Friday, April 30, 1943. Operation Mincemeat

The body of "Major Martin", a fictional British Major carrying fictional papers, was released from the British submarine HMS Seraph off of Spain.  In reality, the body was that of Glyndwr Michael, a vagrant who had died from eating rat poison.

The operation, known as Operation Mincemeat, was designed to deceive the Axis on plans for the invasion of Sicily, and was highly successful.

The US took Hill 609 in Tunisia.

The Bermuda Conference concluded.  The topic of the conference between the US and UK, which had commenced on April 19, was Jewish refugees who had been liberated by the Allies, and the remaining Jews in Axis controlled territory.  No substantial agreement on what to do was reached, other than to win the war, US immigration quotas would not be raised, and the British would not lift the prohibition on Jewish refugees going to Palestine.

Participants in the conference.

Monday, April 30, 1923. Booze on the High Seas

 

In Cunard Steamship Co., Ltd. v. Mellon, the U.S. Supreme Court, declared that American ships could sell booze on the "high seas" more than three miles beyond U.S. territory.  Foreign ships, however, couldn't dock with it.

The decision was rendered by Justice Van Devanter, which is somewhat ironic as he was appointed to the bench from Wyoming, and it was Wyoming that had put the Volstead Act up over the top.

The decision reads:

U.S. Supreme Court

Cunard Steamship Co., Ltd. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100 (1923)

Cunard Steamship Co., Ltd. v. Mellon

Nos. 659-662, 666-670, 678, 693, 694

Argued January 4, 5, 1923

Decided April 30, 1923

262 U.S. 100

APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

1. The words "transportation" and "importation," in the Eighteenth Amendment, are to be taken in their ordinary sense, the former comprehending any real carrying about or from one place to another, and the latter any actual bringing into the country from the outside. P. 262 U. S. 121.

2. The word "territory," in the Amendment (in the phrase "the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof") means the regional areas, of land and adjacent waters, over which the United States claims and exercises dominion and control as a sovereign power, the term being used in a physical, not a metaphorical, sense, and referring to areas and districts having fixity of location and recognized boundaries. P. 262 U. S. 122.

3. The territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States includes the land areas under its dominion and control, the ports, harbors, bays, and other enclosed arms of the sea along its coast, and a marginal belt of the sea extending from the coast line outward a marine league, or three geographic miles, and this territory, and all of it, is that which the Amendment designates as its field of operation. P. 262 U. S. 122.

4. Domestic merchant ships outside the waters of the United States, whether on the high seas or in foreign waters, are part of the "territory" of the United States in a metaphorical sense only, and are not covered by the Amendment. P. 262 U. S. 123.

5. The jurisdiction arising out of the nationality of a merchant ship, as established by her domicile, registry, and use of the flag, partakes more of the characteristics of personal than of territorial sovereignty, is chiefly applicable to ships on the high seas where there is no territorial sovereign; and, as respects ships in foreign territorial waters, it has little application beyond what is affirmatively or tacitly permitted by the local sovereign. P. 262 U. S. 123.

6. The Amendment covers foreign merchant ships when within the territorial waters of the United States. P. 262 U. S. 124.

7. A merchant ship of one country, voluntarily entering the territorial limits of another, subjects herself to the jurisdiction of the latter. The jurisdiction attaches in virtue of her presence, just as with other objects within those limits. During her stay, she is entitled to the protection of the laws of that place, and correlatively is bound to yield obedience to them. The local sovereign may, out of considerations of public policy, choose to forego the exertion of its jurisdiction, or to exert it in a limited way only, but this is a matter resting solely in its discretion. P. 262 U. S. 124.

8. The Eighteenth Amendment does not prescribe any penalties, forfeitures, or mode of enforcement, but, by its second section, leaves these to legislative action. P. 262 U. S. 126.

9. The only instance in which the National Prohibition Act recognizes the possession of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes as lawful is where the liquor was obtained before the act went into effect and is kept in the owner's dwelling for use therein by him, his family, and his bona fide guests. P. 262 U. S. 127.

10. Examination of the National Prohibition Act, as supplemented November 23, 1921, c. 134, 42 Stat. 222, shows

(a) That it is intended to be operative throughout the territorial limits of the United States, with the single exception of liquor in transit through the Panama Canal or on the Panama Railroad,

(b) That it is not intended to apply to domestic vessels when outside the territorial waters of the United States,

(c) That it is intended to apply to all merchant vessels, whether foreign or domestic, when within those waters, save as the Panama Canal Zone exception provides otherwise. Pp. 262 U. S. 127-129.

11. Congress, however, has power to regulate the conduct of domestic merchant ships when on the high seas, or to exert such control over them when in foreign waters as may be affirmatively or tacitly permitted by the territorial sovereign. P. 262 U. S. 129.

12. The antiquity of the practice of carrying intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes as part of a ship's sea stores, the wide extent of the practice, and its recognition in a congressional enactment, do not go to prove that the Eighteenth Amendment and the Prohibition Act could not have been intended to disturb that practice, since their avowed and obvious purpose was to put an end to prior practices respecting such liquors. P. 262 U. S. 129.

13. After the adoption of the Amendment and the enactment of the National Prohibition Act, Congress withdrew the prior statutory recognition of liquors as legitimate sea stores. Rev.Stats., § 2775; Act of September 21, 1922, c. 356, Tit. IV, and § 642, 42 Stat. 858, 948, 989. P. 262 U. S. 130.

14. The carrying of intoxicating liquors, as sea stores, for beverage purposes, through the territorial waters or into the ports and harbors of the United States by foreign or domestic merchant ships is forbidden by the Amendment and the act. P. 262 U. S. 130.

284 F. 890 affirmed.

285 F. 79 reversed.

Appeals from decrees of the district court dismissing, on the merits, as many suits brought by the appellant steamship companies for the purpose of enjoining officials of the United States from seizing liquors carried by appellants' passenger ships as sea stores and from taking other proceedings against the companies and their vessels, under the National Prohibition Act.

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

These are suits by steamship companies operating passenger ships between United States ports and foreign ports to enjoin threatened application to them and their ships of certain provisions of the National Prohibition Act. The defendants are officers of the United States charged with the act's enforcement. In the first ten cases, the plaintiffs are foreign corporations and their ships are of foreign registry, while in the remaining two the plaintiff's are domestic corporations, and their ships are of United States registry. All the ships have long carried and now carry, as part of their sea stores, intoxicating liquors intended to be sold or dispensed to their passengers and crews at meals and otherwise for beverage purposes. Many of the passengers and crews are accustomed to using such beverages and insist that the ships carry and supply liquors for such purposes. By the laws of all the foreign ports at which the ships touch, this is permitted, and by the laws of some it is required. The liquors are purchased for the ships and taken on board in the foreign ports and are sold or dispensed in the course of all voyages, whether from or to those ports.

The administrative instructions dealing with the subject have varied since the National Prohibition Act went into effect. December 11, 1919, the following instructions were issued (T.D. 38218):

"All liquors which are prohibited importation, but which are properly listed as sea stores on vessels arriving in ports of the United States, should be placed under seal by the boarding officer and kept sealed during the entire time of the vessel's stay in port, no part thereof to be removed from under seal for use by the crew at meals or for any other purpose."

"Excessive or surplus liquor stores are no longer dutiable, being prohibited importation, but are subject to seizure and forfeiture."

"Liquors properly carried as sea stores may be returned to a foreign port on the vessel's changing from the foreign to the coasting trade, or may be transferred under supervision of the customs officers from a vessel in foreign trade, delayed in port for any cause, to another vessel belonging to the same line or owner."

January 27, 1920, the first paragraph of those instructions was changed (T.D. 38248) so as to read:

"All liquors which are prohibited importation, but which are properly listed as sea stores on American vessels arriving in ports of the United States, should be placed under seal by the boarding officer and kept sealed during the entire time of the vessel's stay in port, no part thereof to be removed from under seal for use by the crew at meals or for any other purpose. All such liquors on foreign vessels should be sealed on arrival of the vessels in port, and such portions thereof released from seal as may be required from time to time for use by the officers and crew."

October 6, 1922, the Attorney General, in answer to an inquiry by the Secretary of the Treasury, gave an opinion to the effect that the National Prohibition Act, construed in connection with the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, makes it unlawful (a) for any ship, whether domestic or foreign, to bring into territorial waters of the United States, or to carry while within such waters, intoxicating liquors intended for beverage purposes, whether as sea stores or cargo, and (b) for any domestic ship, even when without those, waters to carry such liquors for such purposes either as cargo or sea stores. The President thereupon directed the preparation, promulgation, and application of new instructions conforming to that construction of the act. Being advised of this and that, under the new instructions, the defendants would seize all liquors carried in contravention of the act as so construed and would proceed to subject the plaintiffs and their ships to penalties provided in the act, the plaintiffs brought these suits.

The hearings in the district court were on the bills or amended bills, motions to dismiss, and answers, and there was a decree of dismissal on the merits in each suit. 284 F. 890; International Mercantile Marine v. Stuart, 285 F. 79. Direct appeals under Judicial Code § 238 bring the cases here.

While the construction and application of the National Prohibition Act is the ultimate matter in controversy, the act is so closely related to the Eighteenth Amendment, to enforce which it was enacted, that a right understanding of it involves an examination and interpretation of the amendment. The first section of the latter declares, 40 Stat. 1050, 1941:

"Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article, the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."

These words, if taken in their ordinary sense, are very plain. The articles proscribed are intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes. The acts prohibited in respect of them are manufacture, sale, and transportation within a designated field, importation into the same, and exportation therefrom, and the designated field is the United States and all territory subject to its jurisdiction. There is no controversy here as to what constitutes intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes; but opposing contentions are made respecting what is comprehended in the terms "transportation," "importation" and "territory."

Some of the contentions ascribe a technical meaning to the words "transportation" and "importation." We think they are to be taken in their ordinary sense, for it better comports with the object to be attained. In that sense, transportation comprehends any real carrying about or from one place to another. It is not essential that the carrying be for hire, or by one for another, nor that it be incidental to a transfer of the possession or title. If one carries in his own conveyance for his own purposes, it is transportation no less than when a public carrier, at the instance of a consignor, carriers and delivers to a consignee for a stipulated charge. See United States v. Simpson, 252 U. S. 465. Importation, in a like sense, consists in bringing an article into a country from the outside. If there be an actual bringing in, it is importation, regardless of the mode in which it is effected. Entry through a custom house is not of the essence of the act.

Various meanings are sought to be attributed to the term "territory" in the phrase "the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof." We are of opinion that it means the regional areas -- of land and adjacent waters -- over which the United States claims and exercises dominion and control as a sovereign power. The immediate context and the purport of the entire section show that the term is used in a physical, and not a metaphorical, sense -- that it refers to areas or districts having fixity of location and recognized boundaries. See United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336, 16 U. S. 390.

It now is settled in the United States and recognized elsewhere that the territory subject to its jurisdiction includes the land areas under its dominion and control, the ports, harbors, bays, and other enclosed arms of the sea along its coast, and a marginal belt of the sea extending from the coast line outward a marine league, or three geographic miles. Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch 187, 6 U. S. 234; The Ann, 1 Fed.Cas., p. 926; United States v. Smiley, 27 Fed.Cas., p. 1132; Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240, 139 U. S. 257-258; Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U. S. 1, 202 U. S. 52; 1 Kent's Com. (12th ed.) *29; 1 Moore, International Law Digest, § 145; 1 Hyde, International Law, §§ 141, 142, 154; Wilson, International Law (8th ed.) § 54; Westlake, International Law (2d ed.) p. 187 et seq; Wheaton, International Law (5th Eng. ed. [Phillipson]) p. 282; 1 Oppenheim International Law (3d ed.) §§ 185-189, 252. This, we hold, is the territory which the amendment designates as its field of operation, and the designation is not of a part of this territory, but of "all" of it.

The defendants contend that the amendment also covers domestic merchant ships outside the waters of the United States, whether on the high seas or in foreign waters. But it does not say so, and what it does say shows, as we have indicated, that it is confined to the physical territory of the United States. In support of their contention, the defendants refer to the statement sometimes made that a merchant ship is a part of the territory of the country whose flag she flies. But this, as has been aptly observed, is a figure of speech, a metaphor. Scharrenberg v. Dollar S.S. Co., 245 U. S. 122, 245 U. S. 127; In re Ross, 140 U. S. 453, 140 U. S. 464; 1 Moore International Law Digest § 174; Westlake, International Law (2d ed.) p. 264; Hall, International Law (7th ed. [Higgins]) § 76; Manning, Law of Nations (Amos), p. 276; Piggott Nationality, Pt. II, p. 13. The jurisdiction which it is intended to describe arises out of the nationality of the ship, as established by her domicile, registry, and use of the flag, and partakes more of the characteristics of personal than of territorial sovereignty. See The Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398, 207 U. S. 403; American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347, 213 U. S. 355; 1 Oppenheim International Law (3d ed.) §§ 123-125, 128. It is chiefly applicable to ships on the high seas, where there is no territorial sovereign, and as respects ships in foreign territorial waters, it has little application beyond what is affirmatively or tacitly permitted by the local sovereign. 2 Moore International Law Digest, §§ 204, 205; Twiss, Law of Nations (2d ed.) § 166; Woolsey, International Law (6th ed.) § 58; 1 Oppenheim International Law (3d ed.) §§ 128, 146, 260.

The defendants further contend that the amendment covers foreign merchant ships when within the territorial waters of the United States. Of course, if it were true that a ship is a part of the territory of the country whose flag she carries, the contention would fail. But, as that is a fiction, we think the contention is right.

The merchant ship of one country voluntarily entering the territorial limits of another subjects herself to the jurisdiction of the latter. The jurisdiction attaches in virtue of her presence, just as with other objects within those limits. During her stay, she is entitled to the protection of the laws of that place, and correlatively is bound to yield obedience to them. Of course, the local sovereign may out of considerations of public policy choose to forego the exertion of its jurisdiction or to exert the same in only a limited way, but this is a matter resting solely in its discretion. The rule, now generally recognized, is nowhere better stated than in The Exchange, 7 Cranch 116, 11 U. S. 136, 11 U. S. 144, where Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for this Court, said:

"The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction."

"All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source."

"* * * *"

"When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign countries are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter can never be construed to grant such exemption."

That view has been reaffirmed and applied by this Court on several occasions. United States v. Diekelman, 92 U. S. 520, 92 U. S. 525-526; Wildenhus' Case, 120 U. S. 1, 120 U. S. 11; Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 142 U. S. 659; Knott v. Botany Mills, 179 U. S. 69, 179 U. S. 74; Patterson v. Bark Eudora, 190 U. S. 169, 190 U. S. 176-178; Strathearn S.S. Co. v. Dillon, 252 U. S. 348, 252 U. S. 355-356. And see Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470, 192 U. S. 492-493; Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320, 324 [argument of counsel -- omitted]; Brolan v. United States, 236 U. S. 216, 236 U. S. 218. In the Patterson case, the Court added:

"Indeed, the implied consent to permit them [foreign merchant ships] to enter our harbors may be withdrawn, and if this implied consent may be wholly withdrawn it may be extended upon such terms and conditions as the government sees fit to impose."

In principle, therefore, it is settled that the amendment could be made to cover both domestic and foreign merchant ships when within the territorial waters of the United States. And we think it has been made to cover both when within those limits. It contains no exception of ships of either class, and the terms in which it is couched indicate that none is intended. Such an exception would tend to embarrass its enforcement and to defeat the attainment of its obvious purpose, and therefore cannot reasonably be regarded as implied.

In itself, the amendment does not prescribe any penalties, forfeitures, or mode of enforcement, but, by its second section, [Footnote 1] leaves these to legislative action.

With this understanding of the amendment, we turn to the National Prohibition Act, c. 85, 41 Stat. 305, which was enacted to enforce it. The act is a long one, and most of its provisions have no real bearing here. Its scope and pervading purpose are fairly reflected by the following excerpts from Title II:

"Sec. 3. No person [Footnote 2] shall on or after the date when the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States goes into effect, manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, furnish or possess any intoxicating liquor except as authorized in this act, and all the provisions of this act shall be liberally construed to the end that the use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage may be prevented."

"* * * *"

"Sec. 21. Any room, house, building, boat, vehicle, structure, or place where intoxicating liquor is manufactured, sold, kept, or bartered in violation of this title, and all intoxicating liquor and property kept and used in maintaining the same, is hereby declared to be a common nuisance."

"* * * *"

"Sec. 23. That any person who shall, with intent to effect a sale of liquor, by himself, his employee, servant, or agent, for himself or any person, company, or corporation keep or carry around on his person, or in a vehicle, or other conveyance whatever . . . any liquor . . . in violation of this title is guilty of a nuisance. . . ."

"* * * *"

"Sec. 26. When the commissioner, his assistants, inspectors, or any officer of the law shall discover any person in the act of transporting in violation of the law, intoxicating liquors in any wagon, buggy, automobile, water or air craft, or other vehicle, it shall be his duty to seize any and all intoxicating liquors found therein being transported contrary to law."

Other provisions show that various penalties and forfeitures are prescribed for violations of the act, and that the only instance in which the possession of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes is recognized as lawful is where the liquor was obtained before the act went into effect and is kept in the owner's dwelling for use therein by him, his family, and his bona fide guests.

As originally enacted, the act did not in terms define its territorial field, but a supplemental provision [Footnote 3] afterwards enacted declares that it "shall apply not only to the United States but to all territory subject to its jurisdiction," which means that its field coincides with that of the Eighteenth Amendment. There is in the act no provision making it applicable to domestic merchant ships when outside the waters of the United States, nor any provision making it inapplicable to merchant ships, either domestic or foreign, when within those waters, save in the Panama Canal. There is a special provision dealing with the Canal Zone [Footnote 4] which excepts "liquor in transit through the Panama Canal or on the Panama Railroad." The exception does not discriminate between domestic and foreign ships, but applies to all liquor in transit through the canal, whether on domestic or foreign ships. Apart from this exception, the provision relating to the Canal Zone is broad and drastic like the others.

Much has been said at the bar and in the briefs about the Canal Zone exception, and various deductions are sought to be drawn from it respecting the applicability of the act elsewhere. Of course, the exception shows that Congress, for reasons appealing to its judgment, has refrained from attaching any penalty or forfeiture to the transportation of liquor while "in transit through the Panama Canal or on the Panama Railroad." Beyond this, it has no bearing here, save as it serves to show that, where in other provisions no exception is made in respect of merchant ships, either domestic or foreign, within the waters of the United States, none is intended.

Examining the act as a whole, we think it shows very plainly, first, that it is intended to be operative throughout the territorial limits of the United States, with the single exception stated in the Canal Zone provision; secondly, that it is not intended to apply to domestic vessels when outside the territorial waters of the United States; and, thirdly, that it is intended to apply to all merchant vessels, whether foreign or domestic, when within those waters, save as the Panama Canal Zone exception provides otherwise.

In so saying, we do not mean to imply that Congress is without power to regulate the conduct of domestic merchant ships when on the high seas, or to exert such control over them when in foreign waters as may be affirmatively or tacitly permitted by the territorial sovereign; for it long has been settled that Congress does have such power over them. Lord v. Steamship Co., 102 U. S. 541; The Abby Dodge, 223 U. S. 166, 223 U. S. 176. But we do mean that the National Prohibition Act discloses that it is intended only to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment and limits its field of operation, like that of the amendment, to the territorial limits of the United States.

The plaintiffs invite attention to data showing the antiquity of the practice of carrying intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes as part of a ship's sea stores, the wide extent of the practice, and its recognition in a congressional enactment, and argue therefrom that neither the amendment nor the act can have been intended to disturb that practice. But in this they fail to recognize that the avowed and obvious purpose of both the amendment and the act was to put an end to prior practices respecting such liquors, even though the practices had the sanction of antiquity, generality, and statutory recognition. Like data could be produced and like arguments advanced by many whose business, recognized as lawful theretofore, was shut down or curtailed by the change in national policy. In principle, the plaintiffs' situation is not different from that of the innkeeper whose accustomed privilege of selling liquor to his guests is taken away, or that of the dining car proprietor who is prevented from serving liquor to those who use the cars which he operates to and fro across our northern and southern boundaries.

It should be added that, after the adoption of the amendment and the enactment of the National Prohibition Act, Congress distinctly withdrew the prior statutory recognition of liquors as legitimate sea stores. The recognition was embodied in § 2775 of the Revised Statutes, which was among the provisions dealing with customs administration, and when, by the Act of September 21, 1922, those provisions were revised, that section was expressly repealed, along with other provisions recognizing liquors as legitimate cargo. C. 356, Title IV and § 642, 42 Stat. 858, 948, 989. Of course, as was observed by the district court, the prior recognition, although representing the national policy at the time, was not in the nature of a promise for the future.

It therefore is of no importance that the liquors in the plaintiffs' ships are carried only as sea stores. Being sea stores does not make them liquors any the less; nor does it change the incidents of their use as beverages. But it is of importance that they are carried through the territorial waters of the United States and brought into its ports and harbors. This is prohibited transportation and importation in the sense of the amendment and the act. The recent cases of Grogan v. Walker & Sons and Anchor Line v. Aldridge, 259 U. S. 80, are practically conclusive on the point. The question in one was whether carrying liquor intended as a beverage through the United States from Canada to Mexico was prohibited transportation under the amendment and the act, the liquor being carried in bond by rail, and that in the other was whether the transshipment of such liquor from one British ship to another in the harbor of New York was similarly prohibited, the liquor being in transit from Scotland to Bermuda. The cases were considered together, and an affirmative answer was given in each, the Court saying in the opinion, p. 259 U. S. 89:

"The Eighteenth Amendment meant a great revolution in the policy of this country, and presumably and obviously meant to upset a good many things on, as well as off, the statute book. It did not confine itself in any meticulous way to the use of intoxicants in this country. It forbade export for beverage purposes elsewhere. True, this discouraged production here, but that was forbidden already, and the provision applied to liquors already lawfully made. See Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U. S. 146, 151, note 1 [argument of counsel -- omitted]. It is obvious that those whose wishes and opinions were embodied in the amendment meant to stop the whole business. They did not want intoxicating liquor in the United States, and reasonably may have though that, if they let it in, some of it was likely to stay. When, therefore, the amendment forbids not only importation into and exportation from the United States, but transportation within it, the natural meaning of the words expresses an altogether probable intent. The Prohibition Act only fortifies in this respect the interpretation of the amendment itself. The manufacture, possession, sale, and transportation of spirits and wine for other than beverage purposes are provided for in the act, but there is no provision for transshipment or carriage across the country from without. When Congress was ready to permit such a transit for special reasons in the Canal Zone, it permitted it in express words. Title III, § 20, 41 Stat. 322."

Our conclusion is that, in the first ten cases, those involving foreign ships, the decrees of dismissal were right, and should be affirmed, and in the remaining two, those involving domestic ships, the decrees of dismissal were erroneous, and should be reversed, with directions to enter decrees refusing any relief as respects the operations of the ships within the territorial waters of the United States and awarding the relief sought as respects operations outside those waters.

Decrees in Nos. 659, 660, 661, 662, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670 and 678, affirmed.

Decrees in Nos. 693 and 694, reversed.

MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS dissents.

[Footnote 1]

The second section says: "The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." For its construction, see United States v. Lanza, December 11, 1922.

[Footnote 2]

The act contains a provision (§ 1 of Title II) showing that it uses the word "persons" as including "associations, copartnerships, and corporations" when the context does not indicate otherwise.

[Footnote 3]

Section 3, Act November 23, 1921, c. 134, 42 Stat. 222.

[Footnote 4]

The pertinent portion of § 20 of Title III, relating to the Canal Zone, is as follows:

"Sec. 20. That it shall be unlawful to import or introduce into the Canal Zone, or to manufacture, sell, give away, dispose of, transport, or have in one's possession or under one's control within the Canal Zone, any alcoholic, fermented, brewed, distilled, vinous, malt, or spirituous liquors, except for sacramental, scientific, pharmaceutical, industrial, or medicinal purposes, under regulations to be made by the President, and any such liquors within the Canal Zone in violation hereof shall be forfeited to the United States and seized: Provided, that this section shall not apply to liquor in transit through the Panama Canal or on the Panama Railroad."

MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND dissenting.

I agree with the judgment of the court insofar as it affects domestic ships, but I am unable to accept the view that the Eighteenth Amendment applies to foreign ships coming into our ports under the circumstances here disclosed.

It would serve no useful purpose to give my reasons at any length for this conclusion. I therefore state them very generally and briefly.

The general rule of international law is that a foreign ship is so far identified with the country to which it belongs that its internal affairs, whose effect is confined to the ship, ordinarily are not subjected to interference at the hands of another state in whose ports it is temporarily present, 2 Moore, Int.Law. Dig., p. 292; United States v. Rodgers, 150 U. S. 249, 150 U. S. 260; Wildenhus' Case, 120 U. S. 1, 120 U. S. 12; and, as said by Chief Justice Marshall, in Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch 64, 118: " . . . An act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains. . . ."

That the government has full power under the Volstead Act to prevent the landing or transshipment from foreign vessels of intoxicating liquors or their use in our ports is not doubted, and therefore it may provide for such assurances and safeguards as it may deem necessary to those ends. Nor do I doubt the power of Congress to do all that the Court now holds has been done by that act, but such power exists not under the Eighteenth Amendment, to whose provisions the act is confined, but by virtue of other provisions of the Constitution, which Congress here has not attempted to exercise. With great deference to the contrary conclusion of the Court, due regard for the principles of international comity, which exists between friendly nations, in my opinion, forbids the construction of the Eighteenth Amendment and of the act which the present decision advances. Moreover, the Eighteenth Amendment, it must not be forgotten, confers concurrent power of enforcement upon the several states, and it follows that, if the general government possesses the power here claimed for it under that amendment, the several states within their respective boundaries, possess the same power. It does not seem possible to me that Congress, in submitting the amendment or the several states in adopting it, could have intended to vest in the various seaboard states a power so intimately connected with our foreign relations and whose exercise might result in international confusion and embarrassment.

In adopting the Eighteenth Amendment and in enacting the Volstead Act, the question of their application to foreign vessels in the circumstances now presented does not appear to have been in mind. If, upon consideration, Congress shall conclude that, when such vessels, in good faith carrying liquor among their sea stores, come temporarily into our ports, their officers should, ipso facto, become liable to drastic punishment and the ships themselves subject to forfeiture, it will be a simple matter for that body to say so in plain terms. But interference with the purely internal affairs of a foreign ship is of so delicate a nature, so full of possibilities of international misunderstandings, and so likely to invite retaliation that an affirmative conclusion in respect thereof should rest upon nothing less than the clearly expressed intention of Congress to that effect, and this I am unable to find in the legislation here under review.

The paper also noted the death of Emerson Hough, author and conservationist.  Hough had started off as a lawyer, which had taken him to New Mexico, before becoming a professional writer, which is what he did for most of his career.

And it noted the mayor of Powder River had died.  Powder River no longer has a mayor, and is now an unincorporated very small town.

IRA Chief of Staff officially called a ceasefire in the Irish Civil War and called on his troops to relinquish their weapons, effectively amounting to a surrender.

Washington, D. C. experienced a major flood.

Wyoming Catholic Cowboys - raw and real: Cattle Time

Some sort of cleric in Imperial Russia, although I don't know the details.  I'm under the impression that Russian Orthodox Priests were not allowed to hunt, although Catholic ones certainly are.  Neither faith precludes hunting in any fashion, but I'm with the impression that the Orthodox ones may not due to their vows.  I could well be in error.  It's worth noting that the first Pope, St. Peter, was a Fish Hunter, which most people call a "fisherman".¹

This is a very interesting post:

Wyoming Catholic Cowboys - raw and real: Cattle Time: Every spring I seriously revaluate whether running cows compliments the demands of my priestly vocation or not. As far as I can see, it agai...

I at first linked it in here, and then in pondering on it, I commented on the original post as well.  I'm adapting my comments to this here, and greatly expanding on them.

I've known a few Priests over the years, and been friends with a very small numbers. I found that the one that I related to best, on a personal level, was one from a radically different foreign culture, which was in part due to his intellect, but which was in part also due to the fact that he came from a highly rural background, as do I.

I've said from time to time that "I like men to have the bark on", by which I mean I like men to be men. When I was a kid, I recall my father being good friends with a Catholic Priest who would come to the house fairly often, and who shared a rural Nebraska background with my father. Their topics of conversation tended to be about bird hunting and fishing.²  Likewise, I recall my father stopping to pick up the Bishop and a priest traveling with him on the highway, as their car had died. The Bishop piled in our single cab truck and asked, "was the fishing any good?"

In contrast, at least one Priest I tried to reach out and be friendly with was absolutely unapproachable, as he seemingly couldn't talk about anything other than the Faith in an immediate context, and was hesitant to do even that in a ranging way.

Don't get me wrong, but what I think is that Priests have to be relatable to be effective. Christ went out amongst the tax collectors and the publicans. Peter was a fisherman. Paul was a tentmaker. I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that if I'd run into Paul in context, I probably could have asked him "what's wrong with the seam on my tent" and have gotten an answer.

All of which is a long roundabout way of saying that I suspect your work as a stockman enhances a priest's calling as a priest, where it's genuine.

Fr. Allan Travers, S.J., who like Moonlight Graham, only got to play once in the major leagues.  He's supposedly the only Catholic Priest, which he was not yet at the time, to play in the Major Leagues, although I'd question that.

As do other (dare I say it?) manly things.  Hunting and fishing, going to baseball and football games, having a glass of Old Bushmills at a tavern.

At an upcoming synod, Pope Francis will have women religious vote for the first time.  I'm not going to second guess the Pope on that, but I'd note that one of the significant problems that "main line" Protestant religions, which are dying as the Reformation falls and fails (more on that later), have is that they've become highly feminized.  Setting aside the theological nature of this, it's a practical problem as it emphasizes a feminist view that there's no difference between men and women, when men and women know that there are.  This process attaches to the motherly, or sisterly, role of Christianity and diminishes from the fatherly in a way that frankly weakens it.  While I've seen no data on it, I suspect it also contributes to men dropping out of their parishes.

Catholicism isn't immune from this, although at least in the US it's pulling away from it.  For years, the Faith has struggled in a quiet struggle between the very orthodox and the Boomers, with the Boomers often taking a pretty liberal view.  Parish councils are often packed with Boomer women who look to the 60s and 70s as a golden era.  Younger Catholics do not tend to.  And, even though the rules pertaining to Extraordinary Ministers provide that they're only to be used if there's an absolute need, at almost any Mass an army of middle-aged to elderly women will pop up as soon as it is time to administer Communion.³  Protestant Churches that tend to retain a very strong male presence tend to be "Evangelical" Churches, although this is certainly not universal.

All of this is not to discourage a role for women in churches, but rather to encourage a male one.  Not every guy wants to be in the Knights of Columbus (I don't), but quite a few might enjoy taking a priest fly-fishing, bird hunting or go out for a beer.  Indeed, it's easier to relate to a guy on a guy's level if you know that he has some of the same interests that you do, other than the Faith.

When my father was in the Air Force during the Korean War, he played cards regularly with a group of friends.  My father, like his siblings, was a great card player.  His friends included a group of other Air Force officers, including at least two other dentists, and a Catholic Priest.  They were a mixed group, only my father and the priest were Catholic, but they were all united in their love of card games.

During that same era, the Korean War, Marine Corps general Chesty Puller actually received a complaint from a Protestant Chaplain asking the general to order Catholic chaplains to quit playing cards with enlisted men, as it was causing them to convert to Catholicism.  The general didn't do it.

There's something to think about there.

Footnotes:

1.  I've seen the no hunting for Orthodox priests somewhere in print, but I also have that impression from the fact that two Russian Orthodox priests stayed with my aunt and uncle for a time, while touring the US. This was in the 1970s, long before the fall of the Soviet Union.  They told my aunt and uncle that.

They also left an English language book that I scanned at some point, which was very carefully measured in its tone, particularly regarding the Russian Orthodox views about ending the schism.

2.  A lot of their conversation was fairly intellectual.

One random comment that stuck with me was the priest's comment about the spread of deodorant use by men, which is now universal.  The priest was bothered by it as he recalled how at the end of the work day, men came home smelling of the sweat of their honest labor.

3.  This fits in the "pet peeve" category, although I actually heard a guest Priest mention the same thing on a recent episode of Catholic Stuff You Should Know.

Extraordinary Ministers are just that, extraordinary for extraordinary conditions.  However, since their introduction they've become common place and even at a Mass at which there is only a normal amount of parishioners in attendance, they tend to be used.  Priests in earlier decades managed to conduct a Mass to a full congregation without ever needing to use them, and for the most part, they are unnecessary now.  However, like other such accommodations, once introduced, it is hard to reverse, and the people who are Extraordinary Ministers are sincere Catholics whom the Priest no doubt does not want to turn away, even from a volunteer mission.

Having said that, I actually witnessed at a recent Mass a Priest turning a volunteer Eucharistic Minister back.  I don't know what to make of it, as he usually does use them, but he's highly orthodox and had the services of a deacon on that day.  A middle-aged/older woman stood up at Communion time and with a wave of the hand, he sent her back.

