Grassland Management Plan Requires Public Engagement
- Anne Boswell Taylor
- 3 hours ago
- 6 min read
~Norman Kincaide
A series of community chats are ongoing concerning the revision of the Cimarron and Comanche Grasslands (CCNG) management plan. The latest was held on Tuesday, August 26, 2025, via zoom from 5:30-7 P.M. The current Land and Resource Management Plan for the Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands signed in 1984, envisioned a balance of resource outputs, applying socially responsible management practices while addressing public issues. Objectives included maintaining or enhancing local community and economic stability, improving environmental quality and producing moderate increases in market resources such as forest and range products.
Beginning in the Spring of 2024 the Forest and Grassland Supervisor for the CCNG initiated engagement with Tribes, followed by outreach to county, state, and other federal agencies. On September 4, 2024, Tribes were invited to serve as cooperating agencies in the plan revision process. Counties and local governments were invited to participate as cooperating agencies on September 30, 2024. Public meetings began in January 2025 in southeastern Colorado, followed by virtual events in July and August 2025.
The CCNGs’ staff assisted in the preparation of the draft assessment with input and review from the Mountain Planning Services Group and Rocky Mountain Regional Office as well as public feedback from initial engagement activities. Following the draft’s release for public comment in summer/fall of 2025, the Forest Service will incorporate comments, Tribal consultation input, and additional data to produce the revised assessment. The assessment report is not a decision document. It serves as a foundation for identifying conditions, trends, and sustainability needs. The assessment process will inform initiating National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures to prepare a revised management plan in compliance with the 2012 Planning Rule (36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219.)
The Forest Service collaborates with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Kansas State Forest Service, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Morton County (KS), City of Elkhart (KS), Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, West Otero, Timpas Soil Conservation District (CO) and Otero County (CO).
Coordination efforts align land management planning and assessment processes, leveraging input and data from stakeholders. While ensuring alignment, the Forest Service also respects the unique mandates and policies of these jurisdictions, balancing its mission with shared goals for sustainable resource management.
Forest Service reviews plans and policies from numerous agencies and jurisdictions, including the 2020 Colorado Forest Action Plan, the 2023 Strategic Plan for Climate-Smart Natural and Working Lands (Colorado), the 2024 State Wildlife Action Plan (Colorado), the 2022 Kansas State Wildlife Action Plan, the 2021-2025 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (Kansas), the 2019 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (Colorado), and the 2017 La Junta Comprehensive Plan. These plans and others will be used to identify key management objectives, conflicts, and synergies relevant to CCNG.
Land ownership within CCNGs is characterized by a mosaic of public and private lands. This fragmentation complicates management efforts, increasing administrative and economic costs, and disrupting ecological connectivity. Fragmented ownership limits the effectiveness of large-scale management practices, such as prescribed burns, habitat restoration, and rotational grazing, thereby impeding efforts to conserve biodiversity and maintain ecosystem integrity.
The Forest Service employs strategies such as comprehensive grazing management plans, land adjustments, exchanges, comprehensive surveys, and the posting of property boundaries to clarify ownership patterns. Divergent management objectives among private landowners and public agencies complicate management efforts, necessitating strategic public-private partnerships and cross-boundary collaborations to align land use with regional ecological goals. These measures are critical to mitigating the adverse effects of land fragmentation, ensuring sustainable land use, and streamlining management operations across the grasslands.
In light of the vast amount of information needed and the number and kind of various other plans to be consulted, information collected during the public comment periods are critical to understanding how the public values the CCNGs. Consequently, it is imperative that local governments, especially the County Commissioners be actively engaged during this revision process to protect the interests of the counties involved and ranchers, farmers and grazing associations who may be impacted by the revisions to the CCNG management plan. Local governments must be politely forceful towards the National Forest Service to ensure that coordination is indeed being adhered to in this revision process.
Furthermore, how can any cogent management plan be developed for CCNG when seven separate plans may be reviewed by the Forest Service, who then must develop a plan with consideration for these plans. Addressing the views of so many “stakeholders” appears to be a coordination and cooperation impossibility, when endeavoring to accommodate those views and considerations. Whose views and assessments will be paramount in developing a revised management plan?
The August 26, 2025 National Forest Service Zoom meeting witnessed twelve attendees: Barb Leininger, La Junta, Andee Leininger, La Junta, Heather Stokes, Ryan Nehl, Forest Service (FS), CO, Beth Davis, FS, CO, Raul Alonso, FS, CO, Angela Safranek, FS, CO, Lochen Well, FS, CO, Kurt Staton, FS, CO, Nancy Brewer, FS, KS, Ike Keoueo and Norman Kincaide, Rocky Ford.
Several slides summarized the process. A land management plan is similar to a community’s comprehensive plan or zoning regulations. It indicates a direction in which the involved communities and stakeholders want to go and provides a basis for determining what projects can be done and how they can be accomplished. Plans are revised to address: new regulations and policies; respond to changing ecological, social and economic conditions; incorporate current views of the public; and include the most recent scientific information.
The Land Management Plan Revision Process includes: Pre-assessment: October 2023-October 2024; Assessment: November 2024-September 2025; Plan Development: October 2025-August 2026; Draft Plan EIS: October 2025-March 2026; Final Plan EIS: March 2026-August 2026; and Objections & Final Decision: August 2026-November 2026.
Picket Wire Canyons were evaluated for Wilderness Recommendation. In this process the Forest Service must identify and evaluate lands that may be suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and determine whether to recommend to Congress any such lands for wilderness (2012 Planning Rule, 36 CFR 219.7(c)(2)(v)). This requires an inventory, an evaluation, analysis, recommendation and then the Forest Supervisor signs the record of decision and transmits the preliminary administrative recommendations to Congress; only Congress has the authority to designate wilderness areas.
Wilderness Evaluation Results for Picket Wire, 12,072 acres, indicated apparent naturalness, if reshaped, but not for primitive and unconfined recreation. There were other features of value, but negative for manageability.
Wild & Scenic River eligibility is much the same as for Wilderness designation: inventory; evaluation, preliminary classification, and eligibility study report. While the Forest Service must identify eligibility, it does not have the authority to designate Wild and Scenic Rivers.
For the Purgatoire River the preliminary classification was recreational with a length of 20.8 miles, beginning at the Grassland boundary and ending at the boundary within Ranger District: Comanche National Grassland with outstandingly remarkable values of geology, history, culture, fish, and wildlife.
There are also Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) which are not federally listed, proposed or candidate species under the Endangered Species Act, that are native and known to occur in the management plan area. The best available scientific information indicates substantial concern regarding SCCs long-term persistence in the plan area. To resolve these concerns the Forest Service consults local expertise, input from Tribes, governments and the public. Species of Conservation Concern are a means to comply with 2012 Planning Rule approach to meet the National Forest Service Management Act’s diversity requirement.
From the Zoom discussion the Forest Service must adhere to the established timeline for completion of the revised management plan. Is there a particular reason for such a rigid timeline for completion? The issue of urbanization and major development projects were brought up as hardly threats to the Grasslands considering the loss of population in the study area. Is the Forest Service channeling comments to benefit their agenda to revise the plan they desire regardless of feedback and input? Ryan Nehl, Forest Service, Colorado said they have a difficult time filling positions because nobody wants to live in Southeastern Colorado. If the Forest Service is already short of staff, how are they going to manage new designations (Wild & Scenic River or Wilderness)? Is this revision pressured by budgetary concerns in light of the DOGE initiative? Aren’t there enough Federal government designations in Colorado without investigating more? Perhaps a freeze on Wilderness and Wild & Scenic River and other designations would be prudent in light of budgetary and land restriction concerns. Also, one Forest Service employee on Zoom stated he had never visited the Grasslands. Another criticism of the process came from Barb Leininger, who observed that the process appeared to be a book and not boots on the ground endeavor. More individuals need to participate and express their views on this revised management plan. Further engagement opportunities via Zoom are: September 4, 2025: 9:30 -11 A.M.; September 8, 2025: 11-12:30 P.M.; September 9, 2025: 8-9:30 A.M. via USDA.gov Cimarron and Comanche Grasslands Revision
Sources
Cimarron & Comanche National Grassland Draft Assessment Final 508 Revision, p. 6
CCNG Draft Assessment Final 508 Revision, p. 8
CCNG Draft Assessment Final 508 Revision, p. 11.
CCNG Draft Assessment Final 508 Revision, p. 19-20.
(Norman Kincaide is a regular contributor to Colorado News Your Way, if you would like to be a contributor, whether it be with a story, photos, information or something else, please contract, Anne Boswell, at anneboswell@coloradonewsyourway.com
###
Comments