 

section of the Red River and since Sept 2006 when we moved here. There are nieghbors of mine in their 80’s who were born here

on the river (literally). They have had more situations than I have. Your decision about your study will affect numbers of familys 

from Texas and Oklahoma for years to come. It may also break some familys dreams.

Tommy Henderson deserves his rightful land back. I hope you will do whats best for all.

Reasons for opposition to opening the Red River to the public: Taking of this land will be an unlawful act.

Reasons for opposition to opening the Red River to the public: We hold deed to this land. This is a land grab by this office. This 

boundary has been agreed to by both states, Texas and Oklahoma. Agreed to by the BLM and ratified by Congress.

I am concerned about maintaining ownership and usage rights.

The fact that a government agency believes it knows best how to control and protect farm and ranch lands bordering a river does 

not mean that it has unfettered ability to usurp the property rights of lawful landowners along its course. An attempt to take those 

rights in direct violation of well established law should be deemed an intentional violation of the civil rights of those citizens 

affected and should generate potential individual civil liability for officials who attempt to unlawfully assert the power of their 

office to impose their will. You took an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and 

seem to be intentionally ignoring such precedent in order pursue a primarily political agenda and inflict injury upon innocent and 

peaceable citizens who own such properties. This appears to many of my clients just another part of the way on Texas by the 

Administration.

Red River - We are opposed to any state and federal government agency proposals for potential wildlife habitats, parks, 

"wetlands" preserves, hiking/biking recreational areas, wilderness designations, game preserves and Wild and Scenic River 

designation on the Red River. All land should remain in private ownership.

I also wonder if the BLM has well-documented maps of the lands in their holdings or will expensive surveys be required to 

determine the boundaries separating BLM lands from the private lands of ranchers in the Red River floodplain. Once demarcated

who will fence and then maintain the fences of the property boundaries in these flood-prone lands? Will the BLM be trying to 

purchase additional access? I assume that will only be from willing sellers. Is there any likelihood that Congress will allocate 

funds for such purchases?

Private Property Rights a Priority - We recommend that the Oklahoma Farm Bureau continue to make private property rights a 

priority issue. We further support a position that strongly encourages the Oklahoma Farm Bureau to consider the impact any 

legislation would have on the rights of the private property owner. Landowners in the vicinity of government-owned or operated 

properties should not be limited to uses of their own lands or be forced to adapt land uses or practices enforced on government 

properties.

I believe that land that is owned by private citizens should remain as such.

For the Federal Government to take away Deeded and Accredited acres from private property owners is to fear the government 

rather than revere it.

Withdrawal of lands: BLM must comply with the formal withdrawal requirements imposed by the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 ("FLPMA").

Preservation and Recreation - Farm Bureau should vigorously oppose any more land being confiscated for federal parks, heritage 

sites, wild and scenic rivers, species preservation or wildlife preserves. Landowners should be paid a premium market price for 

any land taken, over our protests, for these schemes. Landowners, whose land is not confiscated but regulated, should be paid for 

their compliance according to damage done to their operation. We oppose the use of eminent domain for the acquisition of lands 

for parks and recreation.

Land Acquisition by Government - We oppose any net increase in government ownership of real estate.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-40 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-12

Lands and Realty

No one cares more for the land than those who make a living off of it. To take away private property owners' rights and try to 

establish a plan on land the BLM is in actuality removed from is a contentious proposition. When people depend on land to make 

their living and want to pass that land down to their children and grandchildren so they, too, can remain in the agricultural 

industry, these people will take care of the land and do their best to be good stewards of it. It's not that the federal government 

does not want to take care of the land; it’s simply that the federal government is further removed from this area than the 

gentleman who has been on it as a 3rd generation farmer or rancher.

America is founded on some instrumental principles- private property rights being one of them. To take away these rights is to 

challenge and indeed, deny those rights set forth in the Constitution of the United States.

Private Use - We oppose the use of eminent domain for obtaining private property to be sold or given to another entity.

OKFB has concerns about the issues listed in the 1994 Oklahoma Resource Management Plan Record of Decision and Plan 

(Plan)1 and how they affect private property rights, government ownership or transfer of land, and trespassing. In the 1994 Plan’s 

Scenario 4c, "Lands" the Plan anticipates a land acquisition program might be initialized in order to gain ingress and egress in 

support of other BLM resource specific activities. Under "Wildlife", the Plan states a BLM wildlife program would recommend 

acquiring most of the north bank lands.

Proposed Recommended changes include the following options: - Option 1 deem the Red River Management Area 

unmanageable due lack of gov. resources and 1st offer land for sale to adjacent land owners at market value. Or place land for 

auction.

One issue the Notice asks for comments on is: "Which public lands should be identified for retention, proposed for withdrawal, 

disposal, or acquisition to facilitate more efficient land management?" OKFB’s position is that the estimated 45,000 to 90,000 

acres of public domain (PD) land along the Red River should be sold into private ownership. The land would be better managed 

by private owners who could potentially raise livestock and/or lease the land for recreational activity. Private landowners are 

most often the best stewards of property. The disposal of this property into private ownership would serve the national interest. 

The 45,000 to 90,000 acres along the Red River are difficult and uneconomical to manage as part of public lands. Further, the 

property is not suitable for management by another federal department or agency.

Transfer of Federal Lands - We are committed to disposition of federal lands into private ownership, including subsurface rights, 

at fair market value. We support the following guidelines: due regard must be given to traditional rights of use; dominant 

economic users should have right of first refusal; after a refusal, the land under permit, as well as nonpermitted federal lands, 

should be sold to the highest bidder, or disposed into private ownership by an alternate method.

The land owners have purchased the land and invested resources and time into this land - it should stay with the land owner.

Wetland Ownership - Wetlands under private ownership should retain all private property rights and we strongly oppose 

unauthorized access to privately owned wetlands.

These are three families all from the State of Texas where by the documentation of boundary's is the south vegetation of the Red 

River. If this is true and you are developing issues in and on the border then the legal issues of boundaries should be foremost in 

your decision making.

Table D-13

Minerals and Mining

Also, would like to know more about the exploration of minerals that would possibly be done on tribal allotted land.

Our water should be protected from coal cleaning chemical spills, like what has happened in West Virginia.

Mineral resource extraction should follow the least environmentally damaging practice possible, with any procedes to the public 

treasury. Coal extraction should not involve massive blowing of mountain tops.

We understand the RMP will take approximately 5 years to complete. We would still like to pursue acquiring rights to lease and 

mine at least some parts of the property described above with some sort of interim agreement. We also understand that halite is 

currently not allocated as a leasable mineral in the state of Kansas at this time and will not be allocated until the completion of 

this RMP.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-41

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-13

Minerals and Mining

BLM must also consider the impacts on human health and the environment of fugitive coal dust and diesel emissions from trains 

and trucks that are used to develop or transport fossil fuels from federal lands. The fugitive dust emission can contribute to 

visibility impairment and harmful airborne particulate in nearby communities, and also result in dust deposition along rail and 

truck transit corridors. BNSF Railways has estimated that coal rail cars can lose 500 pounds of coal just from each uncovered rail 

car during transit from mines to power plants or terminals. Coal dust causes a number of well-known respiratory diseases, 

including pneumoconiosis (commonly known as Black Lung Disease), bronchitis and emphysema, and transportation of coal is 

identified by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration as one of the methods for human exposure to coal dust. 

Airborne coal dust can also exacerbate asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and respirable coal dust is responsible 

for the deaths of as many as 700 miners and ex-miners in the United States each year. Although much of available information 

relates to health threats for underground coal miners, there may also be severe risks of exposures to lower levels of coal dust 

based on what is known about how coal dust impacts the human respiratory system. Coal dust in all size fractions also contains 

varying amounts of heavy metals, including lead, mercury, chromium and uranium. Fugitive emissions of coal dust from 

transportation can also cause increases in level s of fine particulate matter (PM10), which also presents significant threats to 

human health.

Table D-14

Public Health and Safety

The problem was that many of the people had no respect for the land owners near the river and the Federal property. There were 

many fires that got out of control that burned fences, pasture land and put livestock in danger and caused land owners many 

problems. We continually had people trespass on our property and had our fences cut. People hunted and fished on our property

with no regard for the law. Some of my neighbors had their cattle shot and their homes broken into. Drinking was always a big 

problem and the bottles and cans were everywhere.

Public access to BLM land on the river would endanger our land from fires and trespassers.

In order to manage this property on both sides of the river, BLM will need to have some type of presence on these lands 24/7.

Just opening these lands up to the public will result in a repeat of what is going on now on BLM lands off Hwy 79.

Fire control will be critical.

This land has been well preserved and watched after by the private land owners who border it in both Texas and Oklahoma. Do 

not allow it to be abused and desecrated as you have on the other identified BLM lands at Hwy 79.

My concerns are based on how BLM has managed the existing BLM acreage off Hwy 79 in Clay County. This area has been 

abused by off road vehicle traffic, junk and litter are everywhere, trees have been cut down, meth cook trash and hazardous waste 

dumped. In other words- not managed at all. This area is over hunted by unlimited access by the public and most of the deer 

killed now are fawns or young deer.

The use of firearms would be catastrophic.

Also with more activity there is much more chance of wildfire. With the inaccessibility of much of the river bottom a fire would 

be hard to control.

Please read the following comment made on TexomasHompage for Channel 3 in Wichita Falls: "Make it public. All the 

landowners have it blocked anyway. Would be a good place to ride 4 wheelers and dirt bikes. Free the river." This person doesn’t 

know about the quicksand and that is not completely true about the landowners blocking it. The statement sends shivers down our 

spines thinking of the consequences of unsupervised use of this area. WHO is going to pull out their RV’s when they get stuck? 

WHO is going to fight a fire on federal land?