The Beset Posts of the Week of April 23, 2023

The best posts of the week of April 23, 2023

Lying to Americans about the budget.

Governor Gordon Calls on Public to Participate in Marton Ranch BLM Comment Period

 

Governor Gordon Calls on Public to Participate in Marton Ranch BLM Comment Period

CHEYENNE, Wyo. - Today, Governor Mark Gordon called for Wyoming citizens to provide comments on the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) preliminary environmental assessment (EA) that provides supplemental analysis to the Marton Ranch Acquisition EA. On Friday, April 21, the BLM Casper Field Office released their supplemental analysis of the Marton Ranch purchase and announced a 21-day public comment period, closing Friday, May 12, 2023.

This announcement by the BLM is a result of a settlement agreement between Wyoming and the BLM following the BLM’s purchase of the 35,670-acre Marton Ranch. The State of Wyoming appealed the BLM’s decision with the Department of Interior’s Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) in June 2022 and reached a settlement with the BLM and IBLA in October 2022. The BLM agreed to provide additional opportunities for state agencies and public comments and supplement its environmental analysis. 

“Embracing multiple use principles, which in this case includes increased public access, on public lands has many benefits to the public and Wyoming. That is why I did not oppose this project but opposed the process used. Meaningful public input and environmental analysis are critical steps in any federal land acquisition process, and this public comment period is necessary to fulfill the agreement between the BLM and the State of Wyoming,” Governor Gordon stated. “I encourage interested members of the public to take advantage of this time to be involved. I also appreciate the cooperation and communication with the Wyoming and Casper BLM offices, who have ensured our state agencies were consulted during the supplemental analysis. I look forward to the future land-use planning process and seeing what opportunities the future of this land may hold.” 

From the BLM’s announcement: Comments will be accepted in writing or through the BLM’s ePlanning website linked below. To review the preliminary EA or to submit comments, visit https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2018049/510. Hard copy comments can be mailed or hand-delivered to the BLM Casper Field Office, Attn: Mike Robinson, 2987 Prospector Dr., Casper, WY 82604. For more information, please call the Casper Field Office at (307) 261-7600.

Wars and Rumors of War, 2023, Part 4. Бездоріжжя

The 2024 Election, Part III. Spring shoots

The Post Insurrection. The Defendant. Part VI

Adoption in the past

Blog Mirror: 870: On Reading Sigmund Fraud

Thrusday, April 29, 1943. The sinking of the McKeesport.

The SS McKeesport was sunk by a U-boat, which lead to a convoy battle that took place that, in the end, sent 47 U-boats to the bottom of the Atlantic.

Forty-seven.  That's really remarkable.

The McKeepsport has not been forgotten.

Sarah Sundin notes:

Today in World War II History—April 29, 1943: 80 Years Ago—Apr. 29, 1943: US War Labor Board demands equal pay for equal work for women in war industries, retroactive to April 5.

She also notes:  

US Civil Air Patrol is transferred from the Office of Civilian Defense to the War Department as an Army Air Force auxiliary.

Strikes spread in the Netherlands, commencing on this day, in reaction to a German decision to reclaim released Dutch POWs.  They had been paroled under conditions that they not rejoin combat, a common parole condition for centuries, but many had instead entered the resistance.

British poster urging natural gas conservation.

Sunday, April 29, 1923. No to the World Court

No to the World Court was the GOP theme.  Probably not a lot different from it would be now.

Out Our Way depicted a man and a boy hunting for night crawlers, no doubt to use as bait fishing.

I recall doing the very same thing as a kid.

Marton Ranch Purchase EIS.

 A better copy, with photographs and maps, can be found by hitting the hotlink.

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Marton Ranch LWCF Land Acquisition

DOI-BLM-WY-P060-2022-0057-EA

Environmental Assessment

April 2023

Casper Field Office

2987 Prospector Drive

Casper, Wyoming 82604-2968

Chapter 1         

Introduction

1.1                        Background or Project summary

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to acquire a parcel of land from a private landowner in Natrona and Carbon County, Wyoming with the help of The Conservation Fund (TCF). BLM management of the lands would facilitate an opportunity to enhance public recreation opportunities within the North Platte River corridor and beyond.

The parcel contains approximately 8 miles of North Platte River frontage that will provide opportunities for recreational development, wildlife, and fisheries. The parcel also contains approximately 35,669.52 acres (33,470.93 acres in Natrona County in the Casper Field Office and 2,198.59 acres in Carbon County in the Rawlins Field Office) upland from the river that will increase public access. No infrastructure development is planned for the acquisition area with this project, this environmental assessment (EA) only covers the acquisition of the property. Any further planning or developments on the acquisition area will use the most recent Department of the Interior (DOI) and BLM regulations, policy and guidance including compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

On May 18, 2022, a decision record and finding of no significant impact were signed by the BLM authorized officers (for the Casper and Rawlins field offices) for the Marton Ranch LWCF Land Acquisition EA, (ePlanning project number DOI-BLM-WY-P060-2022-0057-EA). On June 17, 2022, the State of Wyoming appealed the decision to the United States Department of the Interior, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Board of Land Appeals (IBLA). On October 21, 2022, the IBLA issued an order to set aside and remand the BLM’s decision,^[1] so that the BLM can “reevaluate its May 18, 2022, decision, provide additional opportunities for public notice and comment, and supplement its environmental analysis to better address issues raised by the Appellant in the Statement of Reasons.”

Figure 1, Project Boundary

1.2                        Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

The need for the action is to acquire the described parcel placing it into public ownership and respond to the Order from the IBLA, including to supplement the BLM’s NEPA analysis and enhance opportunities for public participation.

The purpose for the action is to enhance and facilitate public recreation opportunities as set forth in the Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Casper Field Office, the Record of Decision and Approved Casper Resource Management Plan (Casper RMP) decisions detailed in section 2.3 below and supplement the BLM’s analysis and disclosure of potential effects related to the BLM’s acquisition of the Marton Ranch parcel, and to provide for additional public participation.

Decision to be Made: Based upon the results of the additional analysis and disclosure in this EA, and the feedback from the public in its review, the BLM will decide whether or not to acquire the parcel of land and, if so, under what terms and conditions.

1.3                        Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, Plans or Other Environmental Analysis

The preparation of this EA follows guidelines and regulations adopted by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) found in 40 CFR Part 1500-1508, DOI regulations in 43 CFR Part 46, the BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1 and BLM policies regarding the implementation of NEPA and compliance with the above regulations.

The BLM’s policy is derived from various laws, including Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended [43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.].

1.4                        Scoping, Public Involvement and Issues

Internal scoping was initiated when the project was presented to the BLM Casper and Rawlins Field Offices interdisciplinary team. The original project was posted on the ePlanning website on February 16, 2022. A field visit to the project area was conducted in September 2021.

Based upon the concerns raised by the State of Wyoming in its Statement of Reasons (WY SOR),^[2] the BLM has determined that additional analysis and disclosure for several resources is necessary.

 Resources identified for analysis in the original document included Aquatic Invasive Species, Fisheries, Recreation and Recreational Setting, Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Animal or Plant Species, Local Property Taxes, Wildlife and Special Status Animal or Plant Species other than Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) candidate or listed species.

Resources identified for further analysis in this document include recreational setting, fisheries, and aquatic invasive species.

Public review of the project began on April 21, 2023 and ended on May 12, 2023. Public review resulted in…

Chapter 2         

PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1                        Alternative A, No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would not acquire the parcel.

2.2                        Alternative B, Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, the BLM in partnership with The Conservation Fund (TCF) would acquire the approximate 36,000 acre Marton Ranch parcel in Natrona and Carbon Counties, Wyoming which includes approximately 8 miles of North Platte River frontage, in Natrona County. The BLM would otherwise manage the property in the same way as the surrounding BLM administered public lands as detailed in the Casper RMP and the Rawlins RMP.

2.3                        Conformance with BLM Land-Use Plan and Incorporation by Reference

Casper Field Office

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.11 and 1501.12, this EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the information and analysis contained in the Casper RMP signed in December 2007 as amended. Furthermore, the proposed action is in conformance with the Casper RMP goals and objectives and decisions specifically the following:

Decision 6006. “Acquisition of lands and interest in lands will be pursued in areas of high recreational or paleontological value, with sensitive cultural resources, area with important fish and wildlife habitat, and along historic trail segments.” Objective LR:1, “Manage the acquisition, disposal, withdrawal, and use of public lands to meet the needs of internal and external customers and to preserve important resource values.”

Decision 6008. “Lands that are reconveyed or acquired will be managed in the same manner as the adjoining public lands.” Objective LR:1.1, “Develop and maintain a land-ownership pattern that will provide better access for managing and protecting public lands.”

Decision 6034, “North Platte Special Recreation Management Area Prescriptions: Development, livestock grazing, and ROW will be limited. Emphasis will be placed on enhancing recreational benefits and wildlife/fisheries habitats within the selected boundary. Acquisitions and easements will be pursued as opportunities arise to improve public access and recreation opportunities…” Objective LR:8.1, “Manage and maintain recreation sites and facilities to acceptable operations standards.”

Decision 7023 “The BLM will pursue acquisition of lands and interest in lands in the Bolton Creek Drainage and Bates Creek areas.” GOAL SD:4, “Manage the Bates Hole MA to protect highly erosive soils, fragile watersheds, and important and crucial wildlife habitat; conserve and (or) improve special status species habitat and maintain unfragmented vegetative communities.”

Decision 7035 “The BLM will pursue acquisition of lands and interest in lands in the North Platte River area...” Objective SD: 7.1, “Manage the public lands and mineral estate in a manner than enhances the natural character and preserves wildlife and fisheries habitats.”

Rawlins Field Office

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1501.11 and 1501.12, this EA tiers to and incorporates by reference the information and analysis contained in the PROPOSED Resource Management Plan and FINAL Environmental Impact Statement for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins Field Office, the Record of Decision and Approved Rawlins Resource Management Plan (Rawlins RMP) signed in December 2008 as amended. Furthermore, the proposed action is in conformance with the Rawlins RMP decisions, goals and objectives even though it is not specifically provided for because it is consistent with those decisions, goals and objectives within the Rawlins RMP.

Management Goal:

1.      Manage the acquisition, disposal, withdrawal, and use of public lands to meet the needs of internal and external customers (i.e., to respond to community needs for expansion and economic development and to preserve important resource values) (Appendices 6, 7, and 34).

Management Objectives:

1.   Identify BLM-administered lands within the RMPPA (resource management plan planning area) available for acquisition, disposal, or withdrawal.

4.   Utilize appropriate actions (e.g., land tenure adjustments or easement acquisitions) to help solve problems related to intermixed landownership patterns.

Management Actions:

4.   When practicable, develop and maintain a landownership pattern that will provide better access for management and protection of the public lands (Appendix 6).

Chapter 3         

Affected Environment

3.1                        Introduction

This chapter presents the affected and/or existing environment (i.e. the physical, biological, social, and economic values and resources) of the area. This chapter provides the baseline for comparison of impacts and consequences described in Chapter 4.

3.2                        Resources Not Considered in this Analysis

The following resources are not present or impacted by the project and will not be analyzed as detailed in Appendix A:

Air Quality and Visibility

Energy

Environmental Justice

Farmlands (Prime or Unique)

Floodplains

Forestry

Fuels/Fire Management

Geology

Greenhouse Gasses and Climate Change

Ground Water

Heritage Resources

Historic Trails

Invasive, Non-native Species other than Aquatic

Lands and Realty

Leasable Minerals

Livestock Grazing

Locatable Minerals

Native American Religious Concerns and Traditional Cultural Properties

Paleontology

Public Health and Safety

Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines

Rangeland Management

Saleable Minerals

Soils

Special Management Areas including ACECs, WSAs, ERMAs, SRMAs

Surface Water

Transportation

Travel Management

Vegetation

Visual Resources

Wastes (hazardous or solid)

Water

Water Quality (Prime or Sole Source Drinking Water)

Wetlands and Riparian Zones

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Wilderness Characteristics

3.3                        Recreation and Recreational Setting

The lands within the described parcel include the North Platte River, which is the only floatable waterway in central Wyoming and has become valued as a Class 1 cold-water recreational fishery within a multi-state area and rated Blue Ribbon by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. The river is a high-interest area for anglers and wildlife enthusiasts, representing the top 3-5 percent of rivers and streams within the state for trout production and attracts approximately 100,000 seasonal anglers a year. The most popular game fish species include rainbow, brown, and cutthroat trout. Below Gray Reef dam (which is located immediately upstream of the Marton Ranch’s river frontage), the river has been recently touted as the number one destination for trout fishing in North America by multiple angling publications. As a result, this world-class fishery is a primary focus of the BLM’s recreation management program.

The BLM has issued and manages 18 special recreation permits (SRPs) for commercial fly-fishing companies. Permitted guides utilize public lands along the North Platte River for launching and retrieving drift boats and rafts, and anchoring and wade fishing on BLM administered public lands. With the permission of other landowners, guides and the public could also use private lands in similar ways.

Adjacent recreation areas such as Gray Reef, including the Blue Gulch and The Redd’s day use sites; Pete’s Draw Campground and Trappers Route—which is divided into the Bolton Creek Access, Miles Landing and Whitetail day use sites; and the Golden Current, Chalk Bluffs, and Buffalo Berry Campgrounds are heavily used throughout the year with 212,000 visits recorded in 2021.

Other common recreation activities include floating, wildlife observation, hunting, shed antler collecting, OHV use, camping and picnicking on BLM public lands. Due to the Trapper’s Route Recreation Area’s close proximity to local communities and public access, mountain biking and equestrian use have been increasing over time.

This acquisition will be managed for the recreational setting as referenced in the Casper RMP, Appendix O specific to the setting character.

The recreational setting consists of low-lying view from the water surface creates the perception of a relatively undisturbed landscape. Different combinations of line, form, color, and texture enhance the visual quality which is combined with the constantly changing shorelines and vegetative communities. The landscape changes from open areas, densely vegetated banks, panoramic views, and landform features, such as cliff walls formed by erosion, and provide nesting habitat for a variety of bird species.

The land is currently under private ownership and permission for recreational access to these lands would first need to be obtained from the private landowner.

3.4                        Socioeconomic Considerations

The BLM does not pay property taxes to local governments. FLPMA and subsequent laws accounted for this discrepancy by creating the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program. Natrona and Carbon Counties both receive annual PILT from the Department of the Interior for public lands within the boundaries of their counties, calculated annually (citation). Natrona County received a PILT of $3,952,693 in 2022, which is the most that they can receive in a given fiscal year (FY) due to a population ceiling limit. Carbon County received a PILT payment of $1,566,471 in 2022, which is also capped under the population ceiling limit. Because of population constraints factored into annual PILT calculations, additional land acquisitions do not merit increased PILTs beyond a certain per capita amount for areas like Carbon and Natrona Counties that have reached their respective population ceiling limit (DOI 2022). The Marton Ranch’s annual property tax payment was estimated to be $14,500 between both counties in 2022. The acquired acres are estimated to have contributed approximately $10,000 in 2022 property taxes, while the remaining acreage kept by the landowner in the acquisition is estimated to have contributed approximately $4,500 in 2022 property taxes (Natrona County Assessor 2023).

The Marton Ranch provides additional limited public access to the North Platte River via State Highway 487 and Natrona County Roads 403, 404, and 405. This area is comprised of open areas, densely vegetated banks, panoramic views, and landform features. The North Platte River is a high-interest area for anglers and wildlife enthusiasts, representing the top 3-5 percent of rivers and streams within the state for trout production and attracts approximately 100,000 seasonal anglers a year. The BLM has issued and manages 18 special recreation permits (SRPs) for commercial fly-fishing companies in this area. Permitted guides utilize public lands along the North Platte River for launching and retrieving drift boats and rafts, and anchoring and wade fishing on BLM administered public lands. Other common recreation activities include floating, wildlife observation, hunting, shed antler collecting, OHV use, camping and picnicking on BLM public lands. A 2022 Community Needs Assessment for Natrona County indicated recreational activities as number three of the top ten service needs identified by surveyed community members (Natrona County 2022), despite being a regularly recreated area for the activities described above.

3.5                        Special Status Animal or Plant Species other than FWS candidate or listed Species

The Special Status Species concerns considered in relation to the proposed action were greater sage grouse; raptor; mountain plover; swift fox; sagebrush obligate species; grassland obligate species; and riparian/wetland obligate species as indicated on the Special Status Species Issues Map. There are a variety of wildlife present throughout the project area, including big-game, non-game, small-game, furbearing, and predatory animals. The area is known to support populations of small game and non-game species, but no comprehensive inventories exist for the area.

As depicted on the Special Status Species Issues Map, the Marton Ranch is located southwest of Casper and just east of Alcova Reservoir. Pronghorn antelope and mule deer utilize the area year-round. The parcel includes crucial big game winter range habitat for both pronghorn antelope and mule deer.

The area provides suitable habitat for a variety of migratory birds, including raptors. The area contains a diversity of habitat types supporting most avian species associated with sage steppe, , riparian/wetland, or grassland habitats. Migratory bird nest site occupancy is unknown, as no nest surveys have occurred in the area.

Raptor species likely to occur within the area include the following: Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), Sharp shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) and Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Historic raptor nest sites and one artificial nesting structure (ANS) have been documented in the vicinity of the parcel. It is likely that raptor nests occur that have not been identified. No intensive raptor surveys have been completed in this area and the parcel provides suitable habitat for a variety of raptors.

The Bald eagle is listed as a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species. Areas associated with the North Platte River have been designated as bald eagle foraging habitat and eagles may be seen regularly along the river corridor. The Sticking Creek Roost is approximately 2 miles east of the parcel. The Jackson Canyon ACEC is located approximately 8 miles northeast of the parcel and contains two winter communal eagle roosts: Jackson Canyon and Little Red Creek Roost.

White-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus) colonies are present within the parcel. Prairie dogs are listed as a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species. The colonies are believed to be active, but the size and extent is unknown. These colonies can provide suitable habitat for other Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species such as Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) and Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus).

The parcel contains habitat that supports the Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). The parcel occurs within Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA) and portions of the parcel contain Sage-grouse Winter Habitat (See Special Status Species Issues Map in Chapter 8 below). The following leks fall within the parcel: Marton, Ledge Creek, Bolton Creek 1, Bear Mountain, and Canyon Creek N Fork. The Bear Springs East, Rattlesnake Spring, Meers Camp, Canyon Creek South, and Bolton Creek 2 leks fall within 1.0 mile of the parcel and are considered occupied. The parcel contains suitable habitat for Greater Sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing, as well as winter habitats.

3.6                        Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Animal or Plant Species

The Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Animal or Plant Species concerns considered in relation to the proposed action were: Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) and species associated with the Platte River Species Area of Influence (AOI) as indicated on the T&E Species Issues Map in Chapter 8 below. No comprehensive inventories of these species exist for the area.

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) habitat is present within the parcel. The Black-footed ferret is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The parcel occurs within the boundaries of the Bates Hole/Shirley Basin (10J) Black-footed Ferret experimental/ non-essential population area. White-tailed prairie dog colonies exist throughout the parcel which provide food and habitat for Black-footed ferrets. The prairie dog colonies are believed to be active but are spread out causing less successful dispersal between ferrets. There have been multiple reintroductions, however, the active reintroduction area is located north of the town of Medicine Bow.

The Platte River Species Area of Influence (AOI) falls within the northwest portion of the parcel, along the North Platte River. This AOI was designed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to identify areas where potential effects need to be considered for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate species and designated and proposed Critical Habitat, in reference to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. This area contains critical habitat for the endangered Whooping Crane (Grus americana) and the threatened Piping Plover (Grus americana) listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Other species associated with the Platte River Species AOI are endangered Interior Least Tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos), endangered Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) and the threatened Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

3.7                        Wildlife

The Wildlife species considered in relation to the proposed action are: Elk (Cervus canadensis), Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana).(in Wyoming this species is defined by statute 23-1-101 as “antelope”). White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are also present within the area in relatively low densities compared to other areas throughout the state. Big Game Winter Range for Mule deer and Pronghorn antelope is found within the parcel. There are a variety of wildlife species present throughout the project area, including big-game, non-game, small-game, furbearing, and predatory animals. The area is known to support populations of small game and non-game species, but no comprehensive inventories exist for the area.

Elk within the area are managed as part of the Shirley Mountain Herd Unit. Elk use in the area is isolated, as a small population is found in the area year-round. This population is geographically separated from the other more typical elk habitats that occur within the central portion of the herd unit. However, elk use in the area is expanding as there is likely some migration from the expanding populations to the south and east (Laramie Peak/Muddy Mountain herd).

Mule Deer within the area are managed as part of The Bates Hole-Hat Six Mule Deer Herd Unit. Due to a persistent downward trend in the population, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department made the Bates Hole-Hat Six Mule Deer herd a focus of the Area 66 Mule Deer Initiative. The southeast section of the parcel contains crucial winter habitat for mule deer, but the parcel is used year-round.

3.8                        Pronghorn antelope within the area are managed as part of the Medicine Bow Herd Unit. Major seasonal pronghorn movement takes place within this area as pronghorn move from their summer range to crucial winter-yearlong range. The northern half of the parcel is designated as crucial winter range, but the parcel is utilized year-round. Wildlife – Aquatic Invasive Species

Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) are an ever-present concern throughout the State the Wyoming. They pose an especially grave threat to the economically and ecologically important North Platte River fishery.

New Zealand Mudsnail were detected in 2018 at the Gray Reef boat ramp facility and are now present in the North Platte River on the Marton Ranch. The snail is spread by fish, birds, natural downstream dispersal, and by humans on fishing gear. They can outcompete native species and alter water chemistry (Wyoming Game and Fish Department-Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention, Dec. 2014).

Brook Stickleback were discovered in the North Platte River in 2012 at Bessemer Bend Bridge which is approximately 25-miles downstream of the property. They have also been found upstream of the property in both Pathfinder and Seminoe reservoirs. Brook Stickleback can compete with and negatively affect other fish species. They are known to forage for other fish species’ eggs and are primarily spread through live bait introductions and water currents. Juvenile fish and fish eggs may be difficult to see and can be accidentally moved with standing water (Wyoming Game and Fish Department-Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention, Dec. 2014).

The most significant known threat to Wyoming is from zebra and quagga mussels based on their proximity and demonstrated impacts in neighboring states. They have been found in Colorado, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Utah and are transported in water on boats as microscopic larvae or attached to the hull, motor, or other hard surface of a boat as juveniles or adults. Zebra and quagga mussels remove nutrients from water and out-compete native mussels (Wyoming Game and Fish Department-Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention, Dec. 2014).

This reach of the North Platte River sees high numbers of out-of-state recreational fishermen. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department conducted a creel survey on this stretch of the river in 2020 and found that 78.6% of those interviewed were non-residents. Most non-resident anglers were from Colorado, 59.1% (WGFD, Annual Fisheries Progress Report on the 2020 Work Schedule, pp. 17-32).

Public boating access to the North Platte River in the area consists of two boat ramps which are on lands other than Marton Ranch. The Gray Reef boat ramp is the upper boating access point. The Lusby Public Access Area boat ramp is the lower boating access point. There are no other developed boat ramps in the reach of river located within the property.

3.9                        Wildlife – Fisheries

The approximately 8 miles of North Platte River frontage within the property has been recognized as a trophy Blue Ribbon tail water by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department(WGFD). This reach of the river is comparable to the Miracle Mile reach of the North Platte River, the Bighorn River near Thermopolis, and several sections of the Shoshone River near Cody. The purchase area is highlighted in the WGFD’s 2022 Statewide Habitat Plan. Aquatic priority areas from this document which are applicable to this reach of the North Platte River include “Aquatic Crucial” protecting riparian habitat and the Blue Ribbon Fishery, and “Aquatic Restoration” targeting degraded areas for stream restoration and improving Blue Ribbon Fishery status. Popular sport fish in this reach include rainbow trout, brown trout, Bear River cutthroat, and Snake River cutthroat. As one of the nation’s premier trout fisheries, this reach of river sees high numbers of recreational anglers each year. There were an estimated 8,439 boat anglers that fished the Gray Reef section (which includes the Marton Ranch) of the North Platte River in 2020 alone (WGFD, Annual Fisheries Progress Report on the 2020 Work Schedule, pp. 17-32). The total number of anglers fishing the Gray Reef section of the North Platte River would be greater due to an unknown number of wade anglers utilizing publicly accessible areas.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department samples this reach of the North Platte biennially. Their sampling results show a decline in fish abundance from 2014 to 2018 and then a stagnation in abundance from 2018 to 2020. The report states that the 2020 estimates for this section of the North Platte River remain significantly below the management objective for both abundance and biomass per mile. Their results also provide evidence of an aging fish population due in part to poor recruitment (WGFD, Annual Fisheries Progress Report on the 2020 Work Schedule, pp. 17-32).

Their report suggests that poor recruitment rates may be due in part to a high prevalence of hooking injury imposed on sexually mature fish. As angling pressure is expected to remain the same in the foreseeable future, they suggest a two-pronged approach to help remedy the problem. Educating the public on best catch-and-release methods and mitigate sources of angling-related injury on fish by implementing special fishing regulations. (WGFD, Annual Fisheries Progress Report on the 2020 Work Schedule, pp. 17-32).

Ledge Creek, Wash-out Creek, Bear Creek, and approximately 6-miles of Bolton Creek are on the property. The Ledge Creek and Bolton Creek tributaries have contributed significant amounts of sediment into the North Platte River in the past and have therefore been a cause for concern pertaining to water quality and fish health. Projects have been implemented in the past (specifically on Bolton Creek) to reduce sediment deposition and erosion in the area.

Fishing access to this reach of the North Platte River is almost all on the north side of the river. Both private and public access is extremely limited on the south side of the river as there are very few established roads

Chapter 4         

Environmental Effects

4.1                        Introduction

An environmental impact is a change in the quality or quantity of a given resource because of a modification in the existing environment consequential of a project-related activity. Impacts can vary in degree from a slightly discernible change to a total change in the environment. Potential impacts are quantified when possible; however, when impacts are not quantifiable, suitable explanations are used to best describe the level of impact.

Impacts are considered as being direct or indirect, cumulative, and residual. The impacts are also examined for short term/long term and/or beneficial/adverse. Where appropriate the analysis identifies these types of impacts and compares the alternatives accordingly.

Direct impacts are those impacts which are caused by the action and occur at the time and place. Indirect impacts are those impacts which are caused by the action and are later in time or further removed in distance but are still reasonably probable.

Short-term impacts can be defined by resource and are usually up to a few years in span. Long-term impacts would be lasting beyond the short term to the end of the project and beyond.

Cumulative impacts are defined as the environmental impact resulting from the incremental direct/indirect and short/long term impacts of the alternative when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of who undertakes such other actions.

Mitigations that the BLM would implement as part of the approval are then described and analyzed with any impacts left over being summarized as residual impacts.

4.1.1        Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

The cumulative impacts analysis (CIA) area is the project boundary for all resources except Recreation and Socioeconomics analyzed in this EA. For Recreation the CIA is the project boundary plus the North Platte River Special Recreation Management Area (North Platte SRMA). For Socioeconomics the CIA would be the counties.

4.1.2        Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

The area has been historically used for grazing of both cattle and sheep, ranching, hunting, oil and gas development and recreation. Though the project area has no planned infrastructure developments the property is across the river from an area that has seen substantial developments for recreation and tourism including housing due to the popularity of the North Platte River. No infrastructure development is planned for the acquisition area with this project.

4.2                        Recreation and Recreational Setting

Please note, some impacts specific to fishing is further addressed in the Fisheries section below.

Alternative A, No Action

Under this alternative, the lands would not be acquired, and operations and management would continue as they are currently. No impacts to the recreational setting would occur.

Alternative B, Proposed Action

Under this alternative, the lands would be acquired and recreation would be managed in accordance with the Casper and Rawlins RMPs including the North Platte SRMA. The acquisition of approximately 36,000 acres would also allow for expanded recreation and use across the landscape including once landlocked parcels of BLM and Wyoming State lands.

The addition of 8 miles of one side of North Platte River could allow more public pedestrian access and use along those 8 miles whereas previously the private lands were controlled by the landowner but the area acquired within the SRMA is remote; has no developments; and access to the river is limited by the topography and lengthy, difficult to use trails. While the direct impacts would normally be an increase in public use of the area for recreation along the river the remoteness of the area will ameliorate these impacts.

Prior to the acquisition of this property, the 8 mile section was open to floating and fishing by the public. The acquisition of this property would allow for anchoring and use of the river bank. It is not anticipated that these changes will substantially increase overall river use.

These recreational impacts due to the acquisition will not impact the recreational setting as the area will be managed consistent with Appendix O of the Casper RMP (the Recreation Management Matrices). Consistent with the approved RMP, in the Casper planning area the BLM will maintain the prescribed setting character of the North Platte River SRMA, including managing social contacts to “middle country” encounters and “front country” encounters. The managed use of this property will further provide for targeted outcomes including but not limited to bank fishing, boat fishing activities; experiences such as relaxing, enjoying scenery and natural setting, improving outdoor-related skills and enjoying leisure activities; and the benefits of nature and aesthetic appreciation, improved perceived quality of life, family bonding/better family life and improved image of land management agencies.

Cumulative Impacts

The addition of roughly 36,000 acres for recreational uses could add to the impacts already seen from present uses such as oil and gas, hunting and fishing in the uplands areas.

North Platte SRMA could see a slight decrease in concentrated impacts with the additional linear miles of river and associated uplands accessible to the public as those impacts could be spread across this larger acquired area. The remoteness of the river may make accessing the river difficult and time consuming for the user though. The dispersal of recreational uses across the additional area could relieve all forms of recreation pressures especially in the uplands area but also in and around the SRMA as well as the adjoining public lands.

Mitigation

No proposed mitigations concerning recreational setting at this time. However, any future planning and development of the recreational setting would involve the requisite stakeholders such as the Office of State Lands and Investments and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

Residual Impacts

Under the proposed action, the residual impacts would include continued interest in recreation opportunities from these expanded areas along the river and associated uplands. However, the recreational setting will see reduced residual impacts as the area will remain remote and difficult to access, and potential future mitigation would limit the potential adverse impacts.

4.3                        Socioeconomics

Alternative A, No Action

Under the no action alternative, the BLM would not acquire the private land parcels. Local governments would not realize a decrease in annual property taxes received from Marton Ranch parcels. Selection of the no action alternative would prevent the parcel from being managed as public land and access opportunities for the public would remain unchanged.

Alternative B, Proposed Action

Under this alternative, Natrona and Carbon Counties would lose approximately $10,000 ($7,000 in Natrona County and $3,000 in Carbon County) of the estimated $14,500 total in property tax contributions. The remaining acreage kept by the landowner in the acquisition is expected to continue to accrue property tax revenue, having contributed approximately $4,500 in 2022 property taxes (Natrona County Assessor 2023).

The acquisition of this property will further provide for recreation impacts as described above consisting of targeted outcomes including but not limited to bank fishing, boat fishing activities; experiences such as relaxing, enjoying scenery and natural setting, improving outdoor-related skills and enjoying leisure activities; and the benefits of nature and aesthetic appreciation, improved perceived quality of life, family bonding/better family life and improved image of land management agencies.

In addition to their ecological importance, fish are a valuable resource for humans. Management actions that impact access to this resource for recreational use by the public would be a direct impact on fisheries management (Proposed Casper RMP and Final EIS, Chapter 4—Environmental Consequences, 4-94). The acquired land would now be legally accessible to bank fishing and anchoring. This could result in increased and/or prolonged fishing pressure in reaches of the North Platte River that had previously been legally inaccessible to anchoring and wade fishing by the public. However, the BLM will be able to monitor the uplands areas consisting of the tributaries in this area. The information gained through monitoring will be used to inform management decisions and identify habitat projects in a way that best improves overall habitat quality (see section 4.8 for a complete discussion on potential fishery impacts).

Cumulative Impacts

The area has been historically used for grazing of both cattle and sheep, ranching, hunting, oil and gas development and recreation. Though the project area has no planned infrastructure developments the property is across the river from an area that has seen substantial developments for recreation and tourism including housing due to the popularity of the North Platte River. No infrastructure development is planned for the acquisition area with this project. The addition of roughly 36,000 acres for recreational uses could add to the impacts, both positive and negative, already seen from present uses such as oil and gas, hunting and fishing in the uplands areas.

With respect to the North Platte SRMA, the acquisition of 8 miles of the North Platte River with roughly 36,000 acres of upland will further add to the BLM’s ability to manage and improve fisheries habitats by improving and stabilizing the tributaries to the river. This increase is expected to offset the current recreational uses and developments in the area and allow for improved habitat management.

The nominal reduction of approximately $10,000 in property taxes for the area—0.001 percent of total property taxes levied in Natrona County in 2022 (WY DOR 2022)—is not a significant impact to local revenues. To the degree that property taxes are incrementally reduced on an annual basis without a corresponding increase in associated PILTs, counties and municipalities in the study area also receive annual local government distributions from the State of Wyoming. These distributions are determined biennially, as a function of per capita sales and use taxes and per capita assessed values; a significant change in assessed value, and ensuing property taxes, would therefore be realized and reflected within the updated biannual local government distribution for a given county (2022 WY Session Laws).

Mitigation

No proposed mitigation but the area will be managed consistent with Appendix O of the Casper RMP (the Recreation Management Matrices). Consistent with the approved RMP, in the Casper planning area the BLM will maintain the prescribed setting character of the North Platte River SRMA, including managing social contacts to “middle country” encounters and “front country” encounters, which should also result in net gains in riparian condition and bank stability (Proposed Casper RMP and Final EIS, Chapter 3—Affected Environment, 3-52).

Residual Impacts

There would be nominal residual impacts (approximately $10,000 per year) to the surrounding tax base. The residual impacts due to the land acquisition could include more targeted management of the lands and the fisheries habitat therein.

4.4                        Special Status Animal or Plant Species other than FWS candidate or listed species

Impacts to Special Status Species from the acquisition process are expected to be negligible. As stated in Chapter 2, future management of the area would conform to the Casper and Rawlins RMP decisions including applicable laws, regulations and policy. This process is primarily administrative and would result in no direct impacts, aside from extending the Casper and Rawlins RMPs decisions for Special Status Species on the approximate 36,000 acre parcel and associated wildlife habitats as depicted on Special Status Species Issues Map in Chapter 8 below.

Alternative A, No Action

Under the no action alternative, the BLM would not acquire the private land parcels. Selection of the no action alternative would prevent the parcel from being managed as public lands. The current parcel is private land which controls access to the land, impacting Special Status Species minimally.

Alternative B, Proposed Action

Under this alternative, Special Status Species values on the parcels would be managed in accordance with the approved RMPs. RMP. The parcel would be managed as public lands. Acquiring the parcel will benefit Special Status Species. Acquisition of these lands could provide for the continued maintenance of BLM special Status Species habitat that may inhabit the area.

Cumulative Impacts

The addition of 8 miles of river with approximately 36,000 acres of up lands would add to the habitats under public ownership in the area, expanding the Special Status Species habitats that could be placed under the pertinent RMP. Blocking up of publics lands could lead to more efficient management of these habitats adding cumulatively to the areas habitat availability for these species.

Mitigation

No proposed mitigation.

Residual Impacts

The residual impacts anticipated due to the change in ownership would include continued management of Special Status Species habitats under the BLM’s multiple use and sustained yield mandate.

4.5                        Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Animal or Plant Species

Impacts to Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Animal or Plant Species from the acquisition process are expected to be negligible. As stated in Chapter 2, future management of the area would conform to the Casper and Rawlins RMP decisions including applicable laws, regulations and policy. This process is primarily administrative and would result in no direct impacts, aside from extending the Casper and Rawlins RMPs decisions for Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Animal or Plant Species onto the approximate 36,000 acre parcel and associated wildlife habitats as depicted on T&E Species Issues Map in Chapter 8 below.

Alternative A, No Action

Under the no action alternative, the BLM would not acquire the private land parcels.. Selection of the no action alternative would prevent the parcel from being managed as public lands. The current parcel is private land which controls access to the land, impacting Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Animal or Plant Species minimally.

Alternative B, Proposed Action

Under this alternative, Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Animal or Plant Species values on the parcels would be managed in accordance with the approved RMPs. RMP. The parcel would be managed as public lands and acquiring the parcel will benefit Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Animal or Plant Species. Acquisition of these lands could provide for the continued maintenance of Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Animal or Plant Species habitat that may inhabit the area.

Cumulative Impacts

The addition of 8 miles of river with approximately 36,000 acres of up lands would add to the habitats under public ownership in the area, expanding the Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Animal or Plant Species habitats that could be placed under the pertinent RMP. Blocking up of public lands could lead to more efficient management of these habitats adding cumulatively to the habitats available for these species.

Mitigation

No proposed mitigation.

Residual Impacts

The residual impacts anticipated due to the change in ownership would include continued management of Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Animal or Plant Species habitats under the BLM’s multiple use and sustained yield mandate.

4.6                        Wildlife

Impacts to wildlife from the acquisition process are expected to be negligible. As stated in Chapter 2, future management of the area would conform to the Casper and Rawlins RMP decisions including applicable laws, regulations and policy. This process is primarily administrative and would result in no direct impacts, aside from extending the Casper and Rawlins RMPs decisions for wildlife onto the approximate 36,000 acre parcel and associated wildlife habitats.

Alternative A, No Action

Under the no action alternative, the BLM would not acquire the private land parcels. Selection of the no action alternative would prevent the parcel from being managed as public lands. The current parcel is private land which controls access to the land, impacting wildlife minimally.

Alternative B, Proposed Action

Under this alternative, wildlife values on the parcels would be managed in accordance with the approved RMPs. The parcel would be managed as public lands and acquiring the parcel will benefit wildlife. Acquisition of these lands could provide for the continued maintenance of BLM wildlife habitat that may inhabit the area.

Cumulative Impacts

The addition of 8 miles of river with approximately 36,000 acres of up lands would add to the habitats under public ownership in the area, expanding the special status species habitats that could be placed under the pertinent RMP. Connecting public lands into larger blocks could lead to more efficient management of these habitats adding cumulatively to the habitats available for these species.

Mitigation

No proposed mitigation.

Residual Impacts

The residual impacts anticipated due to the change in ownership would include continued management of wildlife habitats under the BLM’s multiple use and sustained yield mandate.

4.7                        Wildlife – Aquatic Invasive Species

Alternative A, No Action

Under this alternative, the lands would not be acquired, and operations and management would continue as is. Current and future management and monitoring pertaining to AIS on private land under private ownership is unclear.

Alternative B, Proposed Action

Under this alternative, the lands would be acquired, and the fisheries and streams would be managed in accordance with Casper and Rawlins approved RMPs.

The North Platte River draws users from out of state which could increase the chance of AIS introduction. The primary means of AIS introduction is via watercraft. This proposed action does not include installation of additional boat ramps or boating access points. All existing access points and ramps are properly signed and monitored by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Individuals who recreate in Wyoming waterways are subject to the AIS requirements set forth by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Therefore, increased risk of AIS introduction via watercraft due to this land acquisition is minimal to non-existent.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts from the land acquisition to AIS is minimal as the acquisition does not increase access points for watercraft that do not already exist.

Mitigation

None

Residual Impacts

There will be no residual impacts as the acquisition does not increase risks of AIS spread through the primary means of watercraft introductions.

4.8                        Wildlife – Fisheries

Alternative A, No Action

Under this alternative, the lands would not be acquired, and operations and management would continue as is. Future management of the fisheries habitat under private ownership is unclear.

Currently, there are privately owned reaches of the North Platte River in this area where boats are not legally allowed to anchor, and the public is not legally allowed access to bank fish. These areas could serve as a type of fish “safe haven” where fish see less angling pressure. This is a direct beneficial impact to sport fish on the property.

Habitat monitoring and improvement are managed by the private landowner. Any monitoring or reclamation efforts that occur will be conducted by the private landowner. It is unknown if anything pertaining to this will occur under current or future private landownership.

Alternative B, Proposed Action

Under this alternative, the lands would be acquired and the fisheries and streams would be managed in accordance with Casper and Rawlins RMPs.

In addition to their ecological importance, fish are a valuable resource for humans. Management actions that impact access to this resource for recreational use by the public would be a direct impact on fisheries management (Proposed Casper RMP and Final EIS, Chapter 4—Environmental Consequences, 4-94).

There are possible direct adverse impacts to fish due to increased and/or prolonged fishing pressure throughout the North Platte River reach on the property. The newly acquired land would now be legally accessible to bank fishing. Anchoring in these reaches would also now be legal. This could result in increased and/or prolonged fishing pressure in reaches of the North Platte River that had previously been legally inaccessible to anchoring and wade fishing by the public.

Direct beneficial impacts to fisheries habitat could be seen due to BLM Casper and Rawlins RMP requirements for riparian and rangeland health standards. These standards require all perennial and intermittent lotic riparian systems on BLM administered land to meet Proper Functioning Condition (PFC). If PFC is not met, management actions must be taken to improve the habitat so that it is trending upward or meeting the PFC standards. This would further create direct beneficial impacts to fisheries habitat due to the BLMs ability to implement stream and riparian habitat improvement projects on BLM administered land including the newly acquired lands.

Furthermore, the direct beneficial impacts to fisheries could be seen due to BLM habitat monitoring. The BLM will be able to monitor the tributaries in this area using PFC and/or Aquatic Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) protocols. The information gained through monitoring will be used to inform management decisions and identify habitat projects in a way that best improves overall habitat quality.

There is the possibility of indirect adverse impacts to water quality due to increases in soil disturbance because of increases in off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on the property. Increased rates at which sediment is transported to and through streams increases deposition in the streams and could adversely impact fish abundance by decreasing the potential for them to naturally reproduce. Increased sediment can also lead to channel degradation and increased stream temperature.

Cumulative Impacts

The acquisition of 8 miles of the North Platte River and 36,000 acres of upland will further add to the BLM’s ability to manage and improve fisheries habitats by improving and stabilizing the tributaries to the river. This increase will offset the current recreational uses and developments in the area and allow for better management of this important habitat.

Mitigation

The BLM will be required to manage the rangeland in accordance with the Casper and Rawlins approved RMPs, which should result in net gains in riparian condition and bank stability (Proposed Casper RMP and Final EIS, Chapter 3—Affected Environment, 3-52).

Residual Impacts

The residual impacts due to the land acquisition could include better management of the lands and the fisheries habitat.

Chapter 5         

Agencies, Individuals, Organizations, or Tribes Consulted

State of Wyoming Agencies including:

Department of Agriculture,

Department of Environmental Quality,

Office of State Lands and Investments,

State Historic Preservation Office,

State Parks & Cultural Resources,

Wyoming Game & Fish Department,

Wyoming State Geological Survey,

Carbon County Board of Commissioners

Natrona County Board of Commissioners

Chapter 6         

List of Preparers

Jennifer Weber	Senior Realty Specialist	Project Lead - past
Mike Robinson	Planning and Environmental Coordinator	Project Lead - present
Cullen Hardy	Recreation Planner	Preparer
Sara Bassett	Wildlife Biologist	Preparer
Matthew Chappell	Recreation Planner	Preparer
Mike Mischke	Fisheries Biologist	Preparer

 

Chapter 7         

Literature Cited

CITATIONS

“Conserving Wildlife - Serving People.” Wyoming Game and Fish Department - Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Dec. 2014, https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Fishing-and-Boating/Aquatic-Invasive-Species-Prevention.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department Fish Division, Cheyenne, WY, 2020, pp. 17–32, Annual Fisheries Progress Report on the 2020 Work Schedule Regional and Statewide Aquatic Wildlife and Habitat Management.

United States, Congress, Casper Field Office. Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Casper Field Office Planning Area, 1 of 2, U.S. DOI BLM Casper Field Office, Dec. 2007, pp. 3–51-4–93.

Chapter 8                     

Appendices

 

Appendix A

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ANALYSIS RECORD CHECKLIST
Project Title:	Marton Ranch LWCF Acquistion
ePlanning Number:
File/Serial Number:	WYW191415
Project Lead:	Jennifer Weber
Project Description	Proposed LWCF Land Acquisition
Determination of STAFF: (Choose one of the following abbreviated options for the left column based on your assessment of the project on your resource from the EA Preliminary Issues Worksheet.)
NP = [Not Present] not present in the area impacted by the proposed or alternative actions.
NI = [Not Impacted] present, but not affected to a degree that detailed analysis is required.
PI = [Present and Impacted] present with potential for impact that needs to be analyzed in detail in the EA.
Specialist will sign when either determination is NP/NI or after EA is reviewed/written for PI.
RESOURCES / CONCERNS and CRITICAL ELEMENTS
Resource	Determination	Rationale for Determination	Signature	Date
Air Quality and Visibility	NI	The proposed action does not entail any construction, disturbance or development. It is just the acquisition of property. Therefore no impacts to either of these resources.	/s/ Mike Robinson	12/16/2021
Energy	NP	No renewable resources are existing or proposed within the area of analysis.	/s/ Brian Halbert	1/25/2022
Environmental Justice	NP	According to the PROPOSED Resource Management Plan and FINAL Environmental Impact Statement for the Casper Field Office Planning Area, sections 3.8.4 and 4.8.4 "While minority and low-income populations exist in the planning area, no particular BLM actions proposed in any of the alternatives are identified as causing disproportionate adverse impacts on these populations." Further, while the land acquisition contributes to the enhancement of public access to public land, waters, and resources, the area within the SRMA is remote; has no recreation infrastructure developments; and access to the river is limited by the topography and lengthy, difficult to use trails.	/s/ Karsyn Lamb	3/13/2023
Farmlands (Prime or Unique)	NP	No farmlands exist within the project area	/s/ Matt Roberts	12/10/2021
Floodplains	NI	The process is just land acquisition and no surface disturbance is anticipated with the project.	/s/ Shane Evans	12/10/2021
Forestry	NP	Forestry resources are very limited on the land that is proposed to be acquired. The small pockets of timber that do exist are largely inaccessible and on ground that would be inoperable for logging equipment. Furthermore, simply acquiring the land would cause no impact to the forestry resource. There is a slight change that future decisions could have an impact, but it would likely be small in scale.	/s/ Casey Cheesbrough	1/28/2022
Fuels / Fire Management	NI	Although potential exists down the road for environmental impacts related to fire management and fuels due to possible increased fire occurrence, potential vegetation treatments etc… Most are not directly tied to the actual acquisition of the lands. Effects would be analyzed for specific decisions regarding increased public presence (potential for more fire occurrence), vegetation treatments etc. A positive impact would be an increased availability of strategic options due to more contiguous acres and increased distance between fire starts and private lands. However, the actual strategic and tactical decisions regarding management of a future wildfire will be evaluated and documented in the Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS) and will involve the appropriate specialists at the time of the fire. Again, acquisition of the land doesn't necessarily cause the environmental effect, a future decision regarding management of a wildfire does. For these reasons the proposed activity does not cause significant impacts to fire/fuels management.	/s/ Casey Cheesbrough	1/28/2022
Geology	NI	The conversion of the surface estate to federally owned land will not have an impact on the geology of the area.	/s/ Matthew Clark	2/4/2022
Greenhouse Gasses and Climate Change	NI	The proposed action does not entail any construction, disturbance or development. It is just the acquisition of property. Therefore no impacts to either of these resources.	/s/ Mike Robinson	12/16/2021
Ground Water	NI	The process is just land acquisition and no surface disturbance is anticipated with the project.	/s/ Shane Evans	12/10/2021
Heritage Resources	NI	Cultural resources are present in the project area, but will not be impacted by the land acquisition. There will be no ground disturbance on this project.	/s/ Kelly Jo Jackson	12/13/2021
Historic Trails	NP	There are no known historic trails located in or within 3miles of the project area.	/s/ Kelly Jo Jackson	12/13/2021
Invasive, Non-native Species	NI	According to the proposed action, once the property is acquired, the BLM would manage the property in the same way as the surrounding BLM administered public lands as detailed in the Casper RMP.	/s/ Matt Roberts	12/10/2021
Lands and Realty	NI	The following are existing authorizations found in the CFO jurisdiction within the analyzed area of the proposed action: Pipelines WYC0039592 and WYW0266530; Powerlines WYW034562, WYW047611, WYW101869 Road WYW191502 The proposed action will not impact the resource.	/s/ Brian Halbert	1/25/2022
Leasable Minerals	NI	The conversion of the surface estate to federally owned land will not have an impact on the leasable mineral estate.	/s/ Matthew Clark	2/4/2022
Livestock Grazing	NI	According to the proposed action, once the property is acquired, the BLM would manage the property in the same way as the surrounding BLM administered public lands as detailed in the current RMPs.	/s/ Matt Roberts	12/10/2021
Locatable Minerals	NI	The conversion of the surface estate to federally owned land will not have an impact on the locatable mineral estate.	/s/ Matthew Clark	2/4/2022
Native American Religious Concerns and Traditional Cultural Properties	NI	No known TCP's are located in the project area at this time.	/s/ Kelly Jo Jackson	12/13/2021
Paleontology	NI	No ground disturbance means the PFYC 3-5 formations will not be affected by this action, however the possibility for collection of scientifically significant fossils on BLM PFYC 3-5 formations by the public would require a paleontology inventory.	/s/ Deandra De Los Santos	1/24/2022
Public Health and Safety	NI	The proposed action will not impact this resource.	/s/ Art Terry	12/15/2021
Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines	NI	Proposed action will not affect rangeland health conditions	/s/ Matt Roberts	12/10/2021
Rangeland Management	NI	According to the proposed action, once the property is acquired, the BLM would manage the property in the same way as the surrounding BLM administered public lands as detailed in the current RMPs.	/s/ Matt Roberts	12/10/2021
Recreation	PI	The proposed action will impact recreation. Analysis in the EA.	/s/ Cullen Hardy	12/9/2021
Saleable Minerals	NI	The conversion of the surface estate to federally owned land will not have an impact on the salable mineral estate.	/s/ Matthew Clark	2/4/2022
Socio-Economic	PI	The proposed action does not entail any construction, disturbance or development. However, the related tax base of the county has been altered in the transfer of land ownership, constituting a new socioeconomic affected environment that should be analyzed to reflect any potential trends associated with differing management alternatives as proposed in the EA. Also, because there is increased access and ensuing impacts on recreation and wildlife/fish, which contribute to the socioeconomics of the area, sufficient SE narrative framed around PILT and property taxes would still incorporate findings from other resource impacts to accurately paint the picture of how the land's value would evolve with the acquisition.	/s/ Karsyn Lamb	3/2/2023
Soils	NI	According to the proposed action, once the property is acquired, the BLM would manage the property in the same way as the surrounding BLM administered public lands as detailed in the current RMPs.	/s/ Matt Roberts	12/10/2021
Special Management Areas including ACECs, WSAs, ERMAs, SRMAs.	NI	Impacts to the North Platte SRMA will be minimal with this proposed action. If parcel is acquired all applicable lands will be managed accordingly to the current SRMA.	/s/ Cullen Hardy	12/13/2021
Special Status Animal or Plant Species other than FWS candidate or listed species	PI	The Marton Land Acquisitions is within Bald Eagle Feeding Concentration, Priority Habitat Management Area, 4 occupied Sage-grouse leks, Sage-grouse winter habitat, White-tailed prairie dog colonies, numerous raptor species, Mountain Plover, and Swift Fox which have been documented in the area. Various sagebrush, grassland, and riparian/wetland obligate species could also be impacted. Impacts to these wildlife species would be caused by overall increase in activities due to public access. These impacts include species avoidance to high traffic areas for recreational use, flushing of wildlife from mating and nesting areas, increase in invasive and non-native weeds.	/s/ Sara Bassett	12/15/2021
Surface Water	NI	The process is just land acquisition and no surface disturbance is anticipated with the project.	/s/ Shane Evans	12/10/2021
Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Animal or Plant Species	PI	The Marton Land Acquisitions falls within the Black-footed ferret (Endangered) reintroduction area. This area is considered to be an experimental/ non-essential population. The Platte River Species Area of Influence (AOI) contains critical habitat for T&E species. Impacts to these species could be increase in activities which would cause avoidance, increase in stress to a T&E species which could decrease reproduction, and flushing of T&E species from critical habitats.	/s/ Sara Bassett	12/15/2021
Transportation	NI	County Road 404 and County Road 405 traverse the lands within the analyzed area of the proposed action. The proposed action will not significantly impact the resource.	/s/ Brian Halbert	1/25/2022
Travel Management	NI	Existing routes acquired with this proposed action will fall under current RMPs management objectives until travel management planning is completed.	/s/ Cullen Hardy	12/13/2021
Vegetation	NI	According to the proposed action, once the property is acquired, the BLM would manage the property in the same way as the surrounding BLM administered public lands as detailed in the current RMPs.	/s/ Matt Roberts	12/10/2021
Visual Resources	NI	There will be no impact to visual resources from the proposed action.	/s/ Cullen Hardy	12/13/2021
Wastes (hazardous or solid)	NI	The proposed action will not impact this resource.	/s/ Art Terry	12/15.2021
Water	NI	The process is just land acquisition and no surface disturbance is anticipated with the project.	/s/ Shane Evans	12/10/2021
Water Quality (Prime or Sole Source Drinking Water)	NP	No prime or sole source drinking water within the project area.	/s/ Shane Evans	12/10/2021
Wetlands and Riparian Zones	NI	The process is just land acquisition and no surface disturbance is anticipated with the project.	/s/ Shane Evans	12/10/2021
Wild and Scenic Rivers	NP	According to Decision #7079 in the Casper FO RMP, none of the six eligible waterways located in the field office are recommended as suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System.	/s/ Cullen Hardy	12/9/2021
Wilderness Characteristics	NI	The Casper FO RMP states: Survey for, identify, and protect lands of wilderness quality as an alternative that was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. Per CFO management, staff will still continue completing inventories for lands that are identified as having potential for LWC.	/s/ Cullen Hardy	12/14/2021
Wildlife	PI	Mule deer, elk, and pronghorn antelope are known to use the parcel throughout the year. Crucial Big Game Wintering Habitat for pronghorn antelope and mule deer exist in portion of the parcel. Big-game, non-game, small-game, furbearing, and predatory animals are known to exist in the area. Overall increase in public access can impact wildlife presence. Increase in vehicles and recreational activity could cause increase spreading of non-native and noxious weeds.	/s/ Sara Bassett	12/15/2021

 

 

Appendix B, Maps

---

^[1] See Order at page 1. This appeal was docketed as number IBLA-2022-0218.

^[2] See the State of Wyoming’s Statement of Reasons (SOR) dated July 15, 2022. In their SOR, the State of Wyoming raised several issues related to NEPA compliance and public participation, including: (1) impacts of the Marton Ranch acquisition on the recreational setting of the North Platte River Special Recreation Management Area, (2) indirect impacts of the acquisition on fisheries and aquatic invasive species, (3) cumulative effects, and (4) involvement of State, local governments, and the public in the BLM’s NEPA compliance process. The BLM will seek to redress those issues in this EA.