Response from: Artur (Check me out!)

Wayne, there won't be much long-term impact to the Ocotillo Wells SVRA, according to my reading of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. (see http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/pdfs/elcentro_pdfs/Truckh
aven_Geothermal_DEIS.Par.53170.File.dat/truckhaven_deis.pdf).
Sure, the maps on pages 34 and 106 look scary. The Truckhaven Geothermal Leasing Area encompasses about 40,320 acres (page 6), and about 83 percent of that is inside the SVRA (page 171). The 40,320 acres include about 14,371 on BLM land, 23,680 on private land, and 1,920 on state lands, a total close to 40,330 that the report quotes (page 33). But most of that footprint is needed because the developer must lease the land that contains the underground geothermal resource. Only about 500 acres or so of that 40,330 acres will be permanently withdrawn from use for the wells, pipelines, transmission lines, power plants, and roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would permanently remove only about 500 acres from recreational use. This is from an off-road area of either 40,000, 42,000, or 75,000 acres, depending on which web source you believe. According to the maps in the DEIS, it looks more like 75,000 acres, and this is what the minutes of the California Public Works Board say (for example, http://www.spwb.ca.gov/Minutes/2006/documents/FM_8_06.doc,
from August 18, 2006). The withdrawn area is itemized on page 52, and the disruption of OHV recreation is described on pages 171-175. 500 acres from 40,000 or 75,000 is ***small***. 340 acres of this is for the 25 well pairs (production and injection), and the related pipeline and access roads (page 54). Another 65 acres is for the power plants (2 of them, located beside each other), and transmission lines (page 55). This is a total of 405 acres, which seems to be the actual amount removed from use, but they quote 502 acres, which really seems to be the amount during initial development. But let's be conservative and adopt that. I think the two uses are compatible.

Response from: Matt (Check me out!)

I completely disagree.
.
ANY attempt to close ANY amount of ANY remaining OHV area needs to be fought 100%.
.
You're saying to "just allow them to close 500 acres", when it's been the "we're just going to close this much", then next year "we're just going to close this much" etc etc. Next thing you know, half of Glamis is closed permanently.
.
No.
.
Unacceptable.
.
We can't allow ANY MORE CLOSURES.
Not temporary closures.
Not "just 500 more permanent acres"
.
Nothing!

Response from: cole (Check me out!)

no no no no no nononononononononono nooooooooooooooooooo nono do not close Ocotillo wells ever< and if i could i would tell u to go f*ck ur self if u did