There are reasons the Red River (particularly the 116 miles that you are studying) has NOT been a recreational river. 2. When it 

doesn’t rain, the river has stretches that go completely DRY. The current fire danger has kept us on edge. If a fire gets started 

next to the river, where would it stop? Landowners constantly watch to protect the area.

There are reasons the Red River (particularly the 116 miles that you are studying) has NOT been a recreational river. 3. 

QUICKSAND IS A PROBLEM! Horses and cattle have had to be pulled out or were lost. Recently, RV’s have been stuck.

Also the risk of illegal dumping and drug activity rises when these [illegible] are opened to the public.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-42 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-14

Public Health and Safety

If, however, the Bureau of Land Management ignores the prior Supreme Court decision and its prior determinations and persists

in, what we perceive to be the confiscation of Texas land, we would hope that the Bureau would classify this land as being 

partially open and therefore not available to the general public. To completely open the river bed to the public would result in 

numerous problems with adjoining land owners caused by trespass with ATV vehicles traversing not only public land but private 

land along the River, trash, poaching, hunting, fishing, fires, meth labs, and other criminal activity over which the Federal

Government would have little or no way to control due to limited access to the river.

Also due to the closeness of neighbors on either side of river if a third area is thrown into the mix with people hunting, you are 

asking and inviting for hunting accidents. The gov’t would be creating a very unsafe situation where no control of who comes 

and goes into the third area. There is no way to communicate with every hunter up and down the river every day as to where 

everyone is and likelihood of those people staying in a certain place is minimal at best.

Concern 4 - Develop a management agreement with the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC). The ODWC 

manages more than 65 WMAs (comprising more than 1.6 million acres), some as the lead managing agency and others as a 

cooperator. Their expertise/cooperation would be valuable on this area, might reduce cost to the BLM and would add a law 

enforcement presence to the area.

It is recommended that public access to the BLM land east of highway 79 be closed. There is no management by BLM to protect 

damage to the land by unlimited use of ATM vehicles. This creates hazards to the public due to accidents which have occurred 

and required air evacuation. There are no signs to differentiate between BLM land and private land. This promotes trespassing on 

the private land.

6-5. Prohibit discharge of firearms for purposes other than hunting. Discharge of firearms should be allowed only during open 

hunting seasons and only at legal game. A notice on the kiosk and in the brochure would make the public aware of when 

discharge of firearms is allowed. They could make their own decision as to whether or not to enter the area during those times. At 

other times of the year they would know that discharge of firearms is prohibited.

Due to the high fire danger, the land along the Red River should be open with restrictions that allow adjacent land owners grazing 

rights. This is currently being done with few instances of fire and low criminal activity.

Opening the Red River to the public would only increase the chance of fire and criminal activity, such as drug making, theft, and 

crimes against wildlife. Due to the ever changing terrain and deep sands patrolling and fire fighting are impossible by ground.

Still I had problem. Numbers of times at the bridge people would be shooting the bridge colums or shooting bottles with no 

regard where their bullets went. And when you hear a bang and then your hear beside you or above you a buzzing (tumbling 

bullet in air) sound your life is in danger. When I would confront everyone of these people they all said the same thing "Go to 

Hell old man you don’t own this land it’s all public." and when I would ask "Did you see the signs?" Answer: Yeah so what f__k 

__u.

I have been threatened so many times over my land. Countless time I have had to seek cover for me, my wife, children, and 

grandchildren. After another couple hundred idiots I finally started prosecuting anybody and everybody.

And then other times they come in the nite to retaliate. I have a campgroud area along the river. Picnic tables awnings, smokers, 

fire pit, our own Porte Johns, a very nice area. Sometime it my be chairs, sometimes picnic tables. But mysteriosly they find their 

way in to the river. Sometimes I find as many as 50 shell casing ranging from 22 caliber to 7 mm to 40 cal just depending.

When these riders are traveling the river they do have breakdowns and they have accidents. Most of the time there is no 

cellphone reception in the river bottom. So they leave the river and come onto someones land. Looking for help or reception. In 

doing so they can put themselves in danger. If a landowner is target practicing or teaching their children or grandchildren to shoot 

a gun or bow. They rider can easily walk into the line of fire. The landowner has no idea that someone needs help. And the rider 

is not walking and announceing their pressence. This is an accident waiting to happen. There a very few access points on the 

river. If medical help is needed most of time it is care flight that has to be called. Most UFD 1st responders do not have 4 

wheelers to respond.

If the BLM cannot police, control, or manage 6 miles [this 6 miles refers to Byers] how can you suggest to landowners this idea, 

this concept, this proposal or study.

One last topic at the meeting was about the BLM land at the Highway 79 Bridge near Byers TX. There are about 6 miles of river 

front land there. And there you can ride 4 wheelers, hung, camp, fish, hike, ride horses, birdwatch or just hang out in the 

outdoors. I too used to go there. And I quit going. Basically for most of the reasons I have talked about. Littering, respect, 

dangerous environment, disrespect to the land, and lack of law upheld. The thought of having access was nice. But the reality of 

what happens there, was not. Even with the access point there response time is as slow as slow can be. The only means for 

emergency rescue was careflight. I can’t count how many times I have witnessed or have heard of these instances.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-43

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-14

Public Health and Safety

One last topic at the meeting was about the BLM land at the Highway 79 Bridge near Byers TX. There are about 6 miles of river

front land there. And there you can ride 4 wheelers, hung, camp, fish, hike, ride horses, birdwatch or just hang out in the 

outdoors. I too used to go there. And I quit going. Basically for most of the reasons I have talked about. Littering, respect, 

dangerous environment, disrespect to the land, and lack of law upheld. The thought of having access was nice. But the reality of 

what happens there, was not. Even with the access point there response time is as slow as slow can be. The only means for 

emergency rescue was careflight. I can’t count how many times I have witnessed or have heard of these instances.

Another option was public hunting. This idea is the most obsurd of all. I have discussed just a few instances. Not every instance 

that I have encountered but just a few. The sky is the limit with this option. Alcohol, 4 wheelers, Guns, Tresspassing, Poaching, 

livestock mistaken identity, boundries, law enforcement, poor judgement, the list could go endless. This option is a recipe for 

disaster and maybe death to someone innocent of the fact. That a Federal Agency had a brain fart. Oh lets open 116 miles of river 

up to the public to exercise poor jedgement. And lets create more budget woes to a deficit. Because you (BLM) would have to 

police this area. And remember I was told at the meeting, about contacting us by mail. We don’t have the RESOUCES OR 

BUDGET.

Also silt boggs, some people call it quicksand. These are holes that are created during high water situations. The current hits 

something solid which could be a tree, gravel bed, vegetation block, or whatever. Thus diverting the flow into a concentration 

point. And it dig until current change or hits bottom. This hole can vary in size and depth. When the high water starts receeding 

sedement settles in. Creating a false look of solidness. As the wind blows the loose beachy type sand. It covers the slimey silt. If 

you get into this it is very difficult to get out. I’ve witnessed this countless times thru my 51 year of life. But some greenhorn that 

has never encountered this can find themselves and their horse in a tragic situation. Once again there are not access points 

available for such recues. And to remove a horse is virtually impossible.

Most of the people we encounter think that there a no boundries no laws that they have to obey. And most of the time they are 

drinking, and drinking to get drunk cuz its fun. They put ice chest on their 4 wheelers. Fill them to the top with beer and liqour. 

And then drive and operate a motorized vehicle with no regard to safety No Glove, No boots, No Helmet, No Orange Flag. On 

the water and hiways you are held accountable for this type of behavior. But not along this river. They apparently must not have 

ever been a Boy or Girl Scout because "Leave no Trace" means nothing to them. There are beer cans and Red Solo cups left 

behind all the time. Very seldom do you find a soda can or water bottle. On a weekend in the morning when I make my rounds on

the property. The morning east sun always lites up those aluminum stars along the river. We clean up as many as we can because 

this is Mother Nature and this is my backyard. It’s a shame.

People take wilderness to lightly there are dangers all along the river, from sinkholes to silt boggs, to swirling whirlpools, snakes, 

unforeseen things in the sand that flip up when drove over. I see 2-4 people at a time riding on a 4 wheeler. The most I ever seen 

was 6. All in shorts, tennis shoes, no shirt. People let children ride 4 wheelers most to young and unsupervised. I see parents with 

young children on their 4 wheelers with dad will be 2 or 3 kids and mom with 1 or 2, both parents will be drinking. This is a 

problem and a danger to these kids. Judgement, respect, accountability, and common sense seem to be lost when it comes to the

mentality of riders.

That nite after the meeting in Wichita Falls, I watched the newstory on the meeting. I told my wife afterwards it won’t be long till 

the idiots who watched the news start coming. And low and behold around 2:00 PM the next day my wife had an encounter with 

6 young men in their 20’s. She caught them at the fence with 6 - 4 wheelers and fence cutting pliers about to cut our fence. When 

she confronted them they told her. "We saw it on the news the river is public land and we are going riding. She explained "Do 

you see those No Tresspassing signs? This is private property That when the argument started 4 of the young men got angry and

cussed my wife explicitly. F___ You Why don’t you quite being a bitch lady and so forth. They told her she did have a right to 

keep them out. Once she started dialing the police the 2 other guys convinced them it was time to leave. But my wife said she

was afraid and fearful for the way things were going she was definietly outnumbered. Would you want your spouse or children to 

be in her shoes in your own yard that you have a deed for?

Some hikers and riders sometimes set cans or bottles along the river for target practice. They bullet travels thru the can or bottle 

on to water. Ricochets off to wear ever. This to has happened to my grandson and I several time. When you report this it involves 

game wardens, county sheriffs, city and state troopers. They usually set up near the bridge on I-44. This is a danger to everyone. 

