East Crazy Mountain Land Exchange

[RobG]

Ya, I'm with you. There is no way that the private interest is doing this for the public good.

I heard that two of the ranch owners are members of YC. Anyone know if that is truth?

Switchback Ranch is owned by a YC member named David Leuschen. (FWIW, he is putting a conservation easement on Section 7, Crazy Peak.) The Crazy Mountain Ranch was recently bought by the parent group of YC. Their only role is to donate a section of land containing Smeller Lake, which is actually a big win for the public.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I have been trying to follow this back and forth over the reasons for opposition, what is perceived as valid, what isn’t valid, what is going to make a difference and what won’t.

I am left confused over the facts about the land exchange but one thing seems clear to me. There definitely seem to be some personal conflicts/negative perceptions between members of different conservation groups who are working on this issue. I am not involved enough to have any sense of what is the best strategy for opposition but I will say that the general tenor of conversation on this thread and on social media highlights a lack of professionalism in keeping the mission prioritized over personal validation.

It is disappointing.

At the end of the day, I submitted my opposition based on my perception that the public does not receive greater value than it gives up under current terms of this agreement.

 

[Zac-K]

Zak - the agreement was built on a foundation of not giving up the rights to Sweet Grass Creek. Also, there was an assumption of conservation easements that isn't present. Those are two huge changes that killed all support.

MWF, Montana Wilderness Society (now Montana Wild), and PCEC (local) are much more influential than any of those groups, except BHA in the last few years. (Interestingly enough, when this started 5-6 years ago I had a hard time finding anyone working on this who was familiar with BHA as they were very small back then.)

But again, given the changes, nobody supports this proposal.

John Salazar, who is on the board of MWF and lives in Livingston, has a few good points. I especially agree that it would be better to use LWCF money for the trail to get that out of the equation.

View attachment 255977

RobG it is amazing now you are saying that you believe that the Public has rights to Sweetgrass Creek! On this very thread you have belittled anyone who said that. You have relished in the strife that BHA has found in defending the Public landowners equal claim to access on sweetgrass trail #122 and all of the trails and access that private interests are systematically and illegally blocking along the East Crazies on other threads on this forum. Great you now recognize the public has a right to access sweetgrass creek but the hypocrisy is palatable.

 

[Gerald Martin]

RobG it is amazing now you are saying that you believe that the Public has rights to Sweetgrass Creek! On this very thread you have belittled anyone who said that. You have relished in the strife that BHA has found in defending the Public landowners equal claim to access on sweetgrass trail #122 and all of the trails and access that private interests are systematically and illegally blocking along the East Crazies on other threads on this forum. Great you now recognize the public has a right to access sweetgrass creek but the hypocrisy is palatable.

Is it possible for everyone to dial the rhetoric back a bit? Everyone involved in opposing this with whatever group you are involved with needs those of us who are not as knowledgeable and not as engaged as you to communicate our opposition to the USFS. I can just about guarantee that there are folks who are not going to be as interested in engaging as they could be based on the bickering that is personal in nature.

This isn’t the only issue that is going to require collaboration between conservation group in this area. Within the public conversations that I have been seeing about this issue and the attempts to elevate certain positions and minimize other positions it is my opinion that real harm is being done to relationships among individuals who are essentially working towards the same goal.

 

[BuzzH]

Is it possible for everyone to dial the rhetoric back a bit? Everyone involved in opposing this with whatever group you are involved with needs those of us who are not as knowledgeable and not as engaged as you to communicate our opposition to the USFS. I can just about guarantee that there are folks who are not going to be as interested in engaging as they could be based on the bickering that is personal in nature.

This isn’t the only issue that is going to require collaboration between conservation group in this area. Within the public conversations that I have been seeing about this issue and the attempts to elevate certain positions and minimize other positions it is my opinion that real harm is being done to relationships among individuals who are essentially working towards the same goal.

Seems to me the message is pretty consistent barring one person...

 

[RobG]

I'm going to sit on my actual comments for a bit, but the jist of them are:

I oppose this version of the land exchange because:

1) Rights to a potential Sweet Grass Road easement are forfeited. Being able to answer the question of who has the right to use this trail was a foundation upon which support was built;

2) Conservation Easements are not placed on the lands acquired by the private parties;

3) Parcel 4, in the NE corner of section 14, is removed from public ownership for no good reason.

 

[RobG]

This came from a different USFS proposal at https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd494611.pdf

This is what I mean about comments being substantive, and not "non-specific" or not relevant (saying YC is corrupt, etc).

 

[peterk1234]

I'm sure everything I wrote was wrong, but I felt that submitting something has to help the cause, especially if enough people do it. This is what I wrote:

Thank you for considering my submission. I am a recent resident in Montana. Specifically, my wife and I were drawn to the Livingston area because of its beauty and access to quality public land. Quality public access that has fishing, hunting, camping and hiking opportunities are becoming more scarce every day.

The Crazies are a special a place. It's access is already tricky, however it currently allows for great hunting, fishing, hiking and camping. And from everything I am reading, the proposed land exchange is a net loss for the Public.

I spent most of my life in the real estate business. I learned early on that one needs to be careful when a private enterprise is in favor of doing a "deal" with a Public interest. I have never seen it done for the good of the Public. Private enterprise always has an agenda, and that agenda is development, which is the last thing that should be happening in the Crazies. And if that is not the goal of the private landowners and the Yellowstone Club, then I'm sure they would be more than willing to accept conservation easements on anything that was exchanged. I suspect however, that is not the case.

After reading numerous articles and trading comments on some of my favorite outdoor forums, I have come to the understanding that the following will happen if the exchange moves forward:

The public loses miles of fishable streams;
The public trades high quality, low-land wildlife habitat for higher, steeper, less productive habitat;
The public loses hunting and angling opportunity (as acknowledged in the USFS’s PEA);
The public loses more water rights than it gains;
The public gives 100% of mineral rights and receives only 18% in return;
The public gives up two important and historic trails and four administrative roads in return for one trail;
The public loses over 40 acres of wetlands;
Lastly there is no disclosure of land or timber value lost by the public.

This does not sound like a fair and equitable trade. I understand that we have checkerboard/access issues all over the place, within the Crazies. But I rather deal with those challenges then lose what I listed above and risk major development take place in such a pristine area.

 

[RobG]

I'm not criticizing you at all and it's commendable that you took the time to comment. I don't know how much weight they will put in those comments since they are just BHA's talking points; however, if you dove into the PEA and investigated just one of those points and expanded on it I think it would be more effective without taking a lot of time.

Page 50-51 describes the fishery impacts. You could offer more details on those. Which streams lost are important to you? or at least look good from Google earth? On the South Crazy exchange I used Google Earth to look at many of those fishable streams we were supposedly gaining only to find them too small or even dry, or fishless according to FWP's own data. These PEAs are full of bullshit, but you can expose it with just a little effort.

Or on other topics: How many acres of hunting do we have access to now vs how much after the swap? Which ones look like a real loss? Which lost water rights are important? and what's the seniority of them? (I'm trying to figure out that last one, as the public rarely has many worthwhile water rights...) Etc...

Even giving a page number when you make a claim would show you aren't just repeating talking points. Maybe @John B. Sullivan III can give the page numbers of the PEA related to each of those points.

 

[peterk1234]

Well, hopefully the next person from this forum who writes in will learn from my mistakes.

 

[RobG]

Well, hopefully the next person from this forum who writes in will learn from my mistakes.

Not a mistake. They'll read it and know another person cares about those things. If you find some time to dig in you can add another letter.

 

[RobG]

Here's some examples of ones that aren't going to make a difference



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And make sure you get the name correct:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And all this is the fault of California!


Sadly, it looks like a good percentage of the comments are similar, so don't make the same mistake.

If you do comment, tell them not to give away parcel 4 (Wolf Park)! It's prime elk habitat and won't be locked by checkerboard!!!! That would be a substantive comment.

 

[RobG]

Here is a letter by Park County Environment Council (PCEC). I continue to be impressed about how much research they do on these exchanges. One of their staff found an easement on a road that took the guts out of a very bad part of the South Crazy exchange.

https://cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public/DownloadCommentFile?LetterId=853678&IsLetter=False

 

[Irrelevant]

Here is a letter by Park County Environment Council (PCEC). I continue to be impressed about how much research they do on these exchanges. One of their staff found an easement on a road that took the guts out of a very bad part of the South Crazy exchange.

https://cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public/DownloadCommentFile?LetterId=853678&IsLetter=False

They did put together a very good letter. But you can't expect Joe Public to have the time or skill to equal it.

 

[RobG]

Here is what I submitted.

In various ways I have been involved in south and east Crazy Mountain issues since 2016. My involvement has received coverage by national media. I have expressed support for a collaborative proposal such as this one on social media, local newspapers, Montana Free Press, Montana Public Radio and Bozeman television. I am a member of the Crazy Mountain Access Project, which has been an important player in advocating for the proposal that was the genesis of the East Crazy Inspiration Divide Land Exchange.

However, in spite of my previous very vocal support, the Forest Service has deviated from the original proposal so much that I can’t support it for the following reasons:



Claim to rights of access via Sweet Grass Road are given up

This proposal was supposed to leave the question of Sweet Grass Trail 122 access rights in a state where the question could be resolved after the exchange. This was the foundation of my support, and was one of the first things promised to me by people advocating for this swap. However, in its present form, the LEX would give up any claim to rights to the Sweet Grass Road west of Rein Lane. (Also known as Sweet Grass Trail.) This is a deal breaker for me, if not a stab in the back.



The PEA claims that this is a permissive use trail, but evidence in the Forest Service’s own records indicate Sweet Grass Road could be proven to be a public road if litigated. Such an obvious oversight is unacceptable.



A document titled “DOCUMENTATION OVERVIEW OF SEETGRASS ACCESS TO NFS LANDS, 4/23/02” was created by the Forest Service. Kat Quannayahu obtained it via FOIA in 2016 and gave it to me. In the entry dated 1/11/02 it is revealed that Ralph and Betty Cosgriff “feel very strongly that the road/trail are public access.” Furthermore, Cosgriff claims there was a public school on section 10, and that the WPA built a bridge up there. In an entry dated 7/2/01, it is claimed that Ralph Cosgriff stated that “he had proof that the County and Forest Service had maintained portions of the road/trail across private land in the Sweetgrass drainage…”



The document claims other evidence exists that could prove this road was public, such as early GLO Plats showing the road existed before Northern Pacific Land Grants which is important because the Railroad deeds grant easements to existing roads.



Clearly, the Forest Service has not done due diligence on this to ensure that the public isn’t giving up ownership of this road. They have even failed to consult their own history on the issue. This is reason enough to not support the swap.



Conservation easements are not included

Support by many groups was based on the assumption that conservation easements were part of the LEX. These easements are needed to protect privately acquired land from development. I cannot support this swap without conservation easements on at least the privately acquired parcels in Sweet Grass Canyon, and preferably on all lands acquired by private parties.



Parcel 4 (Wolf Park) in NE corner of section 14 is given up for no good reason

Wolf Park is high quality low elevation land, and giving it away is decidedly against the public interest. In addition, this land is given away without any justification as part of an exchange with a party that is already non-advantageous to the public. Before the exchange was submitted to the Forest Service I raised this issue with Tom Glass and Jess Peterson of the Western Land Group, and also the eventual recipient. I was assured this was a starting point, suggesting this can be taken off the table.

If there is concern about the need to travel between sections 13 and 11 using the existing road, then an easement on the existing road through Forest Service land should be given to the interested parties.



Access to Cave Lake is not analyzed

Another selling point was that hikers would be able to access Cave Lake via Milly Creek drainage. Cave lake is a desirable destination for golden trout and is where the current state record was caught. The acquisition of Parcel I (section 13) from the Switchback Ranch secures much of the route, but it isn’t clear if you can get to the lake without crossing the SE corner of section 23, which is also owned by the Switchback Ranch. If an easement is not to be given for this route, it must be shown that skirting the section 23 is a practical route to the lake.



The Carroccia part of the swap is unnecessary and disadvantageous to the public

The Carroccia portion of the exchange is far more advantageous to them than it is to the public, even if Parcel 4 was retained by the public. At best, their contribution is to enable the “Sweet Trunk Trail” to be built across section 15, but the need for this trail to make a complete loop is grossly overstated. The real value of the trail and its associated easements is enabling access to the public lands north of Big Timber Creek.



The exchange must not allow this inequality to be made up for with cash, or by considering the value of other party’s contributions. To do so is simply transferring public land into private hands. The Carroccias have plenty of opportunity to equalize the exchange by giving up one or more of their inholdings, which include Sections 7, 15, 17, 21 and 27.



Finally, there is a false premise that the Sweet Grass drainage has to be part of this exchange to benefit the public. In fact, the inclusion creates a net loss even if the public retains the option of resolving access rights to Trail 122. It is also the source of most reasonable objections. If these objections can’t be resolved the Forest Service should go forward without the Sweet Grass Parcels A-D and 1-4. This part of the exchange doesn’t add enough public value to warrant losing the public benefits that come with the rest of the exchange. The real value of the exchange in the Crazy Mountains is the increased access to the lands north of Big Timber road. The easements and consolidation of checkerboard there will increase the amount of accessible public land from less than 1.5 sections to the entire block of public land north of Big Timber Creek.



Unless these concerns are addressed I cannot support this proposal.

Best Regards,

Rob Gregoire

Bozeman, MT

 

[peterk1234]

Has there been any updates or feedback?

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

Has there been any updates or feedback?

I've been wondering the same thing.

 

[RobG]

I haven't heard anything. It will be a while.

 

[MTGomer]

Here is a letter by Park County Environment Council (PCEC). I continue to be impressed about how much research they do on these exchanges. One of their staff found an easement on a road that took the guts out of a very bad part of the South Crazy exchange.

https://cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public/DownloadCommentFile?LetterId=853678&IsLetter=False

If I can make one recommendation to the public access advocates in this area, it would be to find a title company that is local, that is managed by someone that is friendly to the cause.
Someone that will do records research, either pro bono, or for a reduced rate. Relying on non- professionals and layman to find easements, or relying on the membership to pay out the nose for title reports is definitely something that can be improved upon across the west for public access causes.

 

[Straight Arrow]

If I can make one recommendation to the public access advocates in this area, it would be to find a title company that is local, that is managed by someone that is friendly to the cause.
Someone that will do records research, either pro bono, or for a reduced rate. Relying on non- professionals and layman to find easements, or relying on the membership to pay out the nose for title reports is definitely something that can be improved upon across the west for public access causes.

Montana Public Land Water Access Assn (PLWA) has been doing the research and training researchers since inception of that organization in the 1980's. When it comes to ferreting out historic prescriptive easements to public land, PLWA is really good at it.