The sale of the beloved Kelly Parcel, the former state section that has now been successfully incorporated into Grand Teton National Park, represented a win-win for wildlife and state trust beneficiaries. The $100 million generated from the sale will benefit Wyoming’s education system for decades to come. Unfortunately, some legislators are dead-set on preventing future deals with the federal government that could result in huge sources of revenue to the state — and also infringe on private property rights.
HB118 flew through the House Agriculture committee last week on an 8-1 vote, and without much debate, before passing the House Committee of the Whole shortly thereafter. The bill would essentially limit any land exchanges or conveyances that would result in a net gain of federal public lands. Even worse, the bill would potentially prevent private landowners from selling or conveying their land for conservation purposes or public access.
In addition to an attack on landowners’ rights, this bill is shortsighted because it stymies deals that often result in more benefits to the state. Even the Office of State Lands and Investments testified on the draft bill, indicating that it runs counter to the state agency’s existing rules and regulations and current efforts to find and shepherd deals to maximize state lands revenues. That’s because within state land sales or exchanges, valuation is not calculated solely on acreage.
In the case of the Kelly Parcel, a tract that has high conservation value, a combination of private and federal funding resulted in a sale to the federal government that was $38 million more than the parcel’s appraised value. So why would legislators want to shackle our own state agencies, infringe on private property rights, and prevent future deals that result in more public lands? We have no idea — but what we do know is that bills like HB118 are an affront to Wyoming values.
Most Wyomingites can agree that finding ways to conserve land while also generating revenue for the state is a benefit to all Wyomingites, and our wildlife, too. That’s why we need YOU to speak out against shortsighted legislation like HB118. In the coming weeks, we’ll be asking you to take action on a variety of bills, including this one and other draft legislation that impact the values we care about most. We hope you’re ready for the challenge and stay tuned for more, very soon.
(Lander, Wyoming) – Today, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rejected the State of Utah’s lawsuit that argued for the disposal of 18.5 million acres of public land in Utah. The case could have paved the way for the disposal of all public lands in the United States, including Wyoming.
“The Supreme Court’s rejection of this land grab is further evidence that Utah’s efforts to rid America of its public lands is a misguided effort. This attempted lawsuit not only ignored more than a century of legal precedent, but the will of the American people who time and time again have shown their support for public lands,” Gabby Yates, Public Lands Program Manager for the Wyoming Outdoor Council, said. “Wyomingites have such a strong connection to the landscapes, wildlife, and cultural heritage in our backyard because of the access and opportunity that public lands allow. We applaud the court’s decision to deny Utah’s case. In doing so, the public’s ability to enjoy public lands, now and for future generations, remains protected.”
Late last year, the State of Wyoming, various state legislators, and Rep. Harriett Hageman filed briefs in support of the State of Utah’s now-rejected lawsuit. Additionally, numerous Wyoming state legislators have already introduced SJ0002, a resolution which demands the U.S. Congress dispose of all public lands to the state. With Yellowstone National Park as the resolution’s sole exception, federal public lands including iconic grasslands, forests, Bureau of Land Management rangelands, and even Grand Teton National Park are all implicated.
“It’s deeply troubling that this idea of transferring our public lands keeps rearing its ugly head. Much like the nation’s highest court, public land users have rejected these short-sighted efforts again and again, because we know that America’s public lands are our birthright,” Alec Underwood, program director for WOC, said. “Regardless of SCOTUS’ decision today, we fully expect state lawmakers to keep pushing this agenda, wasting taxpayer dollars and diverting time away from truly critical legislative priorities. Wyoming citizens deserve better than this. We’re glad to see the U.S. Supreme Court concur that this culture war against the public trust should end.”
Want to help maintain access and protect Wyoming’s public lands? Sign the petition to keep public lands in public hands!
When the 2025 General Session kicks off next week, the debate over nuclear waste storage is set to become a hot (dare we say radioactive?) topic. In preparation, we wanted to share the latest information about the current proposal to store the country’s nuclear waste in Wyoming — and why we plan to oppose it.
Wyoming has stood firm against nuclear waste storage for decades, and for many good reasons. We’re concerned about the current proposal because the consequences of transporting and storing high-level radioactive waste in Wyoming would be significant, multi-generational, and perhaps even permanent.
Concerned about nuclear waste storage in Wyoming? Join our list to stay informed as this bill moves through the legislature.
The draft bill, which has been received for introduction as House Bill 16 – Used nuclear fuel storage-amendments, could move quickly into the house Minerals Committee. If it does, we’ll need your voice to help stop it. So without further ado, let’s dive into the bill and our key reasons for opposing this effort to site nuclear waste in Wyoming.
This bill has moved forward with remarkably little opportunity for public engagement for such a significant and consequential issue. Initial public review of the draft bill wasn’t available until less than two weeks before its first and only discussion in the October 2024 Minerals Committee meeting. Opening the door to invite nuclear waste to Wyoming should not be a legislative afterthought and last-minute committee sponsored bill. We believe this is a topic that should require many discussions and seek robust public participation similar to what we saw in the early 1990s.
We need to be realistic that once nuclear waste is here temporarily, it will be here to stay. It has become clear to us based on the failings of federal policies, that a “temporary” facility would become a de facto permanent repository, as no legal, political, or financial mechanisms exist to ensure its removal. Despite decades of efforts from the federal government, the fact remains that there is still no permanent disposal solution for this waste. In fact, creating temporary storage for this waste in Wyoming could undermine the political will needed to pursue a safe permanent solution to this issue.
The history of nuclear waste storage in our country is fraught with broken promises by our federal government to both states and tribes. When we consider a half-century of missed timelines, changing scientific guidelines, and disregard of state and tribal sovereignty that has plagued the full supply chain of nuclear energy from cradle to grave, we can find very few reasons to trust the federal government that it has the best interest of Wyoming and the Wind River Reservation in mind. In 1992, this was one of Gov. Sullivan’s key points when rejecting further study of a Department of Energy proposed monitored retrievable nuclear storage site in Wyoming. In a letter, he stated,
“I am absolutely unpersuaded that Wyoming can rely on the assurances we receive from the federal government. Even granting the personal integrity and sincerity of the individuals currently speaking for the federal government, there can be no guarantees or even assurances that the federal government’s attitudes or policies will be the same one, five, ten or 50 years from now.”
