Coal Diver Everything you wanted to know about coal, but were afraid to ask.

This is a text-only version of the document "Alabama and Mississippi - Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement - 2008". To see the original version of the document click here.

Mission Statement
It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

BLM/ES/PL-08/001+1610
Cover Photos: Top Left – Point Clear Island, Hancock County, Mississippi; Top Right – Hanging Moss at Big
Rock Island, Mitchell Lake Alabama; Middle Right – Fowl River Tract, Mobile County, Alabama; Bottom Left –
Fort Morgan Beach Tract, Baldwin County, Alabama; and Bottom Right – Oil rig on Federal lease.

United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Eastern States
Jackson Field Office
411 Briarwood Drive, Suite 404 Jackson, Mississippi 39206 http://www.es.blm.gov/AL_MS_RMP

In reply refer to: 1610 (020)

August 22, 2008 Dear Reader: Enclosed is the Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Eastern States, Jackson Field Office (JFO). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepared the Proposed RMP-FEIS in consultation with cooperating agencies, taking into account public comments received during this planning effort. The Proposed RMP provides a framework for the future management direction and appropriate use of BLM-administered lands and mineral resources located in the states of Alabama and Mississippi. The document contains land use planning decisions to guide the BLM’s management of public lands and mineral resources administered by the JFO. This Proposed RMP-FEIS have been developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The PRMP is largely based on Alternative 3, the preferred alternative in the Draft Resource Management Plan-Environmental Impact Statement (RMP-EIS), which was released on August 31, 2007. The Proposed RMP-FEIS contains the Proposed Plan, a summary of changes made between the Draft RMP-EIS and Proposed RMP-FEIS, predictable impacts of the Proposed Plan, a summary of the written and verbal comments received during the public review period for the Draft RMP-EIS, and responses to the comments. Pursuant to BLM’s planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2, any person who participated in the planning process for this PRMP and has an interest which is or may be adversely affected by the planning decisions may protest approval of the planning decisions within 30 days from date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. For further information on filing a protest, please see the accompanying protest regulations in the pages that follow (labeled as Attachment 1). The regulations specify the required elements of your protest. Take care to document all relevant facts. As much as possible, reference or cite the planning documents or available planning records (e.g., meeting minutes or summaries, correspondence, etc.). To aid in ensuring the completeness of your protest, a protest check list is attached to this letter (labeled as Attachment 2). E-mailed and faxed protests will not be accepted as valid protests unless the protesting party also provides the original letter by either regular or overnight mail postmarked by the close of the protest period. Under these conditions, the BLM will consider the e-mailed or faxed protest as an advance copy and will afford it full consideration. If you wish to provide the BLM with such advance notification, please direct faxed protests to the attention of Brenda Hudgens-Williams- BLM protest coordinator at 202-452-5112, and e-mailed protests to: Brenda_Hudgens-Williams@blm.gov. All protests, including the follow-up letter (if e-mailing or faxing) must be in writing and mailed to the following address:

Regular Mail: Director (210) Attention: Brenda Williams P.O. Box 66538 Washington, D.C. 20035

Overnight Mail: Director (210)
Attention: Brenda Williams
1620 L Street, N.W., Suite 1075 Washington, D.C. 20036

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, be advised that your entire protest – including your personal identifying information – may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your protest to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. The BLM Director will make every attempt to promptly render a decision on each protest. The decision will be in writing and will be sent to the protesting party by certified mail, return receipt requested. The decision of the BLM Director shall be the final decision of the Department of the Interior. Upon resolution of all land use plan protests, the BLM will issue an Approved RMP and Record of Decision (ROD). The Approved RMP and ROD will be mailed or made available electronically to all who participated in the planning process and will be available to all parties through the “Planning” page of the BLM national website (http://www.blm.gov/planning), or by mail upon request. Unlike land use planning decisions, implementation decisions are not subject to protest under the BLM planning regulations, but are subject to an administrative review process, through appeals to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) pursuant to 43 CFR, Part 4 Subpart E. Implementation decisions generally constitute the BLM’s final approval allowing on-the ground actions to proceed. Where implementation decisions are made as part of the land use planning process, they are still subject to the appeals process or other administrative review as prescribed by specific resource program regulations once the BLM resolves the protests to land use planning decisions and issues an Approved RMP and ROD. The Approved RMP and ROD will therefore identify the implementation decisions made in the plan that may be appealed to the Office of Hearing and Appeals.

Sincerely,

Juan Palma State Director Attachments (2)

Attachment 1 [Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 43, Volume 2]
[Revised as of October 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 43CFR1610.5-2]
[Page 20]
TITLE 43--PUBLIC LANDS: INTERIOR CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PART 1600--PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, BUDGETING--Table of Contents Subpart 1610--Resource Management Planning Sec. 1610.5-2 Protest procedures. (a) Any person who participated in the planning process and has an interest which is or may be adversely affected by the approval or amendment of a resource management plan may protest such approval or amendment. A protest may raise only those issues which were submitted for the record during the planning process. (1) The protest shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Director. The protest shall be filed within 30 days of the date the Environmental Protection Agency published the notice of receipt of the final environmental impact statement containing the plan or amendment in the Federal Register. For an amendment not requiring the preparation of an environmental impact statement, the protest shall be filed within 30 days of the publication of the notice of its effective date. (2) The protest shall contain: (i) The name, mailing address, telephone number and interest of the person filing the protest; (ii) A statement of the issue or issues being protested; (iii) A statement of the part or parts of the plan or amendment being protested; (iv) A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that were submitted during the planning process by the protesting party or an indication of the date the issue or issues were discussed for the record; and (v) A concise statement explaining why the State Director's decision is believed to be wrong. (3) The Director shall promptly render a decision on the protest. The decision shall be in writing and shall set forth the reasons for the decision. The decision shall be sent to the protesting party by certified mail, return receipt requested. (b) The decision of the Director shall be the final decision of the Department of the Interior.

This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment 2

Resource Management Plan Protest Critical Item Checklist
The following items must be included to constitute a valid protest whether using this optional format, or a narrative letter. (43 CFR 1610.5-2)
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, be advised that your entire protest--including your personal identifying information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your protest to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety.

Resource Management Plan (RMP) or Amendment (RMPA) being protested: Name: Address: Phone Number: (

)

Your interest in filing this protest (how will you be adversely affected by the approval or amendment of this plan?):

Issue or issues being protested:

Statement of the part or parts of the plan being protested: Chapter: Section: Page: (or) Map: Attach copies of all documents addressing the issue(s) that were submitted during the planning process by the protesting party, OR an indication of the date the issue(s) were discussed for the record. Date(s): A concise statement explaining why the State Director’s decisions is believed to be wrong:

This page intentionally left blank.

Alabama and Mississippi
Proposed Resource Management
Plan and Final Environmental
Impact Statement

for

Public Lands and Minerals Administered

by the

Bureau of Land Management
Eastern States
Jackson Field Office

Prepared by

United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Eastern States
Jackson Field Office
In cooperation with The State of Mississippi

August 2008

This page intentionally left blank.

August 2008

Abstract

ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI PROPOSED RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Type of Action: Administrative Jurisdiction: Portions of the States of Mississippi and Alabama Abstract: This Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) describes and analyzes a reasonable range of management alternatives for the public lands and minerals administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the States of Alabama and Mississippi. Within the two States combined, the BLM administers approximately 333 acres of public land surface and mineral estate and 704,850 acres of Federal minerals where the surface estate is in nonFederal ownership. The BLM also has responsibility for 126,570 acres of mineral estate where the surface is managed by other Federal agencies (excluding BLM and U.S. Forest Service [USFS]). For the purposes of this document, RMP mineral leasing decisions will apply to “BLM-administered, non-USFS Federal mineral ownership (FMO),” which refers to BLM-administered Federal minerals where the surface estate is in non-Federal ownership and Federal agencies excluding USFS. The BLM has responsibility for lease issuance and post-lease administration of 1,640,621 acres of mineral estate where the surface is managed by USFS. However, the RMP will not make decisions on oil and gas leasing of national forest acreage because the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Reform Act of 1987 requires the USFS to conduct a leasing analysis to make land use planning decisions on oil and gas leasing. This legal requirement does not apply to other Federal surface management agencies. The purpose of the Alabama and Mississippi RMP is to prepare a single land use plan for the two (2) States so that the BLM will be able to respond to mineral leasing proposals and deal efficiently with the long-term management of its scattered land. There is a need for this RMP because, until now, BLM resource management in the States of Alabama and Mississippi has been governed by project-specific planning analyses and environmental assessments (EA). Four alternatives are analyzed in detail, including the Proposed Alternative. The management prescriptions of the four alternatives would guide management of BLM-administered lands (referred to as surface tracts) and non-USFS FMO in Alabama and Mississippi. The management alternatives evaluated in this RMP-FEIS were developed to meet management goals and objectives and to minimize adverse impacts to cultural and natural resources while providing for compatible resource use and development opportunities consistent with current laws, regulations, and policies. The Proposed RMP is a refinement of the Preferred Alternative presented in the Draft RMP-EIS. Further information regarding this Proposed RMP and FEIS can be obtained from: Gary Taylor BLM Planning Coordinator 411 Briarwood Drive, Suite 404 Jackson, Mississippi 39206

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

Abstract

August 2008

This page intentionally left blank.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................ES-1
CHAPTER 1 — PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 1-1
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN ................................................................................................. 1-1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA ........................................................................................... 1-2
PLANNING ISSUES .................................................................................................................................. 1-7
1.4.1 Mineral (Oil, Gas, and Coal) Leasing................................................................................................. 1-7
1.4.2 Land Ownership Adjustments ............................................................................................................ 1-7
1.5 PLANNING CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................. 1-7
1.6 OVERVIEW OF THE PLANNING PROCESS ......................................................................................... 1-8
1.7 RELEVANT STATUTES, LIMITATIONS, AND GUIDELINES .......................................................... 1-10
1.8 RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER PLANS ............................................................................................... 1-19
1.9 TOPICS NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN...................................... 1-20
1.10 READER’S GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT .......................................................................................... 1-21
CHAPTER 2 — ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 How to Read This Chapter ................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS ............................................................................................................. 2-1
2 . 3 STANDARD MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES ................................................ 2-2
2.3.1 Air Quality.......................................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.3.2 Soil Resources .................................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.3.3 Unique and Prime Farmland............................................................................................................... 2-3
2.3.4 Water Resources................................................................................................................................. 2-3
2.3.5 Vegetative Communities .................................................................................................................... 2-4
2.3.6 Fish and Wildlife ................................................................................................................................ 2-4
2.3.7 Special Status Species ........................................................................................................................ 2-4
2.3.8 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management ........................................................................................... 2-5
2.3.9 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................. 2-5
2.3.10 Paleontological Resources.................................................................................................................. 2-6
2.3.11 Visual Resources ................................................................................................................................ 2-6
2.3.12 Minerals.............................................................................................................................................. 2-6
2.3.13 Recreation........................................................................................................................................... 2-7
2.3.14 Lands and Realty ................................................................................................................................ 2-7
2.3.15 Hazardous Materials........................................................................................................................... 2-9
2.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL............................................................................................ 2-9
2.4.1 Management of Non-Forest Service Federal Mineral Ownership.....................................................2-11
2.4.2 Management of Surface Tracts..........................................................................................................2-16
CHAPTER 3 — AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT...................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 How to Read This Chapter ................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 ALABAMA STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE .............................................................................................. 3-1
3.2.1 Air Quality.......................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.2 Soil Resources .................................................................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.3 Water Resources................................................................................................................................. 3-5
3.2.4 Vegetative Communities .................................................................................................................... 3-8
3.2.5 Fish and Wildlife .............................................................................................................................. 3-10

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

iii

Table of Contents

August 2008

3.2.6 Special Status Species ...................................................................................................................... 3-10
3.2.7 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management ......................................................................................... 3-25
3.2.8 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................... 3-26
3.2.9 Visual Resources .............................................................................................................................. 3-30
3.2.10 Minerals............................................................................................................................................ 3-31
3.2.11 Recreation and Travel Management................................................................................................. 3-37
3.2.12 Lands and Realty .............................................................................................................................. 3-38
3.2.13 Social and Economic ........................................................................................................................ 3-38
3.2.14 Hazardous Materials......................................................................................................................... 3-42
3.3 ALABAMA SURFACE TRACT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 3-43
3.3.1 Coosa River Tracts ........................................................................................................................... 3-44
3.3.2 Fort Morgan Beach Tracts................................................................................................................ 3-46
3.3.3 Fort Morgan Highway Tracts ........................................................................................................... 3-48
3.3.4 Fowl River Tract .............................................................................................................................. 3-50
3.3.5 Geneva Tract .................................................................................................................................... 3-52
3.3.6 Jordan Lake Tract............................................................................................................................. 3-53
3.4 MISSISSIPPI STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE .......................................................................................... 3-56
3.4.1 Air Quality.........................................................................................................................................3-56
3.4.2 Soil Resources .................................................................................................................................. 3-59
3.4.3 Water Resources............................................................................................................................... 3-60
3.4.4 Vegetative Communities .................................................................................................................. 3-64
3.4.5 Fish and Wildlife .............................................................................................................................. 3-65
3.4.6 Special Status Species ...................................................................................................................... 3-66
3.4.7 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management ......................................................................................... 3-76
3.4.8 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................... 3-77
3.4.9 Visual Resources .............................................................................................................................. 3-79
3.4.10 Minerals............................................................................................................................................ 3-80
3.4.11 Recreation and Travel Management................................................................................................. 3-81
3.4.12 Lands and Realty .............................................................................................................................. 3-83
3.4.13 Social and Economic ........................................................................................................................ 3-83
3.4.14 Hazardous Materials......................................................................................................................... 3-87
3.5 MISSISSIPPI SURFACE TRACT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 3-88
3.5.1 Hancock County Tract...................................................................................................................... 3-88
CHAPTER 4 — ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 How to Read This Chapter ................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.2 Approach to the Analysis ................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.1.3 Availability of Data and Incomplete Information .............................................................................. 4-3
4.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS FROM BLM MANAGEMENT ACTIONS IN ALABAMA ....... 4-4
4.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)................................................................................................................... 4-4

Air Quality .....................................................................................................................................................................4-4
Soil Resources................................................................................................................................................................4-6
Water Resources ............................................................................................................................................................4-7
Vegetative Communities.................................................................................................................................................4-9
Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-11
Special Status Species .................................................................................................................................................. 4-12
Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .................................................................................................................... 4-15
Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 4-16
Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-18
Minerals....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-19
Recreation and Travel Management ............................................................................................................................ 4-20
Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-21
Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................... 4-22
Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................................................... 4-23

4.2.2

Alternative 2..................................................................................................................................... 4-24

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 4-24

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Table of Contents

Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................................................. 4-25
Water Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-25
Vegetative Communities............................................................................................................................................... 4-26
Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-27
Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .................................................................................................................... 4-31
Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 4-31
Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-33
Minerals....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-34
Recreation and Travel Management ............................................................................................................................ 4-34
Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-35
Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................... 4-36
Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................................................... 4-36

4.2.3

Alternative 3 (Proposed RMP) ......................................................................................................... 4-37

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 4-37
Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................................................. 4-37
Water Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-38
Vegetative Communities............................................................................................................................................... 4-39
Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-40
Special Status Species .................................................................................................................................................. 4-40
Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .................................................................................................................... 4-41
Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 4-42
Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-43
Minerals....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-43
Recreation and Travel Management ............................................................................................................................ 4-44
Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-45
Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................... 4-45
Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................................................... 4-46

4.2.4

Alternative 4..................................................................................................................................... 4-47

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 4-47
Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................................................. 4-48
Water Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-48
Vegetative Communities............................................................................................................................................... 4-49
Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-50
Special Status Species .................................................................................................................................................. 4-51
Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .................................................................................................................... 4-52
Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 4-53
Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-54
Minerals....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-54
Recreation and Travel Management ............................................................................................................................ 4-55
Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-56
Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................... 4-56
Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................................................... 4-57

4.3

DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS FROM BLM MANAGEMENT ACTIONS IN MISSISSIPPI ... 4-58
4.3.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)................................................................................................................. 4-58

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 4-58
Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................................................. 4-59
Water Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-61
Vegetative Communities............................................................................................................................................... 4-62
Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-64
Special Status Species .................................................................................................................................................. 4-65
Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .................................................................................................................... 4-67
Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 4-68
Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-70
Minerals....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-71
Recreation and Travel Management ............................................................................................................................ 4-72
Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-73
Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................... 4-73
Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................................................... 4-75

4.3.2

Alternative 2..................................................................................................................................... 4-76

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement v

Table of Contents

August 2008

Vegetative Communities............................................................................................................................................... 4-78
Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-79
Special Status Species .................................................................................................................................................. 4-80
Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .................................................................................................................... 4-82
Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 4-82
Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-83
Minerals....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-84
Recreation and Travel Management ............................................................................................................................ 4-85
Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-85
Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................... 4-86
Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................................................... 4-86

4.3.3

Alternative 3 (Proposed RMP) ......................................................................................................... 4-87

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 4-87
Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................................................. 4-87
Water Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-88
Vegetative Communities............................................................................................................................................... 4-88
Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-89
Special Status Species .................................................................................................................................................. 4-90
Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .................................................................................................................... 4-91
Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 4-91
Visual Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-92
Minerals....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-92
Recreation and Travel Management ............................................................................................................................ 4-93
Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-94
Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................... 4-94
Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................................................... 4-94

4.3.4

Alternative 4..................................................................................................................................... 4-95

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................... 4-95
Soil Resources.............................................................................................................................................................. 4-96
Water Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 4-96
Vegetative Communities............................................................................................................................................... 4-97
Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................................................................... 4-98
Special Status Species .................................................................................................................................................. 4-98
Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .................................................................................................................... 4-99
Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................................................... 4-100
Visual Resources........................................................................................................................................................ 4-101
Minerals..................................................................................................................................................................... 4-102
Recreation and Travel Management .......................................................................................................................... 4-102
Lands and Realty........................................................................................................................................................ 4-103
Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................. 4-103
Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................................................. 4-104

4.4

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .................................................................................................................... 4-105
4.4.1 Cumulative Impacts from BLM Management Actions in Alabama ............................................... 4-108

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................. 4-108
Soil Resources............................................................................................................................................................ 4-109
Water Resources ........................................................................................................................................................ 4-110
Vegetative Communities............................................................................................................................................. 4-110
Fish and Wildlife........................................................................................................................................................ 4-111
Special Status Species ................................................................................................................................................ 4-112
Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .................................................................................................................. 4-113
Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................................................... 4-113
Visual Resources........................................................................................................................................................ 4-114
Minerals..................................................................................................................................................................... 4-115
Recreation and Travel Management .......................................................................................................................... 4-115
Lands and Realty........................................................................................................................................................ 4-115
Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................. 4-116
Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................................................. 4-117

4.4.2

Cumulative Impacts from BLM Management Actions in Mississippi ........................................... 4-117

vi Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Table of Contents

Fish and Wildlife........................................................................................................................................................ 4-120
Special Status Species ................................................................................................................................................ 4-121
Wildland Fire Ecology and Management .................................................................................................................. 4-123
Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................................................... 4-123
Visual Resources........................................................................................................................................................ 4-124
Minerals..................................................................................................................................................................... 4-125
Recreation and Travel Management .......................................................................................................................... 4-125
Lands and Realty........................................................................................................................................................ 4-125
Social and Economic.................................................................................................................................................. 4-125
Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................................................. 4-126

CHAPTER 5 — CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................................ 5-1
5.1 5.2 OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS............................................................................................................... 5-1
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ............................................................................................. 5-1
5.2.1 Other Federal Agency Consultation ................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2.2 State and Local Agency Consultation ................................................................................................ 5-2
5.2.3 Native American Consultation ........................................................................................................... 5-2
5.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION........................................................................................................................ 5-3
5.3.1 Project Website .................................................................................................................................. 5-3
5.3.2 Public Scoping.................................................................................................................................... 5-3
5.3.3 Development of Planning Criteria...................................................................................................... 5-4
5.3.4 Public Workshop During Alternatives Development ......................................................................... 5-4
5.3.5 Public Meetings on the Draft RMP and EIS....................................................................................... 5-4
5.3.6 Open Comment Period on the RMP and Draft EIS ............................................................................ 5-4
5.3.7 Future Public Participation ................................................................................................................. 5-5
5.3.8 Public Comment Process and Methodology....................................................................................... 5-5
5.3.9 Comments and Responses .................................................................................................................. 5-6
5.4 DISTRIBUTION OF PROPOSED RMP-FEIS......................................................................................... 5-31
5.4.1 Federal Agencies .............................................................................................................................. 5-31
5.4.2 Alabama State Agencies................................................................................................................... 5-31
5.4.3 Mississippi State Agencies ............................................................................................................... 5-31
5.4.4 Local Governments .......................................................................................................................... 5-32
5.4.5 Native American Tribes ................................................................................................................... 5-32
5.4.6 U.S. Senate ....................................................................................................................................... 5-32
5.4.7 U.S. House of Representatives ......................................................................................................... 5-32
5.4.8 Organizations/Industry ..................................................................................................................... 5-33
5.5 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................................................. 5-33
5.5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5-33
ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................................ ACRONYMS-1
GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................................GLOSSARY-1
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................REFERENCES-1

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Recreation and Public Purposes Act Lands Appendix B. Lands of Uncertain Title Appendix C. Relevant Statutes, Regulations, Orders, and Guidelines Appendix D. Proposed Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices Appendix E. Special Status Species in Alabama and Mississippi Appendix F. Soils Appendix G. Socioeconomic Figures
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement vii

Table of Contents

August 2008

Appendix H. Water Resources Appendix I. Withdrawn Lands Appendix J. Summary of the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario Appendix K. Proposed Resource Management Plan

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER 1 — PURPOSE AND NEED

Table 1-1. Land and Mineral Ownership and Administrative Jurisdictions within the RMP Planning Area in Alabama .................................................................................................................1-2
Table 1-2. Land and Mineral Ownership and Administrative Jurisdictions within the RMP
Planning Area in Mississippi .............................................................................................................1-3

CHAPTER 2 — ALTERNATIVES

Table 2-1. Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in Alabama by Alternative ..................................................2-12
Table 2-2. Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in Mississippi by Alternative ..............................................2-12
Table 2-3. Leasing Stipulations in Alabama by Alternative a ..................................................................2-13
Table 2-4. Leasing Stipulations in Mississippi by Alternative a ..............................................................2-14
Table 2-5. Surface Tracts in Alabama and Mississippi............................................................................2-16
Table 2-6. Alternatives for Coosa River Tracts (Maps 2-1a, 2-1b, 2-1c) ................................................2-18
Table 2-7. Alternatives for Fort Morgan Beach Tracts (Map 2-2) ..........................................................2-23
Table 2-8. Alternatives for Fort Morgan Highway Tracts (Map 2-3)......................................................2-26
Table 2-9. Alternatives for Fowl River Tract (Map 2-4) .........................................................................2-29
Table 2-10. Alternatives for Geneva Tract (Map 2-5) .............................................................................2-32
Table 2-11. Alternatives for Jordan Lake Tract (Map 2-6)......................................................................2-35
Table 2-12. Alternatives for Hancock County, Mississippi, Tract 1 (Map 2-7) .......................................2-38
Table 2-13. Comparison of Impacts For Alabama...................................................................................2-41
Table 2-14. Comparison of Impacts For Mississippi ...............................................................................2-56

CHAPTER 3 — AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 3-1. Recent Highest Ambient Air Quality Measurements in Alabama1, 2 ........................................3-2
Table 3-2. Federally Listed Mussel Species in Alabama.........................................................................3-18
Table 3-3. Federally Listed Aquatic Snail Species in Alabama...............................................................3-21
Table 3-4. DOI and USDA Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for Alabama (Acres)............................3-25
Table 3-5. Prehistoric Periods Present in Southeastern United States .....................................................3-26
Table 3-6. Cultural Sites on BLM Surface and non-USFS FMO Tracts in Alabama..............................3-30
Table 3-7. BLM-administered Federal Mineral Ownership by Surface Ownership in Alabama ............3-31
Table 3-8. BLM-administered, non-USFS Federal Mineral Ownership1 by Surface Managing
Agency in Alabama ..............................................................................................................3-37
Table 3-9. Soil Classification for the Fort Morgan Beach Tracts ............................................................3-46
Table 3-10. Soil Classification for the Fort Morgan Highway Tracts .....................................................3-48
Table 3-11. Soil Classification for the Fowl River Tract.........................................................................3-51
Table 3-12. Recent Highest Ambient Air Quality Measurements in Mississippi1, 2 ................................3-56
Table 3-13. Federally and State-listed Mussel Species in Mississippi ....................................................3-74
Table 3-14. DOI and USDA Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for Mississippi (Acres)......................3-76
Table 3-15. Cultural Sites on BLM Surface and Non-USFS FMO Tracts in Mississippi .......................3-79
Table 3-16. BLM-administered Federal Mineral Ownership by Surface Ownership..............................3-80
Table 3-17. BLM-administered, non-USFS Federal Mineral Ownership1 by Surface Managing
Agency in Mississippi ..........................................................................................................3-82

viii Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Table of Contents

Table 3-18. Employment by Industry, 2000–2005 ..................................................................................3-83
Table 3-19. Poorest Counties in Mississippi............................................................................................3-86
Table 3-20. Mississippi Counties with Black or African American Populations, 2000 ..........................3-87
Table 3-21. Soil Classification for the Hancock County Tract ................................................................3-89

CHAPTER 4 — ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 4-1. Types of Impacts ......................................................................................................................4-2
Table 4-2. Maximum Potential Oil and Gas Air Emissions for BLM and Non-
BLM Activities in Alabama..................................................................................................4-5
Table 4-3. Maximum Potential Coal Mining Air Emissions for BLM and Non-
BLM Activities in Alabama..................................................................................................4-5
Table 4-4. Maximum Potential Oil and Gas Air Emissions for BLM and Non-
BLM Activities in Mississippi............................................................................................4-59
Table 4-5. Future Anticipated Well Development In Alabama .............................................................4-105
Table 4-6. Future Anticipated Well Development In Mississippi .........................................................4-106
Table 4-7. DOI and USDA Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for Alabama.......................................4-106
Table 4-8. DOI and USDA Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for Mississippi...................................4-107
Table 4-9. Developed Surface Area of Non-Federal and Federal Land and Water
Areas, by State and Year ..................................................................................................4-107
Table 4-10. Comparison of Potential BLM Emissions with Cumulative Emissions
for Alabama ......................................................................................................................4-109
Table 4-11. Comparison of Potential BLM Emissions with Cumulative Emissions
for Mississippi ..................................................................................................................4-118

CHAPTER 5 — CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Table 5-1. Substantive Public Comments and Responses on the Draft RMP-EIS ....................................5-6
Table 5-2. BLM Preparers .......................................................................................................................5-34
Table 5-3. Booz Allen Hamilton Preparers..............................................................................................5-35

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 1 — PURPOSE AND NEED

Figure 1-1. RMP-EIS Process....................................................................................................................1-9

LIST OF MAPS

CHAPTER 1 — PURPOSE AND NEED

Map 1-1. Federal Lands and Mineral Ownership in Alabama...................................................................1-5
Map 1-2. Federal Lands and Mineral Ownership in Mississippi ...............................................................1-6

CHAPTER 2 — ALTERNATIVES

Map 2-1a. Coosa River Tracts .................................................................................................................2-20
Map 2-1b. Coosa River Tracts .................................................................................................................2-21
Map 2-1c. Coosa River Tracts .................................................................................................................2-22
Map 2-2. Fort Morgan Beach Tracts........................................................................................................2-25
Map 2-3. Fort Morgan Highway Tracts ...................................................................................................2-28
Map 2-4. Fowl River Tract ......................................................................................................................2-31

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement ix

Table of Contents

August 2008

Map 2-5. Geneva Tract ............................................................................................................................2-34
Map 2-6. Jordan Lake Tract.....................................................................................................................2-37
Map 2-7. Hancock County, Mississippi Tract .........................................................................................2-40

CHAPTER 3 — AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Map 3-1. Major Drainage Basins of Alabama ...........................................................................................3-7
Map 3-2. Oil and Gas Production ............................................................................................................3-33
Map 3-3. Federal Coal Ownership within Coal Development Potential Areas .......................................3-36
Map 3-4. Major Drainage Basins of Mississippi .....................................................................................3-61
Map 3-5. Primary Groundwater Recharge Zones in Mississippi .............................................................3-63

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION
This Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) describes and analyzes a reasonable range of management alternatives for the public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the States of Alabama and Mississippi. Within the two States combined, the BLM Jackson Field Office (JFO) administers approximately 333 acres of public land surface and mineral estate and 704,850 acres of Federal minerals where the surface estate is in non-Federal ownership. The BLM also has responsibility for 126,570 acres of mineral estate where the surface is managed by other Federal agencies (excluding BLM and U.S. Forest Service [USFS]). On these lands, oil and gas leasing of Federal minerals is subject to management as directed by the surface managing agency, and the decisions of this RMP will pertain only to BLM’s role in administering the minerals. The BLM has the responsibility for lease issuance and post-lease administration of 1,640,621 acres of mineral estate where the surface is managed by USFS. However, the RMP will not make decisions on oil and gas leasing of national forest acreage because the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Reform Act of 1987 requires the USFS to conduct a leasing analysis to make land use planning decisions on oil and gas leasing. This legal requirement does not apply to other Federal surface management agencies. For the purposes of this document, RMP decisions will apply to “BLMadministered, non-USFS Federal mineral ownership (FMO),” which refers to BLM-administered Federal minerals where the surface estate is in non-Federal ownership and Federal agencies excluding USFS. Within the two States, there are also 8,077 acres of lands with uncertain title. These are public domain lands according to General Land Office records, but may have private claims of ownership. The RMP will not make management decisions on these lands per se; however, these lands, which are listed in Appendix B, will be available for disposal to qualified applicants under the Color-of-Title Act. The above categories of BLM-administered land ownership that will be covered by this RMP are listed and described in Table 1-1 for Alabama and Table 1-2 for Mississippi.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the Alabama and Mississippi RMP is to prepare a single land use plan for the two (2) States so that the BLM will be able to respond to mineral leasing proposals and deal efficiently with the long-term management of its scattered land. In addition, the RMP includes decisions on a wide range of other resource management concerns, including air quality, soil resources, water resources, vegetative communities, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, wildland fire ecology and management, cultural resources, visual resources, recreation and travel management, social and economic resources, and hazardous materials. The Alabama and Mississippi RMP will provide the JFO with a comprehensive framework for managing BLM-administered land and minerals within these States. Completion of the RMP will meet the mandate of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA; 43 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.) that public lands be managed for multiple use and sustained yield under an approved RMP. Preparation of the RMP will also fulfill BLM’s responsibilities for public involvement and environmental impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.). NEPA requires Federal agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any Federal action that could significantly affect the human environment. Preparation and adoption of an RMP constitutes such an action. The FEIS prepared in conjunction with this Proposed RMP serves to analyze proposed actions and decisions affecting BLM-administered land in the planning area.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

ES-1

Executive Summary

August 2008

A primary goal of the RMP is to develop management practices, including stipulations, to ensure longterm sustainability of a healthy and productive landscape. An RMP is a set of comprehensive, long-range decisions concerning the use and management of resources administered by BLM. In general, the RMP will serve two purposes: (1) provide an overview of goals, resource condition objectives, and needs associated with public lands management and (2) resolve multiple use conflicts or issues. When the RMP is approved, its management decisions will remain in effect until the RMP is amended, revised, or replaced by a new plan. There is a need for this RMP because, until now, BLM resource management in the States of Alabama and Mississippi has been governed by project-specific planning analyses and environmental assessments (EA). Preparing separate project-specific documents whenever BLM receives external proposals has been inefficient, costly, and has delayed decisionmaking on industry-driven requests to lease Federal minerals and land tenure adjustments where BLM retains surface management responsibilities. In responding to this need, the planning criteria, identified in Section 1.5, sets out BLM’s primary responsibilities in Alabama and Mississippi, which is to make minerals available for leasing, where appropriate, and to make land tenure adjustments according to the criteria set forth in the FLPMA.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED RMP-FEIS ALTERNATIVES
Four alternatives were analyzed in detail in the Draft RMP-EIS. An interdisciplinary team developed the alternatives to present a reasonable range of management options for guiding resource management and activities on BLM-administered lands (referred to as surface tracts) and non-U.S. Forest Service Federal mineral ownership (non-USFS FMO) in Alabama and Mississippi. The management alternatives were developed to meet management goals and objectives and to minimize adverse impacts to cultural and natural resources while providing for compatible resource use and development opportunities consistent with current laws, regulations, and policies. The BLM has the discretion to select an alternative in its entirety or to combine aspects of the various alternatives presented in the draft to develop the Proposed RMP and FEIS. Alternative 3 was chosen as the Proposed RMP after considering the public and agency comments received on the Draft RMP-EIS. The Proposed RMP is presented as Alternative 3 in Chapter 2 of this document. Management themes represented in each alternative include the following— • Alternative 1 (No Action). Alternative 1 represents the No Action Alternative (i.e., continuation of current management). The BLM would continue the current management approach by retaining all BLM-administered surface tracts and employing custodial management. BLM management actions would occur in response to an application for use presented by another entity or compliance actions required by regulation and policy (as described in Section 2.3, Standard Management Common to All Alternatives). Potential impacts and mitigation would be identified and assessed when application is made for activity on a specific piece of BLM-administered land. There would be 760,570 acres of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO that would be open to oil and gas leasing. An estimated 71,183 acres of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO would be closed to leasing. Management of oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development would be subject to the standard lease terms and conditions that are included on the lease form. • Alternative 2. Alternative 2 proposes that the BLM would retain specific BLM-administered surface tracts. The BLM would investigate opportunities to manage the tracts in partnership with other agencies or organizations. Use of the tracts would be consistent with management

ES-2

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Executive Summary

other agencies or organizations. Use of the tracts would be consistent with management objectives and other land use decisions. Tract-specific constraints for resource uses, such as rightof-way (ROW) access, would be based on the presence of sensitive resources (e.g., special status species habitat). In addition to the resource management outlined in Alternative 1, more proactive management would occur on specific tracts to protect important natural resources. Management actions for specific tracts, as needed, could include installing walk-overs and sand fencing on actively used tracts to protect special status species habitat, vegetation treatments to enhance or improve native landscapes on actively used tracts, and habitat management to achieve objectives in established fish and wildlife conservation strategies. There would be 760,452 acres of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO that would be open to oil and gas leasing. An estimated 71,301 acres of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO would be closed to leasing, which includes an additional 365 acres would be closed to protect habitat of the Federally listed Alabama beach mouse. In addition to standard terms and conditions, conservation measures would be applied as stipulations to oil and gas leases and Best Management Practices (BMP) would be used to reduce adverse effects caused by surface-disturbing or disruptive activities associated with oil and gas operations on BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO. Conservation measures, including no surface occupancy (NSO), controlled surface use (CSU), and seasonal stipulations, and BMPs are presented in Appendix D. Under this alternative, lease stipulations would include a 1,000-foot NSO buffer from aquatic habitats and Alabama beach mouse habitat would not be available for lease. The stipulations in Appendix D would be applied in addition to the standard lease terms and conditions on the lease form. For each stipulation there are provisions for waiver, modification, and exception provided in Appendix D, which could be applied as appropriate. The BMPs would be considered mandatory to reduce adverse impacts to specific resources and would be applied to oil and gas operations on new and existing leases. There would be some flexibility in implementation of each BMP, depending on site-specific conditions. Where there is potential to affect Federally listed, proposed, or candidate species or designated critical habitat, application of BMPs and/or waiver, modification, and exception to stipulations would normally require coordination and possible formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). • Alternative 3 (Proposed RMP). All of the BLM-administered surface tracts would be available for transfer or disposal except the Hancock County tract in Mississippi. For some of the surface tracts, there would be conditions placed on the disposal that development and use of the tract would be consistent with the resource management objectives and allowable uses established for the tract. Restrictions on use after disposal would be provided in the patent transferring ownership. Valid existing rights and other valid authorizations would be protected if disposal occurred. Until the surface tracts are disposed, management would apply tract-specific constraints for resource uses, such as ROW access, based on the presence of sensitive resources (e.g., special status species). Resource management would be the same as outlined in Alternative 2. Proactive management would occur on specific tracts to protect important natural resources. Management actions for specific tracts, as needed, could include vegetation treatments to enhance or improve native landscapes on actively used tracts and habitat management to achieve objectives in established fish and wildlife conservation strategies. There would be 760,570 acres of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO that would be open to oil and gas leasing. An estimated 71,183 acres of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO would be closed to leasing. Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 uses conservation measures that would be applied as lease stipulations and BMPs to reduce adverse effects caused by surface-disturbing

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

ES-3

Executive Summary

August 2008

or disruptive activities associated with oil and gas operations on BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO. The stipulations in Alternative 3 are different from Alternative 2 in two ways. First, Alabama beach mouse habitat would be available for lease, but subject to an NSO stipulation. Second, the buffer from aquatic habitats would be reduced to 250 feet. • Alternative 4. Alternative 4 proposes that all BLM-administered surface tracts would be made available for disposal from Federal ownership with no specific condition on use after disposal. Valid existing rights and other valid authorizations would be protected in the event of disposal. Under this alternative, management of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO would be the same as Alternative 3.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The environmental consequences that could result from the management prescriptions of the four alternatives are described in Chapter 4 and are summarized and compared in Table 2-13, Comparison of Impacts for Alabama and Table 2-14, Comparison of Impacts for Mississippi. These potential consequences are discussed for each resource program, providing an analysis of environmental effects resulting from management of all resources and resource uses. This includes an analysis of cumulative effects, which are defined as the impacts that result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Consultation, coordination, and public involvement were undertaken by the BLM throughout the development and preparation of this Proposed RMP-FEIS through public and informal meetings, individual contacts, bulletins, news releases, and Federal Register notices. The BLM consulted and coordinated with Federal and State agencies and Native American tribes in developing this Proposed RMP-FEIS. Specifically, the BLM has coordinated with the USFWS to obtain a species list and to develop BMPs and oil and gas leasing stipulations for the alternatives. The BLM coordinated on the State level by contacting Alabama and Mississippi State agencies, county supervisors and commissioners, and the governors of both States to inform them of the RMP planning process. In addition, the BLM contacted appropriate Native American tribes, inviting them to participate in the Alabama and Mississippi RMP-EIS development process, and offered to meet with tribal leaders or representatives in person to discuss issues, concerns, and questions they might have.

Cooperating Agencies
The primary role of cooperating agencies (also referred to as cooperators) is to provide special expertise and/or assistance to the lead agency throughout the RMP-EIS process. Cooperator roles include participation in the scoping process, provision of information and assistance to the lead agency, review of draft information, and provision of overall advice during the planning process. Letters were sent to the States of Alabama and Mississippi requesting their involvement in the planning process as cooperating agencies. The State of Mississippi accepted the invitation to become an official cooperating agency through a Memorandum of Understanding signed on December 13, 2002. Multiple state agencies were consulted during the RMP-EIS process, including the Department of Environmental Quality, State Heritage groups, and the State Historic Preservation Office.

ES-4

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Executive Summary

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public participation in the RMP-FEIS process includes a variety of efforts to identify and address public concerns and needs. The public involvement process assists the agencies in broadening the information base for decisionmaking, informing the public about the Proposed RMP-FEIS and the potential impacts associated with various management decisions, and ensuring that public needs and viewpoints are understood by the agency.

Public Workshop During Alternatives Development
A public workshop (with an emphasis on the BLM tracts in Baldwin County, Alabama) was held in Gulf Shores, Alabama, on September 2, 2004, to solicit additional comments for developing alternatives. The workshop was conducted in an open house format, with resource stations and BLM staff available for individual discussions. Eight participants attended the workshop, including representatives from the Alabama State Lands Division. Information meetings with Baldwin County also took place during this period. Although the BLM provided a deadline of November 30, 2004, to receive information and input via mail, e-mail, or the project website, none were submitted; however, the BLM accepted input from the public and interested agencies throughout the planning process. Comment letters that were submitted after the November deadline dealt primarily with the Baldwin County land tracts and how they should be managed by the BLM. All comments were collected, analyzed, and included in the project administrative record.

Public Meetings on the Draft RMP and EIS
Three public meetings were held in October 2007 to provide an opportunity to comment on the Alabama and Mississippi Draft RMP-EIS. During the three meetings, nine people registered their attendance. These public meetings were structured in an open house format with BLM specialists available to provide information. The public was also provided information on how to submit comments on the Draft RMP-EIS.

Open Comment Period on the Draft RMP and EIS
The BLM provided the public with 90 days from the date of publication of BLM’s Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Alabama and Mississippi Draft RMP-EIS to review and submit comments. The EPA filed the NOA in the Federal Register on August 31, 2007. The 90-day public comment period officially ended on November 29, 2007. The BLM received comments on the Draft RMP-EIS from members of the public; Federal, State, and local agencies; and private and public organizations. These comments were sent by mail, e-mail, or submitted at the public meetings. A total of 24 letters were received: 14 were sent by e-mail and 10 were submitted in hardcopy or sent by mail. Of the 24 letters received, 6 of them were identified as being form letters, while the remaining 18 were considered unique letters. Form letters are described as letters containing identical text submitted by more than five individuals. From the 24 letters received, 97 unique comments were identified, of which 32 were considered non-substantive and 65 were considered substantive.

CHANGES AND UPDATES FROM THE DRAFT EIS (DEIS) TO THE FEIS
This section is intended to help the reader differentiate changes between the Draft RMP-EIS and Proposed RMP-FEIS. Changes were made to the Draft RMP-EIS resulting from public comments
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement ES-5

Executive Summary

August 2008

received during the 90-day public comment period, as noted below. Additional cosmetic changes (i.e., formatting, grammatical corrections, and clarifications) are not listed. The document was also updated to reflect the transition between Draft RMP-EIS and Proposed RMP-FEIS, such as: • The Executive Summary was revised to include a description of public participation during the 90-day public comment period and to describe the changes and updates from the DEIS to the FEIS. Section 5.6 of the Proposed RMP-FEIS was revised to describe public participation during the 90-day public comment period, the public comment process and methodology, and the responses to public comments. Appendix K—Proposed Resource Management Plan has been added to the FEIS.

•

In response to public comments received during the 90-day public comment period, the following specific changes and updates have been made: • • • Chapter 2, Common to All Alternatives, All Resources. Goals and objectives have been clarified for each resource in this section. Chapter 2, Common to All Alternatives, Water Resources. A statement has been added that acknowledges BLM’s intent to comply with State Coastal Zone Management Programs. Chapter 2, Common to All Alternatives, Cultural Resources. The following paragraph was added to the end of the section: “Cultural resource surveys conducted prior to 1996, when the Alabama Historical Commission (AHC) cultural resource assessment standards were established, will have to be resurveyed. Because of this, consultation with the Alabama SHPO will occur prior to any property disposal or mineral leasing to determine if a cultural resource survey was conducted prior to 1996.” Chapter 2, Alternatives Analyzed in Detail, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. The amount of BLMadministered, non-USFS FMO that would be closed under each alternative was clarified. Chapter 2, Alternatives Analyzed in Detail, Alternative 3 (Proposed RMP). Text in the second paragraph was changed to read: “Resource management would be the same as outlined in Alternative 2.” Chapter 2, Tables 2-3 and 2-4, Leasing Stipulations in Alabama and Mississippi by Alternative. The table format was modified to improve readability. Chapter 2, Tables 2-7 and 2-8, Alternatives for the Fort Morgan Beach Tracts and Fort Morgan Highway Tracts, Alternative 3 (Proposed RMP), Lands and Realty. Language added to the text: “...if the tracts are not transferred to the Bon Secour NWR, the BLM will retain the tracts.” Chapter 3, Alabama and Mississippi Statewide Perspectives, Air Quality. Information on climate change was added. Chapter 3, Alabama Statewide Perspective, Special Status Species, Species Accounts, Reptiles, Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia Mydas). Section removed. Chapter 3, Alabama Statewide Perspective, Special Status Species, Species Accounts, Reptiles, Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys Kempii). Final sentence change to read: “…at least three nests have been documented in Alabama (2001, 2006, and 2007). Based on USFWS records, juvenile Kemp’s Ridleys are the most common marine turtle in Alabama bays and estuaries.” Chapter 3, Alabama Surface Tract Description, Fort Morgan Beach Tracts, Lands, and Realty. Added the following text to the second paragraph, second sentence: “…and some of these are partially on the Fort Morgan Beach tracts.” Chapter 3, Alabama Surface Tract Description, Fort Morgan Highway Tracts, Lands, and Realty. Changed second and third sentences to read: “Dixie Graves Parkway (Highway 180). These lots are referred to in this document as the Fort Morgan Highway tracts and were exempted
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

• •

• • •

•

ES-6

August 2008

Executive Summary

•

from disposal by the small tract classification orders. In addition to Highway 180, there are also some utilities and driveways on the lots.” Chapter 4, Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts From BLM Management Actions in Alabama and Mississippi, Air Quality. A qualitative analysis of contribution of BLM’s management actions to greenhouse gas emissions in relation to climate change was added. Chapter 4, Direct and Indirect Impacts from BLM Management Actions in Alabama, Alternative 1 (No Action), Water Resources, Impacts from Minerals Management Actions. Added the following language: “In order to reinject produced water, an oil and gas operator must obtain a permit as required by the Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 7. The EPA has granted the State of Alabama primacy over the permitting of underground injection wells. The underground injection regulations address the siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and closing of an injection well. These requirements are designed to prevent contamination of surface and underground drinking water sources.” Chapter 4, Direct and Indirect Impacts from BLM Management Actions in Alabama, Alternative 1 (No Action), Cultural Resources, Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions. Added language to the first paragraph regarding survey requirements for approved activities: “…or in areas surveyed prior to 1996, …” Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts, Cumulative Impacts from BLM Management Actions in Alabama and Mississippi, Water Resources. Added a qualitative analysis on the cumulative impact of brine waster reinjection and the following language after the third paragraph: “In order to reinject produced water, an oil and gas operator must obtain a permit as required by the Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 7. The EPA has granted the State of Alabama primacy over the permitting of underground injection wells. The underground injection regulations address the siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and closing of an injection well. These requirements are designed to prevent contamination of surface and underground drinking water sources and would reduce cumulative impacts.” Appendix D—Proposed Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices, Best Management Practices, Disposal of Produced Water. Added the following language: “In Alabama, the injection of produced water is regulated by the Alabama State Oil and Gas Board. In Mississippi, the injection of produced water is regulated by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality and the Mississippi Oil and Gas Board” and provided information regarding permitted injection wells and surface water discharge for each state UIC Program. Appendix D—Proposed Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices, Best Management Practices, Migratory Birds and Federally Listed Wildlife. A new best management practice was added to minimize or avoid the unintentional take of migratory birds during periods of concentrated nesting activity.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

ES-7

Executive Summary

August 2008

This page intentionally left blank.

ES-8

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 1

CHAPTER 1—PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States, Jackson Field Office (JFO) has initiated the planning process to develop a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for public lands and mineral estate dispersed across the States of Alabama and Mississippi. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is being prepared as part of this project. The State of Mississippi is a cooperating agency, as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), for this RMP.

1.2

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN

The purpose of the Alabama and Mississippi RMP is to prepare a single land use plan for the two (2) States so that the BLM will be able to respond to mineral leasing proposals and deal efficiently with the long-term management of its scattered land. In addition, the RMP includes decisions on a wide range of other resource management concerns, including air quality, soil resources, water resources, vegetative communities, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, wildland fire ecology and management, cultural resources, visual resources, recreation and travel management, social and economic resources, and hazardous materials. The Alabama and Mississippi RMP will provide the JFO with a comprehensive framework for managing BLM-administered land and minerals within these States. Completion of the RMP will meet the mandate of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA; 43 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.) that public lands be managed for multiple use and sustained yield under an approved RMP. Preparation of the RMP will also fulfill BLM’s responsibilities for public involvement and environmental impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.). NEPA requires Federal agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any Federal action that could significantly affect the human environment. Preparation and adoption of an RMP constitutes such an action. The FEIS prepared in conjunction with this Proposed RMP serves to analyze proposed actions and decisions affecting BLM-administered land in the planning area. A primary goal of the RMP is to develop management practices, including stipulations, to ensure longterm sustainability of a healthy and productive landscape. An RMP is a set of comprehensive, long-range decisions concerning the use and management of resources administered by BLM. In general, the RMP will serve two purposes: (1) provide an overview of goals, resource condition objectives, and needs associated with public lands management and (2) resolve multiple use conflicts or issues. When the RMP is approved, its management decisions will remain in effect until the RMP is amended, revised, or replaced by a new plan. There is a need for this RMP because, until now, BLM resource management in the States of Alabama and Mississippi has been governed by project-specific planning analyses and environmental assessments (EA). Preparing separate project-specific documents whenever BLM receives external proposals has been inefficient, costly, and has delayed decisionmaking on industry-driven requests to lease Federal minerals and land tenure adjustments where BLM retains surface management responsibilities. In responding to this need, the planning criteria, identified in Section 1.5, sets out BLM’s primary responsibilities in Alabama and Mississippi, which is to make minerals available for leasing, where appropriate, and to make land tenure adjustments according to the criteria set forth in the FLPMA.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

1-1

Chapter 1

August 2008

1.3

DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA

This Proposed RMP-FEIS covers all the public lands resources administered by the BLM in the States of Alabama and Mississippi. Within the two States combined, the BLM administers approximately 333 acres of public land surface and mineral estate (referred to as “surface tracts”) and 704,850 acres of Federal minerals where the surface estate is in non-Federal ownership. The BLM also has responsibility for 126,570 acres of mineral estate where the surface is managed by other Federal agencies (excluding BLM and U.S. Forest Service [USFS]). On these lands, leasing of Federal minerals is subject to management as directed by the surface management agency, and the decisions of this RMP will pertain only to the BLM’s role in administering the minerals. The BLM has the responsibility of 1,640,621 acres of mineral estate where the surface is managed by USFS. However, the RMP will not make decisions on oil and gas leasing of national forest acreage because, by regulation, USFS is responsible for land use planning decisions on oil and gas leasing. For the purposes of this document, RMP mineral leasing decisions will apply to “BLM-administered, non-USFS Federal mineral ownership (FMO),” which refers to BLMadministered, Federal minerals where the surface estate is in non-Federal ownership and Federal agencies excluding USFS. Within the two States, there are also 8,077 acres of lands with uncertain title. These are public domain lands, according to General Land Office records, but may have private claims of ownership. The RMP will not make management decisions on these lands per se; however, these lands, which are listed in Appendix B, will be available for disposal to qualified applicants under the Color-of-Title Act. The above categories of BLM-administered land ownership that will be covered by this RMP are listed and described in Table 1-1 for Alabama and Table 1-2 for Mississippi.

Table 1-1. Land and Mineral Ownership and Administrative Jurisdictions within the RMP Planning Area in Alabama
Jurisdiction Areas in Alabama covered by the Alabama and Mississippi RMP-FEIS
A. BLM surface land—Federal minerals2 B. Non-Federal surface land—Federal minerals
3 4

Acreage1
159 303,440 10,220 159 313,819 3,057

C. Federal agency (other than BLM or USFS) surface land—Federal minerals

Total BLM-administered Federal land surface to be covered by RMP decisions Total BLM-administered Federal mineral estate to be covered by RMP decisions D. Lands of uncertain title
5

Areas in Alabama not covered by the Alabama and Mississippi RMP-FEIS
E. USFS land—Federal minerals6
1

585,394

2 3

Where one or more mineral resource categories are Federally owned, the acreage is listed as if all minerals are Federally owned. Where mixed minerals ownership occurs (for example, privately owned coal interest overlapping with Federally owned oil and gas interest), minerals planning and management decisions in the RMP will pertain only to the Federally owned mineral interests. Federal mineral acreage is derived from BLM data of current and former oil and gas leases. Data includes lands described by aliquot parts, metes and bounds, or lot number. In the case of metes and bounds and lot number descriptions, the acreage reflects that of the entire section associated with the description, otherwise known as "nominal acreage." In those areas where the Federal land surface and Federal mineral estate are both administered by the BLM, the RMP decisions will cover both the land surface and the mineral estate. In those areas where (1) the land surface is privately owned or owned by a non-Federal government jurisdiction and (2) the minerals are Federally owned, the RMP decisions will cover only the BLM-administered Federal mineral estate. Although the land and resource uses and values on the non-Federal surface will be taken into account and will affect development of the Federal mineral management decisions, these decisions will pertain only to the Federally owned minerals. In those areas where (1) the Federal land surface is administered by a Federal agency other than the BLM or USFS,

1-2

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 1

including the Department of Defense and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and (2) the Federal mineral estate is administered by the BLM, the land surface planning and management decisions are the responsibility of the other Federal surface management agency, lease of the Federal minerals is subject to management as directed by the surface management agency. These are lands that were either acquired by a Federal agency, or were withdrawn from the public domain; withdrawn lands are listed in Appendix I. RMP decisions for these lands will pertain only to the BLM’s role in administering the Federal minerals. These are public domain lands according to General Land Office records, but may have private claims of ownership. The RMP will not make decisions on these lands per se; however, these lands, which are listed in Appendix B, will be available for disposal to qualified applicants under the Color-of-Title Act. In those areas where (1) the Federal land surface is administered by the USFS, and (2) planning decisions for surface management and for mineral leasing, pursuant to the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 and Federal regulation (36 CFR 228.102), are the responsibility of USFS, and (3) the BLM has responsibility for issuing and administering mineral leases; the RMP will not include management decisions for the Federal minerals on these lands, and the BLM will carry out its minerals management responsibilities under the guidance of USFS land use plans. At the same time, surface and minerals management actions and development activities anticipated on these lands will be taken into account for purposes of cumulative impact analysis.

Table 1-2. Land and Mineral Ownership and Administrative Jurisdictions within the RMP Planning Area in Mississippi
Jurisdiction Areas in Mississippi covered by the Alabama and Mississippi RMP-FEIS
A. BLM surface land-Federal minerals2 B. Non-Federal land-Federal minerals
3 4

Acreage1
174 401,410 116,350 174 517,934 5,020

C. Federal agency (other than BLM or USFS) surface land / Federal minerals

Total BLM-administered Federal land surface to be covered by RMP decisions Total BLM-administered Federal mineral estate to be covered by RMP decisions D. Lands of uncertain title5

Areas in Mississippi not covered by the Alabama and Mississippi RMP-FEIS
E. USFS land-Federal minerals6
1

1,055,227

Where one or more mineral resource categories are Federally owned, the acreage is listed as if all minerals are Federally owned. Where mixed mineral ownership occurs (for example, privately owned coal interest overlapping with Federally owned oil and gas interest), minerals planning and management decisions in the RMP will pertain only to the Federally owned mineral interest. Federal mineral acreage is derived from BLM data of current and former oil and gas leases. Data includes lands described by aliquot parts, metes and bounds, or lot number. In the case of metes and bounds and lot number descriptions, the acreage reflects that of the entire section associated with the description, otherwise known as “nominal acreage.” This is a tract of land in Hancock County where the mineral estate is Federally owned and the surface is currently owned by the University of Mississippi. The tract was conveyed to the University in 1961, under the authority of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, for recreational and research site purposes. The patent contains a clause stating that ownership of the surface estate shall revert to the United States if the land is devoted to a use other than that for which the land was conveyed. It is expected that the University will relinquish this tract and that title will revert to the United States. In anticipation of the title transfer, this tract will be considered BLM-managed surface estate for land use planning purposes; therefore, the RMP decisions will cover both the land surface and the mineral estate. In those areas where (1) the land surface is privately owned or owned by a non-Federal government jurisdiction and (2) the minerals are Federally owned, the RMP decisions will cover only the BLM-administered Federal mineral estate. Although the land and resource uses and values on the non-Federal surface will be taken into account and will affect development of the Federal mineral management decisions, these decisions will pertain only to the Federally owned minerals. In those areas where (1) the Federal land surface is administered by a Federal agency other than the BLM or USFS, including the Department of Defense and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and (2) the Federal mineral estate is administered by the BLM, the land surface planning and management decisions are the responsibility of the other Federal surface management agency, and lease of the Federal minerals is subject to management as directed by the surface management agency. These are lands that were either acquired by a Federal agency or were withdrawn from the public domain. Withdrawn lands are listed in Appendix I. RMP decisions for these lands will pertain only to the BLM’s role in administering the Federal minerals. These are public domain lands, according to General Land Office records, but may have private claims of ownership. The RMP will not make decisions on these lands per se; however, these lands, which are listed in Appendix B, will be available for disposal to qualified applicants under the Color-of-Title Act.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

1-3

Chapter 1

August 2008

In those areas where (1) the Federal land surface is administered by the USFS, and (2) planning decisions for surface management and for mineral leasing, pursuant to the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 and Federal regulation (36 CFR 228.102), are the responsibility of USFS, and (3) the BLM has responsibility for issuing and administering mineral leases; the RMP will not include management decisions for the Federal minerals on these lands, and the BLM will carry out its minerals management responsibilities under the guidance of USFS land use plans. At the same time, surface and minerals management actions and development activities anticipated on these lands will be taken into account for purposes of cumulative impact analysis.

1-4

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 1

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

1-5

Chapter 1

August 2008

1-6

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 1

1.4

PLANNING ISSUES

In addition to the planning issues identified below, the Proposed RMP-FEIS includes decisions on a wide range of other resource management concerns as identified in the July 12, 2002 Federal Register notice, including air quality, soil resources, water resources, vegetative communities, fish and wildlife habitat, special status species, wildland fire ecology and management, cultural resources, visual resources, recreation and travel management, social and economic resources, and hazardous materials.

1.4.1

Mineral (Oil, Gas, and Coal) Leasing

There is a potential for continued mineral development of BLM-administered FMO in both Alabama and Mississippi. In some cases, there could be potential for impacts on sensitive resources or conflicts with other uses. These impacts and conflicts need to be considered when making decisions on the availability of non-USFS FMO for development. The RMP addresses mineral leasing by offering a variety of alternative solutions, as described in Chapter 2.

1.4.2

Land Ownership Adjustments

BLM-administered lands in both Alabama and Mississippi are relatively small, isolated parcels. Some of the parcels could have natural resources of significant value to the public and could be suitable for management by the BLM or other agencies. Other parcels could be suitable for disposal. The RMP addresses land ownership adjustments by offering a variety of alternative solutions, as described in Chapter 2.

1.5

PLANNING CRITERIA

Planning criteria are constraints or ground rules that guide development of BLM land use plans. These criteria ensure that the planning team focuses on relevant uses and collects applicable data for analysis, and the criteria include applicable Federal laws, regulations, executive orders, and policies. As identified in the Federal Register on July 12, 2002, the following criteria were developed to guide the preparation of the RMP— 1. Land use planning and environmental analysis will be conducted in accordance with laws, regulations, executive orders, and manuals. Planning will be conducted for BLMadministered lands (tracts) and minerals (BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO). 2. Surface tracts will be mapped and identified by legal description. Land use policy will be established for BLM-administered lands identified after the RMP is completed. 3. A reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFDS) will be prepared for the future leasing (and development) of fluid minerals under split-estate lands (e.g., non-BLM surface and BLM minerals). The RFDS will be developed on a regional (county) basis. Areas of high, moderate, and low oil and gas potential will be identified (mapped) for each State. 4. Areas with the potential for non-energy solid mineral leasing (e.g., phosphates, sodium) will be evaluated for inclusion in the RMP. 5. Resource data needed to evaluate the impacts of future (foreseeable) mineral development will be collected on a regional basis. 6. The planning team will work cooperatively with Federal, State, county, and local governments and agencies; tribal governments; groups and organizations; and individuals.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

1-7

Chapter 1

August 2008

Based on further analysis, these criteria have been revised 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 BLMadministered lands (tracts) and minerals (BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO). 2. Surface tracts will be mapped and identified by legal description. Lands of uncertain title will be listed. These lands could potentially be available for disposal under the Color-of-Title Act. 3. An RFDS will be prepared for the future leasing (and development) of oil and gas. The RFDS will be developed on a statewide basis. Areas of high, moderate, and low oil and gas potential will be identified (mapped) for each State. 4. The evaluation of lands based on their suitability for further coal leasing consideration will be limited to underground mining of non-USFS FMO in the Warrior Basin in Alabama. 5. Areas with the potential for non-energy solid mineral leasing (e.g., phosphates, sodium) were evaluated for inclusion in the RMP. No potential was identified for development of these minerals on non-USFS FMO; therefore, non-energy solid mineral leasing is not addressed. 6. Resource data needed to evaluate the impacts of future (foreseeable) mineral development will be collected on a statewide basis. 7. The planning team will work cooperatively with Federal, State, county, and local governments and agencies; tribal governments; groups and organizations; and individuals.

1.6

OVERVIEW OF THE PLANNING PROCESS

The BLM planning process is detailed in the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1), which provides guidance to BLM employees for implementing the BLM land use planning requirements established by Section 202 of the FLPMA and the regulations in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1610. The process for preparing an EIS is determined by Federal regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508). The major steps in the BLM planning process are shown in Figure 1-1 and are further described below. • Preparation Plan. The BLM developed a preparation plan to outline anticipated planning issues and management concerns, preliminary planning criteria, data needs, process participants, plan format, schedule, and public involvement. Notice of Intent. The BLM published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on July 12, 2002, to announce its intention to prepare an RMP and EIS. The NOI also solicited coal information for BLM-administered coal in Alabama and Mississippi and identified planning criteria to guide the preparation of the RMP. Scoping Period. Public scoping was conducted from June through September 2002. The objectives of scoping were to involve the public in the planning process and to comply with FLPMA and NEPA. Scoping is a process of soliciting public input and identifying concerns regarding management of public lands and BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO in the planning area. Scoping consisted of public notification through the Federal Register (i.e., publication of the NOI) and by letter and e-mail. Letters of invitation to participate as cooperating agencies were sent to government agencies in Alabama and Mississippi. The BLM also notified local, State, and Federal agencies and Native American tribes during this period. Analysis of Management Situation. As part of preparing the RMP-EIS, the BLM analyzed the resource conditions, capabilities, and effects of current management for use as a reference throughout the planning process. As contained in Chapter 3 of the RMP-EIS, this analysis

•

1-8

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 1

included a description of the physical and biological characteristics and condition of the resources within the planning area and how they are being used and/or protected. • Draft RMP-EIS. This Draft RMP-EIS considers public and agency comments received during the scoping period, includes a description of alternatives and the affected environment, and offers an assessment of potential impacts from implementing the alternatives. A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft RMP-EIS was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2007. Comment Period and Public Meetings. The public and local, State, and Federal agencies and Native American tribes had an opportunity to review and comment on the Draft RMP-EIS during a 90-day comment period, beginning the date the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published their NOA in the Federal Register on August 17, 2007 and ended on November 29, 2007. The BLM held three public meetings in October 2007 to receive comments from the public. Opportunities for public involvement are further described in Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination. Proposed RMP and Final EIS. The purpose of the Proposed RMP and Final EIS is for the BLM to assess, consider, and respond to public and agency comments received on the Draft RMPEIS. An NOA will be published in the Federal Register by the BLM when the Proposed RMPFEIS becomes available. A 30-day public protest period, beginning the date the EPA publishes their NOA in the Federal Register, will follow the release of the Proposed RMPFEIS. A 60-day Governor’s consistency review will also occur at this time. Biological Assessment (BA). Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. Section 1536(a)(2)) requires all Federal agencies to determine whether their actions may affect listed or proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat. A BA was prepared for each state to analyze the potential effects of the project on Federally listed species and critical habitat in order to establish and justify an “effect determination.” The BAs were reviewed by the

Figure 1-1. RMP-EIS Process
Preparation Plan
Completed in September 2001. Outline anticipated planning issues, preliminary planning criteria, data needs, plan format, schedule, and public involvement.

Notice of Intent
Published in Federal Register on July 12, 2002

Scoping Period

(June–September 2002)

•

Planning Issues and Criteria Development
Ensure that decisions address pertinent issues

Data Collection Analysis of Management Situation

Analyze resource conditions, capabilities, and effects of current management

Alternatives Formulation
Develop range of reasonable management alternatives

Alternatives Assessment

•

Analyze environmental effects

Analyze a Preferred Alternative • File Draft EIS with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Notice of Availability (NOA) on August 17, 2007 • Publish Bureau of Land Management (BLM) NOA • 90-day public comment period ( August–November 2007)

Draft RMP-EIS

•

• Consider and respond to public comments on Draft RMP-EIS • Prepare Biological Assessment under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act • File Final EIS with EPA for NOA • Publish BLM NOA • 30-day Public Protest • 60-day Governor’s Consistency Review

Proposed RMP and Final EIS

Record of Decision—Approved RMP

Implement, monitor, and evaluate plan decisions

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

1-9

Chapter 1

August 2008

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the ESA Section 7 consultation requirements. • Record of Decision. The Record of Decision (ROD) is a separate and concise public record that clearly identifies and describes the approved RMP and links the BLM’s decision to the analysis presented in the EIS. The ROD addresses how environmental impacts and other factors were considered in the decisionmaking process.

This Proposed RMP-FEIS provides a comprehensive evaluation of the BLM’s potential management and land tenure adjustment actions for public lands in Alabama and Mississippi and their natural resources. A comprehensive RMP-EIS that includes all of the BLM’s management programs is needed to address potential conflict among interrelated management actions. This FEIS also allows for tiering (40 CFR 1505.28) subsequent activity or project-specific EISs or EAs conducted on public lands within Alabama and Mississippi. Subsequent lower-level EISs or EAs will reference and adopt relevant information and goals from this broader, two-State RMP-EIS as formal NEPA documentation, thereby avoiding duplication of effort and reducing costs associated with completing future NEPA analyses.

1.7

RELEVANT STATUTES, LIMITATIONS, AND GUIDELINES

This section provides a listing of the authorities that apply to the selection and implementation of management actions in the RMP.

1.7.1

Environmental Policy

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires the preparation of EISs for Federal projects that may have a significant effect on the environment. It requires systematic, interdisciplinary planning to ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in making decisions about major Federal actions that may have a significant effect on the environment. The procedures required under NEPA are implemented through the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR §1500.

Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards (EO 12088)
Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards (EO 12088) states that Federal agencies must comply with applicable pollution control standards.

Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (EO 11514)
Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (EO 11514, as amended by EO 11991) establishes the policy for Federal agencies to provide leadership in environmental protection and enhancement.

1.7.2

Land Use and Natural Resources Management

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
FLPMA, as amended (43 USC 1701, et seq.), provides for public lands to be generally retained in Federal ownership for periodic and systematic inventory of the public lands and their resources; for a review of existing withdrawals and classifications; for establishment of comprehensive rules and regulations for administering public lands statutes; for multiple-use management on a sustained yield basis; for protection of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource,
1-10 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 1

and archeological values; for receiving fair market value for the use of the public lands and their resources; for establishment of uniform procedures for any disposal, acquisition, or exchange; for identification and protection of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs); for recognition of the nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands, including implementation of the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970; and for payments to compensate States and local governments for burdens created as a result of the immunity of Federal lands from State and local taxation. The general land management regulations are provided in 43 CFR §2000, Subchapter B.

General Mining Law of 1872
The General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 USC 22, et seq.), provides for locating and patenting mining claims where a discovery has been made for locatable minerals on public lands in specified States. Regulations for staking and maintenance of claims on BLM-administered lands are listed in 43 CFR §3800.

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920
The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 USC 181, et seq.), provides for the leasing of deposits of coal, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil, oil shale, native asphalt, solid and semisolid bitumen, bituminous rock or gas, and lands containing such deposits owned by the United States, including those in national forests but excluding those acquired under other acts subsequent to February 25, 1920, and those lands within the national petroleum and oil shale reserves. Regulations for onshore oil and gas leasing are provided in 43 CFR §3100.

Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976
The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 (30 USC 201, et seq.) requires competitive leasing of coal on public lands and mandates a broad spectrum of coal operations requirements for lease management. Coal leasing regulations for BLM-administered lands are provided in 43 CFR §3400.

Materials Act of 1947
The Materials Act of 1947, as amended (30 USC 601–604, et seq.), provides for the sale of common variety materials for personal, commercial, or industrial uses and for free use for local, State, and Federal governmental entities. The sales of mineral materials are controlled by the regulations listed in 43 CFR §3600.

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974
The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended (7 USC 2814), provides for the designation of a lead office and a person trained in the management of undesirable plants, establishment and funding of an undesirable plant management program, completion and implementation of cooperative agreements with State agencies, and establishment of integrated management systems to control undesirable plant species.

Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act serves to further the Healthy Forests Initiative to reduce the threat of destructive wildfires while upholding environmental standards and encouraging early public input during review and planning processes. The Act strengthens public participation in developing high-priority forest health projects; reduces the complexity of environmental analysis, allowing Federal land agencies to use the best science available to actively manage land under their protection; provides a more effective
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 1-11

Chapter 1

August 2008

appeals process, encouraging early public participation in project planning; and issues clear guidance for court action against forest health projects.

Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of 1988
The Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act amended FLPMA with respect to BLM land exchanges. It was designed to streamline land exchange procedures.

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 2000
The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) provides for the use of revenues from the sale or exchange of public lands identified for disposal under land use plans in effect as of the date of the FLTFA.

Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926
In 1954, the Congress enacted the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 U.S.C 869 et. seq.) as a complete revision of the Recreation Act of 1926 in response to the public need for a nationwide system of parks and other recreational and public purposes areas. This law is administered by the BLM. The Act authorizes the sale or lease of public lands for recreational or public purposes to State and local governments and to qualified nonprofit organizations. Examples of typical uses under the Act are historic monument sites, campgrounds, schools, fire houses, law enforcement facilities, municipal facilities, landfills, hospitals, parks, and fairgrounds.

Bureau of Land Management Energy and Non-Energy Mineral Policy
This statement sets forth BLM policy for the management of energy and non-energy mineral resources (mineral resources) on public lands. It reflects the provisions of five important acts of Congress relating to mineral resources: the Domestic Minerals Program Extension Act of 1953, the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This policy represents a commitment by the BLM to implement the requirements of these statutes consistent with the BLM’s other statutory obligations, as follows: The Domestic Minerals Program Extension Act of 1953 states that each department and agency of the Federal Government charged with responsibilities concerning the discovery, development, production, and acquisition of strategic or critical minerals and metals shall undertake to decrease further, and to eliminate where possible, the dependency of the United States on overseas sources of supply of each such material. The Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources. This act includes all minerals, including sand and gravel, geothermal, coal, and oil and gas. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 reiterates that the 1970 Mining and Minerals Policy Act shall be implemented and directs that public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals and other resources. The National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 requires the Secretary of the Interior to improve the quality of minerals data in Federal land use decision-making.
1-12 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 1

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 encourages energy efficiency and conservation; promotes alternative and renewable energy sources; reduces dependence on foreign sources of energy; increases domestic production; modernizes the electrical grid; and encourages the expansion of nuclear energy. The BLM recognizes that public lands are an important source of the Nation’s energy and non-energy mineral resources, some of which are critical and strategic. The BLM is responsible for making public lands available for orderly and efficient development of these resources under principles of multiple use management, and the concept of sustainable development as was defined at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, in Johannesburg, South Africa. The following principles will guide the BLM in managing mineral resources on public lands: 1. Except for Congressional withdrawals, public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative actions are clearly justified in the national interest in accordance with the Department of the Interior Land Withdrawal Manual 603 DM 1, and the BLM regulations at 43 CFR §2310. Petitions to the Secretary of the Interior for revocation of land withdrawals for mineral exploration and development will be evaluated through the land use planning process. 2. The BLM endorses the Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation applicable to mineral resources signed by 193 countries, including the United States; in Johannesburg in 2002. This plan encourages social, environmental, and economic considerations before decisions are made on mineral operations. The BLM actively encourages development by private industry of public land mineral resources, and promotes practices and technology that least impact natural and human resources. 3. The BLM will adjudicate and process mineral patent applications, permits, operating plans, mineral exchanges, leases, and other mineral use authorizations for public lands in a manner to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation, and in a timely and efficient manner, and will require financial assurances to provide for reclamation of the land and for other purposes authorized by law. Mine closure and reclamation considerations include alternative forms of use such as for landfills, wind farms, biomass facilities and other industrial uses, to attract partnerships to utilize the existing mine infrastructure for a future economic opportunity. 4. The BLM land use planning and multiple-use management decisions will recognize that, with few exceptions, mineral exploration and development can occur concurrently or sequentially with other resource uses. The least restrictive stipulations that effectively accomplish the resource objectives or uses will be used. The BLM will coordinate with surface owners when the Federal minerals estate under their surface ownership is proposed for development. 5. Land use plans will reflect geological assessments and mineral potential on public lands through existing geology and mineral resource data, and to the extent feasible, through new mineral assessments to determine mineral potential. Partnerships with State Geologists and the U.S. Geological Survey for obtaining existing and new data should be considered. 6. The BLM will work closely with Federal, State and Tribal governments to reduce duplication of effort while processing mineral related permit applications. 7. The BLM will monitor locatable, salable and leasable mineral operations to ensure proper resource recovery and evaluation, production verification, diligence and enforcement of terms and conditions. The BLM will ensure receipt of fair market value for mineral materials, and appropriate royalty rates for leasable commodities unless otherwise provided for by statute. 8. The BLM will continue to develop e-Government solutions that will provide for electronic submission and tracking of applications for exploration and development of mineral resources. The BLM will continue to provide public access to mineral records, including spatial display of all types of authorizations and mineral resource data.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

1-13

Chapter 1

August 2008

9. The BLM will maintain and enhance the understanding, skills, and abilities of effective professional, technical, and managerial personnel knowledgeable in adjudication, geology, mineral exploration and development. 10. To the extent provided by law, regulation, secretarial order, and written agreement with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the BLM will apply the above principles to the management of mineral resources and operations on Indian Trust lands in order to comply with its Trust Responsibilities.

