Kiowa National Grassland 

Wilderness Evaluation Report 

Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area 

PW-03-03-01G 

October 17, 2008, Revised March 2011 
1 

Table of Contents 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2

Area Overview .................................................................................................................... 3

Wilderness Capability ......................................................................................................... 4

Availability for Wilderness ................................................................................................. 8

Need for Wilderness ......................................................................................................... 10

Effects of Recommendations ............................................................................................ 16

Appendix A: Process Consistency .................................................................................... 21

Appendix B: Capability Evaluation and Rankings for the Canadian River PWA ............ 23

Appendix C: Availability Evaluation and Rankings for the Canadian River PWA ......... 28

Appendix D: Need Evaluation .......................................................................................... 32

Appendix E: Species that Warrant Consideration ............................................................ 36

Appendix F: Definition of Scales from the USDA Forest Service’s National Hierarchical 

Framework of Ecological Units ........................................................................................ 40

Map 1: Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area .......................................................... 41

Map 2: Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area Vicinity Map .................................... 42

Map 3: Areas Visually Impacted by NFSR 600 and the Mills Canyon Campground within 

the Canadian River PWA .................................................................................................. 43
2 

Introduction

As part of the Land and Resource Management Plan (the Plan) revision process for the 

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

Grasslands), the Forest Service has prepared this Wilderness Evaluation Report for the 

Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area (PWA) numbered PW-03-03-01G (See Map 

1). 

Purpose 

The Forest Service must evaluate all lands possessing wilderness characteristics for 

potential wilderness during plan revision (1982 Rule provisions section 219.17). 

Completion of a potential wilderness inventory and evaluation is an essential step in the 

plan revision process. Wilderness is just one of many special area designations that the 

Forest Service will consider during plan revision but it is one of only two special area 

evaluations that are mandatory. If an area is recommended for wilderness designation, 

then the revised plan will contain plan components that protect its wilderness 

characteristics. 

The Process 

A wilderness evaluation began with an inventory of potential wilderness, which includes 

areas of federal land over 5,000 contiguous acres or other areas that meet the criteria in 

FSH 1909.12 Chapter70, Section 71, and then determines if those areas meet the 

definition of wilderness1. The Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area is the only 

potential wilderness area on the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle and McClellan Creek 

National Grasslands based on criteria in FSH 1909.12, Chapter70, Section 71. We also 

evaluated the High Lonesome area of the Rita Blanca National Grassland during the 

inventory phase and eliminated it based upon the criteria for wilderness inventories on 

grasslands; which states that potential wilderness areas may have no more than one mile 

of interior fence per section. Hence, only the Canadian River PWA was evaluated for 

capability, availability and need. These evaluation factors are described in more detail 

within this report in the introductions to each evaluation step and in Appendix A. The 

purpose of this report is to summarize the findings of the wilderness capability, 

availability and need evaluations based on the best available data. 

The Cibola National Forest and Grasslands will use this report 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. Public comments 

on this report will be accepted and considered throughout the plan revision process. 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 trade-offs and impacts in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, including further public review and comment. 

 

1

 Areas smaller than 5,000 acres may also be included if they are adjacent to an existing wilderness area or 

east of the 100th meridian. 
3 

Ultimately, only Congress has the authority to make final decisions on wilderness 

designation. 2

Area Overview 

Acres, Location, Topography: The Canadian River PWA is 6,028 acres, of which 5,448 

acres are National Grassland and 584 are State Trust Lands.3 It is located in northeast 

New Mexico on the Canadian River above Conchas Reservoir. The area is defined 

geographically by the Canadian River canyon gorge with elevations ranging from 6,100 

feet at the river to 6,800 feet at the canyon rim. Nearby population centers, include Las 

Vegas, NM (population 14,565 in 2000) to the southwest and Raton, NM (population 

7,282 in 2000) to the northwest. The PWA is located approximately 40 miles east of 

Interstate 25 (see Map 2). The boundary of the PWA is similar to the boundary of the 

Canadian River Inventoried Roadless Area. 

Vegetation: Along the canyon bottom, within the river floodplain, vegetation is 

dominated by riparian species, including willow and cottonwood. Much of the native 

riparian vegetation has been replaced by salt cedar. The dominant vegetation on canyon 

slopes varies depending on aspect, with piñon pine, juniper and gambel oak being 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 Area boundary. Lands not included in 

the National Forest System are not being considered as part of the Wilderness Evaluation 

Report area but they will be analyzed for their effects on the canyon’s wilderness 

characteristics (See Map 1). 

Access and Boundaries: The Canadian River PWA can be accessed north of Roy, NM on 

National Forest System Road (NFSR) 600. This road extends from NM Hwy 39 near 

Mills, NM above the canyon to the Mills Canyon Campground at the canyon bottom. To 

reach NM Hwy 39, one must exit I-25 at Wagon Mound and drive 45 miles east to Roy, 

NM. The only public access to the Canadian River PWA is from NFSR 600. There are 

also roads across private ranch lands on either side of the Canadian River Canyon PWA. 

The PWA boundary follows the canyon rim line to include the canyon bottom, except 

where it intentionally excludes road corridors for NFSR 600 through the center of the

 

2

 Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, Chapter 70, Section 73 

3

 There is nearly a section of State land within the PWA. A recommendation of wilderness would not affect 

the management of State lands within the PWA boundary. If Congress were to designate the area 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

area will not be entitled to access to their properties through a wilderness area. 
4 

canyon, NFSR 601 and 602 in the canyon bottom.4 The boundary around these roads is 

set back 100 ft on either side of the right-of-way line, which is the standard width for 

archeological clearance for road maintenance and reconstruction. The only exception is 

where that distance would exclude a portion of the Canadian River channel from the 

PWA. For instance, if the channel is within 60 feet of the road, then the boundary would 

be off-set from the right-of-way by 60 ft not 100 ft. The boundary also excludes the 

Mills Canyon Campground at the bottom of the canyon (with a 50 ft buffer for drainage 

and hazard tree removal), the Melvin W. Mills Orchard and Ranch House interpretive site 

off of NFSR 602, and the borrow pit (where natural materials are extracted for road 

reconstruction and maintenance), which is approximately 1⁄4 mile north of NFSR 600 on 

the east side of the river (see Map 1). 

Current Uses and Appearance: The PWA is dominated by canyon terrain. Recreational 

use levels are light to moderate with horseback riding, fishing and hiking the most 

common summer activities. This area does not have any designated motorized trails and 

only a very short hiking trail at the Mill house ruins. Most of the horseback riding occurs

on the roads or the undesignated routes off of NFSR 600. This reach of the Canadian 

River is predominately 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 National 

Grassland is a very popular deer hunting area, which results in dispersed camping sites 

occupied primarily during hunting seasons. Between the rim and the river bottom, there 

are two small two-track roads that access camping spots in the mid-canyon. It is open 

year round, when there is not enough snow to close the road. Users find this area a very 

attractive recreation spot. Local users, in particular, have a strong attachment to the 

camping and picnicking spots within the PWA. 

The Canadian River PWA and surrounding areas appear mostly natural other than the 

user-created two track roads, invasive plants growing along the river, historic adobe 

structures located in the canyon, developed campground facilities, fences, vehicle 

barriers, signs, hardened low water crossings, forest development roads and bridges. 

Key Attractions: The area’s key attractions stem mostly from the scenic river gorge and 

canyon topography that differs from the surrounding grasslands landscape. Attractions 

include diverse vegetation types, native plants and wildlife, geologic rock features, 

standing historic structures, and the opportunity to hike, fish and camp in a relatively 

large, semi-primitive, forested environment near water. 

Wilderness 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 

 

4

 These roads are also commonly referred to as K600, K601, and K602 as shown on the attached maps. 
5 

current conditions of the 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. Evaluating manageability also involves determining if there are mitigation 

measures that might improve the manageability of the area without affecting wilderness 

character. Each factor is rated as high, medium or low based on the criteria shown in 

Appendix B. 

Natural 

The woody vegetation within riparian areas of the Canadian River PWA has a component 

of saltcedar, a non-native invasive species. The saltcedar trees dominate some riparian 

reaches of the river, and non-native Barbary sheep were introduced into the canyon 

decades ago. 

The Canadian River flows from its headwaters in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains in far 

southern Colorado and meanders through the semi-arid landscape in the central part of 

Northeastern New Mexico. Snow melt and seasonal rains are the major flow sources: 

both of which are diverted for irrigation and other uses before the waters reach the 

Canadian River PWA. 

The Canadian River PWA is remotely located within areas with 500 feet tall or more 

canyon walls. The night sky quality has little or no light pollution throughout the year. 

The Canadian River PWA is remotely located in a natural setting that is enhanced by 

steep canyon walls. The cliffs and canyon walls are key features that serve as a backdrop 

for diverse vegetation that varies from woody riparian areas, grassy meadows, pinyonjuniper woodlands, and oak scrub shrub areas, to stringers of ponderosa pine trees. The 

canyon hosts some rare plants species such as horrid herrickia, (an aster species), that 

cling to the base of talus slopes adjacent to the cliff side riparian edges of the river. 

The reach of the Canadian River within the PWA is free-flowing and is not on New 

Mexico’s Impaired Waters list. Segments to the north and south of the canyon have 

constructed impoundments and are listed on the State’s Impaired Water list due to the 

effects from heavy sedimentation and adjacent non-point source pollution (NMWQCC, 

2007). 

The vegetation types within the Canadian River PWA are all within the Historical Range 

of Variability that describes viable ecosystems with the canyon lowlands, woodland 

pinyon-juniper on canyon steep slopes, and cottonwood-willow riparian areas. 

