United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Southwestern 

Region 

Cibola 

National 

Forest and 

National 

Grasslands 

May 2011

Special Uses Specialist 

Report 

Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle 

and McClellan Creek National 

Grasslands Plan Revision 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Analysis 

Submitted by: __/s/ _________________________ 

Donald L. Hall

Land Specialist 

Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands 

Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 3 

Executive Summary 

The Forest Service special use program provides for authorized services by permit, easement, or 

leases which support the Agency’s mission on the National Grasslands and meets the needs of the 

public. These permits are a partnership between the Agency, and the private businesses and 

individuals to provide services and facilities. 

Utility and communication facilities, recreational concessions, and rights-of-way are authorized 

on the Grasslands by these types of permits. There are currently 43 permits, easements or leases 

on the Kiowa/Rita Blanca National Grasslands; and 40 permits, easements or leases, 100+ oil and 

natural gas leases on the Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National Grasslands with other 

applications being processed for occupancy and use of the federal estate. 

As part of the 1985 Land Management and Resource Plan as amended, the “Transportation And 

Utilities Corridors” map has made an attempt to establish corridors or windows for major utility 

facilities such as natural gas pipelines, electric transmission lines, or major transportation routes. 

The corridors or windows have been established as a means of providing routes through the 

Grasslands in order to minimize development impacts on the surface resources. These corridors 

should be reviewed and expanded as part of the Plan Revision with additional review every five 

years with industry’s assistance if possible. 

The current Plan as it pertains to Alternative A (No Action) provides general goals and direction 

for special use administration, while following Forest Service manual, handbook, and law, 

regulations, and policy. This alternative designates existing transmission rights-of-ways as 

corridors, and provides for joint use in corridors. It is silent on any particular special use 

authorization and development, including energy development. Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) would update manual, handbook, and law, regulations, and policy and remove 

redundancy in all management direction. It recommends guidelines for wind energy development 

within one half mile of Historical Register areas, or within one half mile of Black-tailed prairie 

dog colonies, or one half mile of airport approaches and departure paths, or one half mile of High 

Scenic Integrity areas, or one half mile buffer or modification of buffers in relation to developed 

recreation sites. It also recommends adherence to USFWS advisory committee wind turbine 

guidelines. In addition, it recommends raptor guidelines be implemented for all power, energy, 

and communication sites. Alternative C (Canadian River Wilderness Area Recommendation), the 

special use components are not applicable to wilderness. 

Overview of the Affected Environment 

Special use permits, easements and leases authorize services that support the Forest Service 

mission and meet the needs of the public. These permits are a partnership between the Agency, 

and the private businesses and individuals to provide services and facilities, such as recreation 

opportunities and infrastructure. In particular, the construction and use of utilities supporting 

rural residences and industry are part of the Grasslands contribution to economic growth and 

sustainability. Over half of the special use permits on the Black Kettle and McClellan Creek 

National Grasslands are related to oil and gas operations, and most permits on the Kiowa and Rita 

Blanca National Grasslands are for power lines and road easements. There are also several 

research projects on the Grasslands, conducted by universities and other research institutes, which 

are authorized by special use permit. It is projected that the development of oil and gas, and wind 

energy in the region may result in more requests for utility and pipeline special use permits. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 4 

Summary of Environmental Consequences 

Potential environmental consequences are similar in nature for Alternative A and B with none 

being of sufficient importance. The special use component is not applicable for wilderness and 

Alternative C. 

The potential cumulative consequences are as follows: 

• National Grassland habitat for the Lesser Prairie chicken becomes more fragmented. 

• Lesser Prairie chicken avoidance behavior indicates suitable habitat will diminish as 

special use authorizations are permitted across the landscape. 

• Oklahoma provides private lands incentive programs which make payments for

black-tailed prairie colony establishment adjacent to the Rita Blanca units. 

Expansion of prairie dog colonies on the private lands has the potential to expand 

onto the National Grasslands. This may effect special use authorizations. 

Special Use authorizations will result in no environmental consequences as it pertains to 

management direction by alternative. 

Specialist Report 

Introduction 

This report discloses and evaluates the potential environmental consequences on the special uses 

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 

Identify Federal and state law and USFS regulation and policy affecting the special uses resource 

(such as State requirements under the Clean Water Act). 

FSM 2700 – Special Use Management; Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power 

Lines: Utility lines, transformer, and conductor locations recommendations of The State of the 

Art in 2006, Avian Powerline Interaction Committee (APLIC) 2006. 

Methodology and Analysis Process 

The Cibola National Forest’s special use program is based on manual, handbook, and law, 

regulation, and policy, and sound professional judgment which evaluates the proponent’s proposal 

before authorization is approved for occupancy and use of the National Grasslands. As part of the 

authorization process, guidelines will be incorporated from various agencies as well as the Forest 

Service to avoid and minimize wildlife impacts, raptor protection and impacts to federally listed 

species and migratory birds. The “Transportation and Utilities Corridors” map of the Plan was 

also utilized. The map should be reviewed and updated as part of the plan revision, and reviewed 

with industry a minimum of every five years. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 5 

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; other timeframes may be analyzed depending on the 

resource (usually a discussion of anticipated trends into the future). 

Revision Topics Addressed in this Analysis 

Activities (proposals/projects) authorized by special use permits provide goods and services, and 

contribute to the economic growth and sustainability. Said permits comply with the Agency’s 

standards. 

Special use permitting will continue at the current level or expand in Alternatives A (No Action) 

and B (Preferred Alternative); and will be excluded from Alternative C (Canadian River 

Wilderness Area Recommendation). The Ecological Sustainability report does not discuss or 

determine change in current management direction to meet desired condition. 

Mitigation and Guidelines 

Transmission structures (large linear infrastructure) 

• have minimal impacts on scenic resources of the area by harmonizing with the landscape 

• do not dominate the views from High Scenic Integrity areas and developed recreational 

sites 

• has minimal effects on wildlife and minimizes habitat fragmentation 

• utilizes existing corridors (rights-of-ways) to the extent practical 

Heritage

• development should be avoided within 500 feet of eligible National Historical Register 

sites 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 6 

Summary of Alternatives 

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

require project specific NEPA. Alternative A ( No Action) provides general goals and direction 

for special use administration and authorization while following Forest Service manual, handbook 

and laws, regulations and policy. The alternative designates existing transmission rights-of-ways 

as corridors, and provides for joint use in corridors. It is silent on any particular special use 

authorization and development, including energy development. Alternative B (Preferred 

Alternative) would update manual, handbook, and law, regulations, and policy and remove 

redundancy in all management direction. It recommends guidelines for wind energy development 

within one half mile of Historic Register areas, or within one half mile of Black-tailed prairie dog 

colonies, or one half mile of airport approaches and departure paths, or one half mile of high 

scenic integrity areas. It also recommends adherence to USFWS advisory committee wind 

turbine guidelines. In addition it recommends raptor guidelines be implemented for all power, 

energy and communication sites. Alternative C (Canadian River Wilderness Area 

Recommendation), the special use plan components are not applicable to wilderness. Issuance of 

a permit, easement or lease will result in no difference in management direction by alternative. 

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition) 

There are special use permits, easements, and leases, which authorize services supporting the 

Grasslands’ mission and meets the needs of the public. These permits are a partnership between 

the Agency, and private businesses and individuals to provide services and facilities which 

contribute to economic growth and sustainability. Over half of the special use permits on the 

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National Grasslands are related to oil and gas operations, and 

with most permits on the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands for power lines and road 

easements. 

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. 

Potential environmental consequences are similar for Alternatives A and B, and are not applicable 

to Alternative C since the special use component is not permitted in wilderness. 

The desired condition for special uses is to: 

• Permit activities which provide goods and services that increase the public’s enjoyment 

of the Grasslands and support nearby communities. The special use permits comply with 

agency standards. 

• Utility lines and other permitted infrastructure have minimal impacts on the scenic 

resources of the area by harmonizing with the landscape. Large vertical structures do not 

dominate the views from High Scenic Integrity areas and developed recreation sites. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 7 

• Research permitted on the Grasslands is focused on improving the general scientific 

understanding of natural and social systems. Research on the Grasslands does not 

negatively impact long-term vegetation structures and composition, and does not

introduce new invasive plants or animals. 

Scenery 

Scenery is predominantly characterized by agricultural landscapes on the Grasslands with the 

local population and visitors having a deep appreciation of the plains grassland landscape. 

The landscape is dynamic and changing. 

Alternative A (No Action) Per the 1985 Plan, the visual quality of lands viewed from 

recreation sites, and scenic travel ways are increasingly important. Specific emphasis needs 

to be placed on those areas identified as high in scenic value or recreation visitor use. The 

Plan contains management requirements to maintain Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) in 

order to maintain the natural quality of the landscape. 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) Within 15 years of plan approval, mitigate adverse 

scenic impacts of all structures upon the landscape that do not meet desired conditions and 

guidelines of High Scenic Integrity. Infrastructure from special uses and energy 

developments on the Grasslands should have minimal visual impacts on areas of High Scenic 

Integrity and developed recreation sites. 

Alternative C (Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area) Scenery is not applicable to the 

special use component in this alternative. 

An authorization of a special use permit for various types of uses and locations for 

(transmission/pipeline corridors, facilities/structures, wind farm) development could potentially 

present conflicts, however, as part of the application process and acceptance, mitigation with the 

applicant occurs. Recommend a one half mile avoidance buffer of High Scenic Integrity areas, or 

modification of buffers. 

Developed Recreation 

Developed recreation sites are in harmony with respect to their natural setting and integrate nature 

and cultural elements of the surrounding area and local communities, adding to the satisfaction of 

the visitor. 