1.7.3

Air Quality

The Clean Air Act of 1990
The Clean Air Act of 1990, as amended (42 USC 7401, 7642), requires the BLM to protect air quality, maintain Federal- and State-designated air quality standards, and abide by the requirements of the State implementation plans.

State Air Quality Standards and Regulations
The State air quality standards and regulations specify the requirements for air permitting and monitoring to implement Clean Air Act and State ambient air quality standards.

1.7.4

Water Quality

The Clean Water Act of 1987
The Clean Water Act of 1987, as amended (33 USC 1251), establishes objectives to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s water. The Act also requires permits for point source discharges to navigable waters of the United States and the protection of wetlands and includes monitoring and research provisions for protection of ambient water quality.

The Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was originally passed by the Congress in 1974 to protect public health by regulating the nation’s public drinking water supply. The law was amended in 1986 and 1996 and requires many actions to protect drinking water and its sources: rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs, and ground water wells. SDWA authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally occurring and manmade contaminants that may be found in drinking water. The EPA, States, and water systems then work together to ensure that these standards are met.

State Water Quality Standards and Regulations
State water quality standards and regulations implement permitting and monitoring requirements for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, operation of injection wells, groundwater protection requirements, and prevention and response requirements for spills.

1-14

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 1

1.7.5

Protection of Wetlands (EO 11990)

Protection of Wetlands (EO 11990) requires Federal agencies to take action to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands.

Floodplain Management (EO 11988)
Floodplain Management (EO 11988) provides for the restoration and preservation of national and beneficial floodplain values, and enhancement of the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out programs affecting land use.

1.7.6

Cultural Resources

Historic Sites Act of 1935
The Historic Sites Act (16 USC 461) declares national policy to identify and preserve historic sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, thereby providing a foundation for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (16 USC 470), expands protection of historic and archeological properties to include those of national, State, and local significance. The NHPA (in Section 106) requires Federal agencies to take into account the potential effects of agency actions on properties listed on or eligible for the NRHP. Agencies are also required to consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and sometimes with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, concerning those effects. The SHPO is also sometimes consulted concerning applicable methods for determining whether or not there are NRHP-eligible properties in the area of potential effect of an agency undertaking, whether properties are eligible, and appropriate mitigation measures. The NHPA (in Section 110) also requires Federal agencies to identify properties that may qualify for listing on the NRHP, to evaluate and nominate such places to the register, and to develop plans for their management. Both Section 110 and the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 require Federal agencies to develop proactive programs to interpret archeological resources for the benefit of the public. The 1992 amendments to the NHPA call for Federal agencies to conduct Native American consultation on projects that may affect sites or resources that tribal representatives consider sensitive, sacred, or culturally important.

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979
The Archeological Resource Protection Act, as amended (16 USC 470a, 470cc, 470ee), requires permits for the excavation or removal of Federally administered archeological resources, encourages increased cooperation among Federal agencies and private individuals, provides stringent criminal and civil penalties for violations, and requires Federal agencies to identify important resources vulnerable to looting and to develop a tracking system for violations.

The Antiquities Act of 1906
The Antiquities Act of 1906 protects objects of historic and scientific interest on public lands. It authorizes the President to designate historic landmarks and structures as national monuments and

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

1-15

Chapter 1

August 2008

provides penalties for people who damage these historic sites. The Act has two main components: (1) a criminal enforcement component, which provides for the prosecution of persons who appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity on lands owned or controlled by the United States, and (2) a component that authorizes a permit for the examination of ruins and archeological sites and the gathering of objects of antiquity on lands owned or controlled by the United States.

Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment of 1971
Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (EO 11593) directs Federal agencies to locate, inventory, nominate, and protect Federally owned cultural resources eligible for the NRHP and to ensure that their plans and programs contribute to preservation and enhancement of non-Federally owned resources.

Preserve America (EO 13287)
EO 13287, signed in 2003, requires the Federal Government to lead the preservation of America’s heritage by actively advancing the protection, enhancement, and contemporary use of the historic properties owned by the government and by promoting intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships for the preservation and use of historic properties.

1.7.7

Hazardous Materials

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (42 USC 9601–9673), provides for liability, risk assessment, compensation, emergency response, and cleanup (including the cleanup of inactive sites) for hazardous substances. The Act requires Federal agencies to report sites where hazardous wastes are or have been stored, treated, or disposed of, and requires responsible parties, including Federal agencies, to clean up releases of hazardous substances.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 (42 USC 6901–6992), authorizes the US EPA to manage, by regulation, hazardous wastes on active disposal operations. The Act waives sovereign immunity for Federal agencies with respect to all Federal, State, and local solid and hazardous waste laws and regulations. Federal agencies are subject to civil and administrative penalties for violations and to cost assessments for the administration of the enforcement.

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA; 42 USC 11001–11050) requires the private sector to inventory chemicals and chemical products, to report those in excess of threshold planning quantities, to inventory emergency response equipment, to provide annual reports and support to local and State emergency response organizations, and to maintain a liaison with the local and State emergency response organizations and the public.

1-16

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 1

1.7.8

Wildlife

Endangered Species Act of 1973
The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. It is administered by the Department of the Interior’s USFWS and the Department of Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The USFWS has primary responsibility for terrestrial and freshwater organisms, while the responsibilities of NMFS are mainly marine species such as salmon and whales.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668) prohibits the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase, transport, export or import, of any bald eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof. “Take” includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, or molest, or disturb (50 CFR §22.3).

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958
The Act of March 10, 1934, (16 USC 661 et seq.) as amended, authorizes the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce to provide assistance to and cooperate with Federal and State agencies to protect, rear, stock, and increase the supply of game and fur-bearing animals, as well as to study the effects of domestic sewage, trade wastes, and other polluting substances on wildlife. The Act also directs the Bureau of Fisheries to use impounded waters for fish-culture stations and migratory-bird resting and nesting areas and requires consultation with the Bureau of Fisheries before the construction of any new dams to provide for fish migration. In addition, the Act authorizes the preparation of plans to protect wildlife resources, the completion of wildlife surveys on public lands, and the acceptance by the Federal agencies of funds or lands for related purposes provided that land donations received the consent of the State in which they are located. The amendments enacted in 1946 require consultation with the USFWS and the fish and wildlife agencies of States where the “waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted…or otherwise controlled or modified” by any agency under a Federal permit or license. Consultation is to be undertaken for the purpose of “preventing loss of and damage to wildlife resources.”

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978
The Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 USC 7421; 92 Stat. 3110), Public Law 95-616, authorizes the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to establish, conduct, and assist with national training programs for State fish and wildlife law enforcement personnel. It also authorized funding for research and development of new or improved methods to support fish and wildlife law enforcement. The law provides authority to the Secretaries to enter into law enforcement cooperative agreements with State or other Federal agencies and authorizes the disposal of abandoned or forfeited items under the fish, wildlife, and plant jurisdictions of these Secretaries. Public Law 105-328, signed October 30, 1998, amended the Act to allow the USFWS to use the proceeds from the disposal of abandoned items derived from fish, wildlife, and plants to cover the costs of shipping, storing, and disposing of those items.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

1-17

Chapter 1

August 2008

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980
The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (USC 2901–2911), commonly known as the Nongame Act, encourages States to develop conservation plans for nongame fish and wildlife of ecological, educational, aesthetic, cultural, recreational, economic, or scientific value. The States may be reimbursed for a percentage of the costs of developing, revising, or implementing conservation plans approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Amendments adopted in 1988 and 1989 directed the Secretary to undertake research and conservation activities for migratory nongame birds.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
Taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds is unlawful (16 USC 703-712. § 703). Take is defined (50 CFR §10.12); it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export, any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or part, of any such bird or any part, nest, or egg thereof, included in the terms of the conventions between the United States and Great Britain for the protection of migratory birds concluded August 16, 1916 (39 Stat. 1702), the United States and the United Mexican States for the protection of migratory birds and game mammals concluded February 7, 1936, the United States and the Government of Japan for the protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction, and their environment concluded March 4, 1972 [1] and the convention between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the conservation of migratory birds and their environments concluded November 19, 1976.

Sikes Act of 1960
The Sikes Act (16 USC 670a-670o, 74 Stat. 1052), as amended, Public Law 86-797, approved September 15, 1960, provides for cooperation by the Departments of the Interior and Defense with State agencies in planning, development, and maintenance of fish and wildlife resources on military reservations throughout the United States. Key amendments to the Act that affect this EIS are highlighted below: • • An amendment enacted August 8, 1968 (P.L. 90-465, 82 Stat. 661), authorized a program for development of outdoor recreation facilities. Public Law 93-452, signed October 18, 1974 (88 Stat. 1369), authorized conservation and rehabilitation programs on Department of Energy (DOE), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Forest Service, and BLM lands. These programs are carried out in cooperation with the States by the Secretary of the Interior and on Forest Service lands by the Secretary of Agriculture. Public Law 97-396, approved December 31, 1982 (96 Stat. 2005), provided for the inclusion of endangered plants in conservation programs developed for the BLM, Forest Service, NASA, and DOE lands. Public Law 105-85, approved November 18, 1997 (11 Stat. 2017,2018,2020,2022), added that each integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under this act should provide for the sustainable use by the public of natural resources, to the extent that the use is not inconsistent with the needs of fish and wildlife resources. PL 105-85 also requires that the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with State fish and wildlife agencies, submit a report annually on the amounts expended by the Department of the Interior and State fish and wildlife agencies on activities conducted pursuant to INRMPs to respective congressional committees with oversight responsibilities.
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

•

1-18

August 2008

Chapter 1

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988
The purposes of the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act (16 USC 63) are to secure, protect, and preserve significant caves on Federal lands for the perpetual use, enjoyment, and benefit of all people and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities and those who use caves located on Federal lands for scientific, education, or recreational purposes.

1.8

RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER PLANS

BLM land use plans and amendments must be consistent with officially approved or adopted resource related plans, and the policies and programs contained therein, of other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes, so long as the guidance and RMPs are also consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs of Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands, including Federal and State pollution control laws as implemented by applicable Federal and State air, water, noise, and other pollution standards or implementation plans. There are multiple State plans and programs that address land and resources common to this RMP. In accordance with BLM policy, the RMP will be consistent to the extent practical with officially approved or adopted plans for the following: • • • • • • • Alabama Coastal Zone Management Program Mississippi Coastal Zone Management Program Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Mississippi Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Upper Coosa Basin Watershed Management Plan Coosa River Recreation Plan Hancock Marshes Coastal Preserve

There are 313,819 acres of non-USFS FMO in Alabama and 517,934 in Mississippi that underlie various surface ownership. Surface owners include the BLM, the Department of Defense (DoD), USFWS, National Park Service (NPS), and other Federal agencies. In accordance with BLM policy, the RMP will be consistent to the extent practical with officially approved or adopted plans for the following areas: • USFWS
- Bon Secour NWR
- Wheeler NWR Complex
- Grand Bay NWR
- Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR
- Bogue Chitto NWR
- Panther Swamp NWR
- Hillside NWR
- Noxubee NWR
DoD
- Barin Field (Navy)
- Summerdale Outlying Landing Field (Navy)
- Silverhill Outlying Landing Field (Navy)
- Fort Rucker Military Reservation (Army)
- Fort Rucker Military Reservation (Army)
- Fort McClellan Military Reservation (Army, Closed)
- Anniston Army Depot (Army)

1-19

•

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1

August 2008

•

- Redstone Arsenal (Army)
- Lake Tholocco (Army Corps of Engineers)
- Coffeeville Lake (Army Corps of Engineers)
- William Dannelly Reservoir (Army Corps of Engineers)
- Maxwell Air Force Base (Air Force)
- Meridian Naval Air Station (Navy)
- Alpha Naval Auxiliary Station (Navy)
- Multipurpose Target Range (Navy)
- Aliceville Lake (Army Corps of Engineers)
- Columbus Lake (Army Corps of Engineers)
- Aberdeen Lake (Army Corps of Engineers)
- Grenada Lake (Army Corps of Engineers)
- Enid Lake (Army Corps of Engineers)
- Sardis Lake (Army Corps of Engineers)
NPS
- Little River Canyon Preserve
- Vicksburg National Military Park
- Natchez-Trace National Parkway
- Gulf Island National Seashore

In addition, there are Recovery Plans for multiple species that occur on lands and mineral estate administered by the BLM in Alabama and Mississippi. In accordance with BLM policy, the RMP will be consistent to the extent practical with officially approved or adopted plans for Federally listed species and habitats, including the following: • • • • • • • • • Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Loggerhead Turtle (NMFS) Recovery Plan for Chotawhatchee, Perdido Key and Alabama Beach Mouse (USFWS 1987) Recovery Plan for Adios oriceana (USFWS 1993) Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 1995) Gulf Sturgeon Recovery Plan (USFWS 1995) Blue Shiver Recovery Plan (USFWS 1995) Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalist) Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1999) Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (USFWS 2000) Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (USFWS 2003).

1.9

OPICS NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT T PLAN

Laws, regulations, policies, and executive orders require specific resource topics to be examined during the NEPA process. In some instances, initial evaluation reveals topics that are not relevant to the planning area or do not require further analysis. These topics that are not addressed in this RMP are listed below. Native American Concerns. Sites of concern to Native Americans are not known to occur on BLM administered surface lands or FMO in Alabama and Mississippi. Known sites, such as Nanih Waya in Mississippi and Hickory Ground in Alabama, would not be affected by any of the alternatives considered in this plan. Therefore, Native American concerns are not analyzed in detail. The BLM will continue consultation and coordination to identify and consider Native American concerns where future actions might affect cultural or religious values. Consultation with Federally recognized tribes would take place in accordance with Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination with
1-20 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 1

Indian Tribal Governments and would occur before planned excavations or undertakings on BLM-administered lands and FMO in compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The BLM would protect and preserve Native American religious and cultural rights and practices on Federal lands in accordance with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA). Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). There are no designated ACECs within the scope of this plan, and no ACECs were proposed internally or externally for designation. Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, and Land with Wilderness Characteristics. There are no designated or proposed wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, or lands with wilderness characteristics on lands administered by the BLM in the planning area. Minerals Underlying USFS Lands. The BLM has the responsibility for lease issuance and post-lease administration of 1,640,621 acres of mineral estate where the surface is managed by USFS. However, the RMP will not make decisions on oil and gas leasing of national forest acreage because the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Reform Act of 1987 requires the USFS to conduct a leasing analysis to make land use planning decisions on oil and gas leasing. This legal requirement does not apply to other Federal surface management agencies. For the purposes of this document, RMP decisions will apply to “BLMadministered, non-USFS FMO,” which refers to BLM-administered Federal minerals where the surface estate is in non-Federal ownership and Federal agencies excluding USFS. Locatable and Salable Minerals. There is no reasonable foreseeable development for locatable and salable resources; therefore, such resources in Alabama and Mississippi are not discussed herein. Types of locatable minerals include gold, silver, and copper. Examples of salable minerals include stone, sand, and gravel.

1.10

READER’S GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT

This Proposed RMP-FEIS is organized according to BLM’s land use planning guidance (H-1610-1 and 43 CFR 1601 et seq.), the BLM NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1), CEQ guidelines, and Federal regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508). This Proposed RMP-FEIS has been developed to address issues, concerns, and conflicts within the planning area and to provide guidance for management of BLM-administered lands in both States. It contains the following major chapter headings and information: Chapter 1—Purpose and Need. Contains background and introductory material such as the purpose and need for the Proposed RMP-FEIS and the BLM planning process. Chapter 2—Alternatives. Identifies BLM-administered surface tracts and non-USFS FMO and describes alternative development and management guidance common to all alternatives. This chapter presents specific management actions proposed under the alternatives and a comparative summary of the impacts of the alternatives that have been analyzed in detail. It also identifies the Proposed RMP. Chapter 3—Affected Environment. Describes the affected environment, focusing on the existing environmental conditions that would be affected by implementation of the alternatives. Chapter 4—Environmental Consequences. Describes the impacts of the alternatives. This section forms the scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of impacts presented in Chapter 2.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

1-21

Chapter 1

August 2008

Chapter 5—Consultation and Coordination. Describes the overall EIS scoping process and other agency consultation and public involvement activities. Responses to public comments received on the Draft RMP-EIS and a list of agencies, organizations, and individuals who were sent the Proposed RMPFEIS is also presented. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Provides an alphabetized list of abbreviations and acronyms used in this Proposed RMP-FEIS. Glossary. Provides definitions of terms used in this Proposed RMP-FEIS. References. Provides information for all references cited, most of which are available to the public at libraries or on the Internet. Many of the documents cited are available for public review at JFO. Appendices. Provide additional supporting information as follows— • • • • • • • • • • • Appendix A—Recreation and Public Purposes Act Lands Appendix B—Lands of Uncertain Title Appendix C—Relevant Statutes, Regulations, Orders, and Guidelines Appendix D—Proposed Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices Appendix E—Special Status Species in Alabama and Mississippi Appendix F—Soils Appendix G—Socioeconomic Figures Appendix H—Water Resources Appendix I—Withdrawn Lands Appendix J—Summary of the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario Appendix K—Proposed Resource Management Plan.

1-22

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 1

This page intentionally left blank.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

1-23

August 2008

Chapter 2

CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVES

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2 describes the alternatives for a Resource Management Plan (RMP), including the Proposed RMP, that would guide management of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered lands (referred to as surface tracts) and non-U.S. Forest Service Federal mineral ownership (non-USFS FMO) in Alabama and Mississippi identified in Chapter 1 (Table 1-1 and Table 1-2). An interdisciplinary team developed the alternatives to present a reasonable range of management options for guiding resource management and activities. The management alternatives evaluated in this Proposed RMP-Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) were developed to meet resource condition objectives and to minimize adverse impacts to cultural and natural resources while providing for compatible resource use and development opportunities consistent with current laws, regulations, and policies. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires development and consideration of a reasonable range of management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. Alternatives must be viable and reasonable; meet the stated purpose and need for the plan; provide a mix of resource protections, management use, and development; be responsive to issues identified during scoping; and meet established planning criteria (outlined in Chapter 1), as well as Federal laws, regulations, and BLM policies. Each management alternative evaluated in the Proposed RMP-FEIS represents a reasonable approach to managing resources and activities. The BLM has the discretion to select an alternative in its entirety or to combine aspects of the various alternatives presented in the draft to develop the Proposed RMP and Final EIS. Alternative 3 was chosen as the Proposed RMP after considering the public and agency comments received on the Draft RMP-EIS. The Proposed RMP is presented as Alternative 3 in this chapter.

2.1.1

How to Read This Chapter

This chapter is divided into four sections: • Introduction (Section 2.1). This section presents an overview of the development and consideration of management alternatives and provides direction on How to Read This Chapter (Section 2.1.1). Alternative Components (Section 2.2). This section presents the alternative structure and describes components that are considered for each alternative. Standard Management Common to All Alternatives (Section 2.3). This section describes management actions that are applicable or common to all alternatives. Alternatives Analyzed in Detail (Section 2.4). This section presents four alternatives for management of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO and surface tracts.

• • •

2.2 ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS
Decisions in RMPs guide future land management actions and subsequent site-specific implementation decisions. The RMP alternatives described in this chapter represent approaches to addressing key planning issues (presented in Chapter 1) and to managing resources and resource uses in the planning area. Each alternative is composed of two categories of land use planning decisions, including (1) desired outcomes for resource management (goals and objectives) and (2) the measures needed to achieve these goals and objectives (allowable uses and management actions). These two categories are discussed below.
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-1

Chapter 2

August 2008

•

Desired Outcomes (Goals and Objectives). Land use plans must identify desired outcomes expressed in terms of specific goals and objectives. Goals and objectives direct the BLM’s actions in most effectively meeting legal mandates, numerous regulatory responsibilities, national policy, and other resource or social needs. Desired outcomes should be identified for and pertain to resources (such as natural, biological, and cultural), resource uses (such as minerals development and lands and realty actions), and other factors (such as social and economic conditions). Goals are broad statements of desired outcomes (e.g., maintain ecosystem health and productivity, promote community stability, ensure sustainable development) that usually are not quantifiable. Objectives identify specific desired outcomes for resources. Objectives may be quantifiable and measurable and may have established time frames for achievement (as appropriate). Allowable Uses and Management Actions. After establishing desired outcomes, the BLM identifies allowable uses and management actions for different alternatives that are anticipated to achieve the goals and objectives. Land use plans must identify uses, or allocations, that are allowable, restricted, or prohibited on the public lands and mineral estate. These allocations identify surface lands and/or mineral interests where uses are allowed, including any restrictions that may be needed to meet goals and objectives. Land use plans also identify lands where specific uses are excluded to protect resource values. Certain lands may be open or closed to specific uses based on legislative, regulatory, or policy requirements or criteria to protect sensitive resource values. Land use plans must identify the actions anticipated to achieve desired outcomes, including actions to maintain, restore, or improve land health. These actions include proactive measures (e.g., measures that will be taken to enhance watershed function and condition), as well as measures or criteria that will be applied to guide day-to-day activities occurring on public land. Land use plans also establish administrative designations such as areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC), recommend proposed withdrawals, land tenure zones, and recommend or make findings of suitability for congressional designations (such as components of the National Wild and Scenic River System).

•

Goals and objectives developed for each resource and resource use are presented in Section 2.3 and by alternative for each surface tract in Section 2.4. Two types of management actions are included in the alternatives in this RMP. The first is standard management common to all alternatives (Section 2.3), which will apply regardless of which alternative is selected. The second is management actions and allowable uses by alternative (Section 2.4), which represent the choice(s) considered across alternatives. Management actions and allowable uses included in this chapter would apply to all BLM-administered surface tracts and non-USFS FMO in the planning area. It is important to note that the RMP is strategic in nature, and, while it provides an overarching vision for managing resources in the planning area, it must also be flexible to changing priorities, information, and circumstances.

2.3 STANDARD MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
The following standard management would apply regardless of which alternative is selected. These management actions are a result of specific limitations on management of resources and land use programs defined in various laws and regulations that govern BLM management decisions.

2.3.1

Air Quality

The goals and objectives for air quality are to comply with local, State, and Federal air quality regulations, requirements, and implementation plans.
2-2 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Actions authorized on BLM-administered lands and non-USFS FMO would need to be conducted so as to comply with Clean Air Act requirements, including the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (Section 109); the State Air Quality Implementation Plan (SIP) (Section 110); control of pollution from Federal facilities (Section 118); prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), including visibility impacts to mandatory Federal Class I areas (Section 160 et seq.); and conformity analyses and determinations (Section 176(c)). Section 118 of the Clean Air Act requires Federal agencies to comply with all Federal, State, and local air pollution requirements. Section 176(c) prohibits Federal agencies from taking any actions that contribute to a new violation of Ambient Air Quality Standards, increase the frequency or severity of an existing violation, or delay the attainment of a Standard. It also requires Federal agencies to conform to SIPs. BLM policy provides requirements to minimize air quality impacts. For example, prescribed burns must comply with BLM Manual 9214 for air quality maintenance requirements, to minimize air quality impacts from particulates such as smoke.

2.3.2

Soil Resources

The goals and objectives for soil resources are to maintain or improve soil conditions and prevent or minimize accelerated soil erosion. Standards and goals under the Clean Water Act (CWA) require measures to minimize non-point source pollution and soil erosion. Measures for minimizing accelerated soil erosion would continue to be made on a site-specific basis through evaluation of management actions and implementation of best management practices (BMP). Examples of soil BMPs can be found in the Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, Gold Book (BLM 2006) and at http://www.blm.gov/bmp.

2.3.3

Unique and Prime Farmland

The goals and objectives for unique and prime farmland are to minimize the impact of BLM-authorized activities on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses and comply with State and local government policies to protect farmland. Before any decision authorizing surface disturbance, a determination would be made as to if prime or unique farmland as defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) is in an area that may be affected by a proposed action. If prime or unique farmland is present, then an appropriate level of analysis would be prepared to determine if the proposed action may have an adverse effect and identify appropriate mitigation measures to minimize any unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

2.3.4

Water Resources

The goals and objectives for water resources are to maintain water quality where it presently meets Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved State water quality standards and improve water quality on public lands where it does not meet standards as defined by Section 303(d) of the CWA. Standards and goals under the CWA and water quality management objectives developed by the States, as required by the 1987 Water Quality Act Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, were created to protect the quality of States’ waters and to prevent, abate, and control water pollution. Any water discharged on the surface by industry is controlled through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Actions authorized on BLM lands must also comply with the mitigation requirements defined by the Office of Surface Mining regulations for coal leasing and by the

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-3

Chapter 2

August 2008

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit requirements. Management actions would be conducted in conformance with the various regulations in the CWA, the State regulations, and the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) to achieve the water quality classifications and standards for surface and ground waters developed by the States. Management actions would be conducted in a manner conforming to water quality management objectives developed by the States. Standards and goals under the CWA require measures to minimize non-point source pollution and soil erosion. Measures for minimizing accelerated soil erosion would continue to be made on a site-specific basis through evaluation of management actions and implementation of BMPs. Examples of soil BMPs can be found in the Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, Gold Book (BLM 2006) and at http:// www.blm.gov/bmp. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 established a national policy of protecting, and, where possible, restoring and enhancing coastal areas. The National Coastal Zone Management Program fosters an effective partnership among federal, state, and local governments. For proposed actions on tracts that are within coastal areas, the BLM would recognize and comply with the requirements of the state coastal area management program.

2.3.5

Vegetative Communities

The goals and objectives for vegetative communities are to manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally listed and other special status plant species and imperiled plant communities and control noxious and invasive plant species. The BLM’s role in the management of vegetative communities is to provide habitats that support desired plants and animals. The BLM would manage for desired outcomes of vegetative communities, including control of noxious and invasive species, that incorporate the conservation actions identified in the approved State comprehensive conservation strategies. Unless otherwise specified in an alternative, vegetation manipulation (e.g., prescribed burning, mechanical alteration, chemical treatment, manual, biological) would be allowed if needed to meet resource management objectives.

2.3.6

Fish and Wildlife

The goals and objectives for fish and wildlife are to manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance habitat for fish and wildlife species. The BLM’s role in the management of fish and wildlife is to provide habitats that support desired animal species. The BLM would support and coordinate with the State and other partners on habitat improvements and protection in compliance with approved comprehensive State fish and wildlife conservation strategies. This may include actions such as control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements. Hunting regulations and game management are under the authority of the State fish and wildlife agency.

2.3.7

Special Status Species

The goals and objectives for special status species are to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally listed and other special status species and their habitat. Special status species include all Federal and State-listed species, proposed or candidates for Federal or State listing, and those species identified by the BLM as sensitive species. BLM Eastern States policy

2-4

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

designates as “BLM sensitive” those additional species that are considered to be critically imperiled (S-1) or imperiled (S-2) by the State Natural Heritage programs. The BLM would avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of any Federally listed, State listed, or proposed species; actively promote species recovery; and work to improve the status of candidate and sensitive species. If a Federally listed species may be affected by a proposed management action, there would be consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 United States Code [USC] 1531 et seq.). If a proposed management action might impact a State-listed species, there would be consultation with the appropriate State game and fish agency. Harvesting of any sensitive species would be prohibited, except when explicitly authorized for scientific purposes by an appropriate State and/or Federal agency. If a proposed activity could affect candidate or sensitive species or their habitat, the BLM would avoid activities that would contribute to a need to list such species or their habitat. Thus, the BLM could require modifications to or reject a proposed activity that could jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or that could result in destruction or adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. The BLM would not approve any surface-disturbing activity that may affect any such species or critical habitat until obligations are met under applicable requirements of ESA, as amended, including completion of any required procedure for conference or formal consultation.

2.3.8

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

The goals and objectives for wildland fire ecology and management are to manage fire and fuels to protect life, firefighter safety, property, and critical resource values. Unless a separate, site-specific plan is in place, wildfires would be suppressed. Agreements, as needed, would be pursued with Federal, State, and local government fire protection agencies for fire suppression. Prescribed burning would be allowed on a case-by-case basis if needed to meet vegetative communities or fish and wildlife habitat management objectives.

2.3.9

Cultural Resources

The goals and objectives for cultural resources are to identify, preserve, and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations (FLPMA, Section 103 (c), 201(a) and (c); National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended (16 USC 470), Section 110(a); Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), Section 14(a)). In addition, to seek to reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural or human-caused deterioration, or potential conflict with other resource uses (FLPMA Sec. 103(c), NHPA 106, 110 (a) (2)) by ensuring that all authorizations for land use and resource use will comply with the NHPA Section 106. Management actions would comply with the NHPA, which provides protection for significant cultural resources. An appropriate level of inventory would be conducted for all actions with a potential to affect these resources, in compliance with the requirements of Section 110 of the NHPA. Actions would require additional consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in compliance with Section 106 of NHPA, and/or the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800). Cultural resources would be identified and protected on a case-by-case basis, according to site-specific needs. Any significant sites discovered would be available for scientific, conservation, traditional, or interpretation uses. A site that is not significant (as determined by the BLM with SHPO consultation) would be released from management concerns.
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-5

Chapter 2

August 2008

Cultural resource surveys conducted prior to 1996, when the Alabama Historical Commission (AHC) cultural resource assessment standards were established, will have to be resurveyed. Because of this, consultation with the Alabama SHPO will occur prior to any property disposal or mineral leasing to determine if a cultural resource survey was conducted prior to 1996.

2.3.10

Paleontological Resources

The goals and objectives for paleontological resources are to protect their important scientific values. Significant paleontological sites are protected under FLPMA. FLPMA charges the BLM to (1) manage public land so as to protect the quality of scientific and other values and (2) see that land and resources are periodically and systematically inventoried. Known paleontological resources would be managed according to the BLM 8270 Handbook and the BLM Manual for the Management of Paleontological Resources. If discovered, paleontological resources would be managed to protect their important scientific values. Area closures, restrictions, or other mitigation requirements for the protection of paleontological values would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Collecting of scientifically significant vertebrate and invertebrate fossils by qualified paleontologists would be allowed by permit only.

2.3.11

Visual Resources

The goals and objectives for visual resources are to protect scenic values while providing for overall multiple use and quality of life for local communities and visitors to public lands. Because of their small size, the surface tracts are a relatively small component of the visual landscape. Consequently, they have not been the subject of a traditional BLM visual resource management (VRM) inventory and are not assigned VRM classes (defined in Section 3.2.9). Case-by-case processing of land use and mineral development proposals would consider impacts to visual resources where these have been identified as public concerns. Interim visual management classes would be assigned in accordance with VRM Manual 8400 and Visual Resource Inventory Handbook H-8410-1. All surface tracts would be managed as VRM Class III, except for the Coosa River tracts in Alabama and the Hancock County tract in Mississippi, which would be managed as VRM Class II.

2.3.12

Minerals

The goals and objectives for minerals are to provide for leasing, exploration, and development of BLMadministered, non-USFS FMO, while protecting other resource values. Federal mineral estate would be available for conveyance to owners of the surface estate as provided in Section 209 of FLPMA. Section 209 provides for this conveyance if there are no known mineral values in the land or if reservation of the mineral rights to the United States is interfering with or precluding appropriate surface development of the land and such development is a more beneficial use of the land. The BLM would retain the FMO with known mineral value. As discussed in Section 1.3, BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO in the planning area includes Federal mineral estate underlying lands of BLM or other Federal surface management agencies (excluding USFS) and split-estate whereby the Federal Government owns all or a portion of the mineral estate, but the surface estate is State-owned or privately owned (i.e., non-Federal). BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO under the jurisdiction of another Federal surface managing agency would be available for exploration and

2-6

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

development as directed by the surface managing agency. Split-estate (i.e., non-USFS FMO underlying private or State-owned surface lands) would be subject to stipulations deemed necessary to protect existing surface improvements or use. The BLM would apply stipulations to oil and gas leases as determined through this plan; however, surface management agencies may provide their own stipulations that would be attached to a lease during the lease-approval process. After this plan is approved, it is expected that additional FMO tracts will be identified or acquired through mineral leasing applications. If these tracts are similar in resource values and within the environmental issues analyzed in this plan, the new FMO tracts will be managed according to the guidance of this plan and incorporated into the plan through plan maintenance. Coal leasing potential within the planning area is limited to the Warrior Basin1 in Alabama because of the distinctive presence of the appropriate geological conditions (e.g., continuity of coalbeds, thickness of coal, quality of coal seams) and existing infrastructure (e.g., existing subsurface mining operations and access roads) for development of coal resources. BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO available for coal leasing is located in Walker, Fayette, Jefferson, and Tuscaloosa Counties. Coal is also present to a lesser degree in Marion and Winston Counties, but the development of Federal coal in these counties is unlikely. Non-USFS FMO in the Warrior Basin would be available for further coal leasing consideration and limited to underground mining methods. BMPs would be applied as appropriate when processing a Lease by Application (LBA).

2.3.13

Recreation

The goals and objectives for recreation are to allow recreation use and travel compatible with other resource management objectives. The BLM surface tracts are open to dispersed recreational use, including hunting, fishing, hiking, and nature study. Case-by-case processing of land use and mineral development proposals would consider impacts to recreation where it has been identified as a public concern. Due to the scattered nature of the small surface tracts and lacking recreation interest, special recreation management areas (SRMA) would not be designated within this RMP, and all surface tracts would be managed as extensive recreation management areas (ERMA).

2.3.14

Lands and Realty

The goals and objectives for lands and realty are to manage the land ownership pattern, withdrawal, and use of public lands to promote efficiency of management and protect important resource values. In addition, to make public lands available for purposes such as transportation routes or utilities, when consistent with other resource goals. All land use proposals would be evaluated for conformance with plan objectives and land use decisions. Case-by-case processing would include analysis of environmental impacts through the NEPA compliance process. Land disposals would be conducted to meet the requirements identified under applicable authorities. To be considered suitable for disposal through sale, lands must meet the following criteria outlined in Section 203 of the FLPMA: (1) Such tract, because of its location or other characteristics, is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands and is not suitable for management by another Federal department or agency
1 The term “Warrior Basin” is a geologic province. The Black Warrior Basin is the drainage area of the Black Warrior River.
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 2-7

Chapter 2

August 2008

(2) Such tract was acquired for a specific purpose, and the tract is no longer required for that or any other Federal purpose (3) Disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including, but not limited to, expansion of communities and economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other public objectives and values, including, but not limited to, recreation and scenic values, which would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership. Lands may be exchanged as authorized by Section 206 of the FLPMA when the exchange would serve the national interest and benefit BLM programs or the programs of other Federal agencies. Lands may be conveyed to State and local government agencies and other qualified organizations under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926 (R&PP), as amended. Under R&PP, lands may be conveyed or leased only for an established or proposed project for which there are development and management plans, as well as adequate funding by the R&PP applicant to complete the development and a reasonable timetable of development. Specific surface tracts identified for disposal under the various management alternatives would be evaluated for the presence of significant resource values before such action. Resources to be evaluated would include minerals, recreation, cultural resources, wetlands, and special status species. This evaluation would also be applied before disposal of any additional BLM-administered surface tracts that are identified or verified after approval of the RMP. Some tracts may have uncertain titles. These are cases in which the tracts are claimed by private owners but government land records show that they were not transferred from Federal ownership. Tracts with uncertain titles would be handled on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the Color-of-Title Act, under which claimants may apply for transfer of these tracts and, if qualified, purchase the tracts to obtain title. Appendix B provides a list of lands of uncertain title occurring within the planning area. Existing withdrawals (listed in Appendix I) would be subject to review to determine if they are serving their intended purpose. The BLM has the authority to revoke, modify, extend, or change withdrawals in accordance with the provisions and limitations of Section 204 of FLPMA. After this plan is approved, it is expected that some additional surface tracts may return to BLM administration after revocation of withdrawals, reversion of R&PP lands, and resolution of title. These additional surface tracts will be managed according to applicable guidance of this plan. This plan does not identify specific utility corridors because of fragmented BLM surface land ownership within the planning area and uncertainties in demand. Right-of-way (ROW) avoidance areas, established for protection of sensitive resources and tracts that may be suitable for corridors, are identified in the management alternatives presented in Section 2.4. Tracts identified as available for disposal through sale or exchange would be managed as avoidance areas if granting of an ROW might adversely affect tract marketability, unless otherwise specified in the alternatives. Resolution of unauthorized use would be pursued on a case-by-case basis. Resolution would include termination of use and payment of damages, including reclamation of disturbed land, if needed. In some cases, use may be authorized through ROWs, permits, leases, or land disposal. Valid authorizations would be protected if the land undergoes disposal.

2-8

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

2.3.15

Hazardous Materials

The goals and objectives for hazardous materials are to minimize or eliminate the potential for intentional or accidental releases of hazardous materials or wastes from BLM-authorized actions. Proposed activities on BLM-administered surface tracts and non-USFS FMO would be evaluated for their potential to release hazardous materials into the environment. Authorized use of hazardous materials must comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Disposal of hazardous materials is prohibited. Discovery of hazardous materials that have not been permitted would be handled in accordance with the reporting, removal, and remediation requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

2.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL
This section presents four alternatives for BLM-administered surface tracts and non-USFS FMO. Each alternative represents a direction to guide future management of BLM-administered public lands and resources in Alabama and Mississippi. Alternative 3 was chosen as the Proposed RMP after considering the public and Agency comments received on the Draft RMP-EIS. No other alternatives were considered other than the four alternatives analyzed in this RMP-EIS. Management themes represented in each alternative include the following— • Alternative 1 (No Action). Alternative 1 represents the No Action Alternative (i.e., continuation of current management). The BLM would continue the current management approach by retaining all BLM-administered surface tracts and employing custodial management. The BLM management actions would occur in response to an application for use presented by another entity or compliance actions required by regulation and policy (as described in Section 2.3, Standard Management Common to All Alternatives). Potential impacts and mitigation would be identified and assessed when application is made for activity on a specific piece of BLM-administered land. There would be 760,570 acres of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO that would be open to oil and gas leasing. An estimated 71,183 acres of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO would be closed to leasing. Management of oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development would be subject to the standard lease terms and conditions that are included on the lease form. • Alternative 2. Alternative 2 proposes that the BLM would retain specific BLM-administered surface tracts. The BLM would investigate opportunities to manage the tracts in partnership with other agencies or organizations. Use of the tracts would be consistent with management objectives and other land use decisions. Tract-specific constraints for resource uses, such as ROW access, would be based on the presence of sensitive resources (e.g., special status species habitat). In addition to the resource management outlined in Alternative 1, more proactive management would occur on specific tracts to protect important natural resources. Management actions for specific tracts, as needed, could include installing walkovers and sand fencing on actively used tracts to protect special status species habitat, vegetation treatments to enhance or improve native landscapes on actively used tracts, and habitat management to achieve objectives in established fish and wildlife conservation strategies. There would be 760,452 acres of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO that would be open to oil and gas leasing. An estimated 71,301 acres of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO would be closed to leasing, which includes an additional 365 acres would be closed to protect habitat of the

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-9

Chapter 2

August 2008

Federally listed Alabama beach mouse. In addition to standard terms and conditions, conservation measures would be applied as stipulations to oil and gas leases and BMPs would be used to reduce adverse effects caused by surface-disturbing or disruptive activities associated with oil and gas operations on BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO. Conservation measures, including no surface occupancy (NSO), controlled surface use (CSU), seasonal stipulations, and BMPs are presented in Appendix D. Under this alternative, lease stipulations would include a 1,000-foot NSO buffer from aquatic habitats, and Alabama beach mouse habitat would not be available for lease. The stipulations in Appendix D would be applied in addition to the standard lease terms and conditions on the lease form. For each stipulation, there are provisions for waiver, modification, and exception provided in Appendix D, which could be applied as appropriate. The BMPs would be considered mandatory to reduce adverse impacts to specific resources and would be applied to oil and gas operations on new and existing leases. There would be some flexibility in implementation of each BMP, depending on site-specific conditions. Where there is potential to affect Federally listed, proposed, or candidate species or designated critical habitat, application of BMPs and/or waiver, modification, and exception to stipulations would normally require coordination and possible formal consultation with USFWS. • Alternative 3 (Proposed RMP). Under Alternative 3, all of the BLM-administered surface tracts would be available for transfer or disposal, except the Hancock County tract in Mississippi. For some of the surface tracts, there would be conditions placed on the disposal that development and use of the tract would be consistent with the resource management objectives and allowable uses established for the tract. Restrictions on use after disposal would be provided in the patent transferring ownership. Valid existing rights and other valid authorizations would be protected if disposal occurred. Until the surface tracts are disposed, management would apply tract-specific constraints for resource uses, such as ROW access, based on the presence of sensitive resources (e.g., special status species and important cultural resources). Resource management would be the same as outlined in Alternative 2. Proactive management would occur on specific tracts to protect important natural resources. Management actions for specific tracts, as needed, could include vegetation treatments to enhance or improve native landscapes on actively used tracts and habitat management to achieve objectives in established fish and wildlife conservation strategies. There would be 760,570 acres of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO that would be open to oil and gas leasing. An estimated 71,183 acres of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO would be closed to leasing. Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 uses conservation measures that would be applied as lease stipulations and BMPs to reduce adverse effects caused by surface-disturbing or disruptive activities associated with oil and gas operations on BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO. The stipulations in Alternative 3 are different from Alternative 2 in two ways. First, Alabama beach mouse habitat would be available for lease, subject to an NSO stipulation. Second, the buffer from aquatic habitats would be reduced to 250 feet. • Alternative 4. Alternative 4 proposes that all BLM-administered surface tracts would be made available for disposal from Federal ownership with no specific condition on use after disposal. Valid existing rights and other valid authorizations would be protected in the event of disposal. Under this alternative, management of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO would be the same as Alternative 3.

2-10

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

2.4.1

Management of Non-Forest Service Federal Mineral Ownership

The discussion of proposed management of mineral leasing and development of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO presented in this section is limited to oil and gas leasing. Non-USFS FMO includes mineral ownership underlying BLM-administered surface tracts. Proposed management for coal leasing is presented in Section 2.3, Standard Management Common to All Alternatives. Where non-USFS FMO is concerned, decisions of this RMP will pertain only to the BLM’s role in administering the minerals. Alternatives 1 through 4 were developed to present a reasonable range of options for where leasing can occur to guide decisionmaking for managing mineral leasing and development. There are four oil and gas leasing categories: • Open to leasing, subject to standard lease terms and conditions. This category includes areas in which standard lease terms and conditions are determined to be sufficient to protect other land uses or resource values. Open to leasing, subject to minor constraints. This category comprises areas in which moderately restrictive lease stipulations, such as timing limitations or distance setbacks, are required to mitigate impacts to other land uses or resource values. Such constraints are often referred to as CSU. Open to leasing, subject to major constraints. This category encompasses areas in which highly restrictive lease stipulations, such as NSO, are required to mitigate impacts to other land uses or resource values. Closed to leasing. This category is designated for areas where other land uses or resource values cannot be adequately protected with even the most restrictive lease stipulations. Appropriate protection can be ensured only by closing the lands to leasing.

•

The acreage of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO available for oil and gas leasing in Alabama and Mississippi by alternative is shown in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2. Federal oil and gas leases contain standard lease terms that are included on the lease form, many of which are designed to protect natural resources. As described above, special stipulations can be attached to a lease to respond to specific environmental or resource concerns for a particular lease area. Special stipulations are developed during the land use planning process, such as this RMP. Stipulations are attached to and made part of the lease and modify standard lease terms or the manner in which operations may be conducted. The variation of acreage by alternative for leasing stipulations associated with oil and gas potential in Alabama and Mississippi is shown in Table 2-3 and Table 2-4. Conservation measures, including stipulations and BMPs, are provided in Appendix D.

Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Minerals
Alabama and Mississippi have been classified as having high-occurrence potential for oil and gas resources, based on the reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFDS) prepared by the BLM. It is estimated that 20 wells would be drilled on non-USFS FMO in Alabama and 10 wells would be drilled on non-USFS FMO in Mississippi over the next 20 years (BLM 2004b). These actions are expected to disturb a total of 105 acres in Alabama and 55 acres in Mississippi.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-11

Chapter 2

August 2008

Table 2-1. Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in Alabama by Alternative
Oil and Gas Leasing Category
Open to leasing, subject to standard lease terms and conditions Open to leasing, subject to minor constraints Open to leasing, subject to major constraints Closed to leasing

Alternative 1 (No Action) (Acres)

Alternative 2 (Acres)

Alternative 3 (Proposed) (Acres)

Alternative 4 (Acres)

305,640

119,231

144,895

91,702

117,506

94,589

43,239

8,179 313,819 a

8,297 313,819 a

8,179 313,819 a

TOTAL

Notes: a Represents all BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO within the State of Alabama.

Table 2-2. Oil and Gas Leasing Categories in Mississippi by Alternative
Oil and Gas Leasing Category
Open to leasing, subject to standard lease terms and conditions Open to leasing, subject to minor constraints Open to leasing, subject to major constraints Closed to leasing TOTAL

Alternative 1 (No Action) (Acres)

Alternative 2 (Acres)

Alternative 3 (Proposed) (Acres)

Alternative 4 (Acres)

454,930

270,615

359,640

123

3,021

184,192

92,269

63,004 517,934 a

Notes: a Represents all BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO within the State of Mississippi.

2-12

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Table 2-3. Leasing Stipulations in Alabama by Alternative a
ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 (PROPOSED RMP) AND ALTERNATIVE 4

Area NO LEASE
Other Surface Managing Agency Lands:
USFWS Department of Defense (DoD) (Maxwell Air Force Base) National Park Service (NPS)

Total non-Forest Service Federal Mineral Ownership (Acres) a, b

8,179
3,384 1,495 3,300

Alabama beach mouse suitable habitat or Federally designated critical habitat Total Affected Area (in acres) b

0 8,179

365 8,544

0 8,179

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY/NO SURFACE DISTURBANCE
Bald eagle nests (1,500-ft. buffer around active or inactive nests and communal roost sites) Red-cockaded woodpecker (0.5 mile of a cluster plus a 200-ft. buffer zone surrounding that area) Sea turtle suitable nesting habitat (100-ft. buffer from the mean high tide line of coastal beaches) Gray bat, Indiana bat, Alabama cave shrimp, Alabama cave fish (600-ft. buffer around caves, fractures, large sinkholes or 250-ft. buffer around perennial or intermittent streams in or adjacent to counties with documented populations) Gray bat or Indiana bat summer roost or gray bat wintering cave hibernacula (0.5-mile buffer) Freshwater aquatic species (1,000-ft. buffer around river, stream, wetland spring, headwaters, wet meadows, wet pine savannas, pond, tributary, lake, coastal slough, sand bars, vernal pools on granite outcrops, calcareous seepage marshes, or small, marshy calcareous streams) Freshwater aquatic species (250-ft. buffer around river, stream, wetland spring, headwaters, wet meadows, wet pine savannas, pond, tributary, lake, coastal slough, sand bars, vernal pools on granite outcrops, calcareous seepage marshes, or small, marshy calcareous streams; buffer may be extended up to 600 ft. if slope exceeds 10%) Piping plover/least tern habitat (from the debris rack line to the low tide line of coastal beaches) Alabama beach mouse suitable habitat or Federally designated critical habitat Total Affected Area (in acres) b 0 0 0 30 888 513 30 888 513

12,898

3,044

90,930

38,111

0 0 0

2,131 0 110,434

2,200 365 58,049

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-13

Chapter 2

August 2008

ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION)

ALTERNATIVE 2

ALTERNATIVE 3 (PROPOSED RMP) AND ALTERNATIVE 4

Area CONTROLLED SURFACE USE
Bald eagle nests (no tree removal within 1.5-mile buffer zone around active or inactive bald eagle nests and communal roost sites) Gopher tortoise burrow (600-ft. buffer) Gray bat/Indiana bat hibernacula (1.5-mile buffer) Identified karstic habitat or any hydrologic network connected to caves used by listed bat species or other listed cave species Sensitive plant species habitat Total Affected Area (in acres)
b

Total non-Forest Service Federal Mineral Ownership (Acres) a, b

0 0 0 0 0 0

848 ND 7,944 88,001 78 96,871

1,000 ND 11,573 112,368 103 125,044

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS
Bald eagle nest or communal roosting sites (timing restriction within 1.5 miles between December 1 and August 1) Total Affected Area (in acres) b 0 0 1,299 1,299 1,299 1,299

OPEN TO LEASING SUBJECT TO STANDARD LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Total Affected Area (in acres) b 305,640 119,231 144,895
Notes: a All Federal mineral estate in Alabama has high potential for oil and gas resources. b Total acres under each alternative do not represent accurate totals shown in Table 2-1 because of the overlap of land resources and land use restrictions. ND No habitat data available to estimate affected area.

Table 2-4. Leasing Stipulations in Mississippi by Alternative a
ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 (PROPOSED RMP) AND ALTERNATIVE 4

Area NO LEASE Other Surface Managing Agency Lands
USFWS NPS

Total non-Forest Service Federal Mineral Ownership (Acres) a, b

63,004
60,207 2,797

Total Affected Area (in acres)

63,004

2-14

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION)

ALTERNATIVE 2

ALTERNATIVE 3 (PROPOSED RMP) AND ALTERNATIVE 4

NO SURFACE OCCUPANCY/NO SURFACE DISTURBANCE
Hancock County Marsh Bald eagle nests (1,500-ft. buffer around active or inactive nests and communal roost sites) Red-cockaded woodpecker (0.5 mile of a cluster plus a 200-ft. buffer zone surrounding that area) Sea turtle suitable nesting habitat (100-ft. buffer from the mean high tide line of coastal beaches) Gray bat, Indiana bat (600-ft. buffer around caves, fractures, sinkholes or 250-ft. buffer around perennial or intermittent streams in or adjacent to counties with documented populations) Gray bat or Indiana bat summer roost or gray bat wintering cave hibernacula (0.5-mile buffer) Freshwater aquatic species (1,000-ft. buffer around river, stream, wetland spring, headwaters, wet meadows, wet pine savannas, pond, tributary, lake, coastal slough, sand bars, vernal pools on granite outcrops, calcareous seepage marshes, or small, marshy calcareous streams) Freshwater aquatic species (250-ft. buffer around river, stream, wetland spring, headwaters, wet meadows, wet pine savannas, pond, tributary, lake, coastal slough, sand bars, vernal pools on granite outcrops, calcareous seepage marshes, or small, marshy calcareous streams; buffer may be extended up to 600 ft. if slope exceeds 10%) Louisiana black bear (1,500-ft. buffer around den trees in occupied bottomland hardwood and floodplain forest habitats) c Piping plover/least tern habitat (from the debris rack line to the low tide line of coastal beaches) Total Affected Area (in acres) b 0 0 0 0 1,810 1,089 11,710 997 1,810 1,089 11,710 997

2,564

7,073

168,383

68,656

0 0

4,237 197,863

4,237 98,136

CONTROLLED SURFACE USE
Bald eagle nests (no tree removal within 1.5-mile buffer zone around active or inactive bald eagle nests and communal roost sites) Gopher tortoise burrow (600-ft. buffer) Gray bat/Indiana bat hibernacula (1.5-mile buffer) Identified karstic habitat or any hydrologic network connected to caves used by listed bat species or other listed cave species 0 0 0 8,917 122 1 8,917 122 1

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-15

Chapter 2

August 2008

ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION)
Sensitive plant species habitat Total Affected Area (in acres)
b

ALTERNATIVE 2

ALTERNATIVE 3 (PROPOSED RMP) AND ALTERNATIVE 4
ND 9,040

0 0

ND 9,040

SEASONAL LIMITATIONS
Bald eagle nest or communal roosting sites (timing restriction within 1.5 miles between December 1 and August 1) Total Affected Area (in acres) b 0 0 13,742 13,742 13,742 13,742

OPEN TO LEASING SUBJECT TO STANDARD LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Total Affected Area (in acres) b 454,930 270,615 359,640
Notes: a All Federal mineral estate in Mississippi has high potential for oil and gas resources. b Total acres under each alternative do not represent accurate totals shown in Table 2-2 because of the overlap of land resources and land use restrictions. c No habitat data available to estimate affected area. No surface disturbance, including removal of potential den trees, is permitted within a 1,500-foot buffer around den trees in occupied bottomland hardwood and floodplain forest habitats. ND No habitat data available to estimate affected area.

2.4.2

Management of Surface Tracts

For the purposes of this plan, the surface tracts were grouped on the basis of geographic proximity and similar management needs. The surface tract groups to be discussed in this section include the Coosa River Tracts, Fort Morgan Beach Tracts, Fort Morgan Highway Tracts, Fowl River Tract, Geneva Tract, and Jordan Lake Tract in Alabama and the Hancock County Tract in Mississippi. These surface tracts and their associated acreage, county, and legal description are listed in Table 2-5. Proposed planning decisions for each surface tract grouping, by alternative, are detailed in Table 2-6 through Table 2-12. These tables are accompanied by maps depicting the tract locations (Map 2-1 through Map 2-7).

Table 2-5. Surface Tracts in Alabama and Mississippi
Name of Tract Group Coosa River Tracts St. Stephens Meridian
Foshee Islands Little Rock Island Big Rock Island Gilchrist Island 9.58 3.25 0.45 6.09 4.38 Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa Coosa T. 22N, R. 16E, Sec. 5, Lots 1, 2, & 5 T. 22N, R. 16E, Sec. 8, Lot 1 T. 22N, R. 16E, Sec. 5, Lot 3 T. 22N, R. 16E, Sec. 5, Lot 4 T. 23N, R. 16E, Sec. 32, Lot C

Acres

County Alabama

Legal Description a

Huntsville Meridian
Unnamed Island Smith Island 0.07 5.58 Calhoun Shelby T. 14S, R. 5E, Sec. 24, Lot 2 T. 20S, R. 2E, Sec. 24, Lot 1

2-16

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Name of Tract Group
Prince Island

Acres
12.74

County
Talladega

Legal Description a
T. 20S, R. 2E, Sec. 24, Lot 2 T. 20S, R. 2E, Sec. 13, Lot 1 T. 20S, R. 3E, Sec. 18, Lot 1

Total Acreage of Tract Group

42.14

Fort Morgan Beach Tracts St. Stephens Meridian
Fort Morgan Beach Tract Fort Morgan Beach Tract Fort Morgan Beach Tract Fort Morgan Beach Tract Total Acreage of Tract Group 0.84 5.32 10.60 11.94 28.70 Baldwin Baldwin Baldwin Baldwin T. 9S, R. 1E, Sec. 25, Lot 24 T. 9S, R. 1E, Sec. 26, Lots 13 &14 T. 9S, R. 2E, Sec. 27, Lots 54 & 55 T. 9S, R. 2E, Sec. 25, Lots 73 & 74

Fort Morgan Highway Tracts St. Stephens Meridian
Fort Morgan Highway Tract Fort Morgan Highway Tract Fort Morgan Highway Tract Total Acreage of Tract Group 20.16 8.88 12.24 41.28 Baldwin Baldwin Baldwin T. 9S, R. 2E, Sec. 28, Lot 44 T. 9S, R. 1E, Sec. 25, Lot 5 T. 9S, R. 1E, Sec. 26, Lot 15 T. 9S, R. 2E, Sec. 28, Lot 43 T. 9S, R. 2E, Sec. 27, Lot 56

Fowl River Tract St. Stephens Meridian
Fowl River Tract 41.73 Mobile T. 7S, R. 2W, Sec. 25, Lots 2–5

Geneva County Tract Tallahassee Meridian
East Fork Choctawhatchee River Tract 0.95 Geneva T. 7N, R. 16W, Sec. 22, Lot 4

Jordan Lake Tract St. Stephens Meridian
Jordan Lake Tract 4.3 159.10 Chilton T. 21N, R. 16E, Sec. 14, Lot 1

Total Surface Estate in Alabama

Mississippi Hancock County Tract St. Stephens Meridian
Hancock County 174.25 Hancock T. 9S, R. 15W, Sec. 25, Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, SESE

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-17

Chapter 2

August 2008

Name of Tract Group Total Surface Estate in Mississippi
a

Acres
174.25

County

Legal Description a

The legal description is abbreviated according to a rectangular survey system in which T. 22N, R. 16E, Sec. 5, Lot 1 means that the area is located at Lot 1 of Section 5 in Township 22 North, Range 16 East, in the meridian specified above. Townships are divided into 36 numbered sections. A standard section comprises 1 square mile or 640 acres of land and consists of aliquot parts of sections (e.g., half section of 320 acres, quarter section of 160 acres, 16th section of 40 acres). The township number indicates how far in a given direction (north or south) of a surveyed parallel the township is located. The range number indicates how far in a given direction (east or west) of a surveyed meridian the township is located.

Table 2-6. Alternatives for Coosa River Tracts (Maps 2-1a, 2-1b, 2-1c)
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Proposed) Vegetative Communities Alternative 4

Management Goals and Objectives
Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally listed and other special status plant species and imperiled plant communities. Control noxious and invasive plant species. No specific management goals and objectives are proposed. Protect mature stands of mixed hardwood/pine overstory and a diversity of understory species. No specific management goals and objectives are proposed.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
No specific actions are proposed. Remove invasive species, such as mimosa (Albizia julibrissin Durazz L.) by hand and with selective, hand application of herbicide. Conduct baseline inventories for special status plants. No specific actions are proposed.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
No specific actions are proposed. Monitor fledgling success of active bald eagle nests. No specific actions are proposed.

Minerals Management Goals and Objectives
Provide for leasing, exploration, and development of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO, while protecting other resource values.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tracts would be open to leasing and subject to standard lease terms and conditions and BMPs, except for an NSO stipulation of a 1,000-ft. buffer from aquatic habitats, and stipulations to protect bald eagle nesting and roosting

The tracts would be open to leasing, subject to standard lease terms and conditions.

The tracts would be open to leasing and subject to standard lease terms and conditions and BMPs, except for an NSO stipulation of a 250-ft. buffer from aquatic habitats, and stipulations to protect bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat, as described in Appendix D.

2-18

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Alternative 2
habitat, as described in Appendix D.

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Recreation and Travel Management Management Goals and Objectives
Allow recreation use and travel compatible with other resource management objectives. Support water-based recreation opportunities consistent with the Coosa River Recreation Plan (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] Project Nos. 2146, 082, and 618).

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tracts would remain open to recreation use. The tracts would remain open to motorized vehicle use. The tracts would be open to recreation use, including fishing, picnicking, rest stops of boaters and canoeists, and wildlife observation. The tracts would be designated as closed.

Lands and Realty Management Goals and Objectives
Manage the land ownership pattern, withdrawal, and use of public lands to promote efficiency of management and protect important resource values. Make public lands available for purposes such as transportation routes or utilities, when consistent with other resource goals.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tracts would be available for disposal under the condition that uses would be consistent with the resource management goals and objectives and allowable uses and management actions established under this alternative. In the case of R&PP conveyance, use after disposal would be controlled through approval of and compliance with the plan of development. In the case of FLPMA disposal (e.g., sale), restrictive covenants would be required to protect sensitive resources.

The tracts would be retained by the BLM.

The tracts would be retained by the BLM. The BLM would pursue opportunities to manage the tracts in partnership with other agencies and organizations.

The tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership with no restrictive covenants. Disposal may not be allowed if it would jeopardize Federally listed species. Land exchanges to benefit Federally listed species would be permitted.

The tracts would remain open to ROW applications.

These island tracts would be avoidance areas for ROWs to protect native vegetative communities and adjacent aquatic habitat.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-19

Chapter 2

August 2008

2-20

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-21

Chapter 2

August 2008

2-22

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Table 2-7. Alternatives for Fort Morgan Beach Tracts (Map 2-2)
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Proposed) Vegetative Communities Alternative 4

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
Promote establishment and retention of native coastal dune vegetative communities by planting native species and installing sand fence to protect existing dune habitat. Control invasive species through hand pulling, as needed.

No specific actions proposed.

No specific actions are proposed.

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Goals and Objectives
Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally listed and other special status fish and wildlife species and their habitat. No specific management goals and objectives are proposed. Maintain existing Fish and Wildlife Habitat diversity. Actively promote the recovery of Federally listed species such as Alabama beach mouse, piping plover/ least turn, nesting sea turtles, and other special status species. No specific management goals and objectives are proposed.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
Construct two protective dune walkover structures (approx. 300 feet each) and install sand fence to enhance and protect existing dune habitat. No specific actions are proposed. Reintroduce Alabama beach mice in suitable unoccupied habitat. Monitor sea turtle nesting and mark active nests for protection to maximize nestling survivorship. No specific actions are proposed.

Minerals Management Goals and Objectives
Provide for leasing, exploration, and development of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO, while protecting other resource values.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tracts would be open to leasing, subject to standard lease terms and conditions. The tracts would be closed to leasing to protect designated critical habitat for Alabama beach mouse. The tracts would be open to leasing and subject to standard lease terms and conditions and BMPs, except for an NSO stipulation (as described in Appendix D) to protect habitat for Alabama beach mouse, piping plover/least tern, and sea turtle nesting habitat.

Recreation and Travel Management Management Goals and Objectives
Allow recreation use, beach access, and travel compatible with other resource management objectives.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-23

Chapter 2

August 2008

Alternative 1 (No Action)
The tracts would remain open to recreation use. The tracts would remain open to motorized vehicle use.

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tracts would be open to recreation compatible with habitat management, including use of the beach and saltwater fishing. The tracts would be designated as closed.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
Lots 24 (Section 25), 13 and 14 (Section 26), and 54 and 55 (Section 27) (Table 2-1 and Map 2-2) would be retained by the BLM. The BLM would pursue opportunities to manage the tracts in partnership with USFWS and other agencies and organizations. Lots 24 (Section 25), 13 and 14 (Section 26), and 54 and 55 (Section 27) (Table 2-1 and Map 2-2) would be available for transfer to the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). If the tracts are not transferred to the Bon Secour NWR, the BLM will retain the tracts. The tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership with no restrictive covenants. Disposal may not be allowed if it would jeopardize Federally listed species or designated critical habitat. Land exchanges to benefit Federally listed species would be permitted.

Lots 24 (Section 25), 13 and 14 (Section 26), and 54 and 55 (Section 27) (Table 2-1 and Map 2-2) would be retained by the BLM.

Lots 24 (Section 25), 13 and 14 (Section 26), and 54 and 55 (Section 27) would remain open to ROW applications.

Lots 24 (Section 25), 13 and 14 (Section 26), and 54 and 55 (Section 27) would be avoidance areas for ROWs because of the presence of listed species and designated critical habitat.

Lots 73 and 74 would be transferred to the USFWS as part of the Bon Secour NWR because they occur within the boundaries of the refuge.

2-24

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-25

Chapter 2

August 2008

Table 2-8. Alternatives for Fort Morgan Highway Tracts (Map 2-3)
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Proposed) Vegetative Communities Alternative 4

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
No specific actions proposed. Remove invasive species, such as cogon grass and Chinese tallow, using an integrated program of hand removal and selective, hand application of herbicide. Establish baseline inventories of special status plant species. No specific actions are proposed.

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Goals and Objectives
Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally listed and other special status fish and wildlife species and their habitat. Maintain existing fish and wildlife habitat diversity. Actively promote the recovery of the Federally listed Alabama beach mouse and other endemic species, particularly migratory songbirds and raptors, using the flatwood, scrub, and wetland habitats occurring on these tracts.

No specific management goals and objectives are proposed.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
Incorporate Lots 5 and 15 (29 acres) into future prescribed burns conducted on adjacent Bon Secour NWR land to improve habitat values for migratory birds and scrub endemics as needed, depending on resource conditions, and in cooperation with the USFWS.

No specific actions are proposed.

Minerals Management Goals and Objectives
Provide for leasing, exploration, and development of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO, while protecting other resource values.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tracts would be open to leasing and subject to standard lease terms and conditions. The tracts would be closed to leasing to protect designated critical habitat for Alabama beach mouse. The tracts would be open to leasing and subject to standard lease terms and conditions and BMPs, except for an NSO stipulation (as described in Appendix D) to protect habitat for Alabama beach mouse and a 250-ft. buffer from wetlands and aquatic habitat.

Recreation and Travel Management Management Goals and Objectives
Allow recreation use and travel compatible with other resource management objectives.

2-26

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alternative 1 (No Action)
The tracts would remain open to recreation use. The tracts would remain open to motorized vehicle use.

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tracts would be open to recreation compatible with habitat management, including sightseeing and hiking. The tracts would be designated as closed.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership with no restrictive covenants. Disposal may not be allowed if it would jeopardize Federally listed species or designated critical habitat. Land exchanges to benefit Federally listed species would be permitted.

The tracts would be retained by the BLM.

The tracts would be retained by the BLM. The BLM would pursue opportunities to manage the tracts in partnership with USFWS and other agencies and organizations.

The tracts would be available for transfer to the Bon Secour NWR. If the tracts are not transferred to the Bon Secour NWR, the BLM will retain the tracts.

The tracts would remain open to ROW applications.

Existing facilities within the highway ROW corridor would be allowed. New disturbance would be avoided because of the presence of Federally listed species and designated critical habitat.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-27

Chapter 2

August 2008

2-28

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Table 2-9. Alternatives for Fowl River Tract (Map 2-4)
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Proposed) Vegetative Communities Alternative 4

Management Goals and Objectives
Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally listed and other special status plant species and imperiled plant communities. Control noxious and invasive plant species. No specific goals and objectives are proposed. Promote establishment and retention of native wetland and flatwood plant communities. No specific goals and objectives are proposed.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
No specific actions proposed. Remove invasive species such as mimosa (Albizia julibrissin Durazz L.) by hand and with selective, hand application of herbicide. Establish baseline inventories to monitor plant communities. No specific actions are proposed.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
No specific actions are proposed. Monitor fledgling success of active bald eagle nests. No specific actions are proposed.

Minerals Management Goals and Objectives
Provide for leasing, exploration, and development of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO, while protecting other resource values.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tract would be open to leasing and subject to standard lease terms and conditions and BMPs, except for an NSO stipulation of a 1,000-ft. buffer from wetlands and aquatic habitat, and stipulations to protect bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat, as described in Appendix D.

The tract would be open to leasing and subject to standard lease terms and conditions.

The tract would be open to leasing and subject to standard lease terms and conditions and BMPs, except for an NSO stipulation of a 250-ft. buffer from wetlands and aquatic habitat, and stipulations to protect bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat, as described in Appendix D.

Recreation and Travel Management Management Goals and Objectives
Allow recreation use and travel compatible with other resource management objectives.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tract would remain open to recreation use. The tract would be open to recreation use, including access for fishing, canoeing, and kayaking.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-29

Chapter 2

August 2008

Alternative 1 (No Action)
The tract would remain open to motorized vehicle use.

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

The tract would be designated as closed.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tract would be available for disposal under the condition that uses would be consistent with the resource management goals and objectives and allowable uses and management actions established under this alternative. In the case of R&PP conveyance, use after disposal would be controlled through approval of and compliance with the plan of development. In the case of FLPMA disposal (e.g., sale), restrictive covenants would be required to protect sensitive resources.

The tract would be retained by the BLM.

The tract would be retained by the BLM. The BLM would pursue opportunities to manage the tracts in partnership with other agencies and organizations.

The tract would be available for disposal from Federal ownership with no restrictive covenants. Disposal may not be allowed if it would jeopardize Federally listed species, associated with adjacent wetland/aquatic habitat. Land exchanges to benefit Federally listed species would be permitted.

The tract would remain open to ROW applications.

The tract would be an avoidance area for ROWs to protect native vegetative communities and adjacent wetland/aquatic habitat.

2-30

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-31

Chapter 2

August 2008

Table 2-10. Alternatives for Geneva Tract (Map 2-5)
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Proposed) Vegetative Communities Alternative 4

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
No specific actions proposed. Monitor and remove invasive species, as needed. No specific actions are proposed.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
No specific actions are proposed. Monitor changes in the tract that could affect fish and wildlife habitat utilization. No specific actions are proposed.

Minerals Management Goals and Objectives
Provide for leasing, exploration, and development of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO, while protecting other resource values.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tract would be open to leasing and subject to standard lease terms and conditions and BMPs, except for an NSO stipulation (as described in Appendix D) of a 1,000ft. buffer from aquatic habitat.

The tract would be open to leasing and subject to standard lease terms and conditions.

The tract would be open to leasing and subject to standard lease terms and conditions and BMPs, except for an NSO stipulation (as described in Appendix D) of a 250-ft. buffer from aquatic habitat.

Recreation and Travel Management Management Goals and Objectives
Allow recreation use and travel compatible with other resource management objectives.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tract would remain open to recreation use. The tract would remain open to motorized vehicle use. The tract would be open to recreation use including canoeing, kayaking, and fishing.

The tract would be designated as closed.

2-32

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed) Lands and Realty

Alternative 4

Management Goals and Objectives
Manage the land ownership pattern, withdrawal, and use of public lands to promote efficiency of management and protect important resource values. Make public lands available for purposes such as transportation routes or utilities, when consistent with other resource goals.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tract would be retained by the BLM. The BLM would pursue opportunities to manage the tracts in partnership with other agencies and organizations.

The tract would be retained by the BLM.

The tract would be available for disposal from Federal ownership.

The tract would remain open to ROW applications.

The tract would be an ROW avoidance area because it is in a floodplain and critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-33

Chapter 2

August 2008

2-34

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Table 2-11. Alternatives for Jordan Lake Tract (Map 2-6)
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Proposed) Vegetative Communities Alternative 4

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
Monitor and remove invasive species, such as mimosa, Chinese tallow, and cogon grass, as needed, by hand and with selective, hand application of herbicide.

No specific actions proposed.

No specific actions are proposed.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
No specific actions are proposed. Conduct inventory of fish and wildlife and special status species to establish baseline diversity. No specific actions are proposed.

Minerals Management Goals and Objectives
Provide for leasing, exploration, and development of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO, while protecting other resource values.

