quote:
Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cows

quote:
I don't think I need to comment on that.

I'd rather if you did though, because I'm not sure you understand what that sentence means.

When there is an energy development on federal lands, there is a requirement that damage be offset by improvements elsewhere. This location isn't a potential site for an energy development; its a potential site for offsetting damages from a development elsewhere. The BLM is saying the developers are interested in restoring the area and can't do it with cows eating everything. And the BLM has expressed a preference for having someone pay to turn the area into some kind of wildlife sanctuary over having someone's cows trespass and eat stuff there for free.

I'm just not sure why I should care or why this should make me super angry.

If the next administration shows a desire to open up more federal lands for oil and gas development, and a drilling company expresses interest in an offsite mitigation project that involves making someone stop trespassing, is everyone going to freak out then too?

This post was edited on 4/17/14 at 10:08 am

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by CAD703X

Liberty Island

Member since Jul 2008

78334 posts

Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:12 am to deSandman

quote:
When there is an energy development on federal lands, there is a requirement that damage be offset by improvements elsewhere. This location isn't a potential site for an energy development; its a potential site for offsetting damages from a development elsewhere. The BLM is saying the developers are interested in restoring the area and can't do it with cows eating everything. And the BLM has expressed a preference for having someone pay to turn the area into some kind of wildlife sanctuary over having someone's cows trespass and eat stuff there for free

exactly. basically they want their pet chinese solar farm political project (harry reid's son) and are using the land bundy's cattle was grazing on as the offset.

end result = more 'untouchable' land in nevada in fed control.

pretty soon there wont be land left anywhere in the country that isn't controlled by the government.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by PapiGogo

Baton Rouge, LA

Member since May 2012

382 posts

Posted on 4/17/14 at 11:32 am to deSandman

quote:
The BLM is saying the developers are interested in restoring the area and can't do it with cows eating everything. And the BLM has expressed a preference for having someone pay to turn the area into some kind of wildlife sanctuary over having someone's cows trespass and eat stuff there for free.

How do you rationalize that position with the knowledge that the west thrived with MILLIONS of American Buffalo roaming and grazing on these lands? The Desert Tortoise managed to survive that, certainly 900 cattle aren't a significant endangerment.

Again, only the naive believe this is about taxes. Bundy may even have prescriptive rights to utilize that land.

I don't really care what your political persuasion is. The federal government is out of control.

0 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board