United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Southwestern 

Region 

Cibola 

National 

Forest and 

National 

Grasslands 

May 2011

Special Areas and Naturebased Tourism Specialist 

Report 

Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle 

and McClellan Creek National 

Grasslands Plan Revision 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Analysis 

Submitted by: __/s/ _________________________ 

Cynthia A. Geuss, 

 Land Management Planner 

Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands 
Chapter 2-Alternatives 

Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 2 

Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 3 

Specialist Report 

Executive Summary 

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

1985 Plan as identified in the 2008 Comprehensive Evaluation Report and Supplemental Analysis 

of the Management Situation document include Managed Recreation and Scenic Resources, and 

Managed Recreation and Scenic Resources-Special Areas. These needs for change are specific to 

the following four resource areas: Natural Tourism, Scenic Byways and Santa Fe National 

Historic Trail, Research Natural Areas, the Canadian eligible Scenic River. 

The 1985 Land Management Plan is silent on natural tourism interpretive activities beyond 

management of cultural resource sites. The preferred alternative would provide direction for 

increased visitation and touring interpretive activities related to unique scenery, wildlife and 

formally designated historic sites. The management approach in the revised plan would include 

coordination with other agencies and non-governmental organizations in planning scenic byway 

corridors, Important Bird Areas, nature trails and Watchable Wildlife stations. 

The 1985 Plan is silent on the scenic byways and historic trail located in the vicinity of the 

Grasslands. The preferred alternative would provide direction for management of these cultural 

sites and associated scenic resources. 

The preferred alternative would provide management direction for Research Natural Areas 

(RNA). The planning process allows for future proposals of RNA by amendment during the life 

of the plan if the ecological condition of a unit improves to the point where baseline conditions 

for recommendation are met. The preferred alternative does not identify a vegetation type for 

RNA recommendation. No need for change was identified for Research Natural Areas. 

Currently, as part of plan revision, Mills Canyon Management Area is being considered for its 

wilderness potential, but no recommendation for designation is made. Alternative A is silent on 

wilderness on the National Grasslands. Potential wilderness is addressed in a separate 

report/evaluation. 

Alternative A provides a standard and management approach to preserve wild, scenic, and 

recreation river potential and acquire private lands within the corridor in order to preserve the 

unique qualities of the Canadian River. Standards for managing the river as Eligible Scenic are 

carried over from Alternative A to Alternatives B and C. No need for change was identified for 

the Canadian River. 

See the Summary of Environmental Consequences below, for an overview of interdisciplinary 

consequences on these four resource areas. 

Overview of the Affected Environment 

Canadian River, Eligible Scenic River 

The Canadian River/Mills Canyon area on the Kiowa National Grassland contains a large semiprimitive area including a 7,466-acre Inventoried Roadless Area, a 16-mile eligible Scenic River 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 4 

segment, two developed campgrounds, and an interpretive site. The remarkable values associated 

with the eligible Scenic River are scenery, geology, recreation, and history. 

The Canadian River was inventoried in 1982 in a nation-wide rivers inventory by the National 

Park Service. From 1998 through 2002, the Cibola plan revision team completed the 

classification and eligibility process for potential rivers. The Canadian, Eligible Scenic River 

remains in study status. A recent (10/2010) GIS recalculation of length resulted in a total of 19.19 

miles. 16 miles of eligible Scenic River are on Forest Service lands and 3.19 miles are located on 

other jurisdiction lands. 

Research Natural Areas 

Shortgrass prairie and mixed grass prairie were identified in the 1985 Land Management Plan for 

study as possible Research Natural Areas on the National Grasslands. A third type, sandsage-blue 

grama ecosystem was found to be of interest during that investigation. There are no designated 

Research Natural Areas on the Grasslands. 

Natural Tourism 

The National Audubon Society has designated two Important Bird Areas on the Kiowa: Perico 

and Sauz Creeks. The primary land use here is cattle grazing. The impact of grazing on Perico is 

fairly light, however cattle use within the riparian corridor on Sauz Creek can be an issue. 

Typically, grazing activities are managed to limit erosion and trampling along perennial streams, 

but watering of livestock does contribute sediment into waterways (USDA Forest Service, 2008 

b).

Eco-tourism on Black Kettle includes the Black Kettle Loop Trail, a segment of the Great Plains 

Trail of Oklahoma sponsored by the State of Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation and 

other state agencies. Black Kettle Loop is an auto-tour route that winds through western 

Oklahoma Panhandle and Black Kettle National Grassland. Also within Black Kettle is Croton 

Creek Wildlife Area, which provides nature-related recreation. 

Santa Fe National Historic Trail and Scenic Byways 

There is one National Historic Trail and two scenic byways on the Kiowa. The Santa Fe National 

Historic Trail is a national landmark with a 2.4 mile trail segment located on the Kiowa National 

Grassland. The Santa Fe Trail National Scenic Byway and La Frontera del Llano Scenic Byway 

are scenic highway corridors that play an important tourism role by linking natural and cultural 

points of interest along the routes. 

Summary of Environmental Consequences 

An interdisciplinary approach was used to evaluate possible environmental consequences for each 

of the four resource areas addressed in this report. We developed individual matrices that 

prompted review of the plan components for each resource area, by alternative. This examination 

revealed whether management practices under any given alternative might have important 

positive or negative consequences for the resource under consideration. 

Canadian, Eligible Scenic River 

Alternative A recommends leasing gas and oil with no surface occupancy in Mills Canyon. These 

standards and guidelines are carried over from the 1985 Plan, Amendment #12 into Alternative B. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 5 

Therefore the potential for environmental consequences within the river corridor with respect to 

gas and oil developments are positive. 

Standards and guidelines for Alternative A, and Alternatives B and C would have positive 

consequences for the Canadian eligible Scenic River. This guidance directs acquisition of private 

lands within the Canyon to preserve the unique qualities of the river, but none recommend 

designation. 

Wind energy design requirements within Alternative B have positive consequences for the 

eligible Scenic River corridor. The design guidelines minimize ground disturbing activities in 

areas of high scenic integrity. 

Alternative C may have consequences for Canadian eligible Scenic River by limiting the way 

treatments are implemented for controlling invasive species (salt cedar) within riparian habitat. 

With respect to salt cedar control, there is an interagency agreement and Forest Service decision 

(USDA Forest Service, 2007(b)) to eliminate salt cedar and restore native riparian vegetation 

along the Canadian River. The decision was signed on May 29, 2007. 

A positive consequence of wilderness designation (Alternative C) would be the elimination of 

vehicular access and distribution of invasive seed by vehicles. 

Standards, guidelines and objectives from Alternatives A, and B and C were evaluated for 

livestock use, heritage resources, roads and access and land adjustments, and found to have no 

negative environmental consequences for the Canadian eligible Scenic River. 

Natural Tourism 

Alternative A does not provide direction for managing Natural Tourism on the National 

Grasslands. 

Alternative A, and B and C will have positive environmental consequences for Natural Tourism 

because the designated road and trail system (roads and access resource) resulting from 

implementation of the 2005 Travel Management Rule would minimize the impacts on areas of 

high scenic integrity and heritage resources by prohibiting cross country motorized use and 

unauthorized road development. 

Objectives for motorized recreation in Alternative B and C would rehabilitate all unauthorized 

routes where resource damage is occurring as in the area surrounding the SF National Historic 

Trail. 

Objectives for Wildlife Habitat Improvement in Alternative B will have positive environmental 

consequences for Natural Tourism, which include bird watching, wildlife viewing, and trails for 

accessing the Important Bird Areas and Watchable Wildlife stations. 

Standards, guidelines and objectives from Alternatives A, B, and C were evaluated for general 

recreation, roads and access, livestock use, and were found to have no negative environmental 

consequences for Natural Tourism. 

Historic Trails and Scenic Byways 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 6 

Wind energy design requirements within Alternative B and C have neutral consequences for 

achieving the desired conditions for the National Historic Trail and Scenic Byways. Guidelines 

include restricting wind energy developments to 500 feet outside of National Historic Sites. 

Alternatives A and B and C would have positive environmental consequences for achieving the 

desired conditions for the Historic Trail and Scenic Byways because the designated road and trail 

system (roads and access resource) resulting from implementation of the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule will minimize the impacts on scenery and heritage resources by prohibiting 

cross country use and unauthorized road development. 

Objectives for motorized recreation in Alternative B and C would rehabilitate all unauthorized 

routes where resource damage is occurring as in the area surrounding the National Historic Trail. 

Standards within Alternative B and C for oil and gas leasing would have positive environmental 

consequences for the National Historic Trail and Scenic Byways because no surface occupancy 

would be allowed within the boundaries of heritage resource sites that are listed, or eligible for 

inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Standards, guidelines and objectives from Alternatives A, B, and C were evaluated for general 

recreation, and livestock use, and were found to have no negative environmental consequences 

for the Historic Trails and Byways. 

Research Natural Area 

No ecosystems are identified for recommendation within Alternatives B or C. However, the 

Forest Service designates and manages a network of special areas on National Forests and 

Grasslands that are permanently protected and maintained in natural condition for the purposes of 

conserving biological diversity, conducting non-manipulative research and monitoring, and 

education. RNA designation is beneficial because areas that are representative of common 

ecosystems in natural condition serve as a baseline or reference area to help answer resource 

management questions. The baseline condition of RNAs can be compared with similar 

ecosystems undergoing silvicultural or other land management prescriptions; they are useful for 

monitoring succession and other long-term ecological change. 

 

Today, scientists and land managers are working to restore the natural fire regime to RNAs and 

other areas of the landscape (Forest Service (online), 2006) Again, there is controversy 

surrounding the definition and use of manipulative versus non-manipulative activities on the 

RNAs. Alternatives B and C do not recommend designation at this time, however it does not 

preclude designation in the future should ecological conditions move closer to the historic range. 

Cumulative Consequences 

Alternatives B and C emphasize Forest Service-intergovernmental partnerships and relationships 

with non-governmental organizations to develop and promote conservation, interpretive and ecotourism within the planning area. In addition to alternatives outcomes, there may be cumulative 

consequences as a result of programs sponsored by other agencies that have positive benefits for 

rural economic development and wildlife/habitat conservation. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 7 

Introduction 

This report examines the likely consequences and outcomes of continuing management direction 

of the no action alternative (the current, 1985 Cibola National Forest Land Management Plan) 

and the likely outcomes of two alternatives to that plan, relative to special areas, areas of interest, 

and nature-based tourism on the Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National 

Grasslands: 

• Canadian eligible Scenic River 

• Santa Fe National Historic Trail, and two scenic byways: La Frontera del Llano Scenic 

Byway and the Santa Fe Trail National Scenic Byway 

• Research Natural Areas 

Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy that Apply 

From Appendix J, Other Sources of Information, Regulations, MOUs, Guidance 

Eligible Scenic River 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968; FSM 2354.02 Trail, River, and Similar Recreation 

Opportunities, Objective; FSM 2354.03 Trail, River, and Similar Recreation Opportunities, 

Policy; FSM 2354.04 Trail, River, and Similar Recreation Opportunities, Responsibility; FSM 

2354.21 Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management, Management of Study

Rivers; FSM 2354.42 (a-p) Wild and Scenic River Resource Protection and Management. 

National Historic Trails 

National Historic Preservation Act Sections 106 and 110; 36 CFR 800 Parks, Forests, and Public 

Property, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; 36 CFR 60.4 National Register of Historic 

Places, Criteria for Evaluation ; FSM 2300 Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource 

Management; Santa Fe National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management and Use Plan (USDI 

NPS 1990) and the Memorandum of Understanding between the National Park Service and the 

Pike-San Isabel Cimarron-Comanche National Grasslands signed March 6, 1991 (USDA FS and 

USDI NPS 1991); General Agreement Between the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park 

Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Region 3, Concerning the 

Santa Fe National Historic Trail, Agreement # 02-MU-11031600-022, dated Feb. 25, 2002.; 

National Trails System Act of 1968; FSM 2353.11 Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource 

Management, Chapter 50 Trail, River, and Similar Recreation Opportunities, Relationship 

Between National Recreation, National Scenic, and National Historic Trails and NFS Trails. 

Scenic Byways 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century or most recent reauthorizing legislation, 

FSM 2380.13 Landscape Management, Scenic Trails and Byways (See Appendix J, Other 

Sources of Information, Scenery). 

Research Natural Areas 

FSM 4063.02 Research Natural Areas, Objectives; FSM 4063.03 Research Natural Areas, Policy; 

FSM 4000 Research and Development, Chapter 4060, Research Facilities and Areas, Policy. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 8 

Natural Tourism 

See Appendix J, Other Sources of Information, Regulations, MOUs and Guidance for Scenery 

and Scenic Byways.

Methodology and Analysis Process 

An interdisciplinary approach was used to evaluate possible environmental consequences and 

outcomes of plan alternatives for the features listed above, and for nature-based tourism. We 

developed individual matrices that prompted review of the plan components for each resource 

area, by alternative. This examination revealed whether implementation of any given alternative 

might have important positive or negative consequences, or outcomes for the resource under 

consideration. 

As part of the planning process, two of the features evaluated in this report have been the subject 

of repeated studies by the Forest Service; the Canadian River and Research Natural Areas. A 

summary of those studies follows: 

Canadian River, Eligible Scenic River 

The Canadian River, eligible Scenic River and potential Research Natural Areas have been the 

subject of both qualitative and quantitative analysis by the Forest Service as required by the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act, Section 5(d), 1968 and the 1982 planning rule provisions section 219.25, 

respectively. 

Wild and/or Scenic Rivers are segments of watercourses that contain a mixture of natural, 

cultural, scenic and recreational values that are outstanding for their particular geographic area. 

The Canadian River was inventoried in 1982 in a nation-wide rivers inventory by the National 

Park Service. From 1998 through 2002, the Cibola plan revision team completed the 

classification and eligibility process for potential rivers as defined by FSH 1909.12, Chapter 80. 

Two candidate streams were evaluated on the Kiowa and Rita Blanca. Of those, only the 

Canadian River met two or more of the eligibility criteria. The analysis determined that the river 

is free flowing, and has the following outstanding and remarkable values: scenery, recreation, 

geology and history. The final classification was ‘scenic’, but eliminated as ‘wild’ due to road 

access. No suitability evaluation was done for the river segment, and it has not been 

recommended for designation. (A suitability study provides the basis for determining which rivers 

to recommend to Congress as additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. There are 

two potential outcomes of a suitability evaluation: either the river segment is recommended for 

Congressional designation, or not. If not, its status as an eligible river is removed and no longer 

falls under Wild and Scenic River protections. However, the segment may be administratively 

designated as a Special Area to ensure preservation of the outstandingly remarkable values. If the 

segment were recommended for Congressional designation, the protections currently in place 

would remain in effect.) As of this writing, this segment of the Canadian River remains eligible 

for future designation, and protections conveyed by Amendment #10 of the 1985 Land 

Management Plan remain in effect. 

A recent (10/2010) GIS recalculation of length resulted in a total of 19.19 miles. 16 miles of 

eligible Scenic River are on Forest Service lands and 3.19 miles are located on other jurisdiction 

lands. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 9 

In 1997 and 1998 forest personnel visited and evaluated six candidate streams on Black Kettle 

and McClellan Creek National Grasslands. None of those candidate streams met two or more of 

the Wild and Scenic eligibility criteria and were eliminated from further consideration. 

Research Natural Areas 

The 1985 Plan provides direction to study for possible designation, a 300 acre Research Natural 

Area (RNA) on each of three Grasslands; Black Kettle, Kiowa, and the Rita Blanca. The 

Southwestern Region’s 1984 RNA Progress Report indicated that shortgrass prairie representation 

in the national RNA system was needed because of the importance and geographic distribution of 

the ecosystem. Under a Cost-Share Program agreement, in 1987, The Nature Conservancy 

evaluated the Kiowa and Rita Blanca for potential shortgrass prairie sites as called for in the plan. 

Preliminary screening and two multi-day field trips were undertaken to gain understanding of 

range conditions and identify the most promising sites. A final report was prepared by The Nature 

Conservancy (Dunmire 1987) that describes field methods and findings of the research. 

Dunmire’s report identified and described four primary sites with RNA potential for Kiowa and 

Rita Blanca National Grasslands. The Southwestern Region RNA Taskforce visited those sites 

again in 1988 to evaluate the areas for possible recommendation. In July 1988, the Taskforce 

formally recommended that the Region proceed with designation for Unit 46 and portions of Unit 

3 on the Kiowa. Unit 46 was considered to be an excellent example of blue grama-buffalo grass 

ecosystem, and Unit 3 presented an excellent example of sandsage-blue grama ecosystem. Of 

principle interest was a large area of sandhills prairie in good condition (Dunmire 1987). 

In 1991, an Establishment Record was prepared by the Nature Conservancy for Unit 46; Kiowa 

Shortgrass Research Natural Area, but was not recommended by the Forest Supervisor or 

Regional Forester due to conflicts between restrictive RNA management guidelines and the longterm fire effects research being conducted by Rocky Mountain Research Station at the site. FSM 

4000, Chapter 4063 Research Natural Areas states that Research Natural Areas are primarily for 

non-manipulative research, observation, and study. However, the Federal Committee on 

Ecological Reserves (Ecological Reserves 1977) has said that deliberate manipulation may be 

utilized to maintain the unique feature that the RNA was established to protect. As a result, there 

is ongoing discussion (disagreement) whether the prescriptive fire use in the research study is 

considered manipulative research and thus invalidates establishment of the shortgrass RNA in the 

future.. Other scientific disagreement is centered upon cattle grazing within the area. Some 

researchers believe livestock grazing mimics historical use by large ungulate populations (bison), 

and others consider livestock grazing to be human manipulation of the ecosystem, that invalidates 

establishment of a shortgrass RNA in Unit 46. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 10 

As part of the current planning process, in 2009, RNA needs were ranked according to the 

distribution of currently protected lands across Potential Natural Vegetation Type (PNVT) 

classes, ecoregions and sections, and Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit Inventory (TEUI) climate 

gradients. This evaluation was conducted by the respective District Rangers, district resource 

specialists and forest planners using the regional Research Natural Area Process for Forest Plan 

Revision under the 1982 Planning Rule Provisions (Southwestern Region 2009) and 

Southwestern Region Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit Inventory data. Shortgrass prairie was 

reevaluated and failed to meet eligibility criteria due to ongoing research, human disturbances, 

and modifications such as fences, plowing, water developments, roads, and utility corridors. 

Shinnery oak and mixed grass prairie on Black Kettle and McClellan Creek evaluated, but failed 

to meet eligibility criteria because the areas were small and fragmented, or exhibited various 

degrees of human disturbance from plowing, grazing, invasive species, and herbicide use. The 

evaluation table ‘RNA Evaluation: Review of Representative Ecological Conditions’ follows on 

the pages below. 

On May 18 and 19, 2010, as a result of scoping comments received, three areas identified by 

Dunmire (1987) were reevaluated by Kiowa Rita Blanca District staff using cover frequency 

transects and ocular observation to document current conditions. These were Kiowa Units 100 

and 3; and Unit 19 on the Rita Blanca. Kiowa Unit 46 was not reevaluated. 

On Unit 100, the evaluation revealed that canopy cover had shifted since 1987 and visually 

galleta is the most dominant species, although the frequency transect shows that galleta and blue 

grama are equal in canopy cover at 32% each. Bare ground in 1987 was less than 10%, but in 

2010 bare ground is 20%. Based upon structural improvements and shift in plant composition the 

staff determined this unit is not a good candidate for shortgrass RNA designation (Safranek 

2010). 

In 1987, Unit 3 was proposed as good candidate as RNA for sandsage-blue grama ecosystem. At 

that time, the sand sage cover was reported as 10-20%. In May 2010, District staff measured 

canopy cover both inside and outside a small exclosure within the Unit. Line intercept transects 

showed that shrub canopy within the exclosure was 50% and outside the exclosure it was 33%. 

This is much higher than is considered a climax community for sand sagebrush. The staff 

determined that Unit 3 is not suitable for RNA designation for a number of reasons: existing 

infrastructure, an old field, current cultivation (corn) surrounding the area, and the shift in canopy 

cover (Safranek 2010). 

In 1987, Unit 19 of the High Lonesome was considered a good candidate as RNA for shortgrass 

ecosystem. No transects were read for this evaluation, but observation indicates that there is a 

much higher incidence of three-awn and forbs than were present in 1987. Broom snakeweed, 

which was rare in 1987, is common in 2010. Staff determined that this area is not suitable for 

RNA designation because of past human disturbance, historical grazing pressure and shift in 

canopy composition (Safranek 2010)
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 11 

RNA Evaluation: Review of Representative Ecological Conditions 

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National Grasslands 

Shinnery Oak vegetation type ranked as 3, very underrepresented. 

STEP Criteria YES (state 

justification) 

NO (state justificat

1 Review Research Natural Area (RNA) Representative 

Assessment Spreadsheet. 

• Are there areas on your Forest that contain the Potential Natural 

Vegetation Type (vegetation type) classes that fall into the 2 or 3 rankings for low representation for a particular vegetation type class? 

• Is there an outstanding example of an aquatic habitat that may be 

appropriate as a potential RNA? 

• If you have previously proposed RNAs in your current forest plan, do 

they fall within vegetation type classes with rankings of 2 or 3? 

YES 

NO NA 

2 Use the Conditions listed below to determine if these low- representative vegetation type class areas or aquatic habitats 

are appropriate for RNA establishment. 

State reason why the area meets the 

criterion 

State reason why tmeet the criterion 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 12 

Area contributes to a wide spectrum of high-quality representative areas that 

represent the major forms of variability found in forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine and aquatic habitats and natural situations of scientific interest and importance that, in combination, form a national network of ecological areas for research, education, and maintenance of biological diversity. RNA represents a specific vegetation type or ecosystem as identified by the regional ecological RNA evaluation. 

No areas are appropriestablishment for the fAreas of shinnery oak fragmented, and not inof human disturbanceunknown in context of duration have occurrebeen applied to many in the past. Fire histoareas is unknown excyears. At least 55 yeaoccurred on shinnery under management, shistory preceding gov’unknown and poorly drange grazing policy ptime, and some land wownership. 

Area contributes or continues to contribute to the preservation and 

maintenance of genetic diversity, including threatened species, endangered species, aquatic systems, and sensitive species. 

Grasshopper Sparrow species, and it is not lWe are not aware of adiversity, thus cannot diversity of veg or wildis much variability in sresponse to soil condi

Area serves as a baseline or reference area for the study of long-term 

ecological processes such as disturbance, hydrologic processes, climate change, or other processes. 

No, areas within this vgood baseline or referIndividual shinnery oasize, and even cumulascale. Too much variamanagement history. disturbance has occurcolonized within the sh
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 13 

Open swine grazing is these areas. 

Area serves as a control area for comparing results from manipulative 

research. 

No, areas not suitable regimes are largely ungrazing management which are unknown. Pdisturbance is unknowdocumented before fe

Area boundaries encompass an area large enough to provide essentially 

unmodified conditions within their interiors, which are necessary in accordance with the objectives stated in the establishment record (FSM 4063.02), and to protect the ecological processes, features, and/or qualities for which the RNA was established. Although not required, entire small drainages are ideal because they maintain interrelationships of terrestrial and aquatic systems. 

No, areas are not largconditions immune to outside influences. Arefragmented. The BlacCreek National Grassown entire drainages wthis vegetation type oc

Area shows little or no evidence of major disturbances by humans. 

Activities, such as livestock grazing and other uses, have not affected the area beyond its ability to recover. No evidence of timber cutting in past 50 years. 

No, areas show much disturbance by humanunder grazing. Some foccurred. 

Area reflects its original, near-pristine condition as closely as possible. No, areas are not orig

reasons stated above

The best available, qualified area was chosen. In certain geographic regions 

and in certain community types, it may be impossible to find candidate areas that do not contain exotic plant or animal life. 

Not applicable, no arerecommendation. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 14 

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National Grasslands 

Mixed Grass Prairie vegetation type: Ranked as 3, very under-represented. 

STEP Criteria YES (state justification) NO (state ju

1 Review RNA Representative Assessment Spreadsheet 

• Are there areas on your Forest that contain the vegetation type classes 

that fall into the 2 or 3 rankings for low representation for a particular vegetation type class? 

• Is there an outstanding example of an aquatic habitat that may be 

appropriate as a potential RNA? 

• If you have previously proposed RNAs in your current forest plan, do 

they fall within vegetation type classes with rankings of 2 or 3? 

YES 

NO NA 

2 Use the Conditions listed below to determine if these low- representative vegetation type class areas or aquatic habitats 

are appropriate for RNA establishment. 

State reason why the area meets the 

criterion 

State reason why t

meet the criterion 

Area contributes to a wide spectrum of high-quality representative areas that 

represent the major forms of variability found in forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, and aquatic habitats and natural situations of scientific interest and importance that, in combination, form a national network of ecological areas for research, education, and maintenance of biological diversity. RNA represents a specific vegetation type or ecosystem as identified by the regional ecological RNA evaluation. 

No. Essentially same poak above, for all criteAdditionally, more plowmixed grass vegetatioshinnery oak. Approx. plowed. Soil loss occuera, mainly from plowigrass was once shinneshinnery oak occurs in 

Area contributes or continues to contribute to the preservation and 

maintenance of genetic diversity, including threatened species, endangered species, aquatic systems, and sensitive species. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 15 

Area serves as a baseline or reference area for the study of long-term 

ecological processes such as disturbance, hydrologic processes, climate change, or other processes. 

Area serves as a control area for comparing results from manipulative 

research. 

Area boundaries encompass an area large enough to provide essentially 

unmodified conditions within their interiors, which are necessary in accordance with the objectives stated in the establishment record (FSM 4063.02), and to protect the ecological processes, features, and/or qualities for which the RNA was established. Although not required, entire small drainages are ideal because they maintain interrelationships of terrestrial and aquatic systems. 

Area shows little or no evidence of major disturbances by humans. 

Activities, such as livestock grazing and other uses, have not affected the area beyond its ability to recover. No evidence of timber cutting in past 50 years. 

Area reflects its original, near-pristine condition as closely as possible. 

The best available, qualified area was chosen. In certain geographic regions 

and in certain community types, it may be impossible to find candidate areas that do not contain exotic plant or animal life. NA. Not recommended 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 16 

Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands.Cottonwood Willow /riparian vegetation type: Ranked as 3, very under-represented 

STEP Criteria YES (state justification) NO (state justificat

1 Review RNA Representative Assessment Spreadsheet 

• Are there areas on your Forest that contain the vegetation type classes 

that fall into the 2 or 3 rankings for low representation for a particular vegetation type class? 

• Is there an outstanding example of an aquatic habitat that may be 

appropriate as a potential RNA? 

• If you have previously proposed RNAs in your current forest plan, do 

they fall within vegetation type classes with rankings of 2 or 3? 

YES 

NO NA 

2 Use the Conditions listed below to determine if these low- representative vegetation type class areas or aquatic habitats 

are appropriate for RNA establishment. 

State reason why the area meets the 

criterion 

State reason why t

meet the criterion 

Area contributes to a wide spectrum of high-quality representative areas that 

represent the major forms of variability found in forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, and aquatic habitats and natural situations of scientific interest and importance that in combination form a national network of ecological areas for research, education, and maintenance of biological diversity. RNA represents a specific vegetation type or ecosystem as identified by the regional ecological RNA evaluation. 

No. Impacts of past grthe Cottonwood-Willow type. Also, impacts of (acequias, irrigation diNM) are evident. Invasevident, and some noxsaltcedar, bull thistle, mAmerican. or Siberian in watershed, some ofcaused changes in the 

Area contributes or continues to contribute to the preservation and 

maintenance of genetic diversity, including threatened species, endangered species, aquatic systems, and sensitive species. 

No. There are no threaspecies (T&E) presentgenetic diversity of mosensitive species do ois nothing unique in CW
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 17 

Conchas crayfish, whiMills Canyon and may known populations in t

Area serves as a baseline or reference area for the study of long-term 

ecological processes such as disturbance, hydrologic processes, climate change, or other processes. 

No. There is a long hisdisturbance within the Grasslands-wide; it is Forest Service (USFSmanagement and procabove Mills Canyon. Tis very impacted. 

Area serves as a control area for comparing results from manipulative 

research. 

No. Areas within CW vsuitable as reference oTreatment of invasive 

Area shows little or no evidence of major disturbances by humans. 

Activities, such as livestock grazing and other uses, have not affected the area beyond its ability to recover. No evidence of timber cutting in past 50 years. 

No. Areas have experdisturbance. Roads, trmodification for irrigatiand housing structures occurred in all areas wtype. Perico Creek alsownership of this creeand small. 

Area reflects its original, near-pristine condition as closely as possible. No. Areas within CW v

in original or pristine c

The best available, qualified area was chosen. In certain geographic regions 

and in certain community types, it may be impossible to find candidate areas that do not contain exotic plant or animal life. NA. Not recommended 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 18 

Kiowa and Rita Blanca National GrasslandsShortgrass vegetation type: Ranked as 2, underrepresented 

STEP Criteria YES (state justification) NO (state justificati

1 Review RNA Representative Assessment Spreadsheet. 

Are there areas on your Forest that contain the vegetation type classes that fall into the 2 or 3 rankings for low representation for a particular vegetation type class? Is there an outstanding example of an aquatic habitat that may be appropriate as a potential RNA? If you have previously proposed RNAs in your current forest plan, do they fall within vegetation type classes with rankings of 2 or 3? 

YES NO YES. Unit 46 was previously proposed in ‘85 plan but not designated. Subsequently, USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station launched a fire and grazing study circa 1997 on the previously proposed area, with another 8-9 years anticipated before completion. Because of the considerable burning and grazing interventions as parts of the study, RNA designation would interfere with this RMRS study. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 19 

2 

Use the Conditions listed below to determine if these lowrepresentative vegetation type class areas or aquatic habitats are appropriate for RNA establishment. 

State reason why the area meets the 

criterion 

State reason why thmeet the criterion 

Area contributes to a wide spectrum of high-quality representative areas that represent the major forms of variability found in forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, and aquatic habitats and natural situations of scientific interest and importance that in combination form a national network of ecological areas for research, education, and maintenance of biological diversity. RNA represents a specific vegetation type or ecosystem as identified by the regional ecological RNA evaluation. 

 No. Areas within this v

meet criteria. Many paoccurred, many of whicand unknown regardinduration. There has behistory over 55 years oSome areas were plowand all were grazed. Nallowed due to suppreshas been the biggest imstocking rates are unknbeen highly modified wdevelopments, roads, Playa lakes have been pitted, or modified by ir

Area contributes or continues to contribute to the preservation and maintenance of genetic diversity, including threatened species, endangered species, aquatic systems, and sensitive species. 

 No. Past grassland rec

(i.e., plantings and seebeen genetically compstrains of native plantscurrently present, and history of livestock gramanagement. No T&E Ten rare or uncommon fever-few, Andean pradotted checkerspot, GrMountain Plover, one-fRhena crossline skippegroundsel, swift fox) mshortgrass vegetation tNGs, but current manaconsider and avoid/mit
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 20 

on these species throu

Area serves as a baseline or reference area for the study of long-term ecological processes such as disturbance, hydrologic processes, climate change, or other processes. 

 No. Only a large-scale 

this vegetation type woreference, but playas aephemeral in nature, aby pitting and other maon the landscape both land. Playas are often blocks of federal ownefragmented; they are awithin shortgrass prairialtered. In general, plafragmented and otherwconsidered. 

Area serves as a control area for comparing results from manipulative research. 

 No. Too much historica

alteration to serve as a 

Area boundaries encompass an area large enough to provide essentially unmodified conditions within their interiors, which are necessary in accordance with the objectives stated in the establishment record (FSM 4063.02), and to protect the ecological processes, features, and/or qualities for which the RNA was established. Although not required, entire small drainages are ideal because they maintain interrelationships of terrestrial and aquatic systems. 

No. Areas within vegetfragmented, occur in ssignificantly altered. 

Area shows little or no evidence of major disturbances by humans. Activities, such as livestock grazing and other uses, have not affected the area beyond ability to recover. No evidence of timber cutting in past 50 years. 

No. Much disturbance above); many disturbabefore federal ownershundocumented. 

Area reflects its original, near-pristine condition as closely as possible. No. Much disturbance 

above). 

The best available, qualified area was chosen. In certain geographic regions and in certain community types, it may be impossible to find 

 NA. Not recommended 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 21 

candidate areas that do not contain exotic plant or animal life. 

Kiowa and Rita Blanca National GrasslandsSandsage vegetation type. Ranked as 3, very underrepresented 

STEP Criteria YES (state justification) NO (state justificat

1 Review RNA Representative Assessment Spreadsheet. 

Are there areas on your Forest that contain the vegetation type classes that fall into the 2 or 3 rankings for low representation for a particular vegetation type class? Is there an outstanding example of an aquatic habitat that may be appropriate as a potential RNA? If you have previously proposed RNAs in your current forest plan, do they fall within vegetation type classes with rankings of 2 or 3? 

YES (but sandsage vegetation type is even more disturbed than shortgrass vegetation type discussed above) 

NO NA 

2 Use the Conditions listed below to determine if these low- representative vegetation type class areas or aquatic habitats 

are appropriate for RNA establishment 

State reason why the area meets the 

criterion 

State reason why tmeet the criterion 

Area contributes to a wide spectrum of high-quality representative areas that 

represent the major forms of variability found in forest, shrubland, grassland, alpine, and aquatic habitats and natural situations of scientific interest and importance that in combination form a national network of ecological areas for research, education, and maintenance of biological diversity. RNA represents a specific vegetation type or ecosystem as identified by the regional ecological RNA evaluation. 

No. There are many ea plant diversity imbalbeen removed. Topsodisturbances. Many prdisturbances have occhave a hard time findirepresents a pristine eYucca is present dispr
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 22 

at a higher density thaoccurred. Forbs and bare out of balance. Big needlegrass should be represented. There is in the plant community

Area contributes or continues to contribute to the preservation and 

maintenance of genetic diversity, including threatened species, endangered species, aquatic systems, and sensitive species. 

No. Areas within vegegenetically or ecologicT&E species are preseuncommon species thsandsage vegetation tpanhandle spurge, doRhena crossline skippPrairie-chicken. Curremanagement activities avoid/mitigate adverse species through projec

Area serves as a baseline or reference area for the study of long-term 

ecological processes such as disturbance, hydrologic processes, climate change, or other processes. 

No. Areas not approprbaseline areas for rea

Area serves as a control area for comparing results from manipulative 

research. 

No. Areas are not apparea for reasons state

Area boundaries encompass an area large enough to provide essentially 

unmodified conditions within their interiors, which are necessary in accordance with the objectives stated in the establishment record (FSM 4063.02), and to protect the ecological processes, features, and/or qualities for which the RNA was established. Although not required, entire small drainages are ideal because they maintain interrelationships of terrestrial and aquatic systems. 

No. Areas with this vefragmented and remnalarge enough. 

Area shows little or no evidence of major disturbances by humans. Activities, such as livestock grazing and other uses, have not affected the 

No. Areas within vegedisturbed historically, 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 23 

area beyond ability to recover. No evidence of timber cutting in past 50 years. 

Area reflects its original, near-pristine condition as closely as possible. 

No. Areas within vegeoriginal or pristine con

The best available, qualified area was chosen. In certain geographic regions 

and in certain community types, it may be impossible to find candidate areas that do not contain exotic plant or animal life. NA. Not recommende

Kiowa and Rita Blanca National GrasslandsPiñon Juniper vegetation type: Ranked 2, underrepresented. 

STEP Criteria YES (state justification) NO (state justificat

1 Review RNA Representative Assessment Spreadsheet. 

Are there areas on your Forest that contain the vegetation type classes that fall into the 2 or 3 rankings for low representation for a particular vegetation type class? Is there an outstanding example of an aquatic habitat that may be appropriate as a potential RNA? If you have previously proposed RNAs in your current forest plan, do they fall within vegetation type classes with rankings of 2 or 3?

YES NO NA 

2 Use the Conditions listed below to determine if these low- representative vegetation type class areas or aquatic habitats 

are appropriate for RNA establishment. 

State reason why the area meets the 

criterion 

State reason why t

meet the criterion 

Area contributes to a wide spectrum of high-quality representative areas that represent the major forms of variability found in forest, shrubland, grassland, 

No. Areas of Pinon Jutype are not high quali
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 24 

alpine, and aquatic habitats and natural situations of scientific interest and importance that in combination form a national network of ecological areas for research, education, and maintenance of biological diversity. RNA represents a specific vegetation type or ecosystem as identified by the regional ecological RNA evaluation. 

unique about these arscale of their presence to be considered. 

Area contributes or continues to contribute to the preservation and 

maintenance of genetic diversity, including threatened species, endangered species, aquatic systems, and sensitive species. 

No. T&E species are lareas than in any othepresent on Kiowa Natiis nothing unique abouof PJ areas. 

Area serves as a baseline or reference area for the study of long-term 

ecological processes such as disturbance, hydrologic processes, climate change, or other processes. 

No. Areas with PJ vegappropriate for baselinhave been long-term gas well as roads and inconstruction. Many PJ were originally settlemsheep and goats. 

Area serves as a control area for comparing results from manipulative 

research. 

No. Areas within the Pnot appropriate to servAll land within PJ vegepreviously impacted (s

Area boundaries encompass an area large enough to provide essentially 

unmodified conditions within their interiors, which are necessary in accordance with the objectives stated in the establishment record (FSM 4063.02), and to protect the ecological processes, features, and/or qualities for which the RNA was established. Although not required, entire small drainages are ideal because they maintain interrelationships of terrestrial and aquatic systems. 

No. Areas are not largof PJ areas is too smaan RNA. Fragmented ownership and adminiwithin this vegetation tcompatible with RNA r

Area shows little or no evidence of major disturbances by humans. 

Activities, such as livestock grazing and other uses, have not affected the area beyond ability to recover. No evidence of timber cutting in past 50 years. 

No. Areas of PJ show major disturbances, inover the last 100 years still present). 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 25 

Area reflects its original, near-pristine condition as closely as possible. No. See above. 

The best available, qualified area was chosen. In certain geographic regions 

and in certain community types, it may be impossible to find candidate areas that do not contain exotic plant or animal life. NA. Not recommended 

Completed May 27, 2009, over audio-video conference: Cibola NF&NG employees: Nancy Walls, Tom Smeltzer, Champe Millsap, Mary Lane, Chuck Milner, and John Baumchen. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 26 

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. 

• 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 

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

1985 Plan as identified in the 2008 Comprehensive Evaluation Report and Supplemental Analysis 

of the Management Situation document are explained below. This analysis addresses needs for 

change for Managed Recreation and Scenic Resources; and Managed Recreation and Scenic 

Resources-Special Areas. These needs for change are specific to the following four resource 

areas: Canadian River, eligible Scenic River; scenic byways and National Historic Trail; naturebased tourism; and Research Natural Areas. 

Managed Recreation and Scenic Resources 

The 1985 Land Management Plan is silent on nature-based tourism and associated interpretive 

activities beyond cultural resource sites. The revised plan needs to provide direction addressing 

opportunities for visiting, touring, and enjoying guided and interpretive activities related to 

scenery, wildlife and formally designated special areas. The management approach in the revised 

plan would encourage coordination with other agencies and non-governmental organizations in 

planning scenic byway corridors, Important Bird Areas, bird trails and Watchable Wildlife 

stations. Black Kettle National Grassland, in partnership with National Park Service will feature 

interpretive exhibits at Washita Battlefield Visitor Center. 

The 1985 Plan is silent on the scenic byways and historic trail located in the vicinity of the Kiowa 

National Grassland. The revised plan would provide direction for management of these cultural 

features and associated scenic resources. These features are located in areas with high scenic 

integrity; some direction associated with them will be found in the scenery plan components of 

the revised plan. 

Managed Recreation and Scenic Resources-Special Areas 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 27 

The revised plan needs to provide direction for identification and evaluation of special areas and 

Research Natural Areas (RNA). The 1982 planning rule provisions section 219.25 directs that 

forest planning shall provide for the establishment of Research Natural Areas. Planning shall 

make provision for the identification of examples of important forest, shrub land, grassland, 

alpine, aquatic, and geologic types that have special or unique characteristics of scientific interest 

and importance and that are needed to complete the national network of Research Natural Areas. 

The planning process allows for future proposals of RNA by amendment during the life of the 

plan if the ecological condition of a unit improves to the point where RNA designation criteria are 

met. 

While Alternative A provides direction to evaluate 300 acre RNAs on each of three Grasslands, 

the evaluation of ecological conditions in the 1980s, 2008, and 2010 resulted in no 

recommendation for designation. Unlike Alternative A, Alternatives B and C do not provide 

direction for RNA study and recommendation, but provide for evaluation consistent with section 

219.25 (above). No need for change was identified. 

Within the 1985 Plan, guidelines for the Kiowa Rita Blanca Management Area direct 

management of the Canadian River to preserve wild, scenic, and recreation river potential and 

acquire private lands within the corridor in order to preserve the unique qualities of the river.

Standards for managing the river as Eligible Scenic are carried over from 1985 plan within the 

revised plan (Alternative B). No need for change was identified for the Canadian River. 

Summary of Alternatives 

Canadian River, Eligible Scenic River 

Alternative A

Guidelines under Kiowa Rita Blanca Management Area direct management of the Canadian 

River to preserve wild, scenic, and recreation river potential and acquisition of private lands 

within the corridor to preserve the unique qualities of the river. There are no desired conditions or 

objectives for the Canadian River; however standards and protections for wild/scenic/recreation 

river are contained within the forest wide prescriptions (Amendment #10). Under this option, the 

river segment would remain ‘eligible’ for future designation and protections described in the 

1985 Forest Plan Amendment #10 would continue to apply in accordance with FSM 2354. 

Alternative B

The Desired Condition for Alternative B is consistent with the standards and management 

prescriptions from Alternative A. Standards for managing the river as eligible Scenic are carried 

over from 1985 plan. Alternative B recommends preserving the wild, scenic and recreation river 

qualities found in Mills Canyon, but does not recommend Scenic River designation. An objective 

under this alternative is to close or rehabilitate all unauthorized motorized vehicle stream 

crossings in the corridor within ten years of plan approval. 

Alternative C

Alternative C would treat management direction for the Canadian Eligible Scenic River the same 

as Alternative B. However, Forest Service direction (FSH 1909.12, Ch72.31) allows for several 

assumptions in evaluating wilderness need, one of which is that demand for wilderness increases 

with an increasing population. Research has found that not all population increases are equally 

likely to result in an increase in wilderness use. Minority populations have a negative correlation 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 28 

with wilderness and primitive area use. Taking these findings into account, the expected 

population growth of Albuquerque and Santa Fe may not generate a proportionate increase in 

wilderness use, particularly because both cities are compromised of approximately 50 percent 

racial and ethnic minorities (U.S. Census 2000).

Scenic Byways, National Historic Trail 

Alternative A

Alternative A has no desired conditions, objectives, guidelines or standards for managing historic 

trails and scenic byways on the National Grasslands. Although, the Scenic Byways are currently 

managed in cooperation with other state and federal agencies. The Santa Fe National Historic 

Trail is managed as a cultural resource in cooperation with the National Park Service. 

Alternative B

Alternative B includes Desired Conditions for the Santa Fe National Historic Trail, Santa Fe Trail 

National Scenic Byway, and La Frontera del Llano Scenic Byway (state designation only, as of 

this writing). 

The desired condition for the Santa Fe National Historic Trail is to demonstrate the inherent 

physical integrity and cultural, natural and scenic resources consistent with the (USDI, National 

Park Service) Santa Fe National Trail Comprehensive Management and Use Plan. Objectives 

include closing and/or rehabilitating roads that impact the trail segment. 

The desired condition for the Santa Fe National Scenic Byway is to provide access to remnant 

portions of the Historic Trail; scenery (landscape view) is of open grassland and sweeping plains. 

The desired condition for La Frontera del Llano Scenic Byway near Mills would connect historic 

and scenic attractions; and retain high scenic integrity including the vast open spaces and wildlife. 

Objectives for La Frontera del Llano Scenic Byway are to construct signage and an interpretive 

site to associate the Byway with the Kiowa National Grassland and Mills Canyon. The 

Management Approach for Alternative B emphasizes partnerships and projects to support rural 

economic goals and protect the resources for which the trail or byway was designated. The 

Grasslands may coordinate to maintain consistency in signage and appearance of the trail and 

associated features. 

Relevant law, policy, and regulation would apply (see Relevant Law, Policy, Regulation, and 

Other Guidance Section). 

Alternative C

Management for Scenic Byways and National Historic Trail would be the same as Alternative B, 

but with wilderness. 

Relevant law, policy, and regulation would apply (see Relevant Law, Policy, Regulation and 

Other Guidance Section). 

Nature-based Tourism 

Alternative A 

Alternative A has no management direction for nature-based tourism; however some programs are 

currently established and managed in cooperation with other agencies and NGOs. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 29 

Alternative B

Alternative B advocates eco-tourism with an emphasis on bird watching and wildlife viewing. 

Other opportunities would include auto tour routes, developed recreation sites and interpretive 

programs. Objectives include off-site educational enrichment programs and development of 

signage and interpretive materials. Management approaches include cooperation with other 

agencies and NGOs in planning Scenic Byway Corridors, Important Bird Areas, Watchable 

Wildlife stations, interpretive services and auto-tour routes to ensure promotion of Grassland 

visitation. 

Relevant law, policy, and regulation would apply (see Relevant Law, Policy, Regulation, and 

Other Guidance Section).

Alternative C 

Management for nature-based tourism would be the same as Alternative B, but with wilderness. 

Relevant law, policy, and regulation would apply (see Relevant Law, Policy, Regulation and 

Other Guidance Section). 

Research Natural Areas 

Alternative A

Research Natural Areas (RNA) are addressed in the 1985 plan within the forest wide standards 

and guidelines and the Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation. The standards and 

guidelines stipulate that approximately 300 acres in each of Black Kettle, Kiowa and Rita Blanca 

National Grasslands would be studied for possible designation as RNAs for the study and 

protection of native vegetation. The Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation for 

Research Natural Areas identified mixed grass prairie on Black Kettle and short grass prairie 

vegetation on Kiowa and Rita Blanca as suitable types for evaluation. Alternative A contains no 

desired conditions or objectives for Research Natural Areas, and they are not addressed in 

monitoring. 

Alternative B 

A review and analysis of ecological conditions for each under-represented and very underrepresented vegetation type was conducted to determine their potential for designation as 

Research Natural Areas (Appendix G). No vegetation type on any of the Grasslands was found to 

meet the criteria for RNA designation. 

Alternative C

Alternative C would be the same as Alternative B with regard to Research Natural Areas. 

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition) 

The Grasslands are located in northeastern New Mexico and the panhandles of Texas and 

Oklahoma. This region of the country is predominantly rural and has an economic base consisting 

largely of agricultural industries. There are a number of unique recreation and cultural features 

associated with the rural western landscape. 

Canadian River, Eligible Scenic River 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 30 

The Canadian River/Mills Canyon area on the Kiowa National Grassland contains a large semiprimitive area including a 7,466-acre Inventoried Roadless Area, a 19.19-mile eligible Scenic 

River segment, two developed campgrounds, and an interpretive site. The Roadless Area and the 

outstanding and remarkable values associated with the eligible Scenic River provide opportunities 

and enjoyment of unique historic, scenic, geologic, and recreation features. Mills Canyon is the 

most prominent geomorphic feature in Harding County and the campground provides one of the 

only developed outdoor recreation areas in the county. The area is important to the local history 

of the region and has potential to be an important destination along La Frontera del Llano Scenic 

Byway (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

There are two existing conditions that impact the outstanding values for which the Inventoried 

Roadless Area and eligible Scenic River were identified: uncontrolled motorized use and invasive 

plants (salt-cedar) along the Canadian River. Human activity, including the use of various types 

of motorized vehicles, is evident throughout the canyon. User created roads and trails exist along 

the river and cross the river. Vehicle tracks across meadows and up steep slopes further detract 

from natural ecosystem integrity and appearance (USDA Cibola National Forest 2008). Access 

changes resulting from implementation of the 2005 Travel Management Rule should cause a 

decline in off-road use in Mills Canyon. 

The dominance of invasive plants along the Canadian River detracts from the scenic quality, 

water quality, wildlife habitat, naturalness, and other values of this area; although recent 

treatments for invasive species have resulted in a decline of Salt Cedar. 

Research Natural Areas 

Shortgrass prairie and mixed grass prairie were identified in the 1985 land Management Plan for 

study as possible Research Natural Areas on the Grasslands. A third type, the sandsage ecosystem 

was also found to be of interest during that round of research. There are no designated Research 

Natural Areas on the Grasslands. However, there are several on-going research projects being 

conducted in the area. 

Nature-based Tourism 

Bird and wildlife watching are developing into popular activities on the Grasslands. The National 

Audubon Society has recognized two Important Bird Areas on the Kiowa: Perico and Sauz 

Creeks. Perico is a wide but shallow canyon, carved out of Dakota Sandstone. Water flows in the 

creek intermittently, but usually there are pools of residual water at the base of several cliffs–

enough most years to allow the Cliff Swallows to make mortar for their nests. In spite of the lack 

of predicable water, riparian vegetation has sprouted along the course of this channel, including 

cottonwoods, willows, hackberry and sumac. The primary land use here is cattle grazing, but the 

impact is fairly light. Because the regime is based upon rapid rotation, the animals only stay four 

or five days in any one pasture. At the present time, grazing is compatible with maintaining a 

fully functional ecosystem for birds and other wildlife (Audubon 2010). 

Units 97, 99 & 100 along Sauz Creek comprise a rolling short-grass prairie with a stream that 

seldom completely runs dry. The riparian vegetation lacks cottonwoods or willows; however 

there is an abundance of sedges, reeds, cattails and other aquatic vegetation, especially around the 

larger pools. Nearby is a good-sized playa that is transformed into a pond of almost four acres 

after good rains. Aquatic life in the creek is varied, with a variety of fish and other life-forms. 

Culturally, the area has a long history of ranching, as well as a period of homesteading until the 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 31 

Dust Bowl years (Audubon 2010). This site is very important to birds, and it offers the only 

persistent wetland on the Kiowa or Rita Blanca Grasslands. It is an important wintering area and 

migratory stopover for many species of ducks, and attracts Cinnamon and sometimes Bluewinged Teal in summer. Northern Rough-winged Swallow, Rock Wren, and Say's Phoebe nest in 

the mud banks bordering the creek, while "good" years produce a bumper crop of Lark Bunting 

on the uplands (Audubon 2010). 

Nature-based tourism on Black Kettle includes the Black Kettle Loop Trail, a segment of the 

Great Plains Trail of Oklahoma sponsored by the State of Oklahoma Department of Wildlife 

Conservation and other state agencies. Black Kettle Loop is an auto-tour route that winds through 

western Oklahoma Panhandle and Black Kettle National Grassland. Within the Loop, are over 

30,000 acres of mixed-grass prairie that shelter over 100,000 wintering geese. The landscape 

includes mixed-grass prairie, wooded ravines, rolling red hills, shinnery oak mottes, creeks, 

wetlands and the Washita River. Within Black Kettle National Grassland is a mixture of both 

short and tall grass species dominated by Little Bluestem. Also within Black Kettle is Croton 

Creek Watchable Wildlife Area, which provides nature-related recreation while conserving native 

plants and animals in their natural habitats (Watchable Wildlife 2010). 

 

Scenic Byways and National Historic Trail 

There is one National Historic Trail and two scenic byways on the Kiowa. The Santa Fe National 

Historic Trail is a nationally designated landmark with a 2.4 mile trail segment located on the 

Grassland. In 2001, the Forest Service developed an interpretive kiosk and day use/ picnic site 

near the trail route in accordance with the (USDI) Santa Fe National Historic Trail 

Comprehensive Management and Use Plan. The site provides interpretive and recreational 

opportunities to a wide variety of visitors, and contributes to local tourism. The Grasslands 

segment is especially important since most of the Trail is located on private land and not 

accessible to visitors. The primary conflict to maintaining the historic and scenic qualities of the 

Trail area is unregulated motorized use (USDA Forest Service 2008). 

The Santa Fe Trail National Scenic Byway and La Frontera Del Llano Scenic Byway are scenic 

highway corridors that pass through the Kiowa National Grassland. The Santa Fe National Scenic 

Byway runs east-west direction through Clayton, then north past Rabbit Ear Mesa toward the 

Colorado state line. La Frontera Del Llano Scenic Byway passes north-south through the Mills 

Units. The Grasslands play an important role in contributing to the scenic quality of the corridors 

and provides public picnic areas and interpretive sites along the routes. Currently, there are no 

uses on the Kiowa that conflict with the scenic resources along the byway corridors and that trend 

is likely to continue. Visitation in these areas is projected to follow the national trend and increase 

as the nationwide interest in historical and cultural tourism increases (USDA Forest Service 

2008). 

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 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. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 32 

An interdisciplinary approach was used to evaluate possible environmental consequences for each 

of the four resource areas addressed in this report. We developed individual matrices that 

prompted review of the plan components for each resource area, by alternative. This examination 

revealed whether implementation of any given alternative might have important positive or 

negative consequence in achieving the desired condition for the resource under consideration, e.g.

Canadian, Eligible Scenic River. The following alternatives were identified as having potential 

consequences in attaining the desired conditions for the resource named. 

Canadian, Eligible Scenic River 

Alternative A recommends leasing gas and oil with no surface occupancy in Mills Canyon. These 

standards and guidelines are carried over from the 1985 Plan, Amendment #12 into Alternative B. 

Therefore the potential for environmental consequences within the river corridor with respect to 

gas and oil developments are positive. Standards for gas and oil leasing in Alternative B also 

exclude surface occupancy from within 300 feet of all riparian or wetland areas and will have 

positive environmental consequences for other riparian areas outside of the river corridor. 

Standards and guidelines for Alternative A and B and C would have positive consequences for the 

Canadian eligible Scenic River. This guidance directs acquisition of private lands within the 

Canyon to preserve the unique qualities of the river. River corridors identified in the National 

Rivers Inventory, or otherwise identified for study are protected by Amendment #10 (Wild, 

Scenic/Recreation Eligible River Areas, October, 7 2002), and carried forward into Alternatives B 

and C. 

Wind energy design requirements within Alternative B have positive consequences for the 

eligible Scenic River corridor. The design guidelines minimize ground disturbing activities to 

limit impacts to wildlife and areas of high scenic integrity. 

Alternative C may have neutral consequences by limiting the way treatments are implemented for 

controlling invasive species (salt cedar) within the riparian habitat. With respect to salt cedar 

control, there is an interagency agreement and Forest Service decision (USDA Forest Service 

2007(b)) to eliminate salt cedar and restore native riparian vegetation along the Canadian River. 

The decision was signed on May 29, 2007. As of this writing, aerial eradication has been 

completed and future treatments should be limited to backpack herbicide application. Carrying 

out these treatments is essential to restoring ecosystem and watershed functions (USDA Forest 

Service 2008). When the flow is reduced by drought or impoundments outside of agency 

jurisdiction, salt cedar will out-compete cottonwood-willow. The undependable flow is a limiting 

factor to restoration. 

A positive consequence of wilderness designation (Alternative C) would be the elimination of 

vehicular access and the distribution of invasive seed by vehicles. 

Standards, guidelines and objectives from Alternatives A and C were evaluated for livestock use, 

heritage resources, roads and access and land adjustments, and found to have no negative 

environmental consequences for the Canadian eligible Scenic River. 

Historic Trails and Scenic Byways 

Wind energy design requirements within Alternative B have positive consequences for the 

National Historic Trail and Scenic Byways. Guidelines include restricting wind energy 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 33 

developments to 500 feet outside of National Historic Sites, and should not interfere with other 

landmark views from the byways. Interpretive improvements and historic markers increase 

visibility and encourage recreation visits to the area. This tourism may contribute to economic 

growth in the rural economy. Additionally, the desired conditions for Alternative B limit 

development to rural and ranch related structures; scenery objectives emphasize pastoral 

landscapes and high scenic integrity. 

Alternative A and B will both have positive environmental consequences for the Historic Trail 

and Scenic Byways because the designated road and trail system (roads and access resource) 

resulting from implementation of the 2005 Travel Management Rule will minimize the impacts 

on scenery and heritage resources by prohibiting cross country use and unauthorized road 

development. Objectives for motorized recreation in Alternative B would rehabilitate all 

unauthorized routes where resource damage is occurring as in the area surrounding the National 

Historic Trail; other existing routes would be evaluated for closure to protect plant and animal 

species and important species habitats. 

Standards within Alternative B for oil and gas leasing would have positive environmental 

consequences for the National Historic Trail and Scenic Byways because no surface occupancy is 

allowed within the boundaries of heritage sites that are listed, or eligible for inclusion on the 

National Register of Historic Places. Additionally, no surface occupancy would be allowed in any 

developed recreational facility or interpretive site. 

Standards, guidelines and objectives from Alternatives A and C were evaluated for general 

recreation, and livestock use, and were found to have no negative environmental consequences 

for the Historic Trails and Byways. 

Nature-based Tourism 

Alternative A does not provide direction for managing nature-based tourism on the National 

Grasslands, however cooperative programs with state and federal agencies, and NGOs are in 

place to facilitate conservation of natural and cultural resources; and to promote rural economic 

development. 

Alternative A and B and C will have positive environmental consequences for nature-based 

tourism because the designated road and trail system (Roads and Access resource area) resulting 

from implementation of the 2005 Travel Management Rule will minimize the impacts on areas of 

high scenic integrity and heritage resources by prohibiting cross country motorized use and 

unauthorized road development. 

Objectives for motorized recreation in Alternative B would rehabilitate all unauthorized routes 

where resource damage is occurring as in the area surrounding the National Historic Trail; other 

existing routes would be evaluated for closure to protect plant and animal species and important 

species habitats. 

Objectives for Wildlife Habitat Improvement in Alternative B would have positive environmental 

consequences for nature-based tourism, which include bird watching, wildlife viewing, and trails 

for accessing the Important Bird Areas and Watchable Wildlife stations. Objectives within 

Alternative B include fenced grazing exclosures that are effective and ecologically functional. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 34 

Guidelines direct that exclosures associated with water to be evaluated and maintained, modified, 

or removed. 

Standards, guidelines and objectives from Alternatives A and C were evaluated for general 

recreation, roads and access, livestock use, and were found to have no negative environmental 

consequences for nature-based tourism. 

Research Natural Areas 

There are no desired conditions for Research Natural Areas within Alternative B. However, the 

Forest Service designates and manages a network of special areas on National Forests and 

Grasslands that are permanently protected and maintained in natural condition for the purposes of 

conserving biological diversity, conducting non-manipulative research and monitoring, and 

education. RNA designation is beneficial because areas that are representative of common 

ecosystems in natural condition serve as a baseline or reference area to help answer resource 

management questions. The baseline condition of RNAs can be compared with similar 

ecosystems undergoing silvicultural or other land management prescriptions; they are useful for 

monitoring succession and other long-term ecological change. 

The 2009 review of ecological conditions ranked each vegetation type for representativeness 

according to standard evaluative criteria (See table under Analysis and Methodology). They are: 

Black Kettle and McClellan Creek 

Shinnery Oak, ranked as 3, very under-represented 

Mixed Grass prairie, ranked as 3, very under-represented 

Kiowa and Rita Blanca 

Cottonwood Willow Riparian, ranked as 3, very under-represented 

Shortgrass prairie, ranked as 2 under-represented 

Sandsage, ranked as 3, very under-represented 

Piñon-Juniper, ranked as 2, under-represented 

 

Until recently, the primary course of action was to leave RNAs alone. However, with the 

emphasis on ecosystem management, more attention is being placed on restoration of natural 

processes such as fire and control of invasive species which alter the composition and functioning 

of natural communities. Today, scientists and land managers are working to restore the natural 

fire regime to RNAs and other areas of the landscape (Forest Service (online), 2006) Again, there 

is controversy surrounding the definition and use of manipulative versus non-manipulative 

activities on the RNAs. Because we are not recommending designation at this time, does not 

preclude designation in the future should ecological conditions move closer within the historic 

range of variability. See the table ‘RNA Evaluation: review of Representative Ecological 

Conditions’ above, under the section titled ‘Research and Methodology’. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

Grasslands-wide and lands immediately adjacent the Grasslands is the cumulative effects analysis 

area. This area was chosen because the research, natural, and recreation areas addressed in this 

report are geographically diverse. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 35 

The desired conditions for Nature-based tourism, and the Santa Fe National Historic Trail and 

Scenic Byways emphasize Forest Service-intergovernmental partnerships and relationships with 

non-governmental organizations to develop and promote conservation, interpretive and ecotourism within the planning area. There may be cumulative consequences as a result of programs 

sponsored by other agencies or NGOs that have positive benefits for rural economic development 

and wildlife/habitat conservation. The following describes four of these programs on the 

Grasslands: 

Santa Fe National Historic Trail: The Forest Service is currently working under a Memorandum 

of Understanding (MOU) with the National Park Service to manage our segment of the Santa Fe 

National Historic Trail. The Park Service has developed a strategic plan for the future that 

includes interpretation, education and a marketing strategy to promote the trail locally, regionally, 

and nationally (Santa Fe National Historic Trail, Final Strategic Plan 2003). The management 

approach for Alternative B emphasizes partnerships and projects to support economic goals and 

protect the resources for which the trail or byway was designated. The Grasslands may coordinate 

with other agencies to maintain consistency in signage and appearance of the trail and associated 

features. 

There is potential for wind energy development across multi-jurisdictional lands. The cumulative 

environmental consequences of large-scale utility development could degrade the high scenic 

integrity areas surrounding the Santa Fe National Historic Trail and Scenic Byways. 

Important Bird Areas Program: This program is managed by the National Audubon Society; the 

mission is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds and other wildlife for the 

benefit of humanity and the earth’s biological diversity. Audubon-designated Important Bird 

Areas identify, prioritize and protect vital bird habitat. Important Bird Areas (IBA) are sites that 

provide essential habitat for one or more species of bird. IBAs include sites for breeding, 

wintering and/or migrating birds. As demand for wildlife viewing and birding increases, more 

interpretive sites would be developed to meet the need with an emphasis on bird trails and 

outdoor classrooms for youth groups, school children and outdoor enthusiasts. Wildlife 

improvements within the Sauz Creek and Perico Creek riparian areas would contribute to 

protecting IBA habitat. 

The Great Plains Trail of Oklahoma: This program is managed by the Oklahoma Department of 

Wildlife Conservation; the mission is to manage Oklahoma’s wildlife resources and habitat to 

provide scientific, educational, aesthetic, economic and recreational benefits for present and 

future generations of recreationists who appreciate wildlife. The Great Plains Trail of Oklahoma 

was developed to take advantage of Oklahoma’s rural character, showcase the many wildlife 

species, and promote rural economic development. One of America's newest wildlife routes, the 

Great Plains Trail covers the Oklahoma Panhandle. The ecotourism potential of the trail has 

brought together a number of public and private groups, including the Oklahoma Department of 

Wildlife Conservation, the State Parks Division, The Nature Conservancy, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Ducks Unlimited, the Northwest Cattlemen's Association, and several local 

chambers of commerce. A stop at Black Kettle National Grassland and the Washita Battlefield 

National Historic Site are two of many highlights along the Black Kettle Loop tour. 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 36 

Watchable Wildlife: The mission of Watchable Wildlife is to help communities and wildlife

prosper. In 1990 eight federal agencies including the Forest Service signed a MOU to provide a 

framework for cooperative activities to develop and implement Watchable Wildlife Programs on 

federal lands. Watchable Wildlife is committed to helping local communities realize the 

economic potential of nature-related recreation while conserving native plants and animals in 

their native habitats (Watchable Wildlife 2010). 

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. 

List of Preparers 

Cynthia A. Geuss, Land Management Planner 

1985, BA Geography, University New Mexico 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 37 

1999, MCRP (Masters, Community and Regional Planning), Natural Resources and 

Environmental Planning, University New Mexico 

1989-2009, USDA Forest Service, Cartographer and Cartographic Program Manager, 

Southwestern Region, Regional Office, Albuquerque, NM 

2009-Current, USDA, Cibola National Forest, Land Management Planner, Socioeconomic Lead, 

Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM 

Angela K. Safranek, Rangeland Management Specialist 

1985, BS in Rangeland Ecology, Colorado State University 

20 years as Forest Service Rangeland Management Specialist, Rocky Mountain Region, Routt, 

Black Hills, and Medicine Bow National Forests 

3 years as Forest Service Rangeland Management Specialist, Southwestern Region, Kiowa and 

Rita Blanca National Grasslands 

References 

Dunmire, William W, 1987. Potential Research Natural Areas, Kiowa and Rita Blanca National 

Grasslands Cibola National Forest: An Evaluation of Shortgrass Prairie Sites on the 

National Grasslands in New Mexico, Texas and Oklahoma 

National Audubon Society, 09/2010. Important Bird Areas in the U.S., Available at: 

http://iba.audubon.org/bird/iba 

USDA, Cibola National Forest, Safranek, Angela, et.al. 2010. 2010 Evaluation of proposed 

RNAs, Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands 

Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves. 1977. A Directory of Research Natural Areas on 

Federal Lands of the United States of America. Washington, DC 

USDA, Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 2009. Research Natural Area: Process for Forest 

Plan Revision under the 1982 Planning Rule Provisions 

USDI, National Park Service, Santa Fe Trail Association. 2003. Santa Fe National Historic Trail 

Final Strategic Plan 

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 10/2010. Great Plains Trail of Oklahoma: Black 

Kettle Loop. Available at: http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/blackkettle.asp

Watchable Wildlife Incorporated. 10/2010. Mission Statement. Available at: 

http://www.watchablewildlife.org

USDA, Forest Service. 2008a. Socio-Economic Sustainability Report: Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black 

Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands 

USDA, Forest Service. 2008b. Ecological Sustainability Report: Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black 

Kettle, and McClellan Creek National Grasslands 
Printed on recycled paper • Month Year 38 

USDA, Cibola National Forest. 2008. Kiowa National Grassland Wilderness Evaluation Report: 

Canadian River Potential Wilderness Area 

USDA, Forest Service. 2007(a). Final Environmental Impact Statement for Canadian River 

Tamarisk Control; Cibola National Forest, Harding and Mora Counties New Mexico 

USDA, Forest Service. 2007(b). Record of Decision, Canadian River Tamarisk Control: Cibola 

National Forest, Harding and Mora Counties, New Mexico 

FSH 1909.12, Land Management Planning Handbook, Chapter 70, Wilderness Evaluation 

USDA, Forest Service, Northern Region. 2006. Research Natural Areas of the Rocky Mountain 

Region, Intermountain Region, Southwestern and Great.... Available at: 

http://rna.nris.state.mt.us/rna (incomplete reference) 

University of New Mexico, Bureau of Business and Economic Research (UNM-BBER) 2005. 

Socioeconomic Assessment of the Region 3 National Grasslands 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. American Fact Finder. Available at: http://www.factfinder.census.gov