United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Southwestern 

Region 

Cibola 

National 

Forest and 

National 

Grasslands 

May 2011

Heritage Resources 

Specialist Report 

Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle 

and McClellan Creek National 

Grasslands Plan Revision 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Analysis 

Submitted by: __/s/ _________________________ 

Stacy K. Galassini

Archaeologist 

Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands 

Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 3 

Executive Summary 

The Heritage Resources program serves to protect significant heritage resources, to share their 

values with the American people, and to contribute relevant information and perspectives to 

natural resource management. In doing this, the program will: 

• ensure that future generations will have an opportunity to discover the human story 

etched on the landscapes of our national forests and grasslands; 

• make the past come alive as a vibrant part of our recreational experiences and community 

life; and 

• connect people to the land in a way that will help us better understand and manage forest 

ecosystems.

The Forest Service is responsible for the management of hundreds of recorded cultural resources 

on the grasslands. That responsibility includes developing sites for public use, enjoyment, and 

education as well as protecting sites from vandalism, theft, and effects of federally authorized 

activities. 

The Heritage Resources program is also a facilitator of government to government consultation 

between the Forest Service and all Indian tribes with interests in the undertakings on and future 

development of their ancestral lands. The Cibola National Forest currently consults with seven 

Indian tribes with interests on the Kiowa-Rita Blanca and Black Kettle and McClellan Creek 

National Grasslands. 

The 1985 Plan recognized that future development and other resource area projects had the 

potential to effect cultural resources and that they would be managed as equal in importance to 

other uses. Guided by the National Historic Preservation Act 1966 (as amended) and 36 CFR 

800, emphasis was on avoidance and protection, and site-specific projects to rehabilitate and 

preserve the most significant historic properties known on the forest at that time. The desired 

condition increases emphasis on rehabilitation and preservation where resources can be most 

effective. Interpretation and volunteer projects will add to the economic potential of the 

surrounding communities through heritage tourism. There will be no change in the regulations, 

laws, or policies that guide the overall Heritage Resource program. Other grassland resource 

areas will not, as a rule, adversely impact heritage resources, as all undertakings require a cultural 

clearance to proceed. 

Overview of the Affected Environment 

Archaeological resources are generally defined as the nonrenewable evidence of human 

occupation or activity as indicated by sites, buildings, structures, artifacts, ruins, objects, rock art, 

dendroglyphs, architecture, or natural features. Site types are diverse across the area and include, 

but are not limited to, artifact scatters, rock shelters, temporary camp sites, resource procurement 

sites, historic homesteads, and range improvements. Some of these have the potential to possess 

buried cultural deposits. 

Archaeologically, the prehistoric and historic record of indigenous peoples in the grasslands is 

sparse; both by the nature of the nomadic lifestyle of Plains Indian tribes and by later populations 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 4 

destroying or collecting what material remains were left behind. The most common cultural 

remains of prehistoric and historic Indian groups are lithic scatters. The Anglo-European historic 

period is most visible through homestead remains, which include stone and wood structures, 

windmills, artifact scatters of metal, glass, and ceramics, and landscape features such as water 

catchment systems, terraced agricultural plots, fence lines, and primitive roads. 

Summary of Environmental Consequences 

There are no negative environmental consequences to heritage resources from the plan 

components of other resource areas. Augmenting the in-place compliance, preservation and 

interpretive emphasis of Alternative A with the updates provided in Alternatives B and C would 

result in a benefit for the overall grasslands heritage program. 

Specialist Report 

Introduction 

This report discloses and evaluates the potential environmental consequences on heritage 

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). 

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy that Apply 

The National Historic Preservation Act 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations of 

Section 106 (36 CFR 800), require that federal agencies take into account the effects of their 

undertaking on historic properties and provide the State Historic Preservation Officer and, when 

applicable, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an opportunity to comment on those 

undertakings. Section 110 of the NHPA ensures that historic preservation is fully integrated into 

the ongoing programs of all Federal agencies and that the purposes of the NHPA are furthered 

through affirmative agency action. 

The Southwestern Region (R3) of the Forest Service, in consultation with the New Mexico, 

Texas, and Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, has developed the First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding 

Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities. Under this agreement the Forest Service will 

afford the SHPO, Advisory Council, Indian tribes, and interested organizations and individuals, 

as appropriate, an opportunity to provide input concerning undertakings with the potential to 

affect historic properties and/or traditional cultural properties. As the land management resource 

plan (LMRP) will not list site-specific projects on the grasslands, the Forest Service will carry out 

the Section 106 review process, as described in 36 CFR 800, on all classes of undertakings 

resulting from the plan that have the potential to affect historic properties and are not specifically 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 5 

exempted from SHPO consultation under the Programmatic Agreement. The minimum 

management standard is to achieve a “no adverse effect” on heritage resources. 

The Santa Fe National Historic Trail occupies 2.4 miles of the Kiowa National Grassland north of 

Clayton, NM. As well as being a national landmark, the Trail is a heritage resource of the Kiowa 

National Grassland. Under the statutory authority of the National Trails System Act the Secretary 

of the Interior is responsible for administering the Trail on federally owned lands, in cooperation 

with the Secretary of Agriculture. Pursuant to the Act, a Comprehensive Management and Use 

Plan outlines objectives and practices to be observed in the management of the Trail. There is 

also a General Agreement between the National Park Service and the Forest Service that outlines 

the responsibilities of each agency in regards to the marking, administration and management of 

the Trail. 

Other laws and policy include: 

• FSM 2360 - Heritage Program Management 

• National Environmental Policy Act 1969 

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act 1978 

• Archaeological Resources Protection Act 1979 

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 1990 

• Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (The Farm Bill) 

• Executive Orders 13287, 13175, 13007, 11593 

• Executive Memo November 5, 2009 

• U.S. Forest Service Tribal Relations Strategic Plan 

Methodology and Analysis Process 

The plan components (ie., objectives, suitability, guidelines, standards, and monitoring elements) 

and management approaches of other resource areas were evaluated against the desired conditions 

for heritage resources to determine if achieving the desired conditions was affected positively, 

negatively, or not at all. 

Assumptions 

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

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

actions. 

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

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

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

managing the forests under a programmatic framework. 

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

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

and activities. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 6 

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

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

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

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

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

Revision Topics Addressed in this Analysis 

Human Influences on the Grasslands – Cultural Properties 

Existing laws, regulations, and policies provide the legal direction for the management of heritage 

resources. Because of these heritage resources on the Grasslands have been protected from the 

management activities of other resources and the interests of external proponents. Heritage 

resources have also been identified, documented, and evaluated in a manner consistent with the 

policies of the State Historic Preservation Offices of New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. The 

management of heritage resources will continue to be treated equal in importance to the 

management of the natural resources as specified by all the laws and policies of the United States, 

the Forest Service and the individual states. 

Heritage resources on the Grasslands would most benefit from the continued improvement in 

rehabilitation and conservation measures on the historical properties that have been identified as 

providing the best opportunities for protection, interpretation and involvement of the public. This 

change would include annual outreach and education, a volunteer site steward program to monitor 

particularly sensitive and vandalized sites, and the stabilization and interpretation of additional 

historical properties for the benefit of the resource and the public. 

Heritage tourism is a viable area of growth for the small and rural populations within the 

Grasslands. Preserving and maintaining heritage resources by partnering with the public, and 

other interested parties, potentially provides economic opportunity for the surrounding rural 

communities. 

Summary of Alternatives 

Alternative A provides heritage resources with protection from other management activities, 

directs heritage resources to be in line with federal statutes and state authorities, and calls for proactive preservation, interpretation, and monitoring measures. 

Alternative B augments the federal statutes and state authorities and preservation and 

interpretation practices with additional grasslands-wide preservation projects, public outreach, 

interpretation, and a site steward program. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 7 

Alternative C does not differ from Alternative B with respect to heritage resources. 

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition) 

Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands 

Heritage resource survey is extremely limited on the KRB National Grasslands. Most surveys 

have been for range improvements, fence lines, utility corridors, and small wildlife projects. 

These are typically less than ten acres and are often linear. Some block surveys with substantial 

acreage have been conducted for fuels projects. Surveyed acres on the KRB total 15,087. This 

represents only 6% of total grasslands acreage. Two hundred and twenty seven (227) heritage 

resources have been documented on the KRB. The majority of recorded sites are AngloEuropean in nature, consisting of ranching and farming homestead features and artifacts. The 

other site type consists of prehistoric and historic Native American artifact scatters. 

The area around the KRB has small and widely distributed rural populations and lacks a presence 

of commercial development infrastructure (wind farms, oil and gas wells, cell phone towers, etc.). 

With cattle grazing as the largest going concern on the KRB, the majority of the grounddisturbing undertakings are for grazing infrastructure such as wells, stock tanks, water lines, and 

fences. Damage done to Native American heritage resources largely came about in the historic 

era through farming, ranching, collecting of artifacts, and the environmental degradation of the 

Dust Bowl. The homestead sites range in condition from foundations only to standing walls with 

a large number of artifacts. 

Five heritage resources have been designated as Priority Heritage Assets and as such receive 

frequent monitoring for changes in condition and need for maintenance. These sites include two 

homestead complexes and three prehistoric rock shelters. Many preservation and interpretation 

opportunities still exist on the Kiowa-Rita Blanca National Grasslands. 

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National Grasslands 

There has been much more survey on the BKMC National Grasslands; 18,900 acres have been 

surveyed for heritage resources, or 57%. Four hundred and thirty (430) sites have been recorded. 

The most numerous recorded site type on these lands is the Native American lithic scatter, with 

historic remains a distant second. 

Areas around the BKMC have higher and denser population levels and more development 

infrastructure such as natural gas wells and pipelines. Heritage resources were historically 

damaged by farming and ranching activities, as well as by environmental circumstances. The 

homestead sites have much less integrity than those on the KRB, with few retaining standing 

walls. 

Currently there is one Priority Heritage Asset on the BKMC, a prehistoric Native American site. 

The visitor’s interpretive trail located adjacent to the District office holds the best opportunity for 

a heritage resources project on the BKMC. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 8 

Environmental Consequences 

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

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

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

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

consequences, of managing the forests under this programmatic framework. 

There would be no environmental consequences to heritage resources on the Grasslands from 

Alternative A. Alternative A set standards and guidelines for agency compliance, and 

preservation, stabilization, and interpretation for the education and enjoyment of the public. The 

program would continue to be managed to standard based on the laws, regulations, and policies 

set forth in the 1985 plan, as well as by all laws, regulations, and policies that have transpired 

since. 

There would be no environmental consequences to heritage resources on the Grasslands from 

Alternative B or C. These alternatives would still mandate agency compliance of heritage 

resource protection, as well as accomplish goals that enhance the overall stewardship standards of 

the program, add to the publics’ enjoyment and education, and promote the economic potential of 

the surrounding communities. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

There should be no cumulative environmental consequences to heritage resources. 

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 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 9 

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. 

Report Preparer: 

Stacy Galassini, M.S. Anthropology, 6 years experience in Heritage Resource Management with 

Cibola National Forest. 

References 

National Historic Preservation Act 1966, as amended. 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. 

National Environmental Policy Act, 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act 1978, as amended. 42 U.S.C. 1996 and 1996a. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act 1979, as amended. U.S.C. 470aa-mm. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 1990. 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013.

Executive Order 11593, 1971. Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment.

Executive Order 13007, 1996. Indian Sacred Sites. 

Executive Order 13175, 2000. Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.

Executive Order 13287, 2003. Preserve America. 

Executive Memo November 5, 2009. Tribal Consultation. 

Department of Agriculture – U.S. Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2360. Heritage Program 

Management. 

United States Forest Service. 2003. Region 3 First Amended Programmatic Agreement Regarding 

Historic Property Protection and Responsibilities, Appendices A-J. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 10 

United States Department of the Interior-National Park Service. 1990. Santa Fe National Historic 

Trail Comprehensive Management and Use Plan. 

United States Department of Interior – National Park Service and the United States Department of 

Agriculture - U.S. Forest Service. 2002. General Agreement Concerning the Santa Fe 

National Historic Trail. 

U.S. Forest Service Tribal Relations Strategic Plan.