The tract would be open to leasing and subject to standard lease terms and conditions.

The tract would be open to leasing and subject to standard lease terms and conditions and BMPs, except for an NSO stipulation (as described in Appendix D) of a 250-ft. buffer from aquatic habitat.

Recreation and Travel Management Management Goals and Objectives
Allow recreation use and travel compatible with other resource management objectives.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tract would remain open to recreation use. The tract would be open to recreation use, including access to Jordan Lake for swimming and fishing.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-35

Chapter 2

August 2008

Alternative 1 (No Action)
The tract would remain open to motorized vehicle use.

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

The tract would be designated as limited. Motorized vehicle use would be limited to State- or county-maintained roads or other transportation routes specifically designated by a BLM-issued ROW. Other motorized vehicle access would be limited to administrative use and emergency response.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tract would be retained by the BLM. The BLM would pursue opportunities to manage the tract in partnership with other agencies and organizations.

The tract would be retained by the BLM.

The tract would be available for disposal from Federal ownership.

The tract would remain open to ROW applications.

The tract would be open for ROWs due to adjacent development and uses. ROWs would be collocated if possible.

2-36

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-37

Chapter 2

August 2008

Table 2-12. Alternatives for Hancock County, Mississippi, Tract 1 (Map 2-7)
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 (Proposed) Vegetative Communities Alternative 4

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
No specific actions are proposed. Monitor for early detection of invasive plant species, such as cogon grass and Chinese tallow. If detected, invasive species would be removed by hand or through selective, hand application of herbicide. No specific actions are proposed.

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Goals and Objectives
Manage vegetative communities to protect, preserve, or enhance Federally listed and other special status fish and wildlife species and their habitat. No specific goals and objectives are proposed. Protect and enhance the estuarine coastal wetland marshes in support of the Mississippi Coastal Preserve System. No specific goals and objectives are proposed.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
No specific actions are proposed. Prescribed burns would be used, as needed, depending on resource conditions, and in cooperation with the State of Mississippi to promote marsh health. No specific actions are proposed.

Minerals Management Goals and Objectives
Provide for leasing, exploration, and development of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO, while protecting other resource values.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tract would be open to leasing and subject to standard lease terms and conditions. The tract would be open to leasing and subject to standard lease terms and conditions and BMPs, except for an NSO stipulation (as described in Appendix D) for protection of Hancock County Marshes.

Recreation and Travel Management Management Goals and Objectives
Allow recreation use and travel compatible with other resource management objectives.

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tract would remain open to motorized vehicle use. The tract would remain open to recreation use, including motorized vehicle use. The tract would be open to recreation use, including fishing and waterfowl hunting.

The tract would be designated as limited to motorized boats in areas of open water. Other motorized vehicle use would be limited to administrative use and emergency response.

2-38

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed) Lands and Realty

Alternative 4

Allowable Uses and Management Actions
The tract would be available for disposal from Federal ownership with no restrictive covenants. Disposal may not be allowed if it would jeopardize Federally listed species associated with wetland/aquatic habitat. Land exchanges to benefit Federally listed species would be permitted.

The tract would be retained by the BLM.

The tract would be retained by the BLM. The BLM would pursue opportunities to manage the tract in partnership with other agencies and organizations.

The tract would remain open to ROW applications.

The tract would be an avoidance area for ROWs to protect wetland habitat.

1 These allowable uses and management actions would not occur unless the R&PP patent were to revert to the BLM.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-39

Chapter 2

August 2008

2-40

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Table 2-13. Comparison of Impacts For Alabama
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Air Quality
Certain BLM-authorized activities within the planning area, such as oil and gas development, construction activities, vehicle travel, and mechanical hand tools or prescribed burning used in vegetation and wildlife habitat manipulation, would produce emissions considered to be greenhouse gases (GHG), particularly carbon dioxide (CO2). However, due to the anticipated dispersed and infrequent nature of these activities, the project emissions would not have any noticeable or measurable effect and, therefore, the total contribution of GHGs from authorized activities would be small as well. Other BLM activities may help offset any emissions and sequester carbon, such as maintaining vegetative and forested cover, which may help build organic carbon in soils and function as “carbon sinks”. Wildfire could lead to air emissions. Suppression of all fires would result in short-term localized impacts, but is not anticipated to deteriorate air quality conditions. Although more management actions are proposed for the surface tracts (159 acres), including vegetation and fish and wildlife habitat treatments, these actions would not be anticipated to deteriorate air quality conditions. Since the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a total of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) would be managed as avoidance areas, there would be less potential for emissions associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1, except managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a total of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) as avoidance areas would result in a decreased potential for emissions associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Management actions on the surface tracts (159 acres), including potential ROW development and recreation and travel use, would not be anticipated to deteriorate air quality conditions.

Estimated emissions from development of 20 oil and gas wells on non-USFS FMO would be responsible for less than one percent of emissions from the mineral development across Alabama for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Particulate Matter (PM10), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Those emissions would likely occur over a dispersed area and would not cause any noticeable or measurable effect. Potential oil and gas development on some non-USFS FMO tracts would be in close proximity to the Sipsey Wilderness and the Birmingham nonattainment area. Oil and gas emissions in those tracts could impact wilderness air quality values and jeopardize attainment of ambient air quality. Based on expected emissions, air quality impacts would not be anticipated. Estimated emissions from 1.9 million tons of Federal coal produced annually over the next 20 years would be responsible for less than one percent of emissions from other mineral development in the Black Warrior Coal Basin for NOx, SO2, PM10, CO, and VOCs.

Soil Resources
Management actions on the surface tracts (159 acres), including potential ROW development and recreation and travel use, could impact soils through vegetation clearing activities and ground disturbance. Wind and water erosion, and subsequent loss in soil productivity would occur in Management actions proposed for the surface tracts (159 acres), such as removing invasive species and conducting prescribed fire, could increase site-specific erosion in the short term. Sand deposition would be facilitated by planting native coastal dune vegetation as part of dune Impacts from management actions proposed for the surface tracts (159 acres) would be the same as Alternative 2, except disposing the surface tracts from Federal ownership could increase the chances for subsequent development and associated impacts on soils. Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1, except managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a total of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) as avoidance areas would result in a decreased potential for soil impacts
2-41

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2

August 2008

Alternative 1 (No Action)
disturbed areas where revegetation does not occur. These effects would be localized and short term in areas where revegetation is enhanced or permitted. The effect would be long term but localized if roads or structures were constructed on the tracts.

Alternative 2
restoration activities after damage by major storms. Over the long term, improving vegetation communities and fish and wildlife habitat would reduce erosion and overland flows. Since the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a total of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) would be managed as avoidance areas, there would be less potential for ground disturbance and increased erosion associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 (Proposed)
However, following disposal, development and use of the tract would be consistent with RMP objectives, which would prevent disposal-related impacts from occurring.

Alternative 4
associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. Disposal of the surface tracts from Federal ownership without conditions could increase chances for subsequent development and associated impacts on the tracts. Subsequent development of the tracts could result in impacts to soils from vegetation-clearing activities and construction ground disturbance, which could increase surface runoff and erosion.

Oil and gas development could result in both a slight decline in soil productivity and an increase in surface runoff. Cut and fill areas to support wellpads and access routes can contribute to local soil erosion. Except for 8,179 acres closed to leasing by other surface management agencies, non-USFS FMO would be open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions (305,640 acres). The estimated development of 20 wells in Alabama over the next 20 years would disturb approximately 105 nonUSFS FMO acres. Required reclamation by Federal and State laws and the minimal surface that might be disturbed would produce only localized effects on soils. Operation of the oil and gas wells could also impact the surrounding soils by potential contamination from accidental spills or improper management of hazardous materials

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated impacts on 105 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. Applying the stipulations in Appendix D would increase the area where seasonal, CSU (117,506 acres), and NSO (43,239 acres) restrictions would be implemented, which would reduce disturbance to soils within the protected areas. Under this alternative, the 1,000-foot NSO area around aquatic habitats identified in Alternative 2 would be reduced to 250 feet, which would reduce protections to soils within these areas. In most cases, this buffer is expected to prevent construction activities from increasing erosion to the point that sedimentation of local drainages and wetlands increases. In areas with slopes over 25 percent, additional measures may be needed to stabilize disturbed soils.

2-42

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alternative 1 (No Action)
or waste; however, Federal, State, and local regulations would require site characterization and corrective action to restore soil integrity and productivity.

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Future coal development is not anticipated to disturb the surface; therefore, impacts to soils are not anticipated.

Water Resources
Management actions on the surface tracts (159 acres), including potential ROW development and recreation and travel use, could result in shortterm and site-specific increases in erosion and surface runoff, which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases water quality. Impacts would be short term in areas where revegetation was enhanced or permitted. The effect would be long term but localized if roads or structures were constructed on the tracts. Except for 8,179 acres closed to leasing by other surface management agencies, non-USFS FMO would be open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions (305,640 acres). The estimated development of 20 wells in Alabama over the next 20 years would disturb approximately 105 nonUSFS FMO acres. Required reclamation by Federal and State laws and the minimal surface that might be disturbed would produce only localized effects on water resources. Oil and gas development could result in surface runoff, which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and Management actions proposed for the surface tracts (159 acres), such as removing invasive species and conducting prescribed fire, could increase sitespecific erosion, which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases water quality in the short term. Over the long term, improving vegetation communities would reduce erosion and overland flows. Since the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a total of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) would be managed as avoidance areas, there would be less potential for ground disturbance and increased erosion associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. No coastal wetland habitats or water bodies occur on or adjacent to the Fort Morgan Highway tracts. Development of additional transportation routes and ROW on the Jordan Lake tract could contribute to the already degrading water quality of the Coosa River. Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated impacts on 105 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. A 1,000-foot NSO buffer around aquatic habitats and applying the stipulations in Appendix D would increase the area where seasonal, CSU (91,702 acres), and NSO (94,589 acres) restrictions would be implemented, which would reduce disturbance to water resources within the protected areas. This stipulation could be applied to an estimated 90,930 acres or 29 percent of the non-USFS FMO available for leasing in Alabama. In most cases, this buffer is expected to prevent construction activities from Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1, except managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a total of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) as avoidance areas would result in a decreased potential for impacts to water resources associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1.

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated impacts on 105 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. Applying the stipulations in Appendix D would increase the area where seasonal, CSU (117,506 acres), and NSO (43,239 acres) restrictions would be implemented, which would reduce disturbance to water resources within the protected areas. Under this alternative, the 1,000-foot NSO area around aquatic habitats identified in Alternative 2 would be reduced to 250-feet, which would allow development to occur in close proximity to water resources and the potential for impacts to occur. In most cases, this buffer is expected to prevent construction activities from increasing the sedimentation of local drainages and wetlands. In areas with slopes over 25 percent, additional measures may be needed to stabilize disturbed soils above wetlands or aquatic habitats to the point that they are not impacted by increased sedimentation.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-43

Chapter 2

August 2008

Alternative 1 (No Action)
decreases water quality. Leakage of drill fluids, hazardous waste spills, or leakage from reserve pits could be introduced into the ground water as well. Additionally, access roads and wellpads can alter the local hydrology, reducing surface flow to mesic areas and diverting or degrading surface water. Because surface discharge of produced water would be a permitted activity requiring standards of water quality, direct impacts to water quality from the disposal of water produced from oil and gas production on nonUSFS FMO would be minimized.

Alternative 2
increasing the sedimentation of local drainages and wetlands.

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Coal development in the Warrior Basin would involve mining of existing underground coal mines, which would further increase the potential for ground water contamination. Migration of contaminants into the surrounding soils and aquifers could degrade ground water quality and thereby affect wells and springs that may serve household and domestic uses.

Vegetative Communities
Management actions on the surface tracts (159 acres) could result in surface-disturbing activities that would impact vegetative communities. These actions would result in vegetation-clearing and disturbance associated with construction, which could alter vegetation communities. Wind and water erosion in disturbed areas could impede the regrowth of vegetation, allow noxious weeds to grow, and potentially deteriorate aquatic habitats. Retaining surface tracts in Federal ownership would continue the application of protective measures provided by Federal law and Agency policies that would provide adequate Impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be reduced under this alternative compared to Alternative 1 due to limitation on motorized recreation, managing for native vegetation and habitat, and managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts as avoidance areas for ROW. Impacts from retaining surface tracts in Federal ownership and pursuing partnerships to provide management would more directly benefit vegetation by restoring and maintaining continuity and composition of habitat than anticipated under Alternative 1. Impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be the same as Alternative 1. Disposing surface tracts out of Federal ownership without conditions for management and use after disposal could increase the potential for subsequent development and associated impacts to vegetation. Such development could eliminate and fragment vegetation communities, leaving small, isolated populations that are more vulnerable to habitat modification and degradation.

Impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be the same as Alternative 2. Impacts from disposing surface tracts out of Federal ownership consistent with resource management objectives would be the same as Alternative 1.

2-44

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alternative 1 (No Action)
protection of vegetation. The estimated 20 wells to be developed in Alabama over the life of this plan would disturb approximately 105 non-USFS FMO acres. Although 305,640 acres are open to leasing, the potential is low for impacts to sensitive vegetation communities because leasing stipulations would be developed as appropriate to protect vegetation.

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Impacts from fluid mineral leasing management actions on split-estate would be the same as Alternative 1. However, Alternative 2 uses more stringent leasing stipulations in managing all non-USFS FMO. Additional protections would be applied to 91,702 acres managed as CSU, 94,589 acres as NSO, and 8,297 acres closed to leasing.

Impacts under Alternatives 3 and 4 would be similar to those of Alternative 2 except buffers for aquatic species and protections of Alabama beach mouse habitat would be reduced. Stipulations would be applied to 117,506 acres managed as CSU, 43,239 acres as NSO, and 8,179 acres closed to leasing.

Future coal development is not anticipated to disturb the surface; therefore, impacts to vegetative communities are not anticipated.

Fish and Wildlife
Management actions on the surface tracts (159 acres) could result in surface-disturbing activities. These actions would result in vegetationclearing activities and disturbance associated with construction, which could displace wildlife and alter vegetation, habitat, and forage components important to wildlife in localized areas. This could impair species viability and reduce habitat quality for a variety of species. Wind and water erosion in disturbed areas could impede the regrowth of vegetation, allow noxious weeds to grow, and potentially deteriorate aquatic habitats. Retaining surface tracts in Federal ownership would continue the application of protective measures provided by Federal law and Agency policies that would provide adequate protection of wildlife habitat. Impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be reduced under this alternative compared to Alternative 1 due to limitation on motorized recreation, managing for existing wildlife diversity and undertaking actions to manage for sensitive wildlife species, and managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts as avoidance areas for transportation project ROWs. Impacts from retaining surface tracts in Federal ownership and pursuing partnerships to provide management would more directly benefit wildlife by restoring and maintaining continuity and composition of habitat than anticipated under Alternative 1.

Impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be the same as Alternative 1. Disposing surface tracts out of Federal ownership without conditions for management and use after disposal could increase the potential for subsequent development and associated impacts to vegetation. Such development could eliminate and fragment wildlife habitat, leaving small, isolated populations that are more vulnerable to habitat modification and degradation.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-45

Chapter 2

August 2008

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Alternative 2
Impacts from mineral leasing management actions on split-estate would be the same as Alternative 1. However, Alternative 2 uses more stringent leasing stipulations in managing all non-USFS FMO with exception, waiver, and modification criteria applied as determined through Agency direction. Additional protections would be applied to 91,702 acres managed as CSU, 94,589 acres as NSO, and 8,297 acres closed to leasing.

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

The estimated 20 wells to be developed in Alabama over the life of this plan would disturb approximately 105 non-USFS FMO acres. Although 305,640 acres are open to leasing, the potential is low for impacts to sensitive wildlife because leasing stipulations would be developed as appropriate to protect wildlife.

Special Status Species
Lack of specific areas and species being managed could increase the potential for exotic, invasive species to become established or spread on BLM surface tracts. Cogon grass at the Fort Morgan Highway tracts, in particular, has the potential to alter Alabama beach mouse critical habitat as it forms dense stands displacing native herbaceous plants and potentially increasing fire frequency and intensity. The coastal dune habitat associated with the Fort Morgan beach tracts would continue to be trampled at traditional beach access points damaging habitat for Alabama beach mouse. Dispersed recreation use of the Coosa River tracts has the potential to cause bald eagles to abandon nest sites. Retaining the surface tracts in Federal ownership would continue the application of protective measures provided by Federal law and Agency policies that would Alabama beach mouse and nesting shore birds would benefit from plantings of native coastal dune vegetation on the Fort Morgan beach tracts after damaging storms. These plantings promote sand deposition and help to reestablish the dunes more quickly. On the Fowl River, Coosa River, and Fort Morgan Highway tracts, woody exotic, invasive species, such as Chinese tallow and Chinese privet, would be removed by hand and stumps treated with approved herbicides. Alabama beach mouse and nesting shore birds at the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would benefit from the installation of two dune walkovers, which would eliminate damaging foot traffic and allow dunes and vegetation to recover at traditional public access areas at Veterans Road and Mobile Road. Impacts from retaining surface tracts in Federal ownership and pursuing partnerships to provide management Impacts from surface tract management, including vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat, would be the same as Alternative 1. The transfer of the BLM surface tracts to private ownership are likely to result in loss of habitat for the Alabama beach mouse, piping plover, snowy plover, and bald eagle, as well as potential habitat for Alabama red-belly turtle. Any development of the beach tracts would result in the direct loss of occupied critical habitat for the Alabama beach mouse. Development of the Fort Morgan Highway tracts is likely to result in the loss of important scrub habitats designated as critical habitat. Because the Fort Morgan Beach and Highway tracts are designated critical habitat, USFWS would have to authorize a taking permit through the Section 7 process of the ESA before such transfers could be approved.

Impacts from surface tract management, including vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat, would be the same as Alternative 2. Under this alternative, the Geneva and Jordon Lake tracts would be transferred out of Federal ownership without conditions. These tracts are adjacent to Gulf sturgeon critical habitat, but no changes of use are anticipated if it were transferred to private ownership that would affect critical habitat.

2-46

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alternative 1 (No Action)
provide adequate protection of special status species.

Alternative 2
would more directly benefit special status species by restoring and maintaining continuity and composition of habitat than anticipated under Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Oil and gas development on nonUSFS FMO in Alabama is expected to result in the disturbance of 105 acres of habitat, any of which could occur in areas supporting special status species. Impacts to special status species could include the direct loss of habitat and/or degradation of aquatic or wetland habitats for the Alabama beach mouse, loggerhead sea turtle, piping plover, snowy plover, Wilson’s plover, gopher tortoise, red-cockaded woodpecker, bald eagle, and special status fish species. Section 7 consultations with the USFWS would be required prior to the BLM permitting any action that could adversely affect these Federally listed species or designated habitat, and subsequent actions would comply with the conditions established by any subsequent biological opinions (BO).

Although the number of wells (20) and acres disturbed (105) would remain the same under this alternative, lease stipulations would shift surface-disturbing activities away from sensitive habitats with potential to support special status species. The coastline and all critical habitat for the Alabama beach mouse, including upland scrub sites, would be excluded from leasing. This would avoid potential impacts to Alabama beach mouse, nesting sea turtles, piping plover, and other coastal special status species, including least tern, American oystercatcher, and Wilson’s plover.

Impacts from mineral development would be the same as Alternative 2, except the aquatic and wetland buffer would be reduced to 250 feet. In areas where slopes exceed 10 percent, the buffer could be extended up to 600 feet to provide adequate protection. In most cases, this buffer is expected to prevent construction activities from increasing the sedimentation of local drainages and wetlands. The coastal no-lease areas would be replaced with a 600-foot NSO buffer. This change could affect nesting sea turtles, piping plover, and all critical habitat for Alabama beach mouse, including adjacent upland scrub habitats. Although no surface disturbance would occur on non-USFS FMO or BLM surface tracts, offsite directional drilling to target these Federal minerals would be permitted under this alternative.

Wildland Fire and Ecology
Fire response and fuels treatments would apply to the 159 acres of BLM-administered surface land. Wildland fire management would minimize damage to life, public safety, and developments in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and to natural resource values. Allowing prescribed burning on a case-by-case basis would allow for a reduction in hazardous fuel conditions, improving the ability to suppress wildfires while maintaining disturbance levels to which vegetation communities have adapted.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-47

Chapter 2

August 2008

Alternative 1 (No Action)
Allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives and habitat improvements under standard management common to all alternatives would maintain natural fuel conditions across the surface tracts. This would maintain natural disturbance regimes and decrease the frequency and intensity of wildland fires and allow fires to be more easily controlled. Dispersed recreation use would introduce additional ignition sources through human use of natural environments, which could increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. This would be more prevalent in areas that are more accessible. While ROW actions could increase suppression costs, the aspects of ROW related to vegetation clearing and the potential for increased accessibility could reduce suppression costs. Development of 20 oil and gas wells introduces additional ignitions sources throughout the non-USFS FMO, increasing the potential of wildland fire occurrence and introducing infrastructure that requires protection in wildland fire events. Disturbance associated with development could provide increased accessibility for fire suppression equipment and provide fuel breaks. These impacts would not occur on the 8,179 acres closed to oil and gas development.

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat management actions, such as removing invasive species and conducting prescribed fire, on the surface tracts would reduce the potential for changes in the vegetation communities from invasive species. As a result, the natural fire regimes would be maintained or restored. This would improve the ability to manage wildland fire in its natural role through application of prescribed fires. The potential for increased wildland fire occurrence would decrease compared to Alternative 1 because travel on the surface tracts would be designated as closed or limited to motorized travel. Since the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts would be managed as avoidance areas (a total of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama), there would be less potential for wildfire impacts associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1.

Impacts from vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat management actions would be the same as Alternative 1. Impacts from ROW and recreation and travel management actions would be the same as Alternative 2. If tracts were transferred from Federal ownership, the responsibility for suppression of wildfires would be eliminated, decreasing suppression costs in wildland fire events.

Impacts from minerals management would be the same as Alternative 1, except impacts would not occur on the 94,589 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (8,297 acres).

Impacts from minerals management would be the same as Alternative 1, except impacts would not occur on the 43,239 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (8,179 acres).

2-48

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Alternative 2 Cultural Resources

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

The BLM would continue to protect cultural resources from disturbance, damage, or loss from authorized uses through project avoidance or mitigation, including data recovery if necessary. As inventories are conducted, more cultural sites would be identified. Inventories and adherence to law, regulation and policy would protect most cultural sites; however, inadvertent damage of undiscovered sites would remain a possibility. Vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat management would increase impacts to cultural resources due to implementing vegetation treatments to reduce invasive species and improve habitat. Limiting or closing motorized vehicle use on the surface tracts would increase protection of cultural sites. Impacts from retaining surface tracts in Federal ownership (BLM or USFWS) would be the same as Alternative 1. Managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts as avoidance areas for transportation and ROW would reduce the potential for impacts to cultural sites in these areas. Impacts from vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat management actions would be the same as Alternative 1. Impacts from ROW and recreation and travel management actions would be the same as Alternative 2. Making the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach (Lots 13, 14, 24, 54, and 55), Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts available for disposal from Federal ownership could result in the removal of cultural properties from Federal ownership and the associated protections by laws, regulations, and policies. Disposing the tracts without any specified management would increase the potential for damage or loss of previously undetected cultural resources after the transfer.

Dispersed recreation and standard vegetation treatments could result in inadvertent damage to cultural resources. Ground-disturbing activities associated with ROW construction and maintenance could impact cultural resources. Retaining surface tracts in Federal ownership (whether BLM administered or USFWS administered) would provide protection of cultural resource sites and preserve the setting of sites.

Impacts from surface tract management—including vegetative communities, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and ROW management actions—would be the same as Alternative 2. Making surface tracts available for disposal from Federal ownership could result in the removal of cultural properties from Federal ownership and the associated protections by laws, regulations, and policies. However, applying conditions and restrictive covenants on management and use after disposal, damage to previously undetected cultural resources could be mitigated.

Minerals management actions could impact cultural resources. An appropriate level of cultural resource survey would need to be conducted prior to disturbance. Cultural resources on 8,179 non-USFS FMO acres closed to oil and gas leasing would be protected from oil and gas development.

Cultural resources on 8,297 nonUSFS FMO acres closed to oil and gas leasing would be protected from oil and gas development, as would cultural sites on 94,589 non-USFS FMO acres managed for NSO.

Cultural resources on 8,179 non-USFS FMO acres closed to oil and gas leasing would be protected from oil and gas development, as would cultural sites on 43,239 non-USFS FMO acres managed for NSO.

Based on the RFD, production of 37.6 million tons of coal from pre-existing underground mines over 20 years would not result in new surface disturbance; therefore, no impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated from coal development.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-49

Chapter 2

August 2008

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Alternative 2 Visual Resources
Actions to improve vegetation communities and wildlife habitat would temporarily diminish visual quality; however, visual quality would be improved in the long term. Limiting motorized vehicle use on the surface tracts could diminish impacts described in Alternative 1. Managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts as avoidance areas for ROWs would help to retain the visual quality of the area by reducing the potential for development activities to occur in these areas. Managing the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts as available for ROW corridors could diminish the visual quality of these areas. Mineral leasing and subsequent development could result in the removal of vegetation; construction of access roads, wellpads, and other infrastructure; introduction of drilling equipment; and associated dust emissions. These effects would all diminish the visual quality of the area. Closed and NSO stipulations on 33 percent of the non-USFS FMO would prevent these impacts.

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Allowing recreation activities, including motorized vehicle use, on the surface tracts could result in decreased visual quality over time. If existing utility and road ROWs that bisect the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts were expanded or otherwise modified, visual quality would be diminished through increased use of these ROWs.

Impacts from limiting motorized vehicle use and actions to improve vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat would be the same as Alternative 2. Although the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach (Lots 13, 14, 24, 54, and 55), Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership, visual quality would be protected.

Impacts from ROW and recreation and travel management actions would be the same as Alternative 2. Making the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach (Lots 13, 14, 24, 54, and 55), Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts available for disposal from Federal ownership could diminish visual quality, if the tracts were subsequently developed.

Mineral leasing and subsequent development could result in the removal of vegetation; construction of access roads, wellpads, and other infrastructure; introduction of drilling equipment; and associated dust emissions. These effects would all diminish the visual quality of the area. Closed and NSO stipulations on 16 percent of the non-USFS FMO would prevent these impacts. Other areas where project activities would be proposed would be evaluated for compliance with the VRM Management Classes using the guidance and procedures defined in VRM Handbook H-8431-1 Visual Resource Contrast Rating. Projects and activities found out of compliance with VRM Class objectives would be required to mitigate visual impacts.

Minerals
No impacts to oil and gas development would be anticipated from management of surface tracts. This alternative would have the least restrictions on oil and gas exploration and development, with more than 96 percent (305,6640 acres) of nonUSFS FMO open to leasing, subject Applying the conservation measures as lease stipulations and BMPs (Appendix D) could also increase exploration and development costs. This alternative would be the most Applying the conservation measures as lease stipulations and BMPs (Appendix D) could also increase exploration and development costs. Compared to Alternative 2, lease stipulations would be less stringent under this alternative, with approximately 14 percent (43,239 acres) of non-USFS FMO open to leasing, subject to major constraints and less than 3 percent

2-50

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alternative 1 (No Action)
to the standard lease terms and conditions. The remaining 8,179 acres (approximately 4 percent) would be closed to leasing due to restrictions placed by other Federal surface management agencies. Oil and gas leasing stipulations would support development of the anticipated 20 wells on non-USFS FMO over the next 20 years.

Alternative 2
restrictive on oil and gas exploration and development, with 30 percent (94,589 acres) of non-USFS FMO open to leasing, subject to major constraints and approximately 3 percent (8,297 acres) closed to leasing. The remaining 208,841 acres would be open to leasing, subject to the standard lease terms and conditions (37 percent of nonUSFS FMO) or open to leasing, subject to minor constraints (29 percent of non-USFS FMO). Oil and gas leasing stipulations would support development of the anticipated 20 wells on non-USFS FMO over the next 20 years.

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

(8,179 acres) closed to leasing. The remaining 260,083 acres would be open to leasing, subject to the standard lease terms and conditions (45 percent of non-USFS FMO) or open to leasing, subject to minor constraints (37 percent of non-USFS FMO). Oil and gas leasing stipulations would support development of the anticipated 20 wells on non-USFS FMO over the next 20 years.

Recreation and Travel Management
Although Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would be transferred to USFWS, these lots would remain within the boundaries of the Bon Secour NWR (where they are currently, but they are not managed by the USFWS). Actions to improve vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat would temporarily diminish the recreation experience. The recreation experience would be improved in the long term. Continuing to allow recreation use on the surface tracts would result in impacts similar to those described under Alternative 1. However, since motorized vehicle use would be limited or closed, more nonmotorized recreation opportunities would be increased while there could be a loss of motorized recreation opportunities. Impacts from retaining the surface tracts in Federal ownership would be the same as Alternative 1. Impacts from surface tract management—including vegetative communities, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and ROW management actions—would be the same as Alternative 2. Impacts from retaining the surface tracts in Federal ownership would be similar to Alternative 1. Although the Coosa River, Fowl River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership, recreational settings would be protected, although access could be reduced if not specifically included in the conditions for use or restrictive covenants.

Allowing motorized travel uses on all surface tracts could result in conflicts between motorized recreationists and recreationists seeking a more natural setting or experience. If existing ROWs that bisect the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts were expanded or otherwise modified, the recreation experience would be diminished. Retaining the surface tracts in Federal ownership would maintain access to recreational activity.

Impacts from vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat management actions would be the same as Alternative 1. Impacts from ROW and recreation and travel management actions would be the same as Alternative 2. Making the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach (Lots 13, 14, 24, 54, and 55), Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts available for disposal from Federal ownership could reduce access for recreational opportunities.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-51

Chapter 2

August 2008

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Alternative 2
Managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts as avoidance areas for ROWs would help retain recreational opportunities. Making the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts available for utility and road ROW corridors could diminish the quality of the recreation experience.

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Impacts from minerals management would be the same as Alternative 1, except stipulations could indirectly protect the recreational resources on the 94,589 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (8,297 acres).

Impacts from minerals management would be the same as Alternative 1, except stipulations could indirectly protect the recreational and visual resources on the 43,239 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (8,179 acres).

Lands and Realty
Transferring Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts to the USFWS as part of the Bon Secour NWR would facilitate Federal management of the lots. Managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership) as avoidance areas for ROWs could impose design and siting requirements and associated costs on new ROW or amended or renewed ROW at existing sites. There would be an increased potential for requests for new or amended and renewed ROW at existing sites to be denied. Making the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts available for ROW would accommodate access and efficient ROW management actions and associated impacts to lands and realty would be the same as Alternative 2. The Coosa River and Fowl River tracts would be available for disposal with conditions. This would allow opportunities for other Federal agency or non-Federal ownership, but would restrict future use of the tracts. All of the Fort Morgan Beach and Fort Morgan Highway tracts would be available for transfer to the USFWS as part of the Bon Secour NWR. This would facilitate Federal management of the tracts, but would ROW management actions and associated impacts to lands and realty would be the same as Alternative 2. The Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fort Morgan Highway, and Fowl River tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership with no restrictive covenants. This would allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or non-Federal ownership without specified conditions on future use of the tracts; however, disposal would not be allowed if it would jeopardize Federally listed species or

Keeping the 159 acres of the surface tracts open to ROW applications would not impact the lands and realty program. Retaining the surface tracts under BLM administration would not allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or non-Federal ownership.

2-52

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Alternative 2
energy supply and minimize additional costs. Retaining the surface tracts under BLM administration and pursuing partnerships with other agencies and organizations could allow for management opportunities for other agencies and organizations, but would not allow for non-Federal ownership opportunities.

Alternative 3 (Proposed)
not allow opportunities for other Federal agency or non-Federal ownership. The Geneva and Jordan Lake tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership, which would allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or nonFederal ownership without specified conditions on future use of the tracts.

Alternative 4
designated critical habitat, which could limit some disposals. The Geneva and Jordan Lake tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership, which would allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or non-Federal ownership without specified conditions on future use of the tracts.

Social and Economic
Impacts from surface tract management—including vegetative communities, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation and travel management actions—would be the same as Alternative 2. Under Alternative 3, a portion of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would be transferred to the USFWS and a number of dispersed BLM surface land tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership with specified conditions on management and use after disposal to meet prescribed resource objectives. Since the types of activities on these lands are not likely to change considerably, there would be minimum impact to socioeconomic characteristics under this alternative. However, stakeholders who feel that the retention of Federal ownership is important to maintain preservationist and open space values might be negatively impacted by this alternative. Recreation and travel, fish and wildlife habitat, and vegetative communities management actions would not cause changes in the economic characteristics (employment, income, and industries) or quality of social assets (housing, education, values, and attitudes). Under Alternative 4, a portion of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would be transferred to the USFWS and a number of dispersed BLM surface land tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership without conditions on management and use after disposal. Since development could be allowed on these properties, it is possible that the property tax revenues to the local counties would increase more than the Federal Payments in Lieu of Taxes, economically benefiting the counties and the State. It is possible that the private development of these tracts could slightly increase employment and income in these areas. Social indicators, such as housing, education, and cost of living, are not expected to be influenced by

Recreation and travel, fish and wildlife habitat, and vegetative communities management actions would not cause changes in the economic characteristics (employment, income, and industries) or quality of social assets (housing, education, values, and attitudes). BLM lands would remain in Federal ownership. Lands and realty actions would not cause changes in the socioeconomic characteristics.

This alternative includes active invasive species management on three BLM land tracts. Impacts from these actions on the economic indicators would not be anticipated from these types of vegetation management actions. Stakeholders who value the protection of native vegetation and habitats will likely prefer this alternative over the other alternatives. Socioeconomic impacts from recreation and travel, lands and realty, and fish and wildlife management actions would be the same as those under Alternative 1 since minimal changes are anticipated.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-53

Chapter 2

August 2008

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4
the minimal development. Stakeholders who feel that the retention of Federal ownership is important to maintain preservationist and open space values will likely be negatively impacted by this alternative. Those stakeholders who feel the development of these lands is a better use of these surface tracts would likely prefer this alternative.

Since only 20 fluid mineral wells would likely be drilled with standard lease terms and conditions over the 20-year planning period, there would be minimal economic impacts from these activities. There would be minimal changes—a potential slight increase in employment or income as compared with the current situation. Social indicators, such as housing, education, and cost of living, would not be anticipated to change under this alternative. Attitudes and values of some stakeholders are likely to be impacted by this alternative.

The same number of wells and acres of surface disturbance are anticipated under this alternative. This alternative provides for the most environmental stipulations on oil and gas leasing of these minerals. Economic and social indicators are likely to be similar to those under Alternative 1. There will be some impacts to stakeholders: stakeholders who believe that oil and gas leasing conditions should be imposed on development and production to mitigate environmental impacts would prefer this alternative to other alternatives; and the oil and gas industry and other stakeholders who believe in unconstrained Federal access to mineral development will least prefer this alternative.

Socioeconomic impacts from minerals management will be similar to those of Alternative 2. However, lease conditions are less restrictive than those under Alternative 2, but more restrictive than the standard lease terms under Alternative 1. Therefore, stakeholders that believe that oil and gas leasing conditions should be imposed on development and production to mitigate environmental impacts would likely prefer this alternative to Alternative 1. Since industry costs and availability for wellpad locations will likely decrease under this alternative, oil and gas industry and other stakeholders who believe in unconstrained Federal access to mineral development will prefer Alternative 1 over this alternative.

The anticipated amount of coal to be produced under this alternative for the next 20 years (1.9 millions tons per year) is consistent with coal development over the last 10 years. Employment and compensation from BLM-administered mining provides for 677 employees with total mining employee compensation of $48,236,100. The average annual employee compensation is $71,218, compared with average annual compensation from all industries in the State of $34,877 (Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA] 2005). Mining in the four-county study area likely provides fiscal revenues to local and State governments, supporting community and emergency services, school and infrastructure. Some stakeholders will support these mining activities due to the economic benefits in income, jobs, and government revenues, while others will be concerned that the economic benefit may not offset the risks to environmental and water resources from the activity. No impacts to Environmental Justice (EJ) populations are anticipated to occur.

2-54

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Alternative 2 Hazardous Materials

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

BLM-authorized activities on surface tracts and non-USFS FMO could include hazardous materials, substances, and waste (including storage, transportation, and spills). These activities are conducted in compliance with 29 CFR 1910, 49 CFR 100-185, 40 CFR 100-400, CERCLA, RCRA, Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act (SARA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the CWA and other Federal and State regulations and policies regarding hazardous materials management. Therefore, if any releases were to occur, it would be immediately addressed in accordance with regulation.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-55

Chapter 2

August 2008

Table 2-14. Comparison of Impacts For Mississippi
Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 Air Quality
Certain BLM-authorized activities within the planning area, such as oil and gas development, construction activities, vehicle travel, and mechanical hand tools or prescribed burning used in vegetation and wildlife habitat manipulation, would produce emissions considered to be GHGs, particularly CO2. However, due to the anticipated dispersed and infrequent nature of these activities, the project emissions would not have any noticeable or measurable effect and, therefore, the total contribution of GHGs from authorized activities would be small as well. Other BLM activities may help offset any emissions and sequester carbon, such as maintaining vegetative and forested cover, which may help build organic carbon in soils and function as “carbon sinks”. Wildfire could lead to air emissions. Suppression of all fires would result in short-term localized impacts, but is not anticipated to deteriorate air quality conditions. Although more management actions are proposed for the surface tract (174 acres), including vegetation and fish and wildlife habitat treatments, these actions would not be anticipated to deteriorate air quality conditions. Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in Mississippi) would be managed as an avoidance area, there would be less potential for emissions associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1, except managing the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in Mississippi) as an avoidance area would reduce the potential for emissions associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Management actions on the surface tract (174 acres), including potential ROW development and recreation and travel use, would not be anticipated to deteriorate air quality conditions.

Estimated emissions from development of 10 oil and gas wells on non-USFS FMO would be responsible for less than one-tenth of one percent of emissions from the mineral development across Mississippi for NOx, SO2, PM10, CO, and VOCs. Those emissions would likely occur over a dispersed geographic area and would, therefore, not cause any noticeable or measurable effect. Potential oil and gas leasing on some non-USFS FMO tracts would be in close proximity to the Sipsey Wilderness in Alabama and the Breton NWR in Louisiana. Oil and gas emissions in those tracts could impact wilderness air quality values and ambient air quality attainment. Based on expected emissions air quality impacts would not be anticipated.

Soil Resources
Management actions on the surface tract (174 acres), including potential ROW development and recreation and travel use, could impact soils through vegetation clearing activities and ground disturbance. Wind and water erosion, and subsequent loss in soil productivity would occur in disturbed areas where revegetation does not occur. These effects would be localized and short term in areas where revegetation is enhanced or Management actions proposed for the surface tract (174 acres), such as removing invasive species and conducting prescribed fire, could increase sitespecific erosion in the short term. Over the long term, improving vegetation communities and fish and wildlife habitat would reduce erosion and overland flows. Because the Hancock County tract would be retained in Federal ownership and management actions would afford more protections, such as NSO and avoidance areas for transportation and ROWs, no impacts would be anticipated.

Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1, except disposing the Hancock County tract to private or non-Federal ownership could result in potential development that could affect soils.

2-56

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alternative 1 (No Action)
permitted. The effect would be long term but localized if roads or structures were constructed on the tracts. Oil and gas development activities could result in decreased soil productivity, disturb topsoils and surface soil characteristics, and increased surface runoff. Cut and fill areas to support wellpads and access routes can contribute to local soil erosion. The estimated 10 wells to be developed in Mississippi over the life of this plan would disturb approximately 55 non-USFS FMO acres. Required reclamation and the minimal surface that might be disturbed would produce only localized effects on soils.

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated impacts on 55 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. Applying the stipulations in Appendix D would increase the area where seasonal, CSU (123 acres), and NSO (184,192 acres) restrictions would be implemented, which would reduce disturbance to soils within the protected areas. In addition to the stipulations in Appendix D, areas within 1,000 feet of aquatic habitats would be managed with an NSO stipulation, which would eliminate impacts to soils in these areas.

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated impacts on 55 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. Applying the stipulations in Appendix D would increase the area where seasonal, CSU (3,021 acres), and NSO (92,269 acres) restrictions would be implemented, which would reduce disturbance to soils within the protected areas. Under this alternative, the 1,000-foot NSO area around aquatic habitats identified in Alternative 2 would be reduced to 250 feet, which would reduce protections to soils within these areas.

Water Resources
Management actions on the surface tract (174 acres), including potential ROW development and recreation and travel use, could increase soil erosion and surface runoff, which increase nutrients levels and turbidity and decreases water quality. Impacts would be short term in areas where revegetation was enhanced or permitted. The effect would be long term but localized if roads or structures were constructed on the tracts. The hydric soils associated with the wetlands that encompass most of the tract could be affected by development or construction activities that would dredge or fill the wetlands, compacting soils and hindering natural flow through the wetlands and

Management actions proposed for the surface tract (174 acres), such as removing invasive species and conducting prescribed fire, could increase nutrient levels and turbidity and decrease water quality in the short term. Over the long term, these actions would maintain the emergent wetlands, water quality, and ground water recharge. Because the Hancock County tract would be retained in Federal ownership and management actions would afford more protections, such as NSO and avoidance areas for transportation and ROWs, no impacts would be anticipated.

Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1, except disposing the Hancock County tract to private or non-Federal ownership could increase chances for subsequent development and associated impacts to water resources.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-57

Chapter 2

August 2008

Alternative 1 (No Action)
potentially resulting in the loss of these emergent wetlands. Except for 63,004 acres closed to leasing by other surface management agencies, non-USFS FMO would be open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions (454,930 acres). The estimated development of 10 wells on non-USFS FMO in Mississippi over the next 20 years would disturb approximately 55 acres. Required reclamation by Federal and State laws and the minimal surface that might be disturbed would produce only localized effects on water resources. Oil and gas development could result in surface runoff, which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases water quality. Leakage of drill fluids, hazardous waste spills, or leakage from reserve pits could be introduced into the ground water as well. Additionally, access roads and wellpads can alter the local hydrology reducing surface flow to mesic areas and diverting or degrading surface water.

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated impacts on 55 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. A 1,000-foot NSO buffer around aquatic habitats and applying the stipulations in Appendix D would increase the area where seasonal, CSU (123 acres), and NSO (184,192 acres) restrictions would be implemented. This would reduce the level of impact to water resources within the protected areas.

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated impacts on 55 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. Applying the stipulations in Appendix D would increase the area where seasonal, CSU (3,021 acres), and NSO (92,269 acres) restrictions would be implemented, which would reduce disturbance to water resources within the protected areas. Under this alternative, the 1,000-foot NSO area around aquatic habitats identified in Alternative 2 would be reduced to 250 feet, which would allow development to occur in close proximity to water resources and the potential for impacts to water resources to occur.

Vegetative Communities
Surface-disturbing activities would result in vegetation-clearing activities and disturbance could affect plants in the sensitive wetland ecosystem, resulting in alteration of vegetation communities in the wetland ecosystem. Wind and water erosion in disturbed areas could impede the regrowth of wetland vegetation, allow noxious weeds to grow, and Impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be reduced under this alternative compared to Alternative 1 due to limitation on motorized recreation, managing for enhancing and protecting coastal estuarine marsh ecosystem in support of the Mississippi Coastal Preserve System, and managing the tract as an avoidance area for transportation project ROWs. Impacts from retaining the tract in Federal ownership and pursuing partnerships to provide management would be the same as Alternative 1. Impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be the same as Alternative 2. Disposing the surface tract out of Federal ownership without conditions for management and use after disposal could increase the potential for subsequent development and associated impacts to vegetation.

2-58

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alternative 1 (No Action)
potentially impact water quality and species dependent on wetland habitat by changing the composition of habitat. Retaining the tract in Federal ownership would continue the application of protective measures by Federal law and Agency policies that would protect wetland emergent vegetation communities. An estimated 10 wells to be developed in Mississippi over the life of this plan would disturb approximately 55 non-USFS FMO acres. Approximately 454,930 acres of non-USFS FMO estate in Mississippi would be open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions, which could disturb, damage, demolish, or impact vegetation.

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Impacts from fluid mineral leasing management actions on split-estate would be the same as for Alternative 1. However, Alternative 2 uses more stringent leasing stipulations in managing all non-USFS FMO with exception, waiver, and modification criteria applied as determined through Agency direction. Additional protections would be applied to 123 acres managed as CSU, 184,192 acres as NSO, and 63,004 acres closed to leasing.

Impacts under Alternatives 3 and 4 would be similar to those of Alternative 2 except protections would be applied to 3,021 acres managed as CSU, 92,269 acres as NSO, and 63,004 acres closed to leasing.

Fish and Wildlife
Surface-disturbing activities would result in vegetation-clearing activities and disturbance could affect plants and species in the sensitive wetland ecosystem, resulting in the displacement of species and alteration of vegetation, habitat, and forage components important to wildlife, impairing species viability and reducing habitat quality for mussels, clams, and fish species in the wetland ecosystem. Wind and water erosion in disturbed areas could impede the regrowth of wetland vegetation, allow noxious weeds to grow, and potentially impact water

Impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be reduced under this alternative compared to Alternative 1 due to limitation on motorized recreation, managing for enhancing and protecting coastal estuarine marsh ecosystem in support of the Mississippi Coastal Preserve System, and managing the tract as an avoidance area for ROW. Impacts from retaining the tract in Federal ownership and pursuing partnerships to provide management would be the same as Alternative 1.

Impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be the same as Alternative 2. Disposing surface tract out of Federal ownership without conditions for management and use after disposal could increase the potential for subsequent development and associated impacts to vegetation and wildlife.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-59

Chapter 2

August 2008

Alternative 1 (No Action)
quality and species dependent on wetland habitat by changing the composition of forage and habitat. Retaining the tract in Federal ownership would continue the application of protective measures by Federal law and Agency policies that would protect wetland emergent vegetation communities and associated habitat for various turtle species, fish, crab, and native and migratory birds, as well as many mammal species.

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

An estimated 10 wells to be developed in Mississippi over the life of this plan would disturb approximately 55 non-USFS FMO acres. Approximately 454,930 acres of non-USFS FMO estate in Mississippi would be open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions, which could disturb, damage, demolish, or impact wildlife.

Impacts from minerals management actions on split-estate would be the same as for Alternative 1. However, Alternative 2 uses more stringent leasing stipulations in managing all non-USFS FMO with exception, waiver, and modification criteria applied as determined through Agency direction. Additional protections would be applied to 123 acres managed as CSU, 184,192 acres as NSO, and 63,004 acres closed to leasing.

Special Status Species
The lack of vegetation management actions could result in increased potential for invasive/exotic species becoming established or spreading. This is particularly true of the higher elevations of the Hancock County tract located on Point Clear Island. Cogon grass and Chinese tallow are both known to occur in the area and, if uncontrolled, could substantially alter the habitats supporting Mississippi diamondback terrapin and tiny-leaved buckthorn. Removing exotic invasive plant species, particularly cogon grass, could improve habitat conditions for the tiny-leaved buckthorn and Mississippi diamondback terrapin. Prescribed burns could be used to remove wood debris and flotsam left from Hurricane Katrina that create hazards for wildlife and degrade marshes. Limiting motorized use on the Hancock County tract to boating would avoid damaging of sensitive coastal habitats for tiny-leaved buckthorn and Mississippi diamondback terrapin. Impacts from retaining surface tracts in Federal ownership and pursuing partnerships to provide management would more directly benefit wildlife by restoring and maintaining continuity and composition of habitat than anticipated under Alternative 1. Impacts from vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat management actions would be the same as Alternative 1. Impacts from recreation and travel and ROW management actions would be the same as Alternative 2. Under this alternative, the Hancock County tract would be available for disposal from Federal ownership. The affect this has on special status species is not known. Its location at

2-60

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alternative 1 (No Action)
No recreation management actions are planned. Because this tract is not accessible by road, few impacts are anticipated by designating the tract open to vehicles. However, use of four-wheelers on remote upland areas, such as Point Clear Island, could damage sensitive maritime forests and scrubs. Retaining the tract in Federal ownership would continue the application of protective measures by Federal law and Agency policies that would protect special status species. Oil and gas development on nonUSFS FMO in Mississippi is expected to result in the direct loss of 55 acres. Based on previous oil and gas activity, the Federally listed species most likely to be affected are gopher tortoise, red-cockaded woodpecker, and black pine snake in the East Gulf Coastal Plain, and bald eagles associated with reservoirs and rivers in the northern portion of the State. Drilling in coastal areas would affect the 18 special status species that are associated with coastal marshes and maritime scrub and woodlands, including brown pelican, Wilson’s plover, Mississippi diamondback terrapin, and saltmarsh topminnow. Section 7 consultations with the USFWS would be required prior to the BLM permitting any action that could adversely affect these Federally listed species or designated habitat, and subsequent actions would comply with the conditions established by any subsequent BOs.

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4
the center of the Hancock County Marsh Preserve and the presence of extensive wetlands would make development of the tract difficult. It is likely that special status species would continue to benefit from the tract being managed in coordination with the Mississippi Coastal Preserve System.

Although the number of wells (10) and acres disturbed (55) would remain the same under this alternative, lease stipulations would shift surface disturbing activities away from sensitive habitats with potential to support special status species. In most cases, this is accomplished with NSO buffers or seasonal restrictions. These stipulations could be applied to 184,192 acres or about 36 percent of the non-USFS FMO in Mississippi.

The number of wells (10) and acres disturbed (55) would remain the same under this alternative and impacts would be the same as Alternative 2, except the aquatic and wetland buffer would be reduced to 250 feet. In areas where slopes exceed 10 percent, the buffer could be extended up to 600 feet to provide adequate protection. In most cases, this buffer is expected to prevent construction activities from increasing the sedimentation of local drainages and wetlands. The 600-foot no lease area along the coast, would be replaced with an NSO buffer. Although no surface disturbance would occur on nonUSFS FMO or BLM surface tracts within this buffer, offsite directional drilling to target these Federal minerals would be permitted.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-61

Chapter 2

August 2008

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed) Wildland Fire and Ecology

Alternative 4

Fire response and fuel treatments would apply to the 174 acres of BLM-administered surface land. Suppressing all wildland fires, unless an in-place sitespecific plan determines otherwise, would minimize immediate threats and damage to life, public safety, and developments in the WUI and to natural resource values. Allowing prescribed burning on a case-by-case basis would allow for a reduction in hazardous fuel conditions, improving the ability to suppress wildfires while maintaining disturbance levels to which vegetation communities have adapted. Allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives and habitat improvements under standard management common to all alternatives would maintain natural fuel conditions across the surface tract. This would maintain natural disturbance regimes and decrease the frequency and intensity of wildland fires and allow fires to be more easily controlled. Dispersed recreation use would introduce additional ignition sources through human use of natural environments, which could increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. This would be more prevalent in areas that are more accessible. While ROW actions could increase suppression costs, the aspects of ROW related to vegetation clearing and the potential for increased accessibility could reduce suppression costs. Development of 10 oil and gas wells introduces additional ignitions sources throughout the non-USFS FMO, increasing the potential of wildland fire occurrence and introducing infrastructure that requires protection in wildland fire events. Disturbance associated with development could provide increased accessibility for fire suppression and
2-62

Vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat management actions, such as removing invasive species and conducting prescribed fire, on the surface tract would reduce the potential for changes in the marsh vegetation communities. The natural fire regimes would be maintained. The potential for increased wildland fire occurrence would decrease compared to Alternative 1 because travel on the Hancock County tract would be limited to boating, decreasing accessibility to these areas and reducing the potential for additional ignition sources through increased human use.

Impacts from minerals management would be the same as Alternative 1, except impacts would not occur on the 184,192 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (63,004 acres).

Impacts from minerals management would be the same as Alternative 1, except impacts would not occur on the 92,269 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (63,004 acres).

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alternative 1 (No Action)
provide fuel breaks. These impacts would not occur on the 63,004 acres closed to oil and gas development.

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Cultural Resources
The BLM would continue to protect cultural resources from disturbance, damage, or loss from authorized uses through project avoidance or mitigation, including data recovery if necessary. As inventories are conducted, more cultural sites would be identified. Inventories and adherence to law, regulation, and policy would protect most cultural sites; however, inadvertent damage of undiscovered sites would remain a possibility. Impacts from vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat management actions would be the same as Alternative 1. Impacts from ROW and recreation and travel management actions would be the same as Alternative 2. Making the Hancock County tract available for disposal from Federal ownership without any specified management or use conditions could have impacts if the property contained previously undetected, potentially eligible National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) cultural sites. Disposing the property from Federal ownership would remove the protection of any cultural resources under Federal law, and not applying management or use conditions would increase the potential for damage of previously undetected cultural resources.

Dispersed recreation and standard vegetation treatments could result in inadvertent damage to cultural resources. Ground-disturbing activities associated with ROW construction and maintenance could inadvertently damage cultural resources. Retaining surface tract in Federal ownership (whether BLM administered or USFWS administered) would provide protection of cultural resource sites and preserve the setting of sites.

Vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat management would increase impacts to cultural resources due to implementing vegetation treatments to reduce invasive species and improve habitat. Limiting motorized vehicle use on the surface tract to boating would increase protection of cultural sites. Impacts from retaining surface tract in Federal ownership and pursuing partnerships would be the same as Alternative 1. Managing the Hancock County tract as an avoidance area for ROW would reduce the potential for impacts to cultural sites.

Cultural resources on 63,004 nonUSFS FMO acres closed to oil and gas leasing would be protected from oil and gas development.

Cultural resources on 63,004 nonUSFS FMO acres closed to oil and gas leasing would be protected from oil and gas development, as would cultural sites on 184,192 non-USFS FMO acres managed for NSO.

Impacts to cultural resources from management of non-USFS FMO would be the same as Alternative 2, except 359,640 acres would be managed as open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions, 3,021 acres as CSU, 92,269 acres as NSO, and 63,004 acres as closed.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-63

Chapter 2

August 2008

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Alternative 2 Visual Resources

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Allowing recreation activities, including motorized vehicle use, on the surface tract could result in decreased visual quality over time. If new ROW were approved on the Hancock County tract, visual quality would be diminished.

Actions to improve vegetation communities and wildlife habitat would temporarily diminish visual quality; however, visual quality would be improved in the long term through mitigation strategies developed from the guidance and procedures defined in VRM Handbook H-8431-1 Visual Resource Contrast Rating. Limiting motorized vehicle use on the surface tract to boating could diminish impacts described in Alternative 1. Managing the Hancock County tract as an avoidance area for ROW would help to retain visual quality within the area by reducing the potential for development activities to occur in these areas. Since approximately 55 acres of vegetation removal and construction activities would result from the development of 10 oil and gas wells (as with Alternative 1), impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. Stipulations applied under this alternative could protect visual resources on the 184,192 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (63,004 acres).

Impacts from ROW and recreation and travel management actions would be the same as Alternative 2. Making the Hancock County tract available for disposal from Federal ownership without any specified management or use conditions could diminish visual quality, if the tract was subsequently developed.

Minerals
No impacts to oil and gas development would be anticipated from management of surface tract. This alternative would have the least restrictions on oil and gas exploration and development, with approximately 88 percent (454,930 acres) of nonUSFS FMO open to leasing, subject to the standard lease terms and conditions. The remaining 63,004 acres (approximately 12 percent) would be closed to leasing due to restrictions placed by other Federal surface management agencies. Oil and gas leasing stipulations would support development of the Applying the conservation measures as lease stipulations and BMPs (Appendix D) could also increase exploration and development costs. This alternative would be the most restrictive on oil and gas exploration and development, with approximately 37 percent (184,192 acres) of nonUSFS FMO open to leasing, subject to major constraints and approximately 12 percent (63,004 acres) closed to leasing. The remaining 270,615 acres would be Applying the conservation measures as lease stipulations and BMPs (Appendix D) could also increase exploration and development costs. Compared to Alternative 2, lease stipulations would be less stringent under this alternative, with approximately 18 percent (92,269 acres) of non-USFS FMO open to leasing, subject to major constraints and approximately 12 percent (63,004 acres) closed to leasing. The remaining 359,640 acres would be open to leasing, subject to the standard lease terms and conditions (69 percent of non-USFS FMO) or open to leasing, subject to minor constraints (less than one percent of non-USFS FMO). Oil and gas leasing stipulations would support development of the anticipated 10 wells on non-USFS FMO over the next 20 years.

2-64

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alternative 1 (No Action)
anticipated 10 wells on non-USFS FMO over the next 20 years.

Alternative 2
open to leasing, subject to the standard lease terms and conditions (51 percent of non-USFS FMO) or open to leasing, subject to minor constraints (less than one percent of non-USFS FMO). Oil and gas leasing stipulations would support development of the anticipated 10 wells on non-USFS FMO over the next 20 years.

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Recreation and Travel Management
Allowing recreation activities, including motorized vehicle use, on the Hancock County tract would maintain existing recreation and travel opportunities. However, allowing motorized travel could result in conflicts between motorized recreationists and recreationists seeking a more natural setting or experience. The Hancock County tract would continue to be owned and managed by the University of Mississippi under an R&PP patent for the purposes of the R&PP patent, which would maintain access to recreational activity. If a new road or utility ROW were authorized on the Hancock County tract, the largely natural recreational experiences available would be diminished. Since approximately 55 acres of vegetation removal and construction activities would result from the development of 10 oil and gas wells on non-USFS FMO, there could be a decrease in nature-based recreational opportunities due to

Actions to improve vegetation communities and wildlife habitat would temporarily diminish or eliminate the recreation experience. The recreation experience would be improved in the long term. Continuing to allow recreation use on the surface tract would result in impacts similar to those described under Alternative 1. However, since motorized vehicle use would be limited to boating, more non-motorized recreation opportunities would be increased while there could be a loss of motorized recreation opportunities. Impacts from retaining the Hancock County tract in Federal ownership would be the same as in Alternative 1. Managing the Hancock County tract as an avoidance area for ROW would retain the recreation experience in the undeveloped wetland setting.

Impacts from vegetative communities and fish and wildlife habitat management actions would be the same as Alternative 1. Impacts from ROW and recreation and travel management actions would be the same as Alternative 2. Making the Hancock County tract available for disposal from Federal ownership without any specified management or use conditions could result in reduced access for recreational opportunities. Following disposal, the tract could be made unavailable for public recreation.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-65

Chapter 2

August 2008

Alternative 1 (No Action)
conflicts with the developments. However, stipulations could indirectly protect the recreational resources in areas where development would be precluded (63,004 acres).

Alternative 2
alternative could protect the recreational resources on the 184,192 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (63,004 acres).

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

Lands and Realty
ROW management actions and associated impacts to lands and realty would be the same as Alternative 2. The 174-acre Hancock County tract would be available for disposal from Federal ownership with no restrictive covenants. This would allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or non-Federal ownership without specified conditions on future use of the tract; however, disposal would not be allowed if it would jeopardize Federally listed species or designated critical habitat, which could limit some disposals.

The 174-acre Hancock County tract would remain open to ROW applications; therefore, no impacts would be anticipated. Retaining the Hancock County tract under BLM administration would not allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or non-Federal ownership.

The 174-acre Hancock County tract would be managed as an avoidance area for ROW. This could impose design and siting requirements and associated costs on new ROW. There would be an increased potential for requests for new ROW to be denied. Retaining the Hancock County tract under BLM administration and pursuing partnerships with other agencies and organizations could allow for management opportunities for other agencies and organizations, but would not allow for non-Federal ownership opportunities.

Social and Economic
Recreation and travel, fish and wildlife habitat, and vegetative communities management actions would not cause changes in the economic characteristics (employment, income, and industries) or quality of social assets (housing, education, values, and attitudes). Under this alternative, the Hancock County tract would remain in Federal ownership. Lands and realty management actions would not cause changes in the economic characteristics (employment, income, and industries) as there are very little changes anticipated under this Recreation, wildlife, and vegetative management actions would not cause changes in the economic characteristics (employment, income, and industries) or quality of social assets (housing, education, values, and attitudes). Under Alternative 4, the Hancock County tract would be available for disposal from Federal ownership without conditions on management and use after disposal. Since development could be allowed on these properties, it is possible that the property tax revenues to the local counties would increase more than

This alternative includes the removal of invasive species on the Hancock County tract. Impacts from these actions on the socioeconomic indicators would not be anticipated from these types of vegetation management actions. Stakeholders who value the protection of native vegetation and habitats will likely prefer this alternative over the other alternatives. Impacts to social and economic conditions would not be anticipated from recreation and wildlife management actions as there are very little anticipated changes in these actions. Impacts from lands and realty would be the same as those under Alternative 1.

2-66

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 2

Alternative 1 (No Action)
alternative. Quality of social assets (demographics, housing, cost of living, education) in Hancock County is not likely to be affected by retaining these lands in Federal ownership. Some stakeholders would be impacted by these decisions.

Alternative 2

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4
the Federal Payments in Lieu of Taxes, economically benefiting Hancock County and the State. It is also possible that the private development of these tracts could slightly increase employment and income in these areas. Social indicators, such as housing, education, and cost of living, are not expected to be influenced by the minimal development. Stakeholders who feel that the retention of Federal ownership is important to maintain preservationist and open space values will likely be negatively impacted by this alternative. Those stakeholders who feel the development of these lands is a better use of the Hancock County tract would likely prefer this alternative.

Since only 10 fluid mineral wells would likely be drilled with standard lease terms and conditions over the 20-year planning period, there would be minimal economic impact from these activities. Social characteristics, such as housing, education, and cost of living, would not be anticipated to change as a result of this activity. Stakeholders who believe that oil and gas activity should be constrained to protect wetlands and aquatic habitat would likely feel that this alternative does not do enough to ensure protection of these types of resources. Additionally, oil and gas industry stakeholders as well as others who value maintaining access to Federal minerals for oil and gas development

The same number of wells and acres of surface disturbance is anticipated under this alternative. Therefore, similar socioeconomic impacts will be experienced as those identified under Alternative 1. However, this alternative provides for the greatest number of lease constraints and conditions, including stipulations for wellpad distance to wetland and aquatic resources at the Hancock County tract. Therefore, stakeholders who believe that oil and gas leasing conditions should be imposed on development and production to mitigate environmental impacts would prefer this alternative to other alternatives. Since industry costs and availability for wellpad locations will likely decrease under this alternative,

The same number of wells and acres of surface disturbance is anticipated under this alternative. Therefore, similar socioeconomic impacts will be experienced as those identified under Alternative 1. However, this alternative provides conditions on oil and gas leasing of these minerals, including stipulations for wellpad distance to wetland and aquatic resources. These conditions are less restrictive than those under Alternative 2, but more restrictive than the standard lease terms under Alternative 1. Therefore, stakeholders who believe that oil and gas leasing conditions should be imposed on development and production to mitigate environmental impacts would likely prefer this alternative to Alternative 1. Since industry costs and availability for wellpad locations will likely decrease under this alternative, oil and gas industry and other stakeholders who believe in unconstrained Federal access to mineral development will prefer Alternative 1 over this alternative.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

2-67

Chapter 2

August 2008

Alternative 1 (No Action)
will likely prefer this alternative over the other alternatives.

Alternative 2
the oil and gas industry and other stakeholders who believe in Federal access to mineral development will least prefer this alternative.

Alternative 3 (Proposed)

Alternative 4

No impacts to EJ populations are anticipated to occur; further evaluation is warranted at project implementation.

Hazardous Materials
BLM-authorized activities on surface tracts and non-USFS FMO could include hazardous materials, substances, and waste (including storage, transportation, and spills). These activities are conducted in compliance with 29 CFR 1910, 49 CFR 100-185, 40 CFR 100-400, CERCLA, RCRA, SARA, TSCA, and CWA and other Federal and State regulations and policies regarding hazardous materials management. Therefore, if any releases were to occur, it would be immediately addressed in accordance with regulation.

2-68

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

CHAPTER 3—AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the existing physical, biological, cultural, social, and economic characteristics within the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) planning area in the States of Alabama and Mississippi. Management of resources and resource uses on public lands and minerals administered by the BLM is directed by a variety of laws, regulations, policies, and other requirements (as specified in Appendix C). By describing existing conditions for resource programs in the planning area, this chapter serves as the baseline against which the impacts of the different alternatives are analyzed and compared.

3.1.1

How to Read This Chapter

This chapter is divided into four sections: • • Introduction (Section 3.1). This section presents an overview of the chapter and provides direction on How to Read This Chapter (Section 3.1.1). Alabama Statewide Perspective (Section 3.2). Oil and gas leasing of BLM-administered, non-United States Forest Service (USFS) Federal mineral ownership (FMO) could occur anywhere in the State; therefore, a statewide perspective is needed to cover the full geographic range for the environmental baseline. This statewide discussion is organized by resource according to the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1). Alabama Surface Tract Description (Section 3.3). This section provides available information specific to each of the surface tracts in Alabama: the Coosa River tracts, Fort Morgan Beach tracts, Fort Morgan Highway tracts, Fowl River tract, Geneva tract, and Jordan Lake tract (as described in Chapter 2). Mississippi Statewide Perspective (Section 3.4). Oil and gas leasing of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO could occur anywhere in the State; therefore, a statewide perspective is needed to cover the full geographic range for the environmental baseline. This statewide discussion is organized by resource according to the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1). Mississippi Surface Tract Description (Section 3.5). This section provides available information specific to the Hancock County tract in Mississippi (as described in Chapter 2).

•

3.2 ALABAMA STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE
3.2.1 Air Quality

Alabama is located in a humid, subtropical climatic region characterized by temperate winters; long, hot summers; and an evenly distributed annual rainfall. The region, however, is subject to periods of drought and flood—its climatic conditions are rarely average. A feast-or-famine situation attributed to weather conditions is typically expected as the climate delivers energy and moisture in subtropical latitudes between a large landmass to the north and the Gulf of Mexico to the south (Southeastern Regional Climate Center 2005).

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-1

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Typical mean annual temperatures range from 60°F in the north to 70°F along the coast. Temperatures regularly exceed 100°F at many places in Alabama and drop to zero or lower about once a year. Freezing temperatures reach the Gulf Coast almost every winter. Normal precipitation ranges from 50 to 65 inches across the State (NOAA 2007a).

Air Quality Meteorology
Surface wind speeds are variable depending on terrain and proximity to the coast. Average wind speeds vary from 6 to 10 miles per hour in most locations and follow water drainage features of the land or are driven by sea breezes. Dispersion can also be related to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Stagnation Index, which primarily focuses on ozone (NOAA 2005). On the basis of this index, Alabama was prone to air stagnation for 25 to 50 percent of the days from May through September of 2002 through 2004. This dispersion index compares moderately to other areas in the country.

Baseline Air Quality
Ambient Air Quality. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The ambient air quality measurements in Alabama for sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are shown in Table 3-1. Ambient air quality measurements made by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) indicate that ambient air quality is within the standards, except for carbon monoxide, particulates, and ozone in Birmingham, Alabama, (Shelby and Jefferson Counties), and particulates in Russell County (near Columbus, Georgia). These areas are in nonattainment. Ozone is formed from the chemical reactions of nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and sunlight. Several Alabama locations exceed the ambient air quality standards.

Table 3-1. Recent Highest Ambient Air Quality Measurements in Alabama1, 2
Pollutant Averaging Time
1 year SO2 24 hours 3 hours NO2 CO 1 year 8 hours 1 hour O3 8 hours 1 hour PM10 1 year 24 hours PM2.5 1 year 24 hours

Highest Measured Value (ppm3)
0.004 0.020 0.046 0.008 25.1 36.9 0.102 0.140 38 µg/m
3

Location
Jefferson County Jefferson County Jefferson County Helena North Birmingham North Birmingham Shelby County Arrant City Birmingham Birmingham Jefferson County Wylam

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (ppm3)
0.03 0.14 0.50 0.053 9 35 0.080 0.120 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 65 µg/m3

185 µg/m3 21.5 µg/m3 57 µg/m3

3-2

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

1 ADEM Annual Air Quality Report 2001 (ADEM 2002).
2 Three-year averages for 1999 through 2003 found at www.adem.state.us/AirDivision/AirDivision.htm (ADEM 2005).
3 ppm = parts per million

Visibility and Atmospheric Deposition. Visibility and atmospheric deposition measurements are not available for Alabama.

Area Air Quality Designations
Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) of areas meeting the ambient air quality standards are divided into the following three categories: Class I for areas of restricted growth, Class II for areas of moderate growth, and Class III for industrialized areas (Clean Air Act of 1977, as amended). All of Alabama is designated as PSD Class II, except for the Sipsey Wilderness in northwest Alabama, which is Class I, and the areas listed previously that did not meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and are unclassified. Other Class I areas (within 100 kilometers of the potential development activities) include the Breton National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) off the coast of Louisiana, St. Marks NWR in the Florida Panhandle (each managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]), Cohutta Wilderness Area in northern Georgia, and Bradwell Bay Wilderness Area in the Florida Panhandle (each managed by USFS).