The law enforcement for having to be on the side of the hiway. The people in cars because of slowing down to onlook. And the 

person who was shooting because when he comes into contact with the law he is carrying a weapon. Anything can happen, 

depending on the choices made. Not counting the financial resources. Then jurisdiction comes into play who will have the 

responsibility of prosecution or not. We as landowners know that at any time. There could be someone on that river. We practice 

safety and take precautions. We do not want anything to happen to anyone. We teach our children and grandchildren the do’s and 

don’ts of gun safety and public safety.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-44 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-14

Public Health and Safety

Some of these people ride in pack as many as 30-40 riders some on 4 wheels, some side by sides, some jeeps or other all terrain 

vehicles. Now when they ride they may ride single file or abreast 5-15 wide. The path of destruction is horrible. Not on when 

they are going by but they always come back by and sometimes back and forth. They cut donuts, they jump over humps. The Red 

River in this area is very delicate to erosion. Not counting the litter they leave behind.

Other forms of retaliation and just plan vandalism is fence, deer stand, feeders, my cabin. When you call a game warden most of 

the time he’ll ask Did you see it happen? And of course not We were asleep. Then you tell him "I followed the tracks of 4 

wheeler and side by sides back to the river. And he says well there’s not much I can do now, but if you see them doing don’t 

confront them call me immediatley. It will take on average 30- 2 hrs for them to show up. It just depends on their location, when 

they receive your call. By then it’s too late.

Numerous drug labs were discovered along the banks of the river and law enforcement could do little about it.

I live and have property about 2 miles east of Hwy. 183 along the river. 7-8 years ago people could gain access to the river from 

the bridge a few miles south of Davidson, OK. People had almost no respect for private property or for the BLM land. There 

were numerous fires started that burned many acres. Private property was burned, fences, buildings, grazing pastures, and fire 

fighters could do little.

Reasons for opposition to opening the Red River to the public: Currently as it is I don’t have to worry about fires being set by 

party goers

I would also be scared of more theft and the risk of fires if the public was allowed to use it.

I would also be scared of more theft and the risk of fires if the public was allowed to use it.

Reasons for opposition to opening the Red River to the public: Currently as it is I can freely drive through our pasture and not be 

shot by automatic weapons as before.

Reasons for opposition to opening the Red River to the public: 1. Environmental. Fires

Reasons for opposition to opening the Red River to the public: 1. Environmental. Burning tires for all night parties. Littering ie; 

(beer cans, bottles, etc.)

Campers could cause WILDFIRES which COULD NOT BE contained by volunteer fire depts in those DEEP BRUSHY river 

bottoms.

The public does not recognize danger. There is quicksand on the Red River! There is quicksand on our land. We have watched 

some calves disappear in the quicksand. We know where it is and how to avoid it. ATV driving everywhere to hunt hogs makes 

roads across our bottom land pastures, then others use their trails.

Fires on the Red River are especially hazardous for farmers/ranchers. Our barns, homes and cattle are at risk. Whether from

vehicle sparks or camp fires, all we have is risked. IF this happens, can we depend on the BLM pay for our losses?

The hunters could cause DEATH to my cattle, myself and family via a stray bullet.

People roaming the river, playing with ATV's, etc. believe it is their right to find a good place and build a fire. Signs do not deter 

them.

We own land on the Red River and because we are in the 5th year of an unprecedented drought, there is a huge danger for fire on 

the river (lots of dead trees and dried underbrush). Those of us who live and own land on the river understand the danger and how 

devastating a wild fire could be, so we take extraordinary precautions.. It has rained less than 2 inches here in the last six months, 

and there is also a shortage of water to fight fires. We have had problems with people visiting the river using fireworks, dumping 

trash and unwanted junk, shooting livestock, hunting at night, and drinking and hunting. For the above reasons, I wish there was 

limited access to the river bottom. I love and appreciate the Red River, it is still a wonderful, mysterious place, but I fear what 

others may do, especially with fire the fire danger.

I see no purpose in spending taxpayer money in these times to try to develop a public access area that will only increase the

danger of catastrophic fire, increase criminal behavior, and cause the loss of personal property for many individuals. Please do 

not that area to public access -maintain as limited access, or at worst no access.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-45

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-14

Public Health and Safety

In summary, The Red River Management area currently has no management. People by the hundreds flock to the river on warm 

days with atvs, guns, and trash they drive anywhere and everywhere. They shoot their guns at all times of day and night. There

are wild parties, fights, drugs, abandoned vehicles and overall lawlessness in this no mans land between the states. The wildlife is 

suffering, the land is hurting, local landowners are frustrated, this land needs to be managed by BLM the states or private 

landowners.

Having other people this close would be risky for us if they can hunt + fish and cook and what ever, we would feel threatened. 

Over the years our land has burned several times by some one elses mistakes so more and larger fires are possible.

We work with all the rural fire departments all over the area. We don’t need a bunch of people out camping, building fires, and 

smoking cigarettes. As if we haven’t had enough wildfires already.

Southern Oklahoma has been battling the war on illegal methamphetamine production for years- offering access to the remote 

areas of the red river basin only increases the opportunity for criminal behavior in areas with public access but little law 

enforcement.

Referring back to economic strain on the government mentioned in Item #1, there are numerous issues concerning the river that

may lead to costly litigation on behalf of the government when someone gets hurt on the proposed "Federal Land." Additionally, 

there will undoubtedly and rightfully be numerous court cases challenging the attempt of increasing Federal ownership of what is 

currently private property.

This land has belonged to my family for four generations. Plus, there are hundreds of acres of hunting land. If you send the 

general public in there, someone is liable to get seriously injured, or worse, because there are weapons (guns, bow and arrow, 

etc.) being discharged on a daily basis, which poses as a safety hazard for the general public.

Also, there are dangerous animals all across the land, such as mountain lions and wild bulls.

The Red River Area has seen a 99% increase in motorized vehicular travel since lands were acquired by BLM due in part to the 

high availability of off road vehicles, ease of access, and the lack of enforcement of current posting by BLM, Texas law 

enforcement, wildlife and sheriff, Okla. Law enforcement wildlife and sheriff. The motorized vehicles have led to and are 

causing the following. - Trash and pollutants entering the river by abandon vehicles left in the river, and trash piled and burned 

and left behind.

All in all, the land that is trying to be made public is dangerous to the general public who venture in and out of there.

Not to mention, there are dangerous animals running loose, out there. Such as mountain lions and wild hogs.

WHO is going to pull out their RV’s when they get stuck? WHO is going to fight a fire on federal land?

Access should be restricted by both time and location to areas that can be reached by "First Responders" in a reasonable amount 

of time (30 minutes or less). I have personally rescued numerous individuals on foot, boat and motor vehicle. I have witnessed 

how difficult it is for first responders to locate and access individuals that have been seriously injured on the river.

At this time, there are several wild animals running loose on this land, such as mountain lions and wild hogs. There is also 

hunting going on year-round, meaning it is a very dangerous place for the general public to be, not only because there are highpowered rifles being discharged every day, but they run the risk of being mauled by one of these dangerous animals running 

loose.

Also, this land has been leased for oil, although no drilling has been started. But, when it does, it will be a dangerous place to be, 

especially for little kids, when these huge oil drilling rigs are out.

When it doesn’t rain, the river has stretches that go completely DRY. The current fire danger has kept us on edge. If a fire gets 

started next to the river, where would it stop? Landowners constantly watch to protect the area.

QUICKSAND IS A PROBLEM! Horses and cattle have had to be pulled out or were lost. Recently, RV’s have been stuck.

Unless there is robust and prompt access to visitors by first responder's public access should be restricted to specific areas at 

specific times to areas where accidents, emergencies, and extractions can be made within a reasonable time and with efficient 

cost to surrounding communities.

This has been hunting land for at least four generations. And with it being hunting land, you have the danger of discharged 

weapons. Which is a safety hazard to the general public, who just venture in and out of the area.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-46 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-15

Recreation and Other Uses Along the Red River

I am in favor of allowing as much original natural habitat to exist as possible. Horse enthusiasts are far less invasive than oil rigs

or open pit mines, so I encourage and support any project related to allowing natural systems to function with as little human 

impact as possible.

I am in favor of allowing as much original natural habitat to exist as possible. Horse enthusiasts are far less invasive than oil rigs 

or open pit mines, so I encourage and support any project related to allowing natural systems to function with as little human 

impact as possible.

I am interested in the trails for riding my horses.

Most horse owners have thousands of dollars invested in their horses, trucks and trailers. We normally have friends who also ride 

horses and we are in groups of horse enthusiasts like me. I have friends who will travel from other states across the nation to ride 

on this new trail. Please decide to go ahead with this trail and allow us to ride and visit Texas and Oklahoma.

I believe an Equestrian Trail along the Red River would be supported by a large number of Equestrian in TX and OK.

I am a member of the Oklahoma Equestrian Trailriders Assoc. "OETRA". I would enthusiastically support an Equestrian Trail 

along the Red River.

Please consider an equestrian trail as part of the plans for this land.

As a horse and trailriding enthusiast, I am interested in an equestrian trail along the river.

Suggest equestrian trail NOT be shared with motorcycles and preferably not with bicyclists. Motorcycles that are off road scare 

the horses and tear up the trail. Bicyclists are less of a problem with horses. Very little landscape change is needed for equestrian 

trail as long as there is a path bordering river that has height clearance of 10' and no fallen timer over 2' tall on trail. Path should 

be at least 6' wide on firm soil (not in river bottom area). A gravel horse trailer parking area, 300' x 500' adjacent to trail and 

accessible from improved roadway would need to be developed. Proper signage would need to be installed explaining what uses 

are designated for the trail (ie equestrian).

