United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Southwestern 

Region 

Cibola 

National 

Forest and 

National 

Grasslands 

May 2011

Soils Specialist Report 

Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle 

and McClellan Creek National 

Grasslands Plan Revision 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Analysis 

Submitted by: __/s/ _________________________ 

 Livia Crowley, Forest Hydrologist 

Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands 
1 

Specialist Report 

Introduction 

This report discloses and evaluates the potential environmental consequences on the soil resource 

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. 

• Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, which states that management of the National 

Forest must provide “sustained yields in perpetuity without impairment of the

productivity of the land.” 

• Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant Act of July 22, 1937, as Amended (7 USC 1010-1012), 

directs Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land conservation and land use 

to assist in controlling soil erosion and other impairments. Lands were acquired through 

this act and are now largely included in the National Grassland. 

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. Current conditions are the result of historic impacts, 

beginning with the impacts from the Dust Bowl and the practices which led up to it and extending 

to today with continued improvements of these soils. As a result, existing soil conditions are the 

result of influences that have occurred at least over the last 100 years. Existing conditions and 

environmental consequences were evaluated using existing forest data, including Terrestrial 

Ecosystem Unit Inventory (TEUI), satellite imagery, and data from other sources as cited. 

Numerous onsite soil condition assessments were made and existing field notes were analyzed to 

classify and extrapolate soil condition across the Grasslands (USDA, 2007) as part of the TEUI. 

Overall accuracy of mapping and information provided by the TEUI and soil condition protocol is 

considered reliable at the ecological unit or landscape level. 
2 

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

desired condition for soil is for it to be in satisfactory condition. 

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 soil 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 soil 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. 

Summary of Alternatives 

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

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

was placed on inventory and monitoring for soils, using Best Management Practices to mitigate 

adverse effects, incorporating water and soil improvement into projects where watershed 

condition is unsatisfactory, and specified certain practices to reduce effects to soil resources such 

as rehabilitation after management activities or wildlife fire and seeding and using control 

structure to prevent soil loss. The expected future condition is to reduce soil loss by 10%. The 

goal for soil is to improve and maintain soil productivity. Alternative A does not include specific 
3 

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 soil resources is that 

soil is in satisfactory condition. 

Alternative C is similar to Alternative B is all ways except that it recommends that part of the 

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

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition) 

Soil Resources 

The Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI) (USDA, 2007) was used throughout this report. 

TEUI is the result of the systematic analysis, mapping, classification and interpretation of 

terrestrial ecosystems also known as ecological types delineated and numbered in ecological 

units. It is the only seamless mapping of vegetation and soils available across the Forest that 

includes field visited, validated, and correlated sites with a stringent Regional and National 

protocol. Differences in ecosystem properties including soil and vegetation can occur within short 

distances. The TEUI was mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 across the landscape. Areas less than 40 

acres were not mapped separately at this scale. Overall accuracy of mapping and information 

provided by the TEUI is considered reliable at the ecological unit or landscape level and is 

suitable for analysis at the Forest Plan level. 

There are 47 different TEUI units on the Grasslands. A map unit is a collection of areas defined 

and named in terms of their soil, vegetation, and climate components. Each map unit differs in 

some respect from all others in a survey area and is unique. Ecological Sustainability Report 

(USDA, 2011) provides a summary of existing soil loss rates and soil condition. 

Soil loss is the predicted net average soil loss from a site due to erosion. Conditions on the ground 

when TEUI was mapped show that 90 percent of the grasslands have current soil loss rate either 

equal to or below the predicted natural soil loss potential (the predicted soil loss under natural 

conditions). When soils are not eroding faster than the natural rate, soil is retained onsite, 

allowing for soil forming processes to occur. Unsuited soils are found on10 percent of the 

grasslands. These soils have natural loss rates greater than the tolerance soil loss rate. The 

tolerance soil loss rate is the rate of soil loss than can occur while sustaining soil productivity 

(USDA, 2007). This is an unstable state, but a natural one. Since soils loss rates are satisfactory 

and unsuited, it appears that current management activities on the Grasslands are not contributing 

to soil loss greater than natural rates at the scale of the TEUI data. 
4 

All of the mixed hardwood riparian, cottonwood-willow riparian, sand sagebrush (Artemisia 

filifolia), and shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) have 

satisfactory soil loss rates. Unsuited soils occur in the mixed grass prairie, shortgrass prairie, and 

pinyon-juniper PNVTs. In addition, smaller localized areas may exceed the tolerance soil loss 

rate, resulting in an unsatisfactory soil loss rate. These areas can occur in any of the PNVTs and 

are caused by roads, off road vehicles, areas where livestock congregates, recreation, oil and gas 

developments, and caliche extraction pits. 

Soil condition is an evaluation of soil quality based on an interpretation of factors which affect 

vital soil functions of hydrology, stability, and nutrient cycling (USDA, 1999). The soil condition 

categories are; satisfactory, impaired, unsatisfactory and inherently unstable. Soils on the 

grassland units have been rated as 52 percent in satisfactory and 48 percent in impaired condition. 

Satisfactory soil condition indicates soil function is being sustained and soil is functioning 

properly and normally. The ability of soil to maintain resource values and sustain outputs is high. 

Impaired soils have reduced soil functions and the ability to function properly has been reduced 

and/or there exists and increased vulnerability to degradation. This category is a sign that 

additional information is needed to determine the causes and degree of the decline in soil 

function. Changes in management practices may be needed to bring impaired soils to satisfactory 

condition. 

All soils in the mixed hardwood riparian and cottonwood willow riparian PNVTs are in 

satisfactory condition. Mixed grass prairie is largely in satisfactory condition with 7 percent of 

the soils in this PNVT in impaired condition. Overall, in these PNVTs, soil functions are 

sustainable. Conversely, soil conditions in the shinnery oak and sand sagebrush PNVTs are 

largely impaired. While these two PNVTs account for about 16 percent of the Grassland area, 85 

percent of the soils in shinnery oak are impaired while 74 percent of the soils in the sand 

sagebrush PNVT are impaired. These PNVTs are mostly located on deep sandy soils that depend 

on these species for stability. Deep plowing removed these species which are an integral part of 

soil stability for sandy soils in this region. Shinnery oak has a deep root system which keeps soils 

in place. Sand sagebrush can accumulate nutrients, enabling it to grow on nutrient poor sites such 

as sandy soils. In the pinyon-juniper PNVT, 24 percent of the soils are also impaired. The pinyonjuniper PNVT occupies 9 percent of the Grasslands. This impaired condition is due to high 

portions of bare soil resulting in rates of soil loss greater that natural soil loss rates. Soil 

conditions in the shortgrass prairie PNVT are 54 percent satisfactory and 46 percent impaired. 

Several of the TEUs in the shortgrass prairie PNVT have a high proportion of bare soil which is 

erodible and hinders soil hydrology functioning. Much of the current soil condition is an artifact 

of the Dust Bowl era erosion and deposition. These changes significantly altered soil structure, 

stability, and texture. Most soils negatively affected during the Dust Bowl have yet to develop 

into productive grassland soils found prior to the 1930s. 

The loss of topsoil and productivity during the dust bowl era was extreme. Restoration 

management practices on the Grasslands over the past several decades have resulted in 

tremendous improvement in soil stability and vegetative recovery. A few units on the Black Kettle 

Grassland that were heavily plowed in the past do not appear capable of recovering to their 

productivity potential, although the soils are vegetated and stabilized. A few units on Kiowa and 

Rita Blanca Grasslands adjacent to towns or other private developments are heavily impacted by 
5 

invasive plant populations, reducing soil productivity and vegetative diversity. These too are not 

likely to be restored to full productivity and native grassland vegetation due to continued spread 

of invasive plants and other impacts from adjacent lands. 

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. 

Alternative A 

Alternative A is the no action alternative which means there is no change from the current 

management direction as found in the existing plan. 

The expected future condition for soil is a 10 percent reduction in average annual soil loss for all 

watersheds (USDA, 1985). The goal for soils under Alternative A is to improve and maintain soil 

productivity. There are some specific practices written into the standards and guidelines to move 

soil resources toward the future condition while meeting the soil productivity goal. In addition, 

the use of best management practices (BMPs) is directed to mitigate adverse soil effects and 

maintain site productivity. The focus is on soil productivity and soil loss rather than soil quality or 

soil condition. However, soil productivity is analogous to soil condition and soil quality, so this 

direction also works to improve and maintain soils. This alternative does not set the endpoint for 

‘improve and maintain’—as a result, soil conditions may not move all the way to satisfactory soil 

condition. In addition, reducing soil loss by 10 percent may not be appropriate for all areas. 

Where soil loss rates are within natural ranges, soil loss may not need to be reduced. Despite this, 

the overall consequence of Alternative A would be to move soil condition towards satisfactory. 

In addition to the goals and expected future condition for soil resources, management activities 

may also contribute to areas where soil condition is less than satisfactory. While there will always 

be small, localized areas of bare soil due to natural processes, some management activities create 

areas where soil is not productive during the time of use, such as oil and gas development and 

mining of mineral materials such as caliche. Currently, reclamation of oil and gas sites is not part 

of management direction and occurs inconsistently. This leads to impacts to soil condition where 

recovery is possible, and the future condition not being met. 

Treatment of the sand sagebrush and shinnery oak PNVTs is of interest to soil condition. As 

mentioned, these two PNVTs have large percentages of impaired soils. This is due, in part, to bare 

ground in sandy soils as the result of the removal of these species. These two species are known 

for their ability to stabilize very sandy areas (Gucker 2006, McWilliams 2003). Alternative A 

includes management direction to reduce shinnery oak without regard for the soil. As a result, in 

these areas, soil may be impaired when shinnery oak is removed. These two plants are associated 

with the soils that occur on the eolian sand sheets and sand dune which exist on the Great Plains 

of North America (Muhs and Holliday 1995), in addition to sand blown deposits that accumulated 
6 

during the Dust Bowl era. During times of drought, these soils are particularly susceptible to 

drying out due to their sandy texture. Mobilization of these sandy deposits has occurred 

historically during time of great drought, even before the Dust Bowl events (Forman, Oglesby, 

and Webb 2001). Climate change in this region is expected to result in an increase in drought and 

wind, which could increase the chance of these areas mobilizing again. There is no direction in 

Alternative A to address the potential for climate change and this effect. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B provides clear direction for moving soils to a satisfactory condition through a stated 

goal and related guidelines. In Alternative B, the desired condition for soils is satisfactory with 

areas above natural levels of soil loss stabilized or occurring rarely. There are guidelines which 

address moving soil towards this condition for all management activities. Two guidelines are 

particularly helpful in meeting the desired condition. These are management activities which 

occur on unsatisfactory or impaired soils should incorporate practical opportunities for restoration 

to recover soil functions and the use of BMPs as found in FSH 2509.22 (USDA, 1990). The use 

of BMPs applies to all management activities. Monitoring BMPs to assess their effectiveness is 

an important part of the BMP process. When BMPs are found to need improvement through 

monitoring, improved practices are put into place. In this way, soil resources are protected. In 

addition, there are guidelines which address the issues identified in the NOI. Climate, oil and gas 

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

products, mineral materials, and fire management are also part of this alternative. The Mills 

Canyon Management Areas would be designated to preserve its wild, scenic, and recreational 

qualities. Impaired soils in this area would be improved as the Management Area guidelines and 

objectives are implemented. Climate change is also considered under this alternative. By 

considering climate change, management can be more prepared for future droughts and other 

changes. This is especially for soils which are susceptible to drought, such as the sandy soils. 

Overall, Alternative B moves soil resource more quickly to satisfactory conditions, through 

clarification of the desired condition, comprehensive guidelines which include improving 

unsatisfactory and impaired soils during management activities and the adaptive use of BMPs. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C is very similar to Alternative B in its consequences to soil resources. This is 

because the only difference between the two alternatives is that part of the Canadian River 

Inventoried Roadless Area would be recommended as the Canadian River Potential Wilderness 

Area. This area is about the same as the Mills Canyon Management Area, which would be 

implemented as part of Alternative B. Management activities which would be allowed under 

Alternative C are also the same since the management area proposed in Alternative B would be 

managed in a similar way. 

 
7 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

The cumulative effects area for soil resources are the soils on Forest Service lands within the 

project boundary on the grassland ranger districts. The effect is soil condition. Current soil 

conditions, where impaired, are the largely the result of impacts related to intensive agriculture 

coupled with drought during the Dust Bowl era. Many of the lands located within the grassland 

units were acquired after the dust storms to assist farmers and restore soils. As mentioned in the 

soil condition discussion, many of these soils have been restored to satisfactory condition, 

however on some sites, especially where sandy soils occur; bare areas contribute to soil loss. 

Restoration of these sites will be slow as processes destroyed by deep plowing need to be 

reestablished before soil condition is restored. All of the alternatives are expected to continue the 

restoration process, although some soils may take a long time before they are restored. 

Alternatives B and C may work to improve more soils since these alternative include direction 

effect of human influences of the grasslands from livestock grazing, energy development, mining 

reclamation, miscellaneous forest products, mineral materials, and fire management. 

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) administered by the USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service provides a voluntary conservation program for farmers and 

ranchers. EQIP offers financial and technical help to assist eligible producers reduce soil erosion 

and sedimentation from unacceptable levels on agricultural lands. 

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) provides technical and financial assistance to eligible 

farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their lands in 

an environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner. The CRP reduces soil erosion by 

encouraging farmers to convert highly erodible cropland or other environmentally sensitive 

acreage to vegetative cover. 

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 
8 

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 – BA Geology, Hartwick College. 23 years professional experience. Cibola 

National Forest Hydrologist, 2009 - present. 

References 

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

Creek National Grasslands, Colfax, Harding, Mora, 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. 

Forman, Steven L., Robert Oglesby, and Robert S. Webb. 2001. Temporal and spatial patterns of 

Holocene dune activity on the Great Plains of North America: megadroughts and climate 

links. Global and Planetary change, 29, 1-19. 

Gucker, Corey L. 2006. Quercus havardii. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences 
9 

Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [accessed on 2010, 

December 21]. 

McWilliams, Jack 2003. Artemisia filifolia In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences 

Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [accessed on 2010, 

December 21]. 

Muhs, Daniel R. and Vance T. Holliday. 1995. Evidence of Active dune Sand on the Great Plain 

in the 19th Century from Accounts of Early Explorers. Quaternary Research 43, 198-208. 

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

Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 

USDA. 1990. Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 – Soil and Water Conservations Practices 

Handbook, Region 3 Supplement. Effective December 3, 1990. Albuquerque, NM. 

USDA. 1999. Forest Service Handbook 2509.18 – Soil Management Handbook, Region 3 

Supplement No. 2509.18-99-1. Effective October 20, 1999. 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. 2010. Southwest Region Climate Change Trends and Forest Planning. USDA Forest 

Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 

USDA. 2011. Ecological Sustainability Report – Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and 

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

Albuquerque, NM.