United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Southwestern

Region

Cibola 

National 

Forest and 

National 

Grasslands

May 2011

Vegetation and Wildlife 

Specialist Report

Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle 

and McClellan Creek National 

Grasslands Plan Revision

Environmental Impact Statement 

Analysis

Submitted by: Don Jorgensen

Natural Resources Wildlife Specialist

Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands
May 2011

2

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Vegetation and Wildlife Specialists Report for Draft 

Grasslands Land Resource Management Plan DEIS.................................6

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................6

Overview of the Affected Environment.....................................................................................................6

Review of Need for Change ...................................................................................................................6

Summary of Current Condition ................................................................................................................6

Summary of Environmental Consequences..............................................................................................7

Vegetation, Wildlife, and Habitat ...........................................................................................................7

Invasive Species.....................................................................................................................................7

Summary Comparison of Consequences by Alternative ........................................................................8

Chapter 2 Processes, Methodology, and Topics Addressed..................14

Introduction...............................................................................................................................................14

Ecosystem Management Opportunities and Constraints......................................................................14

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy that Apply ............................................................................14

Methodology and Analysis Process..........................................................................................................14

Description of the Ecological Context .................................................................................................14

Species Diversity..................................................................................................................................17

Grasslands Habitat and Associated Species .........................................................................................19

Revision Topics Addressed in this Analysis.............................................................................................23

Ecosystem Diversity.............................................................................................................................24

Ecosystem Restoration and Management for Reference Condition.....................................................24

Invasive Plants and Animals.................................................................................................................24

Climate Change ....................................................................................................................................24

Monitoring............................................................................................................................................24

Primary Factors (Threats and Risks) to the Resource ..........................................................................24

Summary of Alternatives..........................................................................................................................25

Need-for-Change Topic 1 Ecosystem Diversity ...................................................................................25

Chapter 3 Vegetation .................................................................................29

Introduction...............................................................................................................................................29

Affected Environment...............................................................................................................................30

Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................................36

Cumulative Consequences........................................................................................................................38

Chapter 4 Wildlife and Habitat...................................................................39

Introduction...............................................................................................................................................39

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species ...................................................................................40

Affected Environment ..........................................................................................................................41

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................................42
May 2011

3

Regional Forester’s Grasslands’ Sensitive Species.................................................................................44

Viability at-risk Species............................................................................................................................45

Affected Environment ..........................................................................................................................46

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................................48

Migratory Birds ........................................................................................................................................55

Affected Environment ..........................................................................................................................55

Environmental Consequences to Migratory Birds................................................................................56

Eagles .........................................................................................................................................................57

Affected Environment ..........................................................................................................................57

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................................58

Management Indicator Species................................................................................................................58

Summary ..............................................................................................................................................58

Affected Environment ..........................................................................................................................60

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................................61

Cumulative Environmental Consequences to All Wildlife...................................................................65

Invasive Species.........................................................................................................................................66

Affected Environment ..........................................................................................................................67

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................................67

Cumulative Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................67

Climate Change.........................................................................................................................................68

Affected Environment ..........................................................................................................................68

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................................................70

Cumulative Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................70
May 2011

4

Chapter 5 ....................................................................................................71

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................................................................................71

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources....................................................................71

Adaptive Management..............................................................................................................................71

Consistency with Law, Regulation, and Policy.......................................................................................71

Other Planning Efforts.............................................................................................................................71

List of Preparers........................................................................................................................................72

References..................................................................................................................................................72

Appendix A Black-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat Suitability Analysis for the Kiowa and Rita Blanca 

National Grasslands..................................................................................................................................73

Table of Tables

Table 1 Environmental Consequences Removal of Undesirable Trees..................................................8

Table 2 Summary Comparison of Consequences of Alternatives on the Biological, Social, and 

Physical Environments...................................................................................................................9

Table 3 Summary of Consequences to Vegetation from Other Resource Areas by Alternative ...........12

Table 4 Current Grasslands Vegetation Structure Departure from Reference Condition Structure......16

Table 5 Grasslands Habitat/Species Associations and Viability/Risk Ranking, Regional Forester‘s 

Grasslands‘ Sensitive Species, MIS and High at-risk Species .....................................................19

Table 6 Federally listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate species considered in the analysis 

area ...............................................................................................................................................21

Table 7 Regional Forester‘s Grasslands‘ Sensitive Species List ..........................................................22

Table 8 Disturbance Impacts to Vegetation ..........................................................................................24

Table 9 Regional Forester‘s Grasslands‘ Sensitive Species List ..........................................................44

Table 10 Grasslands Habitat/Species Associations, Viability Risk, Reasons for Consideration, and 

Suitable Acres of Habitat..............................................................................................................45

Table 11 Alternatives B and C Plan components that address the threats to the Lesser Prairie-chicken

......................................................................................................................................................48

Table 12 Anticipated Acreage of LPC Habitat in Mixed-grass Prairie Type by Alternative over the life 

of the Plan.....................................................................................................................................50

Table 13 Anticipated Acreage of LPC Habitat in Shinnery Oak Type by Alternative over the life of the 

Plan...............................................................................................................................................50

Table 14 Anticipated Acreage of LPC and BTPD Habitat in Sand Sagebrush by Alternative over the 

life of the Plan ..............................................................................................................................51

Table 15 Anticipated Acreage of BTPD, Mountain Plover, and Swift Fox Habitat in Shortgrass Prairie 

and Inclusion by Alternative over the life of the Plan..................................................................53

Table 16 Anticipated Acreage of Plains Leopard Frog Habitat by Alternative over the life of the Plan

......................................................................................................................................................54

Table 17 National Birds of Conservation Concern associated with Grasslands Habitat ......................55

Table 18 National Birds of Conservation Concern with Viability High At-risk associated with 

Grasslands Habitat........................................................................................................................56

Table 19 Alternatives B and C Plan Components that Minimize Take.................................................58

Table 20 Summary of Team MIS Discussion .......................................................................................60

Table 21 Anticipated Acreage of Rio Grande Turkey Habitat in Mixed Hardwood Riparian by 

Alternative over the life of the Plan .............................................................................................61

Table 22 Anticipated Acreage of Burrowing Owl Habitat in Shortgrass Prairie and Inclusion by 

Alternative over the life of the Plan .............................................................................................62
May 2011

5

Table 23 Anticipated Acreage of Mountain Bluebird Habitat in Pinyon-Juniper and Juniper 

Grasslands Inclusion by Alternative over the life of the Plan ......................................................63

Table 24 Consequences to MIS Population Trends and Consequences to Amount and Quality of 

Habitat by Alternative ..................................................................................................................64

Table 25 Temperature, precipitation, and wind velocity on the Black Kettle NG................................68

Table 26 Temperature, precipitation, and wind velocity on the Kiowa NG .........................................69
May 2011 6

Chapter 1 Vegetation and Wildlife Specialists Report for Draft 

Grasslands Land Resource Management Plan DEIS

Executive Summary

Seven vegetation types would be influenced by the Grasslands Plan Need for Change that called 

for maintaining within or minimize departure from the reference condition for vegetation 

structure. The preferred alternative has the potential to affect early successional stages of 

shortgrass prairie on Kiowa and Rita Blanca and the mixed grass and shinnery oak vegetation 

types on the Black Kettle. Alternative C has the potential to affect cottonwood willow riparian 

and pinyon juniper in Mills Canyon.

All the alternatives on shortgrass on Kiowa Rita Blanca Grasslands would tend to have more 

early successional stage structure than the reference condition. This trend would be due to the 

potential for increased areal extent of black-tailed prairie dog colonies on certain soil types. The 

early successional stage increase on shortgrass has the potential to increase important habitat for 

the viability of at high at-risk species, Mountain Plover and swift fox, and would trend to increase 

habitat for the management indicator species, Burrowing Owl.

The preferred alternative on mixed grass prairie and shinnery oak on the Black Kettle has

removal of undesirable trees that will influence composition and structure in all successional 

stages of these vegetation types. The removal of undesirable trees on potential Lesser Prairiechicken habitat on mixed-grass prairie and shinnery oak would trend toward more suitable habitat 

on these vegetation types.

Alternative C Wilderness designation in Mills Canyon has the potential to affect vegetation 

composition and structure trends toward more departure from reference condition.

Overview of the Affected Environment

Review of Need for Change

The need to change the Grassland-specific components of the 1985 Plan that were identified in 

the 2008 Comprehensive Evaluation Report document were re-evaluated in the January 2010 

CER Supplementary Document to meet Analysis of the Management Situation requirements of 

the 2000 Planning Rule.

Detailed Need for Change topics are described in the Revision Topics Addressed in this analysis 

section. The following, need for change topics, are addressed:

Ecosystem Restoration and Management for Reference Condition Vegetation Structure

Invasive Plants and Animals

Climate Change

Monitoring MIS

Summary of Current Condition

On the Grasslands, vegetation types occur across a landscape that is comprised of variable 

landforms, soil depth, elevation, and erosion characteristics. These characteristics, along with 
May 2011 7

management, determine vegetation structure, composition, habitat, and presence of associated 

species. All vegetation types on the Grasslands are within low departure from reference 

vegetation structure.

Summary of Environmental Consequences

Vegetation, Wildlife, and Habitat

Common to all alternatives, areal extent of early successional stage shortgrass prairie would 

increase from the expansion of black-tailed prairie dog colonies, benefiting Mountain Plover, 

swift fox, and the Burrowing Owl (the Management Indicator Species [MIS]).

Alternative A would have vague and confusing language that often would not reflect current 

management, which is based upon best available science and adaptive management.

Alternative A would provide direction for controlling and reducing areal extent of shinnery oak 

versus Alternatives B and C which would encourage expansion of the shinnery oak vegetation 

type for ground-nesting birds.

Alternatives B and C would maintain all vegetation types within low departure from reference 

condition structure and would be resilient to the stressors of climate change such as drought, 

long-term increases in precipitation, and higher annual average temperatures. Alternative A would 

not have predictable outcomes for vegetation structure.

Under Alternatives B and C, undesirable native invasive trees, such as eastern redcedar and black 

locust would be removed in the shinnery oak and mixed-grass vegetation types. Although 

Alternative A would allow removal of invasive plants, there would be no focus on removing 

undesirable trees in these vegetation types.

Alternatives B and C would reduce encroachment of eastern redcedar in the understory of mixedhardwood riparian, attaining a diversity of structural stages habitat for the Rio Grande Turkey (the 

MIS).

Alternative B and C would attain a diversity of structural stages and composition in pinyonjuniper habitat for cavity-nesting birds such as the Mountain Bluebird (the MIS).

Invasive Species

The outcome for all alternatives is similar. Invasive and noxious plants and animals would be 

identified and removed on a timely basis, limiting their potential spread.

Alternative A would maintain and sustain shelterbelts, thus supplying a source for undesirable 

native and nonnative invasive tree seed from species such as black locust, eastern redcedar, and 

Siberian elm. Alternatives B and C would reduce the areal extent of undesirable trees and would 

provide clear management direction for effective noxious/invasive plant species control which 

would provide more benefit to wildlife habitat. Although Alternative A would allow removal of 

invasive plants, there would be no focus on removing undesirable trees.

Alternatives B and C would more clearly address controlling invasive animals such as feral hogs 

than would Alternative A, but Alternative A and other established Forest Service direction allow 

for similar control activities.
May 2011 8

Black-tailed Prairie Dog Issues

Alternative A addresses controlling black-tailed prairie dog colonies. With the addition of prairie 

dogs to the Regional Forester‘s Grassland Sensitive Species list in 2007, the Alternative A 

controls are superseded by conservation measures that allow prairie dog colony expansion with 

outcomes similar to Alternatives B and C.

Alternatives A, B, and C would have similar impacts on Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and 

Proposed Species and selected MIS—Burrowing owl, Mountain Bluebird, and Rio Grande 

Turkey. Alternatives B and C would provide more direction than Alternative A on the 

conservation of habitats associated with species determined to be at high risk for viability on the 

Grasslands.

The environmental consequences associated with the need for change topics are indirect effects to 

the vegetation type successional stage on shortgrass prairie on Kiowa Rita Blanca. The potential 

expansion of prairie dog colonies on certain soil types may produce increased areal extent of 

early successional stage vegetation structure and reflect qualitative effects on livestock use. There

is potential for a minor increase in soil movement.

Undesirable Trees and Lesser Prairie-chicken Habitat Issues

There are environmental consequences associated with the removal of undesirable trees. The 

structure and composition changes in mixed grass and shinnery oak due to tree removal will trend 

to move the vegetation toward less departure from reference condition. The potential for change 

in vegetation structure and composition will trend to transition potential Lesser Prairie-chicken 

habitat to suitable habitat by removing the avoidance features present in the Alternative A. Table 

1 depicts the trends.

Table 1 Environmental Consequences Removal of Undesirable Trees

Mixed Grass and Shinnery Oak on Black Kettle National Grasslands

Low likelihood of achieving 

Reference Condition

High likelihood of 

achieving Reference 

Condition

Alternative A

Alternative B & C

Summary Comparison of Consequences by Alternative

This section provides a summary of the environmental consequences of alternatives by need-forchange topic. Information in Table 2 focuses on management direction and issues where different 

consequences can be compared quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. Table 2

addresses differences among alternatives where environmental consequences are anticipated to be 

important. Further detailed discussion of differences can be found in the Specialists Report, 

environmental consequences sections of Chapter 3. The organization of the respective needs for 

change and resource topics in this table is the same as that found in Chapter 3.

Soils Vegetation

Soils Vegetation
May 2011 9

Table 2 Summary Comparison of Consequences of Alternatives on the Biological, Social, 

and Physical Environments

Consequences Comparison by Alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Need-for-Change Issue: Ecosystem Diversity

Soils No major differences among alternatives.

Water Would not improve river 

connectivity and structural 

components of channels and 

riparian areas toward 

proper functioning 

condition.

Would improve river connectivity and structural 

components of channels and riparian areas toward proper 

functioning condition.

Air No major differences among alternatives.

Mixed-grass Prairie This alternative would 

protect and maintain 

shelterbelts and would allow 

continued encroachment of 

undesirable native invasive 

trees such as eastern 

redcedar and black locust,

which would be contrary to 

desired vegetation structure 

and species composition.

Implementation would achieve desired vegetation structure 

and species composition of the mixed-grass prairie across 

the landscape by reducing the presence of undesirable 

native trees such as eastern redcedar and black locust.

Shinnery oak Areal coverage of shinnery 

oak would be reduced by 

about 12%. Control of 

undesirable native invasive 

tree control would not be 

prioritized and could result 

in a slow drift away from 

desired vegetation structure 

and species composition.

Implementation would maintain or slowly increase acreage 

of this vegetation type on the BK NG. This alternative would 

result in removal of undesirable native invasive trees (e.g., 

black locust and eastern redcedar) within shinnery oak. 

Implementation would result in shinnery oak on BK NG 

moving toward the treeless desired condition for this 

vegetation type, and application of managed grazing, 

planned fire, or mechanical or chemical tools would result in 

achievement of desired vegetation structure and species 

composition.

Mixed Hardwood Riparian Implementation would allow 

higher fuel loads from 

encroachment by eastern 

redcedar in the understory, 

increasing mortality of 

deciduous trees.

Implementation would result in reducing encroachment of 

eastern redcedar in the understory, thereby lowering fuel 

loads.

More clearly defined targets for vegetation structure and 

composition would move this vegetation type toward 

reference condition.

Shortgrass Prairie and 

Inclusions

Implementation would allow 

managed grazing and 

planned fire, but since there 

is no direction defining 

structure and composition, 

outcomes would be

uncertain.

Implementation would move this vegetation type toward 

desired vegetation structure and species composition, as 

targets for species composition and structure are clearly 

defined.

Pinyon-Juniper and Juniper 

Grasslands Inclusions

Implementation may result 

in this vegetation drifting 

from reference condition for 

vegetation structure, as 

there are no defined targets. 

Implementation would result in moving toward desired 

vegetation structure and species composition by focusing on 

early seral stage development.

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian (excluding 

Canadian River)

Implementation may result 

in this vegetation drifting 

from reference condition for 

Implementation would move this vegetation type toward 

defined desired vegetation structure and species 

composition through invasive species control, restoration 
May 2011 10

Consequences Comparison by Alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

vegetation structure, as 

there are no defined targets.

plantings, and managed livestock use.

Sand sagebrush Sand sagebrush would be 

maintained in its current 

state or possibly move away 

from reference condition for 

vegetation structure as this 

alternative has no defined 

targets.

Implementation would move this vegetation type toward 

desired structure and species composition targets.

Canyon Lowlands and 

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian and Canadian River

There is no direction 

defining structure and 

composition. Outcomes 

would be uncertain.

Implementation would 

move toward a defined 

structure and composition

outcome for the Canadian 

River cottonwood-willow 

riparian vegetation with 

focus on early seral stage 

development.

Same as Alternative B 

except Wilderness 

designation would delay

achievement of desired 

vegetation structure and 

species composition 

outcomes because of 

limitations on use of 

motorized management 

tools.

Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

Interior Least Tern on 

Aquatic Lakes

In general, the implementation of plan components related to the improvement of 

watershed conditions, minerals/energy development, recreation and grazing management 

should result in positive effects to the Interior Least Tern by indirectly protecting foraging 

habitat occasionally used by the Interior Least Tern. Implementation would result in a “May 

Affect, Not likely to Adversely Affect” determination for the Interior Least Tern.

Arkansas River Shiner on 

Aquatic Lakes

In general, the implementation of plan components related to the improvement of 

watershed conditions, minerals-energy development, recreation and grazing management 

should result in positive effects to the Arkansas River Shiner by indirectly protecting 

watersheds that drain into occupied habitat in the Canadian River in Texas and Oklahoma. 

Implementation of any alternative may render a “May Affect but is Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect” determination for the Arkansas River Shiner.

Viability-High-at-Risk Species

Lesser Prairie-chicken on 

Mixed-grass Prairie

Suitable habitat = 70−88% 

(7,910−9,940 acres) of the 

vegetation type.

Undesirable tree 

encroachment on mixedgrass prairie would degrade 

potential and suitable 

habitat for LPC.

Implementation would 

result in greater viability 

risks to the LPC and may 

result in Federal listing.

Suitable habitat = 90−96% (10,170−10,850 acres) of the 

vegetation type.

Desired vegetation structure and species composition would 

enhance habitat by reducing the presence of undesirable 

trees. LPC mortality caused by collision with fences would be 

reduced.

Under Alternatives B and C, there would be no loss of 

viability or trend towards future listing.

Lesser Prairie-chicken on 

Shinnery oak

Suitable habitat = 70−88% 

(13,320− 16,630 acres) of 

the vegetation type.

Mast (acorns) for LPC would 

be reduced due to reduction 

of shinnery oak acreage. 

Undesirable trees would 

degrade potential and 

suitable LPC habitat. 

Suitable habitat = 90−96% (17,010−18,140 acres) of the 

vegetation type. Desired vegetation structure and species 

composition would enhance habitat by reducing the 

presence of undesirable trees. LPC mortality caused by 

collision with fences would be reduced. Under Alternatives B 

and C, there would be no loss of viability or trend towards 

future listing.
May 2011 11

Consequences Comparison by Alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Implementation would 

result in greater viability 

risks to the LPC and may 

result in Federal listing.

Lesser Prairie-chicken on 

Sand sagebrush

Suitable habitat ≤100%

(≤22,650 acres) of the 

vegetation type.

Due to no defined targets 

for vegetation structure and 

species composition, this 

alternative would produce 

uncertain outcomes.

Suitable habitat = 100% (22,650 acres) of the vegetation 

type.

Implementation would move this vegetation type toward 

desired vegetation structure and species composition, 

accomplished through well-defined targets for this 

vegetation type, improving LPC habitat.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog on 

Sand sagebrush

Suitable habitat = 1−10% 

(230−2,300 acres) of the 

vegetation type.

Due to no defined targets 

for vegetative structure and 

species composition, this 

alternative would produce 

uncertain outcomes.

Suitable habitat = 1−10% (<230−2,300 acres) of the 

vegetation type.

Implementation would move this vegetation type toward 

desired vegetation structure and species composition, 

thereby reducing BTPD expansion.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog and 

Mountain Plover on 

Shortgrass Prairie

Suitable habitat would range from about 30-32% (54,570−58,210 acres) of the vegetation 

type. The expansion of BTPD colonies would result in increased areal extent of early 

successional stage shortgrass prairie, thus increasing nesting/foraging areas for Mountain 

Plover.

Swift Fox on Shortgrass 

Prairie

Suitable habitat = 100% (181,900 acres) of the vegetation type. The expansion of BTPD

colonies would result in an increased prey base for the swift fox.

Predation on swift fox would be reduced by installation of 

artificial escape structures.

Plains Leopard Frog on Playa 

Lakes

Suitable habitat = 100% (1,820−5,460 acres) of this fluctuating habitat.

Improved habitat in and around the playa inclusions would result from restoration of altered 

playa basins.

Plains Leopard Frog on 

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian excluding Canadian 

River

Suitable habitat would be 

≤100% (≤ 1,370 acres) of the

vegetation type.

Implementation would have 

no defined targets for 

riparian species composition 

or structure. This may

degrade the habitat of the 

riparian community for 

plains leopard frog.

