United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Southwestern

Region

MB-R3-03-22

August 2012

Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact

Statement for the Kiowa,

Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, 

and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land

and Resource Management

Plan

Cibola National Forest

and National Grasslands
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper – August 2012
FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek i 

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Final Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement 

for the 

Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and

McClellan Creek National Grasslands 

Land and Resource Management

Plan

Mora, Harding, Union, and Colfax Counties, New Mexico; 

Dallam, Hemphill, and Gray Counties, Texas; 

and Cimarron and Roger Mills Counties, Oklahoma

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Corbin Newman 

Regional Forester

Southwestern Region 

333 Broadway Blvd., SE 

Albuquerque, NM 87102 

For Information Contact: Forest Planner

2113 Osuna Rd., NE

Albuquerque, NM 87113 

Phone: (505) 346-3900 

Abstract: The Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands proposes to revise those parts of 

the 1985 “Cibola National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” specific to future

management of the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands.

The revision would take the form of a new plan for the Grasslands that would be separate and

discrete from the 1985 Cibola National Forest plan. The final programmatic environmental 

impact statement discusses three alternatives in detail, the no action alternative (alternative A) 

which is the 1985 plan; the preferred alternative (alternative B), which would be a new plan for

the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands; and the

Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area alternative (alternative C), which would be similar to

alternative B but with recommendation for a wilderness area designation. The preferred

alternative would address foreseeable issues that may arise during the next 15 years, based on

needs for change identified from the 1985 plan; provide for clear direction in the form of desired

conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines, suitability, and monitoring; incorporate up-to-
ii FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan

Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

date best available science and adaptive management strategies; and establish discrete

management areas. The Forest Service considered other alternatives but determined that they

would not meet the needs for change from the 1985 plan, were not feasible, or failed to meet

established Forest Service Manual (FSM) or Handbook direction.
FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek iii 

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Summary

The Cibola National Forest (NF) and National Grasslands (NGs) proposes to implement a new 

land and resource management plan for the Kiowa and Rita Blanca (KRB) and Black Kettle and 

McClellan Creek (BKMC) NGs. The area affected by the proposal includes the: Kiowa NG,

which covers 137,537 acres and is located within Mora, Harding, Union, and Colfax Counties, 

NM; Rita Blanca NG, which covers 92,989 acres and is located within Dallam County, TX, and 

Cimarron County, OK; Black Kettle NG, which covers 31,286 acres and is located within Roger

Mills County, OK, and Hemphill County, TX; and McClellan Creek NG, which covers 1,449 

acres in Gray County, TX. This action is needed because the National Forest Management Act of 

1976 requires land and resource management plans (LRMPs) be revised every 10 to 15 years, and

the current management direction for the Grasslands under the 1985 Cibola National Forest

LRMP now exceeds 25 years.

Extensive public involvement and collaboration related to developing the plan for the KRB and

BKMC NGs (herein collectively referred to as the “Grasslands”) has occurred and is ongoing. 

Informal discussions with the public regarding needed changes to the 1985 plan began with a 

series of public meetings in 2006. This input, along with science based evaluations, were used to

determine the needs for change. Additional meetings, correspondence, news releases, comment

periods, Federal Register notices, Web postings, and other tools have been utilized to date to

gather feedback from the public, Cibola National Forest and NGs employees, tribal governments, 

Federal and state agencies, and local governments. The draft Grasslands LRMP proposed as

alternative B is a culmination of these public involvement efforts.

History

With the authorization of the Homestead Act in 1862, European settlement of the prairies took 

hold. During the following decades—through the 1920s—settlers could homestead a quarter 

section (160 acres) of unclaimed land. They established intensive wheat and row-crop agriculture,

including cattle ranching, during a period of unusually wet weather. Beginning in the early 1930s, 

the region experienced severe drought, and strong winds swept across the exposed soils,

removing as much as 4 inches of organic matter, clay, and silt, creating conditions that have come

to be known as the Dust Bowl. With the farms ruined, thousands of families migrated westward,

leaving vast tracts of land abandoned. In 1937, at the height of the Depression, Congress

authorized the Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant Act requiring the Department of Agriculture to

develop a program of land conservation and utilization.

In subsequent years, the USDA Soil Conservation Service purchased abandoned lands and 

initiated a number of projects intended to stabilize environmental conditions. Thus, over time the

160-acre parcels were assembled for reclamation. Some parcels collectively formed small

contiguous units, but many remain dispersed and reflect the fragmented ownership pattern seen

today. In 1960, with the establishment of the NGs, responsibility for administration of the 

Bankhead Jones Act was transferred to the U.S. Forest Service.

This region of the country is predominantly rural and has an economic base consisting largely of 

agricultural industries.
Summary 

iv FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternatives

Alternative A, No Action

Alternative A would recommend the continuance of the 1985 Cibola National Forest LRMP (as

amended) for the Grasslands for the next 15 years. Alternative A is more fully described in

Chapter 2. Several issues led the Agency to develop alternatives to alternative A: 

• The age of the current plan, the lack of detail relevant to management of the Grasslands, 

and silence on emerging issues (wind energy, climate change, invasive species) affecting

the Grasslands.

• The often evident ambiguity of the stated management direction of the current plan with

the actual, science-based, adaptive management currently occurring on the Grasslands. 

• The desire by some members of the public to have the Regional Forester propose to

Congress the designation of a portion of the Canadian River Inventoried Roadless Area

on the Kiowa NG as a wilderness area, a suggestion opposed by others. 

Alternative B, the Proposed Plan

Alternative B would define and emphasize management of vegetation and habitat to move toward

desired vegetation structure and species composition, would incorporate research and potential

strategies for addressing effects of climate change, would address invasive species control on the 

Grasslands, would provide direction for wind energy development, and would remove

redundancy with law, regulation, and policy. Alternative B would also provide more direction for

conservation of habitats associated with species at risk and would provide more and clearer

direction to management of recreation, scenery and other activities and resources than alternative 

A. Finally, alternative B would more clearly articulate the application of adaptive management 

and would bring more current science to all management direction. 

Alternative C, the Canadian River 

Potential Wilderness Area Alternative

Recommendation would be made to designate a portion of the Kiowa NG Canadian River

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) as the Canadian River Potential Wilderness area. Specific plan

components for a wilderness area designation would be developed. Management within the 

potential wilderness area would be governed by Wilderness Act regulations as described in FSM

2320. All other management direction in alternative C would be identical to that of alternative B. 

Decision to be Made

Based upon the potential outcomes of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide whether

to implement the preferred alternative as described above, to vary the design of the proposed draft

plan to meet the purpose and need through some other combination of management direction, or

to take no action at this time.
Summary 

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek v 

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Environmental Outcomes 

Chapter 3 of the final programmatic environmental impact statement presents the affected

environment and the analysis of potential outcomes. Following is a summary of the potential 

impacts, by resource area, predicted to result from implementation of alternatives A, B, or C.

Vegetation Types, Wildlife, and Habitat 

Common to all alternatives, areal extent of early successional stage shortgrass prairie would

increase from the expansion of black-tailed prairie dog (BTPD) colonies, benefiting Mountain 

Plover, swift fox, and the Burrowing Owl (a management indicator species (MIS)).

All alternatives would have similar impacts on threatened, endangered, candidate, and proposed 

species and selected MIS—Burrowing Owl, Mountain Bluebird, and Rio Grande Turkey.

Alternative A would have vague and confusing language that often would not reflect current

management, which is based upon best available science and adaptive management.

Alternative A would provide direction for controlling and reducing areal extent of shinnery oak 

versus alternatives B and C which would encourage expansion of the shinnery oak vegetation

type for ground-nesting birds. 

Alternative A addresses controlling BTPD colonies. With the addition of BTPDs to the Regional

Forester’s Grassland sensitive species list in 2007, the alternative A controls were superseded by 

conservation measures that allow BTPD colony expansion with outcomes similar to alternatives 

B and C.

Alternatives B and C would move all vegetation types toward desired vegetation structure and 

species composition and would be resilient to the stressors of climate change such as drought, 

long-term increases in precipitation, and higher annual average temperatures. Alternative A would 

not have predictable outcomes in regard to vegetation structure and species composition. 

Under alternatives B and C, undesirable native invasive trees such as eastern redcedar and black

locust and undesirable nonnative invasive Siberian elm and saltcedar would be removed in the

shinnery oak and mixed-grass and cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation types. Although 

alternative A would allow removal of noxious or exotic invasive plants, there would be no focus

on removing undesirable native invasive trees in these vegetation types.

Alternatives B and C would reduce encroachment of eastern redcedar in the understory of mixed

hardwood riparian, attaining a diversity of structural stages habitat for the Rio Grande Turkey (a

MIS).

Alternative B and C would attain a diversity of structural stages and composition in pinyonjuniper habitat for cavity-nesting birds such as the Mountain Bluebird (a MIS).

Viability High At-Risk Species

Common to all alternatives, areal extent of early successional stage shortgrass prairie would

increase from the expansion of BTPD colonies, benefiting Mountain Plover and swift fox. 
Summary 

vi FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternatives B and C would conserve and maintain habitat for species determined to have high atrisk viability concerns, by moving vegetation types toward desired vegetation structure and 

species composition, benefiting all viability high at-risk species. Alternative A would not provide

predictable trends on the conservation of habitat.

Under alternatives B and C, undesirable native invasive trees such as eastern redcedar and black

locust and undesirable nonnative invasive Siberian elm would be removed in the shinnery oak 

and mixed-grass vegetation types, benefiting Lesser Prairie-chicken. Although alternative A 

would allow removal of invasive plants, there would be no focus on removing undesirable trees in

these vegetation types.

Alternatives B and C would attain a diverse mix of native grasses and forbs adapted to moisture 

regime fluctuations in the herbaceous portion of riparian areas. Meander scars and depressions in

the riparian areas would retain water for part or all of the year and provide habitat for amphibian 

species such as the plains leopard frog. Alternative A would provide an unpredictable state of

vegetative structure and composition and associated habitats.

Soils and Water

Under all alternatives, soil erosion would be reduced by maintaining adequate vegetative cover of

areas grazed by livestock and by rehabilitating defunct oil and gas drilling pads and associated

roads. Existing BTPD colonies would remain susceptible to soil erosion.

Under all alternatives, hydrologic function would be improved by removal of saltcedar and 

restoration of native species. Alternatives B and C would improve stream connectivity and 

structural components of channels and riparian areas; alternative A provides less direction to do 

so. 

Invasive Species

The outcome for all alternatives is similar. Invasive and noxious plants and animals would be 

identified and removed on a timely basis, limiting their potential spread.

Alternative A would maintain and sustain shelterbelts, thus supplying a source for undesirable 

native and nonnative invasive tree seed from species such as black locust, eastern redcedar, and 

Siberian elm. Alternatives B and C would reduce the areal extent of undesirable trees and would 

provide clear management direction for effective noxious/invasive plant species control which

would provide more benefit to wildlife habitat. Although alternative A would allow removal of 

nonnative invasive plants, there would be no focus on removing undesirable native invasive trees.

Alternatives B and C would more clearly address controlling invasive animals, such as feral hogs, 

than would alternative A, but alternative A and other established Forest Service direction allow

for similar control activities.

Recreation, Scenery, and Nature-Based Tourism

Alternative A would lack management direction specific to BKMC NGs and KRB NGs for 

dispersed recreation, other than motorized use. It would emphasize the construction and 

reconstruction of developed camping and picnic sites to maximize capacity use. Alternatives B 

and C would place more emphasis on dispersed uses such as hunting, fishing, hiking, and 
Summary

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek vii

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

interpretive site development rather than increasing capacity at developed camping and picnic

areas.

Recreation Opportunity System (ROS) classes defined in alternative A are limited to roaded

natural and semiprimitive motorized and would not adequately reflect the actual outdoor

recreation settings on the Grasslands. The ROS classes defined under alternatives B and C would

include two additional classes, semiprimitive nonmotorized (SPNM) and rural to better

characterize the conditions (setting and facilities) for dispersed, motorized, and developed

opportunities. Alternative B would create a new management area in Mills Canyon classified for 

the most part as SPNM. This ROS classification would restrict motorized uses in the area.

Alternatives B and C would provide higher standards for scenery management than alternative A.

Alternatives B and C would provide more direction and protections for scenic resources

especially around developed recreation sites, heritage sites, and areas of high scenic integrity than

alternative A.

Alternative A would not give guidance on nature-based tourism. Alternatives B and C would

emphasize interpretive sites and partnerships with state and Federal agencies and 

nongovernmental organizations to encourage nature-based tourism.

Heritage Resources

Alternatives A, B, and C would call for proactive preservation, interpretation, and monitoring

measures in cooperation with other agencies and according to law, regulation, and policy.

Alternatives B and C also specify Grasslands-wide preservation projects, public outreach,

interpretation, and a site steward program.

Special Areas and Eligible Scenic River

Alternative A would be silent on the scenic byways and the Santa Fe National Historic Trail.

Alternatives B and C would provide protections for the unique characteristics of these areas and

encourage partnerships with state and Federal agencies to develop and promote tourism.

Alternative A would provide protections for the Canadian River eligible scenic river corridor 

through amendment 10 (of the 1985 Cibola Forest Plan). Protections afforded by amendment 10 

would be carried forward into alternatives B and C.

Wilderness

Alternative C would recommend the Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area (PWA) for

designation, alternatives A and B would not. Under alternative B, management direction for the

proposed Mills Canyon Management Area would conserve many of the same wilderness-like

features that alternative C would.

Roads, Access, and Land Adjustment

There are no substantial differences among the alternatives for roads, access, or land adjustment.
Summary

viii FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Minerals, Energy Development, and Special Uses

Under all alternatives, defunct oil and gas drilling pads and associated roads would be

rehabilitated. While none of the alternatives would prohibit energy development, alternatives B 

and C would provide stronger protections for the environment and scenery than alternative A.

Special Forest Products

Special forest products include traditional wood products such as post, poles, and firewood, but 

also include pinyon nuts, mushrooms, and flowering plants. Under all alternatives, pinyon-juniper

forest products would be available to the public. Under alternative C, removal of some forest

products could be prohibited in the potential wilderness area. Alternatives B and C would remove 

undesirable, invasive trees, providing more forest products overall than under alternative A.

Wind Energy Development

Alternatives B and C would restrict wind energy development within one-half mile of developed

recreation sites. Wind energy development could also be restricted on a site-specific basis due to

wildlife and heritage concerns. All alternatives would be subject to Forest Service directives on

wind energy siting, development, and monitoring.

Livestock Use

Under all alternatives, BTPDs may reduce available forage for livestock. Under alternative A,

available forage would increase, as 4,400 acres of shinnery oak would be converted to grassland.

This alternative would have the Grasslands develop miles of fence and water pipeline, and

numerous watering facilities that are not needed and would be expensive. Alternatives B and C

would not require these developments.

Wildland-Urban Interface and Fire Management

There are no major differences among the alternatives regarding the wildland-urban interface and

fire management. Under all alternatives, wildland fire-caused damage would be reduced on the

Grasslands through fuels management on the Grasslands and adjacent private land.

Socioeconomics

Impacts resulting from implementation of any alternative would not generate a noticeable effect

on economic conditions overall. The slight difference in present net value (PNV) between

alternatives A, B, and C is due to costs associated with ecosystem restoration projects. With

regard to alternative C, designated wilderness could alter recreational patterns, which in turn

could affect economic activity from changes in recreation uses. While overall annual visitation

will likely remain the same, the distribution of recreation activities would change. The

consequence would likely be more social than economic.

Environmental Justice

It is unlikely that there would be a disproportionate adverse effect on minority or low-income

populations from implementing any of the alternatives. In cases where management decisions

would create jobs and boost the local economy, these populations may directly benefit.
FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek ix

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Contents

Chapter 1. Needs for Change ................................................................................................... 1

Document Structure................................................................................................................................1

Background.............................................................................................................................................1

Needs for Change ...................................................................................................................................4

Proposed Plan .........................................................................................................................................6

Decision Framework...............................................................................................................................6

Public Involvement.................................................................................................................................6

Applicable Planning Rule .......................................................................................................................8

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan.......................................................... 9

Alternatives Considered in Detail...........................................................................................................9

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study............................................................26

Summary Comparison of Consequences by Alternative ......................................................................28

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.............................. 39

Needs for Change Topic 1: Ecosystem Diversity ...............................................................................39

Needs for Change Topic 2: Managed Recreation ...............................................................................90

Needs for Change Topic 3: Human Influences.................................................................................106

Unavoidable Adverse Effects.............................................................................................................131

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources................................................................131

Other Required Disclosures................................................................................................................131

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination......................................................................... 133

Glossary.................................................................................................................................. 135

References.............................................................................................................................. 157

Appendix

A. Response to Comments.................................................................................................................161

B. Index of Other Supporting EIS Documentation...........................................................................217

C. The Canadian River Wild and Scenic River Evaluation ..............................................................219

D. Research Natural Area Evaluations.............................................................................................223

E. Timber Suitability .........................................................................................................................235

F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations......................................................................239

G. Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicator Section ................................................259

H. Grazing Suitability/Recreation Suitability...................................................................................275

I. Summary of Public Involvement...................................................................................................283

J. Data and Analysis Methods ...........................................................................................................289

K. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts.........................................................................309

L. Maps..............................................................................................................................................323

M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment ................339

List of Tables

Table 1 Visual quality objectives under Alternative A .......................................................................13

Table 2 Scenic integrity objectives under Alternative B*...................................................................19

Table 3 Summary comparison of consequences of alternatives

on the biological, social, and physical environments.............................................................29

Table 4 Summary of the likelihood of each alternative achieving desired conditions........................36

Table 5 Soil condition of the Black Kettle, McClellan

Creek, Kiowa, and Rita Blanca National Grasslands.............................................................41

Table 6 Federally listed threatened, endangered,

and candidate species considered in the analysis area............................................................58
Contents

xii FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 7 Regional Forester’s Grasslands’ Sensitive Species List.........................................................63

Table 8 Grasslands habitat/species associations, viability

risk, reasons for consideration, and suitable acres of habitat .................................................65

Table 9 Alternatives B and C Plan components that

address the threats to the Lesser Prairie-chicken....................................................................68

Table 10 Anticipated acreage of LPC habitat in mixed-grass

prairie type by alternative over the life of the plan.................................................................69

Table 11 Anticipated acreage of LPC habitat in

shinnery oak type by alternative over the life of the plan.......................................................70

Table 12 Anticipated acreage of LPC and BTPD habitat

in sand sagebrush by alternative over the life of the plan.......................................................71

Table 13 Anticipated acreage of BTPD, Mountain Plover, and swift fox

habitat in shortgrass prairie and inclusion by alternative over the life of the plan .................72

Table 14 Anticipated acreage of plains leopard frog habitat by alternative over the life of the plan ....74

Table 15 National Birds of Conservation Concern associated with grasslands habitat.........................75

Table 16 National Birds of Conservation Concern with 

viability high at-risk associated with grasslands habitat.........................................................76

Table 17 Alternatives B and C plan components that minimize eagle take ..........................................78

Table 18 Summary of Management Indicator Species Team discussion ..............................................80

Table 19 Anticipated acreage of Rio Grande Turkey habitat in

mixed hardwood riparian by alternative over the life of the plan...........................................81

Table 20 Anticipated acreage of Burrowing Owl habitat in

shortgrass prairie and inclusion by alternative over the life of the plan .................................82

Table 21 Anticipated acreage of Mountain Bluebird habitat in pinyon-juniper

and juniper grasslands inclusion by alternative over the life of the plan................................84

Table 22 Consequences to MIS population trends and

consequences to amount and quality of habitat by alternative ...............................................84

Table 23 Temperature, precipitation, and wind velocity on the Black Kettle NG ................................89

Table 24 Temperature, precipitation, and wind velocity on the Kiowa NG..........................................89

Table 25 VMS classifications for visual quality from the 1985 plan ....................................................91

Table 26 Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National Grasslands ROS classes (acres).......................94

Table 27 Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands ROS classes (acres). ........................................94

Table 28 Percent of county under Grasslands management................................................................116

Table 29 Population trends for Grassland counties and aggregated states..........................................117

Table 30 Race and ethnic distribution of total population by county, state and United States............118

Table 31 Poverty status by county, state, and United States for 2000 and 2008.................................121

Table 32 Number of jobs and percent of total jobs by sector in the study area...................................122

Table 33 Economic contribution by resource program .......................................................................124

Table 34 Economic contribution by sector..........................................................................................125

Table 35 Annual revenues and costs by program................................................................................126

Table 36 Results from the economic efficiency analysis ....................................................................127

List of Figures

Figure 1 Vicinity map of the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle,

and McClellan Creek National Grasslands...............................................................................2

Figure 2 Age distribution in the study area.........................................................................................118
FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 1 

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Chapter 1. Needs for Change

Document Structure 

The Forest Service has prepared this final programmatic environmental impact statement (FPEIS) 

in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal

and state laws and regulations. This FPEIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts that would result from the preferred alternative and other alternatives. The 

document is organized into four chapters and an appendix: 

• Chapter 1. Needs for Change. The chapter includes information on the history of the plan

proposal, the needs for change identified in the analysis of the management situation (see 

the Web address provided in appendix B), and the Agency’s proposed plan to address

those needs for change. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the 

public of the proposed plan and how the public responded. 

• Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan. This chapter provides a more

detailed description of the Agency’s proposed plan as well as alternative methods for 

achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant

issues raised by the public and other agencies. Finally, this section provides a summary

table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative considered in

detail.

• Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. This chapter

describes the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed plan and other 

alternatives considered in detail. This analysis is organized by needs for change topic: (1) 

Ecosystem Diversity, (2) Managed Recreation, and (3) Human Influences on the 

Grasslands.

• Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination. This chapter provides a list of preparers and

agencies consulted during development of the environmental impact statement. 

• Appendix. The appendix consists of numerous parts and provides more detailed

information to support the analyses presented in the programmatic environmental impact 

statement. 

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses, may be found in the planning record

located at the Cibola National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 2113 Osuna Road, NE, Albuquerque, 

New Mexico 87113. 

Background

The Kiowa (K), Rita Blanca (RB), Black Kettle (BK), and McClellan Creek (MC) National

Grasslands (herein collectively referred to as the “Grasslands”) have been under Federal

ownership since the late 1930s and are currently administered by the Cibola National Forest (NF) 

and National Grasslands (NGs) Supervisor’s Office located in Albuquerque, NM. The Kiowa NG 

covers 137,537 acres and is located within Mora, Harding, Union, and Colfax Counties, NM. The

Rita Blanca NG covers 92,989 acres and is located within Dallam County, TX, and Cimarron

County, OK. The district ranger office for both the Kiowa and Rita Blanca (KRB) NGs is located

in Clayton, NM. The Black Kettle NG covers 31,286 acres and is located within Roger Mills

County, OK, and Gray and Hemphill Counties, TX. The McClellan Creek NG covers 1,449 acres

and is also located in Gray County, TX. The district ranger office for both the BK and MC 

(BKMC) NGs is located in Cheyenne, OK. The Kiowa NG resides in the Third Congressional
Chapter 1. Needs for Change

2 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

District of New Mexico, the Rita Blanca and Black Kettle in the 13th Congressional District of

Texas and the Third Congressional District of Oklahoma, and the McClellan Creek NG in the

13th Congressional District of Texas (figure 1).

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands

According to the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), land and resource 

management plans are to be revised on a 10- to 15-year cycle. Management of the Grasslands has

been directed from 1985 to the date of this document by the 1985 “Cibola National Forest Land

and Resource Management Plan” (LRMP), as amended, which combines the management

direction for the Grasslands with that for the forested, mountain districts of the Cibola NF (herein 

referred to as the “Forest”). Upon signing by the regional forester of the record of decision (ROD) 

for this new LRMP (herein referred to as the “plan”) for the Grasslands, this new plan will

replace the direction provided by the 1985 plan for all of the national grasslands named above. 

The Grasslands have many roles and make many contributions to the local cultures, economies,

and landscapes. For example, the Grasslands contribute to the sustainability of diverse southern 

Great Plains grassland ecosystems and associated wildlife. The Grasslands demonstrate 

successful ecosystem restoration of lands that were degraded during the Dust Bowl era.

Grasslands management contributes to the sustainability of productive soils, high quality water

and riparian resources, and native prairie habitat and species. The Grasslands also include the

shinnery oak vegetation type that is underrepresented on a landscape scale. The public values
Chapter 1. Needs for Change

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 3

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

how Grasslands management demonstrates the coexistence of complementary land uses such as

cattle grazing, hunting, and oil and gas production without compromising the ecological integrity 

of the Grasslands habitat.

Recreational opportunities on the Grasslands greatly contribute to the quality of life enjoyed by

visitors. The Grasslands provide outstanding opportunities for dispersed recreation opportunities 

such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, viewing birds and other wildlife, driving to enjoy the

scenery and open spaces, and visiting historic sites. The developed recreation sites—particularly 

the lake-based recreation complexes on the BKMC NGs and the developed sites in the Mills

Canyon area—offer unique and significant features available for visitors to enjoy within this

region. Outdoor recreational activities on the Grasslands are very important to the local tourism

economy, in 2002 generating 75 jobs, $1.2 million in direct income, and $3 million in indirect

income for local businesses (UNM-BBER 2005).

Livestock grazing on the Grasslands contributes to maintaining the ranching culture and lifestyle

of these rural areas, improves the fiscal sustainability of local ranching operations, and

contributes to historical disturbance processes. Over 96 percent of the Grassland units are used by 

permit holders to graze their cattle. This use of the Grasslands contributes to the social and

economic well-being of this area while sustaining native prairie ecosystems. In 2002, livestock

grazing on the Grasslands generated 106 jobs, $1.6 million indirect income, and $10 million on

the final value of products from the industry (UNM-BBER 2005).

The Grasslands provide opportunities for oil and natural gas extraction that contribute to meeting

the Nation’s energy needs. The Grasslands may also play an important future role for alternative

energy developments such as wind. In 2002, gas and oil extraction generated 79 jobs, $3.5

million in direct income, and $11 million on the final value of products from the industry (UNMBBER 2005).

The Grasslands contain significant scenic, heritage (historic and prehistoric), and paleontological

(fossil) resources. These offer opportunities for the public to learn about the past and appreciate

the resources and beauty of the Grasslands. These important resources provide opportunities to

base tourism businesses on bird watching, hunting, wildlife viewing, and visiting historic and

cultural sites.

The Grasslands provide opportunities for research and discovery on the roles of fire and

herbivory in the Grasslands’ vegetation types and wildlife interactions. Other ongoing research

activities include seismic/earthquake monitoring on the Great Plains and monitoring of aquifers.

Three features on the Grasslands are formally designated as “special areas” to highlight and

preserve their unique historic and scenic characteristics. These special areas include the Santa Fe

National Historic Trail and two scenic byways—the Santa Fe Trail National Scenic Byway and

La Frontera del Llano Scenic Byway (state). Other areas of interest include the Canadian River

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) and the Canadian River eligible scenic river corridor which

attracts visitors with its remarkable historic, geologic, and scenic features, and recreational 

opportunities.

The Forest Service plays a cooperating role in working with volunteer rural fire departments and

others by contributing Federal firefighting resources to help protect valuable natural resources

along with private properties and communities.
Chapter 1. Needs for Change

4 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Needs for Change

The NFMA directs that plans be revised on a 10- to 15-year cycle. The 1985 plan is 26 years old

as of 2011. Since 1985, there have been changes in economic, social, and ecological conditions; 

new policies and priorities; and new information generated by scientific research.

Another fundamental need for change is that the 1985 plan does not address many of the unique 

Grasslands features, as it was developed primarily for the mountain districts of the Cibola NF.

Extensive public, intra-agency, and interagency collaborations, along with science-based

evaluations, identified the needs for change to the 1985 plan. The needs for change are organized

into three topics that focus on the sustainability of ecological, social, and economic systems: (1) 

Ecosystem Diversity, (2) Managed Recreation, and (3) Human Influences on the National 

Grasslands.

Needs for Change Topic 1: Ecosystem Diversity

Since the 1985 plan was implemented, ecological monitoring and new scientific information have

advanced the Agency’s knowledge and understanding of vegetation and its range of historical

variation, ecological processes, and habitat requirements of native fauna. Similarly, new issues

have emerged including the introduction of nonnative plants and changes in climate. Specific

management direction is needed for the following: 

• To move vegetation types toward desired vegetation structure and species composition 

• To address the unwelcome introduction and spread of invasive plants

• To anticipate and respond to changes in climate, relative to NGs management

Needs for Change Topic 2: Managed Recreation

The 1985 plan does not specifically address issues related to recreation and scenic resources that

support social and economic sustainability on the NGs. The new plan would provide direction

that is specific to the Grasslands, relative to management of motorized, dispersed, and developed

recreation opportunities, areas of high scenic integrity, and possible designation of special areas.

Specific management direction is needed for the following:

• To manage for recreation opportunities in a variety of settings from highly developed 

settings with amenities provided for visitor comfort and convenience, to less developed 

settings with few to no amenities.

• To manage scenic resources based upon objectives for management activities and 

specific areas, particularly those with high scenic integrity.

• To address opportunities for visiting sites, such as the eligible scenic Canadian River, and 

interpretive activities related to unique scenery, historic/cultural sites, and wildlife.

• To provide special area assessments and recommendations for potential wilderness,

eligible scenic rivers, and/or research natural areas.
Chapter 1. Needs for Change

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 5 

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Needs for Change Topic 3: Human 

Influences on the National Grasslands

The 1985 plan does not provide adequate Grasslands-specific direction regarding the 

management and monitoring of livestock grazing (this issue has been largely addressed by 

subsequent NEPA decisions); the placement, maintenance or rehabilitation of energy development 

sites; the use of planned fire or response to unplanned fire; and the allowance of special uses such

as mineral extraction, utility corridors, firewood harvesting, and research activities. Specific

management direction is needed for the following: 

• To incorporate adaptive management toward ecosystem-based desired conditions within

the livestock grazing program. 

• To address and guide wind energy development while protecting natural resources,

heritage sites, and scenery. 

• To rehabilitate disturbed sites such as roads and oil and gas pads, and to protect soil

productivity and reestablish vegetative cover. 

• To provide direction to the process for obtaining legal road access that meets public, 

private landowner, and management needs. 

• To permit utility easements and related special uses. 

• To provide direction for the removal of miscellaneous forest products such as plants,

grass seed, and other materials. 

• To provide direction for the noncommercial use of common mineral materials. 

• To provide direction on firewood and firewood harvesting and gathering on the NGs. 

• To provide direction on opportunities to conduct research regardless of whether or not a 

research natural area is established. 

• To provide direction for responding to wildland fires and the use of prescribed fire in

areas with fragmented ownership such as the Grasslands. 

• To provide direction for the stabilization and preservation of historic structures and

traditional cultural properties. 

• To address the role of heritage sites, such as the Santa Fe National Historic Trail, in rural

economic development. 

These needs for change are described more fully through an analysis of the management situation 

(AMS), which is comprised of the comprehensive evaluation report (CER) and Kiowa, Rita

Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands CER supplementary document to

meet AMS requirements and associated evaluations—the “Socioeconomic Sustainability Report” 

(SESR), “Ecological Sustainability Report” (ESR), and “Kiowa National Grassland Wilderness 

Evaluation Report” (All AMS documents are included in appendix B, including the “Kiowa 

National Grassland Wilderness Evaluation Report.” These documents are part of the planning 

record and are available on the Cibola NF Web site). 
Chapter 1. Needs for Change

6 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Proposed Plan

The Forest Service proposes to develop a new, Grasslands-specific LRMP that responds to the

needs for change identified above. It will provide strategic, program-level guidance for 

management of the Grasslands, including its natural resources and uses, over the next 10 to 15

years. For each needs for change topic, the Grasslands plan revision team, in collaboration with

the public and other agencies, developed a vision of the future for the Grasslands that does the 

following: 

• Provides the basis for future site specific, project-level decisions that will be made based

on additional detailed environmental impact analyses and additional public involvement. 

• Provides a context for future, project-level planning. 

• Identifies strategies to maintain or achieve goals and desired conditions over time. 

• Identifies land areas as generally suitable or unsuitable for various uses. 

• Identifies standards and guidelines to guide the planning of projects and activities.

• Identifies areas with special or unique characteristics.

• Provides monitoring and evaluation requirements. 

• Emphasizes the use of best available science and adaptive management.

Specific details about the proposed plan are provided in chapter 2. 

Decision Framework

The regional forester for the Southwestern Region will make the final decision on the revised

Grasslands plan. In order to do so, the regional forester will review the proposed plan, the other

plan alternatives, and the environmental consequences to decide which Grasslands plan

alternative best meets the following needs: 

• Achieving quality land management under the sustainable, multiple-use concept.

• Meets the diverse needs of people. 

• Conserves the Grasslands’ resources as required by the NFMA and the Multiple UseSustained Yield Act.

Upon signing by the regional forester of the ROD for this new Grasslands LRMP, this new plan

will replace the direction for the Grasslands formerly provided by the 1985 plan. 

Public Involvement

Forest planning occurs within the overall framework provided by the implementation regulations 

of the NFMA and NEPA. Public involvement is a key component in the forest plan revision

process under these regulations. Extensive public involvement and collaboration related to

revising the Grasslands plan has occurred and is ongoing and is more fully described in appendix 

I. 
Chapter 1. Needs for Change

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 7

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Informal discussions with the public regarding needed changes to the 1985 plan began with a

series of public meetings in 2006. This input, along with science-based evaluations, was used to

determine the needs for change. Additional meetings, correspondence, news releases, comment 

periods, Web postings, and other tools have been utilized to gather feedback from the public,

Cibola NF employees, tribal governments, Federal and state agencies, and local governments. In

September 2008, three reports (ESR, SESR, CER) were released by the Cibola NF that identified

the needs for change relative to existing conditions on the Grasslands and the existing (1985)

forest plan management direction pertinent to the Grasslands. The availability of these reports

was reported in the Federal Register on September 19, 2008, the reports were posted on the

Cibola NF Web site, and hardcopies were offered upon request. In March 2009, a series of public

meetings was held on the Grasslands to solicit input and comment on potential desired conditions

for the ecological, social, and economic goods and services produced by the Grasslands. These

potential desired conditions had been developed based upon previous collaborations as described

above that had identified needs for change from the current plan. Responses and inputs resulting

from these focus group meetings further refined the desired conditions of the draft plan. The

Cibola NF planning staff proceeded to draft objectives, guidelines, standards, suitability

designations, and monitoring elements that would achieve the desired conditions. An AMS

supplemental document to the CER was published by the Forest in January 2010 to meet

requirements of the 1982 Planning Rule Provisions after the 2008 Planning Rule was enjoined.

The AMS supplemental document brought forth updated information, such as benchmark

analyses—the minimum and maximum levels of physical and biological production potentials

within which all alternatives considered in detail should fall. This information was not included in

the original CER of 2008.

On January 15, 2010, the Forest Service initiated the formal scoping process by publishing the

notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS and a revised LRMP for the NGs (Vol. 75, No. 10, 2477-

2480). The NOI described the change needed for the 1985 forest plan and invited the public to

comment on the proposal to revise the plan. The public was asked to provide comments by

February 15, 2010, to be most useful, but comments were accepted and considered regardless of

arrival date. A working draft Grasslands plan developed by Forest planning staff subsequent to

the focus group meetings was made publically available on March 9, 2010, and scoping

comments on alternatives to the working draft plan were requested to be submitted by May 15, 

2010. In April 2010, as part of the public involvement process, the Forest Service held a series of 

five public meetings on the Grasslands to invite review and comment on the working draft of the

proposed plan and to help refine and further develop the plan components. During this

collaborative phase of plan development, the working draft plan became a “rolling alternative.” 1

(See appendix I for dates and locations of the scoping meetings.)

Comments received from the NOI, public meetings, mailings, and Web postings were analyzed to

determine public issues and concerns. Sixty-five separate, but interrelated issues were identified

from the AMS, the NOI, and public comments. Of these, the issues that were within the Forest

Service’s legal authority to address, and not in conflict with established Forest Service Manual

(FSM) or Handbook (FSH) direction, were evaluated and either incorporated into the rolling

 1 A rolling alternative starts with a proposed action or alternative, incorporates new information from public comments

or internal analysis, and ultimately changes the original alternative and documents how the alternative has been

modified.
Chapter 1. Needs for Change

8 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

alternative draft plan, or crafted into other alternatives to be considered and evaluated during the

EIS analysis.

Applicable Planning Rule

Preparation of the new plan was underway when the 2008 National Forest System (NFS) Land

Management Planning Rule was enjoined on June 30, 2009, by the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California (Citizens for Better Forestry v. United States Department of

Agriculture, 632 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2009)). On December 18, 2009, the

department reinstated the previous planning rule, commonly known as the 2000 Planning Rule in

the Federal Register (Federal Register, Volume 74, No. 242, Friday, December 18, 2009, pages

67059 through 67075). The transition provisions, 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3) of the 2012 Planning Rule

(Vol. 77, No. 68, April 9, 2012) allow use of the provisions of the planning rule, commonly called

the 1982 Planning Rule to amend or revise plans. The Cibola NF has elected to use the provisions

of the 1982 Planning Rule, including the requirement to prepare an EIS, to complete its plan 

revision.

Although the 2008 Planning Rule is no longer in effect, information gathered prior to the court’s

injunction is useful for completing the plan revision using the provisions of the 1982 Planning

Rule. The Cibola NF concluded that the information and collaborations developed during the plan

revision process prior to the 2008 rule enjoinment were appropriate for continued use in the

revision process. The information/evaluations conducted under the 2008 Planning Rule were

supplemented in order to conform to the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule.

In addition to the documents already named, the following documents were brought forward

under the 1982 Planning Rule Provisions as part of the plan set of documents:

• The Kiowa National Grassland Wilderness Evaluation Report (see the Web address 

provided in appendix B of this FPEIS)

• USDA FS, Southwestern Region, Mid-Scale Vegetation Analysis (an inventory of current

vegetation conditions), June 2009 (BKMC NGs), November 2009 (KRB NGs)

• USDA FS, Southwestern Region, Potential Natural Vegetation Types, 2008, which is a

model simulation of vegetation inventory pre-European settlement, and which functions

as the reference condition for current analysis

• Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands Geographic Area Assessments (USDA 

Forest Service 1999)

• Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National Grasslands Geographic Area Assessments 

(USDA Forest Service 2000)
FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 9 

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including 

the Proposed Plan

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Grasslands LRMP. It

includes a description of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in

comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis

for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. The information used to compare 

the alternatives is based upon environmental, social, and economic outcomes of implementing 

each alternative.

The 1982 Planning Rule Provisions at 219.12(f)(6) require forest plans to respond to and 

incorporate the Renewable Resource Planning Act (RPA) Program objectives for each national

forest as displayed in regional guides. There is no longer a regional guide for the Southwestern 

Region. This was withdrawn as required by the 2000 Planning Rule Section 219.35(e). The last

RPA Program was developed in 1995. In lieu of the RPA Program, the Forest Service Strategic

Plan 2007-2012 provides broad overarching national guidance for forest planning and national 

objectives for the Agency as required by the Government Performance Results Act. All of the

alternatives in this FPEIS address these broad strategic objectives.

The alternatives discussed below include management direction for the one IRA on the 

Grasslands as identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR). There is currently

a legal dispute regarding the status of the RACR, with two Federal courts having issued

conflicting rulings. Pending resolution of that legal question, the preferred alternative includes 

management area (MA) direction that retains the undeveloped character of this area. The decision 

for the final plan will be consistent with the legal status of the RACR at the time the plan is

signed. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Forest Service developed three alternatives—the no action alternative (A), the proposed plan 

alternative (B), and the Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area alternative (C). Alternative A is

the 1985 Cibola National Forest LRMP (as amended). Alternative B is the rolling alternative, 

meaning it underwent continuous adjustment during its development. Alternative C is identical to

alternative B except for the Canadian River potential wilderness area recommendation. 

Alternative A, the 1985 plan which is in effect at this time, is silent on many contemporary issues 

such as invasive species, adaptive management of livestock, climate change, and wind energy 

development. However, alternative A would not prohibit management activities addressing these 

issues. Further, NEPA decisions that have occurred since 1985, in conjunction with national and 

regional FS directives established as policy since 1985, provide direction to Grasslands managers 

that is not explicitly stated within the language of the 1985 plan. Similarly, best available science 

applicable to land management can be applied under this alternative if explicit plan language does 

not prohibit its application. 

Alternative B began its inception by incorporating those plan components from alternative A that

would continue to provide meaningful direction to the Grasslands during the future planning 

cycle of 10 to 15 years, based on identified needs for change during the sustainability and 

evaluation analyses. Focus group and public scoping meetings and intra-agency and interagency
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

10 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

collaborations led to the development of desired conditions from which all other plan components

would tier.

See maps in appendix L for the KRB Management Area, BKMC Management Area, and Mills

Canyon Management Area as proposed under alternative B:

Key changes to alternative B, where the working draft plan was rolled, are presented below:

• August–October 2008: Findings of the Kiowa National Grassland Wilderness Evaluation 

Report resulted in delineation in the draft plan of a Mills Canyon MA distinct from the

rest of the KRB MA. Discrete plan components for the Mills Canyon MA were

developed that would preserve and protect the semiprimitive features and integrity of the

Canadian River IRA.

• December 2008: United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) changed the listing

priority number of candidate status for Lesser Prairie-chicken (LPC) from 8 to 2.1 This

resulted in increased consideration of habitat values in the draft plan to accommodate

possible return of species to mixed-grass and shinnery oak vegetation types on the BK 

NG and the sand sagebrush vegetation type on the KRB NGs.

• March–April 2009: Research on avoidance of various structures by LPC became known

to the planning team. This resulted in incorporation of management emphasis in the draft

plan to remove trees in otherwise suitable LPC habitat and to incorporate reference to

pre-siting recommendations of USFWS wind turbine guidelines.

• May 2009: Research on collisions of LPC with fences became known to planning staff,

resulting in an objective to mark 25 to 50 percent of fences in suitable habitat in shinnery

and mixed-grass vegetation types on the BK NG.

• September 2009: Keen interests by USFWS, Texas Parks and Wildlife, and others on the

RB NG for potential reintroduction of the black-footed ferret (BFF) became known to the

planning team. This resulted in more emphasis on providing management direction for

black-tailed prairie dog (BTPD) habitat in early-open successional stages on some areas

of the shortgrass prairie of the KRB MA, and a management approach that encourages

development of a BTPD management plan within 3 years. (BTPDs are prey for the BFF.)

• April 2010: Scoping comment led to the inclusion of feral hogs as undesirable invasive

species in the context of the desired condition for invasive plants and animals Grasslandswide.

• May 2010: Research and public scoping comments on pinyon-juniper structure

(horizontal, age, diameter) beneficial to wildlife became known to the planning team and

resulted in changes to the desired condition for pinyon-juniper stands on the KRB MA.

 1 Listing priority number (LPN) for each candidate species (48 FR 43098) guidance assigns each candidate an LPN of 1

to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats, immediacy of threats, and taxonomic status. The lower the LPN, the

higher the listing priority, based on the magnitude of the threat(s), then by the immediacy of the threat(s), and finally by

taxonomic status. Under this priority ranking system, magnitude of threat can be either “high” or “moderate to low.” 

This criterion helps ensure that those species facing the greatest threats to their continued existence receive the highest

listing priority.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 11

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternative C is identical to alternative B with the exception of the recommendation of a 

Canadian River PWA (see map, appendix L), which would replace most of the Mills Canyon MA 

proposed under alternative B. The difference in acreage between the potential wilderness and the 

Mills Canyon MA would be managed under Grasslands-wide management direction and/or KRB 

MA direction.

Summary of Each Alternative

To aid in the comparison of alternatives, each is presented in the context of how they address the 

needs for change related to ecosystem diversity, managed recreation, and human influences on the 

Grasslands.

Common to All Alternatives

The Grasslands plan revision process conforms to the 1982 Planning Rule Provisions, including 

those for conducting an AMS. The AMS procedures require benchmarks to define the range

within which alternatives are developed and analyzed in an EIS. Benchmarks identify the

minimum and maximum range for resource outputs.

For this FPEIS, benchmarks were developed for grazing capacity and permitted livestock use,

developed and dispersed recreation, soils, and forest products. All alternatives fall within the

benchmarks established for these resources.

The benchmarks for developed recreation, grazing capacity, and permitted livestock use have

been validated and carried forward from the 1985 plan into the proposed Grasslands plan. The

benchmark for dispersed recreation was modified from the 1985 plan because the minimum level

benchmark for dispersed recreation far exceeds the number of recreation visitor days on the

Grasslands. The minimum benchmark for soil loss was also adjusted from the 1985 plan because

it accounts for all of the Cibola NF; it was adjusted as a proportion of the total Forest acres.

Forest products benchmarks (net products value, firewood sold, personal use firewood) were

similarly not segregated for the Grasslands in the 1985 plan; they were combined into one Forestwide and Grasslands-wide benchmark. We adjusted this benchmark for the Grasslands to include

only the pinyon-juniper stands on the KRB NGs (excluding the IRA) and black locust on the

BKMC NGs.

For more information on benchmarks, see appendix H in the draft LRMP or the Kiowa, Rita

Blanca, Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National Grasslands CER supplementary document to

meet AMS requirements (appendix B of this document) for specific calculations.

Alternative A

Needs for Change Topic 1: Ecosystem Diversity

Soil

For soil resources in alternative A, emphasis is placed on inventory and monitoring of soils and 

using best management practices (BMPs) to mitigate adverse effects of projects on soils. This 

alternative directs soil improvement projects where watershed condition is unsatisfactory.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

12 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Water

For water resources, emphasis is placed on inventory and monitoring of watershed condition and 

using BMPs to mitigate adverse effects of projects upon water resources. It would restore 

impaired riparian areas, and directs watershed improvement projects where watershed condition

is unsatisfactory. The desired condition for riparian areas is specified in relation to natural

conditions using seven parameters, including crown cover and shade.

Air

For the air resource, no plan direction is given aside from FSM and FSH direction to comply with

Federal and state air quality laws.

Vegetation

Alternative A does not identify the uniqueness of vegetation types and their inclusions or provide

specificity on how land management tools and processes (e.g., fire, grazing) would affect 

vegetation structure and species composition.

Alternative A emphasizes shinnery oak control and eradication in some areas and would create 

100-foot-wide openings in shinnery oak with 200-foot-wide leave strips between openings for 

high edge contrast and would provide for protection of selected shelterbelts and motts, and for

restoration plantings within selected shelterbelts. Alternative A would convert 4,400 acres of 

shinnery oak to grassland.

Wildlife

Alternative A would restrict forage improvement activities and limit population control on BTPD 

towns > 15 acres without prior evaluation in order to protect black-footed ferret (BFF) habitat.

BTPD towns < 15 acres could be controlled or limited to improve forage production. This

restriction is in conflict with the Region 3 forest sensitive species list revision that now includes

the BTPD. The revised sensitive species list supersedes the restrictions and controls on BTPDs

and allows BTPD colony expansion.

Invasive Species

Alternative A utilizes guidance from the “Environmental Assessment for Integrated Pest

Management of Noxious/Invasive Plants for the Cibola National Forest and Kiowa and Rita

Blanca,” June 2010, that covers treatments to eradicate, control, or contain invasive plants. 

Alternative A also utilizes the “Environmental Assessment for Invasive Plant Management, 

Cibola National Forest, Black Kettle Ranger District, Cheyenne, Oklahoma,” August 2007, that

covers treatment methods such as cultural, biological, manual, and mechanical control; controlled

grazing; prescribed fire; and chemical (herbicide) methods to control invasive plants.

Climate Change

Alternative A does not directly address climate change but does rely on Agency policy to address 

climate change.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 13

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Needs for Change Topic 2: Managed Recreation

Scenery

Alternative A direction (standards and guidelines) below is applicable to visual resource 

management on the Grasslands. Table 1 shows the distribution of acres classified as partial 

retention and modification in BKMC MA and KRB MA from the 1985 plan. 

Table 1. Visual quality objectives under alternative A

Visual Quality Objective (acres)

Management Area Retention Partial 

Retention Modification Maximum Modification

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek 0 4,100 29,012 0 

Kiowa and Rita Blanca 0 8,186 222,656 0 

General Guidelines for All Management Areas

Acceptable variations in visual quality objectives (VQOs)2 classifications from the acreages

presented in the standards and guidelines for specific MAs are as follows:

• Preservation: No Change

• Retention: ±2 percent in foreground, ±5 percent in middle ground and background

• Partial Retention: ±5 percent in foreground, ±10 percent in middle ground and 

background 

• Modification: ±10 percent in all zones 

As noted below, most management direction for visual quality regards vegetation management or 

tree harvest: 

• Manage for the visual quality objectives of retention or partial retention for developed

site plan perimeter using a definition of characteristic landscape which includes manmade 

features. 

• Accomplish viewshed corridor planning as needed for timber sales. 

• Inventory for existing visual condition and visual absorption capability.

 

2

 In the 1970s, the Forest Service introduced the “Visual Management System” (VMS) to classify and identify scenic

resources. In 1995, VMS was revised to take into consideration ecosystem management and renamed the “Scenery 

Management System” (SMS). There are five levels of scenic conditions within each system that can be cross-walked. 

The corresponding classification levels from VMS to SMS are: Preservation is an unaltered landscape and equivalent 

to a very high scenic integrity level; Retention appears unaltered and is equivalent to high scenic integrity; Partial

Retention is a slightly altered landscape and equivalent to moderate scenic integrity; Modification is moderately altered 

and equivalent to a low scenic integrity; Maximum Modification is heavily altered and equivalent to a very low scenic

integrity level. SMS has a sixth level of classification, Unacceptably Low, where the landscape appears extremly 

altered. In the 1970s and 80s, most areas of the Grasslands were classified as Partial Retention and Modification

because of the presence of state and county roads. Although relatively high levels of landscape alteration would have 

been allowed, it never occurred, and the roads remain lightly used. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

14 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

• Dispose of all activity slash within seen area or up to about 200 feet on either side of 

roads and trails where the VQO is retention; retain/enhance retention by having a 

landscape architect specify growing stock level (GSL), diameter breast height (d.b.h.), 

and vista opportunities appropriate to each site (coordinated with special GSL and old 

growth requirements for wildlife); use slash disposal techniques appropriate for the given

area. 

• Where the foreground VQO is partial retention, the following will be required: Dispose 

of all activity slash occurring within 200 feet of recreation sites, forest trails, forest roads, 

and paved or all-weather roads; dispose of slash within 1 growing season after

completion of the project which generated the slash; retain/enhance partial retention areas

by having a landscape architect specify GSL, d.b.h., and vista opportunities appropriate

to a given site; use slash disposal techniques appropriate for the given area.

• Newly created tree stumps in thinning areas will have the cut face away from any 

recreation sites, trails, or roads within 200 feet of the stumps. 

• Manage the Canadian River to preserve its wild, scenic, or recreation river potential. 

No additional scenic resource direction is given for this management area. 

Recreation

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. To preface the concept of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

(ROS) referred to below, the reader is provided with the following short explanation: The ROS

classes assigned in the current plan were reviewed and found to be somewhat limiting. Only two 

ROS settings are applied to the Grasslands inventory: roaded natural and semiprimitive 

motorized. The ROS classes should provide direction for a full spectrum of recreation activities, 

including dispersed and developed uses in a variety of outdoor settings. Areas unsuitable for 

recreation should be identified. For further detail on ROS methodology, see the subsection 

“Recreation” in chapter 3 under “Needs for Change Topic 2.”

Alternative A emphasizes roaded natural settings and opportunities on the BK and MC Units. 

Both roaded natural and semiprimitive motorized settings and opportunities are provided on the 

KRB Units, including semiprimitive motorized settings and opportunities in the Mills Canyon 

IRA. The area around the Santa Fe National Historic Trail is assigned an ROS setting of 

semiprimitive motorized. 

Dispersed and Motorized Recreation. Management direction for alternative A emphasizes riparian

protection and improvement projects, and dispersed recreation over developed recreation; 

however, specific direction for the BKMC MA and the KRB MA is silent on dispersed recreation 

other than motorized use. 

Standards and guidelines direct ORV closures or restrictions to protect resources from

unpredictable damage. Areas of ORV closure would be indicated by management area and 

remaining areas would remain open unless other restrictions were made based upon an

environmental analysis. Open roads and trails would be signed on the ground, and maps of 

closure areas would be available. The BKMC NGs have a motor vehicle use map (MVUM)

printed and available to the public. The KRB NGs have completed the travel management

planning process, and we expect the decision to be signed by mid-June 2012. Amendments to the
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 15

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

current 1985 LRMP designate the open network of public and administrative use roads and trails

on each unit. This direction is carried forward into alternatives B and C.

Developed Recreation. On the BKMC NGs, new construction and rehabilitation of recreational

facilities would generate a significant increase in developed site capacity if implemented. 

Standards and guidelines in the 1985 plan would provide rehabilitation, addition of capacity,3

 and 

new construction of multiple recreation sites around Lakes Marvin and McClellan. It would 

provide for newly constructed facilities at Spring Creek and Black Kettle Recreation Areas. Total

additional capacity of 800 “persons-at-one-time” would be added at the BKMC NGs over 50 

years. On the KRB NGs, developed site capacity would increase slightly through construction 

and rehabilitation of recreational facilities. Alternative A would provide newly constructed sites

with 150 persons-at-one-time capacity at unspecified locations on the KRB NGs over 50 years 

and would rehabilitate unnamed existing sites. Guidelines for recreational development would 

evaluate compatibility with other resources and activities, establish mitigation measures to protect

and maintain riparian and wetland habitat, emphasize developments that cause no deviation in

visual quality classification, control sedimentation using BMPs for road design and construction, 

and provide adequate provisions for effluent and wastewater treatment.

Nature-Based Tourism

Alternative A does not provide direction for managing nature-based tourism on the Grasslands; 

however, cooperative programs with state and Federal agencies and nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs) are in place to facilitate conservation of natural and cultural resources, and

to promote rural economic development across the Grasslands. 

Heritage Resources

Alternative A would provide heritage resources with protection from other management activities,

direct heritage resources to be in line with Federal statutes and state authorities, and call for

proactive preservation, interpretation, and monitoring measures.

Special Areas

Research Natural Areas (RNAs). RNAs are addressed in the 1985 plan within the forest-wide

standards and guidelines and the “Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation.” The 

standards and guidelines stipulate that about 300 acres in each of BK and KRB NGs would be

studied for possible designation as RNAs for the study and protection of native vegetation. The 

“Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation for Research Natural Areas” identified

mixed-grass prairie on the BK NG and shortgrass prairie on the KRB NGs as suitable types for

evaluation. Alternative A contains no desired conditions or objectives for RNAs, and they would 

not be addressed in monitoring. 

Scenic Byways and National Historic Trail. Alternative A has no desired conditions, objectives,

guidelines, or standards for managing historic trails and scenic byways on the NGs. The scenic

byways are cooperatively managed with other state and Federal agencies. The Forest Service and

National Park Service cooperatively manage the Santa Fe National Historic Trail as a National

Historic Landmark. 

 

3 Addition of capacity is measured as an increase of “persons-at-one-time” (PAOT) for a given site.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

16 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Canadian Eligible Scenic River. Guidelines under the KRB MA would direct management of the 

Canadian River to preserve wild, scenic, and recreation river potential and acquire private lands 

within the corridor in order to preserve the unique qualities of the river. There are no desired

conditions or objectives for the Canadian River; however, standards and protections for

wild/scenic/recreation river are contained within the forest-wide prescriptions (amendment 10). 

Under this option, the river segment would remain eligible for future designation, and protections 

described in amendment 10 of the 1985 forest plan would continue to apply in accordance with

FSM 2354. 

Wilderness

Alternative A would not recommend wilderness designation for Mills Canyon. 

Needs for Change Topic 3: Human Influences

Roads and Access

Alternative A provides direction on decommissioning unneeded, unauthorized roads but not NFS

roads, and no direction is provided regarding methods of decommissioning. Alternative A also 

provides no Grasslands-specific direction regarding legal access but does provide Grasslandsspecific travel management decision support. 

Land Adjustment

Land adjustment acquisition will result in no difference in management direction by alternative

for desired condition. Acquisition is based on a willing seller and lands which have been

identified that would improve the Agency’s ability to carry out its mission on the Grasslands. 

Desired lands shall provide for road or trail access; have high quality natural or cultural 

resources; improve management of designated special areas; contain important plant or animal

habitat; contain or influence wetlands, flood plains, or riparian areas; or provide opportunities to

rehabilitate or stabilize public lands.

Minerals and Energy Development

Alternative A primarily addresses the fact that mineral production would continue. Alternative A 

also stipulates the action to take on all locatable mineral operating plans, lease applications, and

common variety mineral permits as outlined in 36 CFR 228 and FSM 2822.41. Amendment 12 to

the current plan adds standards on surface occupancy and closed loop drilling. It excludes surface

occupancy of the Mills Canyon area but does not bar the material from being accessed/extracted

from adjacent lands. 

Special Forest Products

Alternative A would allow for the disposal of forest products through sales or free use but gives 

little direction on where or for what purpose. It directs that areas should be evaluated for their

suitability for firewood gathering, and that firewood gathering would not be allowed in

designated RNAs.

Special Uses

Special uses are authorized per a review on a case-by-case application process for a project, and 

require project-specific NEPA. Alternative A provides general goals and direction for special use

administration and authorization while following FSM, FSH, laws, regulations, and policy. It
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 17

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

would designate existing transmission rights-of-way as corridors and provide for joint use in

corridors. It is silent on any particular special use authorization and development, including 

energy development. 

Wind Energy Development

Wind energy development is authorized by the special use program requiring project-specific

NEPA analysis. Alternative A does not address wind energy per se, and it provides general goals

and direction for special use administration while following FSM, FSH, laws, regulations, and

policy. Alternative A would designate existing transmission rights-of-ways as corridors, and 

provide for joint use in the corridors. It is silent on alternative energy development. 

Livestock Use

Alternative A would provide for livestock grazing, range improvement construction, and 

implementation of conservative management and utilization levels. Livestock grazing on the 

Grasslands is managed according to decisions made after NEPA analysis. The provisions in these

decisions prescribe conservative utilization levels and adaptive management principles that allow

for variable livestock numbers and seasonal flexibility. These are applied so that the desired

vegetation condition may be maintained or approached. These NEPA decisions apply to this 

alternative. 

Alternative A would emphasize forage for sustained livestock yields and technology to improve 

range condition. 

Alternative A would increase forage on 4,400 acres as shinnery oak would be treated and 

converted to grassland.

Wildland-Urban Interface and Fire Management 

Alternative A would establish wildland fire use and prioritized fuel reduction treatments, provide 

for meeting Federal and state air quality regulations, select an appropriate suppression strategy on 

all fires, develop and annually update fire management plans, use unplanned fires to meet

resource objectives, reduce the number of human-caused wildfires, and increase public awareness

for the need to use fire as a management tool. 

Alternative B 

Needs for Change Topic 1: Ecosystem Diversity

Soil

Alternative B has a desired condition for soils that strives for satisfactory conditions and soil

losses that rarely exceed natural levels. Soils would be stabilized in the long term, with the 

exception of some soil movement associated with BTPD towns. Guidelines direct that soildisturbing activities prevent discharge into water bodies; provide direction for restoration, 

mitigation, and rehabilitation of construction sites; and give direction on treatment of gullies and 

unsatisfactory or impaired soils.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

18 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Water 

Alternative B has a desired condition for surface water features to be in properly functioning 

condition. The desired condition for watershed is to manage toward a Class I watershed

condition. 

Air

Alternative B includes a desired condition for air resources, which is that that air quality

conditions be at acceptable attainment levels on the Grasslands.

Vegetation 

Alternative B would provide ecosystem restoration and maintenance on a landscape scale.

Alternative B provides desired conditions directly related to structure and composition for each

vegetation type, and the objectives and guidelines would promote desired vegetation structure and 

species composition. Habitat for wildlife species would be secured by moving each vegetation

type toward desired vegetation structure and species composition. 

Wildlife

Alternative B would encourage BTPD colony expansion on the KRB MA. This would possibly 

result in an increase in early successional plant communities in those areas of shortgrass prairie

with soils and slopes typically selected by BTPDs. A BTPD management plan would be 

recommended. A long-term desired condition would have sufficient habitat available for BTPD

complexes to accommodate potential reintroduction of black-footed ferrets as a natural predator. 

Invasive Species

Alternative B would use Grasslands-wide and district-specific invasive species control and would

allow for removal of invasive or nonnative trees from historical grassland vegetation communities 

or in otherwise suitable LPC habitat on the BK NG following site-specific assessment. Objectives

and guidelines would promote the desired condition. 

Climate Change

Alternative B includes a plan component that emphasizes adaptive management responses in the

event of climate change and non-plan components that suggest tools for recognizing effects of

climate change and potential strategies for response.

Needs for Change Topic 2: Managed Recreation

Scenery

Alternative B provides desired conditions and supporting objectives and guidelines for

maintaining and enhancing the scenic resources, especially in areas assigned a high scenic

integrity objective (SIO).4 Table 2 summarizes SIOs for the Grasslands under alternative B.

 

4

 In the 1970s, the Forest Service introduced the “Visual Management System” (VMS) to classify and identify scenic

resources. In 1995, VMS was revised to take into consideration ecosystem management and renamed the “Scenery 

Management System” (SMS). There are five levels of scenic conditions within each system that can be cross-walked. 

The corresponding classification levels from VMS to SMS are: Preservation is an unaltered landscape and equivalent 

to a very high scenic integrity level; Retention appears unaltered and is equivalent to high scenic integrity; Partial

Retention is a slightly altered landscape and equivalent to moderate scenic integrity; Modification is moderately altered 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 19

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

On the Kiowa NG, a high SIO would be assigned to Mills Canyon, including the Mills Canyon 

and Mills Rim Campgrounds, Sauz Creek, and Sugar Loaf Mountain area. In the eastern part of

the K NG and the RB NG, a high SIO would be assigned to the Thompson Grove picnic area, the 

area known as the “High Lonesome,” and the units that contain the Santa Fe Trail. Future 

management emphasis would include managing for high scenic integrity where the valued

landscape character “appears” intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line

color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that

they are not evident.

The remainder of the Kiowa NG would be proposed for a moderate SIO where noticeable 

deviations should remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed. The

eastern K NG and the RB NG would be managed for both moderate and low SIO. The proposed 

SIO map is available in appendix L. 

On the BK NG, the area around Croton Creek and the units near developed recreation sites would 

be proposed for high SIO levels. All of the MC NG would be proposed for high scenic integrity.

The remaining units on the BK NG would be proposed for moderate SIO levels.

Large industrial wind farms would be restricted within the foreground in areas of high scenic 

integrity. Mitigations would be proposed for high SIO to reduce the impacts from oil and gas

exploration and extraction. 

Differences in total acres among alternatives is due to changes in land ownership, mapping 

technology, and rounding. 

Table 2. Scenic integrity objectives under alternative B*

Scenic Integrity (acres)

National Grassland High SIO Moderate 

SIO Low SIO Very Low SIO

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek 7,082 25,630 0 0 

Kiowa and Rita Blanca 75,929 114,249 40,705 0 

* Acreages were computed by geographic information system analysis and may not match official fee-simple acreage 

reported for the entire Grasslands.

Recreation

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes. This alternative proposes changes to the ROS settings. 

The addition of two more ROS classes—semiprimitive nonmotorized and rural—provides more

latitude for recreation planning to better reflect the management of the Grasslands proposed in

this revision. There would be a substantial increase in semiprimitive motorized ROS settings on 

the BKMC units. The desired condition for these areas is for providing natural conditions, with

few facilities and little development, and motorized use is permitted. This alternative would 

 

and equivalent to a low scenic integrity; Maximum Modification is heavily altered and equivalent to a very low scenic

integrity level. SMS has a sixth level of classification, Unacceptably Low, where the landscape appears extremly 

altered. In the 1970s and 80s, most areas of the Grasslands were classified as Partial Retention and Modification

because of the presence of state and county roads. Although relatively high levels of landscape alteration would have 

been allowed, it never occurred, and the roads remain lightly used..
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

20 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

assign 36 acres of NFS lands around the district ranger’s office and Cheyenne City Park as rural

and would include dispersed recreation opportunities. 

This alternative provides a substantial increase in semiprimitive motorized settings and 

opportunities on the KRB unit. The desired condition for these areas provides for recreation 

opportunities in natural appearing settings, with limited amenities. The proposed Mills Canyon 

MA (7,911 acres) and the area around the Santa Fe National Historic Trail would be classified as 

semiprimitive nonmotorized, which would permit nonmotorized uses only. This alternative 

assigns 1,409 acres of rural ROS setting around commercial and industrial developments on the 

KRB NGs, and would be considered unsuitable for recreation (see appendix H, “Recreation 

Suitability”).

Dispersed and Motorized Recreation. Camping and site intensive recreation would be restricted

to areas where limited environmental impacts might occur. Day hiking, hunting, fishing, and 

primitive camping are the most frequent activities. Other guidelines include closure or

rehabilitation to protect or enhance resource conditions. Dispersed camping would be restricted

within 200 feet of historic sites, trailheads (except those trailheads with designated dispersed sites 

already in use), interpretive sites, and stock water. Management strategies emphasize coordination 

with other agencies and organizations to identify where new partnerships may exist to expand 

hiking or other dispersed recreation opportunities. 

Motor vehicle use would be allowed as identified on motor vehicle use maps (MVUMs). Motor 

vehicle use would be especially limited in Mills Canyon and the Santa Fe National Historic Trail

area because of the ROS setting. A range of recreation opportunities are provided that are 

consistent with ROS settings of rural, roaded natural, semiprimitive motorized, and semiprimitive 

nonmotorized. 

Developed Recreation. Alternative B provides for a range of developed recreation facilities; 

however, new developments would be limited due to lack of demand. Emphasis would be on 

maintaining and rehabilitating existing developments. Developed sites would integrate natural

and cultural elements, and emphasize sustainability and efficiency in construction and operation. 

All developed and administrative sites would comply with the applicable accessibility guidelines. 

Potable water systems would be available where appropriate. Guidelines for new recreation 

developments would establish a one-half mile buffer from wind energy and oil/gas developments. 

Maintenance, construction, and design would be consistent with ROS settings, scenic integrity 

objectives, and “The Built Environment Image Guide for the National Forests and Grasslands.” 

The BKMC NGs would feature lake-based recreation. New or renovated facilities would 

accommodate large recreation vehicles and provide conveniences where appropriate. The plan 

objective is to maintain one third of trail miles annually. Guidelines would restrict boat wakes 

except at McClellan Creek Recreation Area.

Travel management decisions related to motorized use and the associated plan amendment would 

be carried forward from the 1985 plan into alternative B. 

Nature-Based Tourism

Alternative B would emphasize ecotourism, bird watching, and wildlife viewing. Other

opportunities would include auto tour routes, developed recreation sites, and interpretive

programs. Objectives would include offsite educational enrichment programs, signing, and 

interpretive materials. Management approaches would encourage cooperation with other agencies
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 21

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

and NGOs in planning scenic byway corridors, important bird areas, watchable wildlife stations,

interpretive services, and auto tour routes to promote Grassland visitation and tourism. 

Heritage Resources

Alternative B augments the Federal statutes and state authorities and preservation and 

interpretation practices by identifying additional Grasslands-wide preservation projects, emphasis

on public outreach, interpretation, and development of a site steward program.

Special Areas and Areas of Interest

Research Natural Areas (RNAs). A review and analysis (1982 Rule Provisions Section 219.25) of

ecological conditions for each underrepresented and very underrepresented vegetation type was

conducted to determine their potential for designation as a RNA (appendix D). No vegetation type

on any of the Grasslands was found to meet the criteria for RNA designation and, thus, no RNAs

are recommended under this alternative.

Scenic Byways and National Historic Landmark. Alternative B includes desired conditions for

one national historic landmark and two scenic byways: The Santa Fe National Historic Trail,

Santa Fe Trail National Scenic Byway, and La Frontera del Llano Scenic Byway (state

designation only, as of this writing).

The desired condition for the Santa Fe National Historic Trail is to demonstrate the inherent 

physical integrity and cultural, natural, and scenic resources consistent with the National 

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, and the (USDI, National Park Service) “Santa Fe National 

Trail Comprehensive Management and Use Plan.” Objectives include closing and/or 

rehabilitating roads that impact the Santa Fe National Historic Trail. The trail itself is a national 

historic landmark and is nonmotorized. 

The desired condition for the Santa Fe National Scenic Byway is to provide access to remnant 

portions of the Santa Fe National Historic Trail; scenery (landscape view) is of open grassland

and sweeping plains. The desired condition for La Frontera del Llano Scenic Byway near Mills is 

to connect historic and scenic attractions and retain scenic viewsheds to the vast open spaces and 

wildlife. Objectives for La Frontera del Llano Scenic Byway would construct interpretive signing 

to associate the byway with the Kiowa NG and Mills Canyon. The management approach for

alternative B would emphasize partnerships and projects to support economic goals and protect

the resources for which the trail or byways were designated. Under this alternative, the 

Grasslands may coordinate with other agencies to maintain consistency in signing and appearance

of the trail and associated features.

Canadian Eligible Scenic River. Alternative B would preserve the scenic river features found in

Mills Canyon but does not recommend scenic river designation. An objective under this

alternative is to close or rehabilitate all unauthorized motorized vehicle stream crossings in the

eligible scenic river corridor within 10 years of plan approval.

Wilderness

Alternative B would not recommend wilderness designation but would create a Mills Canyon MA 

from a portion of the Canadian River IRA. Alternative B would change the ROS classification 

from semiprimitive motorized to semiprimitive nonmotorized to preserve the wilderness 

character.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

22 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Needs for Change Topic 3: Human Influences

Roads and Access

Alternative B provides direction on decommissioning unneeded, user-created roads, and NFS

roads. Methods of decommissioning are also addressed. Alternative B also provides Grasslandsspecific direction regarding obtaining legal access to fragmented units.

Land Adjustment

This alternative would provide direction for acquiring lands that improve the Grasslands’ ability

to carry out its mission. 

Minerals and Energy Development

Alternative B would provide clear objectives pertaining to reclamation measures associated with

retired production sites. The plan’s guidelines would govern how and when reclamation should be 

performed. Standards are provided related to how and where drilling operations can be 

conducted. Alternative B contains a standard that addresses removal and deposition of drill fluids

and cuttings from closed loop systems. Alternative B also addresses distances to be maintained

from riparian areas and steep slopes unless the operator demonstrates that the activities can be

performed without loss of long-term site productivity. Guidelines in alternative B address BMPs 

associated with roads accessing energy development sites.

Special Forest Products

Alternative B would recommend the disposal of forest products through sales or free use and 

would give clear direction on when and how disposal would occur. Grasslands would provide 

firewood, construction wood (posts, poles, stays), and wildlings when consistent with meeting

desired conditions. Individual firewood permits for personal use would be limited to the amounts 

typically needed for domestic household use (12 cords) in one year’s time if firewood is limited.

Firewood and other personal use forest products would be offered free when fee permits are not

practical. Managers recognize the right of tribes to collect forest products for noncommercial, 

traditional, and cultural purposes. 

Special Uses

Alternative B recommends raptor protection guidelines be implemented for all power, energy, and 

communication sites. This alternative also directs use of existing rights-of-way to provide utility

access to private lands or for cross-country energy transmission, and restricts ground-disturbing 

activities within 500 feet of eligible National Historic Register sites. Alternative B aspires to

minimize fragmentation and effects to wildlife habitat by energy transmission infrastructure.

Wind Energy Development

Alternative B would recommend guidelines for wind energy development and energy 

transmission corridors. It further recommends avoidance of wind energy development within: (1) 

500 feet of eligible National Historic Register areas, (2) 1⁄2 mile of BTPD colonies, (3) 1⁄2 mile of 

airport approaches and departure paths, and (4) 1⁄2 mile of developed recreation sites. 

Livestock Use

Alternative B would contribute to local economies by offering livestock grazing permits and

demonstrating grassland agriculture and would contribute to preserving large areas of open space
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 23

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

and preserving the rural and cultural heritage of the southern Great Plains. Livestock use would 

provide for conditions that support the sustainability of diverse, healthy, herbaceous and woody 

plant communities and animal populations while protecting wetlands, streams, habitat, and soils 

from undesirable impacts. The same NEPA decisions discussed under alternative A apply to this 

alternative as well.

Wildland-Urban Interface and Fire Management 

Alternative B emphasizes reducing the threat of wildfire to communities by treating wildlandurban interface (WUI) areas and would provide for an annual treatment of 2,000 to 3,000 acres

per year with prescribed fire, mechanical methods, and/or thinning to reduce fire hazard in the 

WUI areas. A standard would require that response to unplanned ignitions meet either protection 

or resource objectives. Coordination with other jurisdictions in response to unplanned ignitions

should be emphasized. Future planned ignitions should mimic the historical role of fire to achieve

resource objectives.

Alternative C – Wilderness Alternative

Needs for Change Topic 1: Ecosystem Diversity

Soil

Alternative C for soils is identical to alternative B. 

Water 

Alternative C for water and watersheds is identical to alternative B. 

Air

Alternative C for the air resource is identical to alternative B. 

Vegetation 

Alternative C would limit management tools that could be used in the ecosystem restoration and

maintenance of the Canadian River. FSM 2320, Wilderness Management, would govern use of

management tools within the potential wilderness.

Wildlife

Alternative C would be identical to alternative B, except that management of habitat in the 

potential wilderness would be subject to Forest Service directives and constraints on use of 

certain tools in a wilderness area.

Invasive Species

Alternative C would be identical to alternative B, except that invasive species management in the

Canadian River PWA would have some limitations on management tools that could be used. FSM

2320, Wilderness Management, would govern use of management tools within the potential 

wilderness.

Climate Change

Alternative C is identical to alternative B regarding climate change.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

24 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Needs for Change Topic 2: Managed Recreation

Scenery

The acres delineated for the respective scenic integrity objectives for alternative C would be 

identical to those for alternative B. The wilderness recommendation would exclude a 150-foot 

corridor on either side of the centerlines of Forest Roads K600, 601, and 602 and would also

exclude the developed campground and Mills Ranch (homestead site) within Mills Canyon. 

Recreation

Alternative C would be identical to alternative B regarding developed, dispersed, and motorized 

recreation, except that the Canadian River PWA would be managed in accordance with FSM 

2320. 

Nature-Based Tourism

Management for nature-based tourism under alternative C would be the same as alternative B 

everywhere except that the Canadian River PWA would be managed in accordance with FSM 

2320. 

Heritage Resources

Alternative C would not differ from alternative B with respect to heritage resources; heritage and 

cultural resources would be managed in accordance with FSM 2320 in the Canadian River PWA.

Special Areas/Areas of Interest

Research Natural Areas (RNAs). Alternative C would be the same as alternative B with regard to

RNAs.

Scenic Byways and National Historic Trail. Management for scenic byways and national historic

trail under alternative C would be the same as alternative B. These special areas do not occur in

the Canadian River PWA. 

Canadian Eligible Scenic River. Alternative C management direction for the Canadian Eligible

Scenic River would be the same as alternative B. See the map “Special Areas and Eligible Scenic

River” in appendix L. 

Wilderness

Alternative C proposes to recommend the Canadian River PWA for designation. The potential 

wilderness would be governed by directives stated in FSM 2320. 

The Canadian River PWA would be 6,032 acres, of which 5,444 acres are national grassland and 

584 are State Trust lands.5 The area would be defined geographically by Mills Canyon with

 

5 The Cibola NF and NGs acknowledge that the potential wilderness as described and configured in alternative C 

includes approximately 584 acres of New Mexico State Land Office (SLO) land. This alternative does not commit the

SLO to the exchange or sale of that parcel to the U.S. Forest Service. If the Forest Service responsible official selects

alternative C as the preferred Grasslands plan, consultation with the SLO as to willingness to exchange or sell said land

would be further pursued during the interim between draft and final environmental impact statements. If the SLO does

not wish to exchange or sell the land in question, the boundaries of the potential wilderness would be adjusted and the

wilderness reduced in size. Similarly, recommendation of wilderness would not affect the management of adjacent

State land. If the area were to be designated by Congress as wilderness, it would not prevent any activity or

development from taking place on adjacent State or private land. Non-Federal lands surrounded by wilderness are
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 25

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

elevations ranging from 6,100 feet at the river to 6,800 feet at the canyon rim. The PWA was

evaluated for capability, availability, and need. The findings of the evaluation were used to

determine whether or not to make a preliminary administrative recommendation for wilderness

designation of the Canadian River PWA. No recommendation has been made.

Alternative C would have a desired condition for the Canadian River PWA as follows:

The Canadian River PWA maintains its wilderness characteristics, i.e., natural 

appearance, tranquility, low interaction with other users, etc. Vegetation structure 

is in low departure from reference condition structure. Natural processes such as

fire, insects, drought, disease, and grazing control vegetation composition and 

structure. The area has an open, natural or natural appearing landscape with a 

healthy riparian habitat and minimal presence of invasive species. Generally,

opportunities for primitive recreation and a moderate degree of solitude are

available. There is some evidence of past and present human use, such as fences,

barriers, trails, old buildings, water developments, and primitive roads. Existing

two-track roads and old roads rehabilitate naturally through lack of use; some of 

these routes may become nonmotorized system trails. Bridges or other structures 

may exist to protect resources. 

Needs for Change Topic 3: Human Influences

Roads and Access

Alternative C would not differ from alternative B, except that decommissioning of user-created

roads and trails would not occur after designation. 

Land Adjustment

In alternative C, land adjustment direction would be the same as alternative B. 

Minerals and Energy Development

Alternative C would be identical to alternative B.

Special Forest Products

Alternative C would be similar to alternative B, except that FSM 2320 would govern removal of 

wildlings and forest products within the potential wilderness.

Special Uses

Alternative C would be similar to alternative B, except that FSM 2320 would govern special use

permits within the Canadian River PWA. 

Wind Energy Development

Alternative C would be similar to alternative B, except that FSM 2320 would govern special use

permits such as wind energy development within the Canadian River PWA. 

 

ensured adequate access to their property in accordance with FSM 2326.13. Non-Federal lands that have access

available from outside the wilderness will not be entitled to access their properties through a wilderness area.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

26 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Livestock Use

Alternative C would be the same as alternative B with regard to livestock grazing, but would be 

subject to FSM 2320 directives in the Canadian River PWA. 

Wildland-Urban Interface and Fire Management 

Alternative C provides the same WUI and fire management direction as alternative B. However,

WUI would not apply in a wilderness, and planned and unplanned ignitions would be subject to

directives in FSM 2320. Planned ignitions would be allowed when mimicking the historical fire

regime for the vegetation type present in the wilderness (pinyon-juniper) and for fuel reduction. 

Alternatives Considered But 

Eliminated from Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the

proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. 

Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of plan revision, duplicative of the 

alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary

environmental harm. Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered, but dismissed from

detailed consideration for reasons summarized below. 

Expanded Canadian Potential Wilderness Area Alternative. This alternative was formulated in

response to public comments received during the scoping phase of the NEPA process. This

“Expanded Wilderness Alternative” was considered but not studied in detail for multiple reasons:

• The presence of built features such as fences and roads that would be included in an

expanded version of alternative C would be incompatible with wilderness values. 

• Inclusions of properties that are privately owned or managed by other agencies. 

• The “Expanded Wilderness Alternative” would, in concept, include substantial acreage

above the canyon rim within the pinyon-juniper and shortgrass prairie vegetation types

and increase frontage with private property, thereby increasing potential for illegal

motorized access into a wilderness area.

• Enforcement issues restricting motorized access under alternative C would be

exacerbated under this potential alternative.

• No proponent of the expanded boundary has provided a detailed map or detailed

description of the proposed expansion area.

Research Natural Areas Alternative. This alternative was considered in response to public 

comments received during the scoping phase of the NEPA process. Some commenters recently

proposed designation of RNAs on both the Kiowa and Rita Blanca NGs. The RNA alternative

was considered, but not studied in detail because the ecological condition of the vegetation is at

present not considered to be in a sufficiently natural condition to serve as a baseline or reference

area to assist in guiding resource management decisions.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 27

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternative A would provide direction to study a 300-acre RNA on each of three NGs—BK, K, 

and RB—for possible designation. A final report (Dunmire 1987) was prepared by The Nature

Conservancy that describes field methods and findings. Dunmire (1987) identified and described

four primary sites with RNA potential for KRB NGs—Units K-3, K-46, K-100, and RB-19. The 

Southwestern Region RNA taskforce visited those sites again in 1988 to evaluate the areas for 

possible designation. In July 1988, the taskforce formally recommended that the region proceed

with designation for Unit K-46 and portions of Unit K-3 on the Kiowa NG. Unit K-46 was

considered to be an excellent example of the blue grama-buffalograss ecosystem, and Unit K-3 

presented an excellent example of the sand sagebrush ecosystem. Of principle interest was a large

area of sandhills prairie in good condition (Dunmire 1987). 

In 1991, an establishment record was prepared by the Nature Conservancy for Unit 46, Kiowa

Shortgrass RNA. However, this unit was not recommended by the forest supervisor or regional

forester due to conflicts between restrictive RNA management guidelines and the long-term fire

effects research being conducted by the Rocky Mountain Research Station at the site. On May 18 

and 19, 2010, as a result of scoping comments received, three areas identified by Dunmire (1987) 

were reevaluated by KRB district staff using cover frequency transects and ocular observation to

document current conditions. These were Kiowa Units K-100 and K-3 and Rita Blanca Unit RB19. Kiowa Unit 46 was not reevaluated.

The evaluation on Unit K-100 revealed that canopy cover had apparently changed since 1987, 

and galleta has since become the most visually dominant species, although the frequency 

transects show that galleta and blue grama are equal in canopy cover at 32 percent each. Bare

ground in 1987 was less than 10 percent, but bare ground was 20 percent in 2010. Based upon 

structural improvements added since 1987 and the shift in plant composition, this unit is not 

considered a good candidate for RNA designation. 

In 1987, Unit K-3 was proposed as a good candidate as RNA for the sand sagebrush-blue grama

ecosystem. At that time, the sand sagebrush cover was reported as 10 to 20 percent. In May 2010, 

district staff measured canopy cover both inside and outside of a small exclosure within the unit.

Line intercept transects showed that shrub canopy within the exclosure was 50 percent, and 

outside the exclosure it was 33 percent. This is much higher than is considered a late successional

seral stage for sand sagebrush. The existing infrastructure, old plowed field, current cultivation 

surrounding the area, and shift in canopy cover make this area not suitable for RNA designation. 

In 1987, Unit RB-19 of the High Lonesome was considered a good candidate as RNA for the 

shortgrass ecosystem. No transects were read for this evaluation, but field observation in 2010 

indicated that there was a much higher incidence of threeawn and forbs than were present in

1987. Broom snakeweed, which was rare in 1987, was common in 2010. Past disturbance, 

historical grazing pressure, and the apparent shift in plant composition make this area not suitable 

for RNA designation. 

Because none of these particular units met regional criteria for recommendation as RNA, an

alternative was not considered in detail that recommended them.

Species Reintroduction Alternative. Some environmental groups advocated during the public 

comment period on the proposed plan and DEIS that there should be an alternative for 

reintroducing bison and Lesser Prairie-chicken (LPC). Such an alternative was considered, but 

eliminated from detailed study, as strategic plans do not reintroduce species; they provide for 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

28 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

habitats that allow for future species introduction decisions. Alternatives B and C provide for 

suitable LPC habitat and do not inhibit future reintroduction decisions. Regarding reintroduction 

of bison, the agency can administratively consider a request to stock bison on the Grasslands

under any EIS alternative, including the no action alternative A. Either a permittee or a state

wildlife agency could request a permit to run bison on an allotment authorized to them. A projectspecific environmental analysis would need to be conducted upon such a request. Thus, this 

alternative was considered, but eliminated from detailed study.

Deemphasized or Disallowed Grazing Alternative. During the proposed plan and DEIS public 

comment period, some commented that an alternative to exclude livestock grazing should have 

been considered. Such an alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study, as it 

would not be consistent with the Multiple Use–Sustained Yield Act. Furthermore, grazing, 

whether by native or domestic ungulates, has historically been one of the processes that have led

to the structure and composition features that form the basis of vegetation reference conditions on 

the Grasslands. Grazing is also an important management tool used to manipulate habitat for

wildlife by the intensity, duration, and timing of livestock use. Under all alternatives, adaptive 

management may deemphasize livestock grazing in response to drought, fire, or other conditions 

where destocking will help maintain or achieve desired conditions. 

Single-Resource Emphasis Alternatives. During the public comment period on the proposed plan 

and DEIS, some commenters encouraged a supplemental EIS or FEIS with additional alternatives 

with single-resource emphasis on wildlife, water quality, soil productivity, nature-based or 

ecotourism, open spaces, renewable energy, and nonmotorized recreation. Additional alternatives

that emphasize management of single resources, goods, or services were considered but 

eliminated from detailed study because alternatives B and C provide sufficient flexibility and 

guidance to accommodate all of those resources, and they are not mutually exclusive. Both

alternatives provide plan components (desired conditions, objectives, guidelines or standards,

suitability, and monitoring elements) for each of these resources, goods, or services. Forest

Service Manual and Forest Service Handbook directives, laws, regulations, and policy provide 

additional management guidance for these resources, goods, and services, and were identified by 

topic area in appendix D of alternatives B and C. Thus, single-resource emphasis alternatives 

were considered but eliminated from detailed study.

Summary Comparison of

Consequences by Alternative

This section provides a summary of the environmental consequences of alternatives by need-forchange topic. Information in table 3 focuses on management direction and issues where different 

consequences can be compared quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

As an aid to the decision maker and the public, table 3 addresses differences among alternatives

where environmental consequences are anticipated to be important. Further detailed discussion of

differences can be found in the “Environmental Consequences” sections of chapter 3. The 

organization of the respective needs for change and resource topics in this table is the same as

that found in chapter 3. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 29

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 3. Summary comparison of consequences of alternatives on the biological, social, 

and physical environments 

Consequences Comparison by Alternative

Environment Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Needs for Change Issue: Ecosystem Diversity

Soils No major differences among alternatives. 

Water Would not improve river

connectivity and structural

components of channels and

riparian areas toward proper

functioning condition.

Would improve river connectivity and structural components

of channels and riparian areas toward proper functioning

condition.

Air No major differences among alternatives.

Mixed-grass

prairie 

This alternative would

protect and maintain

shelterbelts and would allow

continued encroachment of

undesirable native invasive

trees such as eastern

redcedar and black locust,

which would be contrary to

desired vegetation structure 

and species composition.

Implementation would achieve desired vegetation structure 

and species composition of the mixed-grass prairie across the

landscape by reducing the presence of undesirable native

trees such as eastern redcedar and black locust.

Shinnery oak Areal coverage of shinnery

oak would be reduced by

about 12 percent. Control of

undesirable native invasive

trees would not be prioritized

and could result in a slow

drift away from desired

vegetation structure and

species composition.

Implementation would maintain or slowly increase acreage of

this vegetation type on the BK NG. This alternative would

result in removal of undesirable native invasive trees (e.g.,

black locust and eastern redcedar) within shinnery oak.

Implementation would result in shinnery oak on BK NG

moving toward the treeless desired condition for this

vegetation type, and application of managed grazing, planned

fire, or mechanical or chemical tools would result in

achievement of desired vegetation structure and species

composition.

Mixed

hardwood

riparian

Implementation would allow

higher fuel loads from

encroachment by eastern

redcedar in the understory,

increasing mortality of

deciduous trees.

Implementation would result in reducing encroachment of

eastern redcedar in the understory, thereby lowering fuel

loads.

More clearly defined targets for vegetation structure and

composition would move this vegetation type toward

reference condition.

Shortgrass 

prairie and

inclusions

Implementation would allow

managed grazing and

planned fire, but since there

is no direction defining

structure and composition,

outcomes would be

uncertain.

Implementation would move this vegetation type toward

desired vegetation structure and species composition, as

targets for species composition and structure are clearly

defined.

Pinyon-juniper

and juniper

grasslands

inclusions

Implementation may result

in this vegetation drifting

from reference condition for

vegetation structure, as there

are no defined targets. 

Implementation would result in moving toward desired

vegetation structure and species composition by focusing on

early seral stage development.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

30 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Consequences Comparison by Alternative

Environment Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Cottonwoodwillow riparian

(excluding

Canadian

River)

Implementation may result

in this vegetation drifting

from reference condition for

vegetation structure, as there

are no defined targets.

Implementation would move this vegetation type toward

defined desired vegetation structure and species composition

through invasive species control, restoration plantings, and

managed livestock use.

Sand sagebrush Sand sagebrush would be

maintained in its current

state or possibly move away

from reference condition for

vegetation structure as this

alternative has no defined

targets.

Implementation would move this vegetation type toward

desired structure and species composition targets.

Canyon

lowlands and

cottonwoodwillow riparian

and Canadian

River

There is no direction

defining structure and

composition. Outcomes

would be uncertain.

Implementation would move

toward a defined structure

and composition outcome for

the Canadian River

cottonwood-willow riparian

vegetation with focus on

early seral stage

development.

Same as Alternative B 

except wilderness

designation would delay

achievement of desired

vegetation structure and

species composition

outcomes because of

limitations on use of

motorized management

tools.

Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

Interior Least

Tern on aquatic

lakes

In general, implementation of plan components related to the improvement of watershed

conditions, minerals/energy development, recreation, and grazing management should result in

positive effects to the Interior Least Tern by indirectly protecting foraging habitat occasionally

used by the Interior Least Tern. Implementation would result in a “May Affect, Not likely to

Adversely Affect” determination for the Interior Least Tern.

Arkansas River

shiner on

aquatic lakes

In general, implementation of plan components related to the improvement of watershed

conditions, minerals-energy development, recreation, and grazing management should result in

positive effects to the Arkansas River shiner by indirectly protecting watersheds that drain into

occupied habitat in the Canadian River in Texas and Oklahoma. Implementation of any

alternative may render a “May Affect but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determination for

the Arkansas River shiner.

Viability-High At-Risk Species

Lesser Prairiechicken on

mixed-grass

Prairie

Suitable habitat = 70−88

percent (7,910−9,940 acres)

of the vegetation type.

Undesirable tree

encroachment on mixedgrass prairie would degrade

potential and suitable habitat

for LPC. Implementation

would result in greater

viability risks to the Lesser 

Prairie chicken and may

result in Federal listing.

Suitable habitat = 90−96 percent (10,170−10,850 acres) of

the vegetation type.

Desired vegetation structure and species composition would

enhance habitat by reducing the presence of undesirable

trees. LPC mortality caused by collision with fences would

be reduced.

Under Alternatives B and C, there would be no loss of 

viability or trend toward future listing.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 31

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Consequences Comparison by Alternative

Environment Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Lesser Prairiechicken on

shinnery oak

Suitable habitat = 70−88

percent (13,320− 16,630

acres) of the vegetation type.

Mast (acorns) for LPC

would be reduced due to

reduction of shinnery oak

acreage. Undesirable trees

would degrade potential and

suitable LPC habitat.

Implementation would result

in greater viability risks to

the LPC and may result in

Federal listing.

Suitable habitat = 90−96 percent (17,010−18,140 acres) of

the vegetation type. Desired vegetation structure and species

composition would enhance habitat by reducing the presence

of undesirable trees. LPC mortality caused by collision with

fences would be reduced. Under Alternatives B and C, there

would be no loss of viability or trend toward future listing.

Lesser Prairiechicken on

sand sagebrush

Suitable habitat ≤100 percent 

(≤22,650 acres) of the

vegetation type.

Due to no defined targets for

vegetation structure and

species composition, this

alternative would produce

uncertain outcomes.

Suitable habitat = 100 percent (22,650 acres) of the

vegetation type.

Implementation would move this vegetation type toward

desired vegetation structure and species composition, 

accomplished through well-defined targets for this vegetation

type, improving LPC habitat.

Black-tailed

prairie dog on

sand sagebrush

Suitable habitat = 1−10

percent (230−2,300 acres) of

the vegetation type.

Due to no defined targets for

vegetative structure and

species composition, this

alternative would produce

uncertain outcomes.

Suitable habitat = 1−10 percent (<230−2,300 acres) of the

vegetation type.

Implementation would move this vegetation type toward

desired vegetation structure and species composition, thereby

reducing BTPD expansion.

Black-tailed

prairie dog and

Mountain

Plover on

shortgrass

prairie

Suitable habitat would range from about 30-32 percent (54,570−58,210 acres) of the vegetation

type. The expansion of BTPD colonies would result in increased areal extent of early

successional stage shortgrass prairie, thus increasing nesting/foraging areas for Mountain

Plover.

Swift fox on

shortgrass

prairie

Suitable habitat = 100 percent (181,900 acres) of the vegetation type. The expansion of BTPD

colonies would result in an increased prey base for the swift fox.

Predation on swift fox would be reduced by installation of

artificial escape structures.

Plains leopard

frog on playa

lakes

Suitable habitat = 100 percent (1,820−5,460 acres) of this fluctuating habitat.

Improved habitat in and around the playa inclusions would result from restoration of altered

playa basins.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

32 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Consequences Comparison by Alternative

Environment Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Plains leopard

frog on

cottonwoodwillow riparian

excluding

Canadian River

Suitable habitat would be

≤100 percent (≤ 1,370 acres)

of the vegetation type.

Implementation would have

no defined targets for

riparian species composition

or structure. This may

degrade the habitat of the

riparian community for

plains leopard frog.

Suitable habitat would be equal to 100 percent (1,370 acres)

of the vegetation type.

Habitat would be improved by moving toward a defined

structure and composition outcome by focusing on early seral

stage development and by increasing snags and woody debris 

in the streambeds and riparian area.

Plains leopard

frog on

cottonwoodwillow riparian

on Canadian

River

Suitable habitat ≤100 percent 

(≤1,500 acres) of the

vegetation type.

Implementation would have

no defined targets for

riparian species composition

or structure. This may

degrade the habitat of the

riparian community for

plains leopard frog.

Suitable habitat = 100 percent (1,500 acres) of the vegetation

type.

Habitat would be improved by moving toward a defined

structure and composition outcome by focusing on early seral

stage development and by increasing snags and woody debris 

in the streambeds and riparian area.

International Migratory Bird Act

There would be no direction

for desired vegetation

structure and species

composition in all vegetation

types.

Fine filter plan components in objectives and guidelines for

grassland restoration in vegetation and habitat associated

with species that have viability high at-risk concerns would

support migratory bird habitat.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

There would be no programmatic take of eagles under any of the alternatives.

Management Indicator Species

Rio Grande

Turkey on

mixed

hardwood

riparian

Suitable habitat = 50−100

percent (975−1,950 acres) of

the vegetation type.

More intense and hotter fires 

caused by fuels buildup from

lack of planned fire would

reduce the number of mature

deciduous trees, thereby

eliminating roost areas for

the Rio Grande Turkey.

Suitable habitat = 100 percent (1,950 acres) of the vegetation

type.

Mixed hardwood riparian vegetation type would move

toward defined targets for species composition and structure,

thereby improving habitat for the Rio Grande Turkey by

providing roosting trees, foraging areas, and nesting and

brood-raising areas in the early and mid-successional stages.

Burrowing

Owl on

shortgrass

prairie, early

successional

stage

Suitable habitat = about 30−32 percent (54,570−58,210 acres) of the vegetation type.

There would be no direction

for desired vegetation

structure and species

composition that would

enhance habitat for

Burrowing Owl.

Targets for desired vegetation structure and species

composition would result in BTPD colony expansion, thus

improving habitat for Burrowing Owl.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 33

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Consequences Comparison by Alternative

Environment Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Mountain 

Bluebird on 

pinyon-juniper

Suitable habitat = about 90

percent (19,530 acres) of the 

vegetation type.

Habitat could be reduced or 

degraded because there are 

no defined targets for

vegetation structure. 

Suitable habitat = 100 percent (21,700 acres) of the 

vegetation type.

Implementation would improve habitat by increasing the 

diversity of structural stages.

Invasive plants

and animals

Shelterbelts would be 

maintained, thereby 

providing a source of

invasive tree seed.

Invasive plant and animal species would be controlled 

according to management direction, allowing vegetation 

types to move toward desired vegetation structure and species 

composition.

Climate change No major differences among alternatives.

Needs for Change Issue: Managed Recreation

Scenery Would place less emphasis

on retaining visual quality

and is silent on effects of

wind energy development on

scenery.

Would assign HSI to Lake Marvin, Lake McClellan, Mills

Canyon, Sauz Creek, Sugar Loaf Mountain, Santa Fe 

National Historic Trail, the High Lonesome, and around most

developed recreation sites. Would emphasize retaining visual

quality including guidance for wind energy development with

respect to scenery.

Visual Quality

Objectives/

Scenery

Management

System

Partial retention for 12,286 

acres and modification for 

251,668 acres.

High scenic integrity objective for 83,011 acres; moderate for 

139,879 acres; and low scenic integrity objective for 40,705

acres.

Recreation

Opportunity

Spectrum

Limited ROS classes allow

less flexibility for recreation

planning.

There would be 165,525 

acres semiprimitive 

motorized, and 98,429 acres

roaded natural.

Changes in ROS would 

better characterize the 

recreation experience and 

increase latitude in 

recreation planning; 1,445 

ac. Rural; 4,752 ac. RN; 

248,711 ac. SPM; 8,121 ac. 

SPNM.

There would be 8,212 acres 

semiprimitive 

nonmotorized; 248,650 

acres semiprimitive 

motorized; 4,722 acres 

roaded natural; and 1,445 

acres rural.

Dispersed and

motorized

Does not address dispersed

uses other than motorized on

the Grasslands.

Would restrict dispersed

camping around historic

sites, interpretive sites, most 

trailheads, and stock water

tanks.

Same as alternative B,

except motorized use would

be prohibited in the PWA.

Back-country uses would

replace motorized uses.

Developed Prescribes new and

unneeded construction,

reconstruction, increased

capacity at Lake Marvin,

Lake McClellan, and

unspecified areas on KRB.

Reconstruction of existing sites would provide recreation

opportunities responsive to visitor demand.

Recreation 

suitability

Recreation suitability acreage does not vary by alternative; 261,256 acres are suitable for

developed and/or dispersed recreation.

Nature-based 

tourism

Would not actively promote

ecotourism and associated

economic development.

Would encourage partnerships and visitation to important

bird areas and other wildlife viewing activities.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

34 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Consequences Comparison by Alternative

Environment Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Heritage

resources No major differences among alternatives.

Special Areas — Areas of Interest

Scenic byways

and Santa Fe

National

Historic Trail

Provides no guidance. Would provide design guidelines for structural developments

and enhance visitor experience.

RNAs No major differences among alternatives. No RNAs recommended.

Canadian

Eligible Scenic

River

No major difference among alternatives. All alternatives would protect scenic values in the 

Canadian River corridor. No alternative would recommend designation.

Wilderness Would not recommend

wilderness.

Would not recommend

wilderness. Would conserve

wilderness characteristics.

PWA boundary contains 

6,028 total acres; 5,444 are

Kiowa NG and 584 are

State Trust lands.

Needs for Change Issue: Human Influences

Roads and

access No major differences among alternatives.

Land

adjustments No major differences among alternatives.

Minerals and

energy

development

Minerals and energy

development would be

conducted in accordance

with law, regulation, policy, 

and through the use of

BMPs.

These alternatives would be similar to alternative A but 

include additional BMP associated guidelines that would 

benefit the environment.

Special forest

products

Nonnative, invasive trees

(except in shelterbelts)

would be removed,

potentially providing forest

products.

Undesirable, native and

nonnative trees (including

shelterbelts) would be

removed, providing more

forest products than

alternative A.

This alternative would be

similar to alternative B 

except that tree removal

could be limited in the

potential wilderness area.

Timber

suitability

There are no lands on the Grasslands that are suitable for timber production; they are either

nonforested, would be subject to irreversible resource damage, or are not cost efficient in

meeting forest objectives. Thus, there is no difference among alternatives with respect to

Allowable timber suitability, long-term sustainable yield calculations, or allowable sale quantity. sale

quantity

Long-term

sustainable

yield

Special uses No major differences among alternatives.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 35

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Consequences Comparison by Alternative

Environment Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Wind energy

development

All wind development

project proposals would be

subject to Forest Service 

directives and NEPA

analysis wherein projectspecific environmental

consequences would be

evaluated.

Similar to alternative A, except guidelines would require 1⁄2 

mile buffer from developed recreation and 500 feet from sites 

that are listed or eligible for inclusionon the National 

Register of Historic Places.

Livestock use Would convert 4,400 acres 

of shinnery oak to

grassland/livestock use. 

Would prescribe unneeded, 

project-specific range 

developments. 

Would not convert shinnery oak habitat to grassland. Would

allow, but not prescribe, project-specific range developments.

Grazing 

suitability

Grazing suitability does not vary by alternative (255,541 acres full capacity; 6,953 acres

potential capacity). 

Wildlandurban interface

and fire 

management

No major differences among alternatives. 

Socioeconomic Values

Present net

value 

$152,409,164 $151,130,674.

The difference from alternative A is due to slightly higher

costs projected for vegetation restoration under alternatives B 

and C. 

Labor income

generated

$7,217,000 Unknown. Difference is not expected to be economically

significant. 

Jobs

contributed (all

industry

sectors)

154 jobs. No difference among alternatives.

Where table 3 (above) focuses on environmental consequences, table 4 (below) presents a 

qualitative assessment of how desired conditions would be met.7 The reader should note that the 

environmental consequences of the respective alternatives upon the physical, biological, or social 

resources of the Grasslands (table 3) do not necessarily equate with the likelihood of the 

respective alternatives meeting desired conditions (table 4) that were crafted to address the 

collaboratively identified needs for change to the 1985 plan. 

 

7 Desired conditions were developed collaboratively with the public during the plan development process; alternatives 

B and C were developed to meet those desired conditions. Desired conditions for alternatives B and C differ only for 

the potential wilderness area issue.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

36 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 4. Summary of the likelihood of each alternative achieving desired conditions

Likelihood of Achieving Desired Conditions by Alternative

Resource 

Area Not Likely Highly Likely

Soil, Water, Air A B

C

Vegetation A B

C

Federally Listed 

Species

A

B

C

Species with 

Viability Risks

A B

C

Management 

Indicator Species

A B

C

Invasive Plants 

and Animals

A B

C

Climate

A

B

C

Scenery A B

C

Recreation A B

C

Nature-based 

Tourism

A B

C

Heritage 

Resources

A

B

C

Special Areas A B

C

Wilderness A B C 

Roads and 

Access

A

B

C

Land 

Adjustments

A

B

C

Minerals and 

Energy 

Development

A B

C 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan

PFEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 37

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Likelihood of Achieving Desired Conditions by Alternative

Resource 

Area Not Likely Highly Likely

Special Forest 

Products

A B

C

Special Uses A B

C

Wind Energy 

Development

A B

C

Livestock Use

A

B

C

Wildland-Urban 

Interface and Fire 

Management

A

B

C

Timber Suitability, Long-Term Sustainable 

Yield Calculations, and Allowable Sale Quantity

There are no lands on the KRB and BKMC NGs that are suitable for timber production. Lands of 

these national grasslands are either nonforested, would be subject to irreversible resource damage,

or are not cost efficient in meeting forest objectives. Thus, there is no difference among

alternatives with respect to long-term sustainable yield calculations or allowable sale quantity. 

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 39

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 

and Environmental Consequences

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the

management areas and the consequences of implementing each alternative on that environment. It

also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in

chapter 2 and is organized by needs for change issues, similar to the organization of chapter 2. 

The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions 

but does not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Because the land management

plan does not authorize or mandate any site-specific activities or ground-disturbing actions, there

can be no direct effects. However, there may be implications—or longer term environmental 

consequences—of managing the Grasslands under this programmatic framework.

For estimating the environmental consequences at the programmatic Grasslands plan level, the 

assumption has been made that the kinds of resource management activities allowed under the

plan direction of the preferred alternative are reasonably foreseeable future actions to achieve the 

desired conditions and objectives. However, the specific location, design, and extent of such

activities are generally not known at the time. Those decisions are made on a site-specific

(project-by-project) basis. Therefore, the discussions here refer to the potential for consequences

to occur and are in many cases only estimates. The consequences analyses are useful when

comparing and evaluating alternatives on a Grasslands-wide basis, but are not intended to be 

applied directly to specific locations on the Grasslands. 

In addition to assessing environmental consequences of the alternatives upon the Grasslands 

resources, goods, and services, an analysis is made of cumulative consequences that may occur 

from actions outside of Federal lands. Cumulative consequences are deemed to occur and are

addressed below when those actions outside of the Grasslands boundaries interact with plan

management on the Grasslands. 

An interdisciplinary approach was used to evaluate possible environmental consequences for the

alternatives addressed in this report. A matrix was developed and used that prompted review of

the plan components for each resource area by alternative and is presented in appendix J. This

examination revealed whether implementation of any given alternative might have important 

positive or negative consequences for attaining the desired conditions for each resource area.

Needs for Change 

Topic 1: Ecosystem Diversity

Components of the physical and biological environment combine with management practices to 

shape the variety of habitats or ecosystems within a landscape. The FPEIS examines the effects of 

the plan alternatives on these components. 

To determine consequences of the alternatives, a discussion of the affected environment of the 

soils, air, watershed features, vegetation, wildlife habitat associations, invasive species, and

climate on the Grasslands is presented below. Following the discussion of the affected

environment of these resources, the anticipated environmental consequences of the alternatives

upon each of these resources are presented. Cumulative consequences from actions outside the 

Grasslands borders are also anticipated. The reader is referred to the referenced specialist reports

for more detail on the analyses leading to a conclusion of what the consequences may be. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

40 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

The reader should understand that even though alternative A would have no plan direction on 

certain issues (e.g., climate change, invasive species) that are addressed with plan direction by the

other alternatives, the laws, regulations, and policy (such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, 

and Endangered Species Act) currently in place regarding those issues forms the basis of 

comparison of alternative A to the other alternatives.

Soils

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in 

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of the soil resource that are useful to the decision maker and the public. Additional 

information is in the “Soils Specialist Report” (USDA Forest Service 2011a).

Affected Environment

As of 2011, much of the current soil condition is an artifact of Dust Bowl era erosion and 

deposition. Soils in the old fields that were in cultivation prior to the Dust Bowl were severely 

eroded, with most or all of the topsoil removed through wind erosion. These changes significantly 

altered soil structure, stability, and texture. Soil fertility in these areas is very low, and both 

microorganisms and organic material are present in the soil in very limited quantities. Most soils 

degraded in the Dust Bowl era have not yet developed into the productive grassland soils found 

before the 1930s.

As of the most recent soil survey (2005), 90 percent of the Grasslands have soil loss rates either 

equal to or below the predicted natural soil loss potential (the predicted soil loss under natural 

conditions). Soil loss rates for 10 percent of the soils exceed the predicted natural soil loss 

potential; however, this is a natural state for these soils (shortgrass and mixed-grass prairie). In 

addition, smaller localized areas occur that may exceed the tolerable soil loss rate1

. These areas 

occur in all of the vegetation types and are associated with roads, off-road vehicles, areas where 

livestock congregate, recreation, oil and gas developments, and caliche extraction pits.

Soil condition is an evaluation of soil quality based on an interpretation of factors which affect 

vital soil functions of hydrology, stability, and nutrient cycling.2 Fifty-two percent of the 

 

1 The tolerable soil loss rate is the rate of soil loss that can occur while sustaining inherent soil productivity.

2 Soil condition is classified as:

Satisfactory. Indicators signify that soil function is being sustained and soil is functioning properly and normally. The 

ability of the soil to maintain resource values and sustain outputs is high.

Impaired. Indicators signify a reduction in soil function. The ability of the soil to function properly and normally has 

been reduced and/or there exists an increased vulnerability to degradation. An impaired category indicates there is a 

need to investigate the ecosystem to determine the cause and degree of decline in soil functions. Changes in land 

management practices or other preventative measures may be appropriate.

Unsatisfactory. Indicators signify that a loss of soil function has occurred. Degradation of vital soil functions result in 

the inability of the soil to maintain resource values, sustain outputs or recover from impacts. Unsatisfactory soils are 

candidates for improved management practices or restoration designed to recover soil functions.

Inherently Unstable. These soils have natural erosion exceeding tolerable limits. Based on calculations Hillslope 

Erosion Model these soils are eroding faster than they are renewing themselves but are functioning properly and 

normally.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 41

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Grasslands soils are satisfactory, and 48 percent are impaired. No soils on the Grasslands are 

inherently unstable or in unsatisfactory condition (table 5). 

Table 5. Soil condition of the Black Kettle, McClellan Creek, Kiowa, and Rita

Blanca National Grasslands

 Vegetation Type

Soil Condition

Total

Satisfactory Impaired

Mixed-grass prairie 93% 7% 4.3%

Shortgrass prairie 54% 46% 69.5%

Shinnery oak 15% 85% 7.3%

Pinyon-juniper 76% 24% 8.9%

Cottonwood-willow 100% 0% 0.5%

Mixed hardwood riparian 100% 0% 0.7%

Sand sagebrush 26% 74% 8.6%

Total Percent of Grassland Area 52% 48% 100%

Restoration management practices on the Grasslands over the past several decades have resulted 

in tremendous improvement in soil stability and vegetative recovery. A few units on the BK NG 

that were plowed in the past may not recover to their pre-Dust Bowl productivity, but they are 

vegetated and stabilized. BTPD colonies cover about 9,500 acres (3,800 acres occupied in 2011) 

of the KRB NGs. Currently occupied colonies are largely devoid of vegetation and may be prone 

to wind, sheet, and rill erosion.

Windblown sand originating from adjacent agricultural land is deposited on the Grasslands, 

sometimes accumulating to depths of 5 feet. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program

(EQIP) and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)—voluntary conservation programs 

administered by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service—provide farmers and 

ranchers with technical and financial assistance to reduce erosion. EQIP reduces soil erosion and 

sedimentation from unacceptable levels on agricultural land. CRP reduces soil erosion by 

converting highly erodible cropland or other environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative

cover. Some Grasslands permittees use EQIP and CRP assistance on their Federal allotments and 

their adjacent private land.

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. Where not specifically directed by the plan, soil condition would be 

maintained or improved according to law, regulation, and policy and through the use of BMPs 

and adaptive management. Such practices reduce soil erosion by maintaining adequate vegetative 

cover of areas grazed by livestock and by rehabilitating defunct oil and gas drilling pads and 

associated roads. Occupied BTPD colonies would remain susceptible to soil erosion. Soil erosion 

may increase in the short term where fire hazard is reduced by thinning or prescribed burning. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

42 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternative A. Potential long-term soil erosion would be reduced on 50.8 miles of road that would 

be obliterated3

 within the first 10 years of plan approval. 

Alternatives B and C. All unauthorized routes and decommissioned roads where resource damage

is occurring would be rehabilitated within the first 15 years of plan approval. Shinnery oak 

vegetation types would move toward desired vegetation structure and species composition, thus 

reducing soil erosion by stabilizing impaired soils within those vegetation types. Tools like 

spreader dams would be used to reduce soil removal by gullying. Removal of undesirable trees on 

1,000 to 2,000 acres within 10 years of plan approval may result in increased soil erosion during 

the period between tree removal and reestablishment of ground cover. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects area is the Grasslands and adjacent private land (within about 1 mile).

Soil removal, transport, or deposition by wind, water, or air would be reduced on the Grasslands 

through EQIP and CRP supported activities in the cumulative effects area. 

Water

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in 

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of the water resource that are useful to the decision maker and the public. Additional 

information is in the “Watershed Specialist Report” (USDA Forest Service 2011b). 

Affected Environment

Watersheds, Streams, and Riparian Areas. The Grassland units are located within 26 discrete 

watersheds. Most of the Grasslands fall within 8 of the 26 watersheds. The ESR (pages 11–13)

lists the watersheds including acres, percent ownership, percent of streams by stream type in each

watershed, and percent of the acreage of lakes and ponds in each watershed. There are many

different kinds of surface water features in the Grassland units. These include streams, reservoirs

and lakes, playa lakes, and wetlands. Groundwater is also an important part of Grasslands water 

resources. Watershed conditions upstream of the Canadian River Mills Canyon MA are degraded.

There are 409.5 miles of stream channels on the Grassland units. New Mexico has 234.8 miles,

137.6 miles are in Oklahoma, and 37.1 miles are in Texas. Of these, 33.2 miles flow continuously 

and are perennial. New Mexico has 19.8 miles of perennial streams, 11.5 miles are located in

Oklahoma, and 1.8 miles are in Texas. Watershed conditions upstream of the Canadian River 

Mills Canyon MA are degraded. In Texas, below Lake Meredith, Coldwater Creek and Rita

Blanca Creek are mostly intermittent tributaries of the Canadian River. McClellan Creek from the 

confluence with the North Fork of the Red River upstream to the Lake McClellan dam is 

classified with a high aquatic life use based on its perennial flow.

There are 5,003 acres of riparian areas as calculated using TEUI data (Strenger et al. 2007). The 

Canadian River flood-prone area in the Mills Canyon MA of the Kiowa NG comprises 894 acres

of the riparian total; 2,980 acres are located on the KRB MA while 2,023 acres are located on the 

BKMC MA. The 17 miles of the Canadian River that flow through the Mills Canyon MA are 

 

3 Alternative A defines “obliterate” as the action needed to close an unneeded road and return the land to production.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 43

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

degraded from saltcedar invasion, and lack of down woody debris in the riparian area and stream

channel (Haan and Thornton 2004). There are numerous roads and trails along and across the 

river created by visitors to Mills Canyon . 

Watershed conditions upstream of the Canadian River Mills Canyon MA are degraded and likely

affecting the reaches of the Canadian River on the Grasslands primarily through increased

sedimentation. Upstream water diversion has altered seasonal base flows in the Mills Canyon 

portion of the Canadian River, thereby reducing water availability for adjacent riparian area

vegetation.

Reservoirs and Lakes. On the Grasslands, reservoirs and lakes are mostly associated with dams or 

berms designed to pond water behind them. Lake Marvin, Lake McClellan, Skipout Lake, Spring 

Creek, and Black Kettle Recreation Area are the major surface waters located in Texas and

Oklahoma within the Grassland units.

Playas. There are 113 playas and alkali lakes located on the Grassland units. Texas and New

Mexico account for 59 and 51 of these respectively. The remaining three are located in

Oklahoma. 

Wetlands. Wetlands occur throughout the Grasslands as small saturated areas. Palustrine emergent

wetlands occur in the Sauz Creek watershed of the Kiowa MA. 

Groundwater. The High Plains aquifer system covers the plains portions of eight states (CO, KS,

NE, NM, OK, SD, TX, and WY) and includes parts of all four Grasslands (McGuire 2004). 

Within the Grasslands administrative boundary, about 1,500 water wells (80 percent) are on state

and private land and 380 water wells (20 percent) are on FS managed land. Most of the

Grasslands are on the Ogallala aquifer, except for the Mills Canyon portion of Kiowa NG which

is over the Canadian River aquifer and a small portion of BK units over the Washita Alluvium

aquifer. There is minimal data available on the conditions of the smaller aquifers, but data on the

Ogallala aquifer indicates that it has experienced extreme drawdown over the last 50 years

(McGuire 2004). Pumping water for irrigation, municipal water supplies, and other uses far

exceeds the recharge ability of the aquifer (McGuire 2004). 

Water Quality and Condition. All of the watersheds in the Grasslands units were assessed as

being in Class II Condition using the current direction found in FSM 2521.1. This means these

watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural 

potential condition.

General water quality standards in Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, where the Grasslands 

occur, apply to all waters and standards linked to designated uses of the waterbody, whether it is a 

stream, lake, or pond. Currently water quality on the Grasslands is relatively good. Of the about 

51 miles of the Washita River that run in the BK NG’s administrative boundary, less than 2 miles

go through Grasslands units. The Washita River is on the most recent list of water quality 

impaired streams in Oklahoma. Those reaches of the Washita are below water quality standards 

for pathogens (Escherichia coli, Enterococcus spp., and fecal coliform), sulfates and turbidity

(Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 2004). The water quality in the reservoirs on 

the BK NG is not tested by the Forest Service, but none are on the impaired water lists for New

Mexico, Oklahoma, or Texas. Drinking water meets water quality standards. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

44 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Currently, camping units in the Mills Canyon MA are located away from the flood plain and there 

are 40 to 50 miles of roads in riparian areas on the Grasslands that include unauthorized usercreated roads located along streams and in riparian areas. Livestock permits are unobligated on 

the largest riparian unit (K-91), and grazing is limited in other parts of the riparian area (K-136, 

K-135, and K-87). Saltcedar control treatments are ongoing in the riparian areas. 

Environmental Consequences

Watersheds, Streams, and Riparian Areas

Common to All Alternatives. Evapotranspiration of the instream flow would be reduced by 

removal of saltcedar, and enhancement of riparian habitat on the Canadian River would be 

accomplished by restoration of native species within the Mill Canyon MA.

Alternative A. Implementation would not improve or maintain to a proper functioning condition 

(PFC) because this alternative has no provisions for attaining PFC in all wetlands, playas,

permanent and intermittent streams, and riparian areas. The consequences of not having

provisions for PFC would be a lack of attention to and management for the stream characteristics

listed under alternatives B and C below. 

Alternatives B and C. Implementation would improve or maintain all wetlands, playas, permanent 

and intermittent streams, and riparian areas in a PFC represented by stream characteristics

(including vegetation, woody debris, geomorphology, and hydrology) that are sufficient to:

• Dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflows, thereby reducing erosion and 

improving water quality. 

• Capture and store sediment and aid in vertical and lateral channel stability, thereby 

increasing flood plain development, habitat development, and species richness.

• Improve floodwater retention, thereby increasing groundwater recharge and sustaining 

riparian habitat. 

Implementation would further reduce sediment discharge into streams, lakes, or wetlands and 

stabilize drainage networks by restricting or mitigating damage from off-highway-vehicle use in

aquatic systems. These alternatives would also maintain river connectivity at road crossings 

during low flows. Similarly, these alternatives would reduce trampling and erosion by livestock 

and increase protection of natural springs and associated habitat and water quality.

Restoration of altered playa basins would allow longer presence and larger areal extent of surface

water on playas. 

Alternative C. Implementation would reduce sediment discharge from motorized trail use into the 

Canadian River and its tributaries within the wilderness by nature of the fact that those trails 

would be closed to motorized activity. Disturbance to wildlife would also be reduced.

Groundwater

Common to All Alternatives. Minor aquifer drawdown due to continued use of water for livestock 

and wildlife watering from the 380 wells on the Grasslands units would contribute to groundwater 

depletion. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 45

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative consequences area of consideration is the riparian and surface water features

upstream and downstream of the Grasslands boundaries that are connected to the riparian and 

surface waters within the Grasslands.

Watersheds, Streams, and Riparian Areas

Cumulative Consequences Common to All Alternatives. Programs implemented through U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and state and local agencies to improve conditions to 

riparian and surface water features upstream and downstream on non-Federal lands foster 

activities that have cumulative environmental consequences in conjunction with Grasslands 

alternatives. For example, the interagency Canadian River saltcedar control program efforts 

upstream and downstream of the Mills Canyon area would reduce evapotranspiration of the 

instream flow and enhance riparian habitat on the Canadian River within Mills Canyon. Similarly, 

landowner assistance programs that address water quality, sedimentation, floodwater retention, 

and streambank stabilization upstream of the Grasslands, would result in gradual riparian and 

surface water improvements of Grasslands managed areas.

Cumulative Consequences to Alternatives B and C. Off-Grasslands landowner assistance 

programs would accelerate restoration of desirable stream characteristics on the Grasslands in

concert with the emphasis on PFC in these alternatives. Management of streams and riparian

areas upstream of the Grasslands on non-Federal land is generally not conducted with emphasis 

on PFC; therefore, the streams within the Grasslands would become that much more important to

the overall health of the watershed. 

Groundwater

Common to all alternatives but only affecting the shortgrass prairie and sand sagebrush

vegetation types on the KRB NGs. Groundwater used for cropland irrigation on nearby private 

lands contributes to aquifer drawdown. This could result in shallower wells on the Grasslands 

drying up, thereby reducing the capability for using livestock on the Grasslands as a tool to 

approximate natural disturbance processes. Higher fuel loads may also result, with accompanying 

likelihood of unplanned ignitions and intense wildfire.

Air

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in 

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of the air resource that are useful to the decision maker and the public. Additional 

information is in the “Air Resources Specialist Report” (USDA Forest Service 2011c).

Affected Environment

Of the three states that contain the Grasslands, only New Mexico has identified airsheds. Texas 

and Oklahoma reference their air quality based on the county or on descriptions of nonattainment 

or maintenance areas.

The Kiowa NG is located within the Canadian River Airshed, as defined by the New Mexico 

Environment Department’s Smoke Management Program. Based on the EPA’s 2010 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

46 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

nonattainment designations for the six criteria pollutants, the counties within the Canadian River 

Airshed are in attainment for all six pollutants (ground-level ozone, particulate matter pollution at 

2.5 and 10 micrometers, lead, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides). The BK, 

MC, and RB NGs are split between Texas and Oklahoma. The associated counties covering these 

NGs are in attainment for all six pollutants. 

The regional emissions data were obtained from the EPA’s AirData Web site for the year 2002 and 

from the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for the year 2008. Based on emissions data from 

2002 to 2008, the overall trend was a decrease in all criteria air pollutants measured (excludes 

ozone and includes volatile organic compounds) in the four counties covering the Kiowa NG. The 

projected trend out to 2018, using the Forest Service’s Emissions Tool11, indicates a continued 

decrease in criteria pollutant emissions except for particulate matter PM10 and PM2.5. It is not 

clear at this time why there are slight increases for particulate matter, but these increases are 

slight and do not exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or state standards. To 

date there have been no documented exceedances of the NAAQS due to national grasslands 

activities. This trend is expected to continue over the next 5 to 10 years.

Based on emissions data from 2002 to 2008 from the EPA AirData tool and the NEI, the overall 

trend was a decrease in all criteria pollutants except a small increase in sulfur dioxide emissions 

and large increase in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the five counties covering the 

BKMC and RB NGs. From 2002 to 2008, the VOCs doubled due to large increases in emissions 

in Hemphill County in Texas and Roger Mills County in Oklahoma, both of which comprise the 

BK NG. The increase in emissions in 2008 can be attributed to petroleum and related industries. 

Although VOCs are not currently regulated by the EPA, they do react with nitrogen oxides to 

form ozone, which is an EPA regulated criteria pollutant. Even with the doubling of VOC 

emissions in Hemphill County, it is still in attainment for ozone. 

In general, the projected trend out to 2018 using the Forest Service’s Emissions Tool11 shows 

decreases in the criteria pollutant emissions. Increases in nitrogen oxides in Roger Mills County, 

Oklahoma, and carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide in Gray County, Texas, are predicted. There 

are also projected increases in ammonia and VOCs, which may be due to further increases in oil 

and gas development or higher levels of urbanization in these counties. There have been no 

documented violations of the NAAQS in the counties the BKMC or RB NGs cover due to 

Grasslands activities. This trend is expected to continue over the next 5 to 10 years.

Emissions from activities on and off the Grasslands include emissions from vehicles, dust from 

unsurfaced roads, cropland, construction sites, bare ground, campfires, prescribed fire, wildfire, 

and oil and gas developments. Oil and gas developments are regulated for emissions and required 

to have emission controls in all three states. Emissions related to fire are regulated through state 

smoke management plans. Emissions from vehicles, dust, and campfires are not monitored, and 

there is no way to know the effect, range, or variation in these emissions. Prescribed fire is the 

most notable land management activity that takes place on the Grasslands that has implications on 

air quality; however, this has not contributed to long-term adverse air quality. All projects, 

including prescribed burns, must meet state air quality standards and smoke management plans 

once finalized.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 47

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. Air quality on the Grasslands is regulated under individual state air

quality standards and subject to their individual smoke management plans. Air quality, thus, 

would be expected to be in attainment for the six criteria pollutants. 

Cumulative Consequences

The cumulative consequences area for this resource is essentially undefinable as particulate

matter and pollutants have been documented to travel long distances and are dispersed nonuniformly, based on weather and other environmental factors.

Common to All Alternatives. Blowing, fugitive dust from adjacent lands or nearby lands that have

been cultivated, or from unpaved county roads, construction sites, bare ground, or smoke could 

have temporary consequences to air quality over the Grasslands and temporarily suspend

management activities on the Grasslands until attainment conditions return. 

Vegetation

Introduction

On the Grasslands, vegetation types occur across the landscape with variable elevation,

landforms, soil depth, and erosion characteristics. These characteristics, along with management, 

determine vegetation structure, composition, habitat, and presence of associated species. Seven 

major vegetation types occur on the Grasslands, together with some minor inclusions such as 

playa lakes, and unique habitat such as rivers and aquatic and riparian habitats. All vegetation 

types on the Grasslands are in low departure from reference condition for vegetation structure. A 

vegetation type is considered in low departure if it does not exceed 33 percent in departure from 

the reference condition for vegetation structure (see the Web address provided in appendix B). 

The reference condition of vegetation structure was a primary factor used to determine ecological 

sustainability and to do the risk assessment for a species’ viability. Reference condition represents

an approximation of the vegetation structure when all historical ecological functions and 

processes were in place.

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in 

proportion to their significance. The consequences in this section focus on the components of 

vegetation types, habitat, and wildlife that are useful to the decision maker and the public. 

Additional information is in the “Vegetation and Wildlife Specialist Report” (USDA Forest

Service 2011X) in the plan set of documents.

Affected Environment

Mixed-grass Prairie Vegetation

Mixed-grass prairie covers about 35 percent (11,300 acres) of the BKMC NGs. The mixed-grass 

prairie on the red-shale soils is dominated by perennial grasses, including blue grama, hairy 

grama, little bluestem, and purple threeawn. About 80 percent of the species composition is grass; 

forbs make up about 10 percent, and about 10 percent are woody species located in planted 

windbreaks as well as scattered groves of invasive native and nonnative trees.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

48 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

In addition, there are about 12 linear miles and 156 acres of treed Dust Bowl era planted 

shelterbelts on the BK NG, many of which are within this vegetation type. Erosion control 

shelterbelts were introduced to curtail erosion and in most areas have completed that function as

grassland vegetation has been reestablished.

Tree species planted in windbreaks and shelterbelts include native black locust, Osage orange, 

eastern redcedar, green ash, cottonwood, and honey locust. Nonnative species include some pine 

species and Siberian elm. Native and nonnative trees in the shelterbelts, windbreaks, and scattered 

groves would not normally be found in the mixed-grass prairie vegetation type and are considered 

undesirable invasive species.

Woody species and trees encroach onto the mixed-grass prairie in the absence of fire. Several

species chosen for the windbreaks and shelterbelt areas are prolific and invasive, such as native 

black locust and eastern redcedar, and nonnative Siberian elm. These undesirable invasive species 

have dispersed over the landscape and altered mixed-grass prairie structure and composition. 

Planned fire and managed livestock grazing/browsing are used as tools to move this vegetation 

type toward desired vegetation structure and species composition. 

Mixed-grass prairie on the BKMC NGs is in low departure from reference condition for 

vegetation structure. In contrast, this vegetation type on non-Federal land is highly departed from

its reference condition for vegetation structure due to historical agricultural practices and land

use.

In 2008, there was more grass dominated prairie on the landscape in proximity of the BKMC 

NGs, than was present historically, largely due to eradication of shinnery oak on private lands. 

Shinnery Oak Vegetation

The shinnery oak shrub vegetation type on the BK NG is in low departure (25 percent) from 

reference condition for vegetation structure, mainly due to undesirable tree encroachment. This

vegetation type covers about 59 percent (18,900 acres) of the BK NG. It is a very 

underrepresented vegetation type across the Southern Great Plains landscape due to conversion of 

this type to other uses and types on non-Federal lands. About 45 percent of the shinnery oak 

vegetation is in the early to mid-open, postfire to 3 years postfire regime and dominated by tall

grasses in shallower and more stable sandsheet areas. Grass cover is dominant in the early to midopen stage with rapid recovery of shinnery oak resprouts. The late-closed successional stage

occurs in the 3- to 10-year postfire timeframe. Shinnery cover is mostly dominant, although 

grasses remain codominant on about 55 percent of the vegetation type. Uncharacteristically tall

hybrid tree/shrubs of shinnery and post oak occur in some motts.

Similar to mixed-grass prairie, planted, Dust Bowl era treed shelterbelts, planted windbreaks, and 

scattered groves of trees—not normally found in shinnery oak vegetation types—occur. Several

species chosen for the windbreaks and shelterbelt areas are prolific and invasive, such as native 

black locust and eastern redcedar, and nonnative Siberian elm. 

Woody species and trees encroach onto the shinnery oak vegetation in the absence of fire and 

alter the structure and composition of this vegetation type. Planned fire and managed livestock

grazing/browsing are used as tools to move this vegetation type toward desired vegetation 

structure and species composition. Most shinnery oak stands are burned on a 2- to 9-year cycle to

maintain a codominant canopy cover of grasses intermixed with shinnery oak for wildlife habitat
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 49

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

diversity and to resemble historical conditions. Current livestock grazing within the shinnery oak 

system is relatively light, with utilization levels retaining at least 50 percent of the current year’s

growth of vegetation, by weight, of forage species.

Mixed Hardwood Riparian Vegetation

Dust Bowl era erosion and Aeolian deposits in waterways created conditions that gave rise to 

hardwood trees on the BKMC NGs. Post Dust Bowl conditions have established the mixed 

hardwood trees and now are considered a vegetation type on the Grasslands. The mixed 

hardwood riparian reference condition vegetation structure on the BKMC NGs was determined 

from comparison of mixed hardwood riparian in other areas with similar climate, elevation, 

rainfall, and growing season attributes. The mixed hardwood vegetation was found to be in low 

departure from reference condition for vegetation structure.

Mixed hardwood riparian vegetation covers about 6 percent (1,946 acres) of the BKMC NGs. The 

early successional stage represents about 13 percent of this vegetation type, with pioneer tree and 

shrub species of cottonwoods and willows with an herbaceous understory of sedges in wet areas.

In this early stage, most of the area is bare sand dominated by a young canopy of tree saplings 

and shrubs. Species include false indigo bush and various grasses, sedges, and rushes. The middle 

and late-successional stage covers the remaining 87 percent. In the mid-stage, developing stands

start to mature. This community tends to be partially open with scattered cottonwoods and

willows. The shrub layer is poorly developed and often consists of widely scattered patches of 

dogwood. The understory vegetation is highly variable with wildrye and muhly grasses. In wetter,

more shaded areas, Virginia creeper, nettles, and poison ivy are present. The late seral stage is a 

mature, closed-canopy cottonwood flood plain forest. The canopy layer is dominated by 

cottonwood with box elder, hackberry, walnut, and elm occurring as well. Understory species

include Virginia creeper and poison ivy, both found along the upper terrace that is protected from

most flood events. Invasive eastern redcedar encroaches in the cottonwood galleries and increases 

fuel loads and ladder fuels. 

Shortgrass Prairie and Inclusions Vegetation

Shortgrass prairie on the KRB NGs is in low departure from reference condition for vegetation 

structure. Shortgrass prairie covers about 79 percent (181,900 acres) of the KRB NGs. The 

shortgrass prairie typically occurs on areas of level plains, undulating hills and draws, or on 

gently rolling uplands of the southern Great Plains. The variable landscape gives rise to diversity

in species composition and structure in different successional stages based on multiple factors,

including drought, fire, and herbivory by ungulates and rodents. 

As of 2011, several KRB NGs allotments have been retired from grazing and livestock removed

due to wells going dry.

Shortgrass prairie vegetation is codominated by blue grama, needle-and-thread, buffalograss, and 

galleta, with intermingled forbs and scattered half-shrubs. The abundance of annual forbs and 

grasses within the composition is dependent on the timing of precipitation events. Blue grama and 

buffalograss are the main grasses present in all successional stages postfire. Postfire early

successional stages are dominated by resprouts and seedlings of grasses, and postfire associated

forbs cover about 2 percent of this vegetation type. In addition, 1 to 4 percent of the vegetation

type is an early successional stage due to current and historical BTPD activity. The mid-open 

stage covers about 90 percent of the shortgrass vegetation with less than 35 percent herbaceous 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

50 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

cover that is low to medium height. The mid-closed stage covers about 8 percent of this

vegetation type with greater than 35 percent herbaceous cover. Planned fire occurs, but on a small

scale and generally not within the historical fire regime of 5 to 10 years. Planned fire and

managed livestock grazing/browsing are used as tools to move this vegetation type toward 

desired vegetation structure and species composition.

Early successional stage areal extent of shortgrass prairie on the KRB NGs is in flux. Changes are 

due, in part, to activities that impact BTPD colony size such as plague within BTPD colonies, 

recreational shooting of BTPDs, predation, and other influences. BTPD colonies on private lands 

within proximity or adjacent to the KRB NGs are also in flux with influences of recreational 

shooting of BTPDs, poisoning, and other methods of eradication used to reduce colonies and 

number of individuals. Conversely, there are state and Federal Government Agency programs 

designed to assist private landowners in BTPD colony and numbers growth. 

Seventy percent of the shortgrass vegetation type is made up of shortgrass prairie species. The 

remaining 30 percent is made up of inclusions that have species composition and structure

different from shortgrass. There are five inclusions in shortgrass prairie, as follows:

1. Mixed-grass prairie; 

2. Cultivated sites plowed and reclaimed; 

3. Playas; 

4. Dry washes, dry swales, and seasonal depressional wetlands; and

5. Greenhorn, sandy and chalky limestone hills, knolls, gravelly balds, and mesa rims. 

Mixed-grass prairie is an ecotone between shortgrass and tallgrass prairie. These sites occur on

areas of sandy loam soils. Mid and tall-grass species codominate, ranging in height from 2 to 4 

feet. Mid-grass prairie species such as New Mexico feathergrass, needle and thread, big bluestem, 

little bluestem, and hairy grama occur individually or in variable groupings with shortgrass

species. Some sites support both sand sagebrush and soapweed. 

Cultivated sites are old fields that were in cultivation prior to the 1930s Dust Bowl. They were

severely eroded, with most or all of the topsoil removed through wind erosion. Where these

conditions occur, species composition and site potential have been altered. This historical species

change is not reversible for the foreseeable future. In some areas, vegetation is limited to sideoats

grama and lovegrass that were planted during reclamation. Soil fertility in these areas is very low,

and both microorganisms and organic material are present in the soil in very limited quantities.

Playa lakes are bowl-shaped depressions that are dependent on rainfall and surface runoff for the 

water they impound. They are closed basins and usually do not overflow. They are mostly

intermittent, with surface evaporation occurring at about 60 inches per year. Soils are mostly

stable, although some wind erosion occurs. Vegetation, when present, consists of species adapted

to mesic conditions, such as various annuals, milkweeds, western wheatgrass, and inland 

saltgrass. Upland shortgrass species are incidental. The adjacent watershed keeps the playas

functioning properly during the periodic and natural inundation of the bottoms. When playas hold 

water, there is an increase in the shoreline vegetative diversity and density and an increase in the

extent of mudflat habitat for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 51

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Dry washes, dry swales, and seasonal depressional wetlands include habitat associated with

intermittent or ephemeral streams, draws, and swales or depressions between slopes of the gently

sloping plain of Grasslands. Soils are nonhydric (not formed in the presence of water) and are dry

most of the year. The soil moisture is generally higher than the surrounding uplands as a result of

storage and accumulation during rainfall events. However, there is no support by the water table

during the long periods between precipitation events. Consistently high soil moisture levels are

not present to support obligate riparian vegetation. Vegetation in and along intermittent or

ephemeral drainages or seasonal depressions may be more dense or larger than their upland 

counterparts. However, the species are generally upland species and are typically facultative4

riparian or nonriparian plants, including western wheatgrass, alkali sacaton, blue grama, buffalo 

grass, switchgrass, inland saltgrass, and a variety of forbs. The overall condition within these

communities is stable.

Greenhorn, sandy, and chalky limestone hills and knolls, endemic to northeastern New Mexico on 

the Kiowa NG, occur in shortgrass prairie in elevations ranging from 5,900 to 6,600 feet. The 

gravelly balds and mesa rims occur in the shortgrass steppe elevations ranging from 5,400 to

5,800 feet. The outcrops are occasionally quarried for road base materials.

Pinyon-Juniper and Juniper 

Grasslands Inclusion Vegetation

This vegetation type covers about 10 percent (21,700 acres) of the Kiowa NG. The pinyon-juniper 

vegetation type is determined to be in low departure from reference condition for vegetation 

structure.

Pinyon-juniper generally occurs on shallow soils types, on rocky summits of high plains, and in

drainages on slopes less than 20 percent. The early successional stage occurs postfire and covers

about 12 percent of the vegetation type with open areas of grasses, forbs, seedlings less than 4.5

feet in height, and saplings. The mid-late successional stage covers about 88 percent of the 

vegetation type and includes a mix of pinyon-juniper trees in a variety of stages with varying 

canopy cover as follows: 

• Mid-development stages average 10 percent of the vegetation type in relative abundance 

and have a dense canopy cover (31 to 70 percent) of pole size trees 5 to 9 inches in

diameter and very little understory. 

• About 30 percent of the vegetation type has pole size trees with a mixed shrubherbaceous understory, and canopy cover ranges from 0 to 30 percent. 

• About 40 percent has late development with medium size trees 9 to 21 inches in diameter

and canopy cover of 0 to 40 percent. 

• About 10 percent has dense, old-growth characteristics with medium size trees and 

canopy cover of 41 to 70 percent. 

Stands of pinyon-juniper that are overstocked or encroaching onto the shortgrass prairie are being

treated with thinning and prescribed burning. Currently, the level of treatment is about 500 to 900

acres of thinning per year, followed by 1,000 to 1,800 acres of burning. 

 

4 Facultative riparian plants are defined as those plant species commonly found in both terrestrial upland and riparian

areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

52 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Juniper grassland trees occur as individuals or in smaller groups and range from young to old 

with snags scattered across the landscape. The understory includes scattered shrubs, native

grasses, forbs, and annuals. Smaller groups of trees are found on slopes greater than 15 percent, 

on rocky outcrops, and adjacent to drainages.

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian 

Vegetation (Excluding the Canadian River)

This vegetation type covers about 1 percent (1,370 acres) of the KRB NGs. It does not include the 

Canadian River cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation of Mills Canyon, which is addressed 

separately below. The cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation type is determined to be in low 

departure from reference condition for vegetation structure.

The cottonwood-willow riparian communities are located within stream channels and on their

associated flood plains and terraces. Riparian vegetation is common with sandy alluvial soil

conditions. The early successional stage is represented on about 16 percent of this vegetation type

and is typically shrub-seedling dominated but grasses may codominate. The mid- and latesuccessional stage covers about 84 percent with a species composition of tall shrubs and small

trees such as willows and cottonwoods. Late-successional stage represents the mature, large

cottonwood and willow riparian woodlands. In 2011, management activities are targeting

nonnative, invasive species in riparian areas, specifically saltcedar. These activities are

encouraging establishment of needed mid-successional conditions. 

Fremont cottonwood dominates the tree layer, with peachleaf willow present in the subcanopy. 

Riparian dependent species include narrowleaf cattail, common buttonbush, thinleaf or marsh

alder, rocky mountain elderberry, and a variety of sedge and rush species. The primary shrub and 

vine species are sandbar willow, Virginia creeper, and riverbank grape. Native warm season

grasses including blue grama, sideoats grama, sand dropseed, Virginia wildrye, and switchgrass

are prominent in the ecosystem. Western wheatgrass is an important cool season species. Drier

sites along or within ephemeral systems and upper terraces have New Mexico locust, 

chokecherry, hackberry, skunkbush sumac, and Apache plume. 

Sand Sagebrush Vegetation

The sand sagebrush vegetation type covers about 8 percent (22,651 acres) of the Grasslands. This 

vegetation type is very underrepresented on the Southern Great Plains. Sand sagebrush typically

occurs on areas of level plains, undulating hills and draws, or on gently rolling uplands of the

southern Great Plains. The variable landscape gives rise to diversity in species composition and 

structure across the landscape. In years prior to Federal acquisition, some areas of sand sagebrush 

were plowed and converted to cropland. In many cases, these areas have not returned to sand 

sagebrush. BTPDs have colonized some of these areas on the KRB NGs.

The sand sagebrush prairie is dominated by mid-grasses and shrubs. The landscape includes a 

diversity of areas in different successional stages and with varying vegetative heights, as well as 

cool season grasses and a variety of forbs. The primary shrub species is sand sagebrush. Native, 

warm season perennial grasses (including big bluestem, little bluestem, sand dropseed, blue

grama, and sideoats grama) are prominent in this ecosystem.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 53

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

One percent is in a postfire successional stage dominated by resprouts and seedlings of grasses

and forbs with low to medium height having a variable canopy cover. This stage typically occurs 

where fires burn relatively hot. 

The mid-open successional stage represents about 65 percent and has less than 35 percent 

herbaceous cover, medium to tall in height. 

Mid-closed stage represents about 35 percent of the area with greater than 35 percent herbaceous 

cover, medium to tall in height. 

Planned burning is currently being used at a rate of about 500 acres every 3 to 5 years.

Sand sagebrush vegetation type has areas that were historically heavily plowed with species

structure and composition altered to low vegetation. The BTPD colonizes areas with low, early

successional stage vegetation. Some of the plowed areas have potential for BTPD colonization, 

and one area is currently occupied. Areal extent of early successional stage sand sagebrush on the 

KRB NGs is in flux. Changes due to BTPD activity, plague within BTPD colonies, recreational 

shooting of BTPDs, and predation influence this vegetation. 

Vegetation in Canyon Lowlands and 

the Canadian River Cottonwood-Willow Riparian

This area is defined geographically by the Canadian River canyon gorge on the Mills Canyon MA 

of the Kiowa NG, with elevations around 6,100 feet at the river. 

Canyon lowlands of the Canadian River valley include the gently sloping lowlands found 

between the riparian area of the Canadian River and side drainages coming off of the nearly 

vertical slopes forming the walls of the river canyon. This small, localized vegetation type has not 

been rated for departure from reference condition for vegetation structure. These lowlands are

characterized by sloping terraces of less than 15 percent. In the active flood plain, flooding 

frequency determines vegetation composition and successional patterns. The lower area of 2- to

5-year flooding is where the vegetation is comprised mostly of annuals and other riparian

disturbance-dependent species.

The upper area of less frequent flooding (flood return intervals of 100 to 500 years) is where the 

woodland community advances onto the secondary flood plain exhibited by oneseed juniper, 

pinyon pine, wavy leaf oak, cholla, and sumac with an understory of herbaceous silver bluestem,

sand dropseed, vine mesquite, and blue grama.

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Canadian River follows the river as it meanders about 19 miles 

through the semiarid landscape in the Canadian River gorge, locally known as Mills Canyon. 

Snowmelt and seasonal rains are the major flow sources; snowmelt is often diverted for irrigation

and other uses before the waters reach the Mills Canyon area. Depending on the location of 

seasonal rain events, that water may or may not meet the same fate.

Along the canyon bottom, within the river flood plain, vegetation is dominated by riparian

species, including willow and cottonwood. The cottonwood-willow riparian communities are

located within and adjacent to stream channels and include the associated flood plains and lower 

terraces. Riparian vegetation is common with sandy alluvial soil conditions. This localized 

vegetation type along the Canadian River is in low departure from the cottonwood-willow 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

54 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

reference condition for vegetation structure. The early successional stage is represented on about 

16 percent of this vegetation type and is typically shrub-seedling dominated, but grasses may

codominate. The mid- and late-successional stage covers about 84 percent of species composition 

that includes tall shrubs and small trees such as willows and cottonwoods. The late successional

stage represents the mature, large cottonwood and willow riparian woodlands. Much of the native

riparian vegetation has been replaced by saltcedar. In 2009 and 2010, about 500 acres of saltcedar 

in Mills Canyon were chemically treated.

In the Mills Canyon area of the Canadian River, upstream diversions and invasion of saltcedar

have altered hydrological processes and geomorphology, thereby reducing water availability for 

adjacent cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation. The Grasslands have no control over 

streamflows reaching the northern boundary of the Mills Canyon area. 

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. The mixed-grass prairie, shinnery oak, shortgrass prairie, and sand 

sagebrush vegetation types would use managed livestock grazing and planned fire to provide 

disturbance to vegetation that evolved under disturbance regimes, benefiting all vegetation 

structure and composition makeup, and controlling some invasive and undesirable species.

Alternatives B and C for All Vegetation Types. Effects of climate change could include drought 

events or long-term increases in precipitation, and higher annual average temperatures that would 

alter vegetation structure and composition. Vegetation types would move toward desired 

vegetation structure and species composition and would be resilient to the stressors of climate 

change through increased awareness of potential effects of climate change and strategies for 

adaptive responses. (See the “Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, McClellan Creek Land and 

Resource Management Plan, Appendix B: Southwestern Region Climate Change Trends and 

Potential Climate Change Strategies for Southwestern Region National Forests.”) 

Mixed-grass Prairie Vegetation Consequences

Alternative A. Mixed-grass prairie would remain in its current state of departure from reference 

condition for vegetation structure, or more likely, become moderately to highly departed from 

reference condition because of continued encroachment of undesirable native invasive trees such 

as eastern redcedar and black locust. This alternative would protect and maintain shelterbelts that 

occur in this vegetation type, which could be contrary to desired vegetation structure and species

composition. 

Alternatives B and C. Implementation would achieve desired vegetation structure and species 

composition of the mixed-grass prairie across the landscape by reducing the presence of 

undesirable native invasive trees such as eastern redcedar and black locust.

Shinnery Oak Vegetation Consequences

Alternative A. The specific direction to control shinnery oak by chemical or mechanical means 

would result in about 12 percent reduction of areal coverage of this vegetation type, which is 

already a very underrepresented vegetation type on the Southern Great Plains. Control of 

undesirable native invasive trees would not be prioritized under this alternative, and management 

could result in a slow drift away from desired vegetation structure and species composition. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 55

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternatives B and C. Implementation would maintain or slowly increase acreage of this

vegetation type on the BK NG. This alternative would result in removal of undesirable native 

invasive trees (e.g., black locust and eastern redcedar) within shinnery oak. Implementation 

would result in shinnery oak on the BK NG moving toward the treeless desired condition for this

vegetation type, and application of managed grazing, planned fire, or mechanical or chemical 

tools would result in achievement of desired vegetation structure and species composition. 

Mixed Hardwood Riparian Vegetation Consequences

Alternative A. Implementation would allow higher fuel loads from encroachment by eastern 

redcedar in the understory, increasing mortality of deciduous trees.

Alternatives B and C. Implementation would result in reducing encroachment of eastern redcedar 

in the understory, thereby lowering fuel loads. This vegetation type would move toward desired 

vegetation structure and species composition, as targets for species composition and structure are 

clearly defined.

Shortgrass Prairie and Inclusions Vegetation Consequences

Alternative A. Implementation would allow managed grazing and planned fire, but since there is

no direction defining structure and composition, outcomes would be uncertain.

Alternatives B and C. Implementation would move this vegetation type toward desired vegetation 

structure and species composition, as targets for species composition and structure are clearly 

defined. 

Pinyon-Juniper and Juniper 

Grasslands Inclusion Vegetation Consequences

Alternative A. Implementation would allow silvicultural management, managed grazing, and 

planned fire to achieve management objectives but would provide an unpredictable state of 

species composition and structure since there are no defined targets. Implementation would not 

result in a diversity of structural stages in pinyon-juniper habitat, thus limiting early and mid-seral 

stage.

Alternatives B and C. Implementation would result in moving toward desired vegetation structure 

and species composition through defined targets for structure and composition outcomes, with 

additional focus on early seral stage habitat.

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian 

(excluding the Canadian River) Vegetation Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. Managed livestock use, planned fire, and invasive species control 

would have some beneficial consequences to vegetation conditions. 

Alternative A. Implementation may result in this vegetation drifting away from reference 

condition for vegetation structure, as there are no defined targets for long-term maintenance of 

species composition or structure.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

56 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternatives B and C. Implementation would move this vegetation type toward defined desired 

vegetation structure and species composition through the utilization of invasive species controls, 

restoration plantings, and managed livestock use.

Sand Sagebrush Vegetation Consequences

Alternative A. Sand sagebrush would be maintained in its current state or possibly move away 

from reference condition for vegetation structure as this alternative has no defined targets for 

long-term maintenance of this vegetation type.

Alternatives B and C. Management direction would move toward desired vegetation structure and 

species composition, accomplished through well-defined targets for this vegetation type. 

Canyon Lowlands, Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian and Canadian River Vegetation Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. There would be reduced water availability for adjacent cottonwoodwillow riparian vegetation in the Mills Canyon area due to off Grasslands circumstances.

Reduced water in this reach of the Canadian River would likely result in saltcedar constantly 

encroaching into the cottonwood-willow vegetation in this area to the exclusion of native trees,

shrubs, grasses, and forbs unless control intervention is pursued.

Alternative A. There is no direction defining structure and composition. Outcomes would be 

uncertain. 

Alternative B. Implementation would move toward a defined structure and composition outcome 

for the Canadian River cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation with focus on early seral stage

development. 

Alternative C. Same as alternative B except wilderness designation would delay achievement of 

desired vegetation structure and species composition outcomes because of limitations on use of

motorized management tools. 

Cumulative Consequences

Vegetation Cottonwood-Willow on the Canadian River

Common to All Alternatives. Consequences to vegetation and wildlife on the Mills Canyon reach 

of the Canadian River cottonwood-willow vegetation type would likely be as follows: continued 

upstream water diversion from the Canadian River would reduce water availability for adjacent

cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation in Mills Canyon. This would likely result in saltcedar 

dominating the cottonwood-willow vegetation in this area to the exclusion of native trees, shrubs, 

grasses, and forbs, and to the detriment of native wildlife dependent upon the cottonwood-willow 

vegetation type.

Wildlife and Habitat

Introduction

This section is organized to address affected environment and environmental consequences to the 

federally listed and proposed species and critical habitat, Grasslands sensitive species, viability 

high at-risk species, migratory birds and National Birds of Conservation Concern, eagles, and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 57

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

management indicator species within the planning area. Species are listed for each category with 

occurrence and summary information provided as they pertain to plan components. The affected 

environment related to the environmental consequences are described and followed by the 

consequences analysis.

Documentation of the complete viability analysis process, prepared according to Forest Service 

policy (FSM 2670) is located in “Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability

Evaluations,” and the “Grasslands Ecological Sustainability Report” (see the Web address 

provided in appendix B of this document). 

As a starting point, a comprehensive list of species (including plant, macro-lichen, bird, insect,

and animal species) that have population or habitat concerns and that are found in Texas, New

Mexico, and Oklahoma was developed from multiple sources, resulting in over 1,600 species. 

Then, each species’ life history, habitat associations, and population information were examined 

using scientific literature, Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico Comprehensive Wildlife

Conservation Strategies (CWCS), the Biota Information System of New Mexico (BISON-M) 

database, and personal communications with Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico wildlife agency 

biologists, USFWS biologists, and Grasslands’ biologists. Other important sources considered in 

a species’ viability determination were the USFWS National Birds of Conservation Concern 

(NBCC) list, and state threatened and endangered species lists. After considering the above and 

integrating with information on the existing condition of the vegetation types as described below, 

a determination was made that 5 species out of the 1,600 may have high at-risk viability concerns 

on the Grasslands. 

The historical reference condition of a vegetation type found on the Grasslands is based upon best 

available science and includes an approximation of the structure of the vegetation type when all 

historical ecological functions and processes were in place. The condition of the structure of a 

vegetation type was a primary factor used to determine a wildlife species’ viability on the 

Grasslands. Other ecosystem attributes (including soil type and water availability) were also 

assessed as to how they affect the habitat of a species. Viability risks to a species were determined

from availability and structural condition of the vegetation type the species typically occupies, 

population evaluation, and effects from Forest Service management actions.5

 The results of this

process provided a high, medium, or low risk assessment of the viability of a species. Again, five 

species were assessed as high. See the Web address provided in appendix B for the “Grasslands 

Ecological Sustainability Report” and “Appendix E. Status of Species,” which allows for review 

of the full analyses for each species in its respective habitat.

In the plan revision process for alternatives B and C, coarse-filter plan components (i.e., desired 

conditions) were developed that would move the Grassland’s vegetation types toward reference 

condition for structure and composition. These coarse-filter plan components would provide for 

viability of those species at low or medium risk. For those species determined to be high at-risk, 

additional fine-filter plan components (i.e., objectives, guidelines, and standards) were developed 

to provide for their viability. Table 8 identifies the high at-risk species. 

 

5 “Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative

vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has

the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed

in the planning area...” (1982 Rule Provisions Section 219.19).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

58 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

As part of the environmental analysis, suitable habitat acreage was estimated for threatened and 

endangered species, species high at-risk for viability, and MIS, as shown in table 8, and 

Grasslands sensitive species suitable acreage is shown in table 7. Additionally, anticipated 

suitable habitat acreage by alternative is provided in tables 10−14 and 19−21 for each species. As 

an example, Lesser Prairie-chicken (LPC) selects certain vegetative structures and avoids areas 

with trees and other tall features. Mixed-grass prairie and shinnery oak have invasive trees 

present that degrade LPC habitat that creates avoidance areas, thus reducing the amount of 

suitable LPC habitat. Other species, such as hawks, are opportunistic to all stages of the 

vegetation and utilize the entire area.

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species

Federally listed threatened and endangered species are those plant and animal species formally

listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under authority of the Endangered Species

Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Pursuant to Section 7(2)(a) of the ESA, a biological assessment

will be prepared to assess the effects of implementing the Grasslands plan selected alternative on 

endangered or threatened species and ensure that proposed actions in the selected alternative 

would not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. All federally listed, proposed, and

candidate species and designated and proposed critical habitats that the USFWS has identified in

its Southwest Region Threatened/Endangered Species List (http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ 

EndangeredSpecies/lists/) were considered in this analysis.

There is no designated critical habitat (CH) for listed species in the action area. Although the 

Mountain Plover was proposed for listing under the ESA when the plan was being developed, it

was withdrawn from listing in May 2011. It will be considered as a Grasslands sensitive species 

in this analysis. The federally listed wildlife species which may occur within the same counties as

the Grasslands and considered in this analysis are listed in table 6.

Table 6. Federally listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species considered in the 

analysis area

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Critical Habitat

Southwestern Willow

Fycatcher (SWF)

Empidonax traillii 

extimus

Endangered

New Mexico: Colfax and

Mora Counties.

Outside distinct population

segment (DPS) boundary. No

CH in analysis area. 

Black-footed ferret

(BFF) 

Mustela nigripes Endangered

New Mexico: Colfax, Mora,

Union, and Harding Counties

None designated

Mexican Spotted Owl

(MSO)

Strix occidentalis 

lucida

Threatened

New Mexico: Colfax and

Mora Counties

No CH in analysis area 

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened

New Mexico: Colfax County

No CH in analysis area 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 59

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Critical Habitat

Arkansas River

shiner

Notropis girardi Threatened

New Mexico: Colfax, Mora,

Union, and Harding Counties

Oklahoma: Roger Mills

County

Texas: Hemphill County

No CH in analysis area 

Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum Endangered

Texas: Gray and Hemphill 

Counties

Oklahoma: Cimarron and

Roger Mills Counties

None designated

Whooping Crane Grus americana Endangered EXPN

Texas: Gray and Hemphill

Counties

Oklahoma: Roger Mills

County

No CH in analysis area

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. The SWF breeds in dense riparian habitats in southwestern 

North America, and winters in southern Mexico, Central America, and northern South America. 

Species occurrence in Colfax and Mora Counties is part of the Upper Rio Grande Management 

Unit. The Grasslands are outside the DPS for this species. There is no SWF habitat on the Kiowa 

NG in Colfax and Mora Counties, therefore, this species will not be considered further in this 

analysis.

Black-footed Ferrets. This species depends almost exclusively on BTPD colonies for food, 

shelter, and denning. The range of the ferret coincides with that of BTPDs and ferrets with young 

have been documented only in the vicinity of active BTPD colonies. The KRB NGs is currently 

managing BTPDs to provide improved health of colonies in a potential reintroduction area by

dusting prairie dog burrows with insecticide for controlling sylvatic plague carrying fleas, but 

existing colonies are not currently large enough to support a reintroduction. If black-footed ferret 

reintroduction is deemed appropriate for the KBR NG, a separate NEPA document will be 

prepared for the reintroduction. Since the ferret is extirpated from New Mexico (except for an 

experimental nonessential population), it will not be considered further in this analysis. 

Mexican Spotted Owl. In general Mexican Spotted Owl habitat consists of dense multistory stands

of mixed conifer with a component of large trees, often old remnants in younger stands or mature

or over mature stands. Spotted owls also prefer shaded, cool, moist canyon sites and mountain 

slopes with rock outcrops, cliffs, talus, and standing dead and down woody material. There is no 

habitat available for the Mexican Spotted Owl within the analysis area, so this species will not be 

considered further in this analysis.

Piping Plover. The Piping Plover migrates mainly through the Mississippi Valley and along the 

Atlantic coast, and it winters primarily along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts from South Carolina to 

Texas. In New Mexico this plover is known only as a rare spring (April) migrant, having been

verified at Springer Lake (Colfax Co.) and reliably reported at Bosque del Apache National 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

60 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Wildlife Refuge (Socorro Co.); there is also an unsubstantiated report from Lake Avalon (Eddy 

Co.). This species does not occur in the analysis area and will not be considered further.

Whooping Crane passes through the eastern panhandle of Texas each spring and fall during 

migration where they are sometimes sighted at stopover points along rivers, in grain fields, or in

shallow wetlands. This species has never been observed on the MC NG in Gray County, Texas, 

and there are no suitable stopover habitats on the national grasslands. This species has never been 

observed at the Lake Marvin Unit in Hemphill County, Texas. The Whooping Crane passes

through western Oklahoma each spring and fall during migration. They are sometimes sighted at

stopover points along rivers, in grain fields, or in shallow wetlands. This species has never been 

observed on the BK NG in Roger Mills County, Oklahoma. This species will not be considered 

further in this analysis.

From the species listed in table 6 and the above narrative, only the Interior Least Tern and the 

Arkansas River shiner will be analyzed, because the other species either do not occur in the 

habitat types found on the Grassland or they are rare migrants which would be unaffected by 

proposed activities. 

Affected Environment

Interior Least Tern and Arkansas 

River Shiner Aquatic Lakes Habitat

The Grasslands provide habitat for some species that are not directly related to a vegetation type. 

At full pool levels, there can be about 5,000 acres of aquatic lake habitat available for the Interior 

Least Tern, a species known to forage the waters of Lake McClellan and Lake Marvin in Texas.

Arkansas River Shiner Critical Habitat

The NGs have streams that have not been historically occupied nor have they been considered as 

critical habitat (CH). BK NG borders and drains directly into previously designated CH on the 

Canadian River.

The BKMC NGs have no occupied or suitable habitat for the Arkansas River shiner, a Federal 

threatened species; however, the Texas portion of the BK NG includes 540 acres of the Boggy 

Creek Watershed (Lake Marvin), which drains into occupied habitat on the Canadian River,

which is only 1⁄2 mile downstream from the BK NG boundary. 

Critical habitat was first designated for the Arkansas River shiner in 2001, but none of the river

segments designated as critical habitat are located on USFS managed lands in the planning area. 

In 2005, CH was excluded in Units 1a and 1b due to many factors. Critical habitat was excluded 

in Unit 1a because there are occasional periods of no flow, large areas are under private

ownership, and many areas lack features essential to the conservation of the species. In New

Mexico, the Canadian River rarely contains suitable habitat due to the influence of the Ute

Reservoir. Unit 1a is located 79.6 miles downstream from the Kiowa NG. The Canadian River

flows through the Kiowa NG in Mills Canyon, but Unit 1a is downstream from Ute Dam so there

is no direct or indirect connection between the CH and Kiowa NG. The RB NG is located 82.2 

miles upstream from the uppermost previous CH in the Beaver River, which is downstream from

Optima Dam. There is no direct or indirect connection between the previous CH in the Beaver 

River and RB NG.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 61

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Critical habitat has been excluded in Unit 1b because it is predominantly in private ownership 

with limited areas of state and tribal ownership and areas in Unit1b that have been excluded from

CH designation do not meet the definition of CH. The BK NG manages units in Texas and 

Oklahoma that drain into previously designated CH (Unit 1b) in the Canadian River. The Texas

portion of the Grassland manages 540 acres of the Boggy Creek Watershed near Lake Marvin in

Hemphill County, which drains into previously designated CH on the Canadian River about 1⁄2 

mile downstream from the NG boundary. The Oklahoma portion manages about 640 acres of 

watersheds that drain into previously designated CH in the Canadian River as close as 2 miles 

downstream from the Grassland boundary in Roger Mills County. Arkansas River shiner CH was

previously designated in 1,148 miles in five river systems, of which 4 percent of that drained into

CH from the BK NG (24.5 miles, Lake Marvin; 22.9 miles, Black Kettle, OK). Black Kettle NG

manages 1,180 acres that drain into CH.

Environmental Consequences

Interior Least Tern and Arkansas River Shiner

Common to All Alternatives. Implementation of any alternative would not produce any 

differences in consequences to aquatic lakes or the species associated, due to the limited influence 

from Grasslands management. There would be no difference in suitable acres of habitat for either 

Interior Least Tern or Arkansas River shiner by alternative.

Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos)

Determination of Effect for Interior Least Tern

The primary threat to the Interior Least Tern is habitat loss, specifically the construction of 

reservoirs and pools along rivers. Under all alternatives, there is no plan direction to construct 

reservoirs or ponds on the Canadian River in Texas, Oklahoma, or its tributaries, although there

are existing reservoirs that will be maintained.

Common to All Alternatives. Threats to the Interior Least Tern were reviewed to determine

potential links to resource programs and plan components. There are no plan components that

were developed specifically for the Interior Least Tern, as there is no breeding habitat on the 

NGs, and the species is only seen foraging on the lakes within the BKMC NGs. In general,

implementation of plan components related to the improvement of watershed conditions, 

minerals/energy development, recreation, and grazing management should result in positive 

effects to the Interior Least Tern by indirectly protecting foraging habitat occasionally used by the 

Interior Least Tern. Implementation would result in a “May Affect, Not likely to Adversely

Affect” determination for the Interior Least Tern. Informal consultation with the USFWS would 

occur to seek concurrence on the determination. 

Alternatives B and C. There are course filter plan components developed that would indirectly

benefit the Interior Least Tern through desired conditions designed to improve watershed 

conditions over time. Recommendation of the Canadian River Potential Wilderness on the Kiowa

NG would not affect the Interior Least Tern since it does not occur there. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

62 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) 

Including Designated Critical Habitat

Determination of Effect for Arkansas River Shiner

Primary threats to the Arkansas River shiner include groundwater pumping, diversion of surface

water, and impoundments, all which affect surface waterflows and water quality. Waters occupied 

by the Arkansas River shiner do not occur within the BK NG, yet the BK NG manages 1,180 

acres that drain into occupied habitat, which is an insignificant amount of habitat compared to the 

entire occupied habitat of the shiner.

Common to All Alternatives. Primary threats to the Arkansas River shiner were reviewed to

determine potential links to Grasslands resource programs and plan components. There are no 

plan components that were developed specifically for the Arkansas River shiner, as there is no

occupied habitat on the national grasslands. In general, implementation of plan components 

related to the improvement of watershed conditions, minerals and energy development, recreation

and grazing management should result in positive effects to the Arkansas River shiner by 

indirectly protecting watersheds that drain into occupied habitat in the Canadian River in Texas

and Oklahoma. Implementation of any alternative may render a “May Affect but is Not Likely to

Adversely Affect” determination for the Arkansas River shiner.

Critical Habitat Determination 

of Effects for Arkansas River Shiner

Designation for CH has been removed for areas that would have had indirect affects to the 

Arkansas River shiner. Even though critical habitat has been removed, riparian, wetland, wildlife, 

and threatened and endangered species values and habitats are protected by desired condition in 

alternatives B and C.

Critical Habitat Effects Analysis

Common to All Alternatives. Plan components have discountable indirect effects to critical 

habitat, because: 

• Critical habitat has been removed from areas in Unit 1a and 1b that occurred adjacent to

or drained into previously designated critical habitat;

• Grasslands have limited ownership; and

• Plan components promote protection and recovery of listed species as well as riparian,

wetland, and wildlife habitat.

Therefore, the continued implementation of any alternative may render a “May Affect, but is Not

Likely to Adversely Affect, Critical Habitat” determination for the Arkansas River shiner. 

Regional Forester’s Grasslands Sensitive Species List

The Regional Forester’s sensitive species program is the Forest Service’s dedicated initiative to

conserve and recover plant and animal species according to Forest Service policy (FSM 2670). 

The NGs improve habitat and restore ecosystems for sensitive species through vegetation

treatments and management practices. Grasslands sensitive species are those plant and animal

species identified by a regional forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced

by the following: 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 63

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

• Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density

• Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species’ existing distribution. 

The suitable acreage or river miles estimates reported in table 7 are based upon the vegetation 

types, inclusions, or riverine habitat that meet the life history requirements of the species.

Table 7. Regional Forester’s Grasslands Sensitive Species List

Regional Forester’s Grasslands Sensitive Species List for

Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands

Common Name Scientific Name

Suitable Habitat Acres or River Miles

BKMC NGs KRB NGs

Amphibians

Plains leopard frog Rana blairi about 2,000 acres 4,700 to 8,300 acres

Great Plains narrowmouthed toadGastrophryne olivacea about 2,000 acres about 3,000 acres

Fish

Rio Grande chub Gila pandora 

about 12 miles about 17 miles

Canadian River Suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis

Birds

Bald Eagle Haliaetus leucocephalus about 2,000 acres about 3,000 acres

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi 0 1,820 to 5,460 acres

Zone-tailed Hawk Buteo albonotatus 0 about 6,000 acres

Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni about 32,000 acres about 10,000 acres

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis 0 about 200,000 acres

American Peregrine

Falcon

Falco peregrinus (anatum) 0 about 6,000 acres

Lesser Prairie-chicken Tympanuchus pallidicinctus about 28,000 acres about 22,650 acres

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus 0 about 51,000 acres

Burrowing Owl Athene curnicularia (hypugaea) about 6,000 acres about 51,000 acres

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus about 32,000 acres about 204,000 acres

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Outside distinct population segment boundary

Mammals

Pale Townsend’s bigeared batCorynorhinus townsendii

(pallescens)

0 about 3,000 acres

Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus 0 about 51,000 acres
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

64 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Regional Forester’s Grasslands Sensitive Species List for

Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands

Common Name Scientific Name

Suitable Habitat Acres or River Miles

BKMC NGs KRB NGs

Sandhills white-tailed 

deer

Odocoileus virginianus texana 0 About 5,000 acres

Reptiles

Arid land ribbon snake Thamnophis proximus diabolicus 0 about 3,000 acres

Plants

Greene milkweed Asclepias uncialis ssp. uncialis 0 about 3,000 acres

One-flowered milkvetch Astragalus wittmannii 0 about 3,000 acres

Spellingberg’s

groundsel

Packera spellenbergii (=Senecio

s.)

0 about 3,000 acres

Acreage is given for all Grasslands sensitive species. The viability assessment, described below and in the “Wildlife” 

section “Introduction” determined that some Grasslands sensitive species are not at-risk, thus there are no differences in 

consequences among alternatives and analysis was stopped for those species.

All Grassland sensitive species were included in the species viability assessment. The viability 

determination process is described in the “Species Viability” section. Those species that were

determined to have habitat or population viability issues that Grasslands management could affect

are considered to be high at-risk and are discussed in that section. The Grasslands sensitive

species deemed to be high at-risk and carried forward for further analysis are the plains leopard

frog on KRB NGs and the Lesser Prairie-chicken, black-tailed prairie dog, and Mountain Plover.

Affected environment and environmental consequences for these species follow in the “Species 

Viability” section as well. 

All other sensitive species are considered to be secure with regard to habitat and population 

viability and conserved by coarse filter plan components (i.e., desired conditions). 

Species Viability

The viability of all species analyzed was provided by coarse-filter ecosystem components except 

for the species listed in table 8. Based on the viability assessment process described in the 

introduction to the “Wildlife and Habitat” section in this chapter, the wildlife and fish species 

discussed hereafter are species requiring additional plan protections to ensure viability. 

Table 8 is a summary of the vegetation/habitat types and suitable habitat acreage for these 

species. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 65

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 8. Grasslands habitat/species associations, viability risk, reasons for consideration, 

and suitable acres of habitat

Common Name Ranger

District

Viability

Overall

Risk

Reason for Consideration* 2008 Total or

Range of

Suitable

Habitat

Acreage and 

Percent of Area

Viability

Listing

Source

Forest

Sensitive

List

MIS or AtRisk

Species

Mixed-grass Prairie — Total Acres 11,300

Lesser Prairie-chicken BKMC High B, C, J,

O K N 9,940 to 10,62088 to 94%

Shinnery Oak — Total Acres 18,900

Lesser Prairie-chicken BKMC High B, C, J,

O K N 16,630 to 17,770

88 to 94%

Shortgrass Prairie — Total Acres 181,900

Black-tailed prairie 

dog

KRB High C, I K N 50,930

About 28% 

Mountain Plover KRB High A, B, C, 

O K N 50,930

About 28% 

Swift fox KRB High G N 181,900

100%

Playa Inclusion — Total Acres 1,820−5,460

Plains leopard frog KRB High B K N 1,820 to 5,460

100%

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian — Total Acres 1,370 

Plains leopard frog KRB High B K N 1,370

100%

Sand Sagebrush — Total Acres 22,650

Lesser Prairie-chicken KRB High B, J, O K N 22,650

100%

Black-tailed prairie 

dog

KRB High I K N 230 to 2,300

1 to 10%

Canyon Lowlands and Canadian River Cottonwood-Willow Riparian — Total Acres 1,500

Plains leopard frog KRB High B K N 1,500

100%

*A = NM CWCS, B = TX CWCS, C = OK CWCS, G = Nature Serve N, I = Nature Serve State (NM), J = USFWS 

Candidate, K = Regional Forester’s Grasslands Sensitive Species List, N = Viability High At-risk Species, O = 

National Bird of Conservation Concern.

Affected Environment

The current condition of vegetation on the Grasslands has been determined to be within low 

departure from reference condition for vegetation structure, and this state generally provides 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

66 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

secure requisite habitat conditions for associated species. Based on this premise, “coarse filter” 

plan components in alternatives B and C are anticipated to conserve wildlife, fish, and plant 

species with stable populations on the Grasslands. All of these species are considered viable, and 

there would be no trend toward future listing under any of the action alternatives. The species for 

which additional plan components were required to assure viability are discussed below.

Lesser Prairie-chicken General Habitat

The Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (CHAT)6 categorizes LPC habitat on the BKMC NGs as: 

Irreplaceable–378 acres (1 percent); Limiting–17,937 acres (55 percent); Significant–11,371 acres 

(35 percent); and Unknown–3,064 acres (9 percent). 

Lesser Prairie-chicken on Mixed-grass Prairie

The Lesser Prairie-chicken, a Federal candidate, a viability high at-risk species, a Grasslands

sensitive species, and a National Bird of Conservation Concern is a species associated with

mixed-grass prairie. For a more complete description of the mixed-grass prairie vegetation type,

see the “Vegetation” section of this chapter. In 2011, no breeding populations of LPC occurred in

the mixed-grass prairie on the BKMC NGs, but they are known to occur nearby on private land. 

Habitat for the LPC is provided by the diverse structure and composition features of mixed-grass

prairie. Tree encroachment on mixed-grass prairie has degraded the habitat for LPC by providing 

perches for predators such as hawks that prey on LPCs. In addition, utility transmission poles 

provide predator perches as well. Total acreage of suitable habitat for LPC is not the total area of 

mixed-grass prairie due to avoidance behavior of the birds from trees and other tall structures. 

About 88 to 94 percent (9,940 to 10,620 acres) of the mixed-grass prairie is suitable habitat for 

the LPC.

Lesser Prairie-chicken on Shinnery Oak

In 2011, no LPC breeding populations occurred in shinnery oak habitat on the BKMC NGs but 

they are known to occur nearby on private land. For a more complete description of the shinnery 

oak vegetation type, see the “Vegetation” section of this chapter. LPC habitat is provided by the 

diverse structure and composition features of shinnery oak shrubland. Tree encroachment on 

shinnery oak vegetation has degraded LPC habitat by providing perches for predators such as

hawks that prey on LPCs. In addition, utility transmission poles provide predator perches as well.

Total acres of suitable LPC habitat is not the total area of shinnery oak due to avoidance behavior 

of the birds from trees and other tall structures. About 88 to 94 percent (16,630 to 17,770 acres) 

of the shinnery oak is suitable habitat.

Lesser Prairie-chicken and Black-tailed 

Prairie Dog on Sand Sagebrush

The Lesser Prairie-chicken is often found in habitat with the diverse structure and composition 

features of sand sagebrush. For a more complete description of the sand sagebrush vegetation

type, see the “Vegetation” section of this chapter. Currently, no LPC breeding population occurs

in sand sagebrush on the KRB NGs, but the bird is believed to once have occurred in this habitat

on the KRB NGs. Tall structures such as utility transmission poles degrade LPC habitat by 

 

6 Southern Great Plains Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool. September, 2011. http://kars.ku.edu/maps/sgpchat/
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 67

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

providing perches for predators such as hawks that prey on LPCs. Sand sagebrush vegetation type

has areas that were historically heavily plowed with species structure and composition altered to

low vegetation. The BTPD colonizes areas with low, early successional stage vegetation. Some of 

the plowed areas have potential for BTPD colonization, and one area is currently occupied. Areal 

extent of early successional stage sand sagebrush on the KRB is in flux. Changes due to BTPD 

activity, plague within BTPD colonies, recreational shooting of BTPDs, and predation influence 

this vegetation. Currently there is no ongoing program of poisoning BTPDs on the Grasslands. 

As of 2008 there was about 22,650 acres of suitable habitat for LPC in sand sagebrush on the

KRB, and about 1 to 10 percent (230 to 2,300) is suitable for BTPD.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog on Shortgrass Prairie

The BTPD is a viability high at-risk species on the shortgrass prairie, where it maintains or 

utilizes early successional, low structure vegetation features. Historically, BTPD colonies 

occupied about 20 percent of the Great Plains prairie. BTPD habitat exists on the KRB NGs in the 

form of suitable habitat (colonized or highly likely to support BTPD colonies) or potential habitat 

that could support BTPD colonies. Early successional stage, low structure vegetation features of

shortgrass prairie are endemic to BTPD colonies. These colonies provide complementary habitat 

for Mountain Plover, and swift fox, species with viability high at-risk concerns. In 2011, there 

were about 3,800 acres of occupied BTPD colonies on the KRB NGs. Over the last 12 years, 

occupied area has ranged from a low of about 1,660 acres in 2006 to around 7,100 acres in 2003. 

Of the 181,900 acres of shortgrass prairie, roughly 28 percent (50,930 acres) is suitable habitat for 

BTPD (see appendix A in USFS Cibola National Forest 2011d).

Mountain Plover on Shortgrass Prairie

Mountain Plover is a viability high at-risk species on shortgrass prairie, where it occupies and 

uses early successional, low structure vegetation features often associated with BTPD colonies, 

disturbed areas around windmills and water tanks, and barren playas. There is a strong association

with BTPDs and other burrowing mammals throughout its range which creates and maintains a 

mosaic of vegetation and bare ground to which Mountain Plovers have adapted. The suitable 

habitat for Mountain Plover is the same as that for the BTPD.

Swift Fox on Shortgrass Prairie

Swift fox is a viability high at-risk species on shortgrass prairie, where they occupy early 

successional, low structure vegetation features, endemic to BTPD colonies. The suitable habitat 

for swift fox is basically all 181,900 acres of the shortgrass prairie and inclusions due to the fox 

being a predator that uses the entire landscape.

Plains Leopard Frog on Playa Lakes

Plains leopard frog is a species assessed to have high viability risks, occurs in playa lakes, 

seasonal depressional wetlands, streams, ponds, irrigation ditches, pools in rocky canyons, and 

rivers on the KRB NGs. Total acres of suitable habitat for plains leopard frog is within a range of 

1,820−5,460 acres due to the ephemeral nature of seasonal wetlands.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

68 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Environmental Consequences

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act requires for discussion of impacts in 

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of vegetation types and the five wildlife species determined to be high at-risk in the 

plan area. This discussion of environmental consequences is intended to be useful to the decision 

maker and the public. Additional information is in the “Vegetation and Wildlife Specialist 

Report” (USDA Forest Service 2011d). 

The species assessed to have viability high at-risk concerns in the coarse- and fine-filter analysis 

were further analyzed for threats, and plan components were developed in alternatives B and C to 

provide for species viability. The plan components relevant for each high at-risk species are 

presented and precede the environmental consequences.

Lesser Prairie-chicken on Mixed-grass Prairie, 

Shinnery Oak, and Sand Sagebrush Plan Components

Threats are:

• habitat degradation and fragmentation 

• predation 

• invasive species

Table 9. Alternatives B and C plan components that address the threats to the Lesser 

Prairie-chicken

LPC Desired Condition Objectives Guidelines

Mixedgrass

prairie 

The mixed-grass prairie species composition

provides vegetation structure and height 

relationships necessary for ground nesting bird

cover and brood rearing habitat. Small areas of

short structured herbaceous vegetation or

patches of bare ground are available for LPC 

leks and courtship areas. Small areas or

patches of bare ground are present that provide

wildlife travel corridors, escape routes, and

annual plant germination sites for wildlife

foraging habitat.

Shrub species component is typically no less

than 5 percent or more than 25 percent of the

total mixed-grass ground cover. Species

composition includes fragrant mimosa,

skunkbush sumac, smooth sumac, and inland

New Jersey tea, all contributing to retaining or

improving foraging and escape habitat for

LPC. 

Mechanically or with 

prescribed fire remove all

undesirable trees on the

mixed-grass prairie over the

next 15 years after plan

approval.

Within 10 years of plan 

approval, mark 25 to 50 

percent of fences in suitable 

LPC habitat to minimize 

collisions of the bird with 

fences.

Over the next 15 years after 

plan approval, retain shrubby 

cover across the landscape in 

patches that are no less than 

5 or more than 25 percent of 

the total mixed-grass area.

Trees in upland

settings within

landscapes

suitable for

LPC habitat

should be

targeted for

eradication to

reduce perches

for raptors, 

predators of the

LPC.

Shinnery

oak

Shinnery oak vegetation type composition

provides vegetation structure and height

relationships necessary for ground nesting bird 

cover and brood rearing habitat for the LPC. 

Small areas of short structured herbaceous

vegetation or patches of bare ground are

available for LPC leks and courtship areas;

these areas also provide wildlife travel

Mechanically or chemically 

remove 80 to 100 percent of 

undesirable trees in shinnery 

oak areas within 15 years of 

plan approval.

Within 10 years of plan 

approval, mark 25 to 50 

Trees in upland

settings within

landscapes

suitable for

LPC habitat

should be

targeted for

eradication to
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 69

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

LPC Desired Condition Objectives Guidelines

corridors, escape routes, and annual plant

germination sites for wildlife foraging habitat.

Trees are nonexistent and collision risks from

fences, etc., are minimal in areas important for

recovery of LPC. 

percent of fences in suitable 

LPC habitat to minimize 

collisions of the bird with 

fences.

reduce perches

for raptors, 

predators of the

LPC.

Sand 

sagebrush

The sand sagebrush species composition

provides vegetation structure and height

relationships necessary for ground nesting bird 

cover and brood rearing habitat. Small areas of 

short structured herbaceous vegetation or

patches of bare ground are present for LPC 

leks and courtship areas. These patches also

provide wildlife travel corridors, escape

routes, and annual plant germination sites for

wildlife foraging habitat. 

Within 10 years of plan

approval, mark 25 to 50

percent of fences in suitable

LPC habitat to minimize

collisions of the bird with

fences. 

Lesser Prairie-chicken Environmental Consequences

Alternatives B and C. There are many plan components developed in alternatives B and C 

designed specifically to address the threats mentioned above. In general, implementation of plan

components related to the improvement of watershed conditions, minerals and energy

development, recreation, wildlife habitat improvement, and grazing management should result in

positive effects to the LPC by directly improving habitat suitability and improving the overall

health and diversity of ecological conditions across the landscape. Furthermore, plan components 

addressing resource damage caused by roads and recreational activities, such as OHV use, were

also considered in the threats analysis. Implementation would likely result in improved habitat 

conditions, minimize the likelihood of take, support the recovery of the LPC, and would 

minimize the likelihood or magnitude of direct and indirect adverse effects, with many plan

components developed specifically to improve habitat for LPC. Therefore, under alternatives B 

and C, there would be no loss of viability or trend toward future listing. 

Lesser Prairie-chicken on Mixed-grass 

Prairie Environmental Consequences

Table 10 provides a comparison by alternative of acreage of LPC habitat in the specific 

vegetation type.

Table 10. Anticipated acreage of LPC habitat in mixed-grass prairie type by alternative 

over the life of the plan

Species MA Current Acreage

Total Suitable Acres by Alternative

A B and C

Lesser Prairie-chicken BKMC 9,940 to 10,620

(88 to 94%)

7,910 to 9,940

(70 to 88%)

10,170 to 10,850

(90 to 96%)

Alternative A. Native and nonnative invasive tree encroachment on mixed-grass prairie would 

degrade potential and suitable habitat for LPC due to avoidance behavior by the bird to habitat 

with tall vertical structures such as trees. Trees provide perches for raptors, predators of the LPC. 

Implementation of alternative A would result in greater viability risks to the LPC and may result 

in Federal listing.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

70 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternatives B and C. Implementation would achieve the following outcomes. Desired vegetation 

structure and species composition of the mixed-grass prairie across the landscape would enhance 

habitat by reducing the presence of undesirable invasive trees. The enhanced vegetation structure 

and species composition of mixed-grass prairie would transition potential LPC habitat to suitable

habitat. Removal of undesirable trees on the mixed-grass prairie on the Grasslands could result in 

less perching and nesting habitat for raptors that prey on the LPC.

The mixed-grass species composition would increase vegetation structure and height relationships

necessary for ground nesting bird cover and brood rearing habitat. Small areas of short structured

herbaceous vegetation or patches of bare ground would increase for LPC leks and courtship areas.

Small areas or patches of bare ground would become more available that provide wildlife travel

corridors, escape routes, and annual plant germination sites for wildlife foraging habitat.

Management would aim for a shrub species component no less than 5 percent or more than 25

percent of the total mixed-grass ground cover. This would move the mixed-grass prairie toward 

desired vegetation structure and species composition. An additional benefit would be the retention 

or improvement of foraging and escape habitat for LPC.

LPC mortality caused by collision with fences would be reduced as a result of marking fences 

with visible plastic tabs in suitable mixed-grass prairie habitat.

Lesser Prairie-chicken on Shinnery 

Oak Environmental Consequences

Table 11 provides a comparison by alternative of acreage of LPC habitat in the specific vegetation 

type.

Table 11. Anticipated acreage of LPC habitat in shinnery oak type by alternative over the 

life of the plan

Species MA Current Acreage Total Suitable Acres by Alternative

A B and C

Lesser Prairie-chicken BKMC 16,630−17,770

(88−94%)

13,320−16,630

(70−88%)

17,010−18,140

(90−96%)

Alternative A. Mast (acorns) for LPC would be reduced due to reduction of shinnery oak acreage. 

Undesirable trees would degrade potential and suitable LPC habitat for the same reasons as

mentioned in the mixed-grass prairie consequences. Implementation would result in greater 

viability risks to the LPC and may result in Federal listing.

Alternatives B and C. Undesirable tree removal would result in transition of potential habitat to

suitable habitat and would provide a diversity of structural vegetative stages for LPC. Desired

vegetation structure and species composition would improve ground nesting bird cover and LPC 

brood rearing habitat and would provide wildlife travel corridors and escape routes within the 

shrub cover. Small areas of short herbaceous vegetation or patches of bare ground would be

available for LPC leks and courtship areas. Risks from collision with fences equipped with high 

visibility vinyl markers, etc., would be minimal in areas important for LPC recovery.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 71

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Lesser Prairie-chicken and Black-tailed 

Prairie Dog on Sand Sagebrush Environmental Consequences

Table 12 provides a comparison by alternative of acreage of LPC and BTPD habitat in the 

specific vegetation type.

Table 12. Anticipated acreage of LPC and BTPD habitat in sand sagebrush by alternative 

over the life of the plan

Species MA Current

Acreage

Total Suitable Acres by Alternative

A B and C

Lesser Prairie-chicken KRB 22,650

(100%)

≤ 22,650

(≤ 100%)

22,650

(100%)

Black-tailed Prairie Dog KRB 230 to 2,300

1 to 10%

230 to 2,300 or

(1 to 10%)

< 230 to 2,300 or

(< 1 to 10%)

Common to All Alternatives. Implementation would provide a diversity of structural vegetative 

stages for ground nesting birds. Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in no loss 

of viability or trend toward future listing of LPC. 

Alternative A. Due to no defined targets for long-term maintenance of vegetative structure and 

species composition, this alternative would present various outcomes. A trend of higher shrub and 

tall vegetation component percentages would limit or curtail BTPD expansion. Conversely, 

conditions that expand early successional stage vegetation development or the reduction of shrub 

component percent of total vegetation would produce more potential or suitable BTPD habitat, 

thus, the comparison by alternatives above would produce uncertain outcomes and presents 

unpredictable consequences.

Alternatives B and C. Management direction would move toward desired vegetation structure and 

species composition, accomplished through well-defined targets for this vegetation type. The

outcome would be of benefit to habitat for wildlife native to this vegetation type. A diversity of 

structural vegetative stages for the LPC would be produced, including leks and courtship areas,

and would result in development of more corridors and escape routes for general wildlife native

to this vegetation type, benefitting numerous species. Conversely, the achievement of desired

vegetation structure and species composition would tend to limit or curtail BTPD expansion; thus, 

the comparison by alternatives above would produce uncertain outcomes and presents 

unpredictable consequences.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog, Mountain Plover, 

and Swift Fox on Shortgrass Prairie Plan Components

Threats to the BTPD also impact habitat for the plover and fox. 

Threats identified are:

• recreational shooting,

• habitat degradation and fragmentation, 

• disease, and

• predation. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

72 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Plan components in alternatives B and C, developed to address the threats to BTPD, Mountain 

Plover, and swift fox are: 

Desired Conditions

• Low structured vegetation representative of the early successional stage of shortgrass

prairie is available for BTPD, a keystone7 species, to colonize. The colonies provide

habitat for swift fox and Mountain Plover.

• Habitat for at least one BTPD complex (a group or cluster of colonies) is available for 

potential future reintroduction to recover the endangered black-footed ferret, a predator

dependent on the BTPD; impacts from plague outbreaks to BTPDs and potential 

reintroduced black-footed ferrets are minimal.

Objective

• Swift fox: Provide two to four arrays (groups of six structures spaced no more than 550 

yards apart) of artificial escape structures per 640 acres to improve escape cover for swift

fox. Structures will be placed in suitable shortgrass prairie habitat with loamy soils on 

slopes less than 3 percent and along ridgetops, knolls, or the tops of rolling hills within 15 

years after plan approval. 

Guideline

• Swift fox: Improving habitat and maintaining corridors for swift fox should be 

accomplished through timely burning, mowing, livestock grazing, and seeding.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog, Mountain Plover, 

and Swift Fox on Shortgrass Prairie Environmental Consequences

These three species are considered together, as the BTPD is a keystone species. Table 13 provides 

a comparison by alternative of acreage of BTPD, Mountain Plover, and swift fox habitat in the 

specific vegetation type.

Table 13. Anticipated acreage of BTPD, Mountain Plover, and swift fox habitat in 

shortgrass prairie and inclusion by alternative over the life of the plan

Species MA Current Acreage

Total Suitable Acres by 

Alternative

A B and C

Black-tailed prairie dog KRB 50,930

(28%)

54,570 to 58,210

(30 to 32%)

54,570 to 58,210

(30 to 32%)

Mountain Plover KRB 50,930

(28%)

54,570 to 58,210

(30 to 32%)

54,570 to 58,210

(30 to 32%)

Swift fox KRB 181,900

(100%)

181,900

(100%)

181,900

(100%)

 

7 A keystone species has a large overall effect on community or ecosystem structure or function, and this effect is 

disproportionately large relative to its abundance (Power et al. 1996).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 73

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Common to All Alternatives. The expansion of BTPD colonies would result in increased areal

extent of early successional stage shortgrass prairie, thus increasing nesting/foraging areas for 

Mountain Plover and an increased prey base to support swift fox.

Implementation of any alternative would impact the species listed in the table above, but would 

not result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. 

Alternatives B and C. Targets for desired vegetation structure and species composition would

result in further expansion of BTPD areal extent, thus improving foraging habitat for swift fox as

a result of expansion of the prey base. A further consequence would be the protection and 

improvement of nesting/foraging areas for Mountain Plover. Viability of swift fox would be 

improved by providing escape structures.

Plains Leopard Frog on Shortgrass Prairie Playa Inclusions, 

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian (excluding the Canadian River) and Canyon Lowlands, 

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian on Canadian River Wildlife and Habitat Plan Components

The threat to plains leopard frog is: 

• habitat degradation 

Plan components developed in alternatives B and C to address the threat is: 

Desired Conditions 

• The cottonwood and willow riparian areas provide habitat for a diverse mix of native

grasses and forbs adapted to abrupt fluctuations in moisture regimes. This habitat occurs 

in the herbaceous portion of riparian areas. The meander scars and depressions in the 

riparian areas that retain water part or all year provide habitat for plains leopard frog.

• The integrity of the clay seals of playas is maintained and free from human influence. 

Playas altered through the construction of dugout pits are restored to their natural 

hydrologic function. 

Objectives 

• Hydrologic functions are restored on 100 percent of altered and pitted playa lakes to

better support their inherent ecological qualities and provide for wildlife habitat within 15 

years of plan approval.

• Restore a minimum of 50 percent of the seasonal depressional wetlands that exhibit soil

compaction and erosion within 10 years of plan approval.

Guideline

• Activities should be restricted from playa lakes that would adversely impact the water 

holding ability or capacity, and natural hydrologic function should be restored to those 

that have been altered. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

74 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Plains Leopard Frog on All 

Habitats Environmental Consequences

Table 14 provides a comparison by alternative of acreage of plains leopard frog habitat in the 

specific vegetation type.

Table 14. Anticipated acreage of plains leopard frog habitat by alternative over the life of 

the plan

Species MA Current Acreage

Total Suitable Acres by 

Alternative

A B and C

Playa Inclusion in Shortgrass Prairie

Plains leopard frog KRB 1,820−5,460

(100%)

1,820−5,460

(100%)

1,820−5,460

(100%)

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian excluding Canadian River

Plains leopard frog KRB 1,370

(100%)

1,370

(100%)

1,370

(100%)

Canyon Lowlands, Cottonwood-Willow Riparian on Canadian River 

Plains leopard frog KRB 1,500

(100%) 

≤ 1,500

(≤ 100%) 

1,500

(100%) 

Common to All Alternatives. All alternatives would result in some diversity of vegetative 

structural stages and composition, thereby providing some habitat necessary for plains leopard

frog. Improved habitat in and around the playa inclusions would result from restoration of altered

playa basins, thereby allowing longer presence and larger areal extent of surface water for plains 

leopard frog. Implementation of any alternative may impact the plains leopard frog, but would not 

result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Alternative A on Cottonwood-Willow Riparian in All Areas. Implementation would have no 

defined targets for long-term maintenance of riparian species composition or structure. The 

consequence of no defined targets of early, mid, and late seral stage development would tend to 

have either no affect or degrade the diverse habitat of the riparian community for the habitat of 

plains leopard frog.

Alternatives B and C. Implementation would achieve a defined structure and composition 

outcome for the cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation in all areas, with additional focus on early

seral stage habitat development including presence of snags and woody debris in the streambeds 

and in the riparian area benefiting plains leopard frog.

Alternative C. Same as alternative B except wilderness designation would delay achievement of 

desired vegetation structure and species composition outcomes because of limitations on use of

motorized management tools, thereby delaying benefits to plains leopard frog.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 75

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Migratory Birds

Section 3(e) of Executive Order (EO) 13186 requires that Federal agencies design migratory bird

habitat and population conservation principles into agency plans and planning processes, and 

coordinate with other agencies and non-Federal partners in planning efforts. 

The viability analysis process described in the “Species Viability” section included consideration 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Birds of Conservation Concern (NBCC) in 

accordance with the International Migratory Bird Act. The appropriate bird conservation regions 

(BCR) identify NBCC species that either migrate through or breed in the planning area. 

Ecosystem components (including vegetation type and structure and water availability) were 

evaluated for sustainability and were primary factors used to determine a species’ viability. All 

species were evaluated in the coarse filter/fine filter evaluations, and viability risks were

determined from availability and condition of individual species’ habitat, population evaluation, 

and effects from Grasslands management actions. 

Affected Environment

The bird conservation regions (BCR) defined by the USFWS applicable to the Grasslands are

listed in table 15. 

Table 15. National Birds of Conservation Concern associated with Grasslands habitat

BCR 18 (Shortgrass Prairie) Kiowa 

and Rita Blanca Management Area

BCR 19 (Central Mixed-Grass Prairie) Black 

Kettle McClellan Creek Management Area

Common Name 

Lesser Prairie-chicken (a) Lesser Prairie-chicken (a)

Bald Eagle (b) Little Blue Heron

Golden Eagle Mississippi Kite

Prairie Falcon Bald Eagle (b)

Snowy Plover (c) Swainson’s Hawk

Mountain Plover Black Rail

Upland Sandpiper Snowy Plover (c)

Long-billed Curlew Mountain Plover (nb)

Burrowing Owl Solitary Sandpiper (nb)

Lewis’s Woodpecker Upland Sandpiper

Willow Flycatcher (c) Long-billed Curlew

Bell’s Vireo (c) Hudsonian Godwit (nb)

Sprague’s Pipit (nb) Marbled Godwit (nb)

Lark Bunting Buff-breasted Sandpiper (nb)

McCown’s Longspur Short-billed Dowitcher (nb)

Chestnut-collared Longspur Red-headed Woodpecker

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher

Loggerhead Shrike
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

76 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

BCR 18 (Shortgrass Prairie) Kiowa 

and Rita Blanca Management Area

BCR 19 (Central Mixed-Grass Prairie) Black 

Kettle McClellan Creek Management Area

Bell’s Vireo (c)

Sprague’s Pipit (nb)

Cassin’s Sparrow

Lark Bunting

Henslow’s Sparrow 

Harris’ Sparrow (nb)

McCown’s Longspur (nb)

Smith’s Longspur (nb)

Chestnut-collared Longspur (nb)

Key: (a) ESA candidate; (b) ESA delisted; (c) non-listed subspecies or population of threatened or endangered species; 

(d) MBTA protection uncertain or lacking; and (nb) non-breeding in this BCR. 

Individual migratory bird species (and overwintering habitats) are not addressed directly in the 

plan alternatives, given the strategic nature of plan revision, but many are included as species 

considered in risk assessment. Most species habitats would be accommodated indirectly through 

vegetation treatments that target vegetation structure and species composition.

The NBCC species (Lesser Prairie-chicken and Mountain Plover) that were determined to have 

habitat or population issues that Grasslands management could affect were brought forward for 

further analysis in the species viability determination process. Affected environment and 

environmental consequences for these species are addressed in the “Species Viability” section.

Environmental Consequences to Migratory Birds

Alternative A. This alternative does not have direction for desired vegetation structure and species 

composition, whereas alternatives B and C do. Implication is that better quality habitat for 

migrants would be afforded by alternatives B and C.

Alternatives B and C. These alternatives have plan components for Grassland restoration in 

vegetation and habitat associated with species that have viability high at-risk concerns. Table 16 

lists the NBCC specific to the BCR that overlays the Grasslands MA and vegetation type.

Table 16. National Birds of Conservation Concern with viability high at-risk associated 

with Grasslands habitat

Common Name Species and Habitat Needs

BCR 18 (Shortgrass Prairie) Kiowa and Rita Blanca MA and 

BCR 19 (Central Mixed-Grass Prairie) Black Kettle McClellan Creek MA

Lesser Prairie-chicken (a) Plan components described in the “Wildlife Threatened and Endangered” 

section and the “Species Viability” section address LPC habitat needs.

Mountain Plover Plan components described in the “Species Viability” section for BTPD

address the habitat needs for Mountain Plover.

Key: (a) ESA candidate
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 77

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

The Grasslands have coordinated with other agencies and nongovernmental organizations 

(NGOs) that manage and/or regulate migratory birds and habitat. The Audubon Society has 

designated two Audubon important bird areas (IBAs): Sauz Creek and Perico Creek on the KRB 

MA. Playa Lakes Joint Venture, a nongovernmental organization, was involved in stakeholders 

scoping meetings as well. Section line surveys conducted by the Rocky Mountain Bird 

Observatory provide long-term trend population data. The USFWS administers breeding bird 

surveys and there are four in place on the Kiowa NG which provide population trend data.

Alternatives B and C. From analysis of breeding bird survey data and viability analysis, fine filter 

plan component objectives and guidelines were developed for the LPC and Mountain Plover. 

Eagles

Under the authorities of 50 CFR Part 22, the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle are protected by the

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).

The MBTA and Eagle Act protect Bald and Golden Eagles from a variety of harmful actions and 

impacts. The USFWS developed National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to advise land

managers under what circumstances the protective provisions of the Eagle Act may apply to their

activities. A variety of human activities can potentially interfere with eagles, affecting their ability

to forage, nest, roost, breed, or raise young. The guidelines are intended to help minimize such

impacts to Bald Eagles, particularly where they may constitute “disturbance,” which is prohibited

by the Eagle Act.

The Eagle Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c) enacted in 1940, as amended, prohibits anyone, without a 

permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” Bald Eagles, including their parts, 

nests, or eggs.

The act provides criminal and civil penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase,

barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any 

bald eagle... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof.” 

The act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect,

molest, or disturb.” “Disturb” means to agitate or bother a Bald or Golden Eagle to a degree that

causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available:

• injury to an eagle,

• a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, 

or sheltering behavior, or 

• nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering behavior.” 

In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from humaninduced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not 

present, if upon the eagle’s return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that

injures an eagle or substantially interferes with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits and 

causes, or is likely to cause, a loss of productivity or nest abandonment. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

78 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Affected Environment

Bald Eagles are not known to occur on the KRB NGs, but a nest is located adjacent to a Rita 

Blanca unit. Typical habitat includes large trees on cliffs or pinnacles, usually near rivers, 

streams, or lakes. The Bald Eagle is known to inhabit Lake McClellan and Lake Marvin in Texas 

on the BKMC NGs in winter roost and foraging areas. In winter, they use dominant trees that 

provide a good view of the surroundings and are close to a food source such as fish and carrion. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A. This alternative would have plan components addressing consultation, protection, 

and monitoring of Bald Eagle roosting and foraging habitat. The Bald Eagle is no longer listed 

under the Endangered Species Act. The protection and monitoring components are carried 

forward in like fashion under alternatives B and C or are specified by law under the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act. 

Alternatives B and C. These alternatives have plan components that minimize “take” as described 

in table 17. 

There would be no programmatic take of eagles under any of the alternatives. 

Table 17. Alternatives B and C plan components that minimize eagle take

Management Indicator Species

Summary

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations require that “Fish and wildlife habitat 

shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative 

vertebrate and invertebrate species in the planning area.” The transition provision, 36 CFR 

219.17(b)(3), of the 2012 Planning Rule (Vol. 77, No. 68/April 9, 2012) allows use of the 

Resource Area Plan Component

Minerals and energy 

development, oil and gas

leasing standards

The timing limitation for Bald Eagle within 0.25 mile of known roosting sites is in

effect from November 1 to March 31.

Mixed hardwood riparian Mature hardwoods, shrubby understory or early successional growth, and woody

debris as well as diverse riparian herbaceous vegetation on the margins of lakes or

along stream sides are present to provide winter roosts for Bald Eagle.

Mixed hardwood riparian Bald Eagle roosts should be protected by retaining, developing, or preserving mature

trees and old growth cottonwood stands, particularly within 1⁄2 mile of lakes.

Cottonwood-willow

riparian

Populations of native woody species (particularly the long-term presence of mature

cottonwood stands and areas with regenerating cottonwood and willow saplings)

provide habitat for wildlife species such as Bald Eagle. 

Cottonwood-willow

riparian

Bald Eagle roosts and nest sites should be protected by retaining, developing, or

preserving mature trees and old-growth cottonwood stands, particularly within 1⁄2 

mile of water.

Canyon lowlands and

Canadian River riparian

Populations of native woody species, particularly the long-term presence of mature

cottonwood stands and areas with regenerating cottonwood and willow saplings,

provide habitat for wildlife species such as the Bald Eagle.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 79

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule to implement the NFMA requirement that management

indicator species (MIS) be identified as part of the forest plan. MIS serve multiple functions in

forest planning: focusing management direction developed in the alternatives; providing a means

to analyze effects among alternative on biological diversity; and serving as a reliable feedback

mechanism during forest plan implementation. The latter is accomplished by monitoring 

population trends in relationship to habitat changes (1982 rule provision 219.19(a)(6)). 

Management indicator species is a concept adopted by the Agency to serve, in part, as a 

barometer for species viability at the Grasslands level. The role of MIS in meeting viability

mandates complements that of several other approaches, particularly management of sensitive

species.

The NFMA regulations suggest that several categories be considered when selecting MIS. The 

categories listed under 1982 Rule Provision 219.19(a)(1) are:

• Endangered and threatened plant and animal species identified on state and Federal lists, 

• Species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped, 

• Nongame species of special interest, and

• Species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned 

management programs. 

As a starting point, a comprehensive list of species (including plant, macro-lichen, bird, insect,

and animal species) that are found in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma was developed from 

multiple sources. The list of potential MIS considered plants and animals and common species in

the ecological community of interest were emphasized. The following set of criteria was used in 

the selection process.

• Federally and state listed endangered and threatened plant and animal species that occur 

in the planning area.

• Species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned 

management activities. Keystone species and ecological engineers (e.g., BTPD) could be 

included for consideration in this category.

• Species that are commonly hunted, fished, or trapped and occur in habitats likely to be 

influenced by planned management activities.

• Nongame species of special interest and occur in habitats likely to be influenced by 

planned management activities.

• Plant or animal species whose population changes are believed to indicate the effects of

management activities on other species of selected major biological communities or on 

water quality. Select ecological indicators only if scientific evidence exists confirming

that measurable changes in these species would indicate trends in the abundance of other

species or the conditions of biological communities they are expected to represent (FSM

2621.1). 

Research for each species life history and population information was gleaned from scientific 

references; Grasslands biologists; Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico wildlife agency biologists; 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

80 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

The list was modified through review, correspondence, and/or personal contact with teams

developed for each respective state. The teams identified the constant biologic relationships 

between the species and characteristics of the habitat features within the vegetation type. These

relationships were identified by one or more factors including nesting requirements, breeding

habitat, food, and cover requirements or other biologic relationships. From the resulting list, the 

teams considered the selection of which species best represented the desired condition for the

vegetation type that best meets all the above criteria. Table 18 presents the discussion and 

conclusion, representing the selected MIS.

Table 18. Summary of Management Indicator Species Team discussion

Scientific

Name

Common

Name

Vegetation

Type Discussion and Conclusion

Sialia

currucoides

Mountain

Bluebird

PinyonjuniperSelected as Grassland plan MIS for pinyon-juniper woodland.

The Mountain Bluebird is a cavity nester that is indicative of all

seral stages of pinyon-juniper. It is easy to detect and is present

on existing breeding bird survey (BBS) routes on the Kiowa NG.

Athene

cunicularia

hypugaea

Burrowing 

Owl

Shortgrass 

prairie 

Selected as Grassland plan MIS for shortgrass prairie. The

Burrowing Owl represents the presence, distribution, and size of

BTPD colonies. Good data is available for the KRB NGs from

New Mexico State University and New Mexico Department of

Game and Fish (NMDGF). It is easy to detect.

Meleagris

gallopavo

intermedia

Rio 

Grande

Turkey

Mixed

hardwood

riparian

The Rio Grande Turkey was retained as MIS. In the 1985 Forest

plan, the turkey is MIS for eastern riparian habitat. Rio Grande

Turkey habitat is well represented by abundant roosting trees and

areas available for foraging and nesting in the understory of the

mixed hardwood riparian habitat type. It is easy to detect.

The three MIS selected for this FPEIS analysis were Rio Grande Turkey in mixed hardwood 

riparian, Burrowing Owl on early successional stages of shortgrass prairie, and Mountain 

Bluebird on all successional stages of pinyon-juniper. 

Affected Environment

Rio Grande Turkey−See “Vegetation” section, “Mixed Hardwood Riparian for Affected 

Environment” description: Rio Grande Turkey, MIS for mixed hardwood riparian and an

important game species, utilizes all structural stages for roosting, brood rearing, foraging, and 

escape cover, and is common in this vegetation type. As of 2008, total acres of suitable habitat for 

Rio Grande Turkey is the total area of mixed hardwood riparian vegetation, about 1,950 acres. 

Burrowing Owl−See “Vegetation” section, “Shortgrass Prairie and Inclusions for Affected 

Environment” description: Optimum habitat is typified by shortgrass vegetation and presence of 

fresh, small mammal burrows, especially those of prairie dogs. It is found in open grasslands, 

sometimes in open areas such as vacant lots near human habitation (e.g., campuses, airports, golf 

courses, perimeter of agricultural fields, banks of irrigation canals). Threats to burrowing owls

include habitat loss, indirect losses due to decline of prairie dogs, and direct losses to predators, 

toxins, and incidental shooting. Because of their strong dependence on active prairie dog colonies 

for breeding habitat, long-term persistence of well connected, large, active prairie dog colonies is

critical to the persistence of burrowing owls. As of 2008, total acres of suitable habitat for 

Burrowing Owl on shortgrass prairie vegetation was about 50,930 acres. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 81

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Mountain Bluebird−See “Vegetation” section “Pinyon-Juniper and Juniper Grasslands Inclusion 

for Affected Environment” description: Mountain Bluebird utilizes all successional stages of 

pinyon-juniper, including the late successional stages, for cavity nesting on the Kiowa NG. Total 

acres of suitable habitat is the total area of pinyon-juniper and juniper grasslands vegetation, 

about 21,700 acres as of 2008.

Environmental Consequences

Rio Grande Turkey Plan Components. Unlike alternative A, alternatives B and C have plan 

components directly related to Rio Grande Turkey habitat that influence the consequences. Those 

plan components are as follows:

Desired Condition

Mature hardwoods, shrubby understory, or early successional growth, and woody debris as

well as diverse riparian herbaceous vegetation on the margins of lakes or along streamsides

are present to provide roost, feeding, and nesting habitat for the Rio Grande Turkey.

Objective

Mechanically or chemically remove 100 percent of eastern redcedar around roost trees in 

cottonwood galleries, generally within the mixed hardwood type, within 10 years of plan

approval to benefit the Rio Grande Turkey.

Guideline

Timing of prescribed fire or other vegetation treatments should consider adverse

consequences to ground nesting birds such as the Rio Grande Turkey.

Rio Grande Turkey Environmental Consequences. Table 19 provides a comparison by acres of 

habitat.

Table 19. Anticipated acreage of Rio Grande Turkey habitat in mixed hardwood riparian by 

alternative over the life of the plan

Species MA Current

Acreage

Total Suitable Acres by Alternative

A B and C

Rio Grande Turkey BKMC 1,950

(100%)

975 to 1,950

(50 to 100%)

1,950

(100%)

Alternative A. More intense and hotter fires caused by fuels buildup from lack of planned fire 

would reduce the number of mature deciduous trees, thereby eliminating roost areas for the Rio 

Grande Turkey.

Alternatives B and C. Mixed hardwood riparian vegetation type would move toward reference 

condition for vegetation structure as a consequence of implementing more clearly defined targets 

for species composition and structure. More diversity of structural stages in the mixed hardwood

riparian ecosystem would improve habitat for the Rio Grande Turkey by providing roosting trees, 

foraging areas, and nesting and brood raising areas in the early- and mid-successional stages. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

82 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Burrowing Owl Plan Components. Unlike alternative A, alternatives B and C have the following

plan components for shortgrass prairie that address habitat for the Burrowing Owl.

Desired Conditions

Low structured vegetation representative of the early successional stage of shortgrass prairie

is available for BTPD (a keystone species) to colonize. The colonies provide habitat in the

early successional stage of shortgrass prairie specific vegetation provides requisite habitat for

the Burrowing Owl.

Habitat for at least one complex of BTPD colonies is available for potential future

reintroduction to recover the endangered black-footed ferret, a predator dependent on the 

BTPD; impacts from plague outbreaks to BTPDs and potential reintroduced black-footed

ferrets are minimal.

Guideline

Prescribed fire and targeted grazing of suitable BTPD habitat should occur only on loamy

uplands, loamy plains, limey uplands, alkaline plains, loamy bottomlands, basalt loam, and 

clayey soils on 0 to 5 percent slopes.

Burrowing Owl Environmental Consequences. Table 20 provides a comparison by alternative 

of acres of Burrowing Owl habitat. 

Table 20. Anticipated acreage of Burrowing Owl habitat in shortgrass prairie and inclusion 

by alternative over the life of the plan

Species MA Current

Acreage

Total Suitable Acres by Alternative

A B and C

Burrowing Owl KRB 50,930

(28%)

54,570 to 58,210

(30 to 32%)

54,570 to 58,210

(30 to 32%)

Common to All Alternatives. The expansion of Forest Service sensitive species, BTPD colonies 

would result in early successional shortgrass prairie wherever they occur. The increased areal 

extent of early successional stage shortgrass prairie would accommodate an increase in suitable 

habitat for the Burrowing Owl.

The Grasslands are cooperating with the New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas offices of Wildlife

Services, USDAAPHIS, in a memorandum of understanding that addresses sylvatic plague 

disease in mammals occurring on the shortgrass vegetation type for the purposes of protection of 

human health, other wildlife resources, and boundary control. 

The Grasslands are cooperating, through a memorandum of understanding involving Federal

agencies of the Multi-State Conservation Plan for the BTPD to achieve the conservation and 

management of BTPDs and their habitat.

Implementation of any of the alternatives would impact the Burrowing Owl but would not result 

in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 83

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternative A. This alternative does not have direction for desired vegetation structure and species 

composition that would enhance habitat for Burrowing Owl. This would potentially degrade the 

amount of suitable habitat through less expansion of BTPD colony areal extent.

Alternatives B and C. Targets for desired vegetation structure and species composition would 

result in further expansion of BTPD areal extent, thus improving habitat for Burrowing Owl. 

Mountain Bluebird Plan Components. Alternatives B and C have the following plan

components for supporting the pinyon-juniper vegetation type and by association, Mountain 

Bluebird habitat. 

Desired Condition

Complete representation of all successional stages and desired vegetation structure and 

species composition of pinyon-juniper, provides requisite habitat for the Mountain Bluebird.

Objectives

Over the life of the plan, burn and/or thin 5 to 10 percent of the pinyon-juniper to maintain

successional stage conditions and increase understory components in the pinyon-juniper 

woodland. 

Mechanically, chemically, or with prescribed fire control 5 to 10 percent of native invasive

plants (such as cholla and mesquite) annually.

Apply mechanical, chemical, and/or prescribed fire treatments to produce all middle to late

structural stages that are proportionally present in the pinyon-juniper vegetation type with old

growth representing 10 percent within 15 years of plan approval. 

Over the life of the plan, retain large stands of pinyon-juniper as contiguous patches of no 

less than 40 acres on 10 percent of this vegetation type on a landscape scale.

Over the life of the plan, create openings in early and mid-successional stage stands that lack

a good shrub or grass component on up to 20 percent of the pinyon-juniper vegetation type at 

a landscape scale.

Guidelines

When determining size of openings in early- and mid-successional stage pinyon-juniper 

stands, habitat requirements of management indicator species and big game species, and fuels

reduction needs should be considered. Three to five of the largest diameter trees should be

retained per acre in the openings. 

All snags greater than 9 inches in diameter at the root crown should be retained.

At least two pieces of large 9 to 12 inches in diameter down woody material 8 to 10 feet long 

should be retained per acre.

Treatments or forest product removal should occur outside the nesting season (April 15th to

July 31st) or be preceded by surveys for nesting birds to avoid adverse consequences to nest

sites.

Mountain Bluebird Environmental Consequences. Table 21 provides a comparison by 

alternative of acres of Mountain Bluebird habitat in the pinyon-juniper and juniper grasslands 

vegetation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

84 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 21. Anticipated acreage of Mountain Bluebird habitat in pinyon-juniper and juniper 

grasslands inclusion by alternative over the life of the plan

Species MA Current

Acreage

Total Suitable Acres by Alternative

A B and C

Mountain Bluebird KRB 21,700

(100%)

19,530

(90%)

21,700

(100%)

Alternative A. Implementation would allow silvicultural management, managed grazing, and 

planned fire to achieve management objectives but would provide an uncertain outcome due to no 

defined targets for vegetation structure, thus limiting early- and mid-seral stage development and, 

thereby, providing less habitat for the Mountain Bluebird. 

Alternatives B and C. Because of explicit plan components for pinyon-juniper, implementation 

would result in a diversity of structural stages and composition in pinyon-juniper habitat for 

cavity nesting birds such as the Mountain Bluebird. 

Summary of Amount and Quality of MIS Habitat

MIS were evaluated for population trends and the amount and quality of habitat. Table 22 

summarizes the results. The two consequences columns have symbols that represent potential 

consequences to MIS population and habitat from implementation of the respective alternatives.

The following symbols represent environmental consequences to population, amount, and quality 

of habitat: (−) detrimental effect or less, (0) no effect or no change, (+) positive effect or

increased areal extent or better quality.

Table 22. Consequences to MIS population trends and consequences to amount and

quality of habitat by alternative

Common 

Name

Viability 

Risk

Consequences 

to MIS 

Population 

Trends by 

Alternative

Consequences to Amount and 

Quality of Habitat by Alternative

A B C 

A B C 

Amount Quality Amount Quality Amount Quality

Mixed Hardwood Riparian

Rio Grande

Turkey Low − + + 0 − 0 + 0 + 

Shortgrass Prairie

Burrowing 

Owl Moderate + + + + + + + + + 

Pinyon-Juniper

Mountain

Bluebird Low 0 + + 0 0 0 + 0 + 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 85

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

In mixed hardwood riparian and pinyon-juniper vegetation, none of the alternatives provide a 

meaningful increase in amounts of habitat for Rio Grande Turkey and Mountain Bluebird. 

However, habitat would improve in alternatives B and C through provisions of maintaining or 

attaining all seral stages in the representative ranges of desired vegetation structure and species

composition for the various MIS.

For Burrowing Owl, there is neither a change in amount or quality of habitat among alternatives. 

Cumulative Environmental 

Consequences to All Wildlife

Cumulative consequences are those consequences of foreseeable activities on non-Federal lands 

that, in conjunction with management activities likely to occur on the Grasslands, may intensify, 

negate, improve or otherwise affect the vegetation types, habitats, and species of the Grasslands. 

Below are considerations of consequences of activities that will likely occur on adjacent or 

nearby ownerships to the Grasslands. For purpose of analyses, the cumulative effects area is 

generally considered to be those non-Federal lands within a mile of the Grasslands’ borders.

Cumulative Consequences on Wildlife in General

Common to all alternatives but only affecting the shortgrass prairie and sand sagebrush

vegetation types on the KRB NGs. Groundwater used for cropland irrigation on nearby private 

lands contributes to aquifer drawdown. There may be less water available for wildlife.

Cumulative Consequences on Lesser 

Prairie-chicken and Black-tailed Prairie Dog

Common to all alternatives and shortgrass prairie, sand sagebrush, mixed-grass prairie and

shinnery oak vegetation types on the Grasslands. Conversion of grassland to cultivated land on 

private lands would have cumulative environmental consequences that would likely be as

follows: 

Wildlife species displaced from grassland vegetation types on private land that have been 

altered or converted to cropland may be forced to compete for limited territories available in 

the vegetation types on the Grasslands, or leave the area altogether. Overall, habitat across the 

landscape, including the Grasslands, will become more fragmented for species of viability 

concern such as the LPC, resulting in declining populations. 

Additional food sources from crop residue on adjacent private land would be available for 

wildlife residing on the Grasslands, depending on the home range of an individual species. 

This would benefit Grasslands wildlife. 

There would be an increased probability of invasive species colonizing within the vegetation 

types of the Grasslands from seed sources originating from adjacent private lands.

BTPD colonies will be increasingly restricted to the KRB NGs, when and where conversion 

of grassland to cropland occurs on adjacent private lands. 

There are about 109 linear miles of shelterbelts on non-Federal land within a mile of the BK NG 

border. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

86 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Common to All Alternatives in Mixed-grass and Shinnery oak. Off-Grasslands shelterbelts could 

compensate for any removal of undesirable native and nonnative invasive trees on the Grasslands 

with regard to perching and nesting habitat for raptors. However, off-Grasslands shelterbelts 

could have adverse effects on ground nesting birds or habitat such as that of the LPC due to the 

habitat shelterbelts provide for raptors.

Cumulative Consequences on Black-tailed 

Prairie Dog Colony Expansion on Private Lands 

Some private landowners enroll in the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 

Landowner Incentive Program Short and Mixed-grass Prairie Habitat Conservation and receive

incentive payments for BTPD colony establishment. Lands adjacent to RB units in Oklahoma 

have potential to be enrolled, and expansion of prairie dog colonies on private lands could spill

onto the Grasslands. It is unclear if New Mexico or Texas will develop such landowner assistance

programs, but if they do, this same cumulative consequence could apply to the Kiowa NG in New

Mexico and the portions of the RB NG in Texas.

BTPD expansion on private lands would have cumulative environmental consequences upon the 

shortgrass prairie vegetation type alternative as follows: 

Common to All on Shortgrass Prairie and Sand Sagebrush Vegetation Types. Expansion of 

prairie dog colonies on private lands would complement colony expansion on the Grasslands. 

An increase in prairie dog colonies on adjacent private lands would likely increase the prey

base to support raptors and for the viability high at-risk species, swift fox. Prairie dog 

increases on adjacent private lands would increase the likelihood of success of a black-footed 

ferret reintroduction on the Grasslands; similarly, there could be an increase in 

nesting/foraging areas for the viability high at-risk species (Mountain Plover) and cover for 

the MIS (Burrowing Owl). 

Cumulative Consequences on Lesser 

Prairie-chicken from Energy Development

There is increasing interest in wind energy development on private lands. As infrastructure

transmission lines are developed to support wind energy generation, more wind farms will likely

rise on lands near the Grasslands. 

Wind energy development on private lands would have cumulative consequences. 

Common to All Alternatives. Consequences to wildlife on mixed-grass prairie, sand sagebrush, 

and shinnery oak vegetation types would likely be as follows: 

Because of the LPC’s avoidance behavior of tall structures (e.g., wind turbines, transmission

poles), potential and suitable habitat for this species would likely decrease, making habitat on 

the Grasslands even more important.

Common to All Alternatives. Consequences to wildlife on all vegetation types would likely be as

follows: 

The effect of wind turbines on private lands within a mile of the Grasslands could be 

detrimental to bats and birds occurring in all vegetation types.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 87

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Invasive Species

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in 

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of invasive species that are useful to the decision maker and the public. Additional 

information is in the “Noxious/Invasive Species Specialist Report” (USDA Forest Service 

2011e). 

Affected Environment

Noxious/invasive species disrupt natural ecosystem functions and negatively affect both

ecological and socioeconomic conditions. Noxious/invasive species can displace desirable native

species, reduce the quality of wildlife habitat, damage riparian and watershed areas, increase

wildfire risk, and increase erosion. 

Before European settlement, there were no noxious/invasive plant species on the Grasslands. 

Disturbance factors such as periodic fire and grazing by wild ungulates kept native plants with 

invasive characteristics in check. Settlement introduced nonnative plant species and disrupted the 

natural fire cycle, allowing nonnative and native invasive plants to increase. Settlement of the 

Grasslands and increasing populations make it necessary to limit fire activity which allows native 

invasive plants to increase.

Introduction of invasive species has come from transportation of fugitive seed by motor vehicles 

and other sources. Riparian corridors have become colonized by invasive tree species such as

saltcedar, currently infesting about 540 acres in Mills Canyon. Tree species not native to the BK 

NG, although native to Oklahoma, such as black locust, cover about 1,600 to 1,800 acres. 

Siberian elm and eastern redcedar are very prolific and have dispersed over the landscape altering

the structure and composition of BK vegetation types. 

Feral hogs are prolific, detrimental to soils and the structure and composition of vegetation types, 

and are expanding in all BK NG vegetation types.

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. An integrated pest management program would be implemented on

the Grasslands to control invasive plant populations. Invasive species control would generally

improve Grasslands aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat; however, in the potential wilderness 

area under alternative C, treatment options may be restricted, require waivers, or require the

approval of the regional forester.

Implementation of saltcedar eradication would reduce evapotranspiration of the instream flow 

and enhance riparian habitat on the Canadian River within the potential wilderness area.

Alternative A. Where the current plan is silent, law, regulation, and policy and BMPs are used for 

guidance. 

Shelterbelts would be maintained and sustained, thus supplying a source for undesirable native 

and nonnative invasive tree seed from species such as black locust, eastern redcedar, and Siberian 

elm.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

88 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternatives B and C. Implementation would provide clear management direction for effective

noxious/invasive plant species control which would provide more benefit to soil condition, water

quality, and wildlife habitat. Feral hog populations would be reduced Grasslands-wide. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Some private ownership agriculture lands adjacent to the Grasslands have been undergoing 

mechanical, manual, and herbicide treatment for noxious invasive species for many years. This

has been done to maintain the agriculture value and other property values. The Grasslands have a 

one-half mile weed treatment zone adjacent to the Grassland units as well. 

Some private landholdings within the administrative boundary of BK have invasive species and

tree encroachment issues that may not have the same eradication emphasis as does the 

Grasslands.

Common to All Alternatives. There would be less areal extent of invasive plant species on the 

Grasslands due to control efforts on private lands. Feral hog control, or lack thereof, would have 

commensurate consequences on the Grasslands.

As part of the interagency Canadian River saltcedar control program, efforts up and downstream 

of the Mill Canyon MA to eradicate saltcedar positively affect the riparian area by reducing seed 

sources of saltcedar.

Alternative A. Lack of invasive tree control on private lands would result in further degradation of 

potential and suitable habitat for the LPC. 

Alternatives B and C. Lack of invasive tree control on private lands would further isolate and 

fragment Grasslands habitat.

The mutual benefit of concurrent invasive species control on the national grasslands and adjacent 

non-Federal land would be best realized under alternative B and least realized under alternative A 

in consideration of the environmental consequences of alternatives.

Climate Change

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in 

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of climate that are useful to the decision maker and the public. For more information, 

see “Appendix B: Southwestern Region Climate Change Trends and Potential Climate Change 

Strategies for Southwestern Region National Forests” in the draft Grasslands plan.

Affected Environment

The affected environment is the entire Grasslands, which experience large fluctuations in climate

conditions and extreme weather events such as prolonged droughts, flooding, hail, blizzards,

tornadoes, and dust storms. Evaporation typically exceeds precipitation, and demands on surface 

water and aquifers are expected to increase as the gap between precipitation and

evapotranspiration increases under the predicted Grasslands climate regime.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 89

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Grasslands average annual precipitation ranges from about 14 inches (Kiowa) to 29 inches (Black

Kettle); average annual temperature ranges from about 50 °F (Kiowa) to 59 °F (Black Kettle).

Climate data for specific locations on the Black Kettle and Kiowa NGs are displayed in tables 23 

and 24, respectively.

Table 23. Temperature, precipitation, and wind velocity on the Black Kettle NG

Month Average Monthly

High Temp (°F)

Average Monthly

Low Temp (°F)

Mean Annual

Precipitation (in.)

Average Wind

Velocity (MPH)

January 47.9 21.2 0.64 NA

February 54.5 26.1 0.95 NA

March 62.7 33 1.94 14.2

April 72.3 42.9 2.37 15.2

May 79.5 52.9 4.05 13.2

June 88.2 63 3.65 12.8

July 94.2 66.9 1.77 11.2

August 92.5 65.9 2.4 NA

September 84.5 57.7 2.64 11.4

October 74.3 45.4 1.98 12.6

November 59.4 32.4 1.23 13

December 49.2 24 0.84 NA

Average 71.6 Average 44.3 Total 24.5 Average 12.7

Reydon, OK. Periods of record=1971−2000 (temperature, precipitation); 1994–2010 (wind). NA=data not available.

http://climate.mesonet.org/county_climate/Products/CountyPages/roger_mills.html

Table 24. Temperature, precipitation, and wind velocity on the Kiowa NG

Month Average Monthly

High Temp (°F)

Average Monthly

Low Temp (°F)

Mean Annual

Precipitation (in.)

Average Wind

Velocity (MPH)

January 47.9 20.1 0.28 11.9

February 51.1 22.6 0.35 12.4

March 57.4 27.7 0.73 13.1

April 66.7 36.8 1.25 14.4

May 74.8 45.9 2.31 13.2

June 84.4 55.3 1.91 12.9

July 88.2 60.2 2.65 11.2

August 86.4 59 2.35 10.2

September 79.4 51.5 1.68 11.3

October 69.4 40.5 1.1 11.8

November 57.1 28.5 0.49 11.8

December 48.9 21.4 0.38 12.1

Average 67.7 Average 39.1 Total 15.5 Average 12.2

Clayton, NM. Period of record=1896−2010. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nm1887
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

90 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. Southern areas of the Great Plains (i.e., KRB and BKMC NGs) are 

projected to experience increased temperatures and decreased precipitation, similar to the 

Southwest (Karl et al. 2009). All alternatives would be subject to evolving Forest Service policy 

and directives on adapting to climate change.

Alternative A. Would not address climate change or mitigate climate change with adaptive 

response strategies.

Alternatives B and C. Implementation would have the same environmental consequences on the 

resources by responding to climate change effects through adaptive management of livestock,

prescribed fire, and more carbon sequestration from harvesting solid wood products such as posts

and poles through invasive species treatments. There would be more aquatic passage provision 

for aquatic organisms at road and stream crossings Grasslands-wide from management responses 

to potentially low flows as a result of climate change.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. Management of livestock, prescribed fire, and harvesting solid wood 

products would adjust by climate conditions; however, if grazing discontinued substantially on 

lands outside Grasslands management control, fuel loads have the potential to build and increase 

and intensify wildfire. The cumulative consequence would negate the ability of the Grasslands to 

use adaptive management as effectively.

Needs for Change 

Topic 2: Managed Recreation

Managed recreation includes the following resource areas: scenery, recreation, nature-based 

tourism, heritage resources, special areas/areas of interest, and wilderness.

Scenery

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in 

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of the scenic resources that are useful to the decision maker and the public. 

Additional information is in the “Scenic Resources Specialist Report” (USDA Forest Service

2011f). 

Affected Environment

The scenic resources and rural setting of the Grasslands strongly influence the experience of

visitors. The Grasslands are generally characterized by a pastoral agricultural landscape from vast

open grasslands of the KRB NGs to the rolling hills of the BK NG. Views from Grassland units

often include homes, barns, tractors, trucks, windmills, cattle, stock tanks, fences, and other 

private ranchland features. Grasslands residents are accustomed to viewing these structures and 

features and consider them a highly valued part of the traditional landscape. Many visitors also

have a deep appreciation of the rural character of the plains grasslands landscapes. The presence

of farms and ranches contributes to the “sense of place” or “cultural identity” that these areas

provide for residents and visitors alike. Scenic resources and scenic quality are important to local
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 91

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

residents and visitors as identified in the National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey. In the 2006 

survey, 51.5 percent said that part of the purpose of their visit was to view wildlife or birds, and 

47.5 percent stated that part of the purpose of their visit was to view scenery.

On the BKMC NGs, the many lakes, ponds, wetlands, and riparian areas complement the rolling

red hills, shelterbelts, shinnery oak, and other vegetation interspersed with the cultivated fields on 

surrounding private lands. Trails are available to allow the public to view wildlife and enjoy these 

scenic resources. Actively producing oil and gas wells, as well as those that have been plugged

and rehabilitated, are part of the BKMC NGs rural landscape, and not necessarily considered 

deviations from the desired landscape, but positive cultural features. 

The KRB NGs areas greet the traveler with a vast expanse of undulating waving grass,

punctuated by windmills and farmsteads. A large area on the RB NG called the “High Lonesome” 

typifies the prairie of lore. The High Lonesome is generally considered to be that part of Dallam 

County, Texas, from the Thompson Grove area, east to Sherman County. One of the most

distinctive and beautiful landscapes on the Kiowa NG is Mills Canyon, with its mosaic of 

evergreen trees, red-rock cliffs, and the free flowing Canadian River. These features are unique to

this part of the plains grasslands. There are two scenic byways, the Santa Fe Trail National Scenic 

Byway and La Frontera del Llano Scenic Byway, and a segment of the Santa Fe National Historic 

Trail in this part of the Grasslands. While there are several small (<2 acres) caliche extraction

pits, most of them are retired and rehabilitated; they are not located in areas viewed from the 

byways or developed recreation sites.

Local communities are beginning to capitalize on the value of the scenery on the Grasslands. 

Scenic byways and other travel and tourism efforts are incorporating scenery as a way to attract

visitors from outside. Protecting and highlighting scenic resources is becoming increasingly

important to the Grassland counties in contributing to rural economic development. 

The goal of visual management is to identify valued landscape characteristics and manage to 

protect them. Ninety-six percent of the Grasslands are assigned the visual quality objective

(VQO) of “modification,” where the valued landscape character appears moderately altered and 

deviations begin to dominate; disruptive activities may occur on modification acreages. Only 4 

percent of the Grasslands are assigned a VQO of “partial retention” where the valued landscape 

character appears slightly altered and deviations must remain visually subordinate. There are no

VQOs of “preservation” or “retention” assigned to the Grasslands, where the management

emphasis would maintain or enhance the valued landscape character. Table 25 shows the number 

of acres classified in partial retention or modification for each MA. 

Table 25. VMS classifications for visual quality from the 1985 plan

Management Area Partial Retention (acres) Modification

(acres)

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek 4,100 (around developed recreation sites and lakes) 29,012

Kiowa and Rita Blanca 8,186 (Mills Canyon) 222,656

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. Implementation of the 2012 travel management decision on the KRB 

NGs would minimize the impacts on scenic resources by prohibiting cross-country travel and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

92 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

unauthorized road development which scar the landscape and disturb vegetation and wildlife 

habitat. 

There is potential for additional oil and gas development. Alternative A (amendment 12 of the 

1985 plan) would not allow surface occupancy for leasable minerals in a number of scenic areas 

including developed recreation sites, Mills Canyon, and the Santa Fe National Historic Trail. 

Amendment 12 would be carried forward into alternatives B and C. Oil and gas development may 

adversely affect scenic touring and economic development. However, many constituents consider 

the gas and oil developments to be part of the pastoral landscape and not a deviation from valued 

characteristics and would not have any consequence to the scenic resource.

Alternative A. Using the Visual Management System, most of the Grasslands would be managed

for a VQO of modification, and there would be little emphasis on managing for visual quality.

The scenic resource direction in the 1985 plan addresses visual quality as it relates to vegetation

management and mineral exploration. For example, slash piles would be temporarily visible as a 

byproduct of vegetation management/invasive species treatments. This short-term activity would 

have limited consequences to visual quality; however, the VOQ of modification would allow 

visually disruptive activities to occur on the majority of the Grasslands.

Alternative A would provide no direction on wind energy development; however, there is

potential for large industrial wind energy developments. This activity most likely would detract

from areas that have been ranked as important or have a high concern level8

 for scenic quality

such as the scenic byways and the Santa Fe National Historic Trail, and may result in lost 

opportunities for tourism and associated economic development. 

Alternatives B and C. Using the Scenery Management System, a high scenic integrity level would 

be assigned to areas surrounding Lake Marvin, Lake McClellan, Mills Canyon, Sauz Creek,

Sugar Loaf Mountain, Santa Fe National Historic Trail, the High Lonesome, and developed

recreation sites. The majority of the Kiowa NG and small areas within the RB NG would be 

managed for moderate scenic integrity. Under this classification, the landscape appears slightly

altered and deviations remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Low scenic

integrity is proposed for about half of the RB NG and a small area on the Kiowa NG. Low scenic

integrity refers to areas where the landscape appears moderately altered and deviations begin to

dominate the landscape, this would be the equivalent of modification under the Visual 

Management System. In this area, resultant alterations would likely be large agricultural 

operations on adjacent lands and wind energy developments. 

Additional guidelines would be proposed for mitigating visual impacts from oil and gas

exploration and extraction, and other new energy or special use developments in areas of high

scenic integrity including heritage sites, riparian areas, and wetlands. Taken into consideration

during project planning and implementation, this would protect views and place emphasis on the 

vast horizon of the prairie. 

Large industrial wind farms would be discouraged within the foreground views of areas of high

scenic integrity. This would limit impacts on scenic resources and ensure that large vertical

 

8 Concern levels are a measure used in the scenery inventory process, of the degree of public importance placed on the 

aesthetics of landscapes. Concern levels are assigned to travelways and use areas to describe three levels of interest in 

scenery: high (1), moderate (2), or low (3). Concern level 1 (high) is defined as “National and/or regionally important 

locations largely associated with recreation and tourism use.” 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 93

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

structures do not dominate views from developed recreation sites or other areas of high scenic 

integrity. 

Proposed vegetation management practices may impact scenic resources. This includes removing 

shelterbelts in some locations on the BK NG. While all of these proposals can contain design 

elements and mitigation measures to meet the scenic integrity objectives, they could potentially 

affect the scenic quality of the landscapes. Projects with a tree harvest element would alter9

 the 

views for the long term, since trees are a prominent feature on the relatively flat grassland 

landscape.

Alternative C. Recommendation of the Canadian River PWA would provide management and 

enhancement of scenic quality. The recommendation would exclude Forest Road K600, the 

developed campground, and historic/interpretive site in the canyon. The wilderness

recommendation and associated management would be consistent with the high scenic integrity

objective for the area.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects area includes adjacent public and private lands within the viewshed of 

concern level 1 roads, trails, and areas. Due to the fragmented nature of the Grasslands, additional 

development and management on adjacent lands have the potential to negatively impact scenic 

quality as seen from the Grasslands. There is a potential for large industrial wind energy and 

additional oil and gas development; these activities both off and on the Grasslands would impact

scenic quality in areas such as the scenic byways and Santa Fe National Historic Trail.

Recreation

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in 

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of recreation that are useful to the decision maker and the public. Additional 

information can be found in the “Recreation Specialist Report” (USDA Forest Service 2011g). 

Affected Environment

Recreation opportunities on the Grasslands contribute to the quality of life enjoyed by residents

and visitors alike. The Grasslands provide opportunities for dispersed recreation including

hunting, fishing, camping, and hiking. Developed recreation, particularly the lake-based 

recreation complexes on the BKMC NGs, and the sites within Mills Canyon on the Kiowa NG, 

offer unique recreational opportunities for both residents and visitors to enjoy (USDA, Forest 

Service 2008). 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. 10 ROS classes of “roaded natural” and “semiprimitive

motorized” are currently assigned to the Grasslands. Roaded natural areas are outdoor settings 

 

9 Mitigations and controls on long-term alterations are not intended to restrict short-term impacts to scenery from 

activities such as fire management, vegetation management, or exploratory drilling.

10 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum is a tool for recreation planning. The ROS process recognizes that people choose a 

specific setting for recreation activities in order to realize a desired experience. ROS provides a framework for defining 

the relationship between outdoor setting and recreational activities. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

94 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

where there is an opportunity to affiliate with other users in developed sites. Within semiprimitive 

motorized areas, users have a moderate probability of experiencing solitude with a high degree of

self-reliance and challenge in using motorized equipment.11 The presence of state and county 

roads (access) was the primary factor in assigning these ROS classifications, and not necessarily 

the planned recreation management12. Within the Grasslands there are state, county, and NFS 

roads, and small spurs throughout the units. However, many receive little use. The flat terrain and 

minimal use of many roads reduce the influence they have on the recreational experience. Even 

with the roads, recreation users can experience a sense of remoteness, naturalness, and solitude in 

many locations. 

The ROS acreages currently proposed for each MA by alternative follow in tables 26 and 27. The

acreages for alternative A were assigned and compiled in the 1980s. The acreages for alternatives 

B and C were recently compiled as part of the planning process using GIS. Due to changes in

land ownership, mapping technology, and rounding, the total acreage between alternative A and 

alternatives B and C will vary slightly. We recalculated the ROS acreages on KRB (02/16/12) for 

alternatives B and C to reflect the addition of RN acres in Mills Canyon to provide access to the 

“Rock Table” dispersed site within the IRA exclusion. We also recalculated all other ROS acres 

for alternative C. That recalculation resulted in reduced RN and SPM acres, and added SPNM 

where Road 600 crosses the river. See the “Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Maps” in appendix 

L, or “Recreation Suitability” in appendix H for the distribution of ROS assignments. 

Table 26. Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National Grasslands ROS classes (acres) 

Alternative Semiprimitive

Nonmotorized

Semiprimitive

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural

A 0 3,583 29,529 0 

B 0 28,695 4,064 36

C 0 28,695 4,064 36

Table 27. Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands ROS classes (acres).

Alternative Semiprimitive

Nonmotorized

Semiprimitive

Motorized Roaded Natural Rural

A 0 161,942 68,900 0 

B 8,121 220,016 688 1,409

C 8,212 219,955 658 1,409

 

11 Roaded natural areas are predominantly natural with some site modifications that harmonize with the natural

environment. Semiprimitive motorized areas are predominantly natural, lacking human modification, except when

necessary for site protection.

12 There are seven factors that are considered when assigning ROS classes: access, remoteness, naturalness, facilities 

and site management, social encounters, visitor impacts, and visitor management. Roads generally influence many of 

these factors, including access, remoteness, and social encounters. However, the Grasslands are heavily roaded due to 

the relatively flat terrain, grasslands vegetation, and grazing and other agricultural uses.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 95

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Dispersed and Motorized Recreation.

13 Hunting occurs throughout the Grasslands, except for 

within developed recreation and administrative sites. It is a major activity on the BK NG, 

attracting as many as 3,000 hunters from across the Nation during spring Rio Grande Turkey 

season. BK is one of the best public hunting areas in the Nation for Rio Grande Turkey and 

Northern Bobwhite Quail, although deer and small game hunting are also popular around the 

shelterbelts and clumps of other invasive trees. Fewer out-of-state residents hunt on the Kiowa 

NG due to limits on permits issued in New Mexico. Big game hunting on the Kiowa NG is

popular for antelope and deer in northeast New Mexico, and to a limited extent on the RB NG. 

Cougar, mountain lion, black bear, and Barbary sheep occur in Mills Canyon. The Forest Service

does not have any restrictions on BTPD shooting on the Grasslands. Each state manages BTPDs 

differently, and none of the states have an actual season for this activity. Fishing is popular on the 

lakes and ponds of the BKMC NGs and the Canadian River on the Kiowa NG; the Forest Service

works with state agencies that stock the water bodies with fish. The projected trend is that hunting 

and fishing will remain a stable activity, with most activity taking place on the BK NG in

Oklahoma (USDA Forest Service 2008).

Day hiking and dispersed camping (both motorized and nonmotorized) occur on the Grasslands. 

Mills Canyon is the most popular area for dispersed camping on the Kiowa NG, where families

have been returning to favored sites among the cottonwoods in the canyon bottom and the juniper 

clusters on the rim. On the BK NG, dispersed camping most often occurs at the 32 designated 

dispersed sites that are accessed from open roads. Fire restrictions during drought shift use 

patterns from dispersed to developed sites.

The BKMC NGs currently contain about 13.7 miles of short hiking trails around the major

recreation sites, each of which is less than 2 miles long. A need for additional trails has been

identified, especially in Mills Canyon and near some of the developed recreation sites on the BK. 

Driving motor vehicles off road (cross country) is currently allowed on the KRB NGs but has

been prohibited on the BK NG since 1990. Off-road driving has resulted in user-created roads in 

Mills Canyon and other areas on the KRB NGs. The KRB NGs are currently undergoing a 

planning process in accordance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 294) that would 

provide for a system of roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use. After these roads, 

trails, and areas are designated, motor vehicle use off the designated system would be prohibited, 

except as identified on the motor vehicle use map (MVUM). As of May 2012, the proposed action 

would result in approximately 227 miles of roads open to all vehicles and no motorized trails. BK 

designated roads and trails for motor vehicle use and published a MVUM for the district in 2007. 

BK has designated 35 miles of roads and 10 miles of motorized trails.

OHVs are frequently used for hunting throughout the Grasslands. MC NG currently provides the 

only area designated for motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs).

Motorized users are more prevalent than back-country users in the Mills Canyon area. 

 

13 Dispersed recreation includes all recreation activities that take place away from developed recreation sites such as

campgrounds and picnic areas. This includes dispersed camping (where no facilities are provided), hunting, fishing,

hiking, horseback riding, and bird watching. Trail use for hiking, horseback riding and motorized recreation are

considered to be dispersed recreation. Occasional recreation special use permits are requested and permitted. These

include group activities such as Mountain Man Rendezvous and bicycle events.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

96 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Developed Recreation.

14 The Grasslands feature two major recreation complexes in Texas

designed around highly scenic reservoirs—McClellan Creek (1,449 acres) and Lake Marvin

Recreation Areas (576 acres). The BK NG features three other popular lake-based recreation

areas—Spring Creek, Skipout, and Black Kettle—which provide water-based recreational

opportunities not usually found in the Grasslands region. These lakes attract high numbers of 

visitors, with peak use occurring during the spring and fall hunting seasons, and hot summer

months. Lower lake levels associated with extreme events linked to climate change, such as

drought, result in decreased opportunities for lake recreation. The BKMC NGs manage six

developed recreation sites (including the lake complexes described above); all of them feature

camping and picnicking except the Cheyenne Nature Walk which is an interpretive trail. On the 

KRB NGs, picnic facilities have been developed at Thompson Grove and Felt. Camping and 

picnic facilities have been developed within Mills Canyon and on the rim. The Kiowa NG also

has two interpretive sites—Mills Orchard Ranch and the Santa Fe Trail. See appendix H, 

“Recreation Suitability,” for the complete inventory of recreation facilities on the Grasslands.

All developed recreation sites are open year-round. Drinking water is provided at all

campgrounds except Mills Canyon and Rim Campgrounds, and is monitored for public safety

standards. Reconstruction upgrades have partially occurred at all of the sites, with toilets and

other facilities brought up to meet current Architectural Barriers Act accessibility guidelines. 

Visitor use of developed sites does not typically exceed 70 percent of capacity annually. 

Recreational programs currently managed by the Grasslands generate revenue. Recreational 

annual revenue (based on a 3-year average 2005 to 2007) is $18,00015. Costs, based on a 3-year 

average of the program budget were $242,250. 

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. Motorized dispersed camping would be affected in Mills Canyon as

a result of the 2012 travel management decision. Dispersed camping by nonmotorized means

would not be affected. 

Economic efficiency based on revenues and costs was analyzed to estimate the present net value

(PNV) for recreation, livestock grazing, minerals, and nonrecreation special uses by alternative.

The PNV for alternative A is $152,409,146. The PNV for alternatives B and C is $151,130,674. 

The PNV difference between alternatives would be economically insignificant.

All alternatives would disallow surface occupancy for oil and gas leases in Mills Canyon of the

Canadian River. This would preserve the unique recreation features of the canyon.

Extreme weather events associated with climate change such as drought would reduce water

levels in lakes and result in fewer recreational opportunities. Similarly, campfires associated with

 

14 Developed recreation sites may include facilities such as restrooms, picnic tables, grills, trash containers, parking

barriers, and bulletin boards. Sites range in development levels from those with limited amenities to highly developed

facilities. 

15 Recreation revenues were negatively impacted during this period as Lake McClellan, the only recreation fee area on 

the Grasslands, was burned over by wildfire and closed. Revenue is the total income received from an activitiy and can 

be more or less than costs. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 97

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

dispersed camping would not be allowed under fire restrictions imposed during drought, 

consequently shifting use to developed sites. 

Alternative A. ROS settings for the entire Grasslands would be limited to two classes: roaded

natural or semiprimitive motorized. As a result, they would not accurately reflect the outdoor 

setting or how the public experiences recreation on the Grasslands. Opportunities to experience 

remoteness, naturalness, and solitude are higher than these ROS settings would suggest. There

would be no change in the recreation opportunities. 

No Grasslands-specific direction on dispersed recreation would be provided. This would have

little consequence to dispersed recreation activities such as hunting, fishing, and camping. These

activities would remain at current levels.

Developed recreation facilities would increase as new construction, increased capacity, and 

reconstruction of existing sites on the recreation complexes at Lake Marvin, Lake McClellan, and 

unspecified areas on the KRB NGs would be prescribed. The outcome would be recreation

developments that far exceed demand. 

Alternatives B and C. Alternatives B and C would include four ROS classes in the inventory: 

rural, roaded natural, semiprimitive motorized, and semiprimitive nonmotorized. The inclusion of 

two new classes, semiprimitive nonmotorized (SPNM) and rural (R) would provide more latitude 

for recreation planning. This would result in no change in the recreation opportunities provided to 

the public. 

On the KRB NGs, 1,409 acres would be reclassified from roaded natural to rural near areas 

developed for commercial or industrial uses. This would reduce the area available for developed 

recreation, but would help preserve public safety. 

In Mills Canyon and along the Canadian River and Santa Fe National Historic Trail, 8,139 acres 

would be reclassified from roaded natural and semiprimitive motorized to semiprimitive 

nonmotorized. This would reduce the area for motorized recreation opportunities, but would 

protect these natural and cultural features.

Guidelines would be provided to restrict dispersed camping within 200 feet of historic sites,

trailheads (except those trailheads with designated dispersed sites already in use), stock water, 

and interpretive sites. This would result in protections for these recreation/cultural resources;

however, there would be less area available for dispersed camping outside of the designated

dispersed sites such as those on the BK NG.

Guidelines would be provided for construction and reconstruction of developed and dispersed

recreation (trails) but would not prescribe specific projects. Management approaches would

encourage evaluation of use trends when updating dispersed and developed sites. This would 

result in recreation developments that are responsive to visitor demand and expectations.

Alternative C. The consequences of alternative C would be the same as alternative B except for

the following: 

• Hunting and big game retrieval would be nonmotorized in the Canadian River PWA. This

would result in an inconvenience for individuals who are mobility impaired.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

98 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

• Nonmotorized recreation use would increase. Motorized use in the Canadian River PWA 

would cease. No decrease in visitation would be expected, but back-country users would 

eventually replace motorized users.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative environmental consequences analysis area includes the communities near the

Grasslands. We searched for recreation programs or developments in and around the Grasslands 

that would contribute to cumulative consequences and found none. 

Nature-Based Tourism

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in 

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of nature-based tourism that are useful to the decision maker and the public. 

Additional information is in the “Special Areas and Nature-based Tourism Specialist Report” 

(USDA Forest Service 2011h). 

Affected Environment

The Grasslands are located in northeastern New Mexico and the panhandles of Texas and

Oklahoma. This region of the country is predominantly rural, and there are a number of unique, 

nature-based recreational opportunities available.

Cooperative programs with state and Federal agencies and nongovernmental organizations 

(NGOs) are currently in place to facilitate the conservation of natural and cultural resources and

to promote nature-based tourism. Bird and wildlife watching are developing into popular 

activities. A watchable wildlife viewing area is located in Mills Canyon and the National

Audubon Society has recognized two important bird areas on the Kiowa NG—Perico and Sauz

Creeks. 

Ecotourism on the BK NG includes the Black Kettle Loop Trail, a segment of the Great Plains

Trail of Oklahoma sponsored by the State of Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation and 

other state agencies. Black Kettle Loop is an auto tour route that winds through the western

Oklahoma panhandle including BK NG. Also within BK is Croton Creek Wildlife Viewing Area.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A. Direction would not be provided for managing nature-based tourism. This would 

result in opportunities missed to promote ecotourism and contribute to rural economic

development. Tourism would increase as interest in birding and other natural or cultural features 

increases among the recreating public. However, this would be a natural increase and not a result 

of the plan.

Alternatives B and C. Management approaches would be provided to develop cooperative 

partnerships that provide protections for wildlife habitat. This would result in increased 

opportunities for bird watching, wildlife viewing, and access to the important bird areas. This 

would increase visibility and visitation and support rural economic development. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 99

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

We considered programs such as watchable wildlife, Black Kettle Loop Trail, and the important 

bird areas that would have positive benefits for rural economic development and wildlife/habitat

conservation as key elements of nature-based tourism. This would result in increased jobs in 

conservation and service industries associated with tourism. Alternatives B and C would have

positive cumulative consequences for nature-based tourism. Alternative A would not have any 

cumulative consequence to nature-based tourism. It would allow this activity, but would not

emphasize partnerships or programs.

Heritage Resources

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in 

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of the heritage resource that are useful to the decision maker and the public. 

Additional information is in the “Heritage Resources Specialist Report” (USDA Forest Service 

2011i).

Affected Environment

Surveys of heritage resources have been extremely limited on the KRB NGs. Most surveys have

been for range improvements, fence lines, utility corridors, and small wildlife projects. These are

typically less than 10 acres and are often linear. Some block surveys with substantial acreage have

been conducted for fuels projects. Surveyed acres on the KRB total 15,087. This represents only 6 

percent of the total KRB NGs acreage. Two hundred and twenty-seven heritage resources have

been documented on the KRB. The majority of recorded sites are Anglo-European in nature,

consisting of ranching and farming homestead features and artifacts. The other site type consists

of prehistoric and historic Native American artifact scatters.

The area around the KRB has small and widely distributed rural populations and lacks a presence

of commercial development infrastructure (wind farms, oil and gas wells, cell phone towers, etc.).

The majority of the ground-disturbing undertakings on the KRB are for grazing infrastructure

such as wells, stock tanks, water lines, and fences. Damage done to Native American heritage

resources largely came about in the historic era through farming, ranching, collecting of artifacts,

and the environmental degradation of the Dust Bowl. The homestead sites range in condition 

from foundations only to standing walls with a large number of artifacts.

Five heritage resources have been designated as priority heritage assets and as such receive

frequent monitoring for changes in condition and need for maintenance. These sites include two

homestead complexes and three prehistoric rock shelters. Many preservation and interpretation

opportunities still exist on the KRB NGs.

On the BKMC NGs, there has been much more survey—18,900 acres, or 57 percent of the total. 

Four hundred and thirty sites have been recorded. The most numerous recorded site type on these

lands is the Native American lithic scatter, with historic remains a distant second. 

Areas around the BKMC NGs have higher and denser population levels and more development 

infrastructure such as natural gas wells and pipelines. Heritage resources were historically

damaged by farming and ranching activities, as well as by environmental circumstances. The
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

100 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

homestead sites have much less integrity than those on the KRB, with few retaining standing 

walls.

Currently there is one priority heritage asset on the BKMC, a prehistoric Native American site.

The visitor’s interpretive trail located adjacent to the district office holds the best opportunity for 

a heritage resources project on the BKMC.

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. Law, regulation, and policy would mandate Agency compliance of 

heritage resource protection, as well as accomplish goals that enhance the overall stewardship 

standards of the program, add to the public’s enjoyment and education, and promote the economic 

potential of the surrounding communities. Due to law, regulation, and policy, any consequences 

of any alternative would be mitigated.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

There would be no cumulative environmental consequences to heritage resources from off the

Grasslands and no difference in cumulative consequences among alternatives.

Special Areas/Areas of Interest

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in 

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of special areas and areas of interest that are useful to the decision maker and the 

public. Additional information is in the “Special Areas and Nature-based Tourism Specialist

Report” (USDA Forest Service 2011h). For approximate location, see the “Special Areas and 

Eligible Scenic River Map” in appendix L. 

Affected Environment

Motorized activity on the entire KRB MA in which the following special areas and areas of 

interest are located will be governed by a 2012 travel management decision.

Canadian Eligible Scenic River. The Canadian Eligible Scenic River is an approximately 20 mile, 

free-flowing segment within Mills Canyon on the Kiowa NG with 17 miles on Forest Service 

lands and about 3 miles on other ownership. The outstanding and remarkable qualities associated

with this eligible scenic river are its unique historic, scenic, geologic, and recreation features. For 

further information, see appendix C. 

There has been uncontrolled motorized use and infestations of invasive plants (saltcedar) along 

the river. Human activity, including the use of various types of motorized vehicles, is evident

throughout the canyon. User-created roads and trails exist along the river and cross the river.

Vehicle tracks across meadows and up steep slopes further detract from natural ecosystem

integrity and appearance (USDA Forest Service 2008c). 

The dominance of invasive plants within the Canadian River corridor detracts from the scenic

quality, water quality, wildlife habitat, naturalness, and other values of this area, although recent

treatments for invasive species have resulted in a decline of saltcedar.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 101

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Santa Fe Trail National Scenic Byway and La Frontera Del Llano Scenic Byway. These are scenic

highway corridors that pass through the Kiowa NG. The Santa Fe Trail National Scenic Byway

runs in an east-west direction through Clayton, then north past Rabbit Ear Mesa toward the 

Colorado state line. La Frontera Del Llano Scenic Byway passes north-south through the Mills

units between the towns of Abbott and Mosquero. The Grasslands play an important role in

contributing to the scenic quality along the corridors and providing public open space uses such

as picnic areas and interpretive sites. Currently, there are no uses on the Kiowa NG that conflict

with the scenic resources along the byway corridors, and that trend is likely to continue.

Visitation in these areas is projected to follow the national trend and increase as the nationwide 

interest in historical and cultural tourism increases (SESR).

Santa Fe National Historic Trail. The Santa Fe National Historic Trail is a national historic

landmark. A 2.4-mile segment of the trail is located on the Kiowa NG and is in a high scenic

integrity area. In 2001, the Forest Service developed an interpretive kiosk and day use/picnic site

near the historic trail route in accordance with the (USDI) “Santa Fe National Historic Trail

Comprehensive Management and Use Plan.” The historic landmark site provides interpretive and

recreational opportunities to a wide variety of visitors and contributes to local tourism. The 

Grasslands segment is especially important since most of the trail is located on private land and 

not accessible to visitors. The primary conflict to maintaining the historic and scenic qualities of 

the trail area is the unregulated motorized use that occurs there (USDA Forest Service 2008b). 

There is potential for wind energy development on both Forest Service and adjacent lands. The 

Forest Service would not have authority to control energy developments on adjacent lands. 

Research Natural Areas (RNAs). There are no designated RNAs on the Grasslands. Shortgrass 

prairie and mixed-grass prairie were identified in the 1985 land management plan for study as

possible RNAs on the Grasslands. A third vegetation type—sand sagebrush—was also found to

be of interest. None were ultimately designated; however, many (about 20) ongoing research

projects are being or have been conducted. 

The 2009 RNA assessment16 for the Grasslands evaluated each vegetation type according to

Southwestern Region evaluative criteria. RNA needs were ranked on a scale of 1–3. A rank of 1 

reflects the least need, the vegetation type is well represented. A rank of 2 indicates that the 

vegetation type is moderately represented, but more representation may be warranted. A rank of 3 

reflects little or no representation of a particular vegetation type. In this assessment, ranks of 2 

and 3 are considered appropriate for RNA recommendation. The vegetation types considered

were:

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek NG

• Shinnery oak, ranked as 3, very underrepresented landscape wide

• Mixed-grass prairie, ranked as 3, very underrepresented landscape wide

 

16 The objective of this effort was to support an effective ecological distribution of RNAs across major climate 

gradiants, biophysical settings, and across important vegetation types within life zones.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

102 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Kiowa and Rita Blanca NG

• Cottonwood-willow riparian, ranked as 3, very underrepresented landscape wide

• Shortgrass prairie, ranked as 2 underrepresented landscape wide

• Sand sagebrush, ranked as 3, very underrepresented landscape wide

• Pinyon-juniper, ranked as 2, underrepresented landscape wide

None of these vegetation types were recommended as a research natural area. All areas have been 

substantially modified by previous, unmanaged livestock grazing, irrigation, cultivation, road 

building, invasive species encroachment, herbicide use, fire suppression, and/or cumulative 

effects from off-Grasslands ownerships. For more information, see appendix D, which describes

the evaluation process and conclusions for each vegetation type considered. 

Environmental Consequences

Canadian Eligible Scenic River

Common to All Alternatives. Implementation of the 2012 travel management decision would 

eliminate off-road use in Mills Canyon. The consequence would be reduced impacts from usercreated roads and trails.

All alternatives would preserve the Canadian River’s scenic river potential, and would 

recommend acquisition of lands within the canyon as they become available. The consequence 

would be preservation of the outstanding and remarkable qualities of the river.

Scenic Byways and National Historic Trail

Common to All Alternatives. Implementation of the 2012 travel management decision on the KRB 

would minimize the impacts on scenery and heritage resources by prohibiting cross-country use 

and unauthorized road development. 

Standards for oil and gas leasing would prohibit surface occupancy within the boundaries of 

heritage resource sites that are listed or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic

Places. Additionally, no surface occupancy would be allowed in any developed recreational

facility or interpretive site. The consequence would be minimal impacts to heritage and recreation

sites.

Alternative A. Direction and guidance for the scenic byways and national historic trail would not 

be provided. However, these features would be managed to standards based on law, regulations,

and policy that recognize and preserve selected roads based upon one or more archaeological, 

cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities. It would also provide protections for 

the national historic landmark (Santa Fe National Historic Trail).

Alternatives B and C. Design requirements would restrict wind energy developments to 500 feet

outside of sites that are listed or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places 

to minimize impacts to the Santa Fe National Historic Trail. 

All unauthorized routes where resource damage is occurring in the area surrounding the Santa Fe 

National Historic Trail would be rehabilitated. The outcome would be a nonmotorized corridor 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 103

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

that promotes conservation of the historic features and setting of the trail. Ruts and other historic

evidence would be protected from human impacts.

Research Natural Areas

Alternative A. Grasslands management would be directed to evaluate a specific species of

vegetation (ecosystem) on each ranger district for possible recommendation and designation as an 

RNA. None of these areas qualify as RNAs; there would be no effect on RNAs.

Alternatives B and C. Evaluation, recommendation, or designation of specific ecosystems as 

RNAs would not be proposed; however, Forest Service Southwestern Region guidance directs 

that all vegetation types be evaluated for recommendation. All were evaluated and none met the

criteria for recommendation. No consequence to research opportunities is anticipated, as research

opportunities have been or are ongoing.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative environmental consequences analysis area is the land immediately adjacent to

these special areas of the Grasslands. The cumulative environmental consequences do not differ

by alternative.

The Forest Service is currently working under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the

National Park Service to manage our segment of the Santa Fe National Historic Trail. The Park

Service has developed a strategic plan for the future that includes interpretation, education, and a 

marketing strategy to promote the trail locally, regionally, and nationally (Santa Fe National 

Historic Trail, Final Strategic Plan, 2003). The result will be consistency in signage and 

appearance of the trail and associated features.

Both the Santa Fe Trail and the scenic byways could be visually impacted due to large wind 

developments on lands adjacent to the Grasslands.

Wilderness

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of wilderness that are useful to the decision maker and the public. Additional 

information can be found in the “Kiowa National Grassland Wilderness Evaluation Report” (see 

the Web address provided in appendix B).

Affected Environment

The Canadian River PWA was evaluated to determine how it might fit into the National

Wilderness Preservation System, which includes all of the wilderness areas in the United States.

The PWA was evaluated for capability, availability, and need. Capability includes five sets of 

factors that consider how the current conditions fit the definition of wilderness. Availability

examines the potential impact of designating an area as wilderness to future land uses and 

activities; it is a summary of the tradeoffs between wilderness and other uses. The criteria used to

evaluate need consider other wilderness and nonwilderness areas that provide opportunities for

unconfined outdoor recreation, or the preservation of certain ecosystem characteristics. The PWA

was rated medium for wilderness capability, medium for availability, and low for need. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

104 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Assumptions and methodology for this evaluation are summarized in the “Kiowa National 

Grassland Wilderness Evaluation Report” (see the Web address provided in appendix B). 

Size, Topography, and Location. The Canadian River PWA is 6,028 acres, of which 5,444 acres

are national grasslands and 584 are State Trust lands17. It is located in northeast New Mexico on 

the Canadian River about 55 river miles above Conchas Reservoir. The area is defined 

geographically by Mills Canyon with elevations ranging from 6,100 feet at the river to 6,800 feet

at the canyon rim. A 150-foot wide corridor on either side of K600, K601, and K603 system 

roads, and a short dirt road numbered U MIL011 is excluded from the Potential Wilderness Area. 

The boundary of the PWA would include a substantial portion of the Canadian River IRA. We 

interpret the map in the “Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation FEIS,” 2000, as excluding

roads K600 to the river, K601to the developed campsites, and K603 to the ruins parking lot, and a 

short dirt road numbered U MIL011 that provides access to the dispersed site known as the “Rock 

Table” from the IRA boundary. There is considerable boundary coincident with private land on 

the west side of the potential wilderness, which is frequently used to access Mills Canyon. 

Nearby population centers include Las Vegas, New Mexico, to the southwest and Raton, New

Mexico, to the northwest. The PWA is located approximately 40 miles east of Interstate 25. 

Vegetation. Along the canyon bottom, within the river flood plain, vegetation is dominated by 

invasive saltcedar, although some cottonwood and willow remains. Much work has been done to

reverse this trend. The dominant vegetation on canyon slopes varies depending on aspect, with

pinyon pine, juniper, and Gambel oak the principal tree species. The vegetation on cooler, moister

side drainages and the edge of the canyon rim is generally comprised of ponderosa pine stringers.

Surroundings and Land Ownerships. The vegetation above the canyon rim is characterized by 

shortgrass and mixed-grass prairie on rolling hills. The non-Forest Service lands adjacent to the 

PWA boundary are parcels of private ranchlands and lands managed by the State of New Mexico

and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).There are 584 acres of State land inside the PWA

boundary18. 

Current Uses and Appearance. The potential wilderness area is dominated by canyon terrain.

Recreational use levels are light to moderate with motor vehicle use, horseback riding, and 

fishing and hiking the most common summer activities. This area does not have any motorized 

trails and only a short hiking trail at the ruins of the Mills Ranch house. Most of the horseback 

 

17 Differences between documents in reported acreages are a result of a recalculation using GIS. The recalculation 

eliminated from the NFS land total, the 60 meter corridor surrounding the 600 Road.

18 The Cibola NF and NGs acknowledge that the potential wilderness as described and configured in alternative C 

includes approx. 584 acres of New Mexico State Land Office (SLO) land. This alternative does not commit the SLO to 

the exchange or sale of that parcel to the U.S. Forest Service. If the Forest Service responsible official selects 

alternative C as the preferred Grasslands plan, consultation with the SLO as to willingness to exchange or sell said land 

would be further pursued during the interim between the draft and final environmental impact statements. If the SLO 

does not wish to exchange or sell the land in question, the boundaries of the potential wilderness would be adjusted and 

the wilderness reduced in size. Similarly, recommendation of wilderness would not affect the management of adjacent 

State land. If the area were to be designated by Congress as wilderness, it would not prevent any activity or

development from taking place on adjacent State or private land. Non-Federal lands surrounded by wilderness are

ensured adequate access to their property in accordance with FSM 2326.13. Non-Federal lands that have access

available from outside the wilderness will not be entitled access to their properties through a wilderness area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 105

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

riding occurs on the roads or unauthorized routes off K 600. This reach of the Canadian River is 

predominately a warm water fishery that receives light to moderate fishing activity. At this time

there are no special use permits authorizing recreation use for activities such as guided tours or

big game hunting. This portion of the Grasslands is a very popular deer hunting area, which

results in increased use of the dispersed camping sites in the canyon. Between the rim and the 

canyon bottom, there are two small 2-track roads that access camping spots in mid-canyon. It is

open year round unless snow closes the road in winter. The Canadian River PWA and surrounding 

areas appear mostly natural other than the occurrence of user-created 2-track roads, invasive

plants growing along the river, historic adobe structures located in the canyon, developed

campground facilities, fences, dirt tanks, vehicle barriers, signs, hardened low water crossings,

forest development roads, and bridges. The PWA contains, or partially contains, three grazing 

allotments which are stocked with cattle.

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. Restriction of motorized access into the potential wilderness would

present a substantial enforcement issue where the potential wilderness is bounded by private

lands on the west. If the proposed action under consideration in the pending KRB travel 

environmental assessment is selected, the motor vehicle use map for the Kiowa NG would 

prohibit motorized travel within the area under alternative A. A change in ROS classification from 

semiprimitive motorized to semiprimitive nonmotorized as proposed by alternative B would 

prohibit public motorized activity in the area, under that alternative. Finally, wilderness 

designation would prohibit motorized access under alternative C. 

Alternative A. This alternative does not recommend wilderness. This alternative would manage

the canyon to preserve its wild, scenic, or recreation river potential. It would preserve the unique 

qualities of the river.

Motorized trails would be allowed for recreation (unless decided otherwise by a travel

management decision), reducing the self-reliant experience and solitude common to wilderness.

Management direction for the area would promote and demonstrate grassland agriculture.

Alternative B. This alternative does not recommend wilderness. The Mills Canyon MA would be

managed as an unroaded back-country area. Protection of the outstanding and remarkable features

of the eligible scenic river segment would be maintained. 

The effect of not designating wilderness would be a variety of uncrowded, motorized and 

nonmotorized recreation opportunities in a natural or natural appearing setting. Future recreation

developments and trails would be designed to maintain integrity of the natural setting.

Saltcedar control treatments and prescribed fire activities using motorized or mechanical 

equipment would be allowed and improve the functioning of natural systems within the canyon. 

Some wilderness characteristics may be compromised by structures that may be needed to reduce

the impacts of recreation uses on the riparian habitat.

Livestock grazing and recreation activities would have minimal conflict. Grazing would be used

strategically to manage fuels and support healthy vegetation management. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

106 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternative C. This alternative would recommend wilderness designation on 6,028 acres. The 

Canadian River PWA would be managed to protect its wilderness characteristics. Protection of the 

outstanding and remarkable features of the eligible scenic river segment would be maintained.

The area would be managed to promote an open, natural, or natural appearing landscape.

Motorized recreation would be terminated and nonmotorized recreation would dominate the area.

Use of motorized equipment or mechanized transport would not be allowed except when 

addressing the need for essential activities that cannot be met by primitive means. While a 

decrease in visitation would not be expected, motorized users would likely be replaced by those

seeking a back-country experience. The economic effects of substituting one type of recreation

user for another would have unclear impacts on tourism. 

Future saltcedar control treatments would not be prohibited, but would be executed without 

motorized or mechanized equipment. Natural processes would be the dominant influence upon 

vegetation composition and structure, as management influence would be limited.

FSM 2320 would be the source of direction for wildfire suppression strategy and prescribed fire.

Managing fire in wilderness would be different than for fire occurring in other areas. Prescribed

fire would be limited to restoration projects that mimic natural fire regime or reduce unacceptable

fuel loads.

Unobligated grazing allotments, at the time of designation, would not be permitted for use in the

future.

Cumulative Consequences

There are no known or anticipated cumulative effects upon the Canadian River PWA. 

Needs for Change 

Topic 3: Human Influences

Roads and Access

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of roads and access that are useful to the decision maker and the public. Additional 

information is in the “Roads and Access Specialist Report” (USDA Forest Service 2011j).

Affected Environment

The KRB NGs have about 492 miles of NFS roads (herein referred to as “system roads”), while

the BKMC NGs contain about 118 miles of system roads (USDA Forest Service 2011g). The

majority of roads in Grassland units are native surface roads maintained for high-clearance

vehicles. Roads within or leading to administrative sites or developed recreation sites are

typically gravel-surfaced or paved roads maintained for passenger car traffic.

Because of the checkerboard pattern of ownership within the Grasslands administrative

boundaries, many portions of Grassland units are accessed only by roads passing through private

property for which there are no legal public rights-of-way. While many property owners allow

passage through their property to access Federal lands, some do not. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 107

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

There are more NFS roads than are needed for administration of the Grasslands. Road

maintenance budgets have steadily declined over the last several years, and this trend is expected

to continue in the foreseeable future.

In addition to the excess of existing NFS roads, there are many user-created roads as a result of 

unmanaged motor vehicle use. User-created roads are not maintained, and many are either

causing environmental damage or are likely to cause damage at some point in the future if not

addressed. The issue of user-created roads is more of a concern on the KRB NGs, where off-road 

vehicle use is allowed, than it is on the BKMC NGs, where off-road vehicle use has been

prohibited for some time.

To comply with the 2005 Travel Management Rule, the Forest Service is in the process of 

designating NFS roads and trails for motor vehicle use. This travel management process has been

completed for the BKMC NGs, and a motor vehicle use map (MVUM) displaying the designated

roads and trails has been published. The travel management process for the KRB NGs is

scheduled to be completed prior to the transition to the new Grasslands plan. 

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. Roads and access would be subject to the decisions of the KRB and 

BKMC travel management decisions. The lack of legal access to NFS lands would be identified 

as a management concern and direct that rights-of-way would be obtained to address this concern. 

Increased access would facilitate Grasslands management and improve the ability to provide 

goods and services in a variety of resource areas. Regulation and policy govern decommissioning 

of NFS and user-created roads and methods of decommissioning, which consist of physical 

treatments to restore the road to a more natural state.

Alternatives B and C. Unneeded roads (both NFS roads and user-created roads) would be 

decommissioned and methods of decommissioning addressed. Travel would become more 

centralized on remaining roads, and other resources would be less adversely affected by motor 

vehicles.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Common to all alternatives, the non-NFS land inside the Grasslands administrative boundaries 

was selected as the cumulative effects analysis area. There would be no cumulative

environmental consequences associated with legal access to or through Grasslands units, nor 

would there be any cumulative consequences to the decommissioning of unneeded roads or to the 

support of the travel management decision.

Land Adjustment

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of land adjustment that are useful to the decision maker and the public. Additional 

information is in the “Land Adjustment Specialist Report” (USDA Forest Service 2011k). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

108 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Affected Environment

There have been recent land acquisitions through purchase of 386 acres in 2010 and one being

processed for purchase in 2011 of 160 acres within the KRB NGs. Additionally, there was a land 

exchange (disposal) in 1992 of 14 acres within the BK NG. 

Lands acquired from willing sellers have qualities that improve the Agency’s ability to carry out 

its mission on the national grasslands. The location or condition of the parcel being acquired

contributes to consolidation of the ownership pattern of the national grasslands, provides

necessary road or trail access to NFS lands, has unique or high quality natural or cultural

resources, improves the management or designated special areas, contains important plant or 

animal habitats, contains or influences wetlands or flood plains, or provides opportunities to

rehabilitate or stabilize adjacent NFS lands.

Grasslands units available for exchange or disposal are generally isolated parcels and lack unique 

natural and cultural resources.

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. There would be positive environmental consequences to the 

Grasslands from land adjustment acquisition or exchange among all alternatives. All alternatives

encourage acquisition of lands needed to improve management or meet specific administrative

needs including rights-of-way. Disposal of less desirable property would be accomplished by sale

or exchange.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The non-NFS land inside the Grasslands administrative boundaries was selected as the 

cumulative effects analysis area. Land adjustment acquisition would result in no cumulative

environmental consequences as it pertains to management direction by alternative.

Minerals and Energy Development

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of minerals and energy development that are useful to the decision maker and the 

public. Additional information is in the “Minerals and Energy Specialist Report” (USDA Forest

Service 2011l).

Affected Environment

Production of oil and gas products is vital to the national, regional, and local economies and to

the quality of life of most Americans. In 2001, 36 active wells on the BK yielded roughly 3 

billion cubic feet of natural gas and 13,500 barrels of oil. On the MC NG, 13 wells yielded about 

5,900 barrels of oil. 

Leases and royalties generate revenue from gas and oil. Annual revenue (based on a 3-year 

average, 2005 to 2007) is $13,468,000. Costs, based on a 3-year average of the program budget 

were $445,252. 

Current mining practices often include disposal of drilling fluids and cuttings onsite. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 109

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Oil and gas operations on the BK make a significant contribution to the local economy, job 

market, and county and state tax structure. In 2001, oil and gas operations generated royalties that

contributed nearly $400,000 annually to schools and roads in Roger Mills County and provided 

roughly 80 jobs in the local communities. In 2010, royalties soared to nearly $4 million. 

The geologic potential for hard rock mining in the Grasslands appears to be limited. There is

potential for mining mineral materials; however, mineral materials are not available for 

commercial or private use because of stipulations in the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act. The 

KRB NGs provide special use permits to public authorities and agencies under the condition that

the mineral materials are used for public purposes. Two permits have been granted to county 

governments for extracting caliche, a subsoil deposit of calcium carbonate that is used to surface

roads. There are currently two active caliche pits that encompass less than 4 acres each. The 

projected future trend is that there will continue to be an insignificant amount of noncommercial 

mineral material extraction from the Grasslands. 

Some oil and gas leases and active wells do exist on the BKMC NGs in areas classified as having

high or moderate scenic integrity; these are non-Federal wells on lands where mineral rights did

not transfer to the Federal government when lands were purchased under the Bankhead-Jones 

Act.

Two oil and gas leases have recently been issued for the RB NG in units 89 and 91; the leases are

in effect as of October 1, 2010. 

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. Where not specifically directed, minerals and energy development 

would be conducted in accordance with law, regulation, and policy and through the use of BMPs. 

Such practices would result in rehabilitating defunct oil and gas drilling pads and associated 

roads. Additionally, surface occupancy would be prohibited in some areas to protect special 

values or uses. No open pits will be allowed, and a closed loop drilling system will be used for all 

oil and gas drilling. 

Economic efficiency based on revenues and costs was analyzed to estimate the present net value 

(PNV) for recreation, livestock use, minerals and energy, and nonrecreation special uses by 

alternative. The PNV for alternative A is $152,409,146. The PNV for alternatives B and C is 

$151,130,674. The difference in PNV between alternatives would be economically insignificant.

Alternatives B and C. Implementing BMPs that benefit the environment may also increase

production costs as:

• Soil and water contamination would be minimized because all drilling fluids and drill 

cuttings would be removed from the Grasslands. 

• Common variety mineral extraction sites and drilling sites would be rehabilitated to 

specifications within 1 to 3 years after disturbance. 

• As existing structures on mineral leases would meet visual objectives.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Extraction activities on the Grasslands may increase as global and domestic energy prices rise.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

110 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Special Forest Products

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of special forest products that are useful to the decision maker and the public. 

Additional information is in the “Forest Products Specialist Report” (USDA Forest Service 

2011m).

Affected Environment

A small portion of the Grasslands contains pinyon pine and juniper (pinyon-juniper) woodlands 

on the western half of the Kiowa NG and mixed-hardwood woodlands encroaching on the BK 

NG. Over the past 60 to 80 years, dependence on wood products has declined as lifestyles shifted

from subsistence to ranching. There is a relatively low demand by rural residents for posts, poles, 

and firewood, and for vigas and latillas that are occasionally used as home building materials.

The supply of firewood on the Grasslands is dependent on the amount of wood that has been

thinned by Grassland employees or contractors. On the KRB, cut down trees are left at thinning 

sites for the public to remove. This is a cost-effective way to meet ecological objectives.

The Kiowa NG provides just over 100 cords per year for sale. Market value has been about $100 

per cord, yielding revenues of about $10,000 per year. Demand is not expected to greatly

increase, as the human population near the pinyon-juniper woodlands is low and declining.

Even though the supply of available wood on the Kiowa NG has fluctuated between 200 and 600

acres during the period from 1998 to 2005, it has been adequate to meet the demand for wood 

from this remote area. It is projected that the supply will continue to adequately meet firewood 

demand in this area as thinning is expected to continue in order to meet ecological objectives.

Currently, about 500 to 900 acres of pinyon-juniper that are overstocked and encroaching onto the

shortgrass prairie are thinned annually. 

The BK NG has designated areas where the public may remove undesirable mixed hardwood 

trees for firewood. Although supply far outweighs demand, this activity helps to restore the native

grassland ecosystem while providing a wood product. Average volume in mixed hardwood stands 

that are no longer needed as windbreaks or have escaped the original footprints of shelterbelts or 

windbreaks is about 941 cubic feet per acre (7.35 cords per acre). Some of the tree rows planted

to Osage orange after the Dust Bowl have also been or are currently being harvested for posts. 

Even though employment income associated with woodcutting activities is negligible, it provides

a resource that is important to individuals who rely on the cheap availability of these products to

subsist. The gathering of wood products has not shown to be in conflict with other uses on the 

Grasslands, and demand for this activity is not projected to increase or decrease significantly in

the future.

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. Pinyon-juniper forest products would be available to the public. 

Alternatives B and C. Invasive tree forest products would be available on 1,000 to 2,000 acres on 

the BK NG. Forest product availability would be limited in the pinyon-juniper vegetation type on 

the KRB NGs from April 15 to July 31. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 111

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternative C. Removal of some forest products could be prohibited in the potential wilderness 

area.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

There are no known cumulative environmental consequences regarding special forest products. 

Special Uses

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of special uses that are useful to the decision maker and the public. Additional 

information is in the “Special Uses Specialist Report” (USDA Forest Service 2011n). 

Affected Environment

There are special use permits, easements, and leases which authorize services supporting the 

Grasslands’ mission and meet the needs of the public. These permits are a partnership among the 

Agency, private businesses, and individuals to provide services and facilities which contribute to

economic growth and sustainability. Over half of the special use permits on the BKMC NGs are

related to oil and gas operations, and most permits on the KRB NGs are for power lines and road

easements.

Special uses generate revenue for the Grasslands. From 2005 to 2007, the average annual revenue 

from special uses was $58, 000 and costs were $7,393. 

Transmission corridors, pipelines, and wind energy facilities are being developed in the private 

sector and are expected to expand onto the Grasslands where not conflicting with air traffic,

wildlife, heritage, and scenery concerns. Currently there is one existing natural gas/oil pipeline 

corridor crossing units of the BK NG, and the KRB NGs have a gas pipeline passing through 

Texas and New Mexico.

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. The local economy would benefit through the issuance of special use 

permits. Permits would be restricted or tailored to avoid conflict with air traffic, wildlife, heritage, 

and scenery concerns. 

Economic efficiency based on revenues and costs was analyzed to estimate the present net value

(PNV) for recreation, livestock grazing, minerals, and nonrecreation special uses by alternative.

The PNV for alternative A is $152,409,146. The PNV for alternatives B and C is $151,130,674. 

The PNV between alternatives would be economically insignificant.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Future energy development adjacent to the Grasslands may increase the likelihood of energy 

development on the Grasslands and the subsequent issuance of special use permits.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

112 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Wind Energy Development

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of wind energy development that are useful to the decision maker and the public. 

Additional information is in the “Wind Energy Development Specialist Report” (USDA Forest 

Service 2011o). 

Affected Environment

Wind energy development is permitted by special use permits which authorize services that

support the Forest Service mission and meet the needs of the public. Northeastern New Mexico

and the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles have high potential for wind energy generation. 

Currently there is no wind energy development or high-power transmission lines on the 

Grasslands or adjacent private land, but wind turbines are planned to be installed on private land

about 1⁄4 mile from the BKMC NGs boundary. It is expected that demand for development of

wind energy on the Grasslands is likely to occur and increase. The Grasslands, because of their

location and fragmentation, will likely experience proposals for development as adjacent lands

are developed. As the private lands are developed and reach a point of diminishing marginal

return, it is likely industry will focus its efforts on public lands.

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. Where not specifically directed by the plan, installation of wind 

turbines and high-power transmission lines would be conducted in accordance with law, 

regulation, and FS wind energy development and siting directives published in 2011. Wind

energy development would be authorized by the special use program requiring project-specific

NEPA analysis, adding to costs and delaying project implementation. Wind energy development 

would economically benefit the local economy. 

Alternative A. Without pre-siting guidance, all wind development project proposals would be 

subject to NEPA analysis wherein project-specific environmental consequences would be 

evaluated.

Alternatives B and C. Wind energy development would be restricted to within one-half mile of 

developed recreation sites. Wind energy development would also be restricted on a site-specific

basis for wildlife and heritage concerns.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The cumulative effects area includes the land with potential for wind energy development on or 

adjacent to the Grasslands. Wind energy facilities on private lands could increase the likelihood of 

construction of transmission corridors and access routes on the Grasslands. 

Livestock Use

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of livestock use that are useful to the decision maker and the public. Additional 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 113

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

information is in the “Livestock Use and Range Management Specialist Report” (USDA Forest 

Service 2011p). 

Affected Environment

Over 99 percent of the KRB and BKMC NGs is used by permit holders to graze cattle. The

Grasslands administer permits for 180 permittees on 416 grazing units. Vegetative conditions are

able to support 91,406 AUMs19 of livestock grazing and provide for wildlife habitat and

watershed protection. The number of AUMs permitted fluctuates based upon climatic conditions. 

The drier vegetation types west of the 100th meridian are more acutely influenced by drought.

Carrying capacity may be affected by BTPDs (a Forest sensitive species) which occupied about 

3,800 acres in 2011. Cattle are not allowed near playa lakes when migratory birds are present so 

as to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, which protects migratory birds 

and their nests and eggs. Additionally, although no wind turbines are present on the Grasslands, 

future forage production may be reduced in proportion to the number of wind turbines installed

and their access roads.

The livestock grazing program managed by the Grasslands generates revenue. From 2008 to 

2010, the average annual revenue from livestock use was $165,042 and costs (based on a 3-year 

average of the program budget) were $233,524.20

A major increase or decrease in grazing on the Grasslands over the next 20 years is not foreseen; 

however, livestock use and strategies are expected to continue to fluctuate in response to drought, 

wildfire, prescribed fire, and other factors that influence range conditions. 

Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives. Where not specifically directed by the plan, livestock use would be 

conducted in accordance with law, regulation, policy, applicable NEPA decisions, and through the 

use of BMPs and adaptive management to maintain a sustainable grazing resource.

Drought would reduce available forage and livestock industry income. BTPDs may reduce 

available forage. Forage would not be available to cattle near playa lakes during the migratory 

bird breeding season. Except for the long-term loss of forage base on the small areal extent of

wind turbine pads and access roads, it is anticipated that disturbance to livestock would be 

temporary, as livestock would become accustomed to their presence.

Economic efficiency was analyzed to estimate the present net value (PNV) for recreation, 

livestock use, minerals, and nonrecreation special uses by alternative. The PNV for alternative A 

is $152,409,146. The PNV for alternatives B and C is $151,130,674. The PNV between

alternatives would be economically insignificant.

Alternative A. Available forage would increase as 4,400 acres of shinnery oak would be converted 

to grassland. Livestock use would be facilitated by the construction of 55.6 miles of fence, 64 

 

19 An animal unit month (AUM) is the amount of forage consumed in 1 month by 1 mature cow of about 1,000 pounds,

either dry or with calf up to 6 months of age, or their equivalent.

20 During this period the authorized herd was less than that which is typically permitted due to drought conditions. This 

resulted in slightly higher costs than revenues for the livestock grazing program. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

114 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

watering facilities, and 3 miles of water pipeline on the BKMC NG and by 365 miles of fence, 

514 watering facilities, and 21 miles of water pipeline on the KRB NGs. 

Alternatives B and C. Forage quality would decrease in pastures containing playa lakes deferred 

from grazing between April 1 and August 31 when water is present and bird nesting is occurring. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Currently, interest in irrigated crop farming has resulted in grassland conversion to crops on 

nearby private land. The conversion of native grasslands to cropland will likely continue into the

future, depending on a host of economic circumstances.

The cumulative environmental consequences analysis area is the land immediately adjacent to the

Grasslands. Expansion of prairie dog colonies onto the Grasslands resulting from the Oklahoma 

Department of Wildlife Conservation Landowner Incentive Program could reduce available

livestock forage on the Grasslands. 

Wildland-Urban Interface and Fire Management

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of WUI and fire management that are useful to the decision maker and the public. 

Additional information is in the “Wildland-Urban Interface/Fire Specialist Report” (USDA Forest

Service 2011q).

Affected Environment

Wildland fire includes both planned and unplanned ignitions. WUI includes those areas of 

resident populations at imminent risk from wildfire, and human developments having special 

significance. These areas may include critical communications sites, municipal watersheds, high 

voltage transmission lines, observatories, church camps, scout camps, research facilities, and 

other structures that if destroyed by fire, would result in hardship to communities. These areas 

encompass not only the sites themselves, but also the continuous slopes and fuels that lead 

directly to the sites, regardless of the distance involved.

Historically, natural disturbances were a regular occurrence on the Grasslands. Fire plays a key

role in maintenance of the grassland system, and it is probably the most significant process in

sustaining plains grassland ecosystems. Grassland fires release nutrients into the soil, which

stimulates nutrient cycling and soil productivity. Grassland fires reduce the establishment of 

woody trees and shrubs, which helps maintain a more resilient grassland composition and 

structure. The encroachment of woody species that threatens plains grasslands in the region is not 

only the result of over 100 years of fire suppression, but also the planting of shelterbelts and other

tree species during the early years of Grasslands restoration in the 1940s. 

Research shows that the Grasslands had a fire occurrence on an average of 2 to 20-year intervals.

Fire is used primarily to improve range conditions by reducing the shrub-to-grass ratio in areas

where shrubs are gaining dominance. Planned ignitions in the wildland-urban interface

proactively reduce the likelihood of wildland-fire-caused damage. Planned ignition is subject to

several constraints, however, one of which is drought. Managers conduct little or no planned 

ignition during drought because it may increase soil erosion from wind and rain and allow
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 115

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

nonnative or invasive species to outcompete native grasses. Under nondrought conditions, 

residual ground cover and quick regrowth protect the soil surface, and adequate soil moisture 

keeps native grasses competitive. Efforts to increase awareness of fire behavior and effects have

increased public support for planned ignition and the creation and maintenance of defensible

space.

Currently, planned ignition is used in all management areas and vegetation types. Grasslands 

managers use planned ignition to eliminate the excess of woody trees and shrubs, including 

invasive trees like black locust and eastern redcedar. Planned ignition also improves the diversity

of structural stages and restores fire-adapted ecosystems. Over the past 10 to 12 years, about 80 

percent of the BKMC NGs have been burned, with some units burned 2 to 4 times, and about 2 

percent of the KRB NGs units have been burned, mostly in the pinyon-juniper ecosystem.

Wildland fires burned about 7,300 acres on all four Grasslands between 1995 and 2005. The 2006 

fire season was especially unique due to prolonged drought and burned over 3,700 acres of the 

BK NG, 1,500 acres of the MC NG (the entire BKMC NGs), and 850 acres of the KRB NGs.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A. Grassland resource objectives would be met and wildland-fire-caused damage 

would be reduced on an unspecified number of acres in Grassland WUI areas.

Alternatives B and C. Resource objectives would be met and wildland-fire-caused damage would 

be reduced on 2,000 to 3,000 acres annually in Grassland WUI areas.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

The Grasslands and adjacent private land (within about 1 mile) is the cumulative effects analysis

area. Wildland-fire-caused damage would be reduced on the Grasslands as off-Grasslands fire 

severity decreases in response to the creation and maintenance of defensible space on private land 

adjacent to the Grasslands. 

Socioeconomic Resources

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of the social and economic environments that are useful to the decision maker and 

the public. Additional information is in the Grasslands plan revision economic resource report

(Wilson 2010). 

Affected Environment

The study area for this analysis is Harding, Mora, and Union Counties in New Mexico, Roger

Mills and Cimarron Counties in Oklahoma, and Dallam, Gray, and Hemphill Counties in Texas. A 

portion of Colfax County, New Mexico, is also within the planning area, but is only four sections

of rangeland on the Kiowa NG. It was eliminated from the socioeconomic analysis because the 

county’s relatively large population would skew the demographic and economic data based upon 

those four sections of range. This region of the country is predominantly rural and has an 

economic base consisting largely of agricultural industries. The Forest Service manages four 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

116 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

revenue-generating goods and services on the Grasslands: gas and oil extraction (minerals), 

livestock grazing, recreation, and nonrecreation special uses as described below. 

Table 28 reports the percent of each county under Grasslands management by district. Dallam 

County, Texas, has the largest percent of land base under Grasslands management at 8 percent. 

Hemphill County, Texas, has the smallest, at less than 0.1 percent.

The oil and gas resource is an important economic activity for the region. In 2001, there were 36 

active oil/gas wells on the BKMC NGs and none on the KRB NGs (USDA Forest Service 2008).

Geologic analyses recently completed indicate that while there may be increases in the number of

oil/gas wells on the BK for a few more years, oil/gas development in the area may decline over

the next 20 to 50 years as wells lose productivity. There has historically been little interest in oil 

and gas exploration on the KRB NGs because of difficulty and costs of extraction. However, with 

rising energy prices, there has been increased interest from energy developers and an increase in 

applications for permits to drill.

Table 28. Percent of county under Grasslands management

Forest Service

Ranger District County, State Percent of Countywithin Grasslands

Total Square Miles

by County, 2000

KRB Harding County, NM 5% 2,125

KRB Union County, NM 2% 3,830

KRB Mora County, NM < 0.5% 1,931

BKMC Roger Mills County, OK 4% 1,141

KRB Cimarron County, OK 1% 1,835

KRB Dallam County, TX 8% 1,505

BKMC Gray County, TX < 0.2% 928

BKMC Hemphill County, TX < 0.1% 910

Source: UNM-BBER 2005 (U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census 2000). 

Over 99 percent of the Grasslands are used by permit holders for livestock grazing. There is no 

indication that there will be a major increase or decrease in grazing on the Grasslands over the

next 20 years; however, herd size and management strategies are expected to fluctuate in response

to drought, wildfire, prescribed fire, and other factors that change range conditions. Grazing on 

the Grasslands contributes to the rural ranching lifestyle, culture, and economy and is a tool used 

for achieving management objectives. 

Providing outdoor recreation activities is one of the primary contributors to social cohesion, 

quality of life, and social and economic sustainability for Grasslands communities. The most

popular recreation activities on the Grasslands include hunting, fishing, camping and picnicking, 

boating, hiking, horseback riding, exploring historic sites, and driving to enjoy the scenery. The 

BKMC NGs manage six developed recreation sites, including two recreation complexes designed 

around scenic reservoirs; the KRB NGs manage five. All sites are open year round.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 117

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Special use permits authorize services that support the Forest Service mission and meet the needs 

of the public. These permits are a partnership between the Forest Service and private businesses

and individuals to provide services and facilities, such as recreation opportunities and 

infrastructure. In particular, the construction and use of utilities supporting rural residences and 

industry are part of the Grasslands contribution to economic growth and sustainability. Over half

of the special use permits on the BKMC NGs are related to oil and gas operations, and most

permits on the KRB NGs are for power lines and road easements. There are also many research

projects on the Grasslands, conducted by universities and other research institutes, which are

authorized by special use permit. It is projected that development of oil and gas and wind energy

in the region may result in more requests for utility and pipeline special use permits.

Demographic Conditions and Trends

Current population levels influence the use of natural resources, and forecasts of future

population levels can indicate whether there may be the potential for increased pressures on 

Grasslands resources.

Table 29 shows the past, present, and projected population trends for each county in the study 

area and the aggregated states. From 1980 to 2010, the population of Grassland counties declined 

10 percent, from 56,688 to 50,877, while the combined state populations increased by 62 percent, 

from 18,557,375 to 30,150,629. This decline in the local population is due in part to limited 

economic opportunities and low income levels. This is a common trend among rural areas across 

the country, and can greatly increase the importance of the economic contribution of Grasslands 

revenue-generating programs and their management. The declining trend in population is 

expected to continue for all counties except Dallam and Mora. But growth in those counties is 

expected to be concentrated in urban areas outside the vicinity of the Grasslands. 

Table 29. Population trends for Grassland counties and aggregated states

County 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Harding County,

NM 1,090 987 810 780 726 676

Mora County,

NM 4,205 4,264 5,205 6,205 7,137 7,826

Union County,

NM 4,725 4,124 4,174 4,365 4,507 4,619

Cimarron County,

OK 3,648 3,301 3,148 3,200 3,400 3,500

Roger Mills

County, OK 4,799 4,147 3,436 3,400 3,400 3,400

Dallam County,

TX 6,531 5,461 6,222 6,930 7,537 7,949

Gray County, TX 26,386 23,967 22,744 22,434 22,365 21,859

Hemphill County,

TX 5,304 3,720 3,351 3,563 3,659 3,548

Study Area Total 56,688 49,971 49,090 50,877 52,731 53,377

NM, OK and TX 18,557,375 21,647,164 26,121,520 30,150,629 34,352,708 38,648,53

Source: UNM-BBER 2005. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

118 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

Figure 2. Age distribution in the study area

Table 30 reports the ethnic composition of the study area. According to census definitions, 

Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. As defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, race and Hispanic

origin are two different concepts; thus, people of Hispanic origin may identify with any race, 

therefore, the percentages do not sum to 100 percent. The majority of the population in the study 

area is Caucasian; there is also a substantial proportion of the population that is of Hispanic 

origin. Mora County is the most diverse with 58.9 percent of residents being Caucasian and 37 

percent identify themselves as some other race; 81.6 percent of residents are of Hispanic origin, 

which is nearly double that of the county with next highest percentage (Harding County is 44.9 

percent Hispanic). Roger Mills County has the highest percentage of Caucasians at 91.8 percent 

and American Indians and Alaska Natives at 5.5 percent. Both the Hispanic and American Indian 

cultures have a strong presence in the study area. Residents of these descents have strong ties to 

the land and its natural resources and associate important values with use of the Grasslands. 

However, many subsistence users live on the west side of Mora County in villages such as Mora, 

Holman, and Guadalupita and may affiliate with the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests more 

than the Grasslands.

Table 30. Race and ethnic distribution of total population by county, state and United 

States

County Caucasian African

American

American 

Indian & 

Alaska

Native

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Other

Race

Two or

More

Races

Hispanic

Origin (of

any race)

Harding

County, NM 84.3% 0.4% 1.4% 0.0% 10.6% 3.3% 44.9%

Mora County,

NM 58.9% 0.1% 1.1% 0.1% 37.0% 2.8% 81.6%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 119

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 30. Race and ethnic distribution of total population by county, state and United 

States

County Caucasian African

American

American 

Indian & 

Alaska

Native

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Other

Race

Two or

More

Races

Hispanic

Origin (of

any race)

Union County,

NM 80.4% 0.0% 1.0% 0.4% 16.0% 2.2% 35.1%

Cimarron 

County, OK 85.8% 0.6% 1.0% 0.2% 9.9% 2.5% 15.4%

Roger Mills

County, OK 91.8% 0.3% 5.5% 0.1% 0.5% 1.9% 2.6% 

Dallam

County, TX 82.6% 1.6% 0.9% 0.2% 12.4% 2.2% 28.4%

Gray County,

TX 82.2% 5.8% 0.9% 0.4% 8.2% 2.4% 13.0%

Hemphill

County, TX 87.6% 1.6% 0.7% 0.3% 8.5% 1.3% 15.6%

NM 66.8% 1.9% 9.5% 1.2% 17.0% 3.6% 42.1%

OK 76.2% 7.6% 7.9% 1.5% 2.4% 4.5% 5.2%

TX 71.0% 11.5% 0.6% 2.8% 11.7% 2.5% 32.0%

United States 75.1% 12.3% 0.9% 3.7% 5.5% 2.4% 12.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (Office of the President 1994) directs Federal agencies to focus 

attention on the human health and environmental conditions in minority21 and low income 

communities22. The purpose of EO 12898 is to identify and address, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects23 on minority and low 

income populations. 

Environmental justice means that, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations 

are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in 

 

21 Minority means a person who is a member of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaska Native; 

Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic (USDA DR 5600-002, 1997).

22 Low income population means any readily identifiable group of low income persons who live in geographic 

proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other geographically dispersed/transient persons 

who will be similarly affected by USDA programs or activities. Low income populations may be identified using data 

collected, maintained and analyzed by an agency or from analytical tools such as the annual statistical poverty 

thresholds from the Bureau of the Census’ Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty (USDA DR 

5600-002, 1997).

23 Human health and/or environmental effects as used in this Departmental Regulation include interrelated social and 

economic effects (USDA DR 5600-002, 1997).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

120 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and 

adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting human health or the 

environment. 

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, 

cultures, and incomes, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The goal of environmental justice is for Federal 

agency decision makers to identify impacts that are disproportionately high and adverse with 

respect to minority and low income populations24 and identify alternatives that will avoid or 

mitigate those impacts.

The emphasis of environmental justice is on health effects and/or the benefits of a healthy 

environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has interpreted health effects with a 

broad definition: “Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic or 

social impacts on minority communities, low income communities or Indian tribes...when those 

impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical environment” (Council on 

Environmental Quality 1997).

Table 30 (above) reports the ethnic distributions of the counties in the study area, their respective 

states, and the United States. All counties except for Roger Mills have a higher proportion of 

Hispanic residents than the United States; and Roger Mills County has the highest proportion of 

American Indian residents in the study area. Mora County has the lowest proportion of Caucasian 

residents at 58.9 percent. Due to the high proportion of Hispanic and American Indian residents in 

the study area, it has been determined that these ethnic groups meet the environmental justice 

requirements of a minority population meaningfully greater than the general population. (The 

general population that county data is compared to is that of the Nation.) Therefore, decision 

makers on the Grasslands should pay careful attention to the potential impacts of management 

actions on those ethnic groups.

Table 31 reports the number of individuals below the poverty level and poverty rates in 2000 and 

2008. Poverty rates in six of the eight counties decreased from 2000 to 2008; however, poverty 

rates remain high in the study area. As of 2008, Mora County has the highest poverty rate at 23 

percent and Hemphill County had the lowest at 8.7 percent. Hemphill and Roger Mills are the 

only counties with 2008 poverty rates less than the national average. Such rates suggest that a 

substantial proportion of the existing population should be considered as a low income group. 

Therefore, decisions regarding future management actions on the Grasslands should carefully 

assess the effects on low income populations. 

In cases where the management decisions are expected to create jobs and income in the local 

economy, it is unlikely that there would be a disproportionate adverse effect on minority and low 

income populations. Individuals in those populations may benefit from any increase in jobs and 

income in the area. Alternatively, future management decisions that may negatively impact local 

employment and income conditions should carefully assess the distribution of effects across 

population demographics, paying careful attention to Hispanic, American Indian, and low income 

populations. 

 

24 Minority population/communities means any readily identifiable group of minority persons who live in geographic 

proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other geographically dispersed/transient persons 

who will be similarly affected by USDA programs or activities (USDA DR 5600-002, 1997).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 121

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 31. Poverty status by county, state, and United States for 2000 and

2008

County

2000 2008

Number Percent Number Percent

Harding County, NM 115 14.7 104 15.2

Mora County, NM 1,250 24.2 1,154 23.0

Union County, NM 677 17.0 602 16.0

Cimarron County, OK 453 15.0 409 16.3

Roger Mills County, OK 480 14.5 386 11.5

Dallam County, TX 989 16.0 840 13.6

Gray County, TX 3,138 9.8% 3,018 14.7

Hemphill County, TX 313 15.3% 290 8.7

NM 309,103 17.3% 329,857 17.0

OK 467,081 13.8% 554,237 15.7

TX 3,041,115 14.6% 3,755,944 15.8

United States 31,581,086 11.3% 39,108,422 13.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates 2010.

Economic Conditions and Trends

Employment and income statistics are important indicators of economic health. Table 32 lists the 

total jobs in the study area by sector. Agriculture supports the largest percentage of jobs in the 

study area. Many of the activities on the Grasslands support jobs in that sector, making it a 

valuable source of economic stimulus. The second largest sector is the government, which include 

jobs on the Grasslands. Government jobs tend to be higher paying than jobs in other sectors of 

rural economies and are an important source of household income. 

Another indicator of economic health is the level of unemployment. All counties in the study 

area, except for Mora County, have generally maintained an unemployment rate lower than their 

respective state average in recent years. Mora County has the highest unemployment rate in the 

study area, much greater than that of its respective state. As jobs are created in a region, labor

comes from two primary sources: local unemployment and in-migration of households. With the 

higher unemployment rates in Mora County, it is likely that any new demands for labor would be

supplied from the local labor market; assuming that qualified individuals reside in the area. One 

exception to this has been jobs in the mining sector. These jobs tend to be shorter term and filled 

by a transient workforce that does not take up residency in the area. This will be addressed in 

greater detail in the effects analysis that follows.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

122 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 32. Number of jobs and percent of total jobs by sector in the study area

Sector Number of Jobs Percent

Agriculture 6,500 21.6

Mining 2,011 6.7

Utilities 143 0.5

Construction 1,784 5.9

Manufacturing 1,566 5.2

Wholesale Trade 1,115 3.7

Transportation and Warehousing 3,205 10.6

Retail Trade 1,120 3.7

Information 320 1.1

Finance and Insurance 830 2.8

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 544 1.8

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 510 1.7

Management of Companies 19 0.1

Administration, Waste Management, and Removal 

Services 755 2.5

Educational Services 122 0.4

Health Care and Social Assistance 1,439 4.8

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 362 1.2

Accommodation and Food Services 1,411 4.7

Other Services 2,114 7.0

Government 4,261 14.1

Total 30,131 100.0

Source: MIG 2008.

Income available to local residents directly impacts their ability to purchase goods and services. 

Residents of the study area received a total of 1.4 billion dollars of personal income in 2006. 

Income was generated from the following sources and proportions: payments for labor (62 

percent); transfer payments (21 percent); and dividends, interest and rent (17 percent). The 

“Social-economic Specialist Report” associated with this section of the FPEIS provides more 

information on labor and nonlabor income. The majority of income for local residents is

generated by wage and salary income (44 percent of all labor); however, a considerable amount 

of income in the study area is earned through nonlabor sources (EPS 2008).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 123

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Payments in Lieu of Taxes

“Payments in Lieu of Taxes” (or PILT) are Federal payments to local governments that help offset

losses in property taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands within their boundaries. 

In 2010, counties in New Mexico received $32,205,935 in total PILT payments from the Federal 

government; counties in Oklahoma received $2,582,013; and counties in Texas received

$4,501,553. 

Environmental Consequences

The first section below, “Economic Impact Analysis,” describes the economic impact of the four 

revenue-generating activities the Forest Service manages on the Grasslands. The economic 

impact is estimated as the number of jobs and labor income generated from sale of products, 

permits for various activities, and mineral leases and royalties. The programs generating revenue 

are minerals, livestock grazing, recreation, and nonrecreation special uses.

The second section is the “Economic Efficiency Analysis.” The efficiency analysis estimates the 

present net value (PNV) for each alternative. PNV is the measure of the economic value of a 

project when costs and revenues (benefits) occur in different time periods. This analysis allows 

the decision maker to compare the value of managing these business areas under each alternative.

The third section contains a description of the social and economic consequences for each 

alternative. The social consequences are qualitative; the economic consequences are quantitative 

using the values reported in the impact and efficiency analyses.

The “Economic Resource Specialist Report” associated with this section of the FPEIS provides 

more detail on the application of models, assumptions, and special considerations to the economic 

analyses.

Economic Impact Analysis

Economic impacts were modeled using IMPLAN25 Professional Version 3.0 and the Forest

Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool (FEAST)26, with data from the average of a 3-year range

(typically, 2005 to 2007). Data on use levels were collected from forest resource specialists, any 

change noted is based on their professional expertise (1982 Rule, 219.12(g)). 

Jobs and income economic impacts are shown as being common for all alternatives. The 

economic activity stimulated by Grasslands management is a very small proportion of total 

activity in the study area. Under current management, the total Grasslands contribution accounts 

for only 0.49 percent of total employment and 0.59 percent of total labor income. Any impacts 

 

25 Data reported by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG) is used to assess the relative size of sectors in a local 

economy. MIG reports annual data for all counties in the United States. IMPLAN employment data is reported by 

economic sectors grouped together according to similarities in the goods and services offered. IMPLAN data used for 

this analysis is for the year 2008. IMPLAN stands for “Impact Analysis for Planning.”

26 FEAST is a Microsoft Excel-based workbook designed to describe impacts to employment and income by resource 

program and major industry. To conduct the economic impact and economic efficiency analyses, IMPLAN models are 

imported into FEAST. This provides an assessment of the overall importance of these lands to the local economy in 

terms of jobs and income supported.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

124 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

resulting from implementation of alternatives A, B, or C would not generate a noticeable effect on 

economic conditions overall. 

The annual economic contribution for each resource program (table 33) is estimated as the

number of jobs and labor income supported from activities taking place on the Grasslands. The 

resource area with the largest economic contribution is minerals, supporting 52 jobs and $5.204 

million of labor income in the study area. Oil and gas are the most abundant minerals

commodities extracted from the Grasslands; however, all of that activity occurs on the BK. 

Ecosystems restoration and other Forest Service expenditures also have an important contribution 

to the local economy, supporting 23 and 21 jobs respectively. Agriculture is a way of life for

many local residents, therefore, grazing is an important resource. Currently, grazing permits on 

the Grasslands support an additional 32 jobs in the study area. Those 32 jobs are very important 

to local agricultural families who would like continued management for the grazing resource. In

aggregate, current Grasslands management supports 154 jobs and $7.217 million of labor income.

Table 33. Economic contribution by resource program

Resource Number of Jobs Labor Income ($1,000s) 

Recreation: non-local only 4 $85

Wildlife and Fish: non-local only 4 $83

Grazing 32 $542

Timber 0 $0

Minerals 52 $5,204

Ecosystem Restoration 23 $693

Payments to States/Counties 17 $610

Forest Service Expenditures 21 $0 

Total Grasslands Management 154 $7,217

Source: MIG 2008 and FEAST 2010. 

Note: Contributions for each resource area do not constitute total employment or income within

industry sectors that correspond to these resource areas (agriculture, mining, etc.). In fact,

economic contributions for each resource area in table 33 (above) represent employment and 

income across multiple industry sectors.

Jobs and income associated with Grasslands management are distributed across industry sectors

within the study area (table 34). The jobs and income for each industry is attributable to economic 

activity as a result of Grasslands management and thus, is not a representation of total

employment within the impact area for that industry. The total jobs and labor income contributed

only accounts for 0.51 percent and 0.60 percent of study area totals, respectively. However, that is

valuable economic stimulus for those impacted. Agriculture is affected the most with 55 jobs, 

followed by mining with 29 jobs, and government with 26 jobs. As measured proportionally, 

mining makes the largest contribution at 1.44 percent of total employment and 2.06 percent of 

total labor income (Grasslands only). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 125

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 34. Economic contribution by sector

Sector

Employment (Number of Jobs) Labor Income ($1,000s) 

Study

Area

Total

Grasslands

Contribution

Percent

of Total

Study

Area

Total

Grasslands

Contribution

Percent

of Total

Agriculture 6,500 55 0.85 85,976 $1,202 1.40

Mining 2,011 29 1.44 211,251 $4,352 2.06

Utilities 143 0 0.01 13,996 $50 0.36

Construction 1,784 4 0.22 90,555 $272 0.30

Manufacturing 1,566 0 0.00 134,206 $3 0.00

Wholesale Trade 1,115 2 0.19 71,824 $148 0.21

Transportation and 

Warehousing 3,205 1 0.03 80,945 $60 0.07 

Retail Trade 1,120 8 0.72 78,297 $201 0.26

Information 320 1 0.32 14,590 $26 0.18

Finance and Insurance 830 2 0.26 43,885 $128 0.29

Real Estate and Rental

and Leasing 544 1 0.20 20,900 $53 0.25

Professional, 

Scientific, and 

Technical Services

510 2 0.40 27,159 $112 0.41

Management of

Companies 19 0 0.00 1,741 $10 0.58

Administration, Waste

Management and 

Removal Services

755 1 0.14 23,292 $35 0.15

Educational Services 122 0 0.00 1,862 $6 0.32

Health Care and Social

Assistance 1,439 4 0.28 48,295 $129 0.27

Arts, Entertainment,

and Recreation 362 1 0.28 6,389 $20 0.31

Accommodation and 

Food Services 1,411 9 0.64 21,425 $144 0.67

Other Services 2,114 4 0.19 42,906 $66 0.15

Government 4,261 26 0.61 182,048 $201 0.11

Total 30,131 154 0.51 1,201,543 $7,217 0.60

Source: MIG 2008 and FEAST 2010. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

126 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

The resource programs currently managed by the Grasslands generate revenue from sale of 

products, permits for various activities, and leases for minerals. The programs generating revenue 

are recreation, range, minerals, and nonrecreation special uses. Grasslands personnel provided 

current data on revenue streams (table 35). A 3-year average for each resource program’s budget 

was used as an estimate of annual costs.

Table 35. Annual revenues and costs by program

Program Annual Revenue Annual Cost

Recreation $18,000 $242,250

Range $165,042 $233,524

Minerals $13,468,000 $445,252

Nonrecreation Special Uses $58,000 $7,393

Economic Efficiency Analysis

Economic efficiency is required by the 1982 Rule. Estimating present net value (PNV) is required

by 219.12(g); however, the decision maker is not required by 219.12(j) to select the alternative

that maximizes PNV. He or she only needs to identify each alternative’s PNV and compare them 

to the selected alternative.

Economic efficiency analysis was conducted with QuickSilver27 Version 6. Data on program 

revenues were collected from the Final National Forest Statement of Receipts (ASR-13-1). Data

on program costs were provided by the Cibola NF budget staff (1982 Rule, 219.12(e)).

The recreation, range, minerals, and nonrecreation special uses programs are funded under the 

general budget, externally funded activities such as volunteer and service agreements, and in-kind 

sharing. There is much uncertainty about future budgets and no reliable data on future program 

costs, however, a variety of ecosystem services projects are part of the management strategy for 

the Grasslands, and are reflected in the costs for implementing alternatives B and C, which would 

be slightly higher than the costs for implementing alternative A. The economic efficiency analysis 

is limited to only the revenues received from management activities and the costs of annually 

funded programs. The costs included in this analysis are just a portion of the total operating 

budget. PNV is defined as the discounted sum of benefits minus the discounted sum of costs; 

however, since not all costs are actually accounted for, this analysis should primarily be used to 

evaluate benefits. A federally prescribed discount rate of 4 percent is used in this analysis (USDA 

Forest Service 1992). Inflation is also a variable that can affect the PNVs, but for purposes of this 

analysis inflation was left at zero.

Table 36 reports the results of the economic efficiency analysis. There is limited data on the costs 

to implement projects during the next planning cycle, and current revenues for each resource 

program are assumed to continue during future years. The values reported in table 36 are only 

used to compare the expected differences between alternatives, and not the actual value of 

 

27 Quick Silver is a Forest Service program for economic analysis of long-term, on-the-ground resource management 

projects.It provides a consistent benefit/cost, efficiency analysis framework to determine if one management action 

costs less, or has a better payoff than others.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 127

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

implementation. There is essentially no difference between alternatives; the largest difference is 

not economically significant.

Again, there are very few differences among the alternatives. Alternatives B and C are not 

expected to result in a change in revenues back to the Grasslands. Therefore, the same program 

revenues used for alternative A are also used for alternatives B and C. (See the affected 

environment for the respective resource areas for revenues and costs by program area.) The 

expected costs of implementing any alternative are assumed to be the same except that 

alternatives B and C place greater emphasis on vegetation management, which would increase 

restoration costs. This is reflected in slightly higher present value costs and lower PNV for 

alternatives B and C than alternative A. No significant economic impacts are anticipated if any 

alternative were to be implemented. The effects reported represent a very small proportion of 

economic activity in the study area.

This economic efficiency analysis is very limited due to the lack of data availability and sitespecific prescriptions in the alternatives. The PNVs reported in this document are a measure of 

discounted revenues with limited information on costs.

Table 36. Results from the economic efficiency analysis

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Present Value — Benefits $158,519,338 $158,519,338 $158,519,338

Present Value — Costs -$6,110,174 -$7,388,664 -$7,388,664

Present Net Value $152,409,164 $151,130,674 $151,130,674

Consequences Common to All Alternatives

Social Consequences

Relationships between the grazing permittees and Forest Service are necessarily close, as they

work in partnership to maintain range facilities, monitor forage production and utilization, and 

determine appropriate stocking levels and the timing of allowable use. Adjustments to stocking

levels or grazing management strategies continue to be made in annual operating instructions as

needed based on site-specific conditions. This would result in vital partnerships with local

communities that have stable populations under all alternatives.

Economic Consequences

Under the management direction of alternatives A, B, and C, the Grasslands would continue to

contribute to the livelihoods of local residents and stakeholders in a variety of ways. They would 

contribute to jobs and income through employment opportunities with the U.S. Forest Service, as

well as employment and income associated with industry outputs dependent on NFS lands. For

example, a portion of output in the tourism, recreation, and agricultural industries is generated

from activities affected by Grasslands management; this would continue. Oil and gas leases

would continue to generate economic activity in the mining sector, which in turn would support 

jobs and income among local residents. These lands would continue to support subsistence

activities through hunting and fishing, firewood harvesting, and the gathering of other forest

products. Such dependency on the Grasslands for economic sustainability and growth is largely a 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

128 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

function of the local economic dynamic and total industrial outputs, this would likely continue. 

Economic dependency in the study area is likely to vary across cities and towns; however, the 

data available does not allow for the estimate of contributions to such microeconomies. The 

Grasslands’ anticipated contributions to the local region are estimated as a whole, and certain

economic dependency issues are addressed qualitatively.

Oil and gas extraction would continue to be a common activity on the Grasslands. Any change in

extraction levels is assumed to be a result of market demands and not the plan itself. Therefore, it

is assumed that the minerals jobs and labor income reported above would continue to be 

supported under all alternatives. During the next planning cycle, it is expected that demand for 

the development of wind energy on the Grasslands is likely to increase. However, proposed 

development for any mineral or energy source, including utility easements or transmission 

corridors, must undergo a review process. That process would not change under any alternative.

Effects analysis should be completed once such site-specific proposals are presented to the 

Agency.

According to the 1985 plan (alternative A), livestock grazing is currently at the maximum

permitted use; this would not change under alternative B or C. Grazing levels would not rise

higher than current use; however, they might decrease due to weather conditions or other

unforeseen climatic circumstances. As a result, during drought years when forage is limited,

authorized stocking levels may be reduced to protect ecosystem diversity.

Although the populations in communities around the Grasslands are declining, visitation from

cities outside the area is gradually increasing and producing a change in recreation uses. 

Camping, often in association with hunting or fishing, would remain one of most prevalent

recreation activities on all four Grasslands. Increases in recreation visitation would support 

economic development under alternatives A, B, and C. 

Alternative A 

Social Consequences

Because there would be no change in the management of livestock grazing, minerals and energy 

development, or recreation, there would be no significant social consequence if this alternative

were selected.

Economic Consequences

Local businesses and firms would continue to depend heavily upon agricultural and natural

resource based activities as a source of revenue. For recreation only activity supported by 

nonlocal visitors is accounted for. Recreation expenditures by nonlocals represent new money to

the economy, and are considered an export of goods and services. Recreation use by local

residents does not introduce new money to the economy, and is not considered to have an

economic impact.

The information reported in table 33 and the third and sixth columns of table 34 above represent

the economic contribution under alternative A. If this alternative were selected, it is assumed that

this level of jobs and income would continue to be supported. There would be no impact to the 

local economy and, therefore, no direct or indirect consequences can be measured. Under 

alternative A, it is assumed there would be no impact to these revenue streams, and they would 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 129

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

continue throughout the next planning cycle. Since plans are expected to be updated every 10 to

15 years, a 15-year planning cycle is used for the economic efficiency analysis. 

The PNV if Grasslands management were to continue under alternative A is $152,409,164. In this

analysis, costs are limited to only those for specific program areas and ecosystem services

projects occurring on the Grasslands. Therefore, this value provides a better relative measure of

the discounted net revenue the Grasslands are expected to generate during the next planning cycle

in 2010 dollars. The programs generating revenue for the Grasslands are recreation, range, 

minerals, and nonrecreation special uses. These programs would continue to generate revenue 

from the sale of products, permits for various activities, leases, and mineral royalties.

Alternative B 

Social Consequences

Overall, there are no social consequences anticipated for this alternative. Individual projects such

as the 2012 travel management decision could impact certain user groups and stakeholders;

however, those effects cannot be estimated at this time. Adaptive management is a common 

theme among forest planning efforts; therefore, some variability must be left in the plan so that

managers can adapt livestock management to changing ecological conditions. 

Economic Consequences

The jobs and income supported under the current budget are reported under the “Economic 

Conditions and Trends” section and described in the economic impact analysis. It is assumed that 

those jobs will continue to be supported during the next planning cycle under this alternative

barring any unforeseen circumstances with the budget. There would be no significant economic 

consequences associated with this alternative.

The primary resource areas on the Grasslands are minerals, livestock grazing, and recreation.

General expenditures by the Agency are also contributors to the local economy. It is difficult to

forecast how implementation of this alternative would impact each resource area on any given

year. Recreation use is largely dependent on population growth and preferences of visitors.

Grazing is influenced by weather conditions during the season, and minerals extraction is

dependent on energy demand and global prices. Agency expenditures are largely a function of 

appropriated budget and some external funding. All of these factors introduce substantial

uncertainty to models estimating the effects of this alternative. 

The PNV for alternative B was calculated using the same methods as described under alternative 

A. Alternative B places a greater emphasis on vegetation management, which will increase

restoration costs. This is reflected in a slightly lower PNV than alternative A. The PNV for this 

alternative is $151,130,674 (see table 36, above). Although this PNV is lower than alternative A, 

it does not account for nonfinancial benefits associated with the improved vegetative conditions. 

Consequences Common to Alternatives B and C 

Economic Consequences

Under alternatives B and C, undesirable trees species could be removed if it would improve 

native habitat or move a vegetation type toward desired vegetation structure and species

composition. A detailed description of the effects associated with that type of project would be 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

130 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

reported in that analysis. Removal of undesirable trees would involve eradicating trees through

thinning or mastication. Either treatment would represent a minimal impact to the overall

economy; however, this activity would result in a net increase in jobs (a few jobs), and it is likely

that local families would benefit from the increase in employment. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C is similar to alternative B except that a recommendation would be made to

designate the Canadian River PWA. Plan components for wilderness would be developed and 

wilderness regulations as outlined in FSM 2300, Chapter 2320, would be triggered. 

Social Consequences 

Wilderness designation may have social consequences to recreation uses in Mills Canyon. It is

unlikely that annual visitation rates will decrease. While overall annual visitation rates would 

likely remain the same, the distribution of activity types taking place on the Mills units may

change. There would likely be an increase in nonmotorized recreation and motorized recreation

would be expected to decrease. However, nonmotorized recreation is likely to increase at a rate

greater than under alternatives A or B. 

Economic Consequences

No significant economic impacts are anticipated if alternative C were to be implemented. The 

effects reported above represent a very small proportion of economic activity in the study area. 

Individual projects could impact certain user groups and stakeholders; however, those effects 

cannot be estimated at this time.

This alternative is not expected to result in a change in revenues to the Grasslands. Therefore, the

same program revenues used for alternatives A and B are also used for this alternative. The 

expected costs of implementing alternative C are assumed to be the same as alternative B. 

Therefore, the PNV for alternative C is also $151,130,674 (see table 36, above).

Cumulative Consequences

Cumulative consequences include the total change in economic conditions that would result from 

the specifications under any alternative in conjunction with the direct and indirect effects of other 

present and reasonably foreseeable activities near the Grasslands. Based upon a review of other 

land use plans, no cumulative effects were identified. Projects affecting natural resources offGrasslands are likely to have similar effects to those that would occur under alternatives A, B, or 

C. Individually, such projects may not have much bearing on the local economy; however, 

cumulatively, they may substantially impact economic conditions. Mining is a good example; a 

project to develop one oil and gas well may not have much bearing on communities in the study 

area, however, all mining projects together are likely to have important economic implications. 

There are no specific projects proposed under any alternative. Once actual activities are proposed, 

cumulative effects should be estimated for the resources affected.

There is potential for cumulative consequences as a result of wind energy development on private 

lands. Wind energy facilities that would be developed on private lands could affect Federal lands 

through the development of transmission corridors and access routes. This would have a social

consequence due to modifications to scenic resources; and direct and indirect economic 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 131

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

consequences by creating jobs in numerous sectors and increased special use permits on NFS

lands. 

Over half of the special use permits on the BKMC NGs are related to oil and gas operations, and 

most permits on the KRB NGs are for power lines and road easements. Alternatives A, B, and C 

require joint use of designated corridors for large-scale utilities, such as interstate pipelines and

high voltage transmission lines. The development of oil and gas due to increased market demand 

would result in more requests for utility and pipeline easements. The economic consequence 

would be increased jobs, permits, leases, and mineral royalties in the Grasslands counties.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Decisions made in this Grasslands plan do not represent actual irreversible or irretrievable

commitment of resources (see next section). The application of Grasslands-wide standards,

guidelines, and resource protection measures would limit the extent and duration of any adverse

environmental impacts. For a detailed discussion of types of consequences expected from future

activities implemented under this LRMP, see specific topic areas in this chapter.

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of

a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a 

period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept

clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road. 

The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions 

but does not authorize, fund, or carryout any project or activity. Because the land management

plan does not authorize or mandate any site-specific activities or ground-disturbing actions, there

can be no direct effects. However, there may be implications, or longer term environmental 

consequences, of managing the forests under this programmatic framework.

Other Required Disclosures

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” 

Other sources of information, found in appendix D of the draft land and resource management 

plan includes existing laws, regulations, Forest Service policy or direction, and references to

BMPs and best available science. These sources are important in designing projects and activities

to achieve desired conditions. They are organized by resource area. Most, if not all of these

relevant documents are available from Forest Service offices and many are posted on the Cibola

National Forest and National Grasslands Web site.

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 133

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

Preparers and Contributors 

ID Team Members/Preparers

Name Title Highest Degree Years of 

Experience

Keith Baker NEPA Coordinator B.S., Forestry 33 

Nancy Brunswick Visual Resources and Recreation M.L.A., Landscape

Architecture

20

Michael Carpinelli Forester Ph.D., Ecology 15

Livia Crowley Forest Hydrologist B.A., Geology 23

Henry Eichman Economist M.S., Agricultural

and Resource

Economics 

5

Lance Elmore Forest Fuels Management Specialist A.S., Science 19

Ian Fox Timber Management Officer B.S., Forest and

Natural Resources

12

Stacy Galassini Archaeologist M.S., Anthropology 6

Cynthia Geuss Land Management Planner M.C.R.P.,

Community and 

Regional Planning 

22

Richard Graves Transportation Engineer M.S., Civil

Engineering 

15

Champe Green Forest Planner M.S., Wildlife

Science

28

Don Hall Lands Specialist B.S., Forest Science 30

Don Jorgensen Land Use Planner M.A., Natural

Resources

Management

15

Rick Newmon Range Program Manager B.S., Range Science 38

Calvin Parson Geologist B.S., Environmental

Geology 

4

Diane Tafoya Zone Geologist B.A., Geology 22
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

134 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Federal, State, and Local Agencies

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, state, and local agencies, tribes

and non-Forest Service persons during development of this draft environmental impact statement: 

Bureau of Land Management, Oklahoma Field Office

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Texas Ecological Services Field Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office

Playa Lakes Joint Venture

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Mora County, New Mexico

Harding County, New Mexico

Union County, New Mexico

Colfax County, New Mexico

Cimarron County, Oklahoma 

Roger Mills County, Oklahoma

Dallam County, Texas

Gray County, Texas

Hemphill County, Texas

Canadian River Riparian River Restoration Project – Participating Soil and Water Conservation 

Districts

Tribes

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes 

Comanche Nation 

Kiowa Tribe 

Jicarilla Apache Nation

Mescalero Apache 

Wichita and Affiliated Tribes

Others

Brad Grice

New Mexico Wilderness Alliance

Shaw Ranch, Inc.

National Wild Turkey Federation 
FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 135

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Glossary

Access – Road or trail route over which a public agency claims a right-of-way for public use; a 

way of approach. 

Accessibility – According to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, all Federal programs 

and facilities are required to be “to the highest degree feasible, readily accessible to and useable 

by all persons who have a disability, including mobility, visual, hearing or mental impairments.” 

Active flood plain – The area of alluvial soils adjacent to rivers or streams that is flooded on a 

periodic basis. There is evidence of recently rafted debris or fluvial sediments deposited on the

soil surface or on trees or other vegetation, or recent scarring of trees or shrubs by material moved 

by floodwaters.

Adaptive management – A system of management practices based on clearly identified

outcomes and monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting desired outcomes, and

if not, to facilitate management changes that will best ensure that outcomes are met or

reevaluated. Adaptive management stems from the recognition that knowledge about natural 

resource systems is sometimes uncertain (1982 Rule Provisions, Section 219.27; FSM 1905). 

Administrative site – A site which primarily exists for general administrative purposes. It

normally will include office, warehouse, outside storage, and parking areas. It may include 

housing and pasture for livestock. A work center may be part of an administrative headquarters

site.

Age class – Interval of years, commonly 20, into which trees are grouped for management.

Example: 1 to 20 years, 21 to 40 years.

Allotment – A designated area available for livestock grazing upon which a specified number, 

kind of livestock, and season of use may be grazed under a term grazing permit. The basic land 

unit used to facilitate management of the range resource on National Forest System and 

associated lands administered by the Forest Service.

Alluvial deposits – Clay, silt, sand, gravel, or other rock materials transported by flowing water

and deposited in comparatively recent geologic time as sorted or semisorted sediment in

riverbeds, estuaries, flood plains, lakes, shores, and in fans at the base of mountain slopes. 

Alternative energy – Methods of energy production that do not rely on traditional sources such

as fossil fuels.

Amenity – The pleasurable, educational, or aesthetic features of the land or resources.

Application for permit to drill (APD) – An application to drill a well submitted by a lessee or 

operator to the BLM. The APD consists of a drilling plan that discusses downhole specifications 

and procedures (reviewed by the BLM) and a surface use plan of operations (SUPO) that

examines surface uses, including roads, well site layout, cut/fill diagrams, reclamation

procedures, production facility locations, etc. (reviewed by the Forest Service). The approved

APD is a contract between the operator and Federal government and cannot be changed or 

modified unless authorized by the BLM and FS.

Aquatic ecosystem – The stream channel or lakebed, water, or biotic communities and the habitat

features that occur there.
Glossary

136 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Aquifer – A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that contains 

sufficient saturated permeable material to yield significant quantities of water to wells and 

springs. 

At-risk community – an area that is comprised of (1) an interface community as defined in the

notice entitled “Wildland Urban Interface Communities Within the Vicinity of Federal Lands That

Are at High Risk from Wildfire” issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the 

Interior in accordance with Title IV of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 1009) (66 Fed. Reg. 753, January 4, 2001); or a group of 

homes and other structures with basic infrastructure and services (such as utilities and collectively

maintained transportation routes) within or adjacent to Federal land; an area in which conditions 

are conducive to a large-scale wildland fire disturbance event; an area for which a significant

threat to human life or property exists as a result of a wildland fire disturbance event.

Authorized officer – Any Forest Service officer to whom authority for disposal of mineral

materials has been delegated (36 CFR228.42). 

Auto tour routes – An audio guided tour by vehicle, which follow the route of a national historic

trail or scenic byway. These types of tours are generally provided by other agencies such as the

state or National Park Service and are provided in an electronic file format or on CD.

Background – The distant part of the landscape. The landscape area located 4 miles to infinity

from the viewer.

Bald – Sparsely vegetated knoll. 

Bank cover – Anything, usually vegetation, that provides protection from erosive effects on the

land rising from and bordering a water body such as a stream or lake.

Bank erosion – The removal of soil and rocks by running water, wind, or waves from the land

rising from and bordering a water body such as a stream or lake.

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act – Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a 

program of land conservation and utilization in order to correct maladjustments in land use and to

assist in controlling soil erosion, promoting reforestation, preserving natural resources, protecting 

fish and wildlife, developing and protecting recreational facilities, mitigating floods, preventing 

impairment of dams and reservoirs, conserving surface and subsurface moisture, protecting the 

watersheds of navigable streams, and protecting the public’s health, safety, and welfare.

Bedload – Sand, silt, gravel, soil, or detritus carried by a stream on or immediately above the 

bottom. 

Best management practice (BMP) – The method, measure, or practice selected by an agency to

meet its nonpoint-source pollution control needs. BMPs include, but are not limited to, structural

controls, operations, and maintenance procedures. BMPs can be applied before, during, or after 

pollution producing activities to reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into the water.

Biodiversity – The range of organisms present in a particular ecological community or system. It

can be measured by the numbers and types of different species, or by the genetic variations within

and between species.
Glossary

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 137

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Caliche – A sedimentary rock, a hardened deposit of calcium carbonate. This calcium carbonate 

cements together other materials, including gravel, sand, clay, and silt. It is found in aridisol and 

mollisol soil orders. Caliche occurs worldwide, generally in arid or semiarid regions. 

Canopy – (1) The vertical projection downward of the aerial portion of vegetation, usually 

expressed as a percent of the ground so occupied; (2) A generic term referring to the aerial portion 

of vegetation (USDA NRCS, 2003). 

Canopy cover – The percentage of ground covered by a vertical projection of the outermost 

perimeter of the natural spread of foliage of plants. Small openings within the canopy are

included (USDA NRCS, 2003). 

Cavity tree – A tree with a hollow space that provides potential nesting habitat for birds or small

mammals.

Channel – A passage, either naturally or artificially created, that periodically or continuously 

contains moving water, or that forms a connecting link between two bodies of water. River, creek,

stream, run, branch, and tributary are some of the terms used to describe natural channels. Natural

channels may be single or braided. Canal and floodway are some of the terms used to describe 

artificial channels. 

Climate change – Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean 

state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically 30 years or

longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forces, or to

persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that

the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, 

defines “climate change” as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to

human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to

natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” The UNFCCC thus makes a 

distinction between “climate change” attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric 

composition, and “climate variability” attributable to natural causes. See also “Climate

variability.” 

Closed basin – An enclosed region having no drainage outlet and from which water escapes only 

by evaporation or infiltration.

Closed-loop drilling system – A drilling system that collects lubricants, fluids, drilling mud, and 

other additives in a tank, as opposed to an open pit.

Codominant – One of two or more species that are equally dominant in a biotic community. 

Common mineral – Also known as mineral materials. A collective term used to describe

petrified wood and common varieties of sand, gravel, stone, pumice, pumicite, cinders, clay, and 

other similar materials. Common varieties do not include deposits of those materials which are

valuable because of some property giving them distinct and special value (36 CFR 228.42). The

determination of which minerals are considered common variety is made by the Bureau of Land

Management.

Condition survey – A tool used to document the condition of a given facility. The facilities are

measured against maintenance objectives and standards for health and safety.
Glossary

138 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Conditions of approval (COA) – Site-specific mitigation which is applied at the time of the 

approval of the surface use plan of operations (SUPO). Mitigation under COA cannot move an

operation more than 200 meters, or site operations off of a leasehold, or prohibit new surfacedisturbing operations for a period of more than 60 days in any 1 year (43 CFR 3101.1-2.). If COA

mitigation is within this parameter, it is considered consistent with lease rights. Mitigation more

restrictive than this cannot be applied using a COA and requires a lease stipulation.

Constructed feature – Anything constructed by the Forest Service or by a permittee for use in

administering the national grasslands. When used in the context of scenery, the term refers to

anything that is built on the landscape.

Controlled surface use – Allowed use and occupancy, unless restricted by another stipulation,

with identified resource values requiring special operational constraints that may modify the lease

rights. CSU is used as an operating guideline, not as a substitute for no surface occupancy (NSO)

or timing stipulations.

Corridor –A band of forest, shrub, or native grass land connecting discontinuous patches of same

which enhance connectivity and facilitate the movement of animals and plants that have a limited

cruising range. See “Wildlife corridors,” “Forest fragmentation.” 

Creek draw – Usually a dry creekbed or gulch that temporarily fills with water after a heavy rain 

or fills seasonally. The term usually applies to a mountainous desert environment. 

Crowned – Shaped to provide for proper drainage away from the center toward the outside of the 

road. 

Depressional wetland (seasonal and perennial) – Depressional wetlands are places where

runoff accumulates in a topographic depression. Water either does not flow through the wetland

or the flow is essentially imperceptible. Ponds on fault traces, valley bottoms, and on broad

saddles along ridges are examples of natural depressional wetlands. Depressional wetlands can be

perennial or seasonal. Perennial depressional wetlands have some amount of standing water for at

least 9 months during most years. Seasonal depressional wetlands have no standing water, or it

lasts for less than 9 months during most years.

Design capacity – The maximum number of visitors that can be accommodated by the facilities

at a particular site.

Designated road, trail, or area – Routes and areas designated on the motor vehicle use map and 

established by a decision that is compliant with the 2005 Travel Management Rule.

Designated dispersed sites – Sites where vehicles may pull off local roads but may not access

the entire unit for motorized dispersed activities because of the use of fences and/or barriers.

Desired conditions – Statements of the social, economic, and ecological outcomes to be achieved

in the future. These outcomes relate to land and resource conditions and ecological and social

processes. They are aspirations and strategic in nature, rather than project-specific commitments.

Some desired conditions may be achieved within the 15-year life of the plan, and others may 

extend beyond that timeframe. Desired conditions strive to paint a picture of the future

Grasslands so that every reader, be they manager or user, understands the same message. Desired

conditions form the principal basis from which objectives are developed. Desired conditions 
Glossary

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 139

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

ultimately serve to guide Grassland managers in planning and providing direction for future 

actions and in developing a meaningful monitoring program to determine progress toward

achievement over the life of the plan. 

Desired landscape character – “The most complete, attractive and sustainable expression of the 

valued landscape character which is compatible with that landscape’s fully integrated set of 

desired conditions” (SMS Handbook definition page 5-5 expanded). Desired landscape character

represents the most “ideal” and attractive scenic identity that is possible, given the limitations of

the ecosystem and achievement of other resource objectives as defined in the desired conditions. 

Developed recreation – Recreation that occurs at manmade developments such as campgrounds, 

picnic grounds, resorts, ski areas, or trailheads. Facilities might include roads, parking lots, picnic

tables, toilets, drinking water, ski lifts, and buildings. Campgrounds and picnic areas are

examples of developed recreation sites.

Developed recreation site – A distinctly defined area where facilities are provided for 

concentrated public use, e.g. campgrounds, picnic areas, or swimming areas.

Dispersed camping – Camping outside of a developed camping facility.

Dispersed recreation – That type of outdoor recreation that tends to be spread out over the land

and in conjunction with roads, trails, and undeveloped waterways. Activities are often day-use 

oriented and include hunting, fishing, boating, hiking, off-road vehicle use, cross-country skiing,

motorbiking, and mountain climbing.

Ditching – Constructing a roadside ditch to carry surface runoff from the road surface away from

the road. 

Dormant season grazing – Removal of plant material by ungulates when no physiological plant

activity is occurring.

Dry swale – A low-lying depression between slopes that provides for drainage during storm 

events.

Dry wash – The dry bed of an intermittent stream, such as those found at the bottom of a canyon. 

Dust Bowl – A historic drought which affected the southern Great Plains, primarily from 1931 to

1939. The drought was characterized by large clouds of moving dust and coincided with the Great

Depression.

Easement – The right-of-use over the property of another. The land having the right-of-use is

known as the dominant estate and the land that is subject to the easement is known as the servient

estate.

Ecosystem – The system formed by the interaction of a group of organisms and their

environment. 

Ecotone – A transition zone between two distinct ecological communities.

Eco-tourism – Environmentally responsible travel to natural areas, in order to enjoy and 

appreciate nature (and accompanying cultural features, both past and present) that promote 
Glossary

140 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

conservation, have a low visitor impact, and provide for beneficially active socioeconomic 

involvement of local peoples (World Conservation Union). 

Eligible scenic river – A river that meets the eligibility criteria for a scenic river but has not been

evaluated for its suitability. Such rivers are managed to maintain the outstandingly remarkable

values for which they were determined to be eligible until a suitability evaluation is completed. 

Emergent – Aquatic plants with some or most of the leaf area extending out of the water.

Employment rate – The proportion of the civilian noninstitutional population aged 16 years and 

over that is employed; also known as the employment-population ratio (U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics 2010).

Endemic – Native or confined to a certain region; having a comparatively restricted distribution. 

Erosion – The wearing away of the land’s surface by running water, wind, ice, or other 

geological agents. It includes detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, 

ice, or gravity.

Escape structure – A structure built out of small buried culverts open at both ends, primarily

sized for swift fox, which provides shelter to escape from predators.

Exclosure – a fence used to keep certain animals from grazing and browsing in a given area,

usually to exclude cattle or big game species.

Facility – Structures needed to support the management, protection, and use of the national 

forests, including roads, trails, buildings, utility systems, dams, and other construction features.

There are three types of facilities: recreation, administrative, and permittee.

Federally listed species – A species listed under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act.

Flight path –In this plan, flight path refers to the low-flying areas around an airport where the 

effects of an aircraft taking off or landing can be expected. 

Flooding regime – The timing, spatial extent, depth, and response to runoff associated with the 

overflowing of water from the normal confines of a stream or other body of water.

Flood plain – That portion of a river or stream valley, adjacent to the channel, which is covered

with water when the river or stream overflows its banks at flood stages.

Fluvial processes – The mechanisms which occur when running water causes erosion, transport, 

and deposition. 

Food plot – An area sown or planted annually with grains, legumes, berries, or other plants to 

provide food for wildlife or openings that are mowed or otherwise cultivated to maintain natural

herbaceous vegetation.

Forage – browse and herbage which is available and can provide food for animals or be 

harvested for feeding. 

Forb – Any herbaceous broad-leaved plant species.
Glossary

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 141

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Foreground – Detailed landscape generally found from the observer to 1⁄2 mile away. 

Forest (wood) products – Any resource derived from trees except lumber. This includes seeds,

nuts, firewood, biomass, and other related products. 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) – The principal source of specialized guidance and instruction

for carrying out the direction issued in the FSM. Specialists and technicians are the primary

audience of handbook direction. Handbooks may also incorporate external directives with related

USDA and Forest Service directive supplements.

Forest Service Manual (FSM) – A general guide containing legal authorities, objectives,

policies, responsibilities, instructions, and guidance needed on a continuing basis by Forest

Service line officers and primary staff in more than one unit to plan and execute assigned

programs and activities.

Fragmentation – Habitat fragmentation is a process that occurs wherever a large, contiguous 

habitat is transformed into smaller patches that are isolated from each other by a landscape matrix

unlike the original. This matrix can differ from the original habitat in either composition or

structure. The crucial point is that it functions as either a partial or total barrier to dispersal for 

species associated with the original habitat. A clear threat to population viability exists when the 

process of fragmentation occurs that isolates pairs and populations versus fragmentation within

the home range of the individual pairs.

Free flowing – Defined by the Wild and Scenic River Act as, “existing or flowing in natural 

condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of 

the waterway. The existence, however, of low dams, diversion works, and other minor structures 

at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers system shall

not automatically bar its consideration for such inclusion.” 

Geomorphology – The classification, description, nature, origin, and development of present

landforms and their relationships to underlying structures; and of the history of geologic changes

as recorded by these surface features.

Grazing – Consumption of range or pasture herbaceous forage by animals.

Grazing permit – Any document authorizing livestock to use NFS or other lands under Forest

Service control for the purpose of livestock production. CFR 222.1(a) (5)

Grazing permittee – An individual who has been granted written permission to graze livestock

for a specific period on a range allotment; the recipient of a grazing permit.

Great Plains – The large grassland in the rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains, about 2,500

miles from north to south and 600 miles wide from east to west. In the United States, it covers the

eastern portions of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico, the western portions of 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, and the panhandle of Texas. It

extends north into the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. 

Greenhorn – Mineral consisting predominantly of dark-colored, chalky limestone and calcareous

shale.
Glossary

142 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Groundwater – Water within the earth that supplies wells and springs. Specifically, water in the

zone of saturation where all openings in soils and rocks are filled. The upper surface level forms

the water table.

Ground cover – Anything which covers the ground surface or topsoil and has the effect of

reducing erosion. Preferably, this would be a vegetative layer of grasses and/or other low growing 

plants but may also include plant residues such as leaf litter and tree debris as well as various

forms of rock.

Ground-disturbing activities – Any activity which moves soil to the extent that an

archaeological site may be impacted.

Groundwater depletion – Groundwater depletion occurs when aquifer discharge exceeds

recharge.

Groundwater discharge – Discharge areas are the opposite of recharge areas. They are the 

locations at which groundwater leaves the aquifer and flows to the surface. Groundwater 

discharge occurs where the water table intersects the land surface. Where this happens, springs or 

seeps are found. 

Groundwater recharge – Recharge is the process by which groundwater is replenished. A 

recharge area is where water from precipitation percolates downward to an aquifer. Recharge is

promoted by vegetation cover, flat topography, permeable soils, a deep water table, and the 

absence of impermeable substrate.

Group site – A recreation site designed to accommodate group events such as family gatherings.

Growing season – The period when plants actively photosynthesize and put on vegetative growth

in preparation for seed production. 

Guidelines – Specifications that (1) contribute to maintaining or achieving desired conditions and 

objectives and (2) would be adopted by a project or activity unless there is a compelling and 

defensible reason to vary from the guidelines. Such variances are only allowed without plan

amendment if the alternative approach provided by the variance meets the intent of the plan

guideline. If such a variance is considered appropriate, the responsible official records in the 

project-level document the reasons for that variance and no plan amendment is required. A project

or activity should be consistent with guidelines.

Gully erosion – Gully erosion is the process by which gullies are formed. Hillsides are more

prone to gullying when they are cleared of vegetation through deforestation, overgrazing, or other

means. The eroded soil is easily carried by flowing water after being dislodged from the ground, 

normally when rain falls during short, intense storms such as during thunderstorms. 

Habitat – The natural conditions and environment in which a plant or animal lives, e.g. forest,

desert, or wetlands.

Habitat niche – The locality where the organism may generally be found and where all essentials

for its development and existence are present. Habitat niches are described by their geographical 

boundaries or with such terms as “shady woodlands,” “banks of streams,” “dry hillsides,” etc.
Glossary

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 143

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Headcut – A sudden change in elevation or knickpoint at the leading edge of a gully. Headcuts 

can range from less than an inch to several feet in height, depending on several factors. The 

formation and movement of a gully headcut are often the dominant forms of damage observed in

an earth spillway.

Herbaceous plant – Plants that have nonwoody stems and die back at the end of the growing 

season.

Herbivory – The consumption of herbaceous vegetation by animals.

Heritage resources – Buildings, sites, areas, architecture, memorials, and objects having 

scientific, prehistoric, historic, or social values.

High-clearance vehicle – A vehicle greater than 60 inches in width designed or modified for use 

“off road” with appropriate clearance, tires, suspension, and undercarriage protection. 

High Plains – The High Plains are a subregion of the Great Plains in the central United States,

generally encompassing the western part of the Great Plains before the region reaches the Rocky

Mountains. The High Plains are located in eastern Colorado, western Kansas, western Nebraska,

central and eastern Montana, eastern New Mexico, western Oklahoma, northwestern Texas, and 

southeastern Wyoming. From east to west, the High Plains rise in elevation from around 750 m 

(2,500 feet) to over 1,800 m (6,000 feet).

Historical extent – The geographic area that a vegetation type covered in the past.

Homestead – Land claimed by a settler, particularly under the Homestead Act of 1862. 

Hydric soil – A soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough 

during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper horizon. Hydric soils

along with hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology are used to define wetlands.

Hydrologic function – Hydrologic functions are those related to the quantity of water that enters,

is stored in, or leaves a wetland. These functions include such factors as the reduction of flow 

velocity, the role of wetlands as groundwater recharge or discharge areas, and the influence of

wetlands on atmospheric processes. Water quality functions include the trapping of sediment,

pollution control, and the biochemical processes that take place as water enters, is stored in, or

leaves a wetland. 

Hydrology – The study of the behavior of water in the atmosphere, on the earth’s surface, and 

underground. 

Hydrophytic plant – A plant characterized by its adaptations to a water-saturated environment. 

Important bird area (IBA) – Sites that provide essential habitat for one or more species of birds. 

