Big Snowy conservation easement west end

[Dakotakid]

FWP announced comment period for west end conservation easement.
This is a large public access to a locked area of very good elk habitat.

I hope people will take time to support the conservation efforts.

FWP seeks comments on conservation easement near Big Snowy Mountains

The land is part of the Hannah Ranch, established in 1883 by Rogers Clifford. Clifford came to Montana from Maine in 1879, according to a history of the community of

billingsgazette.com

 

[rogerthat]

I’m not a fan of these conservation easements unless drafted correctly. I know of several in my neck of the woods that were big landowner money grabs and didn’t amount to chit. Public doesn’t get much for what they paid. Hopefully this one is put together correctly.

 

[Irishman]

Is there a way to read the article without subscribing to the Billings Gazette?

 

[Ben Lamb]

FWP seeks comments on conservation easement near Big Snowy Mountains​

About 3,800 acres of mixed grassland and shrubland in the northwestern foothills of the Big Snowy Mountains is being studied by Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks for a possible conservation easement.

The Hannah Ranch is located south of Moore in Fergus County.
Courtesy photo
The land is part of the Hannah Ranch, established in 1883 by Rogers Clifford. Clifford came to Montana from Maine in 1879, according to a history of the community of Moore. Clifford bought the ranch after working in the sheep industry in the White Sulphur Springs area. He was also the president of the First National Bank in Moore.

The land is now owned by Hannah Ranch LP. The property is located in Fergus County, within deer/elk Hunting District 411.
FWP is preparing a draft environmental assessment analyzing the easement. As part of that, the agency invites the public to identify any issues and concerns related to this proposal by Feb. 22. Comments received during this period will help FWP determine public interest, identify potential issues that would require further analysis, and provide insight for refining the proposal or developing and analyzing alternatives.




The property adjoins and facilitates access to the west Big Snowy Mountains where limited public access currently exists. The primary objectives of the proposed conservation easement are to provide perpetual conservation and enhancement of high-quality native habitats, maintain traditional agricultural land uses and provide opportunities for public access and recreation.
The ranch provides year-round (including winter range) habitat for elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, moose, pronghorn, black bear, mountain lion, bobcat, wild turkey, sharp-tailed grouse, Hungarian partridge, pheasant, waterfowl, and a host of nongame and state Species of Concern, according to the FWP proposal.
The landowners receive financial compensation in exchange for adopting conservation and public access covenants while continuing to operate the ranch.

A copy of the scoping proposal is available online.


Written comments can be submitted to: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, c/o Hannah Ranch Conservation Easement Proposal, PO Box 938, Lewistown, MT 59457. Or email comments to [email protected] Attn: Hannah Ranch Conservation Easement Proposal.
If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, call Lewistown-area wildlife biologist Sonja Andersen at 406-366-5266 or email: [email protected]


Play Video
The rut in elk is triggered by a shortening of the length of daylight hours each day. (Video courtesy of Montana FWP)

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here is the scoping document: https://fwp.mt.gov/binaries/content...region-4/hannahranchce_scoping_finaldraft.pdf

 

[Big Fin]

It's got my vote. FWP Conservation Easements allow for access. It allows the landowner to keep a working ag operation. It gives access to public land that is currently difficult to access.

Checks most of the boxes.

 

[rogerthat]

Are the access specifics detailed? I can’t seem to find anything besides the vague statements about providing access and access to public. What does that mean?

The ranches in my earlier post provided no new access with the conservation easements as they were already in block and only let their friends and families access the ranches and the required access requirements were really minimal and met by the former. Not a good deal for paying 50% of market value for the land at the time

 

[Ben Lamb]

This is just scoping to determine if there is sufficient interest to move forward.

The details on the CE would be fleshed out once it moves to the EA process.

 

[Dakotakid]

The access comes from the parcel next to the forest service. The county road abuts that parcel which gives walk in access to the forest service.

The county road does not reach the forest service.

The anti conservation easement folks may come out in force against but the access to inaccessible substantial federal acres is important.

Use cadastral and Hannah ranch in Fergus County to see more details. The gazette article has a map.

 

[Dakotakid]

 

[DFS]

Are the access specifics detailed? I can’t seem to find anything besides the vague statements about providing access and access to public. What does that mean?

The ranches in my earlier post provided no new access with the conservation easements as they were already in block and only let their friends and families access the ranches and the required access requirements were really minimal and met by the former. Not a good deal for paying 50% of market value for the land at the time

Yep I’ve seen access turned down too many times. Take the money and allow family and friends on. If it prevents development maybe it’s still a good thing. I don’t know.

 

[Big Fin]

Yep I’ve seen access turned down too many times. Take the money and allow family and friends on. If it prevents development maybe it’s still a good thing. I don’t know.

Are you referring to an FWP easement that has been purchased? Reason I ask is that the state regulations related to FWP easements require public access. That is what this one is.

Or are you referring to donated conservation easements to a Land Trust, which does not require public access?

Big difference between the two. If it is a FWP purchased easement and they are not allowing public access, that needs to be looked into.

 

[DFS]

Are you referring to an FWP easement that has been purchased? Reason I ask is that the state regulations related to FWP easements require public access. That is what this one is.

Or are you referring to donated conservation easements to a Land Trust, which does not require public access?

Big difference between the two. If it is a FWP purchased easement and they are not allowing public access, that needs to be looked into.

Conservation easement. Not a donated one though.

 

[rogerthat]

The access comes from the parcel next to the forest service. The county road abuts that parcel which gives walk in access to the forest service.

The county road does not reach the forest service.

The anti conservation easement folks may come out in force against but the access to inaccessible substantial federal acres is important.

Use cadastral and Hannah ranch in Fergus County to see more details. The gazette article has a map.

Right but you don’t typically have open unfettered access depending on the specific language in the easement. Sometimes the access is just x number of hunter days. That adjacent public land access does you no good if you are unable to access the private land for any of a number of reasons such as the required access quota required has been fulfilled. I have seen that fulfillment happen via family and friends on some of the more poorly negotiated ones in the past.

Anyway I’m not saying that is the case with this easement nor that this particular one is not good. I’m just saying the word “access” gets thrown around and sometimes it doesn’t mean what everyone thinks it means nor have all these fwp conservation easements all been a good use of funds. I will head off any anti-public land comments….I’m an acquisition guy. I feel they are way better bang for the limited bucks for conservation.

 

[Big Fin]

Conservation easement. Not a donated one though.

Hmm. If not donated, then purchased. Since purchased, did FWP purchase it or some other entity?

For those following this, conservation easements are either purchased or donated. Conservation easements do not have to require public access, though guidelines for approval of FWP purchased conservation easements does require that public access be provided.

@rogerthat, is the conservation easement you are referring to a purchased conservation easement bought by FWP? Maybe you and Doug are referring to the same easement.

This is confusing to me. It seems the easement you are referring to may be a conservation easement that prohibits development, but the access component is restricted or only measured in terms of "days of use." That would be strange language for most the purchased FWP conservation easements I am familiar with.

Point being, if FWP is going to purchase this Hannah conservation easement without access to the USFS lands (very unlikely from my experience), the value of the easement is significantly impaired and the value to be paid would be reduced proportionately.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Right but you don’t typically have open unfettered access depending on the specific language in the easement. Sometimes the access is just x number of hunter days. That adjacent public land access does you no good if you are unable to access the private land for any of a number of reasons such as the required access quota required has been fulfilled. I have seen that fulfillment happen via family and friends on some of the more poorly negotiated ones in the past.

Anyway I’m not saying that is the case with this easement nor that this particular one is not good. I’m just saying the word “access” gets thrown around and sometimes it doesn’t mean what everyone thinks it means nor have all these fwp conservation easements all been a good use of funds. I will head off any anti-public land comments….I’m an acquisition guy. I feel they are way better bang for the limited bucks for conservation.

This brings up a critical point: Habitat Montana is not an access program. It's a habitat conservation & acquisition program that has an access component. The statute does not mandate access at all, and leaves that up to the Commission, which, thankfully, has included that in their rules and regulations for a long time.

Managing the access to CE's and WMA's is about managing the land for the wildlife resource first and foremost. That's why we expend these funds. It is not simply to acquire new access. Access is a benfit, absolutely, but it is not a statutory requirement.

FWP has done a good job over the years using HM to purchase small tracts that open up large expanses of public land, as well as other programs like the PAL act, access leasing, etc. Even Block Management is used to do this to a great extent for landlocked state trust lands.

 

[rogerthat]

Hmm. If not donated, then purchased. Since purchased, did FWP purchase it or some other entity?

For those following this, conservation easements are either purchased or donated. Conservation easements do not have to require public access, though guidelines for approval of FWP purchased conservation easements does require that public access be provided.

@rogerthat, is the conservation easement you are referring to a purchased conservation easement bought by FWP? Maybe you and Doug are referring to the same easement.

This is confusing to me. It seems the easement you are referring to maybe a conservation easement that prohibits development, but the access component is restricted or only measured in terms of "days of use." That would be strange language for most the purchased FWP conservation easements I am familiar with.

Point being, if FWP is going to purchase this Hannah conservation easement without access to the USFS lands (very unlikely from my experience), the value of the easement is significantly impaired and the value to be paid would be reduced proportionately.

They were but they were from maybe 10-15 years ago. Maybe my memory fails me or things have changed, however I wasn’t super impressed with the language in a recent one from just two years ago but it was better. If I get some time I will dig up the language and start a different thread so as to stop mucking up this one.

 

[DFS]

This brings up a critical point: Habitat Montana is not an access program. It's a habitat conservation & acquisition program that has an access component. The statute does not mandate access at all, and leaves that up to the Commission, which, thankfully, has included that in their rules and regulations for a long time.

Managing the access to CE's and WMA's is about managing the land for the wildlife resource first and foremost. That's why we expend these funds. It is not simply to acquire new access. Access is a benfit, absolutely, but it is not a statutory requirement.

FWP has done a good job over the years using HM to purchase small tracts that open up large expanses of public land, as well as other programs like the PAL act, access leasing, etc. Even Block Management is used to do this to a great extent for landlocked state trust lands.

It’s been a waste of money in my parts unless the point was not developing, which I understand and appreciate we do not want to become Bozeman. The level of access has been low. The cost is high. It’s not just one of the described properties.

 

[Dakotakid]

Those concerns should be passed on to FWP which has in the past worked to open up public access to the Snowys.
Either on the east end- red hill road public access

Red Hill Public Access Project | Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Big things really do come in small packages. And in this case, we’re talking big access. Back in 2013, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation purchased [...]

www.rmef.org

Or south side

A look at the proposed Big Snowy Mountain Wildlife Management Area

The property covers about 5,700 acres, and is currently owned by Shodair Children’s Hospital

www.krtv.com

I hope this project continues with what has already been developed.

 

[Straight Arrow]

It’s been a waste of money in my parts unless the point was not developing, which I understand and appreciate we do not want to become Bozeman. The level of access has been low. The cost is high. It’s not just one of the described properties.

Not sure, but from your descriptions it sounds like conservation easements other than from FWP. A noted example is the Nature Conservancy conservation easement on the Flying D Ranch near Bozeman. It does not include public access, however the open space and wildlife habitat value is priceless! Imagine that beautiful area otherwise developed into mega-mansions and neon signs, with cannabis farms dotting the subdivisions perimeters.

If access for hunting or other recreation is the only value of importance to you, that's on you ... but I firmly assert those other values are critical to preserving traditional Montana quality of life, wildlife, and ultimately to hunting.