Mule Deer Migration Routes with TRCP

[robby denning]

Mule Deer Migration Routes with TRCP

Robby hosts the Theodore Conservation Partnership to discuss the BLM's 22 million acre solar project, blocking some critical Mule Deer Migration Routes

www.rokslide.com

 

[Bull_n_heat]

Great episode and an excellent topic for sportsmen to weigh in on. I think the point that solar is something that is here to stay is very prescient. The argument about whether or not we are going to have it is irrelevant; where we put it* will be the one we have to be at the table for.

*My preference would be after every WalMart, Home Depot, and Amazon Distribution Center has it on their rooves, but I digress

 

[robby denning]

*My preference would be after every WalMart, Home Depot, and Amazon Distribution Center has it on their rooves, but I digress

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

@robby denning

Did they send you the other migration route maps for other states?

 

[robby denning]

@robby denning

Did they send you the other migration route maps for other states?

not yet! Buncha bums! lol

here is Joel's email. he'd probably direct you to them:

[email protected]

 

[Bull_n_heat]

Folks -

I sat in on a pretty good conversation this morning that had some more details and about how to comment on this plan. The group was focused on Wyoming, but I suspect that much of the info would be applicable in other states.

The important thing to recognize in this BLM planning process is that the effort is an attempt to identify areas suitable for siting these developments in the future and not formally saying this is exactly where the developments will go. The estimates for Wyoming suggest that up to about 30,000 acres would be needed in WY to produce all the solar energy our hearts could desire, but the plan will identify areas that are up to 50x larger than that. The idea is to map larger areas and then do additional analyses at finer scales when it comes to siting individual projects.

They've actually done a decent job of filtering out a lot of areas as unsuitable, but one thing they haven't filtered out that I think everyone here could agree they should is mapped crucial areas for big game. The also have taken a very broad brush strokes approach and not tailored plans that are state or regionally specific. You have the opportunity to weigh in on this plan and make it better for wildlife.

Your comments can be submitted either via email or through this link below. As far as I know, the BLM does not review the Rokslide forum as part of their planning process, so be sure to get your comments to them and not to our echo chamber here! The deadline for comments is April 18.

EplanningUi

eplanning.blm.gov

[email protected]

 

[Bull_n_heat]

Here is the comment I submitted to [email protected]

"Good afternoon-

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft solar programmatic EIS. As a Wyoming resident and avid hunter, I support the Alternative 5 as it provides the most protection for these valuable resources. However, I would suggest the plan consider additional protections for important wildlife seasonal and year-long ranges to avoid detrimental impacts to these cherished wildlife resources. I ask you to please remove mapped crucial ranges and migratory routes throughout the West in this plan.

Thank you,
signed"

 

[robby denning]

Here is the comment I submitted to [email protected]

"Good afternoon-

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft solar programmatic EIS. As a Wyoming resident and avid hunter, I support the Alternative 5 as it provides the most protection for these valuable resources. However, I would suggest the plan consider additional protections for important wildlife seasonal and year-long ranges to avoid detrimental impacts to these cherished wildlife resources. I ask you to please remove mapped crucial ranges and migratory routes throughout the West in this plan.

Thank you,
signed"

Here's mine (tried not to plagarize too much but your comment had all the moving parts needed):

Hi all-

I support Alternative 5 but it needs to remove all crucial summer/winter wildlife areas and migration routes. We consider all these when planning highways, and solar development should be no different to avoid detrimental impacts to these important wildlife resources.

Thank you,
Robby Denning

 

[Bull_n_heat]

Here's mine (tried not to plagarize too much but your comment had all the moving parts needed):

Hi all-

I support Alternative 5 but it needs to remove all crucial summer/winter wildlife areas and migration routes. We consider all these when planning highways, and solar development should be no different to avoid detrimental impacts to these important wildlife resources.

Thank you,
Robby Denning

That'll get the point across! Hopefully we can get a few more WKRs in the comment pile for them!

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

That'll get the point across! Hopefully we can get a few more WKRs in the comment pile for them!

Where is the document that spells out the different alternatives? Been browsing around the https://blmsolar.anl.gov site and can't seem to find it. Would be nice to know what Alternative 5 is without blindly supporting it. I remember there also being a "No Action" Alternative, one that limits acreages, and others.

 

[robby denning]

Where is the document that spells out the different alternatives? Been browsing around the https://blmsolar.anl.gov site and can't seem to find it. Would be nice to know what Alternative 5 is without blindly supporting it. I remember there also being a "No Action" Alternative, one that limits acreages, and others.

Try this

5 alternatives show BLM lands set aside for solar projects in Nevada, western US

Five alternatives shown during a public meeting on Tuesday showed choices for protecting more — or less — land from solar energy development in Nevada and surrounding states.

www.8newsnow.com

 

[Bull_n_heat]

Where is the document that spells out the different alternatives? Been browsing around the https://blmsolar.anl.gov site and can't seem to find it. Would be nice to know what Alternative 5 is without blindly supporting it. I remember there also being a "No Action" Alternative, one that limits acreages, and others.

Asking "where is X in the BLM website... " is a primer to frustration! However, the quick and dirty fact sheet is probably the easiest to interpret:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2022371/200538533/20103398/251003398/Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Updated%20Western%20Solar%20Plan%20Draft%20PEIS%20-%20Jan%202024.pdf

In shorth though, the alternatives are:

1. Available area is restricted based on on resource exclusions (cultural areas)
2. " based on resource exclusions and 10% slope limits
3. " based on resource exclusions, 10% slope exclusion, and proximity to transmission lines
4. " based on resource exclusions, slope exclusions, and steered towards disturbed lands
5. All of the above excluded. This is the most restrictive, but still does not have wildlife based exclusions.

More details on the alternatives are somewhere in here (https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2022371/570), and can be visualized here (https://gbp-blm-egis.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/6fb6871a7d2445b2800c4c0e5bb3fc0f/about).