Suggest equestrian trail along Red River in Oklahoma. Suggest contacting Oklahoma Equestrian Trail Riders Association, a 

501(c ) 4 not for profit formed in 1974 for promoting equestrian trails. Their website is: www.oetra.com and the president is Teri 

Wyatt, tnwalkinghorsegirl@yahoo.com (405) 250-5558. OETRA has a Trail Ambassador Program at Cedar lake, Robbers Cave, 

Hayburn Lake, Kaw Lake and Sportsman's Lake in which Ambassadors manage initial clean up and development of trails and 

ongoing maintenance of trails.

This equestrian trail could draw users from Oklahoma as well as Texas. In the future, an expanded parking area with primitive 

camping (perhaps a portable rest room, hitching rails, and a water spigot) would be an improvement that would allow overnight

users. Most horse owners who overnight camp have self-contained, living quarters trails and would use a primitive campground. 

Horses could be contained using electric pens brought by the owners or tied to the trailers. Manure collection could be 

accomplished by asking each owner to dump their manure in a 10’ x 15’ 3 walled blocked wall, concrete floored manure 

collection bin. The appropriate agency could routinely collect the manure and use it for composting purposes.

Finally, enough property owners along the river, on the Oklahoma side, convinced the Governor to shut down public access from 

the bridge. That is the way it stands today and we have had no more problems. I truly hope it stays this way and I hope y'all take 

this into consideration while making your decision.

I would love to see the trail along the Red River be approved for equestrian trails. I believe this would be a huge draw to 

Oklahoma from all over the USA.

For equestrian use. An increasing number of people drive their horses. Horse is in harness, pulling a 2 or 4 wheeled recreational cart. 

The trails need to be consistently 8-10 ft wide in order to accommodate the carts. There can’t be barriers at the entrance to the trails 

for access. Depending on the size of the horse, a 2 wheeled cart can weigh up to 250 lbs, and being asked to hand lead the horse thru 

a barrier of poles, and LIFT the cart over the barrier of poles is not a reality. I realize an objective might be to keep motorized traffic 

off the trail, so a solution to access for driven horses should be considered. In North TX area, there are 2 very large clubs for driving 

horses, and our membership numbers continue to grow.

The group of riders that are growing older but still want to be able to enjoy their horses, have very few places to take a horse and 

cart four wheeled wagon to have fun. In planning this trail , please keep in mind this growing group of horsemen that have very 

few places to go to and have fun. A two-wheeled cart weighs approx 250 lb and will be 60'' inches wide at the axle. A fourwheeled wagon weighs approx 800 lb and will be approx. 72'' wide. They cannot be lifted across a barrier.

We would like to have access to BLM land for use by adjacent land owners.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-47

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-15

Recreation and Other Uses Along the Red River

We understand "city people" want places to get out and commune with nature in various ways, but this should not come at the 

expense of land-owners who have paid for their land with years of hard labor.

We favor open status on BLM land with restrictions.

For myself I would like to be placed on the side of favoring open use of the BLM land with restrictions. The restriction would be 

that only adjacent land-owners could use or lease the land.

After inspecting the public area at the Hwy 79 river bridge, I was disgusted to see how public use is destroying the once pristine 

environment. Areas such as these reinforce my belief- that to better protect the environment, landowners should be the caretakers 

of the river bottom land. The current policy should be left alone!

As an avid horse trail rider I would recommend the BLM include in their plan free access to horse riders. The area with very little 

effort could service a growing population of recreation horse riders.

Having a 116 miles of continuous trail would attract riders from all the surrounding states that could take the opportuntiy to ride 

all or part of trails. Trails can be shared with hikers, but motorized vehicles (ATVs) and bicycles create hazards for horseriders as 

some horses will bolt, rear or run away when approached these vehicles.

The Red River bottomland areas are best suited to livestock grazing by private land owners who have adjacent property. This use 

would also be of the least cost to BLM. Private land owners would look after the BLM land since they would have a vested 

interest in keeping the land in good condition (vegetative condition and wildlife habitat). BLM could work with private ind. on 

stocking.

This land has been well preserved and watched after by the private land owners who border it in both Texas and Oklahoma. Do 

not allow it to be abused and desecrated as you have on the other identified BLM lands at Hwy 79.

This boundary must be able to withstand flooding from the river. Cleared ROW's will not work as this will cause erosional 

features if vegetation is removed.

My concerns are based on how BLM has managed the existing BLM acreage off Hwy 79 in Clay County. This area has been 

abused by off road vehicle traffic, junk and litter are everywhere, trees have been cut down, meth cook trash and hazardous waste 

dumped. In other words- not managed at all. This area is over hunted by unlimited access by the public and most of the deer 

killed now are fawns or young deer.

Development of the trail project along the Red River would be greatly enjoyed by the large number of horse enthusiasts who are 

looking for more opportunities with their horses and can give our younger generation the chance to appreciate our natural 

resources.

I have heard of the proposed equine trail system development possibilities near the OK/TX Red River area, and I am fully for this 

project to be implemented. I think it would be a fantastic project that would benefit not only each states tourism and employment, 

but be a benefit to equestrians such as myself for having access to interesting and enjoyable places to enjoy my horses, my 

friends and other visitors, and the scenery.

I have heard of the proposed equine trail system development possibilities near the OK/TX Red River area, and I am fully for this 

project to be implemented. I think it would be a fantastic project that would benefit not only each states tourism and employment, 

but be a benefit to equestrians such as myself for having access to interesting and enjoyable places to enjoy my horses, my 

friends and other visitors, and the scenery.

I would be very interested in seeing the BLM develop trails along the Red River as another avenue to enjoy time on my horse. I 

believe this would also be beneficial to the economies along the river and would give local residents incentive to vacation locally 

and bring in others to enjoy the river corridor and the wildlife which resides there.

I would love to see the Red River Trails Corridor happen. Whenever horse trails have been added to an area it helps the areas

economy. This would also be a beautiful area for trails and all of the horse people always appreciate any new trails we can get. 

Our group will also come from Arkansas to ride them and will be planning to ride different sections at different times.

It does not lend itself to heavy use. It is highly erodible and the native vegetation is necessary to its stability.

Motorized vehicles, even as small as ATV's destroy the surface and in some cases cannot successfully navigate the terrains.

I recommend that the camp at TADRA (LBJ Grasslands, Decatur, TX) be looked at for a model for a horse camping area. The 

trails there (75 miles) are well maintained by the Texan Arabian Distance Riders Assoc.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-48 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-15

Recreation and Other Uses Along the Red River

There are reasons the Red River (particularly the 116 miles that you are studying) has NOT been a recreational river. 1. This is a 

HIGHLY ERODABLE area. Very Sandy. Subject to flooding (when it does rain). Since the Red River is an "old river", it 

meanders, thus the difficulty and argument over the location of boundaries.

The Red River is really already "open", but there should be restrictions to avoid the DAMAGING ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT that could occur.

For many years, there was a trail for the Boy Scouts along the river bottom that went on for several miles. The landowners were 

cooperative for that kind of activity.

The land along the river in Wichita County, Texas over which the BLM would have jurisdiction is primarily sand bars and water 

with no vegetation. It seems a waist to spend any federal funds for such a venture.

I believe that the BLM land along the Red River should be left as limited use. If it is opened to the public it would cause all kinds 

of problems. In the area we live and own land the riverbed is extremely fragile and more ATV or four wheeler traffic will cause it 

to erode faster.

It is also hard for game wardens to patrol such a narrow, limited access area. There would be much illegal hunting activity in 

such an area.

Also due to the closeness of neighbors on either side of river if a third area is thrown into the mix with people hunting, you are 

asking and inviting for hunting accidents. The gov’t would be creating a very unsafe situation where no control of who comes 

and goes into the third area. There is no way to communicate with every hunter up and down the river every day as to where 

everyone is and likelihood of those people staying in a certain place is minimal at best.

open with limitations- The hunting and fishing is a major concern for the red river area. If the proposed area is opened to all 

public the sensitive species would be reduced drastically and the crucial unaltered wading ground for waterfowl and other 

migratory birds will be disturbed.

The use of dogs, ATVs and air boats are on the rise and causing problems due to accesibility and no enforcement.

I am in favor of open with limitations. To adjacent land owners and surrounding communities the effects of mining the minerals 

from the red river would be devastating. The fracking fluids and its toxins would not only hurt fish and wildlife but the family’s 

with water wells for livestock and themselves. Gravel mining if any would affect the flow of the river causing an unnatural 

course.

I am an Equestrian trail rider. I am very interested in the possibility of using the federal lands that run along the Red River as 

equestrian trails.

I strongly support this idea, would be a great asset to the equestrian community as well as helping to preserve the beauty along 

the river and I believe it would benefit any communities along the trails.

Also, public access should definitely be limited only to those that are adjacent property owners or those that might rent such 

property.

As far as any offenses committed from the public that use these lands, strict penalties should be enforced, and rewards offered to 

those helping maintain integrity. You will always have those that want to do wrong but do not exclude those that do right because 

of someone else wrong doing.

Separation of motorized (ATV) activities would both be a safety measure and protect erodible lands, as both foot traffic and 

horse traffic are much less likely to damage fragile ecology.

Separation of motorized (ATV) activities would both be a safety measure and protect erodible lands, as both foot traffic and 

horse traffic are much less likely to damage fragile ecology.

A well thought out plan for the Red River Corridor is essential, and I hope to be able to ride there someday. It could be a 

wonderful asset to the trail system in this area.

Using Kanopolis State Park (located in Central Kansas) as an example, hikers, bird watching, bikers and horses all share a multi 

use trail system. (There is a separate area reserved for ATV use) For horses, a separate campground designated for horse camping 

offers corrals, hitching posts, and manure disposal bunkers. Users are required to clean up manure and place it in designated

bunkers. Centrally located, riders can choose several trails to follow, and the trails intersect and return to campground.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-49

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-15

Recreation and Other Uses Along the Red River

Having attended the BLM meeting at Salina, KS, I am excited about the recreational potential for the Red River Corridor, as it 

presents many possibilities for multi-use trails and camping opportunities. While I am primarily interested in equestrian trails and 

camping, there are many other activities that blend well with horses and horse camping/trails.