The upstream water diversion, described above, has altered seasonal base flows of the 

Canadian River, thereby reducing normal flooding and water availability for adjacent 

riparian area vegetation. 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 at user-created crossings. Vehicle tracks across meadows and up steep slopes 

further detract from natural ecosystem integrity and appearance. The Canadian River 

PWA has had a long history of human use and settlement as evident in the historic site

and structures in Mills Canyon. Developments include access roads, interpretive
6 

(historic) site, borrow pit, and campground although these features do not appear to have 

affected ecological conditions other than the motorized use described above. 

Undeveloped 

Because of the access roads, interpretive site, borrow pit, and campground in Mills 

Canyon, the PWA appears to be highly developed. Technically, there are no developed 

structures within the PWA because of an exclusion in the boundary. The Canadian River 

PWA has had a long history of human use and settlement as evident in the historic and 

prehistoric sites and structures. Additional facilities planned at developed locations will 

include constructing interpretive kiosks and additional signing. The south part of NFSR

600 crosses the Canadian River and is inside the boundary of the Canadian River PWA. 

User-created roads and trails are visible in the canyon and there is a concrete water 

crossing south of the campground. Vehicle barriers are prominent and were constructed 

to protect a key historic site. 

Opportunities for Solitude 

A person could experience short-term solitude, self-reliant hiking and climbing away 

from the main roads, campground, and interpretive sites, within the PWA. However, the 

roads, trails, and developed facilities in the canyon detract from the primitive and 

challenging nature of recreation in the area. Historical and more modern roads and trails 

are in great evidence, especially on the bottom of the canyon. NFSR 600, 601, and 602 

are less than half the road and trail network that is found in the canyon. The older travel 

route from NFSR 602 up across Canon Vercere is still viable and being used by a few 

OHV enthusiasts to access the canyon from Mora County, even though the road has been 

closed to protect public health and safety. The small size of the area and the presence of 

the developed campground limit opportunities for long primitive back-packing trips. 

Sounds from the developed campground, the excluded roads and adjacent land uses also 

have the potential to impact the experience of solitude within the PWA. 

Special Features 

The high scenic quality of the canyon is important as a wilderness characteristic. The red 

sandstone cliffs contrast against the forested canyon slopes to provide a dramatic setting. 

The free-flowing Canadian River is a prominent feature on the Kiowa National Grassland 

and the segment within the PWA is classified as an Eligible Scenic River. 

The area is important to several Native American tribes. The standing historic adobe 

structures within the PWA have been stabilized and will likely require future 

maintenance to retain their integrity. 

The canyon hosts some rare plants species such as horrid herrickia, an aster species that 

cling to the base of talus slopes adjacent to the cliff side riparian edges of the river. 

 
7 

Manageability 

The boundary of the Canadian River PWA is irregular due to the exclusion of the 

campground, the interpretive site, the borrow pit and NFSR 600, 601 and 602. Public 

passenger vehicle access into the bottom of the canyon is only possible on these roads. 

Once a vehicle is in the canyon there are few natural features that prevent vehicles from 

driving into unroaded portions of the PWA. 

The relatively open terrain along the boundary, combined with the surrounding roads and 

private land uses, makes it very difficult to prevent motorized and mechanized vehicles 

from entering the area. Off highway vehicle (OHV) access is possible both upstream and 

downstream from the PWA boundary. The area is also accessible from the west side of 

the canyon by an old trail system, using an OHV. 

Given these conditions, the area holds several challenges in management for wilderness 

characteristics. Closure of NFSR 600 to the Campground and closing the Canyon to 

vehicle access would be very difficult; physically, socially, and politically. The road and 

bridge have been improved and reconstructed over the last three years to address public 

health and safety concerns. However, retaining the main access roads in the canyon 

(NFSR 600, 601, 602) would make the area difficult to manage as wilderness. 

Constructing fences and barriers to prevent motor vehicle use outside of developed sites 

would detract from wilderness characteristics, but would improve manageability of the 

area. 

Because of the access roads, interpretive site, borrow pit, and campground; the middle 

portion of the PWA appears highly developed. Even though there are technically no 

developed structures within the PWA boundary. The western boundary of the 

campground (which is part of the excluded area) is approximately 250 feet from the 

private land boundary to the west. This narrow strip in the center of the PWA essentially 

cuts off the northern portion from the southern portion of the canyon and disrupts the 

wilderness experiences of visitors. Likewise, the area to the south of the State Trust land 

parcel included within the boundary would be cut off from the PWA area to the north if 

the State land parcel were excluded from the PWA boundary (See Map 1). 

A GIS analysis using viewpoints along the road at every half mile and at the campground 

in the excluded area estimates that 36% of the PWA is visually impacted by the presence 

of the road and developed features. In other words, in approximately one-third of the 

PWA, a visitor might see a car on the road, or see people in the campground or at the 

interpretive site. This drastically reduces the opportunities for solitude and a primitive 

experience in an area this small (See Map 3). 

Several recommendations for additional boundary exclusions and inclusions to the PWA 

boundary were suggested by the public after review of the Draft Wilderness Evaluation 

Report, released in October 2007. PWA boundary selection should be made to enhance 

wilderness characteristics. Boundary manageability considers whether or not a 

wilderness boundary can separate incompatible activities from wilderness characteristics. 

An addition to the PWA of the upland areas adjacent to the canyon do not contribute 
8 

much to the capability of the PWA and would greatly decrease the manageability of the 

area because of the flat open terrain of the adjoining landscape. Likewise, a boundary 

change that extends the excluded road system to the very popular cottonwood grove 

south and west of Mills Canyon Campground would also further diminish the 

opportunities for solitude and wilderness characteristics. The same logic follows that the 

exclusion of roads accessing Ship Rock point and the rock slab table from the PWA 

would make the area less manageable. The only boundary change that would improve 

manageability of the area is the exclusion of the road segment that crosses the river at the 

low-water crossing. This exclusion will prevent cars from impacting the river channel 

and would use the river as a natural barrier to motor vehicles. 

The Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area was rated medium for wilderness 

capability (See Appendix B). 

Availability for Wilderness 

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 trade-offs between 

wilderness and other uses. Factors are rated as high, medium or low based on the criteria 

shown in Appendix C. 

In the Canadian River PWA, most of the current recreational uses other than motorized 

could continue if the area was designated as wilderness. The canyon’s developed 

campground and interpretive facilities are not included within the boundary of the PWA 

because they are inconsistent with wilderness characteristics, but their presence there 

demonstrates the potential of the area for developed recreation activities. Interpretive 

facilities currently being built to provide public information and protect historic 

properties would also not appear compatible with wilderness area scenic characteristics. 

The area included in the Canadian River PWA is part of the economic development 

strategy for Harding County, which promotes the area as a developed recreation 

opportunity along La Frontera del Llano Scenic Byway. 

Several prescribed burns and wildlife restoration projects are planned for the PWA, 

which would require the use of mechanized equipment. Riparian restoration projects are 

also planned following invasive plant control activities. These projects will include 

replanting cottonwood, willow, and other native species. This activity may require the 

use of mechanized equipment. These projects would improve habitat conditions for 

wildlife species including mule deer, Merriam's wild turkey, and numerous bird species 

such as flycatchers, chats, buntings, wrens and tanagers. Frequent fire activity has 

occurred in this part of the Kiowa National Grassland. Prescribed burning has been 

conducted within the canyon to reduce fuel loading, improve wildlife habitat and reduce 

woody vegetation within the river floodplain. Additional prescribed fire projects are 
9 

planned in the foreseeable future for areas within the canyon and along the rim vicinity, 

to maintain the canyon vegetation communities with the natural range of variability and 

to reduce the risk of fire escaping to adjacent private lands. 

If designated a wilderness area, water improvements or impoundments would not need 

modification. While there are State and municipal impoundments along the river 

upstream from the PWA and an irrigation water diversion and pump station a short 

distance from the boundary, there is no foreseeable need for additional water 

impoundments or diversions within the PWA. 

The area is unencumbered by contracts or permits except for livestock grazing permits. 

There are three active grazing allotments within the PWA boundary with seasonally 

controlled grazing in the canyon. Historical livestock grazing would continue even if the

area were designated as wilderness. 

The area has a low potential for commercial timber harvest. Wood gathering in the 

canyon for recreational use within the campground and at dispersed camping sites is 

allowed. 

There is little or no potential for extraction of locatable minerals, low potential for oil-gas 

production, and the area is designated as “No Surface Occupancy” for any future oil-gas 

drilling. 

The standing historic adobe structures within the PWA have been stabilized and will

likely require future maintenance to retain their integrity. Movement of the materials for 

site stabilization would require motorized vehicles because the type and quantity of 

material needed cannot be found in the canyon. 

 Foreseeable permits for recreation or education groups, plant gathering, research or 

similar uses would not require use of motorized or mechanized equipment or detract from

wilderness qualities. 

Some ecosystem management activities limit this area’s availability for wilderness. The 

spread of salt cedar in the canyon has led to a decrease in the native riparian vegetation 

along the river. There is an interagency agreement and Forest Service decision to 

eliminate salt cedar and restore native riparian vegetation along the Canadian River. The 

Riparian Restoration Project has mapped 8,560 acres along the Canadian River and 

23,175 acres of its tributaries in preparation of treating salt cedar in New Mexico. This 

landscape-scale program would need on-going maintenance treatments over an indefinite 

period of time. A decision was signed on May 29, 2007 that approved multiple entry 

treatments for salt cedar eradication in the Canadian River PWA using, aerial (helicopter) 

and backpack herbicide application as well as the use of chainsaws or tractors. These 

activities are expected to be repeated for the next five to ten years due to the timeframe 

required to control re-sprouting of salt cedar. Carrying out these treatments is essential to 

restoring and maintaining ecosystem and watershed functions, but would limit the ability 

to concurrently manage the area as wilderness. 
10 

Land ownership and management concerns reduce the availability of the area for 

wilderness. There are several adjacent private land holdings and a block of State trust 

land, along with BLM land, some of which use roads through the PWA for access. The 

State Trust Lands have a moderate potential for future development for economic 

purposes. Private lands may also be developed for multiple purposes, some of which may 

be incompatible with wilderness characteristics. If the area were managed as wilderness, 

the type of road access that the Forest Service would permit to these parcels could be 

affected. 

Management and use of NFSR 600, 601 and 602, which are technically excluded from 

the potential wilderness, reduce the area’s availability as they detract from the wilderness 

characteristics as a whole. If these roads were to be closed and obliterated in order to 

manage the area more effectively for wilderness, it would limit the ability to control 

wildfires as there would not be safe escape routes for firefighters due to the canyonconfined topography. This same concern about lack of escape routes and the need for 

firefighter safety would also limit the Forest Service’s ability to manage prescribed fires 

that are necessary to sustain desired ecosystem conditions and protect adjacent private 

properties. Limiting our ability to control wildfires would increase the risk to damage of 

private property and natural resource attributes located in the area. 

The Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area was rated medium for availability (See 

Appendix C). 

Need for Wilderness 

The evaluation criteria below indicate how the PWA might fit into the National 

Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS), which includes all of the wilderness areas in 

the United States. Need is considered at the regional level and must incorporate public 

participation. The criteria used to evaluate need include consideration of other 

wilderness and non-wilderness areas that provide opportunities for unconfined outdoor 

recreation or preservation of certain ecosystems characteristics. Assumptions and 

methodology for this evaluation are briefly summarized in this report, with further detail 

contained in the Grasslands Plan Revision record. 

Wilderness and Non-wilderness Lands in the Vicinity 

The Forest Service evaluated comparable public lands within a 250 mile radius of the 

PWA, which is assumed to be approximately one day’s drive (see Appendix D). 

Within 250 miles of the Canadian River PWA, there are 43 designated wilderness areas 

totaling about 1.4 million acres. Most of these wilderness areas are in New Mexico and 

Colorado. In the late 1990s, 2006 and in the fall of 2007, local residents, governments, 

and other interested parties were asked to comment on the need or desire for the 

Canadian River to be designated as wilderness. Most respondents expressed the opinion 
11 

that the area should not be designated as wilderness. Some expressed concern that 

wilderness designation would attract more people and degrade the features that make it 

special. Some expressed opposition to additional federal government control and 

regulation that would potentially accompany Congressional designation and others were 

concerned with possible effects to adjacent private land. On the other hand, 

representatives from wilderness advocacy groups and some members of the public 

expressed the view that attracting more people to the area through wilderness designation 

could contribute to the local tourism economy while protecting the special natural 

features in the canyon (USDA Forest Service 2006). 

Within 250 miles of the Canadian River PWA there are 60 to 70 non-wilderness areas 

over 5,000 acres in size that are specially-designated federal or state public lands likely to 

offer a similar unconfined recreation experience. Of these areas, about 30 are Wilderness 

Study Areas managed by BLM to protect wilderness characteristics, which offer a 

primitive or semi-primitive recreation setting similar to those provided by wilderness. 

Similar non-wilderness areas include large national wildlife refuges, recreation areas, 

conservation areas, and monuments. In addition, there are many semi-primitive

backcountry areas within national forests and grasslands that were not included in these 

calculations. 

Since this evaluation and report were prepared, President Obama signed the Omnibus 

Public Lands Management Act of 2009, adding two million acres of wilderness in nine 

states. One of those recently designated areas is the 16,030-acre Sabinoso Wilderness 

located approximately 25 miles south of the Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area. 

Sabinoso is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

Visitor Pressure 

In order to consider the degree to which regional population centers are already served by 

wilderness, the evaluation looked at four metropolitan areas within 250 miles 

(approximately a day’s drive) of the Canadian River PWA: Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and 

Las Vegas, New Mexico, and Amarillo, Texas. All three New Mexico cities have access 

to over 30 designated wilderness areas within 250 miles, and Amarillo had six wilderness 

areas within 250 miles as of 2008. 

Albuquerque and Santa Fe both had estimated population growth of 10% and 12.4% 

respectively between 2000 and 2005 (US Census 2006). These cities have approximately 

3.5 million acres of designated wilderness areas within 250 miles. This means there are 

54 acres of wilderness per capita within a reasonable driving distance of Santa Fe and 7 

acres per capita for Albuquerque. Some of these wilderness areas provide primarily dayuse recreation (e.g., the Sandia Mountain Wilderness); others are large enough to 

accommodate multiple day backcountry trips (e.g., Pecos Wilderness). Of the 45-48 

wilderness areas within 250 miles of these cities, some are not heavily used. For

example, the 2006 National Visitor Use Monitoring survey for the Cibola National Forest 

estimated that there were only 2,300 wilderness visitors for the Forest’s wilderness areas 
12 

(excluding the Sandia Mountain Wilderness), an area of approximately 100,000 acres in 

that year.5 

Forest Service direction6 allows for several assumptions in evaluating wilderness need, 

among them, that public demand for wilderness may increase with proximity to 

population centers, trends in use, and population expansion factors. However, research 

has found that not all population increases are equally likely to result in an increase in 

wilderness use. Minority populations, as found in the Southwest, have a negative 

correlation with wilderness and primitive area visitor use (Bowker et al. 2006). When 

population increases are primarily among minority populations, this demographic shift is 

forecasted to result in stable or declining in wilderness use per capita. As a result, even 

areas with increasing populations can have lower rates of increase in wilderness and 

primitive area visitation (Bowker et al. 2006). Taking these findings into account, the 

expected population growth of Albuquerque and Santa Fe may not necessarily generate a 

proportionate increase in wilderness use, particularly because both cities are comprised of 

approximately 50% racial and ethnic minorities (US Census 2000). The current supply of 

wilderness, the percent of the local population that are likely to be wilderness users and 

the general population growth of these cities suggests that the demographic conditions do 

not create an increasing demand for more designated wilderness areas. 

Unlike larger northern New Mexico cities, the population of Las Vegas, NM is estimated 

to have declined 4% between 2000 and 2005 (US Census, 2006). The Pecos Wilderness 

(220,088 acres) is the most easily accessible wilderness area from Las Vegas, NM. In 

2005, it’s estimated that Las Vegas had 256 acres of designated wilderness per capita. 

The declining population and large availability of wilderness opportunities does not 

suggest that the population trend of Las Vegas generates a need for more designated 

wilderness. 

The city of Amarillo estimates that the city had 184,941 residents in 2006 and shows that

the average annual growth rate from 2000 to 2005 has only been 1.1% (US Census, 

2006). This stable growth rate does not indicate that the wilderness need for the Amarillo 

area is increasing or expected to increase. 

Most of the public land within 250 miles of Amarillo is in State and local ownership. For 

this reason, there are only 6 wilderness areas within a day’s drive of the city. A large and 

very active segment of recreation users in Texas enjoys either lake-based recreation or 

hunting and fishing, which are not necessarily wilderness-dependant activity (Huggins, 

2003). In fact, the Noble Foundation found in a 2001 survey that hunting, fishing and 

other recreation was the primary driver of the rural Texas real estate market, and the 

natural integrity of private land has been shown to improve property values (Huggins, 

2003). The large amount of private land available for relatively unconfined outdoor 

recreation uses in the surrounding areas and the value placed on its natural integrity may 

further contribute to a reduced need for designated wilderness in this region. 

 

5

 The 2006 National Visitor Use Monitoring Report was made available to the public in 2008. 

6

 FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70, Section72.31 
13 

The large number of wilderness areas available to these population centers and the 

demographic characteristics of these cities indicate that they are adequately served by 

existing wilderness. Even though the wilderness areas closest to these cities, such as the 

Sandia Wilderness, may be experiencing over-crowding, there is no evidence that the 

capacity of wilderness areas to serve these populations is likely to be exhausted. 

Primitive Sanctuary for Plants and Wildlife 

As part of the Grasslands Plan revision process, the Forest Service has developed a list of 

species that warrant consideration in the Grasslands Plan revision7. Appendix E displays 

those species from this list that are known to occur in the Canadian River PWA. Though 

all of these species would benefit from reduced disturbance, none require a primitive 

wilderness environment to survive. 

Some members of the public suggested that the PWA may be appropriate habitat for

species such as peregrine falcon and southwest willow flycatcher. However, these 

species do not occur in the PWA, except during migration. 

Potential to Increase Capacity of Established Wilderness 

There are no established wilderness areas on these National Grasslands. There would be 

no opportunity to increase capacity on any other designated wilderness in consideration 

of this factor. 

Wilderness with Similar Landform and Vegetation 

River Canyons with Similar Vegetation Composition 

In order to consider how the landform and ecological condition of the Canadian River 

PWA might be similar to existing wilderness areas within the NWPS, all designated 

wilderness areas west of the Mississippi River were compared to the Canadian River 

PWA, using landform, vegetation cover type (ecosystems) and other data from the

National Atlas. Wilderness areas located east of the Mississippi were considered to be 

too dissimilar for this comparison. The Canadian River PWA’s landform is largely

defined by a major river and canyon topography. Therefore, wilderness areas without a 

major river canyon were eliminated from further comparison, including wilderness areas 

containing a major river but lacking in hills or canyon topography, such as river areas in 

deserts or broad flat plains. Next, the percentages of major vegetation cover types in each 

wilderness area was compared to general percentages in the Canadian River Potential 

Wilderness Area, which is approximately 20% evergreen trees, 45% shrubs and 35% 

grasses. Areas with less than 5% in any of these major vegetation components were 

eliminated. Also, areas that did not contain these major cover types were eliminated, like 

those entirely dominated by deciduous or alpine forest or entirely lacking in evergreen 

trees, shrubs or grasses. It was assumed that a riparian ecosystem type would occur in all 

these wilderness areas, along the major river system. Results of this evaluation show that 

 

7

 This list includes species that have known population or habitat concerns, are present or have habitat 

within the Plan area, and may be affected by Forest Service management activities. The complete list may 

be found in the Plan revision record. 
14 

there are over 90 designated wilderness areas with major river canyons with vegetation 

similar to the Canadian River PWA (See Appendix D). Thus, these areas would likely 

provide a similar type of recreation experience. 

Ecoregions and Subregions 

Another way of examining the representation of landforms and vegetation types in 

NWPS is to overlay existing wilderness with the USDA Forest Service National 

Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. To narrow the discussion to the regional 

scale, this analysis will examine how many wilderness areas exist at the province and 

section scale8 of the framework and how similar these are to the Canadian River PWA. 

The Canadian River PWA is unique because it is in a transition zone between two 

provinces: the Great Plains-Palouse Dry Steppe Province (331) and the Southwest 

Plateau and Plains Dry Steppe and Shrub Province (315). There are 11 designated 

wilderness areas in Province 331, totaling 251,284 acres and 7 designated wilderness in 

Province 315, totaling 142,689 acres (see Tables 1 and 2). Both of these provinces are 

primarily grasslands with shrubs and low-lying trees present; both provinces’ landforms 

are characterized by rolling plains and mesas or plateaus with canyons, buttes and valleys 

as an occasional landscape feature. Province 331 has a temperate climate which is 

formed by the rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains, while Province 315 is semiarid. The 

Canadian River PWA falls within the range of landforms and climate that are found 

within both of these provinces; however, the potential natural vegetation type in the 

canyon is uncharacteristic because the area is dominated by juniper woodland with 

ponderosa pine stringers and cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation. There are no areas 

with a potential natural vegetation type of grassland within the PWA boundary. 

Table 1: Wilderness Areas within the Great Plains-Palouse Dry Steppe Province 

Wilderness State Acres 

Responsible 

Agency 

Sangre de Cristo Wilderness* CO 32,180 FS 

Sangre de Cristo Wilderness* CO 42,518 NPS 

Greenhorn Mountain Wilderness CO 23,624 FS 

Great Sand Dunes Wilderness CO 32,950 NPS 

Medicine Lake Wilderness MT 2,547 FWS 

UL Bend Wilderness MT 22,934 FWS 

Lostwood Wilderness ND 6,235 FWS 

Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness ND 13,796 NPS 

Chase Lake Wilderness ND 4,688 FWS 

Soldier Creek Wilderness NE 8,637 FS 

Badlands Wilderness SD 61,175 NPS 

Total Acres 251,284 

*Contiguous Wilderness managed by different federal agencies 

Table 2: Wilderness Areas within the Southwest Plateau and Plains Dry Steppe and 

Shrub Province 

 

8

 For definitions of the various scales within the USDA Forest Service National Hierarchical Framework of 

Ecological Units, see Appendix F. 
15 

Wilderness State Acres 

Responsible 

Agency 

Bandelier Wilderness* NM 25,053 NPS 

Dome Wilderness* NM 4,189 FS 

Salt Creek Wilderness NM 10,968 FWS 

Carlsbad Caverns Wilderness NM 31,138 NPS 

Guadalupe Mountains Wilderness TX 44,131 NPS 

Ojito Wilderness NM 11,178 BLM 

Sabinoso Wilderness NM 16,030 BLM 

Total Acres 142,689

*Contiguous Wilderness managed by different federal agencies 

Ecoregion Sections 

The Canadian River PWA falls within two ecoregion-sections, the Southern High Plains

and the Texas High Plains. There are no wilderness areas in the Southern High Plains 

section, however the Sabinoso Wilderness which was designated in 2009 (BLM) is 

situated approximately 25 miles south of the Canadian River PWA. The Sabinoso 

contains approximately 16,030 acres and is part of the Canadian River Basin and the 

Texas High Plains section (315B). The Sabinoso Wilderness contains a larger proportion 

of the grassland vegetation types and land features common to its subregion; however, it 

does not include a segment of the Canadian River. 

The Texas High Plains are described as “a high plateau with flat terrain. Soils formed in 

eolian silts and fine sands; playa lakes are present. Predominant vegetation is Great Plains 

grasslands and pinyon-juniper cover types.” The Canadian River PWA is not 

representative of either of these descriptions and therefore its addition to the NWPS 

would not add to the representation of the vegetation types and landforms associated with 

this subsection. 

At the same time, the Bandelier Wilderness, which is also located in northern New 

Mexico, also includes similar river canyon topography, is partially within the Province 

315 and has a vegetative cover type mix nearly identical to the Canadian River PWA 

(See Figure 1). The photos in Figure 1 show that both the southern canyon of the 

Bandelier Wilderness and the Canadian River canyon have similar topography and 

vegetation cover. The description for the Central Rio Grande Intermontane Section 

(315H) is a large intermountain riverine basin with valleys, lowland and outwash plains, 

and alluvial fans and terraces. Bedrock is mainly sedimentary formations with some 

volcanics. Vegetation is mostly sagebrush, piñon-juniper, and ponderosa pine cover 

types” (McNab 2007). This description describes the landscape and vegetation of the 

Canadian River PWA with the exceptions that the area is located in a plains environment 

and not in an intermountain area and the parent materials of the two canyons are 

different. Despite the differences in surroundings and location, the Bandelier Wilderness 

is an existing wilderness in the same state and province which represents the ecosystem 

and landform of the Canadian River PWA. 
16 

Figure 1: Photo Comparison of Canadian River and Bandelier Wilderness 

Canadian River near Mills, NM Rio Grande; Bandelier Wilderness, NM 

The evaluation of need shows that the Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area 

generates a low degree of need as a new wilderness area. 

Effects of Recommendations 

The following section provides a summary of potential effects of the two possible 

outcomes of the wilderness evaluation process: a recommendation to designate the area 

as wilderness or a recommendation to manage the area as a non-wilderness (FSH 1909.12 

Ch 74). This analysis is not intended to replace an analysis of effects and is not sufficient 

to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. It is only intended to 

provide a summary and discussion of possible outcomes that will be further considered as

part of the plan revision process. A final decision on whether or not to recommend the 

area as a wilderness will be made in the Plan Approval Document, in accordance with 

1982 Planning Rule provisions. If the area is recommended for designation in the 

Grasslands Plan, a separate NEPA analysis will be completed before the recommendation 

is sent to Congress by the Secretary for a final decision. 

For each possible management decision, the following section describes the direction that 

may be included in the revised plan and the potential effects of moving towards those 

desired conditions. In both possible scenarios, protection of the Outstanding and 

Remarkable Values of the Eligible Scenic River segment are retained. 
17 

Recommendation: Wilderness 

Management Direction: The Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area is managed to 

protect its wilderness characteristics. Vegetation is managed within the range of natural 

variability. Natural processes, such as fire, insects, drought, disease, and grazing, control 

vegetation composition and structure. The area is managed to promote an open, natural or 

natural-appearing landscape with an emphasis on the health of the riparian habitat and 

prevention of invasive plant re-introduction. Generally, opportunities for primitive 

recreation are provided, with a moderate degree of solitude 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 are evident but will diminish through lack of use. Some of these routes may 

become designated trails. Bridges or other structures may exist to protect resources or 

provide safe stream crossings during normal water flow. 

Use of mechanized equipment for administrative purposes will continue, until the area is 

designated by Congress. When mechanized equipment is used in the interim, it will be 

done in a manner that does not have a long term impact on the wilderness character of the 

area. Opportunities to remove or relocate structural range improvements (fences and 

water developments), to achieve resource management goals and objectives, will be 

pursued. Both directional and resource protection signs may be present. Physical barriers 

to motor vehicle intrusion are present along the boundary and particularly along NFSR 

600 and 601. Invasive plant eradication is carried out along the river corridor and native 

vegetation is reestablished. 

Effects: 

 Salt cedar treatments will go forward in the short term (5 to 10 years). In the long 

term, re-introduction of invasive plants along the river will not be easily contained 

or eliminated because of the difficulty in removing the seed source. 

Reintroduction of salt cedar could lead to the spread of salt cedar or other invasive 

species throughout the riparian area and onto adjacent nonfederal lands. 

 Motorized recreation will be terminated and non motorized recreation will 

dominate the area. 

 The economic effects of wilderness designation are difficult to predict. The

substitution of one type of recreation user group for another has unclear impacts 

on local tourism. The effects of marketing and gas prices are more likely to result 

in changes to the local economy than wilderness designation. 

 Unobligated grazing allotments, at the time of designation, will not be available 

for use in the future. 

 The community will lose motorized access to the dispersed recreation sites along 

the river and at the cottonwood grove picnic and camping area on the west side of 

the Canadian River. 
18 

 The river crossing will be closed and the riparian vegetation in that area will 

improve. 

 The recreation experience in the canyon will be quieter because motorized 

vehicles will be limited to a restricted area. 

 The area will have a more natural appearance as roads begin to disappear from 

lack of use. 