Suitable habitat would be equal to 100% (1,370 acres) of the 

vegetation type.

Habitat would be improved by moving toward a defined 

structure and composition outcome by focusing on early 

seral stage development and by increasing snags and woody 

debris in the stream beds and in the riparian area.

Plains Leopard Frog on 

Cottonwood-Willow 

Riparian on Canadian River

Suitable habitat ≤100%

(≤1,500 acres) of the 

vegetation type.

Implementation would have 

no defined targets for 

riparian species composition 

or structure. This may

degrade the habitat of the 

riparian community for 

plains leopard frog.

Suitable habitat = 100% (1,500 acres) of the vegetation type.

Habitat would be improved by moving toward a defined 

structure and composition outcome by focusing on early 

seral stage development and by increasing snags and woody 

debris in the stream beds and in the riparian area.

International Migratory Bird Act National Birds of Conservation Concern
May 2011 12

Consequences Comparison by Alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

There would be no direction 

for desired vegetation 

structure and species 

composition in all 

vegetation types.

Fine filter plan components in objectives and guidelines for 

grassland restoration in vegetation and habitat associated 

with species that have viability high at-risk concerns would 

support migratory bird habitat.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

There would be no programmatic take of eagles under any of the alternatives.

Management Indicator Species

Rio Grande Turkey on Mixed 

Hardwood Riparian

Suitable habitat = 50−100% 

(975−1,950 acres) of the 

vegetation type.

More intense and hotter 

fires caused by fuels buildup from lack of planned fire 

would reduce the number of 

mature deciduous trees, 

thereby eliminating roost 

areas for the Rio Grande 

Turkey.

Suitable habitat = 100% (1,950 acres) of the vegetation type.

Mixed Hardwood Riparian vegetation type would move 

toward defined targets for species composition and 

structure, thereby improving habitat for the Rio Grande 

Turkey by providing roosting trees, foraging areas, and 

nesting and brood-raising areas in the early and midsuccessional stages.

Burrowing Owl on 

Shortgrass Prairie, early 

successional stage

Suitable habitat = about 30−32% (54,570−58,210 acres) of the vegetation type.

There would be no direction 

for desired vegetation 

structure and species 

composition that would 

enhance habitat for 

Burrowing Owl. 

Targets for desired vegetation structure and species 

composition would result in BTPD colony expansion, thus 

improving habitat for Burrowing Owl.

Mountain Bluebird on 

Pinyon-Juniper

Suitable habitat = about 90% 

(19,530 acres) of the 

vegetation type.

Habitat could be reduced or 

degraded because there are 

no defined targets for 

vegetation structure.

Suitable habitat = 100% (21,700 acres) of the vegetation 

type.

Implementation would improve habitat by increasing the

diversity of structural stages.

Invasive Plants and Animals

Invasive Plants and Animals Shelterbelts would be 

maintained, thereby 

providing a source of 

invasive tree seed.

Invasive plant and animal species would be controlled 

according to management direction, allowing vegetation 

types to move toward desired vegetation structure and 

species composition.

Table 3 Summary of Consequences to Vegetation from Other Resource Areas by 

Alternative

Other Resource Areas Environmental Consequences by Alternatives

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C (Canadian Wilderness 

Recommendation)

Scenery, General Recreation, Developed Recreation, Dispersed Recreation, Motorized Recreation, Natural Tourism, Heritage Resources

All Vegetation and Habitat types

Common to all Alternatives: Dispersed Recreation would have the potential to introduce invasive and noxious species to all vegetation and 

habitat types, leading to structural and compositional changes to vegetation types.

Woodland Pinyon Juniper on Canyon Steep Slopes, Cliffs, and Rock outcrops, Cottonwood Willow Riparian etc.

Alternatives A and B: Dispersed Recreation would have the potential to introduce invasive 

and noxious species to all vegetation and habitat types, leading to structural and 

Implementation of Alt C would limit 

recreation in the canyon area, thereby 
May 2011 13

Other Resource Areas Environmental Consequences by Alternatives

Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) Alternative C (Canadian Wilderness 

Recommendation)

compositional changes to vegetation types. reducing impacts to vegetation.

Roads and Access, Land Adjustments, Minerals and Energy Development (oil and gas), Special Uses, Wind Energy Development

Sand Sagebrush, Shortgrass Prairie, Shinnery Oak, Mixed Grass Prairie

Common to all Alternatives: Surface Use Plan of Operations and guidance direction from plan components on Wind Energy Development 

would provide siting criteria, reclamation stipulations and opportunities to reduce fragmentation through land adjustments that would 

have the potential to protect and enhance wildlife habitat for species such as Lesser Prairie-chicken.

Land adjustments would potentially have positive environmental consequences where isolated and fragmented habitat is reconnected 

and management of vegetation on a landscape scale would be possible.

Minerals and Energy would have environmental consequences that potentially could reduce and fragment vegetation type and habitat 

areal extent.

Pinyon Juniper, Cottonwood Willow Riparian

Alternatives A and B: Land adjustments would potentially reconnect isolated and 

fragmented habitat and management of vegetation on a landscape scale would be 

possible.

Minerals and Energy could potentially reduce and fragment vegetation type and habitat 

areal extent.

Implementation of Alt C would limit access 

within the canyon area, reducing impacts to 

Vegetation, although minor.

Water, Watershed, Perennial Streams, Reservoirs, Lakes, Wetlands, Ponds, and Playa Lakes, and Mixed Hardwood Riparian

Common to all Alternatives: Land adjustments would potentially have positive environmental consequences where isolated and 

fragmented habitat would be reconnected and management of vegetation on a landscape scale would be possible.

Minerals and Energy could potentially reduce and fragment vegetation type and habitat areal extent.

Livestock Use

Shortgrass Prairie

Common to all Alternatives: The early successional stage shortgrass vegetation on soil types utilized by black-tailed prairie dogs would 

potentially have increased areal extent on the Kiowa Rita Blanca Grasslands. The expansion of prairie dog colonies would potentially have 

soil loss due to wind erosion, and minor reduction in available forage for livestock.

Wildland Urban Interface (Fire) Forest Products

Pinyon Juniper

Common to all alternative, selective harvests would attain silvicultural improvements that sustain the Pinyon-Juniper ecosystem.
May 2011 14

Chapter 2 Processes, Methodology, and Topics Addressed

Introduction

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

types and associated wildlife resources 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).

Ecosystem Management Opportunities and Constraints

When looking to identify resource management opportunities and constraints, two key factors 

were considered: the current status and trend of a vegetation type and the consequences of the 3 

alternatives. Using these considerations and recognizing the importance of other ecosystem 

characteristics, such as, soil, water, air and habitat, each vegetation type and habitat feature found 

on the Grasslands was reviewed to identify general management opportunities and constraints for 

the Grasslands.

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy that Apply

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937; Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960; National 

Forest Management Act of 1976; 1982 Rule Provisions, Sections 219.13-219.26; 36 CFR 241.2

Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Fish and Wildlife, Cooperation in Wildlife Management; 

Endangered Species Act of 1973; Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918; EO 13186 Responsibility of 

Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds; Sikes Act of 1960; FSM 2402 Timber Management, 

Objectives; FSM 2470.2 - 2470.3 Timber Management, Chapter 70 Silvicultural Practices, 

Objectives and Policy; FSM 2670-2671Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management, 

Chapter 70, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Animals, Cooperation; FSM 

2671.45 C & F 2671Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management, Interim Directives;

FSM 3110.2 State and Private Forestry, Cooperative Forest Fire Prevention, Objectives; 3150.2

State and Private Forestry, Rural Community Fire Protection Program, Objectives, Federal 

Noxious Weed Act of 1975, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory 

Committee Recommendations to the Secretary, March 4, 2010; Avian Power Line Interaction 

Committee Guidelines.

Methodology and Analysis Process

Description of the Ecological Context

The determination of ecological sustainability and species viability on the National Grasslands 

(NGs) is a culmination of assessing ecosystem characteristics (including vegetation type, soil, 

water, and air) departure from the reference condition.

The Ecological Sustainability Report (ESR) evaluated the ecological systems of the Kiowa and

Rita Blanca (KRB) and Black Kettle (BK), and McClellan Creek (MC) NGs (herein collectively 

referred to as the ―Grasslands‖) and the relationship to the surrounding area. The ESR has two 

main sections—ecosystem diversity and species diversity. The ecosystem diversity section 

discusses conditions and trends in the vegetation communities and physical resources based on 

the reference condition of the vegetation types. Appendix F of the ESR supplements the 

information found in the Ecosystem Diversity section of the ESR. Specifically, it outlines the 
May 2011 15

current and historical conditions for shortgrass prairie, pinyon-juniper, cottonwood-willow 

riparian, sand sagebrush, mixed-grass prairie, shinnery oak, and mixed hardwood riparian 

vegetation types. The species diversity section looks at species found in Texas, New Mexico, and 

Oklahoma on the Grasslands and are affected by Grasslands management. Population or habitat 

concerns for the identified species were analyzed and viability risks determined.

The historical reference condition of a vegetation type found on the Grasslands is based upon best 

available science and includes an approximation of the structure of the vegetation type when all 

historical ecological functions and processes were in place. The condition of the structure of a 

vegetation type was a primary factor used to determine a wildlife species‘ viability on the 

Grasslands. Other ecosystem attributes (including soil type and water availability,) were also 

assessed as to how they affect the habitat of a species. The condition and trends in the Grasslands 

vegetation communities are evaluated on a 5- to 10-year interval using field reconnaissance, 

visual obstruction readings, Parker 3 Step transects,1cover-frequency transects, production 

clippings, photo points, and composition inventories. Data collected has been compared with 

historical data and with the Terrestrial Ecological Unit inventory.2

In order to determine the departure for a vegetation type, the mid-scale3vegetation found within 

each vegetation type was placed into a class4based on the information in the reference condition

model. A comparison was made of the current percentage to the historical percentage for each 

class within the model. The lesser of the two percentages (current vs. historical) was subtracted 

from 100 for each class. The resulting number determined the level of departure from historical 

reference conditions as follows:

0–33% = Low departure

34–66% = Moderately departed

67–100% = Severely departed

Ecosystem attributes for the Grasslands were analyzed to determine if the sustainability of the 

vegetation types, soil, water, air, and animal and plant species richness and diversity are at risk. 

This assessment was based on current conditions, departure from reference condition for 

vegetation structure, and projected future trends. If the ecosystem attribute is projected to depart 

from its reference condition, then the attribute was determined to be at risk. If the attribute is 

significantly departed from its reference condition and is stable (i.e., neither trending further away 

from nor towards the reference condition) then it was determined to be at risk; this scenario was 

 

1 Ruyle, G., & Dyess, J. (2010). Rangeland Monitoring and the Parker 3-Step Method: Overview, 

Perspectives and current Appllications. Tucson AZ: The University of Arizona Cooperative Extension.

2 Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit inventory consists of mapping and interpreting ecosystems through a 

systematic examination, description, classification, and integration of the soil, vegetation, and climate on 

National Forest and Grasslands. Mid-scale vegetation type description is structural, not compositional. 

Description of existing species composition was inferred by relating remotely sensed data (mid-scale) to 

ground-based data (TEUI). Comparison of existing vegetation to reference condition is therefore limited 

to vegetation structure (not species composition).

3 Mid-scale mapping is a remote sensing and modeling effort used to provide periodic snapshots of existing 

vegetation for forest plan implementation and monitoring. Mid-scale mapping is an object-oriented 

approach using image segmentation and various classification methodologies to model vegetation 

dominance type, canopy cover class, and size.

4 There are three classes of departure from reference condition—low departure, moderately departed, and 

severely departed.
May 2011 16

not found for any of the ecosystem characteristics on the Grasslands. If current management 

activities are resulting in the ecosystem characteristic trending towards its reference condition, the 

characteristic was determined not to be at risk.

Four of the seven vegetation types found on the Grasslands have greater representation on the 

Grasslands relative to the surrounding landscape within the Grasslands administrative boundary: 

shinnery oak, mixed hardwood riparian, cottonwood-willow, and sand sagebrush. Shortgrass and 

mixed-grass prairie have less representation on the Grasslands relative to the surrounding 

landscape; pinyon-juniper is equally represented.

All of the vegetation types have low departure from reference condition for vegetation structure, 

and continuation of management trends is expected to maintain that condition. Table 4 depicts the 

current condition of the vegetation.

Table 4 Current Grasslands Vegetation Structure Departure from Reference Condition 

Structure

Grasslands Vegetation Departure from Reference Condition Structure

Vegetation 

Type 0–33% = Low Departure from Reference Condition

34–67% = 

Moderately 

Departed

67–100% = 

Severely 

Departed

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 33

Mixed-grass 

Prairie

Shinnery oak

Shortgrass 

Prairie

Pinyon-Juniper

CottonwoodWillow Riparian

Mixed 

Hardwood 

Riparian

Sand sagebrush

Some of the vegetation types, while within low departure from reference condition for vegetation 

structure overall, may not be able to make a full recovery to the lower percentages of departure. 

These include the shinnery oak areas that were once deeply plowed, as well as formerly cultivated 

old field sites in shortgrass prairie. The deep plowing practices on shinnery oak eliminated the 

species from some areas during the Dust Bowl era, and recovery does not readily occur. Soil 

movement that occurred during the Dust Bowl era also created conditions that facilitated mixed 
May 2011 17

hardwood riparian establishment, a vegetation type not historically found on the Grasslands. 

Consequently determining a departure from reference condition for mixed hardwood riparian on 

the BK and MC (BKMC) NGs entails comparing riparian woody vegetation structure to the 

mixed hardwood plant communities in other areas with similar climate, elevation, rainfall, and 

growing season attributes. Some areas within the cottonwood-willow riparian may not have the 

capacity to fully recover to the lower percentages of departure from reference condition for 

vegetation structure due to the disruption of natural hydrologic processes on and off of the 

Grasslands. While the reference condition for vegetation structure may not be fully achievable on 

some areas within the shinnery oak, shortgrass prairie, and the mixed hardwood riparian and 

cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation types, the implementation of the draft Grasslands Plan 

should move these types toward reference condition for vegetation structure.

Over the past several decades, watershed conditions have improved dramatically especially 

compared to the extremely degraded condition that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s 

following the Dust Bowl era. Conservation practices across the southern Great Plains, notably in 

the McClellan Creek drainage, have resulted in a substantial increase in infiltration and 

groundwater recharge and a subsequent reduction in surface runoff and associated sedimentation. 

Groundwater depletion is occurring, and although this is outside of Agency control, it has the 

potential to affect Grasslands management.

Ecosystem Diversity Concern Areas

Due to disruption from settlement and agriculture production on adjacent private lands, the 

vegetative characteristics found on the Grasslands are largely unique in comparison to the 

surrounding landscape. Because the Grasslands exist to provide for ecological diversity, it is 

critical that the ecosystem characteristics contained within them be restored and maintained. 

There are several areas of ecosystem diversity concern:

Four of the seven vegetation types (Shinnery oak, Pinyon-Juniper, Mixed Hardwood 

Riparian, and Sand Sagebrush) have a reduced range across their respective Ecological 

Subsections. Therefore, management of these vegetation types on the Grassland units is 

important for the protection of their associated species.

Of the seven vegetation types found on the Grasslands, all exhibit low departure from 

reference condition for vegetation structure. Management to maintain or move toward 

lower departure from reference condition and disturbance regime intervals is important 

for each of the vegetation types.

The introduction, presence and spread of invasive species have the potential to 

significantly modify ecological systems and processes.

The potential effects of climate change are far-reaching: changes to vegetation structure 

and composition, soil condition, and water availability are reasonably foreseeable.

Species Diversity

Analysis of ecological sustainability must include consideration of both ecosystem and species 

diversity. To better capture the ecological sustainability of the Grasslands, a hierarchical approach 

was used to analyze species diversity on the Grasslands (pp. 49–52 in ESR). As a starting point, a 

comprehensive list of species (including plant, macro-lichen, bird, insect, and animal species) that 

have population or habitat concerns and that are found in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma was 

developed from multiple sources, resulting in over 1,600 species. Then, each species‘ life history, 

habitat associations, and population information were examined using scientific literature, Texas, 
May 2011 18

Oklahoma, and New Mexico Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies (CWCS), the Biota 

Information System of New Mexico (Bison-M) database, and personal communications with 

Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico wildlife agency biologists, USFWS biologists, and 

Grasslands‘ biologists. Other important sources considered in a species‘ viability determination 

were the USFWS National Birds of Conservation Concern (NBCC) list and State threatened and 

endangered species lists. After considering the above and integrating with information on the 

existing condition of the vegetation types as described below, a determination was made that five 

species out of the 1,600 may have high at-risk viability concerns on the Grasslands.

Viability risks to a species were determined from availability and structural condition of the 

vegetation type the species typically occupies, population evaluation, and effects from Forest 

Service management actions.

5 The results of this process provided a high, medium, or low risk 

assessment of the viability of a species. Again, five species were assessed as high.

In the plan revision process for alternatives B and C, coarse-filter plan components (i.e., desired 

conditions) were developed that would move the Grassland‘s vegetation types toward reference 

condition for structure and composition. These coarse-filter plan components would provide for 

viability of those species at low- or medium risk. For those species determined to be high at-risk, 

additional fine-filter plan components (i.e., objectives, guidelines, and standards) were developed 

to provide for their viability. Table 5 identifies the Threatened and Endangered species, 

Grasslands Sensitive Species, National Birds of Conservation Concern, Management Indicator 

species, and Eagles evaluated for viability.

Shelterbelt Acreage and Linear Extent Computation

Estimates of acreage and linear extent of shelterbelts on Black Kettle National Grasslands and 

adjacent private lands was used to evaluate issues of tree encroachment on mixed grass prairie 

and shinnery oak vegetation types. Through the use of orthophotos, spatial orientation, area 

determination and frequency analysis was completed on private land adjacent or within 1 mile of 

Black Kettle units, amounting to a total of 2,040 acres of shelterbelts with a linear extent of 121 

miles. Black Kettle Grasslands units totaled 156 acres of shelterbelts covering 12 linear miles.

Tree species not native to Black Kettle, although native to Oklahoma, such as black locust, cover 

about 1,600 to 1,800 acres dispersed over the shinnery oak and mixed grass prairie vegetation 

types.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog Suitable and Potential Habitat

Historically, black-tailed prairie dog colonies occupied approximately 20% of the Great Plains 

prairie. Black-tailed prairie dog habitat exists on the Kiowa Rita Blanca National Grasslands 

(KRB NG) in the form of suitable habitat that is occupied or highly likely to support prairie dog 

colonies or potential habitat that could support prairie dog colonies that provides complimentary 

habitat for Mountain Plover, Burrowing Owl, Ferruginous Hawk, swift fox, and the endangered 

black-footed ferret. In 2010, there were 2,731 acres of occupied black-tailed prairie dog colonies 

on the KRB NGs. Over the last 12 years occupied area has ranged from a low of about 1,550 

acres in 1999 to around 7,100 acres in 2003. Of the 230,526 acres of land on the KRB NGs, 3.6% 

 

5

―Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired 

nonnative vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be 

regarded as one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure 

its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area...‖ 36 CFR § 219.19 (1982).
May 2011 19

is suitable habitat, 85.3 % is potential habitat, and 11.1% is unsuitable habitat. See appendix A of 

this document.

There are potential environmental consequences of black-tailed prairie dog effects to soil fertility 

and susceptibility to erosion, both negative and positive, although the extent is not well studied or

known. (Detling, Dec., 1988)

Grasslands Habitat and Associated Species

Table 5 is a list of the vegetation type habitat, and listing source for the species associated with 

the Grasslands.