A rush to designate Wyoming as the country’s nuclear waste storage capital could have both real and perceived consequences to other industries and the state’s broader economic diversification efforts. Numerous states have rejected advances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to store nuclear waste, citing concerns around their reputation and damage to other economic sectors. In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbot raised concerns over a facility because of potential risks it could pose to the state’s oil and gas development in the Permian Basin. (The Nuclear Regulatory Commission permitted this over his objections anyway.) In other states such as Tennessee, New Mexico, and Nevada, studies have confirmed negative impacts to other economic sectors like agriculture, outdoor recreation, tourism, and resident property values. If Wyoming legislators want to take the title of being the country’s nuclear waste dump, we need to be clear-eyed about how this could negatively impact our reputation and other economic sectors.
The risks of transporting and storing nuclear waste from around the country amount to an unprecedented, unnecessary national experiment. Nuclear waste is currently stored safely at reactor sites, where it is generated, as required by federal law. This would also be true for any nuclear facility built in Wyoming. This is the right place for this waste to remain until a permanent solution can be found. It does not make sense to transport and move this hazardous material twice across thousands of miles of interstate highways, city and county roads, and railways.
If you share our concerns, we could use your help. Tell your legislators that you oppose nuclear dumps in Wyoming, and sign up here to be notified with alerts as this bill moves through the legislature.
Some bad ideas refuse to die — and the recent legislative push to make Wyoming a temporary location for the nation’s high-level radioactive waste is definitely one of them.
Over the last three decades, the Wyoming Legislature has discussed rolling out the red carpet for nuclear waste several times. Now, that discussion promises to rear its head once again when the 2025 General Session begins in January.
Just as we have in the past, WOC opposes this latest proposal, which would make it easier to store high-level radioactive waste in Wyoming. It’s not a position we take lightly: As an independent, statewide organization, we understand the challenges associated with diversifying our economy and the need for solutions that address complex energy and environmental challenges, which are often at odds with one another.
As one of the most regulated materials known to humankind, inviting high-level nuclear waste to Wyoming would also invite an unprecedented level of federal oversight and regulation not seen before in Wyoming. For this reason and others discussed here, we strongly believe that inviting this waste to Wyoming would be a poor decision that could jeopardize our environment, communities, state sovereignty, and future hopes of broader economic diversification.
Concerned about nuclear waste storage in Wyoming? Join our list to stay informed as this bill moves through the legislature.
Wyoming has held the line against nuclear waste storage for decades. Before we get to the current proposal, let’s take a look at some highlights from Wyoming’s long and proud history of rejecting nuclear waste dumps.
1991: The U.S. Department of Energy proposes a “Monitored Retrievable Storage” nuclear waste facility in Wyoming. Gov. Mike Sullivan ended the project a year later, citing numerous concerns around transportation safety, the failures of the federal government as a trusted partner, and potential damage to other industries.
1994: A University of Wyoming poll shows that more than 80 percent of residents opposed nuclear waste storage in Wyoming.
1995: The Wyoming legislature passes laws regulating private and federal nuclear waste storage facilities. Importantly, they include safeguards to ensure Wyoming does not become a de facto permanent repository site.
1998: Gov. Jim Geringer shuts down a proposal for a private nuclear waste storage facility.
2010: The decades-long effort by the federal government to create a permanent nuclear disposal facility for high level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain Nevada ended, mainly for political reasons.
2019: The Wyoming legislature’s Spent Fuel Rods Subcommittee studies the revenue opportunity for waste storage. Because of restrictions and limited funds provided in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, they abandon the effort.
The current attempt to bring nuclear waste to Wyoming comes from a bill sponsored by the Joint Minerals Committee that changes the definition of “high-level nuclear waste” to exclude “spent nuclear fuel.” This definition change would create a loophole to circumvent our existing laws that require extensive environmental protections and requirements for public comment and legislative approval for the storage of high-level radioactive waste.
Call it what you like — but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. Legislators can change the definition of “high level nuclear waste,” but spent nuclear fuel is still high level nuclear waste, and “spent” does not equal safe. The definition change is out of sync with the definition held by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, setting the stage for conflict with the federal agency created to regulate high-level radioactive waste — do we really want to invite more uncertainty in management, jeopardizing land, water, wildlife and communities?
If you share our concerns, we could use your help. Tell your legislators that you oppose nuclear dumps in Wyoming, and sign up here to be notified with alerts as this bill moves through the legislature.
This month, the Bureau of Management unveiled its new plan for Greater sage-grouse. With the plan comes a ray of hope — both for the imperiled bird and the ever-diminishing sagebrush steppe ecosystem it depends on. Since the BLM manages more sage-grouse habitat than any other entity, actions taken on these public lands will have massive impacts across the West. The BLM’s final Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan Amendments serve as a new blueprint for how the agency will manage sagebrush habitat on behalf of sage-grouse, other wildlife, and a slew of other uses. What remains to be seen is if we can muster the political will to make this plan a reality and address the very real challenges facing an ecosystem in distress.
As the process leading up to this final plan has shown, there will always be competing voices saying that the BLM is using too heavy a hand, and those saying that the agency isn’t doing enough for sage-grouse. But what’s needed right now isn’t ongoing disagreement, nor delays. Research shows we’re hemorrhaging more than 1 million acres of functioning sagebrush habitat a year. Sage-grouse numbers are a sliver of what they were sixty years ago. To stem declines and retain this species on Wyoming’s wide-open landscapes, what’s needed right now is action.
With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at the plan — how we got here, what the plan does, and what we can expect looking ahead.
The long path towards a sage-grouse plan
Sage-grouse and the sagebrush steppe that sustains them are in trouble. Both have experienced steep losses, with populations of sage-grouse down 80 percent from 1965. Sage-grouse act as a bellwether for the overall health of the sagebrush ecosystem and their decline sounds the alarm for the future of these lands and the communities that depend on them. Without decisive action from the BLM to address growing threats, the bird’s habitat will be further compromised, resulting in rangewide sage-grouse population losses.
Here in Wyoming, we have been fortunate compared to other range states. Between Wyoming’s executive order that’s helped protect sage-grouse habitat with bipartisan support since 2008, climatic conditions that favor sagebrush, and a small human population, Wyoming’s sage-grouse populations have been more resilient than those in neighboring states. Nevertheless, Wyoming is not immune to the habitat loss and degradation laying siege to the Intermountain West and continued long-term declines in Wyoming are a concern. A comprehensive, West-wide sage-grouse plan from the BLM is wholly necessary and overdue.
The BLM has been trying to tackle this problem for going on 10 years. First petitioned for listing in 1999, the US Fish and Wildlife Service determined that Endangered Species Act protection for the Greater sage-grouse was warranted in 2010. This kicked off a massive effort between states and federal agencies — an effort in which Wyoming played a leading role — to create robust plans for protective management. The BLM’s first range-wide sage-grouse management plans rolled out in 2015 with strong bipartisan support from Western governors. In response to conservation measures in these 2015 plans, the USFWS determined the species no longer needed federal protection under the ESA. Unfortunately, these plans were never fully implemented as intended before the first Trump administration carried out revisions that weakened habitat protections to better favor industry. That revised plan was finalized in 2019, but was quickly blocked following litigation. Now, once again, the BLM is on the cusp of finalizing a plan for managing sage-grouse habitat. By building off the 2015 and 2019 plans, clarifying points of confusion, incorporating the latest science, and weighing input from varied stakeholders, the BLM has put forward a balanced approach to sage-grouse habitat management that honors the agency’s multiple-use mandate.
Greater sage-grouse populations across the bird’s range have declined precipitously since the 1960s.
What the plan means for Wyoming
This sage-grouse plan is truly staggering in its scope and detail, as you would expect for a document that amends land use plans for over 70 BLM field offices across 10 states. For Wyoming specifically, the plan introduces some significant new protections for the bird’s habitat to ensure development and industrial uses don’t come at the expense of sage-grouse. With about 97 percent of BLM lands in Wyoming classified as sage-grouse habitat — and almost half of that considered “priority habitat” — this is a big deal! Below are some of the standout provisions that would apply to sage-grouse habitat in Wyoming under the final sage-grouse plan.
Sage-grouse habitat designations used by BLM in the final Greater Sage-Grouse Resource Management Plan Amendments. These designations are based on maps provided by the state of Wyoming and mirror general habitat and core area classifications recognized by the state.
Priority Habitat Management Areas
This is the best of the best sage-grouse habitat and overlaps what the state of Wyoming has identified as sage-grouse “core area”. Just under half of the land BLM manages in Wyoming is classified as PHMA, at about 8.6 million acres. Under BLM’s latest plan, these are just some of the management guidelines that would apply in priority habitat:
Utility-Scale Solar: excluded; some exceptions
Utility-Scale Wind: excluded; some exceptions
Oil and Gas Leasing: no surface occupancy; some exceptions/modifications/waivers
Major Right of Ways: avoidance area unless specific conditions met
Priority Habitat Management Areas with Limited Exceptions
In reviewing the best available science, along with copious public comment, the BLM determined that select areas of priority habitat are of such exceptional quality and importance to sage-grouse that they warrant the highest level of protection. These are classified as “Priority Habitat Management Areas with Limited Exceptions”. One such area covering roughly 273,000 acres was identified in southwest Wyoming — the so-called “Golden Triangle,” which is home to the densest population of sage-grouse on Earth. This area overlaps the South Wind River Area of Critical Environmental Concern, or ACEC, included in the new Rock Springs Resource Management Plan, underscoring how irreplaceable this region of Wyoming is to a wide range of wildlife. The following noteworthy management guidelines would apply here:
Utility-Scale Solar: excluded; no exceptions
Utility-Scale Wind: excluded; no exceptions
Oil and Gas Leasing – no surface occupancy; no exceptions, modifications, or waivers
Major Right of Ways – excluded; some exceptions
Of note, the BLM considered designating this area and three others in Wyoming as ACECs in light of their significance for sage-grouse. However, partly in response to concerns voiced by Gov. Gordon, the BLM eliminated all ACECs from the latest proposed management approach we have before us.
Adaptive Management
The BLM is taking steps to standardize how it adapts management approaches when habitat and population measures dip too much, too quickly. The monitoring methods identified to inform this adaptive management, such as the Habitat Assessment Framework and Targeted Annual Warning System, are intended to create a consistent, rangewide system that catches problems before they snowball out of control. Engagement by the states in this process — especially through the free sharing of data — is critical. As the wildlife professionals responsible for sage-grouse management, each state game and fish agency oversees lek counts in the spring to gauge population levels. Having Wyoming and other states participate meaningfully is for the collective benefit of understanding how the bird is doing across its range and will allow closer examination of circumstances on the ground when areas of concern are flagged.
Where do we go from here?
Additional review of the plan is required between now and January, when a “Record of Decision” could be issued and the plan can take effect. This includes a 30-day protest period for the public and a 60-day consistency review carried out by Governors in affected range states. The BLM has signaled its commitment to getting this plan finalized expeditiously, but time is in very short supply.
Overview of the NEPA process with star denoting where the BLM’s new sage-grouse plan currently stands.
After years of setbacks, it is tantalizing to see so many positive conservation measures enshrined in BLM’s new proposed sage-grouse plan. As sagebrush country faces growing threats — including a quick-moving onslaught of invasive annual grasses that cause more frequent, larger, and hotter wildfires — the time for inaction is gone. Here in Wyoming, where the health of private and public lands are intertwined and vital to the future of our communities, the benefits of smart, protective management on our public lands are far-reaching.
Unfortunately, as is the case for several actions taken in these final months of the Biden Administration, Trump’s ascendency in Washington threatens to undo a lot of this good work. Whether we see attempts to scrap the plan outright, aggressive lawsuits from multiple corners, or yet another plan rewrite, we can be sure of attacks on what the BLM has put forward. We will do all we can to push for science-based solutions and support sage-grouse conservation in the coming storm and seek allies anywhere we can find them. Neither these birds, nor the hundreds of other species they share the sagebrush biome with, have the luxury or capacity to despair in the face of mounting threats and dwindling habitat. They merely soldier on with an inextinguishable will to survive. It is up to us to do right by them and keep fighting on their behalf.
From sprawling desertscapes to vast, forested ranges, the public lands that cover more than half of Wyoming are incredibly varied — and wildly important. Public lands support thriving wildlife populations, host incredible opportunities for recreation and solitude, and are home to uncountable cultural resources.
Advocating conservation of the extensive and irreplaceable public lands in Wyoming is a core part of what we do here at WOC. That’s why we’re so excited to welcome Gabby Yates, our new public lands program manager, who will be largely focused on protecting Wyoming’s remarkable lands.
We sat down with Gabby to talk about cultivating a love for landscapes, her background, and what she’s most excited about as she moves into her new role.
Can you share a little about your background?
I grew up in central New York, outside of Syracuse. After high school, I attended Colgate University and earned a degree in Geography. I didn’t want to jump straight into a 9–5 job after graduating, so I applied to horsepacking jobs — and soon found myself stepping off a plane in Wyoming. From that first week, I knew I wanted to make the state home.
During that first week, what was it about Wyoming that drew you in?
I started to feel how the openness of the landscapes affects people, even if I couldn’t yet put that into words. By “openness,” I mean both the beauty and vastness of the Wyoming skyline as well as the access folks have to it. I remember leaving the Riverton airport that first day and driving south. My new colleague pointed to the snow-capped Winds River Range and said, “You’ll be living up there.” The more folks I met here, the more I saw how a relationship with the land carries over into all aspects of life, and how it was becoming intrinsic to my own life.
Was there a particular moment or experience that sparked your interest in public lands advocacy?
There wasn’t a specific moment, but rather the realization that public lands are the reason I love Wyoming. I’ve spent the better part of the last six years working on, living in, and exploring Wyoming public lands — from caring for cattle in the Red Desert to leading horsepacking trips in the Absarokas and Wind River Mountains. Public lands management here is a sea change from the way the landscape is managed where I grew up.
That’s interesting — can you elaborate on that? What makes public lands management in Wyoming so unique?
Half of Wyoming is public land. And that’s public land that is fairly well dispersed throughout the state, with large tracts of intact, wild ecosystems, and working landscapes, too. That doesn’t exist in most of the world, and it means that living here, people can and often do have a much closer, albeit nuanced, relationship to so much of their “backyard.” It also means that they have a voice in how that landscape is managed, and a responsibility to use that voice.
As a horsepacking guide, you had the chance to share wild lands with people who aren’t at all familiar with them. What was it like to watch them form their own relationships with the land?
It is easy for people to be awed by the beauty of Wyoming’s mountains and wildlife, and it never gets old to share something you love with other folks. What’s really fun, though, is just what you mentioned — people starting to form relationships with the land. You can see it in the conversations you have while riding, from discussing the nuances of wildlife management, land use, or local history, to simply learning to name wildflowers, to feeling more and more oriented to the landscape. I think having a taste for the complexity of these wild lands helps build a foundation so that when folks go home, they don’t just remember a pretty place, or how cold it was at night, for example.
What excites you most about joining WOC as the public lands program manager?
There are so many opinions out there about what happens on public lands, but that means that so many people care about public lands. I am most excited to have conversations and learn from folks that are passionate about these places, to hopefully inch toward common ground, so that future generations can experience the landscapes and wildlife that we enjoy today.
What are some of the things you’re bringing with you from previous roles, as you begin this one?
The time I’ve spent on the ground in public lands through ranching and outfitting has shaped my understanding of public lands and the relationship that folks have with these landscapes. I think that puts me in a place to better find common ground and solutions. Likewise, my background in human geography has trained me to look for ways to find and address nuance in human-environmental relationships. That’s a necessity in looking toward finding solutions for Wyoming’s public lands.
When you’re not in the office, what do you enjoy doing in your free time?
I enjoy exploring new places on horseback, hiking with my dog, hunting, reading, and trying out New York Times recipes. I am planning on planting a garden next year, and am very excited about that prospect.
Do you have a favorite outdoor activity or place to visit on public lands?
I’d say camping somewhere up high in the Shoshone National Forest, drinking coffee, ideally on a frosty morning in early fall.
Where we site large-scale solar matters — and with the final draft of the Bureau of Land Management’s Western Solar Plan, we now have a useful template for proactively deciding where solar projects should (and should not!) be built on federal lands.
Back in April, we asked our supporters to engage in the public comment process for the updated Western Solar Plan, a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get solar siting right. If you submitted a comment on the draft plan, we can’t thank you enough! Because of your engagement, the final plan offers greater protections for Wyoming’s wildlife.
From draft to final, the BLM made a number of changes to the plan. Some are good, and some we’re not huge fans of. But on the whole, we’re pleased with how things shook out. Since the plan is rather hefty, we’ve compiled this guide to help you understand what it contains. (We’ll start with main takeaways, then, if you want them, we’ll dive into the nitty-gritty details.)
At the highest level, here’s what we know about the final plan:
The plan includes BLM lands in Wyoming. (The previous Western Solar Plan did not include Wyoming.)
3.8 million acres of land in Wyoming are available for lease, or roughly 27 percent of BLM lands in the state. However, the BLM anticipates only 27,000 acres of actual development in Wyoming by 2045 to meet market demand for solar energy — roughly one percent of the total potential area available for leasing.
The plan limits solar development using 21 resource-based exclusion criteria including Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, threatened and endangered species habitat, and Tribal Interest Areas, among others.
The final plan adds significant protections for big game species. It excludes solar development from crucial winter range, parturition areas, and portions of migration corridors including high-use, stopover, and bottleneck habitat. The plan also helps clarify how new information and research could be used to update maps of big game habitat where development is not allowed. (We still have questions about how this process will work between BLM and state wildlife agencies and how frequently local land use plans will be updated.)
The final plan adds features to improve environmental justice considerations and community benefit agreements that WOC and others advocated for. However, we think the BLM did not adequately take into consideration Tribal perspectives and should do more to collaborate with Tribes on when and where solar is authorized, as well as how to address conflicts in priority areas for Tribal communities.
Areas available for solar leasing are limited to lands within 15 miles of existing or planned transmission and/or locations with previously disturbed lands.
The final plan excludes development on Lands with Wilderness Characteristics that have been protected in local land use plans.
The final Western Solar Plan: A deeper dive
To understand why we needed an updated Western Solar Plan, we have to begin with some context. An update has been long overdue for three key reasons: First, the cost of solar energy has plummeted nearly 90 percent over the last decade. In many places, solar is the cheapest way to add energy capacity to the grid. Second, the technology surrounding solar energy has improved significantly, making solar energy more efficient and viable in northern latitudes and over a wide range of conditions. In fact, the efficiency of solar panels has increased roughly 40 percent in the last decade. Finally, federal policy is currently promoting incentives around renewable energy and decarbonization to address concerns over greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
Taken together, these trends have led to rapid growth in the solar industry. For perspective, solar and battery storage made up over 80 percent of new U.S. electric generation capacity in 2024 — surpassing even the most optimistic projections around solar development.
These changes point to accelerating demand for locations to site large-scale solar projects, which in turn means that we need to proactively assess where future solar development on public lands is and is not appropriate. This is why BLM’s updated plan is so important: Failing to put protective side-rails in place now to direct future development could mean losing many of the conservation, wildlife, recreation, and cultural values that are so important to Wyoming.
(If you’d like to read more about why the Western Solar Plan is our chance to meet an important moment, see our blog about the draft plan from earlier this year.)
Now that we have the context in place, what follows is WOC’s analysis of the final plan’s important parts.
BLM lands in Wyoming were included in the plan.
This was not a sure bet initially and, in fact, a number of prominent leaders in Wyoming opposed Wyoming’s inclusion. We think that including Wyoming in the new update is a good thing, as it takes some of our best habitat and intact landscapes off the table before projects are being considered.
Wyoming-specific map showing lands available for solar leasing (green) and locations where leasing will not be allowed (pink). This map does not include critical winter range exclusions for big game. Approximately 27 percent of BLM lands in Wyoming are open for leasing. (Note that BLM only anticipates 27,000 acres of actual solar development by 2045.)
The final plan combines aspects of various alternatives within the draft.
The final plan limits solar development to:
Areas outside of 21 key resource-based exclusion criteria. This includes exclusions for resources like Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, certain Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, Big Game Habitats, and Critical Habitat Areas for Threatened and Endangered Species. See the full table of exclusions here.
Areas with a slope of less than 10 percent.
Areas within 15 miles of existing or planned 69kW transmission or greater, and/or areas identified as previously disturbed lands, which generally have diminished resource integrity based on the U.S. Geological Survey Landscape Intactness model.
By increasing the allowable distance from transmission corridors in the final plan, the overall acreage available for leasing on BLM lands in Wyoming increased substantially. The practical effect of this change would give industry more acreage to consider development on.
It’s important to note that the reasonably foreseeable development scenario has not changed — the best guess is demand for solar projects on public land in Wyoming will not exceed 27,000 acres by 2045. It’s also worth noting as a comparison number that there are more than 8 million acres of BLM land in Wyoming with existing oil and gas leasing. Table 6-1 below provides a state-by-state accounting of total lands available for application and exclusion areas.
The plan better protects big game species.
The resource exclusion criterion for big game was significantly improved to protect critical habitats and migration corridors. In the initial draft, solar development would have been allowed in migration corridors, crucial winter range, and parturition areas unless local BLM offices had their own protections in place (which is not the case for most Field Offices in Wyoming). Now, future solar development on BLM lands will be excluded in portions of big game migration corridors mapped as “high use,” migration pinch points, bottlenecks, and stopover areas, not to mention parturition areas and crucial winter range habitat. Additionally, BLM created a new “avoidance designation” for lands intersecting migration corridors mapped as “medium and low use.” This new designation would require developers to work with state wildlife agencies like the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to avoid harm to wildlife in order to proceed with proposed projects in avoidance areas.
This is a huge win and something that WOC and our allies fought hard to ensure. From the beginning, one of the most significant concerns with utility-scale solar development is its impact on wide-ranging wildlife that need open space to move freely across the landscape. The strengthening of this exclusion criterion gives us confidence that future projects will avoid situations like the one that unfolded at Sweetwater Solar, where thousands of pronghorn were pushed into a narrow road corridor because the project was built in a pathway used by the animals to access critical winter range habitat.
The plan clarifies how new information could be used.
BLM clarified the process by which new information, research, and habitat maps could be updated into the final plan as we learn more and refine our knowledge of the important movement patterns and habitat needs of wildlife. This provides a compelling incentive and opportunity to map additional migration corridors and update habitat maps for big game in the state.
Notably, a lack of mapped and published migration corridors in Wyoming reduced the amount of land designated as either “exclusion” or “avoidance” areas. Compared to some other states (like Nevada), Wyoming has a relatively small number of exclusion and avoidance areas for big game migration corridors, despite having some of the best habitat and copious data to draw on to model additional migration corridors. From our perspective, this provides another compelling reason why Wyoming must continue mapping and recognizing migration corridors, not to mention updating big game crucial winter range maps, so that this critical information can be used to better protect our state’s wildlife resources in future federal land management processes. Figure 6-3 below shows areas where solar leasing would currently be excluded and avoided based upon migration corridor data.
The plan excludes Lands with Wilderness Characteristics.
For Lands with Wilderness Characteristics, we are extremely pleased to see the BLM acknowledge the value of lands that still hold their wildness by excluding designated LWCs outright and considering all others — including those nominated by citizens — during project-level decisions. These areas are an important piece of the interconnected whole. They safeguard the ecological integrity of the greater landscape and provide meaningful opportunities for Tribal members and local communities to connect with and sustainably steward the land.
Other considerations
During the public comment period on the draft plan, WOC and the Wyoming Wilderness Association raised a number of other important issues. These were addressed (to various degrees) as programmatic design features in the plan. These included:
A requirement to identify whether the lands within and immediately adjacent to the proposed solar energy project have been assessed for wilderness characteristics or have been included in a citizen’s wilderness inventory or proposal.
Requirements around Tribal consultation considerations and the avoidance of impacts to resources and landscapes important to Tribal communities.
Requirements around environmental justice considerations and guidelines encouraging the use of community benefit agreements by developers.
We are still working to understand the exact implications and nuances of these requirements, especially as they relate to Tribal consultation and what mitigation looks like when impacts to Tribal resources occur. The mitigation concepts proposed in the final plan fail to recognize the place-based importance of these resources for Tribal communities. As such, mitigating impacts by guaranteeing access to a resource in a different location, or by transplanting species, misses the point of those areas themselves being important — not just the area’s plants, minerals, or animals.
Conclusion: Looking forward
All in all, BLM’s final plan shook out positively for big game species and a number of the other resources and values that are critical from a conservation perspective. Given the relatively small amount of development forecasted in Wyoming, WOC would have preferred the final alternative to be more prescriptive in limiting development to only the least impactful locations.
As we think about the future of renewable energy development, it is only going to become more important to focus on project-specific NEPA analyses to understand the local and overall cumulative effects of proposed development. Decisions made at the project level, even down to the type of fencing and ways that solar panels are mounted, can have a huge impact on the environment and wildlife. Similarly, as with other forms of development, careful attention needs to be given to lifecycle considerations such as impacts from raw material extraction, component recycling, and reclamation for utility scale solar projects. Our commitment to Wyoming and our supporters is to scrutinize these projects as they’re proposed and take action when changes or improvements are necessary.
The renewable energy boom is coming, and one of the biggest challenges we face is the need to simultaneously reduce our carbon emissions to address a changing climate, while also protecting the best of the habitat and natural resources we have left. Locally, these goals can find themselves at odds, despite the fact that globally, they are largely the same.
In this transition, it’s important to recognize that Wyoming sits in a place of abundance — for its renewable energy potential and its outstanding habitat, recreation, and cultural resources. With so much to lose, we must proceed carefully and thoughtfully. The Western Solar Plan is a step in the right direction, but much more work still needs to be done to ensure that all large scale energy development is done responsibly with both environment and people in mind.
Header image: Bureau of Land Management | Flickr CC
August 22, 2024 – Today, the Bureau of Land Management released its proposed Rock Springs Resource Management Plan, outlining management direction for almost 3.6 million acres of public lands in southwest Wyoming. The proposed plan clearly reflects and incorporates feedback from tens of thousands of public comments and input from local stakeholders, including the task force Gov. Mark Gordon convened in late 2023.
The Wyoming Outdoor Council and Wyoming Wilderness Association both served on the governor’s task force alongside representatives with interests in oil and gas, grazing, energy production, motorized recreation, sportsmen groups, and trona industry. The task force also included elected officials from communities in Sweetwater County as well as the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate for the Wyoming Legislature. This group developed more than 100 consensus-based recommendations, supported by all stakeholders, to improve the plan and delivered these recommendations to the BLM during the agency’s public comment period.
The BLM took the task force’s consensus-based comments seriously. The proposed Rock Springs Resource Management Plan reflects task force recommendations including maintaining access for the local trona mining industry, retaining the OHV play area in parts of the Killpecker Sand Dunes, and protecting the unique natural and cultural values of Boar’s Tusk.
In response, WOC and WWA issued the following statements:
“We’re pleased to see the BLM incorporated public feedback and input from Gov. Gordon’s task force into a plan that serves local communities, iconic landscapes, and wildlife,” said Alec Underwood, program director for the Wyoming Outdoor Council. “Among other important agreements, the task force reached consensus on the need to protect gold-standard habitat and other significant natural values in the Big Sandy Foothills and Northern Red Desert, such as Boar’s Tusk. It’s encouraging to see the BLM’s responsiveness, as well as the agency’s efforts to build on the task force’s strong foundation where agreement wasn’t reached, as they did for the Big Sandy Foothills. While the plan could be improved — protections for the iconic big game migration corridors in the region, for example, fall short of the mark — we appreciate that the agency worked diligently to ensure that updated management direction will conserve some of our country’s best remaining wildlife habitat, while also maintaining all of the unique recreational opportunities found within the field office.”
“It is a testament to the dedication of all who love and care for the lands within the Rock Springs Field Office that the proposed plan includes some robust, durable, and reasonable conservation measures for the Northern Red Desert and Big Sandy Foothills. We applaud the BLM for making the hard decisions necessary to ensure these wild and working landscapes continue to thrive for future generations to use and enjoy,” said Lauren Marsh, BLM program manager for Wyoming Wilderness Association. “We are, however, disappointed that some key provisions in the draft RMP were not carried forward in the proposed plan, namely recognizing Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWCs) and important protections for the hoodoo-studded wildlands surrounding Adobe Town. Nevertheless, we appreciate the willingness of the BLM to take to heart the concerns of local Wyoming residents as expressed through public comment and recommendations from Governor Gordon’s task force. What you see reflected in the plan for the northern portion of the Field Office — and taskforce recommendations — is how much Wyomingites value wildlife and the wildlands that support them, even under the demands of a largely extraction-based economy.”
What happens next?
The issuance of the Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement initiates a 30-day public protest period and 60-day governor’s consistency review. The agency will finalize the plan after resolving issues raised in these processes.
To stay up-to-date on this process, make sure you’re signed up to receive emails from WOC. As we dive into the plan and examine how it will impact the wildlife, cultural resources, and other values of the Red Desert, we’ll keep you informed.
Recent press concerning the Wyoming Outdoor Council’s efforts to protect critical pronghorn migratory habitat has caused a bit of a stir in certain circles — and we’d like to set the record straight with an important message for the WOC community and other Wyomingites.
In this second part of a two-part message, WOC’s program director, Alec Underwood, responds to biased reporting and industry perspectives on WOC’s involvement in the July 2023 oil and gas lease sale, and lays out the need for reforms. If you haven’t already, be sure to read Part 1: On the Media, in which executive director Carl Fisher lays out this recent experience with the media in greater detail.
Setting the Record Straight on State Oil and Gas Leasing
There’s that common saying, that wildlife don’t know political or human-made boundaries. The complicated matrix of Wyoming land ownership can vex people, too — making it all the more important that we work together to build common-sense plans and policies to protect our uniquely Wyoming values.
Wyoming is not immune to major challenges for wildlife and occasionally, we see the threat of short-sighted development that warrants bold action to prevent it. Recent articles penned by Cowboy State Daily reporter Pat Maio paint a misleading picture of WOC’s involvement in state oil and gas lease sales, while taking as fact the lone perspective of industry. In an effort to provide transparency and factual information to the public, we at the Wyoming Outdoor Council would like to set the record straight.
Though we are not against oil and gas leasing or other forms of industrial development, most people can agree that some places are just too special to develop. That was the case with ‘parcel 194’ in the Office of State Lands and Investments’ July 2023 oil and gas lease sale. The 640-acre tract of land is located squarely in a bottleneck portion of the Sublette Pronghorn migration corridor, a pinch-point that is vital to the herd’s seasonal movements.
Many Wyomingites know the story of how nearly 50 percent of the Sublette herd perished during the winter of 2023 — dropping from an estimated 43,000 animals to 24,000. That’s why we were alarmed when the state offered a development lease directly in this incredibly sensitive habitat for pronghorn. After raising our concerns with state leadership, the auction went forward with parcel 194 included, and without any stipulations in place to protect migratory big game. Left with no other options and the threat of future development in this sensitive habitat, we decided to participate in the oil and gas lease auction.
Parcels offered in OSLI’s July 2023 oil and gas lease sale, overlaid with migratory data for the Sublette Pronghorn herd. Each yellow line represents a single radio-collared animal’s journey between summer and winter range. Parcels offered are bordered in blue; parcel 194 is visible at the bottom of the image. (Image: The Wilderness Society)
We did not take this action lightly nor is it a standard practice for WOC. In our eyes, our bid was an effort to demonstrate that we could still produce revenue for our state while also preserving important wildlife habitat. It was not an effort to “drive up prices” or start a “bidding war,” as falsely mischaracterized in Cowboy State Daily’s articles. Regardless, we were not the high bidder for the parcel, and we turned our efforts toward the State Board of Land Commissioners, urging them not to issue the lease.
Despite having the support of both OSLI and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department for a new protective stipulation for the parcel, and hearing from hundreds of Wyomingites who wrote in opposition to leasing the ground in the first place, the Board issued the lease as-is — without any considerations for migratory pronghorn.
The story of parcel 194 represents a larger issue within the system of state trust lands: There is no clear alternative to protect key habitat or other values from development, while also respecting the mandate to provide revenue for state trust beneficiaries. Given there is great interest from the public in how state lands are used (think Casper Mountain or Munger Mountain), we hope our state leaders are listening and will commit to solving this very real problem.
The recent changes to defining “qualified bidders” in state oil and gas lease sales brings into question how the Board of Land Commissioners makes decisions on state lands leases. Take for example that according to testimony from OSLI in a February 2024 legislative committee hearing, only 27 percent of state land oil and gas leases ever make it to production. Does that sound like a system that is fulfilling the Board’s constitutional charge of optimizing revenue?
Also important to note, the Board has full discretion in their duty to protect and care for all state lands This includes the ability to withdraw lands to protect economic or environmental interests. In addition to what conservation groups may be willing to pay for protecting a parcel, what is the long-term value of protecting the most sensitive habitat for thousands of migrating pronghorn?
The Wyoming Outdoor Council has always been committed to finding common-sense solutions to any issue that we work on. That’s why we’ve been calling for increased screening for conservation conflicts before sensitive habitat is leased, as well as urging state leaders and OSLI to develop a formal conservation leasing program. We believe the state can, and should, do better to address these known conflicts with other values.
Oil and gas production on state lands is undoubtedly a primary driver of revenue for our schools and other public institutions, and we respect that. But that shouldn’t preclude us from discovering new avenues to conserve important habitat on state lands and monetize them for the beneficiaries in a sustainable manner.
Using a word recently penned to describe our advocacy, the real “shenanigans” being played are by those who, on occasion, would rather sell out our wildlife for short-term gains. Rest assured, we’ll keep seeking solutions and advocating for conservation of the things that make Wyoming such a special place. We invite anyone who cares about healthy landscapes, clean air, clean water, and wildlife to join us in those efforts.
Alec Underwood is the program director for the Wyoming Outdoor Council. He resides in Lander.
Recent press concerning the Wyoming Outdoor Council’s efforts to protect critical pronghorn migratory habitat has caused a bit of a stir in certain circles — and we’d like to set the record straight with an important message for the WOC community and other Wyomingites.
In this first part of a two-part message, WOC’s executive director, Carl Fisher, lays out a recent experience we had with the media. Be sure to also read Part 2: On the Ground, in which program director Alec Underwood responds substantively on issues concerning parcel 194 and needed reforms for leasing of state lands.
You really can’t believe everything you read
For one Wyoming media outlet, the state’s Fourth of July celebrations must have fallen short, because it decided to set off some fireworks of its own. Unfortunately, their bombastic display was itself pretty short on substance — being composed instead of the sorts of fictions that only exist in the imagination. As such, the Wyoming Outdoor Council was the undeserving recipient of what you might describe as an industry hit job. The result? WOC will no longer respond to media inquiries from Cowboy State Daily, until trust can be restored and these issues resolved.
The issue erupted around a well-known news story from last year, about WOC going to great lengths to protect a state parcel within the Sublette Pronghorn migration corridor — including bidding on parcel 194. Subsequently, in this past Legislative Budget Session, an industry-initiated bill, HB141, directed modification of administrative rules defining what constitutes a “qualified bidder” in state oil and gas lease sales, and directed the Office of State Land and Investments to develop criteria for qualified bidders. The bill was passed and signed by the governor on March 8, 2024. From what we can tell, Governor Gordon recently put through an emergency order in an effort to enact the legislated policy (which had yet to take effect), due to pressure from industry and fear-mongering that “billionaires” and “activists” would wreak havoc on the auction. WOC, for one, had no intentions of this, and the media firestorm created by the Petroleum Association and Kirkwood Cos. could have been resolved with a simple phone call, as we frequently do for them.
For years, WOC and other wildlife and conservation organizations have had concerns about development of land, which lies directly in the path of migrating Sublette Pronghorn. These concerns became urgent in July 2023, when parcel 194 was put on the auction block for leasing. WOC did, in fact, legally bid on parcel 194 in last year’s July auction. WOC is not fundamentally against leasing for oil and gas, or the auction process for that matter. Just as oil and gas wishes there was better guidance around what constitutes a qualified bidder, we believe the state has an obligation to develop better guidance around which state parcels should be leased for development, and which should be protected for their importance for wildlife and other irreplaceable environmental attributes.
According to Cowboy State Daily, WOC “duped” oil and gas companies during this auction and our sole intent was to drive up costs, play shenanigans, and start a bidding war. The titles and subtitles of the articles were bad, really bad, and the accusations of the reporter about WOCs intentions were malicious. Here are the reporter’s own words: “There’s a lot of disdain, I’m finding out, for the Wyoming Outdoor Council because they’ve gotten to the point now where, I mean, theoretically, you know, if you’re taking leases out of the hands of oil and gas companies, that hurts education in Wyoming, right? Because a lot of that money, that royalty money goes directly to education.” We think Cowboy State Daily was duped into carrying water for industry in penning these biased and one-sided articles. The reporter’s own bias clearly comes through in his words.
Over the course of several days (July 4–8), four articles (three written and one video) were published. As the situation developed, I had a very pleasant call with the editor of Cowboy State Daily, who ultimately agreed to modify the headlines, bylines, and add an accompanying editor’s note, and I look forward to working with them over the coming weeks and months to build trust. On one hand, I sympathize: The issues we and media outlets work on are complex and require a level of policy wonkiness I wouldn’t wish upon most people. Expeditiously translating these into the public vernacular is more an art than a science. On the other, it is the job of the media to report the facts, and Cowboy State Daily is, as its name implies, a daily — meaning the damaging and false narrative that was perpetuated is impossible to unsee. I remind my staff that you can’t un-ring a bell, and that it’s virtually impossible to put a bullet back into the barrel. Honesty and integrity are vital to our kindling of the public trust and our way of accomplishing our mission.
The irony is that Cowboy State Daily’s accusations lack basic understanding of the system that is set up to fund schools and a dozen or so other entities that benefit Wyoming citizens. And to put a bid in during an auction naturally increases the cost for the next person. We’d welcome Pat Maio, Pete Obermueller, and Steve Degenfelder to any livestock auction in the state to show that this is common practice — it’s how auctions work. Further, if another energy company offered up $5 when the last bid was $3, you’d say they were “outbid.” Cowboy State Daily stated that WOC “duped” them. Even the Office of State Land and Investment acknowledged we did nothing wrong. So, it appears the energy industry concocted a media strategy to drag WOC publicly, and Cowboy State Daily took the bait — hook, line and sinker.
Pronghorn and natural gas infrastructure (Image: Theo Stein / USFWS / FlickrCC)
Our intentions in bidding on parcel 194 were two-fold. First, we wanted to protect critical habitat in a migration bottleneck. Second, we sought to demonstrate that conservation interests and values could monetize state lands for beneficiaries. WOC showed up with real money over three times the prior bid. We were proud to try, and sad we failed — not for ourselves, but for the Sublette Pronghorn herd. And at the end of the day, the beneficiaries of state land leases won the day, as they do at any competitive auction that generates revenue for critical programs. Let’s talk about what royalties could and should emerge from a conservation lease.
So, there is no mechanism for conservation leasing and a rule was just passed that clarifies who can bid on oil and gas lease sales. The amount of bellyaching and press that accompanies state protection of the oil and gas honeyhole — which is now less competitive — is pretty extraordinary. If you want to really generate some revenue for Wyoming’s beneficiaries, it’s time to make lease sales competitive again, and allow a diversity of monied interests to vie for these parcels, be it for energy, conservation, recreation, or one of Wyoming’s many other values in the land. The proof is right there in the pudding: They wanted to get it for $3/acre, we went to $18. Are we promoting auctions for the beneficiaries, or fire sales on Wyoming’s landscapes? We believe we can lease, monetize and protect.
Here’s my promise to the state and energy developers like Kirkwood Cos.: If they’re willing to give up the lease and protect the bottleneck, we’ll cut ’em a check, because we don’t believe you can put a price on the viability of this herd. We get it, energy development is critical to Wyoming, but so too are our wildlife, our water and air, how we manage and lease our land, and for whom. Human and natural systems are complex. Our solutions should not oversimplify the challenges, or else we’re shifting burdens to something else, sometimes unknowingly, but the worst of us do it knowingly and for our own benefit.
At the Wyoming Outdoor Council, we welcome your questions and opinions. As executive director, I encourage them. Your inquiries and ideas (whether from members, partners or media) improve our work. We work to answer them expeditiously, but if you don’t get an answer immediately, we respectfully request that you not fabricate an answer for us. Instead, politely try again, we’ll in turn, reciprocate. We will work to be solutions-oriented, innovative, not positional, pragmatic members of the communities to which we belong and call home.
We felt compelled to share this story because we don’t believe it to be a one-off. It was for me here at WOC, but I’ve heard a number of stories from within and beyond our organization. I look forward to straightening things out with Cowboy State Daily, and frankly with Steve Degenfelder and Pete Obermueller. For more information on what WOC did at the July 2023 lease sale on parcel 194 and what our motivations were, it’s important to read program director Alec Underwood’s piece On the Ground: Setting the Record Straight on State Oil and Gas Leasing.
Carl Fisher is the executive director for the Wyoming Outdoor Council, a statewide organization committed to protecting Wyoming’s environment and quality of life now, and for future generations. Our environment includes land, water, air, wildlife, vegetation, cultural resources, and people — past, present and future.