As many user groups (activities) as possible should be allowed. However, protection of the resources must be the overriding 

concern, so some activities might need to be prohibited or limited in use (in terms of dates and/or areas of use).

6-1. Allow public access 24 hours-a-day, 365 days-a-year. Because the area is 116 miles long, with only four potential access 

points, users need to be allowed on the area around-the-clock to explore its entire length.

6-5. Prohibit discharge of firearms for purposes other than hunting. Discharge of firearms should be allowed only during open 

hunting seasons and only at legal game. A notice on the kiosk and in the brochure would make the public aware of when 

discharge of firearms is allowed. They could make their own decision as to whether or not to enter the area during those times. At 

other times of the year they would know that discharge of firearms is prohibited.

Concern 1 - All public land must be managed, and with few exceptions, open for specific public uses. Although not commonly 

thought of, even wilderness areas and military installations (which might prohibit public access) are managed by posting of 

boundaries, identifying management activities (prescribed burning, timber harvesting, road maintenance etc.) and developing 

regulations for prohibited and allowable uses.

6-2. Allow hiking, birding, and nature study. All these activities have essentially no impact on the environment (other than 

possible littering). Although developed trails and maps of those trails are desirable they are not mandatory.

6-3. Allow all legal hunting and trapping. On the entrance kiosk, and in the brochure, have a statement that says hunting is 

allowed during open hunting seasons, and access is allowed by anyone. This allows non-hunters to make their own decisions as 

to whether or not to enter the area during hunting seasons.

6-3. Allow all legal hunting and trapping. On the entrance kiosk, and in the brochure, have a statement that says hunting is 

allowed during open hunting seasons, and access is allowed by anyone. This allows non-hunters to make their own decisions as 

to whether or not to enter the area during hunting seasons.

6-9. Prohibit all structures. Only portable type deer stands, that do not require the use of any fastening device that has the 

potential of damaging a tree, should be allowed. Use of the area must be on a first-come-first-serve basis; permanent structures 

could give a sense of ownership to the person who constructed the stand.

6-8. Require that all pets must be kept on a leash, not longer than six feet.

Concern 6- Identify allowable and prohibited activities. Develop a brochure that includes a list of allowable and prohibited 

activities, and a map, and post on the BLM website and on the four entrance kiosks. The introductory section of the brochure

should explain how the land was obtained and for what purpose.

6-7. Allow primitive tent camping at any location but only for a maximum of 14 days. Some users might want to hike from one 

access point to another and that could easily take more than one day.

I am a horse rider and camper. I have ridden on private property along the Red River. It would be great if we could use these

public land areas for riding and camping.

6-6. Allow all legal fishing. A special use permit should be required for commercial activities.

BLM land could only be effectively used by only landowners because of the configuration of the BLM land. This would only 

apply to landowners that have possibly been using the land with assumed Texas deeds.

It is recommended that public access to the BLM land east of highway 79 be closed. There is no management by BLM to protect 

damage to the land by unlimited use of ATM vehicles. This creates hazards to the public due to accidents which have occurred 

and required air evacuation. There are no signs to differentiate between BLM land and private land. This promotes trespassing on 

the private land.

I with the land on the Red River between Texas and Oklahoma be considered for access by trail riding equestriennes for 

recreational purposes.

I would like very much to obtain access to the Cross Bar area north of Amarillo that is managed by the BLM. 1. Access to the 

public - ASAP

It has come to my attention that the Cross Bar north of Amarillo, TX belongs to the BLM. My wants and desires are listed below:

1. Access to the public- ASAP
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-50 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-15

Recreation and Other Uses Along the Red River

It has come to my attention that the Cross Bar north of Amarillo, TX belongs to the BLM. My wants and desires are listed below:

2. Horse back trails

It has come to my attention that the Cross Bar north of Amarillo, TX belongs to the BLM. My wants and desires are listed below:

4. Hiking

It has come to my attention that the Cross Bar north of Amarillo, TX belongs to the BLM. My wants and desires are listed below:

6. Restoration to short grass prairies

It has come to my attention that the Cross Bar north of Amarillo, TX belongs to the BLM. My wants and desires are listed below:

7. Camping

I would like very much to obtain access to the Cross Bar area north of Amarillo that is managed by the BLM. If I and others of 

like mind were allowed in a group to view the area we would be better able to enlist doners to help the BLM develop a plan that 

would benefit citizens and also preserve the land and habitat.

I would like very much to obtain access to the Cross Bar area north of Amarillo that is managed by the BLM. 2. Horseback trails 

and available water - working wells

I would like very much to obtain access to the Cross Bar area north of Amarillo that is managed by the BLM. 3. Photographyviewing stands or areas

I would like very much to obtain access to the Cross Bar area north of Amarillo that is managed by the BLM. 4. Hiking trails to 

allow maximum views of the area.

I would like very much to obtain access to the Cross Bar area north of Amarillo that is managed by the BLM. 6. Restoration of 

the short grass prairie - eliminate noxious weeds and plants/trees

I would like very much to obtain access to the Cross Bar area north of Amarillo that is managed by the BLM. 7. Campingmarked areas perhaps with outdoor toilets and water

The people of Amarillo and surrounding areas are in dire need of public lands and access to enjoy the solitude and beauty of open 

country and quiet spaces. Please give us access ASAP.

Would love to see land opened up for equine trails and horse camping.

I am a member of the equestrian community. I would like for you to remember those who trailride and camp with their horses, 

especially as you develop a Land Management Plan for Red River. Any lands that you can open up for horse people would be 

appreciated.

An area like the Red River proposal will draw horsemen from several states. This is verified by such sites as Kanopolis Lake in 

Kansas; Custer State Park in South Dakota; Fort Robinson reserve in Nebraska, and the National Scenic Riverways in Missouri; 

and the Katie Abandon Railway in Missouri. The precedent is set and verifiable.

If the recreational development of the Red River were in the Resource Management Plan and funding was generated, horsemen 

from several state would frequent. However, please do not use terminology of "Limited to Existing Routes," as this definition is 

often ill-defined and maintains the unsustainable status.

Below is some information that I gleaned from a 2010 survey which may serve useful: - There are 9.2 million horses in the US. -

4.6 million Americans are directly involved in the horse industry with and additional tens of millon as spectators. - 2 Million 

people actually own horses - The industry has an annual impact of over $120 Billion on the US economy. - The industry pays in 

excess of $1.9 billion in taxes. - 34% of horse owners have an annual income less than $50,000 with 46% having nicome $50,000 

to $75,000. - 70% of horse owners live in communities 50,000 or less. - Horse riding activities across the nation, 1999-2003, 

involved 9.6% of the total population over age 16 - Hiking, Biking, and Horse involved some 88.3% of the population over age 

16. - Canoeing and Kayaking involved 13.3% of the population over age 16.

Mention was made that a single ranger could manage the site from horseback. I doubt that would be possible, though a start. The 

160 miles would require several rangers to patrol. Most trail development could be done with volunteers after a master plan was 

developed. There would be a cost to development. Often gravel is needed to support boggy terrain. Bridges are rarely used but 

sometimes necessary. Camping sites though often primitive do require all weather roads and toilet facilities. Often potable water 

is required. The history of the area would require survey and documentation, and likely fencing to avoid trespass to private 

property.

BLM land would be used best in a grazing lease at it is used now.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-51

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-15

Recreation and Other Uses Along the Red River

Please consider horseback riding as an importance use of the BLM/Red River land.

I am very interested in the strip of BLM land along the Red River and if at all suitable would really like to see all or part of it in 

equestriane trails. I know there are many equestrians in Oklahoma & Texas that would be estatic to have another place to ride

Equestrian Trail Riding. There is a strip of BLM land along the Red River which is being considered for future use. We, as 

equestriennes, would like for the land to be used for trail riding.

I prefer the land to be available for use by horses/burros.

I understand there is BLM land along the Red River that they planning out ideas for this area. I along with all the Texas 

equestrians, and I know a lot, would like to see this developed for equestrain use. This would include trails throughout that area. 

We are losing areas to ride at an astounding rate, in Texas and want to see this land set aside for horse trails.

In your resource management plan please include equestrian activities such as trail riding, camping with horses and facilities to 

provide horse water. There are a number of trail riders who would appreciate shared access to this area that specifically includes 

horses.

I would pay to ride horseback out there. Thanks for considering it.

Due to the high fire danger, the land along the Red River should be open with restrictions that allow adjacent land owners grazing 

rights. This is currently being done with few instances of fire and low criminal activity.

Opening the Red River to the public would only increase the chance of fire and criminal activity, such as drug making, theft, and 

crimes against wildlife. Due to the ever changing terrain and deep sands patrolling and fire fighting are impossible by ground.

Remember as a parent or guardian you should only allow you children to handle what they handle responsibly. Some people say 

"Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves". totally WRONG. You should use a chain and give only one link at a 

time. and if they do not handle the next link responsibly then take it back. You are the guardian and the public is your child "Do 

the right thing". Our lives are full of rules, and everyday we have rules broken by the public. Citations, fines, penalties are the 

punishment. You have the option here. And the evidence is clear from the Byers TX Land. The public does not exercise 

responsible behavior with what they already have.

I have always wanted the river to be off limits to 4 wheelers. I see the destruction and eroision they create. I don’t even want 

landowners to access the river bed with (unreadable) to ride on your own land is your own business, but the river is too delicate.

