United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Southwestern

Region

MB-R3-03-24

August 2012

Record of Decision for the 

Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black 

Kettle, and McClellan 

Creek National 

Grasslands Land and 

Resource Management 

Plan

Cibola National Forest and National 

Grasslands in New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, and Texas
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper – August 2012
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita 

Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek 

National Grasslands Land and Resource

Management Plan

Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands

in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Corbin L. Newman, Jr.

Regional Forester

Southwestern Region

USDA Forest Service

333 Broadway Blvd., SE

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

For information, contact: Nancy Rose

Forest Supervisor

Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands

2113 Osuna Road, NE

Albuquerque, NM 87113

(505) 346-3900

Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................1

Land and Resource Management Planning.............................................................................................2

Collaboration and Public Involvement ...................................................................................................2

Needs-for-Change...................................................................................................................................3

Alternatives.............................................................................................................................................4

My Decision................................................................................................................................ 6

Components of the Decision...................................................................................................................6

Rationale for Decision ............................................................................................................................9

Response to Public Concerns................................................................................................................11

Management Concerns.........................................................................................................................13

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study.............................................................13

Environmentally Preferable Alternative ...............................................................................................14

Net Public Benefits...............................................................................................................................14

Science Consistency .............................................................................................................................15

Project Consistency ..............................................................................................................................15

Compatibility with Goals of Other Public Agencies and Indian Tribes ..............................................16

Environmental Justice...........................................................................................................................16

Implementation Schedules and Budgets...............................................................................................16

Monitoring and Evaluation...................................................................................................................17

Plan Amendments.................................................................................................................................17

Findings Related to Other Laws and Authorities..................................................................................18

Effective Date.......................................................................................................................................19

Appeal Information................................................................................................................. 20

Approval................................................................................................................................... 22

Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and

McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan 1

Introduction

This public record of decision (ROD) documents my decision and rationale for approving the new

“Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan 

Creek National Grasslands” (plan). These grassland units (herein collectively referred to as the 

“Cibola Grasslands”) are administered by the Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands 

Supervisor’s Office in Albuquerque, NM. Previously, there was one land and resource 

management plan for the Cibola Grasslands in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas and the 

forested, mountain districts of the Cibola National Forest in New Mexico. That plan was 

approved in 1985. In 2006 plan development efforts for a new, separate Cibola Grasslands plan 

were initiated. This new Cibola Grasslands plan will guide all resource management activities on 

the four national grasslands for the next 10 to 15 years. 

The Kiowa National Grassland covers 137,537 acres and is located within Mora, Harding, Union, 

and Colfax Counties, NM, with the district office located in Clayton, NM. The Rita Blanca 

National Grassland covers 92,989 acres and is located within Dallam County, TX, and Cimarron 

County, OK, with the district office also located in Clayton, NM. The Black Kettle National 

Grassland covers 31,286 acres and is located within Roger Mills County, OK, and Hemphill 

County, TX. The McClellan Creek National Grassland covers 1,449 acres and is located in Gray 

County, TX. The district office for both the Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National 

Grasslands is located in Cheyenne, OK. The Kiowa National Grassland resides in the third 

Congressional District of New Mexico, the Rita Blanca and Black Kettle in the 13th 

Congressional District of Texas and the third Congressional District of Oklahoma, and the 

McClellan Creek National Grassland in the 13th Congressional District of Texas.

The Cibola Grasslands are made up of approximately 125 separate parcels interspersed with 

private or state ownerships within the southern Great Plains landscape. The vegetation of the 

Cibola Grasslands is predominantly shortgrass prairie, but also contains mixed grass prairie, 

shinnery oak, mixed hardwood riparian, sand sagebrush, cottonwood/willow and pinyon-juniper 

types. These vegetation types contribute to availability of native and, in some cases, 

underrepresented prairie habitats and conservation of uncommon and unique species. The Cibola 

Grasslands contain significant scenic, heritage (historic and prehistoric), and paleontological 

(fossil) resources which offer opportunities for the public to learn about the past and appreciate 

the resources and beauty of the Cibola Grasslands. These important resources and others provide 

opportunities to base tourism businesses on a variety of recreation activities and visitation of 

historic and cultural sites.

Livestock grazing on the Cibola Grasslands contributes to maintaining the ranching culture and

lifestyle of these rural areas and improves the fiscal sustainability of local ranching operations. 

Over 96 percent of the Cibola Grasslands are used by permit holders to graze their livestock. This 

use of the Cibola Grasslands contributes to the social and economic well-being of this area while 

not compromising the sustainability of native prairie ecosystems. Similarly, the Cibola 

Grasslands provide opportunities for oil and natural gas extraction that contribute to meeting the 

Nation’s energy needs. The Cibola Grasslands may also play a future role for alternative energy 

development such as wind energy. These energy development activities are undertaken only after 

evaluation and mitigation of adverse effects to other resource values.
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and

2 McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Land and Resource Management Planning

With this decision, the selected alternative will become the new Cibola Grasslands plan. This new 

Cibola Grasslands plan is part of the long-range resource planning framework established by the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA), the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), and the 2007 Revision of the USDA Forest 

Service Strategic Plan. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) requires all units 

of the National Forest System to develop plans that direct resource management activities on the 

forests. These plans are to be revised when conditions have changed significantly, or on a 10- to 

15-year cycle. 

The final programmatic environmental impact statement (FPEIS) and new Cibola Grasslands plan 

were developed according to the NFMA, its implementing regulations at 36 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 219; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council of 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1500–1508, and the Forest Service NEPA 

regulations at 36 CFR 220. According to transition language of the 2012 Planning Rule at 36 CFR 

219.17(b)(3), the responsible official may elect to use the provisions of the prior planning 

regulations (1982 Planning Rule, dated September 30, 1982, and as amended) to prepare plan 

amendments and revisions. For this revision of the “Cibola National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan” in creating the new Cibola Grasslands plan, I have elected to follow the 

provisions of the planning regulations in effect prior to November 9, 2000, referred to collectively 

in this document as the 1982 Rule.

The FPEIS discloses the environmental consequences of the alternative management strategies 

and how they respond to issues and concerns.

This decision applies only to National Forest System lands of the Cibola Grasslands located in the 

aforementioned counties. It does not apply to any other Federal, State, or private lands, although 

the effects of these lands and the effects of my decision on lands surrounding the national 

grasslands are also considered.

