22 million BLM acres for development?

[Forkyfinder]

I pulled this map from this article.

View attachment 312448

BLM unveils plan for utility-scale solar development in western states

The Western Solar Plan is billed as an effort to deploy public land in the federal response to climate change.

montanafreepress.org

States with the most green are Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming. Montana doesn't look to be impacted at this time.

What im getting at - the transmission development costs will make the land in WY less economically viable.

Certainly NV, UT, AZ are more prime in terms of population centers for load to put generation closer to (less transmission cost) and will be impacted by this.

 

[whatnot]

I can get you that one too. Do bumper stickers make you feel like you've done something?

BHA HQ will be submitting comment to the proposal mentioned in the article in the OP, after all, it is just an EIS. BHA already submitted comments to the scoping portion of this proposal, as well, last year.

You act as if this is all a done deal we just lost 22 million acres of prime habitat and it was all BHA's fault. Your hyperbolic tone is seemingly just a touch disconnected from reality. You've come for flesh, and nothing has really happened yet. But by all means, keep throwing those peanuts and holding your pitch fork.

Honestly craft beer drinking does, but I'd take a t shirt.

 

[brocksw]

I pulled this map from this article.

View attachment 312448

BLM unveils plan for utility-scale solar development in western states

The Western Solar Plan is billed as an effort to deploy public land in the federal response to climate change.

montanafreepress.org

States with the most green are Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming. Montana doesn't look to be impacted at this time.

And someone can correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that those green areas that are "available for application" are not actually being considered to be covered with solar panels. Those are the selection areas, and the areas within those selection areas would have to meet an additional set of requirements to be permitted to build a field. One of those requirements be that it is within 10 miles of existing infrastructure (i.e. a transmission line). Not sure how much that reduces the footprint, or what that looks like when it's said and done, but this is very similar to leasing stipulation maps for minerals.

 

[whatnot]

I can get you that one too. Do bumper stickers make you feel like you've done something?

BHA HQ will be submitting comment to the proposal mentioned in the article in the OP, after all, it is just an EIS. BHA already submitted comments to the scoping portion of this proposal, as well, last year.

You act as if this is all a done deal we just lost 22 million acres of prime habitat and it was all BHA's fault. Your hyperbolic tone is seemingly just a touch disconnected from reality. You've come for flesh, and nothing has really happened yet. But by all means, keep throwing those peanuts and holding your pitch fork.

Can you point me to your post about this? I'm not an everyday guy

 

[TOGIE]

The groups I give time/money to, mainly Rmef apparently are asleep at the switch.

they're too busy licking their thumbs stuffing your very own personalized fattty boool return address labels into ultra thick 10x15 envelopes

 

[Irrelevant]

I appreciate the heads up from the OP. I generally get very myopic in my views and don't actually follow a lot of big picture stuff. I spent a bit of time reading, commenting, and sending some emails, including one to BHA pointing out, again, the hypocrisy. As others have said before, you'll never find an organization that thinks just like you. They will inherently do things you don't support, that doesn't necessarily take away from the good work they do.

 

[BigHornRam]

Best I can tell from reading the article is alternative 3 is the preferred alternative, and we spent over 4 million making some vague maps on land use planning.

"The Western Solar Plan does not include detail at the project level. Rather, it’s designed to be a “macro-scale programmatic land use planning effort [that] will provide a framework for making those decisions in a systematic and consistent way.”"

 

[SAJ-99]

What the takeaway should be is agreeing on some basics,
1) Oil and gas are not going away any time soon
2) Renewables are competitive and will be necessary to supplement growth in energy demand
3) there are $ costs to any of the choices. - any time I her "that can't be done" I think "it can be done for the right price". Money is the great equalizer.

We all need to be flexible and have an open mind. The solutions are not easy or they would have been done already. I try to be pragmatic. This proposal is a bad idea at 10,000 ft view, but there is certainly some BLM land that is near transmission lines and suitable for this development I could consider. Ie maybe the gain is worth the cost. Another example, I am pretty against selling public land but ask would I be ok with BLM selling 5,000 acres to a company to build a nuclear plant that powers 200,000 homes? I can't answer that without details, and it's a hypothetical, just like this proposal on solar panels. The details matter. Energy is necessary for the continued growth and development of the country and the era of cheap energy is over.

 

[nrpate05]

And someone can correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that those green areas that are "available for application" are not actually being considered to be covered with solar panels. Those are the selection areas, and the areas within those selection areas would have to meet an additional set of requirements to be permitted to build a field. One of those requirements be that it is within 10 miles of existing infrastructure (i.e. a transmission line). Not sure how much that reduces the footprint, or what that looks like when it's said and done, but this is very similar to leasing stipulation maps for minerals.

Correct, the areas that are open for application are just that - doesn't mean there will be development, just means that those are the places that they will accept applications from. I haven't dove into the EIS yet, but I think all other lands administered by BLM are off limits? At least for the preferred Alternative (Alt 3). Some of that land in Wyoming is in the Southwest, managed by the Rock Springs Field Office, which is currently undergoing an RMP revision and there were a lot of management actions in there that would prohibit renewable energy and Rights-of-Way in critical habitat (winter range, migration, parturition areas). It is yet to be seen what the final RMP says and if it will reduce the availability of lands for renewable development further.

 

[BuzzH]

I just finished contacting my elected reps. The groups I give time/money to, mainly Rmef apparently are asleep at the switch.

I, because I knew what your answer would be, checked.

Wyoming BHA website. No mention. It's Director, whonis extremely active on several forums, not a peep. Why? You've posted books worth of trash talk about 90/10. Not a single post about this? Just too busy? How many of those 700,000 acres do you think will swallow Wyoming public land?
Tell me today is tge first you've heard about it.

Like many, including Wyoming, a bunch of us ceased our BHA memberships with PLEDRA, seeing the writing on the wall. Whyvon gods earth would any of us get back in with a group test supports this?

Maybe instead of an annual membership fee you should get involved.

Also, for the record, I'm not a "director" of anything, I'm a board co-chair.

Further, 3 of our small chapter board are also in a position professionally that they have no choice but to abstain from these types of issues. Mainly because of people like you.

Even though it's been pointed out several times, this is a multi-state issue and really in the wheelhouse of the National Orgs. I don't expect the local RMEF, DU, etc. chapters to be dealing with this particular issue.

 

[hossblur]

I'm too old, and too experienced to want to touch the third rail of Hunt talk today.

I'll say this.

Written comment deadline is end of April. There's an election this year, this is a fair subject to ask about.

It's also banquet, expo, rendezvous season, make sure your money is getting you what they all say it is.

 

[BuzzH]

Correct, the areas that are open for application are just that - doesn't mean there will be development, just means that those are the places that they will accept applications from. I haven't dove into the EIS yet, but I think all other lands administered by BLM are off limits? At least for the preferred Alternative (Alt 3). Some of that land in Wyoming is in the Southwest, managed by the Rock Springs Field Office, which is currently undergoing an RMP revision and there were a lot of management actions in there that would prohibit renewable energy and Rights-of-Way in critical habitat (winter range, migration, parturition areas). It is yet to be seen what the final RMP says and if it will reduce the availability of lands for renewable development further.

Before whatnot blows a gasket, the Wyoming Chapter has been involved in the Rock Springs RMP for at least 7 years.

 

[nontyp]

I'd prefer one like this, we got important habitat to save, right BHA?

That is a specific project in a specific place. very different than trying to influence land and energy management in the entire country. I don’t like large solar operations one bit, and hopefully there is a change of course by the next administration.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm too old, and too experienced to want to touch the third rail of Hunt talk today.

I'll say this.

Written comment deadline is end of April. There's an election this year, this is a fair subject to ask about.

It's also banquet, expo, rendezvous season, make sure your money is getting you what they all say it is.

We call that wisdom, buddy.

Here is the portal for the Eplanning website. Use the menu on the left to get to the "participate now" tab and leave your comments AFTER reading the EIS:

EplanningUi

eplanning.blm.gov

 

[whatnot]

Maybe instead of an annual membership fee you should get involved.

Also, for the record, I'm not a "director" of anything, I'm a board co-chair.

Further, 3 of our small chapter board are also in a position professionally that they have no choice but to abstain from these types of issues. Mainly because of people like you.

Even though it's been pointed out several times, this is a multi-state issue and really in the wheelhouse of the National Orgs. I don't expect the local RMEF, DU, etc. chapters to be dealing with this particular issue.

So you, buzz, couldn't comment on public land issues, even in one of the many forums you comment about public land issues, because you work for the fs
Oh. OK.

Because I don't work in government. Tge article discusses a bunch of proposals for these sites once approval happens. In the private world, proposals cost money. Companies rarely throw good money at fairy tales.

If you think this is just discussion, K street is laughing

 

[Forkyfinder]

It was a WAG not meant as this is fact, but "what if"

Big wind storm in WY comes in and obliterates a field, are they bonded to reclaim them? Do we really know how long modern panels last, are they infact bonded to reclaim the entire project in x years or are they seen as permanent?

They are designed for wind and required to have insurance - like everything else. So yes? Theyd probably rebuild them in that case. The bonds are required before development of the land starts.

They are not seen as permanent - typical design life is 25-50 years.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

They are not seen as permanent - typical design life is 25-50 years.

What does the permit with the BLM say?

 

[BuzzH]

So you, buzz, couldn't comment on public land issues, even in one of the many forums you comment about public land issues, because you work for the fs
Oh. OK.

Because I don't work in government. Tge article discusses a bunch of proposals for these sites once approval happens. In the private world, proposals cost money. Companies rarely throw good money at fairy tales.

If you think this is just discussion, K street is laughing

Where did I say me, for starters?

Yes, when you work for land management agencies, you don't have a choice but to abstain from issues you're directly involved with. Sort of a sad deal, even though it's understandable, because IMO/E the very people that know the most are not allowed to participate. Even commenting as a member of the public is walking a line. Once again, because of people like you. There's an armchair quarterback behind every issue.

I will comment on some BLM issues, State Land issues, GF proposals, but if it's a FS issue, not so much. One project we've worked on with habitat improvements in the Bighorn Mountains the past 3-4 years, I have totally abstained from that whole project. I have nothing to do with it. Same with the local LAVA project, haven't even submitted personal comments, won't do it.

Also, you do realize how boards work?

 

[Forkyfinder]

What does the permit with the BLM say?

For the design life? Probably nothing - the lease correlates to it, id imagine. At that point it would be either remediated or released.

 

[Cornbread]

BLM Proposes 22 Million Acres of Public Lands for Solar Energy - EcoWatch

The U.S. DOI announced a new solar energy “roadmap” including 22 million acres of public lands to expand solar energy development in the West

www.ecowatch.com

22 million acres of madness!