I carry my camera or camcorder most of the time. And if I can catch the perp. littering on camera I do, but this has lead to 

retaliation. Once they realize they are being photographed, hostility comes out. Most of the time they flip me off and run away on 

their 4 wheeler. And if getting away means heading north into the brush they have no regard for new trees that have sprouted up 

or a erosion area that needs time to heal.

Again I say to you I would to see (unreadable) in the river bed, no public hunting, access only to landowners. Boat would be the 

only way to travel and Boaters remain with their boat. Of course this option is only fisible when we have adequate water. Closed 

but with Restrictions No Public Access. And for the Byers, TX hand. You should close that Area off completely. Maybe foot 

travel only. You owe that to Mother Nature not me.

I would like to see the proposed land deal along the Red River. Be closed off with limitations.

We should all do our part to preserve our natural resources. As a scout leader visiting some of our parks and public recreation 

areas is sometimes dishearting. Even closely managed the impact is hard. When you google an area you can see so much more of

the footprint the public leave. When you visit it in person you can see up close the impact and unfortunately some of the litter and 

abuse.

Sometimes when you catch someone at the fence. They say I just want to get to the river and ride to Byres Tx. Now it’s roughly 

25-40 miles from here by river. They don’t care if they cross your property to access the river. And I explain to them that I do not 

even go out on the river from my property. The reason is that if I was to make a trail down my river bank for one, It leads to 

eroision and as a land owner I can not afford to loose any more land to the river. 2) If I make a trail on my river bank, People who 

ride the river say "Hey there’s a trail lets follow it. They don’t ever stop and think, Is this wrong? Is this someones land? Could I 

get in trouble? Nope crosses their mind. I know this to be true cuz when they access my property from the river it becomes a 

problem. Sometimes I put fencing up, sometimes I pile dirt up. But whatever I do it has to be done. If not like cancer it grows.

Can you imagine not being able to access the alleyway behind your home, For the worry of if I go out here someone else will 

come back in.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-52 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-15

Recreation and Other Uses Along the Red River

Some of these people ride in pack as many as 30-40 riders some on 4 wheels, some side by sides, some jeeps or other all terrain 

vehicles. Now when they ride they may ride single file or abreast 5-15 wide. The path of destruction is horrible. Not on when 

they are going by but they always come back by and sometimes back and forth. They cut donuts, they jump over humps. The Red 

River in this area is very delicate to erosion. Not counting the litter they leave behind.

At the meeting in Wichita Falls, TX. Different avenues of what the BLM had in mind were discussed. The possibility of Horse 

trails were discussed. There are numbers of issues here also, moles and gophers are very prevelant here. Their holes and tunnels 

are dangerous to livestock. When one of these critters starts a tunnel he will tunnel 5-100 yds long, zig zagging, back and forth 

for whatever reason. Creating a void up to 18” deep. Most landowners don’t ride horses in the river for this very reason.

Some people who hunt hogs along the river use mules. And they will tell you also they are always cautions of these hazards 

[commenter is referring to quicksand]. Most use 4 wheelers, but then again theres the impact on the environment of a fragile 

landscape of sand. A sandy soil that has very little clay to hold it together. The wind alone can cause eroision here, and it takes a 

long time to recover back.

Another option discussed was possible grazeing. The landowners here along the river understand there are challenges and 

dangers with this option. Most who graze use hot wires versus barb wire. For the reason of vandalism and high water. The cost to 

repair or replace barbed wire is just to much. When high water comes, it chews trees and vegetation out by the roots. These things 

just rip fences down. They act like a wrecking ball on steroids. The further back from the rivers highwater path is when barbed 

wire is used. The other thing is when the water starts rising, if you haven’t already moved your livestock it will be to late. Your 

animals can be cut off from dry ground. This is where experience comes in to the play. We ranchers and farmers have learned to 

respect and be thankful of how the river works. From Childress TX to Teral OK. We have learned how rainfall from upstream 

affects the timetable of response. Someone who lives in lets just say Kansas leases grazeing rights. How do they understand this? 

By looseing their herd. I have helped neighbors retrieve calves who got separated. With a small flat bottom or small aluminum uhull boat. This is not an easy task. When weather upstream starts building, we start planning and prepareing. We move our 

livestock back to high ground. Now where would leasee’s move their livestock? The idea of leaseing grazing rights would be 

wreckless - careless of the BLM. Most of us have suffered from this situation of high water or vandalism before. No one else 

should have to.

Steve from Tulsa OK with the BLM and his crew toured this area at Byres. And the feedback he gave us at the meeting, reflected 

the feelings and the sentiment of us landowners. In one visit he could see the impact on the land and environment. When I spoke 

with Steve after the meeting one on one. He expressed his concerns, and it was a mutual agreement that the Byers thing was not 

working. And the eroision of all the traffic is not good to Mother Nature. Nor the littering, and hunting. The Texas Game 

Wardens expressed their concerns also to Steve and with us also. What Steve took away from his visit was of GREAT 

MAGNITUDE. But yet only a particle of sand of what all landowners face on a daily basis 365-24-7 year after year X 116 mile x 

Both sides = 332 miles

What kind of rules will you have? What kind of uses? Who will enforce the rules?

If the public doesn't have skin in the game or every day responsibilities toward its care, most have no respect for the land or for 

us. Yes there are some that do, but for the most part, they will use and sometimes abuse the land and our property rights too..and 

then walk away.

Grazing guidelines may have to be established along with management of introduction of undesired plant species (weed free 

hay).

Equestrians would like to preserve the Red River Corridor for future equestrian use. This north Texas area could become a 

national equestrian destination with proper management, and have a positive impact on the area especially when you consider 

that the LBJ Grasslands and Caprock Canyon State Park are with 3 hours driving distance as well.

Although trail riders enjoy sharing the trails, consideration must be given if these are determined to be "multi" use trails. Trail 

riders have safety concerns when trail are open to bikes and off-road vehicles. Hikers and horses seem to compatible, but not 

horses and bicyclers and ATVs are safety concerns. Separate trails need to be considered for these different populations of users.

Guidelines for disposal of manure need to be formulated. Training on "leave no trace" would be advised. Fire rings at the sites 

help prevent possible forest fires. Equestrian campsites could be modeled after TADRA at the LBJ Grasslands which is a popular 

equestrain destination.

Trail riders, with proper training and education, try to be good managers of the land since they enjoy the outdoors with an equine 

partner. The scoping study should consider cutting "loop" trails with access at various trail heads along the linear stretch of land 

since in many areas t is a mile wide. Loop trails allow trail riders to establish a campsite at the trail head and ride multiple trails 

without moving rigs. Loop trails also provide a positive environment impact since users are using the same trail all the time 

which decreases erosion. Multiple trail heads would also allow for linear trail rides in which rigs are moved daily to the next trail 
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-53

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-15

Recreation and Other Uses Along the Red River

head. Trail heads need to have a minimum of water for animals and at least a dug latrine for rider use. "Pull through" campsites 

allow for ease of parking big rigs. Tie poles or pens for horses prevent damage to trees, which is an environmental concern.

As trail riders, we would like consideration given to day use, overnight camping, and establishment of adequate miles of 

equestrian trails. Most avid trail riders ride 10-20 miles per day and enjoy riding different trails each day, rather than 

backtracking. Trails do not have to be precisely manicured, horse are expected to step over logs and up and down ravines, with 

reason.

CTETA, as well as many other equestrian trail associations in Texas, are very supportive of this land being used for equestrian 

trials.

Equestrian and equine safety issues need to be addressed. The trailheads will need easy access by emergency vehicles along with 

any bridges that may need to be installed. According to the AHC survey, 70% of the equine participant population is female and 

this should be considered in the scoping project. Each trailhead campsite should have handicapped accessible mounting blocks. 

Any unsafe areas (quick sand, rock formations, bogs, etc.) need to be identified and labeled, as well as emergency plan for exiting 

in the area during flooding. Adequate trail marking signage is needed. Regulations regarding safe entry/non-entry into the Red 

River would need to be established.

Reasons for opposition to opening the Red River to the public: 1. Environmental. Oil and gas spills from 4 wheelers.

Reasons for opposition to opening the Red River to the public: 1. Environmental. Driving over plants. Cutting down trees for 

firewood.

Reasons for opposition to opening the Red River to the public: 1. Environmental. Pollution of the water

Reasons for opposition to opening the Red River to the public: 1. Environmental. Erosion of the volatile soil by 4 wheelers

I am concerned about maintaining control of recreation use- I have been a MLD participant with TXP and WL for over 5 years.

I live and have property about 2 miles east of Hwy. 183 along the river. 7-8 years ago people could gain access to the river from 

the bridge a few miles south of Davidson, OK. People had almost no respect for private property or for the BLM land. There 

were numerous fires started that burned many acres. Private property was burned, fences, buildings, grazing pastures, and fire 

fighters could do little.

I’m not really sure which Category I fall into. I am a land owner on the river and we do graze cattle and grow forage crops on 

some of the acreage. I know nothing about this public domain proposal. I have been told that there are three choices to commend 

and/or vote on. I would be in favor of the landowner being able to control who comes onto or thru my acreage.

I believe there are opportunities to develop a trail or network of trails for use by equestrian users and for multiple uses/users in 

the BLM Red River Corridor comprising a 116 mile stretching from the 98th Meridian to the north fork of the Red River. There 

is real potential for active management for wildlife, hunting, fishing, recreation and other uses by the citation of the United 

States.

I am concerned about maintaining grazing and mineral rights as well as managing and protecting soil/water/air/visual resources.

Land owners already deal with these things. Inviting the public in is asking for the troubles to escalate. Please do not open the 

Red River to the public.

Please close the Red River to the public.

I would hope you would consider keeping the land open with limitations. I would hope adjacent land owners could have the first 

option to lease the property from the BLM.