Table 5 Grasslands Habitat/Species Associations and Viability/Risk Ranking, Regional 

Forester’s Grasslands’ Sensitive Species, MIS and High at-risk Species

Common Name Ranger 

District

Viability Overall 

Risk

Reason for Listing (see note 

below)

Viability 

Listing 

Source

Forest 

Sensitive 

List

MIS

Shortgrass Prairie

Bald Eagle KRB Moderate A,D,E,F K

Loggerhead Shrike KRB Low A, C K

Black-tailed Prairie Dog KRB High I-NM K

Burrowing Owl KRB Moderate B,C,D K M

Ferruginous Hawk KRB Moderate B,C,D K

Greene Milkweed KRB Moderate H, I-NM & OK K

Mountain Plover KRB High A,B,C,J K

One-flowered Milkvetch KRB Moderate H, I-NM K

Spellenberg’s Groundsel KRB Moderate H, I-NM K

Long-billed Curlew KRB Low B,C,D K

Swift Fox KRB High G

Dotted Checkerspot KRB Moderate I-NM

Alpine Fever-few KRB Moderate H, I-NM

Rhena-crossline Skipper KRB Moderate I-NM

Andean Prairie-clover KRB Moderate I-TX & OK

Scaled Quail KRB Low A, C

Swainson’s Hawk KRB Low B, C K

Grasshopper Sparrow KRB Low A, B K

Sand Sagebrush

Lesser Prairie-chicken KRB High B,J K

Dotted Checkerspot KRB Moderate I-NM

Scaled Quail KRB Low A, C
May 2011 20

Common Name Ranger 

District

Viability Overall 

Risk

Reason for Listing (see note 

below)

Viability 

Listing 

Source

Forest 

Sensitive 

List

MIS

Grasshopper Sparrow KRB Low A, B K

Panhandle Spurge KRB Moderate H

Pinyon-Juniper

Greene Milkweed KRB Low H, I-NM & OK K

Panhandle Spurge KRB Moderate H

One-flowered Milkvetch KRB Moderate H, I-NM K

Spellenberg’s Groundsel KRB Moderate H, I-NM K

Zone-tailed Hawk KRB Moderate K

Mountain Bluebird KRB Low M

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian

Bald Eagle KRB Moderate A,D,E,F K

Great Plains Narrow-mouthed 

Toad

KRB Moderate D K

Plains Leopard Frog KRB High B K

Yellow-billed Cuckoo KRB Low A K

Sandhill White-tailed Deer KRB Low K

Arid Land Ribbon Snake KRB Moderate A, D K

Hobomok Skipper KRB Moderate I-NM

Red-headed Woodpecker KRB Low A, B, C

Ponds and Playas

White-faced Ibis KRB Low A, B K

Plains Leopard Frog KRB High B K

Long-billed Curlew KRB Moderate B,C,D K

American Avocet KRB Moderate B

Caves-Cliffs-Rock Outcrops

American Peregrine Falcon K Low D K

Pale Townsend’s Big-eared Bat K Low B K

Rocky Mountain Dagger KRB Moderate H

Horrid Herrickia KRB Low H, I-NM

Shinnery oak and Mixed-grass Prairie

Swainson’s Hawk BK Low B, C K

Lesser Prairie-chicken BK High B,J K

Northern Bobwhite BK Moderate B, C

Rio Grande Turkey BK Low L M
May 2011 21

Common Name Ranger 

District

Viability Overall 

Risk

Reason for Listing (see note 

below)

Viability 

Listing 

Source

Forest 

Sensitive 

List

MIS

Grasshopper Sparrow BK Low A, B K

Long-billed Curlew BK Low B,C,D K

Mixed Hardwood Riparian

Yellow-billed Cuckoo BK Low A K

Rio Grande Turkey BK Low L M

Red-headed Woodpecker BK Moderate A, B, C

Bell's Vireo BK Moderate B,E K

Rivers

Suckermouth Minnow KRB Moderate E K

Conchas Crayfish KRB Moderate H

Rio Grande Chub KRB Low H,I-TX K

Arkansas River Shiner BK Moderate Federal T&E

Interior least Tern BK Moderate Federal T&E

Largemouth Bass BK Low L

Aquatic Lakes

White-faced Ibis KRB Low A, B K

Bald Eagle BK Moderate A,D,E,F K

Largemouth Bass BK Low L

Plains Leopard Frog BK Low B K

Other Wetlands

Ambersnail KRB Moderate H

Alphabetic code for Reason for Listing is as follows: A = NM CWCS, B = TX CWCS, C = OK 

CWCS, D = NM T&E, E = TX T&E, F = OK T&E, G = Nature Serve N, H = Nature Serve G, I = 

Nature Serve State, J = USFWS Candidate, K = Regional Forester‘s Grasslands‘ Sensitive

Species, L = Important Game Species, M = Management Indicator Species

Federally Listed and Grasslands’ Sensitive Species Affected Wildlife

As directed under the FSM 2600–Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management

CHAPTER 2670–Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals, the following 

species are identified in tables 6 and 7.

Table 6 Federally listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate species considered in the 

analysis area

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Critical Habitat

1. Southwestern Willow 

Flycatcher (SWF)

Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered

New Mexico Colfax, and 

Outside Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) 
May 2011 22

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Critical Habitat

Mora Counties. boundary. No CH in 

Analysis Area

2. Black-footed ferret (BFF) Mustela nigripes Endangered

New Mexico Colfax, Mora, 

Union, and Harding 

Counties

None designated

3. Mexican Spotted Owl 

(MSO)

Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened

New Mexico Colfax, and 

Mora Counties

No CH in Analysis Area

4. Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened

New Mexico Colfax County

No CH in Analysis Area

5. Arkansas River shiner Notropis girardi Threatened

New Mexico Colfax, Mora, 

Union, and Harding 

Counties

Oklahoma

Roger Mills County

Texas

Hemphill County

No CH in Analysis Area

6. Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum Endangered

Texas

Gray and Hemphill County

Oklahoma

Cimarron and Roger Mills 

Counties

None designated

7. Whooping Crane Grus americana Endangered EXPN

Texas

Gray and Hemphill 

Counties

Oklahoma Roger Mills 

County

No CH in analysis area

Table 7 Regional Forester’s Grasslands’ Sensitive Species List

Regional Forester’s Grasslands’ Sensitive Species List For

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

Common Name Taxon Grassland Status *

AMPHIBIANS Black KettleMcClellan Creek

Kiowa-Rita Blanca

Plains Leopard Frog Rana blairi D D

Great Plains Narrow-mouthed Toad Gastrophryne olivacea D D

FISH BKMC KRB

Rio Grande Chub Gila pandora D

Suckermouth Minnow Phenacobius mirabilis D-not rare in OK, 

TX

D

BIRDS BKMC KRB

Bald Eagle Haliaetus leucocephalus D D

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi D

Zone-tailed Hawk Buteo albonotatus D
May 2011 23

Regional Forester’s Grasslands’ Sensitive Species List For

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

Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni D D

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis D

American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus (anatum) S

Lesser Prairie-chicken Tympanuchus pallidicinctus S S

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus D

Burrowing Owl Athene curnicularia (hypugaea) D D

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus D D

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis S

MAMMALS BKMC KRB

Pale Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii (pallescens) S

Black-tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys ludovicianus D

Sandhill White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus texana D

REPTILES BKMC KRB

Arid land Ribbon Snake Thamnophis proximus diabolicus D

PLANTS BKMC KRB

Greene Milkweed Asclepias uncialis ssp. uncialis D

One-Flowered Milkvetch Astragalus wittmannii D

Spellingberg’s Groundsel Packera spellenbergii (=Senecio s.) D

* D = Documented, reliable, recorded observation, in appropriate habitat within the Grassland boundary.

S = Suspected, likely to occur based on habitat availability to support individuals/breeding pairs/groups within the Grassland 

boundary.

Assumptions

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

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

actions.

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

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

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

managing the forests under a programmatic framework.

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

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

projects and activities.

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

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

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

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

four resource areas, Black Kettle, McClellan Creek, Kiowa and Rita Blanca.

Revision Topics Addressed in this Analysis

The pertinent issues derived from need to change the Grassland-specific components of the 1985 

Plan that were identified in the 2008 Comprehensive Evaluation Report, the 2009 Notice of Intent 
May 2011 24

to prepare an EIS, and 2010 Supplemental Analysis of Management Situation document are 

explained below.

Ecosystem Diversity

Since the 1985 plan was implemented, ecological monitoring and new scientific information have 

advanced the agency‘s knowledge and understanding of vegetation and its range of historical 

variation, ecological processes, and habitat requirements of native fauna of the National 

Grasslands. Similarly, since 1985, new issues have emerged, such as the introduction of nonnative plants and animals and changes in climate.

Ecosystem Restoration and Management for Reference Condition

The vegetation types found on the National Grasslands are altered remnants of what were once 

found across the southern Great Plains. In the new plan, there is a need to provide management 

direction that will maintain or accelerate movement of vegetation type structure closer to zero 

departure from reference conditions, recognizing that past events may limit the ability to achieve 

full restoration.

Invasive Plants and Animals

There are invasive plants and animals present on the National Grasslands that have the potential 

to affect ecosystem structure, composition, and processes. The new plan needs to provide 

management direction addressing the unwelcome introduction, spread, and control of invasive 

plants and animals.

Climate Change

The new plan needs to provide direction on anticipating and responding to changes in the climate, 

relative to National Grasslands management through adaptive responses.

Monitoring

Management Indicator Species (MIS) are species whose population trends could possibly indicate 

the effects of Grasslands management activities. The new plan needs to address vegetation in 

terms of departure from reference condition and use MIS to monitor trends where appropriate.

Primary Factors (Threats and Risks) to the Resource

There are primary factors that influence the vegetation types and the ability to attain reference

conditions. Historically, natural disturbance was a regular component of all of the vegetation 

types found on the Grasslands. These disturbances, including wildfire, grazing, and climatic 

events, had notable effects on the Grasslands vegetation (including composition and structure). 

Though their frequency and intensity have shifted as a result of settlement and management, these 

historical natural disturbances continue to influence the composition and structure of the 

Grassland vegetation types. In addition to these historical natural disturbances, invasive species 

and motorized and off-road travel are now recognized as having disturbance-like effects on the 

Grasslands vegetation. Both have the potential to significantly modify ecological systems and 

processes. Table 8 summarizes the disturbance effects on Grasslands vegetation types.

Table 8 Disturbance Impacts to Vegetation

Disturbance Impacts To Need for Change Vegetation Types on National Grasslands
May 2011 25

Disturbance Impacts To Need for Change Vegetation Types on National Grasslands

Disturbance1Grazing Drought Invasive Sp. Prescribed Fire Oil & Gas Dispersed 

Recreation

Kiowa/Rita Blanca

Shortgrass 

Prairie ± ─ ─ ± ─ ─

Black Kettle McClellan Creek

Mixed Grass ± ─ ─ ± ─ ─

Shinnery Oak ± ─ ─ ± ─ ─

1 + = Positive impact, ─ Negative impact, 0 = No impact

Grazing impacts can be positive or negative, depending on the current community species 

composition and structure and the dietary preferences of the grazing animal. For example, a lateseral plant community with desirable, decadent plants may benefit from the breakdown of dead 

plant material and growth stimulation provided by cattle trampling and grazing, respectively; 

prescribed fire may provide similar benefit. Goat browsing may desirably shift the competitive 

balance from shrubs to grass in shrub-invaded grasslands but harm a community whose desired 

condition contains a strong shrub component. While fire may invigorate a decadent, late-seral 

community with high reproductive ability, fire may only exacerbate poor conditions in a low-seral 

community containing few desirable species‘ reproductive sources, such as seed production, 

spore dispersal, re-growth, and etc. Adaptive responses provide the power and flexibility to tailor 

management practices to positively impact current status and trend.

Summary of Alternatives

Alternative A represents the 1985 forest plan, as amended. It is the  ̳no action‘ alternative, 

required by the National Environmental Policy Act. In this comparison of alternatives,  ̳no action‘ 

means no change from the current management direction offered by the current plan.

Need-for-Change Topic 1 Ecosystem Diversity

This section focuses on vegetation types, habitat, and wildlife; the soil, water, and air resources; 

invasive species, and climate change.

Alternative A, No Action

Vegetation, Wildlife, and Habitat

Combines direction for the forested mountain districts of the Cibola with the National 

Grasslands

Emphasizes shinnery oak control and eradication in some areas

Emphasizes forage for sustained livestock yields and technology to improve range

condition

Provides for protection of selected shelterbelts and motts and for restoration plantings 

within selected shelterbelts

Stipulates Surface Use Plan of Operations (SUPO) for oil and gas leasing

Establishes wildland fire use, prioritizes fuel reduction treatments
May 2011 26

Utilizes the Environmental Assessment for Integrated Pest Management of 

Noxious/Invasive Plants for the Cibola National Forest and Kiowa and Rita Blanca June 

2010 that covers treatments to eradicate, control, or contain invasive plants.

Utilizes the Environmental Assessment for Invasive Plant Management Cibola National 

Forest, Black Kettle Ranger District, Cheyenne, Oklahoma August 2007, that covers 

treatment methods such as: cultural; biological control; manual; mechanical; controlled 

grazing; prescribed fire, and chemical (herbicide) methods to control invasive plants.

Alternative A does not provide specificity to achieve ecosystem restoration. Ecosystem 

maintenance is supported by management tools used to create disturbance effects. The 

mechanisms utilized in maintenance are directed toward stabilizing soil conditions, not for 

ecosystem restoration.

Alternative A does not provide specificity to achieve the reference conditions supported by 

management tools used to create disturbance effects. The mechanisms are available but not 

directed to achieve reference condition.

Alternative A does not adequately identify the uniqueness of vegetation types and inclusions with 

specific management objectives. The mechanisms to manage ecosystems are available but not 

directed by unique ecosystem objectives.

Alternative A emphasizes shinnery oak control and eradication in some areas and creates 100-

foot-wide openings in shinnery oak with 200-foot-wide leave strips between openings for high 

edge-contrast and provides for protection of selected shelterbelts and motts and for restoration 

plantings within selected shelterbelts. Alternative A would reduce shinnery oak by 4,400 acres 

and convert it to grassland.

Alternative A restricts forage improvement activities and limits population control on black-tailed 

prairie dog (BTPD) towns > 15 ac without prior evaluation in order to protect black-footed ferret 

(BFF) habitat. In essence, towns < 15 ac could be controlled or limited to improve forage 

production. This restriction is in conflict with the Region 3 Forester‘s Grasslands‘ Sensitive 

Species List revision that now includes the black-tailed prairie dog. The revised sensitive species 

list supersedes the restrictions and controls on prairie dogs and allows prairie dog colony 

expansion.

Soils

For soil resources in Alternative A, emphasis was placed on inventory and monitoring for soils, 

using Best Management Practices to mitigate adverse effects, incorporating water and soil 

improvement into projects where watershed condition is unsatisfactory, and using specified 

practices to reduce effects to soil resources such as rehabilitation after management activities or 

wildfire.

Water

For water resources in Alternative A, emphasis was placed on inventory and monitoring for 

watershed condition, using Best Management Practices to mitigate adverse effects, restoring 

impaired riparian areas, and incorporating water and soil improvement into projects where 

watershed condition is unsatisfactory. The desired condition for riparian areas is specified in 
May 2011 27

relation to natural conditions using seven parameters, including crown cover and shade. Riparian 

areas determined to be impaired are scheduled for improvement activities.

Air

For the air resource, no plan direction is given aside from Forest Service Manual and Handbook 

direction to comply with federal and state air quality laws.

Invasive Species

Treatment of noxious and invasive species would occur according to Integrated Pest Management 

and the prescribed mitigation measures.

Alternative A utilizes the Environmental Assessment for Integrated Pest Management of 

Noxious/Invasive Plants for the Cibola National Forest and Kiowa and Rita Blanca June 2010 

that covers treatments to eradicate, control, or contain invasive plants; and Alternative A utilizes 

the Environmental Assessment for Invasive Plant Management Cibola National Forest, Black 

Kettle Ranger District, Cheyenne, Oklahoma, August 2007 that covers treatment methods such as 

cultural, biological, manual, and mechanical control; controlled grazing; prescribed fire; and 

chemical (herbicide) methods to control invasive plants.

Climate Change

Alternative A does not address climate change. The available practices to manage vegetation 

structure are reactive to climatic conditions. As a result, vegetation may reach structure conditions 

that are outside of the low departure reference condition.

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

Vegetation, Wildlife, and Habitat

Alternative B would provide ecosystem restoration and maintenance on a landscape scale. 

Vegetation structure and composition outcomes would be driven by associated species habitat 

needs. Alternative B would utilize desired conditions for structure and composition for each 

vegetation type, and the objectives and guidelines would promote the desired condition.

Would allow for removal of invasive or non-native trees from historical grassland 

vegetation communities or in otherwise suitable Lesser Prairie-chicken habitat on Black 

Kettle, following site-specific assessment.

Would recommend adaptive management of livestock, deferred grazing in some 

instances, and protection of soil resources

Would describe a management approach that encourages black-tailed prairie dog 

colonies to expand on Kiowa Rita Blanca that would possibly result in an increase in 

early successional plant communities in those areas of shortgrass prairie with soils and 

slopes typically selected by black-tailed prairie dogs. A black-tailed prairie dog 

management plan would be recommended. A long term desired condition would have 

sufficient habitat available for black-tailed prairie dog complexes to accommodate 

potential reintroduction of black-footed ferrets as a natural predator.
May 2011 28

Would emphasize reducing the threat of wildfire to communities by treating Wildland 

Urban Interface areas identified in the Community Wildfire Protection Plans and would 

emphasize using fire to maintain desired structure and composition conditions.

Would recommend guidelines for wind energy development and energy transmission and 

for restoration of retiring mineral leases. As a result of restoration treatments, 

commodities such as biomass, and fuelwood would be available for local industry and 

individual needs.

Would monitor management activity progress through the use of Management Indicator 

Species, Mountain Bluebird in pinyon juniper woodland, Burrowing Owl on early 

successional shortgrass prairie on Kiowa Rita Blanca, and Rio Grande Turkey in mixed 

hardwood riparian on Black Kettle. Ecological Indicators would be used in mid and late 

successional stages of shortgrass prairie on the Kiowa Rita Blanca. Ecological Indicators 

would be used in mixed grass prairie and shinnery oak on Black Kettle and cottonwood 

willow riparian on the Canadian River on Kiowa Rita Blanca.

Soils

Alternative B would strive for satisfactory soil conditions, with soil losses that rarely exceed 

natural levels. Soils would be stabilized in the long term, with the exception of some movement 

associated with black-tailed prairie dog towns. Soil disturbing activities would be directed to 

prevent discharge into waterbodies; provide direction for restoration, mitigations, and 

rehabilitation of construction sites; and give direction on treatment of gullies and unsatisfactory 

or impaired soils.

Water

Alternative B would strive for surface water features to be in properly functioning condition, and 

to manage watershed toward a Class I watershed condition.

Air

Alternative B would attain air quality conditions that are at acceptable attainment levels on the 

Grasslands.

Invasive Species

Alternative B would use Grasslands-wide and District-specific invasive species control and 

would allow for removal of invasive or non-native trees from historical grassland vegetation 

communities or in otherwise suitable Lesser Prairie-chicken habitat on Black Kettle, following 

site-specific assessment.

Climate Change

Alternative B would incorporate research and potential strategies for addressing effects of climate 

change and has adaptive response strategies to adjust decisions and contingencies. The landscapescale program of reactive management is influenced by monitoring current and recent past 

conditions for predictive resource management and would include Southwestern Regional 

Climate Change Trends and Potential Climate Change Strategies for SW Region National Forests. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5181242.pdf Adaptive responses 

would be emphasized in the event of climate change.
May 2011 29

Alternative C (Canadian River Wilderness Area Recommendation)

Recommendation would be made to designate the Kiowa National Grassland Canadian River 

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) as a Canadian River Wilderness Area. Specific plan components 

for a wilderness area designation would be developed.

Vegetation, Wildlife, and Habitat

Alternative C, the wilderness alternative, would limit management tools that could be used in the 

ecosystem restoration and maintenance of the Canadian River. Forest Service Manual 2320, 

Wilderness Management, would govern use of management tools within the potential wilderness.

Alternative C for soils is identical to alternative B.

Alternative C for water and watersheds is identical to alternative B.

Alternative C for the air resource is identical to alternative B.

Invasive Species

In alternative C, invasive plant and animal management in the potential wilderness would have 

limited management tools that could be used. Forest Service Manual 2320, Wilderness 

Management, would govern use of management tools within the potential wilderness.

Climate Change

Alternative C is identical to Alternative B regarding climate change.

Chapter 3 Vegetation

Introduction

On the Grasslands, vegetation types occur across the landscape with variable elevation, 

landforms, soil depth, and erosion characteristics. These characteristics, along with management, 

determine vegetation structure, composition, habitat, and presence of associated species. Seven 

major vegetation types occur on the Grasslands, together with some minor inclusions such as 

playa lakes, and unique habitat such as rivers and aquatic and riparian habitats. All vegetation 

types on the Grasslands are in low departure from reference condition for vegetation structure. A 

vegetation type is considered in low departure if it does not exceed 33% in departure from the 

reference condition for vegetation structure.

The reference condition of vegetation structure was a primary factor used to determine Ecological 

Sustainability and to do the risk assessment for a species‘ viability. Reference condition 

represents an approximation of the vegetation structure when all historical ecological functions 

and processes were in place.

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in 

proportion to their significance. The consequences in this section focus on the components of 

vegetation types, habitat, and wildlife that are useful to the decision maker and the public.
May 2011 30

Affected Environment

Mixed-grass Prairie Vegetation

Mixed-grass prairie covers about 35% (11,300 acres) of the BKMC NGs. The mixed-grass prairie 

on the red-shale soils is dominated by perennial grasses, including blue grama, hairy grama, little 

bluestem, and purple threeawn. About 80% of the species composition is grass; forbs make up 

about 10%, and about 10% are woody species located in planted windbreaks as well as scattered 

groves of invasive native and nonnative trees.

In addition, there are about 12 linear miles and 156 acres of treed Dust Bowl Era, planted 

shelterbelts on the BK NG, many of which are within this vegetation type. Erosion control 

shelterbelts were introduced to curtail erosion and in most areas have completed that function as 

grassland vegetation has been re-established.

Tree species planted in windbreaks and shelterbelts include native black locust, Osage orange, 

eastern redcedar, green ash, cottonwood, and honey locust. Nonnative species include some pine 

species and Siberian elm. Native and nonnative trees in the shelterbelts, windbreaks, and scattered 

groves would not normally be found in the mixed-grass prairie vegetation type and are considered 

undesirable invasive species.

Woody species and trees encroach onto the mixed-grass prairie in the absence of fire. Several of 

the species chosen for the windbreaks and shelterbelt areas are prolific and invasive, such as 

native black locust and eastern redcedar, and nonnative Siberian elm. These undesirable invasive 

species have dispersed over the landscape and altered mixed-grass prairie structure and 

composition. Planned fire and managed livestock grazing/browsing are used as tools to move this 

vegetation type toward desired vegetation structure and species composition.

Mixed-grass prairie on the BKMC NGs is in low departure from reference condition for 

vegetation structure. In contrast, this vegetation type on nonfederal land is highly departed from 

its reference condition for vegetation structure due to historical agricultural practices and land 

use.

In 2008, there was more grass dominated prairie on the landscape in proximity of BKMC NGs, 

than was present historically, largely due to eradication of shinnery oak on private lands.

Shinnery Oak Vegetation

The shinnery oak shrub vegetation type on the BK NG is in low departure (25%) from reference 

condition for vegetation structure, mainly due to undesirable tree encroachment. This vegetation 

type covers about 59% (18,900 acres) of the BK NG. It is a very underrepresented vegetation type 

across the Southern Great Plains landscape, due to conversion of this type to other uses and types 

on non-federal lands. About 45% of the shinnery oak vegetation is in the early to mid-open, postfire to three years post-fire regime and dominated by tall grasses in shallower and more stable 

sandsheet areas. Grass cover is dominant in the early to mid-open stage with rapid recovery of 

shinnery oak resprouts. The late-closed successional stage occurs in the 3- to 10-year post-fire 

time frame. Shinnery cover is mostly dominant, although grasses remain codominant on about 

55% of the vegetation type. Uncharacteristically tall hybrid tree/shrubs of shinnery and post oak 

occur in some motts.
May 2011 31

Similar to mixed-grass prairie, planted, Dust Bowl Era treed shelterbelts, planted windbreaks, and 

scattered groves of trees, not normally found in shinnery oak vegetation types, occur. Several of 

the species chosen for the windbreaks and shelterbelt areas are prolific and invasive, such as 

native black locust and eastern redcedar, and nonnative Siberian elm.

Woody species and trees encroach onto the shinnery oak vegetation in the absence of fire and 

alter the structure and composition of this vegetation type. Planned fire and managed livestock 

grazing/browsing are used as tools to move this vegetation type toward desired vegetation 

structure and species composition. Most shinnery oak stands are burned on a 2- to 9-year cycle to 

maintain a codominant canopy cover of grasses intermixed with shinnery oak for wildlife habitat 

diversity and to resemble historical conditions. Current livestock grazing within the shinnery oak 

system is relatively light, with utilization levels retaining at least 50% of the current year‘s 

growth of vegetation, by weight, of forage species.

Mixed Hardwood Riparian Vegetation

Dust Bowl Era erosion and Aeolian deposits in waterways, created conditions that gave rise to 

hardwood trees on the BKMC NGs. Post Dust Bowl conditions have established the mixed 

hardwood trees and now are considered a vegetation type on the Grasslands. The mixed 

hardwood riparian reference condition vegetation structure on the BKMC NGs was determined 

from comparison of mixed hardwood riparian in other areas with similar climate, elevation, 

rainfall, and growing season attributes. The mixed hardwood vegetation was found to be in low 

departure from reference condition for vegetation structure.

Mixed hardwood riparian vegetation covers about 6% (1,946 acres) of the BKMC NGs. The early 

successional stage represents about 13% of this vegetation type, with pioneer tree and shrub 

species of cottonwoods and willows with an herbaceous understory of sedges in wet areas. In this 

early stage, most of the area is bare sand dominated by a young canopy of tree saplings and 

shrubs. Species include false indigo bush and various grasses, sedges, and rushes. The mid and 

late-successional stage covers the remaining 87%. In the mid–stage, developing stands start to 

mature. This community tends to be partially open with scattered cottonwoods and willows. The 

shrub layer is poorly developed and often consists of widely scattered patches of dogwood. The 

understory vegetation is highly variable with wildrye and muhly grasses. In wetter, more shaded 

areas, Virginia creeper, nettles, and poison ivy are present. The late seral stage is a mature, closedcanopy cottonwood floodplain forest. The canopy layer is dominated by cottonwood with box 

elder, hackberry, walnut, and elm occurring as well. Understory species include Virginia creeper 

and poison ivy, both found along the upper terrace that is protected from most flood events.

Invasive eastern redcedar encroaches in the cottonwood galleries and increases fuel loads and 

ladder fuels.

Shortgrass Prairie and Inclusions Vegetation

Shortgrass prairie on the KRB NGs is in low departure from reference condition for vegetation 

structure. Shortgrass prairie covers about 79% (181,900 acres) of the KRB NGs. The shortgrass 

prairie typically occurs on areas of level plains, undulating hills and draws, or on gently rolling 

uplands of the southern Great Plains. The variable landscape gives rise to diversity in species 

composition and structure in different successional stages based on multiple factors, including 

drought, fire, and herbivory by ungulates and rodents.
May 2011 32

As of 2011, several KRB NGs allotments have been retired from grazing and livestock removed 

due to wells going dry.

Shortgrass prairie vegetation is codominated by blue grama, needle-and-thread, buffalograss, and 

galleta, with intermingled forbs and scattered half-shrubs. The abundance of annual forbs and 

grasses within the composition is dependent on the timing of precipitation events. Blue grama and 

buffalograss are the main grasses present in all successional stages post-fire. Post-fire early 

successional stages are dominated by resprouts and seedlings of grasses, and post-fire associated 

forbs cover about 2% of this vegetation type. In addition, one to four percent of the vegetation 

type is an early successional stage due to current and historical BTPD activity. The mid-open 

stage covers about 90% of the shortgrass vegetation with less than 35% herbaceous cover that is 

low to medium height. The mid-closed stage covers about 8% of this vegetation type with greater 

than 35% herbaceous cover. Planned fire occurs, but on a small scale and generally not within the 

historical fire regime of 5-10 years. Planned fire and managed livestock grazing/browsing are 

used as tools to move this vegetation type toward desired vegetation structure and species 

composition.

Early successional stage areal extent of shortgrass prairie on the KRB NGs is in flux. Changes are 

due, in part, to activities that impact BTPD colony size such as plague within BTPD colonies, 

recreational shooting of BTPDs, predation, and other influences. BTPD colonies on private lands 

within proximity or adjacent to the KRB NGs are also in flux with influences of recreational 

shooting of BTPDs, poisoning and other methods of eradication used to reduce colonies and 

number of individuals. Conversely, there are State and Federal Government Agency programs 

designed to assist private landowners in BTPD colony and numbers growth.

Seventy percent of the shortgrass vegetation type is made up of shortgrass prairie species. The 

remaining 30% is made up of inclusions that have species composition and structure different 

from shortgrass. There are 5 inclusions in shortgrass prairie, as follows:

Mixed-grass prairie

Cultivated sites plowed and reclaimed

Playas

Dry washes, dry swales, and seasonal depressional wetlands

Greenhorn, sandy and chalky limestone hills, knolls, gravelly balds, and mesa rims

Mixed-grass prairie is an ecotone between shortgrass and tallgrass prairie. These sites occur on 

areas of sandy loam soils. Mid and tall-grass species codominate, ranging in height from two to 

four feet. Mid-grass prairie species such as New Mexico feathergrass, needle and thread, big 

bluestem, little bluestem, and hairy grama occur individually or in variable groupings with 

shortgrass species. Some sites support both sand sagebrush and soapweed.

Cultivated sites are old fields that were in cultivation prior to the 1930s Dust Bowl. They were 

severely eroded, with most or all of the topsoil removed through wind erosion. Where these 

conditions occur, species composition and site potential have been altered. This historical species 

change is not reversible for the foreseeable future. In some areas, vegetation is limited to sideoats 

grama and lovegrass that were planted during reclamation. Soil fertility in these areas is very low, 

and both microorganisms and organic material are present in the soil in very limited quantities.
May 2011 33

Playa lakes are bowl-shaped depressions that are dependent on rainfall and surface runoff for the 

water they impound. They are closed basins and usually do not overflow. They are mostly 

intermittent, with surface evaporation occurring at about 60 inches per year. Soils are mostly 

stable, although some wind erosion occurs. Vegetation, when present, consists of species adapted 

to mesic conditions, such as various annuals, milkweeds, western wheatgrass, and inland 

saltgrass. Upland shortgrass species are incidental. The adjacent watershed keeps the playas 

functioning properly during the periodic and natural inundation of the bottoms. When playas hold 

water, there is an increase in the shoreline vegetative diversity and density and an increase in the 

extent of mudflat habitat for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds.

Dry washes, dry swales and seasonal depressional wetlands include habitat associated with 

intermittent or ephemeral streams, draws and swales or depressions between slopes of the gently 

sloping plain of grasslands. Soils are non-hydric (not formed in the presence of water) and are dry 

most of the year. The soil moisture is generally higher than the surrounding uplands as a result of 

storage and accumulation during rainfall events. However, there is no support by the water table 

during the long periods between precipitation events. Consistently high soil moisture levels are 

not present to support obligate riparian vegetation. Vegetation in and along intermittent or 

ephemeral drainages or seasonal depressions may be more dense or larger than their upland 

counterparts. However, the species are generally upland species and are typically facultative6

riparian or non-riparian plants, including western wheatgrass, alkali sacaton, blue grama, buffalo 

grass, switchgrass, inland saltgrass, and a variety of forbs. The overall condition within these 

communities is stable.

Greenhorn, sandy and chalky limestone hills and knolls, endemic to northeastern New Mexico on 

the Kiowa NG, occur in shortgrass prairie in elevations ranging from 5,900 feet to 6,600 feet. The 

gravelly balds and mesa rims occur in the shortgrass steppe elevations ranging from 5,400 to 

5,800 feet. The outcrops are occasionally quarried for road base materials.

Pinyon-Juniper and Juniper Grasslands Inclusion Vegetation

This vegetation type covers about 10% (21,700 acres) of the Kiowa NG. The pinyon-juniper 

vegetation type is determined to be in low departure from reference condition for vegetation 

structure.

Pinyon-Juniper generally occurs on shallow soils types, on rocky summits of high plains, and in 

drainages on slopes less than 20%. The early successional stage occurs post-fire and covers about 

12% of the vegetation type with open areas of grasses, forbs, seedlings less than 4.5 feet in 

height, and saplings. The mid-late successional stage covers about 88% of the vegetation type and 

includes a mix of pinyon-juniper trees in a variety of stages with varying canopy cover as 

following:

Mid-development stages average 10% of the vegetation type in relative abundance and 

have a dense canopy cover (31-70%) of pole size trees 5-9‖ in diameter and very little 

understory.

 

6

Facultative riparian plants are defined as those plant species commonly found in both terrestrial upland 

and riparian areas.
May 2011 34

About 30% of the vegetation type has pole size trees with a mixed shrub-herbaceous 

understory, and canopy cover ranges from 0-30%.

About 40% has late development with medium size trees 9-21‖ in diameter and canopy 

cover of 0-40%.

About 10% has dense, old-growth characteristics with medium size trees and canopy 

cover of 41-70%.

Stands of pinyon-juniper that are overstocked or encroaching onto the shortgrass prairie are being 

treated with thinning and prescribed burning. Currently, the level of treatment is about 500-900 

acres of thinning per year, followed by 1,000 to 1,800 acres of burning.

Juniper grassland trees occur as individuals or in smaller groups and range from young to old 

with snags scattered across the landscape. The understory includes scattered shrubs, native 

grasses, forbs, and annuals. Smaller groups of trees are found on slopes greater than 15%, on 

rocky outcrops, and adjacent to drainages.

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Vegetation (excluding the Canadian River)

This vegetation type covers about 1% (1,370 acres) of the KRB NGs. It does not include the 

Canadian River cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation of Mills Canyon, which is addressed 

separately below. The cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation type is determined to be in low 

departure from reference condition for vegetation structure.

The cottonwood-willow riparian communities are located within stream channels and on their 

associated floodplains and terraces. Riparian vegetation is common with sandy alluvial soil 

conditions. The early successional stage is represented on about 16% of this vegetation type and 

is typically shrub-seedling dominated but grasses may codominate. The mid and late successional 

stage covers about 84% with a species composition of tall shrubs and small trees such as willows 

and cottonwoods. Late successional stage represents the mature, large cottonwood and willow 

riparian woodlands. In 2011, management activities are targeting nonnative, invasive species in 

riparian areas, specifically, saltcedar. These activities are encouraging establishment of needed 

mid-successional conditions.

Fremont cottonwood dominates the tree layer, with peachleaf willow present in the sub-canopy. 

Riparian-dependent species include narrowleaf cattail, common buttonbush, thinleaf or marsh 

alder, rocky mountain elderberry, and a variety of sedge and rush species. The primary shrub and 

vine species are sandbar willow, Virginia creeper and riverbank grape. Native warm season 

grasses including blue grama, sideoats grama, sand dropseed, Virginia wildrye, and switchgrass 

are prominent in the ecosystem. Western wheatgrass is an important cool season species. Drier 

sites along or within ephemeral systems and upper terraces have New Mexico locust, 

chokecherry, hackberry, skunkbush sumac, and Apache plume.

Sand Sagebrush Vegetation

The sand sagebrush vegetation type covers about 8% (22,651 acres) of the Grasslands. This 

vegetation type is very under represented on the Southern Great Plains. Sand sagebrush typically 

occurs on areas of level plains, undulating hills and draws, or on gently rolling uplands of the 

southern Great Plains. The variable landscape gives rise to diversity in species composition and 

structure across the landscape. In years prior to Federal acquisition, some areas of sand sagebrush 
May 2011 35

were plowed and converted to cropland. In many cases, these areas have not returned to sand 

sagebrush. BTPDs have colonized some of these areas on the KRB NGs.

The sand sagebrush prairie is dominated by mid-grasses and shrubs. The landscape includes a 

diversity of areas in different successional stages and with varying vegetative heights, as well as 

cool-season grasses and a variety of forbs. The primary shrub species is sand sagebrush. Native,

warm-season perennial grasses (including big bluestem, little bluestem, sand dropseed, blue 

grama, and sideoats grama) are prominent in this ecosystem.

One percent is in a post-fire successional stage dominated by resprouts and seedlings of grasses 

and forbs with low to medium height having a variable canopy cover. This stage typically occurs 

where fires burn relatively hot.

The mid-open successional stage represents about 65% and has less than 35% herbaceous cover, 

medium to tall in height.

Mid-closed stage represents about 35% of the area with greater than 35% herbaceous cover, 

medium to tall in height.

Planned burning is currently being used at a rate of about 500 acres every 3–5 years.

Sand sagebrush vegetation type has areas that were historically heavily plowed with species 

structure and composition altered to low vegetation. The BTPD colonizes areas with low, early 

successional stage vegetation. Some of the plowed areas have potential for BTPD colonization, 

and one area is currently occupied. Areal extent of early successional stage sand sagebrush on the 

KRB NGs is in flux. Changes due to BTPD activity, plague within BTPD colonies, recreational 

shooting of BTPDs, and predation influence this vegetation.

Vegetation in Canyon Lowlands and the Canadian River Cottonwood-Willow Riparian

This area is defined geographically by the Canadian River canyon gorge on the Mills Canyon MA 

of the Kiowa NG, with elevations around 6,100 feet at the river.

Canyon lowlands of the Canadian River valley include the gently-sloping lowlands found 

between the riparian area of the Canadian River and side drainages coming off of the nearly 

vertical slopes forming the walls of the river canyon. This small, localized vegetation type has not 

been rated for departure from reference condition for vegetation structure. These lowlands are 

characterized by sloping terraces of less than 15%. In the active floodplain, flooding frequency 

determines vegetation composition and successional patterns. The lower area of 2-to 5-year 

flooding is where the vegetation is comprised mostly of annuals and other riparian disturbancedependent species.

The upper area of less frequent flooding (flood return intervals of 100-to 500-year) is where the 

woodland community advances onto the secondary floodplain exhibited by oneseed juniper, 

pinyon pine, wavy leaf oak, cholla, and sumac with an understory of herbaceous silver bluestem, 

sand dropseed, vine mesquite, and blue grama.

Cottonwood-Willow riparian Canadian River follows the river as it meanders about 19 miles 

through the semi-arid landscape in the Canadian River gorge, locally known at Mills Canyon.

Snow melt and seasonal rains are the major flow sources; snow melt is often diverted for 
May 2011 36

irrigation and other uses before the waters reach the Mills Canyon area. Depending on location of 

seasonal rain events, that water may or may not meet the same fate.

Along the canyon bottom, within the river floodplain, vegetation is dominated by riparian species, 

including willow and cottonwood. The cottonwood-willow riparian communities are located 

within and adjacent to stream channels and include the associated floodplains and lower terraces. 

Riparian vegetation is common with sandy alluvial soil conditions. This localized vegetation type 

along the Canadian River is in low departure from the cottonwood-willow reference condition for 

vegetation structure. The early successional stage is represented on about 16% of this vegetation 

type and is typically shrub-seedling dominated, but grasses may codominate. The mid and late 

successional stage covers about 84% a species composition that includes tall shrubs and small 

trees such as willows and cottonwoods. The late successional stage represents the mature, large 

cottonwood and willow riparian woodlands. Much of the native riparian vegetation has been 

replaced by saltcedar. In 2009 and 2010, about 500 acres of saltcedar in Mills Canyon were 

chemically treated.

In the Mills Canyon area of the Canadian River, upstream diversions and invasion of saltcedar 

have altered hydrological processes and geomorphology thereby reducing water availability for 

adjacent cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation. The Grasslands have no control over stream 

flows reaching the northern boundary of the Mills Canyon area.

Environmental Consequences

Common to all alternatives. The mixed-grass prairie, shinnery oak, shortgrass prairie, and sand 

sagebrush vegetation types would use managed livestock grazing and planned fire to provide 

disturbance to vegetation that evolved under disturbance regimes, benefiting all vegetation 

structure and composition makeup and controlling some invasive and undesirable species.

Alternatives B and C for all vegetation types. Effects of climate change could include drought 

events or long term increases in precipitation, and higher annual average temperatures that would 

alter vegetation structure and composition. Vegetation types would move toward desired 

vegetation structure and species composition and would be resilient to the stressors of climate 

change through increased awareness of potential effects of climate change and strategies for 

adaptive responses. (See The Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle, McClellan Creek LRMP, 

Appendix B: Southwestern Region Climate Change Trends and Potential Climate Change 

Strategies for Southwestern Region National Forests.)

Mixed-grass Prairie Vegetation Consequences

Alternative A. Mixed-grass prairie would remain in its current state of departure from reference 

condition for vegetation structure, or more likely, become moderately to highly departed from 

reference condition because of continued encroachment of undesirable native invasive trees such 

as eastern redcedar and black locust. This alternative would protect and maintain shelterbelts that 

occur in this vegetation type, which could be contrary to desired vegetation structure and species 

composition.

Alternative B and C. Implementation would achieve desired vegetation structure and species 

composition of the mixed-grass prairie across the landscape by reducing the presence of

undesirable native invasive trees such as eastern redcedar and black locust.
May 2011 37

Shinnery Oak Vegetation Consequences

Alternative A. The specific direction to control shinnery oak by chemical or mechanical means, 

would result in about 12% reduction of areal coverage of this vegetation type, which is already a 

very under-represented vegetation type on the Southern Great Plains. Control of undesirable 

native invasive trees would not be prioritized under this alternative, and management could result 

in a slow drift away from desired vegetation structure and species composition.

Alternatives B and C. Implementation would maintain or slowly increase acreage of this 

vegetation type on the BK NG. This alternative would result in removal of undesirable native 

invasive trees (e.g., black locust and eastern redcedar), within shinnery oak. Implementation 

would result in shinnery oak on the BK NG moving toward the treeless desired condition for this 

vegetation type, and application of managed grazing, planned fire, or mechanical or chemical 

tools would result in achievement of desired vegetation structure and species composition.

Mixed Hardwood Riparian Vegetation Consequences

Alternative A. Implementation would allow higher fuel loads from encroachment by eastern 

redcedar in the understory, increasing mortality of deciduous trees.

Alternatives B and C. Implementation would result in reducing encroachment of eastern redcedar 

in the understory, thereby lowering fuel loads. This vegetation type would toward desired 

vegetation structure and species composition, as targets for species composition and structure are 

clearly defined.

Shortgrass Prairie and Inclusions Vegetation Consequences

Alternative A. Implementation would allow managed grazing and planned fire, but since there is 

no direction defining structure and composition, outcomes would be uncertain.

Alternative B and C. Implementation would move this vegetation type toward desired vegetation 

structure and species composition, as targets for species composition and structure are clearly 

defined.

Pinyon-Juniper and Juniper Grasslands Inclusion Vegetation Consequences

Alternative A. Implementation would allow silvicultural management, managed grazing, and 

planned fire to achieve management objectives but would provide an unpredictable state of 

species composition and structure since there are no defined targets. Implementation would not 

result in a diversity of structural stages in pinyon-juniper habitat, thus limiting early and mid seral 

stage.

Alternative B and C. Implementation would result in moving toward desired vegetation structure 

and species composition through defined targets for structure and composition outcomes, with 

additional focus on early seral stage habitat.

