Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Ocotillo Wells - Less 14,000 Acres?
GlamisDunes.com > Sand Community Issues > CORVA
APHANTOMDUCK
Seems as if a very popular OHV area is under attack by geothermal business. From what I have learned, the Ocotillo Wells State Vehicular Recreation Area ("OWSVRA") in the the throws of converting 14, 000 acres of our green sticker park into a geothermal lease. This effectively would close those acres to our use.

QUOTE
The California Department of Parks and Recreation ("CDPR") has already given one company a "Right of Entry" permit that includes permission to drill a test well. CDPR has done this without taking ANY public comment. Apparently CDPR is not concerned that if the test well finds a profitable geothermal resource, the BLM will have a harder time denying the lease applications that are already pending on property the BLM owns inside the OWSVRA. It is within the power of CDPR to deny the leasing permits since energy exploration and development is not part of the mission of California State Parks."

"In contrast to CDPR's using the lowest level of environmental review allowed under California law, with absolutely no public participation, the BLM has chosen to do the highest level environmental review under federal law, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), to analyze the affects of approving the pending leases. The BLM must allow extensive public participation in the EIS process, but they are still headed towards approving the leases. The Preferred Alternative in the Draft EIS would approve all leases on all 22 parcels they own inside OWSVRA. Even worse, the BLM has not proposed mitigating the loss of recreation opportunity through replacement or opening new areas to compensate for lands that will be used for the wells, their extensive above ground pipeline systems, and other infrastructure. The BLM seems to think we will still be able to recreate around pipes and power plants. Not only do we leave the cities we live in to ride our bikes, we also love being in a primitive natural environment. Off roaders do not drive drive 2-3 hours from their homes to see and ride around industrial building, pipelines, power lines, etc.

This would never happen in a non-OHV state park.

Well, guess what, families that recreate on OHV's also love the environment and we don't want to see this blight in our park. Ruth Coleman, Director of CDPR, has gone on record stating that energy exploration is not consistent with the mission of state parks. Director Coleman said this while trying to stop a power line from crossing Anza Borrego. We don't understand why it is okay with Director Coleman that Ocotillo Wells not only gets power lines, we get the industrial complex that produces the power spread all across OWSVRA. Why are OHV'ers treated like second class citizens made to share our precious few acres still open for OHV recreation with industrial complexes?
[Published by Cycle News via Sherri Kukla]

So my question here is what steps has CORVA/EcoLogic Partners taken to challenge the Negative Declaration or Categorical Exclusion granted by CDPR under CEQA, if indeed this was the decision to allow exploration? EcoLogic's attorney, Dave Hubbard is allegedly a CEQA expert and for the life of me, I cannot understand if EcoLogic did not challenge the environmental document, why not?
ChuckZilla
I would be surprised if CORVA wasn't doing something, but I haven't heard anything and don't remember seeing anything in the recent newsletter. I forget who is the representing ORG for OW, is it SDORC? Does OW have an ORG that focuses on issues for the area?
APHANTOMDUCK
I'm not aware of any legal challenge taken by EcoLogic Partners (includes SDORC) against the environmental document that allowed the "Right of Entry" permit issued by the Department of Parks and Recreation. If this was the case, I'm almost sure EcoLogic Partners would have issued a press release.

Perhaps Wayne could fill us in.
AFamilyof4
Here's a map of the proposal

http://sandiegooffroad.com/Ocotillo%20Well...sing%20Area.pdf
SailAway
APD have you sent a message to Wayne (the leader of this CORVA forum) to get his help in tracking this down?

Vicki
APHANTOMDUCK
No Vicki, I have not.

I would think if Wayne is leading this forum, he might be checking it during the day and respond as necessary. If he does not respond by the morning, I guess I'll have to PM him.
Wayne_Nosala
Hello folks,
Waldhiem went down to the initial meeting for this last month.

(One of our primary Email guys is on vacation this week, so some info
may not be available until next week)

Ed showed me the book that had all the proposed info for the
Geo thermal project. The dam think was a thick as a small
telephone book! Professionally binded, Color maps and pictures. I cannot fathom
how much it cost just for the book alone!

Now back to subject. As far as being in the CORVA newsletter,
It will most likely be in the next issue. We only heard of this
a few weeks ago.

The lead guy on this is Ed Stovin, SDORC. I have been tracking it
though Emails I have received.

Its to my understanding Ocotillo Wells is in the public input stages
for the Geo thermal project.
(From what i gather, that is part of the CEQA process is)

Honestly, Im not sure if Hubbard has been involved authough
im sure he has been briefed (Also info may not be released what
exactly Hubbard is doing to the general public)

There is more info at the following link.

http://www.sandiegooffroad.com/news_5.htm

Right now, the only action I can recommend is write to the following
and tell them we oppose this project.

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

If I hear anything else, I will post what I can here

Thanks
Wayne Nosala
CORVA
Friends of Jawbone
jhitesma
It's not like this snuck up us or anything:


July 2005:
http://www.americansandassociation.org/php...ight=geothermal


Talk about geothermal speculation in that area goes back well before I started following things in 99.


APHANTOMDUCK
Wayne:

Not having the document you speak of, its difficult to determine what is fact and what is fiction.

Reading from Sherri's article, it plainly states that Parks did ..."lowest level of environmental review allowed under California law"...

I'd assume the document you have is the NEPA document that BLM is preparing and I guess I'll go looking at the same on BLM's web site. CEQA on the other hand, is the process State agency's must follow. From what I'm getting thus far from Sheri is that no CEQA process was undertaken.

But a distinct difference you may have missed is the Department of Parks and Recreation took an action ("The California Department of Parks and Recreation ("CDPR") has already given one company a "Right of Entry" permit that includes permission to drill a test well") that, unless I miss my understanding of CEQA, an environmental document of some sort is REQUIRED for this decison to be made lawfully.

My point here is that CEQA is both instuctive and binding upon the agency who makes this decision. If the process of CEQA mandates was not followed (as indicated by Sherri's article above) why then not take this issue to Hubbard - whom we pay dearly for each month - and possibly take advantage of the mis-step by Parks and Recreation. This is a more pro-active (offensive) approach that might just yield us an early victory.
APHANTOMDUCK
To illustrate my point of the CEQA process, I've taken the liberty to post a flow chart I downloaded off the State of California's web site:

________________

[attachmentid=151490]



APHANTOMDUCK
I just did a query of the CEQANet data base for all CEQA actions by a State or Local agency for this area and did not find such an agency provide an environmental document, under CEQA, that provides foundation for an agency decision that may effect the environment.

Results of my search is as follows:

_________


California Home Wednesday, April 11, 2007

OPR Home > CEQAnet Home > CEQAnet Query > Search Results


Click Project Title link to display all related documents. Document Type link will display full document description.
Records Found: 3
[First] [Next] [Previous] [Last]
Page: 1
Query Parameters: Imperial OCOTILLO WELLS All Date Range: 1999-01-01 to 2007-04-30
SCH# Lead Agency Project Title Description Document
Type Date
Received

2000038200 Parks and Recreation, Department of Ocotillo Wells Land Acquisition Initial Archaeological Site Testing This project proposes to conduct initial archaeological testing at six prehistoric sites identified as potentially significant during a cultural resource inventory survey on acquisition land. NOE 3/22/2000

2000018116 Parks and Recreation, Department of Ocotillo Wells Land Acquisition Arch Site Testing Two prehistoric rock enclosures at Tabular Shores are being excavated for several purposes: 1) to determine potential eligibility to the National Register, 2) to gain information about the local and regional prehistory, and 3) to serve as mitigation for possible damage from recreational use. The excavations will be no larger than 1.0 m x 1.0 m in area inside each of the enclosures and two units of the same size outside the enclosures (3 test excavations per enclosure). Excavated areas will be back filled. Artifacts recovered will be examined and analyzed by the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Archeology Laboratory. Anza Borrego State Park or a facility acceptable to both DPR and Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee shall be curator of the recovered artifacts. NOE 1/20/2000

1999001163 Parks and Recreation, Department of OCOTILLO WELLS SVRA Acquire 420 parcels of private land consisting of approximately 6,948 acres as an addition to our state vehicular recreation area. The land is currently in a natural condition and a mangeement plan afor the area has not been prepared. NOE 2/25/1999




Wayne_Nosala
That is some good info on CEQA, I have never seen that flow chart
Thanks for posting it, I have it on file for my records.

I spoke with Ed Stoven, he said pretty much what I said in
my previous post, He, SDORC and SDOR mag are taking the lead on this.

He has been briefing the CORVA board members (Im not a board member,
just Kern Co field rep) But I do get most of the info anyway.

Ecologic partners has been involved and has been in contact with
DPR and yes Hubbard has already been working on it. I personally
do not have all the details on what they are doing.

Again Ed Stovin, said we are in an aggressive letter writing campaign.
He said one of his members went out there last weekend and handed
out 1000 flyers and is asking people to write letters.

The book that Waldhiem showed me, he still has it, you need any info from it
I can get it back if you like.
Wayne Nosala
APHANTOMDUCK
QUOTE(Wayne_Nosala @ Apr 12 2007, 11:45 AM) [snapback]2231649[/snapback]


Ecologic partners has been involved and has been in contact with
DPR and yes Hubbard has already been working on it. I personally
do not have all the details on what they are doing.

Again Ed Stovin, said we are in an aggressive letter writing campaign.
He said one of his members went out there last weekend and handed
out 1000 flyers and is asking people to write letters.



Since EcoLogic has been in contact with DPR (I'll assume a letter has been sent) - perhaps you could get a copy of the same and post it here? The letter is now public record and could be obtained via the California Records Act, but since EcoLogic is funded by membership donations (like those who visit this site and are members of CORVA, D-37 AMA, SDORC, etc) I'd say it would be a great idea to "inform" those who pay the bills of where their donations are used.

It is great to hear that Mr. Stovin is conducting an "aggressive letter writing campaign" to the (I'd assume) BLM DEIR for this project. Frankly though, this is more of a "feel good" approach that carry's little weight with the decision-maker - BLM.

Administrative direction, case law, and NEPA it self require "substantive" comments instead of some sort of an up-and-down vote on the project from the public. The old "I don't like this because it would reduce my riding area" approach holds little, if any weight with BLM.

Comments BLM is required to address include procedure, lack of adequate information, poor or wrong assumptions, lack of adequate science to base decisions, lack of "new information" the is pertinent to the question before the agency, etc. In short, the comments should demonstrate to the decision-maker the deficient nature of the EIS.

This is where an experienced and knowledgeable person comes in. They have what it takes to "tear the document apart" and provide what the agency must address in its final EIS. I can only think of perhaps two-to four folks in the entire OHV community that has credentials and experience to do this. And of course, our paid "expert" Dave Hubbard of EcoLogic Partners.

If I were a OHV leadership decision maker and part of EcoLogic Partners it would be my call to have our paid help provide a professional comment letter on behalf of the Org(s) that are concerned about this issue.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.