It disturbs me EVERYtime that I cross the Red River bridge on 79 north, west of Waurika, to see the 

DESTRUCTION/EROSION caused by ATVs and motorcycle. I am usually LOADED with cattle that I am taking to or from the 

Waurika Livestock Market. When loaded and traveling at the legal speed limit, I have OFTEN had to unexpectedly BRAKE to 

avoid collision with UNDERAGED or OFTEN INEBRATED adults crossing the highway on a SPEEDING recreational vehicle. 

HUNDREDS of people and vehicles line the sides of this bridge area. I have often felt thankful that THAT MESS wasn't allowed 

further down the river to my family's operation.

I would NOT like to see the land OPEN to THE PUBLIC. My family has ran cattle on that river bottom since the late 1800's. 

Poachers and rustlers have trespassed on this land ALWAYS and with the price of cattle and the low level of the river this 

activity has WORSENED. The OPENING of this land to the PUBLIC would be a nightmare to our cattle operation.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-54 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-15

Recreation and Other Uses Along the Red River

The Red River Area has seen a 99% increase in motorized vehicular travel since lands were acquired by BLM due in part to the 

high availability of off road vehicles, ease of access, and the lack of enforcement of current posting by BLM, Texas law 

enforcement, wildlife and sheriff, Okla. Law enforcement wildlife and sheriff. The motorized vehicles have led to and are 

causing the following. - Unauthorized camping, people are sometimes staying for weeks at a time having to be removed by local 

sheriff depts.

In summary, The Red River Management area currently has no management. People by the hundreds flock to the river on warm 

days with atvs, guns, and trash they drive anywhere and everywhere. They shoot their guns at all times of day and night. There 

are wild parties, fights, drugs, abandoned vehicles and overall lawlessness in this no mans land between the states. The wildlife is 

suffering, the land is hurting, local landowners are frustrated, this land needs to be managed by BLM the states or private 

landowners.

The Red River Area has seen a 99% increase in motorized vehicular travel since lands were acquired by BLM due in part to the 

high availability of off road vehicles, ease of access, and the lack of enforcement of current posting by BLM, Texas law 

enforcement, wildlife and sheriff, Okla. Law enforcement wildlife and sheriff. The motorized vehicles have led to and are 

causing the following. - Erosion of riparian areas which are critical in preserving soil in the river banks causing great damage to 

the land in times of floods. Also allowing more silt to break loose and flow into the river impacting water quality and causing 

issues downstream.

There are several equestrian trail associations in Texas that are willing and able to develop and maintain trails and camping areas 

in this BLM area. These groups have proven there ability to provide labor and funds for these types of projects. The trails are 

used for hiking as well as equestrian. The Federal land in the Red River corridor is well suited for these types of recreation.

It would be wonderful to have areas to be used as recreation. In particular horse back riding and personal hiking. The facilities 

would need to include the option to camp and have the option to put up portable fencing to store horses overnight. One would 

need access to water.

Having traveled to multiple states with school groups visiting various BLM locations it would be a great spot to take and educate 

middle school and high school students.

The recent drought/unpredictable precipitation in North Central Texas and Southern Oklahoma has increased the fire danger to 

levels that have never been witnessed in my or my parents lifetime. Historically, public access has been proven to increase the 

danger of wildfire in a given area. Under the right conditions, an accidental wildfire could destroy immense amounts of wildlife, 

grassland, livestock and potentially human lives. I urge the BLM to maintain the red river basin as limited access, to allow 

farmers/ranchers to still be able to drive cattle using the river basin.

I would suggest leasing the land to adjacent land owners for grazing or preservation of wildlife.

Further, under "Recreation Resources" the Plan states "Studies of public land segments of the Red River would be conducted to

determine suitability for designation as a Wild and Scenic River."

Red River - We are opposed to any state and federal government agency proposals for potential wildlife habitats, parks, 

"wetlands" preserves, hiking/biking recreational areas, wilderness designations, game preserves and Wild and Scenic River 

designation on the Red River. All land should remain in private ownership.

Preservation and Recreation - Farm Bureau should vigorously oppose any more land being confiscated for federal parks, heritage 

sites, wild and scenic rivers, species preservation or wildlife preserves. Landowners should be paid a premium market price for 

any land taken, over our protests, for these schemes. Landowners, whose land is not confiscated but regulated, should be paid for 

their compliance according to damage done to their operation. We oppose the use of eminent domain for the acquisition of lands 

for parks and recreation.

We support: - managing wild horse and burro populations in compliance with agency resource management plans and 

maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance on the range for all multiple uses; - utilizing any humane method of removing 

excess wild horses and burros from the range including, but not limited to, the use of helicopters, bait and traps and lethal control; 

and - Wild horses and burros that have been held in government captivity for more than six months and are deemed unsuitable for 

adoption be humanely euthanized. We oppose: - Any new or expanded wild horse and burro territories being established on 

public land or imposed on private land.

We own land on the Red River and because we are in the 5th year of an unprecedented drought, there is a huge danger for fire on 

the river (lots of dead trees and dried underbrush). Those of us who live and own land on the river understand the danger and how 

devastating a wild fire could be, so we take extraordinary precautions.. It has rained less than 2 inches here in the last six months, 

and there is also a shortage of water to fight fires. We have had problems with people visiting the river using fireworks, dumping 

trash and unwanted junk, shooting livestock, hunting at night, and drinking and hunting. For the above reasons, I wish there was 
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-55

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-15

Recreation and Other Uses Along the Red River

limited access to the river bottom. I love and appreciate the Red River, it is still a wonderful, mysterious place, but I fear what 

others may do, especially with fire the fire danger.

the BLM should not take any action that would expand the management or control of any land along the Texas-Oklahoma Border 

or any other area.

The Red River is really already "open", but there should be restrictions to avoid the DAMAGING ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT that could occur.

I see no purpose in spending taxpayer money in these times to try to develop a public access area that will only increase the 

danger of catastrophic fire, increase criminal behavior, and cause the loss of personal property for many individuals. Please do 

not that area to public access -maintain as limited access, or at worst no access.

Motor vehicle, OHV use should be prohibited or restricted to small areas. This will help preserve the habitat, environment, 

beauty and ecosystems that many species of birds, fish and mammals rely on. It will also reduce the need for emergency 

responder’s access and cost because vehicle use is the major cause of serious injury.

the clean up is a big problem it would be in the best interest of everyone to leave well enough ALONE.

Access to land on Red River will interfere with farming and ranching as well as being destructive to the land due to erosion.

We have so much going on on this land that opening it up for recreation and hunting, fishing, etc. would cause land damage, 

senseless slaughter of animals, including cattle. There would be trash and possibly theft. We have income from this land and 

can’t afford to lose it.

There are reasons that the Red River (particularly the 116 miles that you are studying) has NOT been a recreational river. 1) 

This is a HIGHLY ERODABLE area. Very Sandy - Subject to flooding (when it does rain) Since the Red River is an "old river", 

it meanders, thus the difficulty and argument over the location of boundaries.

We recommend maximizing the potential and availability for outdoor recreation, including, but not limited to hunting, fishing, 

wildlife viewing, off-road vehicle (ORV) use, and other forms of outdoor recreation.

Table D-16

Socioeconomics

In sum, the oil and gas industry has a considerable economic impact in these states. As the BLM drafts the 

Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP, Devon encourages the agency to avoid actions that could impair oil and gas development and 

could subsequently harm local economies.

Natural gas and oil production from the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas Resource Area will benefit the national, state, and local 

economies. Development of one oil or gas well can yield hundreds of thousands of dollars that are paid to governments and 

reinvested in the local community. Production of natural gas and oil provides revenue to county, state, and federal governments 

through royalties and taxes. Furthermore, development of the natural gas and oil resources will require increased employment,

and the Operators will make substantial economic investments in the local economies. In these difficult economic times, the 

BLM must make every effort to protect good paying local jobs, not restrict them.

Most horse owners have thousands of dollars invested in their horses, trucks and trailers. We normally have friends who also ride 

horses and we are in groups of horse enthusiasts like me. I have friends who will travel from other states across the nation to ride 

on this new trail. Please decide to go ahead with this trail and allow us to ride and visit Texas and Oklahoma.

Another asset to this plan [the BLM plan to put in a 116 mile horse trail along the Red River] is the money that people just like 

me..retired and on a pension will be able to visit these areas and support small businesses to include feed stores, farriers for my 

horse, groceries, fuel and hotels for overnight accomodations.

This could be big for Tourism. November through April a trail like this could bring the north country to ride. The Black Hills in 

SD have a trail that draws people all summer. California has the Tevis trail. The possibilities are endless for a Red River Trail.

I believe equestrian trails along to Red River would benefit towns around the trails. Many people love to go camping with their 

horses, but there are not a lot of areas that can/will acomidate horses. Surrounding towns will receive added revenue from fuel 

and grocery purchases alone.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-56 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-16

Socioeconomics

Hunting leases are a big part of our income base and it would be severly threatened if lessees feel their rights to exclusive use of 

the acreage could not be guaranteed.

I have heard of the proposed equine trail system development possibilities near the OK/TX Red River area, and I am fully for this 

project to be implemented. I think it would be a fantastic project that would benefit not only each states tourism and employment, 

but be a benefit to equestrians such as myself for having access to interesting and enjoyable places to enjoy my horses, my 

friends and other visitors, and the scenery.

I would be very interested in seeing the BLM develop trails along the Red River as another avenue to enjoy time on my horse. I 

believe this would also be beneficial to the economies along the river and would give local residents incentive to vacation locally 

and bring in others to enjoy the river corridor and the wildlife which resides there.

I would love to see the Red River Trails Corridor happen. Whenever horse trails have been added to an area it helps the areas 

economy. This would also be a beautiful area for trails and all of the horse people always appreciate any new trails we can get. 

Our group will also come from Arkansas to ride them and will be planning to ride different sections at different times.