Collaboration and Public Involvement

Collaboration efforts during the evaluation, development, scoping, and NEPA phases of the 

planning process employed a number of formats and styles. These included public workshops, 

field days, and focus groups. Federal and state interagency conferences, briefing and listening 

sessions with local governments, congressional staffs, tribes, and nongovernmental organizations

were also held. In addition to personal contacts, opportunities for input by Internet have been 

available for 5 years. The plan development process began with a Forest Service (FS) 

interdisciplinary team (IDT) identifying elements for retention from the 1985 “Cibola National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” that were applicable to the grassland units. Public 

collaboration began with the identification of needs for change to the 1985 Cibola NF plan related 

to the grasslands. Collaboration continued through the development of plan components for the 

draft Cibola Grasslands plan and the development of alternatives to the draft Cibola Grasslands 

plan.

Discussions with the public regarding needs for change to the 1985 plan began with a series of 

public meetings in 2006. Over the ensuing 5 years, a total of 23 public meetings were held with 

various individuals and organizations, other Federal and state agencies, and local governments. 
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and 

McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan 3

Seven assessment and needs for change meetings were held in 2006. In 2007, two meetings were 

held to brief the public and the Harding and Mora County commissioners on the “Kiowa National 

Grassland Wilderness Evaluation Report—Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area” (PWA). In 

2009, two focus group meetings were held to receive input on desired conditions for the 

ecological and socioeconomic goods and services. In April 2010, following the notice of intent 

(NOI) to prepare an EIS, five scoping meetings were held in different locations near the Cibola 

Grasslands. The purpose of the scoping meetings was to determine if other alternatives to 

achieving the desired conditions existed; if guidelines and standards were sufficient; and 

development of monitoring elements to determine progress on objectives. During the period July 

13-21, 2010, three open interagency meetings with state and Federal wildlife agencies including 

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Texas 

Department of Parks and Wildlife, and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish were 

conducted. The purpose of these meetings was to receive input from state and Federal biologists 

on identifying and selecting management indicator species and ecological indicators. These 

indicators would serve to evaluate EIS alternatives and future monitoring of important wildlife 

species and vegetation types. 

In addition to the above, annual government-to-government consultations addressing plan 

development were held with tribes having historical ties to the Cibola Grasslands. Those tribes 

are the Mescalero Apache Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Apache 

Tribe of Oklahoma, Comanche Nation, Kiowa Tribe, and Wichita and Affiliated Tribes. Tribal 

members also occasionally attended public meetings and conveyed stories passed down from 

ancestors describing traditional uses of certain areas.

The proposed plan and draft EIS were released for comment on September 30, 2011. In 

November 2011, three public meetings were held near the Cibola Grasslands to inform the public 

and solicit comments during the 90-day comment period.

Needs-for-Change

Three needs-for-change themes to the current 1985 Cibola National Forest plan emerged from the 

early and extensive collaboration with the public. These themes were addressed early in the 

planning process through development of plan components for the proposed plan. These needsfor-change themes were:

1. Ecosystem Diversity: moving vegetation types toward desired vegetation structure and 

species composition; controlling invasive species, and anticipating and responding to 

climate change.

2. Managed Recreation: providing direction that is specific to the Cibola Grasslands, 

relative to management of motorized, dispersed, and developed recreation opportunities, 

areas of high scenic integrity, and possible designation of special areas.

3. Human Influences: providing adequate grasslands-specific direction regarding the 

management and monitoring of livestock grazing (this issue was largely addressed by 

subsequent NEPA decisions); the placement, maintenance, or rehabilitation of energy 

development sites; the use of planned fire or response to unplanned fire; and the 

allowance of special uses such as mineral extraction, utility corridors, firewood 

harvesting, and research activities.
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and

4 McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Alternatives

During the iterative development of the proposed plan, an issue arose regarding wilderness. Some 

members of the public expressed a desire that the Mills Canyon area be recommend for 

wilderness designation; others were not in favor of such a recommendation. This impasse in 

development of the proposed plan led to the development of another alternative which analyzed 

Mills Canyon as recommended wilderness. A total of three alternatives were analyzed in detail in 

the EIS, the no action alternative (alternative A – the current 1985 plan), the proposed plan 

(alternative B), and the wilderness alternative (alternative C). A description of each follows.

Alternative A 

Alternative A would recommend the continuance of the 1985 “Cibola National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan” (as amended) for the Cibola Grasslands for the next 15 years. The 

current plan:

• Does not identify the uniqueness of grassland vegetation types or provide specificity on 

how land management tools and processes would affect species composition and 

vegetation structure, other than directing that shinnery oak be treated and converted to 

grassland;

• Emphasizes forage for sustained livestock yields and technology to improve range 

conditions;

• Does not address climate change, control of invasive species, or wind energy 

development;

• Is silent on dispersed recreation other than motorized use and does not provide direction 

for managing nature-based tourism on the Cibola Grasslands;

• Has no plan direction for special areas such as the Santa Fe National Historic Trail or the 

two scenic byways on the Cibola Grasslands;

• Has little scenery resource direction other than relating to vegetation management or tree 

harvest; and

• Does not recommend wilderness designation for Mills Canyon nor does it delineate Mills 

Canyon and its remarkable features as a distinct management area.

Several concerns with the current plan led the Agency to develop alternatives to alternative A:

• The age of the current plan, the lack of detail relevant to management of the Cibola 

Grasslands, and silence on emerging issues (wind energy, climate change, invasive 

species) affecting the Cibola Grasslands;

• The often evident ambiguity of the stated management direction of the current plan with 

the actual, science-based, adaptive management currently occurring on the Cibola 

Grasslands; and

• The desire by some members of the public to have the regional forester propose to 

Congress the designation of a portion of the Canadian River Inventoried Roadless Area 

on the Kiowa NG as a wilderness area, a suggestion opposed by others.
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and 

McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan 5

Alternative B

This alternative was developed to address the needs for change to the 1985 Cibola National 

Forest plan. It was developed through a “rolling alternative” collaborative process from 2006 

through 2011, consistent with the concept of incremental changes to a proposed action or 

alternative (FS NEPA regulations at 36 CFR 220 5(e)(1)). It is the proposed plan and would 

provide direction for the Cibola Grasslands for the next 15 years. This alternative:

• Defines and emphasizes management of vegetation and habitat to move toward desired 

vegetation structure and species composition;

• Incorporates research and potential strategies for addressing effects of climate change;

• Addresses invasive species control on all grasslands;

• Provides directions for wind energy development;

• Removes redundancy with law, regulation, and policy;

• Provides more direction for conservation of habitats associated with species at risk;

• Provides direction on nature-based tourism and more and clearer direction to 

management of recreation, scenery, and other activities and resources than alternative A;

• Establishes a management area for Mills Canyon with plan components that conserve and 

protect the remarkable features of the area and provides direction for special areas; and

• Clearly articulates the application of adaptive management and brings current science to 

all management direction.

Alternative C

In response to the issue raised by some members of the public of their desire to have more 

wilderness, this alternative was developed to make a recommendation to designate the Kiowa NG

Canadian River Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), located in Mills Canyon, as the Canadian River 

Potential Wilderness Area. Specific plan components for a wilderness area designation would be 

developed if this alternative was selected and approved by Congress and the President. 

Management within the potential wilderness area would be governed by Wilderness Act 

regulations as described in FSM 2320. All other management direction in alternative C would be 

identical to that of alternative B.
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and

6 McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

My Decision

I select alternative B from the FPEIS for the new “Land and Resource Management Plan for the 

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

By selecting alternative B as the Cibola Grasslands plan, I am confident that the desired 

conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, monitoring elements, and suitability designations 

will:

• Move the Cibola Grasslands’ vegetation types toward historical reference condition for 

species composition and maintain those types in reference condition for structure;

• Emphasize sustaining available potential and/or suitable habitats for federally listed and 

at-risk species that occur on or near the Cibola Grasslands;

• Improve the Cibola Grasslands’ watersheds toward Class 1 condition and toward proper 

functioning condition of all streams, riparian, and wetland features;

• Maintain or increase the Cibola Grasslands’ ability to adapt and respond to climate 

change;

• Focus efforts on controlling nonnative invasive species;

• Delineate and preserve the Mills Canyon Management Area’s unique and outstanding 

recreational and natural features and values;

• Contribute to local economies and the quality of life of residents and visitors by 

providing opportunities for hunting, fishing, and boating (on lakes on the Black Kettle 

and McClellan Creek NGs), camping, and nature-based tourism activities;

• Emphasize managing the scenic quality of the pastoral/agricultural landscapes of the 

Cibola Grasslands;

• Facilitate adaptive management of livestock to conserve soil and ensure a diversity of 

healthy herbaceous and woody plant communities and animal habitats, while contributing

to local economies;

• Support wind energy production and facilitate its development on appropriate sites while 

mitigating impacts to other resources and values; and

• Contribute to meeting the Nation’s energy needs through oil and gas extraction while 

minimizing impacts to other resources and values and rehabilitating retired oil and gas 

and mineral extraction sites.

Components of the Decision

Components of plan decisions are outlined in the National Forest Management Act (1976). A plan

establishes a framework for future decisionmaking by outlining a broad, interdisciplinary 

program for achieving the desired goals, objectives, and future conditions of the Cibola 

Grasslands. A plan does not make a commitment to the selection of any specific project and does 

not dictate day-to-day administrative activities needed to carry on the Forest Service’s internal 

operations. However, by applying grasslands-wide management direction, the plan is 

implemented through the design, execution, and monitoring of site-specific activities.
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and

McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan 7

The decisions I am making in this record of decision for the new Cibola Grasslands plan are:

Establishment of grasslands-wide multiple-use goals (characterized by 

desired conditions) and objectives (1982 Rule, Section 219.11(b)).

These are found in part 2 of the new Cibola Grasslands plan. The desired 

conditions for the Cibola Grasslands are focused around three main themes: (1) 

ecosystem restoration and maintenance of vegetation and habitats toward 

historical reference condition; (2) management of recreation and scenery 

resources in support of social and economic opportunities; and (3) managing 

consumptive and nonconsumptive land uses in ways that are socially and 

economically sustainable. The objectives provide ways of achieving the desired 

conditions through specific outcomes.

Establishment of grasslands-wide management requirements (standards and

guidelines) (1982 Rule, Section 219.27)

Grasslands-wide standards and guidelines are found in part 2 of the new Cibola 

Grasslands plan. Standards are limitations on actions or thresholds not to be 

exceeded. Guidelines are requirements that must be followed unless a different 

management action demonstrably achieves the same intent as the guideline. After 

careful review, I believe that the standards and guidelines provide adequate 

requirements for management, provide for resource protection, and serve to 

illustrate the intent of the new plan. To simplify the planning document, direction 

that would duplicate laws, policies, Forest Service Manual, and Forest Service 

Handbook direction or other regional directives is not included. 

Establishment of management prescriptions and associated standards and

guidelines (1982 Rule, Section 219.11(c)).

Three management prescriptions, called “management areas” (MAs), will guide 

the design and implementation of future actions. The management areas are 

described in parts 3 and 4 of the new plan and are delineated on the management 

area maps. Boundaries are identified using ecological units, administrative 

boundaries, or other physical, biological, and social features. The management 

areas are:

• Black Kettle and McClellan Creek Management Area

• Kiowa and Rita Blanca Management Area

• Mills Canyon Management Area (which includes the Canadian River Potential 

Wilderness Area, which was evaluated but not recommended for designation) 

In addition, there are specific plan components for the Santa Fe National Historic 

Trail, the Santa Fe National Scenic Byway, the La Frontera del Llano Scenic 

Byway, and the Canadian Eligible Scenic River, all within the Kiowa and Rita 

Blanca Management Area.

Land within the Cibola Grasslands may be assigned to more than one 

management area. For example, Mills Canyon MA is nested within the Kiowa 
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle,and

8 McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

and Rita Blanca MA. In such cases, the most restrictive plan direction would 

apply to the area of overlap.

Determination of land that is suitable for timber production (1982 Rule, 

Section 219.14) and establishment of the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) of 

timber (1982 Rule, Section 219.16).

The analysis and discussion of lands suitable for timber production are found in 

part 5 of the new plan. No acres on the Cibola Grasslands are designated suitable 

for timber production.

Recommendations for nonwilderness allocations and recommendations for 

wilderness status (1982 Rule, Section 219.17).

The Canadian River Inventoried Roadless Area on the Kiowa National Grassland 

was evaluated for potential wilderness recommendation and considered and 

analyzed as an alternative in the FPEIS for the new plan. Based upon: (1) the low 

to medium ratings of this evaluation; (2) my confidence that the features of Mills 

Canyon so special to so many can be protected through the plan direction 

afforded in the nonwilderness alternative B; and (3) the lack of support for 

wilderness from the local governments and community, I have chosen not to 

recommend designation of the Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area. There 

are no other parcels that qualify for evaluation as potential wilderness.

Recommendations for wild and scenic rivers or other special use 

designations as appropriate (1982 Rule, Section 219.17).

The Canadian River is eligible for designation as a scenic river, however, no 

additional wild and scenic rivers are being recommended at this time. The 

outstandingly remarkable values of the Canadian River on the Kiowa National 

Grassland will be protected. The new plan establishes plan components for the 

eligible scenic river corridor. Appendix C of the FPEIS documents the values 

within this river corridor.

The new plan identifies and provides plan components for three designated 

special areas. These areas have unique historic or scenic and/or recreational 

values. These areas are described in part 4 of the new plan and identified on the 

special areas and eligible scenic river map.

Designation of lands suitable for grazing and browsing (1982 Rule, Section 

219.20).

Approximately 99 percent of the Cibola Grasslands are suitable for livestock 

grazing, with approximately 96 percent currently being used by permittees to 

graze cattle. The 3 percent not being utilized are acres of unobligated allotments. 

Part 5 of the new plan discusses grazing suitability and identifies criteria where 

land is generally not suitable for livestock use.
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and

McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan 9

Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements (1982 Rule, 

Section 219.11(d)).

Monitoring and evaluation requirements are found in part 4 of the new Cibola 

Grasslands plan. Specific monitoring questions are identified and directly linked 

to the plan desired conditions, objectives, standards, and specific regulatory 

requirements. These requirements ensure that the approach described in the new 

Cibola Grasslands plan is adaptive, and that sustainability is being achieved or 

adjustments will be made.

Determination of lands administratively available for oil and gas leasing (36 

CFR 228.102(d))

This determination is not a part of the Cibola Grasslands plan. 

Rationale for Decision

My decision to select alternative B as the new “Land and Resource Management Plan for the 

Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands” is based on a 

careful and reasoned comparison of the environmental consequences of and responses to issues

and concerns for each alternative. I selected alternative B because it represents the best mix and 

balance of management strategies that: (1) are responsive to the issues, concerns, and 

opportunities expressed by the public and other agencies; (2) establish ambitious but achievable 

objectives for ecosystem restoration and maintenance, recreation opportunities, and management;

and (3) manage consumptive and nonconsumptive land uses in ways that are socially and 

economically sustainable. 

Both alternatives B and C would provide the same amount of ecosystem restoration through 

vegetation management with tools such as adaptive management of livestock use, chemical or 

mechanical control of invasive species, and prescribed burning. Both would provide similar 

emphasis on recreation and scenery management. Both take into account the potential for energy 

and mineral resource developments and provide standards and guidelines for these potential uses 

to conserve all the resources of the national grasslands. Both alternatives have the same suitable 

uses. The only difference between the two is that alternative B establishes a Mills Canyon MA 

that preserves the semiprimitive features of approximately 7,911 acres, in contrast to alternative C 

which recommends establishment of a wilderness area on approximately 76 percent of the land 

that otherwise would be occupied by the Mills Canyon MA. So let me elaborate on my reasoning 

for choosing alternative B.

I am confident in the wilderness evaluation process that the Cibola National Forest conducted in 

2007–2008 that documented at best only a medium rating for capability and availability and a low 

rating for need. I also have the greatest confidence that the features that makes Mills Canyon so 

special to so many can be well protected through the plan direction afforded in alternative B that 

establishes a Mills Canyon MA, replete with its own plan desired conditions, objectives, 

standards, and guidelines. Finally, the recommendation for a Canadian River Wilderness Area has 

no strong local support from either Harding or Mora County, the two counties closest to the Mills 

Canyon area. For the above reasons, I have chosen not to select alternative C. 
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle,and

10 McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Let me acknowledge that 10 nongovernmental organizations advocated—during the draft EIS 

comment period—for recommending designation of the Canadian River Potential Wilderness 

Area as wilderness. These groups were a mix of state, regional, and national organizations. A few 

unaffiliated New Mexico residents also advocated for alternative C.

I did not select alternative A because it does not address the needs for change identified in the 

“Analysis of the Management Situation.” It does not: (1) provide direction to restore native 

grassland ecosystems; (2) anticipate and respond to changes in climate; (3) incorporate adaptive 

management toward ecosystem based desired conditions within the livestock grazing program; 

(4) provide adequate direction for conservation of at-risk species; (5) address potential wind

energy development; and (6) focus attention on nature-based tourism nor provide adequate 

protection for scenery resources of the national grasslands to the extent warranted by public 

demand and use levels.

The new Cibola Grasslands plan is responsive to the Forest Service’s National Strategic Plan 

(2007), and it meets our legal obligations to the people and environment that surrounds them. The

optimal implementation rate for the new plan could require higher funding levels in some areas 

than those currently allocated; however, I believe the management direction changes envisioned 

in the new plan can be implemented under current budget levels. The attainment of desired 

conditions and outputs in some areas, however, may be prolonged or reduced if future budgets 

decrease.

In summary, I believe alternative B sets the framework for future decisions equal to or better than 

the other alternatives because it:

• Best addresses the needs for change to the current plan as identified by the Cibola 

Grasslands’ partners and public;

• Includes best available science and reasonable strategies to address viability concerns for 

at-risk wildlife species that occur on the Cibola Grasslands;

• Restores native ecosystems at a reasonable pace and maintains those at reference 

condition;

• Assures habitats are adequate to support positive trends for MIS species;

• Includes reasonable strategies for treating nonnative invasive species;

• Allows adaptively managed livestock grazing to contribute to local economies by 

providing jobs and income and supporting ranches as working landscapes;

• Provides appropriate management and protection for cultural resources;

• Assures recreation and nature-based tourism opportunities are responsive to visitor 

demand while avoiding unneeded construction, reconstruction, or unneeded capacity;

• Protects outstanding remarkable values of the river corridor eligible for scenic river 

status;

• Protects the remarkable features and solitude, tranquility, and naturalness values of Mills 

Canyon while allowing for management flexibility in responding to climate change and 

invasive species, and in using planned or unplanned fire, in order to move vegetation 

types in Mills Canyon to historical reference condition;
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and

McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan 11

• Includes best management practice guidelines that minimize or mitigate impacts to other 

resources and values from oil, gas, or wind energy development;

• Reduces risks to life, property, and other resources from planned or unplanned fire;

• Emphasizes the collaboration with local communities and governments, other Federal 

and state agencies to create a shared vision about the cultural and environmental 

attributes that make this area special;

• Adequately addresses the need for resilient and adaptable ecosystems in the face of 

climate change; and

• Adequately responds to comments on the draft EIS and proposed plan.

My conclusion is based on a review of the record that shows a thorough review of relevant 

scientific information, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgment of 

incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. 

Response to Public Concerns

In response to the notice of intent published in the Federal Register in January 2010, an issue was 

raised by some environmental nongovernmental organizations that Mills Canyon should be 

rigorously protected from off-road vehicle use and its back-country features preserved. That 

warranted development of an additional alternative (alternative C, the wilderness alternative). 

This alternative was presented and analyzed in the draft EIS.

Other concerns were raised during the alternatives scoping period and/or the draft EIS comment 

period, and those that were appropriate plan revision issues were addressed as follows:

Concern regarding designating Research Natural Areas (RNAs).

This issue was considered as an alternative but eliminated from detailed study, 

and the DEIS provides extensive documentation of the analytic process and 

decision framework leading to the conclusion not to recommend RNAs.

Concern over the residual spacing of thinned pinyon and juniper trees on 

the Kiowa and Rita Blanca MA. 

To respond to this issue the proposed plan (alternative B) was changed to include

additional objectives and guidelines based on recent and best available science to 

govern the residual structure of live and dead trees in pinyon-juniper stands.

Concern advocating controlling, reducing, or eliminating wherever possible 

motorized recreation to preserve soil condition.

The proposed plan (alternative B) supports with plan components the designated 

motor vehicle use map (MVUM) that already exists for the Black Kettle and 

McClellan Creek MA. The decision notice on the “Travel Management 

Environmental Assessment for the Kiowa and Rita Blanca Management Area”

has recently been signed. The MVUM for this MA should be available by fall 
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle,and

12 McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

2012. Alternative B supports that MVUM with plan components as well, so no 

change to the new plan or FPEIS was warranted.

Concern advocating marking of fences in all suitable Lesser-Prairie Chicken 

(LPC) habitats on the Black Kettle and McClellan Creek MA

An objective was added to the proposed plan to mark between 25 and 50 percent

of fences in suitable habitat within 10 years in mixed grass prairie and shinnery 

oak vegetation.

Environmental groups advocated for reintroducing bison and LPC.

Plans do not reintroduce species; they provide conditions that allow for future 

species introduction decisions. A mix of plan desired conditions, objectives, and 

guidelines for the mixed-grass, sand sagebrush, and shinnery oak vegetation 

types provide for suitable LPC habitat. The new plan will not inhibit future 

reintroduction decisions. In the FPEIS, this concern was addressed as an 

alternative considered but eliminated from detailed study.

Environmental groups commented that the proposed alternative overemphasized livestock grazing, or requested an alternative to exclude 

livestock grazing.

The preferred alternative is consistent with the Multiple Use–Sustained Yield 

Act; it emphasizes ecological restoration and sustainability while providing for 

multiple uses that include livestock grazing. In the FPEIS, this concern was 

addressed as an alternative considered but eliminated from detailed study.

Some commenters believe that the DEIS considered an inadequate range of 

alternatives or failed to meet requirements of NEPA.

Several key points in the DEIS, including the concept of an incremental, rolling 

alternative and discussion of alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail, 

support conclusion that the EIS was developed in full compliance with NEPA 

requirements. In the FPEIS, this concern was addressed as an alternative 

considered but eliminated from detailed study.

A commenter raised the issue that sand sagebrush shrub density was not 

sufficient to provide habitat for the LPC. Another commenter suggested the 

addition of an ecological indicator for monitoring the sand sagebrush type.

A desired condition for sand sagebrush was changed to reflect the best available 

science for LPC habitat, raising the shrub density from 2 to 10 percent to greater 

than or equal to, on average, 15 percent, based on best available science. An 

ecological indicator (areal extent of the vegetation type) for sand sagebrush was 

added as a monitoring element.

All changes to either the new plan or FPEIS, whether prompted by public comment or internal 

review, remain within the range of alternatives analyzed within the DEIS. The most pronounced 
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and

McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan 13

change to the new plan was the addition of a guideline, prompted by internal review, that designs 

buffers around designated and eligible National Register of Historic Places. The wording in a 

guideline concerning livestock use was changed, also as a result of internal review, to govern use 

around playa lakes in summer months when water is present. Errors in acreage for black-tailed 

prairie dog (BTPD) habitat and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classes were corrected in the 

FPEIS. Other changes were editorial in nature.

Management Concerns

In addition to the planning issues and public comments, the following factors were considered in 

making my decision:

• consistency with applicable laws, policies, manual, and handbook direction that govern 

the development of a forest plan and management of national forest lands;

• promotion of rural economic development and a quality rural environment;

• the effects on the people who use and depend on forest resources;

• consistency with plans and policies of local, state, and other national government 

agencies; and

• operational and budget needs to fully implement the plan decision.

Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated From Detailed Study

Five additional alternative plan contents were considered in the process of developing a proposed 

plan. These alternatives were considered, but then eliminated from detailed study. They are: (1) 

an expanded version of alternative C, the Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area alternative 

that would have included additional acreage and built features; (2) designation of three research 

natural areas (RNAs); (3) a species reintroduction alternative; (4) an alternative that 

deemphasized or disallowed livestock grazing; and (5) alternatives that focus on a single resource 

emphasis such as wildlife, water quality, soil productivity, ecotourism, open spaces, renewable 

energy, and nonmotorized recreation.

These alternatives were considered during the planning process but eliminated from detailed 

study because they were: (1) incompatible with wilderness values and would increase potential 

for illegal access and problems of enforcement; (2) did not meet regional criteria for 

recommendation or designation as a RNA; (3) plans do not reintroduce species; that decision is 

made by Federal and/or state wildlife agencies, which were consulted with frequently during the 

plan revision and NEPA/ESA analyses. Plans do provide for suitable habitat upon which future 

reintroduction decisions can be made, and alternatives B and C provide for that outcome; (4) plan 

components for adaptive management of livestock allow for deemphasizing livestock use at any 

time in response to drought or other considerations and these plan components were features of 

all analyzed alternatives. Disallowing livestock use is not consistent with the Multiple Use–

Sustained Yield Act that allows for multiple uses, including livestock grazing, while providing for 

ecological sustainability; and (5) additional alternatives that emphasize management of single

resources, goods, or services were considered but eliminated from detailed study because

alternatives B and C provide sufficient flexibility and guidance to accommodate all of those
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle,and

14 McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

resources, and they are not mutually exclusive. Both alternatives provide plan components

(desired conditions, objectives, guidelines or standards, suitability, and monitoring elements) for

each of these resources, goods, or services. Forest Service Manual and Forest Service Handbook

directives, laws, regulations, and policy provide additional management guidance for these

resources, goods, and services, and were identified by topic area in appendix D of alternatives B 

and C. Thus, single-resource emphasis alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed 

study.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The Council on Environmental Quality has defined the “environmentally preferable” alternative

as: “...the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA’s 

section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological 

and physical environment; it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and 

enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources.”

Alternative B is the environmentally preferable alternative. It is more protective of the 

environment than alternative A, as is alternative C. Alternative B would provide slightly more 

management flexibility in treating and controlling the invasive salt cedar tree in the Canadian 

River corridor and for implementing planned fire for fuel reduction or wildlife objectives than 

would be provided by alternative C, the wilderness recommendation alternative. With regard to 

motorized recreation, neither alternative B nor C would allow motorized recreation activity 

outside of the excluded NFS system road corridor.

Net Public Benefits

The 1982 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations (36 CFR 219.1) 

state that forest plans must “...provide for multiple-use and sustained yield of goods and services 

from the National Forest System in a way that maximizes long-term net public benefits in an 

environmentally sound manner.” Net public benefits can be defined as the overall value to the 

Nation of all outputs (benefits) and positive effects, less all associated inputs (costs) and negative 

effects, whether they can be quantitatively valued or not. Therefore, public net benefits have two 

components: priced and nonpriced benefits and costs.

Priced benefits and costs: Prices for outputs and uses were estimated in the FPEIS for each 

alternative and displayed in chapter three. The present net value (PNV) was used to measure the 

economic efficiency of each alternative. All alternatives fall within 1 percent of the highest PNV, 

which is alternative A. Therefore, in terms of priced benefits and costs, the range is fairly narrow 

among alternatives.

Nonpriced benefits and costs: The difference between alternative A and alternatives B and C 

becomes much wider when nonpriced benefits and costs are considered. Some of the important 

nonpriced benefits include native ecosystem restoration; restoring habitat for threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species; water quality; and conservation of special interest areas. For 

example, with regard to the restoration of the unique grasslands vegetation types and habitats and 

control of invasive species, alternative A does not provide high public benefits, due to the lack of 

restoration emphasis. Alternatives B and C provide similarly high net public benefits in this 

regard.
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and

McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan 15

I believe that alternatives B and C provide direction to manage the national grasslands to produce 

goods, services, and use opportunities in a way that maximizes net public benefits. Based on the 

preceding discussions, it is clear that alternatives B and C have the greatest overall positive 

impacts on the environment and generate 99 percent of the market valued commodities of 

alternative A. Alternatives B and C achieve a balance between the economic benefits and 

environmental issues and concerns voiced by the public. I believe either alternative B or C will 

increase public benefits by moving the Cibola Grasslands toward improved grasslands health 

through their emphasis on restoring native ecosystems and through their special attention to 

unique plant and animal habitats. I believe either of these alternatives will contribute to the local 

economies through outputs of livestock use, energy and minerals development, and recreation 

opportunities. With my choice of alternative B (for the reasons I articulated earlier in my 

“Rationale for the Decision”) I am confident that management direction in the new Cibola 

Grasslands plan is within the physical and biological capability of the land and can be 

accomplished without reducing that capability.

Science Consistency

I find this decision to be consistent with the application of the best available scientific 

information utilized throughout the plan development process; during assessment of the original 

1985 Cibola NF Plan for needs for change to better reflect management of the Cibola Grasslands, 

during plan development and evaluation, and during development of the plan monitoring 

program. Scientific conclusions are drawn from well-supported data sources, and data availability 

is disclosed. No unproven or controversial data or methods are used in analyses. Sources of 

information are referenced, and syntheses do not go beyond what the data indicate. Science was 

considered and applied throughout the revision process, with this final decision on the new plan 

for the Cibola Grasslands consistent with the appropriate application of that science to the Cibola 

Grasslands situation.

Project Consistency

I am providing the following transition direction to ensure the orderly implementation of the 

revised forest plan that is made in this record of decision. The new direction will apply to all 

project decisions made on or after the effective date of this decision. The new direction does not 

apply to any projects that have had decisions made prior to the effective date of this decision. 

Projects currently under contract, permit, or other authorizing instrument are not affected by the 

decision; however, projects may be modified to adopt all or part of this direction where Forest 

Service managers deem appropriate. Reissuance of existing authorizations will be treated as new 

decisions, which must be consistent with the new direction described in the revised forest plan

subject to valid existing rights.

During implementation, management activities (projects) affecting the Cibola Grasslands need to 

be consistent with the new plan. This consistency will be achieved in the following ways: 

Management activities will be developed specifically to achieve the desired conditions, goals, or 

objectives of the new plan. To the extent practicable, documentation for such projects should 

identify the elements of the desired conditions, goals, or objectives to be achieved by the project. 

It should not be expected that all projects or activities would contribute to all desired conditions, 

goals, or objectives, but rather to a limited subset. It should also be recognized that some projects 

designed to contribute to some desired conditions, goals, or objectives may have consequences 
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle,and

16 McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

considered adverse to the achievement of other desired conditions, goals, or objectives. In this 

situation, the responsible official for the project needs to identify and disclose these effects in the 

project documentation and make a decision that balances these considerations.

A forest or grasslands plan is used as a direction source for future projects, plans, and 

assessments. It is not expected that this new direction be used to reevaluate or change decisions 

that have been made under the previously existing Cibola NF plan. A smooth and gradual 

transition to the new plan is anticipated, rather than one that forces an immediate reexamination 

or modification of all contracts, projects, permits, and other activities that are already in progress. 

As new project decisions, contracts, permits, renewals, and other activities are considered,

conformance to the new plan direction is expected.

Compatibility with Goals of Other 

Public Agencies and Indian Tribes

The new Cibola Grasslands plan has been developed with public participation that involved 

coordination and comments from Federal, state, and local agencies including the USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service, States of New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas wildlife and natural resource 

agencies, and local government and community leaders. Contact with the Apache Tribe of 

Oklahoma, Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Comanche Nation, Kiowa Tribe, Jicarilla Apache 

Nation, Mescalero Apache, and Witchita and Affiliated Tribes clarified that their interests are 

largely addressed through project-level analysis as the plan is implemented in the years to come.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 (59 Federal Register 7629, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and 

address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations and low-income populations in the local communities. I have 

determined, from the analysis disclosed in the FPEIS, that the new Cibola Grasslands plan is in 

compliance with Executive Order 12898. However, due to the high proportion of Hispanic and 

American Indian residents in the area addressed by the plan, decision makers on the Cibola 

Grasslands should pay careful attention to the potential health impacts of management actions 

upon those ethnic groups. Additionally, because a substantial proportion of the existing 

population in the vicinity of the Cibola Grasslands are considered as a low income group based 

upon U.S. Census Bureau data, decisions regarding future management actions on the Cibola 

Grasslands should carefully assess the effects on low income populations. Overall, though, the 

themes that form the foundation of the selected alternative, i.e., providing for ecological 

sustainability, emphasizing recreational, educational, and cultural opportunities, and providing for 

renewable and nonrenewable energy production and adaptively managed livestock use that 

contribute to local economies should make the Cibola Grasslands a healthy and enjoyable place to 

work, reside near, or visit. Therefore, I find no disproportional effects to minority or low-income 

populations will occur from implementing the selected alternative.

Implementation Schedules and Budgets

The new Cibola Grasslands plan will be implemented through a series of project-level decisions 

based on site-specific environmental analysis and public involvement. The plan seeks to guide 

management activities and projects by establishing a clear desired condition for the Cibola 
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and

McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan 17

Grasslands and for each management area, rather than by establishing schedules for actions. This 

approach should leave more flexibility for managers to adapt program and project selection as 

changes take place in budgets, resource capabilities, and management priorities.

Outputs in the FPEIS are projections of probable outcomes. They were used to approximate 

activities and practices, in order to estimate the likely environmental effects of following the 

direction provided by the Cibola Grasslands plan.

During implementation, specific projects and activities will be proposed and analyzed. These 

analyses will be documented in the appropriate NEPA documents, i.e., environmental 

assessments, environmental impact statements, or categorical exclusions. Projects, practices, and 

activities will be designed to achieve the goals, desired conditions, and objectives described in 

parts 2, 3, and 4 of the new Cibola Grasslands plan.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation is used to assess the degree to which on-the-ground management is 

maintaining or making progress toward the goals, desired conditions, and objectives in the plan. 

The monitoring program is described in part 6, “Monitoring Elements,” of the Cibola Grasslands 

plan. This monitoring program was developed with public participation and focuses on key plan 

components where management projects and activities are likely to cause a change over time. 

Specific monitoring questions are identified and directly linked to plan desired conditions, 

objectives, standards, and specific regulatory requirements. Only selected goals, objectives, and 

standards are monitored. Relevancy to issues, compliance with legal and Agency policy, scientific 

credibility, administrative feasibility, long- and short-term budget considerations, and impact on 

workforce all influence monitoring priorities.

Monitoring information will be evaluated and used to update inventory data, improve current and 

future mitigation measures, and assess the need to change the Cibola Grasslands plan. Evaluation 

of monitoring results is directly linked to the decision maker’s ability to respond to changing 

conditions, emerging trends, public concerns, and new information and technology. No single 

monitoring item or parameter automatically triggers a change in plan direction. An 

interdisciplinary approach is used to evaluate information and decide what changes are needed. 

Plan Amendments

The new Cibola Grasslands plan is a dynamic instrument that can be changed with appropriate 

public involvement and environmental analysis. Through the life of the new plan, amendments 

may be needed to incorporate new information, new policy and direction, or changing values and 

resource conditions. Amendments will keep the new plan current, relevant, and responsive to 

Agency and public concerns. Amendments are needed whenever any of the new plan decisions 

should be changed due to any of the above conditions. The new plan also can be amended for 

specific projects if during project design it is determined that the best method of meeting goals 

and objectives conflicts with existing standards.

A 3-year transition period for plan amendments begins on the effective date of April 9, 2012, the 

date of publication of the 2012 Planning Rule in the Federal Register. During the transition 

period, with respect to plans approved under the transition provisions of the reinstated 2000 rule 
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle,and

18 McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

(74 FR 77062, December 18, 2009), plan amendments may be initiated under the provisions of 

the 1982 Planning Rule (except for the optional appeal procedures of the 1982 Rule Provisions), 

or may conform to the requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule. Plan amendments initiated after 

the transition period must conform to the requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule.

Under the 1982 planning provisions, amendments may be significant or nonsignificant. The forest 

supervisor may implement nonsignificant amendments to the revised forest plan after appropriate 

public involvement and environmental analysis. The regional forester approves significant 

amendments.

Findings Related to Other Laws and Authorities

I have considered the statutes governing management of the Cibola Grasslands, and I believe that 

this decision represents the best possible approach to both harmonizing and reconciling the 

current statutory duties of the USDA Forest Service. Following are summaries of how the new 

Cibola Grasslands plan addresses the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, National Historic 

Preservation Act, and Endangered Species Act. 

Clean Air Act

As discussed in the FPEIS, chapter 3, “Air Resources” section, all lands managed by the Cibola

Grasslands are currently in attainment with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. According 

to the Clean Air Act of 1990 and the Organic Administration Act of 1897, the USDA Forest 

Service has the responsibility to protect air, land, and water resources from the impacts of air 

pollutants produced within the Forest Service boundaries and to work with states to protect those 

same resources from degradation associated with the impacts of air pollution emitted outside of 

Forest Service lands. 

Clean Water Act

The new Cibola Grasslands plan contains direction to ensure all projects meet or exceed state best 

management practices prepared under guidance of the Clean Water Act. Direction for the 

protection of water resources is located in the “Water and Watersheds Guidelines” section and in 

appendix D, “Other Sources of Information, Regulations, MOUs, and Guidance” of the new plan. 

Implementation of the new plan is expected to contribute to protecting or restoring the physical, 

chemical, and biological integrity of waters of the United States in accordance with the Clean 

Water Act. 

National Historic Preservation Act

The new Cibola Grasslands plan is a programmatic action and does not authorize any site-specific 

projects. Projects undertaken in response to direction in the new Cibola Grasslands plan will fully 

comply with the laws and regulations that ensure protection of cultural resources. The new plan 

contains direction for cultural resource management, including direction to integrate cultural 

resource management with other resource management activities. Since the new plan does not 

authorize ground-disturbing activities, consultation with the New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas 

State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) under the National Historic Preservation Act, is not 

required. The Cibola Grasslands plan tiers to the programmatic agreement among the USDA 

Forest Service, the New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas State Historic Preservation Officers, and 
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and

McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan 19

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding the process for compliance with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. It is my determination that the new Cibola 

Grasslands plan complies with the National Historic Preservation Act and other statutes that 

pertain to the protection of cultural resources. 

Endangered Species Act Section 7: Consultation

A biological assessment (BA) was prepared for the new Cibola Grasslands plan (FPEIS, appendix 

M). The federally threatened Arkansas River shiner (Notropis girardii), the endangered Interior 

Least Tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos), and the candidate species Lesser-Prairie chicken (LPC)

are the only federally listed or candidate species occurring in the vicinity of the Cibola 

Grasslands, though not actually on the planning area. The determination in the BA is that the 

selected alternative may affect, not likely to adversely affect either listed species or candidate 

species or designated critical habitat for the Arkansas river shiner. Additionally, the Cibola 

National Forest and National Grasslands and the regional forester have made determinations of 

“no effect” for five listed species, some with critical habitat, that do not occur on the Cibola 

Grasslands. These species are: the federally endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii extimus); the federally endangered black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes); the 

federally endangered Whooping Crane (Grus Americana); the federally threatened Mexican 

Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida); and the federally threatened Piping Plover (Charadrius 

melodus). The Piping Plover occurs as an occasional migrant in Colfax County, New Mexico, 

where the Kiowa NG administers approximately 3.5 sections. None of the other four species 

occur in a county in which the Cibola Grasslands reside. 

The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service was informally consulted and has concurred with this 

determination. Their concurrence document is located in appendix M of the FPEIS.

Effective Date

The new “Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and 

McClellan Creek National Grasslands” will become effective 30 days from the date that the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Notice of Availability of the FPEIS appears in the Federal 

Register.
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and

20 McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Appeal Information

For plan revisions conducted under the “1982 planning regulations,” the responsible official can 

elect to use either the “Optional Procedures Available during the Planning Rule Transition 

Period” (the former 36 CFR 217 appeal procedures that were in effect prior to November 9, 2000; 

henceforth referred to as the Optional Appeal Procedures) or the Objection procedures of 36 CFR 

219.50 from the 2012 planning rule. For this decision, I have decided to use the “Optional Appeal 

Procedures.”

A written notice of appeal must be filed in duplicate and postmarked or received within 90 days 

after the date the legal notice of this decision is published in the newspapers of record for the 

Cibola Grasslands (Union County Leader in Clayton, New Mexico; Boise City News in Boise 

City, Oklahoma; The Dalhart Texan in Dalhart, Texas; Cheyenne Star in Cheyenne, Oklahoma; 

The Canadian Record in Canadian, Texas; and The Pampa News in Pampa, Texas). The appeal 

must clearly state that it is a “Notice of Appeal being filed pursuant to the Optional Appeal 

Procedures.” Appeals must meet the content requirements of Section 9 of the Optional Appeal 

Procedures, which are available for review at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/applit/includes/PlanAppealProceduresDuringTransition.pdf

Appeals must be filed with the Chief of the Forest Service at:

Express Mail:

USDA - Forest Service

Attn: EMC, Appeals 

201 14th Street, SW

3rd Floor Central

Washington, DC 20250

Regular Mail:

USDA - Forest Service

Attn: EMC, Appeals 

Mail Stop 1104

1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20250-1104

The notice of appeal must be fully consistent with the Optional Appeal Procedures and include at 

a minimum:

• A statement that the document is a Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to the Optional Appeal 

procedures;

• The name, address, and telephone number of the appellant;

• Identification of the decision to which the appeal is being made;

• Identification of the document in which the decision is contained, by title and subject, 

date of the decision, and name and title of the deciding officer;

• Identification of the specific portion of the decision to which the appeal is made;

• The reasons for appeal, including issues of fact, law, or regulation, or policy and, if 

applicable, specifically how the decision violates law, regulation, or policy; and 

• Identification of the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks.
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and

McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan 21

Requests to stay the approval of this land and resource management plan shall not be granted 

(Optional Appeal Procedures, section 217.10(b)).

Final decisions on proposed projects will be made on a site-specific basis using appropriate 

analysis and documentation in compliance with NEPA. Project decisions may be subject to appeal 

at that time. 

I encourage anyone concerned about the new “Land and Resource Management Plan for the 

Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands” or FPEIS, or who 

would like more information, to contact:

Nancy Rose

Forest Supervisor 

Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands

2113 Osuna Rd., NE

Albuquerque, NM 87113
Record of Decision for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and

22 McClellan Creek National Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan

Approval

I am pleased to announce my decision to select alternative B for the new “Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, and McClellan Creek National 

Grasslands.” This new plan has been built on a strong foundation of citizen collaboration, the best 

available science, and engagement with other conservation agencies and organizations. 

CORBIN L. NEWMAN, JR. Date

Regional Forester

Southwestern Region, USDA Forest Service