I just received a couple of maps showing where the leases are requested at Superstition Mountains. It's not good news. Over 75% of the mountain and OHV area is requested.

Here are the maps:

http://www.pbase.com/slackjeep/image/48184025

and

http://www.pbase.com/slackjeep/image/48184026

If you need a reminder of what is going on this So. California

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=379208&highlight=superstition

Here are the addresses to send public comments regarding the use of Truckhaven and Superstition Mountains for Geothermal plants.

Email: john_Dalton@ca.blm.gov

Snail Mail:

Bureau of Land Management
California Desert District Office
Attn: John Dalton
22835 Calle San Juan De Los Lagos
Moreno Valley, Ca 92553

Please take 5 minutes and send a quick email or letter to them and state your opinion about developing on our OHV areas.

Thanks
Dorys

OUCH...that's 80% of the current trail inventory around Superstition!!!

Quoted DIRECTLY from John Stewart...and I'll now assume the reason TDS didn't show at the meetings...

John writes, "In reality, the project does not have a direct impact on Truckhaven or Superstition Mountains area."

BULLSHIT...LOOK at those maps John...look at the trail inventory in that area!!!...John, you made a statement that many took to heart...hell, my father who's worked so hard on those very trails trusted in your words when you acted like you'd seen the real maps and we were not losing much of anythng...WE ARE LOSING BIGTIME!
TDS, and anyone else that wheels in So Cal, we need you NOW.

If they are going to take that land, they'd better offer up a LAND trade...10 to 1, LAND, not money...and not flat land as that area is the best canyon wheeling in southern Californaia...better than TDS by a longshot if you want rock and sand in the mix too. Those trails are far too great and if we don't get an outpouring of support from TDS, and many others, then this is a lost cause...

I've now written my second round of letters on this...HAVE YOU!?!?!?!?

I don't know the issues on this specifically, Dustin, but does geothermal leasing necessarily affect OHV access? Sometimes a subterranean property right (i.e. mineral, oil, etc.) does not directly affect surface access issues.

Some of the best trails we've got today are available as a result of mining, timber, and similar resource industries.

Again, I don't know these issues (yet) -- but I have HUGE faith in John Stewart -- Dustin, have you mailed him directly for more info? You can't post here and assume that it will be read everywhere, or for that matter, anywhere...

What are the specifics for the letters, Dustin... I'm behind on the curve in understanding this issue, but am game to write letters to support 'wheelers anywhere. :usa:

Randii

Good stuff over in that other linked thread:
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4350691&postcount=22

...but still not enough info for me to write a very well-informed letter. Anybody have a bulletted list of talking points are issues from which I can generate a good letter?

Randii

Not sure how you post a signal post but if you look at post #18 by Dustin he has excellent points derived from attending the actual meeting. I was there too.

This is not good for the OHV community. We lose land every day for this reason and that. There is plenty of desert that is not used by OHVers that can be used for other purposes.

This is the time to speak. If they don't hear from us then they'll think we don't care. They want to hear from everyone regarding this issue to see if they should even go to the next step.

It's up to you.

I don't know the issues on this specifically, Dustin, but does geothermal leasing necessarily affect OHV access? Sometimes a subterranean property right (i.e. mineral, oil, etc.) does not directly affect surface access issues.

Some of the best trails we've got today are available as a result of mining, timber, and similar resource industries.

Again, I don't know these issues (yet) -- but I have HUGE faith in John Stewart -- Dustin, have you mailed him directly for more info? You can't post here and assume that it will be read everywhere, or for that matter, anywhere...

What are the specifics for the letters, Dustin... I'm behind on the curve in understanding this issue, but am game to write letters to support 'wheelers anywhere. :usa:

Randii



Along with John Stewart, I am also a member of TDS and I speak face-face
with him at least monthly. I have spoken with him about this issue and the
geothermal leasing DOES NOT preclude OHV access.

Along with John Stewart, I am also a member of TDS and I speak face-face
with him at least monthly. I have spoken with him about this issue and the
geothermal leasing DOES NOT preclude OHV access.
The drilling footprint, the fences, the pipelines...I guess they will be legal to wheel on? They couldn't say in any of the meetings because they didn't know...taking a wait-and-see attitude on this just might turn out to burn us...is it such a problem for people to come out and say "HEY, WE USE THIS LAND!!!"

Go back and read the synopsis about what happened at the meeting...they have no clue just how we will be affected and that should scare us and unite us...it obviously didn't.

The drilling footprint, the fences, the pipelines...I guess they will be legal to wheel on? They couldn't say in any of the meetings because they didn't know...taking a wait-and-see attitude on this just might turn out to burn us...is it such a problem for people to come out and say "HEY, WE USE THIS LAND!!!"

Go back and read the synopsis about what happened at the meeting...they have no clue just how we will be affected and that should scare us and unite us...it obviously didn't.



I don't remember all the details, but what I do remember from talking with John is that
this is NOT a real negative for the OHV crowd. I suggest you email him and get
the info from him. He has lots of insider info.

I don't remember all the details, but what I do remember from talking with John is that
this is NOT a real negative for the OHV crowd. I suggest you email him and get
the info from him. He has lots of insider info.

Here is a link to Geothermal Projects:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=images&imgsz=all&imgc=&vf=all&va=geothermal+energy&fr=FP-tab-web-t&ei=UTF-8

Not a "real negative" on the OHV crowd John and Gary?

Look at the pics.

powers gotta come from somewhere

You're right, the power's gotta come from somewhere, but try and recreate in So Cal...there are SO MANY ORV's and less and less space to use them.
GeoThermal seems to be a smarter way to make power at this time, however, if they decide to take away ORV/OHV land for it, then they need to give us somewhere to go in return. Smash us into too small of an area and things begin to look like the slabs at the con...CLOSED due to overpoopulation...then where do we go?

you are right but what are ya gonna say when your lights go out?

i'm sure there are better places to put it and it would suck to loose a good wheelin place

great response :rolleyes: and thanks for the quick edit cause I was really going to let go as it stood...

the point is if we don't speak up that this is one of our last PRIME areas that they are taking away, there is no way they would even worry about finding another place to help our recreation continue...If they take this away, they also need to give back land-wise.

very much UNLIKE Canada, recreational ORV/OHV is a HUGE industry in So Cal. With more rec Green Sticker ORV/OHVs than most of the rest of the country combined, you'd think/hope we would have plenty of access. We don't. They have already limited us to an amazingly small amount of land that we have to travel hours to even access. Shit, Glamis goes from 14 people to what is commonly claimed as hundreds of thousands overnight on a big weekend...hundreds of thousands...all packed into a small area.
So preach about power all you want as you OBVIOUSLY didn't read my other posts on this topic. I've already said numerous times that this project might be responsible and needed and obviously, we should support it...however, if we will again lose more land to it, then we need an alternative place to go.

No go back to your corner newfie...yeah, we're on to you...we know you put BC in as a location just so we won't know where you really live and make fun of your eastern Canada ass:flipoff2:

and anyone that thinks this is a subterranian project, obviously hasn't seen roads move 12" down there...Unless they're planning something miraculous, there's going to be a crisscross of pipes ABOVE ground where they are safe from the amazing amount of movement due to the faults nearby.

Good money says there's a far bigger impact on recreation than you guys are thinking...look at that map! Look how much of Superstition is in the black area. My Father shit his pants tonite when he saw it...he's the one that found most of those trails and his comment was, "we're losing everything!...There's another HUGE section of trails being developed there...it's gone too!" We're talking days of good wheeling in that area, not just one small trail...he's worked for years, walking and surveying, and working alongside the San Diego 4 Wheelers to keep Superstition someplace special...and it really is. And HIS father was one of the guys that made much of the trails known as TruckHaven (TDS) today...Corral Canyon too. (just a bit of wheeling history within my family).

Everyone seems to be jumping to the conclusion that recreation is being impacted IMMEDIATELY.

For clarification.....

CA4WDC, SDORC and a number of others ARE TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY.

(see the meeting notes included below from the Long Beach meeting that covers some good talking points)

Now, for a federal public process refresher (also called the NEPA process).

Two very good articles explaining the NEPA process are on-line at: http://www.ufwda.org/reference.htm

I know they are good 'cuz I wrote them.

I would like to draw your attention to the definitions of steps within the NEPA process.

This public meeting exercise is what is termed "scoping process". Within this process, NO DECISIONS are made. Infomration is collected to help define the overall scope of the proposed project.

What BLM is looking for are problems their initial in-house review may have overlooked. From the responses they receive, they will develop the alternatives that will be presented in the draft document that will be submitted for public comment. That draft and comments received will be molded into the final decision document.

So, at this point in time, the BLM needs to have supportable comments that describe actual issues. The loss of recreation land is a valid comment. That comment needs to be accompanied by a recommended action: provide mitigation for land lost to recreation.

At this point in time, I (as a representative of CA4WDC) have already voiced concerns about lost recreation access in public comments to BLM. And, I have challenged them to provide mitigation lands to compensate for the "lost" recreation lands.

FYI, the area everyone knows as "Truckhaven" IS NOT part of this discussion. That area is still under a purchase option by the Trust for Pulbic Lands who want to transfer the land to California Sate Parks and have recreation removed. That is a more serious threat to loss of recreation oppportunity than the proposed geo-thermal leases.

For clarification, the maps posted are not the entire area of land subject to proposed leases. The posted map does provide detail about the area around Superstition. There are an additional 10 sections clsoer to S-22 and Highway 86 that are of concern.

Overall, the geo-thermal proposal has some potential impact on recreation. The action is compeltely within the scope of multiple use of public lands that BLM is chartered to manage. The challenge we face of to ensure that within the "multiple use management" recreation is included within the discussion.

What peopl eneed to understand is the federal government is proceeding with their public review process to explore geo-thermal leases. Please understand that the STATE OF CALIFORNIA is also preceeding with their review of geo-thermal leasing. And, NOT ALL OF THE LAND AVAILABLE for geo-thermal leasing has been identified on the BLM provided maps. BLM identified only the land that is within their management sphere. Ventures like this on state and private lands do not receive the advance notice as the federal government is providing.

Yes, test wells were drilled on state land in the area this summer. The results are expected to be know sometime later this year. Yes, OHMV Division of State Parks is aware of and involved in the negotiations to proceed with the test wells on state lands. Yes, IF an energy proposal is defined for state (or private) lands, there will be a public review process (similar to the federal NEPA) call CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act.

At that time, more puiblic comment will be requested.

Belwo are some notes from the Long Beach meeting. Please pay attention to the SPECIFICS section and the CONCERNS.

If you want to submit a comment (and I encourage everyone to submit comments) those cover some specific areas of concern.

***********************


All,

Meeting notes follow.

COMMENT DEADLINE: SEPTEMBER 26/Although notice says August 31.

ATTENDENCE: 10 (6 OHV enthusiasts including Dave Tonkiss with D-37 DS)

PROCESS: Two stages: First to determine whether to consider lease or not. If NOT issue dies. If yes, 2nd process to comment on lease.

SPECIFICS:

- Out of 40,000 acres footprint on about 200+
- Pipelines must be above ground
- Plant(s) will cover about 50 acres each (possibility of 2)
- Wells (10) will cover about 20 acres each
- Exploration would take into account existing trails
- Would be some flexibility of where plants and wells placed
- Three lease applications in
- Additional lease applications could come in

CONCERNS RAISED:

- Placement oof lease area right on top of major D-38 race system and popular riding area
- Loss of trails
- Loss of trail systems
- Impact on experience
- Impossible cost/time/planning to try to move or replace trails

THOUGHTS BASED ON COMMENTS & CONVERSATIONS

- Tribes have not commented (often come into process late and with objections)
- Environmental concerns/comments increasing
- "Inside" comment that decision to go to 2nd review process very doubtful
due to agency cost unless D.C. wants to allocate a lot of money for the review.

PERSONAL CONCLUSION

If the OHV community submits lots of professionally voiced concerns - in
conjunction with what is expected from the environmental community the BLM will
have justification to deny further consideration of lease applications for the
area.

Any questions, give me a call. And, thanks again, Jim, for your notes -
really helped understanding the entire proposal going into the meeting. I will
be submitting comments as an individual and member of the CA Stakeholder group
by August 31. Will share with group. dana

In a message dated 8/11/05 6:21:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, john@muirnet.net
writes:

<< Subj: Re: URGENT - BLM: AUGUST 9 PUBLIC MEETING
Date: 8/11/05 6:21:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: john@muirnet.net (John Stewart)
To: Danafbell@cs.com, john@muirnet.net, EdWaldheim@aol.com,
h_soens@cox.net, Jim@McGarvie.us

(remote from Poconos Mts, PA - site of Camp Jeep 2005)

The effort appears to be growing in scope.

When it was briefed to the DAC in June, it was rather small in scope
and was limited to ten sections within the Ocotillo Wells SVRA
eastern regions.

The tie with Truckhaven is a point of confusion as to what is
specifically defined as "Truckhaven". I would suggest that BLM be
challenged to provide the quad map definition for the region in
question.

Also, keep in mind that much of the region in question is state land.
And, the state has already been discussing energy development with a
couple of test wells that were to be drilled this summer on state
land.

While there is a potential impact of OHV recreation, the area in
question is also part of a previous fringe-toed lizard habitat area.
So, if there are some growing concerns with the proposed project.

With the state, Daphne has held the line that any state lands within
the SVRA subject to energy development needs to have mitigation.

That is a similar tactic that needs to be pushed with the BLM effort
to assign energy development to lands currently used for recreation.

Everyone seems to be jumping to the conclusion that recreation is being impacted IMMEDIATELY.

Now, or three years from now...it's all the same.


Information is collected to help define the overall scope of the proposed project.

Does that information include a general count of just how many people are voicing their opinions for or against at a stage this early?



FYI, the area everyone knows as "Truckhaven" IS NOT part of this discussion.
No, but an area nearly as developed and more widely visited by a range of ORV/OHV is. Go to superstition any weekend other than TDS, and there's more people there than at Truckhaven...


PERSONAL CONCLUSION

If the OHV community submits lots of professionally voiced concerns - in
conjunction with what is expected from the environmental community the BLM will
have justification to deny further consideration of lease applications for the
area.
.

And that started weeks ago at a meeting right here in our backyard. TDS was not present, and many think that this just isn't worth fretting over..sounds like a, "it's not my backyard " deal to me.

John, I, and others appreciate what you do, so this frustration is not directed at you...still, there is no reason that a number of members of your club could have at least showed their faces for 30 minutes at the meeting to show their support. Even more important, they could have filled out a registration card that basically shows who was there. The more people showing concern, means they realise there are people actually worried about losing this land beyond you and a few others that do this nasty job of representing us...a few more faces in the crowd MAY make a difference...and if not, at least we can say we tried.


Finally, if we can't stand together on this, what makes you think we'll stand together on this other TruckHaven issue you keep referring to?

Thanks John for posting more information. You are reiterating what we are all saying...

NOW is the time to comment.

I do believe this discussion and our passionate responses are very important. If we believe that our OHV areas will not be impacted and do not take the time to comment, the the BLM will not have the proper information to make their decisions.

We all know the off road political organizations have their hands full. We just want to help. We are tired, inflamed, disgusted and appalled by all the land we lose. We're just now getting vocal. And the squeaky wheel gets the grease. It's about time we all get lubed!!! :-)

I found this info in this link today. Plus I sent my letter off.

http://www.geocollaborative.org/events/sacramento/proceedings.pdf

Challenges
Participants included federal agencies (BLM, FS, DOI, DOE), a state agency (California division of Oil and Gas
and Mineral Resources), industry associations (GEA, GRC) and industry (Calpine, Empire). Discussion began by
verifying and then expanded the list of challenges captured from the panelists’ presentations. Follow is the list of
challenges identified:

Review Processes - Inefficiencies and costs
The cost to conduct the EIS documentation for California’s three pending leases would be $1.5
million (Deep Rose, Truckhaven and Superstition Mountain); to justify spending the money, the
return on the resource needs to be substantial
Cultural and historic Issues (NV, hot springs)
Threatened and Endangered Species/Endangered Species Act – sage grouse habitat
Pre-Lease Dilemma – Company’s are reluctant to pay without assurances for development
Cost of NEPA – in the Pacific Northwest a high degree of adequacy is necessary (spotted owl)
because it will be subject to higher level of public scrutiny than elsewhere in the Country.
Interagency comments come late in the process
Agencies lose money in processing applications
Environmental opposition
Don’t know how to move forward with EA/EIS economically

SDYJ, thanks for posting...

I just read that entire thing...NOT ONCE was recreation mentioned...however, everything else was.

Wow, does that ever show just where we stand...their initial worries were over enviornmental, tribal, and financial issues...if they overcome those, will there be a fourth line of defense? There won't unless we speak up.

Wow, does that ever show just where we stand...their initial worries were over enviornmental, tribal, and financial issues...if they overcome those, will there be a fourth line of defense? There won't unless we speak up.


"PROCESS: Two stages: First to determine whether to consider lease or not. If NOT issue dies. If yes, 2nd process to comment on lease."


The recreation concerns are documented, but the BLM does not appear to consider them unmanageable (yet). The result of this perception is that recreation opportunity displacement concern is not planned to be considered in Stage #1 (to "lease or not") but only in the comment gathering of Stage #2 (after the decision has been made to lease).

Do we make noise to have motorized recreation considered on equal footing (as other concerns) in Stage #1, or wait (after the decision is made to lease, and the question is not if we lose opportunity but how much we lose)?

What has been presented to elevate the motorized recreation opportunity concern during the Stage #1 phase? What can (needs to be) done?

Happy Trails!

I just read that entire thing...NOT ONCE was recreation mentioned...however, everything else was.


That is what I got out of that document also. The initial review of ISSUES did not even consider the off-road community. This document gives some pretty good information and shows direction the agencies want to head.

I also noticed that the PUC could stop the process, that might be an agency to contact also.


Also check out the last paragraph, I can not seem to find any other documents that discuss results of similar meetings and solutions.

Do we make noise to have motorized recreation considered on equal footing (as other concerns) in Stage #1, or wait (after the decision is made to lease, and the question is not if we lose opportunity but how much we lose)?

What has been presented to elevate the motorized recreation opportunity concern during the Stage #1 phase? What can (needs to be) done?

Happy Trails!

As far as I know the comment period is part of Stage #1, whether or not to even grant the leases. Whether or not this is correct, NOW is the time to comment. Comment period ends on Sept 26.