Columbus Peak Land Swap?

[elks96]

Anyone have intel on this? Someone mentioned we need to speak out against this swap. Claiming the land owned by the state is superior in terms of quality. Anyone have a sense on what this land swap would mean and how it might impact use?

Columbus Peak DA Final.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[highfastflyer]

Anyone have intel on this? Someone mentioned we need to speak out against this swap. Claiming the land owned by the state is superior in terms of quality. Anyone have a sense on what this land swap would mean and how it might impact use?

Columbus Peak DA Final.pdf

drive.google.com

Thanks for posting. It looks like a good trade as far as access goes. The state land is landlocked and inaccessible for the public. The parcel the state will acquire adjoins existing state lands with county road access and an Access Yes walk in area so adding 620 acres to a large state parcel seems beneficial. The only concern I would have is why the appraiser values the state lands over $300,000 more than what the state would acquire. There must be a good reason for why the higher value of state property which we would lose in the land swap. Overall it’s always best to have accessible land than landlocked state land.

 

[Ultimag]

Need to stop this one its a bad,deal
Its the,details you CAN'T see that,should
Worry people

 

[elks96]

Need to stop this one its a bad,deal
Its the,details you CAN'T see that,should
Worry people

Like? That is why I was hoping to get a locals opinion/input?

I have been told the quality of land is very different. That the state is getting dry overgrazed land with minimal wildlife benefit while the ranch would be getting a good lush area with significant habitat.

can you provide more insight?

 

[wytex]

Yeah, look at the pics. I would like to have that state land too.

 

[highfastflyer]

I took a closer look and found out the state land does have access off a county road so it’s not landlocked.

 

[Chesterwyo]

How well would an action that offered a negative $440,950 transaction be received where any of you work?

 

[mulecreek]

How well would an action that offered a negative $440,950 transaction be received where any of you work?

The trade is required to be a value to value trade. If not then a cash equivalent payment must be made to true it up. If this goes through the CPR will need to pay the Board the difference. This payment is then placed in an investment fund. It is expected to earn $17,800 per year.

 

[mulecreek]

That $400K+ goes into the land board fund. This money can be used to purchase addition State Trust land. If this trade happens the State ends up with 68 more acres than it had before, $410K in its land fund and $17.8K in increased revenue.

Not trying to say the trade is a good deal or not, never been to either place, but a lot of the numbers sure make it look like a good idea.

 

[BuzzH]

That $400K+ goes into the land board fund. This money can be used to purchase addition State Trust land. If this trade happens the State ends up with 68 more acres than it had before, $410K in its land fund and $17.8K in increased revenue.

Not trying to say the trade is a good deal or not, never been to either place, but a lot of the numbers sure make it look like a good idea.

Correct...and that IS what the land board is going to heavily consider in their decision. Unfortunately, wildlife and recreation are way down the list.

From what I've looked at, and obviously from the price disparity, and the fact the state is going to gain additional acreage...the piece that's now state is obviously more valuable.

I've spent a lot of time looking this over and have had numerous calls, etc. From what I've been hearing, the County Commission is split on oppose and support. I did hear that Cyrus Western is engaged at some level and is leaning toward opposing.

Finally, JM77 and I just talked about this and what we discussed is the lack of detailed analysis by the GF Department. I would like to have wayyyy more detail in particular on habitat, use days, etc. and there is also the issue of the reservoir that wasn't even mentioned. I know there are fish in it and that people do fish it...that will be a total loss.

I would like to know what the Governors office requires from the GF or what direction they are given to provide information wise in these exchanges. Most, if not all of the land exchanges I've looked at it gives the appearance that the GF is pretty neutral sounding in all of them....milk toast/ plain vanilla analysis if you will. I want, and need more information than just, "opportunity" if I'm to give any kind of sound judgement on these exchanges.

 

[elks96]

A fishable reservoir seems like a really big deal. The fact that resource is not mentioned is suspect to say the least. I also agree with BUzz, we need a detailed account of recreation uses and habitat important on all land exchanges.

 

[mulecreek]

Correct...and that IS what the land board is going to heavily consider in their decision. Unfortunately, wildlife and recreation are way down the list.

From what I've looked at, and obviously from the price disparity, and the fact the state is going to gain additional acreage...the piece that's now state is obviously more valuable.

I've spent a lot of time looking this over and have had numerous calls, etc. From what I've been hearing, the County Commission is split on oppose and support. I did hear that Cyrus Western is engaged at some level and is leaning toward opposing.

Finally, JM77 and I just talked about this and what we discussed is the lack of detailed analysis by the GF Department. I would like to have wayyyy more detail in particular on habitat, use days, etc. and there is also the issue of the reservoir that wasn't even mentioned. I know there are fish in it and that people do fish it...that will be a total loss.

I would like to know what the Governors office requires from the GF or what direction they are given to provide information wise in these exchanges. Most, if not all of the land exchanges I've looked at it gives the appearance that the GF is pretty neutral sounding in all of them....milk toast/ plain vanilla analysis if you will. I want, and need more information than just, "opportunity" if I'm to give any kind of sound judgement on these exchanges.

Don't disagree with any of this. Just countering the point that no business would make a deal like this. It would all depend on what your business is. If your business is to buy, sell, trade and utilize land to maximize revenue off the land in your holdings then this looks a lot like a slam dunk. If your business also includes creating and preserving recreational opportunities then maybe not so much.

 

[Teepee]

The State would be receiving lesser quality land in the exchange. There would be significantly better access to the "new" parcel, but the hunting is marginal on it. The current State land doesn't have great access; it's probably about a 3 mile hike in. There is pretty good deer hunting and occasionally elk hit the higher State land that adjoins the parcel in question. Don't know anything about the fishing in the reservoir. I did hunt that State land many years ago when the owner previous to Columbus Peak Ranch still owned it. FYI: Columbus Peak Ranch is part of Sinclair Oil's holdings.

 

[jm77]

The G&F did not do their homework on this one and because of that, sportsman's views will be marginalized.

 

[DLarner]

Thanks for posting. It looks like a good trade as far as access goes. The state land is landlocked and inaccessible for the public. The parcel the state will acquire adjoins existing state lands with county road access and an Access Yes walk in area so adding 620 acres to a large state parcel seems beneficial. The only concern I would have is why the appraiser values the state lands over $300,000 more than what the state would acquire. There must be a good reason for why the higher value of state property which we would lose in the land swap. Overall it’s always best to have accessible land than landlocked state land.View attachment 38950

The existing state land is NOT landlocked, there is access and it adjoins other state land which isn't in the trade. It does require some hiking to get to this piece of state land.
For those not familiar with this part of Wyoming, ranches against the mountains typically sell for substantially more than those away from the mountains. There is very little public land closer to the mountains. The existing private land has been overgrazed and has noxious weeds present. The grass production is not the same and the wildlife habitat is drastically different. These issue are causing some concern with the appraisal as you would never see this close of a valuation of these two properties on the open market.
Access to the existing private land is much better, there is a county road going through the northern portion of the parcel. After opening day it would be unlikely that game will be present on this private land as there is nowhere for game to hide.
There is a Facebook page, Columbus Peak Land Swap, with more information and links.
Please do some additional research and comment, on the surface it doesn't look all bad but it really is and no sportsmen from the area are for the swap.

 

[DLarner]

Here is an article that sheds some light on the issues:

Proposed land exchange raises questions of access, value, process

DAYTON — A proposed land exchange near Dayton has recreationists and hunters concerned about future access to areas along the face of the Bighorn Mountains, and has given rise to

www.thesheridanpress.com

You can email your comments to the Deputy Director of State Lands for the record:
[email protected]

 

[DLarner]

This may not have bearing on the proposal but the ranch's owner contributed a substantial amount of money to the now governor's campaign fund, on the surface it stinks of political favors but that may not be the case.

 

[DLarner]

That $400K+ goes into the land board fund. This money can be used to purchase addition State Trust land. If this trade happens the State ends up with 68 more acres than it had before, $410K in its land fund and $17.8K in increased revenue.

Not trying to say the trade is a good deal or not, never been to either place, but a lot of the numbers sure make it look like a good idea.

Not entirely correct. The $400k does go in a trust, the interest is used to pay the stakeholders (schools primarily). There was no mention of these funds being used to purchase additional lands which I believe may go against statute (its a bit ambiguous but is limited what the state can do, essentially someone long ago didn't want the state using monies to grab land off the open market so handcuffed the state).

 

[elks96]

This may not have bearing on the proposal but the ranch's owner contributed a substantial amount of money to the now governor's campaign fund, on the surface it stinks of political favors but that may not be the case.

Thanks for the information. It sounds like we need to speaking out against this move...

 

[Teepee]

Proposed land exchange raises questions of access, value, process

The Columbus Peak Ranch, LLC land exchange proposes trading 628.35 acres of privately-owned land located east of Dayton for 560 acres of state trust land located northwest of Dayton.

trib.com

 

[BuzzH]

Be sure to get those comments in...

 

[elks96]

Here is information from land board. Looks like all comments need to go to Jason Crowder. Email is listed below.​

​

Notice for Public Hearing​

This announcement is intended to notify the public that a virtual hearing to solicit public comment will be held Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 5:30 P.M. The hearing will convene via web conference and is open to the public. If you wish to provide comments or ask questions at the hearing, please register here. Additionally, the meeting will be streamed live at lands.wyo.gov for the public to view.

The intent of the hearing is to solicit public comment regarding the proposed Exchange of Real Property located in Sheridan County, Wyoming, known as the “Columbus Peak Ranch, LLC Land Exchange.” Those comments will be considered by the State Board of Land Commissioners before a decision is made regarding this exchange proposal. A complete Detailed Analysis of the proposal is available for online review here.

Written comments regarding the proposed land transaction may be submitted through Monday, June 14, 2021 to the Office of State Lands & Investments, Attn: Jason Crowder, Herschler Building, 122 West 25th Street, Suite 103W, Cheyenne, WY 82002-0600. Comments may also be submitted by email to [email protected].

The Columbus Peak Ranch, LLC Land Exchange is expected to be considered at the August 5, 2021 State Board of Land Commissioners' meeting.