 Managing prescribed fire will be unsafe without the use of motorized equipment 

and is unlikely to continue to occur on a regular basis. This may result in the area 

having a less natural vegetation structure and composition, additional fuel loading 

and an increase in potential for high intensity wildfires. 

 Typical wilderness users have a certain expectation of self-reliance and challenge. 

The road access to the area and the disjointed land ownership pattern will limit the 

areas ability to fulfill these expectations. 

 Access into the area by the NFSR 600 will be used to assist in emergency 

extraction by motorized means. 

 The State will continue to use motorized and mechanized equipment on State 

Trust lands within the canyon but may have limited motorized access through the 

adjacent federal land. 

Recommendation: Non-wilderness/Unroaded Backcountry Area 

Management Direction: A variety of un-crowded, non-motorized, recreation 

opportunities are provided in a natural or natural-appearing setting. Concentration of 

users outside of developed recreation facilities is low, but there is often evidence of other 

users. These areas may offer unique hunting opportunities away from motorized vehicles. 

Improvements such as trailheads, trails, signs, bridges, fences, primitive shelters, and 

water developments may be present. Existing two-track roads and old roads may be 

evident but will diminish over time or may become designated trails. 

The number of structures and facilities to support management activities is limited. 

A natural landscape with unobtrusive structural developments is maintained. Livestock 

grazing is managed to prevent conflicts with recreation activities. Vegetation 

management activities will reflect the colors, lines, forms, and patterns of the surrounding 

canyon landscapes. Invasive plant eradication activities are carried out along the river 

corridor and native vegetation is reestablished for a proper functioning riparian system. 

Effects:

 Salt cedar treatments and prescribed fires activities will continue, as planned, and 

will improve the functioning of natural systems within the canyon. 

 Trails and recreation developments may be constructed but will be designed to 

maintain the integrity of the natural and scenic setting. 

 New non-motorized trails may be constructed to facilitate recreation uses in the 

canyon. 
19 

 Grazing will be used strategically to manage fuels and to support overlapping 

grazing allotment management. 

 Off-road use will be eliminated by a Travel Management decision. Most 

unauthorized roads currently occurring within the canyon will not be brought into 

the official Forest Service Road System. 

 A backcountry experience will be the focus of future management. Some 

wilderness characteristics may be compromised to reduce the impacts of 

recreation uses on the riparian area and other sensitive habitats. 

 The cottonwood picnic area will continue to be accessible by motor vehicle until 

it is evaluated through the Travel Management process and a final determination 

is made as to its status. 
20 

References 

Bailey, Robert G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. 2d. ed. rev. 

and expanded (1st ed. 1980). Misc Publ. No. 1391 (rev.) Washington DC USDA Forest 

Service 108p. with separate map at 1:7,500,000. 

Bowker, J.M., D. Murphy, H.K. Cordell, D.B.K. English, J.C. Bergstrom, C.M. Starbuck, 

C.J. Betz, and G.T. Green. 2006. Wilderness and Primitive Area Recreation Participation 

and Consumption: An Examination of Demographic and Spatial Factors. Journal of 

Agricultural and Applied Economics, 38, 2(August 2006):317-326 

David T. Cleland, Peter E. Avers, W. Henry McNab, Mark E. Jensen, Robert G. Bailey, 

Thomas King, and Walter E. Russell. 1997.In: Ecosystem Management: Applications for 

Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources, Mark S. Boyce and Alan Haney, editors. 

Yale University Press, New Haven & London. pp 181-200. 

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/gla/reports/hierarchy.htm 

Huggins, Grant. 2003. Recreation Motivates Texas Land Buyers. Retrieved 1/22/2007 

from http://www.noble.org/Ag/Wildlife/RecreationMotivations/index.html. 

McNab, W.H.; Cleland, D.T.; Freeouf, J.A.; Keys, Jr., J.E.; Nowacki, G.J.; Carpenter, C.A., 

comps. 2007. Description of ecological subregions: sections of the conterminous United States 

[CD-ROM]. Gen. Tech. Report WO-76B. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 80 p.

New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (NMWQCC). 2007. 2006-2008 State of 

New Mexico Integrated Clean Water Act 303(d)/305(b) Report. 438 pp. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Summary File 1. Last Revised February 18, 2005. 

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/sumfile1.html. 

US Census Bureau. 2006. County total population, population change and estimated 

components of population change: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (CO-EST2006-alldata). 

Retreived March 2007. http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Summary of Public Comments from 1995-2005. Cibola 

National Forest. 
21 

Appendix A: Process Consistency 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines wilderness as: 

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the 

landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of 

wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land 

retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or 

human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural 

conditions and which (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) has at least 

five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as 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 historic value.

The Forest Service directives (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 70) describe the process and 

documentation for identifying and evaluating potential wilderness in the National Forest 

System. 

Inventory

The Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area is the only potential wilderness area on 

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

criteria in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 71. The High Lonesome area of the Rita Blanca 

National Grassland was evaluated during the inventory phase and eliminated based on the 

criteria for wilderness inventories on grasslands which states that potential wilderness 

areas may have no more than one mile of interior fence per section9. 

Capability

In 1996 and 1997, an interdisciplinary planning team conducted a preliminary wilderness 

evaluation of all potential wilderness areas on the Cibola National Forest and Grasslands. 

Documents from this evaluation qualitatively described capability characteristics such as 

size (acres), access, remoteness, natural integrity, apparent naturalness, solitude and other 

values. In December 2006, a new interdisciplinary team reviewed the original wilderness 

capability analysis and updated it, considering new information, changed conditions and 

new evaluation criteria. The 2006 review process included ranking the potential 

wilderness area as having high, medium, or low wilderness potential based on capability 

factors (from 1992 wilderness evaluation directives). Those factors and ratings were 

updated by the ID Team in March 2007 to consider criteria in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 70 

(2007). 

Availability

In December 2006, an interdisciplinary team ranked the area as high, medium or low for 

wilderness availability, based on a set of factors adapted from 1992 directives, they were 

subsequently updated to be consistent with the 2007 directives and Regional guidance. 

 

9

 FSH 1909.12, Chapter 70, Section 71.11 (5)(b) 
22 

Availability characteristics evaluated include recreation, including tourism; wildlife 

species populations and management needs; water availability and use; livestock 

operations; timber; minerals; cultural resources; authorized and potential land uses; 

management consideration including fire, insects and disease, and presence of nonFederal lands. 

Need

FSH 1909.12, Chapter 70, Section72.31 requires that the evaluation of need consider, at a 

minimum the following factors: 

1. The location, size, and type of other wildernesses in the general vicinity and 

their distance from the proposed area. Consider accessibility of areas to 

population centers and user groups. Public demand for wilderness may increase 

with proximity to growing population centers. 

2. Present visitor pressure on other wildernesses, the trends in use, changing 

patterns of use, population expansion factors, and trends and changes in 

transportation. 

3. The extent to which non-wilderness lands on the NFS unit or other Federal 

lands are likely to provide opportunities for unconfined outdoor recreation 

experiences. 

4. The need to provide a refuge for those species that have demonstrated an 

ability to survive in less than primitive surroundings or the need for a protected 

area for other unique scientific values or phenomena. 

5. Within social and biological limits, management may increase the capacity of

established wildernesses to support human use without unacceptable depreciation 

of the wilderness resource. 

6. An area’s ability to provide for preservation of identifiable landform types and 

ecosystems. Consideration of this factor may include utilization of Edwin A. 

Hammond’s subdivision of landform types and the Bailey-Kuchler ecosystem 

classification. This approach is helpful from the standpoint of rounding out the 

National Wilderness Preservation System and may be further subdivided to suit 

local, subregional, and regional needs. 

These directives also require the Forest Service to demonstrate need through the public 

involvement process, including input on the evaluation report. Public participation began 

in October 2007. 
23 

Appendix B: Capability Evaluation and Rankings for 

the Canadian River PWA 

Capability Characteristics 

Natural 

1. Presence of non-native species 

 High - Non-native species are not evident 

 Medium – Non-native species are evident in isolated spots. 

 Low - Non-native species are common or scattered throughout the area. 

Rating: Low – Tamarisk or salt cedar dominates most of the riparian vegetation. 

and non-native Barbary sheep were introduced into the canyon decades ago. 

 

2. Rivers within the Potential Wilderness Area are in free-flowing condition 

 High - Rivers within the area are considered free-flowing 

Medium – Some rivers have impoundments or other issues that affect their 

free-flowing character. 

Low – Rivers within the area are seasonal or heavily impacted by 

impoundments. 

Rating: High – The only river within the area is an eligible Scenic River and 

meets the criteria of free-flowing. A major water impoundment to the north of the 

canyon could affect the amount of natural flow in the area. 

3. Quality of night-sky as affected by light pollution 

High – The night sky is clear with little to no interference from light 

pollution. 

Medium – Some stars are visible and there is moderate degradation from 

light pollution 

Low –Few stars are visible at night and the presence of light pollution is 

evident 

Rating: High – lights from Las Vegas and other nearby towns are not evident in 

the canyon. 

4. Presence of pollutants that degrade water 

 High – All rivers have been sampled and there are no water quality issues. 

Medium – There are no known water quality issues within the area but the 

entire river has not been sampled. 
24 

Low – There are rivers within the area that are listed on the State Impaired 

Waters List (303d) 

Rating: Medium- The segment within the potential wilderness boundary is not 

listed but the segments up and downstream from the area are listed as impaired for 

nutrients, air to water deposition of mercury, and eutrophication possibly caused 

by phosphorous levels. The segment of the Canadian River within the PWA has 

not been tested for the pollutants for which the adjacent segments are impaired, 

which makes Medium the highest possible rating of the PWA. 

5. Area provides elements of biological diversity and naturalness, including unique 

habitats, threatened or endangered species, or rare plants and wildlife, 

High - Has critical or unique habitats and diverse ecological conditions. 

Medium - Has a mix of habitats and ecological conditions. 

Low - Has limited ecological conditions and habitats. 

Rating: Medium - Based on the supporting ecological conditions and the mix of 

habitats including; riverine, riparian, wetland, grassland, woody scrub shrub, and 

forest, the Canadian PWA is host to a diversity of wildlife. A unique habitat found 

between the riparian area and the talus slopes supports the rare plant, horrid 

herrickia. 

6. Area contains a variety of natural resources, including a variety of tree species and 

structures; for example, intermingled grasslands or meadows, numerous recreation 

opportunities, diversity of wildlife habitats, and wildlife, etc. 

High - Diverse amount of natural resources 

Medium - Mixed amount of natural resources 

Low - Limited amount of natural resource diversity 

Rating: High – This area is unique to the southern Great Plains area but may not 

be unique for river canyons of the Southwest. Diversity of vegetation is the key 

natural feature. It varies from riparian areas, grass meadows, mountain shrub, 

piñon-juniper, cottonwood and willow galleries, and ponderosa pine. Fishing 

hunting, wildlife viewing, photography, and hiking are the available recreation 

opportunities. Combination of riparian, upland and aquatic including forested 

areas is unique to the Great Plains. Cliff and caves habitat provides bat roosting, 

raptor nesting. Rare plants are present. 

Undeveloped 

7. Area has current or past evidence of human activity 

High - Little or no evidence of human activity 

Medium - Unnoticeable or unobjectionable human activity 

Low - Obvious evidence of human activity 
25 

Rating: Low – There are many user-created roads and standing structures in the 

canyon. There is a campground, interpretive sites and structures to control 

motorized use. Although these features are technically outside of the PWA 

boundary, they are prominent. There is a bridge and a concrete ford rivercrossing. There is a high density of roads per square mile which are used for 

access for camping, boating, livestock management, forest product retrieval and 

general recreation. Chainsaws and motorized vehicles can be clearly heard when 

used in the canyon or near the rim. There is little opportunity for primitive and 

unconfined recreation opportunities. 

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation 

8. Area provides physically and mentally challenging recreation opportunities that 

promote adventure and self-reliance 

High – Most of the area provides challenging recreation opportunities 

Medium- Only some parts of the area has the potential for challenging 

recreation opportunities. 

Low – Few parts of the area can provide challenging recreation 

opportunities. 

Rating: Medium - The sides of the canyon may provide opportunities but the 

canyon bottom does not provide challenge. 

9. Opportunity to experience solitude and isolation from human activities while 

recreating in the area 

 High - Feeling of being alone or remote from civilization 

Medium – Feeling of being alone is possible but signs of civilization are 

likely. 

Low – Little opportunity of feeling alone. 

Rating: Medium – It is possible to find areas of the canyon upstream which 

provide a sense of solitude. In general, the remoteness of the canyon from 

highways and major cities contributes to its opportunities for solitude. However, 

the central part of the canyon has several developed activities which, though 

excluded from the potential wilderness boundary, are likely to affect the 

experience of visitors. In the downstream portion of the area, there are several 

adjacent private land in-holdings and uses that impact the visitor experience. 

10. Opportunity to engage in primitive and unconfined recreation such as back-packing, 

kayaking, hunting, fishing, etc. 

 High – There are many opportunities for engaging in primitive recreation 
26 

Medium – There are some opportunities for engaging in primitive 

recreation 

Low – There are few to no opportunities for engaging in primitive 

recreation 

Rating: Medium - A person could experience short-term solitude, self-reliant hiking and 

climbing away from the main roads, campground, and interpretive sites, within the PWA. 

However, the roads, trails, and developed facilities in the canyon detract from the 

primitive and challenging nature of recreation in the area. The small size of the area and 

the presence of the developed campground limit opportunities for long primitive backpacking trips. Sounds from the developed campground, the excluded roads and adjacent 

land uses also have the potential to impact the experience of solitude within the PWA. 

Special Features and Values 

11. Area contains outstanding or distinct features like rock formations, panoramic views, 

etc. 

High - Many distinct features 

Medium - Some distinct features 

Low - One or no distinct features 

Rating: High - Unique to the southern Great Plains area but may not be unique for 

river canyons of the Southwest. High scenic quality with high red sandstone 

cliffs, rock cliffs, caves and panoramic views of the canyon along the rim are 

notable. 

12. Area has potential for scientific research, environmental education, or 

historic/cultural opportunities. 

High - Good potential for two or more opportunities 

Medium - Potential for one type of opportunity 

Low - Little or no potential for this type of opportunity 

Rating: Medium - The area rates low for education and research but high for 

historic and cultural resources. The area is important to Native American tribes. 

There are historic and prehistoric archaeological sites that are important to the 

local history. Mills Orchard and Ranch structures are eligible for the National 

Register, although they are technically outside the PWA. 

13. Area contains unique rare species of plants and/or animals. 

 High – area has several unique or rare plants and/or animals 
27 

Medium – area has a few unique or rare plants and/or animals 

Low – area has no unique or rare plants and/ or animals 

Rating: Medium – Based on the supporting ecological conditions and the mix of 

habitats including; riverine, riparian, wetland, grassland, woody scrub shrub, and 

forest, the Canadian PWA is host to a diversity of wildlife. A unique habitat found 

between the riparian area and the talus slopes supports the rare plant, horrid 

herrickia. 

 

Manageability 

14. Ability to manage the area in an unroaded condition, including distance and influence 

from outside activities; opportunity to access the area; and resource conflicts or 

encumbrances. 

High - Isolated from areas of activity; controlled or limited access; no 

encumbrances or resource conflicts 

Medium - Somewhat isolated from areas of activity; adequate access 

opportunities; some resource conflicts and/or encumbrances 

Low – Areas of activity are nearby; many access opportunities; many 

resource conflicts and/or encumbrances 

Rating: Low - Managing the PWA in an unroaded condition that protects the 

wilderness character would require closing existing and frequently used roads and 

dealing with access issues from the private and State Trust Lands adjacent to and 

within the area. The shape of the PWA creates three portions of the canyon that 

are not large enough to be a stand alone PWA and which are divided by areas 

heavily impacted by human activities. There is also a historic pattern of 

motorized use that would have to be changed. The area has a fragmented land 

ownership pattern. 

15. Motorized use within the area 

Yes - Has motorized vehicle use 

No - Does not have any motorized vehicle use 

Rating: Yes – There is an average density of 2.8 miles per square mile of road in 

the canyon, most of which are user-created roads. OHV use is common within 

the Potential Wilderness Area. 

Overall Capability: Medium
28 

Appendix C: Availability Evaluation and Rankings for 

the Canadian River PWA 

The determination of availability is conditioned by the value and need for the wilderness 

resource compared to the value and need for other resources. 

Availability Characteristics 

Recreation, including Tourism 

1. Areas having such unique recreational characteristics or natural phenomena that 

general public access should be developed to facilitate public use and enjoyment. 

High - Does not exist or minimal development will be provided. 

Medium - Requires minor development or improvement that does not 

qualify as a developed recreation site but is a higher development level 

than is normally found within wilderness. 

Low - Has a developed recreation site or features that warrant construction 

of developed recreation site. 

Rating: Low - Has developed recreation site and other developed features. There 

is an interpretive site as well. There has been a developed campground in the 

canyon that pre-dates FS acquisition. Major facility reconstruction projects (camp 

and picnic sites) were completed in 2009, however interpretive work is ongoing. 

As stated previously these developments are technically outside the PWA 

boundary. The area included within the PWA is part of the economic 

development strategy for Harding County, which promotes the area as a 

developed recreation opportunity along La Frontera del Llano Scenic Byway. 

Wildlife Species, Populations and Management Needs 

2. Areas needing management for wildlife or aquatic animals that might conflict with 

wilderness management. 

Low - Intense management (motorized equipment: helicopters, 

chainsaws, broadcast burning) and frequent entries (= or <5 yrs). 

Medium - Management requiring helicopters but no motorized equipment 

on the ground and frequency is generally less than 10 years. 

High - Low management requirements with no motorized equipment 

required to meet objectives and infrequent entries. 

Rating: Low - Large equipment is needed to restore wildlife habitat including the 

implementation of broadcast burns and the removal of exotic trees (salt cedar)

using chainsaws and large mechanized equipment to restore riparian habitat. 

Water Availability and Use 

Areas that are of high value for water yield; or on-site storage where installation and 

maintenance of improvements may be required. 
29 

Low - Identified impoundment that will have an effect on wilderness 

characteristics. 

Medium - Minor improvements will have an affect. 

High - No impoundment needed. 

Rating: Medium - There are State municipal impoundments along the river but no 

impoundments are needed within the Potential Wilderness Area boundary. 

Livestock Operations 

4. Areas used for livestock grazing that would conflict with wilderness management. 

Yes – Livestock grazing would have an effect on wilderness 

characteristics. 

 No – Livestock grazing is consistent with wilderness values. 

Rating: No - There are three grazing allotments within the PWA boundary. 

Livestock grazing is considered consistent with wilderness values. Some 

allotments are currently un-obligated (2011). 

Timber 

5. Areas containing commercially valuable (harvestable) timber.

Yes - There is commercially valuable timber within the boundary. 

No - There is no commercially valuable timber within the boundary. 

Rating: No - There is no commercially suitable timber within the PWA boundary 

Minerals 

6. Areas of high value mineral deposits of economic or strategic importance. 

Yes - There are high value mineral deposits within the boundary. 

No - There are no known high value mineral deposits within the boundary. 

Rating: No – The Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for the KiowaRita Blanca National Grasslands shows that the area has no potential for mineral 

extraction in the foreseeable future. 

Cultural Resources 

7. Cultural resources requiring protection or maintenance that might conflict with 

wilderness values.

Low – location, access and routine maintenance of historical structures 

will have an effect on wilderness characteristics 

 Medium – Minor improvements will have an effect because of 

 High – No maintenance required 
30 

Rating: Low - The area contains the remaining historic structures from the Melvin W. 

Mills Orchard and Ranch, which is technically outside the PWA boundary. The standing 

historic adobe structures within the PWA have been stabilized and will likely require 

future maintenance to retain their integrity. 

Authorized and Potential Land Uses 

8. Lands committed through contracts, permits, or agreements that would be in conflict 

with wilderness management. Foreseeable permits for recreation, education or similar 

uses would not detract from wilderness qualities. 

High - Current authorizations do not conflict with potential wilderness. 

Medium - Current authorization but can be terminated or there is long 

term authorization or commitment but does not require motorized 

equipment for access or maintenance. 

Low - Currently exists, must be retained (long term commitment), and 

requires motorized equipment for access or maintenance. 

 Rating: High – Currently, there are range permits only and they do not conflict. 

Management Considerations including Fire, Insects, and Disease, and Presence of Nonfederal Lands 

9. Area needing active vegetative restoration activity due to specific species survival 

(such as White Bark Pine restoration), or identifiable fuel reduction activity to reduce 

the risk of catastrophic wildfire, or known areas of severe insect infestation that will 

lead to heavy tree mortality. Forest Service does not have sufficient control to prevent 

development of irresolvable, incompatible uses that would lessen wilderness character 

and potential. 

Low - The need for vegetation restoration is a higher priority and requires 

long-term management and mechanized or motorized equipment 

Medium - Areas needing high intensity management activities for a short 

time period (< or = 5 yrs). These areas could be available for wilderness 

after those activities are completed (like fuel reduction activities). Some 

intense restoration work over small areas could be accomplished without 

conflicting with wilderness management (species conservation work not 

requiring motorized equipment). 

High - The area needs little vegetative restoration. 

Rating: Low - In the canyon bottom, burning is needed to mimic natural fire 

regimes to reduce fuel loads and restore the hydrological function by reducing 

piñon juniper and cholla intrusion onto the flood plain. The area's topography 

makes it unsafe for firefighters to conduct a prescribed fire without mechanized 

equipment and motorized access. Management of fires in the canyon is essential

to protect adjacent private land. Salt cedar management along the river is also an 
31 

important vegetative treatment. The Forest Service needs to obliterate and rehab 

existing roads for watershed protection, which requires motorized vehicles and 

machinery. There are State and private in-holdings, and very little federal land 

surrounding the area. 

Overall Availability Rating: Medium
32 

Appendix D: Need Evaluation 

Designated Wilderness Areas within 250 miles of Canadian River Potential 

Wilderness Area 

Wilderness Area Acres 

Apache Kid Wilderness 44,887

Bandelier Wilderness 25,060

Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness 41,363

Bosque del Apache Wilderness 31,753

Buffalo Peaks Wilderness 40,650

Capitan Mountains Wilderness 35,698

Cebolla Wilderness 66,514

Chama River Canyon Wilderness 49,253

Collegiate Peaks Wilderness 175,357

Cruces Basin Wilderness 18,946

Dome Wilderness 4,191

Fossil Ridge Wilderness 31,443

Great Sand Dunes Wilderness 32,846

Greenhorn Mountain Wilderness 23,545

Holy Cross Wilderness 128,752

Hunter-Fryingpan Wilderness 76,408

La Garita Wilderness 128,726

Latir Peak Wilderness 21,706

Lizard Head Wilderness 42,599

Lost Creek Wilderness 117,557

Manzano Mountain Wilderness 35,050

Maroon Bells-Snowmass 

Wilderness 185,271

Mesa Verde Wilderness 8,611

Mount Evans Wilderness 76,716

Mount Massive Wilderness 24,828

Mount Sneffels Wilderness 16,928

Pecos Wilderness 220,088

Powderhorn Wilderness 61,092

Raggeds Wilderness 71,088

Sabinoso Wilderness 16,030

Salt Creek Wilderness 10,981

San Pedro Parks Wilderness 41,107

Sandia Mountain Wilderness 36,768

Sangre de Cristo Wilderness 162,310

South San Juan Wilderness 171,364

Spanish Peaks Wilderness 19,339

Uncompahgre Wilderness 103,835

Weminuche Wilderness 477,877

West Elk Wilderness 181,871

West Malpais Wilderness 37,878

Wheeler Peak Wilderness 20,385

White Mountain Wilderness 45,779

Withington Wilderness 18,996
33 

Designated Wilderness Areas with Similar Topography and Vegetative Cover to 

Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area 

Wilderness Area Agency State Acres 

Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness FS MT-WY 899,562

Aldo Leopold Wilderness FS NM 206,904

Alpine Lakes Wilderness FS WA 392,440

Anaconda Pintler Wilderness FS MT 146,146

Ansel Adams Wilderness FS CA 227,911

Arc Dome Wilderness FS NV 118,341

Bandelier Wilderness NPS NM 25,060

Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness NPS CO 15,857

Black Canyon Wilderness FS OR 11,683

Black Canyon Wilderness NPS AZ-NV 43,687

Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness BLM CO-UT 75,577

Bob Marshall Wilderness FS MT 996,589

Boulder River Wilderness FS WA 50,352

Bridger Wilderness FS WY 423,874

Buffalo Peaks Wilderness FS CO 40,649

Cabinet Mountains Wilderness FS MT 87,001

Cache La Poudre Wilderness FS CO 11,184

Carlsbad Caverns Wilderness NPS NM 28,147

Carson-Iceberg Wilderness FS CA 190,295

Cedar Bench Wilderness FS AZ 16,604

Colonel Bob Wilderness FS WA 32,502

Comanche Peak Wilderness FS CO 74,287

Desolation Wilderness FS CA 64,590

Dinkey Lakes Wilderness FS CA 101,475

Domeland Wilderness FS-BLM CA 98,260

Eagle Cap Wilderness FS OR 354,490

Eagles Nest Wilderness FS CO 139,392

Emigrant Wilderness FS CA 111,877

Encampment River Wilderness FS WY 11,846

Flat Tops Wilderness FS CO 242,018

Four Peaks Wilderness FS AZ 60,558

Frank Church-River of No Return 

Wilderness FS ID 449,878

Gila Wilderness FS NM 559,118

Glacier Peak Wilderness FS WA 558,938

Golden Trout Wilderness FS CA 333,980

Gospel-Hump Wilderness FS ID 199,406

Granite Chief Wilderness FS CA 25,824

Great Bear Wilderness FS MT 256,070

Greenhorn Mountain Wilderness FS CO 23,545

Gros Ventre Wilderness FS WY 281,131

Gunnison Gorge Wilderness BLM CO 17,665

Hells Canyon Wilderness FS-BLM ID-OR 226,620

Henry M. Jackson Wilderness FS WA 103,097

High Uintas Wilderness FS UT 423,974

Hunter-Fryingpan Wilderness FS CO 76,408
34 

Wilderness Area Agency State Acres 

Jarbidge Wilderness FS NV 110,541

John Muir Wilderness FS CA 521,771

Kalmiopsis Wilderness FS OR 178,552

Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness FS WA 151,494

Lee Metcalf Wilderness FS-BLM MT 131,003

Lizard Head Wilderness FS CO 42,598

Marble Mountain Wilderness FS CA 221,167

Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness FS CO 185,270

Mazatzal Wilderness FS AZ 249,157

Mesa Verde Wilderness NPS CO 5,310

Mission Mountains Wilderness FS MT 72,096

Mokelumne Wilderness FS CA 88,592

Monarch Wilderness FS CA 45,875

Monument Rock Wilderness FS OR 20,139

Mount Baker Wilderness FS WA 121,624

Mount Skokomish Wilderness FS WA 13,608

Mount Timpanogos Wilderness FS UT 10,320

Mount Zirkel Wilderness FS CO 165,646

Norse Peak Wilderness FS WA 54,476

North Fork Wilderness FS CA 7,978

Opal Creek Wilderness FS OR 34,937

Paiute Wilderness BLM AZ 89,596

Pasayten Wilderness FS WA 536,565

Pecos Wilderness FS NM 220,087

Platte River Wilderness FS CO-WY 25,211

Popo Agie Wilderness FS WY 103,510

Rawah Wilderness FS CO 78,207

Salt River Canyon Wilderness FS AZ 32,073

San Gabriel Wilderness FS CA 35,188

San Gorgonio Wilderness FS-BLM CA 115,195

San Rafael Wilderness FS CA 195,018

Sawtooth Wilderness FS ID 215,510

Scapegoat Wilderness FS MT 235,043

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness FS ID-MT 3,120,935

Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness NPS CA 688,423

Sheep Mountain Wilderness FS CA 36,720

Siskiyou Wilderness FS CA 154,753

South San Juan Wilderness FS CO 171,363

South Sierra Wilderness FS CA 29,413

Steens Mountain Wilderness BLM OR 144,913

Stephen Mather Wilderness NPS WA 682,080

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness FS AZ 58,873

Tatoosh Wilderness FS WA 15,332

Teton Wilderness FS WY 582,188

The Brothers Wilderness FS WA 17,339

Trinity Alps Wilderness FS CA 496,607

Uncompahgre Wilderness FS CO 99,260
35 

Wilderness Area Agency State Acres 

Ventana Wilderness FS CA 239,989

Washakie Wilderness FS WY 659,274

Weminuche Wilderness FS CO 474,879

Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness FS OR-WA 180,612

West Elk Wilderness FS CO 181,870

Wheeler Peak Wilderness FS NM 20,385

Winegar Hole Wilderness FS WY 12,529

Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness FS CA 147,443

Yosemite Wilderness NPS CA 641,662

FS = Forest Service 

BLM = Bureau of Land Management 

NPS = National Park Service 
Appendix E: Species that Warrant Consideration 

County Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name 

Taxon Notes 

Harding, NM 

Orconectes deanae 

Conchas Crayfish 

Invertebrate crustacean 

Occurs in the Canadian River in Mills Canyon.(Pittenger 2004). Species mexcessive deposition of fine-grained sediments and that watershed degrasiltation is likely a major determinant of habitat suitability. This could be a an aquatic ecosystem characteristic (water quality). Pittenger, John. 2004Crayfish in New Mexico, Internal rept. NM Dept. of Game and Fish. 

Harding, NM 

Euphorbia strictior 

Panhandle Spurge 

Plant NatureServe Global Status Last Reviewed: 21Mar1999 Habitat Comment

disturbed soils in rights-of-way, sandy limestone soils, in pinyon-juniper w

Infrequent in sandy areas of the short grass plains

Harding, NM 

Herrickia horrida 

Horrid Herrickia 

Plant Sept 07 removed from Forest Sensitive Species list NatureServe Global S

10Sep1997 Locally common where it occurs in northern New Mexico (P. known distribution in New Mexico is Mora, Cofax, and Harding 

Harding, NM 

Packera spellenbergii 

Spellenberg’s Groundsel 

Plant Sept 07 Forest Service Sensitive Species list NatureServe Global Status 

Habitat Comments: High plains, shortgrass prairie. On nearly barren, whit

Associated with alpine fever-few (Parthenium alpinum). 

Harding, NM 

Buteo albonotatus 

Zone-tailed hawk 

Bird Zone-tailed hawks occur in canyons in pine-oak, evergreen, and riparian w

ft) to middle (5000 - 7500 ft) elevations. Desert Riparian Deciduous Wooespecially of cottonwoods, that occur where desert streams provide sufficband of trees and shrubs along the margins. 

Union, NM 

Gastrophryne olivacea 

Great Plains narrowmouth toad 

Amphibian NatureServe Global Status Last Reviewed: 24Oct2001 

Found in supposed mutualistic association with tarantulas in some areas. 

Riverine Habitat(s): CREEK, Pool Palustrine Habitat(s): TEMPORARY POCropland/hedgerow, Desert, Grassland/herbaceous, Savanna, ShrublandWoodland - Conifer, Woodland - Hardwood, Woodland - Mixed 
County Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name 

Taxon Notes 

Special Habitat Factors: Benthic, Burrowing in or using soil, Fallen log/deHabitat Comments: This species inhabits semi-arid and arid lowlands sucIt is also known from grasslands, rocky wooded hills, marsh edges, near spools, river floodplains, scrub desert, and cultivated fields. It hides in rotteand under rocks and other cover when inactive. Eggs and larvae develop heavy rains and larger ponds that dry up in some years. Bison M NEW MEXICO 1988: Although the Great Plains narrowmouth toaits range (Behler and King 1979), in New Mexico the species was very loclow population density (Degenhardt 1986). The single specimen known frmale found in a flooded roadside ditch in 1986 (Degenhardt 1986). The chhad been recorded previously in the same vicinity, although no specimens (Degenhardt pers. Comm.) (NMDGF, 1988)*17*. 1995: This species was very rare and/or very limited in distribution and waconsideration in NM (Painter, 1995)*31*. 2000: A specimen of the Great Plains narrowmouth was discovered at KioUnion County in New Mexico (Moriarty et al., 2000) *46*. 46 - Moriaty, Emily C., Suzanne L. Collins, and Joseph T. Collins. 2000. GPlains Narrowmouth). Herptological Review 31(1). 

Colfax, NM 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Bald eagle Bird Sept 07 not retained on Forest Sensitive Species list 

NatureServe Global Status Last Reviewed: 11Mar2005 Bison M The species is primarily water-oriented, and the majority of the pMexico are found near streams and lakes. 24 - New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (Santa Fe, NM 87503). 1Endangered in New Mexico, F-180:1-2. Beverly said to add it from Forest 
County Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name 

Taxon Notes 

Harding, NM 

Rana blairi Plains 

Leopard Frog 

Amphibian Sept 07 Forest Sensitive Species List 

Mora and Harding, NM 

Thamnophis proximus diabolicus 

Arid land ribbon snake 

Reptile Jim Stuart NMGF 6/24/08 Canadian River Mills Canyon, Sauz creek, hist

Cimmaron outside of admin. Boundary 

Colfax, NM 

Poanes hobomok wetona 

Hobomok Skipper 

Insect NatureServe Global Status Last Reviewed: 27Apr2007 

Palustrine Habitat(s): Bog/fen, Riparian Terrestrial Habitat(s): Forest Edge, Woodland - Conifer, Woodland - MixeHabitat Comments: Habitat presumed to be similar to rest of the species, 

edges. etc., often along streams and also boggy wetlands in generally wogenerally in grasslands away from wooded areas. 06/04/2008 http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/species?l=2114 Caterpilla

including panic grasses (Panicum) and bluegrasses (Poa). Adult food: Necommon milkweed, henbit, viper's bugloss, and blackberry. Habitat: Openwoods, edges of bogs, light gaps along streams 

Harding, Mora, and Colfax, NM 

Phenacobius mirabilis 

Suckermouth minnow 

Fish NatureServe Global Status Last Reviewed: 17Sep1996 

David Propst indicates that suckermouth minnow, state threatened, is fouin Mills Canyon. Steve Platania, UNM, is now doing surveys and could prThreats are excessive sedimentation of run habitats, habitat desiccation a(NMDGF. Threatened and Endangered Species of NM, 2006 Biennial ReDept. website http://wildlife.state.nm.us/conservation/threatened_endange
County Scientific 

Name 

Common 

Name 

Taxon Notes 

Riverine Habitat(s): BIG RIVER, CREEK, Low gradient, MEDIUM RIVER, Special Habitat Factors: Benthic Habitat Comments: Plains species tolerant of moderate turbidity; runs and medium (sometimes large) rivers with substrates ranging from sand and g(Sublette et al. 1990, Page and Burr 1991). Spawns presumably over graBisonM 07/25-2007 In New Mexico, it appears never to have been commsurface flows is likely to have diminished the range in the state (Propst et reaches in which it occurs, its populations have appeared fairly stable (NM1994/1996: The suckermouth minnow was probably secure in much of its its native range, its populations had declined (NMDGF, 1994)*11*; (NMDG1996: Little information was available to accurately describe its status in tMexico. Available records indicate it was uncommon and surveys of the MCanadian River in 1994 and 1995 failed to collect the species (NMDGF, 112 - New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Spring 1996. Threatened New Mexico -- 1996 Biennial Review and Recommendations. Authority: W(NMSA 17-2-37 through 17-2-46, 1978). 

Harding, Mora, and Colfax, NM 

Astragalus wittmannii 

One-flowered Milkvetch 

Plant Sept 07 Listed on Forest Sensitive Species list 

Grows on Outcrops of Greenhorn limestone, limestone knolls and hills in 
40 

Appendix F: Definition of Scales from the USDA 

Forest Service’s National Hierarchical Framework of

Ecological Units 

This framework describes ecosystems at two scales: the ecoregion and subregion. 

Ecoregions are made up of three ecological units: domains, divisions and provinces. 

Domains and Divisions are primarily defined by climate and are too broad for the 

purposes of this report. 

Provinces are controlled primarily by continental weather patterns such as length of dry 

season and duration of cold temperatures and are also characterized by similar soil orders. 

Provinces are the highest division which accounts more specifically for extensive areas of 

similar potential natural vegetation (Cleland et al.1997). 

Subregions are characterized by combinations of climate, geomorphic process, 

topography, and stratigraphy that influence moisture availability and exposure to radiant 

solar energy, which in turn directly control hydrologic function, soil-forming processes, 

and potential natural community distributions. Sections and Subsections are the two 

ecological units mapped at this scale (Cleland et al. 1997). 

“Sections are delineated primarily by evaluation and integration of physical and 

biological components including climate, physiography, lithology, soils, and potential 

natural communities....Sections are large land areas of relatively homogeneous physical 

and biological components that interact to form environments of similar productive 

capabilities, response to disturbances, and potentials for resource management.” (McNab 

2007) 

Subsections are smaller areas within a section that usually correspond to discrete changes 

in geomorphology (Cleland et al. 1997). 

Ecoregions and subregions were originally delineated in 1980 and revised in 1995 and 

the Forest Service is currently working to refine these delineations. The new delineations 

for sections and subsections may not correspond precisely to the boundaries at the 

province level but their physical and biological features are described hierarchically. 

This report will For the purpose of this report, the Description of “Ecological 

Subregions: Sections of the Conterminous United States”: First Approximations (McNab 

2007) and its associated maps will be used. 
41 

Map 1: Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area 
42 

Map 2: Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area 

Vicinity Map 
43 

Map 3: Areas Visually Impacted by NFSR 600 and 

the Mills Canyon Campground within the Canadian 

River PWA