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian (excluding the Canadian River) Vegetation Consequences

Common to all alternatives. Managed livestock use, and planned fire, and invasive species 

control would have some beneficial consequences to vegetation conditions.
May 2011 38

Alternative A. Implementation may result in this vegetation drifting away from reference 

condition for vegetation structure, as there are no defined targets for long term maintenance of 

species composition or structure.

Alternatives B and C. Implementation would move this vegetation type toward defined desired 

vegetation structure and species composition through the utilization of invasive species controls, 

restoration plantings, and managed livestock use.

Sand Sagebrush Vegetation Consequences

Alternative A. Sand sagebrush would be maintained in its current state or possibly move away 

from reference condition for vegetation structure as this alternative has no defined targets for 

long-term maintenance of this vegetation type.

Alternatives B and C. Management direction would move toward desired vegetation structure and 

species composition, accomplished through well-defined targets for this vegetation type.

Canyon lowlands, Cottonwood-Willow Riparian and Canadian River Vegetation Consequences

Common to all alternatives. There would be reduced water availability for adjacent cottonwoodwillow riparian vegetation in the Mills Canyon area due to off Grasslands circumstances. 

Reduced water in this reach of Canadian River would likely result in saltcedar constantly 

encroaching into the cottonwood-willow vegetation in this area to the exclusion of native trees, 

shrubs, grasses, and forbs unless control intervention is pursued.

Alternative A. There is no direction defining structure and composition. Outcomes would be 

uncertain.

Alternative B. Implementation would move toward a defined structure and composition outcome 

for the Canadian River cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation with focus on early seral stage 

development.

Alternative C. Same as Alternative B except Wilderness designation would delay achievement of

desired vegetation structure and species composition outcomes because of limitations on use of 

motorized management tools.

Cumulative Consequences

Vegetation Cottonwood-Willow on Canadian River

Common to all alternatives. Consequences to vegetation and wildlife on the Mills Canyon Reach 

of the Canadian River cottonwood-willow vegetation type would likely be as follows: Continued 

upstream water diversion from the Canadian River would reduce water availability for adjacent

cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation in Mills Canyon. This would likely result in saltcedar 

dominating the cottonwood-willow vegetation in this area to the exclusion of native trees, shrubs, 

grasses, and forbs, and to the detriment of native wildlife dependent upon the cottonwood-willow 

vegetation type.
May 2011 39

Chapter 4 Wildlife and Habitat

Introduction

This section is organized to address affected environment and environmental consequences to the 

Federally listed and proposed species and critical habitat, Grasslands‘ sensitive species, viability 

high at-risk species, migratory birds and National Birds of Conservation Concern, eagles, and 

Management Indicator Species within the planning area. Species are listed for each category with 

occurrence and summary information provided as they pertain to plan components. The affected 

environment related to the environmental consequences are described and followed by the 

consequences analysis.

Documentation of the complete viability analysis process, prepared according to Forest Service 

policy (FSM 2670) is located in Appendix F—Coarse Filter/Fine Filter and Viability Evaluations, 

and the Grasslands Ecological Sustainability Report, to which a hyperlink is provided in 

Appendix B of this document.

As a starting point, a comprehensive list of species (including plant, macro-lichen, bird, insect, 

and animal species) that have population or habitat concerns and that are found in Texas, New 

Mexico, and Oklahoma was developed from multiple sources, resulting in over 1,600 species.

Then, each species‘ life history, habitat associations, and population information were examined

using scientific literature, Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategies (CWCS), the Biota Information System of New Mexico (Bison-M) 

database, and personal communications with Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico wildlife agency 

biologists, USFWS biologists, and Grasslands‘ biologists. Other important sources considered in 

a species‘ viability determination were the USFWS National Birds of Conservation Concern 

(NBCC) list and State threatened and endangered species lists. After considering the above and 

integrating with information on the existing condition of the vegetation types as described below, 

a determination was made that five species out of the 1,600 may have high at-risk viability 

concerns on the Grasslands.

The historical reference condition of a vegetation type found on the Grasslands is based upon best 

available science and includes an approximation of the structure of the vegetation type when all 

historical ecological functions and processes were in place. The condition of the structure of a 

vegetation type was a primary factor used to determine a wildlife species‘ viability on the 

Grasslands. Other ecosystem attributes (including soil type and water availability,) were also 

assessed as to how they affect the habitat of a species. Viability risks to a species were determined 

from availability and structural condition of the vegetation type the species typically occupies, 

population evaluation, and effects from Forest Service management actions.

7 The results of this 

process provided a high, medium, or low risk assessment of the viability of a species. Again, five 

species were assessed as high.

 

7

―Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired 

nonnative vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be 

regarded as one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure 

its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area...‖ 36 CFR § 219.19 (1982).
May 2011 40

In the plan revision process for alternatives B and C, coarse-filter plan components (i.e., desired 

conditions) were developed that would move the Grassland‘s vegetation types toward reference 

condition for structure and composition. These coarse-filter plan components would provide for 

viability of those species at low- or medium risk. For those species determined to be high at-risk, 

additional fine-filter plan components (i.e., objectives, guidelines, and standards) were developed 

to provide for their viability. Table 5, above provides the level of risk for viability of each species 

analyzed.

As a part of the environmental analysis, suitable habitat acreage was estimated for Grasslands‘ 

sensitive species, shown in Table 9, and threatened and endangered species, species high at-risk 

for viability, and MIS, are shown in Table 10. Additionally, anticipated suitable habitat acreage by 

alternative is provided in Tables 11−16, and 21−23 for each species. As an example, LPC selects 

certain vegetative structures and avoids areas with trees and other tall features. Mixed-grass 

prairie and shinnery oak have invasive trees present that degrade LPC habitat that creates 

avoidance areas, thus reducing the amount of suitable LPC habitat. Other species, such as hawks, 

are opportunistic to all stages of the vegetation and utilize the entire area.

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species

Federally listed threatened and endangered species are those plant and animal species formally 

listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under authority of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Pursuant to Section 7 (2) (a) of the ESA, a Biological 

Assessment will be prepared to assess the effects of implementing the Grasslands Plan selected 

alternative on endangered or threatened species and ensure that proposed actions in the selected 

alternative would not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. All federally listed, 

proposed, and candidate species and designated and proposed critical habitats that the USFWS 

has identified in its Southwest Region Threatened/Endangered species list 

(http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/EndangeredSpecies/lists/ ) were considered in this analysis.

There is no designated Critical Habitat (CH) for listed species in the action area. Although the 

Mountain Plover was proposed for listing under the ESA when the plan was being developed, it 

was withdrawn from listing in May, 2011. It will be considered as a Grasslands Sensitive Species 

in this analysis. The federally listed wildlife species which may occur within the same counties as 

the Grasslands and considered in this analysis are listed above in table 6, with life history 

information and habitat discussion described below.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher The SWF breeds in dense riparian habitats in southwestern

North America, and winters in southern Mexico, Central America, and northern South America. 

Species occurrence in Colfax and Mora Counties is part of the Upper Rio Grande Management 

Unit. The Grasslands are outside the DPS for this species. There is no SWF habitat on the Kiowa 

NG in Colfax and Mora Counties, therefore this species will not be considered further in this 

analysis.

Black-footed ferrets This species depends almost exclusively on BTPD colonies for food, shelter, 

and denning. The range of the ferret coincides with that of BTPDs and ferrets with young have 

been documented only in the vicinity of active BTPD colonies. The KRB is currently managing 

BTPDs to provide improved health of colonies through plague management, but exiting colonies 

are not currently large enough to support a reintroduction. If black-footed ferret reintroduction is 

deemed appropriate for the KBR NG, a separate NEPA document will be prepared for the 
May 2011 41

reintroduction. Since the ferret is extirpated from New Mexico (except for an experimental nonessential population) it will not be considered further in this analysis.

Mexican Spotted Owl In general Mexican Spotted Owl habitat consists of dense multistory stands 

of mixed conifer with a component of large trees, often old remnants in younger stands or mature 

or over mature stands. Spotted owls also prefer shaded, cool, moist canyon sites and mountain 

slopes with rock outcrops, cliffs, talus, and standing dead and down woody material. There is no 

habitat available for the Mexican Spotted Owl within the analysis area, so this species will not be 

considered further in this analysis.

Piping Plover The Piping Plover migrates mainly through the Mississippi Valley and along the 

Atlantic Coast, and it winters primarily along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts from South Carolina to 

Texas. In New Mexico this plover is known only as a rare spring (April) migrant, having been 

verified at Springer Lake (Colfax Co.) and reliably reported at Bosque del Apache National 

Wildlife Refuge (Socorro Co.); there is also an unsubstantiated report from Lake Avalon (Eddy 

Co.). This species does not occur in the analysis area and will not be considered further.

Whooping Crane passes through the eastern panhandle of Texas each spring and fall during 

migration where they are sometimes sighted at stopover points along rivers, in grain fields, or in 

shallow wetlands. This species has never been observed on the MC NG in Gray County, Texas,

and there are no suitable stopover habitats on the NG. This species has never been observed at the 

Lake Marvin Unit in Hemphill County, Texas. The Whooping Crane passes through western 

Oklahoma each spring and fall during migration. They are sometimes sighted at stopover points 

along rivers, in grain fields, or in shallow wetlands. This species has never been observed on the 

BK NG in Roger Mills County, Oklahoma. This species will not be considered further in this 

analysis.

From the species listed in the above table and narrative, only the Interior Least Tern and the 

Arkansas River Shiner will be analyzed, because the other species either do not occur in the 

habitat types found on the grassland or they are rare migrants which would be unaffected by 

proposed activities.

Affected Environment

Interior Least Tern and Arkansas River shiner Aquatic Lakes Habitat.

The Grasslands provide habitat for some species that are not directly related to a vegetation type. 

At full pool levels, there can be about 5,000 acres of aquatic lake habitat available for the Interior 

Least Tern, a species known to forage the waters of Lake McClellan and Lake Marvin in Texas.

Arkansas River shiner Critical Habitat

The NGs have streams that have not been historically occupied nor have been considered as CH.

BK NG borders and drains directly into previously designated CH on the Canadian River.

The BKMC NGs have no occupied or suitable habitat for the Arkansas River shiner, a Federal 

Threatened species, however, the Texas portion of the BK NG includes 540 acres of the Boggy 

Creek Watershed (Lake Marvin), which drains into occupied habitat on the Canadian River, 

which is only 1⁄2 mile downstream from the BK NG boundary.
May 2011 42

Critical habitat was first designated for the Arkansas River Shiner in 2001 but none of the river 

segments designated as Critical Habitat are located on USFS managed lands in the Planning Area. 

In 2005, CH was excluded in Units 1a and 1b due to many factors. Critical habitat was excluded 

in Unit 1a because there are occasional periods of no flow, large areas are under private 

ownership, and many areas lack features essential to the conservation of the species. In New 

Mexico, the Canadian River rarely contains suitable habitat due to the influence of the Ute 

Reservoir. Unit 1a is located 79.6 miles downstream from the Kiowa NG. The Canadian River 

flows through the Kiowa NG in Mills Canyon, but Unit 1a is downstream from Ute Dam so there 

is no direct or indirect connection between the CH and the Kiowa NG. The RB NG is located 

82.2 miles upstream from the uppermost previous CH in the Beaver River, which is downstream 

from Optima Dam. There is no direct or indirect connection between the previous CH in the 

Beaver River and the RB NG.

Critical habitat has been excluded in Unit 1b because it is predominantly in private ownership 

with limited areas of state and tribal ownership and areas in Unit1b that have been excluded from 

CH designation do not meet the definition of CH. The BK NG manages units in Texas and 

Oklahoma that drain into previously designated CH (Unit 1b) in the Canadian River. The Texas 

portion of the grassland manages 540 acres of the Boggy Creek Watershed near Lake Marvin in 

Hemphill County, which drains into previously designated CH on the Canadian River about 1⁄2

mile downstream from the NG boundary. The Oklahoma portion manages about 640 acres of 

watersheds that drain into previously designated CH in the Canadian River as close as 2.0 miles

downstream from the grassland boundary in Roger Mills County. Arkansas River shiner CH was 

previously designated in 1,148 miles in five river systems, of which 4% of that drained into CH 

from the BK NG (24.5 miles, Lake Marvin; 22.9 miles, Black Kettle, OK). Black Kettle NG 

manages 1,180 acres that drain into CH.

Environmental Consequences

Interior Least Tern and Arkansas River shiner

Common to all alternatives. Implementation of any alternative would not produce any differences 

in consequences to aquatic lakes or the species associated, due to the limited influence from 

Grasslands management. There would be no difference in suitable acres of habitat for either 

Interior Least Tern or Arkansas River shiner by alternative.

Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos)

Determination of Effect for Interior Least Tern.

The primary threat to the Interior Least Tern is habitat loss, specifically the construction of 

reservoirs and pools along rivers. Under all alternatives, there is no plan direction to construct 

reservoirs or ponds on the Canadian River in Texas or Oklahoma or its tributaries, although there 

are existing reservoirs that will be maintained.

Common to all Alternatives. Threats to the Interior Least Tern were reviewed to determine 

potential links to resource programs and plan components. There are no plan components that 

were developed specifically for the Interior Least Tern, as there is no breeding habitat on the 

NGs, and the species is only seen foraging on the lakes within the BKMC NGs. In general, the 

implementation of plan components related to the improvement of watershed conditions, 

minerals/energy development, recreation and grazing management should result in positive 
May 2011 43

effects to the Interior Least Tern by indirectly protecting foraging habitat occasionally used by the 

Interior Least Tern. Implementation would result in a ―May Affect, Not likely to Adversely 

Affect‖ determination for the Interior Least Tern. Informal consultation with the USFWS would 

occur to seek concurrence on the determination.

Alternatives B and C. There are course filter plan components developed that would indirectly 

benefit the Interior Least Tern through desired conditions designed to improve watershed 

conditions over time. Recommendation of the Canadian River Potential Wilderness on the Kiowa 

NG would not affect the Interior Least Tern since it does not occur there.

Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) including Designated Critical Habitat

Determination of Effect for Arkansas River shiner.

Primary threats to the Arkansas River shiner include groundwater pumping, diversion of surface 

water, and impoundments, all which affect surface water flows and water quality. Waters 

occupied by the Arkansas River shiner do not occur within the BK NG, yet the BK NG manages 

1,180 acres that drain into occupied habitat, which is an insignificant amount of habitat compared 

to the entire occupied habitat of the shiner.

Common to All Alternatives. Primary threats to the Arkansas River shiner were reviewed to 

determine potential links to grasslands resource programs and plan components. There are no 

plan components that were developed specifically for the Arkansas River shiner, as there is no 

occupied habitat on the National Grasslands. In general, the implementation of plan components 

related to the improvement of watershed conditions, minerals-energy development, recreation and 

grazing management should result in positive effects to the Arkansas River shiner by indirectly 

protecting watersheds that drain into occupied habitat in the Canadian River in Texas and 

Oklahoma. Implementation of any alternative may render a ―May Affect but is Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect‖ determination for the Arkansas River shiner.

Critical Habitat Determination of Effects for Arkansas River shiner.

Designation for CH has been removed for areas that would have had indirect affects to the 

Arkansas River shiner. Even though critical habitat has been removed, riparian, wetland, wildlife 

and threatened and endangered species values and habitats are protected by desired condition in 

Alternatives B and C.

Critical Habitat Effects Analysis

Common to all Alternatives. Plan components have discountable indirect effects to critical 

habitat, because:

Critical habitat has been removed from areas in unit 1a and 1b that occurred adjacent to 

or drained into previously designated critical habitat,

Grasslands have limited ownership,

and plan components promote protection and recovery of listed species as well as 

riparian, wetland, and wildlife habitat.

Therefore, the continued implementation of any alternative may render a ―May Affect, but is Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect, Critical Habitat‖ determination for the Arkansas River shiner.
May 2011 44

Regional Forester’s Grasslands’ Sensitive Species

The Regional Forester‘s sensitive species program is the Forest Service‘s dedicated initiative to 

conserve and recover plant and animal species according to the Forest Services‘ policy (FSM 

2670. The NGs improve habitat and restore ecosystems for sensitive species through vegetation 

treatments and management practices. Grasslands sensitive species are those plant and animal 

species identified by the regional forester for which population viability is a concern, as 

evidenced by the following:

Significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density

Significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce 

a species' existing distribution

The suitable acreage or river miles estimates reported in Table 9, below are based upon the 

vegetation types, inclusions, or riverine habitat that meets the life history requirements of the 

species.

Table 9 Regional Forester’s Grasslands’ Sensitive Species List

Regional Forester’s Grasslands’ Sensitive Species List For

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

Common Name Scientific Name

Suitable Habitat Acres or River Miles

BKMC NGs KRB NGs

Amphibians

Plains Leopard Frog Rana blairi about 2,000 acres 4,700−8,300 acres

Great Plains Narrow-mouthed Toad Gastrophryne olivacea about 2,000 acres about 3,000 acres

Fish BKMC NGs KRB NGs

Rio Grande Chub Gila pandora about 12 miles about 16 miles Canadian River Suckermouth Minnow Phenacobius mirabilis

Birds BKMC NGs KRB NGs

Bald Eagle Haliaetus leucocephalus about 2,000 acres about 3,000 acres

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi 0 1,820−5,460 acres

Zone-tailed Hawk Buteo albonotatus 0 about 6,000 acres

Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni about 32,000 acres about 10,000 acres

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis 0 about 200,000 acres

American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus (anatum) 0 about 6,000 acres

Lesser Prairie-chicken Tympanuchus pallidicinctus about 28,000 acres about 22,650 acres

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus 0 about 51,000 acres

Burrowing Owl Athene curnicularia (hypugaea) about 6,000 acres about 51,000 acres

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus about 32,000 acres about 204,000 acres

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Outside Distinct Population Segment Boundary

Mammals BKMC NGs KRB NGs

Pale Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii 

(pallescens) 0

about 3,000 acres

Black-tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys ludovicianus 0 about 51,000 acres

Sandhills White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus texana 0 about5,000 acres

Reptiles BKMC NGs KRB NGs

Arid land Ribbon Snake Thamnophis proximus diabolicus 0 about 3,000 acres

Plants BKMC NGs KRB NGs

Greene Milkweed Asclepias uncialis ssp. uncialis 0 about 3,000 acres

One-Flowered Milkvetch Astragalus wittmannii 0 about 3,000 acres

Spellingberg’s Groundsel Packera spellenbergii (=Senecio s.) 0 about 3,000 acres
May 2011 45

Acreage is given for all Grasslands‘ sensitive species. The viability assessment, described below 

and in the Wildlife section Introduction determined that some Grasslands‘ sensitive species are 

not at-risk, thus there are no differences in consequences among alternatives and analysis was 

stopped for those species.

All Grassland Sensitive Species were included in the species viability assessment. The viability 

determination process is described in the Species Viability Section. Those species that were 

determined to have habitat or population viability issues that Grasslands management could affect 

are considered to be high at-risk and are discussed in that section. The Grasslands Sensitive 

Species deemed to be high at-risk and carried forward for further analysis are the plains leopard 

frog on KRB NGs, and LPC, BTPD, and Mountain Plover. Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences for these species follow in the Species Viability section as well.

All other sensitive species are considered to be secure with regard to habitat and population

viability and conserved by coarse filter plan components (i.e., desired conditions).

Viability at-risk Species

The viability of all species analyzed was provided by coarse-filter ecosystem components except 

for the species listed in Table 8. Based on the viability assessment process described in the 

introduction to the Wildlife and Habitat section in this chapter, the wildlife and fish species 

discussed hereafter, are species requiring additional plan protections to ensure viability.

The following table is a summary of the vegetation/habitat types and suitable habitat acreage for 

these species.

Table 10 Grasslands Habitat/Species Associations, Viability Risk, Reasons for 

Consideration, and Suitable Acres of Habitat

Common Name Ranger

District

Viability 

Overall 

Risk

Reason for Consideration* 2008 Total or 

Range of 

Suitable Habitat 

Acreage and % 

of Area

Viability 

Listing 

Source

Forest 

Sensitive 

List

MIS or AtRisk 

Species

Mixed-grass Prairie Total Acres 11,300

Lesser Prairie-chicken BKMC High B, C, J, O K N

9,940−10,620

88−94%

Shinnery Oak Total Acres 18,900

Lesser Prairie-chicken BKMC High B, C, J, O K N

16,630−17,770

88−94%

Shortgrass Prairie Total Acres 181,900

Black-tailed Prairie Dog KRB High C, I K N

50,930

About 28%

Mountain Plover KRB High A, B, C, O K N

50,930

About 28%

Swift Fox KRB High G N

181,900

100%

Playa Inclusion Total Acres 1,820−5,460

Plains Leopard Frog KRB High B K N 1,820−5,460
May 2011 46

Common Name Ranger

District

Viability 

Overall 

Risk

Reason for Consideration* 2008 Total or 

Range of 

Suitable Habitat 

Acreage and % 

of Area

Viability 

Listing 

Source

Forest 

Sensitive 

List

MIS or AtRisk 

Species

100%

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Total Acres 1,370 

Plains Leopard Frog KRB High B K N

1,370

100%

Sand Sagebrush Total Acres 22,650

Lesser Prairie-chicken KRB High B, J, O K N

22,650

100%

Black-tailed Prairie Dog KRB High I K N

230−2,300

1−10%

Canyon Lowlands and Canadian River Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Total Acres 1,500

Plains Leopard Frog KRB High B K N

1,500

100%

*A = NM CWCS, B = TX CWCS, C = OK CWCS, G = Nature Serve N, I = Nature Serve State

(NM), J = USFWS Candidate, K = Regional Forester‘s Grasslands Sensitive Species List, N = 

Viability High at-Risk Species, O = National Bird of Conservation Concern.

Affected Environment

The current condition of vegetation on the Grasslands has been determined to be within low 

departure from reference condition for vegetation structure, and this state generally provides 

secure requisite habitat conditions for associated species. Based on this premise, ―coarse filter‖ 

plan components in Alternatives B and C are anticipated to conserve wildlife, fish, and plant 

species with stable populations on the Grasslands. All of these species are considered viable, and 

there would be no trend towards future listing under any of the action alternatives. The species for 

which additional plan components were required to assure viability are discussed below.

Lesser Prairie-chicken on Mixed-grass Prairie

The Lesser Prairie-chicken, a Federal candidate, a viability high at-risk species, a Grasslands 

Sensitive Species and a National Bird of Conservation Concern is a species associated with 

mixed-grass prairie. For a more complete description of the mixed-grass prairie vegetation type, 

see the vegetation section of this chapter. In 2011, no breeding populations of LPC occurred in 

the mixed-grass prairie on the BKMC NG, but they are known to occur nearby on private land. 

Habitat for the LPC is provided by the diverse structure and composition features of mixed-grass 

prairie. Tree encroachment on mixed-grass prairie has degraded the habitat for LPC by providing 

perches for predators such as hawks that prey on LPCs. In addition, utility transmission poles 

provide predator perches as well. Total acres of suitable habitat for LPC is not the total area of 

mixed-grass prairie due to avoidance behavior of the birds from trees and other tall structures. 

About 88−94% (9,940−10,620 acres) of the mixed-grass prairie is suitable habitat for the LPC.

Lesser Prairie-chicken on Shinnery Oak

In 2011 no LPC breeding populations occurred in shinnery oak habitat on the BKMC NGs but 

they are known to occur nearby on private land. For a more complete description of the shinnery 
May 2011 47

oak vegetation type, see the vegetation section of this chapter. LPC habitat is provided by the 

diverse structure and composition features of shinnery oak shrubland. Tree encroachment on 

shinnery oak vegetation has degraded LPC habitat by providing perches for predators such as 

hawks that prey on LPCs. In addition, utility transmission poles provide predator perches as well. 

Total acres of suitable LPC habitat is not the total area of shinnery oak due to avoidance behavior 

of the birds from trees and other tall structures. About 88−94% (16,630−17,770 acres) of the 

shinnery oak is suitable habitat.

Lesser Prairie-chicken and Black-tailed Prairie Dog on Sand Sagebrush

The Lesser Prairie-chicken is often found in habitat with the diverse structure and composition 

features of sand sagebrush. For a more complete description of the sand sagebrush vegetation 

type, see the vegetation section of this chapter. Currently, no LPC breeding population occurs in 

sand sagebrush on the KRB NGs, but the bird is believed to once have occurred in this habitat on 

the KRB NGs. Tall structures such as utility transmission poles degrade LPC habitat by providing 

perches for predators such as hawks that prey on LPCs. Sand sagebrush vegetation type has areas 

that were historically heavily plowed with species structure and composition altered to low 

vegetation. The BTPD colonizes areas with low, early successional stage vegetation. Some of the 

plowed areas have potential for BTPD colonization, and one area is currently occupied. Areal 

extent of early successional stage sand sagebrush on the KRB is in flux. Changes due to BTPD 

activity, plague within BTPD colonies, recreational shooting of BTPDs, and predation influence 

this vegetation.

As of 2008 there was about 22,650 acres of suitable habitat for LPC in sand sagebrush on the 

KRB, and about 1−10% (230−2,300) is suitable for BTPD.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog on Shortgrass Prairie

The BTPD is a viability high at-risk species on the shortgrass prairie, where it maintains or

utilizes early successional, low structure vegetation features. Historically, BTPD colonies 

occupied about 20% of the Great Plains prairie. BTPD habitat exists on the KRB NGs in the form 

of suitable habitat (colonized or highly likely to support BTPD colonies) or potential habitat that 

could support BTPD colonies. Early successional stage, low structure vegetation features of 

shortgrass prairie are endemic to BTPD colonies. These colonies provide complementary habitat 

for Mountain Plover, and swift fox, species with viability high at-risk concerns. In 2010, there 

were 2,731 acres of occupied BTPD colonies on the KRB NGs. Over the last 12 years, occupied 

area has ranged from a low of about 1,550 acres in 1999 to around 7,100 acres in 2003. Of the 

181,900 acres of shortgrass prairie, roughly 28% (50,930 acres) is suitable habitat for BTPD (see 

Appendix A in USFS Cibola National Forest 2011d).

Mountain Plover on Shortgrass Prairie

Mountain Plover is a viability high at-risk species on shortgrass prairie, where it occupies and 

uses early successional, low structure vegetation features often associated with BTPD colonies, 

disturbed areas around windmills and water tanks, and barren playas. There is a strong association 

with BTPDs and other burrowing mammals throughout its range which create and maintain a 

mosaic of vegetation and bare ground to which Mountain Plovers have became adapted. The 

suitable habitat for Mountain Plover is the same as BTPD.

The swift fox on Shortgrass Prairie
May 2011 48

Swift fox is a viability high at-risk species on shortgrass prairie, where they occupy early 

successional, low structure vegetation features, endemic to BTPD colonies. The suitable habitat 

for swift fox is basically all 181,900 acres of the shortgrass prairie and inclusions due to the fox 

being a predator that uses the entire landscape.

The plains leopard frog on Playa Lakes

Plains leopard frog is a species assessed to have high viability risks, occurs in playa lakes, 

seasonal depressional wetlands, streams, ponds, irrigation ditches, pools in rocky canyons, and 

rivers on the KRB NGs. Total acres of suitable habitat for plains leopard frog is within a range of 

1,820−5,460 acres due to the ephemeral nature of seasonal wetlands.

Environmental Consequences

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act requires for discussion of impacts in 

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of vegetation types, and the 5 wildlife species determined to be high at-risk in the 

plan area. This discussion of environmental consequences is intended to be useful to the decision 

maker and the public. Additional information is in the Vegetation and Wildlife Specialist Report

(USDA Forest Service 2011d).

The species assessed to have viability high at-risk concerns in the coarse-and fine-filter analysis 

were further analyzed for threats, and plan components were developed in Alternatives B and C to 

provide for species viability. The plan components relevant for each high at-risk species are 

presented and precede the environmental consequences.

Lesser Prairie-chicken on Mixed-grass Prairie, Shinnery Oak, and Sand Sagebrush Plan 

Components

Threats are:

habitat degradation and fragmentation

predation

invasive species

Table 11 Alternatives B and C Plan components that address the threats to the Lesser 

Prairie-chicken

LPC Desired Condition Objectives Guidelines

Mixed-grass Prairie The mixed-grass prairie species 

composition provides vegetation 

structure and height relationships 

necessary for ground nesting bird cover 

and brood rearing habitat. Small areas of 

short structured herbaceous vegetation 

or patches of bare ground are available 

for LPC leks and courtship areas. Small 

areas or patches of bare ground are 

present that provide wildlife travel 

corridors, escape routes, and annual 

plant germination sites for wildlife 

foraging habitat.

Mechanically or with 

prescribed fire, remove 

all undesirable trees on 

the mixed-grass prairie 

over the next 15 years 

after plan approval.

Within 10 years of plan 

approval, mark 25% to 

50% of fences in suitable 

LPC habitat to minimize 

collisions of the bird with 

fences.

Trees in upland 

settings within 

landscapes suitable for 

LPC habitat should be 

targeted for 

eradication to reduce 

perches for raptors, 

predators of the LPC.
May 2011 49

LPC Desired Condition Objectives Guidelines

Shrub species component is typically no 

less than 5% or more than 25% of the 

total mixed-grass ground cover. Species 

composition includes fragrant mimosa, 

skunkbush sumac, smooth sumac, and 

inland New Jersey tea, all contributing to 

retaining or improving foraging and 

escape habitat for LPC.

Over the next 15 years 

after plan approval, 

retain shrubby cover 

across the landscape in 

patches that are no less 

than 5% or more than 

25% of the total mixedgrass area.

Shinnery oak Shinnery oak vegetation type 

composition provides vegetation 

structure and height relationships 

necessary for ground-nesting bird cover 

and brood-rearing habitat for the LPC. 

Small areas of short structured 

herbaceous vegetation or patches of 

bare ground are available for LPC leks 

and courtship areas; these areas also 

provide wildlife travel corridors, escape 

routes and annual plant germination 

sites for wildlife foraging habitat. Trees 

are nonexistent and collision risks from 

fences, etc., are minimal in areas 

important for recovery of LPC.

Mechanically or 

chemically, remove 80-

100% of undesirable 

trees in shinnery oak 

areas within 15 years of 

plan approval.

Within 10 years of plan 

approval, mark 25% to 

50% of fences in suitable 

LPC habitat to minimize 

collisions of the bird with 

fences.

Trees in upland 

settings within 

landscapes suitable for 

LPC habitat should be 

targeted for 

eradication to reduce 

perches for raptors, 

predators of the LPC.

Sand sagebrush The sand sagebrush species composition 

provides vegetation structure and height 

relationships necessary for groundnesting bird cover and brood-rearing 

habitat. Small areas of short-structured 

herbaceous vegetation or patches of 

bare ground are present for LPC leks and 

courtship areas. These patches also 

provide wildlife travel corridors, escape 

routes, and annual plant germination 

sites for wildlife foraging habitat.

Within 10 years of plan 

approval, mark 25% to 

50% of fences in suitable 

LPC habitat to minimize 

collisions of the bird with 

fences.

Lesser Prairie-chicken Environmental Consequences

Alternatives B and C. There are many plan components developed in alternatives B and C 

designed specifically to address the threats mentioned above. In general, the implementation of 

plan components related to the improvement of watershed conditions, minerals-energy 

development, recreation, wildlife habitat improvement and grazing management should result in 

positive effects to the LPC by directly improving habitat suitability and improving the overall 

health and diversity of ecological conditions across the landscape. Furthermore, plan components 

addressing resource damage caused by roads and recreational activities, such as OHV, were also 

considered in the threats analysis. Implementation would likely result in improved habitat 

conditions, minimize the likelihood of take, support the recovery of the LPC, and would

minimize the likelihood or magnitude of direct and indirect adverse effects, with many plan 

components developed specifically to improve habitat for LPC. Therefore, under Alternatives B 

and C, there would be no loss of viability or trend towards future listing.
May 2011 50

Lesser Prairie-chicken on Mixed-grass Prairie Environmental Consequences

The following table provides a comparison, by alternative, acreage of LPC habitat in the specific 

vegetation type.

Table 12 Anticipated Acreage of LPC Habitat in Mixed-grass Prairie Type by Alternative 

over the life of the Plan

Species MA Current Acreage

Total Suitable Acres by Alternative

A B & C

Lesser Prairie-chicken BKMC 9,940−10,620

(88−94%)

7,910−9,940

(70−88%)

10,170−10,850

(90−96%)

Alternative A. Native and nonnative invasive tree encroachment on mixed-grass prairie would 

degrade potential and suitable habitat for LPC due to avoidance behavior by the bird to habitat 

with tall vertical structures such as trees. Trees provide perches for raptors, predators of the LPC. 

Implementation of Alternative A would result in greater viability risks to the LPC and may result 

in Federal listing.

Alternative B and C. Implementation would achieve the following outcomes. Desired vegetation 

structure and species composition of the mixed-grass prairie across the landscape would enhance 

habitat by reducing the presence of undesirable invasive trees. The enhanced vegetation structure 

and species composition of mixed-grass prairie would transition potential LPC habitat to suitable 

habitat. Removal of undesirable trees on the mixed-grass prairie on the Grasslands could result in 

less perching and nesting habitat for raptors that prey on the LPC.

The mixed-grass species composition would increase vegetation structure and height relationships 

necessary for ground nesting bird cover and brood rearing habitat. Small areas of short structured 

herbaceous vegetation or patches of bare ground would increase for LPC leks and courtship areas. 

Small areas or patches of bare ground would become more available that provide wildlife travel 

corridors, escape routes, and annual plant germination sites for wildlife foraging habitat.

Management would aim for a shrub species component no less than 5% or more than 25% of the 

total mixed-grass ground cover. This would move the mixed-grass prairie toward desired 

vegetation structure and species composition. An additional benefit would be the retention or 

improvement of foraging and escape habitat for LPC.

LPC mortality caused by collision with fences would be reduced as a result of marking fences 

with visible plastic tabs in suitable mixed-grass prairie habitat.

Lesser Prairie-chicken on Shinnery Oak Environmental Consequences

The following table provides a comparison, by alternative, of acreage of LPC habitat in the 

specific vegetation type.

Table 13 Anticipated Acreage of LPC Habitat in Shinnery Oak Type by Alternative over the 

life of the Plan
May 2011 51

Species MA Current Acreage

Total Suitable Acres by Alternative

A B & C

Lesser Prairie-chicken BKMC 16,630−17,770

(88−94%)

13,320−16,630

(70−88%)

17,010−18,140

(90−96%)

Alternative A. Mast (acorns) for LPC would be reduced due to reduction of shinnery oak acreage. 

Undesirable trees would degrade potential and suitable LPC habitat for the same reasons as 

mentioned in the mixed-grass prairie consequences. Implementation would result in greater 

viability risks to the LPC and may result in Federal listing.

Alternatives B and C. Undesirable tree removal would result in transition of potential habitat to 

suitable habitat and would provide a diversity of structural vegetative stages for LPC. Desired 

vegetation structure and species composition would improve ground-nesting bird cover and LPC 

brood-rearing habitat and would provide wildlife travel corridors and escape routes within the 

shrub cover. Small areas of short herbaceous vegetation or patches of bare ground would be 

available for LPC leks and courtship areas. Risks from collision with fences equipped with high 

visibility vinyl markers, etc., would be minimal in areas important for LPC recovery.

Lesser Prairie-chicken and Black-tailed Prairie Dog on Sand Sagebrush Environmental 

Consequences

The following table provides a comparison, by alternative, of acreage of LPC and BTPD habitat 

in the specific vegetation type.

Table 14 Anticipated Acreage of LPC and BTPD Habitat in Sand Sagebrush by Alternative 

over the life of the Plan

Species MA Current Acreage

Total Suitable Acres by Alternative

A B & C

Lesser Prairie-chicken KRB 22,650

(100%)

≤ 22,650

(≤ 100%)

22,650

(100%)

Black-tailed Prairie Dog KRB 230−2,300

1−10% 230−2,300 or (1−10%) < 230−2,300 or(< 1−10%)

Common to all alternatives. Implementation would provide a diversity of structural vegetative 

stages for ground nesting birds. Implementation of Any of the Alternatives would result in no loss 

of viability or trend towards future listing of LPC.

Alternative A. Due to no defined targets for long-term maintenance of vegetative structure and 

species composition, this alternative would present various outcomes. A trend of higher shrub and 

tall vegetation component percentages would limit or curtail BTPD expansion. Conversely, 

conditions that expand early successional stage vegetation development or the reduction of shrub 

component percent of total vegetation would produce more potential or suitable BTPD habitat, 

thus the comparison by alternatives above would produce uncertain outcomes and presents 

unpredictable consequences.
May 2011 52

Alternatives B and C. Management direction would move toward desired vegetation structure and 

species composition, accomplished through well-defined targets for this vegetation type. The 

outcome would be of benefit to habitat for wildlife native to this vegetation type. A diversity of 

structural vegetative stages for the LPC would be produced, including leks and courtship areas, 

and would result in more development of corridors and escape routes for general wildlife native 

to this vegetation type, benefitting numerous species. Conversely, the achievement of desired 

vegetation structure and species composition would tend to limit or curtail BTPD expansion; thus, 

the comparison by alternatives above would produce uncertain outcomes and presents 

unpredictable consequences.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog, Mountain Plover, and Swift Fox on Shortgrass Prairie Plan 

Components

Threats to the BTPD also impact habitat for the plover and fox.

Threats identified are:

recreational shooting

habitat degradation and fragmentation

disease

predation

Plan components in Alternatives B and C, developed to address the threats to BTPD, Mountain 

Plover, and swift fox are:

Desired Conditions

Low structured vegetation representative of the early successional stage of shortgrass 

prairie is available for BTPD, a keystone8species, to colonize. The colonies provide 

habitat for swift fox and Mountain Plover.

Habitat for at least one BTPD complex (a group or cluster of colonies) is available for 

potential future reintroduction to recover the endangered black-footed ferret, a predator 

dependent on the BTPD; impacts from plague outbreaks to BTPDs and potential 

reintroduced black-footed ferrets are minimal.

Objectives

Swift fox: Provide 2 to 4 arrays (groups of six structures spaced no more than 550 yards 

apart) of artificial escape structures per 640 acres to improve escape cover for swift fox. 

Structures will be placed in suitable shortgrass prairie habitat with loamy soils on slopes 

less than 3 percent and along ridgetops, knolls or the tops of rolling hills within 15 years 

after plan approval.

Guidelines

Swift fox: Improving habitat and maintaining corridors for swift fox should be 

accomplished through timely burning, mowing, livestock grazing, and seeding.

 

8 A keystone species has a large overall effect on community or ecosystem structure or function, and this 

effect is disproportionately large relative to its abundance (Power et al. 1996).
May 2011 53

Black-tailed Prairie Dog, Mountain Plover, and Swift Fox on Shortgrass Prairie 

Environmental Consequences

These 3 species are considered together, as the BTPD is a keystone species. The following table 

provides a comparison, by alternative, of acreage of BTPD, Mountain Plover, and Swift Fox 

habitat in the specific vegetation type.

Table 15 Anticipated Acreage of BTPD, Mountain Plover, and Swift Fox Habitat in 

Shortgrass Prairie and Inclusion by Alternative over the life of the Plan

Species MA Current Acreage

Total Suitable Acres by Alternative

A B & C

Black-tailed Prairie Dog KRB 50,930

(28%)

54,570−58,210

(30−32%)

54,570−58,210

(30−32%)

Mountain Plover KRB 50,930

(28%)

54,570−58,210

(30−32%)

54,570−58,210

(30−32%)

Swift Fox

KRB 181,900

(100%)

181,900

(100%)

181,900

(100%)

Common to all alternatives. The expansion of BTPD colonies would result in increased areal 

extent of early successional stage shortgrass prairie, thus increasing nesting/foraging areas for 

Mountain Plover and an increased prey base to support swift fox.

Implementation of any Alternative would impact the species listed in the table above, but would 

not result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Alternative B and C. Targets for desired vegetation structure and species composition would 

result in further expansion of BTPD areal extent, thus improving foraging habitat for swift fox as 

a result of expansion of the prey base. A further consequence would be the protection and 

improvement of nesting/foraging areas for Mountain Plover. Viability of swift fox would be 

improved by providing escape structures.

Plains Leopard Frog on Shortgrass Prairie Playa Inclusions, Cottonwood-Willow Riparian 

(excluding the Canadian River) and Canyon lowlands, Cottonwood-Willow Riparian on 

Canadian River Wildlife and Habitat Plan Components

The threat to plains leopard frog is habitat degradation.

Plan components developed in Alternatives B and C to address the threat is:

Desired Conditions

The cottonwood and willow riparian areas provide habitat for a diverse mix of native 

grasses and forbs adapted to abrupt fluctuations in moisture regimes. This habitat occurs 

in the herbaceous portion of riparian areas. The meander scars and depressions in the 

riparian areas that retain water part or all year provide habitat for plains leopard frog.
May 2011 54

The integrity of the clay seals of playas is maintained and free from human influence. 

Playas altered through the construction of dug-out pits are restored to their natural 

hydrologic function.

Objectives

Hydrologic functions are restored on 100% of altered and pitted playa lakes to better 

support their inherent ecological qualities and provide for wildlife habitat within 15 

years of plan approval.

Restore a minimum of 50% of the seasonal depressional wetlands that exhibit soil 

compaction and erosion within 10 years of plan approval.

Guidelines

Activities should be restricted from playa lakes that would adversely impact the waterholding ability or capacity, and natural hydrologic function should be restored to those 

that have been altered.

Plains Leopard Frog on all Habitats Environmental Consequences

The following table provides a comparison, by alternative, of acreage of plains leopard frog 

habitat in the specific vegetation type.

Table 16 Anticipated Acreage of Plains Leopard Frog Habitat by Alternative over the life of 

the Plan

Species MA Current Acreage

Total Suitable Acres by Alternative

A B & C

Playa Inclusion in Shortgrass Prairie

Plaines Leopard Frog KRB 1,820−5,460

(100%)

1,820−5,460

(100%)

1,820−5,460

(100%)

Cottonwood-Willow Riparian excluding Canadian River

Plains Leopard Frog KRB 1,370

(100%)

1,370

(100%)

1,370

(100%)

Canyon lowlands, Cottonwood-Willow Riparian on Canadian River 

Plains Leopard Frog KRB 1,500

(100%)

≤ 1,500

(≤ 100%)

1,500

(100%)

Common to all alternatives. All alternatives would result in some diversity of vegetative 

structural stages and composition, thereby providing some habitat necessary for plains leopard 

frog. Improved habitat in and around the playa inclusions would result from restoration of altered

playa basins, thereby allowing longer presence and larger areal extent of surface water for plains 

leopard frog.. Implementation of any Alternative, may impact the plains leopard frog, but would 

not result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Alternative A on Cottonwood-Willow riparian in all areas. Implementation would have no 

defined targets for long term maintenance of riparian species composition or structure. The 

consequence of no defined targets of early, mid, and late seral stage development would tend to 

have either no affect or degrade the diverse habitat of the riparian community for the habitat of 

plains leopard frog.
May 2011 55

Alternative B and C. Implementation would achieve a defined structure and composition outcome 

for the cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation in all areas, with additional focus on early seral 

stage habitat development including presence of snags and woody debris in the stream beds and 

in the riparian area benefiting plains leopard frog.

Alternative C. Same as Alternative B except Wilderness designation would delay achievement of

desired vegetation structure and species composition outcomes because of limitations on use of 

motorized management tools, thereby delaying benefits to plains leopard frog.

Migratory Birds

Section 3 (e) of Executive Order (EO) 13186 requires that Federal agencies design migratory bird 

habitat and population conservation principles into agency plans and planning processes, and 

coordinate with other agencies and nonfederal partners in planning efforts.

The viability analysis process described in the Species Viability section included consideration of 

the US Fish & Wildlife Service National Birds of Conservation Concern (NBCC) in accordance 

with the International Migratory Bird Act. The appropriate Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) 

identify NBCC species that either migrate through or breed in the planning area. Ecosystem 

components (including vegetation type and structure, and water availability,) were evaluated for 

sustainability and were primary factors used to determine a species‘ viability. All species were 

evaluated in the coarse filter/fine filter evaluations, and viability risks were determined from 

availability and condition of individual species‘ habitat, population evaluation, and effects from

Grasslands management actions.

Affected Environment

The Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) defined by USFWS that are applicable to the Grasslands 

are listed in the table below.

Table 17 National Birds of Conservation Concern associated with Grasslands Habitat

BCR 18 (Shortgrass Prairie) Kiowa and Rita Blanca 

Management Area

BCR 19 (Central Mixed-Grass Prairie) Black Kettle 

McClellan Creek Management Area

Common Name Common Name

Lesser Prairie-chicken (a) Lesser Prairie-chicken (a)

Bald Eagle (b) Little Blue Heron

Golden Eagle Mississippi Kite

Prairie Falcon Bald Eagle (b)

Snowy Plover (c) Swainson’s Hawk

Mountain Plover Black Rail

Upland Sandpiper Snowy Plover (c)

Long-billed Curlew Mountain Plover (nb)

Burrowing Owl Solitary Sandpiper (nb)

Lewis's Woodpecker Upland Sandpiper

Willow Flycatcher (c) Long-billed Curlew

Bell's Vireo (c) Hudsonian Godwit (nb)

Sprague's Pipit (nb) Marbled Godwit (nb)

Lark Bunting Buff-breasted Sandpiper (nb)

McCown's Longspur Short-billed Dowitcher (nb)

Chestnut-collared Longspur Red-headed Woodpecker
May 2011 56

BCR 18 (Shortgrass Prairie) Kiowa and Rita Blanca 

Management Area

BCR 19 (Central Mixed-Grass Prairie) Black Kettle 

McClellan Creek Management Area

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher

Loggerhead Shrike

Bell's Vireo (c)

Sprague's Pipit (nb)

Cassin's Sparrow

Lark Bunting

Henslow's Sparrow

Harris' Sparrow (nb)

McCown's Longspur (nb)

Smith's Longspur (nb)

Chestnut-collared Longspur (nb)

(a) ESA candidate, (b) ESA delisted, (c) non-listed subspecies or population of Threatened or 

Endangered species, (d) MBTA protection uncertain or lacking, (nb) non-breeding in this BCR

Individual Migratory bird species (and overwintering habitats) are not addressed directly in the 

plan alternatives, given the strategic nature of plan revision, but many are included as species 

considered in risk assessment. Most species habitats would be accommodated indirectly through 

vegetation treatments that target vegetation structure and species composition.

The NBCC species (Lesser Prairie-chicken and Mountain Plover) that were determined to have 

habitat or population issues that Grasslands management could affect were brought forward for 

further analysis in the Species Viability determination process. Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences for these species are addressed in the Species Viability section.

Environmental Consequences to Migratory Birds

Alternative A. This alternative does not have direction for desired vegetation structure and species 

composition, whereas Alternatives B and C do. Implication is that better quality habitat for 

migrants would be afforded by Alternatives B and C.

Alternatives B and C. These alternatives have plan components for grassland restoration in 

vegetation and habitat associated with species that have viability high at-risk concerns. The 

following table lists the NBCC specific to the BCR that overlays the Grasslands MA and 

vegetation type.

Table 18 National Birds of Conservation Concern with Viability High At-risk associated 

with Grasslands Habitat

Common Name Species and Habitat Needs

BCR 18 (Shortgrass Prairie) Kiowa and Rita Blanca MA and BCR 19 (Central Mixed-Grass Prairie) Black Kettle McClellan 

Creek MA

Lesser Prairie-chicken (a) Plan components described in the Wildlife Threatened and 

Endangered Section and the Species Viability Section address LPC 

habitat needs.

Mountain Plover Plan components described in the Species Viability Section for BTPD

address the habitat needs for Mountain Plover.

(a) ESA candidate
May 2011 57

The Grasslands have coordinated with other agencies and NGOs that manage and/or regulate 

migratory birds and habitat. The Audubon Society have designated two Audubon Important Bird 

Areas (IBA), Sauz Creek and Perico Creek on the KRB MA. Playa Lakes Joint Venture, a NonGovernmental Organization (NGO), was involved in stakeholders scoping meetings as well. 

Section line surveys conducted by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory provide long-term trend 

population data. The USFWS administers Breeding Bird Surveys and there are 4 in place on the 

Kiowa NG which provide population trend data.

Alternatives B and C. From analysis of breeding bird survey data and viability analysis, fine filter 

plan component objectives and guidelines were developed for the LPC and Mountain Plover.

Eagles

Under the Authorities of 50 CFR Part 22, the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle are protected by the 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). 

The MBTA and the Eagle Act protect Bald and Golden Eagles from a variety of harmful actions 

and impacts. The USFWS developed National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines to advise land 

managers under what circumstances the protective provisions of the Eagle Act may apply to their 

activities. A variety of human activities can potentially interfere with eagles, affecting their ability 

to forage, nest, roost, breed, or raise young. The Guidelines are intended to help minimize such 

impacts to Bald Eagles, particularly where they may constitute ―disturbance,‖ which is prohibited 

by the Eagle Act.

The Eagle Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), enacted in 1940, as amended prohibits anyone, without a 

permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from ―taking‖ Bald Eagles, including their parts, 

nests, or eggs.

The Act provides criminal and civil penalties for persons who ―take, possess, sell, purchase, 

barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any 

bald eagle... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof.‖

The Act defines ―take‖ as ―pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, 

molest or disturb.‖ "Disturb means to agitate or bother a Bald or Golden Eagle to a degree that 

causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available:

injury to an eagle

a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, 

or sheltering behavior, or

nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering behavior."

In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from humaninduced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not 

present, if upon the eagle‘s return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that 

injures an eagle or substantially interferes with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits and 

causes, or is likely to cause, a loss of productivity or nest abandonment.

Affected Environment

Bald Eagles are not known to occur on the KRB NGs, but a nest is located adjacent to a Rita 

Blanca unit. Typical habitat includes large trees, on cliffs, or pinnacles, usually near rivers, 
May 2011 58

streams, or lakes. The Bald Eagle is known to inhabit Lake McClellan and Lake Marvin in Texas 

on the BKMC NGs in winter roost and foraging areas. In winter, they use dominant trees that 

provide a good view of the surroundings and are close to a food source such as fish and carrion.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A. This alternative would have plan components addressing consultation, protection, 

and monitoring of Bald Eagle roosting and foraging habitat. The Bald Eagle is no longer listed 

under the Endangered Species Act. The protection and monitoring components are carried 

forward in like fashion under Alternatives B and C or are specified by law under the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act.

Alternatives B and C. These alternatives have plan components that minimize ―take‖ in the 

following table.

Table 19 Alternatives B and C Plan Components that Minimize Take

There would be no programmatic take of Eagles under any of the Alternatives.

Management Indicator Species

Summary

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations require that "Fish and wildlife habitat 

shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative 

vertebrate and invertebrate species in the planning area. The 2000 planning rule adopting the 

1982 planning rule provisions to implement the NFMA requires that Management Indicator 

Species (MIS) be identified as part of the forest plan. MIS serve multiple functions in forest 

planning: focusing management direction developed in the alternatives, providing a means to 

analyze effects among alternative on biological diversity, and serving as a reliable feedback 

Alternatives B and C Plan Components that Minimize Eagle Take

Resource Area Plan Component

Minerals and Energy 

Development-Oil and Gas 

Leasing Standards

The timing limitation for Bald Eagle within 0.25 mile of known roosting sites is in effect 

from November 1 to March 31.

Mixed Hardwood Riparian Mature hardwoods, shrubby understory or early successional growth, and woody debris 

as well as diverse riparian herbaceous vegetation on the margins of lakes or along stream 

sides are present to provide winter roosts for Bald Eagle.

Mixed Hardwood Riparian Bald Eagle roosts should be protected by retaining, developing, or preserving mature 

trees and old growth cottonwood stands, particularly within 1⁄2 mile from lakes.

Cottonwood-Willow

Riparian

Populations of native woody species (particularly the long-term presence of mature 

cottonwood stands and areas with regenerating cottonwood and willow saplings) provide 

habitat for wildlife species such as Bald Eagle. 

Cottonwood-Willow

Riparian

Bald Eagle roosts and nest sites should be protected by retaining, developing, or 

preserving mature trees and old-growth cottonwood stands, particularly within 1⁄2 mile of 

water.

Canyon Lowlands and 

Canadian River Riparian

Populations of native woody species, particularly the long-term presence of mature 

cottonwood stands and areas with regenerating cottonwood and willow saplings, provide 

habitat for wildlife species such as the Bald Eagle.
May 2011 59

mechanism during forest plan implementation. The latter is accomplished by monitoring 

population trends in relationship to habitat changes (1982 rule provision 219.19 (a) (6)).

Management Indicator Species is a concept adopted by the agency to serve, in part, as a 

barometer for species viability at the Grasslands level. The role of MIS in meeting viability 

mandates complements that of several other approaches, particularly management of sensitive 

species.

The NFMA regulations suggest that several categories be considered when selecting MIS. The 

categories listed under 1982 rule provision 219.19 (a) (1) are:

Endangered and threatened plant and animal species identified on State and Federal lists

Species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped

Non-game species of special interest

Species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned 

management programs

As a starting point, a comprehensive list of species (including plant, macro-lichen, bird, insect, 

and animal species) that are found in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma was developed from 

multiple sources. The list of potential MIS considered plants and animals, and common species in 

the ecological community of interest were emphasized. The following set of criteria was used in 

the selection process.

Federally and state listed endangered and threatened plant and animal species that occur 

in the planning area.

Species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned 

management activities. Keystone species and ecological engineers (e.g., BTPD) could be 

included for consideration in this category.

Species that are commonly hunted, fished, or trapped and occur in habitats likely to be 

influenced by planned management activities.

Non-game species of special interest and occur in habitats likely to be influenced by 

planned management activities.

Plant or animal species whose population changes are believed to indicate the effects of 

management activities on other species of selected major biological communities or on 

water quality. Select ecological indicators only if scientific evidence exists confirming 

that measurable changes in these species would indicate trends in the abundance of other 

species or the conditions of biological communities they are expected to represent (FSM 

2621.1).

Research for each species life history and population information was gleaned from scientific 

references; Grasslands biologists; Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico wildlife agency biologists;

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists.

The list was modified through review, correspondence, and/or personal contact with teams 

developed for each respective State. The teams identified the constant biologic relationships 

between the species and characteristics of the habitat features within the vegetation type. These 

relationships were identified by one or more factors including nesting requirements, breeding 

habitat, food, and cover requirements or other biologic relationships. From the resulting list, the 

teams considered the selection of which species best represented the desired condition for the 
May 2011 60

vegetation type that best meets all the above criteria. The following table presents the discussion 

and conclusion, representing the selected MIS.

Table 20 Summary of Team MIS Discussion

Summary of Management Indicator Species Team Discussion

Scientific Name Common Name Vegetation Type Discussion and Conclusion

Sialia currucoides Mountain Bluebird Pinyon-Juniper Selected as Grassland Plan MIS for Pinyon-Juniper Woodland. 

The Mountain bluebird is a cavity nester that is indicative of all 

seral stages of pinyon-juniper. It is easy to detect and is 

present on existing Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) routes on the 

Kiowa NG.

Athene cunicularia 

hypugaea

Burrowing Owl Shortgrass Prairie Selected as Grassland Plan MIS for shortgrass prairie. The 

burrowing owl represents the presence, distribution, and size 

of BTPD colonies. Good data is available for the KRB NGs from 

New Mexico State University and New Mexico Department of 

Game and Fish (NMDGF). It is easy to detect.

Meleagris 

gallopavo 

intermedia

Rio Grande Turkey Mixed Hardwood Riparian The Rio Grande Turkey was retained as MIS. In the 1985 Forest 

Plan, the turkey is MIS for Eastern Riparian habitat. Rio Grande 

turkey habitat is well represented by abundant roosting trees 

and areas available for foraging and nesting in the understory 

of the mixed hardwood riparian habitat type. It is easy to 

detect.

The three MIS selected for this DEIS analysis were Rio Grande Turkey in mixed hardwood 

riparian, Burrowing Owl on early successional stages of shortgrass prairie, and Mountain 

Bluebird on all successional stages of pinyon-juniper.

Affected Environment

Rio Grande Turkey−See Vegetation Section, Mixed Hardwood Riparian for Affected Environment 

description: Rio Grande Turkey, MIS for mixed hardwood riparian and an important game 

species, utilizes all structural stages for roosting, brood rearing, foraging, and escape cover, and is 

common in this vegetation type. As of 2008, the total acres of suitable habitat for Rio Grande 

Turkey is the total area of mixed hardwood riparian vegetation, about 1,950 acres.

Burrowing Owl−See Vegetation Section, Shortgrass Prairie and Inclusions for Affected 

Environment Description: Optimum habitat is typified by shortgrass vegetation and presence of 

fresh, small-mammal burrows, especially those of prairie dogs. It is found in open grasslands, 

sometimes in open areas such as vacant lots near human habitation (e.g., campuses, airports, golf 

courses, perimeter of agricultural fields, banks of irrigation canals). Threats to burrowing owls 

include habitat loss, indirect losses due to decline of prairie dogs, and direct losses to predators, 

toxins, and incidental shooting. Because of their strong dependence on active prairie dog colonies 

for breeding habitat, long term persistence of well-connected, large, active prairie dog colonies is 

critical to the persistence of burrowing owls. As of 2008, total acres of suitable habitat for 

Burrowing Owl on shortgrass prairie vegetation was about 50,930 acres.

Mountain Bluebird−See Vegetation Section Pinyon-Juniper and Juniper Grasslands Inclusion for 

Affected Environment Description: Mountain Bluebird utilizes all successional stages of pinyonjuniper, including the late successional stages, for cavity nesting, on the Kiowa NG. Total acres of 
May 2011 61

suitable habitat is the total area of pinyon-juniper and juniper grasslands vegetation, about 21,700 

acres as of 2008.

Environmental Consequences

Rio Grande Turkey Plan Components. Unlike Alternative A, Alternatives B and C have plan 

components directly related to Rio Grande Turkey Habitat that influence the consequences. Those 

plan components are as follows.

Desired Conditions

Mature hardwoods, shrubby understory, or early successional growth, and woody debris as 

well as diverse riparian herbaceous vegetation on the margins of lakes or along stream sides 

are present to provide roost, feeding, and nesting habitat for the Rio Grande Turkey.

Objectives

Mechanically or chemically, remove 100% of eastern redcedar around roost trees in 

cottonwood galleries, generally within the mixed hardwood type, within 10 years of plan 

approval to benefit the Rio Grande Turkey.

Guidelines

Timing of prescribed fire or other vegetation treatments should consider adverse 

consequences to ground nesting birds such as the Rio Grande Turkey.

Rio Grande Turkey Environmental Consequences

The following table provides a comparison, by acres of habitat.

Table 21 Anticipated Acreage of Rio Grande Turkey Habitat in Mixed Hardwood Riparian 

by Alternative over the life of the Plan

Species MA Current Acreage

Total Suitable Acres by Alternative

A B & C

Rio Grande Turkey BKMC 1,950

(100%)

975−1,950

(50−100%)

1,950

(100%)

Alternative A. More intense and hotter fires caused by fuels build-up from lack of planned fire 

would reduce the number of mature deciduous trees, thereby eliminating roost areas for the Rio 

Grande Turkey.

Alternatives B and C. Mixed Hardwood Riparian vegetation type would move toward reference 

condition for vegetation structure as a consequence of implementing more clearly defined targets 

for species composition and structure. More diversity of structural stages in the mixed hardwood 

riparian ecosystem would improve habitat for the Rio Grande Turkey by providing roosting trees, 

foraging areas, and nesting and brood raising areas in the early and mid successional stages.

Burrowing Owl Plan Components. Unlike Alternative A, Alternatives B and C have the 

following plan components for shortgrass prairie that address habitat for the Burrowing Owl.

Desired Conditions
May 2011 62

Low structured vegetation representative of the early successional stage of shortgrass prairie 

is available for BTPD (a keystone species) to colonize. The colonies provide habitat in the 

early successional stage of shortgrass prairie specific vegetation provides requisite habitat for 

the Burrowing Owl.

Habitat for at least one complex of BTPD colonies is available for potential future 

reintroduction to recover the endangered black-footed ferret, a predator dependent on the 

BTPD; impacts from plague outbreaks to BTPDs and potential reintroduced black-footed 

ferrets are minimal.

Guidelines

Prescribed fire and targeted grazing of suitable BTPD habitat should occur only on loamy 

uplands, loamy plains, limey uplands, alkaline plains, loamy bottomlands, basalt loam, and 

clayey soils on 0–5% slopes.

Burrowing Owl Environmental Consequences

The following table provides a comparison, by alternative, of acres of Burrowing Owl habitat.

Table 22 Anticipated Acreage of Burrowing Owl Habitat in Shortgrass Prairie and Inclusion 

by Alternative over the life of the Plan

Species MA Current Acreage

Total Suitable Acres by Alternative

A B & C

Burrowing Owl KRB 50,930

(28%)

54,570−58,210

(30−32%)

54,570−58,210

(30−32%)

Common to all alternatives. The expansion of Forest Service Sensitive Species, BTPD colonies 

would result in early successional shortgrass prairie wherever they occur. The increased areal 

extent of early successional stage shortgrass prairie would accommodate an increase in suitable 

habitat for the Burrowing Owl.

The Grasslands are cooperating with the New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas offices of Wildlife 

Services, USDA APHIS, in a Memorandum of Understanding that addresses sylvatic plague 

disease in mammals occurring on the shortgrass vegetation type for the purposes of protection of 

human health, other wildlife resources, and boundary control.

The Grasslands are cooperating, through a Memorandum of Understanding involving Federal 

agencies of the Multi-State Conservation Plan for the BTPD to achieve the conservation and 

management of BTPDs and their habitat.

Implementation of any of the alternatives would impact the Burrowing Owl but would not result 

in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Alternative A. This alternative does not have direction for desired vegetation structure and species 

composition that would enhance habitat for Burrowing Owl. This would potentially degrade the 

amount of suitable habitat through less expansion of BTPD colony areal extent.
May 2011 63

Alternative B and C. Targets for desired vegetation structure and species composition would 

result in further expansion of BTPD areal extent, thus improving habitat for Burrowing Owl.

Mountain Bluebird Plan Components. Alternatives B and C have the following plan 

components for supporting the pinyon-juniper vegetation type and by association, Mountain 

Bluebird habitat.

Desired Conditions

Complete representation of all successional stages and desired vegetation structure and 

species composition of pinyon juniper, provides requisite habitat for the Mountain Bluebird.

Objectives

Over the life of the Plan, burn and/or thin 5–10% of the pinyon-juniper to maintain 

successional stage conditions and increase understory components in the pinyon-juniper 

woodland.

Mechanically, chemically, or with prescribed fire, control 5–10% of native invasive plants 

(such as cholla and mesquite) annually.

Apply mechanical, chemical, and/or prescribed fire treatments to produce all mid-late 

structural stages that are proportionally present in the pinyon-juniper vegetation type with old 

growth representing 10% within 15 years of plan approval.

Over the life of the plan, retain large stands of pinyon-juniper as contiguous patches of no 

less than 40 acres on 10% of this vegetation type on a landscape scale.

Over the life of the plan, create openings in early and mid successional stage stands that lack 

a good shrub or grass component on up to 20% of the pinyon-juniper vegetation type at a 

landscape scale.

Guidelines

Management Indicator Species, and big game species, and fuels reduction needs should be 

considered when determining size of openings in early and mid successional stage pinyon 

juniper stands, habitat requirements. Three to five of the largest diameter trees should be 

retained per acre in the openings.

All snags greater than 9‖ diameter at the root crown should be retained.

At least two pieces of large 9-12‖diameter down woody material 8-10‘ long should be 

retained per acre.

Treatments or forest product removal should occur outside the nesting season (April 15th to 

July 31st) or be preceded by surveys for nesting birds to avoid adverse consequences to nest 

sites.

Mountain Bluebird Environmental Consequences

The following table provides a comparison, by alternative, of acres of Mountain Bluebird habitat 

in the pinyon-juniper and juniper grasslands vegetation.

Table 23 Anticipated Acreage of Mountain Bluebird Habitat in Pinyon-Juniper and Juniper 

Grasslands Inclusion by Alternative over the life of the Plan
May 2011 64

Species MA Current Acreage

Total Suitable Acres by Alternative

A B & C

Mountain Bluebird KRB 21,700

(100%)

19,530

(90%)

21,700

(100%)

Alternative A. Implementation would allow silvicultural management, managed grazing, and 

planned fire to achieve management objectives but would provide an uncertain outcome due to no 

defined targets for vegetation structure, thus limiting early and mid seral stage development and 

thereby providing less habitat for the Mountain Bluebird.

Alternative B and C. Because of explicit plan components for pinyon-juniper, implementation 

would result in a diversity of structural stages and composition in pinyon-juniper habitat for 

cavity nesting birds such as the Mountain Bluebird.

Summary of Amount and Quality of MIS Habitat

The MIS were evaluated for population trends and the amount and quality of habitat. The 

following table summarizes the results. The two consequences columns have symbols that 

represent potential consequences to MIS population and habitat from implementation of the 

respective alternatives. The following symbols represent environmental consequences to 

population, amount, and quality of habitat: (−) detrimental effect or less, (0) no effect or no 

change, (+) positive effect or increased areal extent or better quality.

Table 24 Consequences to MIS Population Trends and Consequences to Amount and 

Quality of Habitat by Alternative

Common Name Viability 

Risk

Consequences to MIS 

Population Trends by 

Alternative

Consequences to Amount and Quality of 

Habitat by Alternative

Mixed Hardwood Riparian A B C

A B C

Amount Quality Amount Quality Amount Quality

Rio Grande Turkey Low

− + + 0 − 0 + 0 +

Shortgrass Prairie

Burrowing Owl Moderate + + + + +

+ + + +

Pinyon-Juniper

Mountain Bluebird Low 0

+ +

0 0

0 + 0 +

In mixed hardwood riparian and pinyon-juniper vegetation, none of the alternatives provide a 

meaningful increase in amounts of habitat for Rio Grande Turkey and Mountain Bluebird. 

However, habitat would improve in alternatives B and C through provisions of maintaining or 

attaining all seral stages in the representative ranges of desired vegetation structure and species 

composition for the various MIS.
May 2011 65

For Burrowing Owl, there is neither a change in amount or quality of habitat among alternatives.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences to All Wildlife

Cumulative consequences are those consequences of foreseeable activities on non-federal lands 

that, in conjunction with management activities likely to occur on the Grasslands, may intensify, 

negate, improve or otherwise affect the vegetation types, habitats, and species of the Grasslands. 

Below are considerations of consequences of activities that will likely occur on adjacent or 

nearby ownerships to the Grasslands. For purpose of analyses, the cumulative effects area is 

generally considered to be those non-federal lands within a mile of the Grasslands‘ borders.

Cumulative Consequences on Wildlife in General

Common to all alternatives but only affecting the shortgrass prairie and sand sagebrush 

vegetation types on the KRB NGs. Groundwater used for cropland irrigation on nearby private 

lands contributes to aquifer drawdown. There may be less water available for wildlife.

Cumulative Consequences on Lesser Prairie-chicken and Black-tailed Prairie Dog

Common to all alternatives and shortgrass prairie, sand sagebrush, mixed-grass prairie and 

shinnery oak vegetation types on the Grasslands. Conversion of grassland to cultivated land on 

private lands would have cumulative environmental consequences that would likely be as 

follows:

Wildlife species displaced from grassland vegetation types on private land that have been 

altered or converted to cropland may be forced to compete for limited territories available in 

the vegetation types on the Grasslands, or leave the area altogether. Overall, habitat across the 

landscape, including the Grasslands, will become more fragmented for species of viability 

concern such as the LPC, resulting in declining populations.

Additional food sources from crop residue on adjacent private land would be available for 

wildlife residing on the Grasslands, depending on the home range of an individual species. 

This would benefit Grasslands wildlife.

There would be an increased probability of invasive species colonizing within the vegetation 

types of the Grasslands from seed sources originating from adjacent private lands.

BTPD colonies will be increasingly restricted to the KRB NGs, when and where conversion 

of grassland to cropland occurs on adjacent private lands.

There are about 109 linear miles of shelterbelts on non-federal land within a mile of the BK NG 

border.

Common to all alternatives in Mixed-grass and Shinnery oak. Off-Grasslands shelterbelts could 

compensate for any removal of undesirable native and nonnative invasive trees on the Grasslands 

with regard to perching and nesting habitat for raptors. However, off-Grasslands shelterbelts 

could have adverse effects on ground nesting birds or habitat such as that of the LPC due to the 

habitat shelterbelts provide for raptors.

Cumulative Consequences on Black-tailed Prairie Dog Colony Expansion on Private Lands
May 2011 66

Some private landowners enroll in the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 

Landowner Incentive Program-Short and Mixed-grass Prairie Habitat Conservation, and receive 

incentive payments for BTPD colony establishment. Lands adjacent to RB units in Oklahoma

have potential to be enrolled, and expansion of prairie dog colonies on private lands could spill 

onto the Grasslands. It is unclear if New Mexico or Texas will develop such landowner assistance 

programs, but if they do, this same cumulative consequence could apply to the Kiowa NG in New 

Mexico and the portions of the RB NG in Texas.

BTPD expansion on private lands would have cumulative environmental consequences upon the 

shortgrass prairie vegetation type alternative as follows:

Common to all on shortgrass prairie and sand sagebrush vegetation types: Expansion of 

prairie dog colonies on private lands would complement colony expansion on the Grasslands. 

An increase in prairie dog colonies on adjacent private lands would likely increase the prey 

base to support raptors and for the viability high at-risk species, swift fox. Prairie dog 

increases on adjacent private lands would increase the likelihood of success of a black-footed 

ferret reintroduction on the Grasslands; similarly, there could be an increase in 

nesting/foraging areas for the viability high at-risk species (Mountain Plover) and cover for 

the MIS (Burrowing Owl).

Cumulative Consequences on Lesser Prairie-chicken from Energy Development

There is increasing interest in wind energy development on private lands. As infrastructure 

transmission lines are developed to support wind energy generation, more wind farms will likely 

rise on lands near the Grasslands.

Wind energy development on private lands would have cumulative consequences.

Common to all alternatives. Consequences to wildlife on mixed-grass prairie, sand sagebrush, 

and shinnery oak vegetation types would likely be as follows:

Because of the LPC‘s avoidance behavior of tall structures (e.g., wind turbines, transmission 

poles), potential and suitable habitat for this species would likely decrease, making habitat on 

the Grasslands even more important.

Common to all alternatives, consequences to wildlife on all vegetation types would likely be as 

follows:

The effect of wind turbines on private lands within a mile of the Grasslands could be 

detrimental to bats and birds occurring in all vegetation types.

Invasive Species

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in 

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of invasive species that are useful to the decision maker and the public. Additional 

information is in the Noxious/Invasive Species Specialist Report (USDA Forest Service 2011e).
May 2011 67

Affected Environment

Noxious/invasive species disrupt natural ecosystem functions and negatively affect both 

ecological and socioeconomic conditions. Noxious/invasive species can displace desirable native 

species, reduce the quality of wildlife habitat, damage riparian and watershed areas, increase 

wildfire risk and increase erosion.

Before European settlement, there were no noxious/invasive plant species on the grasslands.

Disturbance factors such as periodic fire and grazing by wild ungulates kept native plants with

invasive characteristics in check. Settlement introduced nonnative plant species and disrupted the 

natural fire cycle, allowing nonnative and native invasive plants to increase. The settlement of the 

grasslands and increasing populations make it necessary to limit fire activity which allows native 

invasive plants to increase.

Introduction of invasive species has come from transportation of fugitive seed by motor vehicles, 

and other sources. Riparian corridors have become colonized by invasive tree species such as 

saltcedar, currently infesting about 540 acres in Mills Canyon. Tree species not native to BK, 

although native to Oklahoma, such as black locust, cover about 1600 to 1800 acres. Siberian elm 

and eastern redcedar are very prolific and have dispersed over the landscape altering the structure 

and composition of BK vegetation types.

Feral hogs are prolific, detrimental to soils and the structure and composition of vegetation types 

and are expanding in all BK NG vegetation types.

Environmental Consequences

Common to all alternatives. An Integrated Pest Management program would be implemented on 

the Grasslands to control invasive plant populations. Invasive species control would generally 

improve Grasslands aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat; however, in the potential wilderness 

area under Alternative C, treatment options may be restricted, require waivers, or require the 

approval of the Regional Forester.

Implementation of saltcedar eradication would reduce evapotranspiration of the instream flow 

and enhance riparian habitat on the Canadian River within the potential wilderness area.

Alternative A. Where the current plan is silent, law, regulation, and policy and BMPs are used for 

guidance.

Shelterbelts would be maintained and sustained, thus supplying a source for undesirable native 

and nonnative invasive tree seed from species such as black locust, eastern redcedar, and Siberian 

elm.

Alternatives B and C. Implementation would provide clear management direction for effective 

noxious/invasive plant species control which would provide more benefit to soil condition, water 

quality, and wildlife habitat. Feral hog populations would be reduced Grasslands-wide.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Some private ownership agriculture lands adjacent to the Grasslands have been undergoing 

mechanical, manual, and herbicide treatment for noxious invasive species for many years. This 

has been done to maintain the agriculture value and other property values. The Grasslands have a

one-half mile weed treatment zone adjacent to the grassland units as well.
May 2011 68

Some private landholdings within the administrative boundary of BK have invasive species and 

tree encroachment issues that may not have the same eradication emphasis as does the 

Grasslands.

Common to all alternatives. There would be less areal extent of invasive plant species on the 

Grasslands due to control efforts on private lands. Feral hog control, or lack thereof, would have 

commensurate consequences on the Grasslands.

As part of the interagency Canadian River saltcedar control program, efforts up and downstream 

of the Mill Canyon MA to eradicate saltcedar positively affect the riparian area by reducing seed 

sources of saltcedar.

Alternative A. Lack of invasive tree control on private lands would result in further degradation of 

potential and suitable habitat for the LPC.

Alternatives B and C. Lack of invasive tree control on private lands would further isolate and 

fragment Grassland habitat.

The mutual benefit of concurrent invasive species control on the NG and adjacent nonfederal land 

would be best realized under Alternative B and least realized under Alternative A in consideration 

of the environmental consequences of alternatives.

Climate Change

Section 1502.2(b) of the National Environmental Policy Act provides for discussion of impacts in 

proportion to their significance. The environmental consequences in this section focus on the 

components of climate that are useful to the decision maker and the public. For more information, 

see ―Appendix B: Southwestern Region Climate Change Trends and Potential Climate Change 

Strategies for Southwestern Region National Forests‖ in the draft Grasslands Plan.

Affected Environment

The affected environment is the entire Grasslands, which experience large fluctuations in climate 

conditions and extreme weather events such as prolonged droughts, flooding, hail, blizzards, 

tornadoes, and dust storms. Evaporation typically exceeds precipitation, and demands on surface 

water and aquifers are expected to increase as the gap between precipitation and 

evapotranspiration increases under the predicted Grasslands climate regime.

Grasslands average annual precipitation ranges from about 14 inches (Kiowa) to 29 inches (Black 

Kettle); average annual temperature ranges from about 50° F (Kiowa) to 59° F (Black Kettle).

Climate data for specific locations on the Black Kettle and Kiowa NGs are displayed in Tables 25

and 26, respectively.

Table 25 Temperature, precipitation, and wind velocity on the Black Kettle NG

Month

Average 

Monthly High 

Temp (F)

Average 

Monthly Low 

Temp (F)

Mean Annual 

Precipitation (in.)

Average 

Wind 

Velocity 

(MPH)
May 2011 69

Month

Average 

Monthly High 

Temp (F)

Average 

Monthly Low 

Temp (F)

Mean Annual 

Precipitation (in.)

Average 

Wind 

Velocity 

(MPH)

Jan 47.9 21.2 0.64 NA

Feb 54.5 26.1 0.95 NA

March 62.7 33 1.94 14.2

April 72.3 42.9 2.37 15.2

May 79.5 52.9 4.05 13.2

June 88.2 63 3.65 12.8

July 94.2 66.9 1.77 11.2

Aug 92.5 65.9 2.4 NA

Sept 84.5 57.7 2.64 11.4

Oct 74.3 45.4 1.98 12.6

Nov 59.4 32.4 1.23 13

Dec 49.2 24 0.84 NA

Average 71.6 Average 44.3 Total 24.5 Average 12.7

Reydon, OK. Periods of record=1971−2000 (temperature, precipitation); 1994–2010 (wind). NA=data not available. 

http://climate.mesonet.org/county_climate/Products/CountyPages/roger_mills.html

Table 26 Temperature, precipitation, and wind velocity on the Kiowa NG

Month

Average 

Monthly High 

Temp (F)

Average 

Monthly Low 

Temp (F)

Mean Annual 

Precipitation (in.)

Average 

Wind 

Velocity 

(MPH)

Jan 47.9 20.1 0.28 11.9

Feb 51.1 22.6 0.35 12.4

March 57.4 27.7 0.73 13.1

April 66.7 36.8 1.25 14.4

May 74.8 45.9 2.31 13.2
May 2011 70

Month

Average 

Monthly High 

Temp (F)

Average 

Monthly Low 

Temp (F)

Mean Annual 

Precipitation (in.)

Average 

Wind 

Velocity 

(MPH)

June 84.4 55.3 1.91 12.9

July 88.2 60.2 2.65 11.2

Aug 86.4 59 2.35 10.2

Sept 79.4 51.5 1.68 11.3

Oct 69.4 40.5 1.1 11.8

Nov 57.1 28.5 0.49 11.8

Dec 48.9 21.4 0.38 12.1

Average 67.7 Average 39.1 Total 15.5 Average 12.2

Clayton, NM. Period of record=1896−2010. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nm1887

Environmental Consequences

Common to all alternatives. Southern areas of the Great Plains (i.e., KRB and BKMC NGs) are 

projected to experience increased temperatures, and decreased precipitation, similar to the 

Southwest (Karl et al. 2009). All alternatives would be subject to evolving FS policy and 

directives on adapting to climate change.

Alternative A. Would not address climate change or mitigate climate change with adaptive 

response strategies.

Alternatives B and C. Implementation would have the same environmental consequences on the 

resources by responding to climate change effects through adaptive management of livestock, 

prescribed fire, and more carbon sequestration from harvesting solid wood products such as posts 

and poles through invasive species treatments. There would be more aquatic passage provision 

for aquatic organisms at road and stream crossings Grasslands-wide from management responses

to potentially low flows as a result of climate change.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

Common to all alternatives. Management of livestock, prescribed fire, and harvesting solid wood 

products would adjust by climate conditions; however, if grazing discontinued substantially on 

lands outside Grasslands management control, fuel loads have potential to build that would 

increase and intensify wildfire. The cumulative consequence would negate the ability of the 

Grasslands to use adaptive management as effectively.
May 2011 71

Chapter 5

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

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

but does not authorize, fund, or carryout any project or activity. Before any ground-disturbing 

actions take place, they must be authorized in a subsequent environmental analysis. Therefore 

none of the alternatives cause unavoidable adverse impacts.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

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

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

plan does not authorize or mandate any ground-disturbing actions, none of the alternatives cause 

an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources.

Adaptive Management

All alternatives assume the use of adaptive management principles. Forest Service decisions are 

made as part of an on-going process, including planning, implementing projects, and monitoring 

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 among the alternatives presented in this report and the objectives 

of Federal, regional, State, local, or Tribal land use plans, policies, and controls for the area 

concerned.
May 2011 72

List of Preparers

Don Jorgensen, Natural Resources Specialist, Forest Planning, Wildlife Biologist, Cibola 

National Forest and Grasslands

Dual Major, Bachelor of Arts Degree in Art and Biology, University of Northern Iowa, 1991

Master of Arts in Natural Resources Management, University of Northern Iowa, 1993

Natural Resources Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District 

Environmental Analysis Section. Coordinated Environmental Assessments on COE 

projects and developed Environmental Restoration projects on aquatic resources. 

Managed the Rock Island Districts‘ Threatened and Endangered Species program and 

coordinated with the Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act Field Office from 

1995 until 2001.

From 2001 to 2006, coordinated outreach and environmental education for school groups and 

the general public. Consulted on tallgrass prairie, riparian lands, and savanna restoration 

on lands of the Neal Smith and DeSoto National Wildlife Refuges.

From 2006 the present, Wildlife Biologist Natural Resources Specialist developing the 

Species Diversity assessment of the Ecological Sustainability Report in preparation for 

National Grasslands Plan Revision.

Beverly deGruyter, Forest Wildlife Biologist, Cibola National Forest and Grasslands

Bachelor of Science in Wildlife Science, New Mexico State University,

31 years managing wildlife and habitats in the southwest including 20 years with the Forest 

Service and 11 years with BLM.

References

Detling, A. D. (Dec., 1988). Eological Consequences of Prairie Dog Disturbances. BioScience, 

Vol.38, No. 11How Animals Shape Their Ecosystems , 778-785.

Ruyle, G., & Dyess, J. (2010). Rangeland Monitoring and the Parker 3-Step Method: Overview, 

Perspectives and current Appllications. Tucson AZ: The University of Arizona Cooperative 

Extension.
May 2011

73

Appendix A Black-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat Suitability Analysis for the Kiowa and 

Rita Blanca National Grasslands

Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit Inventory data were analyzed in a geographic information system to classify 

black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) habitat on the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National 

Grasslands. Parameters for habitat suitability were based on previous studies of black-tailed prairie dog 

habitat affinity and suitability (Sheets et al. 1971, Knowles 1983, Clippinger 1989) and considered slope, 

vegetation, and soil characteristics as primary factors (Table 1, Fig.1).

Unsuitable habitat (unlikely to support prairie dog colonization)

>10 % slope, or

dominated by trees or shrubs >1 m (39 inches) tall, or

dominated by soils that are not conducive to burrowing, such as bedrock or sandy, rocky, or 

shallow soils (no skeletal, sandy, or very gravelly soils; no soils <50 cm deep), or

spatially limited (map unit component comprising ≤0.5 km2of its respective map unit polygon 

area).

Potential habitat (likely to support prairie dog colonies)

5–10 % slope, and

dominated by herbaceous vegetation 25–64 cm (10–25 in) or shrubs ≤1 m (39 in) tall, and

soil texture and depth (50–150 cm) to support adequate burrow systems (map unit component 

must comprise >0.5 km2of its respective map unit polygon area).

Suitable habitat (highly likely to support prairie dog colonies)

<5 % slope, and

dominated by herbaceous vegetation <25 cm (10 in) tall, and

very deep (>150 cm), non-gravelly, loamy soils (map unit component must comprise >0.5 km2of 

its respective map unit polygon area).

Areas meeting criteria for potential habitat that contain existing burrow systems or are within 100 m of 

livestock watering facilities are among the most likely to be colonized by dispersing prairie dogs and will 

be included in the suitable classification.

Literature Cited

Clippinger, N.W. 1989. Habitat suitability index models: black-tailed prairie dog. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Biological Report 82(10.156) 21pp.

Knowles, C.J. 1982. Habitat affinity, populations, and control of black-tailed prairie dogs on the Charles 

M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. U. of Montana, Dept. of Zoology. Ph.D. thesis. 171 pp.

Sheets, R.G., Linder, R.L., and Dahlgren, R.B.1971. Burrow systems of prairie dogs in South Dakota. 

Journal of Mammalogy 52:451-453.
May 2011

74

Table 1 Black-tailed prairie dog habitat suitability analysis for the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National 

Grasslands

Area (ac) West Kiowa East Kiowa Rita Blanca Total

All federally owned area within 100 m of a 

livestock watering facility

823 546 1,132 2,501

All federally owned area with existing burrow 

system

0 2,995 6,462 9,457

Potential habitat made suitable by existing 

burrow system only

0 2,021 2,755 4,776

Potential habitat made suitable by livestock 

watering facility only

514 388 430 1,332

Potential habitat made suitable by both 

existing burrow system and livestock watering 

facility

0 21 61 82

Unsuitable habitat 22,587 2,675 180 25,442

Potential habitat 54,320 52,325 89,767 196,412

Suitable habitat 2,632 2,388 3,327 8,347

Federally owned land (total)* 79,539 57,388 93,274 230,201

*Calculated in a GIS (within 0.15% of official acreage).
May 2011 75

Fig. 1 Black-tailed prairie dog habitat suitability on the Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands