United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Southwestern 

Region 

Cibola 

National 

Forest and 

National 

Grasslands 

May 2011

Land Adjustment 

Specialist Report 

Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle 

and McClellan Creek National 

Grasslands Plan Revision 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Analysis 

Submitted by: __/s/ _________________________ 

Donald L. Hall

Lands Specialist 

Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands 

Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 3 

Executive Summary 

The Cibola National Forest’s land acquisition program contributes to the consolidation of the 

ownership pattern of the National Grasslands and improves the Agency’s ability to carry out its 

mission on the Grasslands. 

The 1985 Land Management Resource Plan as amended states that the Forest can acquire land 

through exchanges, purchases, donations, and service easements. Disposal of land is generally 

accomplished by exchange, although sale is permitted under certain circumstances. 

In order to make adjustments in landownership patterns for administrative purposes, 39,563 acres 

of Forest or Grasslands have been identified for exchange. Criteria for selection of these lands 

for exchange includes: 1) isolated tracts; 2) improves management; 3) needed by local 

community; 4) not suitable for Forest purposes; 5) improves consolidation of public lands; and 6) 

meets overriding public needs. 

Lands desirable for acquisition by the Forest should meet one or more of the following criteria: 1) 

tracts within wilderness; 2) water related; 3) high recreational potential; 4) contain unique natural 

or cultural values; 5) needed to stabilize or protect threaten or endangered species; and 6) needed 

to improve ownership and management pattern or meet research needs; 7) need to provide access 

or protect public land from fire or trespass or prevent damage to public land resources; 8) needed 

for rehabilitation or stabilization to restore productivity of public lands; 9) needed to meet 

programs prescribed by Congress or U.S. Department of Agriculture; and 10) needed to improve 

management or meet specific administrative needs or benefit other forest programs. The 1985 

Plan as amended identified 19,747.85 acres for acquisition, 5.658.60 acres for exchange 

(disposal), and 1,028.20 acres as undesirable within the Grasslands. The 1985 Plan as amended is 

in need of review and updating which should occur at a minimum of every five years for 

identification of base and exchange properties. 

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

for land ownership adjustment to consolidate, ensure public access and better management of 

forest resources, which are pursued as budget and opportunities allow. There is no change with 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) or Alternative C (Canadian River Wilderness Area 

Recommendation) in relation to these goals and direction. Alternatives B and C also recommend 

purchase of lands for habitat, cultural or natural resources or special area values, or which 

improves access. With regard to Alternative C, any acquisition within a Wilderness would take 

on it characteristic. 

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

Grasslands in meeting federal laws, regulations and policy. 

Overview of the Affected Environment 

Each of the Grassland Units is a small, discontinuous parcel of Forest Service managed land that 

are surrounded by private farms and ranch lands. The Forest Service land ownership consists of 

less than 24% of the land within the Grassland administrative boundaries. There have been 

19,747.85 acres of land identified as desirable for acquisition, 5.658.60 acres for exchange, and 

1,028.20 acres as undesirable within the Grasslands per the 1985 Plan. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 4 

The location of parcels to be acquired will contribute to the consolidation of the ownership 

pattern of the National Grasslands. Said lands have qualities that would improve the agency’s 

ability to carry out its mission on the Grasslands. This includes providing necessary road or trail 

access, has high quality natural or cultural resources, improves management of designated special 

areas, contains important plant or animal habitat, contains or influences wetlands, flood plains or 

riparian areas, or provides opportunities to rehabilitate or stabilize public lands. 

Summary of Environmental Consequences 

Potential environmental consequences are similar in nature for each of the alternatives with none 

being of sufficient importance. 

Land adjustment acquisition will result in no environmental consequences as it pertains to 

management direction by alternative. 

Specialist Report 

Introduction 

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

adjustment resource that may result with the adoption of a revised land management plan. It 

examines, in detail, three different alternatives for revising the management direction from the 

1985 Cibola National Forest Land Management Plan (only that which is relevant to the National 

Grasslands). 

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy that Apply 

Identify Federal and state law and USFS regulation and policy affecting the land adjustment 

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

36 CFR 254 Landownership Adjustments; FSM 5409.12 Appraisal Handbook; FSH 5409.13 

Land Acquisition Handbook; FSH 5409.17 Rights-of-Way Acquisition Handbook; FSH 5509.11 

Title Claims, Sale, and Grants Handbook 

Methodology and Analysis Process 

The Cibola National Forest’s land acquisition program is based on lands identified that enhance 

the agency’s ability to carry out its mission on the National Forest and Grasslands. The program 

relies on professional judgment in compliance with manual direction. Land adjustments are a 

result of willing parties negotiating to buy, sell, or exchange property. 

Assumptions 

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

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

actions. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 5 

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

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

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

managing the forests under a programmatic framework. 

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

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

and activities. 

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

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

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

• The planning timeframe is 15 years; other timeframes may be analyzed depending on the 

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

Revision Topics Addressed in this Analysis 

Land acquisition is the result of having a willing seller, and the offered lands contribute to the 

consolidation of the ownership pattern of the National Grasslands. Said lands would have 

qualities that improve the agency’s ability to carry out the mission of the Grasslands, these could 

include providing road or trail access, has high quality habitat or cultural resources, improves 

management of designated special areas, contains important plant or animal habitat, contains an 

influence for wetlands, flood plains or riparian areas, or provides opportunities to rehabilitate or 

stabilize public lands. 

The acquisition program will continue at the current level in Alternative A (No Action), 

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative), and Alternative C (Canadian River Wilderness Area 

Recommendation). The Ecological Sustainability report does not discuss or determine change in 

current management direction to meet desired condition. 

Summary of Alternatives 

The 1985 Land and Resource Management Plan as it pertains to Alternative A (No Action) 

provides general goals and direction for land ownership adjustment to consolidate, ensure public 

access and better management of forest resources, which are pursued as budget and opportunities 

allow. There is no change with Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) or Alternative C (Canadian 

River Wilderness Area Recommendation) in relation to these goals and direction. Alternatives B 

recommends purchase of land for habitat, cultural or natural resources or special area values, or 

which improves access. With regard to Alternative C, any acquisition within a Wilderness would 

take on its characteristic. 

Land adjustment acquisition will result in no difference in management direction by alternative 

for desired condition. Acquisition is based on a willing seller and lands which have been 

identified that would improve the agency’s ability to carry out its mission on the National 

Grasslands. Desired lands shall provide for road or trail access, has high quality natural or 

cultural resources, improves management of designated special areas, contains important plant or 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 6 

animal habitat, contains or influences wetlands, flood plains or riparian areas, or provides 

opportunities to rehabilitate or stabilize public lands. 

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition) 

The 1985 Plan as amended per the base and exchange map identified 19,747.85 acres of the 

Grasslands for acquisition, 5,658.60 acres for exchange (disposal), and 1,028.20 acres as none 

desirable. There have been land acquisitions through purchase of 385.65 acres in 2010, and one 

being processed for purchase in 2011 of 160 acres within the Kiowa/Rita Blanca National 

Grasslands. Additionally, there was a land exchange (disposal) in 1992 of 14.04 acres within the 

Black Kettle National Grasslands. 

A new Grassland Plan would not affect the land adjustment program of the Cibola National 

Forest; agency direction guides the program with criteria for lands which are identified for 

acquisition or disposal. 

Lands acquired from willing sellers have qualities that improve the agency’s ability to carry out 

its mission on the National Grasslands. The location or condition of the parcel being acquired 

contributes to the consolidation of the ownership pattern of the National Grasslands, provides 

necessary road or trail access to National Forest System (NFS) lands, has unique or high quality 

natural or cultural resources, improves the management or designated special areas, contains 

important plant or animal habitats, contains or influences wetlands, floodplains, or provides 

opportunities to rehabilitate or stabilize adjacent NFS lands. 

Grasslands units available for exchange or disposal are generally isolated parcels and lack unique 

natural and cultural resources. 

Environmental Consequences 

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

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

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

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

consequences, of managing the forests under this programmatic framework. 

Potential environmental consequences are similar in nature for Alternatives A, B and C with none 

being of sufficient importance. 

• Developed Recreation – new campground development will be limited as a result of land 

acquisition 

• Dispersed Recreation – additional recreation opportunities as a result of land acquisition 

• Heritage Resources – land acquisition could provide opportunities to meet heritage needs 

• Roads and Access – is a means to meet public and administrative access to federal lands 

through land acquisition 

• Land Adjustment – land acquisition to provide for better management of forest resources 

and land exchanges to dispose of marginal federal lands 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 7 

• Mineral and Energy Development – land acquisition could result in the mineral estate 

coming into and out of federal ownership which may result in more or less administration 

as a result of development. 

• Special Uses – land acquisition may result in an increase of applications for occupancy 

and use requiring additional administration. 

• Wind Energy – land acquisition may result in larger areas of federal lands as a result of 

“blocking –up” that previously did not exist that may show addition interest in 

development resulting in additional administration 

• Livestock Use – land acquisition may provide opportunities for an allotment land base 

increase 

• Wildland Urban Interface – additional administration and issues may arise as a result of 

land acquisition 

• General Ecology – land acquisition may assist in achieving diversity of grassland 

vegetation communities 

• Soil, Water and Air – issues maybe able to be resolved through land acquisition

• Invasive – may increase on the landscape and require treatment as a result of land 

acquisition 

• Forest Products – opportunities maybe provided as a result of land acquisition 

• Wildlife Habitat – land acquisition for habitat viability may result 

• Special Areas - as a result of land acquisition areas of interest (i.e. alone the Canadian 

River) may occur 

Land adjustment acquisition or exchange will result in no environmental consequences as it 

pertains to management direction by alternative. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

There are no know effects by other parties for land acquisition within or adjacent to the 

Grasslands, however, land purchase and sales may occur at any time. Land adjustment 

acquisition will result in no cumulative environmental consequences as it pertains to 

management direction by alternative. There are individuals in the private sector who support land 

acquisition by the Agency and those who prefer not to see it occur (concerned about large federal 

in-holdings in the west which result in less of a tax base for counties and states). 

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 8 

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 Federal, 

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

List of Preparers 

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

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

30+ years in natural resource management. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 9 

References 

1985 Cibola National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended.