Timpas Grazing Permit Holders Chat with Forest Service
- Anne Boswell Taylor
- 16 minutes ago
- 5 min read
~Norman Kincaide
Timpas Grazing Unit permit holders held a meeting at Otero College in a conference room at the Student Center, at 4:30 P.M. September 16, 2025. The meeting was organized by Barb Leininger of La Junta, a permit holder, as prelude to the Forest Service Zoom chat scheduled for 5:30 P.M. Andee Leininger of La Junta, owner of SECO Ranch Planning and a certified professional in range management, provided an overview of her comments concerning issues with the Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands Draft Assessment.
Under Scope, Scale and Timing of the Draft Assessment: “interspersed with National Forest System lands are tracts of privately owned or other federally managed lands that the Forest Service does not manage.” Leininger countered that “while it’s true that some of these privately owned tracts of land are fenced off and managed privately, there are just as many privately owned acres which are not fenced out and are managed by the USFS as part of Forest Service allotments.” It concerned Leininger that given the number of private acres interspersed within the national grasslands the Forest Service did not engage permittees on the Timpas Unit to gather input regarding current ecological conditions and grazing management on those private acres.
For the sources used to establish dominant plant and animal species the Draft Assessment did not name all major Ecological Sites within the short grass prairie ecosystem or the canyons lands system. Furthermore, Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) according to the Regional Forester’s SCC folder, is a species determined to be native to, and known to occur in the plan area if the best available scientific information at the time of the plan development indicates that the species is a native species and at the time of plan development is established or is becoming established in the plan area.
There are five elements that demonstrate a species is secure and not at risk and thus cannot be identified as SCC: abundance, distribution, lack of threats, trends in habitat and responses to management. The Draft Assessment does not define the time when a species has become abundant or established in an area. There is conflict between indicators. In order for a species to be called a SCC, it must be “native and known to occur in the plan area.” But if it doesn’t meet the undefined Abundance indicator standards it can be called SCC.
As related to Urbanization the Draft Assessment states: “The expansion of agriculture and urbanization across the Great Plains and the area surrounding and within the Cimarron and Commanche National Grasslands area have resulted in pollution, hydrologic disturbance, and physical modification of streams. The Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands riparian area and non-playas wetlands are affected by upstream and upslope activities that occur on and off National Forest System lands due to mixed ownership within the project boundary.” If the definition of urbanization is the process by which large numbers of people become permanently concentrated in relatively small areas, forming cities, the Draft Assessment should specifically state where the damaging urbanization has occurred. Does urbanization mean one house on forty acres, one barn, or a whole subdivision. What is the context that defines damaging urbanization?
The Draft Assessment addressed climate change in great detail, using that term 76 times, which is no longer an immediate priority of the current presidential administration. The Draft published projections of increased temperatures for the period between 2071 and 2090, which have nothing to do with proposed plan for use in 2026.
The Forest Service Zoom Chat began at 5:30, but technical issues with the Otero College large screen and inoperative microphone prevented Forest Service employees from hearing the Otero College side of the Zoom. These issues consumed at least twenty minutes after which a two-way connection was established. Another fifteen to twenty minutes was taken up with introductions of 26 individuals around the conference room. Introductory slides by the Forest Service consumed more time. Leaving approximately forty minutes for questions and comments.
There is no author or team listed at the beginning of the Draft Assessment, nor a single person’s name referenced to take credit for this document.
Trish Pfeffer Leone asked: “Who actually created this document?”
James Pitts, Forest Service: “A contractor.”
After some discussion, Pfeffer Leone went up to the laptop microphone and asked: “Who is the contractor?”
Pitts; “There were many people and organizations involved who contributed to this document from many areas.”
Pfeffer Leone asked again: “Who is the contractor?”
Pitts responded with another vague rambling inconclusive answer.
Pfeffer Leone asked a third time: “Who is the contractor? We as taxpayers deserve to know.”
Pitts: “Uh, AECOM.”
AECOM is a multi-national consulting firm, headquarters in Dallas, Texas, specializing in engineering, design, construction and environmental services. AECOM provides the Forest Service with support through contracts and joint ventures for environmental assessments National Environmental Policy Act compliance and planning services that contribute to land management on federal lands.
Why was the Forest Service so reluctant to disclose the contractor? What part did the Forest Service actually do to create the Draft Assessment? AECOM is not found on a search of the Draft Assessment. But it states: “The Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands’ staff assisted in the preparation of the draft assessment with input and review from the Mountain Planning Services Group and Rocky Mountain Regional Office staff and leadership.” Did the Forest Service misrepresent who compiled and created the Draft Assessment?
James Pitts did admit the main activity on the grasslands is grazing. If that is so, why all of these extraneous concerns and plans cited in the Assessment?
Zane Leininger asked: “Who are your partners and stakeholders?”
A slide was shown with a circle around which were listed 12 entities. James Pitts said the Timpas permit holders were partners and stakeholders. This came as a surprise to permit holders engaged in the Zoom.
Janae Rader asked: “What is wrong with the current plan? Couldn’t the Forest Service provide a comparison between the current plan and the Draft Assessment?”
The Forest Service reiterated the Draft Assessment described the current status of the grasslands and was not a plan. Beth Davis, Forest Service, said the Forest Service was bound by law to revise management plans every 15 years, citing National Forest Act of 1976.
Nearing 7 P.M., Heather Stokes, moderator, said that it was time to terminate the chat. All the while Kevin Carney, retired Otero County Commissioner, just sat down in front of the laptop for a question. Stokes then relented at 7:02 P.M.: “I suppose we can take one more question.”
Carney was concerned about the lack of law enforcement, either federal or county on the grasslands and the maintenance of roads and if there was a fiscal limitation to these issues. There was no real answer to his question as the Forest Service employees seemed time constrained.
This public outreach episode was not one to inspire faith and trust in Forest Service employees. Searching for a word that captures its essence, pathetic comes to mind. In light of the lack of competence in minimal public outreach, reluctance at transparency and lack of ownership of a flawed document with no visible authorship, the whole Cimarron and Comanche Grasslands Draft Assessment and management revision needs to be sent to a shredder. The current management plan should remain in place under the no action alternative (Alternative B).
The deadline for comment on this process is September 25, 2025.
(To inspire you to also comment, here is a copy of Norman Kincaide's comment)
Sources
Andee Leininger, Comments prepared for Timpas Grazing District to prepare comments on behalf of Timpas Grazing District and numerous sources cited therein.
Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands Draft Assessment (CCNG Draft Assessment), p. 8.
CCNG Draft Assessment, Appendix A, p. 15, 18, 43.
CCNG Draft Assessment, Appendix C, pp. 1-11, 12-36
CCNG Draft Assessment, pp. 38, 50, 58, 59, 160.
CCNG Draft Assessment, pp. 12-13, 25, 66
###