IBAs include sites for breeding, wintering, and/or migrating birds. IBAs may be a few acres or 

thousands of acres, but usually they are discrete sites that stand out from the surrounding 

landscape. IBAs may include public or private lands, or both, and they may be protected or

unprotected. The criteria for and selection of IBAs is administered by the Audubon Society.

Improvement – Manmade developments, such as roads, trails, fences, stock tanks, pipelines,

power and telephone lines, survey monuments, and ditches.
Glossary

144 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Inclusion – A variance in vegetation within a vegetation type due to landform, moisture regime,

soil type, erosion, or past disturbance. 

Income – When “income” is used in this document, it is equivalent to the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis’ definition of personal income which states, “Personal income is the income received by 

persons from participation in production, plus transfer receipts from government and business, 

plus government interest (which is treated like a transfer receipt). It is defined as the sum of wage

and salary disbursements, supplements to wages and salaries, proprietors’ income with inventory

valuation and capital consumption adjustments, rental income of persons with capital

consumption adjustment, personal dividend income, personal interest income, and personal 

current transfer receipts, less contributions for government social insurance.” 

Indicator species – A species whose presence, absence, or relative well-being in a given

environment is indicative of the health of its ecosystem as a whole. 

Infiltration – Infiltration is the process of water entering the soil. The rate of infiltration is the

maximum velocity at which water enters the soil surface.

Infrastructure – The facilities, utilities, and transportation system needed to meet public and

administrative needs. 

Intermittent/ephemeral stream – An ephemeral stream or stretch of a stream is one that flows

only in direct response to precipitation or intermittent springs. It receives no water from perennial

springs and no long continued supply from melting snow or other source. Its stream channel is at

all times above the water table. The term may be arbitrarily restricted to streams or stretches of

streams that do not flow continuously during periods of as much as 1 month. 

Interpretive services – Information services designed to present inspirational, educational, and

recreational values to forest visitors to provide the utmost in understanding, appreciation, and 

enjoyment from their forest experience. 

Invasive species – A species, including its seed, spores or other biological material, whose 

introduction does cause or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human 

health (Executive Order 13112). 

Inventoried roadless area – Areas, typically of 5,000 acres or greater, which were identified in

the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation in 1979. 

Isolated parcel – A parcel of land that is typically the size of a section or less and which is

discontinuous to the rest of the NFS lands that are within the administrative boundary of the unit.

Job growth – The number of jobs gained by an area over a period of time. Jobs are counted in the

same way the Bureau of Economic Analysis counts employment: “a count of jobs, full-time plus 

part-time, by place of work. Full-time and part-time jobs are given equal weight. Employees, sole 

proprietors, and general partners are included, but unpaid family workers and volunteers are not.” 

Lake-based recreation complexes – A recreation facility that is located near or adjacent to a lake

or reservoir and supports access to and protection of the recreational opportunities of the lake.

Land adjustment – Lands acquired through purchase, donation, exchange, transfer, sale, grant,

or selection.
Glossary

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 145

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Land exchange – The conveyance of non-Federal land or interest in the land to the United States

in exchange for NFS land or interest in the land. 

Land purchase – The conveyance of non-Federal land or interest in the land to the United States

by fee-simple purchase. 

Large woody debris – Dead wood left on the ground, including logs, stumps, and limbs

contributes to the structural diversity of the forest and biotic diversity of the ecosystem by hosting 

fungi, insects, invertebrates, small mammals, and birds. They also have a critical role in the larger

forest because of their importance to nutrient cycling.

Leasing (oil and gas) – A contract right granted by the United States allowing a lessee the right

of holding a record title and operating right to the leased oil and/or gas in exchange for rent and

royalty payments. Oil and gas leases will expire in 10 years if they are not put into production; 

otherwise, leases do not expire as long as they are “held by production.” 

Litter – The uppermost layer of organic debris on the ground, composed mainly of fresh or 

slightly decomposed leaves, bark, twigs, flowers, fruits, and other vegetative matter.

Management approach – Approach or strategy to manage the unit to achieve a desired

condition. Management approaches often convey how plan components work together to achieve

the desired condition. They may also describe context, intent, priorities, collaborations, needs for 

surveys, inventories or assessments, or approaches to risk and uncertainty. They are not, however, 

plan components. 

Management indicator species – Plant or animal species or habitat components selected during 

the alternatives analyses stage of an environmental impact statement that are used to monitor the 

effects of planned management activities on populations of wildlife and fish, including those that

are socially or economically important. 

Mast – The flowers, fruits, or seeds of plants, especially of trees and shrubs that are eaten by 

animals. Hard mast includes hard-shelled seeds such as acorns and hickory nuts. Soft mast

includes flowers and seeds with a fleshy cover (for example berries, wild cherries, and maple

seeds).

Memorandum of understanding (MOU) – A legal agreement between the Forest Service and

other agencies resulting from consultation between agencies that states specific measures the 

agencies will follow to accomplish a large or complex project. A MOU is not a fund obligating 

document. 

Mesic (adapted) species – Plant species adapted to mesic environmental conditions are ones with

medium moisture requirements. Mesic soil is a medium type of soil that drains well, yet retains

some water.

Middle ground – The zone between the foreground and background in a landscape. The area

located from 1⁄2 mile to 4 miles from the observer. 

Minerals, common variety – see “Common mineral.” 

Monitoring – Collecting information to track system conditions and their response to

management.
Glossary

146 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Motor vehicle use map – A map displaying designated roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle

use on an administrative unit or a ranger district of the NFS.

Mott – A small group of trees usually in grassland or shrub land setting.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – An act declaring a national policy to encourage

productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment, to promote efforts which

will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and the biosphere and stimulate the health

and welfare of man, to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources

important to the Nation and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.

National forest land and resource management plan – A plan developed to meet the 

requirements of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as

amended, that guides all resource management activities and establishes management standards 

and guidelines for the NFS lands of a given NF.

National Forest System (NFS) land – Federal lands that have been designated by Executive 

Order or statute as national forest, national grasslands, or purchase units, or other lands under the 

administration of the Forest Service.

National historic trail – National historic trails were authorized under the National Trails System

Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-543), along with national scenic trails and national recreation trails.

National scenic trails and national historic trails may only be designated by an act of Congress. 

National Register of Historic Places – A list of heritage resources that have local, state, or

national significance maintained by the Secretary of the Interior.

National Wild and Scenic River System – Rivers with outstanding scenic, recreational,

geological, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values; designated by Congress 

under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for preservation of their free flowing condition. 

National Wilderness Preservation System – Pristine Federal lands designated by the Wilderness

Act of 1964 and subsequent wilderness legislation. Generally, these lands are untouched by 

“works of man.” 

Natural recruitment – The unaided settlement and proliferation of a species in a suitable habitat.

Nesting platform – An artificial nest structure employed as a habitat improvement practice when

quality nest sites are a limiting factor to raptor density.

Nongovernmental organization (NGO) – is a term that has become widely accepted as referring 

to a legally constituted entity created by natural or legal persons with no participation or 

representation of any government. NGOs exist for a variety of reasons, usually to further the 

political or social goals of their members or funders. Examples include improving the state of the 

natural environment, encouraging the observance of human rights, improving the welfare of the 

disadvantaged, or representing a corporate agenda.

No surface occupancy – A fluid mineral leasing stipulation that prohibits occupancy or 

disturbance on all or part of the land surface to protect special values or uses. The NSO

stipulation includes stipulations that may have been worded as “no surface use/occupancy,” “no 

surface disturbance,” “conditional NSO,” and “surface disturbance or surface occupancy
Glossary

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 147

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

restriction by location.” Lessee may exploit the oil and gas or geothermal resources under leases

restricted by this stipulation through use of directional drilling from sites outside the NSO area.

Nonsalary income – Income from employment that does not pay a wage or salary, such as a 

small business or farm.

No wake boating – The slowest speed at which it is still possible to maintain steering and which

does not produce a wake.

Noxious weed – A legal term applied to plants regulated by Federal and state laws, such as plants

designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the responsible state official.

Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and 

difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of serious insect or disease, and

being not native or new or not common to the United States or parts thereof. (Forest Service

Manual 2080.5, Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, PL 93-629, as amended). 

Objectives – Proactive steps that the Grasslands expect to accomplish over the next 15 years to 

maintain or move toward the desired conditions of the plan. Objectives are measurable and timespecific outcomes. Any project or activity undertaken during the life of the plan must be 

consistent with objectives. Variations in achieving objectives may take place during the next 15 

years because of changes in environmental conditions, available budgets, catastrophic events, and 

other unforeseen factors. 

Off-highway vehicle – Any motorized vehicle capable of or designed for travel on or 

immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain with a vehicle width of less than 50 inches.

Off-road motorized vehicle – Any motorized vehicle capable of or designed for travel on or

immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain. This includes all mechanical means of 

transportation: passenger cars, 4-wheel drive pickups or sport utility vehicles, trail bikes,

snowmobiles, or other ground transportation vehicles that are capable of traveling over land 

where no roads exist.

Open pit – A shallow, manmade open pond or pit used on a drill site or production pad to hold 

produced water or fluids from drilling. “Closed” pits refer to the use of tanks to store these types

of fluids. 

Outdoor classrooms – Areas that are designed and managed for use by local schools and other

educational institutions.

Outsloping – Shaping the road surface with a continuous cross slope to carry surface water off

the fill side of the road. 

Outstandingly remarkable values – Scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic,

cultural, or other similar values which make a river eligible for designation as a wild or scenic

river.

Overland flow – A condition in which precipitation rate is faster than infiltration rate, and excess

water runs over the surface of the land. 

Overlay – A management area or special area that provides more specific direction for a small

geographic location within a larger management area. The management direction given for the
Glossary

148 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

larger management area continues to apply. For example, if proposing a project next to the

Canadian River, a specialist would have to look at the direction for the eligible scenic river and

the Mills Canyon Management Area, which are both overlays, as well as the direction for the

KRB Management Area.

Overstory – That portion of a plant community consisting of the taller plants on the site; the

forest or woodland canopy.

Paleontological resources – Fossils and other resources related to the natural history of an area.

Palustrine wetland – Relating to a system of inland, nontidal wetlands characterized by the

presence of trees, shrubs, and emergent vegetation (vegetation that is rooted below water but

grows above the surface). Palustrine wetlands range from permanently saturated or flooded land

(as in marshes, swamps, and lakeshores) to land that is wet only seasonally (as in vernal pools). 

See “Emergent.”

Pasture – A grazing area enclosed and separated from other areas by fencing or other barriers.

Patch (size) – A relatively homogeneous nonlinear area that differs from its surroundings. It can

specifically describe forested patches, nonforest vegetation patches, rock/barren patches, or water

patches.

Per capita income – This measure of income is calculated as the total personal income of the

residents of an area divided by the population of the area. Per capita personal income is often

used as an indicator of consumers’ purchasing power and of the economic well-being of the

residents of an area.

Perennial stream – Permanently inundated surface stream course. Surface water flows

throughout the year except in years of prolonged drought.

Playa lakes – Bowl-shaped depressions that are dependent on rainfall and surface runoff for the

water they impound. They are closed basins and usually do not overflow. They are mostly

intermittent, with lake evaporation occurring at about 60 inches per year.

Potential natural vegetation type – The plant community that would become established if all

successional sequences were completed without human interference under present environmental

and floristic conditions, including those created by man.

Potential wilderness area – An area that meets the criteria for the inventory phase of wilderness

evaluation as described in FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71.

Prescribed burn – Fire burning under conditions specified in an approved plan to dispose of

fuels, control unwanted vegetation, stimulate growth of desired vegetation, change successional

stages, etc., to meet range, wildlife, recreation, wilderness, watershed, or timber management

objectives. Prescribed burns occur under specified environmental conditions that allow the fire to

safely be confined to a predetermined area and produce the fireline intensity and rate of spread

required to meet management objectives.

Quality of life – A term used to refer to the social, economic, and health related values that

compose the overall satisfaction and general well-being of an individual or community.
Glossary

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 149

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) – A framework for stratifying and defining classes of

outdoor recreation environments, activities, and experience opportunities. The settings, activities,

and opportunities for obtaining experiences have been arranged along a continuum or spectrum

divided into six classes: primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized, semiprimitive motorized, roaded

natural, rural, and urban.

Recreation settings – The combination of physical, biological, social, and managerial conditions 

that give value to a place for recreation opportunities. 

Recreational fisheries – A water body that supports fish which are managed for sport fishing. 

Reference condition – The environmental conditions that imply ecological sustainability, 

represented by the characteristic range of variation (when available), not the total range of 

variation, prior to European settlement and under the current climatic period. At landscape scales,

presettlement human-caused effects are inherent to the reference condition, particularly where

there are fire-adapted systems. It may be necessary to refine reference conditions according to

climate change projections and permanent environmental changes (e.g., invasive species).

Reference conditions are best suited for analysis when quantified by amount, condition, spatial

distribution, and temporal variation.

Research – Activities undertaken for the purpose of formal scientific inquiry by the Forest

Service, other Federal agencies, universities, or an individual researcher.

Research Natural Area (RNA) – An area set aside by the Forest Service to preserve a 

representative sample of an ecological community, primarily for scientific and educational 

purposes. Commercial exploitation is not allowed and general public use is discouraged.

Research site – A site that is limited in its ability to be used for other management purposes and

is part of an active research project.

Residual ground cover – Plant material remaining onsite after grazing activity has ended. 

Right-of-way – A linear strip of land defined for a present or future location of transportation or 

utility right-of-way within its boundaries. 

Riparian – An area of vegetation adjacent to an aquatic ecosystem distinguished by a high water

table, certain soil characteristics, and some vegetation that requires free water or moist soil

conditions. 

Riverine – Relating to a system of inland wetlands and deep water habitats, characterized by the 

absence of trees, shrubs, or emergent vegetations associated within a channel which periodically

or continuously contains nontidal flowing water.

Road – A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail (36 

CFR 212.1, FSM 7705). 

Road abandonment – A method of road decommissioning whereby the road receives no physical 

treatment.

Road decommissioning – Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded 

roads to a more natural state (36 CFR 212.1). 
Glossary

150 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Road management objectives – RMOs document the intended purpose of an individual road in

providing access to implement a land and resource management plan as well as decisions about 

applicable standards for the road. RMOs should be based on management area direction and

access management objectives. RMOs contain design criteria, operation criteria, and maintenance 

criteria (FSM 7709.59.11). 

Roaded natural ROS – Characterized by a predominantly natural appearing environment with

moderate evidence of human activity. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident 

but harmonize with the natural environment. May have a mosaic of highly modified areas to

pockets of unmodified lands. Developed sites provide for some user comfort as well as site

protection, but harmonize with the natural environment. 

Roadway – Portion of the road that includes everything from the top of the cut slope to the 

bottom of the fill slope.

Rolling dips – Shallow depressions built diagonally across a road to divert surface water runoff

from the road. 

Roost – A support such as tree limbs, thick tree bark, or brush piles which birds or bats use to rest

upon or use for cover.

Rural ROS – A substantially modified natural environment. There is evidence of resource

modification and utilization practices, and facilities are often designed for larger numbers of 

people. Campgrounds often include paved roads, electricity, and other conveniences.

RV – Abbreviation for recreational vehicle, which is a vehicle that contains living quarters for

recreational purposes. 

Salting/mineral supplementation/supplemental feeding – Providing necessary nutrients that

are not naturally provided to grazing animals.

Savanna – A grassy plain typified by the presence of a low density of open-grown trees and

which is usually maintained by periodic fire.

Scenery – General appearance of a place, landscape, and/or its visible features (definition per

SMS Handbook glossary, slightly revised and shortened for clarity).

Scenery Management System (SMS) – A process for the inventory and analysis of the aesthetic

values of national forest lands providing for integration of these values with other biological, 

physical, and social/cultural resources in the planning process.

Scenery objectives – Also known as scenic integrity objectives, which set guidelines to manage

the degree that management or other projects may negatively impact the desired landscape 

character, according to Agriculture Handbook 701, Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for 

Scenery Management.

Scenic – Of or relating to landscape scenery; pertaining to natural, natural appearing or other 

valued scenery; constituting or affording pleasant views of natural landscape attributes or positive 

cultural elements (definition per SMS Handbook glossary, slightly revised for clarity).
Glossary

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 151

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Scenic integrity (high, medium and low) – A measure of the degree to which a landscape is

visually perceived to be “complete,” and is determined by three factors: dominance, degree of

deviation, and intactness of the desired landscape character established based on the existing

condition. Scenic integrity disturbances most typically result from human activities, but can also

result from natural events which exceed the landscape’s historic range of variability in terms of 

magnitude, duration, or intensity. An exception to this is direct human alterations that have

become accepted over time as positive landscape character attributes (e.g., historic cabins, farms,

and ranches).

High integrity – The valued scenery “appears natural or unaltered,” yet visual disturbances

are present; however, they remain unnoticed because they repeat the form, line, color, texture,

pattern, and scale of the valued scenery. When used as a standard or guideline, this level

should be achieved as soon after project completion as possible or within 3 years, maximum.

Moderate integrity – The valued scenery “appears slightly altered.” Noticeable disturbances 

are minor and visually subordinate to the valued scenery because they repeat its form, line,

color, texture, pattern, and scale. When used as a standard or guideline, this level should be

achieved as soon after project completion as possible or within 3 years, maximum.

Low integrity – The valued scenery “appears moderately altered.” Visual disturbances are

codominant with the valued scenery and may create a focal point of moderate contrast.

Disturbances may reflect, introduce, or “borrow” valued scenery attributes from outside the 

landscape being viewed (such as the size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of natural openings; 

vegetative type changes or socially valued architectural styles). Scenery attributes borrowed 

from outside the viewed landscape appear compatible with or complementary to those within.

When used as a standard or guideline, this level should be achieved as soon after project

completion as possible or within 3 years, maximum.

Scenic quality – Degree to which the appearance of a place, landscape, or feature can elicit

psychological and physiological benefits to individuals and, therefore, to society in general

(definition per SMS Handbook glossary, revised). Scenic quality is described and measured

through the landscape character inventory information and the cumulative conditions of the two

primary SMS indicators described in this glossary, “Scenic integrity” and “Scenic stability.” 

Scenic river – Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or

watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by 

roads. 

Seasonal depressional wetland – See “Depressional wetland.” 

Sediment – Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is being transported, 

or has been moved from its site of origin by air, water, gravity, or ice and has come to rest on the 

earth’s surface either above or below sea level.

Sediment load – Solid material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, being

transported, or has been moved from site of origin by air, water, gravity, or ice.

Sedimentation – The deposition or settling of soil particles suspended in water.

Semiprimitive motorized ROS – Similar setting to the SPNM below, except this area provides a 

motorized back-country experience where trails and primitive roads are designed for highclearance, four-wheel-drive vehicles. There is a moderate probability of experiencing solitude. 
Glossary

152 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

High degree of self-reliance and challenge in using motorized equipment. These areas are

predominantly natural, lacking some human modification, except when necessary for site

protection.

Semiprimitive nonmotorized (SPNM) ROS – A nonmotorized back-country area with a 

predominantly natural appearing environment, without evidence of resource modification and

utilization practices. This type of area provides opportunities for self-reliance and challenge, with

a low concentration of users and high degree of interaction with the natural environment.

Recreation developments are rustic and rudimentary and primarily provided for the protection of

the resources rather than convenience of the users.

Shelterbelt – A shelterbelt is a windbreak plantation made up of one or more rows of trees or

shrubs planted in such a manner as to provide shelter from the wind and to protect soil from

erosion. The Great Plains Shelterbelt was a project used to create windbreaks in the Great Plains

states that was launched in 1934. President Franklin D. Roosevelt initiated the project in response

to the severe dust storms of the Dust Bowl which resulted in significant soil erosion and drought.

The Great Plains Shelterbelt was authorized under the 1924 Clarke-McNary Act and was carried

out by the Works Projects Administration (WPA). By 1942, 30,233 shelterbelts had been planted,

which contained 220 million trees and stretched for 18,600 miles (29,900 km).

Snag – A standing, dead tree from which the leaves and most of the branches have fallen.

Soil compaction – Soil compaction occurs when soil particles are pressed together, reducing the

pore space between them. This increases the weight of solids per unit volume of soil (bulk

density). Soil compaction occurs in response to pressure (weight per unit area) exerted by field

machinery or animals. The risk for compaction is greatest when soils are wet.

Soil fertility – Soil fertility deals with the nutrient status, or ability of soil to supply nutrients for

plant growth under favorable environmental conditions such as light and temperature, and the

physical conditions of the soil.

Soil productivity – The capacity of a soil to support the growth of specified plants, plant

communities, or a sequence of plant communities. Soil productivity may be expressed in terms of 

volume or weight per unit, area per year, percent plant cover, or other measures of biomass

accumulation.

Special areas – Certain limited areas of NFS lands not designated as wilderness and containing

outstanding examples of plant and animal communities, geological features, scenic grandeur, or

other special attributes that merit special management. These areas are designated by law or may

be designated administratively as special areas. Areas so designated are managed to emphasize

recreational and other specific related values. Other uses are permitted in the areas to the extent

that these uses are in harmony with the purpose for which the area was designated. The law or

order designating each area provides specific objectives and guidelines for management of each

area.

Special use – Those uses and occupancy occurring on more than a transient basis except those 

covered by mining laws or associated with harvesting timber or grazing livestock. These uses

include roads, all types of utilities, ski areas, cemeteries, electronic sites, and recreation

residences. Uses are ordinarily covered by either an annual or term permit. Annual permits are for 

relatively short-term use and are revocable by the Forest Service. They are renewable each year
Glossary

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 153

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

by payment of a fee. Term permits are used to cover uses of a longer time period (up to 30 years)

and having a large economic investment. Examples of this permit include large electric

transmission lines and large recreation resorts and ski areas.

Species abundance – Relative species abundance and species richness describe key elements of 

biodiversity. Relative species abundance refers to how common or rare a species is relative to

other species in a given location or community. 

Species composition – The proportions of various individual plant species in relation to the total

in a given area.

Species diversity – The number of different species in a particular area (species richness)

weighted by some measure of abundance such as number of individuals or biomass.

Species richness – Species richness is the number of species present in a sample, community, or 

taxonomic group. Species richness is one component of the concept of species diversity.

Species structure – The physical height of a plant species in a vegetation community.

Species viability – Capability to possess the necessary population size and distribution of 

reproductive individuals for the well-distributed, continued existence in the planning area.

Spreader dam – A structure designed to dissipate surface flow.

Stand – A group of trees sufficiently uniform in species composition, size, age, structure, spatial

arrangement, and condition to be distinguished from surrounding stands and managed as a single

unit. 

Standard – An absolute requirement to be met in the design of projects and activities. A project

or activity is consistent with a standard when its design is in accord with the explicit provisions of 

the standard; variance from a standard in any way is not allowed. In sum, a project or activity

should meet the spirit, if not the letter, of a guideline, but must meet the letter of a standard.

Streambank – The sides of a channel that hold or carry water.

Structure – The presence, size, and physical arrangement of vegetation in a stand. Vertical

structure refers to the variety of plant heights, from the canopy to the forest floor. Horizontal 

structure refers to the types, sizes, and distribution of trees and other plants across the land 

surface. Forest lands with substantial structural diversity provide a variety of niches for different

wildlife species.

Successional stage – A stage of development of a plant community as it moves from bare ground 

to climax.

Suitability – The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a 

particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental

consequences and the alternative uses foregone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of 

individual or combined management practices.

Surface runoff – Refers to the loss of water from an area by flow over the land surface.
Glossary

154 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Surface use plan of operation (SUPO) – A plan of operations covering proposed surfacedisturbing activities that must be approved by the Forest Service prior to any surface-disturbing

activities occurring.

Sustainability – Sustainability is a goal for economic development and natural resource

management. Ecosystem sustainability is the capacity of an ecosystem for long-term maintenance

of ecological processes and functions, biological diversity, and productivity. Social and economic

sustainability generally refers to land management practices that provide goods and services from

a resource without degradation of the site quality, and without a decline in the yield of goods and

services over time.

Sustained yield – The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of an annual or periodic output

of the various renewable resources of the NFS without impairment of the productivity of the land.

Terrace – A leveled section of a hill cultivated area, designed as a method of soil conservation to

slow or prevent rapid surface runoff.

Terrestrial ecosystem survey (TES) and terrestrial ecological unit inventory (TEUI) – A

classification of ecological types and mapped terrestrial ecological units using a consistent

standard throughout NFS lands. Ecological units are categorized to identify land and water areas

at different levels of resolution based upon similar capabilities and potentials for response to

management and natural disturbances. Capabilities and potentials derive from multiple elements,

such as climate, geomorphology, geology, soils, water, and potential vegetation.

Topsoil – The upper, outermost layer of soil, usually the top 2 inches (5.1 cm) to 8 inches (20

cm). It has the highest concentration of organic matter and microorganisms and is where most of

the earth’s biological soil activity occurs.

Trail – A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is identified and

managed as a trail (36 CFR 212.1).

Travel Management Rule – Located in 36 CFR 212, Subpart B, Designation of Roads, Trails,

and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use. The rule requires each national forest or ranger district to

designate those roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicles. Designation will include class of

vehicle and, if appropriate, time of year for motor vehicle use. A given route, for example, could

be designated for use by motorcycles, ATVs, or street legal vehicles. Once designation is

complete, the rule will prohibit motor vehicle use off the designated system or inconsistent with

the designations. Designations will be shown on a motor vehicle use map. Use inconsistent with

the designations will be prohibited.

Tree guard (crib) – A structure placed around trees for protection against cattle rubbing and root

trampling.

Understory – Plants growing beneath the canopy of other plants. Usually refers to grasses, forbs,

and low shrubs under a tree or shrub canopy.

Ungulate – A hoofed mammal, such as deer, elk, mountain goats, bighorn sheep, moose,

antelope, caribou, and bison. Grazing animal that has hooves (e.g. cattle, antelope).

Urban cluster – The Census Bureau delineates urban cluster boundaries to encompass densely

settled territory, which consists of core census block groups or blocks that have a population
Glossary

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 155

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and surrounding census blocks that have an

overall density of at least 500 people per square mile. In addition, under certain conditions, less

densely settled territory may be part of the urban cluster.

Utility corridors – The linear space needed to bury or suspend a produced water line, gas

pipeline, oil pipeline, electric, or other line(s). It is often, but not always, located along a road.

Valued landscape – Those attributes that make the landscape valuable to people. These attributes

may include parts of the built environment.

Watershed condition – The state of a watershed based upon physical and biological

characteristics affecting hydrologic and soil functions. It is determined through the synthesis of

information including vegetation types and condition, streambank conditions, range conditions

and trend, soil conditions and erosion potential, and remotely sensed and field observations.

Wetland – Habitat that is transitional between terrestrial and aquatic where the water table is

usually at or near the land surface, or the land is covered by shallow water. Wetlands have one or

more of the following characteristics: (1) at least periodically the land supports predominantly

hydrophytic plants; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate

is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at sometime during the

growing season of each year (FSM 2600).

Wilderness area – An area of undeveloped Federal land that Congress designated as wilderness

and that retains its primeval character and influence, is without permanent improvements or

human habitation, and is protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions. An area that

(1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a

primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) comprises at least 5,000 acres of land or is of

sufficient size to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4)

may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or

historical value (Wilderness Act, 1964).

Wildlife corridors – Strips of trees, shrubs, and/or understory vegetation that provide cover and

habitat for wildlife and serve as travel lanes for movement between isolated patches of habitat.

Wildlife habitat improvement – Establishment of trees, shrubs, grasses, legumes, and/or forbs

to increase or improve wildlife habitat. Wildlife water development habitat improvements might

include ponds, windmills, solar pumps, and guzzlers designed to benefit wildlife.

Wind farm – A large group of wind turbines.

Wind turbine – A turbine which transforms the kinetic energy of the wind into mechanical or

electrical energy that can be harnessed for practical use.

Woody plant community – A group of tree or shrub plant populations.

Woodland – A plant community in which trees are often small, characteristically with a greater

proportion of their total height being crown more so than clear bole, and having trees spaced far

enough apart that the canopies of adjacent trees usually do not touch and with the ground

vegetation being mostly herbaceous, commonly grass (USDA Forest Service 2004).

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 157

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

References

Brockway, D. G., Gatewood, R. G., Paris, R. B. 2002. Restoring fire as an ecological process in 

shortgrass prairie ecosystems: initial effects of prescribed burning during the dormant and 

growing seasons. Journal of Environmental Management 65:135-152. 

Coker, B. 2005. [Fax to Michael Hand] June 23. On file at: USDA Forest Service, Cibola 

National Forest and Grasslands, Grasslands Plan Revision Record.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National

Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President.

Derner, J. D., Detling, J. K., and Antolin, M. F. 2006. Are livestock weight gains affected by 

prairie dogs? Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 4:459-464. 

Dunmire, W. W. 1987. Potential Research Natural Areas, Kiowa and Rita Blanca National 

Grasslands Cibola National Forest: An Evaluation of Shortgrass Prairie Sites on the

National Grasslands in New Mexico, Texas and Oklahoma. 

EPS. 2008. Headwaters Economics Economic Profile System (EPS). 2008 Version.

FEAST. 2010. Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool. 

<http://fsweb.ftcol.wo.fs.fed.us/PAG/Economics_Center/documents/Readings/EconomicI

mpactTechGuide07072010.docx> (accessed August 17, 2010). 

Haan, D., Thornton, C. 2004. Canadian River Tamarisk Control Project: Stream Health 

Assessment. TEAMS Enterprise Unit, U.S. Forest Service. 18 pp. 

Horton, R., Bell, L., O’Meilia, C. M., McLachlan, M., Hise, C., Wolfe, D., Elmore, D., Strong, J. 

D. 2010. A Spatially-Based Planning Tool Designed to Reduce Negative Effects of 

Development on the Lesser Prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) in Oklahoma: 

A Multi-Entity Collaboration to Promote Lesser Prairie-chicken Voluntary Habitat 

Conservation and Prioritized Management Actions. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 

Conservation. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 79 pp. 

McGuire, V. L. 2004. Water-Level Changes in the High Plains Aquifer, Predevelopment to 2002, 

1980 to 2002, and 2001 to 2002. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2004-3026. 5 pp. 

MIG. 2008. Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). 2008 IMPLAN Data. 

New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. 2004. 2004–2006 State of New Mexico 

Integrated Clean Water Act §303(d)/§305(b) Report. Gary King (ed.). Santa Fe NM. 541 

pp. 

Office of the President. 1994. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Population and Low-income Populations. February 1994. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. 2004. The State of Oklahoma 2004 Water 

Quality Assessment Integrated Report. 369 pp. 

Power, M. E., Tilman, D., Estes, J. A., Menge, B. A., Bond, W. J., Mills, L. S., Daily, G., Castilla, 

J. C., Lubchenco, J., Paine, R. T. 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones. BioScience 

46: 609–620. 

Russell, J. C., Adams-Russell, P. 2005. Values, Attitudes and Beliefs Toward National Forest 

System Lands: The Black Kettle, Kiowa, and Rita Blanca National Grasslands. 

Placerville, CA. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region.
References

158 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Seesholtz, D., Wickwar, D., Russell, J. 2004. Social Economic Profile Technical Guide. U.S. 

Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inventory Monitoring Institute. 2004.

Strenger, S., Sebring, S., Robbie, W., Escobedo, F., Vaandrager, C., Andrew, V., Brooks, E., 

Krasine, C., Nielsen, B., Fletcher, R. 2007. Terrestrial Ecosystems Survey of the Cibola 

National Forest and National Grasslands. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, 

Albuquerque, NM. 696 pp.

TCEQ. 2010. Draft Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d). 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

<http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/assessment/305_303.html> (accessed August 2, 

2011).

UNM-BBER. 2005. University of New Mexico Bureau of Business and Economic Research. 

Socioeconomic Assessment of the Region 3 National Grasslands.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. <http://www.bls.gov/> (accessed August 12, 2010).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Decennial Census. <http://factfinder.census.gov> (accessed August 

16, 2010).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. Guidance on the Presentation and Comparison of Race and Hispanic 

Origin Data. <http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/compraceho.html> 

(accessed October 30, 2008).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. 

<http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/> (accessed August 12, 2010).

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Forest Service Manual 1900 – Planning (FSM 1900). Amendment 

No. 1900-92-2. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C. 1992.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Geographic Area Assessment Black Kettle and McClellan Creek 

National Grasslands, Cibola National Forest. Version 1, August 14, 2000. Paginated by 

chapter.

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Soils Specialist Report. Cibola National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. Watershed Specialist Report. Cibola National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011c. Air Resources Specialist Report. Cibola National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011d. Vegetation and Wildlife Specialist Report. Cibola National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011e. Noxious/Invasive Species Specialist Report. Cibola National 

Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2011f. Scenic Resources Specialist Report. Cibola National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011g. Recreation Specialist Report. Cibola National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011h. Special Areas and Nature-based Tourism Specialist Report. Cibola 

National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011i. Heritage Resources Specialist Report. Cibola National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011j. Roads and Access Specialist Report. Cibola National Forest. 
References

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 159

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

USDA Forest Service. 2011k. Land Adjustment Specialist Report. Cibola National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011l. Minerals and Energy Specialist Report. Cibola National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011m. Forest Products Specialist Report. Cibola National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011n. Special Uses Specialist Report. Cibola National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011o. Wind Energy Development Specialist Report. Cibola National 

Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2011p. Livestock Use and Range Management Specialist Report. Cibola 

National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2011q. Wildland-Urban Interface/Fire Specialist Report. Cibola National 

Forest.

USDA NRCS. 2010. The PLANTS database (http://plants.usda.gov). USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Baton Rouge, LA.

USDI National Park Service, Santa Fe Trail Association. 2003. Santa Fe National Historic Trail 

Final Strategic Plan.

Wilson, J. 2010. Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands 

Plan Revision Economic Resource Report. USDA Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise 

Unit. 25 pp.

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 161

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Appendix 

A. Response to Comments

A notice of availability was posted in the Federal Register on September 30, 2011, by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS)

titled “Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and 

McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan.” This began the 90-

day comment period, which ended on December 28, 2011. The Forest Service received 1,492 

comment letters from individuals, organizations, and agencies; these comments were received by 

email, Web form, and via the U.S. Post Office. The Forest Service responded in the following

three basic ways to the substantive comments, as prescribed in 40 CFR 1503.4: 

• Modifying alternatives (the proposed plan (alternative B) and the wilderness alternative

(alternative C));

• Developing or analyzing alternatives not given detailed consideration in the DEIS; 

• Supplementing, improving, or modifying the analysis that the DEIS documented; 

• Making factual corrections; and/or 

• Explaining why the comments do not need further Agency response.

After a comprehensive review of the public comments received, the second and third bullets do 

not apply.

Content Analysis Process

Content analysis followed a systematic process of logging, numbering, reading, coding, and 

summarizing all public comments that were submitted. The process ensures that every comment 

was read, analyzed, and considered. The comments that were most helpful were those that were

unique, substantially different, and were specifically related to the analysis disclosed in the EIS

and the proposed action. When an individual raised multiple comments within the same letter,

each unique comment was numbered and tracked separately. Each comment was assigned a 

unique tracking number in a database and coded by subject or topic. All comments and their

history and status are recorded in the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Revised Land and Resource Management Plan project number 31418, within

the USFS Comment Analysis and Response Application (CARA) database. This database is part

of the planning record and can be accessed at the Cibola National Forest Supervisor’s Office,

2113 Osuna Rd., NE, Albuquerque, NM. Once the unique comments were coded, those that were

made by different commenters on the same subject were grouped and summarized into comment 

statements that captured the essence of like comments. Each comment statement is accompanied

by a single response developed by subject-matter experts. In some cases, more nuanced or

complex concerns were answered through multiple responses to multiple comment statements or 

they may have a single response dedicated to the specific comment. Every comment has the same

value, whether expressed by many or by one. 
Appendix A. Response to Comments

162 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Process and Procedures Concerns

Comment: Some commenters believe that the DEIS considers an inadequate range of 

alternatives, or failed to meet requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); 

that it does not take a “hard look” at the landscape, nor meet the “hard look” charge, or does not 

meet the requirement of NEPA for site specificity. The commenters maintained that it is not

sufficient to change one aspect of one alternative and still meet the requirement of considering all

reasonable alternatives. Some encouraged a supplemental EIS or a final EIS with additional 

alternatives with single resource emphasis on wildlife, water quality, soil productivity, naturebased or ecotourism, species reintroductions (including bison), open spaces, renewable energy,

and nonmotorized recreation. Some believed that none of the alternatives contained sufficient

standards to safeguard the natural values contained on the Kiowa and Rita Blanca (KRB) and

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek (BKMC) National Grasslands (NGs), herein referred to as the

“Grasslands.”

Response: Chapter two of the DEIS describes three alternatives considered in detail and two

alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. Two action alternatives (alternative B,

proposed plan, and alternative C, wilderness alternative) address needs-for-change issues

presented in chapter 1 of the DEIS. Also explained in chapter 1 (page 7) of the DEIS,

alternatives B and C were further refined using the “rolling alternative” concept and were

influenced by public and internal comments received during collaborative, alternatives scoping.

Issues arising through scoping that were appropriate to be addressed by a strategic land and 

resource management plan were resolved either through the rolling alternative concept, through

alternative C, or in alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail. This is consistent with the

Forest Service NEPA regulations at 36 CFR 220.5(e)(1) stating “The responsible official may

modify the proposed action and alternative(s) under consideration prior to issuing a draft EIS. In

such cases, the responsible official may consider the incremental changes as alternatives

considered. The documentation of these incremental changes to a proposed action or alternatives

shall be included or incorporated by reference in accord with 40 CFR 1502.21.” 

With regard to the comment that the DEIS did not take a hard look at the landscape, the 

ecological sustainability report (August 2008; part of the Analysis of the Management Situation 

set of documents) which has been available to the public on the Cibola NF and NGs’ Web site 

since publication in 2008, reported and summarized all known data on the condition of the 

Grasslands' landscape and its resources. The Agency further believes it took a hard look in the 

EIS at the impacts of the alternatives considered in detail and is consistent with most court 

decisions on this matter, most recently, High Sierra Hikers Association v. U.S. Dept. of Interior

(N.D. Cal. 2012) 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7664, regarding a programmatic land management plan. 

The Agency believes that the programmatic EIS meets the requirements of NEPA for site 

specificity. In the context of the Grasslands, the analysis was site specific because it applied to 

specific national grasslands, their ecological settings, and the broader settings in which they play 

a role. More detailed project-specific or site-specific analyses will be considered by the 

Agency prior to implementing a project or activity. 

The Agency believes that the proposed plan (alternative B) and the wilderness alternative

(alternative C) provide substantial management direction for science-based conservation of 

wildlife, water quality, soil productivity, nature-based tourism, open spaces, renewable energy,
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 163

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

and nonmotorized recreation. Additional alternatives that emphasize management of single

resources, goods, or services are not necessary because alternatives B and C provide sufficient

flexibility and guidance to accommodate all of those resources, and they are not mutually

exclusive. Both alternatives provide plan components (desired conditions, objectives, guidelines 

or standards, suitability, and monitoring elements) for each of these resources, goods, or services.

Forest Service Manual and Forest Service Handbook directives, laws, regulations, and policy

provide additional management guidance for these resources, goods, and services, and were

identified by topic area in appendix D of the proposed plan. Further, the proposed plan is strategic

in nature, and any project-specific activity affecting any of the resources, goods, or services

mentioned above would require its own specific NEPA analysis.

Regarding the idea that species reintroductions (including bison) should be a separate alternative,

under existing policy, the Agency can administratively consider a request to stock bison on the

Grasslands under any DEIS alternative, including the no-action alternative A. Either a permittee

or a state wildlife agency could request a permit to run bison on an allotment authorized to them. 

A project-specific environmental analysis would need to be conducted upon such a request. The

Agency does not believe this is an issue appropriate to a strategic plan revision alternative, but

rather is an administrative procedure. For species reintroductions in general, plans do not 

reintroduce species; they provide for habitats that allow for future species introduction decisions. 

The new plan does not inhibit future reintroduction decisions.

With regard to whether the alternatives contain sufficient standards to safeguard the natural 

values on the Grasslands, as per the definitions of the various plan components in part one, pages

12-13 of the proposed plan, standards are not the only type of plan component that guides 

management of the Grasslands. Over the life of the plan, desired conditions, objectives,

guidelines, suitability, monitoring elements, and laws, regulations, and policy as identified in

appendix D, all contribute to the accomplishment of ecological and socioeconomic sustainability

of the resources, goods, and services provided by the Grasslands. Project/site-specific

environmental analyses (NEPA) are another important safeguard in conserving the natural values

of the Grasslands.

Thus, the Agency believes the DEIS met the range of reasonable alternatives within the 

sideboards of the identified needs-for-change and does not believe a supplemental EIS or 

additional alternatives in the FEIS is needed. The Agency believes that it has provided 

completeness of information and detail, soundness of analysis, thorough discussion of 

alternatives, and disclosure of sources, and has made a substantial good faith effort at studying, 

analyzing, and expressing the environmental issues in the EIS. The Agency also believes that the

action alternatives in particular, provide sufficient safeguards for the conservation of natural 

values of the Grasslands.

Comment: One group of commenters had concerns about the overall tone and structure of the

document, which they believed appears vague and without specifics regarding management

policy or enforcement.

Response: Part one, “Introduction,” page 2 of the proposed plan (alternative B) discusses the

purpose of the land management plan, its strategic nature, and broad guidance for project-specific

activity. Enforcement of laws, regulations, and policy upon the public is not a strategic plan

purpose. Enforcement of existing laws and regulations is a requirement of the Agency, regardless

of the land management plan alternative selected.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

164 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Chapter 3, page 129 of the DEIS, under the headings of “Unavoidable Adverse Effects” and 

“Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources,” further addresses the programmatic 

nature of a land management plan. The DEIS is itself programmatic in that it analyzes and 

compares plan alternatives for management direction and the environmental consequences of 

those alternatives, but not project-specific effects that could occur under the auspices of a plan

alternative. Those specific effects would be identified and evaluated in a project specific

environmental analysis. 

The Agency believes both the proposed plan and DEIS meet the requirements of the National 

Forest Management Act and the 1982 Planning Rule provisions.

Law, Regulation, and Policy

Comment: The U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

commented that the Agency may need to consider if notice to the FAA is required for the effect

of the proposed actions on airspace.

Response: The Agency does not believe the proposed plan would have any direct effects on 

airspace at the strategic plan level. Chapter 3, page 129, discusses the programmatic framework

of a land management plan. The agency will give notice to the FAA for any project-specific

activity that could affect airspace under the proposed plan.

General Comments

Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed plan should contain measurable objectives 

and specific monitoring criteria. Another commenter stated he could not find any standards,

guidelines, monitoring, and evaluation requirements in the DEIS. The commenter continued that

these items should be in chapter 2 of the DEIS, which is supposed to describe the alternatives in a 

meaningful fashion, or the reader should be pointed to them. The statement was made that the 

Agency does not reveal the proposed alternative, nor does the Agency disclose the current

condition of the landscape and how the proposed plan will affect the conditions of the land. 

Response: The proposed plan document contains all plan components, including measurable

objectives and specific monitoring elements, as required by the 1982 Rule Provisions at Section

219.11. The proposed plan document was made available on the Cibola NF and NGs’ Web site on

September 22, 2011, concurrent with the availability of the DEIS, and was available during the

entire 90-day comment period as required by the 1982 Rule provisions at 219.6g. In addition to

press releases notifying of availability of both documents, approximately 700 notification letters

and emails were sent to individuals, organizations, and agencies who over the past 5 years had

indicated an interest in Grasslands plan revision. 

In the DEIS, a programmatic summary of the alternatives was presented, but the entirety of the 

plan alternatives with each individual plan component was not included nor is required when an

alternative source is provided and pointed to. Similarly, the Analysis of Management Situation,

comprised of the ecological and socioeconomic sustainability reports and the comprehensive 

evaluation report, described the current condition of the landscape and has been available for

viewing on the Web or hardcopy request since late summer 2008. 

Finally, chapter 3 of the DEIS describes the anticipated environmental consequences of each

alternative land plan upon the resources, goods, and services of the Grasslands.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 165

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Comment: A commenter was concerned that appendix H of the draft plan does not describe the

validation procedure for grazing capacity benchmarks.

Response: The procedure for the validation of grazing capacity is detailed in the Analysis of the

Management Situation Supplementary Document cited in the draft EIS and posted on the Cibola

National Forest Web page

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/Cibola_Grasslands_Plan_Revision_documents

Comment: A commenter was concerned that the proposed plan does not provide a framework or

measureable objectives for adaptive management.

Response: Evaluation of data collected during monitoring forms the basis for adaptively

managing public lands within the planning area. Consistent monitoring and evaluation will allow

the Grasslands to incorporate new technology, changes in law or policy, and changes in ecological

conditions or social values into land management planning. This process accomplishes these

goals by verifying the effectiveness of plan objectives and guidelines, and provides reference

information for plan amendments.

The monitoring table (table 6 in the draft plan) identifies the social, economic, and ecological

elements to be monitored, and it links monitoring questions and measures to the desired

conditions and objectives established in the draft plan. The monitoring questions ensure that

monitoring efforts produce relevant data that can be successfully used to assess the

accomplishments and effectiveness of various land management activities. The monitoring table

identifies areas of concern or interest, and the evaluative process helps determine whether

observed changes are consistent with desired conditions and objectives. The monitoring table also

dictates the frequency of reporting, which includes the timing of monitoring and evaluation

efforts. For example, most data will be collected annually, with reporting or evaluation of the data

conducted at different intervals, such as annually or every 5 years depending on the resource. The

indicator, statistic, or metric used to gauge program performance and answer monitoring

questions is defined within the monitoring table.

Climate

Comment: A commenter desires to see “additional research on climate change...in a revised or

supplemental EIS” that includes research from four publications addressing climate change at the

national scale.

Response: Appendix B of the proposed plan is a comprehensive assessment of climate change

trends and potential climate change strategies—written specifically for the Southwestern

Region—and includes some of the same research recommended by the commenter.

Water and Watersheds

Comment: A commenter stated his belief that the report (DEIS) does not:

• contain a description of how this plan would differ from the old one, or

• discuss whether riparian degradation has anything to do with livestock, or

• address how much water is being pumped out of the aquifer with the numerous water

developments, or how many there are, or
Appendix A. Response to Comments

166 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

• discuss any of the other important elements of livestock grazing in this important and

damaged and fragile 260,000-acre public landscape.

Response: Chapters 2 and 3 of the DEIS are devoted to presenting descriptions of the respective

alternatives and to comparing environmental consequences of those plan alternatives.

Additionally, both the proposed plan and the 1985 plan (alternative A) were available on the

Cibola Web site, on CD, or in hardcopy for an interested reader to make their own comparison.

Riparian degradation is discussed in chapter 3, “Affected Environment for Water,” pages 40 and

41 of the DEIS. This discussion clearly states the causes of the degradation being referred to,

none of which are tied to livestock.

Page 41 of the DEIS presented the number of water wells on the Grasslands, as compared to those

on state and private land within the administrative boundary. Volume of water pumped from

wells on the Grasslands is highly variable on a seasonal or annual basis and also fluctuates with

the number of livestock present, if any. These watering facilities provide water for wildlife as

well as livestock. A discussion is also presented on page 41 regarding the huge impact of other

uses upon aquifer recharge.

Effects of livestock grazing on the Grasslands are addressed throughout chapter 3 of the DEIS,

particularly in the “Livestock Use” section, pages 110–111, but also throughout the “Vegetation”

and “Water/Watershed” sections.

Comment: A commenter stated that he interprets the DEIS to say that alternative B would move

the various ecological types toward desired conditions, while the current management would not.

Something about the current management then, is negatively affecting this landscape, but the

Agency never says what.

Response: Alternative A is the 1985 Cibola forest plan as written, with its various plan

components that guide management direction. It is not necessarily current management, as much

of the management direction in alternative A is outdated, or the plan was silent on certain issues,

including desired conditions for the Grasslands’ unique vegetation types and control of invasive

species. Following alternative A direction for the next 15 years would again be omissive of clear

direction for management of the unique Grasslands vegetation types. The DEIS (chapter 1,

“Needs for Change,” page 4; and chapter 2, “Alternatives, Including the Proposed Plan,” page 12)

addresses this issue with regard to vegetation types on the Grasslands. Similarly, part 1,

“Introduction,” page 6 of the proposed plan also addresses the need for change to alternative A in

addressing management direction for vegetation types on the Grasslands.

General Ecological

Comment: A nongovernmental organization believed that an alternative that emphasizes

ecological restoration should be prepared, and that elements of such an alternative could be

incorporated into a final plan.

Response: In chapters 2 and 3 of the DEIS, a description of and analysis of the proposed plan

(alternative B) is presented with an explanation of plan components of that alternative that would

direct management of vegetation types toward their historical reference condition. Similarly, the

DEIS and proposed plan present a description of plan components that direct management for

species viability of high at-risk species, management for class 1 watershed conditions, and
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 167

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

protection of air and water quality, playas, wetlands, and riparian areas. The Agency believes that

the proposed plan, as well as alternative C (the wilderness alternative), are ecological restoration

alternatives that simultaneously provide for multiple uses under the Multiple Use–Sustained 

Yield Act.

Comment: A commenter was concerned that the U.S. Forest Service assessment of current plant

community departure from reference condition—and therefore, the conclusion that the draft plan

will ensure the viability of native species—is arbitrary and capricious.

Response: U.S. Forest Service assessment of current plant community departure from reference

condition was based on an objective, systematic method1 published in a peer-reviewed, scientific

journal and used on all national forests in Arizona and all national grasslands in New Mexico,

Oklahoma, and Texas.

Vegetation

Comment: A commenter believes that tallgrass should be listed as a dominant plant of the sand

sagebrush vegetation type, even if it is no longer dominant because of cattle grazing.

Response: Tallgrasses are not dominant in the sand sagebrush vegetation type, even in the

absence of grazing. Although they may be the tallest grass in this vegetation type, they are not

dominant in terms of frequency, cover, or biomass. Vegetation types where tallgrasses are

dominant occur on soils with a higher water holding capacity.

Comment: A commenter believes that the desired condition for the sand sagebrush vegetation

type where plants <4 inches tall comprise 40–60 percent of the total vegetation conflicts with the

condition that it is dominated by mid-grasses and sand sagebrush. Plant species richness should

be emphasized.

Response: The desired condition for sand sagebrush vegetation type has been clarified—now

saying plants 0–4 inches tall comprise 40–60 percent of the total vegetation cover—and does not

conflict with the statement that it is dominated by mid-grasses and sand sagebrush, which are

dominant in terms of structure.

The variety of seral stages included in the desired conditions reflects an emphasis on species

richness (pages 88–89 in the draft plan).

Comment: A commenter believes that plans for pinyon-juniper management should distinguish

woodland on steep slopes—especially the Mills Canyon slopes—from that on level ground.

Stands on slopes should be left for wildlife cover and should not be burned except where

regeneration of Gambel oak is needed.

Response: The proposed plan reflects a comprehensive consideration of soil and watershed

health, vegetation reference conditions, wildlife habitat, fuels management, and heritage

protection—and specifically addresses pinyon-juniper management on canyon side slopes—as

exemplified by the following excerpts:

 1 Weisz, R.; Triepke, F. J.; and Truman, R. 2009. Evaluating the ecological sustainability of a ponderosa pine

ecosystem on the Kaibab Plateau in northern Arizona. Fire Ecology 5(1): 100-114.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

168 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

“When determining size of openings in early and middle successional stage

pinyon-juniper stands, habitat requirements of big game species and fuels

reduction needs should be considered” (pinyon-juniper guidelines, p. 84).

“Vegetation management activity conforms to valued landscape characteristics of

the eligible scenic river” (Mills Canyon desired conditions, p. 93).

“Fire-influenced areas are characterized by dense stands of Gambel and wavyleaf

oak thickets; browse on side slopes provides habitat for mule deer” (“Woodland

Pinyon-Juniper on Canyon Steep Slopes, Cliffs, and Rock Outcrops” desired

conditions, p. 96).

“Use prescribed fire at least once over the life of the plan to rejuvenate the

browse component on the canyon side slopes” (“Woodland Pinyon-Juniper on

Canyon Steep Slopes, Cliffs, and Rock Outcrops” objective, p. 97).

Comment: “We do not agree that the shelterbelts and windbreaks should all be cut down because

of ‘undesirable, invasive species’ or issues with their tree seeds...”

Response: The proposed plan does not call for cutting down all shelterbelts. The proposed plan

does provide guidance on situations where it is appropriate to remove shelterbelts and windbreaks

and also where it would be appropriate to maintain them to provide habitat:

“Invasive and/or undesirable trees such as black locust, Siberian elm, and eastern

redcedar, among others, are not present where they could negatively impact

desired vegetation composition and structure” (draft plan, p. 57).

“Deciduous trees are present in isolated pockets along draws, shelterbelts, and

around old homesteads to provide nesting habitat for raptors” (draft plan, p. 76).

“Trees and tall human-made structures will be evaluated for removal in areas

otherwise suitable as Lesser Prairie-chicken habitat” (draft plan, p. 72).

Livestock Use

Comment: Some commenters believe that the proposed plan and DEIS are primarily for

livestock, and that livestock grazing will not bring desired vegetation conditions and should be

deemphasized, reduced, or disallowed.

Response: The Multiple Use–Sustained Yield Act of 1960 and the Forest and Rangeland

Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 mandate sustainable multiple use of national forests

and grasslands, including livestock grazing.

The proposed plan (“Grasslands-wide Management Direction for Livestock Use,” page 37) has a

guideline stating, “Permitted grazing should allow for residual ground cover levels to provide for

plant physiological needs, soil protection, wildlife habitat, and vegetation desired conditions.”

Where not specifically directed by the plan, livestock use would be conducted in accordance with

law, regulation, policy, applicable NEPA decisions, (see proposed plan, appendix D) and through

the use of best management practices and adaptive management to maintain a sustainable grazing

resource.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 169

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Grazing has been used as a management tool on the Grasslands for decades, and all vegetation

types are currently within reference condition for vegetative structure. Plan components will

further facilitate vegetation management through grazing. Under all alternatives, adaptive

management may deemphasize livestock grazing in response to drought, fire, or other conditions

where destocking will help maintain or achieve desired conditions.

Minerals and Energy Development

Comment: Some commenters note with some surprise the statement (DEIS at 89) regarding

scenery that “[a]ctively producing oil and gas wells, as those that have been plugged and

rehabilitated, are part of the BKMC NGs’ rural landscape and not necessarily considered

deviations from the desired landscape, but positive cultural features. Perhaps local residents are

so used to seeing them that they are simply part of the natural landscape, but we are not sure that

would hold true for tourists from other places.”

Response: The DEIS at page 89 actually stated, “...many constituents consider the gas and oil

developments to be part of the pastoral landscape and not a deviation from valued characteristics

and would not have any consequences to the scenic resource.”

The Agency agrees that tourists might not see oil and gas wells as part of the natural landscape.

Readers should note that when the Federal government acquired the national grasslands, mineral

rights below the surface were in many cases owned by non-Federal entities who had a legal

surface occupancy right to their claim. Where non-Federal mineral rights occur under Federal

lands, Agency managers work with mineral rights owners to achieve scenic integrity objectives in

the area, but the owners are not compelled to follow Agency guidance on scenery for surface use

operations. In part 2 of the proposed plan, Grasslands-wide plan components for scenery (page

18) seek to minimize alterations to the landscape character for future Federal oil and gas leases

and emphasize following the form, line, color, texture, and pattern of the landscape character. In

part 3 of the proposed plan, “Kiowa and Rita Blanca Management Area, Standards for Oil and

Gas Leasing” (page 70), these plan components provide additional protection to the scenic

landscape character of that area with regard to future oil and gas leases.

Comment: A commenter was concerned that commercial-scale wind farms may cause noise and

light pollution, wildlife habitat fragmentation, increases in soil erosion and invasive plants, and

adverse effects on tourism, recreation, scenery, and bird and bat populations.

The same commenter stated that the site-specific restrictions on wind, oil, and gas are not detailed

in the DEIS; these restrictions should also be adopted on private land adjacent to the Kiowa

National Grassland.

Response: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 recognizes the Forest Service’s role in meeting the

renewable energy goals of the United States. Consistent with Agency policies and procedures, the

use and occupancy of NFS lands for alternative energy production—such as wind energy

development—are appropriate and will help meet the energy needs of the United States. Forest

Service directives provide consistent guidance and require adequate analysis for evaluating wind

energy proposals and applications for issuing wind energy permits.

The Forest Service agrees that wildlife, especially birds and bats, may potentially experience

increased mortality and habitat degradation resulting from wind energy development.

Alternatives B (proposed plan) and C and Forest Service policy (common to all alternatives and
Appendix A. Response to Comments

170 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

referenced in appendix D, page 210, “Wind Energy Development,” of the proposed plan) address

minimizing negative impacts to wildlife and habitat, as well as to soils, tourism, recreation, and 

scenery; from wind energy development. For example: The proposed plan (p. 36) and alternative

C call for “mitigating impacts to resources and values” (desired conditions for wind energy

development) and that “new utility construction and reconstruction of existing utility lines should

use existing rights-of-way to the extent practical” (guidelines for wind energy development).

The Forest Service is also directed “to minimize detrimental social and environmental impacts

(invasive species, soil erosion), including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts” (FS Manual

2726.02a – Wind Energy Facilities). FS Handbook 2709.11, Chapter 73.32 further requires

applicants for a permit for construction and operation of a wind energy facility to submit a plan of

development (POD) for managing the introduction, spread, and removal of noxious weeds and

invasive species.

All applications for a permit for construction and operation of a wind energy facility would

undergo a project-specific environmental analysis of effects upon the Grasslands’ resources,

goods, and services, which includes tourism and recreation. The one-half mile buffer from

developed recreation sites as described in the “Guidelines” (page 36, proposed plan) under the

section “Wind Energy Development” is considered a minimum setback for noise and public

safety. Individual project proposals would be required to evaluate a number of issues such as

wildlife migrations, local zoning ordinances, and scenery before a permit to develop was

approved.

Every plan component for wind, oil, and gas development were not detailed in the DEIS. The

agency released the entire proposed plan (alternative B) concurrently with the programmatic

DEIS so that interested readers could refer to that document when reading the DEIS. Plan

direction and management approaches relevant to oil and gas drilling are presented in the

proposed plan in several places: in the Grasslands-wide management direction of part 2 of the

proposed plan under the heading “Minerals and Energy Development,” pages 32–34; in part 3

“Management Area-Specific Management Direction for Black Kettle and McClellan Creek

Management Area,” pages 55–56; and in part 3, “Management Area-Specific Management

Direction for Kiowa and Rita Blanca Management Area,” pages 69–70. Additional guidance for

oil, gas, and wind energy development as related to scenery is presented in part 2, “Grasslandswide Management Direction,” pages 17–19, 50–51, and 67–68.

It is not the responsibility of the Agency to impose site-specific restrictions on off-Grasslands

wind, oil, and gas development. However, the Forest Service can and does share its knowledge of

effects of energy development with non-Federal landowners and suggests others sources of

expertise with whom a landowner might confer.

Ecosystem Diversity | Wildlife and

Habitat | Management Indicator Species

Comment: Some commenters believe that the selection of management indicator species is

inadequate and does not represent all habitat types on the Grasslands.

Response: There is no requirement for selecting a MIS to represent each dominant vegetation

type on the Grasslands. The purpose of MIS is to evaluate effects of alternatives and to monitor

management of the preferred alternative post implementation.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 171

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

The process to select MIS for alternatives evaluation and ecological indicators for monitoring is

described and the rationale and decision outcome are documented in appendix G of the DEIS

beginning on page 203.

In Part 6: “Monitoring Elements of the Draft Land and Resource Management Plan” provide

ecological indicators to monitor the results of management. Mixed-grass, shinnery oak, and

cottonwood-willow vegetation types use the presence and areal extent of undesirable trees and the

mid and late successional stages of shortgrass prairie use range vegetation trend monitoring as

ecological indicators of habitat and species viability.

The agency concurs that sand sagebrush is not represented by a monitoring element for an

ecological indicator. This will be corrected in the proposed plan with the addition of range

vegetation trend monitoring in sand sagebrush.

Aquatic habitat has course filter plan components in the proposed plan to assure habitat is

maintained or improved as follows: Watersheds are in Class I condition. These watersheds meet

water quality standards and support designated uses. Watersheds are characterized by high

infiltration rates, low soil compaction, and minimal overland flow. Within the capability of the

Grasslands, streams, springs, playa lakes, wetlands, and aquifers sustain water quantity and

quality. Springs, wetlands, streams, and lakes are at proper functioning condition, and streams and

lakes exhibiting unacceptable bank erosion are healed or healing.

“Management Approaches in the Proposed Plan for Riparian Area Management,” TR 1737-15,

1998, “A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for

Lotic Areas” and TR 1737-16, 1999, Revised 2003, “A User Guide to Assessing Proper

Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas” may be used by managers to

assess the proper functioning condition of watercourses, playas, and wetlands.

Ecosystem Diversity | Water | Water Quality and Condition

Comment: Some commenters believe that the DEIS does not specify how alternative B will

achieve proper functioning condition standards and how this alternative is better than alternative

A.

Response: Chapter 2 of the DEIS presents a summary comparison of consequences by

alternatives. Chapter 3 of the DEIS provides the pertinent details of the alternatives

environmental consequences and comparison analysis.

Page 42 of the proposed plan provides background and description of surface water and riparian

vegetation as well as water developments such as groundwater wells. After the background and

description section are plan components that describe in detail how alternative B will achieve

outcomes through desired conditions and guidelines that would achieve proper functioning

condition. Proper functioning condition is described on page 43, footnote 15 as “A condition

when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to: dissipate stream energy

associated with high waterflow, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; filter

sediment, capture bedload, and aid flood plain development; improve floodwater retention and

groundwater recharge; develop root masses that stabilize streambanks against cutting action;

develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth,

duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses, and

support greater diversity.”
Appendix A. Response to Comments

172 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

The scope of alternative A adaptive management and protection of riparian areas does not adhere

to proper functioning condition outcomes that alternative B describes.

Ecosystem Diversity | Water | Groundwater

Comment: A commenter believes that the proposed plan is not responding quickly to aquifer

depletion.

Response: The proposed plan identifies aquifer drawdown in the background and description of

the “Water, Watershed...” section. As described in this section, most water developments,

particularly on the KRB rely on groundwater to supply drinking water for wildlife and livestock

grazing. The “Watershed Specialist Report” addresses groundwater depletion and drawdown

concerns as follows: Groundwater depletion and drawdown are ongoing concerns in the prairie

grasslands ecoregion. Within the Grasslands administrative boundary, approximately 1,500 water

wells (80 percent) are on state and private land and 380 water wells (20 percent) are on

Grasslands managed land. Most of the Grasslands are on the Ogallala aquifer, except for the Mills

Canyon portion of Kiowa National Grassland which is over the Canadian River aquifer, and a

small portion of Black Kettle units over the Washita Alluvium aquifer. There is minimal data

available on the conditions of the smaller aquifers, but data on the Ogallala aquifer indicates that

it has experienced extreme drawdown over the last 50 years. Pumping water for irrigation,

municipal water supplies, and other uses exceeds the recharge ability of the aquifer.

Grasslands usage of water from the Ogallala Aquifer is minimal. The Grasslands has no control

over the private sector water usage.

In the “Water, Watershed...” section, Alternative B has a desired condition designed to improve

floodwater retention and groundwater recharge. Further on in the Kiowa Rita Blanca management

area, page 80, desired conditions for the playa lake inclusions include statements that describe

hydrologic functions, one of which is aquifer recharge. Objectives and guidelines further support

the restoration of hydrologic functions and restrict activities that would adversely impact natural

hydrologic functions.

Ecosystem Diversity | Wildlife and Habitat | Species Viability

Comment: A commenter believes that recovery of the Lesser Prairie-chicken (LPC) depends on

the establishment of connecting passageways.

Response: Connecting LPC habitat at the landscape level is beyond the ability of Grasslands

management due to the fragmented nature of the Grasslands; many units with LPC habitat are

separated by long distances, roads, or private land. However, LPC recovery requires habitat

components that Grasslands management can address. Alternative B has plan components that

produce important LPC habitat by the following desired condition: “The mixed grass species

composition provides vegetation structure and height relationships necessary for ground nesting

bird cover and brood rearing habitat. Small areas of short structured herbaceous vegetation or

patches of bare ground are available for Lesser Prairie-chicken leks and courtship areas. Small

areas or patches of bare ground are present that provide wildlife travel corridors, escape routes,

and annual plant germination sites for wildlife foraging habitat.” The shinnery oak and sand

sagebrush vegetation types contain similar desired conditions for the LPC.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 173

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Comment: Some commenters believe that the proposed plan does not assure viability for at-risk

species nor will the components described in the proposed plan produce the desired vegetative

outcome. The commenters state that the proposed plan lacks enforceable standards.

Response: The proposed plan meets the viability determination as defined in the 1982 Rule

Provisions, Section 219.19. Species viability determination described in the proposed plan on

page 8 is a brief summary of the process. As stated there, the determination of species viability on

the Grasslands is a culmination of assessing ecosystem characteristics (including vegetation type,

soil, water, and air) found in the “Ecological Sustainability Report” (ESR) (USDA Forest Service

2011b).

Appendix F (Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations) of the DEIS for the proposed

plan describes in detail the viability determination process and how plan components are

developed, and in section 8 (“Monitoring”) it discloses how the proposed plan will be effective as

described in the subsection, “Procedures for Implementing Species Viability Provisions and

Documenting Viability.”

1. Grasslands vegetation is in low departure from reference condition and habitat derived

from vegetation was found to be sustainable.

2. The proposed plan assures habitat through course filter/fine filter aspect of plan

component development for vegetation through specific desired conditions, objectives,

and guidelines. Page 12 of the proposed plan defines the various plan components in

detail. Each vegetation type and inclusions have plan components crafted to support the

respective ecological communities.

3. Species not adequately addressed by course filter plan components had threats to that

species identified and plan components were developed to address those threats.

4. There is no requirement to make naturally rare species more common.

Comment: Some commenters believe that the proposed plan does not provide enforceable

restrictions on the poisoning or shooting of black-tailed prairie dogs, would have negative

consequences for all other wildlife, and lacks safeguards for the Lesser Prairie-chicken and

riparian species.

Response: The black-tailed prairie dog (BTPD) is recognized as a Forest sensitive species, and

both the BTPD and Lesser Prairie-chicken (LPC) were evaluated to be “at risk” for viability in

the development of the proposed plan. On lands administered by the Grasslands, vegetation

management is used to develop and improve habitat for Forest sensitive species, “at risk” species,

and wildlife in general.

Wildlife is not managed by the national grasslands; however, site specific shooting restrictions

can be put in place for species such as the black-tailed prairie dog.

Prairie dog poisoning is not in practice on lands managed by the Grasslands. Wildlife on the

Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek, and all private land is regulated by the

Texas Parks and Wildlife, New Mexico Game and Fish, and Oklahoma Department of Wildlife

Conservation for the respective districts.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

174 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

The proposed plan has management approach descriptions as follows: The Kiowa and Rita

Blanca National Grasslands will strive to contribute to implementation of the recommendations of

the multistate conservation plan for the black-tailed prairie dog.

The Grasslands are cooperating with the New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas offices of Wildlife

Services, USDAAPHIS in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that addresses sylvatic

plague disease in mammals occurring on the shortgrass vegetation type for the purposes of

protection of human health, other wildlife resources, and boundary control.

The Grasslands are cooperating, through a MOU involving Federal agencies, to achieve the

conservation and management of black-tailed prairie dogs and their habitat. The U.S. Forest

Service, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National

Park Service, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works), and U.S.

Geological Survey agree that cooperative efforts will enhance the conservation and management

of the Nation’s short and mid-grass prairie and desert grassland ecosystems for the benefit of the

black-tailed prairie dog and other obligate and associated species of these ecosystems.

Comment: Some commenters believe that the Grasslands should improve and increase habitat

for a suite of native species including large carnivores and bison, and protection of high, at-risk

species.

Response: The proposed plan has specific components developed to provide black-tailed prairie

dog habitat which will benefit other species as well. First desired conditions starting on page 73

state the following: Low structured vegetation representative of the early successional stage of

shortgrass prairie is available for a keystone species black-tailed prairie dog to colonize. The

colonies provide habitat for swift fox, Mountain Plover, Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, and

badger. Habitat for at least one complex of black-tailed prairie dog colonies is available for

potential future reintroduction to recover the endangered black-footed ferret, a predator dependent

on the black-tailed prairie dog; impacts from plague outbreaks to black-tailed prairie dogs and

potential reintroduced black-footed ferrets are minimal.

Plan component objectives follow desired conditions to assure success as follows: Reintroduce

prescribed fire in 1 to 10 percent of the vegetation type over the next 15 years after plan approval.

Mechanically, chemically, or with prescribed fire remove from 5 to 10 percent of native invasive

plants such as cholla, juniper, pricklypear, mesquite, and yucca annually.

Specific plan component guidelines are in place to reinforce the objectives and desired conditions

as follows: Prescribed fire and targeted grazing of suitable black-tailed prairie dog habitat should

occur only on loamy uplands, loamy plains, limey uplands, alkaline plains, loamy bottomlands,

basalt loam, and clayey soils on 0 to 5 percent slopes. Timing of prescribed fire or other

vegetation treatments should consider adverse consequences to nesting birds. Special use

activities should be limited in Ferruginous Hawk nesting areas during the nesting period from

March 1 to June 30 within 0.5 mile of any suitable nesting sites and/or April 1 to August 31

within 0.5 mile of any active nest. Research under Agency control should occur outside early

nesting and incubation periods. Improving habitat and maintaining corridors for swift fox should

be accomplished through timely burning, mowing, livestock grazing, and seeding.

Due to the landscape-scale degradation of the native ecosystems on Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black

Kettle, and McClellan Creek during the “Dust Bowl Era,” soil stabilization was the first priority
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 175

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

when the Grasslands were established. On the four Grasslands, vegetation management has

achieved structure features that are in low departure from reference condition and support a suite

of native species. Natural processes that include grazing and fire are utilized to manage and

influence plant structure and composition. The proposed plan has plan components in place in all

vegetation types, soil, and water to achieve and maintain those plant structure and composition

features. The four Grasslands are not contiguous tracts of land. They are defined by an

administrative boundary that encompasses private land ownership as well as lands administered

by the Grasslands. There are numerous roads administered by state and county jurisdiction along

with Forest Service roads that bisect many Grassland units.

Administratively, under FSH, Part 222, Range Management, Grasslands units have grazing and

livestock use allotments. Subpart A, Part 222.1, Authority and Definitions, details how range

resources are permitted and regulated. It would be through these authorities that grazing use by

bison would be permitted and regulated with the permittee owning and managing the bison.

Large carnivores were part of the original species list where viability evaluation began. Many

species screened early to be not on the Grasslands, not affected by Grasslands management,

and/or did not have population or habitat concerns. Species that did not filter through to the need

for course or fine filter plan components were not discussed in the proposed plan but were listed

in the overall species list in the ecological sustainability report.

Large carnivores use, as a prey base, the animals associated with the various types of habitat. The

best Grasslands management can offer is optimum habitat for the prey base and ultimately

support the carnivores. The representative states where the Grasslands reside are the authorities

that regulate wildlife through category classification, such as fur bearing animal, protected, or

regulated through hunting.

Comment: Some commenters believe that the proposed plan does not provide adequate

protection and management of black-tailed prairie dogs.

Response: In part 3 of the proposed plan in the KRB Management Area on page 76 is a

management approach that describes a cooperative agreement among several agencies. The

following statement is from the MOU:

“The Grasslands are cooperating with the New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas offices of

Wildlife Services, USDAAPHIS in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that

addresses sylvatic plague disease in mammals occurring on the shortgrass vegetation type

for the purposes of protection of human health, other wildlife resources, and boundary

control.”

USDAAPHIS has been dusting some of the Rita Blanca black-tailed prairie dog colonies with

insecticide for fleas, the vector for sylvatic plague, since 2010. The MOU allows this activity to

take place on the Grasslands. Black-tailed prairie dogs are not a federally protected species and

the respective states associated with the Kiowa and Rita Blanca, designate prairie dogs as

varmints that can be controlled as nuisance animals. On areas of the Grasslands where dusting

and other methods to control plague in prairie dog colonies is taking place, the MOU allows

controls where colonies are expanding off Grasslands onto private land. 

Black-tailed prairie dog colonies have been monitored on the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National

Grasslands beginning in 1999 by Kansas State University.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

176 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

The Forest Service concurs that the DEIS “Soils” section (page 39) states “existing BTPD

colonies (about 9,500 acres) would remain susceptible to soil erosion.” This has been clarified in

the FEIS which states, “BTPD colonies cover about 9,500 acres (3,800 acres occupied in 2011) of

the KRB NGs. Currently occupied colonies are largely devoid of vegetation and may be prone to

wind, sheet, and rill erosion.”

The DEIS beginning on page 64 and ending on page 65, black-tailed prairie dog on shortgrass

prairie acreage was determined from the analysis shown in appendix A of the “Vegetation and

Wildlife Specialists Report” (VWSR). There are several different concepts being presented in

both the DEIS and VWSP. One concept is that the DEIS uses ranges of acreage for comparison

because these are projections of trends. Another concept is based on known acreage of BTPD

colonies based on survey and monitoring since 1999.

The Grasslands are managed for vegetation cover, structure, and composition. It is through

vegetation, soil types, slope, and other features on the landscape that prairie dog recruitment takes

place. Plague has had the most influence over the areal extent of colonies since monitoring began.

The proposed plan has specific components developed to provide BTPD habitat. Desired

conditions (starting on page 73) state desired structural and successional stages, objectives assure

success through vegetation management goals, and guidelines are in place to reinforce the

objectives and desired conditions.

Specifically the desired condition states: “Low structured vegetation representative of the early

successional stage of shortgrass prairie is available for a keystone species, black-tailed prairie

dog, to colonize. The colonies provide habitat for swift fox, Mountain Plover, Golden Eagle,

Ferruginous Hawk, and badger. Habitat for at least one complex of black-tailed prairie dog

colonies is available for potential future reintroduction to recover the endangered black-footed

ferret, a predator dependent on the black-tailed prairie dog. Impacts from plague outbreaks to

black-tailed prairie dogs and potential reintroduced black-footed ferrets are minimal.”

Comment: Some commenters believe that there are no data included in the DEIS on the recorded

use of poison to control prairie dogs and that documentation of BTPD poisoning should be

included in any monitoring protocol.

Response: The DEIS is a document that describes a proposal, alternatives, and effects. The DEIS

does not contain the kind of data outside of what is being compared and analyzed for effects or

data that would not improve the effects analysis.

There is no proposed plan component for monitoring BTPD and it is not a MIS. BTPD poisoning

is not an ongoing practice on the Grasslands.

In the proposed plan, a monitoring element is in place that tracks areal extent for early

successional stage shortgrass prairie. This stage of shortgrass is considered to have the habitat

expansion potential for BTPD depending on soil type and slope.

Ecosystem Diversity | Wildlife and

Habitat | Species Viability | Lesser Prairie-chicken

Comment: Some commenters acknowledged that state recommendations and guidelines for

species habitat preference concerning Lesser Prairie-chicken was provided and used in the
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 177

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Grasslands plan development. The comments further suggest using the “Five State Southern

Great Plains Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool” (CHAT).

Response: The Agency concurs that guidelines for species habitat preferences supplied by the

state and other agencies were integral in the development of the proposed Grasslands plan

component for the LPC.

The proposed plan has guidelines in place that use best available science to be used for

determining suitable habitat.

CHAT habitat assessment and acreage determination for LPC is summarized in the DEIS, chapter

3, “Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences” page 64.

Ecosystem Diversity | Vegetation | All Vegetation Types

Comment: Some commenters believe that natural processes should be used to maintain restored

native ecosystems that are populated by the historic suite of native species, and that bison should

be reintroduced on the Grasslands.

Response: The national grasslands are managed under the auspices of CFR Ch. II (7-1-96

Edition) Part 213—Administration of Lands Under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant 

Act by the Forest Service Authority: 50 Stat. 525, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012. § 213.1

Designation, Administration, and Development of National Grasslands—

“The National Grasslands shall be administered under sound and progressive

principles of land conservation and multiple use, and to promote development of

grassland agriculture and sustained-yield management of the forage, fish and

wildlife, timber, water and recreational resources in the areas of which the

National Grasslands are a part”...“In the administration of the National

Grasslands the resources shall be managed so as to maintain and improve soil

and vegetative cover, and to demonstrate sound and practical principles of land

use for the areas in which they are located.”

Due to the landscape-scale degradation of the native ecosystems on Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black

Kettle, and McClellan Creek during the Dust Bowl Era, soil stabilization was the first priority

when the Grasslands were established. On the four Grasslands, vegetation management has

achieved structure features that are in low departure from reference condition and support a suite

of native species.

Natural processes that include grazing and fire are utilized to manage and influence plant

structure and composition. The proposed plan has plan components in place in all vegetation

types, soil, and water to achieve and maintain those plant structure and composition features. The

four Grasslands are not contiguous tracts of land. They are defined by an administrative boundary

that encompasses private land ownership as well as lands administered by the Grasslands. There

are numerous roads administered by state and county jurisdiction along with Forest Service roads

that bisect many Grassland units. Administratively, under Part 222, “Range Management,”

Grasslands units have grazing and livestock use allotments.

Subpart A, part 222.1, “Authority and Definitions,” details how range resources are permitted and

regulated. It would be through these authorities that grazing use by bison would be permitted and
Appendix A. Response to Comments

178 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

regulated and just as livestock is owned and managed by permittees, bison would be owned and

managed by the permittee as well.

None of the alternatives prohibits the introduction of bison on the national grasslands. Permittees

could request permission from the Forest Service to run livestock other than cattle on their

allotment, and the Forest Service would conduct a project-specific environmental analysis and

renegotiate the terms of the permit if the request were allowed.

Management of bison on fenced pastures that are generally less than a section of land requires

additional techniques and facilities—more than that required by cattle grazing. Fences have to be

taller and stronger, or the bison have to be surrounded by electric fence and acclimated to it.

Bison are not easily moved from one facility to another and have seasonal herd dynamics such as

“rut” where mature bulls vie for dominance and are unmanageable.

The past role of bison as ecological engineers was dependent on unrestricted landscape. Today’s

anthropogenic barriers, land fragmentation, and development preclude bison from playing their

former role at the landscape scale. If introduced on the Grasslands, bison’s ecological impact

would be management dependent, and their impact would probably not be much different than

that of cattle—

“...differences between the influence of free-roaming bison on pristine

grasslands and semi-free-roaming bison on a fenced natural area must be much

greater than those of the latter and domestic cattle.”2

Ecosystem Diversity | Wildlife and

Habitat | Threatened and Endangered Species

Comment: Some commenters believe that the proposed plan lacks safeguards and specific

habitat for the Lesser Prairie-chicken and riparian species.

Response: Habitat for the Lesser Prairie-chicken (LPC) and riparian species is supported by plan

components that provide specific features that are identified in desired conditions, objectives, and

guidelines.

Riparian areas have plan components in the Grasslands-wide Management “Water, Watershed,

Perennial Streams...” section beginning on page 43 of the proposed plan. Beginning on page 86,

plan components are in place for cottonwood-willow riparian areas with desired conditions,

objectives, guidelines.

Plan components provide specific habitat for LPC. Desired conditions state: the mixed grass

species composition provides vegetation structure and height relationships necessary for ground

nesting bird cover and brood rearing habitat. Small areas of short structured herbaceous

vegetation or patches of bare ground are available for Lesser Prairie-chicken leks and courtship

areas. Small areas or patches of bare ground are present that provide wildlife travel corridors,

escape routes, and annual plant germination sites for wildlife foraging habitat. In shinnery oak

and sand sagebrush, small areas of short structured herbaceous vegetation or patches of bare

ground are available for Lesser Prairie-chicken leks and courtship areas; these areas also provide

 2 Plumb, GE and Dodd, JL. 1993. Foraging ecology of bison and cattle on a northern mixed prairie: implications for

natural area management. Ecological Applications 3:631-643.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 179

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

wildlife travel corridors, escape routes, and annual plant germination sites for wildlife foraging

habitat. Trees are nonexistent and collision risks from fences, etc., are minimal in areas important

for recovery of Lesser Prairie-chicken.

Plan component objectives further enhance LPC habitat through the following: Mechanically or

with prescribed fire, remove all undesirable trees on the mixed-grass prairie over the next 15

years after plan approval. Over the next 15 years after plan approval, retain shrubby cover across

the landscape in patches that are no less than 5 percent or more than 25 percent of the total mixed

grass area. Within 10 years of plan approval, mark 25 to 50 percent of fences in suitable Lesser

Prairie-chicken habitat to minimize collisions of the bird with fences.

Guidelines are in place to assure LPC habitat in mixed grass and shinnery oak as follows: Trees in

upland settings within landscapes suitable for Lesser Prairie-chicken habitat should be targeted

for eradication. Prescribed fire should have a recurrence interval of 5 to 15 years to encourage

forb production; timing should consider adverse consequences to ground nesting birds.

Comment: Some commenters stated that the proposed plan and DEIS violate the Endangered

Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act because they do not include a biological

assessment or a biological opinion. In addition, the proposed plan would jeopardize the survival

and/or recovery of listed species and would fail to conserve them.

Response: When the above comments were received, the proposed plan and DEIS were in the

final stages of the initial 90-day comment period. After the 90-day comment period closes and

responses are formulated, the regional forester selects a preferred alternative from those presented

in the draft EIS. The preferred alternative (now the proposed plan) and a biological assessment

(BA) will be presented to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The BA and a formal

response from the FWS will accompany the final EIS. Effects to the Arkansas River shiner will

be addressed in the BA.

The Forest Service does not concur with the commenter that the proposed plan would jeopardize

the survival and/or recovery of listed species and would fail to conserve them. The proposed plan

and the DEIS are programmatic and do not have direct effects. Beginning on page 56 of the

DEIS, the “Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species” section covers the comment concern

and also includes critical habitat.

After the proposed plan and record of decision are final and the plan is implemented, site specific

environmental assessments would be completed prior to any activities taking place on the

Grasslands.

Ecosystem Diversity | Wildlife and

Habitat | General Ecological | Wildlife Habitat Improvement

Comment: Some commenters stated that wildlife should have water available to them on the

Grasslands, and cooperating agencies should be allowed to operate watering facilities.

Response: The Grasslands concur that wildlife should have water available year around. Page 56

of the proposed plan has the following guideline: Windmills at water wells should be kept

running all year long when water availability and mechanical function permit, for wildlife benefit.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

180 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

The Grasslands welcome cooperation of state agencies in operating and maintaining windmills

for wildlife water during the nongrazing season.

Comment: “Piñon-juniper woodland is important to wildlife for cover, roosting, nesting, and

food including juniper berries and piñon nuts. The trees invade grassland that is overgrazed...Any

thinning should not aim at having ‘trees farther apart’(for cattle forage) but at all age groups

(thickets) of trees farther apart, for wildlife habitat.”

Response: Pinyon-juniper invasion of grassland vegetation types results from reduced fire

frequency caused by less fine fuel (drought, overgrazing) and fire suppression.

The proposed plan balances wildlife habitat requirements with forage production and strives to

maintain the reference vegetation structure of vegetation types threatened by nonnative tree

invasion. The proposed plan provides direction to manage vegetation types in a way that

maintains habitat for grassland-obligate wildlife, including black-tailed prairie dog, Ferruginous

Hawk, and swift fox. This includes removal of invasive species, prescribed fire, targeted grazing,

and seeding (pages 74–75 in the draft plan).

The proposed plan also strives to maintain the reference vegetation structure of the pinyonjuniper and juniper-grassland vegetation types. The proposed plan’s desired conditions call for a

pinyon-juniper vegetation type that “is a mosaic of stand shape, size, spacing, and structural

stages across the landscape reflecting the natural range of pinyon-juniper woodland” and a

juniper grasslands inclusion where “trees occur as individuals or in smaller groups and range

from young to old” (pages 83–85 in the draft plan).

Ecosystem Diversity | Wildlife and Habitat | Cumulative

Environmental Consequences to All Wildlife | Lesser Prairie-chicken

Comment: Some commenters believe that wind energy development would be contradictory to

recreational uses, detrimental to wildlife and habitat, and should have siting restrictions for

turbines and transmission lines to retain Lesser Prairie-chicken habitat.

Response: The proposed plan contains components or management approaches that require wind

energy development to adhere to Forest Service guidance as follows: 36 CFR 251 Subpart B

Land Uses, Special Uses; FSM 2700 Special Uses Management; FSH 2709.11, Chapters 40 and

70, Special Uses Handbook; FSH 2609.13, Chapter 80, Wildlife Monitoring at Wind Energy

Facilities; Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in

2006, Avian Power line Interaction Committee (APLIC) 2006; Edison Electric Institute,

Washington D.C. Standard Guidance for Towers with Potential Impacts to Federally Listed

Species and Migratory Birds (document prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office, 9014 East 21st Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74129-

1428).

Plan components include desired conditions as follows: The Grasslands support alternative

energy production and facilitate their development while mitigating impacts to resources and

values. Wind energy developments are designed to minimize impacts to other uses and resources,

in particular wildlife and scenic integrity.

Plan component guidelines state new utility construction and reconstruction of existing utility

lines should use existing rights-of-way to the extent practical to provide utility access to private
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 181

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

land. Ground-disturbing activities associated with wind energy development should be avoided

within 500 feet of eligible National Historic Register sites. Wind turbines should not be located

within one-half mile of developed recreation sites and active prairie dog colonies.

Human Influences | Livestock Use | Grazing and Wildlife

Comment: A commenter believes that livestock exclusion would benefit wildlife and the

Grasslands overall.

Response: Grazing has been one part of the natural processes that led to the structure and

composition features that form the basis of vegetation reference conditions on the Grasslands.

Grazing is an important management tool used to manipulate habitat for wildlife by the intensity,

duration, and timing of livestock use. One example for reference of plan component development

is the Texas Parks and Wildlife LPC management plan that utilizes livestock grazing to optimize

habitat for LPC.

The “Texas Parks and Wildlife Lesser Prairie-chicken Wildlife Management Plan”3 states that

“Duration and intensity of grazing must be balanced to increase or maintain good nesting and

brood-rearing habitats, in addition to creating planned patterns of patchiness on the landscape.

Therefore, a long-term (5 to 10 year) prescribed grazing plan (or schedule) must be prepared for

all pastures. Light to moderate grazing (40–60 percent of growth remaining) provides needed

nesting and brood rearing habitat. Diverse grazing pressure is desirable to create the needed

patchwork of different vegetative heights, composition, interspersion, and increased food plant

production.”

Ecosystem Diversity | Vegetation | Shinnery Oak/

Mixed Grass Prairie | Sand Sagebrush | Shortgrass Prairie

Comment: Some commenters believe that exclosures would preserve rare plants and wildlife

nesting areas benefiting the Lesser Prairie-chicken and black-tailed prairie dog.

Response: The proposed plan has components for Lesser Prairie-chicken (LPC) habitat

provisions. Desired conditions in the mixed grass vegetation have structure and height

relationships necessary for ground nesting bird cover and brood rearing habitat. Small areas of

short structured herbaceous vegetation or patches of bare ground are available for LPC leks and

courtship areas. Small areas or patches of bare ground are present that provide wildlife travel

corridors, escape routes, and annual plant germination sites for wildlife foraging habitat. In

shinnery oak and sand sagebrush, small areas of short structured herbaceous vegetation or patches

of bare ground are available for LPC leks and courtship areas; these areas also provide wildlife

travel corridors, escape routes, and annual plant germination sites for wildlife foraging habitat.

Trees are nonexistent and collision risks from fences, etc., are minimal in areas important for

recovery of Lesser Prairie-chicken.

Plan component objectives further enhance LPC habitat through the following: Mechanically or

with prescribed fire, remove all undesirable trees on the mixed-grass prairie over the next 15

years after plan approval. Over the next 15 years after plan approval, retain shrubby cover across

 

3 PWD 1046-W7000 (12/06) 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdforms/media/pwd_1046b_w7000_lesser_prairie_chicken_wmp.doc
Appendix A. Response to Comments

182 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

the landscape in patches that are no less than 5 percent or more than 25 percent of the total mixed

grass area. Within 10 years of plan approval, mark 25 to 50 percent of fences in suitable Lesser

Prairie-chicken habitat to minimize collisions of the bird with fences.

Guidelines are in place to assure LPC habitat in mixed grass and shinnery oak as follows: Trees in

upland settings within landscapes suitable for Lesser Prairie-chicken habitat should be targeted

for eradication. Prescribed fire should have a recurrence interval of 5 to 15 years, to encourage

forb production; timing should consider adverse consequences to ground nesting birds.

Exclosures placed around LPC habitat would not aid the manipulation of habitat components for

the benefit of the species. Grazing is an important management tool used to manipulate habitat for

wildlife by the intensity, duration, and timing of livestock use. The Texas Parks and Wildlife LPC

management plan utilizes livestock grazing to optimize habitat for LPC (http://www.tpwd.

state.tx.us/publications/huntwild/forms/index.phtml PWD 1046-W7000) (12/06). The “Texas

Parks and Wildlife Lesser Prairie-chicken Wildlife Management Plan” states that duration and

intensity of grazing must be balanced to increase or maintain good nesting and brood rearing

habitats, in addition to creating planned patterns of patchiness on the landscape. Therefore, a

long-term (5 to 10 year) prescribed grazing plan (or schedule) must be prepared for all pastures.

Light to moderate grazing (40–60 percent of growth remaining) provides needed nesting and

brood rearing habitat. Diverse grazing pressure is desirable to create the needed patchwork of

different vegetative heights, composition, interspersion, and increased food plant production.

The proposed plan has specific components developed to provide black-tailed prairie dog habitat.

First desired conditions starting on page 73 state the following: Low structured vegetation

representative of the early successional stage of shortgrass prairie is available for a keystone

species black-tailed prairie dog to colonize. The colonies provide habitat for swift fox, Mountain

Plover, Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, and badger. Habitat for at least one complex of blacktailed prairie dog colonies is available for potential future reintroduction to recover the

endangered black-footed ferret, a predator dependent on the black-tailed prairie dog; impacts

from plague outbreaks to black-tailed prairie dogs and potential reintroduced black-footed ferrets

are minimal.

Plan component objectives follow desired conditions to assure success as follows: Reintroduce

prescribed fire in 1 to 10 percent of the vegetation type over the next 15 years after plan approval.

Mechanically, chemically, or with prescribed fire remove from 5 to 10 percent of native invasive

plants such as cholla, juniper, pricklypear, mesquite, and yucca annually.

Specific plan component guidelines are in place to reinforce the objectives and desired conditions

as follows: Prescribed fire and targeted grazing of suitable black-tailed prairie dog habitat should

occur only on loamy uplands, loamy plains, limey uplands, alkaline plains, loamy bottomlands,

basalt loam, and clayey soils on 0 to 5 percent slopes. Timing of prescribed fire or other

vegetation treatments should consider adverse consequences to nesting birds. Special use

activities should be limited in Ferruginous Hawk nesting areas during the nesting period from

March 1 to June 30 within 0.5 mile of any suitable nesting sites and/or April 1 to August 31

within 0.5 mile of any active nest. Research under Agency control should occur outside early

nesting and incubation periods. Improving habitat and maintaining corridors for swift fox should

be accomplished through timely burning, mowing, livestock grazing, and seeding.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 183

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Exclosures around black-tailed prairie dog habitat would allow vegetation to move toward mid to

late successional stages. Grazing animals maintain early successional low structure vegetation

stages that prairie dogs use as colony recruitment areas. Exclosures would produce an undesirable

outcome for prairie dog colony recruitment.

Managed Recreation | Recreation |

Dispersed and Motorized Recreation

Comment: Some commenters believe roads that hinder wildlife in any way should be removed or

have their access limited to necessary maintenance/habitat protection use, and that the proposed

plan does not address road densities that will increase risks to wildlife.

Response: The Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands are

not contiguous tracts of land. They are defined by an administrative boundary that encompasses

private land ownership as well as lands administered by the Grasslands. There are numerous

roads administered by state and county jurisdiction along with Forest Service roads that bisect

many Grassland units. Individual units are in many cases bordered by roads with access limited

by fences with gated entrances. Grasslands internal administrative roads are not open to the

public.

The Black Kettle and McClellan Creek NGs have completed travel management assessments and

a motor vehicle use map is in effect that restricts off-road use except for designated areas.

Travel management on the Kiowa and Rita Blanca has been completed, and both road densities 

and wildlife concerns were addressed in a travel management environmental assessment and 

decision notice. A final motor vehicle use map is anticipated to be available during the fall 2012 

and will guide visitors to all legal access areas.

Ecological Diversity | Vegetation | Wildlife

and Habitat | Management Indicator Species

Comment: Some commenters are concerned that there are no MIS to ensure viability of the

native flora and fauna that inhabit mixed grass prairie, shinnery oak, sand sagebrush, and

cottonwood-willow vegetation types on the Grasslands.

Response: There is no requirement for selecting a MIS to represent each dominant vegetation

type on the Grasslands. The purpose of MIS is to evaluate effects of alternatives and to monitor

management of the preferred alternative post implementation. The process to select MIS for

alternatives evaluation and ecological indicators for monitoring is described, and the rationale and

decision outcome are documented in appendix G of the DEIS beginning on page 203.

In part 6: “Monitoring Elements of the Land and Resource Management Plan” provide ecological

indicators to monitor the results of management. Mixed-grass, shinnery oak, and cottonwoodwillow vegetation types use the presence and areal extent of undesirable trees and the mid and

late successional stages of shortgrass prairie use range vegetation trend monitoring as ecological

indicators of habitat and species viability.

The Agency concurs that no MIS or ecological indicator was identified for sand sagebrush. A

monitoring element is in place in the proposed plan that will use range vegetation trend

monitoring as the ecological indicator of habitat and species viability.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

184 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Cassins’s Sparrow will not represent sand sagebrush as the MIS as the collaborating team of state

and Federal agency biologists concurred.

Ecological Diversity | Vegetation | Wildlife and Habitat |

Management Indicator Species | Wildlife Management Indicator Species

Comment: Some commenters believe that the plains leopard frog should be designated as MIS

for cottonwood-willow and that there is no MIS for aquatic habitat. They believe that Chytrid

fungus is a threat to the plains leopard frog on the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands.

They also stated that the proposed plan does not provide adequate protection for the plains

leopard frog or its habitat.

Response: The selection criteria for MIS beginning on page 203 of the DEIS states:

“Management indicator species is a concept adopted by the Agency to serve, in part, as a

barometer for species viability at the forest level...To estimate the effects of planning alternatives

on fish and wildlife populations, certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species shall be selected as

MIS. These species are to be selected because their population changes are believed to indicate

the effects of management (1982 Rule Provision 219.19(a)(1)).” The bulleted statements of

process criteria are defined and reveal how MIS assessment and selections were made.

Flows of the Canadian River upstream of the Grasslands have been diverted for agricultural and

domestic use purposes leaving areas such as Mills Canyon with diminished flows. The criteria

used for MIS selection states that management activities are required to have significant influence

on the habitat or the species. Grasslands management has no ability to influence the Canadian

River flows or climate change.

A commenter references the proposed plan, page 177, appendix B, “Climate Change Trends,”

specifically riparian habitat. The reference provides information about climate change trends and

the influence on riparian habitat. Within the context of those two paragraphs is support for the

conclusions that riparian systems are not well represented by MIS.

A commenter agrees that drought may be a primary threat to the plains leopard frog. The

determination made by the team of state and Federal agency biologists is that aquatic habitat

would have influences that Grasslands management could not significantly affect and no MIS or

ecological indicator would appropriately represent trends. The plains leopard frog would not be a

representative management indicator species.

The plains leopard frog was assessed to be at-risk for viability on the Kiowa and Rita Blanca

Management Areas that are hot and dry and the habitat is ephemeral—Chytrid fungus, fish, and

invasive bullfrogs do not inhabit these areas.

Appendix F, “Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations” of this document describes

procedures used in the Grasslands Plan for implementing and documenting viability of species.

Coarse filter and fine filter plan components were developed in the proposed plan as follows:

Desired condition watersheds are in Class I condition. These watersheds meet water quality

standards and support designated uses. Watersheds are characterized by high infiltration rates,

low soil compaction, and minimal overland flow. Within the capability of the Grasslands,

streams, springs, playa lakes, wetlands, and aquifers sustain water quantity and quality. Springs,
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 185

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

wetlands, streams and lakes are at proper functioning condition, and streams and lakes exhibiting

unacceptable bank erosion are healed or healing.

Management approaches in the proposed plan for riparian area management TR 1737-15, 1998,

“A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic

Areas” and TR 1737-16, 1999, Revised 2003, “A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning

Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas” may be used by managers to assess the

proper functioning condition of watercourses, playas, and wetlands.

Beginning on page 86, plan components are in place for cottonwood-willow riparian areas with

desired conditions, objectives, guidelines that are in support of aquatic life and the “at risk” for

viability plains leopard frog.

Human Influences | Livestock Use | Grazing and Livestock Use

Comment: A commenter believes that livestock use will hamper the restoration of riparian

vegetation in general, and in Mills Canyon specifically.

Response: Establishment of native riparian vegetation is limited primarily by altered hydrologic

function resulting from off-Grasslands water diversion (draft EIS, p. 52). Saltcedar control

treatments are ongoing in the riparian areas and the proposed plan will continue to restore the

riparian woody and herbaceous community.

Draft plan guidelines address protection for riparian vegetation under grazing:

“Permitted grazing should allow for residual ground cover levels to provide for

plant physiological needs, soil protection, wildlife habitat, and vegetation desired

conditions” (page 37 in the draft plan).

“Grazing should be managed to promote or maintain riparian obligate

vegetation” (page 65 in the draft plan).

“Grazing should be managed to promote or maintain riparian woody vegetation”

(page 87 in the draft plan).

Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2070.2, 2238.23.5[c], 2241.11) also addresses protection

for riparian vegetation under grazing.

Page 42 of the DEIS describes the livestock use in Mills Canyon. Currently, livestock permits are

unobligated on the largest riparian unit (K-91), and grazing is limited in other parts of the riparian

area (K-136, K-135, and K-87).

Human Influences | Wind Energy Development

Comment: A commenter believes that wind speed on the Kiowa NG is minimally desirable for

renewable energy.

Response: The average annual wind speed at 80 meters above ground level on the Kiowa in

eastern New Mexico and Rita Blanca on the Texas and Oklahoma Panhandles has been calculated

by wind resource estimates developed by AWS Truewind LLC for wind navigation provided to

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
Appendix A. Response to Comments

186 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Average annual wind speed on KRB is 8.5 meters per second which is 19.1 mph.

Average annual wind speed suitable for wind energy development is 6.5 meters per second or

14.5 mph.

Species Diversity | Vegetation/Wildlife and Habitat | Species Viability

Comment: Some commenters believe that suitable Lesser Prairie-chicken sites that would have

removal of trees and tall structures are not identified, so any such action cannot be monitored and

is unlikely to happen. They further commented that the Lesser Prairie-chicken won’t prosper on

the Kiowa unless areas are identified and sand sagebrush is “prepared” for them by extremely

light grazing or none at all, and that the shrub component should exceed 15 percent cover.

Response: The proposed alternative provides the desired conditions and guidance for

management of vegetation and habitat. Because it is programmatic, it does not identify specific

sites to take action. Habitat and vegetation management projects would require site-specific

environmental analysis, including the identification of specific locations to be treated. Trees and

tall human-made structures would be evaluated for removal in areas important for recovery of

Lesser Prairie-chicken habitat and where windbreaks and erosion control shelterbelts are no

longer needed for soil stability.

After further review of the scientific literature, the Agency agrees with the commenter, and

desired conditions for the sand sagebrush vegetation type will be changed in the final plan to call

for >15 percent shrub cover, thus providing a mosaic of habitats with varying amounts of grass,

forb, and shrub cover to satisfy the range of structure requirements of the Lesser Prairie-chicken

(lekking, nesting, brood rearing). Livestock grazing may be useful in creating such desired

conditions, as grazing can be used to increase shrub cover.

Sand sagebrush vegetation type guidelines, page 90 of the proposed plan, present design criteria

for site-specific projects that would “prepare” areas as suitable habitat for Lesser-Prairie chicken,

should they return to the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands.

CHAT habitat assessment and acreage determination for LPC is summarized in the DEIS, chapter

3, “Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences,” page 64.

Research Natural Areas

Comment: Some commenters believe that research natural areas (RNAs) should be established in

the shortgrass, sand sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper vegetation types. Section 2 of T26N R36E ,

which is used by the Rocky Mountain Research Station for fire studies in shortgrass prairie,

should be designated as an RNA and removed from livestock grazing.

Response: The Forest Service considered establishing RNAs in several vegetation types on the

Grasslands. As briefly discussed below, no areas were identified that met the criteria for RNA

establishment.

Shortgrass. Past reclamation projects (i.e., plantings and seedings) may not have been genetically

compatible with historical strains of native plants. Exotic species are present. Establishing T26N

R36E Sec. 2 as an RNA would interfere with research currently being conducted by the Rocky

Mountain Research Station.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 187

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Sand sagebrush. Plant community species composition is not representative of the vegetation

type. Many exotic species are present.

Pinyon-Juniper. Because of fragmented ownership, the contiguous areal extent of this vegetation

type is too small for RNA consideration. A number of RNAs have already been established or

proposed in the pinyon-juniper type. In the Southwestern Region alone, there are five RNAs

containing over 3,500 acres of pinyon-juniper on four national forests—including over 1,000

acres of pinyon-juniper on the Cibola National Forest—and another seven RNAs containing

roughly 2,000 acres of pinyon-juniper have been proposed on four national forests.

While the Forest Service is authorized (FSM 4063), but not required, to establish RNAs, the

planning process allows for future RNA proposals by amendment during the life of the plan if the

ecological condition of a unit improves to the point where RNA recommendation criteria are met.

(See regional guidance http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/

stelprdb5181253.pdf).

Heritage

Comment: A commenter expressed concern that only three pages in the draft plan address

heritage resources, the information presented for heritage is minimal, and the draft plan does not

adequately address heritage resources if the Agency’s goal is to manage land and resources.

Response: Heritage is addressed on pages 27, 28, 54, and 69 of the draft plan. In addition to that,

pages 99–102 contain plan components that provide protections for the Santa Fe National

Historic Trail. Appendix D of the draft plan is titled, “Other Sources of Information, Regulations,

MOUs, Guidance.” This appendix contains existing laws, regulations, MOUs, Forest Service

policy, and references to best management practices. Page 208 and 214 have extensive lists of

directives for managing heritage resources and special areas. The 1985 plan typically reiterated

the direction and policy inherent in these documents. This draft plan takes a different approach;

rather than restate the content of the various directives, they are included by reference. This

allows some flexibility, by including this content in an appendix rather than the body of the plan,

when documents are added or superseded, we can make changes without amending the plan,

while still following the direction/guidance of the updated directive.

The heritage resource program is funded through natural resource programs such as timber, range,

and fire and fuels. Most heritage work (about 80 percent) takes place in support of those resource

areas as Section 106 compliance work. Section 106 compliance work is an evaluation required

by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) to consider the effects of projects we carry out,

approve or fund on historic properties. It is the primary source for survey, discovery, and

documentation of heritage sites. About 20 percent of the heritage program work is unrelated to

other resources. This is typically Forest Service “Passport in Time” volunteer archaeology and

historic preservation projects, restoration and maintenance on priority asset sites, Section 110

survey (Section 110 of NHPA governs Federal agency programs by providing for consideration of

historic preservation in the management of properties under Federal ownership or control.),

interpretation, outreach, training, and conferences.

After reviewing your comments, we have added a Grasslands-wide management approach to

determine National Register of Historic Places eligibility for unevaluated archaeological sites on

each Grassland.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

188 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Comment: One commenter wrote “It would be beneficial if the Final ElS [sic] include the

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site, located within the Black Kettle National Grassland.”

Response: The final EIS does not address the Washita Battlefield National Historic Site

(WBNHS) because none of the alternatives would have environmental consequences for the

WBNHS. While the WBNHS Visitor Center is colocated with the Black Kettle district ranger’s

office, the National Park Service—not the Forest Service—manages the WBNHS.

Wilderness

Comment: One commenter supports alternative C, the wilderness alternative, believing that

wilderness designation would make successful law enforcement regarding unauthorized

motorized activity more likely.

Response: The Agency does not concur with the belief that recommendation of wilderness

designation would have an effect upon successful law enforcement of unauthorized motorized

activity in Mills Canyon. There is no precedent in the Agency for additional law enforcement

personnel being assigned to a unit because of a wilderness recommendation or designation.

Further, the motor vehicle use map that will be issued after the decision document is signed for

the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands travel management environmental assessment

will restrict public motorized use to designated roads and trails and provides sufficient authority

to cite and prosecute unauthorized motorized use.

Comment: A commenter believes that designated wilderness is unnecessary in this area and will

limit management options, contributing to the deterioration of resource conditions.

Response: Per Section 219.17 of the 1982 Planning Rule and FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70

(Wilderness Evaluation), we are required to evaluate potential wilderness areas and make

recommendations to Congress for potential designation. Additionally, both alternatives B and C

contain guidelines and objectives for managing vegetation and wildlife habitat conditions

sustainably. See the desired conditions under each management area for detailed descriptions.

Comment: Some commenters found the wilderness evaluation to be flawed and believe that

inappropriate rankings were assigned on a number of factors including capability (manageability),

availability, and need.

• The wilderness evaluation inappropriately reduced the capability rating for the area

because of difficulties in preventing off-road vehicle trespass due to the open nature of

the Grassland and proximity to private lands. This commenter agrees that it’s appropriate

to consider the manageability of boundaries, but believes that this consideration should

occur during the availability stage and not the capability stage of the analysis.

• The wilderness evaluation inappropriately reduced the capability rating because external

sights and sounds should not be important factors when evaluating an area for wilderness

designation. The commenter estimated that roads and developed recreation facilities are

visible from within about one third of the PWA.

• The wilderness evaluation inappropriately reduced the availability rating because of a

presumption (on the part of the Forest Service) that vegetation restoration would be

precluded should wilderness be designated.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 189

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

• The commenter thinks the rating for the evaluation factor “need” should be increased

because there are no designated wilderness areas on a national grassland, which creates a

representative gap in the Wilderness Preservation System.

Response: The purpose of wilderness and the broad direction for managing wilderness are in the

Wilderness Act of 1964, 1982 Planning Rule Provisions Section 219.17 (Evaluation of roadless

areas), and FSH 1909.12 Land Management Planning Handbook, Chapter 70, Wilderness

Evaluation.

An area recommended as suitable for wilderness must meet the tests of capability, availability,

and need. The principle characteristics as described in the Wilderness Act are evaluated under

capability: natural, undeveloped, outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive unconfined

recreation, special features and values, and manageability. The first four consider how current

conditions of the potential wilderness area (PWA) fit the definition of wilderness; manageability

evaluates features that would make it more or less difficult to manage as a wilderness, such as

size and shape, and juxtaposition to external influences. Boundaries affect the manageability of

an area, thus are considered a factor under capability, and not availability. This is consistent with

the wilderness Evaluation process described in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 70.

The PWA was originally ranked “low” for manageability because protecting the wilderness

character would require closing existing and frequently used roads, OHV use, and other access

issues that have become less relevant as a result of travel management (TM) planning. In

response to this comment, we reviewed the evaluative criteria for manageability as written in the

wilderness evaluation report, and replaced the “access criteria” with “boundary management

criteria” as directed in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 70, page 15. We ranked the boundary management

factor as medium (See the revised wilderness evaluation report, page 27). In addition, we

eliminated the second factor under manageability—motorized use, because the site-specific

environmental analysis for TM addressed that topic thoroughly. Thus, we eliminated the two low

rankings for manageability and added one medium. We consider the revised evaluative factor to

be more responsive to current conditions and Agency direction, however, the overall ranking for

capability did not change and remains “medium.”

The PWA has not been disqualified from consideration due to sights and sounds from outside the

PWA. The PWA was ranked “low” on undeveloped and “medium” for outstanding opportunities

for solitude or primitive unconfined recreation due to the many roads and structures within the

canyon (see pages 25 and 26 of the wilderness evaluation). While some of the roads and

developed campgrounds are within a “cherry stem” and technically outside the PWA boundary,

they are visually prominent within the PWA. It would be incorrect to say they do not impact the

experience of isolation. The PWA was ranked medium for “capability,” and has not been

disqualified from consideration for this or any other reason.

The PWA was ranked “low” for wildlife species, populations, and management needs because

management activities along the Canadian River are expected to be intensive and to occur every 5

years or more often. We considered changing the ranking of this factor to “medium,” however,

that presumes that treatment would occur somewhere less than every 10 years and not more

frequently. That would be an incorrect assumption as the FEIS for Canadian River tamarisk

control specifies some mechanical treatments to occur between late July and late September for

up to 5 years following initial treatments, which began in 2008–2009. The use of fire was

considered as an alternative for tamarisk control, but was eliminated from consideration because

fire only kills the aboveground portion of the plant leaving the below ground root structure to
Appendix A. Response to Comments

190 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

resprout (see the FEIS and ROD for Canadian River Tamarisk Control, 2007). The overall

ranking for “availability” was “medium” and does not assume that less intensive restoration

activities such as backpack spray (hand treatment) would be precluded if wilderness was

designated.

The need for an area to be designated as wilderness is determined on a regional basis. We

evaluate the geographic distribution of areas and representations of landforms and ecosystems to

determine “need.” It is correct that there are no wilderness areas designated on national

grasslands; however, there is no evaluative factor that compels us to consider the status of

federally owned land (national forest or grassland, national park, etc.) when evaluating “need.”

The wilderness evaluation report provides an inventory of other wilderness areas with similar

landform and vegetation, ecoregions and subregions, and five other factors for “need.” Based

upon this and other evaluative criteria from FSH 1909.12, Chapter 72.31, the PWA was ranked

“low” for need.

Comment: Some commenters believe that the FEIS should contain additional maps including the

inventoried roadless area (IRA), expanded wilderness boundary proposal, Canadian River PWA,

and additional unroaded lands. They thought the wilderness evaluation should assess all of the

IRA for capability for wilderness designation, and the proposed plan should have standards for

managing IRAs.

Response: The Canadian River IRA map was excluded from the DEIS because it creates

unnecessary confusion for the public. During the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE

II) process, the Canadian River IRA was mapped to include private land within the Forest Service

administrative boundary and included private land outside the Forest Service proclamation

boundary, on the west up Canon Colorado. It contained more than a section of State Trust land.

During production of the “Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation FEIS Volume 2- Maps of

Inventoried Roadless Areas,” 2000, a correction was made to exclude the land outside the

proclamation boundary, but other cartographic errors, such as the inclusion of state land, persist

on the official map. Obviously, the Forest Service does not have the authority to designate private

or state land as inventoried roadless. While not included in the DEIS, the IRA map is available as

part of the planning record, or online at http://roadless.fs.fed.us.

In our wilderness evaluation, we analyzed the wilderness potential of the full portion of the

Canadian River IRA that falls on Forest Service land, plus a portion of the land held by the State

of New Mexico. The area evaluated for wilderness capability within the report differs from the

IRA only in that we excluded all private land and some of the state land from evaluation. The

ecological and social values associated with the IRA are described in detail within the Canadian

River PWA evaluation. The desired conditions for the Mills Canyon Management Area (which

includes all of the Canadian River IRA), as described in the proposed plan (page 95) are clear that

the Forest Service intends to maintain a semiprimitive nonmotorized character for the

management area to preserve its outstanding recreation and natural features. The Canadian River

IRA is the only unroaded area in the planning area.

A map of the Canadian River PWA is located on page 41 of the “Kiowa National Grassland

Wilderness Evaluation Report, Canadian River PWA.”

We have not received a map of the “citizen recommended” expanded wilderness boundary from

the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance. However, in 2006, the proponent submitted two detailed
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 191

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

GIS maps showing an inventory of roads they would recommend for decommissioning on the

Mills Units of the Kiowa. The maps and management recommendations were submitted for

consideration for both plan revision and travel management implementation. The maps do not

include the expanded wilderness boundary as suggested, but include the Canadian River IRA

boundary as described above. The 2006 New Mexico Wilderness Alliance maps have been

retained as part of the planning record. Although maps of the expanded wilderness boundary were

not received, the proposal to expand the PWA boundary above the canyon rim was considered as

an alternative during alternative development, and was eliminated from further consideration for

a number of reasons. See page 26 of the DEIS under “Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated

from Detailed Study.”

Comment: One commenter believes that wilderness designation would provide enforceable

protections for plants, wildlife, and the ecosystems upon which they depend.

Response: Both alternatives B and C contain guidelines and objectives for managing vegetation

and wildlife habitat. See the desired conditions under each management area for detailed

descriptions. Be aware that the Forest Service manages wildlife habitat, and the respective states

are responsible for managing wildlife populations.

Comment: A commenter thinks off-road activity in Mills Canyon is a strong reason to designate

wilderness. Classifying the management area as an unroaded back-country area is not enforceable

and won’t attract visitors seeking a remote experience.

Response: “Unroaded back country” is an expression used to describe the characteristics of a

geographic region that is remote and undeveloped. Merriam-Webster considers the term to be

synonymous with hinterland. It is not intended to be construed as an enforceable designation.

However, implementation of the Travel Management Rule, and publication of the motor vehicle

use map will prohibit cross-country travel and will designate roads and trails for motor vehicle

use. Once published, the MVUM will be the legal enforcement tool of these designations.

Comment: Some commenters approve of the management direction as described in alternatives

B and C and support recommendation of Mills Canyon as wilderness. One commenter also

believes that designating the Canadian River as “wild and scenic” would reinforce habitat

recovery.

Response: We have noted your management preferences for the Canadian River.

We do not believe that a wilderness designation and designation as “wild and scenic” would be

necessary for habitat recovery. Alternatives B and C provide desired conditions, objectives, and

standards and guidelines that would promote creation of good habitat. In addition, active

management would be restricted if the area was a wilderness or the river was classified as

“scenic.” Active management may be needed to meet the plan’s desired conditions. For example,

the New Mexico Department of Agriculture organized the Canadian River Riparian Restoration

Project (CRRRP) to address control of invasive species like tamarisk, riparian species

revegetation/restoration, long-term management, maintenance, and monitoring of the Canadian

River. The Forest Service is working with this group to control tamarisk infestations on the

portion of the river that traverses the Kiowa National Grassland.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

192 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Recreation

Comment: Some commenters would like us to include a plan guideline stating that we will

develop a stand-alone recreation plan that will prescribe recreation goals, objectives, and

activities for achieving the desired conditions; and provide specific permissions or prohibitions

regarding prairie dog shooting in either the plan or a stand-alone recreation plan.

Response: Goals, objectives, and guidelines for recreation can be found on pages 19, 22, 24, 25,

and 26 of the proposed plan. The plan provides broad guidance and information for project and

activity for decisionmaking. The plan is strategic in nature, and does not include project and

activity decisions such as where prairie dog shooting might be allowed. Those decisions are made

later, after specific proposals are made and analyzed.

Guidelines are applicable to project or activity design and execution. They are sideboards for

projects and activities to help achieve the desired conditions and objectives. It would be

inappropriate to include a guideline stating that we are planning to develop another plan. See page

13 for more information about plan components.

Comment: A commenter is concerned that the DEIS is deficient in that it does not disclose or

discuss the effects of recreation on water resources or wildlife. The DEIS also failed to disclose

recreational use data (NVUM).

Response: The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides sitespecific actions, but does not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Because the

land management plan doesn’t authorize or mandate any site-specific activities or grounddisturbing actions, there can be no direct effects. This is a programmatic DEIS, not a site-specific

project where the effects of recreation upon other resources would typically be analyzed.

NVUM data was used in the “Recreation Specialist Report” under the section titled “Cumulative

Environmental Consequences.” The NVUM information remained in the specialist report as

background material and was not carried forward into the DEIS. The data used can be found on

page 9 of the “Recreation Specialist Report.” NVUM data for all national forests and grasslands

is available online at <www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum>.

Comment: A commenter is concerned that the use of off-highway vehicles around the rim of

Mills Canyon can cause destruction to habitat within the area.

Response: The area above the rim would be included in the larger Kiowa and Rita Blanca

Management Area in the proposed plan. Implementation of the Travel Management Rule will

designate roads and trails for motor vehicle use, restrict motorized dispersed camping to

designated corridors, and display those designations on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM). These

actions will reduce the potential for adverse effects on habitat from unmanaged motor vehicle

use. After the MVUM is published, it will be the enforcement tool requiring motor vehicles to

stay on the designated system and for prohibiting motorized cross-country travel. See the

“Desired Conditions” for “Motorized Recreation” on page 24 of the proposed plan.

Comment: A commenter would like us to construct interpretive exhibits on the rim and a

nonmotorized trail from the rim to the canyon bottom.

Response: The proposed plan is strategic in nature, and the EIS does not address project-specific

actions such as the construction of interpretive exhibits. The draft plan contains objectives to
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 193

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

construct two new nonmotorized trails in the Mills Canyon Management Area within 15 years of

plan approval, but does not specify the location pending site-specific analysis. Grasslands-wide

desired conditions and objectives for nature-based tourism and heritage resources include

developing more natural and historic interpretive programs/sites, but do not specify location

pending project proposal and site-specific analysis.

Comment: A commenter would like us to remove the campground facilities from the canyon

bottom and relocate them to the rim.

Response: The proposed plan is strategic in nature and does not include project and activity

decisions. Those decisions are made later, after specific proposals are made and analyzed. Under

the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), projects and activities must be consistent

with the plan.

In 2008, the Forest Service completed construction on two new campgrounds: Rim Campground

(on the rim) and Mills Canyon Campground (in the canyon bottom). The decision regarding the

location of these facilities was made as a result of an environmental analysis completed for the

Mills Canyon Campground. It would not be technically feasible, or popular, to remove the

camping facilities from the canyon bottom and reconstruct them on the rim, where a new

campground already exists.

Comment: A commenter wants to include a plan guideline to establish developed (designated)

dispersed campsites to protect areas from damage due to unmanaged dispersed camping. The

commenter wants additions to the guidelines for Grasslands-wide dispersed camping to include a

200-foot buffer from any water body, and prohibited in sensitive plant or wildlife area.

Response: A 200-foot buffer for dispersed camping around water bodies is consistent with the

seven principles of “Leave No Trace Outdoor Ethics” which are summarized on most forest

visitor maps, other recreation brochures, and online. The Agency expects recreation users to

follow those principles to reduce the impacts of human presence on the land and to preserve the

outdoor experience for future generations. However, because of fluctuating water levels, the

impracticality of enforcing a plan guideline such as this, and the administrative tools the Agency

already has to manage camping designations, we disagree that a plan guideline establishing such

a buffer would be needed. Implementation of the Travel Management Rule and publication of the

motor vehicle use map (MVUM) will also designate areas and corridors for dispersed camping.

The MVUM will be legally enforceable. Specifying a buffer around sensitive plant and animal

communities would require us to publish those locations, which we avoid doing because it

generates interest and increases human activity in those areas. The rangers do have administrative

authority to close areas to provide protective measures for plants and wildlife as needed.

Comment: Some commenters would limit tourism and prohibit road construction and off-road

use on the Grasslands. Because the proposed plan does not contain project specific information,

the commenter wants the objective to construct two new nonmotorized trails in the Mills Canyon

Management Area (p. 94 of the proposed plan) removed from the document.

Response: A land and resource management plan (LRMP) is strategic in nature. It does not

include project decisions such as trail locations. Those decisions are made later, after project

proposals are made and analyzed. Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), project

proposals must be consistent with the LRMP.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

194 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternatives B and C promote nature-based and heritage tourism on the Grasslands. The Agency

anticipates that increases in this low impact recreational activity can provide economic growth in

these very rural counties. Nature-based and heritage tourism would emphasize a particular

Grassland area or feature such as the playa lakes and bird watching, and provide interpretive sites

that help the public understand the history of the southern Great Plains.

While no road construction is proposed, the proposed plan contains objectives and extensive

management approaches for decommissioning roads no longer needed for administration of NFS

lands. Guidelines are in place for design, construction, and maintenance consistent with best

management practices.

Implementation of the 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212) will designate roads and

trails for motor vehicle use, prohibit cross-country travel on the Grasslands, and display these

designations on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM). Once published, the MVUM will be the legal

tool for enforcing and prohibition of motorized cross-country travel.

Recreation and Wilderness

Comment: Six nongovernmental organizations suggested that both the plan and DEIS would

benefit from the addition of more detailed maps and photographs in the recreation and wilderness

sections.

Response: The proposed plan contains 36 color photographs and 18 maps, including 7 maps

related to recreation, scenery, and the eligible scenic river. The DEIS contains 15 maps. All maps

were available on the Cibola NF Web site with expanded resolution and were reproduced within

the hardcopy documents at an 8.5 x 11 inch size due to expense of color reproduction for en

masse printing for public distribution. Similarly, the “Kiowa National Grassland Wilderness

Evaluation Report” and the sustainability and evaluation reports referenced in appendix B of the

DEIS and available on the Cibola NF Web site were at the 8.5 x 11 inch size. Larger size printed

or electronic versions of all maps were available upon request, and indeed some interested readers

did so and were sent larger maps by mail during the comment period.

Roads and Access

Comment: A commenter is concerned about retaining vehicular access to facilitate ranching.

Response: Decisions to close or restrict access on specific roads were made during travel

management planning. As part of that process, the Forest identified the road system needed for

safe and efficient travel, and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest

System lands. Roads needed for ranching/livestock grazing would have been identified during

that process. Roads not designated for motor vehicle use or displayed on the motor vehicle use

map that are needed for ranching and other administrative use will be available to permittees

under the terms of their permits.

Comment: A commenter wants all user groups to have equal access to all areas.

Response: Decisions regarding motorized access on the national forests and grasslands are

determined during travel management planning. Public access will be guided by the motor

vehicle use map (MVUM) upon publication. The MVUM will be legally enforceable. See the

section titled “Roads and Access” on pages 28–30 of the proposed plan for more information.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 195

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Comment: Some commenters think the proposed plan should contain more direction for travel

management: The desired conditions for “roads and access” in the draft plan should contain

guidelines designating where public access will be permitted and where it will be prohibited. The

plan should set the standard for motorized use, not travel management. The plan should have

standards and guidelines designating corridors for dispersed camping and big game retrieval per

36 CFR 212.51(b). The plan should include a standard limiting motorized dispersed camping and

prohibiting motorized big game retrieval. The travel management decision may be delayed, so the

proposed plan should prohibit cross-country travel on KRB to reduce damage to vegetation and

wildlife. The proposed plan should include the TAP and minimum road system in an appendix.

The plan should contain a standard establishing maximum road density in areas of ecological

importance. The proposed plan should have a standard for implementing the minimum road

system within 15 years. The commenters believe that the proposed plan should guide motorized

vehicle access, rather than the site-specific environmental assessment for travel management

planning.

Response: The proposed plan provides broad guidance and information for project

decisionmaking and is strategic in nature. It does not contain project and activity decisions such

as permitting or prohibiting vehicular access on individual roads. Desired conditions are

statements of social, economic, and ecological outcomes to be achieved in the future; they are

aspirational, rather than project specific commitments. Desired conditions guide managers in

planning future actions to be achieved over the life of the plan. Thus, the desired conditions,

standards, and guidelines for “roads and access” will not address the management of specific

roads. Page 208 of appendix D of the proposed plan titled, “Other Sources of Information,

Regulations, MOUs, Guidance” contains a comprehensive list of legislation and directives that

road engineers and recreation managers refer to when project planning and decisionmaking. Sitespecific environmental assessments are done to guide travel management decisions.

The travel management atlas (INFRA roads database) is available to the public at the forest

supervisor’s office. The TAP is part of the travel management project record available at the

district ranger’s office in Clayton, NM. It is not required as an appendix to the LRMP.

The KRB travel management EA and decision notice have been completed and are available for

viewing on the Cibola National Forest Web site at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=30061. A final motor vehicle use map is 

anticipated to be available during the fall 2012 and will guide visitors to all legal access areas. 

This map will be available and in effect in a matter of months, not years. The specialist reports

with supporting analysis and documentation for wildlife and vegetation are part of the project

record located at the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands district ranger’s office in

Clayton, NM. The travel management project record for the Black Kettle National Grassland is

available at the district ranger’s office in Cheyenne, Oklahoma.

The effects of unmanaged motor vehicle use is discussed briefly under “Roads and Access” on

page 104 of the DEIS. The effects of unmanaged recreation on wildlife, water, scenery, and other

resources are described in detail in the travel management environmental assessments for the

respective districts.

Comment: A commenter believes we should protect wilderness and prohibit destruction by ORV

use.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

196 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Response: We agree that unmanaged off-road use can be destructive to the environment. 

Implementation of the Travel Management Rule on the Grasslands will designate roads and trails

for motor vehicle use. The “Environmental Assessment for Travel Management on the Kiowa and

Rita Blanca National Grasslands” and decision notice are available for viewing at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=30061. The selected alternative 

prohibits motorized cross-country travel. The Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National 

Grasslands have been closed to motorized cross-country travel since 1990. 

Special Areas and Areas of Interest

Comment: A commenter thinks it would be preferable if the unauthorized stream crossings could

be closed or rehabilitated sooner than the 10 years cited in the objective under “eligible scenic

river” in the proposed plan.

Response: We would like to complete the work earlier as suggested, however funding for this

type project is dependent upon congressional allocations. As such, our ability to commit funds 

and staffing is somewhat unpredictable. We believe we would be able to accomplish the closures

and rehabilitation at least in 10 years.

Nature-based Tourism

Comment: A commenter thinks that more nonmotorized recreation and ecotourism would 

provide economic benefits to local economies. 

Response: Alternatives B and C recognize that wildlife viewing and birding are becoming 

increasingly popular on the Grasslands. Our desired conditions include developed interpretive

sites, nature trails, and outdoor classrooms for students and wildlife enthusiasts. Objectives

include development of interpretive sites and educational/enrichment programs. See page 26 of

the draft plan for other management approaches for nature-based tourism. Heritage resources

would offer the public similar interpretive and educational opportunities. 

Comment: Some commenters want the plan to emphasize natural educational/learning

opportunities and nonmotorized recreation in Mills Canyon. They recommend adding standards 

to the proposed plan that would codify Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classifications

and prohibit all motorized use in Mills Canyon other than administrative use on the 600 Road.

Response: The proposed plan does not include any site-specific actions for guided tours or 

educational programs in the canyon; however, the proposed plan has Grasslands-wide objectives

under nature-based tourism and heritage resources to offer educational/enrichment programs or 

field trips annually. More intensive educational programs and tours would potentially be 

inconsistent with the desired conditions of the area, and would be more consistent with a popular 

national park or wildlife refuge. The desired conditions for integrated recreation and scenery

within the Mills Canyon Management Area are consistent with the desired conditions you

described for the area. Please see pages 92–93 of the draft plan for the desired conditions, and 

appendix A for maps of the proposed ROS categories. 

The ROS classification system is used by recreation planners and landscape architects to guide

the type and intensity of use an area will be managed to accommodate. It is not an enforcement

tool designed to restrict access by Agency personnel. Travel management planning determines 

which roads/trails should be designated for motor vehicle use, and which may be restricted to
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 197

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

administrative use only. The designations will be legally enforceable upon publication of the

motor vehicle use map.

Because the 600 Road provides public access to the recently reconstructed Mills Canyon

Campground, it would be inappropriate to designate it for administrative use only. The

designation of roads for motor vehicle use will be determined through travel management

planning.

Comment: A commenter would like the national grasslands to offer wildlife viewing/interpretive

amenities similar to those found in a wildlife refuge or nature center.

Response: The land and resource management plan provides broad guidance for project and

decisionmaking on the Grasslands for approximately the next 15 years. The plan is strategic in

nature, and does not include project and activity decisions. Those decisions are made later, after

specific project proposals are made and analyzed. Under the National Forest Management Act

(NFMA), projects and activities must be consistent with the plan.

Development of an interpretive site for prairie dog viewing would be consistent with plan

direction for nature-based tourism. The Grasslands provide outstanding opportunities for viewing

birds and other wildlife. The desired conditions for nature-based tourism emphasize Grassland

areas or features such as playa lakes, bird watching, and other wildlife viewing and photography.

Providing interpretive sites, nature trails, and outdoor classrooms for wildlife watchers and bird

enthusiasts are features that could be considered at a later date as project-specific proposals to

meet the desired condition.

Comment: Some commenters expressed an interest in promoting economic growth through

ecotourism. A range of activities could include wildlife viewing, photography, and hunting. An

ecosystem restored using fire and populated by native species would enhance opportunities for

ecotourism.

Response: The desired conditions and objectives of the proposed plan are compatible with

promoting economic growth through ecotourism. The desired conditions emphasize playa lakes,

bird watching, wildlife viewing, and photography. Interpretive sites, nature trails, and outdoor

classrooms would be developed. Objectives in the proposed plan include educational/enrichment

programs for nature-based tourism and heritage, increased interpretive materials, and heritage

resource preservation activities. See pages 26–27 of the proposed plan and pages 99–104 for

information on special areas and the Canadian eligible scenic river. We anticipate that visitation to

these unique features will increase and promote economic growth in the rural communities.

Providing interpretive sites, nature trails, and outdoor classrooms for wildlife watchers and bird

enthusiasts are features that could be considered at a later date as project-specific proposals to

meet the desired condition.

The Grasslands do not manage herds of animals or manage wildlife in general, only wildlife

habitat. A permittee could request that the terms of his permit be changed to include other species

of animals such as bison or sheep; however, the very fragmented ownership pattern (small

noncontiguous, fenced parcels) on the Grasslands might preclude the introduction of bison on the

national grasslands.

Planned and unplanned fire is frequently used to mimic the historical role of fire on the landscape

and as a tool to achieve other resource objectives such as fuels reduction.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

198 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Comment: A commenter suggests that grazing bison would improve the land and increase

wildlife viewing opportunities.

Response: The Grasslands do not manage wildlife, only wildlife habitat. Grazing permittees can

request to change the species grazed on their allotment, however, the fragmented nature (small

fenced parcels) of Federal ownership on the Grasslands would naturally limit the number of bison

an allotment could hold. This would not be a wide open prairie with large herds of wild animals

freely roaming that would contribute to wildlife viewing opportunities.

Minerals, Energy Development, and Special Uses

Comment: Some commenters think the boundary of Mills Canyon needs clarification with

respect to the buffer for surface occupancy for oil and gas development. We should define the 17-

mile segment and name major side canyons that are excluded from surface occupancy (page 70 of

the draft plan). We should address the effects of new road construction associated with oil and gas

development on recreation uses and wildlife.

Response: The Agency concurs. The standards for oil and gas leasing on the Kiowa and Rita

Blanca Management Area are described on page 70 of the draft plan. These standards are carried

forward from amendment 12 of the 1985 LMP. Amendment 12 added new oil and gas leasing

standards in response to “expressions of interest” on the Grasslands. We agree that the 17-mile

segment and major canyons should be defined. The (approximate) 17-mile segment of the

Canadian River includes FS lands along the river within the administrative boundary. Surface

occupancy would be excluded 500 feet back from the rim of the canyon along that 17 mile river

segment. The major canyons that have exclusions 500 feet back from their respective rims (on FS

lands) are Canon Emplazado, Canon de la Cueva, Canon Mesteno, a small unnamed spur

associated with Canon Mesteno, Canon Vercere, Canon Mestenito, an unnamed feature (spur) to

the south of Canon Mestenito coincident with the 600 Road to include Rim Campground, Canon

Colorado, Arroyo Piedra Lumbre, and Canon Biscante. We have mapped the area with the buffer

and added it to the final plan and planning record. We added a footnote on p. 70 of the proposed

plan describing the geography and directing the reader to the map.

Roads constructed in association with oil and gas development would provide private access on

leased land to energy development sites. They would not be open to the public for recreation use.

Guidelines are in place Grasslands-wide for road construction and rehabilitation of sites disturbed

in association with oil and gas development. See page 31–34 of the draft plan.

Comment: Some commenters are concerned that the proposed plan is lacking direction to

monitor air, water, and soil pollution as a result of oil and gas production. One commenter is

concerned that standards for oil and gas production are more lenient than those for wind energy

development.

Response: Energy production on Federal lands is guided by law, regulation and policy. See

appendix D “Other Sources of Information, Regulations, MOUs, Guidance” of the proposed plan

for the existing laws, regulations, and policy. There are extensive regulations for minerals and

energy development, wind energy development, soil, water, and air management. The content of

these regulations are not reiterated within the text of the plan, but are included by reference.

Compliance with these regulations is mandatory.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 199

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

The proposed plan contains standards for oil and gas leasing that prohibit surface occupancy

around lakes, playas, and steep slopes (see pages 55 and 70 of the proposed plan). Project-specific

decisions would identify monitoring needs based on specific concerns, and would document those

responsibilities as terms of the lease.

Land Adjustments

Comment: A commenter thinks the “Land Adjustments” section of the plan to be vague, and it

doesn’t encourage rights-of-way adjustments to increase public access to parcels surrounded by

private lands.

Response: Land adjustments are guided by existing laws, regulations, and FS policy. The

information guiding land acquisition and other resources can be found in appendix D (p. 207) of

the proposed plan. The background and description (p. 28) for “Roads and Access” identifies

legal access on the Grasslands to be a concern. Pages 28–30 under “Roads and Access” of the

proposed plan also contains an objective to acquire legal access to four to six isolated Grassland

units as opportunities arise.

Socioeconomic Resources

Comment: A commenter found that the DEIS failed to disclose economic impacts for different

types of recreation on the Grasslands, and failed to disclose the economic impacts of protecting

environmental amenities such as clean air, clean water, and back-country experience. 

Response: The economic impact analysis is presented on page 121 of the DEIS. It describes the

economic impacts (jobs and labor) of the four revenue-generating activities on the Grasslands.

The four revenue-generating programs are: minerals, livestock grazing, recreation, and

nonrecreation special uses. The economic impact analysis is followed by the economic efficiency

analysis on page 124, which calculates present net value (PNV) for each of the four program

areas based on annual revenues and costs. PNV is required by the 1982 Rule Provisions

219.12(g). Recreation was also analyzed qualitatively on pages 91–95 of the DEIS. That section

has a detailed analysis of dispersed and motorized uses (including hiking, hunting, camping, and

OHV), developed recreation (including interpretive sites, camping, picnicking, and water-based

recreation), and the ROS classifications that allow recreation planners to manage areas for a

variety of recreation experiences including rural, roaded natural, semiprimitive motorized, and

semiprimitive nonmotorized. See page 92 for more information on how ROS classes affect a 

visitor’s recreation experience.

The 1982 Rule does not require us to analyze the economic impacts of environmental amenities

such as clean air, clean water, and back-country recreation experience. However, these resources

were analyzed qualitatively in the DEIS under the affected environment and environmental

consequences for each resource. The analysis for water and water quality can be found on pages

40–43. The analysis for air and air quality can be found on pages 43–45, and the analysis for

recreation is on pages 91–95.

Comment: A commenter is concerned about consistent access to forage on the Kiowa National

Grassland because livestock grazing is essential to maintain viability for the producers and

communities.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

200 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Response: The plan provides for continued grazing on the Grasslands, however, cattle numbers

and strategies are expected to fluctuate in response to drought, wildfire, prescribed fire, and other

factors that change range conditions. Implementation of livestock numbers and grazing strategies

are addressed in site-specific grazing decisions and allotment plans. Please see pages 37–38 of the

proposed plan for more information about livestock use.

Comment: A commenter takes issue with profit-making opportunities on public land; they ask

that we do not allow money making projects on the Grasslands, and to assure that the proposed

plan does not sanction money making projects on the Grasslands.

Response: Many laws establish the purposes, management, and administration of the national

forests and grasslands. Under the Multiple Use–Sustained Yield Act (MUSYA) of 1960, “the

National Forests are established for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and

fish purposes.” The MUSYA authorizes the agency to “develop and administer the renewable

surface resources of the National Forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the several

products and services obtained therefrom.” Contrary to the comment, the Forest Service’s

primary objective is not to provide “profit opportunities for corporate America on public land.”

Accomplishing the direction to “develop and administer the renewable surface resources” often

requires permits or contracts with private industry or individuals for management activities.

These permits and contracts include the opportunity to provide subsistence and profit. This is

consistent with law, regulation, and policy.

Air

Comment: A commenter is concerned that several management options (fire or vegetative

thinning and harvesting) identified in the proposed plan have the potential to impact air quality.

The commenter said that it is important to follow county and local ordinances when

implementing the management activities identified in the proposed plan. The commenter

referenced New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) 20.2.72 for construction permit

regulations pertaining to air quality.

Response: Air quality standards and management practices are addressed by law, policy, and

regulation. Please see appendix D of the proposed plan, “Other Sources of Information,

Regulations, MOUs, Guidance.” Pages 209 through 212 list the guidance specific to timber

harvest (“Special Forest Products”), fire use (“WUI”), air quality, and soil. The content of these

directives are not reiterated within the plan, but are incorporated by reference. Appendix D of the

proposed plan under the section titled “Air” includes a reference to NMAC Title 20, Chapter 2,

Part 3 Ambient Air Quality Standards. Part 72, “Permitting,” has been added to the appendix as

recommended.

The community wildfire protection plans (CWPP) for Harding, Mora, and Union Counties in

New Mexico are included under the section “Wildland-Urban Interface” on page 210 (appendix

D) of the proposed plan. There are no CWPPs for the counties occupied by the Grasslands in

Texas or Oklahoma, but future CWPPs are incorporated by reference. Compliance with these

directives is mandatory.

Local laws would be followed where they do not conflict with Federal law.
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 201

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Letters Received from Federal, State, Local, and Tribal

Governments During the 90-Day Public Comment Period.

The following Federal and state agencies submitted letters during the DEIS comment period. No

local governments or tribes responded. Copies are provided, following the below list.

• New Mexico Department of Agriculture

• New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

• New Mexico Environment Department, Air Quality Bureau

• New Mexico Environment Department, Surface Water Quality Bureau

• Oklahoma Archeological Survey

• Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation

• U.S. Department of the Interior

• U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Appendix A. Response to Comments

202 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 203

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix A. Response to Comments

204 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 205

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix A. Response to Comments

206 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 207

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix A. Response to Comments

208 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 209

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix A. Response to Comments

210 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 211

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix A. Response to Comments

212 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 213

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix A. Response to Comments

214 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix A. Response to Comments

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 215

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix A. Response to Comments

216 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 217

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Appendix B. Index of

Other Supporting EIS Documentation

Below are documents that were utilized in support of the analysis process and their locations.

• Documentation of public collaboration: located in appendix I of this FPEIS

• Cibola National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1985)

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5277871.pdf

• Analysis of the Management Situation Supplementary Document

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/Cibola_Grasslands_Plan_Revision_documents

• Comprehensive Evaluation Report

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/Cibola_Grasslands_Plan_Revision_documents

• Socioeconomic Sustainability Report

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/Cibola_Grasslands_Plan_Revision_documents

• Ecological Sustainability Report

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/Cibola_Grasslands_Plan_Revision_documents

• Kiowa National Grassland Wilderness Evaluation Report:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/Cibola_Grasslands_Plan_Revision_documents_wilderness

• Suitability Analyses:

○ Timber: appendix E of this FPEIS;

○ Grazing and Recreation: appendix H of this FPEIS

• Canadian River Wild and Scenic River Evaluation: appendix C of this FPEIS.

• Research Natural Areas Evaluation: appendix D of this FPEIS.

• Viability Analysis: appendix F of this FPEIS.

• Maps: appendix L of this FPEIS.

• Specialist Reports: Available for review in the planning record, located at the

Supervisor’s Office, Cibola National Forest and Grasslands, 2113 Osuna Road, NE,

Albuquerque, NM 87113.

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 219

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Appendix C. The Canadian River 

Wild and Scenic River Evaluation

Summary of Eligibility Analysis

Cibola National Forest

River Segment: Canadian River

From: North Boundary of K135 

To: Southern Tip of K136

Evaluated By: Jimmy Hall, Peter Gaulke, Karen Carter, Liz Agpaoa, Flor Martinez

Date: 11/01/01 

NO YES

I. ELIGIBILITY ANALYSIS

A. Free – Flowing

Existing or flowing in a natural condition without impoundment, 

diversion, straightening, riprapping, or other modification of the 

waterway. The existence of low dams, diversion works or other minor 

structures does not automatically disqualify the segment for

designation. A river segment below or between impoundments may

also be considered.

Free-flowing in this section. On rare climatic conditions it does slow down to

a trickle or dry. Such is the case in the fall of 2001. 

X

B. Scenery

Do the landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, color, and 

related factors result in notable or exemplary visual features or 

attractions? (When analyzing scenic values, additional factors—such

as seasonal variations in vegetation, scale of cultural modifications,

and the length of time negative intrusions are viewed—may be 

considered. Scenery and visual attractions may be highly diverse over

the majority of the river or river segment.) 

Very unique for the region. Fall colors occur occasionally. Scenery is viewed

by visitors as beautiful, primitive, and natural. Fall color viewing is unlike 

anything else in the surrounding area.

X

C. Recreation

• Are recreational opportunities popular enough or have the

potential to be popular enough to attract visitors from throughout 

the region of comparison? (River related opportunities could 

include, but are not limited to, sightseeing, wildlife observations, 

camping, photography, hiking, fishing, hunting, and boating.

Visitors are willing to travel long distances to use the river

resources for recreational purposes.)

X
Appendix C. The Canadian River Wild and Scenic River Evaluation

220 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

• Are recreational opportunities unique or rare within the region?

• Are interpretive opportunities exceptional or have the potential to

attract visitors from outside the region of comparison? 

• Does the river provide or have the potential to provide settings for 

national or regional usage or competitive events? 

Destination recreation opportunities include bird watching, barbary sheep and 

deer hunting, camping, fishing, and photography. There are numerous areas

for interpretive opportunities. 

D. Geology

• Does the river or river corridor contain one or more example(s) of 

a geologic feature, process or phenomenon unique or rare within

the region of comparison? (The feature(s) may be in an unusually 

active stage or development, represent a “textbook” example, 

and/or represent a unique or rare combination of geologic

features—erosional, volcanic, glacial or other geologic

structures.)

There are five different geologic formations in the Canadian River Canyon. 

X

E. Fish

(Fish values may be judged on the relative merits of either fish

populations, habitat, or a combination of these conditions.) 

• Is the river a nationally or regionally important producer of 

resident and/or anadromous fish species? (Of particular

significance is the presence of wild stocks and/or Federal or state

listed (or candidate) threatened, endangered or sensitive species.

Diversity of species is an important consideration and could, in

itself, lead to a determination of “outstandingly remarkable.”)

• Does the river provide exceptionally high quality habitat for fish

species indigenous to the region of comparison? (Of particular

significance is habitat for wild stocks and/or Federal or state

listed (or candidate) threatened, endangered or sensitive species.

Diversity of habitats is an important consideration and could, in

itself, lead to a determination of “outstandingly remarkable.”)

Warm water fisheries that include catfish. Possibly other species migrating,

but unknown. This section is not considered good or pristine fish habitat.

X

F. Wildlife

(Wildlife values may be judged on the relative merits of either

terrestrial or aquatic populations, habitat or a combination of these

conditions.) 

• Does the river or river corridor contain nationally or regionally

important populations of indigenous wildlife species? (Of

particular significance are species considered to be unique, and/or

populations of Federal or state listed (or candidate) threatened,

X
Appendix C. The Canadian River Wild and Scenic River Evaluation

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 221

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

endangered or sensitive species. Diversity of species is an

important consideration and could, in itself, lead to a 

determination of “outstandingly remarkable.”)

• Does the river or river corridor provide exceptionally high quality 

habitat for wildlife of national or regional significance, and/or 

may provide a critical link in habitat conditions for Federal or 

state listed (or candidate) threatened, endangered or sensitive

species? (Diversity of habitats is an important consideration and 

could, in itself, lead to a determination of “outstandingly

remarkable.”) 

Deer, turkey, Barbary sheep, mountain lion, black bears, coyotes, and bobcats

are all present. Habitat is a cross section for these species, but not a showcase

area for important wildlife populations. 

G. History

• Does the river or river corridor contain a site(s) or feature(s)

associated with a significant event, an important person, or a 

cultural activity of the past that was rare or one-of-a-kind in the 

region? (Many such sites are listed on the National Register of

Historic Places. A historic site(s) and/or feature is 50 years old or 

older in most cases.)

Melvin Mills came from the Midwest to Elizabeth Town and set up a law

business – he became involved in the Maxwell Land Grant. He was involved

in Colfax County Range War. His father homesteaded in 1875 along the river

and developed it and established an orchard. Had stagecoach line coming in

from Kansas. 

X

H. Cultural Values

• Does the river or river corridor contain a site(s) where there is

evidence of occupation or use by Native Americans with unique 

or rare characteristics or exceptional human interest value(s)? 

• Are sites nationally or regionally important for interpreting

prehistory, rare and represent an area where a culture or cultural

period was first identified and described, used concurrently by 

two or more cultural groups, and/or used by cultural groups for

sacred purposes? (Many such sites are listed on the National

Register of Historic Places.)

Native American campsites are in the area, but this is not unique to the 

Canadian River valley. They are found in many locations in this region. 

X

I. Vegetative /Ecological Values

(Vegetative and ecological values may be judged on the relative

merits of either populations or communities, or a combination of 

these conditions.) 

• Does the river or river corridor contain nationally or regionally

important populations of indigenous plant species? (Of

X
Appendix C. The Canadian River Wild and Scenic River Evaluation

222 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

importance are species considered to be unique or populations of

Federal or state listed or candidate threatened, endangered, or 

sensitive species. Diversity and number of species are also

important.) 

• Does the river or river corridor contain nationally or regionally

important plant communities? (Communities are exceptionally 

high quality, unusual or critical communities such as old-growth.) 

Vegetation is common to this climate/elevation.

J. Other Similar Values

Consider values such as (but not limited to) hydrology, water quality, 

or traditional cultural use. Include criteria. 

Criteria for Traditional Cultural Use:

• Does the river or river corridor contain regionally unique 

location(s) or importance to Native American tribes, land grant

communities, and/or other traditional Hispanic users. (Locations 

may be important for religious activities, fishing, hunting, 

gathering or similar activities. Locations may have unusual 

characteristics, exceptional cultural value, or be integral to the 

continued pursuit of such activities.) 

Nothing unique. 

X

II. ANALYSIS OF ELIGIBILITY COMPONENTS

Item I.A. and one or more other items above are checked “YES”: River area is eligible for 

designation. 

Creek is Eligible: Segment is free flowing and has the following outstandingly remarkable

values: scenery, recreation, geology, and history.

Classification is Scenic: River segment is accessible by road and has one developed

campground, old orchard, stone structures, and rock fences.
FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 223

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Appendix D. Research 

Natural Area Evaluations

Potential Research Natural Areas

A review and analysis of vegetation types that occur on the Grasslands which are

underrepresented at the landscape scale of the southern Great Plains was conducted to determine

their potential for designation as research natural areas. The information provided in this

appendix documents the rationale behind the conclusion that these underrepresented vegetation

types do not meet the criteria for designation, based upon guidance in FSM 4063.02 and 4063.03. 

Thus, no further plan direction beyond that given at the Grasslands-wide, management area, and 

special area scale is given for these areas.

The planning process allows for future proposals of RNAs by amendment during the life of the

plan if the ecological condition of a unit improves to the point where RNA recommendation 

criteria are met.

RNA Evaluation: Review of Representative Ecological Conditions

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National Grasslands

Shinnery Oak Vegetation Type Ranked as 3, Very Underrepresented

STEP Criteria YES (state

justification) NO (state justification)

1 Review Research Natural Area (RNA)

Representative Assessment spreadsheet.

Are there areas on your forest that contain

the potential natural vegetation type

(vegetation type) classes that fall into the 2 

or 3 rankings for low representation for a 

particular vegetation type class?

Is there an outstanding example of an

aquatic habitat that may be appropriate as

a potential RNA?

If you have previously proposed RNAs in

your current forest plan, do they fall within

vegetation type classes with rankings of 2 

or 3?

YES 

NO

NA

2 Use the conditions listed below to

determine if these low representative

vegetation type class areas or aquatic

habitats are appropriate for RNA

establishment.

State reason why

the area meets the

criterion. 

State reason why the area does

not meet the criterion. 

Area contributes to a wide spectrum of

high quality representative areas that

represent the major forms of variability

found in forest, shrubland, grassland,

alpine, and aquatic habitats, and natural

situations of scientific interest and

importance that, in combination, form a 

national network of ecological areas for

research, education, and maintenance of

biological diversity. RNA represents a 

specific vegetation type or ecosystem as

identified by the regional ecological RNA 

evaluation. 

No areas are appropriate for RNA

establishment for the following

reasons: Areas of shinnery oak

are small, fragmented, and not

intact. Various degrees of human

disturbance, some of which are

unknown in context of timing,

intensity, and duration have

occurred. Spike herbicide has

been applied to many areas of

shinnery oak in the past. Fire

history of shinnery oak areas is

unknown except for the past 15
Appendix D. Research Natural Area Evaluations

224 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

years. At least 55 years of grazing

have occurred on shinnery oak

areas, some under management,

some not. Grazing history

preceding government ownership

is largely unknown and poorly

documented. Open range grazing

policy prevailed during that time,

and some land was under private

ownership.

Area contributes or continues to contribute

to the preservation and maintenance of

genetic diversity, including threatened

species, endangered species, aquatic

systems, and sensitive species.

Grasshopper Sparrow is the only

sensitive species, and it is not

listed and is a migrant. We are not

aware of any analysis of genetic

diversity, thus cannot address

genetic diversity of vegetation or

wildlife. Additionally, there is

much variability in soil types and

vegetation response to soil

conditions.

Area serves as a baseline or reference area

for the study of long-term ecological

processes such as disturbance, hydrologic

processes, climate change, or other

processes.

No, areas within this vegetation

type are not good baseline or

reference areas for study.

Individual shinnery oak areas are

small in size, and even

cumulatively, too small a scale.

Too much variability has

occurred in management history.

Too much human disturbance has

occurred. Black locust has

colonized within the shinnery oak

areas. Open swine grazing is part

of the history of these areas.

Area serves as a control area for

comparing results from manipulative

research.

No, areas not suitable for control.

Past fire regimes are largely

unknown and variable grazing

management has occurred, some

of which are unknown. Past

human disturbance is unknown

and not well documented before

Federal ownership.

Area boundaries encompass an area large

enough to provide essentially unmodified

conditions within their interiors, which are

necessary in accordance with the

objectives stated in the establishment

record (FSM 4063.02), and to protect the

ecological processes, features, and/or

qualities for which the RNA was

established.

Although not required, entire small

drainages are ideal because they maintain

interrelationships of terrestrial and aquatic

systems.

No, areas are not large enough to

provide conditions immune to

edge effects or outside influences.

Areas are highly fragmented. The

Black Kettle and McClellan

Creek National Grasslands

(BKMC) do not own entire

drainages where areas within this

vegetation type occur.
Appendix D. Research Natural Area Evaluations

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 225

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Area shows little or no evidence of major

disturbances by humans. Activities, such

as livestock grazing and other uses, have

not affected the area beyond its ability to

recover. No evidence of timber cutting in

past 50 years.

No, areas show much evidence of

major disturbance by humans.

Areas evolved under grazing.

Some firewood cutting has

occurred.

Area reflects its original, near pristine

condition as closely as possible.

No, areas are not original or

pristine, for all reasons stated

above.

The best available, qualified area was

chosen. In certain geographic regions and

in certain community types, it may be

impossible to find candidate areas that do

not contain exotic plant or animal life.

Not applicable, no areas are

chosen for recommendation.

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National Grasslands

Mixed-grass Prairie Vegetation Type: Ranked as 3, Very Underrepresented

STEP Criteria YES (state

justification) NO (state justification)

1 Review RNA Representative Assessment

spreadsheet

Are there areas on your forest that contain

the vegetation type classes that fall into the

2 or 3 rankings for low representation for a

particular vegetation type class?

Is there an outstanding example of an

aquatic habitat that may be appropriate as a

potential RNA?

If you have previously proposed RNAs in

your current forest plan, do they fall within

vegetation type classes with rankings of 2

or 3?

YES

NO

NA

2 Use the conditions listed below to

determine if these low representative

vegetation type class areas or aquatic

habitats are appropriate for RNA

establishment.

State reason why

the area meets the

criterion.

State reason why the area does not

meet the criterion.

Area contributes to a wide spectrum of

high quality representative areas that

represent the major forms of variability

found in forest, shrubland, grassland,

alpine, and aquatic habitats, and natural

situations of scientific interest and

importance that, in combination, form a

national network of ecological areas for

research, education, and maintenance of

biological diversity. RNA represents a

specific vegetation type or ecosystem as

identified by the regional ecological RNA

evaluation.

No. Essentially same points as for

shinnery oak above, for all criteria

below. Additionally, more

plowing occurred in mixed-grass

vegetation type than in shinnery

oak. About half of mixed-grass

was plowed. Soil loss occurred

during Dust Bowl era, mainly

from plowing. Some mixed-grass

was once shinnery oak, but now

no shinnery oak occurs in these

areas.
Appendix D. Research Natural Area Evaluations

226 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Area contributes or continues to contribute

to the preservation and maintenance of

genetic diversity, including threatened

species, endangered species, aquatic

systems, and sensitive species.

Area serves as a baseline or reference area

for the study of long-term ecological

processes such as disturbance, hydrologic

processes, climate change, or other

processes.

Area serves as a control area for

comparing results from manipulative

research.

Area boundaries encompass an area large

enough to provide essentially unmodified

conditions within their interiors, which are

necessary in accordance with the

objectives stated in the establishment

record (FSM 4063.02), and to protect the

ecological processes, features, and/or

qualities for which the RNA was

established.

Although not required, entire small

drainages are ideal because they maintain

interrelationships of terrestrial and aquatic

systems.

Area shows little or no evidence of major

disturbances by humans. Activities, such

as livestock grazing and other uses, have

not affected the area beyond its ability to

recover. No evidence of timber cutting in

past 50 years.

Area reflects its original, near pristine

condition as closely as possible.

The best available, qualified area was

chosen. In certain geographic regions and

in certain community types, it may be

impossible to find candidate areas that do

not contain exotic plant or animal life.

NA. Not recommended for

establishment.

Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands

Cottonwood-Willow/Riparian Vegetation Type: Ranked as 3, Very Underrepresented

STEP Criteria YES (state

justification) NO (state justification)

1 Review RNA Representative Assessment

spreadsheet

Are there areas on your forest that contain

the vegetation type classes that fall into the

2 or 3 rankings for low representation for a

YES
Appendix D. Research Natural Area Evaluations

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 227

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

particular vegetation type class?

Is there an outstanding example of an

aquatic habitat that may be appropriate as a

potential RNA?

If you have previously proposed RNAs in

your current forest plan, do they fall within

vegetation type classes with rankings of 2

or 3?

NO

NA

2 Use the conditions listed below to

determine if these low representative

vegetation type class areas or aquatic

habitats are appropriate for RNA

establishment.

State reason why

the area meets the

criterion.

State reason why the area does not

meet the criterion.

Area contributes to a wide spectrum of

high quality representative areas that

represent the major forms of variability

found in forest, shrubland, grassland,

alpine, and aquatic habitats, and natural

situations of scientific interest and

importance that in combination form a

national network of ecological areas for

research, education, and maintenance of

biological diversity. RNA represents a

specific vegetation type or ecosystem as

identified by the regional ecological RNA

evaluation.

No. Impacts of past grazing are

evident in the cottonwood-willow

(CW) vegetation type. Also,

impacts of hydrologic alteration

(acequias, irrigation diversions at

Springer, NM) are evident.

Invasive species are evident, and

some noxious plants (e.g.,

saltcedar, bull thistle, musk

thistle, and American or Siberian

elm) occur. Changes in watershed,

some off-Grasslands, have caused

changes in the hydrologic regime.

Area contributes or continues to contribute

to the preservation and maintenance of

genetic diversity, including threatened

species, endangered species, aquatic

systems, and sensitive species.

No. There are no threatened and

endangered species (T&E)

present. Little is known about

genetic diversity of most all

species. Some sensitive species do

occur; the Conchas crayfish,

which likely occurs in Mills

Canyon, may be one of three

known populations in the state.

Area serves as a baseline or reference area

for the study of long-term ecological

processes such as disturbance, hydrologic

processes, climate change, or other

processes.

No. There is a long history of

human disturbance within the CW

vegetation type Grasslands-wide;

it is very impacted. U.S. Forest

Service (USFS) has no control

over management and processes

occurring above Mills Canyon.

The hydrologic system is very

impacted.

Area serves as a control area for

comparing results from manipulative

research.

No. Areas within CW vegetation

type are not suitable as reference

or baseline areas. Treatment of

invasive species is ongoing.
Appendix D. Research Natural Area Evaluations

228 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Area boundaries encompass an area large

enough to provide essentially unmodified

conditions within their interiors, which are

necessary in accordance with the

objectives stated in the establishment

record (FSM 4063.02), and to protect the

ecological processes, features, and/or

qualities for which the RNA was

established.

Although not required, entire small

drainages are ideal because they maintain

interrelationships of terrestrial and aquatic

systems.

No. Areas are not large enough to

provide unmodified conditions.

USFS controls only 17 miles out

of 290 miles of the Canadian

River and an even smaller

percentage of the watershed.

Area shows little or no evidence of major

disturbances by humans. Activities, such

as livestock grazing and other uses, have

not affected the area beyond its ability to

recover. No evidence of timber cutting in

past 50 years.

No. Areas have experienced much

disturbance. Roads, trails,

livestock grazing, modification

for irrigation, campgrounds, and

housing structures are present or

have occurred in all areas within

this vegetation type. Perico Creek

also has CW, but Federal

ownership of this creek basin is

fragmented and small.

Area reflects its original, near pristine

condition as closely as possible.

No. Areas within CW vegetation

type are not in original or pristine

condition.

The best available, qualified area was

chosen. In certain geographic regions and

in certain community types, it may be

impossible to find candidate areas that do

not contain exotic plant or animal life.

NA. Not recommended for

establishment.

Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands

Shortgrass Vegetation Type: Ranked as 2, Underrepresented

STEP Criteria YES (state

justification) NO (state justification)

1 Review RNA Representative Assessment

spreadsheet.

Are there areas on your forest that contain

the vegetation type classes that fall into the

2 or 3 rankings for low representation for a

particular vegetation type class?

Is there an outstanding example of an

aquatic habitat that may be appropriate as a

potential RNA?

If you have previously proposed RNAs in

your current forest plan, do they fall within

vegetation type classes with rankings of 2

or 3?

YES

NO

YES. Unit 46 was

previously

proposed in 1985

plan but not

designated.

Subsequently,

USFS Rocky

Mountain

Research Station

launched a fire

and grazing study

circa 1997 on the
Appendix D. Research Natural Area Evaluations

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 229

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

previously

proposed area,

with another 8 to

9 years

anticipated before

completion.

Because of the

considerable

burning and

grazing

interventions as

parts of the study,

RNA designation

would interfere

with this RMRS

study.

2 Use the conditions listed below to

determine if these low representative

vegetation type class areas or aquatic

habitats are appropriate for RNA

establishment.

State reason why

the area meets the

criterion.

State reason why the area does not

meet the criterion.

Area contributes to a wide spectrum of

high quality representative areas that

represent the major forms of variability

found in forest, shrubland, grassland,

alpine, and aquatic habitats, and natural

situations of scientific interest and

importance that in combination form a

national network of ecological areas for

research, education, and maintenance of

biological diversity. RNA represents a

specific vegetation type or ecosystem as

identified by the regional ecological RNA

evaluation.

No. Areas within this vegetation

type do not meet criteria. Many

past disturbances have occurred,

many of which are undocumented

and unknown regarding timing,

intensity, and duration. There has

been varying grazing history over

55 years of Federal ownership.

Some areas were plowed, some

were not, and all were grazed. No

natural fire was allowed due to

suppression policy. Grazing has

been the biggest impact.

Historical stocking rates are

unknown. Areas have been highly

modified with fences, water

developments, roads, and utility

corridors. Playa lakes have been

highly altered, i.e., pitted, or

modified by irrigation structures.

Area contributes or continues to contribute

to the preservation and maintenance of

genetic diversity, including threatened

species, endangered species, aquatic

systems, and sensitive species.

No. Past Grassland reclamation

projects (i.e., plantings and

seedings) may not have been

genetically compatible with

historical strains of native plants.

Exotic species are currently

present, and there is a varied

history of livestock grazing and

management. No T&E species are

present. Ten rare or uncommon

species (alpine fever-few, Andean

prairie-clover, Bald Eagle, dotted

checkerspot, Greene milkweed,

Mountain Plover, one-flowered

milkvetch, Rhena crossline

skipper, Spellenberg’s groundsel,

swift fox) may occur on
Appendix D. Research Natural Area Evaluations

230 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

shortgrass vegetation type areas

within KRB NGs, but current

management activities consider

and avoid/mitigate adverse effects

on these species through project

NEPA.

Area serves as a baseline or reference area

for the study of long-term ecological

processes such as disturbance, hydrologic

processes, climate change, or other

processes.

No. Only a large-scale playa

complex within this vegetation

type would qualify as reference,

but playas are dynamic in size,

ephemeral in nature, and have

been altered by pitting and other

management activities on the

landscape both on and off Federal

land. Playas are often located in

small land blocks of Federal

ownership that are highly

fragmented; they are also

intermingled within shortgrass

prairie that has also been altered.

In general, playas are too small

and fragmented and otherwise

altered to be considered.

Area serves as a control area for

comparing results from manipulative

research.

No. Too much historical

disturbance and alteration to serve

as a control area.

Area boundaries encompass an area large

enough to provide essentially unmodified

conditions within their interiors, which are

necessary in accordance with the

objectives stated in the establishment

record (FSM 4063.02), and to protect the

ecological processes, features, and/or

qualities for which the RNA was

established.

Although not required, entire small

drainages are ideal because they maintain

interrelationships of terrestrial and aquatic

systems.

No. Areas within vegetation type

are too fragmented, occur in small

blocks, and are significantly

altered.

Area shows little or no evidence of major

disturbances by humans. Activities such as

livestock grazing and other uses have not

affected the area beyond its ability to

recover. No evidence of timber cutting in

past 50 years.

No. Much disturbance has

occurred (see above); many

disturbance activities occurred

before Federal ownership and are

undocumented.

Area reflects its original, near pristine

condition as closely as possible.

No. Much disturbance has

occurred (see above).

The best available, qualified area was

chosen. In certain geographic regions and

in certain community types, it may be

impossible to find candidate areas that do

not contain exotic plant or animal life.

NA. Not recommended for

establishment.
Appendix D. Research Natural Area Evaluations

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 231

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands

Sand Sagebrush Vegetation Type. Ranked as 3, Very Underrepresented

STEP Criteria YES (state

justification) NO (state justification)

1 Review RNA Representative Assessment

Spreadsheet.

Are there areas on your forest that contain

the vegetation type classes that fall into the

2 or 3 rankings for low representation for a

particular vegetation type class?

Is there an outstanding example of an

aquatic habitat that may be appropriate as a

potential RNA?

If you have previously proposed RNAs in

your current forest plan, do they fall within

vegetation type classes with rankings of 2

or 3?

YES (but sand

sagebrush

vegetation type is

even more

disturbed than

shortgrass

vegetation type

discussed above)

NO

NA

2 Use the conditions listed below to

determine if these low representative

vegetation type class areas or aquatic

habitats are appropriate for RNA

establishment.

State reason why

the area meets the

criterion.

State reason why the area does not

meet the criterion.

Area contributes to a wide spectrum of

high quality representative areas that

represent the major forms of variability

found in forest, shrubland, grassland,

alpine, and aquatic habitats, and natural

situations of scientific interest and

importance that in combination form a

national network of ecological areas for

research, education, and maintenance of

biological diversity. RNA represents a

specific vegetation type or ecosystem as

identified by the regional ecological RNA

evaluation.

No. There are many exotic

species. There is a plant diversity

imbalance. Natural fire has been

removed. Topsoil has been lost

due to disturbances. Many

previous agricultural disturbances

have occurred. One would have a

hard time finding sand sagebrush

that represents a pristine

ecological condition. Yucca is

present disproportionately. Sage is

at a higher density than

historically occurred. Forbs and

buckwheat presence are out of

balance. Big bluestem and

needlegrass should be more

highly represented. There is an

overall imbalance in the plant

community.

Area contributes or continues to contribute

to the preservation and maintenance of

genetic diversity, including threatened

species, endangered species, aquatic

systems, and sensitive species.

No. Areas within vegetation type

are not genetically or ecologically

in balance. No T&E species are

present. Rare or uncommon

species that may occur in sand

sagebrush vegetation type include

panhandle spurge, dotted

checkerspot, Rhena crossline

skipper, and Lesser Prairiechicken. Current and future

management activities consider

and avoid/mitigate adverse effects
Appendix D. Research Natural Area Evaluations

232 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

on these species through project

NEPA.

Area serves as a baseline or reference area

for the study of long-term ecological

processes such as disturbance, hydrologic

processes, climate change, or other

processes.

No. Areas not appropriate for

reference or baseline areas for

reasons stated above.

Area serves as a control area for

comparing results from manipulative

research.

No. Areas are not appropriate for

a control area for reasons stated

above.

Area boundaries encompass an area large

enough to provide essentially unmodified

conditions within their interiors, which are

necessary in accordance with the

objectives stated in the establishment

record (FSM 4063.02), and to protect the

ecological processes, features, and/or

qualities for which the RNA was

established.

Although not required, entire small

drainages are ideal because they maintain

interrelationships of terrestrial and aquatic

system

No. Areas with this vegetation

type are too fragmented and

remnant systems are not large

enough.

Area shows little or no evidence of major

disturbances by humans. Activities, such

as livestock grazing and other uses, have

not affected the area beyond ability to

recover. No evidence of timber cutting in

past 50 years.

No. Areas within vegetation type

are highly disturbed historically,

as noted above.

Area reflects its original, near pristine

condition as closely as possible.

No. Areas within vegetation type

are not in original or pristine

condition.

The best available, qualified area was

chosen. In certain geographic regions and

in certain community types, it may be

impossible to find candidate areas that do

not contain exotic plant or animal life.

NA. Not recommended for

establishment.

Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands

Pinyon-Juniper Vegetation Type: Ranked 2, Underrepresented

STEP Criteria YES (state

justification) NO (state justification)

1 Review RNA Representative Assessment

spreadsheet.

Are there areas on your forest that contain

the vegetation type classes that fall into the

2 or 3 rankings for low representation for a

particular vegetation type class?

YES

NO
Appendix D. Research Natural Area Evaluations

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 233

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Is there an outstanding example of an

aquatic habitat that may be appropriate as a

potential RNA?

If you have previously proposed RNAs in

your current forest plan, do they fall within

vegetation type classes with rankings of 2

or 3?

NA

2 Use the conditions listed below to

determine if these low representative

vegetation type class areas or aquatic

habitats are appropriate for RNA

establishment.

State reason why

the area meets the

criterion.

State reason why the area does not

meet the criterion.

Area contributes to a wide spectrum of

high quality representative areas that

represent the major forms of variability

found in forest, shrubland, grassland,

alpine, and aquatic habitats, and natural

situations of scientific interest and

importance that in combination form a

national network of ecological areas for

research, education, and maintenance of

biological diversity. RNA represents a

specific vegetation type or ecosystem as

identified by the regional ecological RNA

evaluation.

No. Areas of pinyon-juniper (PJ)

vegetation type are not high

quality, and the scale of their

presence is not large enough to be

considered.

Area contributes or continues to contribute

to the preservation and maintenance of

genetic diversity, including threatened

species, endangered species, aquatic

systems, and sensitive species.

No. T&E species are less

prevalent in PJ areas than in any

other vegetation type present on

Kiowa National Grassland.

Area serves as a baseline or reference area

for the study of long-term ecological

processes such as disturbance, hydrologic

processes, climate change, or other

processes.

No. Areas with PJ vegetation type

are not appropriate for baseline or

reference. There have been longterm grazing disturbances, as well

as roads and infrastructure

construction. Many PJ lands on

Kiowa NG were originally

settlement lands grazed by sheep

and goats.

Area serves as a control area for

comparing results from manipulative

research.

No. Areas within the PJ

vegetation type are not

appropriate to serve as a control

area. All land within PJ vegetation

type have been previously

impacted (see above).
Appendix D. Research Natural Area Evaluations

234 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Area boundaries encompass an area large

enough to provide essentially unmodified

conditions within their interiors, which are

necessary in accordance with the

objectives stated in the establishment

record (FSM 4063.02), and to protect the

ecological processes, features, and/or

qualities for which the RNA was

established.

Although not required, entire small

drainages are ideal because they maintain

interrelationships of terrestrial and aquatic

systems.

No. Areas are not large enough.

The scale of PJ areas is too small

to be considered as an RNA.

Fragmented Federal land

ownership and administration

boundaries within this vegetation

type are not compatible with RNA

recommendation.

Area shows little or no evidence of major

disturbances by humans. Activities, such

as livestock grazing and other uses, have

not affected the area beyond ability to

recover. No evidence of timber cutting in

past 50 years.

No. Areas of PJ show lots of

evidence of major disturbances

over the last 100 years, including

wood cutting (huge stumps are

still present).

Area reflects its original, near pristine

condition as closely as possible. 

No. See above.

The best available, qualified area was

chosen. In certain geographic regions and

in certain community types, it may be

impossible to find candidate areas that do

not contain exotic plant or animal life. 

NA. Not recommended for

establishment.

Completed May 27, 2009, over audio-video conference: Cibola NF&NGs employees: Nancy Walls, Tom Smeltzer,

Champe Green, Susan Millsap, Mary Lane, Chuck Milner, and John Baumchen.
FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 235

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Appendix E. Timber Suitability

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires that National Forest System

(NFS) lands be classified as to their suitability for various uses including timber harvest and

timber production. NFS lands were reserved with the intent of providing goods and services to

satisfy public needs over the long term, among them is a sustainable supply of forest products.

The 1982 Rule Provisions Section 219.14, require the responsible official to identify lands not

suitable for timber production within the plan area. Based upon the definition of “forest land” 

1982 Rule Provisions Section 219.14 (a)(1)) and other criteria for determining suitability of forest

land (FSH 2409.13, Chapter 20) all land on the Grasslands is considered unsuitable for 

commercial timber production. 

Five criteria were used to evaluate lands on the Grasslands to tentatively determine whether they 

were suitable for commercial timber management. The first criterion considers whether the land

is forested or not. Section 219.3 of the 1982 Rule Provisions defines land that is forested as: At

least 10 percent occupied by forest trees of any size or formerly having had such tree cover, and

not currently developed for nonforest use. Lands classified as developed for nonforest use include 

areas for crops, improved pasture, residential, or administrative areas, improved roads of any 

width and adjoining road clearing and power line of any width. 

The second evaluative criterion is: Is the land already withdrawn from timber production? 

Withdrawn lands are usually areas specifically chosen for protection or special status and are

precluded from timber production. Examples are wilderness and research natural areas.

The third criterion asks: Is the land capable of producing commercially usable wood? If not, the

primary condition for assigning lands to this category is that the species of trees involved is not 

currently utilized, nor likely to be utilized commercially within the next 10 years. This does not

preclude developing alternative management opportunities should a demand develop. 

On the fourth criterion, 1982 Rule Provisions Section 219.14(a)(2) states: Technology is not 

available to ensure timber production from the land without irreversible resource damage to soils

productivity or watershed conditions. In this case soils may be damaged by erosion, nutrient 

removal, compaction, and mass movement (landslides). Forested lands within riparian areas are

included because wet soils are especially sensitive and important for functioning of the

ecosystem.

The fifth criterion used to identify lands suitable for timber production addresses reforestation

and restocking of forested land. Is there reasonable assurance of adequate restocking within 5 

years after final harvest? Final harvest is defined in 1982 Rule Provisions Section 219.14(a)(2) as

“clear-cutting, final overstory removal in shelterwood cutting, and seed tree removal cut in seed

tree cutting and selection cutting.” Generally this includes soil mapping units exhibiting shallow 

and some moderately deep soils.

Timber suitability classification and area descriptions are summarized in tables 1 and 2. 
Appendix E. Timber Suitability

236 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 1. Black Kettle and McClellan Creek timber suitability classification and area

descriptions

Category Description Acres

Total NFS Lands (Forest or Grassland) 32,735

Non-forested land (not suitable for timber production) <10% occupied by

trees 31,105

Forested land—not suitable for timber production because:

Withdrawn from timber production 0 

Irreversible resource damage likely Soils may be damaged

by erosion or nutrient

removal

779

Adequate restocking not assured 0 

Forested land tentatively suitable for timber production

(all forested land minus sum of 3 rows above)

851

Forested land tentatively suitable for timber production—not

appropriate for timber production because:

Forested lands where resource management prescriptions

preclude timber production 0 

Forested lands where management objectives limit timber

harvest 0 

Forested lands that are not economically cost efficient Shelterbelt and

riparian woodland, not

capable of producing

crops of commercial

wood

851

Forested—lands not appropriate for timber production

(sum of 3 rows above)

851

Forested—lands suitable for timber production 0 

Lands not suitable for timber production

(not suitable or appropriate for timber production) 32,735

Adapted from “Determination of Tentatively Suitable Timber Lands on the Cibola National Forest and the Kiowa, Rita

Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands;” Paul Tidwell, silviculturist, Cibola National Forest,

December 4, 1998. Updated to reflect current acreages.
Appendix E. Timber Suitability

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 237

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 2. Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands timber suitability classification and

area descriptions

Category Description Acres

Total NFS Lands (Forest or Grassland) 230,526

Non-forested land (not suitable for timber production) <10% occupied by

trees 221,458

Forested land—not suitable for timber production because:

Withdrawn from timber production 0 

Irreversible resource damage likely 0 

Adequate restocking not assured 0 

Forested land tentatively suitable for timber production

(all forested land minus sum of 3 rows above) 9,068

Forested land tentatively suitable for timber production—not

appropriate for timber production because:

Forested lands where resource management prescriptions

preclude timber production 0 

Forested lands where management objectives limit timber

harvest 0 

Forested lands that are not economically cost efficient Pinyon-juniper and

riparian woodland, not

capable of producing

crops of commercial

wood

9,068

Forested—lands not appropriate for timber production 

(sum of 3 rows above) 9,068

Forested—lands suitable for timber production 0 

Lands not suitable for timber production

(not suitable or appropriate for timber production) 230,526

Adapted from “Determination of Tentatively Suitable Timber Lands on the Cibola National Forest and the Kiowa, Rita

Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands;” Paul Tidwell, silviculturist, Cibola National Forest,

December 4, 1998. Updated to reflect current acreages.

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 239

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine 

Filter and Viability Evaluations

Viability and Biological Evaluation for Kiowa, Rita 

Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands

Process Criteria used for Determining 

Species Viability on the National Grasslands

1. Description of the Ecological Context

The determination of ecological sustainability and species viability on the national grasslands

(NGs) is a culmination of assessing ecosystem characteristics (including vegetation type, soil,

water, and air) departure from the reference condition (appendix F in “Ecological Sustainability

Report” (ESR), see Web address provided in appendix B of this FPEIS).

The ESR evaluated the ecological systems of the Kiowa and Rita Blanca (KRB) and Black Kettle

(BK), and McClellan Creek (MC) NGs (herein collectively referred to as the “Grasslands”) and

the relationship to the surrounding area (ESR). The ESR has two main sections—ecosystem

diversity and species diversity. The “Ecosystem Diversity” section discusses conditions and 

trends in the vegetation communities and physical resources based on the reference condition of 

the vegetation types. Appendix F of the ESR supplements the information found in the 

“Ecosystem Diversity” section of the ESR. Specifically, it outlines the current and historical

conditions for shortgrass prairie, pinyon-juniper, cottonwood-willow riparian, sand sagebrush, 

mixed-grass prairie, shinnery oak, and mixed hardwood riparian vegetation types. The species

diversity section looks at species found in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma on the Grasslands

and are affected by Grasslands management. Population or habitat concerns for the identified

species were analyzed and viability risks determined. 

The condition and trends in the Grasslands vegetation communities are evaluated on a 5- to 10-

year interval using field reconnaissance, visual obstruction readings, Parker 3 Step transects,1

cover-frequency transects, production clippings, photo points, and composition inventories. Data

collected has been compared with historical data and with the terrestrial ecological unit 

inventory.2

In order to determine the departure for a vegetation type, the mid-scale3 vegetation found within

each vegetation type was placed into one of three classes based on the information in the

reference condition model. A comparison was made of the current percentage to the historical

percentage for each class within the model. The lesser of the two percentages (current vs.

 

1 Ruyle, G., & Dyess, J. (2010). Rangeland Monitoring and the Parker 3-Step Method: Overview, Perspectives and

current Appllications. Tucson AZ: The University of Arizona Cooperative Extension.

2 Terrestrial ecosystem unit inventory consists of mapping and interpreting ecosystems through a systematic

examination, description, classification, and integration of the soil, vegetation, and climate on national forest and

grasslands. Mid-scale vegetation type description is structural, not compositional. Description of existing species

composition was inferred by relating remotely sensed data (mid-scale) to ground-based data (TEUI). Comparison of

existing vegetation to reference condition is, therefore, limited to vegetation structure (not species composition).

3 Mid-scale mapping is a remote sensing and modeling effort used to provide periodic snapshots of existing vegetation

for forest plan implementation and monitoring. Mid-scale mapping is an object-oriented approach using image

segmentation and various classification methodologies to model vegetation dominance type, canopy cover class, and

size.
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

240 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

historical) was subtracted from 100 for each class. The resulting number determined the level of

departure from the historical reference conditions as follows:

• 0–33 percent = Low departure 

• 34–66 percent = Moderately departed

• 67–100 percent = Severely departed

Ecosystem attributes for the Grasslands were analyzed to determine if the sustainability of the 

vegetation types, soil, water, air, and animal and plant species richness and diversity are at risk.

This assessment was based on current conditions, departure from reference condition for

vegetation structure, and projected future trends. If the ecosystem attribute is projected to depart

from its reference condition, then the attribute was determined to be at risk. If the attribute is

significantly departed from its reference condition and is stable (i.e., neither trending further away

from nor toward the reference condition) then it was determined to be at risk; this scenario was

not found for any of the ecosystem characteristics on the Grasslands. If current management

activities are resulting in the ecosystem characteristic trending toward its reference condition, the 

characteristic was determined not to be at risk.

Four of the seven vegetation types found on the Grasslands have greater representation on the 

Grasslands relative to the surrounding landscape within the Grasslands administrative boundary: 

shinnery oak, mixed hardwood riparian, cottonwood-willow, and sand sagebrush. Shortgrass and

mixed-grass prairie have less representation on the Grasslands relative to the surrounding 

landscape; pinyon-juniper is equally represented.

All of the vegetation types have low departure from reference condition for vegetation structure

(figure 1). Continuation of management trends is expected to maintain that condition. 

Some of the vegetation types, while within low departure from reference condition for vegetation

structure overall, may not be able to make a full recovery to the lower percentages of departure.

These include the shinnery oak areas that were once deeply plowed, as well as formerly cultivated

old field sites in shortgrass prairie. The deep plowing practices on shinnery oak eliminated the

species from some areas during the Dust Bowl era, and recovery does not readily occur. Soil

movement that occurred during the Dust Bowl era also created conditions that facilitated mixed

hardwood riparian establishment, a vegetation type not historically found on the Grasslands. 

Consequently, determining a departure from reference condition for mixed hardwood riparian on 

the BK and MC (BKMC) NGs entails comparing riparian woody vegetation structure to the 

mixed hardwood plant communities in other areas with similar climate, elevation, rainfall, and 

growing season attributes. Some areas within the cottonwood-willow riparian may not have the 

capacity to fully recover to the lower percentages of departure from reference condition for 

vegetation structure due to the disruption of natural hydrologic processes on and off of the 

Grasslands. While the reference condition for vegetation structure may not be fully achievable on 

some areas within the shinnery oak, shortgrass prairie, mixed-hardwood riparian, and

cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation types, implementation of the draft Grasslands plan should 

move these types toward reference condition for vegetation structure. 
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 241

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Figure 1. Departure of current condition vegetation structure from reference condition

vegetation structure.

Over the past several decades, watershed conditions have dramatically improved, especially

compared to the extremely degraded condition that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s

following the Dust Bowl era. Conservation practices across the southern Great Plains, notably in

the McClellan Creek drainage, have resulted in a substantial increase in infiltration and

groundwater recharge and a subsequent reduction in surface runoff and associated sedimentation.

Groundwater depletion is occurring, and although this is outside of Agency control, it has the

potential to affect Grasslands management.

Ecosystem Diversity Concern Areas

Due to disruption from settlement and agriculture production on adjacent private lands, the

vegetative characteristics found on the Grasslands are largely unique in comparison to the

surrounding landscape. Because the Grasslands exist to provide for ecological diversity, it is

critical that the ecosystem characteristics contained within them be restored and maintained.

There are several areas of ecosystem diversity concern:

• Four of the seven vegetation types (shinnery oak, pinyon-juniper, mixed hardwood

riparian, and sand sagebrush) have a reduced range across their respective ecological

subsections. Therefore, management of these vegetation types on the Grassland units is

important for the protection of their associated species.

• Of the seven vegetation types found on the Grasslands, all exhibit low departure from

reference condition for vegetation structure. Management to maintain or move toward

lower departure from reference condition and disturbance regime intervals is important

for each of the vegetation types.
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

242 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

• The introduction, presence, and spread of invasive species have the potential to

significantly modify ecological systems and processes.

• The potential effects of climate change are far reaching: changes to vegetation structure

and composition, soil condition, and water availability are reasonably foreseeable.

2. Identification of Species Viability Concerns

Species Diversity

Analysis of ecological sustainability must include consideration of both ecosystem and species

diversity. To better capture the ecological sustainability of the Grasslands, a hierarchical approach

was used to analyze species diversity on the Grasslands (pp. 49–52 in ESR). A comprehensive list

of species (including plant, macro-lichen, bird, insect, and animal species) that have population or

habitat concerns and that are found in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma was developed using:

• Lists maintained under the Ecological Services Agency of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service;

• Species ranks maintained by NatureServe;

• New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma State threatened and endangered lists;

• New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma priority Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation

Strategy (CWCS) species;

• Species for which there are local concerns resulting from declines in habitat, population,

and/or distribution;

• Species that are of high public interest; and

• Species that have emerging issues (such as invasive species).

Using this comprehensive list as a starting point, research was conducted to determine those

species that currently have:

• population and/or habitat within the plan area;

• population and/or habitat concerns (e.g., small or decreasing population, degrading

habitat or habitat loss, etc.); or

• may be affected by Forest Service management actions.

Regional Forester’s Grasslands Sensitive Species List

The regional forester’s sensitive species program is the Forest Service’s dedicated initiative to

conserve and recover plant and animal species. The national grasslands improve habitat and

restore ecosystems for sensitive species through vegetation treatments and management practices.

Forest sensitive species (table 1), are those plant and animal species identified by a regional

forester for which population viability is a concern as evidenced by:

• Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density

• Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a

species’ existing distribution
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 243

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 1. Regional Forester’s Grasslands Sensitive Species List

Regional Forester’s Grasslands Sensitive Species List for

Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands

Common Name Taxon

Forest Status

BKMC NGs KRB NGs

Amphibians

Plains leopard frog Rana blairi D D

Great Plains narrow-mouthed toad Gastrophryne olivacea D D

Fish

Rio Grande chub Gila pandora D

Suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis D- not rare in

OK, TX

D

Birds

Bald Eagle Haliaetus leucocephalus D D

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi D

Zone-tailed Hawk Buteo albonotatus D

Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni D D

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis D

American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus (anatum) S

Lesser Prairie-chicken Tympanuchus pallidicinctus S S

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus D

Burrowing Owl Athene curnicularia (hypugaea) D D

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus D D

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis S

Mammals

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii (pallescens) S

Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus D

Sandhills white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus texana D

Reptiles

Arid land ribbon snake Thamnophis proximus diabolicus D

Plants

Greene milkweed Asclepias uncialis ssp. uncialis D

One-flowered milkvetch Astragalus wittmannii D

Spellingberg’s groundsel Packera spellenbergii (=Senecio s.) D

D = Documented, reliable, recorded observation, in appropriate habitat within the Grassland boundary.

S = Suspected, likely to occur based on habitat availability to support individuals/breeding pairs/groups within the

Grassland boundary.
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

244 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

3. Collection of Information

on Species with Viability Concerns

Species Viability Risk Assessments

The initial overall species database was developed from NatureServe, an international network of

biological inventories, known as natural heritage programs or conservation data centers, operating

in all 50 U.S. states, Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean. NatureServe provided detailed

local information on plants, animals, and ecosystems. The objective scientific information about

species and ecosystems developed by NatureServe was used by the plan revision team to make

informed decisions about species in the planning area (pp. 52–62 in the ESR).

Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico have comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies

(CWCS) that were used to focus on the respective state wildlife, plant, and habitat concerns. The

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Birds of Conservation Concern (NBCC) species were

included as well as state threatened and endangered species lists.

The comprehensive list was narrowed down to just those species that occur on the Grasslands and

may be affected by Forest Service management. The species were sorted according to the

vegetation type or unique habitat feature with which they are associated. Each of the vegetation

types on the Grasslands, along with some unique habitat features (e.g., wetland or riverine), have

adequate representation from species on the list of species for consideration in plan revision

(appendix B in the ESR, see the Web address provided to the ESR in appendix B of this FPEIS).

Life history and population information was gleaned from the references used in the screening

process and from Grasslands biologists; States of Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico biologists;

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists. Meetings were held with the before mentioned

personnel to conduct the species viability determination by processing each species through an

assessment of various habitat and population factors and threats. The viability determination

process steps and results are detailed in the ESR (appendix E in the ESR).

Initially, 1,652 species with population or habitat concerns in Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico

were considered for Grasslands plan revision. This list was then narrowed down to just those

species that occur on the Grasslands and may be affected by Forest Service management. These

species were sorted according to the vegetation type or unique habitat feature with which they are

associated. Each of the vegetation types on the Grasslands, along with some unique habitat

features (e.g., wetland or riverine), have adequate representation from species on the list of

species for consideration in plan revision (appendix B in the ESR).

An animal and plant species viability assessment was conducted by processing each species

potentially occurring on the Grasslands through an assessment of various habitat and population

factors and threats4

. Natural history and population information was gleaned from the references

used in the screening process and from Grasslands biologists; States of Oklahoma, Texas, and

New Mexico biologists; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists. The results of this process

provided a numerical ranking of the risk to a species.

 4 “Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative

vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has

the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed

in the planning area...” (1982 Rule Provisions 219.19).
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 245

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

The risk assessment process included the following steps and the results for each species can be

referenced (appendix E in ESR).

Habitat factors within the plan area boundaries (per FSH 1909.12, Land Management Planning

Handbook, Chap. 40, Sec. 43.26) were assessed for each species, according to PNVT. For those

species with habitat on multiple vegetation types, separate risk assessments were run for each

habitat type. Each of the habitat factors were assessed in terms of the historic, current, and

projected future trends. As a way of synthesizing the overall habitat status for the species on a

specific vegetation type, the average “score” for the current condition and projected trend was

calculated and a status statement for the species habitat developed. The habitat factors considered

in the assessment included:

• Amount: The percentage of the plan area that is specific to a particular vegetation type

habitat.

○ High quantity of habitat encompasses >50 percent of the total plan area.

○ Moderate quantity indicates habitat is restricted to between <50 percent and >5

percent of the total plan area.

○ Low quantity indicates that habitat is limited to <5 percent of the total plan area.

• Quality: The availability of key habitat features in the plan area boundary.

○ A high quality habitat has adequate representation of all vegetation type successional

stages and includes plenty of key habitat feature availability (i.e. nesting sites, roost

trees, brood habitat, etc.).

○ A moderate quality rating indicates that key habitat features are present, but are not

all readily available.

○ A low quality rating indicates that key habitat features are not always present and not

all available.

• Distribution: The distribution of habitat features across a vegetation type within the plan

area boundary.

○ Even habitat distribution indicates that habitat is dispersed broadly across the

vegetation type.

○ Restricted habitat distribution describes vegetation types where habitat is localized to

specific areas.

○ Highly fragmented habitat describes vegetation types where habitat is isolated and

separated by distance or barriers.

• Habitat processes: Those processes (e.g., grazing, fire, flooding, etc.) that create or

sustain the habitat within the plan area boundary.

○ Functioning habitat indicates that the processes are extant within the vegetation type.

○ Disrupted habitat indicates that not all processes are extant within the vegetation

type.
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

246 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Population factors were considered at the scale at which biological populations of the species

operate (per FSH 1909.12, Land Management Planning Handbook, Chap. 40, Sec. 43.26). Each

of the population factors were assessed in terms of the historic, current, and projected future

trends. As a way of synthesizing the overall population status for the species on a specific PNVT,

the average “score” for the current condition and projected trend was calculated and a status

statement for the population factors developed. The population factors included in the assessment

included:

• Population distribution: Interaction within the population.

○ High isolation describes a population that is separated by barriers and or distance.

○ Moderate isolation indicates that the population is separated, but has interaction on a

limited basis.

○ High interaction describes a population that interacts regularly across its range.

• Population size: Size of population, relative to individual species dynamics.

○ A large population indicates that the species has great numbers relative to the

individual species dynamic.

○ A moderate population indicates that the species population number is not large or is

limited.

○ A small population describes a species whose population number is very limited.

• Species population stability: Current changes to the species population.

○ Gaining describes species whose populations are growing.

○ Stable describes species whose population sizes are not changing.

○ Declining describes species whose populations are decreasing.

• Species diversity: Phenotypic, ecological, and genetic diversity.

○ High diversity describes species with vigorous population diversity dynamics.

○ Moderate diversity describes species with stable diversity dynamics.

○ Low diversity describes species with decreasing diversity opportunities.

“Other threats” including risks to the vegetation type and other known threats such as invasive

species, disease, etc., to the species were identified and the severity (how bad the negative

outcome may be) and the likelihood (the probability of a negative outcome) of the threats were

analyzed.

• Severity: How a species population or habitat would respond to a threat and was

evaluated to determine the degree the species would be impacted.

○ High severity indicates that the threat will affect the species population in a critical

negative manner.

○ Moderate severity indicates the threat impacts would be severely negative.
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 247

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

○ Low severity indicates that the threat impacts are chronic.

• Likelihood: The probability of a negative outcome from a threat to the species population

or habitat.

○ High likelihood indicates that the threat will have an imminent negative outcome.

○ Moderate likelihood indicates that odds are even that the threat will produce a

negative outcome.

○ Low likelihood indicates that the probability of negative outcomes due to the threat is

possible but not imminent.

Descriptions of key biological interactions were developed, where they exist, for each species.

To determine the overall risk to each species, an overall score was calculated by averaging the

habitat, population, risk, severity, and likelihood scores. Each species was then determined to be

at high (average score of 1 to 1.5), moderate (average score of 1.51 to 2), or low (average score

over 2.1) risk.

Status summary statements were developed to describe the overall current and projected status for

the species on a particular vegetation type.

Risk summary statements were developed to capture the potential severity and likelihood of the

known threats on the species’ population and habitat.

Lastly, for those species determined to be at high risk, the likelihood of the species population

dynamics being affected by four key consequence scenarios5 was determined.

4. Identification of Species

Groups or Habitat Association

Species and Habitat Association

The species that were considered for plan revision were organized and grouped according to their

associated vegetation types and the Grasslands on which they occur (table 2).

 5 The four consequence scenarios considered (per the Forest Service’s Southwestern Region’s “Ecological

Sustainability” guidance, Version 5.1, 10/10/2006, Status of Species, table 7) included: (1) widespread decline of

population in the plan area and new isolation of populations within the plan area; (2) widespread population decline,

but without isolation of populations; (3) localized population decline that may be accompanied by some minor

restrictions in population interactions, and (4) populations and their distribution are stable or improving.
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

248 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 2. Grasslands habitat/species associations and viability/risk ranking, Forest

sensitive species, or management indicator species

Common Name Ranger

District

Viability

Overall

Risk

Reason for Listing (see note below)

Viability

Listing

Source

Forest

Sensitive

List

MIS

Shortgrass Prairie

Bald Eagle KRB Moderate A, D, E, F K

Loggerhead Shrike KRB Low A, C K

Black-tailed prairie dog KRB High I-NM K

Burrowing Owl KRB Moderate B, C, D K M

Ferruginous Hawk KRB Moderate B, C, D K

Greene milkweed KRB Moderate H, I-NM & OK K

Mountain Plover KRB High A, B, C, J K

One-flowered milkvetch KRB Moderate H, I-NM K

Spellenberg’s groundsel KRB Moderate H, I-NM K

Long-billed Curlew KRB Low B, C, D K

Swift fox KRB High G

Dotted checkerspot KRB Moderate I-NM

Alpine fever-few KRB Moderate H, I-NM

Rhena-crossline skipper KRB Moderate I-NM

Andean Prairie-clover KRB Moderate I-TX & OK

Scaled Quail KRB Low A, C

Swainson’s Hawk KRB Low B, C K

Grasshopper Sparrow KRB Low A, B K

Sand Sagebrush

Lesser Prairie-chicken KRB High B, J K

Dotted checkerspot KRB Moderate I-NM

Scaled Quail KRB Low A, C

Grasshopper Sparrow KRB Low A, B K

Panhandle spurge KRB Moderate H

Pinyon-Juniper

Greene milkweed KRB Low H, I-NM & OK K

Panhandle spurge KRB Moderate H
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 249

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Common Name Ranger

District

Viability

Overall

Risk

Reason for Listing (see note below)

Viability

Listing

Source

Forest

Sensitive

List

MIS

One-flowered milkvetch KRB Moderate H, I-NM K

Spellenberg’s groundsel KRB Moderate H, I-NM K

Zone-tailed Hawk KRB Moderate K

Mountain Bluebird KRB Low M

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian

Bald Eagle KRB Moderate A, D, E, F K

Great Plains narrow-mouthed

toad KRB Moderate D K

Plains leopard frog KRB High B K

Yellow-billed Cuckoo KRB Low A K

Sandhill white-tailed deer KRB Low K

Arid land ribbon snake KRB Moderate A, D K

Hobomok skipper KRB Moderate I-NM

Red-headed Woodpecker KRB Low A, B, C

Ponds and Playas

White-faced Ibis KRB Low A, B K

Plains leopard frog KRB High B K

Long-billed Curlew KRB Moderate B, C, D K

American Avocet KRB Moderate B

Caves-Cliffs-Rock Outcrops

American Peregrine Falcon K Low D K

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat K Low B K

Rocky Mountain dagger KRB Moderate H

Horrid herrickia KRB Low H, I-NM

Shinnery Oak and Mixed-grass Prairie

Swainson’s Hawk BK Low B, C K

Lesser Prairie-chicken BK High B, J K

Northern Bobwhite BK Moderate B, C

Rio Grande Turkey BK Low L M

Grasshopper Sparrow BK Low A, B K
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

250 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Common Name Ranger

District

Viability

Overall

Risk

Reason for Listing (see note below)

Viability

Listing

Source

Forest

Sensitive

List

MIS

Long-billed Curlew BK Low B, C, D K

Mixed Hardwood Riparian

Yellow-billed Cuckoo BK Low A K

Rio Grande Turkey BK Low L M

Red-headed Woodpecker BK Moderate A, B, C

Bell’s Vireo BK Moderate B, E K

Rivers

Suckermouth minnow KRB Moderate E K

Conchas crayfish KRB Moderate H

Rio Grande chub KRB Low H,I-TX K

Arkansas River shiner BK Moderate Federal T&E

Interior Least Tern BK Moderate Federal T&E

Largemouth bass BK Low L

Aquatic Lakes

White-faced Ibis KRB Low A, B K

Bald Eagle BK Moderate A, D, E, F K

Largemouth bass BK Low L

Plains leopard frog BK Low B K

Other Wetlands

Ambersnail KRB Moderate H

Alphabetic code for “Reason for Listing” is as follows: A = NM CWCS, B = TX CWCS, C = OK CWCS, D = NM

T&E, E = TX T&E, F = OK T&E, G = Nature Serve N, H = Nature Serve G, I = Nature Serve State, J = USFWS

Candidate, K = Regional Forester’s Grasslands Sensitive Species, L = Important Game Species, M = Management

Indicator Species

5. Description of Conservation Approaches

Plan components (desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines) guide the LRMP:

Desired conditions define ecological outcomes to be achieved in the future. These outcomes

relate to land and resource conditions and ecological processes. They are aspirations and

strategic in nature rather than project-specific commitments. Some desired conditions may be

achieved within the 15-year life of the plan, and others may extend beyond that timeframe.

Desired conditions form the principal basis from which LRMP objectives are developed.

Desired conditions ultimately serve to guide Grassland managers in planning and providing
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 251

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

direction for future actions and in developing a meaningful monitoring program to determine

progress toward achievement over the life of the plan.

Objectives are the proactive steps that the Grasslands expect to accomplish over the next 15

years to maintain or move toward the desired conditions of the plan. Objectives are

measurable and time-specific outcomes. Any project or activity undertaken during the life of

the plan must be consistent with objectives.

Guidelines contribute to maintaining or achieving desired conditions and objectives; they are

specifications that a project or activity would adopt unless there is a compelling and

defensible reason to vary from the guidelines.

All the vegetation types found on the Grasslands are in low departure from reference condition

for vegetation structure and occur on a diverse landscape where species composition and structure

are determined by climate, elevation, landform, slope, and soil properties. The desired conditions

would support a full complement of native species:

• There is a natural and nearly complete assemblage of native plants and animals, including

important game species, distributed across the Grasslands.

• Natural corridors link habitats within Grassland units.

• Terrestrial ecosystems are resilient to disturbance and tolerate the effects of and,

therefore, benefit from, wildland fire in a near natural fire regime.

• Natural processes occur within the vegetative communities that enhance species richness

and diversity.

• Forage use by grazing ungulates contributes to a diversity of healthy herbaceous and

woody plant communities and supports continued viability of wildlife populations.

• Objectives and guidelines produce outcomes that support sustainable plant communities

and habitat for species with viability concerns.

• Land management practices fulfill habitat requirements for all life history stages of

viability high at-risk species.

6. Development of LRMP Alternatives

The issues that led the Agency to develop alternatives to the no action alternative A, which is the

1985 Cibola National Forest (NF) LRMP as amended, included:

• The age of the current plan, the lack of detail relevant to management of the Grasslands,

and silence on emerging issues affecting the Grasslands;

• The often evident ambiguity of the stated management direction of the current plan with

the actual, science-based, adaptive management currently occurring on the Grasslands;

• The desire by some members of the public to have the regional forester propose to

Congress the designation of the Canadian River Inventoried Roadless Area on the Kiowa

National Grassland as a wilderness area, a suggestion opposed by others.

The species identified for viability concerns in plan revision—Lesser Prairie-chicken, plains

leopard frog, BTPD, Mountain Plover, and swift fox—were assessed to be at high risk on

shinnery oak, mixed-grass prairie, sand sagebrush, cottonwood/willow riparian, and shortgrass
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

252 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

prairie vegetation types. The risks to these species were found to be the threats derived from

fragmentation, disease, predation, and invasive species.

The Forest Service developed three alternatives—the no action alternative (A), the preferred

alternative (B), and the wilderness alternative (C). Alternative A is current management under the

1985 Cibola NF LRMP as amended. Alternative B is the “rolling” alternative resulting from

continuous adjustment during its development. Alternative C is identical to alternative B except

for the Canadian River Wilderness recommendation.

Public comments received in response to the proposed action provided suggestions for alternative

methods for satisfying the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside

the scope of identified needs, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to

be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, a number of

alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration.

Alternative B, Preferred Alternative

Alternative B would: emphasize management of vegetation and habitat to move toward desired

vegetation structure and species composition; incorporate research and potential strategies for

addressing effects of climate change; address invasive species control on all Grasslands; provide

direction for removal of invasive or nonnative trees from historically grassland vegetation

communities or in otherwise suitable Lesser Prairie-chicken (LPC) habitat on the BK NG,

following site-specific assessment; recommend adaptive management of livestock and protection

of soil resources; and would update manual, handbook, law, regulation, and policy and remove

redundancy in all management direction.

Alternative B would describe a management approach that would encourage black-tailed prairie

dog (BTPD) colonies to expand on the Kiowa (K) and Rita Blanca (RB) NGs that would possibly

result in an increase in early successional plant communities in those areas of shortgrass prairie

with soils and slopes typically selected by BTPD. A BTPD management plan would be

recommended. A long-term desired condition would have sufficient habitat available for at least

one BTPD complex to accommodate potential reintroduction of black-footed ferrets (BFF) a

federally listed endangered species.

Alternative C, Canadian River

Wilderness Area Recommendation

Recommendation would be made to designate the Kiowa National Grassland Canadian River

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) as a Canadian River wilderness area. Specific plan components

for a wilderness area designation would be developed. Management within the potential

wilderness area would be governed by Wilderness Act regulations as described in Forest Service

Manual 2320. All other management direction in alternative C would be identical to that of

alternative B.

7. Evaluation of Effects on

Viability of the LRMP Alternatives

Currently, all the vegetation types found on the Grasslands are in low departure from reference

condition for vegetation structure. Plan components—including desired conditions, objectives,

and guidelines—were developed for managing vegetation types and habitat to support the
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 253

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

requisite needs of the species with viability concerns and the Forest sensitive species found on the

Grasslands.

A suite of management indicator species (MIS) and ecological indicators (EI) were selected to

evaluate the consequences to MIS and EI from the three alternatives. Monitoring Burrowing Owl,

Mountain Bluebird, and Rio Grande Turkey populations as management indicator species allows

trend information to be used to evaluate management direction. Monitoring the presence of

undesirable woody species in cottonwood-willow riparian, shinnery oak, and mixed-grass prairie

vegetation, and reference condition on mid- and late-structural stages of shortgrass prairie allows

trends information to be used as ecological indicators.

Considering that the vegetation on the Grasslands is in low departure from reference condition for

vegetation structure, and the plan components were developed to move toward desired vegetation

structure and species composition, alternatives A and B would have similar impacts on the chosen

MIS and EI. Alternative B would have more prescriptive management of vegetation and habitat

that would increase the sustainability of habitat for species with viability concerns over

alternative A. Alternative C would have the same positive consequences to viability as alternative

B except in wilderness where reference condition management of vegetation could require added

time.

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Burrowing Owl/Shortgrass Prairie Early Successional Stage. Common to all alternatives, early

succession stage development would result from black-tailed prairie dog colony expansion. All of

the alternatives would attain expansion of dog colonies that would provide habitat for Burrowing

Owl.

Rio Grande Turkey/Mixed Hardwood Riparian Vegetation. Alternatives B and C would improve

habitat for the MIS by attaining seral stage diversity, whereas alternative A does not provide

predictable trends.

Mountain Bluebird/Pinyon-Juniper. Alternatives B and C would improve habitat for the MIS by

attaining seral stage diversity, whereas alternative A does not provide predictable trends.

Ecological Indicators (EIs)

Areal Extent of Undesirable Trees/Mixed-grass Prairie and Shinnery Oak. Alternatives B and C

would target removal of undesirable native invasive trees such as eastern redcedar and black

locust and undesirable nonnative invasive Siberian elm. Although alternative A would allow

removal of invasive plants, there would be no focus on removing undesirable trees in these

vegetation types.

Areal Extent of Undesirable Trees (especially saltcedar)/Cottonwood-Willow Riparian on the

Canadian River. Alternatives A and B would have similar, positive impacts by removal of

noxious/invasive plant species which would improve wildlife habitat. In the potential wilderness,

alternative C (with limited control options) would be less effective than alternatives A and B.

Spatial analysis of the areal extent of plant communities by range vegetation trends/Mid-Late

Successional Stages of Shortgrass Prairie and all stages of Sand Sagebrush. All the alternatives
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

254 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

would monitor areal extent of plant communities; however, only alternatives B and C determine if

plan component desired conditions for the two vegetation types are being met for wildlife habitat.

Viability High At-Risk Species

Black-tailed Prairie Dog, Mountain Plover, and Swift Fox/Shortgrass Prairie. Common to All

Alternatives, early successional stage development would result from black-tailed prairie dog

colony expansion providing habitat improvements for the three high at-risk species on shortgrass

prairie.

Lesser Prairie-chicken/Shinnery Oak, Mixed-grass Prairie, and Sand Sagebrush. Alternatives B

and C would target removal of undesirable native invasive trees such as eastern redcedar and

black locust and undesirable nonnative invasive Siberian elm. Reference condition attainment in

the three vegetation types would improve ground nesting bird cover and brood rearing habitat,

provide travel corridors and escape routes within the shrub cover, and small areas of short

herbaceous vegetation or patches of bare ground would be available for Lesser Prairie-chicken

leks and courtship areas. Alternative A does not provide predictable trends for any of the three

vegetation types.

Plains Leopard Frog/Cottonwood-Willow Riparian. Alternatives B and C would attain a diverse

mix of native grasses and forbs adapted to moisture-regime fluctuations in the herbaceous portion

of riparian areas. Meander scars and depressions in the riparian areas would retain water for part

or all of the year and provide habitat for the plains leopard frog. Alternative A would provide an

unpredictable state of vegetative structure and composition and associated habitats.

Regional Forester’s Grasslands Sensitive Species

Considering that all vegetation types on the Grasslands are in low departure from reference

condition for vegetation structure, and that plan components were developed to move toward

desired vegetation structure and species composition, alternatives B and C would attain similar

positive consequences for all of the Grasslands sensitive species. Alternative A would provide an

unpredictable state of vegetative structure and composition and associated habitats for the Forest

sensitive species.

8. Monitoring

The primary purpose of monitoring species at risk and their habitats is to determine whether

management actions need to be modified. The establishment of monitoring objectives for species

at risk must take into account the state of current knowledge about the species, its rarity, ease of

detection, level of risk, the strength of association between habitat conditions and population

dynamics, and the expected lag time between disturbances and biological responses.

The following are monitoring objectives related to whether management actions need to be

modified to meet species viability needs:

• Determine whether the status of selected species is in keeping with plan direction (for

very rare or poorly distributed species, species without habitat associations, or for

federally listed species for which population monitoring is specified in the recovery plan,

or for which population monitoring is considered important).
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 255

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

• Determine whether ecological conditions for selected species are consistent with plan

direction (for species whose population dynamics are believed to be responsive to

changes in ecological conditions).

• Determine whether there are unexpected changes in habitats or populations for species

that were not identified to be of concern during the planning process (to address whether

all species that ought to have been considered in the planning process were identified).

• Investigate assumptions made about effects of management on ecological conditions for

species for which there is a viability concern (for species with clear habitat associations,

but uncertainty regarding the effects of management).

• Investigate assumptions about the effects of management on species populations (for

species where the link between management action and species status is uncertain).

It may not be necessary to monitor a host of habitat attributes or population parameters. Much can

be gained by monitoring one or two carefully chosen indicators that are fairly easy to measure or

observe, particularly if these indicators are responsive to changes in stressors that are monitored

over the same period of time.

The monitoring protocol is a plan component that includes a discussion of data collection, data

analysis, data storage, and reporting methods. This protocol covers frequency of measurement,

expected precision and reliability of the system, and an indication of when the evaluation will be

reported (1982 Rule Provision Section 219.12(k)). Tables 3 and 4 summarize the monitoring

frequency and measures.

Table 3. Black Kettle and McClellan Creek monitoring frequency and measures

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek Management Area Vegetation Types

Represented by Ecological Indicators

Mixed-grass Prairie Ecological Indicator (areal extent of undesirable trees)

The mixed-grass prairie vegetation type is in low departure from reference condition for vegetation structure.

Monitoring the existence and encroachment of undesirable woody species, such as eastern redcedar and black

locust, will indicate the success of management. The presence of undesirable woody vegetation will serve as the

ecological indicator.

Scale Monitoring Frequency and Measure

Black Kettle

and

McClellan

Creek

Annual

Document undesirable tree treatment and postfire mortality.

Change in species composition within burned areas.

Document planned or unplanned fire occurrences.
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

256 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Shinnery Oak and Deep Plowed Inclusion Ecological Indicator (areal extent of undesirable trees)

The shinnery oak vegetation type is in low departure from reference condition for vegetation structure. Monitoring

the existence and encroachment of undesirable woody species, such as eastern redcedar and black locust, will

indicate the success of management. The presence of undesirable woody vegetation will serve as the ecological

indicator.

Scale Monitoring Frequency and Measure

Black Kettle Annual

Document undesirable tree treatment and postfire mortality.

Change in species composition within burned areas.

Document planned or unplanned fire occurrences.

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek Management Area Vegetation Types

Represented by Management Indicator Species

Mixed Hardwood Riparian

Meleagris gallopavo intermedia, Rio Grande Turkey, represents a species that utilizes all successional stages of

mixed hardwood riparian and will serve as the management indicator species for this vegetation type.

Scale Monitoring Frequency and Measure

Black Kettle Annual

Use breeding bird survey to monitor Meleagris gallopavo intermedia; Rio Grande Turkey as a

management indicator dpecies.

Table 4. Kiowa and Rita Blanca monitoring frequency and measures

Kiowa and Rita Blanca Management Area Vegetation Types

Represented by Ecological Indicators

Shortgrass Prairie Mid- and Late-Successional Stages

Scale Monitoring Frequency and Measure

Kiowa and

Rita Blanca

Every 5 years

The ecological indicator of mid- and late-successional shortgrass prairie will be determined by 

spatial analysis of the areal extent of plant communities. Mid- and late-successional shortgrass

prairie will be monitored for range vegetation trends based on the area within the proclaimed

boundary of the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands.

Document planned or unplanned fire occurrences.

Document vegetation composition and structure for different successional stages, including mesic

or xeric areas.

Sand Sagebrush

Scale Monitoring Frequency and Measure

Kiowa and

Rita Blanca

Every 5 years

The ecological indicator of sand sagebrush will be determined by spatial analysis of the areal

extent of plant communities. Sand sagebrush will be monitored for range vegetation trends based

on the area within the proclaimed boundary of the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands.

Document planned or unplanned fire occurrences.
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 257

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Cottonwood-Willow Ecological Indicator (Presence of Undesirable trees)

The presence of undesirable woody species, such as saltcedar, will serve as the ecological indicator for the

cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation type in the Canadian River of the Mills Canyon Management Area.

Reduction in saltcedar indicates trend or movement toward desired condition and management success.

Scale Monitoring Frequency and Measure

Kiowa and

Rita Blanca

Monitor 3 to 5 years.

Document undesirable tree treatment.

Kiowa and Rita Blanca Management Area Vegetation Types

Represented by Management Indicator Species

Pinyon-Juniper and Juniper Grasslands

Sialia currucoides, Mountain Bluebird represents a species that utilizes all successional stages of pinyon-juniper

and will serve as the management indicator species for pinyon-juniper.

Scale Monitoring Frequency and Measure

Kiowa Annual

Mountain Bluebird represents a species that utilizes all successional stages of pinyon-juniper.

Breeding bird survey to monitor Sialia currucoides; Mountain Bluebird to serve as a management

indicator species.

Shortgrass Prairie Early Successional Stages on the KRB NGs

Scale Monitoring Frequency and Measure

Kiowa and

Rita Blanca

Annual

Early successional shortgrass prairie on the KRB NGs associated with black-tailed prairie dogs

will be monitored through the use of breeding bird surveys to track Athene cunicularia hypugaea

or Burrowing Owl as a management indicator species.

Summary Narrative

Monitoring Burrowing Owl, Mountain Bluebird, and Rio Grande Turkey populations as

management indicator species allows trend information to be used to evaluate management

direction on early successional stages of shortgrass prairie, all seral stages of pinyon-juniper, and

all seral stages in mixed hardwood riparian respectively. Monitoring the presence of undesirable

woody species in cottonwood-willow riparian, shinnery oak, and mixed-grass prairie vegetation,

and spatial analysis of the areal extent of plant communities on mid- and late-structural stages of

shortgrass prairie and sand sagebrush allows trends information to be used as ecological

indicators to evaluate management direction.

Procedures for Implementing Species

Viability Provisions and Documenting Viability

Species viability provision in the Grasslands plan revision is demonstrated through the processes

described in the following sections of the LRMP:

• Analysis of the management situation (AMS) provides an explanation of how species

considered for analysis in the planning process were determined, provides the ecological

context for viability analysis, and disclosed basic habitat relationships, species status,
Appendix F. Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations

258 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

threats to viability, relationship of species to ecosystem processes, and methods used to

group species.

• Objectives to maintain species viability were incorporated into the broader goals of

ecosystem diversity and ecological sustainability, and were based on identified

conservation approaches and other species information.

• Forest-wide guidelines were developed to provide specific language for ecological

conditions for species analyzed in the planning process.

• Plan alternatives were developed to address maintaining species viability.

• Other management direction was provided for species viability where plan components

could be complemented.

• The draft EIS “Affected Environment” section included the full list of species considered

and highlighted some of the same features as the analysis of the management situation,

discussed above.

• The draft EIS “Environmental Consequences” and “Cumulative Consequences” sections

contains the evaluations of species viability. Consequences specific to the Grasslands and

cumulative effects were both disclosed.

• The monitoring plan displays how species viability will be monitored and feedback

processes that will be used to improve management based on monitoring results.
FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 259

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Appendix G. Management Indicator Species

and Ecological Indicator Species

Process Criteria for Selection of Management

Indicator Species and Ecological Indicator Species

Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands

November 15, 2010

Approved by:

FOREST SUPERVISOR

Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicators

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations require that “Fish and wildlife habitat

shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative

vertebrate and invertebrate species in the planning area.”

The 1982 Planning Rule provisions to implement the NFMA requires that management indicator

species (MIS) be identified as part of the forest plan. MIS serve multiple functions in forest

planning: focusing management direction developed in the alternatives, providing a means to

analyze effects on biological diversity, and serving as a reliable feedback mechanism during

forest plan implementation. The latter is accomplished by monitoring population trends in

relationship to habitat changes (1982 Rule Provision Section 219.19(a)(6)).

Management indicator species is a concept adopted by the Agency to serve, in part, as a

barometer for species viability at the forest level. The role of MIS in meeting viability mandates

compliments that of several other approaches, particularly management of sensitive species.

Ecological indicators (EI) are defined in FSM 2620.5-2 as “Plant or animal species, communities

or special habitats that have a narrow range of ecological tolerance.” The Agency does not

consider EI as MIS. However, individual species of plants and animals could serve both as EI and

MIS.

Each forest plan alternative must establish objectives that maintain and improve habitat for MIS,

to the degree consistent with overall multiple-use objectives of the alternative (1982 Rule

Provision Section 219.19(a)). To meet this goal, planning for the fish and wildlife resources must

meet several requirements, including the following:

• To estimate the effects of planning alternatives on fish and wildlife populations, certain

vertebrate and/or invertebrate species shall be selected as MIS. These species are to be

selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of

management (1982 Rule Provision 219.19(a)(1)).
Appendix G. Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicator Species

260 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

• Planning alternatives must be evaluated in terms of both amount and quality of habitat

and of animal population trends of MIS (1982 Rule Provision 219.19(a)(2))

• Population trends of the MIS will be monitored and relationships to habitat changes

determined (1982 Rule Provision 219.19(a)(6))

NFMA regulations suggest that several categories be considered when selecting MIS. The

categories listed under 1982 Rule Provision 219.19(a)(1) are:

• Endangered and threatened plant and animal species identified on state and Federal lists

• Species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped

• Nongame species of special interest

• Species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned

management programs

Additional plant or animal species selected because their population changes are believed to

indicate the effects of management activities on other species of selected major biological

communities or on water quality.

Both the complete species list and the list of selected indicator species will be part of the

documented analysis of the management situation.

The initial species list was generated from work completed in the development of the “Ecological

Sustainability Report” (ESR) (see the Web address provided in appendix B of this FPEIS) during

earlier stages of Grasslands plan revision. Species were selected and screened from the following

sources:

• Threatened and endangered species lists maintained under the Ecological Services

Agency of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the planning area;

• Species ranks maintained by NatureServe;

• New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma State threatened and endangered lists;

• New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma priority comprehensive wildlife conservation

strategy (CWCS) species;

• Species for which there are local concerns resulting from declines in habitat, population,

and/or distribution;

• Species that are of high public interest;

• Species that have emerging issues (such as invasive species); and

• Forest sensitive species list.

Using this comprehensive list as a starting point, research was conducted to determine those

species that currently have:

• population and/or habitat within the plan area

• or may be affected by Forest Service management actions
Appendix G. Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicator Species

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 261

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

The list was modified through review, correspondence, and/or personal contact with teams

developed for each respective state, with the following specialists:

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation

• Melynda Hickman

• Scott Parry

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Ken Collins, Oklahoma

• Heather Whitlaw, Texas/New Mexico

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

• Bill Johnson

• Sean Kyle

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

• Mark L. Watson

• Leland J. S. Pierce

• James N. Stuart

• Hira A. Walker, PhD

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National Grassland, Cheyenne, Oklahoma

• Bryan Hajny

Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grassland, Clayton, New Mexico

• Rick Hanson

• Angela Safranek

Cibola National Forest (NF) Supervisor’s Office, Albuquerque, NM

• Beverly deGruyter

• Don Jorgensen

Teams were determined by district location and the state where they reside. The respective teams

reduced the list to species most commonly found in each vegetative type from which the choice

of MIS could be made. The lists included only those species which are most identifiable to the

specific vegetative type and which can most usually be found in the vegetative type regardless of

its geographic location on the Grasslands. Resident species were preferred over migratory

species. Indigenous species were preferred over introduced species.

The teams identified the constant biologic relationships between the species and characteristics of

the habitat features within the vegetative type. These relationships were identified by one or more
Appendix G. Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicator Species

262 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

factors including nesting requirements, breeding habitat, food, and cover requirements or other

biologic relationships.

From the resulting list, the teams considered the selection of which species best represented the

desired condition for the vegetative type that best meets all the above criteria.

If no species met the criteria for a vegetative type, no MIS was selected.

All vegetation types were also considered for ecological indictors where frequency, composition,

and structure monitoring could be used.

A procedure for monitoring changes in vegetative types was established based on a relationship

between the MIS and habitat features of each respective vegetative type or the EI. In design and

implementation of the monitoring system, it was not intended that every acre of each vegetative

type be improved or maintained to satisfy the requirements of the MIS or EI. Rather, it will be

designed to monitor changes in the vegetative types in relation to overall requirements of the EI

or MIS. Results of monitoring will be used as a guide to overall habitat conditions for other

associated species in each vegetative type.

MIS/EI Selection Discussion

The ESR evaluated the ecological systems of the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle and

McClellan Creek National Grasslands (herein collectively referred to as the “Grasslands”) and the

relationship to the surrounding area (ESR). The ESR provided the information needed to

determine topics or issues needing revision from the existing land and resource management plan

for the Cibola NF. It outlined and put into context the relationship between the resources managed

by the Grasslands and the broader ecological environment. The ESR has two main sections,

“Ecosystem Diversity” and “Species Diversity.” The “Ecosystem Diversity” section discusses

conditions and trends in the vegetation communities and physical resources based on the

reference condition vegetation structure of the vegetation types. Appendix F of the ESR

supplements the information found in the “Ecosystem Diversity” section of the ESR. Specifically,

it outlines the current and historical conditions for shortgrass prairie, pinyon-juniper, cottonwoodwillow riparian, sand sagebrush, mixed-grass prairie, shinnery oak, and mixed hardwood riparian

vegetation types.

The condition and trends in the Grasslands vegetation communities are evaluated on a 5- to 10-

year interval using field reconnaissance, visual obstruction readings, Parker 3 Step transects,

cover-frequency transects, production clippings, photo points, and composition inventories. Data

collected has been compared with historical data and with the terrestrial ecological unit

inventory.1

In order to determine the departure for a vegetation type, the mid-scale2 vegetation found within

each vegetation type was placed into one of three condition classes based on the information in

 1 Terrestrial ecosystem unit inventory consists of mapping and interpreting ecosystems through a systematic

examination, description, classification and integration of the soil, vegetation, and climate on national forest and

grasslands.

2 Mid-scale mapping is a remote sensing and modeling effort used to provide periodic snapshots of existing vegetation

for forest plan implementation and monitoring. Mid-scale is an object-oriented approach using image segmentation and

various classification methodologies to model vegetation dominance type, canopy cover class, and size.
Appendix G. Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicator Species

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 263

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

the reference condition model. A comparison was made of the current percentage to the historical

percentage for each class within the model. The lesser of the two percentages (current vs.

historical) was subtracted from 100 for each class. The resulting number determined the level of

departure from historical conditions as follows: 0–33 percent = Low departure; 34–66 percent =

Moderately departed; and 67–100 percent = Severely departed.

Figure 1 shows the departure from reference condition for vegetation structure for each

vegetation type found on the Grasslands.

Figure 1. Departure of current condition vegetation structure from reference condition

vegetation structure

In order to insure that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be provided to support,

at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed

so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area. Vegetation types on the

Grasslands are all in low departure from their respective reference condition for vegetation

structure, and habitat for the associated species is well distributed. The basis for determining the

use of an ecological indicator over selecting a management indicator species is derived from this

premise.

Team Evaluation and Discussion

The discussion comments concerning a species or vegetative composition and structure including

a discussion of known habitat associations is recorded in the following tables.
FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 264

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 1. Black Kettle and McClellan Creek species and vegetation habitat association

Scientific Name Common Name Comments

Mixed-grass Prairie

Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Bird Not selected

Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo Bird Not in mixed-grass

Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite Bird Consider to add as MIS

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird Not selected

Aimophila cassinii Cassin’s Sparrow Bird Probably not well represented

on mixed-grass but better on

sand sagebrush RB

Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow Bird Consider further

Mixed Hardwood Riparian

Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron Bird Not selected

Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed Woodpecker Bird Not selected

Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo Bird Not selected

Meleagris gallopavo

intermedia

Rio Grande Turkey Bird Retain because turkey utilizes

the habitat

Picoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker Bird Not a better choice over turkey

Tyrannus forficatus Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Bird Not a better choice over turkey

Vireo bellii Bell’s Vireo Bird Low population concern not

selected

Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove Bird Not selected

Shinnery Oak

Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow Bird Not selected for shinnery

Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite Bird Consider as MIS

Meleagris gallopavo

intermedia

Rio Grande Turkey Bird Not a better choice over

Northern Bobwhite quail

Tympanuchus pallidicinctus Lesser Prairie-chicken Bird Low population concern not

selected

Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove Bird Not selected

Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer Mammal Not selected

Holbrookia maculata Common lesser earless

lizard

Reptile Not selected monitoring issue

Aquatic Lakes, Rivers

Rana blairi Plains leopard frog Amphibian Management has no effect

Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish Fish Management has no effect
Appendix G. Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicator Species

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 265

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 1. Black Kettle and McClellan Creek species and vegetation habitat association

Scientific Name Common Name Comments

Micropterus salmoides

salmoides

Largemouth bass Fish Management has no effect

Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth minnow Fish Management has no effect

Notropis girardi Arkansas River shiner Fish Management has no effect

Sternula antillarum athalassos Interior Least Tern Bird Management has no effect

Table 2. Kiowa and Rita Blanca species, vegetation, and habitat

Scientific Name Common Name Comments

Aquatic Lakes, Ponds and Playas, Rivers, and Other Wetlands

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Bird Not selected

Plegadis chihi White-faced Ibis Bird Not breeding and not a winter

resident

Rana blairi Plains leopard frog Amphibian Drought has more influence

than management

Phalaropus tricolor Wilson’s Phalarope Bird Not breeding and not a winter

resident

Recurvirostra Americana American Avocet Bird Not selected

Orconectes deanae Conchas crayfish Crustacean Not selected

Succinea vaginacontorta Ambersnail Snail Not selected

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian

Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed Woodpecker Bird Not selected

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Bird Not selected

Poanes hobomok wetona Hobomok skipper Insect Not selected

Odocoileus virginianus texana Sandhill whitetail deer Mammal Not selected

Rana blairi Plains leopard frog Amphibian Not selected

Gastrophryne olivacea Great Plains narrowmouthed toadAmphibian Grassland pools of water

Thamnophis proximus diabolicus Arid land ribbon snake Reptiles Present but not an indicator of

C/W and management

Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo Bird Not detected on Grasslands

breeding bird surveys

Guiraca caerulea Blue Grosbeak Bird Consider definitely riparian

species, utilize shrub

component
Appendix G. Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicator Species

266 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 2. Kiowa and Rita Blanca species, vegetation, and habitat

Scientific Name Common Name Comments

Piranga rubra Summer Tanager Bird Consider less adaptable to

tamarisk and use the C/W

trees utilize regenerating C/W

Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting Bird Consider less adaptable to

tamarisk and use the C/W

trees utilize regenerating C/W

utilize the shrubby component

Sand Sagebrush

Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow Bird Possibly retain

Aimophilia cassinii Cassin’s Sparrow Bird Consider perch on shrubs and

nest or display, boom/bust

population. Need population

trends over long time.

Callipepla squamata Scaled Quail Bird Generalist, uses multiple

habitat types

Tympanuchus pallidicinctus Lesser Prairie-chicken Bird Population is very low as a

choice for MIS

Cynomys ludovicianus

ludovicianus

Black-tailed prairie dog Mammal Not an indicator of good sand

sagebrush habitat

Poladryas minuta minuta Dotted checkerspot Insect Not selected

Paraidemona fratercula A grasshopper Insect Not selected

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird Difficult to detect and

declining, loss of transitional

habitat going from pinyonjuniper to grassland to nest,

not selected

Shortgrass Prairie

Poladryas minuta minuta Dotted checkerspot Insect Not selected

Polites origenes rhena Rhena crossline skipper Insect Not selected

Ammodramus bairdii Baird’s Sparrow Bird Doesn’t breed on the KRB

NGs but may winter over

rarely.

Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow Bird Concurred to consider within

mixed-grass inclusion

Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle Bird Not selected

Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Bird Breed further north

Athene cunicularia hypugaea Burrowing Owl Bird Propose adding as MIS

present and good data

available, data specific to

Kiowa on BO
Appendix G. Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicator Species

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 267

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 2. Kiowa and Rita Blanca species, vegetation, and habitat

Scientific Name Common Name Comments

Buteo regalis Ferruginous Hawk Bird Concurred to consider

Grasslands indicator

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s Hawk Bird Generalists not necessarily

tied to shortgrass

Calamospiza melanocorys Lark Bunting Bird Would use more shrub

component, not selected

Callipepla squamata Scaled Quail Bird May need more shrub and

structure

Charadrius montanus Mountain Plover Bird Research and determine if we

have population data to

justify, look for early season

survey.

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Bird Near alkali lake and near

BTPD on RB not selected

more generalist compared to

Ferruginous Hawk

Numenius americanus Long-billed Curlew Bird Concurred to consider

Vulpes velox Swift fox Mammal Obligate to shortgrass,

monitoring issue for

occurrence, independent from

BTPD although can use the

same areas

Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer Mammal Not selected

Cynomys ludovicianus

ludovicianus

Black-tailed prairie dog Mammal Presence or absence of BTPD

has more variables than

Grasslands vegetation

management

Antilocapra Americana Pronghorn Mammal Not selected

Pinyon-Juniper

Buteo albonotatus Zone-tailed Hawk Bird Outside of its territory

Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s Wren Bird Generalist nester not specific

enough for pinyon-juniper

MIS dense shrubs in open

areas in pinyon-juniper

Myiarchus cinerascens

cinerascens (NM)

Ash-throated Flycatcher Bird Generalist for habitat cavity

nester consistently shows up

in survey, not selected

Baeolophus ridgwayi Juniper Titmouse Bird Not consistently present NM

CWCS more selective for old

growth cavities juniper only,

declining population

Vireo vicinior Gray Vireo Bird Discussion concluded not
Appendix G. Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicator Species

268 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 2. Kiowa and Rita Blanca species, vegetation, and habitat

Scientific Name Common Name Comments

documented on Kiowa

Sialia currucoides Mountain Bluebird Bird Cavity nester indicative of all

succession stages of pinyonjuniper consider for MIS

Table 3. Kiowa and Rita Blanca ecological indicator discussion

Species,

Landform or

Vegetation

Description Issues

Playa Lakes Desired condition soils are mostly stable, although

some wind erosion occurs. Vegetation, when

sufficient moisture is present, consists of mesicadapted species such as various annuals, milkweeds,

western wheatgrass, and inland saltgrass, with

incidental occurrence of upland shortgrass species.

Playa lakes are connected to overland waterflows

from the adjacent watershed during the periodic and

natural inundation of the bottoms to support their

inherent ecological qualities and hydrologic

functions, and to provide for wildlife habitat. When

playas hold water, there is an increase in the

shoreline vegetative diversity and density, and an

increase in the extent of mudflat habitat for

migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. Also during this

time, they support aquatic life harboring a variety of

vertebrate and invertebrate lifeforms.

The integrity of the clay seals of playas is maintained

and free from human influence. Playas altered

through the construction of dugout pits are restored

to their natural hydrologic function.

Probably does not fit ecological

indicator/unique or special habitat.

Vegetation in playas is dominated by

annual plants such as barnyard grass

and saltmarsh aster, also a lot of

overlap of plants subject to moisture

conditions.

Bottom of the watershed if silted

makes the hydroperiod cycles shorter.

Invertebrate population indicative of

hydroperiod cycles, not of

management.

Taller structure when playa is dry

would attract species that select that

condition. Grazing will impact

structure and reduce height.

Sand Sagebrush Desired conditions in sand sagebrush vegetation are

consistent with providing habitat for associated

species. Areal extent of the vegetation boundary and

composition and structure changes are indicative of

habitat loss.

Consider an ecological indicator. This

approach provides the areal extent of

the sand sagebrush vegetation through

satellite imagery along with frequency

and trend data monitoring to evaluate

the vegetation. Pre Dust Bowl era

plowing eliminated the sand sagebrush

plant community in some areas. These

areas have not recovered the structure

and composition of sand sagebrush and

some areas have been colonized by

black-tailed prairie dogs.
Appendix G. Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicator Species

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 269

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 3. Kiowa and Rita Blanca ecological indicator discussion

Species,

Landform or

Vegetation

Description Issues

CottonwoodWillow Riparian

Canadian River

Desired conditions in this riparian community lists

invasive trees such as saltcedar as undesirable.

Evaluating the vegetation through the success of bird

species that use any shrub or tree component does

not provide an indication of management success

toward desired conditions.

Consider presence of undesirable

woody vegetation such as saltcedar as

the ecological indicator of trends

toward desired vegetation structure and

species composition. This approach

gets to our alternative desires and helps

analyze our alternative without the

ambiguity of a MIS in this habitat.

This EI not complicated to monitor and

helps meet desired conditions in this

vegetation type.

Lesser PrairiechickenNarrow range of ecological tolerance. Indication of change tied to a habitat

type. Currently vegetation is managed

for structure and composition.

Population is very isolated and

inconsistent to gauge management.

Table 4. Black Kettle and McClellan Creek ecological indicator discussion

Landform or

vegetation Description Issues

Shinnery Oak

and Mixed-grass

Prairie

Trees in upland settings anywhere they are invasive

and alter composition and structure of the vegetation

are undesirable. Invasive tree species to include

some native in undesirable areas. Use undesirable

species to describe targeted species or individuals.

Consider the areal extent of

undesirable trees as the ecological

indicator of desired vegetation

structure and species composition.

This approach gets to our alternative

desires and helps analyze our

alternative without the expense or

commitment of using a MIS.

Monitoring is not expensive or

complicated and helps meet LPC

objectives.

Table 5. Summary of management indicator species team discussion

Species Common

Name

Habitat Issues and Conclusion

Sialia

currucoides

Mountain

Bluebird

Bird 1 PinyonJuniperSelected as Grassland plan MIS for pinyonjuniper woodland. The Mountain Bluebird is a

cavity nester that is indicative of all seral

stages of pinyon-juniper. It is easy to detect

and is present on existing breeding bird survey

(BBS) routes on the Kiowa NG.

Guiraca

caerulea

Blue

Grosbeak

Bird CottonwoodWillow

Riparian

Not selected. Occurs in streamside shrubby

habitat including tamarisk. It also occupies

shrubby habitats in the uplands. Achieving the
Appendix G. Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicator Species

270 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 5. Summary of management indicator species team discussion

Species Common

Name

Habitat Issues and Conclusion

desired condition for the cottonwood-willow

vegetation type requires removal of

undesirable woody species, such as tamarisk,

which is used by this species. Blue Grosbeak

would not represent desired vegetation

structure and species composition that calls for

undesirable woody species removal, including

tamarisk. This is a species which is nonselective of shrub species component.

Piranga rubra Summer

Tanager

Bird CottonwoodWillow

Riparian

Not selected. The Summer Tanager is less

adaptable to tamarisk and utilizes regenerating

cottonwood-willow habitat. A major issue in

the Canadian River/Mills Canyon area is a

lack of overland flooding which would allow

the regeneration of cottonwood and willow.

Until sustainable cottonwood and willow

stands are reestablished through restoration

plantings and flooding, habitat for Summer

Tanager is marginal. Thus, due to lack of

management influence on specific habitat for

this species, Summer Tanager would not serve

well as a MIS.

Passerina

cyanea

Indigo

Bunting

Bird CottonwoodWillow

Riparian

The Indigo Bunting is found in desert riparian

deciduous woodlands, marshes, and along

rivers or desert streams that provide sufficient

moisture for a narrow band of trees and shrubs

along the margins.

A major issue in the Canadian River/Mills

Canyon area is a lack of overland flooding

which would allow the regeneration of

cottonwood and willow. Until sustainable

cottonwood and willow stands are

reestablished through restoration plantings and

flooding, habitat for Indigo Bunting is

marginal. Thus, due to lack of management

influence on specific habitat for this species,

Indigo Bunting would not serve well as a MIS.

Athene

cunicularia

hypugaea

Burrowing

Owl

Bird 2 Shortgrass

Prairie

Selected as Grassland plan MIS for shortgrass

prairie. The Burrowing Owl represents the

presence, distribution, and size of BTPD

colonies. Good data is available for the KRB

NGs from New Mexico State University and

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

(NMDGF). It is easy to detect.

Numenius

americanus

Long-billed

Curlew

Bird Shortgrass

Prairie

Breeding grounds of the curlew are

determined by range condition, where it

normally nests in an area where vegetation is

green and plentiful. The diet is mainly

insectivorous and mostly consists of

grasshoppers.

There are three breeding bird surveys on the
Appendix G. Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicator Species

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 271

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 5. Summary of management indicator species team discussion

Species Common

Name

Habitat Issues and Conclusion

KRB NGs. Two of those routes occur in

habitat suitable for long-billed curlew

occupancy, and have detected LBC, those

transects being the Mills Canyon BBS where

the curlew was located once and the Sauz

Creek BBS where the curlew has been located

three times.

Because neotropical migrants such as the

Long-billed Curlew can be nomadic, and due

to the large number of factors that can affect

these birds on any given year, it may take

many years of survey to determine whether or

not a Grasslands-level trend can be detected

for this species. Therefore, this species was not

selected.

Ammodramus

savannarum

Grasshopper

Sparrow

Bird Shortgrass

Prairie,

Mixed-grass

Prairie

Limiting factors for Grasshopper Sparrow

appear to be vertical structure in the form of

yucca, native shrubs, or scattered trees, etc., to

provide key habitat components for singing

territorial males. This species tends to avoid

areas with greater than 35 percent shrub cover.

Intermediate grass height is preferred.

Not selected as MIS. Grasshopper Sparrow

winters in areas outside of the Grasslands

range of influence and is too general in its

habitat needs.

Meleagris

gallopavo

intermedia

Rio Grande

Turkey

Bird 3 Mixed

Hardwood

Riparian

The Rio Grande Turkey was retained as MIS.

In the 1985 forest plan, the turkey is MIS for

eastern riparian habitat. Rio Grande Turkey

habitat is well represented by abundant

roosting trees and areas available for foraging

and nesting in the understory of the mixed

hardwood riparian habitat type. It is easy to

detect.

Ammodramus

savannarum

Grasshopper

Sparrow

Bird Sand

Sagebrush

This species avoids the sand sagebrush habitat

type because it prefers areas with less shrub

cover and uses the taller grass component of

sand sagebrush.

Not selected as MIS. Desired sand sagebrush

vegetation structure would not be

representative of Grasshopper Sparrow habitat.

Aimophilia

cassinii

Cassin’s

Sparrow

Bird Sand

Sagebrush

Cassin’s Sparrow exhibits yearly fluctuations

in distribution and numbers at any particular

location, apparently in response to

precipitation. These fluctuations hamper a

clear assessment of population status.

Cassin’s Sparrow was not chosen as a MIS.

Colinus

virginianus

Northern

Bobwhite

Bird Shinnery

Oak, MixedNBW has generalist habitat needs that are notspecific to indicate management influence.
Appendix G. Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicator Species

272 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Table 5. Summary of management indicator species team discussion

Species Common

Name

Habitat Issues and Conclusion

grass Prairie This species is in decline nationally with no

known cause, therefore, this species was not

selected.

Table 6. Summary of team MIS and EI discussion

Ecological Indicators

Areal extent of

undesirable trees in

shinnery oak and

mixed-grass prairie

Propose as ecological indicator because this approach gets to preferred alternative desired

conditions and eases the process to analyze plan alternatives. This EI is easy to monitor and

helps meet LPC objectives.

Shortgrass prairie

spatial analysis of the

areal extent of plant

communities

Propose as ecological indicator because this approach gets to preferred alternative desired

conditions and eases the process to analyze plan alternatives. Mid- and late-successional

shortgrass prairie on the Kiowa and Rita Blanca NGs would use the range vegetation trends

as the ecological indicator.

Sand sagebrush

spatial analysis of the

areal extent of plant

communities

Propose as ecological indicator because this approach gets to preferred alternative desired

conditions and eases the process to analyze plan alternatives. All successional stages of sand

sagebrush on the Kiowa and Rita Blanca NGs would use the range vegetation trends as the

ecological indicator.

Cottonwood-willow

riparian

Propose that presence of undesirable woody species, such as saltcedar, will serve as the

ecological indicator for the cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation type in the Canadian

River of the Mills Canyon Management Area. Reduction in saltcedar indicates trend or

movement toward desired condition and management success.

Monitoring

The monitoring protocol is a plan component that includes a discussion of data collection, data

analysis, data storage, and reporting methods. This protocol covers frequency of measurement,

expected precision and reliability of the system, and an indication of when the evaluation will be

reported (1982 Rule Provision 219.12(k)). Table 7 summarizes the monitoring frequency and

measures.

Table 7. Monitoring frequency and measures

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek Management Area Vegetation Types

Represented by Ecological Indicators

Mixed-grass Prairie Ecological Indicator (areal extent of undesirable trees)

The mixed-grass prairie vegetation type is in low departure from reference condition for vegetation structure.

Monitoring the existence and encroachment of undesirable woody species, such as eastern redcedar and black locust,

will serve as the ecological indicator and will indicate management influence.

Scale Monitoring Frequency and Measure

Black Kettle and

McClellan

Annual

Document undesirable tree treatment and postfire mortality.
Appendix G. Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicator Species

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 273

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Creek Change in species composition within burned areas.

Document planned or unplanned fire occurrences.

Shinnery Oak and Deep Plowed Inclusion Ecological Indicator (areal extent of undesirable trees)

The shinnery oak vegetation type is in low departure from reference condition for vegetation structure. Monitoring the

existence and encroachment of undesirable woody species, such as eastern redcedar and black locust, will serve as the

ecological indicator and will indicate management influence.

Scale Monitoring Frequency and Measure

Black Kettle Annual

Document undesirable tree treatment and postfire mortality.

Change in species composition within burned areas.

Document planned or unplanned fire occurrences.

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek Management Area Vegetation Types

Represented by Management Indicator Species

Mixed Hardwood Riparian

Meleagris gallopavo intermedia, Rio Grande Turkey, represents a species that utilizes all successional stages of mixed

hardwood riparian and will serve as the management indicator species for this vegetation type.

Scale Monitoring Frequency and Measure

Black Kettle Annual

Use breeding bird survey to monitor Meleagris gallopavo intermedia; Rio Grande Turkey as a

management indicator species.

Kiowa and Rita Blanca Management Area Vegetation Types

Represented by Ecological Indicators

Shortgrass Prairie Mid- and Late-Successional Stages

Scale Monitoring Frequency and Measure

Kiowa and Rita

Blanca

Every 5 years

The ecological indicator of mid- and late-successional shortgrass prairie will be determined by

spatial analysis of the areal extent of plant communities. Mid- and late-successional shortgrass

prairie will be monitored for range vegetation trends based on the area within the proclaimed

boundary of the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands.

Document planned or unplanned fire occurrences.

Document vegetation composition and structure for different successional stages, including mesic

or xeric areas.

Sand Sagebrush

Scale Monitoring Frequency and Measure

Kiowa and Rita

Blanca

Every 5 years

The ecological indicator of sand sagebrush will be determined by spatial analysis of the areal

extent of plant communities. Sand sagebrush will be monitored for range vegetation trends based

on the area within the proclaimed boundary of the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands.

Document planned or unplanned fire occurrences.
Appendix G. Management Indicator Species and Ecological Indicator Species

274 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Cottonwood/Willow Ecological Indicator (Presence of Undesirable trees)

The presence of undesirable woody species, such as saltcedar, will serve as the ecological indicator for the

cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation type in the Canadian River of the Mills Canyon Management Area. Reduction

in saltcedar indicates trend or movement toward desired condition and management success.

Scale Monitoring Frequency and Measure

Kiowa and Rita

Blanca

Monitor 3-5 years.

Document undesirable tree treatment.

Kiowa and Rita Blanca Management Area Vegetation Types

Represented by Management Indicator Species

Pinyon-Juniper and Juniper Grasslands

Sialia currucoides, Mountain Bluebird represents a species that utilizes all successional stages of pinyon-juniper and

will serve as the management indicator species for pinyon-juniper.

Scale Monitoring Frequency and Measure

Kiowa Annual

Use breeding bird survey to monitor Sialia currucoides; Mountain Bluebird as a management

indicator species.

Shortgrass Prairie Early Successional Stages on Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grassland

Burrowing Owl represents the presence and expansion of black-tailed prairie dog colonies. Early successional

shortgrass prairie on the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands associated with black-tailed prairie dogs will use

management indicator species Athene cunicularia hypugaea or Burrowing Owl.

Scale Monitoring Frequency and Measure

Kiowa and Rita

Blanca

Annual

Early successional shortgrass prairie on the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands

associated with black-tailed prairie dogs will be monitored through the use of breeding bird

surveys to track Athene cunicularia hypugaea or Burrowing Owl as a management indicator

species.

Summary Narrative

Monitoring Burrowing Owl, Mountain Bluebird, and Rio Grande Turkey populations as

management indicator species allows trend information to be used to evaluate management

direction on early successional stages of shortgrass prairie, all seral stages of pinyon-juniper, and

all seral stages in mixed hardwood riparian respectively.

Monitoring the presence of undesirable woody species in cottonwood-willow riparian, shinnery

oak, and mixed-grass prairie vegetation, and range vegetation frequency and trends on mid- and

late-structural stages of shortgrass prairie, and all successional stages of sand sagebrush allows

trends information to be used as ecological indicators to evaluate management direction.
FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 275

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Appendix H. Grazing

Suitability/Recreation Suitability

Grazing Suitability

Grazing Suitability and Capability

The 1982 Planning Rule provisions require that the suitability and capability of National Forest

System (NFS) lands for producing forage for grazing and browsing animals be determined in

forest planning. Suitability is the appropriateness of producing certain goods or services from, or

applying certain resource management practices to, a particular area of land in consideration of

the relevant social, economic, and ecological factors. Suitability is determined based on

compatibility with desired conditions and objectives in the plan area, including wildlife habitat

needs. The identification of an area as suitable for various uses is guidance for project and

activity decisionmaking, and is not a commitment or a final decision approving projects and

activities. For example, the identification of lands suitable for livestock grazing within the revised

plan is not a decision to authorize livestock grazing: the final decision to authorize livestock

grazing would be made at the project (allotment) level.

The 1985 “Cibola National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (LRMP), as amended,

is the starting point for identifying suitability of land use on the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle,

and McClellan Creek National Grasslands (herein referred to as the “Grasslands”). The analysis

and subsequent identification of lands as suitable for livestock grazing is carried forward from

that plan as the existing suitability determination. No need for change was identified.

Capability of Cibola National Forest (NF) and National Grasslands (NGs) lands to produce forage

was determined in the 1980s as part of forest planning. Capability is the potential of an area of

land to produce resources and supply goods and services. It depends upon site conditions such as

climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology. Most of these landscape-scale conditions have not

changed significantly since then, therefore, capability determined in the 1985 LRMP are likely

still at the strategic planning level, but should be considered when making project level decisions.

Background

Within the summary of the analysis of the management situation, the 1985 LRMP (as amended)

determined that the goal of range management on the Cibola National Forest and National

Grasslands was to provide forage for domestic livestock use under cost-efficient management

systems without impairment of land productivity or other resource needs. Of the 317 Grassland

grazing units, 99 percent were in the moderately high condition class and most were stocked

within established carrying capacities; no major problems were identified. Grassland use totals

were 68,783 animal unit months (AUMs) with a capacity estimated at 82,829 AUMs. The

anticipated future trend was for improved range conditions except areas ecologically suited for

shinnery oak, which without control, would decline for domesticated livestock use, but remain

important as wildlife browse, mast, and cover.

Current Condition

Over 96 percent of the Grasslands are used by permit holders to graze their cattle. Livestock are

excluded from developed recreation areas, administrative sites, research sites, and exclosures

designed to protect various resource values. There is no indication that there will be a major

increase or decrease in grazing on the Grasslands over the next 20 years; however, cattle numbers
Appendix H. Grazing Suitability/Recreation Suitability

276 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

and management strategies are expected to fluctuate in response to drought, wildfire, prescribed

fire, and other factors that change range conditions.

Annual range monitoring has shown that annual fluctuations in weather patterns continue to be

the most frequent reasons for adjusting grazing management strategies through adaptive

management processes. Monitoring is done on an annual basis and reports can be found at

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/cibola/projects/index.shtml

Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands

Rangeland management environmental assessments (EAs) were completed for the Kiowa and

Rita Blanca (KRB) NGs in 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, and 2005 wherein the decision was made to

authorize livestock grazing, implement term grazing permits, and establish parameters for all

livestock management operations. Production and utilization of range forage are emphasized, and

range activities are compatible with wildlife habitat needs. In 2008, more than 90 percent of the

allotments on the KRB NGs were monitored for use and condition. Monitoring indicated low

forage production due to reduced summer precipitation combined with cumulative effects of

below normal rainfall in preceding years (“Cibola National Forest and Grasslands Monitoring and

Evaluation Report,” 2008). The majority of rangelands are in satisfactory range condition. There

is minimal noncapable rangeland in this management area; marshes, lakes, developed recreation,

and administrative sites were not included or considered in the capability analysis. Mills Canyon

is the only area on the KRB NGs that has extensive areas of noncapable rangelands, which is

found on slopes that exceed 40 percent. Exact acreage of noncapable rangelands has not been

computed (Kiowa and Rita Blanca Geographic Area Assessment v.1, 1999).

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National Grasslands

In 1998 an EA was completed to assist in the analysis and documentation of vegetation

management direction on the Black Kettle (BK) National Grassland (NG). The decision was

made to authorize livestock grazing using adaptive resource management. Management emphasis

is on production and utilization of range forage for domestic livestock. Range activities will be

compatible with wildlife needs. The area is in satisfactory or higher rangeland condition, i.e.

those lands that have sufficient vegetative cover to protect the soil resource and provide a

sustainable base for desired plant and animal communities and where current soil loss is less than

tolerance soil loss. Two units and a portion of a third were identified in the 1998 EA to be

managed as ungrazed research/monitoring sites; stocking rates were reduced on one unit. In 2008,

BK monitored 93 percent of their allotments, and all met or exceeded desired conditions (“Cibola

National Grasslands Monitoring and Evaluation Report,” 2008). There are about 938 acres of

noncapable rangelands located in marshes, lakes, oil and gas locations, developed recreation sites,

and fenced public road rights-of-way. According to the 1998 environmental assessment, 29,800

acres are considered suitable for livestock grazing on the BK NG. A review of the EA as directed

by Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, Chapter 10, Section 18, is currently underway.

Lake Marvin

Lake Marvin is not currently an active range allotment although grazing may be allowed as a

vegetation management tool in accordance with desired conditions. All capable lands are in

satisfactory range condition. Noncapable lands include about 40 acres of surface water (lake) and

about 50 acres of wetland.
Appendix H. Grazing Suitability/Recreation Suitability

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 277

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

McClellan Creek

Lake McClellan is not currently an active range allotment, although grazing may be allowed as a

vegetation management tool in accordance with desired conditions. All capable lands are in

satisfactory condition. Noncapable lands include about 380 acres of surface water (lake) and

bluff. Table 1 summarizes livestock grazing suitability.

Table 1. Livestock grazing - Black Kettle, McClellan Creek, Kiowa, and Rita Blanca National

Grasslands

Area Suitable Not Suitable

General Grasslands X

Slopes over 40 percent X

Developed recreation areas X

Administrative sites, research sites, exclosures designed to protect resource

values

X

Areas with “no grazing” decisions X

Areas with soil condition of unsuited or inherently unstable soil function X

Areas not currently within an allotment X

Vegetation, Wildlife, and Socioeconomic Uses

Areas deemed suitable for livestock grazing do not preclude the ability to manage those areas to

achieve desired conditions for vegetation and wildlife. Livestock grazing is permitted under term

permits that include allotment management plans and annual operating instructions that identify

adaptive management strategies including flexible stocking rates related to season of use.

Adaptive management addresses the ability of Grassland ecosystems to be resilient to variations

in precipitation, fire, catastrophic insect infestations, and other periodic natural disturbances.

Wildlife benefits from increased plant productivity and vigor as well as increased plant diversity.

Management of individual units allows vegetation to be manipulated to trend toward desired

vegetation structure and species composition.

The Grasslands have been identified as suitable for livestock grazing; however social and

economic impacts may result from changes in timing and frequency of grazing use due to

fluctuations in annual weather patterns.

Supporting References

“Cibola National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan,” (amended), USDA Forest

Service, Cibola National Forest, 1985

“Cibola National Forest and Grasslands, 2008 Monitoring and Evaluation Report,” USDA Forest

Service, Cibola National Forest, July 2009

“Environmental Assessment, Livestock Grazing and Associated Vegetation Management, Black

Kettle National Grassland, Roger Mills County, Oklahoma,” USDA Forest Service, Cibola

National Forest, Black Kettle Ranger District, August 1998
Appendix H. Grazing Suitability/Recreation Suitability

278 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

“Environmental Assessment for Consolidated Grazing Allotments in Dallam County, Texas,”

USDA Forest Service, Cibola National Forest, Rita Blanca National Grassland, March 2005

“Environmental Assessment for Selected Grazing Allotments in Dallam County, Texas,” USDA

Forest Service, Cibola National Forest, Rita Blanca National Grassland, November 2003

“Livestock Grazing in the Mills Area of the Kiowa National Grassland,” USDA Forest Service,

Cibola National Forest, Kiowa National Grassland, August 1998

“Livestock Grazing on the Kiowa National Grassland in Union County, New Mexico,” USDA

Forest Service, Cibola National Forest, Kiowa National Grassland, August 1999

“Livestock Grazing and Management on the Rita Blanca National Grassland in Cimarron County,

Oklahoma,” USDA, Forest Service, Cibola National Forest, Rita Blanca National Grassland,

September 2002

“Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands, Geographic Area Assessments, v.1, 1999,” USDA

Forest Service, Cibola National Forest

“Black Kettle and McClelland Creek National Grasslands, Geographic Area Assessments, v.1,

2000,” USDA, Cibola National Forest

Recreation Suitability

Background

The 1982 Planning Rule provisions require that the suitability of National Forest System lands for

recreation opportunities be determined in forest planning. Suitability is the appropriateness of

producing certain goods or services from or applying certain resource management practices to a

particular area of land in consideration of relevant social, economic, and ecological factors.

Suitability is determined based on compatibility with desired conditions and objectives in the plan

area. The identification of an area as suitable for various uses is guidance for project and activity

decisionmaking and is not a commitment or a final decision approving projects and activities.

Recreation Supply

For planning purposes, recreation supply is defined as the opportunity to participate in an outdoor

recreation activity in a preferred setting to realize desired and expected experiences.

Recreationists choose to participate in an activity within a setting to optimize a desired

experience. Three components of recreation supply are activities, settings, and facilities. The U.S.

Forest Service manages a supply of settings and facilities. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

(ROS) is a planning tool used to identify the supply of recreation settings on national forests in

support of diverse recreation activities. ROS includes seven possible setting classifications. Under

alternative A, only two were assigned on the KRB NGs and BKMC NGs. They are roaded natural

(RN) and semiprimitive motorized (SPM). Alternatives B and C include these classes, but add

two more: semiprimitive nonmotorized (SPNM) and rural (R). See the “Recreation Opportunity

Spectrum Maps” in appendix A of the draft Grasslands plan.

Roaded natural (RN) settings are natural appearing with moderate evidence of sights and sounds

of humans. Interaction between visitors may be low to moderate, but evidence of other users is

prevalent. Conventional motorized access is accommodated. RN areas are located within a half
Appendix H. Grazing Suitability/Recreation Suitability

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 279

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

mile of a road and usually provide higher levels of development such as campgrounds, picnic

areas, and access points for dispersed uses such as trailheads. Under current management, about

half of the Grasslands are classified as roaded natural.

Semiprimitive motorized (SPM) areas are natural or natural appearing. Interaction between

visitors is low, but there often is evidence of other users. Motorized use is permitted. Under

current management, about half of the Grasslands are classified as semiprimitive motorized.

Semiprimitive nonmotorized (SPNM) areas are predominated by a natural or natural appearing

environment. Interaction between visitors is low, but there may be evidence of other users. They

are managed to achieve a sense of remoteness, although SPNM areas can be as small as 2,500

acres in size and only a half-mile or greater from any open road. These areas are managed to

minimize the presence of onsite controls and restrictions. These settings accommodate dispersed,

nonmotorized recreation.

Rural (R) settings are substantially modified natural environments. Sights and sounds of other

humans are readily evident and interaction between users may be moderate to high. On the

Grasslands, this classification is not associated with typical recreation settings.

The ROS acreages proposed for each alternative by district follow. The acreages for alternative A

are current and represent those assigned in the 1985 plan. The acreages for alternatives B and C

were compiled recently as part of the planning process. Due to changes in land ownership,

mapping technology, and rounding the total acreage between alternative A and alternatives B and

C will vary slightly. We recalculated the ROS acreages on KRB (02/16/12) for alternatives B and

C to reflect the addition of RN acres in Mills Canyon to provide access to the “Rock Table”

dispersed site on Umil011 within the IRA exclusion. We also recalculated all other ROS acres for

alternative C. That recalculation resulted in reduced RN and SPM acres, and increased SPNM

acres where Road 600 crosses the river.

Table 2. Current and proposed distributions of ROS classes, Black Kettle and McClellan

Creek National Grasslands (acres)

Semiprimitive

Nonmotorized

Semiprimitive

Motorized

Roaded

Natural Rural

Alternative A (current) 0 3,583 29,529 0

Alternative B 0 28,695 4,064 36

Alternative C 0 28,695 4,064 36

Source: Cibola National Forest and Grasslands GIS inventory data

Table 3. Current and proposed distributions of ROS classes, Kiowa and Rita Blanca

National Grasslands (acres)

Semiprimitive

Nonmotorized

Semiprimitive

Motorized

Roaded

Natural Rural

Alternative A (current) 0 161,942 68,900 0

Alternative B 8,121 220,016 688 1,409

Alternative C 8,212 219,955 658 1,409

Source: Cibola National Forest and Grasslands GIS inventory data
Appendix H. Grazing Suitability/Recreation Suitability

280 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Current Condition

Developed Recreation

A developed site is characterized by a built environment containing a concentration of facilities

and services to provide recreation opportunities to the public. Recreation sites are developed 

within different outdoor settings to facilitate desired recreational use. Developed recreation sites

include facilities such as campgrounds, picnic areas, interpretive sites, visitor centers, and historic

sites. Developed recreation sites provide different levels of user comfort and convenience based

on the assigned ROS setting. The development scale for recreation sites range from one to five,

with the lower end of the scale representing the most primitive, natural settings where site

amenities are provided only if needed for the protection of resources. The upper end of the scale

represents the highest level of development and facilities for the comfort and enjoyment of the

visitor. Since the recreation areas are grouped by type in the tables below, the respective

development scales are not reported. 

The Forest Service defines the capacity of developed recreation sites in terms of “people-at-onetime” that a site can support, called PAOTs. Currently, there are 22 developed sites managed by 

the KRB NGs and BKMC NGs. The tables below illustrate the different types of developed

facilities provided across the Grasslands and their current capacity in PAOTs.

Table 4. Supply of developed recreation sites: Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands

Site Type Number of Sites Total Capacity (PAOT)

Campground 2 105

Picnic Site 2 70

Interpretive (historic) Site* 2 31

Source: INFRA- Recreation Sites Report. INFRA is a Forest Service database that contains all developed

recreation sites inventory.

*No capacity information exists for Mills Ranch Interpretive Site.

Table 5. Supply of developed recreation sites: Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National

Grasslands

Site Type Number of Sites Total Capacity (PAOT)

Campground (includes large group) 9 625

Picnic Site (includes large group) 5 385

Interpretive (natural) Site 1 30

Lookout/Cabin 1 5 

Source: INFRA- Recreation Sites Report. INFRA is a Forest Service database that contains all developed recreation

sites inventory.

Dispersed Recreation

Dispersed recreation is defined as those activities that occur outside of developed recreation sites

such as boating, hunting, fishing, hiking, and biking. Thirty-two recreation sites such as

trailheads, fishing sites, and designated camping sites support dispersed uses on the Grasslands. 
Appendix H. Grazing Suitability/Recreation Suitability

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 281

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

The table below provides a summary of the access points for dispersed recreation opportunities

on the BKMC NGs. KRB NGs do not have designated dispersed access points at this time.

Table 6. Supply of dispersed access points: Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National

Grasslands

Site Type Number of Sites Total Capacity (PAOT)

Boating Site 5 330

Trailhead 2 65

Fishing Site 2 85

Designated Dispersed Camping 23 460

Source: INFRA- Recreation Sites Report. INFRA is a Forest Service database that contains all developed

recreation sites inventory.

Suitability of Recreation Activities

The ROS makes broad assumptions about what recreation activities are compatible within a given

recreation setting. Based upon the ROS settings described above, the plan revision team

determined suitability within the four ROS classes assigned (or proposed) for the Grasslands.

Only dispersed uses would be suitable in areas classified as semiprimitive nonmotorized, all

recreation uses would be suitable in areas classified as semiprimitive motorized and roaded

natural. Areas on the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands inventoried as rural would be

unsuitable for recreation uses due to administrative, commercial, or industrial developments

nearby. The 36 acres of NFS land classified as rural surrounding the district ranger’s office on the

BKNG contains trails and interpretive exhibits associated with the Battle of the Washita. Those

acres would be suitable for dispersed recreation.

Table 7. General suitability of recreation activities by ROS class

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Classification

Recreation Activities SPNM SPM RN R

Developed X X

Dispersed X X X X

Motorized X X

Table 8. Kiowa National Grassland acres unsuitable for recreation development

Kiowa and Rita Blanca National

Grasslands

(GIS)

Acres

ROS

Class

Recreation

Suitability

U.S. Coast Guard Loran-Tac-C Station 694 Rural Unsuitable

Clayton Livestock Research Center 315 Rural Unsuitable

Bertrand Cemetery 62 Rural Unsuitable

Old FS Administrative Site 28 Rural Unsuitable

Proximity to Airport and Prison 162 Rural Unsuitable

Proximity to Church and Railroad 148 Rural Unsuitable

Total Acres 1,409
Appendix H. Grazing Suitability/Recreation Suitability

282 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Summary

Each alternative and its allocation of prescription areas provide the parameters for redefining the

current distribution of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, which has implications for

activities, recreation settings, and facilities development.

The 1985 plan, alternative A, provides the baseline for evaluating needs for change. Standards

and guidelines assigned roaded natural and semiprimitive motorized ROS across the Grasslands.

In some areas, these prescriptions are inconsistent with providing for public safety and resource

protection.

Alternatives B and C would add two more ROS classes to the Grasslands inventory:

semiprimitive nonmotorized and rural. The inclusion of these classes would increase the latitude

of recreation planners to more accurately characterize the recreation experience by eliminating

developed and motorized uses around the Santa Fe National Historic Trail and the proposed Mills

Canyon Management Area. The rural setting on the KRB NGs would identify commercial and

industrial developments that may be a public safety concern for recreation.

The KRB NGs contain 230,526 acres of NFS lands. Of those, 8,121 (alternative B) acres assigned

a ROS setting of semiprimitive nonmotorized would be unsuitable for developed and motorized

recreation for resource protection. Alternative C would assign 8, 212 acres of semiprimitive

nonmotorized.

On the KRB NGs, 1,409 acres of land have been assigned a ROS setting of rural and determined

to be unsuitable for recreation uses due to industrial and commercial developments.

The BKMC NGs contain 32,735 acres of NFS lands. Of those, 36 acres would be assigned a ROS

setting of rural. Those 36 acres would be unsuitable for developed and motorized recreation uses

due to proximity to a Forest Service administrative site.
FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 283

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Appendix I. Summary of Public Involvement

Introduction

This document is included to show the public involvement effort for development of the “Kiowa,

Rita Blanca, Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resources

Management Plan” (herein referred to as the “plan”).

Engaging Interested

Individuals and Organizations

Public Meetings

Twenty three public meetings were held during the period 2006 through 2011, in three states, as

depicted in the table below.

Date Event Location

09/11–19/2006 Public Meetings Pampa, Dalhart, and Canadian, TX

Cheyenne and Boise City, OK

Clayton and Roy, NM

11/08/2007 Harding County Commissioners Meeting Mosquero, NM

11/29/2007 Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area

Public Meeting

Roy, NM

03/10–12/2009 Focus Group Meetings Cheyenne, OK

Clayton, NM

04/15–18/2010 Scoping Workshops Cheyenne and Felt, OK

Roy and Clayton, NM

Dalhart, TX

04/17/2010 Harding County Commissioners Meeting Mosquero, NM

07/13–21/2010 MIS Selection Discussions with Agencies Lubbock, TX

Cheyenne, OK

Albuquerque, NM

11/14–16/2011 Availbility of Proposed Plan and Draft EIS Cheyenne, OK

Clayton, NM

Roy, NM

The first round of plan development public meetings was held in 2006. These were scoping

meetings to gather public perception on condition and trends on the Grasslands and needs for

change to the 1985 “Cibola National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (LRMP),

which provides direction for the Grasslands. Meetings were conducted at seven locations in the

vicinity of the Grasslands. Pre-meeting awareness of the events was accomplished through

mailings of a plan revision informational publication to over 740 individuals and organizations

who had expressed interest in participation; notification in newspapers of record; posters and

flyers at selected locations; Cibola NF Web site posting; and public service radio announcements.

Comments were recorded and taken under consideration in development of future sustainability

and evaluation reports. Comments were also taken via a comments response form available on the

Cibola NF Web site.

Two meetings occurred in November 2007. A meeting with the Harding County Commissioners,

Harding County, NM, occurred on November 8th at Mosquero, NM. The purpose of the meeting
Appendix I. Summary of Public Involvement

284 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

was to brief the commissioners on the draft “Kiowa National Grassland Wilderness Evaluation

Report—Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area.” Members from the New Mexico Wilderness

Alliance and New Mexico Wildlife Federation attended. A second meeting, held at Roy, NM, on

November 29, invited the public to offer input to the draft report. This meeting was promoted

publically using the same media and techniques as described for the 2006 meetings.

On March 10–12, 2009, two focus group meetings were held at Cheyenne, OK, and Clayton, NM,

the two ranger district offices for the Grasslands. Invitees were those individuals who had

identified themselves as being keenly interested in plan revision and willing to participate in this

type of intensive planning exercise. The purpose of the meetings was to receive input on desired

conditions for the ecological and socioeconomic goods and services provided by the Grasslands.

Participants had been given the opportunity beforehand to study the comprehensive evaluation

report and the draft desired conditions and were, thus, informed to contribute to the further

crafting of desired conditions. Notes were taken, evaluated for compliance with law, regulation,

and policy, and incorporated as appropriate into the draft plan.

During April 15–18, 2010, following the notice of intent to conduct an EIS study, five scoping

meetings were held in different locations in the vicinity of the Grasslands. This meeting was

promoted publically using the same media and techniques as described for the 2006 and 2007

meetings. Attendees had been given access, either by hard copy, CD, or Web site, of the working

draft Grasslands plan prior to the meetings. The purpose of the meetings was to ascertain if other

alternatives to achieving the desired conditions existed; if guidelines and standards were

sufficient; and how monitoring elements could be crafted to determine progress on objectives.

Scoping comments received were compiled, evaluated for compliance with law, regulation, and

policy, and were incorporated where relevant to the plan development process. Planning staff also

appeared before a planned monthly meeting of the Harding County Commissioners, Harding

County, NM, to update the commissioners and attending public on the working draft Grasslands

plan and to seek further input and comments.

During the period July 13–21, 2010, three open, interagency meetings with state and Federal

wildlife agencies were conducted by the Cibola wildlife planner and Cibola forest biologist. The

purpose of these meetings was to receive input from state and Federal biologists on the

identification and selection of management indicator species and ecological indicators for the

purpose of evaluating alternatives in the environmental impact statement and future monitoring of

important wildlife species. Input was recorded and selections of species were made based on

input received.

On November 14–16, 2011, we held three public meetings—one each in the towns of Cheyenne,

OK; and Clayton and Roy New Mexico—to stimulate interest and involve the public in the

recently released proposed LRMP and draft EIS. The comment period opened on September 30,

2011, and closed December 28, 2011. Comments received as a result of the public meetings

described above are available for review in the planning record file located at the Cibola NF

Supervisor’s Office in Albuquerque, NM.

Other Media Used in Public Involvement

Plan development updates were periodically mailed out to individuals and organizations listed

and maintained in the Cibola plan revision ACCESS database. Dates of these revision update
Appendix I. Summary of Public Involvement

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 285

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

mailings were as follows: April 2006, December 2006, April 2007, July 2007, October 2007,

February 2008, October 2008, and April 2009.

A “Public Participation Plan for the National Grasslands Plan Revision Process” was posted to the

Cibola NF Web site in January 2008. It was replaced with a “Citizens Guide to Participating in

the Plan Revision Process” in April 2009. Both documents were intended to serve as guidance for

individuals interested in participating in developing the draft Grasslands plan.

Other plan development documents throughout the process were made available on the Cibola NF

Web site, including the sustainability and evaluation reports, the potential wilderness evaluation

document, the working draft plan, an analysis of the management situation supplemental

document, and Federal Register notices. Posting of these and other documents to the Web site

began in 2006. A comment form available on the planning Web page has allowed visitors to

comment on any document or planning issue at any time.

Sustainability and Evaluation Reports

Under the 2008 Planning Rule, three reports were prepared and released to the public September

19, 2008: “The Grasslands Socioeconomic Sustainability Report,” “The Grasslands Ecological

Sustainability Report,” and “The Grasslands Comprehensive Evaluation Report.” These reports

were made available in hard copy, by CD, and on the Cibola NF Web site. A notice of initiation

published in the Federal Register announced the availability of these reports. Notification of

availability of these reports was made using the same media and techniques as described for the

2006, 2007, and 2010 public meetings. Comments received on the reports are available for review

in the planning record file located at the Cibola NF Supervisor’s Office in Albuquerque, NM.

Interruptions of the

Grasslands Planning Process

When plan development for the Grasslands started in 2006, the Cibola planning team followed

direction under the 2005 Planning Rule, which had been finalized by USDA FS and published in

the Federal Register on December 22, 2004. On March 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of California issued an injunction that ordered the Forest Service to discontinue

use of the 2005 Planning Rule. The Cibola NF and NGs complied with the court order, and

further planning activities undertaken were in compliance with laws and rulings not affected by

the injunction. Much of the information and public comments gathered prior to the injunction was

still useful. Work continued on an integrated need for change report, until finalization of the 2008

Planning Rule on April 21, 2008. At that time, plan development began following guidance from

the 2008 Rule.

On June 30, 2009, the 2008 Planning Rule was enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of California, and development of the Grasslands plan was again temporarily

suspended. The U.S. Department of Agriculture subsequently determined on December 18, 2009,

that plans could be amended, revised, or developed using the 2000 Planning Rule as amended,

which followed the 1982 Rule Provisions. The Grasslands planning effort moved forward using

the 1982 Rule Provisions. A “Supplement to the Comprehensive Evaluation Report” that was

published in 2008 under the 2008 Planning Rule was published in January 2010 to meet analysis

of the management situation requirements of the 1982 Rule Provisions.
Appendix I. Summary of Public Involvement

286 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Tribal Government Consultation

Seven federally recognized tribes have ties to the Grasslands. They are the Mescalero Apache

Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma,

Comanche Nation, Kiowa Tribe, and Wichita and Affiliated Tribes.

The Cibola NF first notified the above tribes of Grasslands plan development in the annual letters

and list of projects sent out February 27, 2006, and initiated face-to-face meetings later that year.

We have continued that process annually, with the status of plan development updated every year.

Tribal members have also occasionally participated in public meetings.

Local, State, and Federal Government

Agency Coordination and Assistance

The following governments and agencies participated or assisted in development of the draft plan

since the initiation of plan development. No Federal agency requested cooperating agency status

during the EIS development.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tulsa, Austin, and Albuquerque Field Offices

• U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Tulsa and Santa Fe State Offices

• U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

• Playa Lakes Joint Venture

• Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife

• Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation

• New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

• Harding County, Union, Mora, Colfax Counties, NM

• Dallam, Hemphill, and Gray Counties, TX

• Cimarron and Roger Mills Counties, OK

• Canadian River Riparian River Restoration Project – Participating Soil and Water

Conservation Districts

Official Public Notification

Federal Register and Newspaper of Record Notifications

Required Notices Federal Register Publication Date

Notice of initiation of plan development September 19, 2008

Notice of intent to prepare an EIS in conjunction with

development of a new land and resource management

plan.

January 15, 2010

Newspapers of Record for the Grasslands

• Union County Leader, Clayton, NM

• Boise City News, Boise City, OK

• The Dalhart Texan, Dalhart, TX
Appendix I. Summary of Public Involvement

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 287

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

• Cheyenne Star, Cheyenne, OK

• The Canadian Record, Canadian, TX

• The Pampa News, Pampa, TX

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 289

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

This appendix presents a technical discussion of the analyses processes and models used during

the plan development effort for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands (herein collectively referred to as the “Grasslands”). This appendix focuses

on the quantitative methods used to perform the analyses and documents how the analyses were

done and supplements the broader and less technical descriptions included in the body of the

programmatic final environmental impact statement (FPEIS). The discussion includes basic

assumptions, modeling components and inputs, methods, and constraints. Additional information

and documents used in the analyses processes are contained in the specialist reports for the

respective resource topic areas, and are incorporated here by reference.

Assumptions Common to All Analyses

• The land management plan provides a programmatic framework for future site-specific

actions.

• Land management plans do not have direct effects. They do not authorize or mandate any

site-specific projects or activities (including ground-disturbing actions).

• Land management plans may have implications or environmental consequences of

managing the Grasslands under a programmatic framework.

• The plan decisions (desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, management

areas, monitoring) will be followed when planning or implementing site-specific projects

and activities.

• Law, policy, and regulations will be followed when planning or implementing sitespecific projects or activities.

• Monitoring will occur and the land management plan will be amended as needed.

• We will be funded similar to past budget levels (past 5 years).

• The planning timeframe is 15 years; other timeframes may be analyzed depending on the

resource (usually a discussion of anticipated trends into the future).

Analysis and Evaluation Matrix

During the analyses processes for the draft EIS (DEIS), specialists used an evaluation matrix to

determine what was important to analyze in terms of differences between alternatives as related to

the consequences to a particular resource. All matrices filled out by specialists in particular

resources areas were available to all other specialists, who could then cross-reference for

interrelated/interdisciplinary effects identified by specialists in other disciplines. The template for

this matrix can be found at the end of this appendix.

Demographic and Economic Analyses

Social Impact Analysis

Defining the relationship between management of the Grasslands and the economic and social

environments is twofold. First, individuals with different demographic and social backgrounds

are likely to be affected differently by management decisions. Second, social and economic wellbeing may affect their preference for recreational opportunities. An important component of this

analysis is to inform decision makers and the public of the social and economic conditions in the

study area. Those conditions may affect the frequency and type of activities residents participate
Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

290 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

in, which in turn affect individual livelihoods. Recreational, subsistence, and cultural activities

taking place on the Grasslands play an important role in defining the social and economic

dynamic of the study area. Visitors generate important economic stimulus for many businesses,

which impact employment and income levels.

Social impact analysis identifies population and demographic trends in the study area. Current

population levels influence the use of natural resources; and forecasts of future population levels

can indicate whether there may be the potential for increased pressures on Grassland resources.

Age distributions provide insight into the proportion of individuals in the working age cohorts

versus retirees and minors who typically have different use patterns and use services in different

ways. Similarly, the racial composition of the population may affect cultural and heritage uses.

Employment and income statistics describe the economic conditions of the study area, as well as

aid in the identification of important sectors of the economy. Additionally household income

could affect participation levels in outdoor recreation; the greater the income of local residents,

the greater is their ability to participate in various recreational activities.

Population is an important consideration in managing forest and grassland resources. In

particular, population structure (size, composition, density, etc.) and population dynamics (how

the structure changes over time) are essential to describing the effects and consequences of forest

management and planning on a social environment. Population increases may lead to conflicts

over land use, travel management, recreation activities, and values. These are conflicts that Forest

Service managers may have to contend with and attempt to balance when making management

decisions.

Economic Impact Analysis

Analyses for economic impacts of plan alternatives—specifically for recreation, energy

development, special uses, and livestock capability—were completed for the land and resource

management plan (LRMP) revision. Computer generated models were used to analyze the

economic impacts of major land management activities of the USFS upon the local communities

and analyze the effects of alternatives upon the business areas named above.

Principles of economic impact analysis are relied upon to estimate the effects of the Grasslands

revised plan on the economic environment of the study area. “Economic impact analyses seek to

determine short-term effects that Forest Service programs have on economic conditions in

defined impact areas in which the planning area occurs” (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1900).

Economic impact analyses investigate the effects of the alternative development scenarios on

employment and income. The relative size of the local communities plays an important role in the

assessment of job and income impacts to the economy. Broader, more diverse, economies should

be more resilient to changes in jobs and income than smaller, more rural, communities. For

example, a loss of 10 jobs in a large metropolitan area should have very little impact on the

overall health of the economy. However, the same loss in jobs in a small, rural community may

severely affect local economic conditions. Thus, when assessing the magnitude of impacts to

employment and income across alternatives, it is important to keep in mind the relative

importance of those economic factors to the specified study area.

To estimate the economic impacts to the Grasslands study area economy, one model covering

eight counties was developed. The counties included Mora, Harding, and Union Counties, New

Mexico; Dallam, Hemphill, and Gray Counties, Texas; and Cimarron and Roger Mills Counties,
Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 291

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Oklahoma. Colfax County, NM, was not included because of the extremely small Federal

ownership in that county, in conjunction with the large economic impact that county has in

comparison to others in the Grasslands vicinity. The Grasslands study area matches both state and

local recognition of a functional social and economic planning area. Labor flows between towns

and counties are generally contained within these eight counties.

Models of the local economy were built using IMPLAN1 Professional 3.0 software and 2008

data. For the purposes of this report, the local economy is defined the same as the study area.

Changes in activity on the Grasslands may have several different consequences for the condition

of the economic environment. Ultimately, a change in the activities would change the local

economic stimulus. A change in economic stimulus to a region (e.g., increased recreational visits)

would likely change the total level of jobs and income. Economic impact analyses are reserved

for situations where a change is being made to the existing condition as is the case of the action

alternatives. In the case of the no action alternative there would be no change to the existing

Forest/Grasslands plan. Existing data for activities taking place under the current plan is used to

estimate what the current economic contribution is to the local economy. Such a contribution

analysis allows for the conditions under alternative A to be analyzed in detail and provides a

better basis for comparison when analyzing the effects from the action alternatives.

To conduct both the economic impact and contribution analyses, IMPLAN models are imported

into the Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool (FEAST).

2 IMPLAN and FEAST software

account for the production cycles and inter-industry purchasing habits of local firms and can,

thus, parcel out the levels of employment and income supported by activities on the Grasslands.

This allows for an assessment of the overall importance of these lands to the local economy in

terms of jobs and income supported.

Financial Efficiency Analysis

Economic efficiency analysis was conducted using QuickSilver Version 6. Data on program

revenues were collected from the Final National Forest Statement of Receipts (ASR-13-1). Data

on program costs were provided by the Cibola NF budget staff (1982 Rule, 219.12(e)).

QuickSilver is a Forest Service program for economic analysis of long-term, on-the-ground

resource management projects. It provides a consistent benefit/cost, efficiency analysis

framework to determine if one management action costs less or has a better payoff than others

(present net value).

Calculating present net value (PNV) is required as part of the planning process. However, the data

required for a detailed financial efficiency analysis is unavailable. In order for the Grasslands to

meet adaptive management objectives, the new plan will not prescribe specific management

activities. This allows the flexibility to manage resources under ever-changing environmental

 1 Data reported by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG) is used to assess the relative size of sectors in a local 

economy. MIG reports annual data for all counties in the United States. IMPLAN employment data is reported by 

economic sectors grouped together according to similarities in the goods and services offered. IMPLAN data used for 

this analysis is for the year 2008. IMPLAN stands for “Impact Analysis for Planning.”

2 FEAST is a Microsoft Excel-based workbook designed to describe impacts to employment and income by resource

program and major industry. To conduct the economic impact and economic efficiency analyses, IMPLAN models are

imported into FEAST. This provides an assessment of the overall importance of these lands to the local economy in

terms of jobs and income supported.
Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

292 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

conditions. A more detailed financial efficiency and economic impact analysis should be

conducted during the NEPA stage for proposals of future management activities.

The current resource programs managed by the Grasslands generate revenue from sale of

products, permits for various activities, and leases for minerals. The programs generating revenue

are recreation, range, minerals, and nonrecreation special uses. Grasslands personnel provided

current data on revenue streams. Under the no action alternative it is assumed there would be no

impact to these revenue streams, and they would continue throughout the next planning cycle.

Since these plans are expected to be updated every 10 to 15 years, a 15-year planning cycle is

used for the financial efficiency analysis.

The recreation, range, minerals, and nonrecreation special uses programs are funded under the

general budget and externally funded activities such as volunteer and service agreements and inkind sharing. There is much uncertainty about future budgets and no reliable data on future

program costs. A 3-year average for each resource program’s budget was used as an estimate of

annual costs. Also, a variety of ecosystems services projects are part of the management strategy

for Grasslands resources. There is limited data regarding the costs for these types of projects,

which include prescribed burning, thinning, and weeds treatments. The financial efficiency

analysis is limited to only the revenues received from management activities and the costs of

annually funded ecosystems services projects. The costs included in this analysis are just a

portion of the total operating budget. This greatly limits the informational capacity of this

analysis; however, it provides some basis of comparison for future revenue streams back to the

Grasslands. PNV is defined as the discounted sum of benefits minus the discounted sum of costs;

however, since not all costs are actually accounted for, this analysis should primarily be used to

evaluate benefits. A federally prescribed discount rate of 4 percent is used in this analysis (FSM

1900). Inflation is also a variable that can affect the PNVs associated with each alternative.

However, due to the uncertainty of future inflation, OMB Circular A-94 recommends the

avoidance of making assumptions about the inflation rate whenever possible. Thus, for the

purposes of this project, inflation was left at zero.

The PNV if Grasslands management were to continue under alternative A is $152,409,164. In this

analysis, costs are limited to only those for specific program areas and ecosystem services

projects occurring on the Grasslands. Therefore, this value provides a better relative measure of

the discounted net revenue the Grasslands are expected to generate during the next planning cycle

in 2010 dollars. As mentioned above, these programs are funded with a combination of the

general budget and external funding. Currently there is no information available regarding the

level and distribution of these funds in future years.

The PNV for alternative B was calculated using the same methods as described under alternative

A. There is no data for future revenues generated by resource program. However, this alternative

does not prescribe any activities that would cause a change to those revenue streams. Any change

in program revenues would occur as a result of supply and demand conditions, and tastes and

preferences of stakeholders in the study area. This would occur regardless of the chosen

alternative. Therefore, the same revenue streams used for alternative A are assumed to carry

though under B and C. Alternative B places a greater emphasis on vegetation management, which

will increase restoration costs. This is reflected in a slightly lower PNV than alternative A. The

PNV for this alternative is $151,130,674. Although this PNV is lower than A, it does not account

for nonfinancial benefits associated with the improved vegetative conditions.
Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 293

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternative C is not expected to result in a change in revenues back to the Grasslands. Therefore,

the same program revenues used for alternatives A and B are also used for this alternative.

Likewise, the expected costs of implementing this alternative are assumed to be the same as

alternative B. Therefore, the PNV for alternative C is the same as alternative B, $151,130,674.

This financial efficiency analysis is limited due to the lack of data availability and site specific

prescriptions in the alternatives. In the case of programmatic NEPA documents similar to this one,

PNV does not provide a reliable indicator to base management decisions upon. The PNVs

reported in this document are a measure of discounted revenues with limited information on

costs.

Incomplete and Insufficient Information

For some resource areas it is difficult to predict how activity levels would change under the action

alternatives, and there is no data available to estimate the resulting effects. One such case is

recreation. Insufficient information exists to accurately estimate changes in recreation use that

would occur under implementation of the action alternatives analyzed in this report. Although

certain trends in visitor use may be predicted from the guidelines set forth under each alternative,

there is no methods and/or data available to estimate actual changes in visitation. Similar

circumstances occur with grazing. Although allowable grazing can be addressed in the plan,

uncontrollable factors may influence the actual grazing that may take place during future years.

Existing data used for the analysis of the no action alternative may not represent healthy grazing

activity under other ecosystem conditions. For example, rain plays an important role in permitted

grazing from year to year. In drought years there is less grass that may be consumed by livestock,

and consequently stocking levels may be decreased. Such uncertainty is difficult to control for at

the planning stage. The effects analysis for action alternatives is limited by the lack of data for

these types of circumstances. Therefore, sensitivity analysis and qualitative analysis of potential

economic effects are relied upon when analyzing action alternatives. Sensitivity analysis involves

reporting the effects for a range of potential outcomes. High and low end values are reported, and

the true effects are assumed to fall within that range.

Livestock Use

Livestock grazing is the most predominant use of the Grasslands. The spatial analysis for lands

available for livestock use was based on the area within the proclaimed boundary of the Black

Kettle (BK), McClellan Creek (MC), and Kiowa and Rita Blanca (KRB) National Grasslands

(NGs) and from records of active and vacant grazing allotments. The timeframe used is the past

decade (2000 to 2009) through the planning period. Existing conditions and environmental

consequences were evaluated using field reconnaissance, visual obstruction readings, Parker 3

Step transects, cover-frequency transects, production clippings, photo points, and composition

inventories. Data collected has been compared with historical data and with the TEU inventory.

Suitability and capability of National Forest System (NFS) land were determined in the 1985

Cibola NF LRMP. Suitability is determined based on compatibility with desired conditions and

objectives for the vegetation types within the plan area, including wildlife habitat needs.

Suitability and capability of the Grasslands to accommodate livestock use have not displayed an

appreciable change since 1985. Benchmarks (minimum and maximum sideboards used in

assessing grazing capacity for the Grasslands) that were established during the 1985 plan

development were found to be still valid and appropriate for use in evaluation of the plan

alternatives in 2011.
Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

294 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

The plan components (i.e., objectives, guidelines, standards, suitability, and monitoring elements)

and management approaches of each alternative were evaluated against the affected environment

for livestock use by interdisciplinary team members to determine if livestock use was affected

positively, negatively, or not at all.

An assumption important to the analysis on livestock use comes from the Forest Service’s 2008

“Comprehensive Evaluation Report.” That report concludes that there is no indication that there

will be a major increase or decrease in grazing on the Grasslands over the next 20 years; however,

cattle numbers and management strategies are expected to continue to fluctuate in response to

drought, wildfire, prescribed fire, and other factors that change range conditions, such as

expansion or decline of prairie dog colonies.

Invasive Species

A noxious/invasive species inventory was conducted on the Grasslands as part of a forestwide

inventory in 2006. The BK NG was found to have 6,000 acres with scattered populations of

various noxious/invasive species. The KRB NG had 1,597 acres with scattered infestations of

species classified as noxious/invasive. The BK NG has been treating about 700 acres a year since

April 2008. Primary species that have been treated are scotch thistle and eastern redcedar.

Treatments began on the KRB in 2009. Primary species to be treated are saltcedar, Canada thistle,

and Scotch thistle. Treatment will follow an integrated pest management approach that will utilize

treatment methods such as prescribed burning, mechanical, manual, cultural, and herbicides.

Special Forest Products

The plan components (i.e., objectives, suitability, guidelines, standards, and monitoring elements)

and management approaches of other resource areas were evaluated against producing the goods

and services of special forest products to determine if the special forest products resource was

affected positively, negatively, or not at all.

Conversations were had at various times between the timber management officer, the BK district

staff, and Supervisor’s Office personnel discussing the existing condition where black locust and

eastern redcedar are encroaching on the Grassland areas. The TMO and East Zone silviculturist

have made several site visits to Mills Canyon over the past 2.5 years to assess the existing

condition, especially in pinyon-juniper areas located on the rim of the canyon.

Recreation

An interdisciplinary approach was used to evaluate possible environmental consequences and

outcomes of plan alternatives on developed, dispersed, and motorized recreation. We developed

individual matrices that prompted review of the plan components for each resource area by

alternative. This examination revealed whether implementation of any given alternative might

have important positive or negative consequences and outcome to the recreation resource.

Data from the National Visitor Use Monitoring Project (NVUM) for the Cibola NF and National

Grasslands was used to estimate recreational use on the forest. Most activities are engaged in for

far less than 12 hours at a time, so one recreation visitor day (RVD) often includes many

occasions of an activity. This differs from the NVUM measure of recreation visits, which has no

time element. A recreation visit can range from a few minutes to several days.
Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 295

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

To estimate the economic impact of recreation, it was necessary to first separate local resident

visits from other state residents and nonresident (out-of-state) visits. For purposes of this analysis,

state residents from outside the 9-county area and out-of-state residents were considered as

nonlocals. This distinction was necessary since economic impacts are based on new dollars

flowing into the economy. Resident recreation expenditures, on the other hand, represent a part of

the current distribution of existing dollars already in the regional economy

Each national forest is classified as a high, average, or low spending area by comparing local

spending with national averages. Spending profiles from NVUM were based on “trip segments”

rather than activities.

Nature-Based Tourism and Special Areas

An interdisciplinary approach was used to evaluate possible environmental consequences and

outcomes of plan alternatives on special areas and natural tourism. We developed individual

matrices that prompted review of the plan components for each resource area by alternative. This

examination revealed whether implementation of any given alternative might have important

positive or negative consequences and outcome on the resource under consideration.

As part of the planning process, two of the special areas evaluated have been the subject of

repeated studies by the Forest Service: the Canadian River and research natural areas. A summary

of those studies follows.

Canadian River, Eligible Scenic River

The Canadian River, eligible scenic river, and potential research natural area have been the

subject of both qualitative and quantitative analysis by the Forest Service as required by the Wild

and Scenic Rivers Act, Section 5(d), 1968 and the 1982 Planning Rule Provisions Section 219.25,

respectively.

Wild and scenic rivers are segments of watercourses that contain a mixture of natural, cultural,

scenic, and recreational values that are outstanding for their particular geographic area. The

Canadian River was inventoried in 1982 in a nationwide rivers inventory by the National Park

Service. From 1998 to 2002, the Cibola plan revision team completed the classification and

eligibility process for potential rivers as defined by FSH 1909.12, Chapter 80. Two candidate

streams were evaluated on the KRB NGs. Of those, only the Canadian River met two or more of

the eligibility criteria. The analysis determined that the river is free flowing and has the following

outstanding and remarkable values: scenery, recreation, geology, and history. The final

classification was “scenic,” but eliminated as “wild” due to road access. No suitability evaluation

was done for the river segment, and it has not been recommended for designation. (A suitability

study provides the basis for determining which rivers to recommend to Congress as additions to

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. There are two potential outcomes of a suitability

evaluation: either the river segment is recommended for congressional designation or not. If not,

its status as an eligible river is removed and no longer falls under wild and scenic river

protections. However, the segment may be administratively designated as a special area to ensure

preservation of the outstandingly remarkable values such as scenery, recreation, history, and

geology. If the segment were recommended for congressional designation, the protections

currently in place would remain in effect.) As of this writing, this segment of the Canadian River
Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

296 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

remains eligible for future designation, and protections conveyed by amendment 10 of the 1985

land management plan remain in effect.

A recent (10/2010) GIS recalculation of length resulted in a total of approximately 20 miles.

Seventeen miles of eligible scenic river are on Forest Service lands and 3 miles are located on

other jurisdiction lands.

In 1997 and 1998, forest personnel visited and evaluated six candidate streams on the BK and

MC (BKMC) NGs. None of those candidate streams met two or more of the wild and scenic

eligibility criteria and were eliminated from further consideration.

Research Natural Areas

The 1985 plan provides direction to study for possible designation of a 300-acre research natural

area (RNA) on each of three national grasslands: Black Kettle, Kiowa, and Rita Blanca. The

Southwestern Region’s 1984 RNA progress report indicated that shortgrass prairie representation

in the national RNA system was needed because of the importance and geographic distribution of

the ecosystem. Under a cost-share program agreement in 1987, The Nature Conservancy

evaluated the KRB NGs for potential shortgrass prairie sites as called for in the plan. Preliminary

screening and two multiday field trips were undertaken to gain understanding of range conditions

and identify the most promising sites. A final report was prepared by The Nature Conservancy

(TNC) that describes field methods and findings of the research.

The TNC report identified and described four primary sites with RNA potential for the KRB NGs.

The Southwestern Region RNA taskforce visited those sites again in 1988 to evaluate the areas

for possible designation. In July 1988, the taskforce formally recommended that the region

proceed with designation for Unit 46 and portions of Unit 3 on the Kiowa NG. Unit 46 was

considered to be an excellent example of blue grama-buffalo grass ecosystem, and Unit 3

presented an excellent example of sand sagebrush-blue grama ecosystem. Of principle interest

was a large area of sandhills prairie in good condition.

In 1991, an establishment record was prepared by The Nature Conservancy for Unit 46; Kiowa

Shortgrass Research Natural Area, but was not recommended by the forest supervisor or regional

forester due to conflicts between restrictive RNA management guidelines and the long-term fire

effects research being conducted by Rocky Mountain Research Station at the site. FSM 4000,

Chapter 4063, “Research Natural Areas” states that research natural areas are primarily for

nonmanipulative research, observation, and study. However, the Federal Committee on

Ecological Reserves has said that deliberate manipulation may be utilized to maintain the unique

feature that the RNA was established to protect. As a result, there is ongoing discussion

(disagreement) whether the prescriptive fire use in the research study is considered manipulative

research and, thus, invalidates establishment of the shortgrass RNA in the future. Other scientific

disagreement is centered upon cattle grazing within the area. Some researchers believe livestock

grazing mimics historical use by large ungulate populations (bison), and others consider livestock

grazing to be human manipulation of the ecosystem that invalidates establishment of a shortgrass

RNA in Unit 46.

As part of the current planning process, in 2009, RNA needs were ranked according to the

distribution of currently protected lands across potential natural vegetation type (PNVT) classes,

ecoregions and sections, and terrestrial ecosystem unit inventory (TEUI) climate gradients. This
Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 297

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

evaluation was conducted by the respective district rangers, district resource specialists, and

forest planners using the regional “Research Natural Area Process for Forest Plan Revision”

under the 1982 Planning Rule Provisions and Southwestern Region terrestrial ecosystem unit

inventory data. Shortgrass prairie was reevaluated and failed to meet eligibility criteria due to

ongoing research, human disturbances, and modifications such as fences, plowing, water

developments, roads, and utility corridors. Shinnery oak and mixed-grass prairie on the BKMC

NGs were evaluated but failed to meet eligibility criteria because the areas were small and

fragmented, or exhibited various degrees of human disturbance from plowing, grazing, invasive

species, and herbicide use. The evaluation table (RNA Evaluation: Review of Representative

Ecological Conditions) can be found in appendix D.

On May 18 and 19, 2010, as a result of scoping comments received, three areas identified in the

TNC report were reevaluated by KRB district staff using cover frequency transects and ocular

observation to document current conditions. These were Kiowa Units 100 and 3, and Rita Blanca

Unit 19. Kiowa Unit 46 was not reevaluated.

On Unit 100, the evaluation revealed that canopy cover had shifted since 1987 and visually

galleta is the most dominant species, although the frequency transect shows that galleta and blue

grama are equal in canopy cover at 32 percent each. Bare ground in 1987 was less than 10

percent, but in 2010 bare ground is 20 percent. Based upon structural improvements and shift in

plant composition, the staff determined this unit is not a good candidate for shortgrass RNA

designation.

In 1987, Unit 3 was proposed as a good candidate as RNA for sand sagebrush-blue grama

ecosystem. At that time, the sand sagebrush cover was reported as 10 to 20 percent. In May 2010,

district staff measured canopy cover both inside and outside a small exclosure within the unit.

Line intercept transects showed that shrub canopy within the exclosure was 50 percent and 33 

percent outside the exclosure. This is much higher than is considered a climax community for

sand sagebrush. The staff determined that Unit 3 is not suitable for RNA designation for a number

of reasons: existing infrastructure, an old field, current cultivation (corn) surrounding the area,

and the shift in canopy cover.

In 1987, Unit 19 of the High Lonesome was considered a good candidate as RNA for shortgrass

ecosystem. No transects were read for this evaluation, but observation indicates that there is a

much higher incidence of three-awn and forbs than were present in 1987. Broom snakeweed,

which was rare in 1987, is common in 2010. Staff determined that this area is not suitable for

RNA designation because of past human disturbance, historical grazing pressure, and the shift in

canopy composition.

Scenery

The scenery management system process defined in “Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for

Scenery Management” was used to develop scenic integrity objectives for this draft plan.

Valued landscape character descriptions were developed and incorporated into the desired

condition for scenic resources. Developed recreation sites, roads, trails, and other special areas

were analyzed to establish concern levels. Special areas were also assigned concern level 1,

including national and state designated scenic byway corridors, important birding areas, and the

Santa Fe National Historic Trail corridor. Since the Canadian River through Mills Canyon has
Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

298 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

been determined to be eligible for designation as a scenic river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers

legislation, the Grasslands portion of the canyon was classified as a high scenic integrity

objective area. Concern levels determine the relative importance of scenic quality to people who

visit the Grasslands.

There was a variation from the GIS mapping process described in the SMS manual. Due to the

relatively flat nature of the topography covered with low growing vegetation (grasses, shrubs and

forbs), the landscape is generally visible with few variations that would obstruct views. Also

taken into account are the fragmented ownership patterns. Generally an entire Grassland unit was

assigned a scenic integrity objective (SIO) rather than dividing based on the distance from

concern level 1 roads or areas. This was in lieu of the more common approach of a GIS analysis

to determine landscape visibility that would have further fragmented the management of these

often discreet units. However, distance was a factor when determining SIO classes. For example

if a unit was generally within the 1⁄2 mile foreground of a concern level 1 route or area, the entire

unit would be selected for high scenic integrity.

Wilderness

As part of the LRMP revision process for the KRB and BK and MC (BKMC) NGs (herein

collectively referred to as the “Grasslands”), the Forest Service prepared the “Kiowa National

Grassland Wilderness Evaluation Report” (see the Web address provided in appendix B). The

Forest Service must evaluate all roadless areas and consider lands possessing wilderness

characteristics for potential wilderness designation during plan revision (1982 Rule Provision

Sections 219.17 and 219.18).3 If the area is eventually recommended for wilderness designation,

then the revised plan will contain goals and objectives that will protect its wilderness

characteristics.

This (2008) evaluation began with an inventory of areas of Federal land over 5,000 contiguous

acres, or areas that meet the criteria as described in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter

71.4 After the potential wilderness was identified, it was evaluated for capability, availability, and

need as described below.

Capability

Wilderness capability describes the basic characteristics that make the area appropriate and

valuable for wilderness designation, regardless of the area’s availability or need. Five sets of

factors are used to determine capability: naturalness, level of development, opportunities for

solitude, special features, and the ability of the Forest Service to manage the area as wilderness

(manageability). The first four of these factors consider how the current conditions of the

potential wilderness area (PWA) fit the definition of wilderness. Manageability is slightly

different because it evaluates features of the area that would make it more or less difficult to

manage the area as wilderness, such as size, shape, and juxtaposition to external influences. The

Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area was rated as medium for wilderness capability.

 3 The transistion provisions, 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), of the 2012 Planning Rule (Vol. 77, No.68, April 9, 2012) allow use

of the provisions of the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule to amend or

revise plans.

4 Areas smaller than 5,000 acreas may also be considered if they are adjacent to an existing wilderness or east of the

100th meridian. Black Kettle National Grassland is east of the 100th meridian.
Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 299

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Availability

Availability criteria indicate the availability of a potential wilderness area for wilderness

designation by describing other resource and land use potentials for the area. Availability

examines the potential impact of designating an area as a wilderness to both the current and future

land uses and activities. In essence, it is a summary of the tradeoffs between wilderness and other

uses. The Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area was rated medium for availability.

Need

These evaluation criteria indicate how the potential wilderness area might fit into the National

Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS); in this case we evaluated comparable lands within a

250-mile radius of the PWA, which is assumed to be about 1 days’ drive. Need is considered at

the regional level and must incorporate public participation. The criteria used to evaluate need

include consideration of other wilderness and nonwilderness areas that provide opportunities for

unconfined outdoor recreation or preservation of certain ecosystems characteristics. The

evaluation of need showed that the Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area generates a low

degree of need as a new wilderness area.

The findings of the wilderness capability, availability, and need evaluations based upon the best

available data were used to determine whether or not to make a preliminary administrative

recommendation for wilderness designation of the Canadian River PWA. The deciding official’s

(regional forester) recommendation will be documented in the final plan and the plan approval

document. If the PWA is recommended for wilderness, the recommendation will receive further

review by the Chief of the Forest Service and the Secretary of Agriculture. If the Chief of the

Forest Service intends to move forward with a wilderness recommendation, the Forest Service

will complete a detailed analysis of the tradeoffs and impacts in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act, including additional public review and comment. Only Congress has

the authority to make final decisions on wilderness designation.

Roads and Access

As defined in 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1), each national forest must identify the minimum road system

needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National

Forest System lands. The minimum system is the road system determined to be needed to meet

resource and other management objectives adopted in the relevant land and resource management

plan (1982 Rule Provisions Section 219), to meet applicable statutory and regulatory

requirements, to reflect long-term funding expectations, and to ensure that the identified system

minimizes adverse environmental impacts associated with road construction, reconstruction,

decommissioning, and maintenance. Thirty-six CFR 212.5(b)(2) states that roads no longer

needed to meet forest resource management objectives must be identified and, therefore, should

be considered for decommissioning or for other uses, such as trails. A travel analysis process

(TAP) was conducted for the KRB NGs concurrent with the plan revision to identify the

minimum road system. The TAP is intended to be a broad scale comprehensive look at the

transportation network across the KRB NGs. It is important to note that the TAP does not make

any decisions related to roads or motorized trail systems, but it will be used to inform

management decisions for individual roads or motorized trails. Travel analysis for BK and

McClellan Creek National Grasslands was done in 1989; which closed the district to motor

vehicle entry except for roads signed open (amendment 4, May 29, 1990). For purposes of this
Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

300 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

report, NFS road mileage on the Grasslands was obtained from the forest infrastructure database

(INFRA).

Soils and Watersheds

The spatial analysis was based on the Forest Service lands within the proclaimed boundary of the

Grasslands. Existing conditions and environmental consequences were evaluated using existing

forest data, satellite imagery, and data from other sources as cited. Numerous onsite soil condition

assessments were made and existing field notes were analyzed to classify and extrapolate soil

condition across the Grasslands as part of the TEUI. Overall accuracy of mapping and

information provided by the TEUI and soil condition protocol is considered reliable at the

ecological unit or landscape level.

Each alternative was evaluated for consequences on water and soil resources.

Air

The regional emissions data were obtained from the EPA’s AirData Web site for the year 2002 and

from the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for the year 2008. Based on emissions data from

2002 to 2008, the overall trend was a decrease in all criteria air pollutants measured (excludes

ozone and includes volatile organic compounds) in the four counties covering the Kiowa NG. The

projected trend out to 2018, using the Forest Service’s Emissions Tool11, indicates a continued

decrease in criteria pollutant emissions except for particulate matter PM10 and PM2.5. It is not

clear at this time why there are slight increases for particulate matter, but these increases are

slight and do not exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or State standards.

To date there have been no documented exceedances of the NAAQS due to Grasslands activities.

This trend is expected to continue over the next 5 to 10 years.

Based on emissions data from 2002 to 2008 from the EPAAirData tool and the NEI, the overall

trend was a decrease in all criteria pollutants except a small increase in sulfur dioxide emissions

and large increase in volatile organic compounds (VOCs), in the five counties covering the

BKMC and RB NGs. From 2002 to 2008, the VOCs doubled due to large increases in emissions

in Hemphill County in Texas and Roger Mills County in Oklahoma, both of which comprise the

BK NG. The increase in emissions in 2008 can be attributed to petroleum and related industries.

Although VOCs are not currently regulated by the EPA, they do react with nitrogen oxides to

form ozone, which is an EPA regulated criteria pollutant. Even with the doubling of VOC

emissions in Hemphill County, it is still in attainment for ozone.

In general, the projected trend out to 2018 using the Forest Service’s Emissions Tool11 shows

decreases in the criteria pollutant emissions. Increases in nitrogen oxides in Roger Mills County,

Oklahoma, and carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide in Gray County, Texas, are predicted. There

are also projected increases in ammonia and VOCs, which may be due to further increases in oil

and gas development or higher levels of urbanization in these counties. There have been no

documented violations of the NAAQS in the counties the BKMC or RB NGs cover due to

Grassland activities. This trend is expected to continue over the next 5 to 10 years.

Emissions from activities on and off the Grasslands include emissions from vehicles, dust from

unsurfaced roads, cropland, construction sites, bare ground, campfires, prescribed fire, wildfire,

and oil and gas developments. Oil and gas developments are regulated for emissions and required
Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 301

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

to have emission controls in all three states. Emissions related to fire are regulated through state

smoke management plans. Emissions from vehicles, dust, and campfires are not monitored, and

there is no way to know the effect, range, or variation in these emissions. Prescribed fire is the

most notable land management activity that takes place on the Grasslands that has implications on

air quality; however, this has not contributed to long-term adverse air quality. All projects,

including prescribed burns, must meet state air quality standards and smoke management plans

once finalized.

Energy Development, Minerals, and Special Uses

Energy and minerals development is authorized by the special use program. Analysis of

consequences has been based on Forest Service Manual direction and sound professional

judgment. Additionally, as part of the analysis process, resources from various agencies such as

USDI Bureau of Land Management’s “The Gold Book,” were consulted. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and state guidelines were studied to analyze consequences to wildlife from wind turbines,

raptor protection on power lines, and potential impacts to federally listed species and migratory

birds. The “Transportation and Utilities Corridors” map of the plan was also utilized.

The Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory map dated January 15, 2010,

found on the NREL Web site, indicates that areas which exceed 6.5 m/s minimum wind speed at

80 m above ground level (AGL) are potential areas that are highly desirable for wind energy

development. The majority of Federal lands of the Grasslands are within this category.

Analysis of alternatives on the minerals resource of the Grasslands was based on regulations

found within 36 CFR 228, personnel communication with Grasslands district rangers, department

managers, and other Forest Service personnel, as well as with the USDI Bureau of Land

Management.

Wildland-Urban Interface and Fire Management

A fire regime condition class (FRCC) is a classification of the amount of departure from the

natural regime. Coarse-scale FRCC classes have been defined and mapped and include three

condition classes for each fire regime. The classification is based on a relative measure describing

the degree of departure from the historical natural fire regime. This departure results in changes to

one (or more) of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics (species

composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition;

fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances (e.g. insect and disease

mortality, grazing, and drought). There are no wildland vegetation and fuel conditions or wildland

fire situations that do not fit within one of the three classes.

The three classes are based on low (FRCC 1), moderate (FRCC 2), and high (FRCC 3) departure

from the central tendency of the natural (historical) regime. The central tendency is a composite

estimate of vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy

closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other

associated natural disturbances. Low departure is considered to be within the natural (historical)

range of variability, while moderate and high departures are outside.

Characteristic vegetation and fuel conditions are considered to be those that occurred within the

natural (historical) fire regime.
Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

302 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

In general throughout all of the Grasslands vegetation types, FRCC is estimated to be in the

following percentages: 60 percent FRCC 1, 35 percent FRCC 2, and 5 percent FRCC 3. This

relates to the Grasslands with average fire return intervals of 2 to 20 years, most likely less than

10 years. This return interval may be longer in the cottonwood-willow areas along rivers, streams,

and in the pinyon-juniper savannas, but most likely less than 35 years. The large landscape

historical fires are now hampered by broken landscapes (roads, agriculture fields, urban

development, etc.).

Vegetation Types and Associated Wildlife Habitat

Ecological Sustainability

The “Ecological Sustainability Report” (ESR) (see the Web address provided in appendix B)

evaluated the ecological systems of the Grasslands and the relationship to the surrounding area.

The ESR provided the information needed to determine topics or issues needing revision from the

existing LRMP for the Cibola National Forest (NF). It outlined and put into context the

relationship between the resources managed by the Grasslands and the broader ecological

environment. The ESR has two main sections, ecosystem diversity and species diversity. The

“Ecosystem Diversity” section discusses conditions and trends in the vegetation communities and

physical resources based on the reference condition of each vegetation type. Appendix F of the

ESR supplements the information found in the “Ecosystem Diversity” section of the ESR.

Specifically, it outlines the current and historical conditions for shortgrass prairie, pinyon-juniper,

cottonwood-willow riparian, sand sagebrush, mixed-grass prairie, shinnery oak, and mixed

hardwood riparian vegetation types.

The condition and trends in the Grasslands vegetation communities are evaluated on a 5- to 10-

year interval using field reconnaissance, visual obstruction readings, Parker 3 Step transects,

cover-frequency transects, production clippings, photo points, and composition inventories. Data

collected has been compared with historical data and with the terrestrial ecological unit

inventory.5

In order to determine the class of departure for a vegetation type, the mid-scale6 vegetation found

within each vegetation type was placed into a class7 based on the information in the reference

condition model. A comparison was made of the current percentage to the historical percentage

for each class within the model. The lesser of the two percentages (current vs. historical) was

subtracted from 100 for each class. The resulting number determined the level of departure from

the historical reference conditions as follows:

• 0–33 percent = Low departure

• 34–66 percent = Moderately departed

 5 Terrestrial ecosystem unit inventory consists of mapping and interpreting ecosystems through a systematic 

examination, description, classification, and integration of the soil, vegetation, and climate on national forests and 

grasslands.

6 Mid-scale mapping is a remote sensing and modeling effort used to provide periodic snapshots of existing vegetation 

for forest plan implementation and monitoring. Mid-scale is an object-oriented approach using image segmentation and 

various classification methodologies to model vegetation dominance type, canopy cover class, and size.

7 There are three classes of departure from reference condition—low departure, moderately departed, and severely 

departed.
Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 303

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

• 67–100 percent = Severely departed

All the vegetation types on the Grasslands are in low departure from reference condition for

vegetation structure.

Habitats for wildlife, fish, and rare plants that exist within the Grasslands are discussed in the

“Species Diversity” section of the ESR.

Species Viability

Section 219.19 (Fish and Wildlife Resources) of the 1982 Planning Rule states: “Fish and wildlife

habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative

vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be

regarded as one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to

insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. In order to insure that viable

populations will be maintained, habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum number

of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can

interact with others in the planning area.”

Species viability risk assessments methodology and process are described in detail in appendix F

of this FPEIS.

Shelterbelt Acreage and Linear Extent Computation

Estimates of acreage and linear extent of shelterbelts or windbreaks on the BK NG and adjacent

private lands was used to evaluate issues of tree encroachment on mixed-grass prairie and

shinnery oak vegetation types. Through the use of orthographic photos, spatial orientation, area

determination, and frequency analysis was completed on private land adjacent or within 1 mile of

BK units, amounting to a total of 2,040 acres of shelterbelts with a linear extent of 121 miles. BK

NG units totaled 156 acres of shelterbelts covering 12 linear miles.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog Colony Acreage Computation

Acreage estimates of prairie dog colony expansion trends were formulated by summarizing the

areas that dog colonies have previously occupied by soil type and comparing those sums with the

total acreage the colonies covered each year. A final average was then taken for each soil type.

Soils with area greater than 10 percent of the total of all occupied soils were considered as high

occupancy soils. High occupancy soils determination did not consider aspect, slope, or

surroundings such as water tanks, roads, etc. The following bulleted list depicts acreage of high

occupancy soils:

• Rita Blanca in TX: 42,682 acres total; 16,669 acres of high occupancy soils (39 percent

of total).

• Kiowa in NM: 57,379 acres total; 22,389 acres of high occupancy soils (39 percent of

total).

• Rita Blanca in OK: 15,718 acres total; 7,032 acres of high occupancy soils (45 percent of

total).
Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

304 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

There are potential environmental consequences of black-tailed prairie dog effects to soil fertility

and susceptibility to erosion, both negative and positive, although the extent is not well studied or

known.

Analysis and Evaluation Matrix

Following is the evaluation matrix used by Forest Service specialists to evaluate accomplishment

of desired alternatives and environmental consequences by alternative.
Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 305National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternatives Comparison Table 1

Specialist:

Planning Core Team Liaison:

Resource Area:

Alternative A (No Action –

Current Plan –Current

Management)

Alternative B Revised Plan

(Desired Condition for Your Resource Area)

Alternative C - Revised Plan but With

Wilderness

Compare the

objectives,

standards,

guidelines,

management

approaches,

suitability, and

monitoring

components of the

current plan related

to your resource

area against the

same resource area

DCs of the revised

plan...What are the

outcomes or

consequences?

(answer largely

available from

ESR, SESR, CER)

Important

Consequences?

Yes/No?

Explain

What is/are the

change in plan

components

relative to your

resource area

from alternative

A?

Potential for

consequences of

change between

alternatives A

and B relative to

your resource

area?

Important

consequences?

Yes/No?

Explain

Change in plan

components

relative to your

resource area from

those of alternative

B? Note: Should

be no change

except for

wilderness related

issues at the

Canadian

River/Mills

Canyon area.

Potential for

Consequences of

change between

alternatives B

and C relative to

your resource

area?

Important

consequences?

Yes/No?

Explain
306

Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Interdisciplinary Consequences Table 2

Specialist:

Planning Core Team Liaison:

Resource Area:

Alternative A No Action –

Current Plan – Current

Management

Alternative B Revised Plan Alternative C Revised Plan

but With Wilderness

Revision Topic Page Number(s)

of Plan

Components in

Revised Plan

Do plan

components of

other resource

areas in

alternative A

have

consequences to

achieving the

DC of your

resource area in

alternative B?

Yes/No?

Are they

Important

Consequences?

Yes/No?

Explain

Do plan

components of

other resource

areas in

alternative B

have

consequences

to achieving

the DC of your

resource area in

alternative B?

Yes/No?

Are they Important

Consequences?

Yes/No?

Explain

Do plan

components of

other resource

areas in

alternative C

have

consequences to

achieving the

DC of your

resource area in

alternative B?

Yes/No?

Important

Consequences?

Yes/No?

Explain

Scenery Pages 12, 35,

47, 71, 72, 73

of revised plan

General

Recreation

Page 14

Developed

Recreation

Pages 14, 36,

65

Dispersed

Recreation

Pages 17, 37,

48, 65

Motorized

Recreation

Pages 18, 38,

49

Natural Tourism Page 19
Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 307National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Interdisciplinary Consequences Table2

Specialist:

Planning Core Team Liaison:

Resource Area:

AlternativeA No Action–

Current Plan– Current

Management

AlternativeB Revised Plan Alternative

C Revised Plan

butWith Wilderness

Heritage

Resources

Pages 20, 38,

49

Roads and Access Page 21

Land Adjustments Pages 23, 49

Minerals and

Energy

Development (oil

and gas)

Pages 24, 39,

49

Special Uses Page 26, 27

Wind Energy

Development

Page 27, 28

Livestock Use Page 28,50

Wildland Urban

Interface

Page 29

General

Ecological

Page 29, 30

Soil, Water, Air,

Watershed,

Streams

Page 30, 31, 32,

33, 40, 52

Invasives Page 34, 41

Forest Products Page 25, 26
308

Appendix J. Data and Analysis Methods

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Interdisciplinary Consequences Table2

Specialist:

Planning Core Team Liaison:

Resource Area:

AlternativeA No Action–

Current Plan– Current

Management

AlternativeB Revised Plan Alternative

C Revised Plan

butWith Wilderness

Shinnery Oak and

Inclusions

Page 43, 44, 45

Mixed Grass Page 41, 42, 54,

55

Mixed Riparian

Hardwood

Page 45, 46

Shortgrass and

Inclusions

Page 52, 53, 54,

55, 56, 57, 58

Sand Sagebrush Page 61, 62, 63

Piñon-Juniper Page 58, 59, 66,

67

Cottonwood-

Willow

Page 60, 61, 68,

69

Wildlife Habitat

Improvement

Page 39, 40, 50,

51

Special Areas Pages 70, 71,

72, 73

Integrated Social

Economic Mills

Canyon

Pages 64, 65
FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 309

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Appendix K. Coordination

with Other Public Planning Efforts

Summary

Per the 1982 Planning Rule Provisions, the responsible official shall review the planning and land

use policies of other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and Indian tribes. This

document, along with other planning efforts, contributes to that requirement.

Ecosystem restoration and resilience will be a main focus in the proposed plan. Forest Service

Chief Tom Tidwell has called for an “all-lands approach” to accomplish ecosystem restoration.

This will involve landowners and stakeholders working together across boundaries to decide on

common goals for the landscapes they share.

In order to facilitate this “all-lands approach,” it is important to understand the goals and

anticipated activities of our adjacent landowners. The following sections provide a summary of

those goals and activities.

Counties

The Kiowa and Rita Blanca (KRB) and Black Kettle and McClellan Creek (BKMC) National

Grasslands (NGs) reside in nine counties spanning three states. The Kiowa (K) NG, which covers

137,537 acres is located within Mora, Harding, Union, and Colfax Counties, NM; the Rita Blanca

(RB) NG, which covers 92,989 acres is located within Dallam County, TX, and Cimarron County,

OK; the Black Kettle (BK) NG, which covers 31,286 acres is located within Roger Mills County,

OK, and Hemphill County, TX; and the McClellan Creek (MC) NG covers 1,449 acres in Gray

County, TX.

County comprehensive plans can be used as a source of information on the history of land use

within the region, the patterns of development, desired conditions, and current county land use

policies. County governments hold no legal authority over independent jurisdictions such as

Federal and state lands, incorporated cities and towns, or Native American tribal reservations.

Farming and ranching are the typical land uses in the nine counties in which the Grasslands

reside. At the time this document was prepared, only two counties—Colfax and Mora Counties,

NM—have comprehensive land use plans. It should be noted that none of the states where the

Grasslands are located require local governments to have these types of plans in place, and it is

typical of small rural counties not to have developed them.

The Kiowa NG under Forest Service administration has 4 sections or about 2,560 acres within

Colfax County. Similarly, the Kiowa NG under Forest Service administration has about 5,874

acres within Mora County.

Colfax County Comprehensive Plan, 2004

Colfax County, NM, has the following goals for resource topics that are relevant to the proposed

Grasslands plan:

• Increase level of cooperation in planning land uses adjacent to public Forest lands.

• Support ranching and agricultural land use that enhances the open lands and rural

lifestyle.
Appendix K. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

310 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

• New developments will respect the topography and be in scale with the mesas and

mountains.

• Maintain high water quality standards.

• Recognize and protect existing water rights.

• Implement water conservation practices.

• Develop water use restrictions.

• Strengthen the county’s role in state and Federal decisions that affect natural resources,

endangered species, and water.

• Encourage economic development that does not adversely affect the natural beauty of the

county.

• Create and provide a stable wage base.

• Sustain existing agriculture and other economic opportunities.

• Provide economic development to assist existing businesses.

• Enhance and grow existing businesses.

• Foster economic development that promotes sustainable and environmentally friendly

forest and land health.

• Establish Colfax County as a tourist destination.

• Enhance and expand the scenic roadways system in the county, including the Santa Fe

National Historic Trail.

After reviewing the “Colfax County Comprehensive Plan,” it is determined that the proposed

Grasslands plan is not in conflict with the goals of Colfax County as listed above. Activities that

led to development of the proposed Grasslands plan were coordinated to the extent practicable

with owners of lands that are intermingled with, or depend upon, National Forest System lands

for access.

Mora County Comprehensive Plan, 2009

Mora County, NM, has the following goals for resource topics that are relevant to the proposed

Grasslands plan:

• Historic and cultural ties to the land should be protected.

• Land use regulations should continue to protect the county’s rural character and natural

resources.

• The county will improve the appearance of Mora County while ensuring the health and

safety of its residents. Such efforts will focus on highly visible locations along road

corridors and in traditional villages.

• The county will attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

• The water resources of Mora County should be protected and preserved for our

agriculturally based communities.
Appendix K. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 311

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

• The county will achieve a sustainable forest ecosystem.

• The county will foster opportunities for sustainable economic growth.

• Solid waste should be managed in an environmentally and economically sound manner.

• A safe, cost efficient and well-designed roadway system should be provided countywide.

• Scenic roadways should be maintained and enhanced to preserve the special rural

character of Mora County.

• Wastewater should be managed in an environmentally sound manner to protect water

quality and the health, safety, and general welfare of residents.

• Drinking water supplies should be protected from degradation and contamination.

• Fire protection should be improved throughout the county.

• Regulations and enforcement of land uses should be fair, consistent, and informative.

• County government should foster open and effective channels of communication.

After reviewing the “Mora County Comprehensive Plan,” it is determined that the proposed

Grasslands plan is not in conflict with the goals of Mora County as listed above. Activities that

led to development of the proposed Grasslands plan were coordinated to the extent practicable

with owners of lands that are intermingled with, or depend upon, National Forest System lands

for access.

Harding County Land Use Policy Plan, 1995

Harding County, NM, has the following policies for resource topics that are relevant to the

proposed Grasslands plan. These interim land use planning mechanisms focus on Federal and

state land use and activities.

• Design and development of all Federal and state land disposal will be carried out to the

benefit of the citizens of Harding County.

• Protection and development of water resources are essential to the county’s economic and

cultural viability.

• Protect agricultural land and promote the continuation of agricultural pursuits.

• Protect timber resources and promote sustainable wood products industry.

• Promote public and private recreational, cultural, wilderness, and wildlife opportunities.

• Provide for the long-term availability and development of oil, gas, and mineral resources.

• Landmarks or trails shall not entail encumbrances or restrictions of private property

rights.

• Access across Federal and State lands shall not entail encumbrances or restrictions on

private property rights.

• Ensure consistency between Federal and State activities with the land use requirements

enumerated within the interim plan.
Appendix K. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

312 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

After reviewing the “Harding County Interim Land Use Policy Plan,” it is determined that there

are inconsistencies between the Harding County plan and the wilderness alternative as presented

in the draft EIS. However, inconsistencies between the Harding County plan and the preferred

alternative, the draft land and resource management plan, are less pronounced. Activities that led

to development of the proposed Grasslands plan were coordinated to the extent practicable with

owners of lands that are intermingled with, or depend upon, National Forest System lands for

access. County governments hold no legal authority over independent jurisdictions such as

Federal and state lands, incorporated cities and towns, or Native American tribal reservations.

These lands will be managed consistent with established governing legislation.

Harding County Environmental Planning and Review Process, 1995

Harding County, NM, has the following objectives for resource topics that are relevant to the

proposed Grasslands plan. Primary objectives of the environmental planning and review process

are to achieve coordination and consistency with Federal and State plans that effect or are located

within Harding County.

• Disclose the significant environmental effects of proposed government actions on nature,

social, cultures, customs, property rights, and economic stability.

• Avoid or reduce damage or negative impacts to the environment.

• Prevent damage or negative impacts by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives

or mitigation measures.

• Foster intergovernmental coordination.

• Enhance public education and participation.

• Enhance the county commission’s capability to plan and manage resources for the public

good.

After reviewing the “Harding County Environmental Planning and Review Process,” it is

determined that the proposed Grasslands plan is not in conflict with the goals of Harding County

as listed above. Activities that led to development of the proposed Grasslands plan were

coordinated to the extent practicable with owners of lands that are intermingled with, or depend

upon, National Forest System lands for access. However, county governments hold no legal

authority over independent jurisdictions such as Federal and State lands, incorporated cities and

towns, or Native American tribal reservations. These lands will be managed consistent with

established governing legislation.

Union County Comprehensive Plan, 2002

Union County, NM, has the following goals for resource topics that are relevant to the proposed

Grasslands plan:

• Economic Policy goals:

○ Broaden cultural and recreational opportunities, and enhance its appearance to

support economic growth.

○ Build upon the county’s visitor industry potential.

○ Preserve, improve, and promote its scenic and historical assets.
Appendix K. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 313

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

○ Promote and facilitate development of alternative energy.

○ Insure that the Ports-to-Plains highway is developed through the county.

• Land use and natural resource goals carried forward from the Union County 1995

Comprehensive Plan:

○ Federal and State land transactions will be carried out to the benefit of the citizens of

Union County.

○ Maintain a sustainable 40-year water supply through stewardship and conservation.

○ Support the exploration of oil, gas, and mineral resources.

○ Protect timber resources.

○ Encourage private use of wood products consistent with multiple uses and good

silvicultural practices.

○ Increase employment and profitability by diversifying agricultural enterprises.

○ Promote and facilitate recreational, cultural, and wilderness opportunities.

○ Take initiative in designation of historic landmarks or trails.

After reviewing the “Union County Comprehensive Plan,” it is determined that the proposed

Grasslands plan is not in conflict with the goals of Union County as listed above. Activities that

led to development of the proposed Grasslands plan were coordinated to the extent practicable

with owners of lands that are intermingled with, or depend upon, National Forest System lands

for access.

Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs)

CWPPs are developed by communities in response to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003

(HFRA). HFRA requires Federal agencies to collaborate with communities in developing

hazardous fuel reduction projects and places priority on treatment areas identified by

communities through the development of a CWPP. A primary objective of a CWPP is to help

local governments, fire departments and districts, and residents identify at-risk public and private

lands to better protect those lands from severe wildfire threat. Additional functions of a CWPP are

to improve fire prevention and suppression activities, as well as to identify funding needs and

opportunities to reduce the risk of wildland fire and enhance public and firefighter safety.

Identifying at-risk areas and improving fire protection capabilities helps communities prioritize

high risk projects and expedites overall project planning. These plans are used by Grasslands land

managers to help prioritize areas for hazardous fuel reduction treatments adjacent to at-risk

communities.

Currently, two community wildfire protection plans (CWPP) outline goals for at-riskcommunities within and around the Kiowa NG. These plans are:

• Harding County, NM, Community Wildfire Protection Plan, May 2008

• Union County, NM, Community Wildfire Protection Plan, June 2008
Appendix K. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

314 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

After reviewing the above CWPPs, it is determined that the proposed Grasslands plan is

congruent with the goals and planned strategies and activities of the two CWPPs.

No other counties in New Mexico have at-risk communities within or around the Grasslands. No

counties within or around the three national grasslands in Texas or Oklahoma have CWPPs.

Tribes

Tribes are legally considered to be sovereign nations, so the relationship between the FS and

tribes is a government-to-government relationship. Tribes that enter into contracts with the

Federal government do so just as state governments or sovereign nations do.

The Federal government holds a special responsibility to consult with tribes over management

issues that may affect them. This process is governed by a variety of Federal regulations and

policies, including the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 1509.13), the National Environmental

Policy Act, the National Indian Forest Resources Management Act, the Tribal Forest Protection

Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and several presidential executive orders.

The seven tribes with whom we consult on the KRB and the BKMC NGs (herein collectively

referred to as the “Grasslands”) are the Jicarilla Apache, Mescalero Apache, Cheyenne and

Arapaho Tribes, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Comanche Nation, Kiowa Tribe, and Wichita and

Affiliated Tribes. These tribes are known to have had historical connections to the land currently

designated as the Grasslands before European settlement. However, no tribal trust lands are

adjacent to or nearby the Grasslands.

The Cibola National Forest and Grasslands first notified the tribes of Grasslands plan revision in

the annual letters and list of projects sent out February 27, 2006, and initiated face-to-face

meetings later that year. We have continued that process annually with the status of plan revision

updated every year. The Cibola National Forest has had face-to-face meetings with all seven

tribes for one or more years concerning plan revision.

New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas Wildlife

and Fish Agencies and State Wildlife Action Plans

Land and resource management plan revision on the Grasslands considered and utilized results

from the comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies (CWCS) for New Mexico, Oklahoma,

and Texas. These strategies were developed by the respective state wildlife and fish agencies. The

focus of these strategies is upon species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) and key wildlife

habitats. The strategies assessed the condition of key habitats, SCGN, problems affecting species

and habitats, desired future conditions, and prioritized conservation actions and monitoring needs.

The overriding desired outcome is that the key habitats persist in the condition, connectivity, and

quantity necessary to sustain viable and resilient populations of resident SGCN and host a variety

of land uses with reduced resource use conflicts.

Each of the three states CWCS desired outcomes was designed to conserve indigenous threatened

or endangered wildlife and habitats to assure biodiversity.
Appendix K. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 315

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

In developmental stages of Grasslands plan revision, the CWCS were referenced and high priority

SGCN were included in the species lists identified for the Grasslands plan revision and evaluated

for viability in the “Ecological Sustainability Report.”

Development of plan components is a process and outcome similar to CWCS development and

desired outcome determination. The Grasslands evaluated ecological sustainability through

assessing vegetation type relationships to key habitat sustainability for associated species.

Phase 2 of the Grasslands draft land and resource management plan revision included developing

a set of plan components that include:

• Desired conditions of vegetation components;

• Objectives that have timeframe and measurable outcomes defined; and

• Guidelines that provide restrictions and/or limitations on management or activities.

The Grasslands draft land and resource management plan will compliment the New Mexico,

Oklahoma, and Texas CWCS desired outcomes and benefit the SGCN through key habitat

management on the Grasslands.

Oklahoma Commissioners of

the Land Office (School Land Trust)

The Commissioners of the Land Office (CLO), better known as the “School Land Trust,” is an

Oklahoma State agency created by the original Oklahoma Constitution. The CLO is mandated to

have charge of the sale, rental, disposal, and management of school lands and other public lands,

and of the funds and proceeds derived thereof, under the rules and regulations prescribed by the

Oklahoma legislature. The primary purpose of the CLO is to administer the school land trust

funds for the production of income for the support and maintenance of the common schools and

the schools of higher education. Lands of the CLO frequently border lands of the RB NG in

Cimarron County, Oklahoma.

Within the CLO, the Minerals Management Division administers over 1 million mineral acres and

minerals. The Real Estate Management Division has responsibility for over 700,000 surface

acres. The CLO does not have a land management plan that guides management direction for

Oklahoma State lands, but uses the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service as an

advisory agency (Randy Schreiner, CLO Real Estate Management Field Staff, pers. comm. July

29, 2011).

Texas General Land Office

There are no Texas State lands adjacent to or nearby Federal lands of the Grasslands.

New Mexico State Land Office

Lands of the New Mexico State Land Office frequently border parcels of the Kiowa NG in

northeastern New Mexico. The Enabling Act of 1910 and the Ferguson Act granted certain lands

held by the Federal government to the territory of New Mexico. Under the terms of these land

grants, it was stipulated that such lands, totaling 13.4 million acres, were to be held in trust for the
Appendix K. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

316 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

benefit of the public schools and other specific beneficiary institutions. The land commissioner is

charged with generating and maximizing revenue from state trust lands in order to support public

education and other beneficiary institutions, while simultaneously striving to protect, conserve,

and maintain the lands so they may be used by future generations. To maximize revenues, the

land commissioner generates revenues by leasing lands for grazing, agriculture, commercial use,

oil and gas drilling, mining, and other surface and subsurface activities. Management direction for

New Mexico State lands is provided by the New Mexico Statewide Natural Resource Assessment

(John Romero, Asst. Commissioner, Field Div., pers. comm., July 29, 2011).

New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas

Statewide Natural Resource Assessments

The draft “Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and

McClellan Creek National Grasslands” (herein collectively referred to as the “Grasslands”)

acknowledges the resource concerns expressed in the statewide assessments of New Mexico,

Oklahoma, and Texas, compiled by the respective state forestry agencies. The Grasslands plan

complements how these assessments address those concerns. Specifically, the plan’s all-lands

approach dovetails with the cooperative, and collaborative approaches of New Mexico,

Oklahoma, and Texas:

Forest and Range Sustainability, Health, and Wildfire. The plan’s proactive approach to use

thinning, prescribed burning, and selective harvest to achieve desired conditions for plant

community composition and structure, including the restoration of a more historical fire

regime with fewer catastrophic fires and less risk to the wildland-urban interface, creates

mutual benefit with similar practices by non-Forest Service agencies in New Mexico,

Oklahoma, and Texas. The creation of the Grasslands has mitigated the fragmentation that

otherwise would have likely occurred under previous ownership and would have interfered

with the unified, landscape-scale management practiced today.

Invasive Species. The plan directs for a landscape-scale approach to invasive species

management similar to the statewide approaches of New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, by

controlling the same target species (e.g., Eastern redcedar, saltcedar) and using similar

control measures.

Water Quality and Quantity. Hydrological processes are maintained or restored on the

Grasslands through draft plan direction—as they would be under guidance of the New

Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas statewide assessments—through vegetation and soil

management including the maintenance of adequate ground cover, increased infiltration, and

reduced runoff. Groundwater recharge and surface water temperature, sediment loads, and

nutrient levels all benefit as a result.

Climate. The plan’s adaptive management strategy to maintain diverse, resilient plant

communities that are responsive to short- and long-term climate change mirrors the

management desires and approaches elsewhere in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

The management approach directed by the plan is not only appropriate when practiced at the

Grasslands scale, it creates increased, far-reaching benefits when synergistically met by similar

management approaches on non-Forest Service lands in the vicinity of the Grasslands.
Appendix K. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 317

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Santa Fe National Historic Trail Comprehensive

Management and Use Plan - National Park Service, May 1990

The Forest Service and National Park Service operate under a general agreement (January 2001)

to implement the “Comprehensive Management and Use Plan for the Santa Fe National Historic

Trail.” The Santa Fe National Historic Trail was designated in 1987. Various portions of the trail

route are administered by the Forest Service; including the segment on the Kiowa NG near

Clayton, NM. The physical use of existing trail remnants for recreation or other purposes are

normally discouraged. Where the resources are durable, limited nonmotorized visitor use is

permitted. Where visitor use (hiking) may be sufficient to cause erosion, denudation of

vegetation, or other damage, contemporary parallel trails may be developed to maintain existing

ruts in their historical context.

USDOT Federal Highway Administration,

National Scenic Byways Program

The Forest Service is a National Scenic Byways Program government partner. The program is a

grass-roots collaborative effort established to help recognize, preserve, and enhance selected

roads throughout the United States.

The mission of the National Scenic Byways Program is to provide resources to the byway

community to create unique travel experiences and enhance local quality of life through efforts to

preserve, protect, interpret, and promote the intrinsic qualities of designated byways.

The Santa Fe National Scenic Byway traversing the Kiowa NG in New Mexico was designated in

June 1998.

New Mexico 2030 Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan

The “New Mexico Department of Transportation Multimodal Transportation Plan” contains

direction for transportation and tourism. Multidisciplinary partnerships exist between State,

Federal, local and tribal entities, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) concerned with

environmental and cultural resource protection, tourism, economic development, and

transportation. The 2030 plan includes goals and objectives to combine scenic byways with state

bicycle routes where appropriate to enhance recreation and tourism potential. The NM Tourism

Department is promoting green tourism, including scenic byways, mountain bike, equestrian, and

hiking access points among transportation-related infrastructure.

The scenic byways program was established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency

Act of 1991 to recognize roads having outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural recreation,

and/or archaeology qualities. New Mexico now has 26 scenic byways, one of which is the La

Frontera del Llano, which traverses the Kiowa NG.

Transportation Coordination

with Other Planning Organizations

State of Texas. The Federal Transportation Enhancement Act for the 21st Century identified

corridors of national importance. U.S. 287 on the RB NG was identified as part of the “Ports to
Appendix K. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

318 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Plains” corridor from Texas to Colorado. U.S. 54 and U.S. 87 through the RB NG are also routes

of the “Ports to Plains” corridor.

State of Oklahoma 2010-2035 Oklahoma Long Range Transportation Plan. There are 87 high

priority corridors across the country, 4 are in Oklahoma, but outside the BK or RB NGs.

State of New Mexico Highway and Transportation Department, Long Range Comprehensive

Transportation Plan Update, January 1999. Within New Mexico, the Kiowa NG is contained

within NMDOT District 4 and the Northeast Regional Planning Organization. There are no goals

or objectives directly related to NFS land management.

Bureau of Land Management

Portions of BLM lands administered by the Taos Field Office are located near or adjacent to the

Kiowa NG. The 1988 “Taos Resource Management Plan” provides guidance to the district in the

management of its resources. A draft 2010 “Taos Resource Management Plan” has not been

finalized. The plan addresses the following issues: access, area of critical environmental concerns

and other types of special management areas, off-highway vehicles, riparian areas, wildlife

habitat, lands and realty, outdoor recreation and visual resource management, energy and

minerals, cultural resources, soil erosion, vegetation, water resources, air quality, and

paleontological resources.

The focus of active management includes riparian improvement treatments, wildlife habitat

improvement projects (including prescribed fire and suppression), soil erosion reduction, land

(vegetation manipulation) treatments (including mechanical, chemical or prescribed fire), and

firewood cutting. The majority of the public lands are managed to limit off-highway vehicle use

to existing roads and trails.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The main role of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is to administer the Endangered

Species Act (ESA). Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to aid in conservation of

listed species and Section 7(a)(2) requires that agencies, through consultation with the USFWS,

ensure that their activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or

adversely modify designated critical habitat. As projects and activities are planned, forest

managers consult with the USFWS.

The USFWS also issues national polices to promote the conservation and recovery of listed

species, including species recovery plans. The USFWS is in the process of developing a strategic

plan to react to climate change.

The USFWS manages the National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) System; however, there are no

refuges adjacent to the Grasslands. Cibola NF and NGs cooperates closely with the USFWS,

especially in endangered species protection and fire management activities.

Playa Lakes Joint Venture (PLJV)

The PLJV is a nonprofit partnership of Federal and state wildlife agencies, conservation groups,

private industry, and landowners dedicated to conserving bird habitat in the Southern Great
Appendix K. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 319

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Plains. They provide science-based guidance and decision support tools for all bird conservation

throughout the region, as well as outreach, coordination, and financial support to partners and

local groups to conduct on-the-ground habitat work.

The “Playa Lakes Joint Venture Master Plan” is a strategic document that directs the overall

activities of the joint venture and establishes measures of achievement. The master plan differs

from this “PLJV Implementation Planning Guide” (guide) in that it provides a framework not

only for biological planning, but also for all other elements that are essential for a successful joint

venture. These elements are major areas of PLJV activity, and include conservation delivery,

biological planning, communications, funding, granting, education, research, and annual review.

The master plan is broad and describes the biological planning process in general. The guide

provides more details of the planning process and emphasizes planning results, especially habitat

conservation objectives.

There are 113 playa and alkaline lakes on the KRB NGs in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas

that provide unique bird habitat on the Southern Great Plains.

Other Landowners

The four national grasslands border and surround other ownerships besides those listed above.

There is no known inventory of these landowner’s activities and potential impacts to the

Grasslands.

Conclusion

As identified above, other landowners and land policies have the potential to impact the

Grasslands and vice-versa. In development of the land management plan, these considerations

have been taken into account. The following table identifies some of the key potential impacts

and how the plan deals with those impacts, as well as potential activities on adjacent lands that

may impact Grasslands management. No major conflicts with Forest Service planning have been

identified at this time.

Table 1. Potential impacts to Grasslands management and relationship to the proposed

plan

Potential

Impacts/Issues How the Proposed Plan Addresses

Call for multiple use of the

Grasslands

The overall goal of managing National Forest System lands is to sustain the multiple

uses of its resources in perpetuity while maintaining the long-term productivity of the

land. The plan carries out that goal.

Community growth

demand

The plan identifies a management emphasis to work with local communities to

understand their community expansion needs and retain access to NFS land.

Danger from fire for

residents living in a

wildland-urban interface

The plan contains goals and objectives for effective treatments that will ensure that

fires, when they do occur, are low to moderate severity; and that residents have the

information they need to protect themselves and their property from fire and other

risks in the wildland-urban interface.

Improve Grasslands’

health and promote the

restoration of Grassland

ecosystems

The desired conditions describe healthy, sustainable Grasslands, and the objectives

identify actions that will help restore ecosystems.
Appendix K. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

320 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Potential

Impacts/Issues How the Proposed Plan Addresses

Maintain healthy,

sustainable Grasslands that

provides forest products

for communities

The desired condition describes a sustainable supply of wood products (e.g., small

roundwood, sawlogs, biomass, firewood) and other products (e.g., cactus, ferns, and

fungi) are provided within the capacity of the land to produce these goods.

Silvicultural treatments reflect natural disturbance regimes and contribute to

ecosystem sustainability. Forest products, particularly those related to wood fiber, are

made available as part of fuel or invasive species treatment projects and restoration

activities.

Support local, traditional

custom, and culture

The uses of livestock grazing, tree harvesting, mining, and hunting continue to be

allowed in the plan. The plan recognizes that many local residents have traditional

ties, such as forest product collection, hunting, holiday celebrations, and annual

picnics. Ranchers continue to be an important part of the Grasslands history and their

traditional uses remain an important part of the economic and cultural landscape.

Protect private property

rights

The plan honors the continuing validity of private, statutory, or preexisting rights.

Consider local concerns;

collaborate with

government agencies;

consult with tribes

Throughout the plan, there is management emphasis on collaboration and cooperation

with Federal, state, local governments, tribes, and stakeholders.

Growing demand for

recreation (trails,

designated OHV)

The plan offers a spectrum of recreation settings and opportunities varying from

semiprimitive to urban and dispersed to developed, with an emphasis on the natural

appearing character of the Grasslands.

Although the plan does not identify specific new developments, it does allow for it if

needed. The plan focuses on maintaining existing recreation opportunities and

improving their quality.

Tribal use and traditional

cultural properties

The plan provides guidance for protecting historic and prehistoric properties and

sites, including known American Indian sacred places and traditional cultural

properties (TCPs), and for working with tribes to provide settings for tribal culture

and uses.

Conserve, preserve,

enhance, and restore

wildlife and their habitat

The plan provides guidance for well-distributed habitat conditions that contribute to

the recovery of federally listed species and restoring vegetation conditions that

support all wildlife.

Minimize impacts from

invasive species

The plan provides guidance for controlling or eradicating invasive species.

Provide opportunities for

shooting sports, offhighway vehicles

The plan continues to allow these activities.

Threats related to changes

in water availability

The plan provides guidance for protecting all water sources.

Threats related to changes

in climate

The plan contains information and discussion about climate change and

considerations for land management planning.

Activities on Adjacent Lands that May Impact Grasslands Management

Activity Management Impact

Land exchanges (changes

in ownership)

Wildlife habitat, ecological services, access, scenery management

Sale of New Mexico or

Oklahoma State lands

Access
Appendix K. Coordination with Other Public Planning Efforts

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 321

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Potential

Impacts/Issues How the Proposed Plan Addresses

Development Wildlife habitat, ecological services, fire management, scenery management

Mining and quarrying Wildlife habitat, scenery management

Noxious and invasive

weed treatments

Invasive species management, fire management

References

ENMRD Forestry Division. 2010. New Mexico Statewide Natural Resource Assessment and

Strategy and Response Plans. Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department,

Forestry Division. Santa Fe, NM. 147 pp.

http://allaboutwatersheds.org/groups/SAS/public/2010-New-Mexico-Statewide-NaturalResources-Assessment-and-Strategy-and-Response-Plans/at_download/file (Accessed

February 22, 2011).

Federal Highway Administration. 2010. Planning Update 1: Long Range Transportation Plan for

Forest Highways in Arizona. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway

Administration.

Federal Highway Administration. 2011. Who We Are. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal

Highway Administration. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/whoweare/whoweare.htm

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2006. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation

Strategy for New Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Santa Fe, NM.

526 pp + appendices. http://fws-nmcfwru.nmsu.edu/cwcs/default.htm

Oklahoma Dept. of Wildlife Conservation. 2005. Oklahoma Comprehensive Wildlife

Conservation Strategy. http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/cwcs.htm

Oklahoma Forestry Services. 2010. The Oklahoma Forest Resource Assessment: A

comprehensive analysis of forest-related conditions, trends, threats and opportunities.

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry. Oklahoma City, OK. 163 pp.

http://www.forestry.ok.gov/Websites/forestry/Images/Oklahoma%20Forest%20Resource

%20Assessment,%20FINAL%20FOR%20WEB.pdf (Accessed February 22, 2011).

Texas Forest Service. 2009. Texas Statewide Assessment of Forest Resources: A comprehensive

analysis of forest-related conditions, trends, threats, and opportunities. College Station,

TX. 163 pp.

http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/uploadedFiles/Sustainable/assessment/Texas%20State%20

Assessment.pdf (Accessed February 22, 2011).

Texas Parks and Wildlife. 2005. Texas Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/pwd_pl_w7000_1187a/

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 323

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Appendix L. Maps

The maps in this appendix appear in this order:

National Grasslands Administered by Cibola National Forest Vicinity Map

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek Management Area

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek Proposed Scenic Integrity Levels

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek Vegetation Types

Kiowa and Rita Blanca Management Area

Kiowa and Rita Blanca Proposed Scenic Integrity Levels

Kiowa and Rita Blanca Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes

Kiowa and Rita Blanca Vegetation Types

Mills Canyon Management Area

Mills Canyon Proposed Scenic Integrity Levels

Mills Canyon Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes

Mills Canyon Vegetation Types

Special Areas and Eligible Scenic River

Mills Canyon Gas and Oil Surface Occupancy Restrictions
FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 324

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix L. Maps

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 325

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix L. Maps

326 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix L. Maps

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 327

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix L. Maps

328 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix L. Maps

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 329

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix L. Maps

330 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix L. Maps

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 331

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix L. Maps

332 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix L. Maps

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 333

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix L. Maps

334 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix L. Maps

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 335

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix L. Maps

336 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix L. Maps

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 337

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix L. Maps

338 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 339

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Appendix M. Correspondence

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

and Biological Assessment
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

340 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 341

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

342 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 343

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

344 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 345

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

346 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 347

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

348 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 349

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

350 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 351

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

352 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 353

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

354 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 355

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

356 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 357

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

358 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 359

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

360 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 361

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

362 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 363

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

364 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 365

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

366 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 367

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

368 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 369

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

370 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 371

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

372 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 373

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

374 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 375

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

376 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 377

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

378 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 379

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

380 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 381

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

382 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 383

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

384 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 385

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

386 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 387

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

388 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 389

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

390 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 391

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

392 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 393

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

394 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 395

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

396 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 397

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

398 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 399

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

400 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 401

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

402 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 403

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

404 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 405

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

406 FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan
Appendix M. Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and Biological Assessment

FPEIS for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 407

National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan