United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Southwestern 

Region 

Cibola 

National 

Forest and 

National 

Grasslands 

May 2011

Watershed Specialist 

Report 

Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle 

and McClellan Creek National 

Grasslands Plan Revision 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Analysis 

Submitted by: __/s/ _________________________ 

Livia Crowly, Forest Hydrologist 

 Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands 

Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 3 

Specialist Report 

Introduction 

This report discloses and evaluates the potential environmental consequences on the water 

resources that may result with the adoption of a revised land management plan. It examines, in 

detail, three different alternatives for revising the management direction from the 1985 Cibola 

National Forest Land Management Plan (only that which is relevant to the National Grasslands). 

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy that Apply 

• Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897, as amended. This act contains the first 

authority for watershed management on National Forest system Lands. The purpose for 

the establishment of National Forest, as stated in the Act, includes securing favorable 

conditions of water flow.

• National Forest Management Act 1976, which ensures that forest planning and 

management activities provide for the conservation and sustained yield of soil and water 

resources. 

• Federal Water Pollution Control Act of July 9, 1956, as Amended. This purpose of this 

act is improve the quality and value of the water resource, to establish a national policy 

for the prevention, control, and abetment of water pollution. Provision included the 

authority for state and federal government to establish water quality standards, grants for 

water pollution study, construction of treatment works, and provision for the control of 

pollution by oil, hazardous substances, or sewage from vessels. The Act has been 

amended many times, most recently through the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub.L. 83-

566). This Act also regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters 

(waters of the U.S.) through Section 404. 

• Executive Order 11990, 1977; (Wetlands Management) requires federal agencies to 

follow avoidance, mitigation, and preservation procedures with public input before 

proposing new construction in wetlands. To comply with Executive Order 11990, the 

federal agency would coordinate with the ACOE, under Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act, and mitigate for impacts to wetland habitats. . 

• Executive Order 11998, 1977; (Floodplain Management) requires all federal agencies to 

take actions to reduce the risk of flood loss, restore and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values in floodplains, and minimize the impacts of floods on human safety, 

health, and welfare. There are no stream channels with floodplain characteristics that 

would be affected by this project. All channels that cross or are immediately adjacent to 

project activities are intermittent streams and do not have floodplain features.

• The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the main federal law that ensures the quality of 

Americans' drinking water. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 4 

Methodology and Analysis Process 

The spatial analysis is based on the Forest Service lands within the proclaimed boundary of the 

Black Kettle, Kiowa, McClellan Creek, and Rita Blanca National Grasslands. The timeframe 

extends to the next planning period. The timeframe of past activities that have contributed to 

current conditions depends on the resource and effect being analyzed. For example, riparian 

conditions are the result of influences that have occurred at least over the last 100 years. Surface 

water quality is the result of shorter time frame – within the last 20 years. Surface water and 

groundwater quantities have been impacted over a longer timeframe to result in current 

conditions – at least 80 years. Existing conditions and environmental consequences were 

evaluated using existing forest data, satellite imagery, and data from other sources as cited. 

Each alternative was evaluated for its ability to meet the desired condition for soil resources. 

Assumptions 

In the analysis for this resource, the following assumptions have been made: 

• The land management plan provides a programmatic framework for future site-specific 

actions. 

• Land management plans do not have direct effects. They do not authorize or mandate any 

site-specific projects or activities (including ground-disturbing actions). 

• Land management plans may have implications, or environmental consequences, of 

managing the forests under a programmatic framework. 

• The plan decisions (desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, management 

areas, monitoring) will be followed when planning or implementing site-specific projects 

and activities. 

• Law, policy, and regulations will be followed when planning or implementing sitespecific projects and activities. 

• Monitoring will occur and the land management plan will be amended, as needed.

• We will be funded similar to past budget levels (past 5 years). 

• The planning timeframe is 15 years. 

• Soil and Water Conservation Practices will be applied to all management activities as 

described in FSH 2509.22. 

Revision Topics Addressed in this Analysis 

While there were no issues specific to water resources, there are some related topics which 

require attention. Climate change was not addressed in the 1985 Plan for any resource. 

Information from the Southwest Region Climate Change Trends and Forest Planning (USDA, 

2010) was used to consider climate change effects to water resources. Issues identified in the 

Notice of Intent (Federal Register, 2010) include the effect of human influences of the grasslands 

from livestock grazing, energy development, mining reclamation, miscellaneous forest products, 

mineral materials, and fire management. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 5 

Summary of Alternatives 

 Alternative A is the ‘no action’ alternative, meaning there is no change from the current 

management direct as found in the existing plan (USDA, 1985). For water resources, emphasis 

was placed on inventory and monitoring for watershed condition, using Best Management 

Practices to mitigate adverse effects, restoring impaired riparian areas, and incorporating water 

and soil improvement into projects where watershed condition is unsatisfactory. The desired 

condition for riparian areas is specified in relation to natural conditions using seven parameters, 

including crown cover and shade. Riparian areas determined to be impaired are scheduled for 

improvement activities. Alternative A does not include specific direction for climate change, fire, 

energy development, mining reclamation, miscellaneous forest products, and mineral materials. 

Currently, each of these activities is managed through existing policies that are not directly part of 

the Forest Plan or require updating. 

Alternative B is the preferred alternative. Alternative B includes guidance for effect of human 

influences of the grasslands from livestock grazing, energy development, mining reclamation, 

miscellaneous forest products, mineral materials, and fire management. Livestock grazing would 

be directed by adaptive management. New recreation areas would be limited with existing site 

maintained and rehabilitated. The Mills Canyon Management Areas would be designated to 

preserve its wild, scenic, and recreational qualities. The desired condition for surface water 

features is for these features to be in properly functioning condition. The desired condition for 

watershed is Class I condition. 

Alternative C is similar to alternative B is all ways except that it recommends that Canadian River 

Inventoried Roadless Areas be designated as the Canadian River Wilderness Area. 

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition) 

The existing condition for water resources includes watershed condition, surface water features, 

and groundwater. Water quality is an aspect of both surface water and groundwater. Riparian 

and wetland condition is an aspect of surface water features. 

Watershed Condition 

The Grassland units are located within twenty six 10-digit hydrologic unit code watersheds. Most 

of the Grasslands fall within eight of the twenty six watersheds. The Ecological Sustainability 

Report (USDA 2008, pages 11-13) lists the watersheds including acres, percent ownership, 

percent of streams by stream type in each watershed, and percent of the acreage of lakes and 

ponds in each watershed. 

All of the watersheds in the Grasslands Units were assessed as being in Class II Condition using 

the current direction found in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2521.1. Watershed condition is the 

state of a watershed based upon physical and biological characteristics affecting hydrologic and 

soil functions. It is determined through the synthesis of information including vegetation types 

and condition, streambank conditions, range conditions and trend, soil conditions and erosion 

potential and remotely sensed and field observations. All of the watersheds on the Grassland 

Units are in Class II Condition. This means these watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, 

hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Portions of these 

watersheds may exhibit an unstable drainage network as evidenced by gullies. Physical, chemical, 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 6 

and biological conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are at risk of being able 

to support beneficial uses. The watersheds on the four National Grasslands are listed in Table 1. 

Table 1. Watersheds on the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle and McClellan Creek 

National Grasslands including total watershed area and area of National Forest System 

land within each watershed. Hydrologic unit codes are in italics – total hydrologic unit 

code for watersheds is achieved by tacking on the 2 digits to the end of a given sub-basins 

8 digit code to get the full 10 digit code. 

Sub-Basin Watershed Watershed Area 

(acres*) 

NFS Area 

(*acres) 

Upper Canadian 

(11080003)

Sauz Creek-Canadian River (03) 223,900 12,400

Carrizo Creek-Canadian River (05) 221,700 26,700

Ute (11080007)

Alamocita Creek-Ute Creek (02) 247,200 1,300

Carrizo Creek (04) 96,500 17,800

Tequesquite Creek (05) 168,200 20,800

Rita Blanca 

(11090103) 

East Rita Blanca Creek (01) 104,600 8,300

Sand Draw (02) 121,100 19,300

Perico Creek (03) 178,900 15,900

Aqua Fria (12) 44,100 10,200

Carrizo 

(11090104) Trabajo Creek-Carrizo Creek (04) 162,900 3,300

Middle 

Canadian-Spring 

(11090106) 

Boggy Creek (08) 225,700 600

Lower 

Canadian-Deer 

(11090201) 

Ant Hill Laurels (20) 204,700 600

Upper Beaver 

(11100101) 

Seneca Creek (02) 186,300 7,000

Seneca Creek-Corrumpa Creek (03) 194,300 13,500

Town of Kerrick-Beaver River (06) 28,400 200

Town of Texhoma-Beaver River (08) 75,100 10,900

Conrad Laterals (25) 276,100 500

Coldwater 

(11100103) 

Headwaters Coldwater Creek (01) 142,600 40,000

Upper Coldwater Creek (02) 248,100 24,800

Frisco Creek (04) 200,100 2,900

No Name-Dry (24) 33,900 4,500

Upper North 

Fork Red 

(11120301) 

McClellan Creek (02) 242,400 1,400

Washita 

Headwaters 

(11130301)

Quarter Master Creek (00) 121,500 100

Upper – Washita River (02) 76,700 0

Upper Washita River (16) 173,700 23,300

Broken Leg (20) 11,500 200

Sergeant-Major (30) 19,900 700

Dead Indian-Wildhorse (40) 63,500 3,500

Nine Mile (50) 53,100 1,200

Beaver Dam (60) 28,000 1,100

* area rounded to nearest 100 acres
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 7 

Surface Water Features 

There are many different kinds of surface water features in the Grassland Units. These include 

streams, reservoirs, lakes, wetlands, and playa lakes. Streams include perennial and intermittent 

channels. There are 409.5 miles of stream channels on the Grassland Units. 234.8 miles are 

located in New Mexico, 137.6 are in Oklahoma, and 37.1 miles are in Texas. Of these, 33.2 

miles flow continuously and are perennial. 19.8 miles of perennial stream are in New Mexico, 

11.5 miles are located in Oklahoma, and 1.8 miles are in Texas. Playas are intermittent 

waterbodies where water collects in depressions. Water persists in these depressions due to a 

layer of less permeable material such as accumulated silt which slows infiltration. There are 113 

playas and alkali lakes located on the Grassland Units, totaling 947 acres as shown on the 

waterbody GIS layer. Texas and New Mexico account for 59 and 51 of these respectively. The 

remaining 3 are located in Oklahoma. Reservoirs and lakes on the Grassland Units are mostly 

associated with dams or berms designed to pond water behind them. The largest reservoirs are 

Lake McClellan and Lake Marvin on the Black Kettle Unit. There 5003 acres of riparian areas as 

calculated using Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit Inventory (TEUI) (USDA, 2007) data. The Canadian 

River floodplain on the grasslands comprises 894 acres of the riparian total. 2980 acres are 

located on the Kiowa Rita Blanca Unit while 2023 acres are located on the Black Kettle and 

McClellan Creek Unit. Wetlands occur throughout the Grassland Units. 

Stream and riparian condition analyses conducted during the environmental analysis process for 

continuation of current cattle grazing strategies, oil-gas operations and other authorized activities 

on Grasslands units have not indicated large-scale impacts to water quality or riparian conditions. 

Many projects were specifically designed to improve water, riparian and soil conditions (NEPA 

Summary Database). There are 20- to 50-year-old oil and gas wells in riparian areas on the Lake 

Marvin and McClellan units; however, they are not violating existing environmental protection 

laws. For current and future oil-gas operations, the Forest Service requires oil-gas wells to be 

located outside the riparian corridor. 

Management trends are improving the Canadian River’s water quality and riparian conditions. 

Over the past 10 years the Forest Service initiated improvement actions along the River including 

closing off-road vehicle trails and moving camping units away from the floodplain, removing 

cattle grazing on the largest riparian unit (K-91) and limiting grazing in other parts of the riparian 

area (K-136, K-135, and K-87), allowing fallen trees to create pools in the stream, and proposing 

salt-cedar control treatments as part of the interagency Canadian River salt-cedar control 

program. There are currently 40-50 miles of road in riparian areas on the Grasslands, including 

unauthorized user-created roads. Thus, the main risk to water quality on Grasslands units is 

expected to be from those roads located along streams and in riparian areas. 

The Grasslands are located within three states, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. In each state, 

there are general water quality standards which apply to all waters and there are standards linked 

to designated uses of the waterbody, whether it is a stream, lake, or pond. Very few streams on 

the Grassland Units have been assessed by the States. Over the past 20 years, water quality on 

the Grasslands has been relatively good. Some surface water has been polluted to a certain extent, 

most notably the Washita River that runs through a portion of the Black Kettle and is on the most 

recent list of water quality impaired streams in Oklahoma. Those reaches of the Washita are 

below water quality standards for pathogens (E. coli, enterococcus and fecal coliform), sulfates 

and turbidity (Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 2004). The source of impairment 

is not yet known. Of the approximately 51 miles of the Washita River that run in the Black Kettle 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 8 

Grassland's administrative boundary, less than two miles go through Grasslands units. The water 

quality in the reservoirs on Black Kettle Grasslands is not tested by the Forest Service, but none 

are on the impaired water lists for New Mexico, Oklahoma, or Texas. Drinking water at 

developed sites is tested routinely and meets water quality standards. 

Lake Marvin, Lake McClellan, Coldwater Creek, and Rita Blanca Creek are the major surface 

waters located in Texas within the Grassland Units. Lake McClellan is in the North Fork of the 

Red River watershed, while Lake Marvin is in the Canadian River Watershed, below Lake 

Meredith. Coldwater Creek and Rita Blanca Creek are mostly intermittent tributaries of the 

Canadian River. These types of streams in Texas are considered to support minimal aquatic life 

use and primary contact recreation. They have not been assessed for water quality by the state of 

Texas. As such, these streams have the standards that apply to unclassified intermittent water 

bodies. McClellan Creek was assessed from the confluence with the North Fork of the River 

upstream to the Lake McClellan dam in 2010 by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ, 2010). This portion of McClellan Creek was classified with a high aquatic life use based 

on its perennial flow. 

The 17 miles of the Canadian River on the Kiowa Grassland is not listed as water quality 

impaired according to New Mexico state standards (New Mexico Water Quality Control 

Commission 2004). However, a recent Stream Health Assessment noted that the reaches on the 

Grassland were degraded primarily due to the effects of tamarisk invasion, including lack of 

down woody debris in the riparian area and stream channel (Haan and Thornton 2004). 

Additionally the report noted that watershed conditions upstream of the Grasslands were 

degraded and likely affecting the reaches of the Canadian River on the Grasslands primarily 

through increased sedimentation. Additionally several of the numerous user-created roads and 

trails created by visitors to Mills Canyon are along and across the river, contributing to stream 

sedimentation, chemical pollution, and other unacceptable riparian and water quality impacts. 

Groundwater Resources 

Groundwater, which is stored in water-bearing underground formations called aquifers, is an 

important factor in contributing to social, economic, and ecological conditions. On Grasslands 

units it is mostly used to provide water for livestock and wildlife, and on private lands it is 

additionally used for drinking water and irrigation. The High Plains aquifer system covers the 

plains portions of eight states (CO, KS, NE, NM, OK, SD, TX, WY) and includes parts of all four 

Grasslands (McGuire 2004). Data on groundwater quality in the High Plains aquifer system is 

currently being collected by the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment Program. Although 

the studies are still in progress, to date it does not appear that groundwater quality is being 

negatively impacted by the activities that occur on the Grasslands units. 

Groundwater depletion and drawdown are an on-going concerns in the prairie grasslands ecoregion. Within the Grasslands administrative boundary, approximately 1500 water wells (80%) 

are on state and private land and 380 water wells (20%) are on Forest Service-managed land. 

Most of the Grasslands are on the Ogallala aquifer, except for the Mills Canyon portion of Kiowa 

Grassland which is over the Canadian River aquifer and a small portion of Black Kettle units over 

the Washita Alluvium aquifer. There is minimal data available on the conditions of the smaller 

aquifers, but data on the Ogallala aquifer indicates that it has experienced extreme draw down 

over the last 50 years (McGuire 2004). Pumping water for irrigation, municipal water supplies 

and other uses far exceeds the recharge ability of the aquifer (McGuire 2004). 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 9 

Environmental Consequences 

The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions 

but does not authorize, fund, or carryout any project or activity. Because the land management 

plan does not authorize or mandate any site-specific activities or ground-disturbing actions there 

can be no direct effects. However, there may be implications, or longer term environmental 

consequences, of managing the forests under this programmatic framework. 

Watershed Condition 

The desired condition for watershed condition is for all watersheds to be in Class I watershed 

condition. This means watersheds are properly functioning and support beneficial uses. 

The no action alternative (A) includes management direction to improve watershed condition 

class to satisfactory. Satisfactory watershed condition is analogous to the current Class I 

condition. Specific practices to improve watershed condition were listed as standards and 

guidelines in the existing Plan (1985). These included road management, revegetation, 

scheduling watershed improvements, and incorporating watershed improvement into projects. 

Moving watersheds towards Class I condition is a goal in Alternatives B and C. These two 

alternatives would continue to use adaptive management practices to improve watershed 

condition. These adaptive management practices will utilize research and address potential issues 

related to a changing climate. Alternatives B and C would continue to work towards improving 

watershed condition, much like the current Plan does. New information would be incorporated 

into management activities, projects will be designed to improve watershed condition, and other 

resources will be managed so that watershed conditions are not further impaired. As a result, 

alternatives B and C are expected to move watersheds towards the desired condition of Class I in 

much the same way and at the same rate as alternative A. 

Surface Water Features 

The desired condition for surface water features is properly functioning in order to support higher 

ecological functions such as habitat and support clean water which meets State standards. 

The no action alternative (A) includes management direction to for surface water features to be in 

a reference state relative to a natural condition. This condition includes shade, bank cover, 

streambed sedimentation, plant composition, plant structure, crown cover, and ground cover. 

Management direction in alternative A is aimed at ensuring the components of riparian areas are 

within a range of natural conditions. Riparian improvement is directed at impaired and 

unsatisfactory area. Preferential consideration is given to resources dependent on riparian areas 

when there are irresolvable conflicts among uses. 

Keeping surface water features, including riparian areas, in proper functioning condition is the 

goal for alternatives B and C. This means these features have the physical attributes of stable 

systems within their capability. Properly functioning condition consider three aspects; soil, 

vegetation, and hydrology (USDI, 1998). This method includes more than the seven attributes 

used in alternative A. This also applies to more areas than just riparian areas. All surface water 

features, including wetlands, playas, and intermittent stream have a proper functioning condition. 

Because of this, alternatives B and C would help to move surface water features towards their 

desired condition better than alternative A. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 10 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

For watershed condition, the cumulative effects area is the watersheds listed in table 1. 

A watershed cumulative impact can be defined as the total impact, on runoff, erosion, sediment or 

water yield, riparian areas and/or water quality that results from the incremental impact of an 

action, when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions occurring 

within the same natural drainage basin, or watershed (CEQ, 1997). By definition, cumulative 

effects occur if, when added to past, present, and future actions, the action affects the current 

situation either negatively or positively. This effect can most accurately be assessed by using the 

condition of the watersheds in the assessment unit. Watershed condition is an appropriate 

indicator of cumulative effects because it combines the effects of multiple activities and integrates 

their overall impacts to the proper functioning condition of the streams, soil, and other physical 

properties resulting in an overall rating for the watershed condition. This includes all activities 

within the watershed including those off National Forest System (NFS) Lands. The effect of the 

alternatives and potential future activities will be assessed when combined with past and present 

activities in these watersheds. The analysis area is the watersheds in table 1 that include lands 

within the project boundary. The timescale for watershed condition is fifteen years since within 

this time; it will be possible to discern the effects of the proposed actions on watershed condition. 