Adjoining landowners would hopefully realize such a project would increase their land values, bring tourist dollars into their 

areas, and give opportunity to build a private camp business on their own property.

It was brought to my attention that the BLM, partnered with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is conducting a EIS on multiple areas 

of the oil and gas industry. I ask that you keep the following concepts in mind as you prepare and execute your mission: 1.

Consider the amount of jobs the oil and gas industry supports and the improvement of the economy as a result of the industry

Mineral management should be the prime directive of the BLM. Restriction to these valuable resources is a disservice to the 

American people who are provided a better way of life through their development. With today’s drilling technology of horizontal 

drilling and hydraulic fracturing, more oil and gas can be produced with minimal impact to the surface estate. The Oil and Gas 

Industry has displayed, from Alaska to Louisiana, that it is a responsible and capable industry. It has brought industry and wealth 

to those areas where it is allowed to operate and can enhance the prosperity of all people if allowed to develop State and Federal 

lands.

Social/Economic- not sure of what land the BLM is wanting to control. The deeded land owner will loose economic value if this 

land is controlled by BLM.

I am concerned of negative impact on the value of my property.

Our Farm alone has been under deed over 100 years. Not only would we lose our source of income and livelihood for our family,

but many other land owners on each side of the Red River will be affected by this administration's Land Grab!

Reasons for opposition to opening the Red River to the public: This farm land has been in our family for over 100 years. This is 

our only form of income.

Trail riders buy fuel, food, camping supplies, horse equipment, vet services, vehicle repair, etc. each time we travel. This can 

have a significant impact on the local economy. Given the positive economic impact of equestrian pleasure/trail riding, 

consideration of the land management is needed.

- U.S. has 9.5 million horses (2006 Global Horse Population report) and Texas ranks 1st with 978,822 and Oklahoma ranks 4th 

with 326,134 horses; - The horse industry has a direct impact of $39 billion on US economy and overall impact of $102 billion 

with indirect and induced spending; - Horse industry supports 1.4 million jobs

The oil and natural gas industry is the cornerstone of Oklahoma’s economy and is an important component of the U.S. energy 

industry. Oklahoma is the third largest producer of natural gas in the U.S. and remains a significant producer of crude oil. As 

recently confirmed by a May 2012 study commissioned by the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board (OERB) and prepared by 

Oklahoma City University, the industry generates significant jobs, income growth, and state revenue. Between 2009 and 2011, 

the industry added an estimated 12,000 jobs to the marketplace. By 2011, labor income in the industry grew to levels close to 

their pre-recession peak, bringing the statewide average annual income in the industry to more than $113,000. Income growth 

was particularly strong in field-related positions, such as drilling, and the average income from drilling jobs grew to about 

$65,000 per job. The study estimates that industry activity in 2011 generated $52 billion, or one third, of gross state product as 

well as $28 billion, or one fifth, of personal income in Oklahoma, In addition to direct economic impacts, the sector drives 

important spillover activity in manufacturing and business services. In the long run, the industry is expected to support 344,503 

jobs (one out of every six in Oklahoma) and generate more than $61 billion in output. This economic "boom" experienced 

throughout the state based on the growth and ingenuity of our industry is further evidenced by a recent report released earlier this 

month, entitled: Economic Assessment of Oil and Gas Tax Policy in Oklahoma. This report confirms that Oklahoma is home to 

the second largest concentration of oil and gas industry activity in the nation. Other than Texas, Oklahoma has the highest 
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

May 2014 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS D-57

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-16

Socioeconomics

number of oil and gas wage and salary workers and proprietors and highest total earnings from the industry. In short, the oil and 

gas industry is a major driver of the state’s economic success, and the industry’s ability to continue conducting its operations is 

critical to the state’s well-being, regardless of federal, tribal, or fee mineral development.

The development of non-renewable fossil fuels, or oil and gas exploration and production, can clearly be demonstrated as an 

economically beneficial industry for the state and its residents, in addition to the federal government from a royalty and national 

security standpoint.

Federal lands offered for lease have decreased since 2008. Moreover, approved permits to drill on Federal lands have decreased 

as well. The BLM should recognize the importance of developing domestic energy in an environmentally responsible manner and 

the benefit to the nation, including jobs for American citizens and revenues paid to the Federal Treasury by the energy industry.

The BLM’s socioeconomic analysis for the Oklahoma/Kansas/Texas RMP must be reasonable and justified. The BLM must take 

into account how limiting oil and gas production will reduce federal, state, and local revenue.

With respect to approved oil and gas units, the IBLA has noted that "when a federal unit has been approved and the unitized area 

is producing, rights-of-way are generally not required for production facilities and access roads within the units." Southern Utah 

Wilderness Society, et. al., 127 IBLA 331, 372 (1993). The BLM must recognize the lessee’s right to use the lands included 

within its leasehold or units in order to develop oil and gas resources. Obviously, if lessees are not allowed access to their leased 

parcels, or are prohibited from installing pipelines necessary to transport the produced resource, they are deprived of the 

economic benefit of the lease. In such situations, the lessee, the public, the states, and the federal government will be deprived of 

economic benefit.

Further, the BLM should quantify the economic impact to a region caused by the restrictions placed on certain activities in 

special management areas such as timber harvesting, grazing and mining, and others.

One of the important aspects of this planning is accurately identifying the foreseeable development assessment and we 

encourage the BLM to seek input from the industry prior to trying to move forward with that key element of the assessment. An 

inadequate assessment could put thousands of jobs and economic development in the states at substantial risk.

I have several reasons, which I feel are valid, to recommend limited access or at worst, no access for the public to the red river 

basin. 1. Ranchers in the area they depend upon the land that they legally purchased to provide grassland for grazing cattle. Any 

potential damage to the land would adversely affect their livelihood.

Texas has a history of privately owned property, managed by stewards of the land. Texas farmers and ranchers are producers of

commodities that allow farms and ranches to be sustainable while providing for their families and supporting their communities. 

Texas and Texans believes this system to be working properly. When state and federal agencies take over private lands, local 

communities bear the burden for the loss of revenue generated by private lands. Texas Farm Bureau policy opposes the control 

and restrictions brought about on private property by government agencies. We are concerned that this proposal may negatively

affect private property owners in Texas.

As part of the RMP and EIS process that BLM and BIA, respectively, will be conducting, (which also needs to involve the active 

participation of other federal agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Geological Survey), the OCCA would like to 

see that impacts to the following resources, and measures to mitigate or eliminate such impacts, be thoroughly evaluated: As part 

of the RMP and EIS process that BLM and BIA, respectively, will be conducting, (which also needs to involve the active 

participation of other federal agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Geological Survey), the OCCA would like to 

see that impacts to the following resources, and measures to mitigate or eliminate such impacts, be thoroughly evaluated: 8.

Reduction in property values.

Any new restriction or stipulation should have an accompanying cost/benefit analysis in order to understand the economic 

impact it may have on the public.

To initiate, service, and oversee increased Federal Land will take more money and man-power than the BLM or any other federal 

entity has right now due to our current economic condition. Most constituents would be unhappy to know that while Farm Bill 

issues, Healthcare Reform, Unemployment Rates, and Inflation stand at the forefront of their concerns, those in elected offices 

are more concerned with re-drawing governmental boundaries of land already being taken care of by property owners who paid 

for and were given Insured Title Policies for their land.

When people are denied access and/or not guaranteed ownership of their land, they can no longer make projections on income 

from this land. This decreases their profitability and borrowing and repayment power. Agriculture and Rural Economies are what 

have kept our country going in the Recessions throughout our history.
D. Comments by Process Category and Planning Issue

D-58 Oklahoma Field Office Resource Management Plan Revision and EIS May 2014

Final Scoping Summary Report

Table D-16

Socioeconomics

It is imperative that the Federal Government understand the huge effect Agriculture has on the overall economy. There is nothing 

the government can do along this corridor, or any land that will result in more return to the economy than that already provided 

through working agricultural operations. Through the form of property taxes, income taxes, and the huge agricultural industry at 

large (fertilizer,seed,pharmaceutical, merchandising, lending, and chemical companies), agricultural operations provide a 

monumental amount of revenue to the local and national economies. While the number of citizens directly involved in agriculture 

may seem small, the number of citizens affected by the agricultural industry through the form of related jobs and the taxes locally 

and nationally received from the agricultural sector is quite massive.

It is imperative that the Federal Government understand the huge effect Agriculture has on the overall economy. There is nothing 

the government can do along this corridor, or any land that will result in more return to the economy than that already provided 

through working agricultural operations. Through the form of property taxes, income taxes, and the huge agricultural industry at 

large (fertilizer,seed,pharmaceutical, merchandising, lending, and chemical companies), agricultural operations provide a 

monumental amount of revenue to the local and national economies. While the number of citizens directly involved in agriculture 

may seem small, the number of citizens affected by the agricultural industry through the form of related jobs and the taxes locally 

and nationally received from the agricultural sector is quite massive.

No one cares more for the land than those who make a living off of it. To take away private property owners' rights and try to 

establish a plan on land the BLM is in actuality removed from is a contentious proposition. When people depend on land to make 

their living and want to pass that land down to their children and grandchildren so they, too, can remain in the agricultural 

industry, these people will take care of the land and do their best to be good stewards of it. It's not that the federal government 

does not want to take care of the land; it’s simply that the federal government is further removed from this area than the 

gentleman who has been on it as a 3rd generation farmer or rancher.

Please, take heed of all the public comments and recognize the detrimental effects increasing the federal ownership of land will 

have on the local and national economies as well as the detrimental effects it will have on local, public morale

Table D-17

Tribal Interests

On tribal lands, there is a lot of trespassing more prevelant during hunting season. Need to have more patrolling done by BIA 

Enforcement. I do know there is a limited budget, but this needs to be addressed.