Support renewable energy on public lands while protecting Washington’s lands, waters, and wildlife!

We need your help to protect vulnerable habitat! 

 

Please submit a comment by Thursday, April 18 to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in support of solar development on public lands while protecting the northwest’s sensitive landscapes and wildlife. The BLM is researching which public lands would be best available for utility-scale solar development to meet the nation’s renewable energy goals.

Conservation Northwest promotes the transition to renewable energy through careful consideration of energy siting while also sustainably protecting lands, waters, and biodiversity of natural, cultural, and historic resources.  

Together, we can create a plan that balances renewable energy goals with environmental conservation. We urge you to join us and submit meaningful comments and concerns to the BLM!

Please submit your comments here by April 18!

 

Below are our key considerations, a sample comment, and additional resources.

Conservation Northwest has several key concerns about the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development (Solar PEIS). Conservation Northwest advocates for: 

1. Policies and plans that both encourage renewable energy development and protect and avoid sensitive habitats on degraded or previously disturbed lands. Washington will risk losing wildlife habitat, connections, and species if our sagelands are held to the degraded lands standard currently offered by BLM. There needs to be state-specific exclusion criteria developed to protect local resources.
2. BLM must collaborate and consult with state agencies and local Tribes to effectively protect areas and species of concern while promoting renewable energy development on truly degraded lands.
3. BLM must promptly consider and utilize the best available updated data and scientific insights provided by state agencies and collaborations.
4. BLM must rely on updated Resource Management Plans to strengthen evaluations and prohibit projects in areas of high conflict with local resources.
5. Alternative 5 needs to mitigate better direct and indirect impacts and cumulative impacts on the environment and local resources. Although Alternative 5 attempts to prioritize development on degraded lands, the Solar PEIS wrongly allows development in many critical areas undergoing active restoration, protection, or prioritization in Washington.
6. The design features section needs further explanation regarding how potential impacts will be mitigated. For example, it should acknowledge that fences around solar projects create barriers to wildlife by impacting their migration corridors. The design feature must avoid priority habitats, species, and local resources through early and consistent consultation with state agencies and local Tribes and development on disturbed lands, including brownfields, irrigation canals, or other developed properties, and pursue dual-use opportunities for solar and agriculture or grazing.

For more information, visit:

• BLM Press Release
• Updated Western Solar Plan Draft PEIS Fact Sheet 
• BLM National NEPA Register 
• BLM Solar Energy Permitting and Program Resources
• The Planet Needs Solar Power. Can we build it without harming Nature?
• WSU Least Conflict Solar Siting

Sample Bureau of Land Management Comment:

Mr. Jeremy Bluma , Acting Division Chief
National Renewable Energy Coordination Office , BLM Headquarters
1849 C Street NW , Washington, DC 20006
April 18, 2024  

Re: Bureau of Land Management’s Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development  

Dear Mr. Bluma,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Utility-Scale Solar Energy Development (Solar PEIS) update to the 2012 Western Solar Plan.

I support the BLM’s consideration of which public lands could be available for utility-scale solar development to meet the nation’s renewable energy goals. I urge the BLM to take this opportunity to site solar development on specific lands that are suitable and to avoid conflicts through a finer-resolution evaluation. To best achieve these goals, the BLM should collaborate and consult with state agencies and local Tribes to effectively protect areas and species of concern while promoting renewable energy development on truly degraded lands.

I advocate for the best available science in policy and development plans that protect and avoid sensitive habitats and encourage renewable energy development on degraded or previously disturbed lands. Advancements in technology and research should be followed and utilized to update the realized impacts of utility-scale solar projects and improve requirements and proposed mitigation accordingly.

I support Alternative 5 with additional proposed considerations. Alternative 5 needs to mitigate better direct and indirect impacts and cumulative impacts on the environment and local resources. Although Alternative 5 attempts to prioritize development on degraded lands, the Solar PEIS wrongly allows development in many critical areas undergoing active restoration, protection, or prioritization in Washington. For example, Washington’s shrub-steppe habitat is converted, fragmented, and constantly threatened by wildfires or development. Washingtonians will risk losing wildlife habitat, connections, and species if our sagelands are held to the standard of the current degraded land offered by BLM. A refined data evaluation and inclusion from state agencies and collaboratives would better guide solar development to degraded or previously developed lands and away from sensitive habitats.

Design feature considerations must enhance and protect wildlife habitat and promote coexistence with other land uses, such as grazing, agriculture, or other dual-use opportunities. The design feature section is currently non-committal and will lead to inconsistent standards for solar development across the Western United States. These design features need further explanations regarding how potential impacts will be mitigated, and when and where these design features will be required for projects. For example, it should acknowledge that fences around solar projects create barriers to wildlife by impacting their migration corridors. The design features must avoid priority habitats, species, and local resources through early and consistent consultation with state agencies and local Tribes and development on disturbed lands, including brownfields, irrigation canals, or other developed properties

Thank you for providing information about the Solar PEIS processes and incentives for solar development and for creating the required design features for project consideration.

Sincerely,

First and Last name, City, State

 

Thank you for speaking up for conservation!