Alternative A (No Action) The 1985 Plan in general terms speaks to developed recreation for the 

Grasslands. 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) Would continue to provide a variety of recreation 

opportunities. New recreation development would be limited and rehabilitating existing 

developments would be emphasized. Developed campgrounds buffers would be modified. 

Alternative C (Canadian River Wilderness Recommendation) Developed recreation is not 

applicable to the special use component in this alternative since it is not authorized. 

An authorization of a special use permit for various types of uses and locations for 

(transmission/pipelines corridors, facilities/structures, wind farms) development could potentially 

present conflict, however, as part of the application process, mitigation with the applicant occurs. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 8 

Recommend a one half mile buffer for developed recreation sites of modification of existing 

ones. Existing special use authorizations will be modified as opportunities present themselves. 

Heritage Resources 

Activities protecting and mitigating impacts to heritage resources are well-covered by existing 

law, regulation, and policy. 

Alternative A (No Action) Per the 1985 Plan, archeological management has been effective in 

controlling impacts of various other resource activities. 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) This alternative is silent on archeological management in 

general, except recommending purchases of lands with cultural values. 

Alternative C (Canadian River Wilderness Recommendation) Heritage is not applicable to the 

special use component in this alternative since special use development is not authorized. 

An authorization of a special use permit for various types of uses and locations for 

(transmission/pipeline corridors, facilities/structures, wind farms) development could potentially 

present conflicts with heritage components, however, as part of the application process, 

mitigation with the applicant occurs. Recommend a buffer of 500 feet of eligible National 

Register sites. 

Wildlife Habitat 

All of the Grasslands have special use development potential which could result in vegetation and 

habitat becoming more fragmented. Species that utilize the structure and composition of the 

Grassland vegetation will have decreasing habitats available. The Oklahoma private lands 

incentive payments program for Black-tailed prairie dog establishment is adjacent to units of the 

Rita Blanca NG. Expansion of prairie dog colonies on private lands has the potential to expand 

onto the National Grasslands. 

Alternative A (No Action) The 1985 Plan, focuses its objectives on management indicator 

species, listed or potential threaten and endangered plant and animal species. Management 

activities involving wildlife and fish species should include: 1) coordination with other resource 

activities; 2) continued direct habitat improvement work; 3) continued protection of threatened or 

endangered species; 4) continued cooperation with appropriate game departments; 5) continued 

diversity sufficient to maintain the minimum viable population of management indicator species. 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) Would allow for removal of invasive or non-native trees 

from historical grassland communities or in otherwise suitable Lesser prairie chicken habitat on 

the Black Kettle NG. This alternative articulates to having a management approach that 

encourages Black-tailed prairie dog colonies to expand on the Rita Blanca NG. It encourages 

having sufficient habitat available to potentially accommodate reintroduction of the Black-foot 

ferret as a natural predator. 

Alternative C (Canadian River Wilderness Recommendation) Wildlife habitat is not applicable to 

the special use component in this alternative since special use development is not authorized. 

An authorization of a special use permit for various types of uses and locations for 

(transmission/pipeline corridors, facilities/structures, wind farms) development could potentially 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 9 

present conflicts, however, as part of the application process, mitigation with the applicant occurs. 

Recommend avoidance of active of active prairie dog colonies. As a management approach is 

developed for the Black-tailed prairie dog and reintroduction of the Black-foot ferret, restriction 

maybe imposed on specific areas for development. 

The Lesser Prairie chicken avoidance behavior indicates habitat will diminish as special use 

(structures are constructed) development continues to advance across the landscape. Recommend 

avoidance of potential habitat areas which will have a negative impact on some areas desirable 

for various types of development. 

Special Use authorization will result in no environmental consequences as it pertains to 

management direction by alternative. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

There is the potential for cumulative environmental consequences as a result of the land pattern of 

the Grasslands as facilities are being developed in the private sector and expanding onto the 

federal lands (transmission corridors, pipelines, and wind energy development). 

Currently there is one existing natural gas /oil pipeline corridor crossing units of the Black Kettle 

National Grasslands. Industry is investigating potential routes for transmission corridor because 

of future energy development to enable access to the power grid and market. The Grasslands 

potentially could be affected by future proposals. 

The State of Oklahoma provides private landowners an incentive program which makes payments 

for Black-tailed prairie dog colony establishment adjacent to the Rita Blanca units. Expansion of 

prairie dog colonies on the private lands has the potential to expand onto the National Grasslands. 

This may affect special use authorization and development of particular areas. 

Currently the special use authorizations will result in no cumulative environmental 

consequences as it pertains to management direction by alternative. 

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 10 

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. 

Other Planning Efforts 

There are no potential conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives of Federal, 

Regional, State, local, or Tribal land use plans, policies, and controls for the area concerned. 

List of Preparers 

Donald L. Hall, Cibola National Forest, Lands Specialist, Graduated from Utah State University – 

1976 with a Bachelor of Science Degree, have been employed by the USDA Forest Service for 

30+ years in natural resource management. 

References 

Cibola National Forest Land Management Plan, as amended – Transportation and Utilities 

Corridors Map