Climate Change
Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential effects of pollutants considered to be greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (including carbon dioxide, CO2; methane, CH4; nitrous oxide, N2O; water vapor; and several trace gasses) on global climate. Through complex interactions on a regional and global scale, these pollutants cause a net warming effect of the atmosphere, making surface temperatures suitable for life on earth, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat energy radiated by the earth back into space. Although GHG levels have varied for millennia, with corresponding variations in climatic conditions, recent industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources have caused CO2 concentrations to increase dramatically, and have been shown to contribute to overall climatic changes, typically referred to as global warming or climate change. Increasing CO2 concentrations also lead to preferential fertilization and growth of specific plant species. Some pollutants considered to be GHGs, such as CO2, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through both natural processes and human activities, while others are created and emitted solely through human activities. The principal pollutants considered to be GHGs that enter the atmosphere because of human activities include CO2, emitted through the burning of fossil fuels, solid waste, trees and wood products; CH4 emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, oil extraction, livestock production, deforestation, and other agricultural practices; N2O emitted during agricultural and industrial activities and during the combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste; and fluorinated gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes (EPA 2008). The assessment of GHG emissions and climate change is in its formative phase, and it is not yet possible to know with confidence the net impact to climate. Observed climatic changes may be caused by GHG emissions, or may reflect natural fluctuations (U.S. GAO 2007). It is known that in the past, the earth has gone through a number of ice ages with periods of warming and droughts between the periods. The most recent Ice Age ended around 13,000 years ago and the climate has warmed and dried since then. The warming and drying has not been continuous. However, the rate at which atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen in the past 100 years is unprecedented, and corresponds with observed temperature changes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) concluded that “Warming of the climate

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-3

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

system is unequivocal” and “Most of the observed increase in globally average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gas concentrations.” Global mean surface temperatures have increased nearly 1.8°F (1.0°C) from 1890 to 2006 (Goddard Institute for Space Studies 2007). However, both observations and predictive models indicate that average temperature changes are likely to be greater in the Northern Hemisphere. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (2007) data indicated that northern latitudes (above 24° N ) have exhibited temperature increases of nearly 2.1°F (1.2°C) since 1900, with nearly a 1.8°F (1.0°C) increase since 1970 alone. Without additional meteorological monitoring systems, it is difficult to determine the spatial and temporal variability and change of climatic conditions, but increasing concentrations of GHG are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. In 2001, the IPCC indicated that by the year 2100, global average surface temperatures will rise 2.5 to 10.4°F (1.4 to 5.8°C) above 1990 levels. The National Academy of Sciences (2006) has confirmed these findings, but also indicated there are uncertainties how climate change will affect different regions. Computer model predictions indicate that increases in temperature will not be equally distributed, but are likely to be accentuated at higher latitudes. Warming during the winter months is expected to be higher than during the summer. According to the EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (2008), the total U.S. GHGs were estimated at 7,054.2 teragrams of CO2 equivalent1 (Tg CO2 Eq.) in 2006. Overall, total U.S. emissions have risen by 14.7 percent from 1990 to 2006. The primary GHG emitted by human activities in the U.S. was CO2, representing approximately 84.8 percent of total GHG emissions. The largest source of CO2, and of overall GHG emissions, was fossil fuel combustion. Conversely, U.S. GHG emissions were partly offset by carbon sequestration in forests, trees in urban areas, and agricultural soils, which, in aggregate, offset 12.5 percent of total emissions in 2006 (EPA 2008). In the Southeast and Gulf Coast, potential impacts on the resources and environment from climate change could occur from sea level rise and a warmer climate, resulting in higher summer heat and reduced winter cold stress. The IPCC suggests that a two foot rise in sea level would eliminate approximately 10,000 square miles of land nationwide and, by 2080, sea level rise could convert as much as 33 percent of the world’s coastal wetlands to open water (IPCC 2007). Some of the BLM-administered surface and mineral estate may become completely submerged. Coastal erosion, loss of barrier islands and wetlands, flooding, storm surge, and extreme precipitation events could greatly affect the biological resources within the planning area. For example, wildlife species could move northward and to higher elevations and extinction of endemic threatened/endangered plants may be accelerated. Due to loss of habitat, or due to competition from other species whose ranges may shift northward, the population of some animal species may be reduced. Additionally, the character of vegetation resources that provide wildlife habitat could change as disturbances (e.g., fire and insect outbreaks) increase (IPCC 2007). In the future, as tools for predicting climate changes in the planning area improve and/or changes in climate affect resources and necessitate changes in how resources are managed, BLM may be able to re-evaluate decisions made as part of this planning process and adjust management accordingly. Certain BLM-authorized activities within the planning area would produce pollutants considered to be GHGs, particularly CO2. For example, oil and gas development, construction activities, vehicle travel, and mechanical hand tools or prescribed burning used in vegetation and wildlife habitat manipulation generate CO2 and CH4. These activities would impact the same resources in the planning area that could also be affected by climate change. Other activities may help sequester carbon, such as maintaining vegetative and forested cover, which may help build organic carbon in soils and function as “carbon sinks”. BLM recognizes the importance of climate change and the potential effects it may have on the
1 Carbon comprises 12/44ths of carbon dioxide by weight. One teragram is equal to 1012 grams or one million metric tons.
3-4 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

natural environment. However, BLM does not have an established mechanism to accurately predict the effect of resource management-level decisions from this planning effort on global climate change. The lack of scientific tools designed to predict climate change on regional or local scales limits the ability to quantify potential future impacts. A general discussion on the types of actions that would potentially impact climate change is presented in Chapter 4.

3.2.2

Soil Resources

Physiographic Regions and Soil Types
Alabama can be divided into four major physiographic regions: Coastal Plain, Piedmont, Valley and Ridge, and Appalachian Plateau (Highland Rim and Cumberland Plateau). Each physiographic region is described in Appendix F. Soil formation and character are all determined by parent material, surface slope, climate, biological activity, and time. Because Alabama is located within the humid subtropics, its soils are transitional between the cool climatic regions and the tropics. Podzolization, a soil-forming process of humid cool climates, and laterization, a soil-forming process of lowland tropics, are represented by the red and yellow podzolic soils and reddish-brown lateritic soils in Alabama. The State has seven major soil areas, including limestone valleys and uplands, Appalachian Plateau, Piedmont Plateau, prairies, coastal plains, major flood plains and terraces, coastal marshes, and beaches (Mitchell 2004). A brief description of the major parent soil units and their locations in Alabama is provided in Appendix F. The characteristics of soils in BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO areas are described in Appendix F.

Prime and Unique Farmlands
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires the identification of proposed actions that would affect any lands classified as prime and unique farmlands. The U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers this act to preserve farmland. Prime farmland is defined as having the availability and best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Its soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply can produce economically sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods, including water management. In general, prime farmlands have an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no rocks. The land is permeable to water and air. Prime farmlands are not excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period of time, and they neither flood nor require protection from flooding. Prime farmlands occur in dispersed areas across Alabama. Counties in Alabama with areas having high potential for oil and gas or coal development likely include soil units that have been identified as prime farmland by NRCS. Appendix F includes prime farmland classification information that is available for soils within non-USFS FMO.

3.2.3

Water Resources

Surface Water
Alabama is divided into 14 major river basins containing 77,272 miles of rivers and streams (47,072 miles of perennial rivers and streams and approximately 30,200 miles of intermittent streams). These 14
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-5

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

basins are the Tennessee, Upper Tombigbee, Lower Tombigbee, Black Warrior, Coosa, Cahaba, Tallapoosa, Chattahoochee, Choctawhatchee, Chipola, Perdido-Escambia, Alabama, Mobile, and Escatawpa River Basins (ADEM 2004) (Map 3-1). Appendix H briefly describes each major river basin. Alabama has ponds, lakes, and reservoirs in excess of 490,472 acres. Freshwater wetlands occupy an estimated 3.6 million acres (ADEM 2004). Alabama’s surface water is generally of high quality. An indication of full-use support (i.e., meeting established water quality criteria for its designated use classification) of rivers and streams can be found in Alabama’s Final 2004 §303(d) List, as presented in ADEM 2004. As of 2004, Alabama has a high percentage of full-use support for rivers and streams. Similarly, Alabama’s publicly accessible lakes and reservoirs have 82.6 percent full-support status. However, much of the nonsupport acreage is related to historical, as well as recent, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination (primarily from industrial point sources in the Upper Coosa River) and eutrophic conditions in the Coosa River Basin reservoirs. Naturally higher nutrients in Coosa River Basin soils largely dictate the eutrophic conditions of the basin’s reservoirs (ADEM 2004). Several lakes and reservoirs are considered to be degrading in the Coosa River Basin, including the Neely Henry, Logan Martin, Lay, Mitchell, and Jordan. These reservoirs are characterized by increases in nutrient concentrations; implementation of fish tissue consumption advisories; increases in undesirable algal species; and violations of water quality standards; or a combination thereof (ADEM 2003). Several of the BLM’s Coosa River tracts (Foshee Island, Little Rock Island, Big Rock Island, and Gilchrist Island) are within Mitchell Lake. One of the BLM’s Coosa River (Jordan Lake) surface tracts is located approximately 10 river miles upstream from Jordan Lake and about 5.5 miles downstream from Mitchell Lake. The Coosa River tract at Smith Island is located about 10 miles upstream from Lay Lake. The Coosa River tract at Prince Island is located approximately 11 river miles upstream from Lay Lake. About 25 river miles in Alabama are within BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO areas. Eight river miles flow over areas with potentially high mineral development prospects. Oil and gas leases exist on a total of about 0.6 river miles. The Cahaba River Basin is of particular interest, as there are nine leases in this area and there is renewed interest in coalbed methane natural gas production. Approximately 2,060 lake acres occur within non-USFS FMO areas. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data are limited for Alabama. Because of the lack of available digital data for freshwater wetlands in Alabama, non-USFS FMO acreage within freshwater wetland areas in the State could not be estimated.

3-6

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-7

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Ground Water
Alabama has 19 major aquifers and aquifer systems that supply drinking water to about 44 percent of the State’s total population using a public water supply (an additional 6 percent use private wells) (ADEM 2003). The lack of chronic pollutants in public water supply ground water sources is a good indication of Alabama’s high-quality ground water and effective resource management (ADEM 2004). Precipitation is the sole source of water for the ground water system, but only a small part of the annual precipitation actually recharges the ground water system. Because the recharge of aquifers entirely depends on precipitation, natural ground water levels in Alabama follow the same pattern of seasonal fluctuation as precipitation (USGS 2003). Information on major ground water recharge zones in Alabama was not available for evaluation relative to non-USFS FMO.

Coastal Zone
The National Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program is a voluntary partnership between the Federal Government and U.S. coastal states and territories authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The Coastal Programs Division, within NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, administers the program at the Federal level and works with State CZM partners. Alabama’s Coastal Area Management Program (ACAMP) was approved and has been in effect since 1979. The program regulates various activities on coastal lands and waters seaward of the continuous 10-foot contour in Baldwin and Mobile Counties of Alabama. The Fort Morgan Beach and Highway tracts in Baldwin County in addition to BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO fall within the ACAMP. Alabama’s coastal wetlands are estimated at 27,600 acres (NWI estimates, as presented in ADEM 2004). Coastal Alabama also has an estimated 610 square miles of estuaries and a coastal shoreline that is 337 miles long (including Mobile Bay and island shorelines) (ADEM 2004). EPA has identified the Mobile Bay coastal drainage as a wetland restoration priority area. EPA’s Gulf of Mexico program has also identified the Mobile Bay area as a priority for water quality and habitat improvement projects (ADEM 2004). In 2000, ADEM’s coastal programs received a wetlands restoration grant to implement restoration strategies and address State lands within ADEM’s Alabama Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program’s (ACNPCP) management area, which includes all of Mobile and Baldwin Counties. The project has targeted restoration and protection of priority tracts in the approximately 5,000 acres of wetlands in Baldwin County. ADEM identified the Bon Secour Bay and Fort Morgan Peninsula as priority candidate wetlands restoration sites (ADEM 2004). USFWS is the technical adviser to projects conducted under the wetlands restoration grant. Wetland types in Baldwin County include riverine (overbank flooding of associated rivers and streams); fringe (shoreline of coastal ecosystems, marshes); flat (wet pine flats, pine savannas, and pitcher-plant bogs); and depressional (ponds, interdunal swales) (ADEM 2004). On the basis of a rough geospatial analysis, about 5,850 acres of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO are within coastal wetland areas in Alabama.

3.2.4

Vegetative Communities

For this planning effort, Gap Analysis Program (GAP) was used to delineate land cover types on nonUSFS FMO in Alabama. This land cover map is based on Landsat-7 satellite imagery using the National Land Cover Data (NLCD), which includes 21 very broad land cover classifications. The decision to use this data set was based on its statewide application and availability in a geographical information system format at the time this planning effort was initiated. Analysis of the GAP land cover map resulted in the
3-8 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

identification of seven dominant cover types on non-USFS FMO lands in Alabama. These cover types include deciduous (25 percent), mixed (23 percent), evergreen (19 percent), wetland forest/shrub land (10 percent), pasture/hay (8 percent), row/crops (5 percent), and open water (2 percent). Less dominant cover types (approximately 8 percent) are not discussed further. The following brief discussions provide an overview of the cover types found on non-USFS FMO in Alabama. • Deciduous (25 percent). This classification is dominated by trees, of which 75 percent or more are hardwoods. Common trees in these areas include a wide variety of oak (Quercus spp.) and hickory (Carya spp.) species, red maple (Acer rubrum), ash (Fraxinus spp.), hackberry (Celtis laevigata), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), beech (Fagus grandifolia), elm (Ulmus spp.), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). Mixed (23 percent). This classification delineates areas where neither hardwood nor pine species represent more than 75 percent of the cover. These mixed hardwood/pine areas are typically dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), slash pine (Pinus elliottii), or shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), with a wide variety of oak and hickory species, plus hackberry, elm, sweetgum, common persimmon, and yellow poplar. Evergreen (19 percent). This classification delineates areas where 75 percent or more of the tree species are evergreen. In Alabama, the dominant pine species are loblolly, longleaf pine, slash pine, and shortleaf pine. This classification includes commercial pine plantations, which according to the Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) comprised 24 percent of the forested acreage in Alabama in 2000. Loblolly is the most commonly planted pine species. An additional species, sand pine (Pinus clausa) dominates a narrow band of scrub habitats behind the coastal dune systems along the Gulf of Mexico. Wetland Forest/Shrub Land (10 percent). This classification comprises areas in which forest or shrub land vegetation accounts for 25 to 100 percent of the cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated or covered with water. These encompass diverse communities ranging from forested wetlands and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) swamps, to bogs and coastal marshes. Dominant species in seasonally flooded forests are sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), sweetgum, wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), various oaks, and titi (Cyrilla racemiflora). Typical wetland or bog species include pitcher plants, various rushes, sedges, arrowhead, and St. John’s wort (Hypericum spp.). Typical species of coastal wetlands and marshes include sawgrass (Cladium spp.), black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), and bulrush (Scirpus spp.). Pasture/Hay (8 percent). Vegetation in this community is composed of introduced grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock grazing or the production of hay crops. Row/Crops (5 percent). This classification includes areas being actively cultivated. Open Water (2 percent). This classification includes areas with less than 25 percent cover of vegetation/land cover.

•

• • •

Alabama Invasive/Exotic Species
The Alabama Invasive Plant Council lists 45 invasive plants as occurring in the State. The top ten include Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum), Japanese climbing fern (Lygodium japonicum), kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata), cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica), hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), and Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spictum). The most likely to be encountered on non-USFS FMO are Chinese tallow, Chinese privet, and cogon grass. Cogon grass, in
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-9

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

particular, has the potential to affect future land use practices because of its ability to alter natural fire regimes, its thick growth habit that excludes other vegetation, and the difficulty to control it. Chinese privet is a common invasive plant that occurs along edges and disturbed sites. Chinese tallow tree is often found near or in wetlands, and along fence rows and roads.

3.2.5

Fish and Wildlife

Game Species
Alabama’s major game species include whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern turkey (Meleagris gallapavo silvestris), mourning dove, northern bobwhite quail, squirrel, and waterfowl species. Alabama held its first alligator hunt since the recovery of the species in 2006. The whitetail deer population in Alabama was estimated at 1.75 million in 2000, up from an estimated 2,000 in the early 1900s, due in part to major restocking efforts during the 1950s and 1960s. The Alabama Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division estimates the current population of eastern wild turkey at 350,000. Turkey prefer hardwood and mixed pine-hardwood forestlands interspersed with open areas in both upland and bottomland regions. Mourning doves are common throughout the State on farms, and in towns, woodlots, agricultural fields, and grasslands. Quail occurrence is incidental across the State, generally associated with abandoned weedy fields and open pinelands or savanna with extensive groundcover of forbs, native grasses, and scattered brush thickets. Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and fox squirrel are both found statewide. The gray squirrel is common in hardwood forests, mixed forests, and urban areas. The less common fox squirrel favors mature deciduous and pine-oak woodlands, but also occurs at forest edges and in riparian woodlands. Twenty-six species of ducks are found in the coastal and inland waters of Alabama. The wood duck (Aix sponsa) and the hooded merganser (Mergus cucullatus) occur statewide throughout the year and breed extensively in Alabama. As part of the Mississippi Flyway, Alabama provides important winter habitat for waterfowl that are produced in the Prairie Pothole Region and Great Lakes States. Alabama provides varied and abundant sport fishery with 26 game species. Reservoirs, ponds, lakes, and swamps throughout the State provide important habitats for sport fishes.

Neotropical Migratory Birds
The Alabama Ornithological Society State list includes 420 species of birds known to occur in the State. A total of 178 species are known to breed in Alabama, including 158 species that regularly breed in the State. Additionally, 174 species regularly winter in and 80 species migrate through Alabama. This list also contains 38 accidental, 3 extinct, 2 extirpated (no longer occurring in Alabama, but may occur in other States), and 4 exotic (non-native) species. Maritime forests and shrub lands along coastal Alabama provide important staging areas for migrating songbirds and hawks and are critical when weather is inclement or when exhausted birds make landfall.

3.2.6

Special Status Species

For the purposes of this document, special status species are defined as all Federally and State-listed, species proposed or candidates for Federal or State listing, and those species identified by the BLM as sensitive species. The BLM Eastern States policy designates as “BLM sensitive” those additional species that are considered to be critically imperiled (S-1) or imperiled (S-2) by the State Natural Heritage programs, as well as potentially affected bird species included on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern and Game Birds Below Desired Condition lists. The USFWS currently lists 132 Federally listed species which historically or currently occur in Alabama. The Alabama Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) inventory lists 712 species ranked as either critically imperiled (S-1) or imperiled (S-2) being tracked in the State in 2006. A complete list of S-1 and S-2 species being tracked by ANHP is included in

3-10

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

Appendix E. Much of the following discussions are based on the Alabama CWCS (2005), which includes a complete list of the wildlife species of conservation concern in the State. This discussion of special status species takes a statewide perspective, even though management of the BLM’s scattered surface acreage and oil and gas development would probably directly affect less than 264 acres in total. Oil and gas leasing of non-USFS FMO in particular could occur anywhere in the State, and future oil and gas development has the potential to affect aquatic systems downstream from locations, substantially increasing the area potentially affected. Therefore, a statewide perspective is needed to cover the full geographic range of potential impacts.

Overview
The high number of special status species in Alabama is a factor of the State’s exceptional biodiversity, high rate of endemism, and a history of impacting land uses in the State. Physiographically, the State crosses five provinces (Interior Plateau, Southwestern Appalachians, Ridge and Valley, Piedmont, and East Gulf Coastal Plain) and is situated at the periphery of many species’ ranges (see Section 0). It is also a well-known global hotspot for aquatic biodiversity. Alabama surpasses all eastern States in plant and animal diversity, ranking fifth in the nation after California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico (ANHP 2003). Alabama ranks first in the nation in freshwater species diversity. Of the 307 species of freshwater mussels recorded in the nation, 180 have been recorded in Alabama. The Nature Conservancy has ranked the Tennessee River and the Mobile River, including its major tributaries, as the first and second most biologically diverse rivers in the country. This diverse fauna is affected by a history of impacting land uses. Most of Alabama’s larger rivers are impounded for navigation, hydropower, and flood control, resulting in the loss of many aquatic species during this century. The Black Warrior River Basin is the largest coal-producing area in the South and coalbed methane production is among the highest in the nation (Alabama Oil and Gas Board), and the river system has been degraded by past coal mining, gas development, and other uses. Throughout the State, aquatic systems have been adversely affected by intensive silviculture and urbanization. Longleaf pine, once the State’s most abundant tree (Harper 1928), was reduced to 732,800 acres by 2000 (Hartsell and Brown 2002). In the Southeast, longleaf pine forests now exist on only 3 percent of their previous range (Frost 1993). Throughout much of its range, these longleaf sites have been converted to loblolly pine or slash pine for commercial production and/or degraded by the absence of fire, to the detriment of many terrestrial species associated with this once widespread habitat. These factors have contributed to Alabama having more wildlife species at risk than any State east of the Colorado River. Only Hawaii, California, and Nevada have more imperiled species, and only Hawaii has lost more species to extinction (Stein 2002). At least 108 animal species (47 mussels, 44 aquatic snails, 11 fishes, 5 birds, and 4 mammals) have been extirpated in the State (Alabama CWCS 2005). Of the 117 Federally listed species in Alabama, 70 percent are associated with freshwater aquatic or wetland habitats. There is non-USFS FMO in both major oil and gas producing regions of Alabama (the Black Warrior River Basin Region and the Southwest Alabama Region) and both of these regions have substantial special status species issues. The Black Warrior River Region includes the Black Warrior and Tombigbee Rivers and the upper portions of the Cahaba River, all part of the Mobile River Basin. Forty-two fish species have been identified as endemic to the basin, and according to the Alabama Natural Heritage 2006 Tracking List, there are now 35 aquatic species either Federally listed or considered imperiled or critically imperiled in the Black Warrior Basin alone. The Southwest Alabama Region includes the Conecuh, Mobile, Escatawpa, Perdido, and Blackwater River Basins. These basins support 26 special status aquatic animal species, including the Federally listed Alabama sturgeon and Gulf sturgeon. Uplands in this area contain almost 90 percent of the longleaf pine acreage, both natural and planted, remaining in the State (Hartsell and Brown 2002). Eighteen special status species are associated with this once widespread
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-11

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

habitat (Alabama CWCS 2005), including keystone species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker and gopher tortoise. Coastal areas in Mobile and Baldwin Counties support 10 special status species, including critical habitat for the Alabama beach mouse, nesting habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle, and critical habitat for wintering piping plover. Outside of these oil and gas producing regions, there is non-USFS FMO in all but 10 southeastern counties in Alabama. Future development in these areas could occur in response to new finds or new technology that make recovery of the oil/gas more economical. For instance, recently there have been new wells drilled on private minerals in St. Clair and Etowah Counties. These counties are located in the Coosa River Basin, the largest and most biologically diverse portion of the Mobile River Basin, with 39 special status species. Nine of these are considered to be extirpated from this river basin and an additional four are considered to be extirpated from the State. On non-USFS FMO across the State, there are a number of small, often isolated high-value habitats that support special status species. These include many wetland communities such as bogs, seeps, swamps, prairie and glade openings, and karst habitats. BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO has been estimated to include 38,898 acres of shrub and forested wetlands at least periodically inundated. There are 12 special status amphibians found in the State that utilize these habitats. There are also a number of plant species restricted to these habitats, including the green pitcher plant and white fringeless orchid, both candidates for Federal listing. Glades, in the northeastern half of the State and prairies in the “Black Belt” areas are scarce in this forest-dominated State and tend to support rare assemblages of plants. Karst areas in the northeastern portion of the State support a high number of endemic species. In Jackson County, caves support 24 species found nowhere else, and caves in Morgan and Madison Counties are designated as National Natural Landmarks.

Species Accounts
The following Federally listed or candidate species are known to occur or to have potential to occur on BLM-administered non-USFS FMO. There are currently no species proposed for Federal listing in Alabama (Natureserve 2006). A list of species ranked by ANHP as critically imperiled (S-1) or imperiled (S-2) is provided in Appendix E.
Mammals Gray myotis (Myotis grisescens), Federally listed as endangered

Gray myotis roost almost exclusively in caves, generally utilizing different caves for summer and winter hibernaculum. Bats may migrate hundreds of kilometers between summer and winter caves. Only a very limited number of caves meet the thresholds for temperature, humidity, and isolation. Most records in Alabama are from near the Tennessee River, and there are small populations in the central and southern parts of the State. Water courses and associated forested riparian corridors are important foraging areas for gray myotis.
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), Federally listed as endangered

The Indiana bat hibernates in caves, typically limestone with pools where the mean midwinter temperature is 4–8 degrees Celsius. In Alabama, suitable caves are utilized by bats migrating hundreds of kilometers from breeding grounds in more northern States. Indiana bat records are primarily from the northern third of the State, particularly the Bankhead National Forest, and in the karst region of the extreme south-central portion of the State in Jackson County.

3-12

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

Alabama beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates), Federally listed as endangered and ranked

The Alabama beach mouse is restricted to coastal dunes and scrub/shrub habitats along the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County. Although the highest population numbers occur in primary dunes, higher secondary dunes and scrub habitats, which are less likely to be inundated, provide crucial habitat from which mice can recolonize after major storm events. All of the BLM-administered beach tracts in Baldwin County are within the designated critical habitat. On January 30, 2007, the Alabama beach mouse critical habitat was revised to include additional areas north of the coastal dunes. All of the BLMadministered highway tracts are now within areas designated as critical habitat for Alabama beach mouse. Approximately 365 acres of non-USFS FMO are within designated critical habitat.
West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), Federally listed as endangered

Manatee may utilize coastal areas near the BLM surface tracts, particularly Fowl River, during the summer months.
Birds Piping plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), Atlantic Coast and Great Plains populations listed as Federally threatened, and Great Lakes populations listed as Federally endangered

All three populations of piping plover winter along the southern Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, where they are classified as threatened. On July 3, 2001, USFWS designated 165,211 acres along 1,798 miles of coastline in eight southern States as critical habitat for the wintering population of piping plover. This included several barrier islands and the western tip of the Fort Morgan Peninsula. Piping plover can be present in Alabama from August to May, but numbers peak during the winter months.
Wood stork (Mycteria americana), Federally listed as endangered

The wetlands of the Coastal Plain of Alabama provide important foraging habitat for wood storks that disperse from breeding areas in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina in late summer and early fall. There are no recent breeding records in Alabama, although wood storks may breed in remote swamps of the State (Imhof 1976). Primarily, habitats are marshes, swamps, lagoons, ponds, and flooded fields and ditches. During extended drought, depressions in marshes and brackish wetlands have increased in importance.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Federally listed as endangered

Red-cockaded woodpeckers are found in open, mature, old-growth pine woodlands and savannahs. Cavity trees are pines generally over 60 years old, located in open stands with little or no hardwood midstory and few or no overstory hardwoods. Hardwood encroachment resulting from fire suppression can result in cluster abandonment. Potentially suitable foraging habitat is located within 0.5 mile of nesting habitat and contains at least 50 percent pines that are 30 years or older.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Federally listed as threatened, proposed for delisting

Bald eagles are found throughout the State primarily along rivers and large bodies of water. Alabama supports an influx of wintering eagles. A January survey of bald eagles in Alabama has averaged about 100–150 birds in recent years. Concentrations occur on Pickwick Lake near Waterloo and Guntersville Lake near Guntersville State Park. A breeding population of bald eagles has been reestablished in the State. The Alabama Restoration Project tracked 91 juvenile bald eagles in the State from 1985–1991. In 2006, 100 nests were being monitored in the State.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-13

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Reptiles Flattened musk turtle (Sternotherus depressus), Federally listed as threatened

The flattened musk turtle is endemic to Alabama and restricted to Black Warrior River watershed, where it is found in medium-size creeks to larger streams and even impoundments. Optimal stream habitat consists of a drainage at least 80.5 square kilometers (50 square miles); alternating pools and riffles, with pools at least 3–4.5 feet deep; an abundance of submerged boulders and rocks, with crevices; an abundant molluscan and benthic invertebrate fauna; a low silt load; and clean water (Mount 1981a). Streams with a predominant sandy substrate are also suitable as long as adequate boulder and crevice refugia are present (Ernst et al. 1989).
Alabama red-belly turtle (Pseudemys alabamensis), Federally listed as endangered

The Alabama red-belly turtle is restricted to the Mobile-Tensaw River Delta in Mobile and Baldwin Counties adjacent to Mobile Bay. They are rarely found north of Interstate 65. Systematic sampling of major tributaries in coastal Alabama have shown them to be present in major rivers and tributaries of the Mobile Bay, Bayou La Batre, Fowl, Dog, Fish, Magnolia, and Bon Secour Rivers. Specimens have also been recorded from Daphne and Point Clear, Alabama. Alabama red-belly turtles are found in shallow vegetated backwaters of freshwater streams, rivers, bays, and bayous in or adjacent to Mobile Bay.
Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), population west of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers is Federally listed as threatened

In Alabama, gopher tortoise populations usually occur below the Fall Line in the Southern Pine Plains and Buhrstone/Lime Hills ecoregions. Small populations are found along alluvial sandy ridges that occur along southern Alabama waterways. In Alabama, gopher tortoises are protected by Federal and State laws and found in the following counties: Choctaw, Washington, Mobile, Baldwin, Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Clarke, Crenshaw, Coffee, Conecuh, Covington, Dale, Escambia, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Monroe, Montgomery, Pike, and Wilcox. Small populations occur in Autauga and Macon Counties, where they were introduced by man. The largest populations occur in dry, deep sandy soils where the overhead canopy is open. The best populations in Alabama are found in longleaf pine-scrub oak-wiregrass sand hills that are frequently burned. The more loamy soils found in the longleaf-wiregrass flatwoods support small scattered populations. Clear cuts created by timber operations where gophers occur will support the tortoise for the first few years, but will be abandoned as the canopy closes, usually causing the tortoises to move to the edges of the woodland roads. Pine plantations that are managed for open canopy by thinning and burning will provide the minimum requirements to support a tortoise population. Dense hardwood and unburned pine/hardwood habitats are unsuitable for tortoise populations. Agricultural fields and wildlife food plots will support some individuals but are considered marginal habitat. Tortoises found in these habitats are usually found on the field edges and fence lines where they are not disturbed by annual plantings. Loss of habitat and historic overhunting have caused a large statewide decline of tortoise populations. There are very few public places that have tortoise populations in Alabama, and only the Conecuh National Forest and Fort Rucker Military Base have more than 100 individuals. Research has shown that gopher tortoises move up to 600 feet between burrows for breeding purposes, and two or more burrows within 600 feet of each other can be defined as a population (McDearman personal communication).
Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi), Federally listed as threatened

The historical range of the eastern indigo snake was from the east coast of South Carolina through southern Georgia, Florida, into southern Alabama, and southwest Mississippi, and is often associated with gopher tortoises. Particularly outside of southern Florida, gopher tortoise burrows provide important refugia from temperature extremes. Naturally occurring populations are now found only in southern Georgia and Florida. Indigo snakes were historically found in the lower coastal plain along with the
3-14 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

burrowing gopher tortoise. In the 1980s, the indigo snake was reintroduced in its historical range within the State, including releases in Autuaga, Baldwin, Bullock, Covington, Escambia, Mobile, and Washington Counties. There have been subsequent sightings.
Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi), Candidate for Federal listing

Black pine snakes are endemic to the upland longleaf pine forests that once covered the southeastern United States. Habitat consists of sandy, well-drained soils with an overstory of longleaf pine, a firesuppressed midstory, and dense herbaceous ground cover. In Alabama, there are recorded sightings in Mobile County.
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), Federally listed as threatened

The most common nesting sea turtle in Alabama, loggerheads nest on open sandy beaches above the hightide mark, seaward of well-developed dunes from the Florida border to Dauphin Island, with the majority nesting between Fort Morgan and Gulf Shores. Nesting normally occurs from early May through August, with the majority of nests being laid during June and July. Females lay three to five nests, and sometimes more, during a single nesting season. The eggs incubate approximately 2 months before hatching sometime between late June and mid-November.
Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), Federally listed as endangered

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle is an occasional visitor to Alabama waters, where it is sometimes caught in shrimp nets. Although virtually the entire population nests in Mexico and southern Texas, at least three nests have been documented in Alabama (2001, 2006, and 2007). Based on USFWS records, juvenile Kemp’s Ridleys are the most common marine turtle in Alabama bays and estuaries.
Amphibians Mississippi gopher frog (Rana sevosa), Federally listed as endangered

This species is currently known from four locations in Mississippi, but it has also been recorded from Gulf Coast Flatwoods of Alabama (at the mouth of Dog River). It is highly terrestrial. Breeding occurs late January to March in open temporary ponds. Habitat includes both upland sandy habitats historically forested with longleaf pine and isolated temporary wetland breeding sites imbedded within this forested landscape.
Flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum), Federally listed as threatened

Flatwoods salamander’s historic distribution in Alabama was confined to the southernmost tier of counties (Mobile, Baldwin, Escambia, Covington, Geneva, and Houston). The most recent records are from Covington and Houston Counties, 1980 and 1981, respectively. The species has not been recorded in over two decades, despite surveys from 1992 to 1995. Characteristic habitat is pine flatwoods, where larvae utilize shallow pondcypress or blackgum ponds, marshy pasture ponds, roadside ditches, or small, shallow borrow pits.
Red Hills salamander (Phaeognathus hubrichti), Federally listed as threatened

This salamander is irregularly distributed within a narrow belt of two geological formations (Tallahatta and Hatchetigbee) in parts of five counties (Crenshaw, Butler, Covington, Conecuh, and Monroe) in the Red Hills (Schwaner and Mount 1970, Mount 1975). Its characteristic habitat is on steep slopes (especially north-facing) of ravines and bluffs dominated by hardwood trees such as magnolias, American beech, tuliptree, oaks, and hickories. Older-growth timber is preferred. Complete removal of forest canopy in most cases results in extirpation of a resident population.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-15

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Black Warrior waterdog (Necturus alabamensis), Candidate for Federal listing

The Black Warrior waterdog inhabits streams above the Fall Line within the Black Warrior River Basin in Alabama. Currently, the species is known from 14 sites in 5 counties: Blount, Marshall, Tuscaloosa, Walker, and Winston. Within these counties, occupied river systems, including the North River, Locust Fork, and Mulberry Fork, are all on the EPA’s list of impaired waters. Black Warrior waterdogs are associated with clay substrates lacking silt. Stream depths range from 3.3 to 13.1 feet and contain large leaf packs supporting mayfly and caddis fly larvae.
Fish Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus dosotoi), Federally listed as threatened

Adult Gulf sturgeons migrate into large river systems between late March and early April to spawn, sometimes moving as much as 140 miles upstream. Adults and subadults return to the Gulf of Mexico in late fall. The young generally stay in the river mouth through winter and spring. Critical habitat has been designated in Alabama and includes reaches of the Escambia/Conecuh River system in Escambia, Conecuh, and Covington Counties, and the Choctawhatchee River in Geneva County.
Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi), Federally listed as endangered

The Alabama sturgeon is now restricted to a 130-mile reach of the Alabama River below Miller’s Ferry Lock and Dam. The Alabama sturgeon currently inhabits only about 15 percent of its historic range, which originally included about 1,000 miles of the Mobile River system in Alabama (Black Warrior, Tombigbee, Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa, Mobile, Tensaw, and Cahaba Rivers) and Mississippi (Tombigbee River).
Blue shiner (Cyprinella caerulea), Federally listed as threatened

In Alabama, the blue shiner occurs in Weogufka Creek in Coosa County; Choccolocco Creek, and the lower reach of Shoal Creek in Calhoun County; and Little River in Cherokee County. The blue shiner prefers a sand or sand-and-gravel substrate sometimes with cobble, low to moderate velocity current, and a depth of about 0.15 to 1 meter.
Palezone shiner (Notropis albizonatus), Federally listed as endangered

Palezone shiner habitat is described as upland large creeks and small rivers with permanent flow, in runs and flowing upper portions of pools over clean substrates of bedrock, cobble, and gravel mixed with clean sand. The currently documented range includes two widely disjunct populations, one of which is a 25-km reach of the Paint Rock River in Jackson County, Alabama. The other population is found in portions of the Cumberland and Tennessee River systems in Kentucky and Tennessee.
Cahaba shiner (Notropis cahabae), Federally listed as endangered

The stronghold for the species is limited to about 15 river miles between the Fall Line and Piper Bridge in Bibb County, Alabama. The species occurs in large shoal areas of the main channel of the Cahaba River, particularly in the quieter water less than 1.64 feet deep just below swift riffle areas. The species prefers patches of sandy substrate at the edge of or scattered throughout gravel beds or downstream of larger rocks and boulders. This shiner probably requires a river with sufficient small crustaceans, insect larvae, and algae for food, similar to its close relative, the mimic shiner.
Alabama cavefish (Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni), Federally listed as endangered

The Alabama cavefish is known only from the type locality, Key Cave in Lauderdale County, Alabama.

3-16

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

Pygmy sculpin (Cottus paulus), Federally listed as threatened

The pygmy sculpin is an Alabama endemic known from Coldwater Spring and its adjacent downstream spring run, a tributary to Choccolocco Creek in Calhoun County.
Slackwater darter (Etheostoma boschungi), Federally listed as threatened

The slackwater darter is know from disjunct populations in the Cypress Creek, Swan Creek, upper Shoal Creek, and Flint River systems in north Alabama and south-central Tennessee, and from the headwaters of the Buffalo River in Tennessee.
Vermilion darter (Etheostoma chermocki), Federally listed as endangered

The vermilion darter is limited in distribution to upper Turkey Creek, a tributary to the Locust Fork of the Black Warrior River system in Jefferson County, Alabama. The vermilion darter occurs in moderate-to swift currents in streams of alternating riffles and pools.
Watercress darter (Etheostoma nuchale), Federally listed as endangered

The watercress darter is only known to occur in three springs in Jefferson County. A new population has been successfully established by transplanting individuals from Roebuck Springs to Tapawingo Springs, a tributary of Turkey Creek.
Boulder darter (Etheostoma wapiti), Federally listed as endangered

Boulder darters currently occur in the Elk River system in Giles and Lincoln Counties, Tennessee, and Limestone County, Alabama. In 1993, in an effort to reestablish the species within its historic range, boulder darters were released at three locations in the Elk River, all upstream of Alabama Highway 127 in Limestone County.
Rush darter (Etheostoma phytophilum), Candidate for Federal listing

The rush darter is endemic to upland portions of the Black Warrior River system in Alabama where it occurs in shallow headwater streams. This species is uncommon and sporadic within its range, as it favors shallow, flowing water in spring runs and spring-associated streams with emergent vegetation. Only three disjunct populations are known: one in the Clear Creek system in Winston County, one in spring-fed tributaries of Turkey Creek in Jefferson County, and one population in Little Cove Creek in Etowah County.
Goldline darter (Percina aurolineata), Federally listed as threatened

The goldline darter continues to exist in fragmented populations in the Coosawattee River, Georgia, in about 7 miles of the Little Cahaba River and in 27 miles of the 49 miles of historic range in the Cahaba River, Alabama. This species prefers moderate-to-swift currents and water depths greater than 2 feet. It is found over sand or gravel substrata interspersed among cobble and small boulders.
Snail darter (Percina tanasi), Federally listed as threatened

The snail darter is presently known from only six Tennessee River tributaries and from the main stem of the Tennessee River near the mouth of three tributaries. In Alabama, the snail darter is restricted to the Paint Rock River in Jackson and Madison Counties. This species prefers two types of habitat: relatively shallow gravel shoal areas with moderate to swift current, and deep slackwater pools in large streams and rivers.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-17

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Spotfin chub (Erimonax monachus), Federally listed as threatened and experimental, nonessential

Although naturally occuring populations are considered extirpated in Alabama, there is a non-essential, experimental population recently established in Shoal Creek in Lauderdale County, Alabama.
Mussels

The following mussel species in Alabama are Federally listed as endangered, threatened, or are candidates for Federal listing. Most of these species require flowing water, over clean, stable sand and gravel. Pollution; construction of dams and impounding of major rivers, such as the Tennessee, Coosa, Black Warrior, and Alabama; and dredging and channelization have resulted in the declines and extirpation of many mussel species in Alabama. The occurrence records below were based on historic and current records from Nature Serve (2006).

Table 3-2. Federally Listed Mussel Species in Alabama
Federally Listed Mussel Species in Alabama
Acornshell, southern (Epioblasma othcaloogensis) probably extirpated Bean, Choctaw (Villosa choctawensis) Blossom, turgid (pearlymussel) (Epioblasma turgidula) probably extinct Blossom, yellow (pearlymussel) (Epioblasma florentina florentina) probably extirpated Catspaw (Epioblasma obliquata obliquata) probably extirpated Clubshell, black (=Curtus’ mussel) (Pleurobema curtum) probably extirpated Clubshell, ovate (Pleurobema perovatum)

Federal Status*
E*

Critical Habitat Designated
Yes

County Occurrence Records
Bibb, Cherokee, Etowah, St. Clair, and Shelby Counties Barbour, Bullock, Coffee, Covington, Dale, Geneva, Henry, Houston, and Pike Counties Colbert, Franklin, and Lauderdale Counties

Lauderdale and Colbert Counties

NA ( Muscle Shoals)

NA (Tombigbee River) Blount, Greene, Fayette, Lee, Lamar, Lee, Etowah, Macon, Pickens, St. Clair, Sumter, Tuscaloosa, Walker, and Winston Counties Cherokee, Dallas, Etowah, Fayette, Greene, Lamar, Pickens, St. Clair, and Tuscaloosa Counties Colbert and Etowah Counties Etowah, Lamar, and Marion Counties

Yes

Clubshell, southern (Pleurobema decisum) Combshell, Cumberlandian (Epioblasma brevidens) Combshell, southern (=penitent mussel) (Epioblasma penita)

Yes

E* E

Yes No

3-18

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

Federally Listed Mussel Species in Alabama
Combshell, upland (Epioblasma metastriata) probably extirpated Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria)

Federal Status*
E*

Critical Habitat Designated
Yes

County Occurrence Records

Bibb, Shelby, and Jefferson Counties Colbert, Lauderdale, and Marshall Counties Baldwin, Bibb, Choctaw, Clarke, Greene, Hale, Marengo, Pickens, Sumter, Tuscaloosa, and Washington Counties Blount, Cherokee, Cullman, Etowah, Jefferson, Lawrence, St. Clair, Walker, and Winston Counties Barbour and Coffee Counties Jackson County Jackson County Cherokee, Etowah, Greene, Lamar, Lawrence, Pickens, St. Clair, Shelby, and Winston Counties Cherokee, Talladega, and Winston Counties NA ( Chattahoochee River drainage)

Heelsplitter, Alabama (=inflated) (Potamilus inflatus)

Kidneyshell, triangular (Ptychobranchus greenii) Kidneyshell, Southern (Ptychobranchus jonesi) Lampmussel, Alabama (Lampsilis virescens) Lilliput, pale (pearlymussel) (Toxolasma cylindrellus) Moccasinshell, Alabama (Medionidus acutissimus) Moccasinshell, Coosa (Medionidus parvulus) Moccasinshell, Gulf (Medionidus penicillatus) Probably extirpated Monkeyface, Cumberland (pearlymussel) (Quadrula intermedia) Mucket, orange-nacre (Hamiota (Lampsilis) perovalis) Mucket, pink (pearlymussel) (Lampsilis abrupta) Oyster mussel, (Epioblasma capsaeformis) Pearlshell, Alabama (Margaritifera marrianae) Pearlymussel, cracking (Hemistena lata) Pearlymussel, dromedary (Dromus dromas) probably extirpated, possible reintroduction Pearlymussel, littlewing (Pegias fabula) probably extirpated

Yes

C E E

No No No

Yes

Limestone County Bibb, Fayette, Greene, Jefferson, Lamar, Lawrence, Pickens, Shelby, Tuscaloosa, and Winston Counties Colbert, Jackson, Madison, Morgan, Marshall, Lauderdale, Lawrence, and Limestone Counties NA ( Tennessee and Cumberland river drainages) Conecuh and Crenshaw Counties Colbert and Lauderdale Counties

Yes

E* C E

No No No

Colbert and Lauderdale Counties

Lauderdale County

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-19

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Federally Listed Mussel Species in Alabama
Pearlymussel, slabside (Lexingtonia dolabelloides) Pigtoe, dark (Pleurobema furvum) Pigtoe, fine-rayed (Fusconaia cuneolus) Pigtoe, flat (=Marshall’s mussel) (Pleurobema marshalli) probably extirpated Pigtoe, fuzzy (Pleurobema strodeanum) Pigtoe, oval (Pleurobema pyriforme) Pigtoe, heavy (=Judge Tait’s mussel) (Pleurobema taitianum)

Federal Status*
C E* E

Critical Habitat Designated
No Yes No

County Occurrence Records
Colbert, Jackson, Madison, and Marshall Counties Fayette, Lawrence, Tuscaloosa, Winston, and Jefferson Counties Jackson, Marshall, and Madison Counties Greene and Sumter Counties Barbour, Bullock, Coffee, Conecuh, Dale, Escambia, Geneva, Henry, and Pike Counties Houston County Baldwin, Clarke, Dallas, Greene, Monroe, Sumter, Pickens, and Wilcox Counties Colbert, Lauderdale, Madison, Morgan, Marshall, Lawrence, and Limestone Counties Jackson, Marshall, and Madison Counties Cleburne County Madison and Marshall Counties Colbert and Lauderdale Counties Blount, Calhoun, Cherokee, Elmore, Etowah, Macon, Shelby, St. Clair, Talladega, Lawrence, Walker, Winston, Dekalb, Lee, Dallas, Clay, Bibb, Jefferson, Tuscaloosa, Fayette, Tallapoosa, and Cullman Counties Russell County NA (Chattahoochee River) Barbour, Coffee, Covington, Dale, Geneva, Henry, and Pike Counties Pickens County Colbert and Lauderdale Counties

C E E

No No No

Pigtoe, rough (Pleurobema plenum) Pigtoe, shiny (Fusconaia cor (=edgariana)) Pigtoe, southern (Pleurobema georgianum) Pimpleback, orangefoot (pearlymussel) (Plethobasus cooperianus) Pink, ring (mussel) (Obovaria retusa)

E E* E E

No Yes No No

Pocketbook, finelined (Hamiota (=Lampsilis) altilis)

Yes

Pocketbook, shinyrayed (Hamiota (Lampsilis) subangulata) Purple bankclimber (Plectomerus (=Elliptoideus) sloatianus) Sandshell, southern (Lampsilis australis) Stirrupshell (Quadrula stapes) probably extinct Wartyback, white (pearlymussel) (Plethobasus cicatricosus)

E T C E E

No No No No No

Note: E=Endangered, C=Candidate, and T=Threatened *Denotes species with designated critical habitat in Alabama

3-20

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

Aquatic Snails

The following Federally listed snails utilize many of the same riverine habitats discussed above under “Mussels” and have been affected by many of the same land use practices, including impoundments and the general deterioration of water quality from siltation and other pollutants contributed by past mining activities, poor land-use practices, and waste discharges. Seven of these aquatic snails are endemic to the Mobile River Basin, where they inhabit shoals, rapids, and riffles of large streams and rivers above the Fall Line. All have disappeared from more than 90 percent of their historic ranges.

Table 3-3. Federally Listed Aquatic Snail Species in Alabama
Federally Listed Aquatic Snail Species in Alabama
Armored snail (Pyrgulopsis pachyta), Federally listed as endangered Cylindrical lioplax (Lioplax cyclostomaformis), Federally listed as endangered Flat pebblesnail (Lepyrium showalteri) Lacy elimia (Elimia renetella) Black mudalia (Elimia melanoides) Painted rocksnail (Leptoxis taeniata) Plicate rocksnail (Leptoxis plicata) Round rocksnail (Leptoxis ampla), Federally listed as threatened Interrupted rocksnail (Leptoxis foremani) Slender campeloma (Campeloma decampi) Tulotoma snail (Tulotoma magnifica), Federally listed as endangered Rough hornsnail (Pleurocera formani)
Note: E=Endangered, C=Candidate, and T=Threatened

Federal Status
E

Critical Habitat Designated
No

County Occurrence Records
Limestone County

E E T C T E T C E E C

No No No No No No No No No No No

Bibb and Shelby Counties Bibb and Shelby Counties Talladega County Blount Calhoun, Chilton, Shelby, and Talladega Counties Blount and Jefferson Counties. Bibb and Shelby Counties Elmore Limestone County Calhoun, Coosa, Elmore, Shelby, St. Clair, and Talladega Counties Elmore, Shelby

Crayfish

Although there are no Federally listed crayfish in Alabama, the State is home to 83 species of crayfish, more species than any other State. Twenty are listed as critically imperiled (S-1) or imperiled (S-2) by ANHP.
Cave Shrimp Alabama cave shrimp (Palaemonia alabamae), Federally listed as endangered

This freshwater shrimp is known from only two caves in Madison County.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-21

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Insects Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii), Federally listed as endangered

There are recent isolated records of this butterfly in calcareous wetlands dominated by sedges and eastern redcedar.
Plants Alabama canebrake pitcher plant (Sarracenia rubra ssp. alabamensi), Federally listed as endangered

This pitcher plant is found in sand hills, swamps, and sloping bogs along the Fall Line Hills in saturated, deep peaty sands or clay soils. This species is now restricted to three counties: Autauga, Chilton, and Elmore in Alabama. One of the largest populations is located in the Roberta Case Pine Hills Preserve in Autauga County managed by The Nature Conservancy.
Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana), Federally listed as threatened

Price’s potato bean is an herbaceous twining perennial vine typically located under mixed hardwoods or in associated forest clearings, often where bluffs or ravine slopes meet creek or river bottoms. Soils are generally well drained and loamy, formed on alluvium or over calcareous boulders. Several populations extend onto road or powerline rights-of-way (ROW). Three extant populations are known from Alabama in Madison, Autsuga, and Marshall Counties. Two of the populations are located along the floodplain of the Alabama River.
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana), Federally listed as endangered

American chaffseed is a perennial member of the figwort family found in acidic, sandy, or peaty soils in open pine flatwoods, pitch pine lowland forests, seepage bogs, palustrine pine savannahs, and other grassand sedge-dominated plant communities. It frequently grows in ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xeric sandy soils. In these situations, individuals sometimes extend well into the drier communities but seldom into the areas that support species characteristic of wetter soils. Surrounding plant communities are typically species-rich. There are historic records in Baldwin and Geneva Counties in Alabama.
Panhandle lily (Lillium iridollae), Candidate for Federal listing

In the Gulf Coastal Plain of Florida and Alabama, this species inhabits baygalls, wet flatwoods, seepage slopes, and the edges of bottomland forests. It is typically found in sandy peat or loamy soils which are saturated for at least part of the year and include soils classified as Bibb-Kinston-Johns complex, Dorovan-Pamlico complex, Lynchburg fine sandy loam, and Rutledge loamy sand. The sites are open to full sun or filtered light. This species often occurs in the ecotone between the more open pine/wiregrass uplands or along the stream corridor itself. In Alabama, there are records from Baldwin, Covington, and Escambia Counties.
Mohr’s Barbara buttons (Marshallia mohrii), Federally listed as threatened

This aster is found in moist-to-wet prairie-like openings in pine woodlands, along shale-bedded streams, and in meadows. Other populations are located in swales on roadside ROW and in Ketona dolomite glades. It prefers full sunlight or partial shade. The soils are sandy clays, which are alkaline, high in organic matter, and seasonally wet. Common associates include various grasses, sedges, and prairie species. In Alabama, there are records in Bibb, Calhoun, Cherokee, and Walker Counties.

3-22

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

Tennessee yellow-eyed grass (Xyris tennesseensis), Federally listed as endangered

Although Xyris species are usually found on acidic soils, X. tennesseensis is restricted to basic or neutral soils that thinly cover calcareous substrates with year-round seepage or mineral-rich water flow. This species is found in open or thin canopy woods in gravelly seep-slopes or gravelly bars and banks of small streams, springs, and ditches. In Alabama, there are records from Bibb, Calhoun, Franklin, and Shelby Counties.
Georgia rockcress (Arabis georgiana), Candidate for Federal listing

Georgia rockcress is typically found in shallow soil accumulations on rocky bluffs, ecotones of gently sloping rock outcrops, outcrops along rivers, and sandy loam along eroding riverbanks. It is occasionally found in adjacent mesic woods, but it will not persist in heavily shaded conditions. In Alabama, there are records from Bibb, Elmore, and Wilcox Counties.
Georgia aster (Symphyotrichum georgiana), Candidate for Federal listing

This aster prefers dry open woods, roadsides, and other openings. In Alabama, there are records in Bibb, Blount, Etowah, Shelby, St. Clair, and Tuscaloosa Counties.
White fringeless orchid (Platanthera integrilabia), Candidate for Federal listing

White fringeless orchid is generally found in wet, flat, boggy areas at the head of streams or seepage slopes. The species is often found in acidic muck or sand, and in partially but not fully shaded areas. In Alabama, there are records in Calhoun, Cleburne, Jackson, Marion, Tuscaloosa, and Winston Counties.
Alabama leather flower (Clematis socialis), Federally listed as endangered

The Alabama leather flower is an erect, non-viney perennial herb known from only five sites in northeast Alabama and one in northwest Georgia. One population is protected on The Nature Conservancy’s Dry Creek Preserve in St. Clair County. Locations are described as having silt and clay of alluvial, grass-sedge openings extending into the adjacent hardwood edge.
Kral’s water plantain (Sagittaria secundifolia), Federally listed as threatened

Kral’s water plantain typically occurs on frequently exposed shoals or rooted among loose boulders in quiet pools up to 3.2 feet or 1 meter in depth. In Alabama, this aquatic perennial is known to occur in only 12 sites scattered along 25 miles of the Little River drainage system in Dekalb and Cherokee Counties.
Whorled sunflower (Helianthus verticullatus), Candidate for Federal listing

The whorled sunflower is restricted to remnant prairie habitat. In Alabama, there are records in Cherokee County.
Leafy prairie-clover (Dalea foliosa), Federally listed as endangered

Leafy prairie-clover is a perennial herb found in open, thin-soiled limestone glades and limestone barrens. In Alabama, there are records in Colbert, Franklin, Lawrence, and Morgan Counties.
Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis), Federally listed as threatened

Louisiana quillwort appears to be restricted to shallow blackwater streams in riparian woodland and bayhead forest areas of pine flatwoods. The plants are found on stable sand and gravel bars, moist overflow channels with silty sand substrates, and on low, sloping banks near and below water level. In Alabama, there are records from Conecuh and Monroe Counties.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-23

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), Federally listed as endangered

Pondberry habitat is characterized as seasonally flooded wetlands, such as floodplain hardwood forests and forested swales, usually in shade, but tolerates full sun. In Alabama, there are 2,004 records in Covington County.
Harperella (Ptillimnium nodosum), Federally listed as endangered

Harperella is an annual that typically occurs in two habitat types: rocky or gravelly shoals of clear, swiftflowing streams, usually in microsites that are sheltered from rapidly moving water; and the edges of intermittent pineland ponds or low, wet savannah meadows on the Coastal Plain. In Alabama, there are records from Cherokee and Dekalb Counties. On non-USFS FMO, there are 642 acres of potential habitat within 200 meters of known occurrences.
Lyrate bladder-pod (Lesquerella lyrata), Federally listed as threatened

Lyrate bladder-pod is found in red soils, limestone outcroppings, disturbed cedar glades and glade-like areas, including open pastures, cultivated fields, and roadsides in calcareous areas. In Alabama, there are records in Colbert, Franklin, and, Lawrence Counties.
Gentian pinkroot (Spigelia gentianoides var. entianoides), Federally listed as endangered

Gentian pinkroot is an herbaceous perennial found in sandy or dry-mesic pine-oak woods or in longleaf pine-oak woods with a sparse herbaceous element, including wiregrass (Aristida stricta). It is known only from Bibb County.
Relict trillium (Trillium reliquum), Federally listed as endangered

Relict trillium is a species of mesic hardwood forests. The forests can be on slopes of various aspects and inclinations or on bottomlands and floodplains. Soils and subsoils range from rocky clays to alluvial sands; all soils have high organic matter content in the top level. In Alabama, there are records from Bullock, Henry, and Lee Counties.
Morefield’s leather-flower (Clematis morefieldii), Federally listed as endangered

Morefield’s leather flower is a perennial vine found in basic clay-loam soils in rocky limestone woods on the south- and southwest-facing slopes of mountains. It is currently known from only five locations in Madison County.
American hart’s-tongue fern (Phyllitis scolopendrium var. americana), Federally listed as threatened

This species is typically found in areas with shady, moist areas and in dolomitic limestone. The two populations known in Alabama are associated with caves. One population occurs in a Jackson County sinkhole on lands managed as an NWR. The other population is in Morgan County, in the privately owned pit entrance to a limestone cave.
Fleshyfruit gladecress (Leavenworthia crassa), Candidate for Federal listing

The fleshyfruit gladecress occurs in limestone cedar glades, as well as disturbed roadsides, pastures, cultivated fields, and old fields. In Alabama, there are records from Lauderdale, Lawrence, and Morgan Counties.
Green pitcher plant (Sarracenia oreophila), Federally listed as endangered

Green pitcher plants are found in seepage bogs, sandstone streambanks, and mixed oak or pine flatwoods, where soils are sandy and highly acidic. In Alabama, records are from the northeastern counties of
3-24 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

Jackson, Marshall, Dekalb, Cherokee, and Etowah. There are confirmed records of green pitcher plant on 635 acres of non-USFS FMO in Cherokee, DeKalb, and Etowah Counties and an additional 646 acres of non-USFS FMO within 200 meters of known occurrences.

3.2.7

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

There are two wildfire seasons each year in southeastern States. The first wildfire season usually begins in late October with the first frost and hardwood leaf drop and runs through December. The second wildfire season usually begins in February and runs to mid-April or until spring green-up. These seasons vary from year to year, depending on rainfall, wind, and other weather factors. Wildfires in the South are normally not as large as those that occur in the West because of aggressive initial fire control. However, wildfires in the South cause extensive damage and can be an avenue for decay in individual trees, weakening them and making them susceptible to insect disease and infestation (Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). Alabama’s forests and associated species are adapted to regular wildland fire. However, changing land use practices, urban sprawl, land fragmentation, natural disasters such as hurricanes, increasing land values, population increases, and the transition from urban to rural populations results in a build up of fuels and a need to increase fuels management and wildland fire activities (Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). Through the course of an average year in Alabama, there are 4,000 individual wildland fires that burn 40,000 acres (Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). The average wildfire size is approximately 12 acres per fire (AFC 2004). Escaped fires from debris burning and arson are major causes of wildland fire, though lightening accounts for approximately 7 percent of wildfires (Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). “Each year Alabama wildfires damage or destroy 46 homes, 114 structures, and 1,100 vehicles” (Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). A rapidly expanding population has led to large and expanding areas of wildland-urban interface (WUI) across the State, with an estimated 1,350 WUI communities with potential wildland fire damage risk (Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). The Alabama Forestry Commission (AFC) is responsible for suppression of all wildland fires in the State, except on lands under Federal ownership (Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). This includes suppression of wildland fires on nearly 28 million of the 32 million acres in Alabama and 23 million acres of forestland. These suppression activities apply to State and private forested acres plus other vegetated areas, such as farms and pastures. On Federally managed lands (5 percent of the forestland base), the AFC has mutual aid agreements to support Federal wildland fire suppression efforts. Since forestlands and species in Alabama are adapted to regular disturbance by wildland fires to maintain forest health, but suppression activities limit the role of natural wildland fires, managed fuel treatments are needed to maintain forest health. Table 3-4 shows the fuels treatments completed in Alabama by Department of the Interior agencies and USFS. The BLM did not conduct any fuels treatments in Alabama over these 4 years. More than 98 percent of these treatments were completed by the USFS using prescribed fires approximately 90 percent of the time. More than 97 percent of Federal fuels treatments were applied in WUI areas.

Table 3-4. DOI and USDA Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for Alabama (Acres)
Year
2006 2005

Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Mechanical Total
69,112 84,804 3,602 12,313 72,714 97,117

Fire
3,529 157

Other Mechanical
5,190 282

Total
8,719 439

Total
81,433 97,556

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-25

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Year
2004 2003

Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Mechanical Total
82,391 76,884 6,336 16 88,727 76,900

Fire
0 0

Other Mechanical
0 0

Total
0 0

Total
88,727 76,900

Source: http://www.fireplan.gov/overview/States/al.html, accessed March 2, 2007

Fuels treatments, including prescribed fire, are also implemented by the AFC on the private and Stateowned forests. In addition, the AFC provides training and permitting to ensure that fuels treatments in these areas, and prescribed fire in particular, are completed in a manner that protects firefighter and public safety, as well as capital improvements and natural resources.

3.2.8

Cultural Resources

The Alabama surface and non-USFS FMO tracts have not been fully surveyed for cultural resources. Surveys that have been conducted are usually initiated by project proponents on a project-specific basis, such as for oil and gas, coal mining, transportation, or water projects, to comply with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), outlined in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to identify prehistoric and historic properties potentially affected by an undertaking; assess the effects of the undertaking; consult with appropriate entities; and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects to the property. A cultural resources literature and records search was conducted for the BLM surface and non-USFS FMO tracts in the State of Alabama. The results of the research are presented in an overview (Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 2005a) on file at the BLM office in Jackson. The following cultural resource information was taken from Panamerican Consultants, Inc. (2005a), unless otherwise noted.

Prehistory
A variety of cultural resource site types attributed to a range of culturally distinct chronological periods ranging from more than 10,000 years ago to the present day have been recorded in the southeastern United States. The cultural time periods represented include Paleoindian, Archaic, Gulf Formational, Woodland, Mississippian, and Protohistoric. Descriptions of the prehistoric periods and general types of cultural materials associated with each one are provided in Table 3-5 below. Cultural resources from any of these time periods may be present on BLM-administered surface and non-USFS FMO tracts.

Table 3-5. Prehistoric Periods Present in Southeastern United States
Cultural Time Period PALEOINDIAN
Early Paleoindian Middle Paleoindian

Time Frame (Years Before Present [B.P.])
12,500–10,000 12,500–10,900 10,900–10,500

Characteristics
Specialized nomadic hunters of now-extinct megafauna Fluted lanceolate points resembling western Clovis forms Fluted and unfluted points with broad blades and constricted hafts, such as Cumberland, Suwannee, Simpson, Quad, and Beaver Lake Resharpened lanceolate corner- and side-notched forms, such as Dalton, San Patrice, and Bolen

Late Paleoindian

10,500–10,000

3-26

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

Cultural Time Period

Time Frame (Years Before Present [B.P.])

Characteristics
Marked by a shift in lifeways indicated by development of a more complex material culture, nomadism giving way to more sedentism, localized habitat exploitation, and dramatic population increase; many tool forms appeared for the first time during this stage A directional shift from highly curated tool forms associated with Paleoindian sites to highly expedient forms linked to Early Archaic corner-notched assemblages; an increase in residential mobility, as indicated by greater numbers of expedient tools in Early Archaic assemblages Demarcated by the appearance of stemmed bifaces Increased sedentism and a practice of a dichotomous pattern of resource exploitation that shifted between riverine and uplands locations Primarily recognized as an intermediate stage of social and economic change; the rise and development of baked clay ceramic technology during which Archaic peoples learned the manufacture of stone and ceramic vessels Characterized by fiber-tempered plain and punctate wares Represented by disappearance of fiber-tempered ceramics and the rise of more decorative ceramic series Marked by the advent of cord-marked, fabric-impressed, and stamped pottery, construction of burial mounds, and increased reliance on domesticated cultigens; the bow and arrow was introduced Three phases, including the Kellog phase (sand-tempering fabric-impressed pottery types), Dry Branch phase (sand tempered incised, punctated, and pinch pottery types), and Cedar Bluff phase (limestone-tempered fabric-impressed pottery) Diversity in style and manufacture of pottery increased markedly; there was also an increase in burial mound construction, shared artifacts, and iconography, suggesting that a wide trade interaction continued across the United States A period of cultural decline related to turmoil across much of the East; however, this was not the case in every region of the Southeast; some diffusion of exotic and decorative motifs on pottery, and mound construction continued to play a crucial role in some regions of the eastern United States; population growth exploded early in this period; consequently, small communities and households were widely scattered across the landscape; the increase in population stress, particularly over food resources, and increased use of the bow and arrow, heightened warfare

ARCHAIC

10,000–3,000

Early Archaic

10,000–8,000

Middle Archaic Late Archaic

8,000–5,000 5,000–3,050

GULF FORMATIONAL
Middle Gulf Formational Late Gulf Formational

4,000–1,850

3,200–2,500 2,500–2,100

WOODLAND

2,600–850

Early Woodland

2,950–2,050

Middle Woodland

2,150–1,550

Late Woodland

1,550–950

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-27

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Cultural Time Period

Time Frame (Years Before Present [B.P.])

Characteristics
Complex sociopolitical organizations (chiefdoms) marked by the development of institutional inequality; large fortified settlements and civic-ceremonial centers distinguished by elaborate temple mounds were widespread phenomena during the Mississippian period A very complex society and diversity varied greatly throughout the Southeast A very complex society and diversity varied greatly throughout the Southeast Defined in the southeastern United States as the era of transition from occupation of the region by preliterate societies to occupation by literate societies; widespread destruction of Indian villages and fields and introduction of previously absent Euro-Asian diseases caused massive demographic upheaval; trade and political networks were altered or broken down, and whole populations relocated or were devastated by illness

MISSISSIPPIAN

1,050–450

Early Mississippian Mature Mississippian

1,050–750 750–450

PROTOHISTORIC

400–235

Source: Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 2005a, 2005b.

History
A wealth of Alabama history is associated with American Indian inhabitants, European exploration, multiple battles, and the evolution of Southern culture. The events discussed below provide the context and relative importance of the cultural site types that may be encountered on BLM-administered surface and non-USFS FMO tracts. From the 16th to the 19th century, Spain, France, and England fought for domination and possession of the territories and resources in the southeastern United States. Led by Hernando De Soto, Spanish explorers in search of gold were the first Europeans to reach this territory in 1539. During the Pontotoc Battle of 1541, many members of De Soto’s expedition were killed in an attack by the Chickasaw Indians. An initial settlement in the Mobile Bay area by Spanish colonists from Mexico was abandoned in 1559, and Spain made no further effort to settle the area. The French were the first to successfully colonize Alabama. Early settlements were fortified trading posts along major rivers. French influence waned as the American Indians began to favor British traders from the Carolinas and Georgia. Great Britain and France fought a series of wars, climaxing with the French and Indian War (1754–1763). By the terms of the treaty ending the war, France ceded its North American lands to England. Britain created Reservation Lands for the American Indians in portions of the southeastern States. American Indians had low immunity to new diseases brought by Europeans. By the 18th century, their numbers had been reduced and many tribes approached extinction (Dobyns 1983; Milner 1980; Ramenofsky 1987). Most of the survivors in present-day Alabama were members of four major Indian nations—the Creek, the Cherokee, the Chickasaw, and the Choctaw. The Cherokee Indians inhabited the northeastern corner, and the Chickasaw Indians claimed the northwestern corner of the State. The Choctaw Indians lived in the west-central portion, and the Creek Indians occupied the east-central and southern portions of the State. In the language of the local Creek Indians, the word Alabama means “tribal town.” The American Revolution (1775–1783) had a profound effect on Alabama and American Indians, as did the Louisiana
3-28 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

Purchase, the War of 1812, and the Creek War. Until 1817, Alabama was a part of the Mississippi Territory, but in 1819, it became the 22nd State to enter the Union. From 1829–1837, the remaining Indian nations were forced to give up their lands and were moved west of the Mississippi. From the early 19th century, Alabama’s economy was dominated by cotton. The highly productive regions of the State, namely the Black Belt region and the Tennessee Valley, soon brought a shift from independent, small farms to large plantations. Slavery was vital to the growth and production of cotton and became a contentious issue in Alabama and the other States. The pro-slavery States began to move toward secession from the Union, and in 1861, Alabama also voted to secede (Butterworth 1959). The people of Alabama played a major role in the Civil War; multiple battles were fought on State soil; and Montgomery was the first capital of the Confederacy, which was later moved to Virginia. In 1865, the Civil War ended and slaves were emancipated. Sharecropping and tenant farming became the common mode of farming. In the late 1870s, railroads were built and cities that focused on the steel and iron industry emerged in north and north-central Alabama. Boll weevil damage to cotton crops in 1915 and exorbitant shipping charges caused farmers to concentrate on raising livestock and crops other than cotton. Coal mining also increased and brought new industry and economic opportunities to relatively poor regions of the State. In the 1930s, low-cost power provided by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) encouraged industrial development and provided some rural residents with electricity for the first time. Alabama industry and farming further prospered under the demands of World War II (Rogers 1994). Alabama retained segregation as a policy until the civil rights movement from the 1950s through 1960s. Many of the major events and court cases that defined the modern civil rights movement in the United States took place in Alabama, including equal access for Black Americans to public and private transportation, schools, voting booths, economic opportunities, and housing. Manufacturing remained the dominant economic sector through the 1990s. Alabama’s gross product also received significant contributions from the Government and service sectors.

Cultural Resource Sites
Prehistoric or historic cultural resource sites, structures, or objects listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are protected and managed as directed by 36 CFR 800. A resource is considered eligible for listing in NRHP if it is at least 50 years old, unless of exceptional historical significance; retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association; and has one or more of the following characteristics: • • • • • Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history Associated with the lives of persons significant in its past Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction Represents the work of a master, has high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction Yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (36 CFR 60.4).

Cultural resources found ineligible for the NRHP require no further archaeological work and are not protected by law. Sites identified as undetermined or unknown need additional work to determine the site’s eligibility. Under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA; 16 United States Code [USC] Section 470hh), the nature and location of any archaeological resource cannot be disclosed to the public unless the Federal land manager determines that such disclosure would provide further protection and there is no risk of harm to the site. To adequately address the existing condition of these resources while protecting their importance, only the general types of resources are discussed herein.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-29

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Records were searched for 2,847 non-USFS FMO tracts in Alabama. The records revealed 1,348 cultural sites within the BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO tracts, of which 315 were considered eligible for NRHP. Components of these sites ranged from Paleoindian to 20th-century historic. Most of the tracts have never been surveyed. There is a high potential for finding additional archaeological sites. Records were searched for scattered BLM surface tracts in Alabama. None of the BLM surface tracts contain previously recorded NRHP properties. Thirteen sites were recorded within one-half mile of the BLM surface tracts and could provide information on the potential for occurrence sites on adjacent BLM surface tracts; however, these sites are not and will not be affected by BLM activities and management. Identified cultural sites are summarized in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6. Cultural Sites on BLM Surface and non-USFS FMO Tracts in Alabama
NRHP Status Tract Type
Non-USFS FMO Tracts Surface Tracts1 Areas Adjacent to Surface Tracts2

Total Sites
1,348 0 13

Potentially Eligible/ Eligible
315 0 0

Ineligible
669 0 13

Undetermined/ Unknown
364 0 0

1 Sites located on surface, belong to surface owner.
2 Reflects sites within one-half mile of the surface tract boundaries.

3.2.9

Visual Resources

Visual resources consist of the natural and manmade features that contribute to a particular environment’s aesthetics. These features may be natural (e.g., canyon views) or manmade (e.g., city skyline). Together, they form the overall impression of an area referred to as the landscape character. Visual resources also have a social setting, which includes public values, awareness, and concern about visual quality. Visual Resource Management (VRM) classifications are established for public lands so that visual resource values can be maintained through informed management decisions. Current conditions of visual character on the BLM-administered surface tracts are discussed in Section 3.3. The visual resource inventory process contained in BLM Handbook H-8410-1 provides the BLM managers guidance for determining visual values. The inventory consists of scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity-level analysis, and delineation of distance zones. Based on these three factors, BLMadministered lands are placed into one of four visual resource inventory classes. These inventory classes represent the relative value of the visual resource: Classes I and II are the most valued, Class III represents a moderate value, and Class IV has the least value. Management objectives have been assigned to each class. An area may be inventoried as VRM Class III, but a decision may be made to manage it to VRM Class IV, or vice versa. Cultural modifications may detract from the scenery, complement it, or improve the overall scenic quality of an area. Cultural modifications in landform/water and vegetation values and addition of structures will be considered in examining proposed resource management actions. The following VRM Class objectives from BLM Handbook H-8410-1 have been amended for the purpose of developing and implementing this resource management plan (RMP). Amendments incorporate the visual resource values provided by existing cultural features that are significant to the character of the landscape in Alabama and Mississippi.
3-30 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

•

VRM Class I Objective. The objective of this class is to preserve the existing natural and cultural character of the landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not detract from the existing landscape character. VRM Class II Objective. The objective of this class is to retain the existing natural and cultural character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic should be low. Management activities may be visible but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural and/or cultural features of the characteristic landscape. VRM Class III Objective. The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing natural and cultural character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may be visible but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should blend with the natural environment. VRM Class IV Objective. The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that require significant modification of the existing landscape or the existing character of the natural and cultural landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of the casual observer’s attention; however, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through selective location, minimal disturbance, and repetition of basic elements.

•

3.2.10

Minerals

There are 313,819 acres of non-USFS FMO in Alabama that underlie various surface ownership. Surface owners include the BLM, the Department of Defense (DoD), USFWS, National Park Service (NPS), and other Federal agencies. Table 3-7 shows BLM-administered FMO by surface ownership in Alabama.

Table 3-7. BLM-administered Federal Mineral Ownership by Surface Ownership in
Alabama

Surface Owners
BLM DoD NPS USFWS Other Federal Agencies Non-Federal surface TOTAL non-USFS FMO USFS TOTAL FMO (included USFS FMO)

Federal Mineral Ownership (Acres)
159 1,495 3,300 3,384 2,041 303,440 313,819 585,394 899,213

Minerals—Oil and Gas
Oil and gas exploration began in Alabama in 1884 with the drilling of the Trowbridge #1 well near Bladen Springs in Choctaw County. This first well was a dry hole with a depth of 1,345 feet. Eighteen

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-31

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

years later (1902), the New York–Alabama Oil Company discovered the Huntsville Gas Field, which started the commercial extraction of oil and gas in the southeastern States. As of April 2005, there were 31 active oil and gas wells on BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO according to data from the Automated Fluid Mineral Management System. According to available data from the Alabama Oil and Gas Board on Alabama oil and gas production from 1992 to 2002, oil production steadily decreased from 19,328,444 barrels to 8,631,227 barrels. During the same period, gas production increased from 336,129,406 thousand cubic feet (mcf) in 1992 to 388,631,710 mcf in 2002. Gas production peaked in 1995 at 438,838,497 mcf. As of April 2005, 136 Federal leases are authorized in Alabama. There area 30 existing leases on non-USFS FMO and 106 existing leases on USFS FMO. Map 3-2 shows counties in Alabama with historical oil and gas production. Reasonable foreseeable development is anticipated in the areas of historical oil and gas production (BLM 2004b). The areas of historical production are the Warrior Basin and the southern Alabama Basin. The BLM projects that 20 wells accessing non-USFS FMO in Alabama would be drilled over the next 20 years (BLM 2004b).

3-32

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-33

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Warrior Basin2

The roughly triangle-shaped Warrior Basin covers approximately 35,000 square miles in parts of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The northern boundary of the Warrior Basin is formed by the Ozark Uplift to the northwest and the Nashville Dome to the northeast. To the east and southeast, the basin is bound by the Appalachian system, and the Ouachita Fold and thrust belt bound the basin on the west and southwest. Most of the oil and gas production is from the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian strata. The basin has a variety of trapping mechanisms with possibilities for multiple pay zones, which has led to a success rate of more than 50 percent. The Carter Sandstone of the Parkwood Formation is the most prolific oil- and gas-producing reservoir; however, a considerable amount of petroleum is produced from the Chandler and Nason Sandstones of the Pottsville Formation. The major targets for coalbed natural gas production are the major coal groups in the Warrior Coal Field. These groups are the Black Creek, Mary Lee, and Pratt coal groups. However, all the coals can be potential sources of coalbed natural gas (BLM 2004b). Most of the coalbed natural gas wells in this area are producing from coals between 15 to 25 feet thick and at depths between 500 and 3,000 feet. The median product per well is 82 mcf per day.
Southern Alabama Basin

These lands are in an area dominated by the Gulf Coast geosyncline. This large basin was formed in the Jurassic period with a southward downwarping. The basin has accumulated sedimentary deposits as much as 30,000 feet thick. Zones of faults parallel the basin hinge line and can trap hydrocarbons (Murray 1964). Other structural features, such as small basement highs, also trap hydrocarbons. The deposits in the major geologic units of southern Alabama mainly consist of alternating layers of sand and clay, with occasional beds of carbonates and anhydrite. Permeable horizons exist in all formations, and oil and gas are produced from each horizon in the region, with the Haynesville, Smackover, and Norphlet Formations having more importance (Cate 1982; Poe 1979; May 1974; Moore 1971; Dinkins 1968).

Leasable Minerals—Coal
There are three major coal fields in Alabama: the Coosa Coal Field, Cahaba Coal Field, and Warrior Coal Field. Farthest to the southeast, the Coosa Coal Field covers approximately 134,400 acres in Jefferson, Shelby, and St. Clair Counties in an elongated syncline along the trend of the Appalachian Mountains. Southwest of the Coosa Field and separated by the Cahaba Valley, the Cahaba Field includes approximately 230,400 acres of Bibb, Shelby, St. Clair, and Jefferson Counties. The largest of the three coal fields in Alabama, the Warrior Coal Field, includes approximately 2,324,470 acres in Walker, Fayette, Jefferson, and Tuscaloosa Counties. Consideration of Alabama coal leasing in this RMP is limited to the Warrior Coal Field. Coal leasing potential within the planning area is limited to the Warrior Basin in Alabama because of the distinctive presence of the appropriate geological conditions (e.g., continuity of coal beds, thickness of coal, quality of coal seams) and existing infrastructure (e.g., existing subsurface mining operations and access roads) for development of coal resources. Non-USFS FMO available for coal leasing is located in Walker, Fayette, Jefferson, and Tuscaloosa Counties.
2 The term “Warrior Basin” is a geologic province. The Black Warrior Basin is the drainage area of the Black Warrior River.
3-34 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

Within the Warrior Coal Field, the BLM retains 70,610 acres of coal mineral rights, 45,950 acres of which have been identified as high potential for development in the reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFDS). It is anticipated that 9,000 acres of new Federal coal leases and 18.8 million tons of Federal coal would be produced (an average of 1.9 million tons per year) as part of existing underground mines with no new surface disturbance. This field includes two regions, the Plateau coal region and the Warrior coal basin (Map 3-3). The Plateau coal region is composed of several coal-bearing areas in the upland regions of northeastern Alabama. Federal coal ownership in the Plateau coal region is limited to the Talladega National Forest. The Plateau coal region is the largest of the Alabama coal fields, covering an area greater than all the other coal fields combined (2,880,0000 acres). The Warrior Basin is the most productive and covers 2,240,000 acres in Tuscaloosa, Jefferson, Lamar, Marion, Winston, Fayette, Cullman, Blount, and Walker Counties. These coalbeds in the Plateau coal region and the Warrior coal basin are the major targets for the recovery of coalbed natural gas in the area, but all the coals can be sources of potential coalbed natural gas reserves (BLM 2004b). There is no BLM-administered surface in the Warrior coal basin. The Warrior coal basin contains more than 20 coalbeds, some of which are known to extend into the BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO of Mississippi. Most coal in the Warrior Basin is high-volatile “A” bituminous. Coal thickness generally varies from a few inches to about 75 inches, with ash content ranging between 3 and 15 percent and the sulfur from 1.1 to 3 percent. The thickest and most economically valuable coals within the Warrior coal basin are located in Tuscaloosa, Walker, Fayette, and Jefferson Counties. Coal is also present to a lesser degree in Marion and Winston Counties, but the development of Federal coal in these counties is unlikely. However, because of the depth of the mines and the availability of other easily obtainable resources such as oil and gas, much of the coal resources within the Warrior coal field have yet to be developed (Tew and Mancini 1986). On the basis of current information on and availability of other fuel resources, coal development will likely continue at the current rate.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-35

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

3-36

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

3.2.11

Recreation and Travel Management

Recreation encompasses various human activities that affect and are affected by resources and other resource uses. Dispersed recreation is characterized by unstructured activities that are not confined to specific locations (such as developed recreation sites). Dispersed recreation can involve various activities, which on the Alabama surface tracts can include the following: • • • • • • • • • • • Saltwater beach activities Hunting Fishing Bicycle riding Horseback riding Nature study Boating Picnicking Freshwater swimming Hiking Rock climbing.

The BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO includes the mineral estate where the surface is managed by another Federal surface managing agency. These properties and installations managed by other Federal agencies as well as non-Federal agencies, such as private, State, or county, are summarized in Table 3-8 and shown on Map 1-1 and Map 1-2. For those tracts where the surface is managed by other surface management agencies and where public access for recreation and oil and gas leasing are permitted, recreation experiences and resulting benefits could be affected by the BLM-allowable uses and management actions proposed in this RMP. Information on public recreation and minerals leasing on other Federal surface management agencies is shown in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8. BLM-administered, non-USFS Federal Mineral Ownership1 by Surface
Managing Agency in Alabama

Surface Managing Agency
USFWS DoD

Installations/Areas
Bon Secour NWR Wheeler NWR Barin Field (Navy) Summerdale Outlying Landing Field (Navy) Silverhill Outlying Landing Field (Navy) Fort Rucker Military Reservation (Army) Fort McClellan Military Reservation (Army, Closed) Anniston Army Depot (Army) Redstone Arsenal (Army) Lake Tholocco (Army Corps of Engineers)

Public Access for Recreation (Yes/No)2
Yes Yes ND ND ND Yes Yes No No Yes

Mineral Leasing (Open/Closed)2
Closed Closed Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-37

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Surface Managing Agency

Installations/Areas
Coffeeville Lake (Army Corps of Engineers) William Dannelly Reservoir (Army Corps of Engineers) Maxwell Air Force Base (Air Force)

Public Access for Recreation (Yes/No)2
Yes Yes No Yes No

Mineral Leasing (Open/Closed)2
Open Open Closed Closed Varies

NPS Other

Little River Canyon Preserve Areas managed by other Federal agencies

ND means no information was available from the surface managing agency. 1 Does not reflect BLM FMO for BLM surface tracts (159 acres). 2 Closed means closed to new leases. Existing leases could be present on areas currently closed.

The BLM administration of travel resources in Alabama is limited to access routes and associated access/maintenance routes for ROW such as transmission lines. Public travel routes are administered and maintained by other Federal, State, and local agencies. Some surface tracts are adjacent to these travel routes. Information on tract-specific travel resources are contained in Section 3.3.

3.2.12

Lands and Realty

The goals of the lands and realty program are to manage the public lands to support the goals and objectives of other resource programs, provide for uses of public lands in accordance with regulations and compatibility with other resources, and improve management of the public lands through land tenure adjustments. The lands and realty program is a support program to all other resources to help ensure that BLM-administered lands are managed to benefit the public. Current conditions of lands and realty on the BLM-administered surface tracts are discussed in Section 3.3.

3.2.13

Social and Economic

The affected environment in Alabama centers on the counties in the coal region where energy minerals development could occur. Over the last 10 to 20 years, oil and gas development has occurred primarily in the counties with high potential for coal (BLM 2004b). Therefore, the socioeconomic description is limited to the counties with high potential for coal: Tuscaloosa, Walker, Fayette, and Jefferson Counties. Demographic, economic, and service data were collected from the U.S. Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) from 1990 to 2002.

Economic Characteristics
Household and Personal Income

Median household income information for the four-county study area was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2003, Jefferson County’s median household income of $38,558 is slightly higher than the median household income estimated for Alabama, which is $36,131. The median household incomes for Fayette, Walker, and Tuscaloosa Counties ($30,133, $31,201, and $35,192, respectively) are slightly lower than Jefferson County and the State in 2003. Information on per capita income was obtained from BEA. Jefferson and Tuscaloosa Counties reported higher per capita incomes ($36,041 and $28,833, respectively) than Walker and Fayette Counties
3-38 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

($24,734 and $22,073, respectively) for 2004. Jefferson and Tuscaloosa Counties’ per capita incomes are higher than those of the State ($27,695) for 2004. Trend information on per capita income was also obtained from BEA and adjusted for inflation (Figure G-5, Appendix G). Jefferson County’s per capita income averaged $33,065 over the 15-year period and has been consistently higher than the State average ($26,594). Over this same time period, the average per capita income for Tuscaloosa County ($27,136) has been similar to the State average, while Walker and Fayette Counties have had lower average per capita income ($24,221 and $21,902, respectively) than the State average.
Employment and Compensation

Information on employment by industry for the study area was obtained from BEA and U.S. Census County Business Patterns.3 There were 610,890 estimated jobs in the study area in 2004, which represent 24.9 percent of the Alabama labor force. The 610,890 jobs were distributed among the industries shown in Figure G-7 (Appendix G). Government and government enterprises (15.1 percent) composed the largest percentage of jobs. Retail trade (12.0 percent), health care (9.7 percent), and manufacturing (7.5 percent) were the next largest employers. Unemployment trends information for the non-USFS FMO study area and the State of Alabama was obtained from BLS and are summarized in Figure G-4 (Appendix G). The unemployment rates in Tuscaloosa and Jefferson Counties have remained below the State unemployment rate from 1990 to 2005. Walker and Fayette Counties’ unemployment rates were generally higher than the State’s rate for the same time period. Overall, the unemployment trends of the four counties generally mirror the trend of the State, although Fayette County unemployment trends have greater magnitude in their movements. In the four-county study area, the BLM administers the leasing of coal resources, allowing for the production of 1.9 millions tons of coal per year from these BLM minerals. In Alabama, mining (non oil and gas) accounts for approximately 6,773 employees and employee compensation of $482,361,000 (BEA 2005). Currently coal produced from BLM-administered minerals accounts for approximately 10 percent of the total amount of coal produced in the State, 19.5 million tons of coal (Energy Information Agency 1999). If 10 percent of this employment and employee compensation can be attributed to BLMadministered minerals, this activity provides for 677 employees in mining, with total mining employee compensation of $48,236,100. The average annual employee compensation for these workers is $71,218, compared with average annual compensation from all industries in the State of $34,877 (BEA 2005). Mining in the four-county study area likely provides fiscal revenues to local and State governments, supporting community and emergency services, schools, and infrastructure. Oil and gas also provides employment and income within the four-county study area. However, over the past 20 years, the BLM has permitted 17 wells of a total of 8,068 wells permitted within the State. Therefore, although these BLM-administered oil and gas resources do contribute to employment and earnings in this area, it is a fairly small amount.

Social Characteristics
Demographics

Population trend data were obtained from BEA. Data for the non-USFS FMO study area between 1990 and 2004 are summarized in Figure G-1 (Appendix G). Total population in the combined study area in 2004 was 913,707 and comprised 20.2 percent of the population of Alabama. Jefferson County’s
3 U.S. Census County Business Patterns data was used to estimate employment by industry data that were not disclosed by the BEA.
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-39

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

population was the largest in 2004 with 658,468 residents. For the same year, Tuscaloosa County (167,178), Walker County (69,876), and Fayette County (18,185) populations were considerably smaller. All four counties experienced small population growth over the 15-year period. The total population in the combined study area increased by 2.8 percent from 888,982 in 1990 to 913,707 in 2002. The median age of the combined study area population in 2000 was estimated to be 35.6—slightly lower than the State median of 35.8 (U.S. Census 2000).
Housing

The average number of people per household in Walker County (2.46), Jefferson County (2.45), Fayette County (2.42), and Tuscaloosa County (2.42) are similar. The average number of people per family in Jefferson County (3.04), Tuscaloosa County (3.00), Walker County (2.93), and Fayette County (2.92) are also similar (BEA 2000). In the study area, 91 percent of the 363,639 housing units were occupied in 2000. Homeowners occupied 67 percent of the total housing units. All four counties in the study area have low homeowner vacancy rates: 1.9 percent in Jefferson County, 1.8 percent in Walker County, and 1.7 percent in Fayette and Tuscaloosa Counties. Rental vacancy rates are somewhat higher: 14.1 percent in Walker County, 12.3 percent in Tuscaloosa County, 11.1 percent in Fayette County, and 10.2 percent in Jefferson County (U.S. Census 2000). The median value of owneroccupied housing units for Tuscaloosa and Jefferson Counties ($106,600 and $90,700, respectively) were higher than the State median ($85,100). Walker and Fayette Counties’ median value of owner-occupied housing units ($66,700 and $64,100, respectively) were lower than the State’s median (U.S. Census 2000).
Educational Attainment

Educational attainment of the population that is 25 years of age and older varies between the four counties in the study area. In Jefferson County, 80.9 percent of the population has graduated high school or higher and 24.6 percent hold a bachelor’s degree or higher (U.S. Census 2000). Tuscaloosa County has a similar populace, with 78.8 percent graduating high school or higher and 24.0 percent with a bachelor’s degree or higher. The percentage of the population graduating from high school or higher for Walker and Fayette Counties is 67.2 percent and 66.1 percent, respectively, and those having a bachelor’s degree or higher is 9.1 percent and 9.2 percent, respectively. The educational attainment in figures in Walker and Fayette Counties are lower than those in Jefferson and Tuscaloosa Counties.
Attitudes and Beliefs of Alabama Stakeholders

In Alabama, the BLM has responsibility for a number of issues and decisions that could be important to stakeholders and their beliefs, including Federal land disposal, mineral development, including coal and oil and gas. This section will briefly describe stakeholders’ attitudes and beliefs related to these specific issues to provide a social context for these decisions. Public lands are important in providing a natural resource base for economic activities. Oil and gas, as well as coal, development will be supported by some stakeholders and not by others. Stakeholders who support mineral development believe that domestic production of resources provides products on which the public relies heavily, generating economic and social benefits. Without the availability and access for development of these resources, stakeholders feel that many adverse impacts could occur, including trade gaps, increasing prices, and strategic vulnerabilities. Additionally, the mineral industries have contributed to the tax base of both counties and the State, providing funds for local, regional, and State governments, infrastructure, schools, and other community services. Many people believe that this funding is vital to the economy of Alabama counties and the State. Some stakeholders will support these mining activities due

3-40

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

to the economic benefits in income, jobs, and government revenues, while others will be concerned that the economic benefit may not offset the risks to environmental and water resources from the activity. Conservation-focused stakeholders may not support mineral development or might support conditions and stipulations on development and production to reduce negative impacts to the surface and subsurface. These environmental stakeholders are concerned about erosion and water quality impacts associated with road and wellpad construction as well as water disposal in the production process. Some stakeholders believe that the potential long-term environmental risks of development are considerable compared to the short-term benefit of the resource extracted. Additionally, these types of stakeholders believe that mineral development impacts such as increased road building, associated road traffic, dust, and noise add to the negative impacts associated with this type of development. Public land disposal may also be a contentious issue with the public. The BLM in Alabama manages a number of pocket properties scattered across the State, totaling 159 acres. Preservation-oriented stakeholders are concerned about protecting open spaces and limiting development on these lands, often to maintain a quality of life that the property provides. For example, quality of life attributes could include recreation, such as bird-watching or walking, solitude, and the knowledge that the property provides important wildlife habitat. Therefore, these types of stakeholders believe that keeping the surface lands in Federal ownership is preferable or selling these lands to organizations interested in preserving the lands. Developers might be interested in purchasing these lands for their economic value due to their location on the coast if the lands are buildable. Additionally, some people may feel that disposing of Federal lands provides important fiscal revenues as private property taxes can be collected.

Environmental Justice
Environmental justice is another component of the community that considers minority or low-income populations to determine whether or not any of the proposed alternatives have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on those populations. Environmental justice analysis is conducted in compliance with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. On the basis of Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance, minority populations should be identified where (a) the minority population of the area exceeds 50 percent, or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is significantly greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.4 Low-income populations are defined as those below the Federal poverty thresholds. Those populations are identified using statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of Census—$17,463 for a family of four (U.S. Census 2000). EPA identifies a low-income community as an area with a significantly greater population of low-income families than a statistical reference area.5 For the purposes of this socioeconomic analysis, a low-income population area will be defined as an area where the lowincome population exceeds 20 percent poverty or one where isolated pockets of large low-income populations are present. The poverty levels in three of the four counties (Fayette, Tuscaloosa, and Walker Counties) are higher than the statewide estimate of 16.1 percent, as summarized in Figure G-2 (Appendix G). Fayette County has the largest percentage of the population below the poverty level (17.3 percent). Jefferson County has the smallest percentage of the population below the poverty level (14.8 percent). The poverty levels in all four counties are below the set threshold of 20 percent for low-income populations and, therefore, do not

4 Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act, 1997. 5 Environmental Protection Agency, Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analysis, 1998.
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-41

Chapter 3-Alabama Statewide Perspective

August 2008

represent environmental justice populations. In comparison, in 2004, there were 19 of a total of 67 counties in Alabama that had populations that were greater than 20 percent in poverty status. The ethnicity data for the study area in Figure G-3 (Appendix G) were also obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. The four-county study area is predominantly white (62.4 percent). The remaining race distribution in the study area includes Black or African American (34.3 percent), Hispanic or Latino (1.4 percent), Asian (0.8 percent), two or more races (0.7 percent), American Indian or Native Alaskan (0.2 percent), other race (0.1 percent), and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (0.0 percent). The ethnic representation in the study area is similar to race distribution for the State, but has higher Black or African American estimates. The overall percentages of minority populations in Walker County (8.3 percent) and Fayette County (13.5 percent) are lower than the minority percentage for Alabama (29.7 percent), whereas the minority percentages for Tuscaloosa County (32.5 percent) and Jefferson County (42.6 percent) are higher than the State’s percentage. However, the minority percentages for all four counties are below the CEQ threshold of 50 percent and not significantly higher than the State average of 29.7 percent.

3.2.14

Hazardous Materials

BLM-administered public lands and minerals provide opportunities for a variety of commercial uses in addition to resource management. Both activities can lead to releases of hazardous substances and creation of hazardous waste sites. The BLM engages in hazardous material emergency response actions, site evaluations, and prioritization of cleanups in accordance with laws and regulations. This involves working with the EPA, State environmental quality departments, counties, and potentially responsible parties (both public and private) to fund and expedite the cleanup of hazardous sites. Those sites that are an imminent threat to public health and safety, as well as those sites that are under a consent order and can therefore generate penalties and fines, are a priority for the Bureau. There are no known hazardous, toxic, or unapproved solid waste sites on public lands within the planning area.

3-42

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description

3.3 ALABAMA SURFACE TRACT DESCRIPTION
The surface tract descriptions in this section include available detail on each of the surface tract groupings described in Chapter 2. General information and tract-specific information on soil resources, water resources, vegetative communities, fish and wildlife, special status species, cultural resources, visual resources, recreation and travel management, and lands and realty are provided for each tract grouping. Air quality, wildland fire ecology and management, minerals, and social and economic conditions are discussed in Section 3.2. General. This section provides basic location and size of the surface tracts, as well as available background information. Soil Resources. This section provides a table of the soils present at the tracts, the erosion hazard potential as indicated by NRCS, and the presence of prime or unique farmlands (defined in Section 0). Water Resources. This section describes which drainage basin the surface tract is within. Vegetative Communities. This section summarizes the vegetative communities related to the tracts. An analysis of the available GAP data was used to delineate the vegetative communities on the surface tracts. The GAP is coordinated by the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Fish and Wildlife. This section summarizes the fish and wildlife species associated with the tracts. GAP provides geographic information on the status and location of species and their habitat. The GAP is coordinated by the Biological Resources Division of USGS. Special Status Species. This section summarizes the special status species associated with the tracts. GAP provides geographic information on the status and location of species and their habitat. The GAP is coordinated by the Biological Resources Division of USGS. Available special status species occurrences on the tracts are discussed. Appendix E provides additional information on special status species in the areas around the surface tracts. Cultural Resources. This section summarizes the known sites and cultural resources survey information for the surface tracts. Visual Resources. This section addresses the visual setting of BLM-administered surface tracts. The surface tracts are not currently classified according to a VRM system. VRM classifications are described in Section 3.2.9. The surface tracts in Alabama have not been inventoried for VRM classification. Recreation and Travel Management. This section addresses the existing recreational and travel management activities on BLM-administered surface tracts. Lands and Realty. This section addresses the lands and realty actions associated with surface tracts, including withdrawals, disposals, and ROW actions.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-43

Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description

August 2008

3.3.1
General

Coosa River Tracts

The Coosa River tracts are 12 island tracts totaling approximately 42 acres in Calhoun, Coosa, Shelby, and Talladega Counties. These tracts are Federally owned, surveyed islands that have never been patented to private ownership. The islands range from water level to only a few feet above water level.

Soil Resources
There is no soil classification for this tract. The tracts are characterized as vegetated islands in the middle of the Coosa River.

Water Resources
All the Coosa River tracts are located within the Coosa River drainage basin.

Vegetative Communities
The Coosa River islands are located in areas inundated by a series of three dams constructed along the Coosa River between 1914 and the 1960s. The larger islands reflect the vegetation communities found in adjacent areas, primarily dry hardwood forest, with pine interspersed in the interior on the larger islands, in Mitchell Lake. On these islands, the hardwood component tends to be more diverse around the lower elevations of the islands and includes hickory (Carya spp.), common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), southern hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), eastern sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), water oak (Quercus nigra), and loblolly pine (Pinus taedai). The interiors of the islands are generally dominated by larger water oak and loblolly pine with diameters up to 24 inches and 70–80 inches tall. The understory is relatively clear with young red maple (Acer rubrum)m common wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera)m blueberry (Vaccinium spp.)m American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana)m and bracken (Pteridium aquiline). There are some burn scars on larger pine, indicating past burns on some of the islands. Big Rock Island in Mitchell Lake rises approximately 120 feet above the lake and, as its name denotes, has sheer rock faces around much of the island, with seepage areas, ferns, and Spanish moss draping these areas. Smith and Prince Islands above Mitchell Lake tend to be flatter, lower, and dominated by mature water oak, with the additional species such as silver maple (Acer saccharinum), ashleaf maple (Acer negundo), and southern catalpa (Catalpa bignonoides). The leading edges of the smaller islands in the main river channel show signs of eroding, with downed trees and bare soils. The most northerly of the Coosa River tracts in Calhoun County was not visited, but from aerial photos it appears to be a sandbar with little or no vegetation. Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and mimosa tree (Albizia julibrissin) are present on most of the islands. Chinese privet occurs on the edges of the flatter islands north of Mitchell Lake and particularly frequently on the eroding leading edges of some islands. The Alabama Power Company treats aquatic invasive plant species throughout much of Coosa River. In 2002, over 200 acres were treated for emergent and submersed aquatic invasives in Lay, Jordon/Bouldin, and Mitchell Lakes, including alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeriodes), floating water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), parrot-feather (Myriophyllum aquatica), and spinyleaf naiad (Najas minor) (http://www.southerncompany.com/alpower/hydro/pdfs/E7_Issue_Recommendations.pdf).

3-44

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description

Fish and Wildlife
The Coosa River islands provide a variety of shoreline habitats for resident and migratory wading birds, including great blue heron (Ardea herodias), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), and little blue heron (Egretta caerulea). The wetland and upland habitats on the islands provide nesting habitat for neotropical migrants, such as prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), summer tanager (Piranga rubra) and solitary vireo (Vireo solitarius), and year-round residents such as belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), and downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens). Typical reptiles include midland water snake (Nerodia sipedon pleuralis) and common five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus). Those tracts outside of Mitchell Lake, particularly the Calhoun County tract, could provide basking areas and even nesting sites for river turtles. Typical mammals would include otter (Lutra canadensis), mink (Mustela vison), and raccoon (Procyon lotor), while armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) are common in the upland areas of larger islands.

Special Status Species
A bald eagle nest was located on these islands in 2005. Most of the larger islands support suitable nesting trees and roosting habitat, and the Coosa River provides optimal foraging habitat. The islands do not provide suitable nesting habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker, although some of the larger islands provide marginally suitable foraging habitat. There are no known records of Federally listed plants on the Coosa River islands; however, there have been no surveys of the tracts.

Cultural Resources
The Coosa River tracts have not been surveyed. However, two cultural sites are located within one-half mile of four tracts: the single tract in Calhoun County and three tracts in Talladega County.

Visual Resources
The islands that make up the Coosa River tracts are visible from the shore; there is little or no development or other human activity on the shores opposite the islands, except for residences opposite Prince Island.

Recreation and Travel Management
The Coosa River tracts are used for dispersed recreation. Opportunities for recreation on the islands, however, are limited by their small size and the fact that they are only accessible through travel by water. Fishing, picnicking, rest stops of boaters and canoeists, and wildlife observation are examples of recreation opportunities on the islands. Although use on the islands is limited, they are identified as supporting water-based recreation opportunities by the Coosa River Recreation Plan (Alabama Power Co. 2005). The lakes that surround these islands (Mitchell Lake, Lay Lake, and H. Neely Henry Lake) are all popular for recreation activities such as boat fishing, pleasure boating, swimming, and picnicking. In 2000, these three developments combined to support 1,134,400 recreation days. Boat fishing was by far the most popular activity with 989,100 recreation days. Lay Lake hosted the 2007 Bassmasters Classic fishing tournament, and smaller tournaments are regularly held on these lakes.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-45

Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description

August 2008

Lands and Realty
All of the Coosa River islands are within areas impounded for hydroelectric purposes. Big Rock Island, Little Rock Island, and the Foshee Islands are in Mitchell Lake; Smith Island and Prince Island are in Lay Lake; and the unnamed island is within H. Neely Henry Lake. These projects are licensed under the authority of the Federal Water Power Act of 1920, which created the Federal Power Commission (FPC), now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Mitchell Dam was originally licensed as Project No. 82, and Lay Dam and H. Neely Henry Dam were included in Project No. 2146. Now, these projects are combined for licensing purposes as Project No. 2146-111. Public domain lands within project areas were withdrawn for water power purposes. After projects were completed, FPC often relinquished the withdrawal of the lands no longer needed for project purposes. In the case of the Coosa River islands, this generally included relinquishment of the land above the water level. For example, in 1955, the land withdrawn for the Mitchell Dam (Project No. 82) was modified to include only the land below the 360-foot elevation contour. There are historical records of application to acquire some of the Coosa River islands. In 1959, for example, the State of Alabama Department of Conservation applied for Big Rock Island, Little Rock Island, and the Foshee Islands under the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, but the application was later withdrawn. In addition, several color-of-title applications were submitted in the 1950s, but all were rejected. There are no BLM-authorized ROW or other uses on the Coosa River islands. A power line, however, crosses the southern end of Prince Island (with no ground supports on the island).

3.3.2
General

Fort Morgan Beach Tracts

Seven tracts in Baldwin County totaling 28.7 acres comprise the Fort Morgan Beach tracts. These tracts provide access to recreation activities on the Gulf and its beaches, which were severely damaged by Hurricane Ivan in 2004. Boardwalks partially destroyed by Ivan may be rebuilt. These tracts fall within the CZM Program.

Soil Resources
The soil classification for this tract is displayed in Table 3-9.

Table 3-9. Soil Classification for the Fort Morgan Beach Tracts
Soil Type
Coastal beaches

Description
Moderately deep and poorly drained to excessively drained soils that border saltwater and freshwater lakes

Erosion Hazard
None

Prime Farmland
No

Water Resources
The Fort Morgan Beach tracts are located within the Mobile River drainage basin.

3-46

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description

Vegetative Communities
The Fort Morgan Beach tracts border the Gulf of Mexico and include back beach, primary dunes, and in some cases extend landward sufficiently to encompass secondary dunes. Throughout these tracts, the dominant species is sea oats (Uniola paniculata). Other species characteristic of this habitat include marsh-elder (Iva frutescens), and Gulf bluestem (Schizachyrium maritimum), sandhill rosemary (Ceratiola ericoides), woody goldenrod (Chrysoma pauciflosculosa), beach sand-squares (Paronychia erecta), and Gulf rockrose (Helianthemum arenicola). These tracts, along with the rest of the Fort Morgan peninsula, were heavily impacted by Hurricane Ivan in 2004, when storm surges inundated much of the peninsula. Coastal dunes throughout this area were destroyed and dune vegetation was obliterated. These dunes are dynamic systems adapted to these storm cycles. Since Hurricane Ivan and other major storms that hit this coastline in 2005, these dunes have continued to accrete, accelerated by pioneering sea oats. There are no known exotic plant species identified on the Fort Morgan Beach tracts.

Fish and Wildlife
The coastal dunes and back beach areas of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts provide important foraging habitat for a host of shorebirds, gulls, terns and others, such as Wilson’s plover (Charadrius wilsonia), willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), sanderling (Calidris alba), short-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus), ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis), royal tern (Sterna maxima), and black skimmer (Rynchops niger). Feral and domestic cats are a management concern in this area because of predation on beach mice and nesting shorebirds.

Special Status Species
All of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts are designated critical habitat for Alabama beach mouse and contain primary dunes, the preferred habitat for this species. Populations are recovering after Hurricane Ivan inundated much of this area in 2004, and Alabama beach mouse was found on the BLM beach tracts in early February 2007 (Matt Falcey personal communication). The tracts also provide nesting habitat for loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), and potentially green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) and Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). The adjacent Bon Secour NWR has documented loggerhead nests to be 4.5 to 5 nests per mile, higher than many areas along the Gulf Coast (USFWS 2004). The tracts also provide habitat for wintering piping plover (Charadrius melodus), likely a mixture of the threatened Atlantic Coast and endangered Great Lakes populations, although the designated critical habitat for wintering piping plover at Fort Morgan is west of the BLM tracts. Snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), Wilson’s plover (Charadrius wilsonia), and American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) are known to nest on the refuge. There are no known records of Federally listed plants on these tracts.

Cultural Resources
The Fort Morgan Beach tracts have been surveyed. Four cultural sites are located within one-half mile of three of the beach tracts.

Visual Resources
Visual features of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts include sand dunes, beach and open sea, mixed vegetation, boardwalks, and adjacent residential and other development.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-47

Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description

August 2008

Recreation and Travel Management
The Fort Morgan Beach tracts provide access for recreational use of the beach, including saltwater fishing. There are no developments on the tracts, but some parking is available on adjacent roadways. In 2004, the vast majority of recreational use of similar tracts on the nearby Bon Secour NWR was classified as either beach/water use or saltwater fishing. There were a total of 53,395 visits for these two activities with 32,721 of the visits by residents, defined as people living within 30 miles.

Lands and Realty
In the early 1950s, much of the remaining public domain land on the Fort Morgan Peninsula was classified (by Alabama Small Tract Classification Orders No. 1 and 2) for disposal pursuant to the Small Tract Act of 1938. This land was subdivided into about 190 lots ranging in size from 0.72 to 2.61 acres. By 1960, the BLM had sold most of the lots, many to World War II veterans who were given a statutory preference. The lots identified in this document as the Fort Morgan Beach tracts were not classified for disposal and were specifically “set aside” by the classification orders “and reserved as recreation areas for use by the general public.” The classification orders also reserved “a 33-foot ROW for roads and public utilities” on the border of each lot, and some of these are partially on the Fort Morgan Beach tracts. The legacy of the Small Tract Act is still evident in the land use patterns in the area immediately surrounding the Fort Morgan Beach tracts. Other than the ROW reserved by the small tract classifications, there are no authorized uses on the Fort Morgan Beach tracts.

3.3.3
General

Fort Morgan Highway Tracts

The Fort Morgan Highway tracts are located in Baldwin County along the Dixie-Graves Highway (SH 180), which provides access to the end of the Fort Morgan Peninsula. There are five tracts totaling approximately 41 acres within this tract group. High-density development and highway expansion near these tracts could be planned for the future.

Soil Resources
The soil classification for the Fort Morgan Highway tracts is provided in Table 3-10.

Table 3-10. Soil Classification for the Fort Morgan Highway Tracts
Soil Type
Leon sand

Description
Deep, poorly drained, nearly level soils on uplands; sandy surface layers and sandy and loamy subsoils Deep, excessively drained, nearly level to steep soils on undulating ridges and short side slopes on uplands; sandy surface layers and underlying material Deep, poorly drained, nearly level soils on uplands; sandy surface layers and sandy loamy subsoils

Erosion Hazard
Slight

Prime Farmland
No

St. Lucie sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes

Very Severe

St. Lucie–Leon–Muck complex

None to Severe, depending on water saturation

3-48

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description

Water Resources
The Fort Morgan Highway tracts are located within the Mobile River drainage basin.

Vegetative Communities
The narrow Fort Morgan Highway tracts are dominated by a sand pine/oak scrub plant community with scattered clusters of slash pine. Pine coverage is generally 10 to 15 percent, and trees are generally 5 to 10 inches diameter at breast height. In the more xeric sites, the shrub layer is dominated by 8 to 12 feet tall scrub oak species, including scrub live oak (Quercus geminata) and myrtle oak (Quercus myrtifolia). Other understory species include rosemary (Conradina canescens), gopher apple (Licania michauxii), St. John’s wort (Hypericum crux-andreae), and saw palmetto (Serenoa repens). Reindeer lichen (Cladonia rangifera) and British soldier (Cladonia cristella) occur as a ground cover in protected areas of the scrub. These highway tracts were inundated by Hurricane Ivan’s storm surge in the fall of 2004. Although direct damage from wind was minimal, low areas where brackish waters stood for extended periods resulted in die-offs of pine and saw palmetto. A 30-foot utility corridor has been cleared on the southern edge of the tracts and contains more ruderal species, including blackberry/dewberry (Rubus spp.), groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimfolia), and common wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). In Lots 5 and 15, there are a small series of isolated wetlands dominated by sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) with scattered patches of needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) and fringed by saw palmetto (Serenoa repens). Wild hibiscus (Hibiscus grandiflora), arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia), and titi (Cyrilla racemiflora) are also common in these low-lying areas. Both of these tracts show evidence of a previous burn. Cogon grass (Imperata cylindrical) and Chinese tallow both occur sporadically along disturbed edges of the Fort Morgan Highway tracts.

Fish and Wildlife
Fort Morgan Peninsula, and the Bon Secour NWR in particular, provide the best remaining stopover and staging habitats for neotropical migratory songbirds along the Alabama coastline. In addition, the area is famous for its fall hawk migration. Over 370 species of birds have been identified at the Bon Secour NWR during migration seasons (USFWS 2007). Both the Bon Secour NWR and the nearby Fort Morgan State Park are designated Globally Important Bird Areas by the American Bird Conservancy. Several locations on the Fort Morgan Peninsula are listed on the Alabama Coastal Birding Trail, including several close to the BLM tracts. Wetlands on Lots 5 and 15 of the Fort Morgan Highway tracts provide habitat for reptiles, amphibians, wading birds, and furbearers such as muskrat, mink, raccoon, and rabbit. The refuge has documented at least 15 species of turtles, 9 species of lizards, more than 30 species of snakes, and the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) in the area.

Special Status Species
The original critical habitat designation for Alabama beach mouse was recently modified to include the higher elevation scrub habitats determined to be important for the mouse during and after hurricane

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-49

Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description

August 2008

events (Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 21, Wednesday, February 1, 2006). This expanded critical habitat includes all of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts.

Cultural Resources
The Fort Morgan Highway tracts have been surveyed. Four cultural sites are located within one-half mile of five of the highway tracts.

Visual Resources
The Fort Morgan Highway tracts are forested with pine and scrub vegetation and are generally flat. The visual setting is dominated by human activity.

Recreation and Travel Management
Recreation use on the Fort Morgan Highway tracts is primarily associated with Highway 180 and the parkway corridor, which is designated as part of the Alabama Scenic Byway. Activities along the highway corridor include driving, sightseeing, bicycling, and hiking. Several hiking trails on the Bon Secour NWR can be accessed from the parkway corridor. Historic Fort Morgan State Park at the end of the peninsula is a popular destination.

Lands and Realty
The Fort Morgan Highway tracts are within the same small tract area as the Fort Morgan Beach tracts. The plats of survey for the small tract area, however, made separate lots of the public domain lands within the 330-foot wide Dixie Graves Parkway (Highway 180). These lots are referred to in this document as the Fort Morgan Highway tracts and were exempted from disposal by the small tract classification orders. In addition to Highway 180, there are also some utilities and driveways on the lots. While the BLM plats of survey identified the parkway as separate lots, there is no record that the BLM granted any ROW or other authorized uses within the parkway lots.

3.3.4
General

Fowl River Tract

There is no legal vehicle access to the 41.73-acre Fowl River tract in Mobile County. Adjacent land is privately owned. Bellingrath Gardens, a 65-acre estate with formal gardens, is located just north, and the Dauphin Island lies to the south. There are some homes adjacent to the tract, and a Shell oil refinery is located across the river about one-half mile east of the tract.

Soil Resources
The soil classification for the Fowl River tract is provided in Table 3-11.

3-50

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description

Table 3-11. Soil Classification for the Fowl River Tract
Soil Type
Bayou-Escambia association, gently undulating Lafitte muck, 0 to 1 percent slopes

Description
Deep, moderately well-drained, nearly level soils on uplands and stream terraces; loamy and sandy surface layers and loamy subsoils low in clay Level, very poorly drained, moderately, and rapidly permeable soils; in brackish marshes adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico Deep, moderately well-drained, and somewhat poorly drained, nearly level to gently sloping soils on uplands; sandy throughout

Erosion Hazard

Prime Farmland
No

Slight

Pactolus loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Moderate

Water Resources
The Fowl River tract is located within the Mobile River drainage basin.

Vegetative Communities
This tract is located on the western bank of the Fowl River and contains four wetland plant communities. These include an emergent wetland composed of black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) and a scrubshrub wetland dominated by black titi (Clitftonia monophylla), inkberry (Ilex glaba), common wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), fetter-bush (Lyona lucida), and several species of pitcher plants and ferns. Portions of the tract are seasonally flooded, hardwood-pine forest composed of sweet bay magnolia (Magnolia virginiana); sweetgum; loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus); Florida maple (Acer barbatum); various oak species such as water oak and laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia); and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida); and saw palmetto (Serona repens); with grasses as the principal ground covers. A fourth type is a slash pine flatwoods with dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), gallberry (Ilex coriacea), and saw palmetto. This tract was not surveyed for exotic/invasive plant species, but Chinese privet, tallow tree, mimosa, and Japanese honeysuckle occur in the area.

Fish and Wildlife
This wetland tract provides habitat for a variety of species in association with the adjacent river, wetland habitats, and flatwoods. The tract provides suitable foraging habitat for wading birds such as the great blue heron, black-crowned night heron, and snowy egret. The wetland habitats provide foraging and nesting habitat for both resident and neotropical migratory songbirds. Southern water snake (Nerodia fasciata) and cottonmouth water moccasin (Agkistrodon piscivorus) are likely common on the tracts. Mammals are expected to include river otter (Lutra canadensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), mink (Mustela vison), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus).

Special Status Species
This tract could provide habitat for the endangered red-belly turtle (Pseudemys alabamensis). There are no known records of Federally listed plants on this tract.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-51

Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description

August 2008

Cultural Resources
The Fowl River tract was surveyed for cultural resources in 1983 (Jackson Field Office files). No cultural artifacts were found during shovel testing. One cultural site is located within one-half mile of the tract.

Visual Resources
The geography of the Fowl River tract is low lying and consists of several types of wetlands and associated forest and scrub vegetation. The visual setting is low-lying wetlands with relatively dense vegetation and some human activity.

Recreation and Travel Management
The Fowl River tract lies on the western side of the Fowl River. A portion of the tract is a wetland and is intermittently flooded. The tract may be accessed from the river, but there is no terrestrial access for the general public. Neither Delchamps Road, which formerly crossed the southern end of the tract, nor the power line ROW, provide public access. The tract is likely used by local residents for dispersed recreation such as fishing, canoeing, and kayaking. In the 1960s, the tract was proposed as a recreation site and was transferred to the Alabama Department of Conservation for recreation purposes. The tract reverted to the BLM, however, because development as a recreation site proved to be infeasible.

Lands and Realty
On April 7, 1964, the Fowl River tract was patented to the State of Alabama, Department of Conservation for recreation purposes, under the R&PP Act. Under the terms of the patent, the site was required to be developed as a public recreation site. On October 8, 1976, the title to the tract was revested in the United States because the planned development had not occurred. In 1983, the BLM proposed the Fowl River tract for sale, but the tract did not sell. The fact that the sale was subject to a “covenant running with the land” to restrict use in floodplains may have been a contributing factor to the fact that the tract was not sold. In 1990, the BLM granted a power line ROW across the tract, running from west to east in the southern portion (Lot 5) of the tract. There are no other BLM ROW or use authorizations on the tract.

3.3.5
General

Geneva Tract

The Geneva County tract consists of an approximately 1-acre sandbar in the bend of Choctawhatchee River (near the Florida State line).

Soil Resources
There is no soil classification for this tract. It is a sandbar adjacent to the river.

Water Resources
The Geneva tract is located within the Choctawhatchee River drainage basin.
3-52 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description

Vegetative Communities
This very small (0.95 acres) tract is located on a bend on the East Fork of the Choctawhatchee River. As mapped, this tract is primarily a sandbar or open water. A 1997 aerial photo of the area shows the area dominated by pine, including a clear-cut on the opposite side of the river. There are no exotic invasive plant species known to occur on the tract at this time.

Fish and Wildlife
This tract is likely used by wading birds and nesting river turtles.

Special Status Species
This portion of the Choctawhatchee River has been designated as critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi).

Cultural Resources
The Geneva tract has not been surveyed. Three cultural sites are located within one-half mile of the tract.

Visual Resources
The visual setting of the Geneva tract is a river sandbar adjacent to dense forest vegetation.

Recreation and Travel Management
Because the Geneva County tract is remote and inaccessible, its value for public recreation is very limited. Any recreational use would probably be related to the use of the river and include activities such as canoeing, kayaking, and fishing.

Lands and Realty
According to subdivision of sections by a survey approved December 9, 1890, the Geneva County tract is identified as Lot 4 in the northeast corner of Section 22, west of the Choctawhatchee River. It is apparent that change of the river’s course has affected the boundaries of Lot 4, which now may be at least partially in the channel of the river. There are no approved use authorizations on this tract, and no requests are expected.

3.3.6
General

Jordan Lake Tract

This 4.3-acre tract, located in Chilton County on the Coosa River below the Mitchell Dam (on the bank of Jordan Lake), is a steep, rocky slope with mixed hardwoods. The Coosa River Wildlife Management Area is located to the north and east of the tract.

Soil Resources
There is no soil classification for this tract. It is characterized as a rocky, steep slope adjacent to the lake.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-53

Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description

August 2008

Water Resources
The Jordan Lake tract is located within the Coosa River drainage basin.

Vegetative Communities
The Jordon Lake tract is a very narrow strip of land on the west bank of Jordon Lake. North of State Highway 22, the steep shoreline is dominated by hardwoods, typically hickory, persimmon, sweetgum, hackberry, sycamore, southern red oak, water oak, and scattered loblolly pine. South of the highway, the tract is flatter with mature trees and little understory.

Fish and Wildlife
General wildlife use is similar to the Coosa Island tracts discussed above. The presence of multiple campsites in the area limits use of the area by more reclusive species.

Special Status Species
There are no records of Federally listed plants or animals on this tract.

Cultural Resources
The Jordan Lake tract has been surveyed. Three cultural sites are located within one-half mile of the tract.

Visual Resources
The Jordan Lake tract sits high above the river and is visible from the highway as well as from the homes across the river.

Recreation and Travel Management
This long, narrow tract is bisected by State Highway 22. The recreation opportunity of the Jordan Lake tract is primarily as an access to Jordan Lake for swimming and fishing. Due to the tract’s location and size, however, its value as a public recreation site is very limited. The owners of the adjacent small tracts and their guests undoubtedly use the tract for travel access to the lake. In 1966, the tract was transferred to Chilton County under the R&PP Act to be used for recreational purposes. Because of difficulty in managing the tract for recreation, the County filed a quitclaim deed in 2000 to revert the tract to the United States.

Lands and Realty
The Jordan Lake tract is an extremely narrow strip of land on the west side of Jordan Lake. This narrow strip was created by a peculiar set of circumstances. The fractional portion of Section 14, west of the Coosa River, was withdrawn from the public domain by Power Site Classification No. 7, Alabama No. 1, approved July 30, 1921, (FPC Project 82). When the FPC relinquished withdrawal of lands above the 290-foot contour, the BLM completed a resurvey in 1956 to subdivide the lands for disposal. The Jordan Lake tract (Lot 1), because it was still withdrawn, had to be separated from the lands that were to be disposed. A 16.16-acre portion south of State Highway 22 was subdivided into 10 lots and classified for disposal under the Small Tract Act of 1938. By 1960, all of the small tracts had sold, and several small houses, or fishing camps, were built on these lots adjacent to the BLM Jordan Lake tract.
3-54 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Alabama Surface Tract Description

By 1966, the FPC allowed the BLM to convey the Jordan Lake tract to Chilton County, Alabama, subject to a reservation under Section 24 of the Water Power Act. The Jordan Lake tract was patented to Chilton County under the R&PP Act to be used for recreational purposes only and subject to reversion to the United States. The reversionary clause was invoked on April 17, 2000, when Chilton County filed a quitclaim deed to reconvey the tract back to the United States. The ROW for State Highway 22 was granted as a Federal Aid Highway under the Act of November 9, 1921 (42 Stat. 212). This highway crosses the narrow Jordan Lake tract (less than 100 feet wide at this point) at the west side of the bridge that crosses the lake. There are no other ROW or authorized uses on the Jordan Lake tract.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-55

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

August 2008

3.4 MISSISSIPPI STATEWIDE PERSPECTIVE
3.4.1 Air Quality

Mississippi has a humid, subtropical climate characterized by temperate winters; long, hot summers; and an evenly distributed annual rainfall. The region is subject to periods of drought and flood, and the climatic conditions are rarely average. A feast-or-famine situation attributed to weather conditions is typically expected as the climate delivers energy and moisture in subtropical latitudes between a large landmass to the north and the Gulf of Mexico to the south (SERCC 2005). Normal mean annual temperatures range from about 60°F in the north to 70°F along the coast. Temperatures regularly exceed 100°F throughout Mississippi and drop to zero or lower an average of once a year. Freezing temperatures reach the Gulf Coast almost every winter. Normal precipitation ranges from about 50 to 65 inches across the State from north to south (NOAA 2007a).

Air Quality Meteorology
Surface wind speeds vary depending on terrain and proximity to the coast. Average wind speeds vary from 6 to 10 miles per hour in most locations and follow water drainage features of the land or are driven by sea breezes. Dispersion can also be related to the NOAA Stagnation Index, which primarily focuses on ozone (NOAA 2005). On the basis of this index, Mississippi was prone to air stagnation on 25 to 50 percent of the days from May through September from 2002–2004. This dispersion index compares moderately to other areas in the country.

Baseline Air Quality
Ambient Air Quality. EPA has established ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The ambient air quality measurements in Mississippi for SO2, NO2, CO, O3, and PM10 and PM2.5 are shown in Table 3-12. Ambient air quality measurements made by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) indicate that ambient air quality is within standards, and are in attainment. Ozone is formed from the chemical reactions of nitrogen oxides, VOCs, and sunlight. No exceedances of ambient air quality standards are noted.

Table 3-12. Recent Highest Ambient Air Quality Measurements in Mississippi1, 2
Pollutant Averaging Time
1 year SO2 24 hours 3 hours NO2 CO O3 1 year 8 hours 1 hour 8 hours

Highest Measured Value (ppm3)
0.002 0.019 0.035 0.004 3.9 5.0 0.096

Location
Pascagoula Pascagoula Pascagoula Hancock County Jackson Jackson Hancock County

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (ppm3)
0.03 0.14 0.50 0.053 9.0 35.0 0.080

3-56

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

Pollutant

Averaging Time
1 hour

Highest Measured Value (ppm3)
0.112 18.0 41.0 13.6 36.2

Location
Hancock County Jackson County Jackson County Hattiesburg Hattiesburg

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (ppm3)
0.120 50.0 µg/m3 150.0 µg/m3 15.0 µg/m3 65.0 µg/m3

PM10

1 year 24 hours

PM2.5

1 year 24 hours

1 MDEQ Annual Data Summary 2003 (MDEQ 2004). 2 One-year maximum—this is not technically a violation until the fourth-highest value exceeds the design value of 0.085 ppm. 3 ppm = parts per mjllion

Visibility and Atmospheric Deposition. Visibility and atmospheric deposition measurements are not available for Mississippi.

Area Air Quality Designations
PSD of areas meeting the ambient air quality standards are divided into three categories: Class I for areas of restricted growth, Class II for areas of moderate growth, and Class III for industrialized areas (Clean Air Act of 1977, as amended). All of Mississippi is designated as PSD Class II. In addition to this area designation for the entire State, other nearby Class I areas (within 100 kilometers of the potential development activities) include the Breton NWR off the coast of Louisiana (managed by USFWS) and the Sipsey Wilderness Area in northwestern Alabama.

Climate Change
Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential effects of pollutants considered to be GHG emissions (including CO2, CH4, N2O, water vapor, and several trace gasses) on global climate. Through complex interactions on a regional and global scale, these pollutants cause a net warming effect of the atmosphere, making surface temperatures suitable for life on earth, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat energy radiated by the earth back into space. Although GHG levels have varied for millennia, with corresponding variations in climatic conditions, recent industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources have caused CO2 concentrations to increase dramatically, and have been shown to contribute to overall climatic changes, typically referred to as global warming or climate change. Increasing CO2 concentrations also lead to preferential fertilization and growth of specific plant species. Some pollutants considered to be GHGs, such as CO2, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through both natural processes and human activities, while others are created and emitted solely through human activities. The principal pollutants considered to be GHGs that enter the atmosphere because of human activities include CO2, emitted through the burning of fossil fuels, solid waste, trees and wood products; CH4 emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, oil extraction, livestock production, deforestation, and other agricultural practices; N2O emitted during agricultural and industrial activities and during the combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste; and fluorinated gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes (EPA 2008). The assessment of GHG emissions and climate change is in its formative phase, and it is not yet possible to know with confidence the net impact to climate. Observed climatic changes may be caused by GHG
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-57

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

August 2008

emissions, or may reflect natural fluctuations (U.S. GAO 2007). It is known that in the past, the earth has gone through a number of ice ages with periods of warming and droughts between the periods. The most recent Ice Age ended around 13,000 years ago and the climate has warmed and dried since then. The warming and drying has not been continuous. However, the rate at which atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen in the past 100 years is unprecedented, and corresponds with observed temperature changes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) concluded that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and “Most of the observed increase in globally average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gas concentrations.” Global mean surface temperatures have increased nearly 1.8°F (1.0°C) from 1890 to 2006 (Goddard Institute for Space Studies 2007). However, both observations and predictive models indicate that average temperature changes are likely to be greater in the Northern Hemisphere. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (2007) data indicated that northern latitudes (above 24° N ) have exhibited temperature increases of nearly 2.1°F (1.2°C) since 1900, with nearly a 1.8°F (1.0°C) increase since 1970 alone. Without additional meteorological monitoring systems, it is difficult to determine the spatial and temporal variability and change of climatic conditions, but increasing concentrations of GHG are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. In 2001, the IPCC indicated that by the year 2100, global average surface temperatures will rise 2.5 to 10.4°F (1.4 to 5.8°C) above 1990 levels. The National Academy of Sciences (2006) has confirmed these findings, but also indicated there are uncertainties how climate change will affect different regions. Computer model predictions indicate that increases in temperature will not be equally distributed, but are likely to be accentuated at higher latitudes. Warming during the winter months is expected to be higher than during the summer. According to the EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (2008), the total U.S. GHGs were estimated at 7,054.2 Tg CO2 Eq.6 in 2006. Overall, total U.S. emissions have risen by 14.7 percent from 1990 to 2006. The primary GHG emitted by human activities in the U.S. was CO2, representing approximately 84.8 percent of total GHG emissions. The largest source of CO2, and of overall GHG emissions, was fossil fuel combustion. Conversely, U.S. GHG emissions were partly offset by carbon sequestration in forests, trees in urban areas, and agricultural soils, which, in aggregate, offset 12.5 percent of total emissions in 2006 (EPA 2008). In the Southeast and Gulf Coast, potential impacts on the resources and environment from climate change could occur from sea level rise and a warmer climate, resulting in higher summer heat and reduced winter cold stress. The IPCC suggests that a two foot rise in sea level would eliminate approximately 10,000 square miles of land nationwide and, by 2080, sea level rise could convert as much as 33 percent of the world’s coastal wetlands to open water (IPCC 2007). Some of the BLM-administered surface and mineral estate may become completely submerged. Coastal erosion, loss of barrier islands and wetlands, flooding, storm surge, and extreme precipitation events could greatly affect the biological resources within the planning area. For example, wildlife species could move northward and to higher elevations and extinction of endemic threatened/endangered plants may be accelerated. Due to loss of habitat, or due to competition from other species whose ranges may shift northward, the population of some animal species may be reduced. Additionally, the character of vegetation resources that provide wildlife habitat could change as disturbances (e.g., fire and insect outbreaks) increase (IPCC 2007). In the future, as tools for predicting climate changes in the planning area improve and/or changes in climate affect resources and necessitate changes in how resources are managed, BLM may be able to re-evaluate decisions made as part of this planning process and adjust management accordingly.

6 Carbon comprises 12/44ths of carbon dioxide by weight. One teragram is equal to 1012 grams or one million metric tons.
3-58 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

Certain BLM-authorized activities within the planning area would produce pollutants considered to be GHGs, particularly CO2. For example, oil and gas development, construction activities, vehicle travel, and mechanical hand tools or prescribed burning used in vegetation and wildlife habitat manipulation generate CO2 and CH4. These activities would impact the same resources in the planning area that could also be affected by climate change. Other activities may help sequester carbon, such as maintaining vegetative and forested cover, which may help build organic carbon in soils and function as “carbon sinks”. BLM recognizes the importance of climate change and the potential effects it may have on the natural environment. However, BLM does not have an established mechanism to accurately predict the effect of resource management-level decisions from this planning effort on global climate change. The lack of scientific tools designed to predict climate change on regional or local scales limits the ability to quantify potential future impacts. A general discussion on the types of actions that would potentially impact climate change is presented in Chapter 4.

3.4.2

Soil Resources

Physiographic Regions and Soil Types
The State of Mississippi is located entirely within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province (Fenneman 1938). Most of the State is located within the East Gulf Coastal Plain section of the province, and the remainder is found within the Mississippi Alluvial Plain section. Within the East Gulf Coastal Plain, the physiography is characterized by a distinctive series of belts that largely reflect the underlying geology. Nine of the 10 physiographic regions are belts of the East Gulf Coastal Plain: Loess Hills, Flatwoods, Pontotoc Ridge, Black Prairie, Tombigbee Hills, Jackson Prairie, Longleaf Pine Belt, Coastal Pine Meadows, and North Central Hills. The tenth physiographic region is the Yazoo Basin, which is part of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain. Eight of the 12 soil orders (broad soil groups) recognized in the United States are found in Mississippi, which has great soil diversity (Pettry 2004). Soils in Mississippi are largely correlated with the State’s topographic regions, due in part to effects that parent material and relief have on the soil formation process. From an agricultural perspective, the two most productive soil areas of Mississippi are the Mississippi Delta (the Yazoo Basin physiographic region) and the Blackland Prairies (the Jackson Prairie and Blackbelt Prairie physiographic regions). Appendix F briefly describes the major parent soil units and their locations. The characteristics of soils in BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO areas are described in Appendix F.

Prime and Unique Farmlands
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires the identification of proposed actions that would affect any lands classified as prime and unique farmlands. NRCS administers this act to preserve farmland. Prime farmland is defined as having the availability and best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Its soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply can produce economically sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods, including water management. In general, prime farmlands have an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no rocks. The land is permeable to water and air. Prime farmlands are not excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period of time, and they neither flood nor require protection from flooding.
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-59

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Prime farmlands occur throughout most of Mississippi. Counties in Mississippi with oil and gas development likely include soil units that have been identified as prime farmland by NRCS. Appendix F includes prime farmland classification information that is available for soils within non-USFS FMO.

3.4.3

Water Resources

Surface Water
The surface waters of the State of Mississippi are divided into 10 major drainage areas or river basins: the Big Black River Basin, Coastal Streams Basin, Mississippi River Basin, North Independent Streams Basin, Pascagoula River Basin, Pearl River Basin, South Independent Streams Basin, Tennessee River Basin, Tombigbee River Basin, and Yazoo River Basin (Map 3-4). Appendix H briefly describes each of these major river basins. Wetlands occupy an estimated 4 million acres in Mississippi. Since the 1800s, almost 6 million acres of wetlands (including 10,000 acres of coastal wetlands) have been lost. Historically, loss was mainly the result of converting wetlands to agricultural lands. Today, wetland loss is primarily associated with residential and commercial development (MDEQ 2005). The surface water quality of most of Mississippi’s approximately 84,000 miles of rivers fully or partially supports designated uses. The major cause of impaired water quality is nonpoint agricultural runoff. Minor causes are industrial and municipal point-source discharges and runoff from nonagricultural nonpoint sources (USGS 2003b). About 47 river miles are within BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO areas in Mississippi. Oil and gas leases exist on about 0.6 river mile. About 32,000 lake acres occur within non-USFS FMO areas. NWI data are limited for Mississippi. Because available digital data for freshwater wetlands in Mississippi is lacking, the non-USFS FMO acreage in freshwater wetland areas in Mississippi could not be estimated.

3-60

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-61

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Ground Water
Mississippi has 15 major aquifers that provide 80 percent of its public water supply for domestic and commercial, industrial, mining, thermoelectric power, and agricultural users (USGS 1998). Only two municipalities, Jackson and Tupelo, receive some public water from surface water sources. Mississippi has an abundant supply of ground water, which at some locations occurs at depths exceeding 3,000 feet (USGS 1998). Ground water withdrawals are concentrated in the urbanized and industrialized areas of Mississippi and in the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain in northwestern Mississippi, where large withdrawals are made for crop irrigation and catfish production. These withdrawals have resulted in significant, long-term declines in water levels in some areas. Declining ground water levels and the ability of the aquifers to meet the increasing demand for water continue to be an important water resources concern in the State. For example, in central Mississippi, Cockfield and Sparta are two major aquifers. Water levels in the Cockfield Formation have slightly decreased at selected sites, whereas levels in a few wells near pumping centers have decreased by 1 to 4 feet. Some wells screened in the Sparta Sand indicated declines of 2 to 6 feet (USGS 2003b). Precipitation is the ultimate source of water that recharges the major aquifers in Mississippi. Studies show that less than 50 percent of the annual precipitation ends up in stream runoff. Only a small amount of water recharges aquifers that are either exposed or buried to shallow depths, and an even smaller amount percolates downward and enters the deep-flow system (USGS 1998). Map 3-5 presents the areas that are primary ground water recharge zones in Mississippi. On the basis of a rough geospatial analysis, 4,470 acres of non-USFS FMO occur in primary ground water recharge zones (defined as recharge greater than 3 inches per year).

3-62

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-63

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Coastal Zone
The National CZM Program is a voluntary partnership between the Federal Government and U.S. coastal States and territories authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The Coastal Programs Division, within NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, administers the program at the Federal level and works with State CZM partners. The Mississippi CZM Program (MSCZMP) focuses primarily upon coastal wetlands below the watermark of the ordinary high tide and adjacent wetlands. The Hancock County tracts, in addition to BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO, fall within the MSCZMP. The Mississippi Gulf Coast encompasses 370 miles of shoreline and nearly 56,000 acres of emergent wetlands. The coastal wetlands habitat of Mississippi is among the most ecologically diverse systems in the country. This system provides for ecological functions such as pollution filtering, sediment trapping, and flood control and is an important nursery area that increases the productivity of an abundant fishery resource. These ecological functions also provide economic benefits through commercial and recreational fisheries, hunting, trapping, and many other forms of recreation and commerce (MPA 2005). The Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (DMR) is preparing a Comprehensive Resource Management Plan (CRMP) that will include management and protection applications for coastal wetlands and marine resources in the six coastal counties of Mississippi (including Hancock County, where a BLM surface tract is located) by coordinating Agency efforts, developing the necessary partnerships among public and private entities, and integrating wetlands protection and management into the lifestyle of the coastal community. The Mississippi CRMP was unavailable for reference in this plan. On the basis of the rough geospatial analysis, about 32,440 acres of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO are within Mississippi coastal wetlands. However, about 24,000 of these acres are within 10 miles of the Stennis Space Center, one of NASA’s primary centers for rocket propulsion testing, and are not likely to be developed. Of about 8,380 acres of non-USFS FMO in wetlands, 990 acres are in high-potential areas for future mineral development.

3.4.4

Vegetative Communities

For this planning effort, GAP was used to delineate land cover types on non-USFS FMO in Mississippi. This land cover map is based on Landsat-7 satellite imagery using the NLCD, which includes 21 very broad land cover classifications. The decision to use this data set was based on its statewide application and availability in a geographical information system format at the time this planning effort was initiated. Analysis of the GAP land cover map resulted in the identification of eight dominant cover types on nonUSFS FMO lands in Mississippi. The dominant vegetation cover types on non-USFS FMO within Mississippi include evergreen forest/woodland (23 percent), wetland forest/shrub land (14 percent), deciduous forest/woodland (11 percent), row/crops (10 percent), grassland/herbaceous (9 percent), open water (9 percent), pasture/hay (6 percent), and mixed forest/woodland (4 percent). Several less dominant communities (14 percent) are not discussed herein. A brief description of each community follows. • Evergreen Forests/Woodlands (23 percent). This classification delineates areas where 75 percent or more of the tree species are evergreen. In Mississippi, the dominant pine species are loblolly, longleaf, slash, and shortleaf. This classification includes commercial pine plantations, where loblolly is the most commonly planted pine species. An additional species, sand pine, dominates a narrow band of scrub habitats behind the coastal dune systems along the Gulf of Mexico. Wetland Forest/Shrub Land (14 percent). This classification is dominated by bottomland hardwood vegetation that is periodically inundated by water and encompasses diverse
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

•

3-64

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

communities ranging from forested swamps and bogs to coastal marshes. Common vegetation in seasonally flooded forests include sweet bay, southern magnolia, sweetgum, wax myrtle, various oaks, and titi. Typical wetland or bog species include pitcher plants, various rushes, sedges, arrowhead, and St. John’s wort. Typical species of coastal marshes include sawgrass, needlerush, and bulrush. • Deciduous Forests/Woodlands (11 percent). This classification is dominated by trees of which 75 percent or more are hardwoods. Common trees in these areas include a wide variety of oak and hickory species, maple, ash, hackberry, yellow poplar, beech, elm, sweetgum, persimmon, and cherry. Row/Crops (10 percent). This classification includes areas being actively cultivated. Grassland/Herbaceous (9 percent). Grassland/Herbaceous communities are composed of dry systems dominated by low herbaceous vegetation and are absent of woodlands. Open Water (9 percent). This classification denotes water and does not support terrestrial vegetation species. Pasture/Hay (6 percent). Vegetation in this community is largely composed of introduced grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock grazing or the production of hay crops. Mixed Forests/Woodlands (4 percent). This classification delineates areas where neither hardwood nor pine species represent more than 75 percent of the cover. These mixed hardwood/pine areas are typically dominated by loblolly, shortleaf, slash, and/or longleaf pine, with a wide variety of oak and hickory species, plus hackberry, elm, sweetgum, persimmon, and yellow poplar.

• • • •

•

Mississippi Invasive/Exotic Species
The Mississippi Exotic Pest Plant Council lists the top ten worst invasive plants as tallowtree (Triadica sebifera), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata), cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes), alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), and Eurasian milfoil (Myriophyllum spictum). To date, Chinese tallow, Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, and cogon grass have been the most frequent exotic species occurring on BLM non-USFS FMO. Cogon grass, in particular, has the potential to affect future land use practices because of its ability to alter natural fire regimes, its thick growth habit that excludes other vegetation, and the difficulty to control it. Chinese privet is a common invasive along edges and disturbed sites throughout the State. Chinese tallow tree is often found near wetlands and disturbed areas including fence rows and roads.

3.4.5

Fish and Wildlife

Game Species
Mississippi has abundant and diverse game populations actively managed across the State. The State supports the highest white-tailed deer density in the nation with the population estimated at 1.75 million. The wild turkey population is estimated at 300,000. Both species were brought back by extensive restocking efforts during the 1950s and 1960s. Mourning dove is common throughout farms, woodlots, agricultural fields, and grasslands. Small game species include rabbit, gray squirrel, and fox squirrel.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-65

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Naturalized populations of wild hog are now found in at least 65 of Mississippi’s 82 counties. Mississippi is part of the Mississippi Flyway; reservoirs, ponds and swamps across the State provide important winter habitat for waterfowl that are produced in the Prairie Pothole Region and Great Lakes States. In most years, Mississippi winters significant numbers of mallards and wood ducks across the State. Historically, flooded forests in the Delta region of northwestern Mississippi provided reliable, high-quality habitat for millions of mallards, wood ducks, and other waterfowl. This region is the focus of major waterfowl conservation efforts, including the Lower Mississippi Joint Venture program.

Neotropical Migratory Birds
According to the Mississippi Ornithological Society, 396 bird species have been seen in Mississippi. The State is an important migration route for many migratory songbirds. The Mississippi Gulf Coast is a key staging area for migrants as they replenish fat reserves for the trans-Gulf flight during the fall and provides the first landfall for tired migrants during spring migrations.

3.4.6

Special Status Species

For the purposes of this document, special status species are defined as all Federal and State-listed, species occurring in the State, species proposed or candidates for Federal or State listing, and those species identified by the BLM as sensitive species. The BLM Eastern State’s policy designates as “BLM sensitive” those additional species that are considered to be critically imperiled (S-1) or imperiled (S-2) by the State Natural Heritage programs, as well as potentially affected bird species included on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern and Game Birds Below Desired Condition lists. The USFWS lists 39 Federally listed species, which currently or historically occurred in Mississippi. The Mississippi Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) inventory lists 339 species ranked as either critically imperiled (S-1) or imperiled (S-2) in the State. A list of S-1 and S-2 species being tracked by MNHP is included in Appendix E. A complete list of the wildlife species of conservation concern in the State is available in the Mississippi CWCS (2005). This discussion of special status species takes a statewide perspective, even though management of the BLM’s scattered surface acreage and oil and gas development would probably directly affect less than 229 acres in total. Oil and gas leasing of non-USFS FMO in particular could occur anywhere in the State, and future oil and gas development has the potential to affect aquatic systems downstream from locations, substantially increasing the area potentially affected. Therefore, a statewide perspective is needed to cover the full geographic range of potential impacts.

Overview
The State of Mississippi covers four ecoregions: the East Gulf Coastal Plain, the Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain, the Mississippi Alluvial Plain, and the Northern Gulf Coastal Plain (see Section 0). The following discussions highlight the special status issues in each of these ecoregions. The East Gulf Coastal Plain is one of the most biologically rich ecoregions in the country. Many of the special status species in this area are associated with the vast longleaf pine forests and embedded wetland bogs that once stretched across much of the southern United States. Longleaf forests are now found on about three percent of the original acreage, much of it converted to commercial pine plantations for loblolly and slash pine. What acreage remains is often degraded by exclusion from the frequent fires that historically maintained this system and by habitat fragmentation. Species endemic to the ecoregion, many of which were never common, have been further imperiled by these changes (Mississippi CWCS 2005). Keystone species in this habitat are the red-cockaded woodpecker and gopher tortoise, both Federally and

3-66

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

State-listed. Others include the highly restricted Mississippi gopher frog found only in a handful of ponds in Harrison and Jackson Counties. Wet savannas in the East Gulf Coastal Plain are estimated to be reduced to less than 5 percent of their original acreage (Mississippi CWCS 2005). Most of the largest patches of this habitat are located in the Sandhill Crane NWR. This region’s pitcher bogs and pine seeps support an exceptionally diverse flora and endemic crawfish species, including one Federally listed crayfish and six other crayfish listed as imperiled or critically imperiled. Two large and biologically important river systems flow through this portion of the East Gulf Coastal Plain: the Pearl River and the Pascagoula River. Both are considered vulnerable (Mississippi CWCS 2005). The lower Pearl River is affected by impoundment at the Ross Barnett Reservoir, as well as channelization and increased sediments from surrounding land uses. The Pascagoula is America’s longest unencumbered river and one of the most intact in the southeast (Mississippi CWCS 2005). These river systems support 13 Federally or State-listed species and 19 other special status species, mostly fish and mussels. The rivers and major tributaries are designated critical habitat for Gulf sturgeon. The Mississippi River Alluvial Plain bordered by the Mississippi River on the west is dominated by bottomland hardwood forests. These rich frequently flooded forests and associated habitats support over 240 fish species, 45 species of reptiles and amphibians, and 37 species of mussels. In addition, 50 species of mammals and approximately 60 percent of all bird species in the contiguous United States currently utilize this ecoregion (Mississippi CWCS 2005). This area is important to the recovery of the endangered Louisiana black bear, and recently supported one of the two litters recorded in the State in over 30 years. Old-growth hardwoods are crucial habitat for 11 of 18 bat species in the southeast (Mississippi CWCS 2005). At least four Federally listed species and seven other special status species occur in this area. The Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain in Mississippi ranges from the northern edge of the longleaf pine forests grading to the north through oak-hickory-pine forests to oak-hickory forests. Many of the most vulnerable special status species occurring in this area are associated with the river systems, wetland habitats, and prairie opening scattered through Jackson and larger Black Belts. This region supports a large number of endemic crayfish, mussel species, and fish. Key rivers include the Tombigbee, Yazoo, and Big Black Rivers, all of which have been substantially altered by impoundments and channelization. Tributaries and streams in this area have been subjected to increased sedimentation from agricultural and forestry. The Mississippi CWCS (2005) lists 45 crayfish, fish and mussel special status species as critically imperiled (S-1) or imperiled (S-2) in the Tombigbee River system, this in addition to 13 Federally listed species. Six of these mussel species in Tombigbee are presumed or expected to be extirpated from the State. Karst areas in Mississippi are primarily associated with the “Vicksburg Group” of soils in Clark, Jasper, and Wayne Counties in east central Mississippi, and Union and Tishomingo Counties. About 65 caves covering less than 100 acres support several special status species, including cave salamander, spring salamander, and many of the State’s bat species. The Mississippi Northern Gulf Coastal Plain includes barrier islands with beaches, coastal marshes, and maritime scrub and woodlands. At the coastline, these habitats grade through salt marshes to productive estuaries (Mississippi CWCS 2005). Mississippi has established an 83,000-acre coastal preserve system to protect and enhance coastal wetlands and barrier islands. The system is dominated by coastal wetlands that support a number of special status shorebirds, including the piping plover, American oystercatcher, and Wilson’s plover; wading birds, such as reddish egret and white ibis; and others such as the brown pelican. They also support the Mississippi diamondback terrapin. Natural beaches in the State tend to be mud shores often associated with the estuaries of larger rivers and provide important foraging areas for wading birds and shorebirds. Maritime woodlands dominated by live oak, laurel oak, and saw palmetto provide crucial staging areas for neotropical migrants to rest and build or replenish fat reserves,
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-67

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

August 2008

particularly during inclement weather and for exhausted birds making landfall. This habitat is considered critically imperiled due to its extreme rarity and because of the threats of urbanization and exotic weeds.