Currently, the watershed condition for the watersheds on the grassland units is Class II – 

functioning at risk. This indicates these watersheds are currently supporting beneficial uses but 

there are conditions (physical, biological and /or chemical) that put the watershed at risk of not 

supporting those beneficial uses. This condition class is the result of past and present activities 

occurring in these watersheds. Activities which have contributed to this condition include 

grazing, farming, roads, groundwater withdrawals, fire, and military uses. The results have been 

soil loss, especially during the Dust Bowl era, changes in vegetation, gully formation, lowered 

groundwater tables, decreased stream flows, and decreased infiltration rates. Lands within the 

project boundary have experience large gains in recovery since becoming part of the NFS. 

Conditions outside National Forest system lands are expected to continue to improve as programs 

are implemented through NRCS and State and local agencies to improve watershed conditions. 

Implementation of any of the alternatives will result in gradual improvement in watershed 

condition as activities continue to work to improve watershed conditions. 

For surface water features, the cumulative effects area is the surface water features within the 

proclamation boundary of the Grassland Units. The cumulative effect to the proper functioning 

condition of surface water features is related to the incremental impact of activities which effect 

runoff, erosion, sediment, and ground cover when added to other past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions occurring within the same natural drainage (CEQ, 1997). By definition, 

cumulative effects occur if, when added to past, present, and future actions, the action affects the 

current situation either negatively or positively. For surface water features, the cumulative effects 

related to the alternatives are assessed by calculating the amount of acres within the proclamation 

boundary currently located within National Forest system lands compared to the acres within 

NFS lands. This measure is appropriate since surface water features on NFS lands will be 

managed using management direction from the Forest Plan while surface water features outside 

of NFS lands are not managed with a single management direction since there are numerous land 

owners involved. State regulations do not provide similar protections for these lands. For 

surface water features on the grassland units, the percent of acres on NFS lands varies from 7% to 

100%. These percentages reflect the portion of surface water features which can be improved 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 11 

through the proposed alternatives. The percentage of surface water features located within the 

grassland units does not change by alternative. The marsh associated with Lake Marvin is 

completely on NFS lands. For surface water features which are not located on NFS lands, it is 

uncertain as to what condition these features will be in the future. There are more protective 

policies directed at perennial lakes and rivers, so these features are likely to improve outside NFS 

lands as state and local agencies and groups monitor these systems. It is more uncertain as to the 

condition of intermittent features, improved due to the lack of ownership and uncertain 

management activities off NFS lands. Table 2 lists the percentage of the acres of surface water 

features located within NFS ownership. 

Table 2. Percent of Surface Water Features Located on National Forest system Lands

Feature percent on NFS 

alkali lake 12%

flood prone area 32%

intermittent lake 7%

perennial lake 26%

marsh 100%

playa 31%

perennial river 70%

tank 22%

Given this information, the alternatives will provide for the improvement of surface water 

features located within NFS lands. However, due to uncertain protections and activities affecting 

surface water features outside of NFS lands, there may be impacts. The overall health of features 

with higher percentage outside NFS lands means these features may not be at proper functioning 

condition making those features located on NFS more important to the overall system of surface 

water features. This has ramifications for other resources such as wildlife. 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions 

but does not authorize, fund, or carryout any project or activity. Before any ground-disturbing 

actions take place, they must be authorized in a subsequent environmental analysis. Therefore 

none of the alternatives cause unavoidable adverse impacts. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

The land management plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site-specific actions 

but does not authorize, fund, or carryout any project or activity. Because the land management 

plan does not authorize or mandate any ground-disturbing actions, none of the alternatives cause 

an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources.

Adaptive Management 

All alternatives assume the use of adaptive management principles. Forest Service decisions are 

made as part of an on-going process, including planning, implementing projects, and monitoring 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 12 

and evaluation. The land management plan identifies a monitoring program. Monitoring the 

results of actions will provide a flow of information that may indicate the need to change a course 

of action or the land management plan. Scientific findings and the needs of society may also 

indicate the need to adapt resource management to new information. The Forest Supervisor 

annually evaluates the monitoring information displayed in the evaluation reports through a 

management review and determines if any changes are needed in management actions or the plan 

itself. In general, annual evaluations of the monitoring information consider the following 

questions: 

• What are the effects of resource management activities on the productivity of the land? 

• To what degree are resource management activities maintaining or making progress 

toward the desired conditions and objectives for the plan? 

• What changes are needed to account for unanticipated changes in conditions? 

In addition to annual monitoring and evaluation, the Forest Supervisor reviews the conditions on 

the land covered by the plan at least every 5 years to determine whether conditions or demands of 

the public have changed significantly. The forest plan is ordinarily revised on a 10-year cycle and 

the Forest Supervisor may amend the plan at any time. 

Consistency with Law, Regulation, and Policy 

All alternatives are designed to guide the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle and McClellan Creek 

National Grasslands’ management activities in meeting federal law, regulations, and policy. 

List of Preparers 

Livia Crowley – Forest hydrologist 

References 

CEQ. 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President, Washington DC. 

Federal Register. 2010. Plan Development for Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan 

Creek National Grasslands, Colfax, Harding, More, and Union Counties, NM: Dallam, 

Gray, and Hemphill Counties, TX; Cimarron and Roger Mills Counties, OK. USDA Forest 

Service. Federal Register, vol. 75, no. 10, Notices, pages 2477-2480. 

Forest Service Manual. 2004. Forest Service Manual 2521.1 – Watershed Condition Classes. 

FSM 2500 – Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 2520 – Watershed Protection and 

Management. Washington Office Amendment 2500-2004-1, effective Date 5/26/2004. 

Forest Service Manual , National Headquarters, Washington DC. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 13 

Haan, D. and C. Thornton. 2004. Canadian River Tamarisk Control Project: Stream Health 

Assessment. T.E.A.M.S Enterprise Unit, US Forest Service. 18 pp. 

McGuire, V. L. 2004. Water-Level Changes in the High Plains Aquifer, Predevelopment to 2002, 

1980 to 2002, and 2001 to 2002. US Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2004-3026. 5 pp. 

New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. 2004. 2004-2006 State of New Mexico 

Integrated Clean Water Act §303(d)/§305(b) Report. Gary King (ed). Santa Fe NM. 541 

pp. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. 2004. The State of Oklahoma 2004 Water 

Quality Assessment Integrated Report. 369 pp. 

USDA. 1985. Cibola National Forest Land and resource Management Plan. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 

USDA.2007. Terrestrial Ecosystems Survey of the Cibola National Forest and National 

Grasslands. By S.Strenger, S. Sebring, W. Robbie, F. Escobedo, C. Vaandrager, V. 

Andrew, E. Brooks, C. Krasine, B. Nielsen, and R. Fletcher. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, Albuqerque, NM. 696 pp. 

USDA. 2008. Ecological Sustainability Report – Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and 

McClellan Creek National Grasslands. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, 

Albuquerque, NM. 

USDA. 2010. Southwest Region Climate Change Trends and Forest Planning. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM 

USDI. 1998. A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting 

Science for Lotic Areas. By Don Prichard, John Anderson, Cindy Correll, Jim Fogg, Karl 

Gebhardt, Russ Krapf, Steve Leonard, Brenda Mitchell, and Janice Staats. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Applied Resource Sciences Center, 

Denver, CO. TR-1737-15. 136 pp. 

TCEQ. 2010. Draft Texas Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d). 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, accessed online November 17, 2010 at 

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/compliance/monops/water/10twqi/2010_303d.pdf