United States Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Southwestern

Region

Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands

May 2011

Wildland-Urban Interface/Fire

Management Specialist Report

Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle 

and McClellan Creek National 

Grasslands Plan Revision

Environmental Impact Statement 

Analysis

Submitted by: __/s/

Lance Elmore

__

Forest Fuels Management Specialist

Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands

Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 3

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

for the need to use fire as a management tool.

Alternative B would emphasize reducing the threat of wildfire to communities by treating 

wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas and would provide for an annual treatment of 2,000 to 

3,000 acres per year with prescribed fire, mechanical methods, and/or thinning to reduce fire 

hazard in the WUI areas. A standard would require that response to unplanned ignitions meet 

either protection or resource objectives. Coordination with other jurisdictions in response to 

unplanned ignitions should be emphasized. Future planned ignitions should mimic the historical 

role of fire to achieve resource objectives.

Alternative C would provides the same WUI and fire management direction as alternative B and 

similar direction to alternative A. However, WUI would not apply in a wilderness, and planned 

and unplanned ignitions would be subject to directives in FSM 2320. Planned ignitions would be 

allowed when mimicking the historical fire regime for the vegetation type present in the potential 

wilderness (pinyon-juniper) and for fuel reduction.

Overview of the Affected Environment

Currently, as a whole, the Grasslands are within the natural range of variability. This is due in part 

to wildfire, and mimicking the natural occurrence of wildfire through the use of prescribed fire. 

Prescribed fire is used to resist the encroachment of woody plants into the grassland system.

Summary of Environmental Consequences

There would be no environmental consequences incurred in meeting the desired conditions for 

WUI/Fire. Beneficial affects would occur to other resources on the grassland. Wildlife could 

benefit from the different structural stages created through the use of prescribed fire.

Specialist Report

Introduction

This report discloses and evaluates the potential environmental consequences on the WUI/Fire 

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).
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 4

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy that Apply 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

National Forest Management Act of 1976

Cibola National Forest Fire Management Plan 2011

National Fire Plan 2001

Forest Service Manual Direction (FSM 5100)

Forest Service Manual Direction (FSM 2320)

Methodology and Analysis Process

FIRE REGIME CONDITION CLASS DEFINITION

A natural fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across a

landscape in the absence of modern human mechanical intervention, but

including the influence of aboriginal burning (Agee 1993, Brown 1995). Coarsescale definitions 

for natural (historical) fire regimes have been developed byHardy et al. (2001) and Schmidt et al. 

(2002) and interpreted for fire and fuels management by Hann and Bunnell (2001). The five 

natural (historical) fire regimes are classified based on average number of years between fires 

(fire frequency) combined with the severity (amount of replacement) of the fire on the

dominant overstory vegetation. These five regimes include:

I – 0-35 year frequency and low (surface fires most common) to mixed

severity (less than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

II – 0-35 year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater

than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

III – 35-100+ year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75% of the

dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

IV – 35-100+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity

(greater than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

V – 200+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity.

As scale of application becomes finer these five classes may be defined with

more detail, or any one class may be split into finer classes, but the hierarchy to

the coarse scale definitions should be retained.

A fire regime condition class (FRCC) is a classification of the amount of

departure from the natural regime (Hann and Bunnell 2001). Coarse-scale

FRCC classes have been defined and mapped by Hardy et al. (2001) and

Schmidt et al. (2001) (FRCC). They include three condition classes for each fire

regime. The classification is based on a relative measure describing the degree

of departure from the historical natural fire regime. This departure results in

changes to one (or more) of the following ecological components: vegetation

characteristics (species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy

closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and

pattern; and other associated disturbances (e.g. insect and diseased mortality,
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 5

grazing, and drought). There are no wildland vegetation and fuel conditions or

wildland fire situations that do not fit within one of the three classes.

The three classes are based on low (FRCC 1), moderate (FRCC 2), and high

(FRCC 3) departure from the central tendency of the natural (historical) regime

(Hann and Bunnell 2001, Hardy et al. 2001, Schmidt et al. 2002). The central

tendency is a composite estimate of vegetation characteristics (species

composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern);

fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated

natural disturbances. Low departure is considered to be within the natural

(historical) range of variability, while moderate and high departures are outside.

