Long-running BLM Parcel 9–10 transfer discussion continues; commissioners solicit more staff work, public weighs in
October 21, 2025 | Teton County, Wyoming
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Board of County Commissioners devoted a lengthy public session to BLM Parcels 9 and 10—a long-running land-transfer topic that includes competing proposals for conservation, agricultural use, and a county-managed pathway corridor along Highway 22.
Background and procedural frame: County staff explained the packet contained multiple memorandum-of-understanding (MOU) drafts and a separate management agreement submitted by the adjacent Walton Ranch (4 W Walton Ranch LLC). Commissioners said their intent remains to assemble a legislative package for congressional or federal conveyance of selected BLM parcels, which may include parcels 9–10 and parcels 23–24; however the board said it needed to resolve outstanding questions about parcel 9–10 before finalizing a package.
Stakeholders present and positions: Stefan Fodor, counsel for 4 W Walton Ranch LLC, urged commissioners to accept the Walton Ranch MOU and management agreement, which he described as a package of three zones—recreation (about 248 acres), habitat (about 43 acres), and agricultural (about 70 acres)—with most acreage to remain unfenced and open to the public but the agricultural zone fenced and managed. Fodor said his client would reduce its grazing lease substantially as part of the transaction and would convey a corridor easement to allow the county to locate Pathway 22 adjacent to the Highway 22 cross-section.
Public-interest groups and other landowners offered different views. The Snake River Fund and the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance urged the county not to cede decision-making authority over public parcels to a single adjacent private landowner and expressed concerns that the Walton Ranch proposal would restrict current public access and diminish wildlife habitat by increasing fencing. Friends of Pathways and other pathway advocates urged the board to accept the Walton Ranch offer in order to secure easement land needed for a safe pathway along the Highway 22 expansion, arguing conditions proposed in the Walton agreements matched current public use patterns and that the pathway cannot be built within the highway right-of-way without adjacent conveyance.
Technical issues and staff input: County engineer Amy Ramage and staff reviewed available YDOT screening results for the Highway 22 corridor and said two cross-section options (four-lane and five-lane) are the primary outcomes of YDOT’s process. Ramage said a single 20-foot easement would be insufficient for a functional pathway in multiple locations along the corridor; staff proposed a hybrid approach—20 feet in some locations, 30 feet in others and up to 40 feet where necessary—based on preliminary staking and topographic constraints. Commissioners asked whether moving irrigation ditches or burying power lines was feasible; staff said some ditch relocation is contemplated but would require further engineering and environmental review. Deputy County Attorney Gingreg advised commissioners that the transfer process and congressional support are aided by an MOU that meets the Record of Decision (ROD), Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the Snake River Corridor transfer plan.
Board direction: Commissioners did not finalize an MOU or adopt the Walton Ranch management agreement. Several commissioners said they wanted staff—beyond the county attorney’s office—to assemble a narrower, clearer package for the board to act on, and to separate parcels that are ready for legislative transfer (for example parcels 23–24) from the more contentious parcel 9–10. Commissioners asked staff to involve parks and recreation, the county administrator, the county engineer, and planning in the next technical/negotiation steps, and to bring a clean, consolidated set of documents and a clear list of outstanding decision points back to the board. Commissioner Probst and others recommended a workshop where the options (including continuing RPPA approaches for some parcels) and pathway easement alternatives can be evaluated.
Action: The Board voted to continue the discussion to a date uncertain and directed staff to prepare a more focused staff report, including a clearer engineering memo about pathway width needs and a bundled legislative package for parcels that are ready to move forward without parcel 9–10.
Ending: Commissioners emphasized the need to keep momentum on parcels that are broadly acceptable for transfer while continuing to negotiate the more complex 9–10 arrangement. Stakeholders were allowed additional time to provide input on technical pathing, conservation easement modifications (including burial of power lines) and the scope of any management agreement that could remain in force in perpetuity.
Background and procedural frame: County staff explained the packet contained multiple memorandum-of-understanding (MOU) drafts and a separate management agreement submitted by the adjacent Walton Ranch (4 W Walton Ranch LLC). Commissioners said their intent remains to assemble a legislative package for congressional or federal conveyance of selected BLM parcels, which may include parcels 9–10 and parcels 23–24; however the board said it needed to resolve outstanding questions about parcel 9–10 before finalizing a package.
Stakeholders present and positions: Stefan Fodor, counsel for 4 W Walton Ranch LLC, urged commissioners to accept the Walton Ranch MOU and management agreement, which he described as a package of three zones—recreation (about 248 acres), habitat (about 43 acres), and agricultural (about 70 acres)—with most acreage to remain unfenced and open to the public but the agricultural zone fenced and managed. Fodor said his client would reduce its grazing lease substantially as part of the transaction and would convey a corridor easement to allow the county to locate Pathway 22 adjacent to the Highway 22 cross-section.
Public-interest groups and other landowners offered different views. The Snake River Fund and the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance urged the county not to cede decision-making authority over public parcels to a single adjacent private landowner and expressed concerns that the Walton Ranch proposal would restrict current public access and diminish wildlife habitat by increasing fencing. Friends of Pathways and other pathway advocates urged the board to accept the Walton Ranch offer in order to secure easement land needed for a safe pathway along the Highway 22 expansion, arguing conditions proposed in the Walton agreements matched current public use patterns and that the pathway cannot be built within the highway right-of-way without adjacent conveyance.
Technical issues and staff input: County engineer Amy Ramage and staff reviewed available YDOT screening results for the Highway 22 corridor and said two cross-section options (four-lane and five-lane) are the primary outcomes of YDOT’s process. Ramage said a single 20-foot easement would be insufficient for a functional pathway in multiple locations along the corridor; staff proposed a hybrid approach—20 feet in some locations, 30 feet in others and up to 40 feet where necessary—based on preliminary staking and topographic constraints. Commissioners asked whether moving irrigation ditches or burying power lines was feasible; staff said some ditch relocation is contemplated but would require further engineering and environmental review. Deputy County Attorney Gingreg advised commissioners that the transfer process and congressional support are aided by an MOU that meets the Record of Decision (ROD), Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the Snake River Corridor transfer plan.
Board direction: Commissioners did not finalize an MOU or adopt the Walton Ranch management agreement. Several commissioners said they wanted staff—beyond the county attorney’s office—to assemble a narrower, clearer package for the board to act on, and to separate parcels that are ready for legislative transfer (for example parcels 23–24) from the more contentious parcel 9–10. Commissioners asked staff to involve parks and recreation, the county administrator, the county engineer, and planning in the next technical/negotiation steps, and to bring a clean, consolidated set of documents and a clear list of outstanding decision points back to the board. Commissioner Probst and others recommended a workshop where the options (including continuing RPPA approaches for some parcels) and pathway easement alternatives can be evaluated.
Action: The Board voted to continue the discussion to a date uncertain and directed staff to prepare a more focused staff report, including a clearer engineering memo about pathway width needs and a bundled legislative package for parcels that are ready to move forward without parcel 9–10.
Ending: Commissioners emphasized the need to keep momentum on parcels that are broadly acceptable for transfer while continuing to negotiate the more complex 9–10 arrangement. Stakeholders were allowed additional time to provide input on technical pathing, conservation easement modifications (including burial of power lines) and the scope of any management agreement that could remain in force in perpetuity.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting