The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has reaffirmed its 2022 decision to purchase the privately held Marton Ranch in Natrona and Carbon counties.
The federal agency on Monday published its response to 351 public comment letters as part of a “supplement environmental assessment” initiated in April. The public input resulted in “additional information regarding potential environmental impacts to aquatic invasive species, fisheries, and recreational setting,” according to a BLM Casper Field Office press release.
Why it matters
The “conservation purchase” of the 35,670-acre Marton Ranch is the largest land acquisition by the BLM in the state’s history, according to the agency. The transfer of the private ranch to federal ownership unlocks public access to another 40,000 acres of interspersed BLM and state land sections, as well as 8.8 miles of riverbank along the North Platte River, according to the agency.
The acquisition also advances President Joe Biden’s America the Beautiful Initiative. Also known as “30×30,” the initiative plans to conserve 30% of the country’s lands and waters by 2030. The BLM used $21 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to purchase the property in a deal facilitated by the private nonprofit Conservation Fund.
“Through our lasting partnership with The Conservation Fund, we have a unique opportunity to conserve crucial wildlife habitat at a landscape scale and expand access to the river and public land for our local community and visitors,” BLM High Plains District Manager Kevin Christensen said in a prepared statement in June 2022.
The deal, however, appeared to catch state agencies off guard, including Gov. Mark Gordon’s office, when it was announced June 2, 2022.
History
Gordon criticized the BLM in 2022 for not doing more to solicit input from the public and state agencies, claiming that many questions about the future management of the property and implications of federal ownership were left unanswered.
At Gordon’s direction, the state filed a complaint to the Interior Board of Land Appeals. The IBLA agreed, prompting the BLM to revise its socioeconomic and environmental review by issuing a supplemental analysis in April.
Who said what
Though he faced some criticism for objecting to an arrangement that involved a private landowner willingly entering into a sale, Gordon said his primary concerns were about public transparency in a federal action.
“Wyoming landowners have the right to make their own decisions about their property, even if it means selling it to the federal government,” Gordon said in a prepared statement Monday. “However, the federal government has the responsibility to see the process is fair and transparent.
“I am not surprised that there were substantial and meaningful comments submitted by the public and state agencies,” Gordon added.
Yea BLM. Better to have the land enjoyed by all than to have some rich dink from New York City owning it. Boo Gordon!
This is so unfortunate for the state and the counties involved in this transaction. Loss of revenue in the form of taxes and the costs associated with our state responsibilities ie first responders,garbage disposal ect. This should be state owned and operated for the people of this state. We already have too much federal government in our state.
The increases in visitation and the money spent by the people enjoying the expanded access will more than offset the loss of property taxes.
Public land is just that whether it’s state or federal. At least with the Federal land the county will get PILT money, which generally is more than then assessed property taxes. The county can choose which services it wants to apply the PILT money to. In my county the $$ go toward school funding and road maintenance. And yes, Tourism, like it or not, is a revenue generator for all of Wyoming.
https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2018049/510
THANK YOU SO MUCH – THE PUBLIC GENERALLY HAS DIFFICULTY FINDING THE CRITICAL DOCUMENTS AND THIS LINK HAS BEEN VERY USEFUL. THANKS, THANKS, THANKS.
I think Governor Gordon realized that his opinion on the Marton Ranch sale was not shared by the majority of Wyoming residents who value public access–unlike most politicians. If there was ever a no brainer purchase for public access, this one had to be it.
I think the problem for many politicians is that they are so wealthy, that tough public access is something they’ve never had to deal with. They just pay for access whenever they go out or gain access through political favors. So they can’t relate to the average Wyoming resident. Access is something Wyoming voters should demand their elected officials prioritize.
As for Marton Ranch, instead of complaining, Wyoming elected officials should have been leading the the way to assist in securing the purchase.
Well said!
Personally, I think it’s a great thing. No net loss of Public lands, especially in Wyoming is critical. Gaining access to formally inaccessible River frontage is also key.
If you’re all worked up about BLM, not following NEEPA\FLPMA, just go to the BLM website and look for yourself.
No Net LOSS?
Isn’t there already a law in the books– courtesy of then Senator Alan Simpson, or another- that the federal government cannot acquire more land within Wyoming without an equal disbursement/ sale?
Thank you, enjoy your articles.
Hopefully this property will not become part of the infamous “conservation lease” the BLM has been proposing with federal lands; i.e. become a “single use”, conservation only, property with limited, if any, public utilization. Will reason prevail with proposals of this type when nearly 52% of the land in Wyoming is under state or federal control?
Much of the public land is not accessible. Reason has prevailed.
you are exactly correct in your assessment of the possiblity, the FEDERAL has more than aptly shown that it cannot be trusted for ANYTHING so why all of a sudden now ?? Anytime the “feds” get involved it ain’t any good for “we the people” unless it’s Democrat in nature, PERIOD
BLM Wyoming voluntarily remanded the EA back before IBLA ruled on the merits, so IBLA didn’t agree or disagree with the State of Wyoming.
Lee, to answer some of your questions, the Marton property will be managed in a similar fashion as adjoining public lands managed by the BLM under the Casper Resource Management Plan. These adjoining lands include the Bates Hole Management Area and the North Platte River Special Recreation Management Area.
If any development, wind, solar, oil and gas, etc. was proposed, BLM would have to complete a full NEPA analysis, which would likely involve a Resource Management Plan Amendment, before anything remotely like that could occur.
Thank you Brad. However it appears that the possibility of energy development on the Marton Ranch cannot be ruled out, My concern is that the “access to pubic land advocates” finally have a large blocked up area of Federal land without private inholdings which will not block public access to the 8.8 miles of Platte River frontage ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE RIVER. This is exactly what the advocates have been asking for. Wouldn’t it be nice if this block of land could be removed from energy development and set aside for grazing and recreation – doing so would seem to violate the multiple use of public land doctrine but doesn’t the access to 8.8 miles of river frontage warrant special protection. What would it take – a National monument designation or what??? Who wants to drive through thousands of acres of solar farms enroute to the east frontage on the Platte!!
QUESTION?? Does the “conservation purchase” preclude the BLM from entering into wind farm and/or solar farms on the Marton Ranch or even oil/gas/uranium leases. Could the purchase ultimately lead to ACEC designation or other preservation actions? My understanding is that the Marton family has retained the grazing rights on the property though.
Very confusing right now – if the Biden administration is serious about protecting 30% 0f the public’s land they seem to be doing the exact opposite right now by rushing into wind/solar farms on extremely large tracts of western desert habitat – you can’t have it both ways. What’s safe from green energy development under the Biden administration??? I would hate to see the Marton Ranch covered with solar farms and wind turbines – Carbon County is looking at serious environmental impact in the near future and about 20% of the Marton Ranch is in Carbon County. We could use some clarification on the potential future uses of the Marton Ranch.
So what? What was the gist of the 351 public comments?
I believe the Federal court in Wyoming ruled that the BLM had not followed NEPA or maybe FLPMA and executed the purchase without public input. Therefore the BLM was required to go back and solicit public input after the fact which gave the State of Wyoming, Game and Fish, Natrona County, Carbon County, wildlife advocate groups, conservation organizations, agriculture organizations and many more the opportunity to submit comments on not only the purchase but how it may be managed in the future. BLM may now come out with a detailed management plan, an amendment to the RMP or wait until the next RPM revision.
Basically what this means is that the Marton ranch purchase is back on track and moving forward although belatedly. I assume the BLM will submit this finding to the Federal court in order to demonstrate to the Federal judge that BLM had complied with his directive. I think everything is moving along OK.
So, Lee,
What was the gist of those comments. That was the original question, and your comment did not address that at all. I suspect you do know this, and I legitimately want to know what you think of those comments. Your earlier comments indicate that you think “conservation” includes oil wells, solar panels, and wind farms to the Federal Governments. What did the commenters say?
read the comments yourself – they’re the first link in the article above
read them yourself – they’re the first link in the article