Characteristic vegetation and fuel conditions are considered to be those that

occurred within the natural (historical) fire regime. Uncharacteristic conditions

are considered to be those that did not occur within the natural (historical) fire

regime, such as invasive species (e.g. weeds, insects, and diseases), “high

graded” forest composition and structure (e.g. large trees removed in a frequent

surface fire regime), or repeated annual grazing that maintains grassy fuels

across relatively large areas at levels that will not carry a surface fire.

Determination of amount of departure is based on comparison of a composite

measure of fire regime attributes (vegetation characteristics; fuel composition;

fire frequency, severity and pattern) to the central tendency of the natural

(historical) fire regime. The amount of departure is then classified to determine

the fire regime condition class. A simplified description of the fire regime

condition classes and associated potential risks follow.

Fire Regime

Condition Class 

Description Potential Risks

Condition Class 1 Within the natural (historical)

range of variability of vegetation

characteristics; fuel composition; 

fire frequency, severity and 

pattern; and other associated 

disturbances

Fire behavior, effects, and other associated 

disturbances are similar to those that occurred 

prior to fire exclusion (suppression) and other 

types of management that do not mimic the 

natural fire regime and associated vegetation and 

fuel characteristics.

Composition and structure of vegetation and fuels 

are similar to the natural (historical) regime.

Risk of loss of key ecosystem components (e.g. 

native species, large trees, and soil) are low

_________________________________________

Condition Class 2
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 6

Moderate departure from the 

natural (historical) regime of 

vegetation characteristics; fuel 

composition; fire frequency, 

severity and pattern; and other 

associated disturbances

Fire behavior, effects, and other associated 

disturbances are moderately departed (more or 

less severe).

Composition and structure of vegetation and fuel 

are moderately altered.

Uncharacteristic conditions range from low to 

moderate;

Risk of loss of key ecosystem components are 

moderate

_________________________________________

Condition Class 3

High departure from the natural 

(historical) regime of vegetation 

characteristics; fuel composition; 

fire frequency, severity and 

pattern; and other associated 

disturbances

Fire behavior, effect, and other associated 

disturbances are highly departed (more or less 

severe).

Composition and structure of vegetation and fuel 

are highly altered.

Uncharacteristic conditions range from moderate 

to high.

Risk of loss of key ecosystem components are high

In general throughout all of the grasslands vegetation types, FRCC is estimated to be in the 

following percentages: 60% FRCC 1, 35%FRCC 2, and 5% FRCC 3.(Holsinger 2006). This 

relates to the grasslands with average fire return intervals of 2-20 years, most likely less than 10 

years. This return interval may be longer in the cottonwood/willow areas along rivers, streams 

and in the Pinon/Juniper savannas, but most likely less than 35 years. The large landscape 

historical fires are now hampered by broken landscapes (roads, agriculture fields, urban 

development, etc). 

Assumptions

In the analysis for this resource, the following assumptions have been made:
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 7

• 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).

Summary of Alternatives

Alternative A (No Action)

Implementation would continue as it is currently being accomplished with minimal and limited 

direction. Direction includes meeting Air Quality regulations, selecting an appropriate 

suppression strategy on all fires, developing fire management plans, using unplanned fires to 

meet resource objectives, reduce number of man-caused wildfires, and increase public awareness 

for the need to use fire as a management tool.

Alternative B (Preferred)

This alternative would have the same outcome as Alternative A. Most if not all of Alt. A is being 

carried forward with more specific guidance such as annual treatment of 2-3,000 acres per year 

with prescribed fire, mechanical methods, and thinning to reduce fire hazard in the WUI areas. 

Wildfires should be managed under appropriate management strategies identified at the time of 

the fire. 

Alternative C 

This alternative would provide the same directions as Alternative B, except it adds a wilderness 

component to the Mills Canyon Inventoried Roadless Area. These objectives are to permit 

lightning caused fires to play, as nearly as possible, their natural ecological role within 

wilderness, and reduce, to an acceptable level, the risks and consequences of wildfire within 

wilderness or escaping from wilderness.

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

Historically, natural disturbances were a regular component found on the Grasslands. Fire plays a 

key role in the maintenance of the grassland system, and probably the most significant process in 

sustaining plains grassland ecosystems. Grassland fires release nutrients into the soil, which 

stimulates nutrient cycling and soil productivity (Brockway et al. 2002a). Grassland fires reduce
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 8

the establishment of woody trees and shrubs, which helps maintain a more resilient grassland 

composition and structure (Brockway et al. 2002a, Ford 2003). The encroachment of woody 

species that threatens plains grasslands in the region is not only the result of over 100 years of fire

suppression, but also the planting of shelterbelts and other tree species during the early years of

grasslands restoration in the 1940s.

Grasslands managers have increasingly used prescribed burns to eliminate the excess of woody

trees and shrubs, including invasive trees like black locust and eastern red cedar, improve the

diversity of structural stages, and restore fire-adapted ecosystems. Over the past 10-12 years,

approximately 80% of the Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National Grasslands have been

burned, with some units burned two to four times, and about 2% of the Kiowa and Rita Blanca

National Grasslands units have been burned, mostly in the piñon-juniper ecosystem (GIS

Geodatabase – Prescribed Fire History 2007). In addition, approximately 7,300 acres burned in

wildfires on all four Grasslands in the ten years from 1995 to 2005. The 2006 wildfire season

was especially unique due to prolonged drought and burned over 3,700 acres of Black Kettle,

1,500 acres of McClellan Creek and 850 acres of the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National

Grasslands (GIS Geodatabase – Fire History 2007.) Research shows that the grasslands had a fire 

occurance on average of 2-20 years intervals. Fire is used primarily to improve range conditions 

by reducing the shrub to grass ratio in areas where shrubs are gaining dominance. The use of fire 

on the grasslands is subject to several constraints, one of these being drought. Fire use preceding

drought conditions could potentially cause negative impacts to the grasslands such as soil erosion 

from winds and rain, and the possibility of non-native or invasive species out competing native 

grasses. The use of prescribed fire during this time is usually limited by managers to little or 

none.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A. Grassland resource objectives would be met and wildland-fire-caused damage 

would be reduced on an unspecified number of acres in grassland WUI areas.

Alternatives B and C. Resource objectives would be met and wildland-fire-caused damage would 

be reduced on 2,000 to 3,000 acres annually in grassland WUI areas.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Adjacent private land (within about 1 mile of the Grasslands boundary) is the cumulative effects 

analysis area. Wildland-fire-caused damage would be reduced on the grasslands as off-grasslands 

fire severity decreases in response to the creation and maintenance of defensible space on private 

land adjacent to the grasslands.

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.
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 9

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 

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 the Federal, 

State, Local, or Tribal land use plans, policies and controls.

List of Preparers

Lance Elmore, Forest Fuels Management Specialist, Cibola National Forest. Associate Degree of 

Science 1990. Began career with Forest Service in 1992 as a seasonal fire fighter, worked in both 

fuels management and fire suppression. Began management positions around 2003 as an 

Assistant District Fire Management Officer, then in 2006 as District Fire Management Officer, 

and in 2009 began current position of Forest Fuels Management Specialist. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 10

References

Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kepler, eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on 

flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 p.

Brockway, D. G., R. G. Gatewood, and R. B. Paris. 2002. Restoring fire as an ecological process 

in shortgrass prairie ecosystems: initial effects of prescribed burning during the dormant and 

growing seasons. Journal of Environmental Management 65:135-152.

Finch, Deborah M., Editor. 2004. Assessment of grassland ecosystem conditions in the 

Southwestern United States. Volume 1. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-135-vol. 1. Fort 

Collins, CO: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station.

Ford, Paulette. 2003. Steppe plant response to seasonal fire. Pages 1125-1131 in Proceedings of 

the VIIth International Rangelands Congress. 26 July – 1 August 2003, Durban, South Africa.

Hann, Wendel J. and D.L. Bunnell. 2001. Fire and land management planning and 

implementation across multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 27 pp.

Hann, Wendel. Fire Regime Condition Class Interagency Handbook Reference Conditions. 2003.

PRAR1 Prairie Grassland (Sandsage-Bluestem Prairie) Natural Vegetation Group.

Holsinger, Lisa; Keane, Robert E.; Steele, Brian; Reeves, Matthew C.; Pratt, Sara 2006. Chapter 

11 Using historical simulations of vegetation to assess departure of current vegetation conditions

across large landscapes. In:Rollins, Matthew G.; Frame, Christine K., tech. eds. 2006. The 

LANDFIRE Prototype Project: nationally consistent and locally relevant geospatial data for 

wildland fire management Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-175. Fort Collins: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. P. 315-366 

Geographic Information System (GIS) Data Location

All GIS data is from 2007 and can be accessed by contacting the Cibola National Forest’s 

Supervisor’s Office.

Prescribed Fire Data

Other Cibola Data Geodatabase

Fire

Prescribed Fire History

Wildfire Data

USFS-R3_UTM13 Geodatabase

Fire Management

Fire History