Laserfiche WebLink
CONSERVATION GROUPS’ COMMENTS <br />UNCOMPAHGRE FIELD OFFICE RMP AND DEIS <br />37 <br />wind resource (class 5), and 60 acres with a good resource (class 4). The identified high-potential <br />areas are located on the eastern side of the planning area.” DEIS 3-151. <br /> <br />The Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario prepared for wind energy found that: <br /> <br />Due to the limited size of plots of BLM-administered land with good-quality wind <br />resources, the lack of wind projects in the UFO or western Colorado, the lack of pending <br />ROW applications in the UFO, and the fact that much better wind resources occur in <br />other parts of the state, it is not expected that many, if any, commercial-scale wind energy <br />projects would be developed within the planning area by year 2025. If such development <br />were to occur, it is expected it would be along Cimarron Ridge in the area described <br />above.111 <br /> <br />The Renewable Energy Potential Report provides a map of wind energy potential in the <br />planning area.112 <br /> <br />Biomass energy potential was not addressed by BLM in the DEIS, yet the BLM <br />dismissed the potential for this resource, asserting that “it is unlikely that developers would <br />propose the construction of any biomass facilities on BLM-administered lands due to the lack of <br />infrastructure present on BLM-administered lands that would be needed to support such <br />facilities.” DEIS 4-337. However, the Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for <br />biomass in the Renewable Energy Potential Report found that even if a biomass facility were to <br />be sited outside of BLM-administered lands, there is potential for biomass feedstock to be <br />sourced from the planning area. It states that: <br /> <br />Biomass energy production typically involves the collection of materials from BLM <br />lands as the byproduct of other actions. In this case, a reasonable foreseeable <br />development scenario is not applicable. However, because of some past interest in <br />exploring the feasibility of harvesting local forests and woodlands solely for biomass, <br />setting aside an area for biomass harvest (feedstock) could be considered as an alternative <br />in the RMP.113 <br /> <br />It further states that: <br /> <br />Given the flexibility in siting a power plant and the likelihood that a developer would <br />prefer private lands over public lands, it is not expected that any biomass energy facilities <br />would be developed in the planning area by year 2025. Biomass materials are likely to be <br />produced from lands within the planning area during certain BLM activities such as <br />stewardship and fire management actions.114 <br /> <br /> <br />111 Id. at 4-9 112 Id. at 4-7 (Fig. 4-1). 113 Id. at 5-4 114 Id. at 5-7