Species Accounts
The following Federally listed or candidate species are known to occur or to have potential to occur on BLM non-USFS FMO (Natureserve 2006). A list of species ranked by MNHP as critically imperiled (S-1) or imperiled (S-2) is provided in Appendix E.
Mammals Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus), Federally listed as endangered, State-listed as endangered

The Louisiana black bear prefers forested areas with dense understory vegetation, particularly bottomland hardwoods which include hard and soft mast, escape cover, denning sites, corridor habitat, and distance from humans. Escape cover is especially critical for bears that live in fragmented habitat and close to humans. Access to a variety of habitat is consistent with the black bear’s need for a seasonal assortment of foods during the year. Louisiana black bears have been known to travel long distances in search of food, habitat, and mates. Modification and loss of habitat are the primary reasons for the decline of the black bear (USFWS 1995). There are an estimated 50 Louisiana black bears in Mississippi. Recent litters in Washington County and in the Mississippi Delta are the first recorded in 30 years.
Gray myotis (Myotis grisescens), Federally listed as endangered, State-listed as endangered

Gray myotis roost almost exclusively in caves, generally utilizing different caves for summer and winter hibernaculum. Gray bats were last documented in Mississippi in 1967 in the northeastern corner of Tishomingo County. A male was found on private property in Tishomingo County on September 20, 2004. The location is approximately 90 km southwest of the closest known gray bat maternal colony, located at Blowing Springs Cave, Alabama (Sherman and Martin 2006).
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), Federally listed as endangered, State-listed as endangered

Indiana bats hibernate in caves, typically limestone with pools where the mean midwinter temperature is 4–8 degrees Celsius. During the summer, their habitat consists of wooded or semiwooded areas, often but not always along streams. Indiana bats roost in hollow trees or under loose bark during the summer, including the season for rearing their young. Foraging habitats include riparian areas, upland forests, ponds, and fields (Menzel et al 2001). There are no known hibernacula in Mississippi, but there is potential for this species to occur in Tishomingo County, utilizing summer habitats.
Birds Southeastern snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus tenuirostris), State-listed as endangered

This species occurs year-round on the coastal beaches, dry mud or salt flats, and sandy shores of rivers, lakes, and ponds. The species nest on the ground on broad open beaches or salt or dry mud flats, where vegetation is sparse or absent (small clumps of vegetation are used for cover by chicks); nests are found beside or under objects or in the open.
Interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos), Federally listed as endangered, State-listed as endangered

This population is Federally listed where it occurs along sandbars and beaches along the Mississippi River.

3-68

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

Mississippi sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pulla), Federally listed as endangered, State-listed as endangered

This non-migrating subspecies is currently restricted to an area in southern Jackson County, Mississippi, extending from the Pascagoula River west to the Jackson County line, south to Simmons Bayou, north latitude about 4 miles north of Vancleave; part of this area is within the Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR. Typical habitat is open savannas, swamp edges, young pine plantations, and wetlands along edges of pine forests; associated trees and shrubs include longleaf pine, slash pine, bald cypress, gallberry, wax myrtle, black gum, sweet bay, and yaupon. Approximately 26,000 acres have been designated as critical habitat for the Mississippi Sandhill Crane in Jackson County, Mississippi.
Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), State-listed as endangered

An extremely rare bird east of the Mississippi River, Bewick’s wrens are seen occasionally in Mississippi during the winter, rarely breeding in the State.
Piping plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), Atlantic Coast and Great Plains populations Federally listed as threatened, and Great Lakes populations Federally listed as endangered, State-listed as endangered

All three populations of piping plover winter along the southern Atlantic and Gulf Coasts where they are classified as threatened. On July 3, 2001, USFWS designated 165,211 acres along 1,798 miles of coastline in eight southern States as critical habitat for the wintering population of piping plover. This includes much of the Mississippi coastline. Wintering birds are present from August to May, but numbers peak during the winter months.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Federally listed as threatened, proposed for delisting, State-listed as endangered

Bald eagles are found throughout the State primarily along larger rivers and numerous reservoirs. In 2006, there were 31 active nests in the State being monitored with up to 62 chicks, and the possibility of 13 additional nests (Nick Winstead personal communication).
Wood stork (Mycteria americana), under status review by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Statelisted as endangered

The wetlands of the Coastal Plain of Mississippi provide important foraging habitat for wood storks that disperse from breeding areas in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina in late summer and early fall. Primarily habitats are marshes, swamps, lagoons, ponds, and flooded fields and ditches. During extended drought, depressions in marshes and brackish wetlands have increased importance. In Mississippi, wood storks occur primarily in the coastal counties, including Hancock, Jackson, and Harrison Counties.
Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), Federally listed as endangered, although under status review for delisting (Federal Register, May 24, 2006), State-listed as endangered

The brown pelican is a coastal species that makes extensive use of sand spits, offshore sandbars, and islets for nocturnal roosting and daily loafing, especially by nonbreeders and during the non-nesting season. Dry roosting sites are essential. Some roosting sites eventually may become nesting areas.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Federally listed as endangered, State-listed as endangered

Red-cockaded woodpeckers require open pine woodlands and savannahs with large old pines for nesting and roosting habitat. Large old pines are required as cavity trees and are typically in open stands with little or no hardwood midstory and few or no overstory hardwoods. Hardwood encroachment resulting from fire suppression is a well-known cause of cluster abandonment. Suitable foraging habitat typically
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-69

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

August 2008

consists of mature pines with an open canopy, low densities of small pines, little or no hardwood or pine midstory, few or no overstory hardwoods, and abundant native bunchgrass, and forb ground covers. The Federal threshold for minimally suitable foraging habitat is stands of at least 50 percent pine, where the dominant trees are pines over 30 years of age. Minimum criteria for nesting habitat is pines 60 years or older, which may be dispersed among younger stands, located within 0.5 miles of suitable foraging habitat.
Reptiles Black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi), a Federal candidate for listing, State-listed as endangered

Black pine snake habitat is characterized as sandy, well-drained soils with an overstory of longleaf pine, a fire-suppressed midstory, and dense herbaceous ground cover. In Mississippi, there are recent records in nine out of 14 counties with historic records (Forrest, George, Greene, Harrison, Jones, Lamar, Marion, Pearl River, Perry, Stone, and Wayne). The distribution of populations within these counties has become highly restricted due to the fragmentation of the remaining longleaf pine habitat. In seven of the nine occupied Mississippi counties, populations of black pine snakes are concentrated in the DeSoto National Forest. In the remaining occupied Mississippi counties, one population is known from the Marion County Wildlife Management Area, and one occurs on private land.
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), Federally listed as threatened, State-listed as endangered

The most common nesting sea turtle in Mississippi, loggerheads nest on open sandy beaches above hightide mark, seaward of well-developed dunes primarily on barrier islands. Nesting normally occurs from early May through August, with the majority of nests being laid during June and July. Females lay three to five nests, and sometimes more, during a single nesting season. The eggs incubate approximately 2 months before hatching sometime between late June and mid-November.
Rainbow snake (Farancia erytrogramma) State-listed as endangered

The Rainbow snake lives primarily in or near rivers, creeks, swamps, springs, and open marshes, including brackish tidal areas; in some areas hibernation occurs in uplands near water. In Mississippi, there are records for this snake in Forrest, Hancock, Jackson, and Lamar Counties.
Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), Federally listed as threatened, State-listed as endangered

In Mississippi, gopher tortoise populations are restricted to the well-drained sandy soil that once supported the vast longleaf forests across the State and much of the southeast. Gopher tortoise occur in suitable habitats south of the city of Jackson and east of the Pearl River. Research has shown that gopher tortoises move up to 600 feet between burrows for breeding purposes, and two or more burrows within 600 feet of each other can be defined as a population (McDearman personal communication)
Yellow-blotched map turtle (Graptemys flavimaculata), Federally listed as threatened, State-listed as endangered

The yellow-blotched map turtle is found only in the Pascagoula River system, including its tributaries: the Leaf, Chickasawhay, and Escatawpa Rivers in southern Mississippi.
Black-knobbed map turtle (Graptemys nigrinoda), State-listed as endangered

Black-knobbed map turtle habitat consists of rivers and streams with moderate current, sand or clay bottom, and logs and other basking sites in northeastern Mississippi in Clay, Lowndes, and Monroe Counties.

3-70

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

Ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculifera), Federally listed as threatened, State-listed as endangered

Typical habitat is medium-size streams and rivers with moderate to fast current, numerous basking logs, nearby sand and gravel bars, and a channel wide enough to allow sun to reach basking logs from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (McCoy and Vogt 1980, Dickerson and Reine 1996). This species requires high water quality to support main food sources. Eggs are laid in nests dug in sandy beaches or gravel bars. In Mississippi, the ringed map turtle is found in the Pearl River system from the vicinity of Philadelphia, Neshoba County, downstream in the Pearl (including Ross Barnett Reservoir) and West Pearl rivers to near the town of Pearl River. Distribution includes habitats in Copiah, Hinds, Lawrence, Leake, Madison, Marion, Neshoba, Pearl River, Rankin, Scott, and Simpson Counties.
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), Federally listed as threatened, State-listed as endangered

The green sea turtle may be an occasional visitor to Mississippi waters, but is not known to nest in the State.
Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), Federally listed as endangered, State-listed as endangered

Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle is an occasional visitor to Mississippi waters, where it is sometimes caught in shrimp nets. Almost the entire population nests in Mexico and southern Texas.
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), Federally listed as endangered, State-listed as endangered

The leatherback sea turtle is an occasional visitor to Mississippi waters, but not known to nest in the State.
Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi), Federally listed as threatened, State-listed as endangered

The historical range of the eastern indigo snake was from the east coast of South Carolina through southern Georgia, Florida, into southern Alabama and southwest Mississippi, often associated with gopher tortoises. Particularly outside of southern Florida, gopher tortoise burrows provide important refugia from temperature extremes. Naturally occurring populations are now found only in southern Georgia and Florida. Indigo snakes were historically found in the lower coastal plain along with the burrowing gopher tortoise. This species is very rare and possibly extirpated in Mississippi.
Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), Federally listed as endangered, State-listed as endangered

Hawksbill sea turtles may be an occasional visitor to Mississippi waters, but are not known to nest in the State.
Southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus), State-listed as endangered

Historically this snake occurred in open, xeric habitats with well-drained, sandy soils in the Coastal Plain from eastern North Carolina to southern Florida, west to southeastern Mississippi. It is now presumed to be extirpated in Mississippi and possibly extirpated in Alabama.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-71

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Amphibians One-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma pholeter), State-listed as endangered

This species is found in deep, organic, liquid muck in alluvial swamps of low-gradient second or third order streams, spring runs, and occasionally floodplain swampy terrace streams. There are records from Jackson County in Mississippi.
Mississippi gopher frog (Rana sevosa), Federally listed as endangered, State-listed as endangered

This species once existed in the longleaf pine forests of the lower coastal plain from east of the Mississippi River in Louisiana to the Mobile River delta in Alabama. It has not been seen in Louisiana since 1967 or in Alabama since 1922. It is currently known to exist in four locations in Mississippi. The largest and best known population is at Glen’s Pond located in Harrison County, Mississippi, on the De Soto National Forest. Two other occupied ponds were found in 2004; one pond is owned by the State of Mississippi, and the other is on private land in Jackson County. An additional pond has been established to assist with the recovery of the species.
Green salamander (Aneides aeneus), State-listed as endangered

This salamander is limited to northeastern Mississippi with records from Tishomingo County. It prefers damp (but not wet) crevices in shaded rock outcrops and ledges. It sometimes reaches high population densities in logged areas where tree tops are left.
Cave salamander (Eurycea lucifuga), State-listed as endangered

This salamander is found in caves (usually limestone); also rocky streams and springs, and wooded areas and fields, usually near caves or limestone outcrops in northern Mississippi. There are records from Tishomingo County.
Spring salamander (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus) State-listed as endangered

This salamander is found in small, clear upland streams; clear springs; caves; shaded seepages; occasionally in swamps and lake margins, sometimes also in forested wet areas away from streams, especially during rainy periods. There are records of this salamander from Tishomingo County. Fish
Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi), Federally listed as threatened, State-listed as endangered

Adult Gulf sturgeon migrate into large river systems between late March and early April to spawn, sometimes moving as much as 140 miles upstream. Adults and subadults return to the Gulf of Mexico in late fall. The young generally stay in the river mouth through winter and spring. Critical habitat has been designated and in Mississippi includes the Pearl and Pascagoula Rivers and their major tributaries.
Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), Federally listed as endangered, State-listed as endangered

The pallid sturgeon is a species of large, turbid, free-flowing rivers and occurs in strong current over firm gravel or sandy substrate. In Mississippi, records are from the Mississippi River and Sunflower River/Yazoo Rivers.

3-72

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

Crystal darter (Crystallaria asprella), State-listed as endangered

The crystal darter is found in large creeks and rivers with extensive clean sand and gravel raceways. In Mississippi, crystal darters may be extirpated from the Tombigbee River, as they have not been collected since shortly after it was completed. There are other records from Pearl River system and Bayou Pierre.
Bayou darter (Etheostoma rubrum), Federally listed as threatened, State-listed as endangered

The bayou darter distribution is very localized and found in Bayou Pierre and its tributaries in Copiah County. The largest concentrations occur in sections of Bayou Pierre and Foster Creek, north of State Highway 548. Bayou darter prefers stable, moderately swift riffles of large gravel and rock in creeks and small to medium rivers.
Pearl Darter (Percina aurora), candidate for Federal listing

The Pearl darter are thought to be extirpated from the Pearl River, but is extant in the Pascagoula River system, including the Leaf River. Records occur in a variety of habitats ranging from silt, gravel, and cobble substrates, in shallow to deep water.
Ironcolor shiner (Notropis chalybaeus), State-listed as endangered

This shiner occurs in low gradient coastal streams along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. In Mississippi, surveys in 1995–1996 did not find any ironcolor shiners at 15 historic locations. During this survey, a new locality was recorded in extreme southeastern Mississippi in the Escatawapa River (Albanese and Slack 1998).
Frecklebelly madtom (Noturus munitus), State-listed as endangered

This fish occurs chiefly in rocky riffles in medium to large rivers. In Mississippi, the current range is restricted to the Tombigbee and Pearl River systems.
Greenside darter (Etheostoma blennioides), State-listed as endangered

Habitat preferences are variable; often in medium to large creeks and small to medium rivers with gravelor rubble-strewn riffles, although they also occur in silt-free, shallow bedrock pools with steady current, and sometimes inhabit relatively quiet lake shores. In Mississippi, records are from the northeastern corner of the State in Tishomingo County.
Saltmarsh topminnow (Fundulus jenkinsi) Federal candidate for listing

This coastal species is found in cord grass marshes. During a recent survey, 90 percent of the saltmarsh topminnow was found in water with less than or equal to 12 percent salinity. In Mississippi, there are scattered records along the coast, including the Simmons Bay, Old Fort Bayou, Biloxi Bay, and Bay St. Louis.
Bigeye shiner (Notropis boops), State-listed as endangered

This fish is generally confined to upland streams in the Mississippi River Basin from the Tennessee and Ohio River Basins west to Missouri and Arkansas. In Mississippi, there are records from the Tennessee River system in the northeastern portion of the State.
Slenderhead darter (Percina phoxocephala), State-listed as endangered

This species is found in runs and riffles of creeks and small to medium rivers with moderate to strong flow and gravel, rubble, or bedrock substrate. In Mississippi, records are from Tishomingo County in the northeast corner of the State.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-73

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Suckermouth minnow (Phenacobius mirabilis) State-listed as endangered

This bottom-feeding minnow is found in low-gradient and moderate-gradient rivers and large creeks. In Mississippi, there are records in Tishomingo County.
Southern redbelly dace (Phoxinus erythrogaster) State-listed as endangered

This dace is generally found in headwater streams and upland creeks. In Mississippi, there are records from Tallahatchie, Tishomingo, Warren, Wilkinson, and Yazoo Counties.
Slender madtom (Noturus exilis) State-listed as endangered

This species uses a wide range of depths and current velocities. In Mississippi, there are records from Tishomingo County.
Mussels

The following mussel species are Federally or State-listed in Mississippi.

Table 3-13. Federally and State-listed Mussel Species in Mississippi
Federally and State-listed Mussel Species in Mississippi
Alabama moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus) Black clubshell (Pleurobema curtum) Delicate spike (Elliptio arctata) Fat pocketbook (Potamilus (=Proptera) capax) Flat pigtoe (Pleurobema marshalli) Heavy pigtoe (Pleurobema taitianum) Inflated heelsplitter (Potamilus inflatus) likely extirpated from the State Kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus fasciolaris) Monkeyface (Quadrula metanevra) Orange-nacre mucket (Lampsilis perovalis) Ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum) Pyramid pigtoe (Pleurobema rubrum) Sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphus) T E E E

Federal Status
T E

State Status
E E E E E E

Critical Habitat Designated
Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

County Occurrence Records
Lowndes and Monroe Counties Monroe County George, Leake, Lowndes, Monroe, and Simpson Counties Adams, Issaquena, and Jefferson Counties Lowndes County Lowndes and Itawamba Counties

Yes

NA (Pearl and Tombigbee Rivers)

E E E

No No Yes

Tishomingo County Clay, Lowndes and Monroe Counties Itawamba, Lowndes, and Monroe Counties Clay, Itawamba, Lowndes, and Monroe Counties, potential habitat in those counties bordering the Mississippi River Coahoma, Hinds, Humphreys, Sunflower, Warren, and Washington Counties Sunflower County

Yes

3-74

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

Federally and State-listed Mussel Species in Mississippi
Slabside pearlymussel (Lexingtonia dolabelloides) Snuffbox (Epilblasma triquetra) Southern clubshell (Pleurobema decisum) Southern combshell (Epioblasma penita) Spike (Elliptio dilatata) Stirrupshell (Quadrula stapes)

Federal Status

State Status
E E

Critical Habitat Designated
No No Yes Yes No Yes

County Occurrence Records
NA (Lake Pontchartrain) Tishomingo County Clay, Itawamba, Lowndes, and Monroe Counties Clay, Itawamba, Lowndes, and Monroe Counties Benton and Sunflower Counties Lowndes County

E E

E E E

Crayfish Camp Shelby burrowing crawfish (Fallicambarus gordoni), a Federal candidate for listing, Statelisted as endangered

This crayfish is restricted to bogs in pitcher plant wetlands in the Leaf River watershed, in the De Soto National Forest in Perry County, Mississippi.
Insects Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii), Federally listed as endangered

There are recent records of this butterfly in Prentiss and Tishomingo Counties in northeastern Mississippi.
Plants Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis), Federally listed as threatened

Louisiana quillwort is restricted to shallow blackwater streams in riparian woodland and bayhead forest areas of pine flatwoods. The plants are found on stable sand and gravel bars, moist overflow channels with silty sand substrates, and on low, sloping banks near and below water level. In Mississippi, there are records from Jackson and Perry Counties.
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), Federally listed as endangered

Pondberry habitat is characterized as seasonally flooded wetlands, such as floodplain hardwood forests and forested swales. Pondberry is usually found in shade but tolerates full sun. In Mississippi, there are records of approximately 204 colonies, primarily in the Delta National Forest (192 colonies in the Delta National Forest and 12 colonies on private lands approximately 65 miles north of the Forest) (GSRC 2002).
Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana), Federally listed as threatened

Price’s potato bean is an herbaceous twining perennial vine typically located under mixed hardwoods or in associated forest clearings, often where bluffs or ravine slopes meet creek or river bottoms. Soils are generally well-drained and loamy, formed on alluvium or over calcareous boulders. Several populations extend onto road or powerline ROWs. There are four populations in Mississippi located in three counties: Clay, Oktibbeha, and Lee (Norquist 1990).

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-75

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

August 2008

American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana), Federally listed as endangered

American chaffseed is a perennial member of the figwort family found in acidic, sandy, or peaty soils in open pine flatwoods, pitch pine lowland forests, seepage bogs, palustrine pine savannahs, and other grassand sedge-dominated plant communities. It frequently grows in ecotonal areas between peaty wetlands and xeric sandy soils. In these situations, individuals sometimes extend well into the drier communities but seldom into the areas that support species characteristic of wetter soils. Surrounding plant communities are typically rich in species diversity. There are historic records from Jackson County.

3.4.7

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management

Characteristics of wildfire in southeastern States are discussed in Section 3.2.7; however, the southern one-third of Mississippi generally tends to have the most wildland fire activity (Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). Mississippi’s forests and associated species are adapted to regular wildland fire. However, changing land use practices, urban sprawl, land fragmentation, natural disasters such as hurricanes, increasing land values, population increases, and the transition from urban to rural populations results in a buildup of fuels and a need to increase fuels management and wildland fire activities (Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). Through the course of an average year in Mississippi, there are 3,635 individual wildland fires that burn 47,597 acres per year over the last 5 years (fiscal years 2000– 2004) (MFC 2004). The average wildfire size is approximately 10 acres per fire (MFC 2004). Although Mississippi has WUI areas across the State, relatively few homes and structures are lost to wildland fires annually. An average of 12 homes and eight other structures are lost each year to wildland fires. There are usually 15 vehicles damaged or destroyed by wildland fire each year (Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). The Mississippi Forestry Commission (MFC) is responsible for protecting 14.8 million acres of private non-industrial forestland within the State (Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). MFC provides forest protection through the placement of county fire crews and by working closely with Federal agencies through cooperative agreements and Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) (Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). On Federally managed lands (9.8 percent of the forestland base), the MFC has mutual aid agreements to support Federal wildland fire suppression efforts. Timber companies suppress wildland fires on their property and at times assist in suppression efforts on private lands (Southern Group of State Foresters 2004). Since forestlands and species in Mississippi are adapted to regular disturbance by wildland fires to maintain forest health, but suppression activities limit the role of natural wildland fires, managed fuels treatments are needed to maintain forest health. Table 3-14 shows the fuels treatments completed in Mississippi by Department of the Interior agencies and USFS. The BLM did not conduct any fuels treatments in Mississippi over these 4 years. Over 95 percent of these treatments were completed by the USFS using prescribed fires approximately 80 percent of the time. Over 96 percent of Federal fuels treatments were applied in WUI areas.

Table 3-14. DOI and USDA Fuels Treatment Accomplishments for Mississippi (Acres)
Year
2006 2005 2004

Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Mechanical Total
101,385 256,138 251,924 117,052 18,879 10,496 218,437 275,017 262,420

Fire
2,847 10,312 16,820

Other Mechanical
846 27 672

Total
3,693 10,339 17,492

Total
222,130 285,356 279,912

3-76

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

Year
2003

Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Mechanical Total
264,855 605 265,460

Fire
6,598

Other Mechanical
466

Total
7,064

Total
272,524

Source: http://www.fireplan.gov/overview/States/ms.html, accessed March 2, 2007

Fuels treatments, including prescribed fire, are also implemented by the MFC on the private and Stateowned forests. In addition, the MFC provides training and permitting to ensure that fuels treatments in these areas, and prescribed fire in particular, are completed in a manner that protects firefighter and public safety, as well as capital improvements and natural resources.

3.4.8

Cultural Resources

Mississippi surface and non-USFS FMO tracts have not been fully surveyed for cultural resources. The surveys that have been conducted were usually initiated by project proponents on a project-specific basis, such as for oil and gas, coal mining, transportation, or water projects, to comply with the requirements of Section 106 of NHPA, 36 CFR Part 800, described in Section 3.2.8. A cultural resources literature and records search was conducted for the BLM surface and non-USFS FMO tracts in the State of Mississippi. The results of the research are presented in an overview (Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 2005a) that is on file at the BLM office in Jackson. The following cultural resource information was taken from Panamerican Consultants Inc. (2005b), unless otherwise noted. Descriptions of the prehistoric periods are provided in Table 3-5. Cultural resources from any of these time periods may be present on BLM-administered surface and non-USFS FMO.

Prehistory
A variety of cultural resource site types attributed to a range of culturally distinct chronological periods from 10,000-plus years ago to the present day have been recorded in the Southeast. The cultural periods represented include Paleoindian, Archaic, Gulf Formational, Woodland, Mississippian, and Protohistoric. Descriptions of the prehistoric periods and general types of cultural materials associated with each one are provided in Table 3-5 in Section 3.2.8.

History
A wealth of Mississippi history is associated with American Indian inhabitants, European exploration, multiple battles, and the evolution of Southern culture. These events, discussed below, provide the context and relative importance of the cultural site types that may be encountered on BLM-administered surface and non-USFS FMO. From the 16th to the 19th century, Spain, France, and England fought for domination and possession of the territories and resources in the southeastern United States. European exploration of this area was discussed in Section 3.2.8. Mississippi was home to many American Indian groups during this time, but European disease epidemics and Chickasaw slave raids greatly reduced their populations (Galloway 1995). The three best known American Indian groups in Mississippi are the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Natchez (Cushman 1899). The Choctaw, who had the largest population, occupied most of southeastern Mississippi and a portion of western Alabama. The Chickasaw occupied the northeastern section of Mississippi and claimed western Tennessee as a hunting ground. The Natchez occupied the loess bluffs overlooking the Mississippi River in southwestern Mississippi. If any cultural material potentially tied to

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-77

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

August 2008

these Indian Nations is encountered, Federally recognized Native American tribes will need to be consulted before any undertaking, as discussed in Section 3.2.8. After the American Revolution, the lands east of the Mississippi River became part of the United States. The Mississippi Territory was created in 1798, and Mississippi became a State in 1817 (Bettersworth 1959; Haynes 1973). The largest population growth and county organization in Mississippi history occurred between 1832 and 1854 (Gonzales 1973). Numerous railroads were chartered, seagoing steamboats came upriver to Natchez, and many domestic travel improvements were made. Land development, the rise of cotton as a major cash crop, and easier means of transporting goods contributed to the State’s growing prosperity. Slavery played a vital role in the growth and production of cotton and became a contentious issue in Mississippi and the other States. The pro-slavery States began to move toward secession from the Union, and in 1861, Mississippi voted to secede (Bettersworth 1959). The Mississippi River was of great importance to the Union because it kept the Midwest commerce moving and was a major focus for Northern generals during the Civil War. In 1865, the war ended and the slaves were emancipated, which dramatically affected Southern agriculture and economics. Sharecropping and tenant farming became the common mode of farming after the abolition of slavery. In the late 1800s, manufacturing in the State was in the form of textile mills. The lumber industry became a growing economic force, as did the cottonseed and fertilizer industries (Bettersworth 1959). Mississippi’s centennial celebration was overshadowed by the entry of the United States into World War I. Camp Shelby, near Hattiesburg, was made a major training camp. One of the few air bases in the country was located near the town of Columbus (Bettersworth 1959). Following World War I, the Mississippi River Flood of 1927 covered nearly half of the delta with 30 feet of water for months (Barry 1998; Bettersworth 1959). Nearly 300,000 Black Americans migrated to northern cities as a result of this flood. Another result was the creation of several large flood-control steps by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Vicksburg (Barry 1998). The Depression followed the flood, and Mississippi’s economy was once again shattered (Emmerich 1973). World War II and military mobilization brought significant change to the State’s economy.

Cultural Sites
As discussed in Section 3.2.8, prehistoric or historic cultural resource sites, structures, or objects listed on or eligible for listing on NRHP are protected and managed as directed by 36 CFR 800. Cultural resources found ineligible for NRHP require no further archaeological work and are not protected by law. Sites are identified as undetermined/unknown when additional work is required to determine the site’s eligibility. The nature and location of any archaeological resources are protected under ARPA (also discussed in Section 3.2.8). Records were searched for 3,698 non-USFS FMO tracts in Mississippi. The records revealed 601 sites, of which 28 sites were considered eligible for NRHP. Most of the tracts have never been surveyed, and there is a high potential for finding additional archaeological sites. There are two sites listed on NRHP that are located near BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO tracts. Records were searched for the BLM surface tract in Mississippi, which cover 174 acres in Hancock County. This tract does not contain any previously recorded sites; however, there are three cultural sites recorded within one-half mile of the tract. There are 20 NRHP-listed properties in Hancock County (NRHP 2004), but only one NRHP-listed archaeological site is located within 800 meters of the tract. Cultural sites on adjacent lands could provide information on the potential for the occurrence and types of sites that could be discovered on the BLM surface tracts; however, these sites are not affected by BLM activities and management. Table 3-15 summarizes the cultural sites identified.

3-78

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

Table 3-15. Cultural Sites on BLM Surface and Non-USFS FMO Tracts in Mississippi
NRHP Status Tract Type
Non-USFS FMO Tracts Hancock County Surface Tract Areas Adjacent to the Surface Tract1
1

Total Sites
601 0 3

Potentially Eligible/ Eligible
28 0 3

Not Eligible
173 0 0

Undetermined/Unknown
400 0 0

One NRHP-listed archaeological site is located within 800 meters of the surface tract.

3.4.9

Visual Resources

Visual resources consist of the natural and manmade features that contribute to a particular environment’s aesthetics. These features may be natural (e.g., canyon views) or manmade (e.g., city skyline). Together, they form the overall impression of an area referred to as the landscape character. Visual resources also have a social setting, which includes public values, awareness, and concern about visual quality. VRM classifications are established for public lands so that visual resource values can be maintained through informed management decisions. Current conditions of visual character on the BLM-administered surface tracts are discussed in Section 3.5. The visual resource inventory process contained in BLM Handbook H-8410-1 provides the BLM managers guidance for determining visual values. The inventory consists of scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity level analysis, and delineation of distance zones. Based on these three factors, BLMadministered lands are placed into one of four visual resource inventory classes. These inventory classes represent the relative value of the visual resource: Classes I and II are the most valued, Class III represents a moderate value, and Class IV has the least value. Management objectives have been assigned to each class. An area may be inventoried as VRM Class III, but a decision may be made to manage it as VRM Class IV, or vice versa. Cultural modifications may detract from the scenery, complement it, or improve the overall scenic quality of an area. Cultural modifications in landform/water and vegetation values and addition of structures will be considered in examining proposed resource management actions. The following VRM Class definitions from BLM Handbook H-8410-1 have been amended for the purpose of developing and implementing this RMP. Amendments incorporate the visual resource values provided by existing cultural features that are significant to the character of the landscape in Mississippi. • VRM Class I Objective. The objective of this class is to preserve the existing natural and cultural character of the landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not detract from the existing landscape character. VRM Class II Objective. The objective of this class is to retain the existing natural and cultural character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic should be low. Management activities may be visible but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural and/or cultural features of the characteristic landscape.

•

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-79

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

August 2008

•

VRM Class III Objective. The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing natural and cultural character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may be visible but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should blend with the natural environment. VRM Class IV Objective. The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that require significant modification of the existing landscape or the existing character of the natural and cultural landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of the casual observer’s attention; however, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through selective location, minimal disturbance, and repetition of basic elements.

•

3.4.10

Minerals

There are 517,934 acres of BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO in Mississippi that underlie various surface ownership. Surface owners include the BLM, DoD, NPS, USFWS, and other Federal agencies. Table 3-16 shows BLM-administered FMO by surface ownership in Mississippi.

Table 3-16. BLM-administered Federal Mineral Ownership by Surface Ownership
Surface Ownership
BLM DoD NPS USFWS Other Federal Agencies Non-Federal surface TOTAL non-USFS FMO USFS TOTAL FMO (includes USFS)

Federal Mineral Ownership in Mississippi (Acres)
174 40,580 2,797 60,207 12,766 401,410 517,934 1,055,227 1,573,161

Minerals—Oil and Gas
The first oil and gas exploration in Mississippi was undertaken in 1903. The Alabama-Mississippi Investment and Development Company in Enterprise, Mississippi, drilled the first well just east of Enterprise in Clarke County. It was a dry hole that was drilled to 1,842 feet. The first commercial discovery occurred near Amory, Mississippi, in Monroe County in October 1926, when gas flowed from the 2,404-foot Amory Petroleum Company Carter Oil #1 well. As of April 2005, there are 27 active oil and gas wells on BLM non-USFS FMO according to data from the Automated Fluid Mineral Management System. Mississippi oil and gas production data from the Mississippi Oil and Gas Board were available for the period 1951–2004. The number of wells increased from 1,780 in 1951 to 4,307 in 2003. The number of wells peaked at 4,530 wells in 1990. Oil production decreased from 27,494,492 barrels in 1990 to 17,238,528 barrels in 2004. Oil production was at its lowest in 2004 and peaked at 65,119,072 barrels in 1970. Gas production decreased from 200,980,232 mcf in 1990 to 174,438,213 mcf in 2004. As of April

3-80

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

2005, 1,223 Federal leases are authorized in Mississippi. There are 42 existing leases on non-USFS FMO and 1,181 leases on USFS FMO. Map 3-1 shows counties in Mississippi with historical oil and gas production. Reasonable foreseeable development is anticipated in the areas of historical oil and gas production (BLM 2004b). The areas of historical production are the salt basin and the coastal plain. The BLM projects that 10 wells accessing non-USFS FMO in Mississippi will be drilled over the next 20 years (BLM 2004b).
Salt Basin

The salt basin is part of the Gulf Coast geosyncline that contains more than 50 piercement-type salt domes (Spiers and Gandl 1980). The individual salt domes evolved from the uprising of salt from the extensive Jurassic Louann Salt Formation through the overlying sediments. These piercement structures have deformed the younger units. Oil and gas have been found on the dome flanks in the past 20 years. The oldest rocks in the area penetrated by drilling are those of the Louann Salt. The salt is overlaid by Upper Jurassic sandstones, followed by a thick sequence of cretaceous deposits, which consist primarily of sandstone, limestone, and shale. The Cretaceous deposits are overlain by Tertiary deltaic deposits and alluvium of Quaternary or Recent age.
Coastal Plain

The coastal plain is a continuation of the same feature in the southern Alabama Basin. These lands are in an area dominated by the Gulf Coast geosyncline. This large basin formed in the Jurassic period with a southward downwarping. The basin has accumulated sedimentary deposits as thick as 30,000 feet. Fault zones parallel the basin hingeline and can trap hydrocarbons (Murray 1964). Other structural features, such as small basement highs, also trap hydrocarbons in this area. The deposits in the major geologic units mainly consist of alternating layers of sand and clay, with occasional beds of carbonates and anhydrite. Permeable horizons exist in all formations, and oil and gas are produced from each horizon in the region, with the Haynesville, Smackover, and Norphlet Formations being important (Cate 1982; Poe 1979; May 1974; Moore 1971; Dinkins 1968).

Leasable Minerals – Coal
Coal resources in Mississippi are not described because consideration of coal leasing in this Proposed RMP-FEIS is limited to the Warrior coal basin in Alabama. Development of Federal coal resources in Mississippi over the next 20 years is not economically viable because of the depth to the coal.

3.4.11

Recreation and Travel Management

Recreation encompasses various human activities that affect and are affected by resources and other resource uses. Dispersed recreation is characterized by unstructured activities that are not confined to specific locations (such as developed recreation sites). Dispersed recreation can involve various activities, which on the Mississippi surface tract can include saltwater marsh activities such as hunting, fishing, nature study, and boating. There are no roads on the Hancock County tract. The only effective means of transportation is by watercraft.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-81

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

August 2008

The BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO includes the mineral estate where the surface is managed by another Federal surface managing agency. These properties and installations managed by other Federal agencies as well non-Federal agencies such as private, State, or county are summarized in Table 3-17 and shown on Map 1-1 and Map 1-2. For those tracts where the surface is managed by another surface managing agency, and where public access for recreation and oil and gas leasing are permitted, recreation experiences and resulting benefits could be affected by the BLM management actions. Information on public recreation and minerals leasing on other Federal surface management agencies is listed in Table 3-17.

Table 3-17. BLM-administered, non-USFS Federal Mineral Ownership1 by Surface
Managing Agency in Mississippi

Surface Managing Agency Installations/Areas
Grand Bay NWR Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR USFWS Bogue Chitto NWR Panther Swamp NWR Hillside NWR Noxubee NWR Meridian Naval Air Station (Navy) Alpha Naval Auxiliary Station (Navy) Multipurpose Target Range (Navy) Aliceville Lake (Army Corps of Engineers) DoD Columbus Lake (Army Corps of Engineers) Aberdeen Lake (Army Corps of Engineers) Grenada Lake (Army Corps of Engineers) Enid Lake (Army Corps of Engineers) Sardis Lake (Army Corps of Engineers) Vicksburg National Military Park NPS Natchez-Trace National Parkway Gulf Island National Seashore Other small NPS sites Other Areas Managed by Other Federal Agencies

Public Access for Recreation (Yes/No)2
Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes ND ND ND Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Mineral Leasing (Open/Closed)2
Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Closed Closed Closed Closed Varies

ND means no information was available from the surface managing agency. 1 Does not reflect BLM FMO for BLM surface tracts (174 acres). 2 Closed means closed to new leases. Existing leases could be present on areas currently closed.

The BLM administration of travel resources in Mississippi is limited to access routes and associated access/maintenance routes for ROW such as transmission lines. Public travel routes are administered and maintained by other Federal, State, and local agencies. Information on tract-specific travel resources is contained in Section 3.5.
3-82 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

3.4.12

Lands and Realty

3.4.13

Social and Economic

The BLM surface lands for this planning effort in Mississippi are located in an isolated section of Hancock County. BLM-managed, non-USFS FMO is scattered throughout the State. Thus, the description of affected environment for Mississippi will focus on general socioeconomic information for the State, in addition to descriptions of notable statistics in counties within the State.

Economic Characteristics
Household and Personal Income

Median household income for Mississippi was $32,397 in 2003 (U.S. Census Bureau). Information on per capita income was obtained from U.S. Census Bureau and indicates that average per capita income reported for 2004 in Mississippi was $24,518. Gross State Product in 2003 was $72 billion (BEA). In 2005, Mississippi ranked fiftieth in the United States in per capita income (including the District of Columbia). According to BEA, Mississippi per capita income is 71 percent of the national average of $36,608 (2006 dollars). Some of the nation’s poorest counties are located in Mississippi, with approximately 13 counties that are within the 100 poorest counties in the nation in terms of per capita income. The counties and their associated average per capita income are located in Figure G-7 (Appendix G). These counties are located primarily along the western border of the State. In contrast, Mississippi does not have any counties that are within the wealthiest 100 counties in the nation. Rankin County, encompassing many of the suburbs of Jackson, has the highest per capita income of $30,849 in 2006 dollars.
Employment and Compensation

Employment for the State was 1.5 million in 2005 (BLS 2005). Figure F-8 (Appendix F) summarizes the employment by industry for 2005. In 2005, there were three large employers in Mississippi: Government (18 percent), manufacturing (12 percent), and retail trade (11 percent), comprising 41 percent of the total employment for the State. Other industries in the State include health care, accommodation and food service, and construction. Table 3-18 summarizes the employment by industry between 2000 and 2005.

Table 3-18. Employment by Industry, 2000–2005
Industries
Retail Trade Transportation

2000
171,882 51,141

2001
171,104 50,901

2002
170,592 49,587

2003
172,291 49,506

2004
172,384 48,992

2005
174,166 50,193

Percent Change 20002005
-1 2

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-83

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Industries
Finance and Insurance Real Estate Professional Services Administrative and Waste Services Health Care Accommodation and Food Services Other Services Government Farming Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Other Total Employment

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Percent Change 20002005
-1 19 20 20 15 12 13 1 -8 3 -18 -4 -8 6

47,734 38,092 56,268 68,605 124,422 118,503 84,969 277,404 50,367 90,915 183,425 39,751 101,789 1,505,277

47,357 35,730 52,825 63,810 122,515 119,166 84,979 281,982 50,874 85,724 184,519 39,250 102,410 1,493,146

47,282 32,986 50,148 59,262 120,171 117,468 80,702 281,442 51,031 85,348 183,613 38,667 102,265 1,470,564

47,530 32,833 48,683 57,212 116,127 114,441 80,009 277,815 53,668 86,899 192,715 38,814 104,382 1,472,925

47,128 32,070 48,081 54,206 111,908 106,631 76,930 275,254 53,062 86,020 205,517 39,102 112,102 1,469,614

47,986 32,089 46,980 57,252 108,386 106,168 75,441 273,722 54,955 88,129 224,759 41,262 111,184 1,492,672

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Government, retail trade, and construction industries have remained relatively stable over the past several years, while the manufacturing industry has decreased its employment in the State by 18 percent and the health care and accommodation and food services industries have increased employment by 15 and 12 percent, respectively. The unemployment rate in Mississippi has been consistently above the national average, as depicted in Figure G-9 (Appendix G). The employment rate peaked to 8.8 percent in 2005, likely as a result of the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. Figure G-10 (Appendix G) shows a map of Mississippi unemployment rates by county and indicates that the highest unemployment rates are in Jefferson, Sharkey, Humpreys, Holmes, and Noxubee Counties. Oil and gas also provide employment and income within the State. However, over the past 20 years, the BLM has permitted 7 wells of a total of 7,362 wells permitted within the State. Therefore, although these BLM-administered oil and gas resources do contribute to employment and earnings in this area, it is a fairly small amount.

Social Characteristics
Demographics Population trend data were obtained from the Census Bureau. Figure G-11 (Appendix G) shows the State’s population trend between 2000 and 2005, a percentage change of 3 percent over the 6-year time period. The densest counties include Hinds and Rankin, both comprising the Jackson metropolitan area,

3-84

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

as well as Harrison and Jackson Counties, on the southeastern coast. De Soto County, comprising the suburbs of Memphis, Tennessee, also has a relatively dense population. Counties that have fairly low population densities relative to the other counties in the State include Webster, Choctow, Quitman, Franklin, Jefferson, Issaquena, and Benton. Counties experiencing very high growth rates between 2000 and 2005 include De Soto (26 percent), Lamar (13 percent), and Rankin (13 percent). On the other hand, Issaquena and Sharkey Counties are decreasing in population: 15 and 9 percent, respectively. The median age of the State population in 2000 was estimated to be 33.8, which is slightly lower than the nation’s median of 35.3 (U.S. Census 2000).
Housing

In the State, 90.1 percent of the 1.1 million housing units were occupied in 2000. Homeowners inhabited 72.3 percent of the total occupied housing units. The State has a low homeowner vacancy rate, 1.6 percent, indicating that most of the owner-occupied homes in Mississippi are occupied by owners and are not second homes. The average household size for owner-occupied units is 2.67 people, as compared to 2.52 for rental-occupied units (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). In 2000, the median value of a housing unit was $71,400, 59 percent of the national median value of $119,600. Although the personal income is less than the national average (71 percent), the cost of housing is significantly lower (59 percent), indicating that the cost of living in Mississippi is likely lower than the nation, on average.
Education

Of the State’s population above age 25, 72.9 percent has graduated from high school and 16.9 percent holds a bachelor’s degree (U.S. Census 2000). This is lower than the national average for high school graduates (80.4 percent) and bachelor’s degree (24.4 percent). Ninety-six percent of the State’s population speaks English at home.
Attitudes and Beliefs of Mississippi Stakeholders

In Mississippi, the BLM has responsibility for a number of issues and decisions that could be important to stakeholders and their beliefs, including Federal land disposal and oil and gas development. This section will briefly describe stakeholders’ attitudes and beliefs related to these specific issues to provide a social context for these decisions. Public lands are important in providing a natural resource base for economic activities. The potential additional oil and gas development will be supported by some stakeholders and not by others. Stakeholders who support oil and gas development believe that domestic production of resources will reduce the nation’s dependency on foreign oil and gas sources and potentially affect prices. Additionally, the oil and gas industry has contributed to the tax base of both counties and the State, providing funds for local, regional, and State governments, infrastructure, schools, and other community services. Many people believe that this funding is vital to the economy of Mississippi counties and the State. Conservation-focused stakeholders may not support oil and gas development or might support conditions and stipulations on development and production to reduce negative impacts to the surface and subsurface. These environmental stakeholders are concerned about erosion and water quality impacts associated with road and wellpad construction and water disposal in the production process. Some stakeholders believe that the potential long-term environmental risks of development are considerable compared to the shortterm benefit of the resource extracted. Additionally, these types of stakeholders believe that oil and gas impacts such as increased road building, associated road traffic, dust, and noise add to the negative impacts associated with this type of development.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-85

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

August 2008

Public land disposal may also be a contentious issue with the public. The BLM in Mississippi manages one pocket property, the Hancock County tract, located on the southern coast of Mississippi. Preservation-oriented stakeholders are concerned about protecting open spaces and limiting development on these lands, often to maintain a quality of life that the property provides. For example, quality of life attributes could include recreation, such as bird-watching or walking, solitude, and the knowledge that the property provides important wildlife habitat. Therefore, these types of stakeholders believe that keeping the surface lands in Federal ownership is preferable or selling these lands to organizations interested in preserving the lands. Developers might be interested in purchasing these lands for their economic value due to their location on the coast if the lands are buildable. Additionally, some people may feel that disposing of Federal lands provides fiscal revenues as private property taxes can be collected.

Environmental Justice
The environmental justice purpose and threshold criteria are provided in Section 3.2.13. Poverty level estimates for the State were estimated to be 19.9 percent, compared to the national average of 12.5 percent, as shown in Figure G-12 (Appendix G). The poverty levels in the State are below the set threshold of 20 percent for low-income populations. Table 3-19 shows the ten poorest counties in Mississippi and the associated percentage of the population below poverty, located primarily along the western border of the State.

Table 3-19. Poorest Counties in Mississippi
Counties
Wilkinson County Jefferson County Coahoma County Washington County Leflore County Sharkey County Issaquena County Humphreys County Sunflower County Holmes County
Source: Bureau of Census, 2000

Percent of Population Below Poverty
28.1 28.2 28.4 28.5 29.5 29.5 29.6 30.2 30.5 32.4

Ethnicity information for the State was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau and is summarized in Figure G-13 (Appendix G). In 2005, the State was predominantly Caucasian (61.2 percent). The remaining race distribution is Black or African American (36.9 percent), Hispanic or Latino (1.7 percent), Asian (0.7 percent), two or more races (0.6 percent), American Indian or Native Alaskan (0.4 percent), and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (0 percent). The ethnic representation in Mississippi indicates than on average Mississippi has fewer minorities than the rest of the nation. There are obvious variations in ethnicity across the State. In 2000, 24 of the 82 counties in Mississippi have Black or African American populations of greater than 50 percent (Bureau of Census 2000). Sixteen counties in Mississippi have Blacks or African Americans representing 60 percent or greater of the population. These 16 counties and the percentage of Black and African Americans are shown in Table 3-20.
3-86 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Statewide Perspective

Table 3-20. Mississippi Counties with Black or African American Populations, 2000
Counties
Bolivar Claiborn Coahoma Hinds Holmes Humphreys Issaquena Jefferson Leflore Noxubee Quitman Sharkey Sunflower Tunica Washington Wilkinson
Source: Bureau of Census, 2000

Percent of County Representing Black or African American Ethnicity
65.1 84.1 69.2 61.1 78.7 71.5 62.8 86.5 67.6 69.3 68.8 69.3 69.9 70.2 64.6 68.2

3.4.14

Hazardous Materials

BLM-administered public lands and minerals provide opportunities for a variety of commercial uses in addition to resource management. Both activities can lead to releases of hazardous substances and creation of hazardous waste sites. The BLM engages in hazardous material emergency response actions, site evaluations, and prioritization of cleanups in accordance with laws and regulations. This involves working with the EPA, State environmental quality departments, counties, and potentially responsible parties (both public and private) to fund and expedite the cleanup of hazardous sites. Those sites that are an imminent threat to public health and safety, as well as those sites that are under a consent order and can, therefore, generate penalties and fines, are a priority for the Bureau. There are no known hazardous, toxic, or unapproved solid waste sites on public lands within the planning area.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-87

Chapter 3-Mississippi Surface Tract Description

August 2008

3.5 MISSISSIPPI SURFACE TRACT DESCRIPTION
The surface tract descriptions in this section include available detail on the Hancock County tract described in Chapter 2. General information and tract-specific information on soil resources, water resources, vegetative communities, fish and wildlife, special status species, cultural resources, visual resources, recreation and travel management, and lands and realty are provided. Air quality, wildland fire ecology and management, minerals, and social and economic conditions are discussed in Section 3.4. General. This section provides basic location and size of the surface tract, as well as available background information. Soil Resources. This section provides a table of the soils present at the tract, the erosion hazard potential as indicated by NRCS, and the presence of prime or unique farmlands (defined in Section 0). Water Resources. This section describes which drainage basin the surface tract is within. Vegetative Communities. This section summarizes the vegetative communities related to the tract. An analysis of the available GAP data was used to delineate the vegetative communities on the surface tracts. The GAP is coordinated by the Biological Resources Division of USGS. Fish and Wildlife. This section summarizes the fish and wildlife species associated with the tract. GAP provides geographic information on the status and location of species and their habitat. The GAP is coordinated by the Biological Resources Division of USGS. Special Status Species. This section summarizes the special status species associated with the tract. GAP provides geographic information on the status and location of species and their habitat. The GAP is coordinated by the Biological Resources Division of USGS. Available special status species occurrences on the tracts are discussed. Appendix E provides additional information on special status species in the areas around the surface tract. Cultural Resources. This section summarizes the known sites and cultural resources survey information for the surface tract. Visual Resources. This section addresses the visual setting of the surface tract. The surface tract is currently classified according to a VRM system. VRM Classifications are described in Section 0. The Hancock County tract has not been inventoried for VRM classification. Recreation and Travel Management. This section addresses the existing recreational and travel management activities on the surface tract. Lands and Realty. This section addresses the lands and realty actions associated with the surface tract, including withdrawals, disposals, and ROW actions.

3.5.1
General

Hancock County Tract

One tract comprising about 174 acres in Hancock County, Mississippi, was patented to the University of Mississippi in 1961 under the R&PP Act; however, the patent contains a reversionary clause. This

3-88

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Surface Tract Description

Proposed RMP-FEIS provides for management of these tracts should the patent be revoked and the tracts returned to the BLM administration.

Soil Resources
The soil classification for the Hancock County tract is provided in Table 3-21.

Table 3-21. Soil Classification for the Hancock County Tract
Soil Type Description
Somewhat excessively drained soils, nearly level to steep areas of coastal plain; surface and subsurface consisting of sands and subsoils consisting of a fine loamy sand Very poorly drained soils in tidal marshes; surface layers of mucky silt loam

Erosion Hazard

Prime Farmland

Eustis loamy fine sand, 2 to 5 percent slope

Slight

Handsboro association

None

Water Resources
The Hancock County tract is located within the Coastal Streams drainage basin.

Vegetative Communities
The 174-acre Hancock County tract is located in the Hancock Marshes Coastal Preserve, part of a Statedesignated 83,000-acre estuarine preserve system bordering the Mississippi Sound from the Pearl River to Point Clear. The 13,570-acre Hancock County Marshes unit protects the second largest continuous marsh area in the State. These coastal marshes include several low ridges and small hammocks, the most prominent in this unit being Point Clear Island and Campbell Island. These elevated sandy areas have characteristics similar to the barrier islands and include forested areas supporting slash pine with redcedar and sand live oak (Quercus geminata). The BLM tract is located in the center of the preserve and is bordered by Bryan Bayou to the north. The very southeastern corner of the tract includes a portion of Point Clear Island. The bulk of the tract is part of a needlerush marsh that dominates the area between Bayou Caddy/Bryan Bayou and Point Clear Island. Hurricane Katrina deposited substantial amounts of flotsam in some areas of the marshes. No exotic invasive species are known to occur on this tract, but cogon grass and torpedo grass are a concern in the area of Point Clear Island.

Fish and Wildlife
The marsh area is well known for an abundance of waterfowl and wading birds, including white-faced ibis and black-crowned night heron. Swallowtail kite numbers are high during the summer months.

Special Status Species
The special status species utilizing the Hancock County Marshes include mottled duck (Anas fulvigula), royal tern (Sterna maxima), Mississippi diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin pilea), Gulf salt snake (Nerodia clarkii clardii), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), least tern (Serna antillanum),
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-89

Chapter 3-Mississippi Surface Tract Description

August 2008

American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates), and gull-billed tern (Sterna nilotica). The islands of this marsh support several rare plant species, including the tiny-leaved buckthorn (Sageretia minutiflora), which in this area is restricted to rare shell middens.

Cultural Resources
The Hancock County tract has not been surveyed. However, three cultural sites are recorded within onehalf mile of the tracts.

Visual Resources
The Hancock County tract is remote and not visible from residential or other types of development. The visual character is low-lying wetlands with relatively dense vegetation and limited human activity.

Recreation and Travel Management
The Hancock County tract is patented to the University of Mississippi for the purposes of research and recreation. The tract is used for dispersed recreation, but it is primarily wetland and is not easily accessible to the public. Travel to the area is generally by boaters and anglers on an occasional and seasonal basis for fishing and waterfowl hunting.

Lands and Realty
The Hancock County tract was patented to the University of Mississippi in 1961, under the authority of the R&PP Act. The tract is still owned by the University. Under terms of the patent, the tract is to be used only for recreational and research site purposes. The patent contains a clause stating that ownership of the surface estate will revert to the United States if the land is devoted to a use other than that for which the land was conveyed. It is expected that the University will relinquish this tract and that title will revert to the United States. In anticipation of the title transfer, this tract is being considered BLM-managed surface estate for land use planning purposes. There are no ROWs on the tract, and no request for ROW or other uses are expected in this relatively remote area.

3-90

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 3-Mississippi Surface Tract Description

This page intentionally left blank.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

3-91

August 2008

Chapter 4-Introduction

CHAPTER 4—ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter evaluates potential environmental impacts that could occur from implementing management actions included in each of the alternatives discussed in Chapter 2 for Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered surface tracts and non-U.S. Forest Service (non-USFS) Federal mineral ownership (FMO) in Alabama and Mississippi1. Potential impacts considered in this chapter include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, and health (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §1508.8) impacts. The baseline used for determining the potential impacts is the current resource condition described in Chapter 3. Resources are discussed in the same order that they are presented in Chapter 3. The analysis focuses on impacts that could eventually result in on-the-ground changes by planning for uses on surface and non-USFS FMO tracts over the next 20 years. Some BLM management actions may affect only certain resources and only under certain alternatives. Some impacts may be from actions that are common to all alternatives. If an activity or action is not addressed in a given section, no impacts are expected or the impact is expected to be minimal.

4.1.1

How to Read This Chapter

This chapter is divided into four sections: • Introduction (Section 4.1). This section provides direction on How to Read This Chapter (Section 4.1.1), presents the approach to the analysis including types of effects (Section 4.1.2), and discusses availability of data and incomplete information (Section 4.1.3). Direct and Indirect Impacts from BLM Management Actions in Alabama (Section 4.2). This section discusses potential impacts anticipated from implementation of management actions under each alternative for the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts in Alabama and 313,819 acres of non-USFS FMO in 57 Alabama counties, mostly composed of split-estate. Direct and Indirect Impacts from BLM Management Actions in Mississippi (Section 4.3). This section discusses the potential impacts anticipated from implementation of the management actions under each alternative for the Hancock County tract in Mississippi and for non-USFS FMO on about 517,934 acres in 79 Mississippi counties, mostly composed of split-estate. Impacts from the allowable uses and management actions proposed for the Hancock County tract are analyzed if the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) patent held by the University of Mississippi were to revert to the BLM.

•

1 In those areas where (1) the Federal land surface is administered by the USFS, and (2) planning decisions for surface management and for mineral leasing, pursuant to the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 and Federal regulation (36 CFR 228.102), are the responsibility of USFS, and (3) BLM has responsibility for issuing and administering mineral leases; the RMP will not include management decisions for the Federal minerals on these lands, and BLM will carry out its minerals management responsibilities under the guidance of USFS land use plans. At the same time, surface and minerals management actions and development activities anticipated on these lands will be taken into account for purposes of cumulative impact analysis.
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-1

Chapter 4-Introduction

August 2008

•

Cumulative Impacts (Section 4.4). This section discusses the potential cumulative impacts anticipated from implementation of the BLM management actions proposed for Alabama and Mississippi in the context of other actions occurring across the State, including other Federal agency and non-Federal actions.

4.1.2

Approach to the Analysis

This section provides the basic framework used in the impacts analysis. Definitions of types of effects and terminology, general types of impacts analyzed for each resource, analytical assumptions, and cumulative projects and activities considered in the analysis are further discussed in the following subsections.

Types of Effects
The analysis of the alternatives focused on identifying types of impacts and estimating their potential significance. Throughout this chapter, the terms “impact” and “effect” are synonymous. Although impacts may be perceived as positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse), those determinations are left for the reader of this document to make. An overview of impacts is presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Types of Impacts
Type
Direct Impacts

Description
These are effects caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. For example, elimination of original land use through erection of a structure. Direct impacts may cause indirect impacts, such as ground disturbance resulting in resuspension of dust. These are effects that are caused by the action but occur later in time or are further removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable and related to the action by a chain of cause and effects. Indirect impacts may reach beyond the natural and physical environment (e.g., environmental impact) to include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes to resource users (e.g., social impact). These are effects that result from the incremental impact of the action when it is added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions that take place over time.

Indirect Impacts

Cumulative Impacts

For ease of reading, impacts presented are direct, broad (occurring within the larger planning area), and long term, unless otherwise noted as indirect, localized, or short term/temporary. Potential significant impacts are identified as they arise, and analysis of why an impact is considered significant is explained. The concept of significance requires consideration of the context, intensity, and duration of the impact. Context relates to environmental circumstances at the location of the impact and in the immediate vicinity, as well as the interests that are potentially affected. Intensity refers to the severity or extent of the impact or magnitude of change from existing conditions. Duration refers to the permanence and longevity of the impacts, which is depicted as short term or long term. Short term is defined as anticipated to begin and end within the first 5 years after the action is implemented. Long term is defined as lasting beyond 5 years to the end of or beyond the 20-year planning time frame addressed in the Resource Management Plan (RMP).

4-2

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Introduction

4.1.3

Availability of Data and Incomplete Information

As is typical in programmatic planning efforts, site-specific data is used to the extent possible and may not be entirely available. The best available information that is pertinent to management actions was used in developing the Proposed RMP and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Considerable effort has been taken to acquire and convert resource data into digital format for use in the plan—both from BLM sources and from outside sources, such as the Natural Heritage Program and the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Certain information was unavailable for use in developing this plan, usually because inventories were not conducted or complete. Some of the major types of unavailable data include Native American traditional use areas; cultural surveys; data collection of visitor use trends; visual resource inventory (VRI); field inventory of soils and water conditions; and field inventory of wildlife, vegetation, and special status species. As a result, some impacts cannot be quantified given the proposed management actions. Where this gap occurs, impacts are projected in qualitative terms or, in some instances, are described as unknown. Subsequent project-level analysis will provide the opportunity to collect and examine site-specific inventory data required to determine appropriate application of RMP-level guidance. In addition, ongoing inventory efforts by the BLM and other agencies within the planning area would be used to continue to update and refine information used to implement this plan.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-3

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

4.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS FROM BLM MANAGEMENT ACTIONS IN ALABAMA
This section discusses potential impacts anticipated from implementation of management actions under each alternative for the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts in Alabama and 313,819 acres of non-USFS FMO in 57 Alabama counties, mostly composed of split-estate. The section is organized by alternative, and then by resource. Under each resource, each management action is discussed, including vegetative communities, fish and wildlife habitat, minerals, recreation and travel, and lands and realty. A discussion of cumulative impacts for each resource is contained in Section 4.4.1.

4.2.1

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Air Quality
Under this alternative, there is a potential for wildfire which could lead to air emissions. Since all fires would be suppressed, these occurrences would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions. Certain BLM-authorized activities within the planning area, such as oil and gas development, construction activities, vehicle travel, and mechanical hand tools or prescribed burning used in vegetation and wildlife habitat manipulation, would produce emissions considered to be greenhouse gases (GHG), particularly carbon dioxide (CO2). However, due to the anticipated dispersed and infrequent nature of these activities, the project emissions would not have any noticeable or measurable effect and, therefore, the total contribution of GHGs from authorized activities would be small as well. Other BLM activities may help offset any emissions and sequester carbon, such as maintaining vegetative and forested cover, which may help build organic carbon in soils and function as “carbon sinks”.
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would deteriorate air quality conditions. Prescribed burning conducted to meet vegetation resource objectives would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would deteriorate air quality conditions. Prescribed burning conducted to meet habitat objectives would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions.

4-4

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Combustion processes, construction activities, and vehicle travel associated with potential oil and gas development and coal mining produce air emissions. Estimated emissions from the development of 20 wells over the next 20 years on BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO would produce considerably less emissions than the combined emissions from total planned oil and gas developments in the State (presented in Table 4-2). Those emissions would likely occur over a dispersed geographic area and would, therefore, not cause any noticeable or measurable effect. Potential oil and gas leasing on BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO are in close proximity to the Sipsey Wilderness and the Birmingham nonattainment area. These emissions could potentially deteriorate wilderness air quality values and jeopardize ambient air quality attainment. Since emissions would be dispersed over a large geographic area, air quality impacts would not be anticipated. On the basis of a conservative estimate, it is anticipated that 1.9 million tons of Federal coal would be produced annually over the next 20 years (BLM 2005b). The results are shown in Table 4-3. Since the analysis is qualitative and coal production data are limited throughout the State, a comparison with best available data from the Warrior Basin is provided. As shown in Table 4-3, BLM-proposed coal mining activities are less in comparison to the Warrior Basin activities and will, therefore, produce much less emissions.

Table 4-2. Maximum Potential Oil and Gas Air Emissions for BLM and Non-BLM
Activities in Alabama (tons per year)1, 2

Emission Type/Pollutant Well Locations Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
110 21,460

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
1.7 332

Particulate Matter (PM10)
35.1 6,815

Carbon Monoxide (CO)
111 21,761

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
67.1 13,947

BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO Estate in Alabama Other Mineral Estate Across Alabama

1. Using conservative assumptions typical of liquid mineral wells on BLM lands. 2. Assumption that 25 percent of wells are conventional natural gas wells and 75 percent wells are coalbed natural gas wells (BLM 2005a).

Table 4-3. Maximum Potential Coal Mining Air Emissions for BLM and Non-BLM
Activities in Alabama (tons per year) 1, 2

Mine Locations
BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO Estate in Alabama Warrior Basin

NOx
61.2 684

Emission Type/Pollutant SO2 PM10 CO
6.8 76 48.6 5,433 108.0 1,207

VOC
5.7 64

1. Using Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved emissions factors and conservative assumptions typical of western surface mines, because emission factors do not exist for eastern surface mining. Assumption that all emissions eventually are introduced into the environment (EPA 1995 and BLM 2004a).

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-5

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Short-term, localized increases in dust and emissions could potentially occur from recreation activities and travel on unpaved roads. Given the small amount and scattered nature of surface ownership, these activities would not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Short-term, localized increases in dust and emissions would occur from use of trucks and heavy equipment (bulldozers, etc.) in right-of-way (ROW) development. These actions would be conducted in accordance with the Alabama State Implementation Plan (SIP) and local dust control regulations; however, given the small amount and scattered nature of surface ownership, lands and realty management actions would not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions or violate air quality standards or regulations.

Soil Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in disturbance or loss of soils.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Mineral exploration, development, and operations on non-USFS FMO would include ground-disturbing and potential contaminant-introducing activities that could impact soils. Oil and gas development operations—specifically, construction of drilling pads, reserve pits, and access roads—would disturb topsoils and alter surface soil characteristics, which could result in both a slight decline in soil productivity and an increase in surface runoff. Shallow coalbed methane wells generally require small 1to 2-acre wellpads. Because much of the Black Warrior River Basin has very rolling terrain, up to 3 acres could be needed to construct a suitably flat drillpad. Cut and fill areas to support these pads and access routes can contribute to local soil erosion, especially when heavy or persistent rains typical of this region exacerbate the situation. Ground-disturbing activities in areas where the soils are classified as no or slight to moderate erosion hazard do not generally accelerate soil erosion. Since future coal development is anticipated to be subsurface and use existing infrastructure, these activities would not disturb the soils on the surface. Except for 8,179 acres closed to leasing by other surface management agencies, non-USFS FMO would be open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions (305,640 acres). The estimated 20 wells to be developed on non-USFS FMO in Alabama over the next 20 years would disturb approximately 105 acres. Both Federal and State laws would require the reclamation of mined lands concurrently with

4-6

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

mining operations; therefore, the required reclamation and the minimal surface that might be disturbed would produce only localized effects on soils. Operation of the oil and gas wells could also impact the surrounding soils by potential contamination from accidental spills or improper management of hazardous materials or waste; however, Federal, State, and local regulations would require site characterization and corrective action to restore soil integrity and productivity. In a few locations, there are prime or unique farmlands on non-USFS FMO. Though not likely, it is possible that some of the 105 acres of soil disturbance could be on prime or unique farmland. In the event that development is proposed in such an area, the BLM would implement appropriate mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts as described in Section 2.3.3.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Allowing recreation activities, including motorized vehicle use on the surface tracts, could result in shortterm and site-specific increases in erosion. Given the limited interest in recreation and travel on the surface tracts, any potential effects would be minor and localized.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

If construction were to occur in new or existing ROWs, soils could be impacted by vegetation-clearing activities and ground disturbance. Wind and water erosion, and subsequent loss in soil productivity would occur in disturbed areas where revegetation does not occur. These effects would be localized and short term in areas where revegetation is enhanced or permitted. The effect would be long term if roads or structures were constructed on the tracts, but they would be localized.

Water Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to water quality.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Except for 8,179 acres closed to leasing by other surface management agencies, non-USFS FMO would be open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions (305,640 acres). The estimated development of 20 wells in Alabama over the next 20 years would disturb approximately 105 non-USFS FMO acres. Both Federal and State laws would require the reclamation of mined lands concurrently with mining operations; therefore, the required reclamation and the minimal surface that might be disturbed would result in only localized effects on water resources.
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-7

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

Mineral exploration, development, and operations would include ground-disturbing activities that increase surface runoff, which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases water quality. These activities could also introduce hazardous waste or result in accidental spills that could also deteriorate surface water quality. Leakage of drill fluids, hazardous waste spills, or leakage from reserve pits could be introduced into the ground water as well. Although Federal, State, and local regulations would require site characterization and corrective action for hazardous waste and spills, impacts to the water quality could be localized but long term and especially affect nonflowing water bodies (e.g., small ponds or wetlands) and ground water resources. Additionally, access roads and wellpads can alter the local hydrology, reducing surface flow to mesic areas and diverting or degrading surface water. Installation of culverts and diverting existing drainages around wellpads can help to maintain existing hydrologic systems, but the disturbance causes local sedimentation and can retard sheet flow. The preferred method of disposal of water produced from oil and gas production would be underground injection. Reinjection of produced water would prevent impacts to surface water quality; however, a critical aspect of underground injection is finding a permanent formation with a concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) greater than 10,000 mg/L (Geological Survey of Alabama [GSA] 2005). In order to reinject produced water, an oil and gas operator must obtain a permit as required by the Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 7. The Environmental Potection Agency (EPA) has granted the State of Alabama primacy over the permitting of underground injection wells. The underground injection regulations address the siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and closing of an injection well. These requirements are designed to prevent contamination of surface and underground drinking water sources. At present, stream discharge is the most common method of water disposal produced from oil and gas production in the Warrior Basin.2 Although the surface discharge of produced water into water systems could potentially increase the salinity of surface waters and increase flow rates, resulting in increased soil erosion, operators must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (administered by Alabama Department of Environmental Management [ADEM]) to discharge produced water into streams in Alabama. The type of permit currently offered is a Tier II permit. This permit requires the monitoring of water quality in streams and limits instream TDS concentrations to 230 mg/L (GSA 2005). Because surface discharge of produced water would be a permitted activity requiring standards of water quality, direct impacts to water quality from the disposal of water produced from oil and gas production on non-USFS FMO would be minimized. Also, methods of disposing produced water, other than by reinjection, would be considered but would require preparation of additional National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) analysis that would identify conditions of approval (COA) or best management practices (BMP) to alleviate the potential for extensive harm to water quality. Impacts on ground water from coal mining operations would also occur. Approximately 9,000 acres of new coal leases in the Warrior Basin coal field would yield an estimated average of 1.9 million tons of coal per year over the next 20 years. Coal development in the Warrior Basin would involve mining of existing underground coal mines, which would further increase the potential for ground water contamination. Migration of contaminants into the surrounding soils and aquifers could degrade ground water quality and, thereby, affect wells and springs that may serve household and domestic uses.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Managing the surface tracts as open to recreation and motorized vehicle use could result in short-term and site-specific increases in erosion and surface runoff, which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases water quality. Given the limited interest in recreation and travel on the surface tracts, any potential effects would be minor and localized.
2 The term Warrior Basin is a geologic province. The Black Warrior Basin is the drainage area of the Black Warrior River.
4-8 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

If construction were to occur in new or existing ROWs, vegetation-clearing activities and construction ground disturbance would increase soil erosion and surface runoff, which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases water quality. Impacts would be short term in areas where revegetation was enhanced or permitted. The effect would be long term, if roads or structures were constructed on the tracts, but would be localized.

