East Crazy Mountain Land Exchange

[RobG]

Can we agree on a set of facts present in this land swap? For instance, as I see it:

1. The land swap will consolidate both public and private holdings in the area, removing the "checkerboard" nature currently existing.
2. The land swap will be "acre for acre", the same amount of land will exchange between public and private holdings
3. The "quality" of the exchanged lands is up for debate, some further data gathering will help make this more clear (fisheries and wetland data) hopefully
4. The currently "checkerboard" public land has little or no public recreation value as there is no clear (or objectively legal) way to access said sections. The value of the land to the FS has not been evident (at least to me) as far as harvestable timber, etc. One could argue (and I would be one to make the argument) that the checkerboard nature is much more beneficial to the private landowners in the area as they have the ability to utilize those sections of public land for business purposes (cattle grazing, outfitting) without pressure from public access.
5. The main sticking point is access from Sweetgrass Cr. USFS does not want to fight for this access (historical use trail or road) within the parameters of the land swap, as they believe this will jeopardize the private landowner's involvement in it. BHA and other parties would be behind the swap if the access issue was cleared up as a process of the swap.
6. The land access issue (historical use trail or road) could be addressed after the swap or at any time by any entity with the funds to pursue it legally (?, this is how I understand it)

Am I missing anything or have anything just plain wrong?

I don't have much time today. Basically correct, but a couple things:
2) It isn't acre-per-acre. For this swap the public gets quite a few more acres than the private landowners do. The way land swaps work is the appraised monetary value of the respective lands are supposed to be roughly equal. Landowners can make up a certain percentage of mismatch with cash. I have a specific concern about them doing this in S14.

3) I think the quality of the land for habitat is known, although I think the quality of the Sweet Grass is overstated. Sweet Grass Creek is dry most of the year on the public sections, and there is a road that goes through them. There is even a residence beyond the first section of public land, etc.
I also think the value of the lower elevation sections are overstated, mostly because we can't access them. I've been on the southernmost section, and it is not wintering range, and it's comparable to what we'd get. The next two sections up are reportedly better, but the private land to the east support good populations of elk even during bow season, which is why they outfit it.

5) Supposedly BHA's problem is with the Sweet Grass trail access, but they keep bringing up other issues, such as Yellowstone Club's involvement...

6) That was supposed to be the deal. However, the Forest Service changed the original proposal so that the land access issue can't be settled after the swap. That is a deal breaker for me, and I think most other groups. Other issues are weak conservation easement requirements and the loss of part of S14.

 

[sclancy27]

I don't have much time today. Basically correct, but a couple things:
2) It isn't acre-per-acre. For this swap the public gets quite a few more acres than the private landowners do. The way land swaps work is the appraised monetary value of the respective lands are supposed to be roughly equal. Landowners can make up a certain percentage of mismatch with cash. I have a specific concern about them doing this in S14.

3) I think the quality of the land for habitat is known, although I think the quality of the Sweet Grass is overstated. Sweet Grass Creek is dry most of the year on the public sections, and there is a road that goes through them. There is even a residence beyond the first section of public land, etc.
I also think the value of the lower elevation sections are overstated, mostly because we can't access them. I've been on the southernmost section, and it is not wintering range, and it's comparable to what we'd get. The next two sections up are reportedly better, but the private land to the east support good populations of elk even during bow season, which is why they outfit it.

5) Supposedly BHA's problem is with the Sweet Grass trail access, but they keep bringing up other issues, such as Yellowstone Club's involvement...

6) That was supposed to be the deal. However, the Forest Service changed the original proposal so that the land access issue can't be settled after the swap. That is a deal breaker for me, and I think most other groups. Other issues are weak conservation easement requirements and the loss of part of S14.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Andrew Posewitz]

Hey All,

Sorry for not checking this more regularly.

First and foremost, thanks for your kind comments and replies, they mean more than you know. As you know, sticking your neck out can invite lots of negative byproducts, but happy to pay that price for stuff that matters. Thanks again.

I need to apologize for not including the link for comment as some of you told me/asked me in emails, so, here it is:

https://cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public//CommentInput?Project=63115

The question of commerce and roads is a great question - it is part of the equation for determination of public roads. It is not well known that the Montana Stream Access law actually borrowed many of its definitions from the laws regarding roads. It was an easy parallel as many roads (and trails) that are public cross private lands, just like waterways. It is also worth noting that if the road is public, the public also has an easement on the shoulders of the road. The case in the Ruby River does a really good job of explaining why the public can park on the shoulder and access the river from a bridge abutment using the unperfected easement to access the water, even though it is over private land.

I have had conversations with a number of orgs who are continuing to work through the details and there are some other features that appear at first blush to be appalling. Stand by for more info on these items as the various groups are working together to make sure they have the details correct before sharing them. I will post them here, or ask the orgs to do so once they have completed their analysis.

Lastly, in really good news, I’ve spoken with 2 national news outlets and have a scheduled call with a 3rd that are generating stories on this topic and are not subject to some of the same overweighted influences that the Montana media demonstrates from time to time.

Again, thanks so much for the kind comments and notes, much appreciated.

Andrew

 

[rogerthat]

Well this one is damn sure confusing.

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/opposing_east_crazies_land_swap_what_you_need_to_know

The Montana Chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers shares the goal of solving public access issues into the east Crazy Mountains but only while retaining, in public hands, productive and protected public lands, waters, and wildlife habitat.

The Forest Service has published their proposed “East Crazy Inspiration Divide Land Exchange” and upon a detailed review, there is much we find troubling (see link to main project page in comments.)

Montana BHA strongly oppose this land swap as proposed by the Forest Service. Here we present our preliminary review of problems, issues, and faults with the proposal.

We encourage you submit your comments before the December 23rd deadline. Only those who comment during this period will have standing to participate as the process proceeds – now is the time to make your voice heard.

Forest Service will evaluate both the quantity and quality of comments received, so we strongly encourage you to use this information as a guide and to educate yourself, and frame your comment in your own words.

 

[elkduds]

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/opposing_east_crazies_land_swap_what_you_need_to_know

The Montana Chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers shares the goal of solving public access issues into the east Crazy Mountains but only while retaining, in public hands, productive and protected public lands, waters, and wildlife habitat.

The Forest Service has published their proposed “East Crazy Inspiration Divide Land Exchange” and upon a detailed review, there is much we find troubling (see link to main project page in comments.)

Montana BHA strongly oppose this land swap as proposed by the Forest Service. Here we present our preliminary review of problems, issues, and faults with the proposal.

We encourage you submit your comments before the December 23rd deadline. Only those who comment during this period will have standing to participate as the process proceeds – now is the time to make your voice heard.

Forest Service will evaluate both the quantity and quality of comments received, so we strongly encourage you to use this information as a guide and to educate yourself, and frame your comment in your own words.

Here is the link to formally comment before Dec 23. I'm vehemently opposed to this swap. USFS should fight for opening existing and historic trail access across private lands, not surrender them.

US Forest Service NEPA Projects Home

cara.fs2c.usda.gov

 

[Horseman]

I proudly wrote to oppose this exchange. I can’t side with the Yellowstone Club. That organization and its spending power is the worst kind of land developer-as if there was a good version of a land developer. I noticed that all of the comments in support of this exchange were one or two vague sentences, proudly addressed from some plastic zombie from Big Sky, MT. The club is chomping on the bit to get started on their next billionaire playground. In two decades they will get their amenities and services delivered from the sprawling cities of Livingston and Big Timber.

 

[peterk1234]

I just got the email from BHA detailing this proposal. I can't imagine how the public can support this. I will use the BHA as a guide and submit my opposition and comments. Pete

 

[RobG]

I just got the email from BHA detailing this proposal. I can't imagine how the public can support this. I will use the BHA as a guide and submit my opposition and comments. Pete

Well, they really don't accurately describe the situation. E.g. I'd like to know where we lose miles of fishing... as Sweet Grass Creek goes dry in the public sections, not to mention that access is blocked at this time. On the other hand, the amount of hunting access to public land gained is enormous, but that isn't mentioned.

Sadly, the real reasons to oppose this swap aren't listed. They include giving up claims to prescriptive easement on Sweet Grass Road, lack of conservation easements in the Sweet Grass Creek parcels 1 and 2, and an illogical taking of prime land in section 14 (parcel 4).

But go ahead, scream about stuff that isn't an accurate description of the situation. It will be discarded.

I wish I had time to clear up this BS, but I don't. I will try to post some of the opposition letters from other groups with comments that are more relevant. I still need to write my own.

 

[rogerthat]

Well, they really don't accurately describe the situation. E.g. I'd like to know where we lose miles of fishing... as Sweet Grass Creek goes dry in the public sections, not to mention that access is blocked at this time. On the other hand, the amount of hunting access to public land gained is enormous, but that isn't mentioned.

Sadly, the real reasons to oppose this swap aren't listed. They include giving up claims to prescriptive easement on Sweet Grass Road, lack of conservation easements in the Sweet Grass Creek parcels 1 and 2, and an illogical taking of prime land in section 14 (parcel 4).

But go ahead, scream about stuff that isn't an accurate description of the situation. It will be discarded.

I wish I had time to clear up this BS, but I don't. I will try to post some of the opposition letters from other groups with comments that are more relevant. I still need to write my own.

So do you oppose this land exchange now Rob?

 

[RobG]

From Crazy Mountain Access Project - the main group pushing for this proposal.

 

[peterk1234]

Well, they really don't accurately describe the situation. E.g. I'd like to know where we lose miles of fishing... as Sweet Grass Creek goes dry in the public sections, not to mention that access is blocked at this time. On the other hand, the amount of hunting access to public land gained is enormous, but that isn't mentioned.

Sadly, the real reasons to oppose this swap aren't listed. They include giving up claims to prescriptive easement on Sweet Grass Road, lack of conservation easements in the Sweet Grass Creek parcels 1 and 2, and an illogical taking of prime land in section 14 (parcel 4).

But go ahead, scream about stuff that isn't an accurate description of the situation. It will be discarded.

I wish I had time to clear up this BS, but I don't. I will try to post some of the opposition letters from other groups with comments that are more relevant. I still need to write my own.

Any feedback you can provide will be appreciated.

 

[RobG]

So do you oppose this land exchange now Rob?

The Forest Service changed the original agreement so it has almost no support in its present form.

Giving up rights to Sweet Grass Trail/Road is a deal breaker, and conservation agreements were also expected to be part of the trade.

I was told losing parcel 4 was "a starting point" but if BHA cant even specifically advocate for that it's probably going to be lost. Opposing the whole thing with weak and inaccurate comments is a waste of time. At least be specific on the points I mentioned above

 

[RobG]

Any feedback you can provide will be appreciated.

I'll try. From page 5 of the PEA. Parcel 4 is a giveaway.


Here is an OnX view of the parcel. While it may make sense to give up isolated checkerboard, there is no reason to give up this parcel as part of this deal.

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Agree'd, it makes absolutely no sense to give up parcel 4. Why would it even be included in the first place?

 

[John B. Sullivan III]

Well, they really don't accurately describe the situation. E.g. I'd like to know where we lose miles of fishing... as Sweet Grass Creek goes dry in the public sections, not to mention that access is blocked at this time. On the other hand, the amount of hunting access to public land gained is enormous, but that isn't mentioned.

Sadly, the real reasons to oppose this swap aren't listed. They include giving up claims to prescriptive easement on Sweet Grass Road, lack of conservation easements in the Sweet Grass Creek parcels 1 and 2, and an illogical taking of prime land in section 14 (parcel 4).

But go ahead, scream about stuff that isn't an accurate description of the situation. It will be discarded.

I wish I had time to clear up this BS, but I don't. I will try to post some of the opposition letters from other groups with comments that are more relevant. I still need to write my own.

Giving up Sweet Grass, lack of conservation easements, cutting and trading that NE corner of section 14 are all good reasons to oppose the proposal as written and I'd encourage folks to include those details in your comments.

However, giving up on Sweet Grass, lack of conservation easements, and cutting the NE corner of section 14 do not violate the in the same way that a loss of 40+acres of wetlands, an imbalance of land and timber values, loss of fishable streams violates the law. It's important to point these things out as well so the USFS can correct them if they choose to move forward with the exchange.

The release of 100% mineral rights and not getting 100% mineral rights in return may be the worse part of the proposal since it opens those land to mineral development.

See stream miles on page 50-51 of the EA. The public gives up more fish-bearing miles than it receives in return. It's the USFS' own analysis.

 

[Nameless Range]

The Forest Service changed the original agreement so it has almost no support in its present form.

The Crazies and the issues there are confusing, and I appreciate yours, as well as @John B. Sullivan III 's discourse here regarding them, despite your disagreements.

Maybe it isn't important right now at this stage in the game, but does anyone have any insight into how the USFS went from an agreement, that was generated via a collaborative effort(?), to big changes and something almost no one now supports? Seems like there is something missing here.

 

[Horseman]

Well, they really don't accurately describe the situation. E.g. I'd like to know where we lose miles of fishing... as Sweet Grass Creek goes dry in the public sections, not to mention that access is blocked at this time. On the other hand, the amount of hunting access to public land gained is enormous, but that isn't mentioned.

Sadly, the real reasons to oppose this swap aren't listed. They include giving up claims to prescriptive easement on Sweet Grass Road, lack of conservation easements in the Sweet Grass Creek parcels 1 and 2, and an illogical taking of prime land in section 14 (parcel 4).

But go ahead, scream about stuff that isn't an accurate description of the situation. It will be discarded.

I wish I had time to clear up this BS, but I don't. I will try to post some of the opposition letters from other groups with comments that are more relevant. I still need to write my own.

Hey Rob, my opposition letter was concentrated on the loss of historical public access easements and lack of conservation easements. I quoted PLWA’s opposition letter as I thought it summarized that loss well. My question to you is why wouldnt you advocate for conservation easements on all transferred parcels? Parcel 7 seems like a very strategic parcel for a luxury real estate developer to own-Switchback ranch, crazy mountain ranch and David Leuschen are all tentacles of the same monster, the Yellowstone Club/exclusive luxury ski resort. I am purely obstructionist on this one. I’d rather never step foot on any of the landlocked public parcels or ever use the sweet grass trail than watch those Northeastern slimeballs repeat what they did to the Madisons and the Gallatin valley. If it were not for the Yellowstone club I’ll bet the Gallatin valley would still look much like it did 20+years ago.

 

[sclancy27]

Hey Rob, my opposition letter was concentrated on the loss of historical public access easements and lack of conservation easements. I quoted PLWA’s opposition letter as I thought it summarized that loss well. My question to you is why wouldnt you advocate for conservation easements on all transferred parcels? Parcel 7 seems like a very strategic parcel for a luxury real estate developer to own-Switchback ranch, crazy mountain ranch and David Leuschen are all tentacles of the same monster, the Yellowstone Club/exclusive luxury ski resort. I am purely obstructionist on this one. I’d rather never step foot on any of the landlocked public parcels or ever use the sweet grass trail than watch those Northeastern slimeballs repeat what they did to the Madisons and the Gallatin valley. If it were not for the Yellowstone club I’ll bet the Gallatin valley would still look much like it did 20+years ago.

What is stopping them from developing one of the private sections with infrastructure and leasing the checkerboard public around it to accomplish it?

 

[Horseman]

I also see that the antis already trying to set the narrative that this is all about the Yellowstone club, instead of the merits of the swap, or even the actual role of the YC. In today's paper John claimed the swap was created by the Yellowstone Club. False. It was created by an independent group with involvement of other stakeholders, and I was personally invited to review it by John Tester's land guy, Erik Nylund. Erik told me the people who did it were straight shooters.

Everything I have seen indicates the Yellowstone Club's involvement is benign. In fact they have now included Smeller Lake. The real threat is if it doesn't go through as this would invite the YC and others to develop their inholdings. It would also likely get passed anyway by the alternate route of Congress, and you can bet it will be a lot worse if it does that.

Rob, this post of yours from way back was the only one in this whole thread that really ruffled my feathers. Smells fishy. You claimed that the ‘Yellowstone Club’s involvement is benign’. There has never been anything benign about the Yellowstone club’s existence or anything they take part in. Their enterprise is pure selfish evil. Everything you said after the above quote sounds sort of like a veiled threat from a Yellowstone Club croney.