SW Crazy Mountain Land Swap: Not Good for Big Game and Fish

[RobG]

Hi folks,
A land swap was just made public in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle and Billings Gazette. I was tipped off to some concerning aspects of it a while back, but I wanted to digest the actual proposal before commenting here or in the press. Ive taken a look at it and it is still a bad deal.

In short, the Rock Creek Ranch and Wild Eagle ranch portions are good because the National Forest land they swap out aren't accessible without corner hopping. The exception is section 2, but we would get a decent inholding in exchange for that. The bad part is the Crazy Mountain Ranch (aka Marlborough Ranch) swaps. The two National Forest lands are S4 and S8.

Here are the issues:
1) Unlike the other sections, S4 and S8 publicly accessible. There is a road/trail from the east with a rock solid easement to S8. From there you can access S4 because there is an overlap. (As an aside it looks like the FS is going out of their way to hide these facts, even direct users away from these trails!)
2) S4 and S8 are excellent big game habitat.
3) S8 is the only public land on Rock Creek that has a viable fishery. Furthermore, it appears it is the only public land in the southern Crazies with a viable wild trout fishery. That section of Rock creek is excellent fishing for brook trout and Yellowstone cutthroat trout. The upper sections of Rock Creek are barren. That fact is conspicuously missing from the assessment.

I will have more later but I wanted to get this out as a counter to the one sided articles that came out in the papers.

Proposal: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=56687 and http://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/112127_FSPLT3_4866932.pdf
Bozeman Chronicle: https://www.bozemandailychronicle.c...cle_b050bf47-45c3-5516-8808-cce2045a64a6.html
Billings Gazette: https://billingsgazette.com/outdoor...63ea9ea9a.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

The proposal has some other serious shortcomings. I need to write them up and I'll post them here. In spite of this impacting big game habitat more than any other thing, they chose to release it in the middle of hunting season. We have 45 days to comment.

 

[BigHornRam]

Imagine that. One sided articles from newspapers. Land swaps can be difficult and contentious. Hope what happens here in the Crazies works out well for public access and is fair for the public. Looking forward to hearing more details Rob.

 

[RobG]

Imagine that. One sided articles from newspapers. Land swaps can be difficult and contentious. Hope what happens here in the Crazies works out well for public access and is fair for the public. Looking forward to hearing more details Rob.

Well, it sounds awesome on the surface si they probably didn't know it was controversial. I got sidetracked and didn't give them a heads up before it went to press, but they know they are issues now and said they'd reach out to me and other concerned parties next time.

 

[RobG]

For the CMR part of the exchange S4 and S8 will be swapped for S11, S13, and S21. Public lands like S4 and S8 are rare in the Crazies. Alpine Lakes surrounded by talus and sustained with hatchery fish are not.







Here’s are some pics from S8.

 

[RobG]

The two sections that will be lost are outlined in Yellow. They are obviously not rocks and ice!

 

[BigHornRam]

An appraisal would have to be done prior to a land swap and looking at the pictures, it is fairly obvious those sections are not rock and ice and would appraise accordingly. On the surface it sounds like a non equal deal for the public. Who is negotiating this deal for us? USFS?

 

[MTGomer]

Lee Enterprises has already began pushing the positive spin on their social media accounts.

I agree with Rob. I think anybody that’s taken a couple minutes to even look at Montana Cadastral or Google Earth will too.
Bad swap

 

[Southern Elk]

Thanks for the heads up Rob. I appreciate your work on these issues.

 

[RobG]

BHA did an awesome video of the area: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/...TsbELxsHRiUPUjozLDON2UAy0cnBeivrglKcw4zu_K-vs

Here are some additional pictures I've drawn up to show what we are giving up. Note both the land topography that will be lost and the ass buster of a trail (in red) that will now be required to access public land. And then if you do use it you will have to go downhill so you will have to also climb your way out.

The wilderness folks are supporting this even though the red trail will be designated Semi-Primitive Motorized and Rock Lake has a dam on it to regulate water for irrigation and will need to maintain motorized access to it.


Enter comments here: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=56687












OnX view of sections 11 and 13 with Rock and Smeller lake that are proposed to be a acquired to provide "quality recreation opportunity including fishing, hiking, hunting, camping and scenic viewing." Sorry, that isn't what you are getting!





A "bonus" section 21 that will be acquired for something. Peak at upper left is appropriately named Idiot Peak.

 

[Irrelevant]

I want my cake and eat it too. Gimme both sets of sections!

 

[Hem]

Spell it out for me Rob. Still need to climb Iddings and have finally figured a route from Smellar. Am I SOL?

 

[RobG]

Spell it out for me Rob. Still need to climb Iddings and have finally figured a route from Smellar. Am I SOL?

I doubt it.

Another part of this great hoax has been exposed. IMO, getting an easement on Robinson Bench Road was the only legitimate reason to work out a deal with CMR. Turns out there is already an easement on this land established by a 1968 court case (attached).

I know in these scary times it is difficult for the Forest Service to find the time, not to mention funding, to walk or drive a few blocks to the courthouse to figure this out in the 12 years they have been working on this. Max at PCEC sacrificed his lunch hour to figure this out.

This proposal is missing everything that would show this is whole thing is a F'n hoax. I'm up to 20 pages pointing out the stuff they didn't put into the proposal. I should't have expected anything less from the company that spent millions of dollars convincing Americans that smoking is safe and no more addicting than gummy bears! I wrote an LTE that pointed out a few of the issues, although I didn't mention that you could hide in your tent and hunt mountain goats attracted to backpacker's urine at both Rock and Smeller lakes! https://www.livingstonenterprise.com/content/only-half-story-crazies-land-exchange


If you haven't already, enter comments here saying you oppose the Crazy Mountain Ranch part of this proposal (the rest is ok): https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=56687

 

[RobG]

I was very remiss in not crediting our very own MTGomer for discovering some key things like the Park County maintaining the road. He couldn't follow up himself but once that info was known it was just visiting the right people to verify that there was an easement. He's a smart cookie!

He also cared enough to write a LTE in the Billings Gazette. https://billingsgazette.com/opinion...cle_adb46316-f245-55bb-be41-7f024dea342d.html

 

[RobG]

I was hunting today and this whole exchange gelled. I don't think I'm exaggerating at all with these observations

I oppose the Crazy Mountain Ranch (CMR) part of the land exchange. The Rock Creek Ranch and Wild Eagle Ranch parts of the exchange are a fair deal and I would support them as long as the CMR part of the swap is not included.

The effect of including the CMR part of the exchange can be summarized as:
The public will LOSE access to:
1) ALL fishing less than eight miles from the trailhead;
2) ALL fishing for naturally occurring fish in the ENTIRE Rock Creek drainage;
3) ALL elk hunting less than five miles from the trailhead;
4) ALL elk hunting opportunities in the ENTIRE Rock Creek drainage accessible without an overnight stay (unless you are super human or have horses), and;
5) The BEST elk hunting in the ENTIRE Rock Creek drainage.

In return the public will GAIN:
1) Secured access to a pair of lakes with artificial fisheries and no hunting opportunities (unless you beat the 150 to 1 odds and want to hunt mountain goats attracted to backpacker's urine).
2) An inholding which has minuscule benefit to the public because it is extremely difficult to get to and offers no remarkable recreation opportunities.

While it is desirable to acquire inholdings, especially if they have lakes, nobody in their right mind would give away so much to do so! The CMR part of the exchange is decidedly not in the public interest and should be rejected.

Comments due by tomorrow: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/CommentInput?Project=56687

 

[Bullshot]

FWIW, I submitted my comments. Thanks for alerting us to this matter. It really seems that we should not be swapping those mid elevation, valuable lands unless the terms are REALLY good. There are plenty of land-locked parcels which could be swapped 1st, before giving up existing public gems in return for more high altitude backcountry. Although those areas are great from a wilderness or near wilderness perspective and certainly worthy of protection (some other day, perhaps), in reality they will get far less public return (recreation) as the 2 lower parcels in question here would seem to provide.

 

[RobG]

Well, there were 300 comments and maybe 10 were supportive. No legitimate groups (unless you count PERC and Sweet Grass county commissioners) supported it. RMEF even chimed in. Two groups that were originally leaning in support (Great Old Broads for Wilderness and Park County Environmental Council) raised serious concerns, with PCEC sleuthing out the most damning fact that was conveniently left out: we've had an easement on the Robinson Bench Road for 51 years. Wild Earth Guardians finished with a sledgehammer about serious shortcomings including violating NEPA by not taking a "hard look" at things including impacts to recreation like hunting and fishing or considering reasonable alternatives.

In addition to my comments above I included two documents highlighting omissions and blatant mistakes that always conveniently supported the swap. The problems were so systemic that it took my more than thirty pages to cover them. I didn't even bring up the timing of the release which prevented anyone to do an on-the-ground analysis because of snow.

I'm not sure you can ask for a clearer message to USFS: Kill the cigarette ranch part, but go forward with the rest of it. We will see what happens.

You can read everyone's comments here: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?List-size=25&Project=56687&List-page=1

 

[RobG]

Not totally done, but we kicked ass on this one! MTGomer played a big part pointing out how to find an easement that already existed on a road that was key to the swap!

The Forest Service heard feedback on the draft proposal during a public meeting in Livingston as well as throughout the official 45-day public comment period. “What we heard from people was tremendous passion and a strong sense of place for these areas in the Crazy Mountains,” says Forest Supervisor, Mary Erickson. This robust public input demonstrated that while there was general support for the WEMR and RCR portions of the proposal, there were many concerns and questions regarding the CMR exchange component. The released draft decision moves forward with the WEMR and RCR exchanges but will not make a decision on the CMR exchange component at this time. Forest officials determined that more time and consideration are needed regarding the CMR exchange before making a decision on that exchange.

https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USDAFS/2020/12/10/file_attachments/1622703/Dear%20Interested%20Party_RE_Draft%20Decision%20Notice%20South%20Crazy%20Mountains%20Land%20Exchange%2012.10.2020.pdf?fbclid=IwAR17YHqF3PAoEoJEhp0jp-ZFrard6-W2wKY6_ICPKJfTCx0abr8WybuYFUw