Vegetative Communities
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in the same impacts discussed under Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Impacts to vegetation from oil and gas development in Alabama are dependent on the location and design of wellpads, roads, and production facilities. Since 1983, all of the wells drilled on non-USFS FMO in Alabama have been in the Black Warrior River Basin, almost all in Tuscaloosa County. Typically vegetation in this area is dominated by oak/hickory/pine forests, much of it secondary growth managed as commercial timberlands. Older growth is most often found in steeper, more protected terrain, areas that could harbor mesic forests. Shallow coalbed methane wells generally require small 1- to 2-acre wellpads. Because much of the Black Warrior River Basin has very rolling terrain, up to 3 acres can be needed to construct a suitably flat drillpad. Cut and fill areas can contribute to local erosion and heavy or persistent rains typical of this region exacerbate the situation. This erosion can degrade the adjacent vegetation communities by burying herbaceous growth and stressing or killing trees by burying surface roots. Some sites require the installation of erosion blankets on slopes over 3:1, particularly if an adequate cover planting cannot be established or the wellpad is close to or above a creek, river, or wetland. During a routine wellpad installation, saleable timber would be removed from the site if logs are commercially viable, but otherwise it is cut and left onsite. Vegetation debris piles are stored along the edges of the construction site and may be buried onsite, burned, or left in place after drilling operations are completed. Vegetation debris is not permitted in the reserve pit, as it can disrupt future monitoring. During interim reclamation, the reserve pit area is graded and the surface is fertilized, seeded, and mulched. Although the operators are encouraged to use native seed, the final mix and tree planting are
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-9

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

approved by the private landowner or surface managing agency. By policy, the BLM excludes invasive species, although non-native grasses, particularly annual rye, Bahia, and Bermuda grass are used to establish a quick cover on disturbed slopes. These sites typically progress through “old field” stage as opportunistic pioneer plant species become established. Within a few years, young sapling pine and hardwoods become established. Faster growing pines generally dominate the site until gradually overtaken by longer lived hardwoods. It may take 100 years or more to reestablish hardwood forests with similar structure and even longer before species diversity returns to near pre-disturbance levels. Surface-disturbing activities have the potential to introduce or promote the spread of invasive, exotic plant species. Impacts are dependent on the species planted during restoration activities and the management of the site during and following restoration. Restoration activities typically include seeding non-native grasses, such as annual rye (during the winter months) and Bahia or Bermuda grass (during the summer months) to provide a quick cover for disturbed soils. Including native species in the mix increases diversity and provides a more natural structure. If these areas are mowed following abandonment, these non-native grasses are expected to persist and dominate the site; however, if the sites are replanted in pine or left unmowed, the areas can be expected to progress through old field type growth, which is dominated by opportunistic native and non-native species alike. Ultimately, both Bahia and Bermuda grass are expected to become shaded out as a tree or heavy shrub layer becomes established. Japanese honeysuckle and Chinese privet can both persist in shaded situations. Throughout the State, some plant communities, embedded in the larger forested landscape, are particularly sensitive to disruption and are difficult to restore after surface-disturbing activities. Many of these are restricted to a narrow range of soil types such as glades and prairies; others are sensitive to changes in hydrography, such as bogs, forested wetlands, and seepage slope communities. Construction activities in these plant communities generally alter the site sufficiently to preclude the reestablishment of these communities in the foreseeable future. Also, because of the limited acreage of these vegetation communities, loss of even the small acreages from BLM-permitted oil and gas activities has a disproportionate effect on the plant diversity in an area.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

The coastal dune habitat associated with the Fort Morgan Beach and Highway tracts could experience localized vegetation damage as a result of public foot traffic at traditional beach access points at Veterans Road and Mobile Road. Repetitive use erodes the dunes and keeps dune vegetation from becoming established, excluding use by Alabama beach mouse. At the Coosa River, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts, which contain sensitive wetland and riverine habitat, dispersed recreational use is primarily boat-related and is not expected to have substantial impacts on vegetation. Heavier recreation use on the southern portion of the Jordan Lake tract occurs as a result of the adjacent camps and keeps shrubs and forbs from establishing a natural riparian zone along this portion of Jordon Lake.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

New ROWs for access roads and utilities could occur on the Fort Morgan Highway or Beach tracts, where new disturbance is likely to total less than an acre. This is most likely to occur in upland scrub or flatwood communities. In addition, maintenance activities in existing ROW are likely to keep native plant communities from establishing a shrub or tree component and would foster the spread of invasive, exotic plant species, particularly cogon grass and Chinese tallow, both of which occur on or near the BLM highway tracts.

4-10

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

Fish and Wildlife
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No vegetative communities management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in habitat degradation on any of the BLM surface tracts. The maritime forests, scrubs, and flatwoods on the Fort Morgan Highway tracts are particularly vulnerable to cogon grass and Chinese tallow. Cogon grass could displace native grasses and forbs that provide foraging habitat for migratory and resident birds and would increase susceptibility of coastal scrub habitats to wildfire.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Oil and gas development on non-USFS FMO is expected to result in the disturbance of 105 acres. Impacts would include the direct loss of habitat from the construction of drillpads, production facilities, pipelines and roads, from degradation of nearby aquatic or wetland habitats through sedimentation or changes in hydrology, and from the surface discharge of water produced from coalbed methane wells. These impacts could occur in any of the oil and gas potential areas in the State, but have in the past been concentrated in Jefferson and Walker Counties in the Black Warrior River Basin. Wherever wells are constructed, impacts to general wildlife are dependent on the wellpad location, design, and need for additional access roads. Impacts to many wildlife species from oil and gas development are localized and temporary. Most common game species and other mobile wildlife species avoid the wellpad areas during construction. Less mobile species are directly impacted and during the spring and early summer; this can include nesting neotropical birds. Habitat generalists, including most game species, tend to return to surrounding habitats after the well is completed and construction activities have ceased; however, construction in high-value habitats or in areas with more narrowly adapted wildlife species can alter the overall species diversity. Wells and roads in areas of contiguous forests increase habitat fragmentation, reducing the suitability of the area for interior nesting birds and making nests more susceptible to predation and parasitism. Older-growth forests which provide habitat for interior forest nesting birds and a wider diversity of amphibians and reptiles are often located in riparian/wetland zones left as buffers during logging operations or in steeper, less accessible slopes. Oil and gas drilling continues for 24 hours a day until the well is completed. During this time, most wildlife, including waterfowl and many songbirds, are expected to avoid the immediate area; however, once drilling is completed, reserve pits with water can become a hazard for waterfowl and other birds which can become soiled by drilling fluids. If the well is put into production, there is documentation that birds and bats may use open-vent stacks for roosting or perching. Once in these stacks, animals can become trapped or asphyxiated. While much of the work documenting this problem has occurred in western States, the situation in Alabama is expected to be similar.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-11

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

Access roads and wellpads can alter the local hydrography and reduce surface flow to mesic areas and divert or degrade surface water supporting wetland habitats. Installation of culverts and diversion of existing drainages around wellpads help maintain existing hydrologic systems, but the disturbance causes local sedimentation and can retard sheet flow to wetland habitats. Amphibians and many reptiles associated with wetland communities are vulnerable to disturbance, as they are not highly mobile and tend to have narrow habitat requirements. For impacts from disposal of coalbed methane produced waters, see the special status species discussion.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

The coastal dune habitat associated with the Fort Morgan Beach and Highway tracts could experience localized vegetation damage and habitat loss as a result of frequent dispersed recreation use and lack of active recreation management. Noise and human presence associated with beach recreation could displace foraging shorebirds and result in reduced nesting efforts or success by beach nesting birds. Dispersed recreation use currently occurs on the Coosa River, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts, which contain sensitive wetland and riverine habitat. If recreation use became more frequent on these tracts in the long term, species susceptible to disturbance could be affected (such as freshwater snails, mussels, turtles, amphibians, migratory and shorebirds, and nesting species, as well as terrestrial wildlife, avifauna, and aquatic species). Recreational fishing on the Jordan Lake tract could result in surface disturbance resulting in damage to riparian/wetland areas and trampling of the understory that could further disturb riparian/wetland and aquatic species in the adjacent river.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

New or expanded ROWs on the Fort Morgan Highway tracts are anticipated to result in less than an acre of new disturbance. This acreage is expected to be near or on existing maintained ROW, and is likely to occur in coastal scrub habitats. This activity could be particularly disruptive during spring and fall migrations, when this narrow band of vegetation can support high numbers of migrating songbirds.

Special Status Species
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed could increase the potential for exotic, invasive species to become established or spread on the BLM surface tracts. Cogon grass at the Fort Morgan Highway tracts, in particular, has the potential to alter Alabama beach mouse critical habitat as it forms dense stands displacing native herbaceous plants and potentially increasing fire frequency and intensity. Under this alternative, the BLM would not actively promote the restoration of coastal dunes following damage by major storm events, which would promote sand deposition and facilitate the return of habitat conditions suitable for Alabama beach mouse.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements) would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed
4-12 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

could result in the same impacts discussed under Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Oil and gas development on non-USFS FMO in Alabama is expected to result in the disturbance of 105 acres, any of which could occur in habitats supporting special status species. Historically, oil and gas drilling on non-USFS FMO has occurred in the Black Warrior River Basin, but drilling on non-USFS FMO could occur anywhere in the State (outside of the 10 southeastern counties that do not contain nonUSFS FMO). Development interests are prompted by new oil and gas finds in the State, improvements in drilling and extraction technologies, and high prices. Because of this, there is some potential to impact almost any of the special status species in the State. Impacts to special status species could include the direct loss of habitat from the construction of drilling pads, production facilities, pipelines and roads; from degradation of nearby aquatic or wetland habitats through contamination, sedimentation, or changes in hydrology; and from the surface discharge of water produced from coalbed methane wells. The following discussion focuses on the potential for these activities to affect habitats that support the majority of the State’s special status species. In addition, individual species with established management guidelines, such as gopher tortoise, red-cockaded woodpecker, and bald eagle are also discussed. No development is anticipated on the BLM surface tracts, many of which support Federally listed species and contain designated critical habitat; however, the non-USFS FMO under those tracts could be developed through directional drilling. Given the high number and wide distribution of special status species in aquatic and wetland habitats in Alabama, all oil and gas activity near rivers, creeks, or wetland habitats has a high potential of affecting special status species in the immediate area or downstream of the disturbance. Impacts to aquatic and wetland habitats would occur through degradation of water quality through increased sedimentation or turbidity, contamination, direct loss of habitat, and changes in local hydrography. Disposal of water produced by coalbed methane wells in the Black Warrior River Basin also has the potential to affect special status species by increasing salinity and introducing other contaminants. Some special status species cannot tolerate increases in human activity and could be impacted directly by increases in vehicle activity and construction activities. Sedimentation and increased turbidity are a current threat to most of Alabama’s mussels and special status fish species. Increases in sedimentation to streams and wetlands by oil and gas development are a factor of wellpad design, erodibility of the soils, proximity of the disturbance, slope, and the intervening vegetation. The potential for sedimentation increases with prolonged or heavy rains that are typical in this area. Before protective plant covers have been established, cut and fill slopes are particularly vulnerable to erosion. Intact vegetation along riparian/wetland zones and around wetlands can substantially buffer these areas. Research has shown that a minimum of a 30-foot buffer of vegetation is needed to control sediments and maintain stream temperature; however, 100-foot buffers may be needed to protect stream invertebrates, and 1,000 feet or more may be needed to protect some amphibians, reptiles, and forestinterior birds (Wenger 1999). Sediments deposited in intermittent drainages and headwater streams would be transported downstream during periods of high water, increasing turbidity and burying aquatic invertebrates in higher order streams. Filling wetlands (including bogs, seepage slopes, wet flatwoods, and forested swamps) generally alters the site sufficiently to preclude the reestablishment of these communities in the foreseeable future and could result in direct habitat loss for a wide variety of special status species that use these habitats. Because so many of these species have limited ranges, the list of species potentially affected would vary by location. Generally, because of the limited acreage of these vegetation communities, loss from even the small amount of disturbance associated with BLM-permitted oil and gas activities has the potential to
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-13

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

destroy or degrade habitat for special status species. For instance, there are up to 12 special status crayfish across the State that are vulnerable to habitat disturbance in bogs and wet flatwoods. Henslow’s sparrow wintering habitat and breeding habitat for Bachman’s sparrow could be lost by construction in or near grassy bogs or wet flatwoods. Construction activities, and particularly linear disturbances related to new roads and pipelines, can disrupt the local hydrography supporting seepage slopes or sheet flow to bogs and swamps degrading these habitats. In the Black Warrior River Basin, water produced from coalbed methane wells is typically disposed of through surface discharge. The chemical makeup of produced waters can vary by well with salinity, measured as TDS, being the most limiting factor. TDS in the Black Warrior Basin varies from less than 1,000 mg/L to more than 43,000 mg/L (U.S. Department of Energy 2003). Produced water is stored in ponds to precipitate out metals and to lower pH prior to discharge. NPDES permits issued by the State limit in-stream TDS concentrations to 230 mg/L. This threshold is approved by the EPA for general wildlife habitat and is met by discharging into rivers with sufficient flow to dilute and meet the in-stream thresholds. NPDES permits require monitoring of pH, iron, manganese, biochemical oxygen demand, oil and grease, and dissolved oxygen; additional monitoring requirements for conductivity, chlorides, and effluent toxicity are included. Dischargers are required to install a diffuser on the end of their discharge pipes to minimize scouring and are required to implement a BMP plan. Other elements, such as trace amounts of metals, are not routinely monitored under NPDES permits. Thresholds for most mussels have not been studied, and there is concern that the existing thresholds may not be sufficient to protect these bottom-dwelling species. Karst formations support cave habitats with high numbers of special status species, including many endemic crayfish, salamanders, and bats, and are particularly sensitive to oil and gas development. In caves, even minor alterations in temperature, humidity, and water quality or quantity can result in irreversible impacts. Caves by their nature are isolated and support highly endemic faunas often with extremely narrow habitat requirements. Wells drilled through cave/karst resources can result in contaminants, such as drilling fluids and cements, draining into the cave/karst system. Karst habitats can be degraded by hydrocarbons from spills or leaks from well casings, storage tanks, reserve pits, pipelines, and production facilities that may enter into the cave/karst systems. Additionally, cementing operations could affect portions of underground drainage systems by restricting ground water flow and introducing pollutants into karst systems. Other possible impacts are vented or escaped gases collecting in sinkholes and caves. These gases can cause a die-off of plant and animal life that use the special habitat created by the microclimate of the cave entrances or sinkhole. Along the Alabama coast, there are 365 acres of non-USFS FMO within the designated critical habitat for Alabama beach mouse. Portions of this acreage also contain coastal beaches used by nesting loggerhead sea turtles and potentially by green sea turtle and Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle, as well as piping plover, snowy plover, and Wilson’s plover. Any disturbance of the surface from oil and gas development in this area is likely to adversely affect Federally listed species. Section 7 consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would be required prior to BLM permitting any action that could adversely affect these Federally listed species or designated habitat. Subsequent actions would comply with the conditions established by any subsequent biological opinions (BO). Although it is unlikely that oil and gas development would occur on the BLM surface tracts, non-USFS FMO could be used to consolidate acreage to meet State spacing requirements, prompting oil and gas activity in suitable or occupied Alabama beach mouse and nesting sea turtle habitat. In the coastal plain areas, gopher tortoise could be affected by oil and gas activity in upland habitats. Tortoises could be impacted by the loss or damage to burrows, destruction of foraging habitat, and tortoises could be killed during construction or by service vehicles. Construction activities and roads within 600-feet of burrows could isolate individuals and reduce reproductive potential within a
4-14 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

population. In many cases, the presence of gopher tortoises indicates that habitat is suitable for a host of species associated with dry longleaf pine forests, including the black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi). Red-cockaded woodpecker could be affected by oil and gas development on 888 acres of non-USFS FMO. Red-cockaded woodpeckers could be affected by the loss of nesting habitat within existing clusters and the loss of current or potential foraging habitat within 0.5 mile of existing clusters, particularly on non-USFS FMO near the Talladega and Conecuh National Forests, which support most of the State’s population. Throughout the State, breeding and wintering bald eagles could be affected by drilling near large rivers or reservoirs. Bald eagles are particularly sensitive when courting, nesting, and fledging young. In Alabama, this typically occurs between December 1 and August 1. Construction activities within 1.5 miles of nest sites could result in nest abandonment depending on factors such as visibility and tolerance of individual pairs.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

The coastal dune habitat associated with the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would continue to be trampled at traditional beach access points as Veterans Road and Mobile Street, damaging habitat for the Alabama beach mouse. Recreational use can flush foraging shorebirds and result in reduced nesting efforts or success by beach nesting birds. Unmanaged recreational use of beaches could also hamper or deter nesting attempts by sea turtles and interfere with incubating egg clutches and the sea approach of hatchlings (National Marine Fisheries Service and USFWS 1991). The Fort Morgan Highway tracts, also designated as critical habitat, could experience loss or damage to vegetation as a result of continuing to be managed as open to recreation use. Dispersed recreation use of the Coosa River tracts has the potential to cause bald eagles to abandon nest sites.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

New ROWs for access roads and utilities could occur on the Fort Morgan Highway or Beach tracts, where new disturbance is likely to total less than an acre. These tracts are designated critical habitat for Alabama beach mouse. Any surface disturbance, mowing, or other vegetation management activities could adversely affect the Alabama beach mouse, destroying burrows or removing plants that could provide a seed source. Because these tracts are within designated critical habitat for Alabama beach mouse, plantings to stabilize disturbed soils would be limited to locally occurring native species.

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management
Suppressing all wildland fires, unless an in-place site-specific plan determines otherwise, would minimize immediate threats and damage to life, public safety, and developments in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and to natural resource values. Allowing prescribed burning on a case-by-case basis would allow for a reduction in hazardous fuel conditions, improving the ability to suppress wildfires while maintaining disturbance levels to which vegetation communities have adapted. Fire response and fuels treatments would apply to the 159 acres of BLM-administered surface land.
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-15

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

This would maintain natural disturbance regimes which would be easier to manage through prescribed fire or other treatments. This would also decrease the frequency and intensity of wildland fires and allow fires to be more easily controlled, better protecting life, public safety, and property and resource values. However, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in invasions and fuel accumulations that would increase the frequency and intensity of wildland fires.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Minerals development activities would introduce additional ignition sources throughout the non-USFS FMO, increasing the potential of wildland fire occurrence. Disturbance of 105 acres associated with the development of 20 wells on non-USFS FMO could provide increased accessibility for fire suppression equipment and provide fuel breaks in the case of wildland fire events. In addition, the infrastructure associated with the 20 new wells would require protection in wildland fire events. Impacts from mineraldevelopment activities would not occur on the 8,179 acres closed to oil and gas development.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Continuing to manage the surface tracts as open to recreation use would allow for dispersed recreation use, which could introduce additional ignition sources and increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. This would be more prevalent in areas that are more accessible.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Development of above-ground ROWs on the surface tracts, which would be managed as open to ROW development, would require additional efforts by firefighters to protect these areas in wildland fire events. Development of ROWs would also result in clearing vegetation to make way for linear features such as roads, pipelines, and transmission lines. ROWs could provide fuel breaks, which could help prevent the spread of wildland fires. ROWs could also provide firefighters with increased accessibility for fire suppression equipment. While more ROWs could increase suppression costs, the aspects of ROW development related to vegetation clearing and the potential for increased accessibility could reduce suppression costs.

Cultural Resources
Management of cultural resources provides protection from the potentially damaging effects of surfacedisturbing activities through implementation of existing laws and policy, such as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Federal undertakings typically require cultural resource inventories that would result in the identification of cultural resource sites and determination of eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The cultural resources data acquired through inventories and evaluations would increase knowledge of cultural resources on BLM-administered lands and minerals in the State. Following sitespecific inventories, mitigation measures would be prescribed as necessary for eligible properties. Any cultural sites discovered may be considered for further evaluation to assess its eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Through this process, significant impacts on cultural sites eligible for the NRHP would be
4-16 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

avoided or mitigated. Avoidance is the BLM’s preferred measure to eliminate potential adverse effects. Avoidance preserves the cultural resource in place. If this is not possible under reasonable circumstances, scientifically valid excavation and data recovery is an alternative mitigation method. Scientifically valid excavation would be used as a final measure, and the extent of excavation would be determined through BLM consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and tribes. Data recovery preserves as much of the cultural record as possible through archaeological methods. Any mitigation effort requiring archaeological data recovery is subject to the terms outlined in a Data Recovery Plan and documented through a signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the SHPO, tribes, and other consulting parties. While data recovery preserves as much data as possible, the excavated portions of the property would be lost or damaged. Removing cultural resources from a site using current scientific methods also reduces future scientific value if more accurate methods of analysis are developed. Mitigation through data recovery also reduces or eliminates other uses of cultural resources sites, such as traditional, public, conservation, or experimental use. The inventory and avoidance procedures conducted in conjunction with surface-disturbing actions would protect most cultural resources from significant impacts. Despite the best efforts to identify all cultural resources, there remains a potential for inadvertent impacts to previously undiscovered sites, especially buried sites with no surface indications. Following discovery of cultural resources, activities would stop to allow for mitigation to minimize further damage to cultural resources. There is a set process through Section 106 for identifying, evaluating, and treating the effects of inadvertent discoveries to reduce potential impacts from these discoveries. Wildfire and prescribed fire could impact cultural resource sites, including the eligibility characteristics of sites that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. Impacts would be limited to the Coosa River tracts, as the Geneva tract contains small amounts of vegetation that maintains foliage year-round. The other tracts have been inventoried for cultural resources and no sites were identified. Prehistoric and historic resources potentially affected by wildfire may be inorganic or organic. Generally speaking, organic materials are more at risk as they tend to burn or alter at lower temperatures than inorganic materials. Wildfire impacts on inorganic cultural resources include fracturing, shattering, and changes in color and internal luster, which might reduce an artifact’s ability to render information about the past. As a general rule, fire would not affect buried cultural materials. Studies show that even a few centimeters of soil cover (4 inches) are sufficient to protect cultural materials (Oster N.D.). Wildfires that burn hot and fast through a site may have less of an effect on certain types of cultural materials than fires that smolder in the duff or burn for a long time period, allowing heat from the fire to penetrate the surface. In addition, heat from wildland fires could change the physical nature of the ground, making it harder to identify cultural resources. The isolated nature of vegetation on the Coosa River tracts would limit the potential for ignition or spread of wildland fire, and decrease the potential impacts to cultural resources.
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives would allow vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives and would require cultural resource clearances before any activities were to occur. Therefore, impacts would not be anticipated.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-17

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would require cultural resource clearances before any activities were to occur. Therefore, impacts would not be anticipated.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Cultural resources on 305,640 acres of non-USFS FMO in Alabama managed as open to leasing and subject to standard lease terms and conditions could be impacted by oil and gas development. Based on the RFDS, oil and gas developments within these areas would impact 105 acres through the development of 20 wells over 20 years. Development on these acres would typically be subject to Class III cultural resource inventories and evaluation on a project-by-project basis prior to allowing disturbance. This would result in the identification and potential excavation of cultural sites. Cultural sites on 8,179 acres closed to leasing would be protected from oil and gas development. Sixty-eight known cultural resources sites exist within non-USFS FMO in the coal potential area, and 66 known sites are within one-half mile of the tracts. Based on the RFDS, production of 37.6 million tons of coal from preexisting underground mines over 20 years would not result in new surface disturbance; therefore, no impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated from coal development.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation activities on the surface tracts could result in inadvertent damage and vandalism to cultural sites on tracts that contain cultural resources. Although the tracts are not anticipated to be used extensively for recreation, many surface tracts are located in rivers, wetlands, and beach areas that are desirable locations for recreation and there is a high potential for cultural resources to be found. Impacts from travel management actions would not be anticipated because the Coosa River and Geneva tracts that have not been surveyed for cultural resources are only accessible by boat and no cultural resources were found on all the other tracts that have been surveyed.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Ground-disturbing activities associated with ROW construction and maintenance could impact cultural resources. If a permitted ROW for an access road, utility tower, or bridge pier were approved on a surface tract, an appropriate level of cultural resource survey would need to be conducted. Approved activities in areas not previously surveyed, or in areas surveyed prior to 1996, would be subject to a ground survey and consultation requirements with the SHPO under NHPA Section 106 regulations prior to construction. A cultural resource survey would also be required if existing ROWs on the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts were expanded or modified. Construction projects could result in inadvertent damage if cultural resources that were undetected during surveys were unearthed during ground-disturbing activities. Following discovery of cultural resources, activities would stop in accordance with the ROW grant which would minimize further damage to cultural resources. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated to be minimal.

Visual Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to visual quality. Although visual quality
4-18 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

would deteriorate in the short term, visual quality would improve in the long term once vegetation has reestablished to meet VRM class objectives.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to visual quality. Although visual quality would deteriorate in the short term, visual quality would improve in the long term once vegetation has reestablished to meet VRM class objectives.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Mineral exploration and development on non-USFS FMO tracts (313,819 acres) would result in impacts to visual resources on 105 acres from 20 wells. Removal of vegetation and construction of wells and wellpads and introduction of other equipment would impact visual quality. The BLM does not manage the surface for non-USFS FMO tracts; however, the BLM can place COAs or best practices to minimize impacts to visual resources in accordance with the guidance and procedures defined in VRM Handbook H-8431-1 Visual Resource Contrast Rating. Impacts would not be anticipated on the 8,179 non-USFS FMO acres closed to leasing. Since no mineral-development activities would occur on the surface tracts, there would be no violations of VRM class objectives.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Allowing recreation activities and motorized vehicle use on the surface tracts could impact visual quality over time from changes to existing natural or manmade landforms and scenic vistas through vegetation and soil loss, particularly on tracts that are in undeveloped areas. Since the surface tracts are not anticipated to be used extensively for recreation and travel, these impacts would be minimal.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

If the existing ROWs that bisect the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts were expanded or otherwise modified, visual quality would be impacted. No existing utility and road ROWs exist on the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Geneva, and Fowl River tracts. If a new road or utility ROW were authorized on these tracts, visual quality would be impacted if the ROW were to dominate the view of the casual observer.

Minerals
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Vegetative communities management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Fish and wildlife management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-19

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Under this alternative, 305,640 non-USFS FMO acres would be open to leasing, subject to standard lease terms and conditions; 8,179 non-USFS FMO acres would be closed to leasing due to restrictions placed by other Federal surface management agencies. No impacts to oil and gas minerals exploration and development would be anticipated from management of non-USFS FMO tracts. No impacts to coal leasing and development in the Warrior Basin would be anticipated. Coal production would continue at historical rates.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Lands and realty management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated. The BLM would only dispose of non-USFS FMO with no suspected value and, therefore, there would be no loss of opportunity.

Recreation and Travel Management
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to recreation. Recreationists could be displaced from vegetation treatment areas until revegetation occurs; however, the vegetation treatments would benefit recreationists by improving the long-term aesthetics of an area.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that result in impacts to recreation. Recreationists could be displaced from protected areas or treated areas until revegetation occurs; however, the habitat improvements and protections would benefit recreationists by improving the long-term aesthetics and wildlife viewing of an area.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Oil and gas development on non-USFS FMO tracts with surface management by other Federal agencies that are open to the public for recreation, as identified in Table 3-17, could be affected by the leasing of Federal minerals by the BLM. Those areas or installations not open to recreation or leasing would not be affected, including National Park Service (NPS) and USFWS lands. Oil and gas development could provide additional opportunities for travel due to the construction of access roads.

4-20

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

Since approximately 105 acres of vegetation removal and construction activities would result from the development of 20 oil and gas wells on non-USFS FMO, there could be a decrease in nature-based recreational opportunities due to conflicts with the developments or in areas where the public were excluded. Mineral leasing in recreational areas could result in the removal of vegetation; construction of access roads, wellpads, and other infrastructure; introduction of drilling equipment; and associated noise and dust emissions. Effects would include a less-enjoyable recreational environment, though travel management opportunities could improve due to the construction of access roads. Stipulations applied under this alternative by other surface management agencies could indirectly protect the recreational resources in areas where development would be precluded (8,179 acres). Since future coal development is anticipated to occur at underground sites without additional infrastructure, additional impacts to recreation would not be anticipated.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Allowing recreation activities and motorized vehicle use on the surface tracts would maintain existing recreation and travel opportunities. Allowing motorized travel uses on all surface tracts could result in conflicts between motorized recreationists and recreationists seeking a more natural setting or experience.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Although Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would be transferred to the USFWS, these lots would remain within the boundaries of the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (where they are currently, but are not managed by the USFWS). After transfer, these lots would be managed according to their Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Since all surface tracts would remain in Federal ownership, access to recreation activity in a generally undeveloped setting would be maintained. If existing utility and road ROWs that bisect the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts were expanded or otherwise modified, the recreation experience could be impacted as a result of construction activity, ground disturbance, and introduction of new infrastructure. No existing utility and road ROWs exist on the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Geneva, and Fowl River tracts. If a new road or utility ROW were authorized on these tracts, the recreation experience could be impacted as a result of construction activity, ground disturbance, and introduction of new infrastructure. These actions could provide additional opportunities for travel due to the construction of access roads.

Lands and Realty
Lands and realty is a resource use rather than an environmental component and impacts on lands and realty are a direct result of their management. Therefore, the following discussion is limited to impacts from lands and realty management actions for the 159 acres of BLM-administered surface ownership in Alabama. Impacts from disposal of FMO are discussed under Impacts to Minerals from Lands and Realty Actions. Under Alternative 1, all 159 acres of the surface tracts in Alabama would remain open to ROW applications; therefore, no impacts would be anticipated to lands and realty actions. Retaining the surface tracts under the BLM administration would not allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or nonFederal ownership. Transferring Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts to the USFWS as part of the Bon Secour NWR would facilitate Federal management of the lots.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-21

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

Social and Economic
Definitions and descriptions of potential Environmental Justice populations, including low income and ethnicity statistics, were provided in Section 3.2.13. Since this four-county study area where mineral development is anticipated does not encompass Environmental Justice populations as defined, there would likely be no disproportionate effect on those populations under each alternative. Since the specific location of the oil and gas development is yet to be determined, Environmental Justice population locations should be further considered at the implementation level to minimize the potential for disproportionate impacts to Environmental Justice populations and to identify any possible mitigation measures that may be required to reduce impacts (e.g., dust, noise, traffic, ground water quality) to these populations.
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Impacts to social and economic conditions would not be anticipated from vegetative communities management actions, since no actions are proposed under this alternative. Under standard management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives would not be anticipated to be of an extent that would result in impacts to economic or social conditions.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Impacts to social and economic conditions would not be anticipated from fish and wildlife habitat management actions, since no actions are proposed under this alternative. Under standard management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to economic or social conditions.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Since only 20 fluid mineral wells would likely be drilled with standard lease terms and conditions over the next 20 years, there would be minimal economic impacts from these activities. This type of BLM mineral development is consistent with the development that occurred in the past, including 17 applications for permits to drill between 1983 and 2004. Therefore, there would be minimal changes. The potential minimal changes include a slight increase in employment or income. Social indicators such as housing, education, and cost of living would not be anticipated to change under this alternative from oil and gas activities. With continued development of oil and gas resources, 105 acres of surface disturbance are anticipated for wellpads, roads, and pipeline over the next 20 years. Disturbances from oil and gas development could potentially include slight increases in air emissions from construction of wellpads and roads, noise from construction activities and trucking, contamination of soils and vegetation, habitat impacts, and ground water contamination. Stakeholders who believe oil and gas activity should be constrained with conditions and stipulations to protect wetlands and aquatic habitat would likely feel that this alternative does not do enough to ensure protection of these types of resources. Additionally, oil and gas industry stakeholders, as well as others who value maintaining access to Federal minerals for oil and gas development, would likely prefer this alternative over the others. The anticipated amount of coal to be produced under this alternative for the next 20 years (1.9 million tons per year) is consistent with coal development over the last 10 years. Currently, coal produced from BLM-administered minerals accounts for approximately 10 percent of the total amount of coal produced

4-22

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 1

in the State, 19.5 million tons of coal (Energy Information Agency 1999). In Alabama, mining (non–oil and gas) accounts for approximately 6,773 employees and employee compensation of $482,361,000 (Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA] 2005). If 10 percent of this employment and employee compensation can be attributed to BLM-administered minerals, this activity provides for 677 employees in mining, with total mining employee compensation of $48,236,100. The average annual employee compensation for these workers is $71,218, compared with average annual compensation from all industries in the State of $34,877 (BEA 2005). Mining in the four-county study area where mineral development is possible likely provides fiscal revenues to local and State governments, supporting community and emergency services, school, and infrastructure. Impacts on stakeholder groups from mining activities are likely similar to those stated in the previous paragraph concerning socioeconomic oil and gas impacts. Some stakeholders will support these mining activities due to the economic benefits in income, jobs, and government revenues, while others will be concerned that the economic benefit may not offset the risks to environmental and water resources from the activity.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions would not cause changes in the economic characteristics (employment, income, and industries) or quality of social assets (housing, education, values, and attitudes) in the four-county study area where mineral development is possible, as there are no anticipated changes in recreation and travel management actions under this alternative.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

All the BLM lands under this alternative would remain in Federal ownership. Additionally, new ROW may be developed on the surface tracts. Lands and realty management actions would not cause changes in the economic characteristics (employment, income, and industries) as there are very little changes anticipated under this alternative. Quality of social assets (demographics, housing, cost of living, education) in local communities linked with the remote and scattered BLM surface tracts are not likely to be affected by retaining these lands in Federal ownership. Stakeholders who would like to see these BLM surface tracts sold to either private developers or non-profit organizations for a change in management and use would be adversely impacted by this alternative, while those stakeholders who believe that retention of the Federal lands is important to maintain open space and current management would feel this alternative is consistent with their values.

Hazardous Materials
BLM-authorized activities on surface tracts and non-USFS FMO could include the use of hazardous materials, substances, and waste (including storage, transportation, and spills). Such activities include oil and gas development, coal development, and application of pesticides to improve vegetative communities and wildlife habitat. These activities are conducted in compliance with 29 CFR 1910, 49 CFR 100–185, 40 CFR 100–400, Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Superfund Amendment Reauthorization Act (SARA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA) and other Federal and State regulations and policies regarding hazardous materials management. Therefore, if a release were to occur, it would be immediately addressed and remediated in accordance with regulation.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-23

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2

August 2008

4.2.2

Alternative 2

Air Quality
Under this alternative, there is a potential for wildfires, which could lead to air emissions. Since all fires would be suppressed, these occurrences would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions. Certain BLM-authorized activities within the planning area, such as oil and gas development, construction activities, vehicle travel, and mechanical hand tools or prescribed burning used in vegetation and wildlife habitat manipulation, would produce emissions considered to be GHGs, particularly CO2. However, due to the anticipated dispersed and infrequent nature of these activities, the project emissions would not have any noticeable or measurable effect and, therefore, the total contribution of GHGs from authorized activities would be small as well. Other BLM activities may help offset any emissions and sequester carbon, such as maintaining vegetative and forested cover, which may help build organic carbon in soils and function as “carbon sinks”.
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Vegetation treatments, including prescribed fire, and associated use of trucks and heavy equipment would cause short-term, localized increases in dust and emissions. Given the small amount and scattered nature of surface ownership, these activities would not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Use of trucks and heavy equipment associated with proposed fish and wildlife habitat improvements, such as constructing dune walkovers on the Fort Morgan Beach tract and conducting prescribed burns to improve habitat on the Fort Morgan Highway tract, would cause short-term, localized increases in dust and emissions. Given the small amount and scattered nature of surface ownership, these activities would not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Anticipated levels of oil and gas (20 wells over the next 20 years) and coal development (1.9 million tons produced annually over the next 20 years) and associated air emissions would be the same as Alternative 1.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Motorized travel would be closed or limited to designated routes on all tracts under this alternative. However, the level of activity contributing to emissions and associated air quality impacts would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not anticipated to be used extensively for recreation or travel.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Since the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a total of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) would be managed as ROW avoidance areas, there would be less potential for emissions associated with the use of trucks and heavy equipment (bulldozers, etc.) for ROW development compared to Alternative 1. Impacts from potential ROW development on the Jordan Lake and Fort Morgan Highway tracts would be the same as Alternative 1.

4-24

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2

Soil Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Vegetative communities management actions, such as removing invasive species and conducting prescribed fire, on surface tracts could increase site-specific erosion in the short term. Sand deposition would be facilitated by planting native coastal dune vegetation as part of dune restoration activities after damage by major storms. Over the long term, improving vegetation communities would reduce erosion and overland flows.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in disturbance or loss of soils. In addition under this alternative, there would be minimal short-term soil disturbance from the construction of dune walkovers on the Fort Morgan Beach tracts and conducting prescribed burns to improve habitat on the Fort Morgan Highway tracts. These soils are not prone to compaction, and the construction is not expected to alter the soil horizons in the long term.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated impacts on 105 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. Applying the stipulations in Appendix D would increase the area where seasonal, controlled surface use (CSU) (91,702 acres), and no surface occupancy (NSO) (94,589 acres) restrictions would be implemented, which reduces disturbance to soils within the protected areas. Impacts to prime or unique farmlands would be the same as described for Alternative 1.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Motorized travel would be closed or limited to designated routes on all tracts under this alternative. However, the level of activity that could increase erosion and associated impacts to soils would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1, since these tracts are not anticipated to be used extensively for recreation or travel.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Water Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Vegetative communities management actions, such as removing invasive species and conducting prescribed fire, on surface tracts would increase site-specific erosion, which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases water quality in the short term. Over the long term, improving vegetation communities would reduce erosion and overland flows.
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-25

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2

August 2008

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions, such as constructing dune walkovers on the Fort Morgan Beach tracts and conducting prescribed burns to improve habitat on the Fort Morgan Highway tracts, could increase erosion and runoff, which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases water quality in the short term. Over the long term, improving and protecting fish and wildlife habitats would reduce erosion and overland flows.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated impacts on 105 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. A 1,000-foot NSO buffer around aquatic habitats and applying the stipulations in Appendix D would increase the area where seasonal, CSU (91,702 acres), and NSO (94,589 acres) restrictions would be implemented, which would reduce disturbance to water resources within the protected areas. This stipulation could be applied to an estimated 90,930 acres or 29 percent of the non-USFS FMO available for leasing in Alabama. This buffer is expected to prevent construction activities from increasing the sedimentation of local drainages and wetlands. Impacts from coal mining would be the same as Alternative 1.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Motorized travel would be closed or limited to designated routes on all tracts under this alternative. However, the level of activity that could impact water resources would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not anticipated to be used extensively for recreation or travel.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Since the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a total of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) would be managed as ROW avoidance areas, there would be less potential for ground disturbance and impacts to water resources associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. No coastal wetland habitats or water bodies occur on or adjacent to the Fort Morgan Highway tracts. Development of additional transportation routes and ROWs on the Jordan Lake tract could contribute to the already degrading water quality of the Coosa River, located adjacent to the tract, as well as Jordan Lake, located about 10 miles downstream. Impacts contributing to decreased water quality could result from decreased soil stability and increased surface runoff caused by vegetation-clearing activities and construction ground disturbance.

Vegetative Communities
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Early detection and removal of exotic plant species from the Fowl River and Coosa River tracts would safeguard the wetland emergent vegetation and wet flatwoods communities on this tract. On the Fort Morgan Highway tracts, woody exotic, invasive species such as Chinese tallow and Chinese privet would be removed by hand and stump treated with approved herbicides. Selective hand spraying of cogon grass may be required where it is established. More active management of vegetation communities would provide better vegetation composition on all surface tracts than under Alternative 1.

4-26

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

For the Fort Morgan Beach tracts, the construction of dune walkovers would funnel foot traffic across sensitive dune habitats and allow sand to accrete and native dune vegetation to reestablish. On the Fort Morgan Highway tracts, forbs and native grasses would benefit from periodic prescribed burns of wet flatwoods and wetlands conducted in coordination with the Bon Secour NWR.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

In addition to the impacts from standard management common to all alternatives discussed under Alternative 1, oil and gas activities would be excluded from a 1,000-foot buffer around wetlands and aquatic habitats, karst areas, shoreline habitats, and habitats like naturally occurring prairies and glades with special status species under this alternative. Buffering these areas would provide additional protection for high-value plant communities from potential sedimentation or contamination from surface runoff or inadvertent leaching from the reserve pit.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

In attempt to offset the impacts discussed under Alternative 1 on the Fort Morgan Beach and Highway tracts, this alternative would construct two dune walkovers at Veterans Road and Mobile Road to funnel visitors across sensitive dune habitat, allowing dune vegetation to reestablish at these traditional access points. Plantings of native coastal dune vegetation would restore several acres of dunes trampled at these beach access points. Impacts to the Coosa River, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts would be the same as Alternative 1.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

All surface tracts except the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts would be managed as ROW avoidance areas. No new disturbance would be allowed in the existing ROW corridors on the Fort Morgan Highway tracts; however, maintenance activities would be permitted. These existing utility ROWs have been repeatedly disturbed and maintained in an early seral stage dominated by grasses and herbaceous growth. The continued maintenance of these utility corridors prevents the establishment of the scrub vegetation characteristic of this elevation. In addition, these disturbed sites are prone to the establishment of exotic, invasive plant species, particularly cogon grass and Chinese tallow which are common along the Highway 180 corridor. Cogon grass is very difficult to eradicate and establishes dense stands that displace native vegetation communities.

Fish and Wildlife
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Dune restoration activities, such as planting sea oats and other dune-stabilizing natives at Fort Morgan would benefit a wide variety of shorebirds by providing additional areas for loafing and potential nesting sites. At all sites, wildlife would benefit from removal of exotic invasive plant species. Early detection and removal reduces the overall impact to wildlife species by limiting the amount of change to the habitat structure that can occur when large woody invasives are removed and by eliminating or reducing the amount of herbicide needed to control herbaceous invasives.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Many of the benefits discussed under the special status species and vegetation impacts sections would also benefit general wildlife values. At the Fort Morgan Beach tracts, dune-nesting shorebirds would
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-27

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2

August 2008

benefit from actions to enhance and protect coastal dunes. The construction of dune walkovers on the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would protect sensitive dune habitats from foot traffic and allow additional habitat to develop at these traditional public access points. Shorebirds benefit from funneling foot traffic across these sensitive habitats by reducing human intrusions on loafing and nesting areas. On all tracts, wildlife would benefit from early detection and removal of exotic invasive weed species, which once established can substantially alter habitats.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

General impacts to wildlife are expected to be the same as Alternative 1; however, under this alternative oil and gas activities would be excluded from high-value wildlife habitats. This includes a 1,000-foot buffer around wetlands and aquatic habitats, avoidance of karst areas, shoreline habitats, and habitats like naturally occurring prairies and glades with special status species. BMPs would be applied under this alternative to reduce potential impacts to bats, songbirds, and waterfowl. Reserve pits still containing water 10 days after a well is completed would be netted to exclude migratory birds. Other approved methods could also be used to exclude birds. Open-vent equipment, such as heater-treaters, separators, and dehydration units would be covered with anti-perching cones to exclude cavity-nesting birds and bats. Any power lines would be built using approved raptor-safe designs to prevent electrocution.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Limiting vehicle access to existing roads and authorized ROW would eliminate new use patterns from developing which could degrade habitats on the BLM surface tracts. This would particularly benefit the Fort Morgan Beach tracts where even occasional vehicle use would damage dunes and destroy dunestabilizing vegetation.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Special Status Species
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Alabama beach mouse and nesting shorebirds would benefit from plantings of native coastal dune vegetation on the Fort Morgan Beach tracts after damaging storms. These plantings promote sand deposition and help to reestablish the dunes more quickly. On the Fowl River, Coosa River, and Fort Morgan Highway tracts, woody exotic, invasive species such as Chinese tallow and Chinese privet would be removed by hand and stump treated with approved herbicides. Selective hand spraying of herbaceous growth, especially cogon grass, may be required where it has become established. Early detection and

4-28

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2

control of invasive plant species would reduce the amount of native vegetation displaced and minimize changes to structure that occurs when large amounts of invasive woody material is removed.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Alabama beach mouse and nesting shorebirds at the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would benefit from the installation of two dune walkovers that would eliminate damaging foot traffic and allow dunes and vegetation to recover at traditional public access areas at Veterans Road and Mobile Road. Prescribed fire could be used to increase herbaceous species in flatwoods or wetlands on the Fort Morgan highway tracts. These burns would be conducted only in conjunction with prescribed burns on adjacent lands managed by the Bon Secour NWR to benefit endemic species. These actions would improve habitat for special status species.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Although the number of wells (20) and acres disturbed (105) would remain the same under this alternative as compared to Alternative 1, lease stipulations would shift surface-disturbing activities away from sensitive habitats with potential to support special status species. This is accomplished with NSO buffers or seasonal restrictions. To protect special status species occurring in aquatic or wetland habitats, all oil and gas development activities would be excluded from a 1,000-foot buffer around these habitats. In areas with slopes less than 10 percent, the 1,000-foot buffer could be reduced to a minimum of 100 feet if the adjacent waterway or wetlands have been surveyed and no special status species occur within 100 yards upstream and 300 yards downstream of the site. This stipulation could be applied to an estimated 90,930 acres or 29 percent of the non-USFS FMO available for leasing in Alabama. In most cases, this buffer is expected to prevent construction activities from increasing the sedimentation of local drainages and wetlands. A 250-foot NSO buffer around known caves, fractures, and sinkholes would reduce the chances of drilling through karst formations, providing protection for cave endemics, such as Alabama cave shrimp, Alabama cave fish, gray myotis, Indiana bat, and others. Some potential remains for inadvertently drilling through unknown karst formations and damaging connected cave habitats through introduction of lost drilling fluids and muds, altering temperature and moisture regimes and modifying the hydrology supporting the karst system. The 3,044 acres of FMO within 0.5 mile of caves known to be occupied by gray myotis or Indiana bat would be excluded from surface occupancy, protecting these species and their habitats from disturbance associated with oil and gas activity. Under this alternative, the 365 acres of non-USFS FMO associated with suitable and designated critical habitat for the Alabama beach mouse, including upland scrub sites, would be excluded from leasing. This would avoid potential impacts to Alabama beach mouse, nesting sea turtles, piping plover, and other coastal special status species, including least tern, American oystercatcher, and Wilson’s plover. Areas with suitable soils and at least 10 percent open pine forest in southern Alabama counties, including Choctaw, Washington, Mobile, Baldwin, Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Clarke, Crenshaw, Coffee, Conecuh, Covington, Dale, Escambia, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Monroe, Montgomery, Pike, and Wilcox Counties would require a survey for gopher tortoises prior to any surface-disturbing activities. No disturbance would be permitted within 600 feet of a gopher tortoise burrow. This buffer is expected to protect any breeding populations of gopher tortoise and maintain habitat for associated species, including black pine snake. It would also protect habitat values in areas suitable for eastern indigo snake.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-29

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2

August 2008

Under this alternative, NSO would be permitted within 0.5 mile of a red-cockaded woodpecker cluster. This stipulation would be applied to 888 acres of FMO within known clusters and would be applied as needed to potential or occupied habitat identified during site assessments conducted prior to leasing. This buffer is expected to contain all foraging habitat required to maintain the red-cockaded woodpecker cluster. There are options for oil and gas activity to occur within suitable foraging habitat, if the foraging requirements for the cluster are met elsewhere (e.g., clusters maintained on National Forests). This exception would require a concurrence from the USFWS and the State of Alabama. A concurrence would cause disturbance within the suitable foraging habitat, but if granted, would not be anticipated to affect local populations. Under this alternative, NSO would be permitted within 1,500 feet of a bald eagle nest and/or communal roost site, and no surface-disturbing activities would be permitted within 1.5 miles of bald eagle nests during the nesting season from December 1 through August 1. This stipulation is expected to avoid potential impacts to bald eagles. This buffer may be modified as needed in the future to comply with the most current Federal guidelines. The no surface occupancy stipulation could apply to an estimated 30 acres of FMO within 1,500 feet of known bald eagle nests, and the seasonal restriction would apply to an estimated 848 acres of FMO within 1.5 miles of known bald eagle nests. These stipulations could be applied to additional acreage, if new nests or communal roosts are identified during site assessments conducted prior to leasing. Leases containing potential habitat for specials status plant species, including Federally listed and candidate species, as well as those ranked as critically imperiled (S-1) and imperiled (S-2) by the Alabama Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) would require botanical surveys prior to surface-disturbing activities. Operations would be excluded from areas supporting these special status plant species. This stipulation is expected to protect most naturally occurring glades, prairies, and other habitats which support special status plant species. This stipulation is estimated to apply to 103 acres of FMO. This is based on known occurrences of special status plants on FMO, and because most of the private land overlaying FMO has not been inventoried for special status plants, this stipulation is expected to be applied more broadly at the lease stage based on site assessments conducted prior to leasing.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Closing tracts to motorized use or restricting public vehicle use to designated roads and authorized ROWs (depending on tract) would prevent habitat damage to occupied Alabama beach mouse habitat, as well as sea turtle nesting habitat and important shorebird loafing and foraging areas. These closures or restrictions would be consistent with Florida Department of Environmental Management requirements that require permits for use of vehicles on State beaches, and they would allow the BLM to sign and more effectively enforce vehicle closures and restrictions.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Under this alternative, two Fort Morgan Beach tract lots (Lots 73 and 74) would be transferred to USFWS for inclusion in the Bon Secour NWR. No new disturbance would be allowed for ROWs on the BLM surface tracts. This would include the existing ROW corridors on the Fort Morgan Highway tracts, which are designated as critical habitat for Alabama beach mouse, although maintenance of these existing ROWs would be permitted. The existing utility ROWs on the Fort Morgan Beach tracts have been repeatedly disturbed and maintained in an early seral stage dominated by grasses and herbaceous growth. The continued maintenance of these utility corridors prevents the establishment of the scrub vegetation characteristic of this elevation. In addition, these disturbed sites are prone to the establishment of exotic, invasive plant species, particularly cogon grass and Chinese tallow which are common along the Highway 180 corridor. Cogon grass is very difficult to eradicate and establishes dense stands that displace native

4-30

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2

vegetation communities. Maintenance activities may introduce additional invasive exotic species in the utility corridors, which would adversely affect Alabama beach mouse critical habitat. Additional work may be needed to assess the role that modified areas play in Alabama beach mouse habitat and to determine BMPs regarding the maintenance of this ROW corridor.

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management
Impacts from suppressing all wildland fires and allowing prescribed burning on a case-by-case basis would be the same as Alternative 1.
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Vegetative communities management actions, such as removing invasive species and conducting prescribed fire, on surface tracts would reduce the potential for changes in the vegetation communities from invasive species. As a result, the natural fire regimes would be maintained or restored. This would improve the ability to manage wildland fire in its natural role through application of prescribed fires.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions, such as conducting prescribed burns to improve habitat, would reduce the potential for changes in the vegetation communities from invasive species. Treatments to improve habitat conditions would maintain or restore natural fire regimes through removal of decadent vegetation or invasive species. This would improve the ability to manage wildland fire in its natural role through application of prescribed fires.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Impacts to wildland fire ecology and management from anticipated oil and gas development and associated disturbance of 105 acres would be the same as Alternative 1; however, impacts would not occur on the closed (8,297 acres) and NSO (94,589 acres) areas created through applying the stipulations in Appendix D.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

The potential for increased wildland fire occurrence would decrease compared to Alternative 1 because travel on the surface tracts would be designated as closed or limited to designated routes. This would decrease the ease of accessibility to these areas and reduce the potential for additional ignition sources through increased human use.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Since the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts would be managed as avoidance areas (a total of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama), there would be less potential for wildfire impacts associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. This would decrease infrastructure needing protection but would also decrease improvements in accessibility to fires and providing fire-breaks on these tracts. Impacts from potential ROW development on the Jordan Lake and Fort Morgan Highway tracts would be the same as Alternative 1.

Cultural Resources
Impacts from cultural resources management and wildland fire management actions would be the same as Alternative 1.
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-31

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2

August 2008

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Vegetative communities management actions, such as removing invasive species and conducting prescribed fire, on surface tracts would increase ground disturbance and associated potential impacts to cultural resources. Activities to control noxious and invasive plant species on the Coosa River and Geneva tracts could result in surface and shallow subsurface disturbance, which could introduce organic materials to lower soil layers, contaminating shallow subsurface cultural resource sites containing early historic or prehistoric datable organics. Surface and shallow subsurface effects could also include horizontal and vertical displacement of the upper portion of soils, which could compromise depositional context and integrity, and causing artifact damage. Surveys completed prior to treatments would result in the identification of cultural sites. Weed control with non-disturbing methods would have no impacts. There would be no impact to cultural resources on the Fort Morgan Beach, Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, and Jordan Lake tracts as these areas have been inventoried and do not contain cultural sites.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions, such as conducting prescribed burns, would increase ground disturbance and associated potential impacts to cultural resources similar to that discussed under Impacts from Vegetative Management Actions. Wildlife habitat manipulation would require cultural resource inventories and clearance prior to ground disturbance to identify the presence of any cultural sites and to avoid or mitigate any potential damage.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Cultural resource impacts could occur from managing 119,231 acres of non-USFS FMO as open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions and 91,702 acres of non-USFS FMO as CSU. Based on the RFDS, oil and gas developments within these areas would impact 105 acres through the development of 20 wells over 20 years. Development on these acres would typically be subject to Class III cultural resource inventories and evaluation on a project-by-project basis prior to allowing disturbance, resulting in the identification and potential excavation of cultural sites. Stipulations and BMPs applied under this alternative would protect and preserve cultural resources on the 94,589 acres managed as NSO and in areas where surface disturbance would be precluded (8,297 acres). Impacts to cultural resources from coal development would be the same as Alternative 1.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Although surface tracts would be closed or limited to motorized use under this alternative, the level of activity that could impact cultural resources would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not anticipated to be used extensively for recreation or travel.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Since the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a total of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) would be managed as ROW avoidance areas, there would be less potential for ground disturbance and impacts to cultural resources associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. If a ROW were proposed on the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts, an appropriate level of cultural resource survey and consultation with the SHPO under NHPA Section 106 regulations would need to be conducted prior to approval. A cultural resource survey would also be required if existing ROWs on the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts were expanded or modified. Construction projects could result in inadvertent damage if cultural resources that were undetected during surveys were unearthed during ground-disturbing activities. Following discovery
4-32 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2

of cultural resources, activities would stop in accordance with terms and conditions in the ROW grant, which would minimize further damage to cultural resources. Collocating ROWs where possible would reduce the amount of surface disturbance and potential for inadvertent damage.

Visual Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Undertaking actions to improve vegetation communities, such as removing invasive species, on the surface tracts would temporarily diminish visual quality. Visual quality would be improved in the long term as the conditions of vegetation communities improve to meet VRM class objectives.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Undertaking actions to improve fish and wildlife habitat on the surface tracts, such as prescribed burning, would temporarily diminish visual quality. Visual quality would be improved in the long term as wildliferelated recreation and habitat conditions were improved to meet VRM class objectives. Constructing dune walkover structures and installing sand fencing to enhance and protect existing dune habitat on the Fort Morgan Beach tract would introduce developments in previously undeveloped areas and, thereby, altering the visual quality if the developments were to dominate the view of the casual observer. Any potential impacts could be mitigated through careful placement in low-lying areas and applying treatments to blend any structures in with the natural setting in accordance with the guidance and procedures defined in VRM Handbook H-8431-1 Visual Resource Contrast Rating.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Since approximately 105 acres of vegetation removal and construction activities would result from the development of 20 oil and gas wells (as with Alternative 1), impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. Stipulations applied under this alternative could indirectly protect visual resources on the 94,589 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (8,297 acres). Since no mineraldevelopment activities would occur on the surface tracts, there would be no violations of VRM class objectives.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Continuing to allow recreation use on the surface tracts would result in impacts similar to those described under Alternative 1. Since the tracts would be managed as limited or closed to motorized vehicle use, impacts to visual quality would be reduced under this alternative compared to Alternative 1 as there would be less potential for vegetation and soil removal from these activities. Furthermore, because the surface tracts are not currently used extensively for recreation, anticipated impacts would be minimal.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a total of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) as ROW avoidance areas would retain the visual quality on these tracts since ROWs would not be approved on the tract unless it met resource objectives. Making the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts available for ROWs could further diminish visual resource qualities if the ROWs were to dominate the view of the casual observer; however, collocating ROWs could reduce the extent of impacts to visual quality.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-33

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2

August 2008

Minerals
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Fish and wildlife management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Applying the lease stipulations and BMPs in Appendix D could restrict or preclude oil and gas development and exploration. Impacts would not be anticipated on approximately 119,231 acres open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions. Managing approximately 91,702 acres as open to leasing subject to minor constraints and 94,589 acres as open to leasing subject to major constraints would allow for recovery of resources and could increase development costs. Allowing for exceptions, waivers, and modifications to these stipulations could create opportunities for the discovery of new oil and gas resources. Closing 8,297 acres to oil and gas leasing would preclude oil and gas development and exploration in these areas. Impacts to coal leasing and development would be the same as Alternative 1.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Lands and realty management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.

Recreation and Travel Management
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Undertaking actions to improve vegetation communities on the surface tracts, such as removing invasive species, would temporarily diminish the recreation experience since recreationists could be displaced from vegetation treatment areas until revegetation occurs. The recreation experience would be improved in the long term as the condition of vegetation communities improves by improving the long-term aesthetics of an area.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Undertaking actions to improve wildlife habitat on the surface tracts, such as prescribed burning, would temporarily diminish the recreation experience since recreationists could be displaced from protected areas or treated areas until revegetation occurs. The recreation experience would be improved in the long term as wildlife-related recreation and habitat conditions are improved by improving the long-term aesthetics and wildlife viewing of an area.
4-34 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2

Constructing dune walkover structures and installing sand fencing to enhance and protect existing dune habitat on the Fort Morgan Beach tract would enhance the recreation experience. Installing walkovers and fencing would introduce developments in previously undeveloped areas. It would also introduce intrusions to the natural setting. While this could reduce some recreationists’ experience, these facilities are generally accepted by the public. Any potential impacts could be mitigated through applying treatments to blend any structures in with the natural setting.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Since approximately 105 acres of vegetation removal and construction activities would result from the development of 20 oil and gas wells on non-USFS FMO (as with Alternative 1), impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. Stipulations applied under this alternative could indirectly protect the recreational opportunities on the 94,589 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (8,297 acres) by precluding ground disturbance and infrastructure associated with oil and gas development.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Since motorized vehicle use would be limited or closed on the surface tracts under this alternative, more non-motorized recreation opportunities would increase, while there could be a loss of travel opportunities. Since surface tracts are not currently used extensively for motorized travel, the anticipated impact would be minimal.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Impacts from the transfer of Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts to the USFWS would be the same as Alternative 1. Managing the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a total of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) as ROW avoidance areas would retain the recreation experience on these tracts. Making the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts available for ROWs could diminish the quality of the recreation experience. These actions could provide additional opportunities for travel due to the construction of access roads.

Lands and Realty
Under Alternative 2, the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a total of 114 acres or 71 percent BLM surface ownership in Alabama) would be managed as avoidance areas for ROW. This could impose design and siting requirements and associated costs on new ROWs or amended or renewed ROW at existing sites. There would be an increased potential for requests for new or amended and renewed ROW at existing sites to be denied. Making the Fort Morgan Highway and Jordan Lake tracts available for ROW would accommodate access and efficient energy supply (by allowing pipelines and transmission lines) and would minimize additional costs; however, new ROW would be restricted to the existing ROW corridor on the Fort Morgan Highway tract and ROWs would be collocated if possible on the Jordan Lake tract. This would affect desired placement of facilities on these tracts. Retaining the surface tracts under the BLM administration and pursuing partnerships with other agencies and organizations could allow for management opportunities for other agencies and organizations but would not allow for non-Federal ownership opportunities. Partnerships would allow for more efficient and comprehensive resource management of the surface tracts.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-35

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 2

August 2008

Social and Economic
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

This alternative includes the removal of invasive species on three BLM land tracts and the planting of dune vegetation on the Fort Morgan Beach tract. Impacts from these actions on the economic indicators would not be anticipated from these types of vegetation management actions. Stakeholders who value access may be impacted by restrictions to the Fort Morgan Beach tracts from planting activities.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Impacts to social and economic conditions from fish and wildlife habitat management actions would be the same as impacts identified under Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

The same number of wells and acres of surface disturbance as Alternative 1 are anticipated under this alternative. This alternative would apply leasing stipulations to protect sensitive species and their habitats, including buffers for wetland and aquatic resources. Relative to Alternative 1, the exploration and development costs could increase, while the availability for locations for wellpads could decrease. This alternative would also provide for the greatest amount of protection for wetland resources. Since the number of wells anticipated is small relative to total wells in the area, there would be minimal changes, with possibly slight increases in employment or income (and the same as Alternative 1). Social indicators such as housing, education, and cost of living would not be anticipated to change under this alternative. Similar disturbances from oil and gas development would occur as compared to Alternative 1, although potential impacts to wetlands, soils, vegetation, habitat, and wildlife would be anticipated to be reduced under this alternative due to the implementation of seasonal, NSO, CSU stipulations. Oil and gas development and production can have implications for visual and scenic qualities as well as property values, as described under Alternative 1. These impacts are likely less than those under Alternative 1, as there are more conditions and constraints on wellpad locations under Alternative 2. Industry costs and availability for wellpad locations would likely increase under this alternative, which would result in adverse impacts for the oil and gas industry. Under this alternative, impacts would be the same as Alternative 1 for coal development.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Under this alternative, surface tracts would be open to recreational use but designated as limited for offhighway vehicles (OHV), and vehicle use is only allowed on public roads and authorized ROW. Minimal changes in recreation and travel management are anticipated; however, OHV users would likely be adversely impacted if trails and roads are closed to this type of motorized use.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Although the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts would be managed as ROW avoidance areas, impacts to social and economic conditions would be the same as Alternative 1.

Hazardous Materials
Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1.

4-36

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3

4.2.3

Alternative 3 (Proposed RMP)

Air Quality
Under this alternative, there is a potential for wildfire which could lead to air emissions. Since all fires would be suppressed, these occurrences would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions. Certain BLM-authorized activities within the planning area, such as oil and gas development, construction activities, vehicle travel, and mechanical hand tools or prescribed burning used in vegetation and wildlife habitat manipulation, would produce emissions considered to be GHGs, particularly CO2. However, due to the anticipated dispersed and infrequent nature of these activities, the project emissions would not have any noticeable or measurable effect and, therefore, the total contribution of GHGs from authorized activities would be small as well. Other BLM activities may help offset any emissions and sequester carbon, such as maintaining vegetative and forested cover, which may help build organic carbon in soils and function as “carbon sinks”.
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Anticipated levels of oil and gas and coal development and associated air emissions would be the same as Alternative 1.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Although surface tracts would be closed or limited to motorized use under this alternative, the level of activity contributing to emissions would not change compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not used extensively for recreation or travel.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Since the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fowl River, and Geneva tracts (a total of 114 acres or 71 percent of BLM surface ownership in Alabama) would be managed as ROW avoidance areas, there would be less potential for emissions associated with the use of trucks and heavy equipment (bulldozers, etc.) for ROW development compared to Alternative 1. Impacts from potential ROW development on the Jordan Lake and Fort Morgan Highway tracts would be the same as Alternative 1.

Soil Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-37

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3

August 2008

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated impacts on 105 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. Applying the stipulations in Appendix D would increase the area where seasonal, CSU (117,506 acres), and NSO (43,239 acres) restrictions would be implemented, which would reduce disturbance to soils within the protected areas. Under this alternative, the NSO area around aquatic habitats identified in Alternative 2 would be reduced to 250 feet, which would reduce protections to soils within these areas as compared to Alternative 2. In most cases, this buffer is expected to prevent construction activities from increasing erosion to the point that sedimentation of local drainages and wetlands increases. In areas with slopes over 25 percent, additional measures may be needed to stabilize disturbed soils. Impacts to prime or unique farmlands would be the same as described for Alternative 1.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Although surface tracts would be closed or limited to motorized use under this alternative, the level of activity and associated impacts to soil resources would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not used extensively for recreation or travel.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Disposing the surface tracts under the condition that uses would be consistent with the resource management goals and objectives and allowable uses and management actions established under this alternative would limit or restrict activities that impact soils. Although development once the tracts are disposed could result in soil impacts from vegetation-clearing activities and construction ground disturbance, limitations for habitat protection and resource management would be likely to reduce the potential for erosion or loss in soil productivity. The effects from ground disturbance during construction, vegetation treatments, or habitat improvements would be short term. If permanent roads or structures are constructed on the tracts, the effects would be long term but localized. ROW management actions and associated impacts to soils would be the same as Alternative 2.

Water Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated impacts on 105 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. Applying the stipulations in Appendix D would increase the area where seasonal, CSU (117,506 acres), and NSO (43,239 acres) restrictions would be implemented, which would reduce disturbance to water resources within the protected areas. Under this alternative, the NSO area around aquatic habitats identified in Alternative 2 would be reduced to 250 feet, which would allow development to occur in close proximity to water resources and the potential for impacts to occur. In most cases, this buffer is expected to prevent construction activities from increasing the sedimentation of local drainages and wetlands. In areas with slopes over 25 percent, additional measures may be needed to stabilize

4-38

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3

disturbed soils above wetlands or aquatic habitats to the point they are not impacted by increased sedimentation. Impacts from coal mining would be the same as Alternative 1.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Although surface tracts would be closed or limited to motorized use under this alternative, the level of activity and associated impacts to water resources would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not used extensively for recreation or travel.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Disposing the surface tracts under the condition that uses would be consistent with the resource management goals and objectives and allowable uses and management actions established under this alternative would limit or restrict activities that impact water resources. Although development of the tracts could involve vegetation-clearing activities and construction ground disturbance that could increase surface runoff and degrade water quality, limitations for habitat protection and resource management would be likely to reduce the potential for these impacts. The effects from ground disturbance during construction, vegetation treatments, or habitat improvements would be short term. If permanent roads or structures are constructed on the tracts, the effects would be long term but localized. ROW management actions and associated impacts to water resources would be the same as Alternative 2.

Vegetative Communities
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Under this alternative, oil and gas development would be excluded from a 250-foot buffer around wetland and aquatic habitats and could be extended up to 600 feet where slopes exceed 10 percent. This buffer could be reduced to 100 feet where slopes are less than 10 percent, where there are no special status species issues. This buffer is expected to be adequate to protect most riparian zones and wetland habitats. It is estimated that this stipulation would apply to 38,111 acres or about 12 percent of the FMO, versus 90,930 or approximately 29 percent of the FMO in Alabama.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Impacts from ROWs would be the same as Alternative 2. Under this alternative, the Fort Morgan, Fowl River, and Coosa River tracts would be available for transfer to other agencies or groups, but future management would be constrained by the management objectives outlined in this plan. All of the Fort

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-39

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3

August 2008

Morgan Beach and Highway tracts would be transferred to the Bon Secour NWR and would be managed as part of that refuge. The Geneva County and Jordan Lake tracts would be available for transfer out of Federal ownership. Impacts to vegetation on the Fort Morgan, Fowl River, and Coosa River tracts would be the same as Alternative 2. The sale of the Geneva County tract is not expected to change the current uses, and no impacts to vegetation are anticipated.

Fish and Wildlife
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

The acreage disturbed would be the same under all alternatives, and wells would be shifted away from sensitive habitats, although, under this alternative, the buffer would be reduced to 250 feet, with the option of increasing it to 600 feet where needed because of steep slopes or erosive soils. The buffer could be reduced to 100 feet where slopes are less than 10 percent and there are no special status species issues. These buffers are expected to be sufficient for most wildlife species using wetland and aquatic habitats, but interior forest-nesting birds and some amphibians and reptiles may be impacted by this reduced buffer through habitat disturbance. Karst habitats and most naturally occurring prairies and glades would be protected under this alternative. Under this alternative, the coastal no-lease areas would be replaced with an NSO buffer. This change has some potential to promote offsite drilling. Disturbance of maritime habitats would contribute to the loss of important foraging habitats for migrating songbirds and shorebirds nesting in nearby dunes.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Impacts from ROWs would be the same as Alternative 2. No impacts to wildlife are anticipated from the disposal of the Geneva County tract because no land use changes are expected.

Special Status Species
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.

4-40

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

The number of wells (20) and acres disturbed (105) would remain the same under this alternative, and impacts would be the same as Alternative 2, except in the following situations. The aquatic and wetland buffer would be reduced to 250 feet. In areas where slopes exceed 10 percent, the buffer could be extended up to 600 feet to provide adequate protection. In areas with slopes less than 10 percent, the 250-foot buffer could be reduced to a minimum of 100 feet, if the adjacent waterway or wetlands have been surveyed and no special status species occur within 100 yards upstream and 300 yards downstream of the site. This stipulation could be applied to an estimated 38,111 acres or 12 percent of the non-USFS FMO available for leasing in Alabama. In most cases, this buffer is expected to prevent construction activities from increasing the sedimentation of local drainages and wetlands. In areas with slopes over 25 percent, additional measures may be needed to stabilize disturbed soils above wetlands or aquatic habitats. Under this alternative, the coastal no-lease areas would be replaced with an NSO buffer. This change could affect nesting sea turtles, piping plover, and critical habitat for Alabama beach mouse, including adjacent upland scrub habitats. Although no surface disturbance would occur on non-USFS FMO or the BLM surface tracts, offsite directional drilling to target these Federal minerals would be permitted under this alternative. Any directional wells targeting non-USFS FMO that may affect Federally listed species or critical habitat would require coordination with the USFWS.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Impacts from ROW would be the same as Alternative 2. Under this alternative, the Fort Morgan, Fowl River, and Coosa River tracts would be available for transfer to other agencies or groups, but future management would be constrained by the management objectives outlined in this plan. All of the Fort Morgan Beach and Highway tracts would be transferred to the Bon Secour NWR and would be managed as part of that refuge. Alabama beach mouse, piping plover, and snowy plover would benefit from the same activities discussed under Alternative 2. Under this alternative, the Geneva and Jordan Lake tracts would be transferred out of Federal ownership. This tract is adjacent to Gulf sturgeon critical habitat, but no changes of use are anticipated. At the Jordan Lake tract, there may be opportunities to construct boat docks or other lake access facilities, but the tract may be too narrow to prompt the construction of additional camps. In both cases, the overall use pattern is not expected to change, and no adverse effects to special status species are anticipated.

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-41

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3

August 2008

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Impacts to wildland fire ecology and management from anticipated oil and gas development and associated disturbance of 105 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. Impacts would not occur on the closed (8,179 acres) and NSO (43,239 acres) areas created through applying the stipulations in Appendix D.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.

Cultural Resources
Impacts from cultural resources management and wildland fire management actions would be the same as Alternative 1.
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Impacts to cultural resources from management of non-USFS FMO would be the same as Alternative 2, except 144,895 acres would be managed as open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions, 117,506 acres as CSU, 43,239 acres as NSO, and 8,179 acres as closed. The 105 acres of disturbance resulting from the anticipated 20 wells could impact cultural resources within areas managed as open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions or CSU. Impacts to cultural resources are not anticipated in areas managed as NSO or closed since surface disturbance would be precluded. Impacts to cultural resources from coal development would be the same as Alternative 1.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Although surface tracts would be closed or limited to motorized use under this alternative, the level of activity and associated impacts to cultural resources would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not used extensively for recreation or travel.

4-42

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Making the surface tracts available for disposal could result in the removal of cultural properties from Federal ownership and the associated protection by laws, regulations, and policies. Before any transfer of management responsibilities or ownership, an appropriate level of cultural resource survey and consultation with the SHPO under NHPA Section 106 regulations would need to be conducted. Disposing the property from Federal ownership would remove protection of any cultural resources under Federal law; however, by applying conditions and restrictive covenants on management and use after disposal, damage to previously undetected cultural resources could be mitigated. Management actions and impacts associated with ROW development would be the same as Alternative 2.

Visual Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Fish and wildlife habitat management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Since approximately 105 acres of vegetation removal and construction activities would result from the development of 20 oil and gas wells (as with Alternative 1), removal of vegetation and construction of wells and wellpads and introduction of other equipment would decrease visual quality. However, stipulations applied under this alternative could preclude oil and gas development thereby protecting visual resources on the 43,239 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (8,179 acres). Since no mineral-development activities would occur on the surface tracts, there would be no violations of VRM class objectives.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts to visual resources would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Although the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach (Lots 13, 14, 24, 54, and 55), Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership, specified conditions on management and use after disposal to meet resource objectives would protect visual quality. ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.

Minerals
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Vegetative communities management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-43

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3

August 2008

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Fish and wildlife management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Applying the lease stipulations and BMPs in Appendix D could restrict or preclude oil and gas development and exploration. Under this alternative, the NSO area around aquatic habitats identified in Alternative 2 would be reduced to 250 feet and the no-lease stipulation for Alabama beach mouse habitat would be NSO. Impacts would not be anticipated on approximately 144,895 acres open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions. Managing approximately 117,506 acres as open to leasing subject to minor constraints and 43,239 acres as open to leasing subject to major constraints could increase development costs. Allowing for exceptions, waivers, and modifications to these stipulations could create opportunities for the discovery of new oil and gas resources. Impacts to coal leasing and development would be the same as Alternative 1.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Lands and realty management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.

Recreation and Travel Management
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts to recreation and travel would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Fish and wildlife management actions and associated impacts to recreation and travel would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Since approximately 105 acres of vegetation removal and construction activities would result from the development of 20 oil and gas wells (as with Alternative 1), impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. Stipulations applied under this alternative could indirectly protect the recreational opportunities on the 43,239 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (8,179 acres) by eliminating associated ground disturbances, noise, and infrastructure.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.

4-44

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Impacts from the transfer of Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts to the USFWS would be the same as Alternative 1. Although the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach (Lots 13, 14, 24, 54, and 55), Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership, specified conditions on management and use after disposal to meet resource objectives could protect recreational settings, although access could be reduced if not specifically included in the conditions for use or restrictive covenants. ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.

Lands and Realty
ROW management actions and associated impacts to lands and realty would be the same as Alternative 2. Under Alternative 3, the Coosa River and Fowl River tracts would be available for disposal under the condition that uses would be consistent with the resource management goals and objectives and allowable uses and management actions established under this alternative. This would allow opportunities for other Federal agency or non-Federal ownership but would restrict future use of the tracts. All of the Fort Morgan Beach (including Lots 73 and 74) and Fort Morgan Highway tracts would be available for transfer to the USFWS as part of the Bon Secour NWR. This would facilitate Federal management of the tracts but would not allow opportunities for other Federal agency or non-Federal ownership. The Geneva and Jordan Lake tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership, which would allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or non-Federal ownership without specified conditions on future use of the tracts.

Social and Economic
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Vegetative communities management actions and associated impacts to social and economic conditions would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

The same number of wells and acres of surface disturbance as Alternative 1 is anticipated under this alternative; however, this alternative places leasing stipulations to protect sensitive species and their habitats, including buffers for wetland and aquatic resources. Relative to Alternative 1, the exploration and development costs could increase while the availability for locations of wellpads could decrease, which would result in adverse impacts to the oil and gas industry. Since the number of wells anticipated is small relative to total wells in the area, there would be minimal social and economic changes, possibly slight increases in employment or income, as compared with the current situation. Oil and gas development and production can have implications for visual and scenic qualities as well as property values. These impacts are likely less than those under Alternative 1, as there are more conditions and constraints on wellpad locations under Alternative 3. Social indicators such as housing, education, and cost of living would not be anticipated to change under this alternative. Under Alternative 3, impacts would be the same as Alternative 1 for coal development.
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-45

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 3

August 2008

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Under Alternative 3, socioeconomic impacts would be the same as those identified under Alternative 2.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Under Alternative 3, Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would be transferred to the USFWS and a number of dispersed BLM surface land tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership with specified conditions on management and use after disposal to meet prescribed resource objectives. Although development could be allowed on these properties, it would be limited or restricted to activities that are consistent with prescribed resource management objectives. Since the types of activities on these lands are not likely to considerably change, there would be minimal impact to social and economic conditions under this alternative.

Hazardous Materials
Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1.

4-46

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4

4.2.4

Alternative 4

Air Quality
Under this alternative, there is a potential for wildfire which could lead to air emissions. Since all fires would be suppressed, these occurrences would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions. Certain BLM-authorized activities within the planning area, such as oil and gas development, construction activities, vehicle travel, and mechanical hand tools or prescribed burning used in vegetation and wildlife habitat manipulation, would produce emissions considered to be GHGs, particularly CO2. However, due to the anticipated dispersed and infrequent nature of these activities, the project emissions would not have any noticeable or measurable effect and, therefore, the total contribution of GHGs from authorized activities would be small as well. Other BLM activities may help offset any emissions and sequester carbon, such as maintaining vegetative and forested cover, which may help build organic carbon in soils and function as “carbon sinks”.
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would deteriorate air quality conditions. Prescribed burning conducted to meet habitat objectives would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Anticipated levels of oil and gas and coal development and associated air emissions would be the same as Alternative 1.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-47

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4

August 2008

ROW development compared to Alternative 1. Impacts from potential ROW development on the Jordan Lake and Fort Morgan Highway tracts would be the same as Alternative 1.

Soil Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in disturbance or loss of soils.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Impacts to soil resources from minerals management, including oil and gas and coal development, would be the same as Alternative 3.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Although surface tracts would be closed or limited to motorized use under this alternative, the level of activity that could impact soil resources would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not used extensively for recreation or travel.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Disposing the tracts from Federal ownership with no restrictive covenants could increase chances for subsequent development and associated impacts to soil resources. This could result in impacts to soils from vegetation-clearing activities and construction ground disturbance, which could increase surface runoff and erosion. The effects from ground disturbance during construction, vegetation treatments, or habitat improvements would be short term. If permanent roads or structures are constructed on the tracts, the effects would be long term but localized. ROW management actions and associated impacts to soil resources would be the same as Alternative 2.

Water Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

4-48

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to water quality.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Impacts to water resources from minerals management, including oil and gas and coal development, would be the same as Alternative 3.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Although surface tracts would be closed or limited to motorized use under this alternative, the level of activity that could impact water resources would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not used extensively for recreation or travel.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Disposing the tracts from Federal ownership with no restrictive covenants could increase chances for subsequent development and associated impacts to water resources, as described under the Soil Resources section. ROW management actions and associated impacts to water resources would be the same as Alternative 2.

Vegetative Communities
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in the same impacts discussed under Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-49

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4

August 2008

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Impacts from minerals management, including oil and gas and coal development, would be the same as Alternative 3.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Following disposal, it is assumed that the Fort Morgan and Fowl River tracts would be developed for residential or recreational use and that recreational facilities would be constructed on the Coosa River and Jordan Lake tracts. It is expected that there would be some short-term and long-term loss of vegetation at all of these sites depending on the extent of the development as a result of vegetation removal, conversion to development, and introduction of invasive species. No impacts to vegetation are anticipated at the Geneva County tract as changes of use are not anticipated.

Fish and Wildlife
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No vegetative communities management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in habitat degradation on any of the BLM surface tracts. The maritime forests, scrubs, and flatwoods on the Fort Morgan Highway tracts are particularly vulnerable to cogon grass and Chinese tallow.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in the same impacts discussed under Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Impacts from minerals management, including oil and gas and coal development, would be the same as Alternative 3.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Impacts from ROW actions would be the same as Alternative 2. After transfer to private ownership, the Fort Morgan and Fowl River tracts are expected to be developed for residential and recreational use. At Fort Morgan, private development of the beach tracts could result in the loss of up to 28.7 acres of habitat for nesting and wintering shorebirds. Additional development of the Fort Morgan Highway tracts could

4-50

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4

result in the loss of up to 41.28 acres of maritime forest, scrub, and wetland habitats. These tracts are part of a narrow band of habitat that provides crucial refuge for migrating songbirds as well as resident wading birds, songbirds, and a wide variety of reptiles and amphibians, including alligators and up to eight native frog species. Development of the Fowl River tract would likely result in the loss of wetland habitats and increased public use that would exclude more secretive wildlife, including many species of wading birds. Recreational development of the Jordon Lake and Coosa River tracts is not expected to alter species diversity or patterns of use at those tracts since the Jordan Lake tract is already developed for recreation and the Coosa River tracts are generally inaccessible islands.

Special Status Species
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed could increase the potential for exotic, invasive species to become established or spread on the BLM surface tracts. Cogon grass at the Fort Morgan Highway tracts, in particular, has the potential to alter Alabama beach mouse critical habitat as it forms dense stands displacing native herbaceous plants and potentially increasing fire frequency and intensity. Under this alternative, the BLM would not actively promote the restoration of coastal dunes through plantings/sand fence installation projects following damage by major storm events. These dune restoration projects promote sand deposition and facilitate the return of habitat conditions suitable for Alabama beach mouse. Without these projects, it is likely to take longer for sand to accumulate and for dune vegetation to become reestablished, postponing the reestablishment of Alabama beach mouse populations after catastrophic events.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in the same impacts discussed under Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Impacts from minerals management, including oil and gas and coal development, would be the same as Alternative 3.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

The transfer of the BLM surface tracts to private ownership is likely to result in loss of habitat for the Alabama beach mouse, piping plover, snowy plover, and bald eagle, as well as potential habitat for
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-51

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4

August 2008

Alabama red-belly turtle. Any development of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would result in the direct loss of occupied critical habitat for the Alabama beach mouse. Development of the highway tracts are likely to result in the loss of important scrub habitats designated as critical habitat. Because the Fort Morgan Beach and Highway tracts are designated critical habitat, USFWS would have to authorize a taking permit through the Section 7 process of the Endangered Species Act before such transfers could be approved. Recreational development of the Coosa River tracts could result in abandonment of the existing bald eagle nest and exclude future nesting, depending on the location of facilities and intensity of public use. No impacts to special status species are expected as a result of anticipated development on the Fowl River, Jordon Lake, or Geneva County tracts. At Fowl River, it is unlikely that any future development of the site would substantially alter the wetland characteristics of the site and render it unsuitable for Alabama red-belly turtle. The Jordon Lake tract does not support any known populations of special status species. No development is expected to occur on the Geneva County tract, which is adjacent to critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon.

Although no specific vegetative communities actions are proposed, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives under standard management common to all alternatives would serve to decrease vegetation density and cover (fuel load) and maintain natural fuel conditions across the surface tracts. This would maintain natural disturbance regimes which would be easier to manage through prescribed fire or other treatments. This would also decrease the frequency and intensity of wildland fires and allow fires to be more easily controlled, better protecting life, public safety, and property and resource values. However, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in invasions and fuel accumulations that would increase the frequency and intensity of wildland fires.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed under this alternative; therefore, no impacts would be anticipated. Under standard management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would result in impacts similar to those discussed under Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Minerals management actions and associated impacts to wildland fire ecology and management would be the same as Alternative 3.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Impacts to wildland fire ecology and management from recreation and travel management actions would be the same as Alternative 2 because travel designations would be the same for this alternative.

4-52

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.

Cultural Resources
Impacts from cultural resources management and wildland fire management actions would be the same as Alternative 1.
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would require cultural resource clearances before activity were to occur; therefore, impacts would not be anticipated.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Impacts to cultural resources from minerals management, including oil and gas and coal development, would be the same as Alternative 3.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Although surface tracts would be closed or limited to motorized use under this alternative, the level of activity and associated potential impacts to cultural resources would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not used extensively for recreation or travel.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Making the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach (Lots 13, 14, 24, 54, and 55), Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts available for disposal could result in the removal of cultural properties from Federal ownership and the associated protection by laws, regulations, and policies. Before any transfer of management responsibilities or ownership, an appropriate level of cultural resource survey and consultation with the SHPO under NHPA Section 106 regulations would need to be conducted. Disposing the property from Federal ownership would remove protection of any cultural resources under Federal law. Disposing the tracts without any specified management or use would increase the potential for damage or loss of previously undetected cultural resources after the transfer. Management actions and impacts associated with ROW development would be the same as Alternative 2.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-53

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4

August 2008

Visual Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to visual quality. Although visual quality would deteriorate in the short term, visual quality would improve in the long term once vegetation has reestablished to meet VRM class objectives.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to visual quality. Although visual quality would deteriorate in the short term, visual quality would improve in the long term once vegetation has reestablished to meet VRM class objectives.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Minerals management, including oil and gas and coal development, and associated impacts to visual resources would be the same as Alternative 3.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts to visual resources would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Making the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach (Lots 13, 14, 24, 54, and 55), Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts available for disposal from Federal ownership without conditions could result in changes to existing natural or manmade landforms, which would diminish visual quality if the use were to dominate the view of the casual observer. Following disposal, private development actions could create visually intrusive development. ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.

Minerals
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Fish and wildlife management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.
4-54 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Mineral management actions for oil and gas and coal and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 3.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Lands and realty management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.

Recreation and Travel Management
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Minerals management actions and associated impacts to recreation and travel would be the same as Alternative 3.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Impacts from the transfer of Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts to the USFWS would be the same as Alternative 1. Making the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach (Lots 13, 14, 24, 54, and 55), Fort Morgan Highway, Fowl River, Geneva, and Jordan Lake tracts available for disposal from Federal ownership without conditions could result in reduced access for recreation and travel opportunities. Following disposal, tracts could be made unavailable for public recreation and inaccessible to travel. ROW management actions and associated impacts would be the same as Alternative 2.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-55

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4

August 2008

Lands and Realty
ROW management actions and associated impacts to lands and realty would be the same as Alternative 2. Transferring Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts to the USFWS as part of the Bon Secour NWR would facilitate Federal management of the lots. Under Alternative 4, the Coosa River, Fort Morgan Beach, Fort Morgan Highway, and Fowl River tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership with no restrictive covenants. This would allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or non-Federal ownership without specified conditions on future use of the tracts; however, disposal would not be allowed if it would jeopardize Federally listed species or designated critical habitat, which could limit some disposals. The Geneva and Jordan Lake tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership, which would allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or non-Federal ownership without specified conditions on future use of the tracts.

Social and Economic
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Impacts to social and economic conditions would not be anticipated from vegetative communities management actions since no actions are proposed under this alternative. Standard management actions common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation manipulation to meet resource objectives, would not be anticipated to be of an extent that would result in impacts to economic or social conditions.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Impacts to social and economic conditions would not be anticipated from fish and wildlife habitat management actions since no actions are anticipated. Standard management actions common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would not be anticipated to be of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to economic or social conditions.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Minerals management actions, including oil and gas and coal development, and associated impacts to social and economic conditions would be the same as Alternative 3.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Under Alternative 4, socioeconomic impacts would be the same as those identified under Alternative 2.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Under Alternative 4, Lots 73 and 74 of the Fort Morgan Beach tracts would be transferred to the USFWS and a number of dispersed BLM surface land tracts would be available for disposal from Federal ownership without conditions on management and use after disposal. This could result in reduced access for recreational activities on these lands and changes to the existing natural landscape. Additionally, private recreational or residential development could impact visual resources, habitat quality, and wildlife populations. Since development could be allowed on these properties, it is possible that the property tax revenues to the local counties would increase more than the Federal Payments in Lieu of Taxes, economically benefiting the counties and the State. It is possible that the private development of these tracts could slightly increase employment and income in these areas. Social indicators, such as housing, education, and cost of living are not expected to be influenced by the minimal development.
4-56 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Alabama Impacts-Alternative 4

Hazardous Materials
Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-57

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

4.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS FROM BLM MANAGEMENT ACTIONS IN MISSISSIPPI
This section discusses the potential impacts anticipated from implementation of the management actions under each alternative for the Hancock County tract in Mississippi and for non-USFS FMO on about 517,934 acres in 79 Mississippi counties. Impacts from the allowable uses and management actions proposed for the Hancock County tract are analyzed if the R&PP patent held by the University of Mississippi were to revert to the BLM. This section is organized by alternative, then by resource. Under each resource, each management action is discussed, including vegetative communities, fish and wildlife habitat, minerals, recreation and travel, and lands and realty. A discussion of cumulative impacts for each resource is contained in Section 4.4.2.

4.3.1

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Air Quality
Under this alternative, there is a potential for wildfire which could lead to air emissions. Since all fires would be suppressed, these occurrences would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions. Certain BLM-authorized activities within the planning area, such as oil and gas development, construction activities, vehicle travel, and mechanical hand tools or prescribed burning used in vegetation and wildlife habitat manipulation, would produce emissions considered to be GHGs, particularly CO2. However, due to the anticipated dispersed and infrequent nature of these activities, the project emissions would not have any noticeable or measurable effect and, therefore, the total contribution of GHGs from authorized activities would be small as well. Other BLM activities may help offset any emissions and sequester carbon, such as maintaining vegetative and forested cover, which may help build organic carbon in soils and function as “carbon sinks”.
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would deteriorate air quality conditions. Prescribed burning conducted to meet habitat objectives would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions.

4-58

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Combustion processes, construction activities, and vehicle travel associated with potential oil and gas development produce air emissions. Estimated emissions from the development of 10 wells over the next 20 years on BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO would produce considerably less emissions than the total planned oil and gas developments in the State (presented in Table 4-4). Those emissions would likely occur over a dispersed geographic area and would not cause any noticeable or measurable effect. Potential oil and gas leasing on BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO is in close proximity to the Sipsey Wilderness Area in Alabama and the Breton NWR in Louisiana. These emissions could potentially deteriorate wilderness air quality values and ambient air quality attainment. Since emissions would be dispersed over a large geographic area, air quality impacts would not be anticipated.

Table 4-4. Maximum Potential Oil and Gas Air Emissions for BLM and
Non-BLM Activities in Mississippi (tons per year)1, 2

Well Locations
BLM-administered, non-USFS FMO Estate in Mississippi Other Mineral Estate Across Mississippi

NOx
27.5 33,028

Emission Type/Pollutant SO2 PM10 CO
0.3 360 7.8 9,368 32.9 39,513

VOC
27.5 33,028

1. Using conservative assumptions typical of liquid mineral wells on BLM land. 2. Assumption that all wells are conventional natural gas wells (BLM 2005a).

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Short-term, localized increases in dust and emissions could potentially occur from recreation activities and motorized travel. Given the small amount and marsh nature of the Hancock County tract, these activities would not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Short-term, localized increases in dust and emissions would occur from use of trucks and heavy equipment (bulldozers, etc.) in ROW development. These actions would be conducted in accordance with the Mississippi SIP and local dust control regulations and, given the small amount and marsh nature of the Hancock County tract, would not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions or violate air quality standards or regulations.

Soil Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-59

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed under this alternative; therefore, there would be no impacts to soil resources. Under standard management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements, would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in disturbance or loss of soils.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Mineral exploration, development, and operations on non-USFS FMO would include ground-disturbing and potential contaminant-introducing activities that could impact soils. Oil and gas development operations—specifically, construction of drilling pads, reserve pits, and access roads—would disturb topsoils and alter surface soil characteristics, which could result in both a slight decline in soil productivity and an increase in surface runoff. Increases in erosion and loss of soils due to oil and gas development are a factor of wellpad design, slope, erodibility of the soils, proximity of the disturbance, and the intervening vegetation. The potential for erosion increases with prolonged or heavy rains that are typical in this area. Cut and fill slopes are particularly vulnerable before protective plant covers have been established. Except for 63,004 acres closed to leasing by other surface management agencies, non-USFS FMO would be open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions (454,930 acres). The estimated 10 wells to be developed on non-USFS FMO in Mississippi over the next 20 years would disturb approximately 55 acres. Both Federal and State laws would require the reclamation of mined lands concurrently with mining operations; therefore, the required reclamation and the minimal surface that might be disturbed would result in only localized effects on soils. Operation of the oil and gas wells could also affect the surrounding soils by potential contamination from accidental spills or improper management of hazardous materials or waste. Federal, State, and local regulations would require site characterization and corrective action that would restore soil integrity and productivity. In a few locations, there are prime or unique farmlands on non-Forest Service FMO. Though not likely, it is possible that some of the 105 acres of soil disturbance could be on prime or unique farmland. In the event development is proposed in such an area, the BLM would implement appropriate mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts as described in Section 2.3.3.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Allowing recreation activities, including motorized vehicle use on the Hancock County tract, could result in short-term and site-specific increases in erosion; however, given the limited interest in recreation and travel on the tract, any potential effects would be minor and localized.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

If new ROW construction were to occur, soils could be impacted by vegetation-clearing activities and ground disturbance. Wind and water erosion and subsequent loss in soil productivity would occur in disturbed areas where revegetation does not occur. These effects would be localized and short term in areas where revegetation is enhanced or permitted. The effect would be long term but localized if roads or structures were constructed on the tracts.

4-60

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

Water Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to water quality.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Except for 63,004 acres closed to leasing by other surface management agencies, non-USFS FMO would be open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions (454,930 acres). The estimated development of 10 wells on non-USFS FMO in Mississippi over the next 20 years would disturb approximately 55 acres. Increases in sedimentation to streams and wetlands by oil and gas development are a factor of wellpad design, slope, erodibility of the soils, proximity of the disturbance, and the vegetation composition. The potential for sedimentation increases with prolonged or heavy rains that are typical in this area. Sediments deposited in intermittent drainages during construction can be transported downstream during periods of high water, increasing turbidity in higher order streams and potentially affecting water quality substantial distances from the construction site. Both Federal and State laws would require the reclamation of mined lands concurrently with mining operations; therefore, the required reclamation and the minimal surface that might be disturbed would result in only localized effects on water resources. Mineral exploration, development, and operations would include ground-disturbing activities that increase surface runoff, which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases water quality. These activities could also introduce hazardous waste or result in accidental spills that could also deteriorate surface water quality. Leakage of drill fluids, hazardous waste spills, or leakage from reserve pits could be introduced into the ground water as well. Although Federal, State, and local regulations would require site characterization and corrective action for hazardous waste and spills, impacts to the water quality could be localized but long term, especially affecting nonflowing water bodies (e.g., small ponds or wetlands) and ground water resources. Additionally, access roads and wellpads could alter the local hydrology, reducing surface flow to mesic areas and diverting or degrading surface water. Installation of culverts and diverting existing drainages around wellpads help to maintain existing hydrologic systems, but the disturbance causes local sedimentation and could retard sheet flow.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-61

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

If new ROW construction were to occur on the Hancock County tract, vegetation-clearing activities and construction ground disturbance could increase soil erosion and surface runoff, which increase nutrient levels and turbidity and decrease water quality. Impacts would be short term in areas where revegetation was enhanced or permitted. The effect would be long term but localized if roads or structures were constructed on the tracts. The hydric soils associated with the wetlands that encompass most of the tract could be affected by development or construction activities that would dredge or fill the wetlands, compacting soils and hindering natural flow through the wetlands and potentially resulting in the loss of these emergent wetlands.

Vegetative Communities
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Oil and gas development is expected to disturb 55 acres of vegetation under this alternative. The effect this disturbance would have on vegetation would be dependent on the location and design of wellpads, roads, and production facilities. In recent years, most wells on non-USFS FMO have been located in the Maxie Field in Forrest County. Typically, the vegetation most likely to be affected in this area is pine plantations or commercial pine forests, often loblolly pine. Understory species vary depending on how the stand has been managed. Once young pine plantations shade out “old field growth” at about 10 to 15 years of age, the midstory and ground cover are generally very limited. After thinning, shrubs and young hardwoods become established. Use of prescribed fire in these stands favors an increase in grasses and native forbs. During a routine wellpad installation, saleable timber would be removed from the site if the stand is commercially viable, but it is otherwise cut and left onsite. Vegetation debris piles are stored along the edges of the construction site and may be buried onsite, burned, or left in place after drilling operations are completed. Vegetation debris is not permitted in the reserve pit, as it can disrupt any future monitoring of the pit contents. During interim reclamation, the reserve pit area is graded and the surface fertilized, seeded, and mulched. Although the operators are encouraged to use native seed, the final mix and tree planting are approved by
4-62 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

the private landowner or surface managing agency. The BLM, by policy, excludes invasive species, although non-native grasses, particularly annual rye (during the winter months) and Bahia or Bermuda grass (during the summer months) are often used to provide a quick cover for disturbed soils. These sites typically progress through “old field” stage as opportunistic pioneer plant species become established. Within a few years, young sapling pine and hardwoods become established. Faster growing pines generally dominate the site for several decades. Outside of the pine belt, pines would gradually be overtaken by longer lived hardwoods. In areas where mature hardwood forests are removed, it may take 100 years or more to reestablish hardwood forests with similar structure and even longer before species diversity returns to near pre-disturbance levels. Surface-disturbing activities have the potential to introduce or promote the spread of invasive, exotic plant species. Impacts are dependent on the species planted during restoration activities and the management of the site during and following restoration. Cogon grass is a particular concern because it is very difficult to control and because of its ability to degrade native plant communities and commercial forests. Cogon grass displaces native species and can crowd out pine seedlings and increase susceptibility to wildfire. Including native species in the mix increases diversity and provides a more natural structure. If these areas are mowed following abandonment, these non-native grasses are expected to persist and dominate the site. If, however, the sites are replanted in pine or left unmowed, the areas would progress through old field-type growth, which is dominated by opportunistic native and non-native species alike. Ultimately, both Bahia and Bermuda grass are expected to become shaded out as a tree or heavy shrub layer becomes established. Japanese honeysuckle and Chinese privet can both persist in shaded situations. Throughout the State, some plant communities, embedded in the larger forested landscape, are particularly sensitive to disruption and are difficult to restore after surface-disturbing activities. Many of these are restricted to a narrow range of soil types, such as glades and prairies; others are sensitive to changes in hydrography, such as bogs, forested wetlands, and seepage slope communities. Construction activities in or near these plant communities can alter the site sufficiently to preclude the reestablishment of these communities in the foreseeable future. Also, because of the limited acreage of these vegetation communities, loss of even the small acreages from BLM-permitted oil and gas activities has a disproportionate effect on the plant diversity in an area.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

The Hancock County tract would be open to recreation. Although the Hancock County tract is accessible only by boat, the site would remain open for vehicle use. In the unlikely event that four-wheelers were transported to Point Clear Island, substantial damage could be done on this sensitive barrier island in a very short time. Repetitive use on these sandy soils would damage herbaceous growth and young shrubs and could introduce or promote the spread of exotic plants, particularly Chinese tallow and cogon grass. Repetitive use on Point Clear would substantially degrade the maritime forest, a critically imperiled plant community in Mississippi.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-63

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

Fish and Wildlife
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Oil and gas development on non-USFS FMO is expected to result in the loss of 55 acres of habitat. The effect on general wildlife resources is dependent on the wellpad location, design, and need for additional access roads. Impacts would include the direct loss of habitat from the construction of drilling pads, production facilities, pipelines and roads, and from degradation of nearby aquatic or wetland habitats through sedimentation or changes in hydrology. These impacts could occur anywhere on non-USFS FMO in the State, but have in the past occurred primarily in Forrest County. Impacts to many wildlife species from oil and gas development are localized and temporary. Most common game species and other mobile wildlife species avoid the wellpad areas during construction. Less mobile species are directly impacted, and during the spring and early summer this can include nesting neotropical birds. Habitat generalists, including most game species, tend to return to surrounding habitats after the well is completed and construction activities have ceased. However, construction in high-value habitats or in areas with more narrowly adapted wildlife species can alter the overall species diversity. Wells and roads in areas of contiguous forests increase habitat fragmentation, reducing the suitability of the area for interior nesting birds and making nests more susceptible to predation and parasitism. Older growth forests, which provide habitat for interior forest nesting birds and a wider diversity of amphibians and reptiles, are often located in riparian/wetland zones. These areas have been set aside as buffers during logging operations or in steeper, less accessible slopes. Oil and gas drilling continues for 24 hours a day until the well is completed; during this time, most wildlife, including waterfowl and many songbirds, are expected to avoid the immediate area. However, once drilling is completed, reserve pits with water can become a hazard for waterfowl and other birds, which can become soiled by drilling fluids. If the well is put into production, there is documentation that birds and bats may use open-vent stacks for roosting or perching. Once in these stacks, animals can become trapped or asphyxiated. While much of the work documenting this problem has occurred in western States, the situation in Mississippi is expected to be similar. Access roads and wellpads can alter the local hydrography, reducing surface flow to mesic areas and diverting or degrading surface water supporting wetland habitats. Installation of culverts and diverting existing drainages around wellpads help to maintain existing hydrologic systems, but the disturbance causes local sedimentation and can retard sheet flow to wetland habitats. Amphibians and many reptiles

4-64

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

associated with wetland communities are vulnerable to disturbance, as they are not highly mobile and tend to have narrow habitat requirements.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Point Clear and the surrounding marshes provide secluded areas for nesting shorebirds, wading birds, and songbirds. Although unlikely, the use of any vehicles, such as four-wheelers, during the spring and summer months is expected to increase nest/chick abandonment and could result in the loss of groundnesting bird nests. During the rest of the year, vehicle use is likely to flush foraging and loafing wading birds and shorebirds and could reduce their use of this critically imperiled plant community.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

The Hancock County tract would remain open to ROW applications. Any ROW development could damage sensitive maritime forests and scrubs through ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and introduction of invasive species, which a variety of wildlife species are dependent upon. Depending on the time of year, development activities could cause nesting shorebirds to abandon nests and could change use patterns of foraging shorebirds.

Special Status Species
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard management common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in increased potential for invasive/exotic species becoming established or spreading. This is particularly true of the higher elevations of the Hancock County tract located on Point Clear Island. Cogon grass and Chinese tallow are both known to occur in the area and, if uncontrolled, could substantially alter the habitats supporting Mississippi diamondback terrapin and tiny-leaved buckthorn. Dense stands of cogon grass would displace native vegetation and could make the island and adjacent marshes more vulnerable to frequent wildfires.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed in this alternative. Under standard management common to all alternatives, providing habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would be allowed; however, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in the same impacts discussed under Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Oil and gas development on non-USFS FMO in Mississippi is expected to result in the direct loss of 55 acres. Based on previous oil and gas activity, the Federally listed species most likely to be affected are gopher tortoise, red-cockaded woodpecker, and black pine snake in the East Gulf Coastal Plain, and bald eagles associated with reservoirs and rivers in the northern portion of the State. Drilling could occur outside of these areas and there is some potential to affect small acreages supporting special status species anywhere in the State, outside of three northwestern counties which do not contain non-USFS FMO: Coahoma, DeSoto, and Sunflower. There is potential statewide to affect Federal- and State-listed aquatic species.
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-65

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

Gopher tortoise could be impacted by oil and gas activity in upland areas of the East Gulf Coastal Plain where forest practices on private lands have maintained at least a marginally suitable habitat. Foraging habitat for tortoise could also be affected on non-USFS FMO associated with private holdings in the Chickasawhay, De Soto, and Homochitto National Forests, which support substantial tortoise populations. During construction of wellpads, access roads, and production facilities, gopher tortoises could be impacted by the loss of or damage to burrows, destruction of foraging habitat, or killed during construction or by service vehicles. Construction activities and roads within 600 feet of burrows could isolate individuals and reduce reproductive potential within a population. In many cases, the presence of gopher tortoises indicates that habitat is suitable for a host of species associated with dry longleaf pine forests, many of them special status species such as the black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi), which could also be impacted by oil and gas activities. Red-cockaded woodpecker could be affected by oil and gas development through the loss of nesting habitat within existing clusters and through the loss of current or potential foraging habitat within 0.5 mile of existing clusters. Non-USFS FMO in areas supporting red-cockaded woodpecker is generally privately owned and often managed for commercial timber production. Harvest rotations on these properties are typically too short to sustain suitable nesting habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers; however, there is potential to impact suitable foraging habitat, particularly on non-USFS FMO near the Chickasawhay, De Soto, and Homochitto National Forests or Noxubee NWR, areas that support most of the State’s population. This stipulation would be applied to the estimated 11,710 acres of non-USFS FMO within 0.5 mile of known red-cockaded woodpecker clusters. Throughout the State, breeding and wintering bald eagles could be affected by drilling near large rivers or reservoirs. Bald eagles are particularly sensitive during courting, nesting, and fledging young; in Mississippi this typically occurs between December 1 and August 1. Construction activities within 1.5 miles of nest sites could result in nest abandonment depending on factors such as visibility and tolerance of individual pairs. Throughout the State, oil and gas development has the potential to impact aquatic and wetland habitats. This could result in degradation of water quality through contamination and increased sedimentation, direct loss of habitat, and changes in the local hydrography supporting these systems. Increases in sedimentation to streams and wetlands by oil and gas development are a factor of wellpad design, slope, erodibility of the soils, proximity of the disturbance, and the intervening vegetation. The potential for sedimentation increases with prolonged or heavy rains that are typical in this area. Cut and fill slopes are particularly vulnerable before protective plant covers have been established. While intact vegetation along riparian/wetland zones and around wetlands can substantially buffer these areas, the steepness of the intervening slopes, particularly over 25 percent, can reduce the effectiveness of buffers. Research has shown that a minimum of a 30-foot buffer of vegetation is needed to control sediments; however, construction activities within 100 feet can reduce stream invertebrates, and 1,000 feet or more may be needed to protect some amphibians, reptiles, and forest interior birds (Wenger 1999). Sediments deposited in intermittent drainages during construction can be transported downstream during periods of high water, increasing turbidity and burying aquatic invertebrates in higher order streams and potentially affecting special status species substantial distances from the construction site, including Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis), listed as Federally endangered. Filling wetlands, including bogs, seepage slopes, wet flatwoods, and forested swamps, generally alters the site sufficiently to preclude the reestablishment of these communities in the foreseeable future and could result in direct habitat loss for a wide variety of special status species. Because of the limited acreage of these vegetation communities, loss of even the small acreages associated with BLM-permitted oil and gas activities has a high potential of destroying or degrading habitat for special status species. Many of these species have limited ranges, so the list of species potentially affected varies by location. For example, the
4-66 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

Mississippi Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) notes 14 special status species are associated with pine seeps and pitcher plant bogs, including eight special status crayfish, five of which are endemic. Henslow’s sparrow wintering habitat and breeding habitat for Bachman’s sparrow could be lost by construction in or near grassy bogs or wet flatwoods. Construction activities, and particularly linear disturbances related to new roads and pipelines, can disrupt the local hydrography supporting seepage slopes or sheet flow to bogs and swamps, degrading these habitats. There are estimated to be 65 caves in Mississippi located in the northeast corner and east central portions of the State. Caves by their nature are isolated and support highly endemic faunas often with extremely narrow habitat requirements. In Mississippi, this includes two State-listed salamanders and a number of bat species. Although the potential to affect these areas is low, caves are particularly sensitive to oil and gas development. Even minor alterations in temperature, humidity, and water quality or water quantity can result in irreversible impacts. Drilling through cave/karst resources can result in contaminants, such as drilling fluids and cements, draining into the cave/karst system. Karst habitats can be degraded by hydrocarbons from spills or leaks from well casings, storage tanks, reserve pits, pipelines, and production facilities that may enter into the cave/karst systems. Additionally, cementing operations could affect portions of underground drainage systems by restricting ground water flow and introducing pollutants into karst systems. Drilling in coastal areas would affect the 18 special status species that are associated with coastal marshes and maritime scrub and woodlands, including brown pelican, Wilson’s plover, Mississippi diamondback terrapin, and saltmarsh topminnow. At least one special status plant species, tiny-leaved buckthorn (Sageretia minutiflora), occurs on coastal shell mounds in this area, but the potential for oil and gas wells being located on non-USFS FMO in these areas is low.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Because this tract is not accessible by road, few impacts are anticipated by designating the tract open to recreation and vehicles; however, use of four-wheelers on remote upland areas, such as Point Clear Island, could damage sensitive maritime forests and scrubs. Depending on the time of year, any vehicle use could cause nesting shorebirds to abandon nests and could change use patterns of foraging shorebirds, like piping plover, snowy plover, and American oystercatcher.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

The Hancock County tract would remain open to ROW applications. Any ROW development could damage sensitive maritime forests and scrubs through ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and introduction of invasive species. Depending on the time of year, development activities could cause nesting shorebirds to abandon nests and could change use patterns of foraging shorebirds, like piping plover, snowy plover, and American oystercatcher or damage their habitats.

Wildland Fire Ecology and Management
Suppressing all wildland fires, unless an in-place, site-specific plan determines otherwise, would minimize immediate threats and damage to life, public safety, and developments in the WUI and to natural resource values. Allowing prescribed burning on a case-by-case basis would allow for a reduction in hazardous fuel conditions, improving the ability to suppress wildfires while maintaining disturbance levels to which vegetation communities have adapted. Fire response and fuel treatments would apply to the 174 acres of BLM-administered surface land.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-67

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Although no specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives under standard management common to all alternatives would generally serve to decrease vegetation density and cover (fuel load) and maintain natural fuel conditions across the Hancock County tract. This would maintain natural disturbance regimes which would be easier to manage through prescribed fire or other treatments. This would also decrease the frequency and intensity of wildland fires and allow fires to be more easily controlled, better protecting life, public safety, and property and resource values. However, lack of specific areas and species being managed could result in invasions and fuel accumulations that would increase the frequency and intensity of wildland fires.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Minerals development activities would introduce additional ignition sources throughout the non-USFS FMO, increasing the potential of wildland fire occurrence. Disturbance of 55 acres associated with development of 10 wells on non-USFS FMO could provide increased accessibility for fire suppression equipment and provide fuel breaks in the case of wildland fire events. In addition, the infrastructure associated with the 10 new wells would require protection in wildland fire events. Impacts from mineraldevelopment activities would not occur on the 63,004 acres closed to oil and gas development.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Continuing to manage the Hancock County tract as open to recreation use would allow for dispersed recreation use, which could introduce additional ignition sources and increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence. This would be more prevalent in areas of the tract that are more easily accessible.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Managing the Hancock County surface tract as open for ROW applications could result in the development of ROWs. Development of above-ground ROWs on the Hancock County tract would require additional efforts by firefighters to protect these areas in wildland fire events. Development of ROWs would also result in clearing vegetation to make way for linear features. ROWs could provide fuel breaks, which could help prevent the spread of wildland fires. ROWs could also provide firefighters with increased accessibility for fire suppression equipment. While more ROWs could increase suppression costs, the aspects of ROW development related to vegetation clearing and the potential for increased accessibility could reduce suppression costs.

Cultural Resources
Management of cultural resources provides protection from the potentially damaging effects of surfacedisturbing activities through implementation of existing laws and policy, such as Section 106 of the NHPA and FLPMA. Federal undertakings typically require cultural resource inventories that would result in the identification of cultural resource sites and determination of eligibility to the NRHP. The cultural resources data acquired through inventories and evaluations would increase knowledge of cultural
4-68 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

resources on BLM-administered lands and minerals in the State. Following site-specific inventories, mitigation measures would be prescribed as necessary for eligible properties. Any cultural sites discovered may be considered for further evaluation to assess its eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Through this process, significant impacts on cultural sites eligible for the NRHP would be avoided or mitigated. Avoidance is the BLM’s preferred measure to eliminate potential adverse effects. Avoidance preserves the cultural resource in place. If this is not possible under reasonable circumstances, scientifically valid excavation and data recovery is an alternative mitigation method. Scientifically valid excavation would be used as a final measure, and the extent of excavation would be determined through BLM consultation with the SHPO and tribes. Data recovery preserves as much of the cultural record as possible through archaeological methods. Any mitigation effort requiring archaeological data recovery is subject to the terms outlined in a Data Recovery Plan and documented through a signed MOU with the SHPO, tribes, and other consulting parties. While data recovery preserves as much data as possible, the excavated portions of the property would be lost or damaged. Removing cultural resources from a site using current scientific methods also reduces future scientific value if more accurate methods of analysis are developed. Mitigation through data recovery also reduces or eliminates other uses of cultural resources sites, such as traditional, public, conservation, or experimental use. The standard inventory and avoidance procedures conducted in conjunction with surface-disturbing actions would protect most cultural resources from significant impacts. Despite the best efforts to identify all cultural resources, there remains a potential for inadvertent impacts to previously undiscovered sites, especially buried sites with no surface indications. There is a set process through Section 106 for identifying, evaluating, and treating the effects of inadvertent discoveries, reducing potential impacts from these discoveries. Wildfire, wildfire suppression efforts, and prescribed fire could impact cultural resource sites within the Hancock County tract, including the eligibility characteristics of sites that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. Impacts from wildland fire vary, depending on the temperature and duration of exposure to heat. Generally, higher temperatures and/or longer duration of exposure to heat increase the potential for damage to cultural resources. The nature of wetland vegetation in this tract would result in low-intensity wildland fires. Prehistoric and historic resources potentially affected by wildfire may be inorganic (e.g., lithic/rock, ceramics, cans, glass) or organic (e.g., textiles, leathern works, wooden structures). Generally speaking, organic materials are more at risk as they tend to burn or alter at lower temperatures than inorganic items. Wildfire impacts on inorganic cultural resources include fracturing, shattering, and changes in color and internal luster, which might reduce an artifact’s ability to render information about the past. As a general rule, fire would not affect buried cultural materials. Studies show that even a few centimeters of soil cover (4 inches) is sufficient to protect cultural materials (Oster N.D.). Wildfires that burn hot and fast through a site may have less of an effect on certain types of cultural materials than fires that smolder in the duff or burn for a long time period, allowing heat from the fire to penetrate the surface. In addition, heat from wildland fires could change the physical nature of the ground, making it harder to identify cultural resources. Often, cultural resources are more at risk of impact due to fire suppression activities than from wildland fire. Potential impacts from the use of retardants would include rapid cooling and subsequent damage (e.g., breakage, spalling, corrosion, staining, rusting) to archaeological materials. Discoloration or warping of metallic surfaces could also occur. Consultation with a cultural resource specialist during suppression activities in areas containing sensitive cultural resources would help to minimize impacts. Prescribed fire typically burns at a lower temperature and duration than wildfire events, so potential impacts would be less severe than unmanaged wildland fire. Prescribed fire events are managed to obtain

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-69

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

a smaller, more manageable, and less intense planned burn. The potential impacts from prescribed fires would typically have less long-term impacts than those from an unmanaged wildland fire event.
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Cultural resources on 454,930 acres of non-USFS FMO in Mississippi that are open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions could be impacted by oil and gas development. Based on the RFDS, oil and gas developments within these areas would impact 55 acres through the development of 10 wells over 20 years. Development on these acres would typically be subject to Class III cultural resource inventories and evaluation on a project-by-project basis prior to allowing disturbance, resulting in the identification and potential excavation of cultural sites. Cultural sites on 63,004 acres closed to leasing would be protected from oil and gas development.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation activities on the Hancock County tract, including motorized vehicle use, could result in inadvertent damage and vandalism to previously undetected cultural sites. Although the tract would not be used extensively for recreation, the tract is located in wetlands with a high potential for cultural resources to occur, which could increase the potential for inadvertent damage and vandalism.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Ground-disturbing activities associated with ROW construction and maintenance could inadvertently damage cultural resources. Because the Hancock County tract has not been previously surveyed, approved activities would be subject to a ground survey and consultation requirements with SHPO under NHPA Section 106 regulations before construction. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated to be minimal.

Visual Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

4-70

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

No specific fish and wildlife management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to visual quality. Although visual quality would deteriorate in the short term, visual quality would improve in the long term once vegetation has reestablished to meet VRM class objectives.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Mineral exploration and development on non-USFS FMO tracts (517,934 acres) would result in impacts to visual resources on 55 acres from 10 wells. Removal of vegetation and construction of wells and wellpads and introduction of other equipment would impact visual quality. The BLM does not manage the surface for non-USFS FMO tracts; however, the BLM can place COAs or best practices to minimize impacts to visual resources as needed and in accordance with the guidance and procedures defined in VRM Handbook H-8431-1 Visual Resource Contrast Rating. Impacts from these activities would not be anticipated on 63,004 non-USFS FMO acres closed to leasing. Since no mineral-development activities would occur on the surface tracts, there would be no violations of VRM class objectives.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Allowing recreation activities, including motorized vehicle use, on the Hancock County tract could result in impacts to visual quality over time from changes to existing natural or manmade landforms and scenic vistas through vegetation and soil loss, particularly on tracts that are in undeveloped areas. Since the surface tracts would not be used extensively for recreation, these impacts are anticipated to be minimal.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

If a new ROW were authorized on the currently undeveloped Hancock County tract, visual quality would be impacted if the ROW were to dominate the view of the casual observer.

Minerals
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Fish and wildlife management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Under this alternative, 454,930 acres of non-USFS FMO would be open to leasing, subject to standard lease terms and conditions; 63,004 acres of non-USFS FMO would be closed to leasing. No impacts to oil
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-71

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

and gas minerals exploration and development would be anticipated from management of non-USFS FMO tracts.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Recreation and Travel Management
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

No specific vegetative communities management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would allow vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to recreation. Recreationists could be displaced from vegetation treatment areas until revegetation occurs; however, the vegetation treatments would benefit recreationists by improving the long-term aesthetics of an area.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

No specific fish and wildlife habitat management actions are proposed under this alternative. Actions proposed under standard management common to all alternatives, which would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies (including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland enhancements), would not be anticipated to involve ground-disturbing activities of a severity or extent that would result in impacts to recreation. Recreationists could be displaced from protected areas or treated areas until revegetation occurs; however, the habitat improvements and protections would benefit recreationists by improving the long-term aesthetics and wildlife viewing of an area.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Oil and gas development on non-USFS FMO tracts with surface management by other Federal agencies that are open to the public for recreation, as identified in Table 3-17, could be impacted by the leasing of Federal minerals by the BLM or in areas where the public were excluded. Those areas and installations not open to recreation or leasing, which include NPS and USFWS lands, would not be affected. Since approximately 55 acres of vegetation removal and construction activities would result from the development of 10 oil and gas wells on non-USFS FMO, there could be a decrease in nature-based recreational opportunities due to conflicts with the developments. Mineral leasing in recreational areas could result in the removal of vegetation; construction of access roads, wellpads, and other infrastructure; drilling equipment; and associated noise and dust emissions. Impacts from these activities would include decreased quality of the recreational experience of the non-USFS FMO tracts; however, stipulations applied under this alternative by other surface management agencies could indirectly protect the recreational resources in areas where development would be precluded (63,004 acres). Oil and gas development could provide additional opportunities for travel due to the construction of access roads.

4-72

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Allowing recreation activities, including motorized vehicle use, on the Hancock County tract would maintain existing recreation and travel opportunities; however, allowing motorized travel could result in conflicts between motorized recreationists and recreationists seeking a more natural setting or experience. Since the tract is not currently used extensively for recreation or travel, these impacts are anticipated to be minimal.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

If a new road or utility ROW were authorized on the currently undeveloped Hancock County tract, the largely natural recreational experiences available would be impacted as a result of construction activity, ground disturbance, and introduction of new infrastructure; however, these actions could provide additional opportunities for travel due to the construction of access roads.

Lands and Realty
Lands and realty is a resource use rather than an environmental component and impacts on lands and realty are a direct result of their management. Therefore, the following discussion is limited to impacts from lands and realty management actions for the 174 acres of BLM-administered surface ownership in Hancock County, Mississippi. Impacts from disposal of FMO are discussed under Impacts to Minerals from Lands and Realty actions. Under Alternative 1, the 174-acre Hancock County tract would remain open to ROW applications; therefore, no impacts would be anticipated to lands and realty actions. Retaining the Hancock County tract under the BLM administration would not allow for opportunities for other Federal agency or nonFederal ownership.

Social and Economic
Definitions and descriptions of potential Environmental Justice populations, including low income and ethnicity statistics, were provided in Section 3.4.13. Since the locations of specific BLM oil and gas activities could not be identified, the Environmental Justice analysis identified low-income populations and high minority populations in counties across the State. Environmental Justice population locations should be further considered at the implementation level to minimize the potential for disproportionate impacts to Environmental Justice populations and to identify any possible mitigation measures that may be required to reduce impacts (e.g., dust, noise, traffic, ground water quality) to these populations.
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Impacts to social and economic conditions would not be anticipated from vegetative communities management actions under this alternative. The proposed standard management actions common to all alternatives, allowing vegetation manipulation to meet resources objectives, would not be anticipated to be of an extent that would result in impacts to economic or social conditions.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Impacts to social and economic conditions would not be anticipated from fish and wildlife habitat management actions since no actions are anticipated. The proposed standard management actions common to all alternatives would provide habitat improvements and protections under State wildlife conservation strategies, including control of invasive plant species, use of prescribed fire, and wetland

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-73

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

August 2008

enhancements, which would not be anticipated to be of an extent that would result in impacts to economic or social conditions.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Since only 10 fluid mineral wells (with standard lease terms and conditions) would likely be drilled over the next 20 years, there would be minimal economic impacts from these activities. This type of BLM mineral development is consistent with the development that occurred in the past, including seven applications for permits to drill between 1983 and 2004. Therefore, there would be minimal yet slight increases in employment or income. For example, over the past 20 years, there have been 7,632 wells drilled and completed (382 wells drilled per year), with a 5-year annual employment average of 3,089 employees in the support sector for mining and oil and gas. If we assume that most of this support goes to the drilling and development of the oil and gas wells, there are approximately 8 employees (3089/382) supported annually per well drilled on the BLM-administered minerals. Therefore, over the next 20 years, an additional 10 BLM-administered wells will contribute to the employment of 80 people in these support industries. Social impacts, such as housing, education, and cost of living, would not be anticipated to change as a result of this activity. Oil and gas development and production can have implications for visual and scenic qualities as well as property values. Although the BLM does not own much of the surface land in Alabama on which wells will be drilled, the permitting of these split-estate lands could impact a number of socioeconomic factors. The recreation literature indicates that visitors are likely to pay to view less development or development infrastructure in their recreation experience (Brookshire et al 1979; Boyle and Bishop 1984). Since the FMO-administered wells are mostly located on private or State lands, there could be visual impacts, but they would likely be borne by residents, not visitors. Additionally, decreases in property values have been associated with the drilling phase (more dramatic) as well as the existence of operating wells (BBC Research and Consulting 2001, 2006). Because these socioeconomic impacts are associated with mineral development, these impacts are likely greatest under Alternative 1, where standard lease conditions apply as compared to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, where there are more conditions and constraints on wellpad locations.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

The BLM surface tract is open to dispersed recreational use, including hunting, fishing, hiking, and nature study, and no construction of recreational facilities is expected. Recreation and travel management actions provide for quality of life benefits (i.e., recreation, solitude, open space, scenic values) to local residents and visitors, which are often difficult to quantify. These types of limited recreation and travel management actions do not provide significant economic benefits in terms of employment and income and will not affect social assets, such as housing, education, and crime rates, in the area. Under Alternative 1, these types of socioeconomic impacts are assumed to continue.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Under Alternative 1, the Hancock County tract would remain in Federal ownership. Lands and realty management actions would not cause changes in the economic characteristics (employment, income, and industries) as there are very little changes anticipated under this alternative. The quality of social assets (demographics, housing, cost of living, education) in Hancock County is not likely to be affected by retaining these lands in Federal ownership.

4-74

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 1

Hazardous Materials
BLM-authorized activities on surface tracts and non-USFS FMO could include the use of hazardous materials, substances, and waste (including storage, transportation, and spills). Such activities include oil and gas development, coal development, and application of pesticides to improve vegetative communities and wildlife habitat. These activities are conducted in compliance with 29 CFR 1910, 49 CFR 100–185, 40 CFR 100–400, CERCLA, RCRA, SARA, TSCA, and CWA, and other Federal and State regulations and policies regarding hazardous materials management. Therefore, if a release were to occur, it would be immediately addressed and remediated in accordance with regulation.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-75

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2

August 2008

4.3.2

Alternative 2

Air Quality
Under this alternative, there is a potential for wildfire which could lead to air emissions; however, since all fires would be suppressed, these occurrences would be short term and localized and not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions. Certain BLM-authorized activities within the planning area, such as oil and gas development, construction activities, vehicle travel, and mechanical hand tools or prescribed burning used in vegetation and wildlife habitat manipulation, would produce emissions considered to be GHGs, particularly CO2. However, due to the anticipated dispersed and infrequent nature of these activities, the project emissions would not have any noticeable or measurable effect and, therefore, the total contribution of GHGs from authorized activities would be small as well. Other BLM activities may help offset any emissions and sequester carbon, such as maintaining vegetative and forested cover, which may help build organic carbon in soils and function as “carbon sinks”.
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Undertaking actions to remove invasive plant species on the Hancock County tract and associated use of trucks and heavy equipment would cause short-term, localized increases in dust and emissions. Given the small amount and remote nature of surface ownership, these activities would not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Conducting prescribed burns to improve habitat on the Hancock County tract would cause short-term, localized increases in dust and emissions. Given the small amount and remote nature of the tract, these activities would not be anticipated to individually deteriorate air quality conditions.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated air emissions would be the same as Alternative 1.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Although the tract would be limited to motorized boating, impacts would be the same as Alternative 1 since this tract is not anticipated to be used extensively for recreation or travel.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for emissions associated with the use of trucks and heavy equipment (bulldozers, etc.) for ROW development compared to Alternative 1.

Soil Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Undertaking actions to remove invasive plant species on the Hancock County tract could increase sitespecific erosion in the short term. Over the long term, improving vegetation communities would reduce erosion and overland flows.
4-76 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2

Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

The impacts from standard management common to all alternatives would be the same as discussed under Alternative 1. In addition, conducting prescribed burns to improve habitat on the Hancock County tract could increase site-specific erosion in the short term. Over the long term, improving marsh health would reduce erosion.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Motorized travel would be closed or limited to designated routes on all tracts under this alternative. However, the level of activity that could increase erosion and associated impacts to soils would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not anticipated to be used extensively for recreation or travel.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for impacts to soils associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1.

Water Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Undertaking actions to remove invasive plant species on the Hancock County tract could increase sitespecific erosion, which could increase nutrient levels and turbidity and decrease water quality in the short term. Over the long term, these actions would maintain the emergent wetlands, water quality, and ground water recharge.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Conducting prescribed burns to improve habitat on the Hancock County tract would increase erosion and runoff, which increases nutrient levels and turbidity and decreases water quality in the short term. Over the long term, improving and protecting fish and wildlife habitats would reduce erosion and overland flows.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Anticipated levels of oil and gas development and associated impacts on 55 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. A 1,000-foot NSO buffer around aquatic habitats and applying the stipulations in Appendix D would increase the area where seasonal, CSU (123 acres), and NSO (184,192 acres) restrictions would be implemented. This would reduce disturbance to water resources within the protected areas. This
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-77

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2

August 2008

stipulation could be applied to an estimated 168,383 acres or 33 percent of the non-USFS FMO available for leasing in Mississippi. This buffer is expected to prevent construction activities from increasing the sedimentation of local drainages and wetlands.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Motorized travel would be closed or limited to designated routes on all tracts under this alternative. However, the level of activity that could affect water resources would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since these tracts are not anticipated to be used extensively for recreation or travel.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for impacts to water resources associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1.

Vegetative Communities
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

The Hancock County tract would benefit from removal of woody exotic, invasive species such as Chinese tallow and Chinese privet, which would be removed by hand and stump treated with approved herbicides. Selective hand spraying of cogon grass may be required where it is established. Any removal and treatment of exotic, invasive plants on this tract would be coordinated with the Hancock County Marshes staff and/or The Nature Conservancy to improve removal of invasive species and minimize impacts to the marshes.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Natural fire is infrequent in these coastal marshes, and the use of prescribed fires is expected to be infrequent and closely coordinated as part of an overall fire plan for the Hancock County Marshes Preserve.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

The estimated 55 acres of disturbance from oil and gas development would impact vegetation; however, under this alternative, oil and gas activities would be excluded from a 1,000-foot buffer around wetlands and aquatic habitats, karst areas, shoreline habitats, and habitats like naturally occurring prairies and glades with special status species. This alternative provides additional protection for riparian/wetland areas and reduces the potential for contaminants to leach into wetland communities. Impact to exotic invasive plant species would be the same as in Alternative 1.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Limiting the Hancock County tract to motorized boating would prevent damage to vegetative communities by reducing travel and access to recreation opportunities.

4-78

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2

Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for impacts to vegetative communities associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1.

Fish and Wildlife
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Wildlife would benefit from control of invasive exotic plant species, which could substantially alter upland areas on Point Clear Island. Invasive species control would foster native vegetation and habitats that support wildlife species.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

There may be some benefits to wildlife by burning heavy mats of flotsam left by Hurricane Katrina, where it is hampering restoration of marsh and upland habitats. This would foster native vegetation and habitats that support wildlife species.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Oil and gas development on non-USFS FMO is expected to result in the loss of 55 acres of habitat; however, under this alternative, oil and gas activities would be excluded from higher value wildlife habitats, including a 1,000-foot buffer around wetlands and aquatic habitats, shoreline habitats, and habitats like naturally occurring prairies and glades with special status species. BMPs would be applied under this alternative to reduce impacts to bats, songbirds, and waterfowl. All pits containing water 10 days after a well is completed would be netted to exclude migratory birds. Other approved methods could also be used to exclude birds. Open-vent equipment, such as heater-treaters, separators, and dehydration units, will be covered with anti-perching cones to exclude cavity nesting birds and bats. Any power lines would be built using approved raptor-safe designs to prevent electrocution hazards.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Designating the Hancock County tract as limited to motorized boating would benefit wildlife using these remote marshes and the uplands on Point Clear Island by limiting disturbance to species and their habitats. Any vehicle use on the narrow sand islands would flush foraging and loafing shorebirds and could cause abandonment of nests.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for impacts to fish and wildlife associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-79

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2

August 2008

Special Status Species
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Removing exotic invasive plant species, particularly cogon grass, could improve habitat conditions for the tiny-leaved buckthorn and Mississippi diamondback terrapin. Early detection and control of invasive plant species would reduce the amount of native vegetation displaced and minimize changes to structure that occurs when large amounts of invasive woody material is removed.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Prescribed burns could be used to remove wood debris and flotsam left from Hurricane Katrina that create hazards for wildlife and degrade marshes. Since natural fire is infrequent in these coastal marshes, the use of prescribed fires is expected to be infrequent (to mimic natural conditions) and closely coordinated as part of an overall fire plan for the Hancock County Marshes Preserve.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Although the number of wells (10) and acres disturbed (55) would remain the same under this alternative as compared to Alternative 1, lease stipulations would shift surface-disturbing activities away from sensitive habitats with potential to support special status species. This is accomplished with NSO buffers or seasonal restrictions. These stipulations could be applied to 211,605 acres or about 41 percent of the non-USFS FMO in Mississippi. To protect special status species occurring in aquatic or wetland habitats, all oil and gas development activities would be excluded from a 1,000-foot buffer around these habitats. In areas where slopes exceed 10 percent, the buffer could be extended up to 600 feet to provide adequate protection. In areas with slopes less than 10 percent, the 250-foot buffer could be reduced to a minimum of 100 feet, if the adjacent waterway or wetlands have been surveyed and no special status species occur within 100 yards upstream and 300 yards downstream of the site. This stipulation could be applied to an estimated 168,383 acres or about 33 percent of the non-USFS FMO available for leasing in Mississippi. In most cases, this buffer is expected to prevent construction activities from increasing the sedimentation of local drainages and wetlands. In areas with slopes over 25 percent, additional measures may be needed to stabilize disturbed soils above wetlands or aquatic habitats. A 250-foot buffer around known caves, fractures, and sinkholes would reduce the chances of drilling through karst formations, providing protection for cave endemics, such as cave salamander and spring salamander. Some potential remains for inadvertently drilling through unknown karst formations and damaging connected cave habitats through introduction of lost drilling fluids and muds, altering temperature and moisture regimes and modifying the hydrology supporting the karst systems. This habitat is extremely limited in Mississippi; less than 100 acres, according the Mississippi CWCS, so potential for impacting these areas in Mississippi is low. Under this alternative, NSO stipulations would be applied to coastal shorelines. This buffer would be applied to 4,237 acres of non-USFS FMO in Mississippi located within 100 feet of mean high tide. Wintering piping plover, snowy plover, brown pelican, least tern, and Mississippi diamondback terrapin are among the many coastal species that would benefit from this buffer. Offsite directional drilling to target these Federal minerals would be permitted under this alternative. Any directional wells that may affect Federally listed species or critical habitat would require coordination with the USFWS.

4-80

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2

Areas with suitable soils in southern Mississippi counties would require a survey for gopher tortoises prior to any surface-disturbing activities. No disturbance would be permitted within 600 feet of a gopher tortoise burrow. This buffer is expected to protect any breeding populations of gopher tortoise and maintain habitat for associated species, including black pine snake. It would also protect habitat values in areas suitable for eastern indigo snake and mimic glass lizard. Under this alternative, NSO would be permitted within 0.5 mile of a red-cockaded woodpecker cluster. This stipulation could be applied to 11,710 acres of non-USFS FMO within 0.5 mile of known clusters and could be applied to additional areas as needed to protect new clusters or potential habitat identified during site assessments prior to leasing. This buffer is expected to contain all foraging habitat required to maintain the red-cockaded woodpecker cluster. There are options for oil and gas activity to occur within suitable foraging habitat if the foraging requirements for the cluster are met elsewhere, for example, clusters maintained on National Forests. This exception would require a concurrence from the USFWS and the State of Mississippi. A concurrence would cause disturbance within the suitable foraging habitat, but if granted would not be anticipated to affect local populations. Under this alternative, NSO would be permitted within 1,500 feet of a bald eagle nest and/or communal roost site, and no surface-disturbing activities would be permitted within 1.5 miles during the nesting season from December 1 through August 1. This buffer complies with the current Federal guidelines for bald eagle protection. Based on the known nest sites in Mississippi, this stipulation could be applied to 1,089 acres of non-USFS FMO. Oil and gas activity complying with these parameters is not expected to adversely affect bald eagles. New protocols have been drafted that reflect the ongoing recovery of this species. When finalized, the new guidelines would reduce the buffer to 660 feet for construction activities, although existing activities could be conducted within 330 feet of the nest outside of a more refined nesting season (December 15 through June 30). Leases containing potential habitat for special status plant species, including Federally listed and candidate species as well as those ranked as critically imperiled (S-1) and imperiled (S-2) by the Mississippi Natural Heritage Program (MNHP), would require botanical surveys prior to surfacedisturbing activities. Operations would be excluded from areas supporting these special status plant species. This stipulation is expected to protect most naturally occurring glades, prairies, and other habitats which support special status plant species. The potential acreage affected by this stipulation is not available. This stipulation would be applied on a case-by-case basis based on site inspections conducted prior to leasing.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Limiting the Hancock County tract to motorized boating would prevent damage to sensitive coastal habitats for tiny-leaved buckthorn and Mississippi diamondback terrapin by limiting disturbance to species and their habitats. It would also retain the secluded nature of this barrier island and allow for undisturbed nesting and foraging of special status shorebirds, including royal tern.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in Mississippi) would be managed as a ROW avoidance area, there would be less potential for impacts to special status species associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-81

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2

August 2008

Undertaking actions to remove invasive plant species on the Hancock County tract would reduce the potential for changes in the marsh vegetation communities from invasive species. As a result, the natural fire regimes would be maintained or restored. This would improve the ability to manage wildland fire in its natural role through application of prescribed fires, as necessary. Undesired wildfires in the marsh vegetation communities that are within their natural fire regimes would also be safer and less expensive to suppress.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Conducting prescribed burns to improve habitat on the Hancock County tract would promote marsh health and allow for the reintroduction of wildland fire as a natural process and maintain or restore the natural fire regimes. Undesired wildfires in the marsh vegetation communities that are within their natural fire regimes would also be safer and less expensive to suppress.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Impacts to wildland fire ecology and management from anticipated oil and gas development and associated disturbance of 55 acres would be the same as Alternative 1. Impacts would not occur on the closed (63,004 acres) and NSO (184,192 acres) areas created through applying the stipulations in Appendix D.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

The Hancock County tract would be limited to motorized boating under this alternative. However, impacts would be the same as Alternative 1 because the potential for increased probability of wildland fire occurrence associated with travel ignition sources in easily accessible areas would remain.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Since the Hancock County tract (a total of 174 acres or 100 percent of BLM surface ownership in Mississippi) would be managed as an avoidance area, there would be less potential for wildfire impacts associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. This would decrease infrastructure needing protection, but would also decrease improvements in accessibility to fires and providing firebreaks on these tracts.

Cultural Resources
Impacts from cultural resources management and wildland fire management actions would be the same as Alternative 1.
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Undertaking actions to remove invasive plant species on the Hancock County tract would increase the potential for damage to cultural resource sites. Mechanical treatments are more likely to impact cultural resources than low intensity treatments such as chemical treatments or hand treatments. Vegetative
4-82 Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2

communities management actions would require cultural resource inventories and clearance prior to ground disturbance to identify the presence of any cultural sites and avoid or mitigate any potential damage.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Conducting prescribed burns to improve habitat on the Hancock County tract would increase ground disturbance and associated potential impacts to cultural resources. Wildlife habitat manipulation would require cultural resource inventories and clearance prior to ground disturbance to identify the presence of any cultural sites and avoid or mitigate any potential damage.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Cultural resources could be impacted by managing 270,615 acres of non-USFS FMO as open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions and 123 acres of non-USFS FMO as CSU. Based on the RFDS, oil and gas developments within these areas would impact 55 acres through the development of 10 wells over 20 years. Development on these acres would typically be subject to Class III cultural resource inventories and evaluation on a project-by-project basis prior to allowing disturbance, resulting in the identification and potential excavation of cultural sites. Stipulations and BMPs applied under this alternative would protect and preserve cultural resources on the 184,192 acres managed as NSO and in areas where surface disturbance would be precluded (63,004 acres).
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Although the tract would be limited to motorized boating under this alternative, the level of activity that could impact cultural resources would not be anticipated to change compared to Alternative 1 since the tract is not anticipated to be used extensively for recreation or travel.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Managing the Hancock County tract as a ROW avoidance area would reduce the potential for ground disturbance and potential impacts to cultural resources associated with ROW development compared to Alternative 1. Construction of development within a ROW could result in inadvertent damage if cultural resources that were undetected during surveys were unearthed during ground-disturbing activities. Following discovery of cultural resources, activities would stop in accordance with terms and conditions in the ROW grant which would minimize further damage to cultural resources.

Visual Resources
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Undertaking actions to improve vegetation communities on the Hancock County tract, such as removing invasive species, would temporarily diminish visual quality. Visual quality would be improved in the long term as the conditions of vegetation communities improve to meet VRM class objectives in accordance with the guidance and procedures defined in VRM Handbook H-8431-1 Visual Resource Contrast Rating.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Undertaking actions to improve fish and wildlife habitat on the Hancock County tract, such as prescribed burning, would temporarily diminish visual quality if the developments were to dominate the view of the casual observer. Visual quality would be improved in the long term as wildlife-related recreation and habitat conditions were improved.
Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement 4-83

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2

August 2008

Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Since approximately 55 acres of vegetation removal and construction activities would result from the development of 10 oil and gas wells (as with Alternative 1), impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. Stipulations applied under this alternative could protect visual resources on the 184,192 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (63,004 acres).
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Since the tract would be managed as limited to motorized boating, impacts to visual quality would occur under this alternative as there would be less potential for vegetation and soil removal from these activities. Furthermore, because the tract is not currently used extensively for recreation, this impact would be minimal.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Managing the Hancock County tract as a ROW avoidance area would retain the visual quality in the undeveloped wetland setting since ROWs would not be approved on the tract unless it met resource objectives.

Minerals
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Fish and wildlife management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Applying the lease stipulations and BMPs in Appendix D could restrict or preclude oil and gas development and exploration. Impacts would not be anticipated on approximately 270,615 acres open to leasing subject to standard lease terms and conditions. Managing approximately 123 acres as open to leasing subject to minor constraints and 184,192 acres as open to leasing subject to major constraints could increase development costs. Closing 63,004 acres to leasing would not affect oil and gas leasing because approximately 5 percent of the closed areas would be in areas of historical oil and gas production. Allowing for exceptions, waivers, and modifications to these stipulations could create opportunities for the discovery of new oil and gas resources.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Recreation and travel management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Lands and realty management actions would not restrict or preclude mineral development and exploration; therefore, impacts are not anticipated.

4-84

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2

Recreation and Travel Management
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Undertaking actions to improve vegetation communities, such as removing invasive species, on the Hancock County tract would temporarily diminish the recreation experience or eliminate the recreation opportunity since recreationists could be displaced from vegetation treatment areas until revegetation occurs. The recreation experience and opportunity would be improved in the long term as the conditions of vegetation communities improve by improving the long-term aesthetics of an area.
Impacts from Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Actions

Undertaking actions to improve wildlife habitat on the Hancock County tract, such as prescribed burning, would temporarily diminish or eliminate the recreation experience and opportunities for travel since recreationists could be displaced from protected areas or treated areas until revegetation occurs. The recreation experience would be improved in the long term as wildlife-related recreation and habitat conditions are improved by improving the long-term aesthetics and wildlife viewing of an area.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

Since approximately 55 acres of vegetation removal and construction activities would result from the development of 10 oil and gas wells (as with Alternative 1), impacts would be the same as Alternative 1. Stipulations applied under this alternative could protect the recreational opportunities on the 184,192 acres managed as NSO and in areas where development would be precluded (63,004 acres) by precluding ground disturbance and infrastructure associated with oil and gas development.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Since motorized vehicle use would be limited to motorized boating, motorized recreation opportunities would be maintained. Since the tract is not currently used extensively for recreation or motorized travel, this anticipated impact would be minimal.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

Managing the Hancock County tract as a ROW avoidance area would retain the recreation experience in the undeveloped wetland setting since ROWs would not be approved on the tract unless they met resource objectives.

Lands and Realty
Under Alternative 2, the 174-acre Hancock County tract would be managed as a ROW avoidance area. This could impose design and siting requirements and associated costs on new ROW. There would be an increased potential for requests for new ROW to be denied if the ROW did not meet resource objectives of the tract. Retaining the Hancock County tract under the BLM administration and pursuing partnerships with other agencies and organizations could allow for management opportunities for other agencies and organizations but would not allow for non-Federal ownership opportunities. Partnerships would allow for more efficient and comprehensive resource management of the surface tracts.

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

4-85

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 2

August 2008

Social and Economic
Impacts from Vegetative Communities Management Actions

Impacts to social and economic conditions from fish and wildlife habitat management actions would be the same as impacts identified from vegetative communities management actions.
Impacts from Minerals Management Actions

The same number of wells and acres of surface disturbance is anticipated under this alternative; however, this alternative would apply leasing stipulations to protect sensitive species and their habitats, including buffers for wetland and aquatic resources. Relative to Alternative 1, the exploration and development costs could increase while the availability for locations for wellpads could decrease. This alternative would also provide for the greatest amount of protection for wetland resources. Since the number of wells anticipated is small relative to total wells in the area, there would be minimal changes as compared with the current situation, possibly slight increases in employment or income (and the same as Alternative 1). Social indicators such as housing, education, and cost of living would not be anticipated to change under this alternative. Similar disturbances from oil and gas development would occur as compared to Alternative 1, although potential impacts to wetlands, soils, vegetation, habitat, and wildlife would be anticipated to be reduced under this alternative due to the implementation of NSO conditions on oil and gas leasing. Oil and gas development and production can have implications for visual and scenic qualities as well as property values. These impacts are likely less than those under Alternative 1, as there are more conditions and constraints on wellpad locations under Alternative 2. Industry costs and availability for wellpad locations would likely increase under this alternative, which would result in adverse impacts for the oil and gas industry.
Impacts from Recreation and Travel Management Actions

Under this alternative, the surface tract would be open to recreational use, but designated as limited to motorized boating. Minimal changes in recreation and travel management are anticipated; however, OHV users would likely be adversely impacted since the tract would not be available for this type of motorized use.
Impacts from Lands and Realty Management Actions

ROW management actions and associated impacts to social and economic conditions would be the same as Alternative 1.

Hazardous Materials
Impacts would be the same as Alternative 1.

4-86

Alabama and Mississippi Proposed Resource Management Plan And Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 2008

Chapter 4-Mississippi Impacts-Alternative 3