Here is the link to the 7 different alternantive proposals for the new RAMP that the BLM has listed on their web site. Appears to be just the different alternantives to the area that should stay open or be closed for the PMV in the ISDRA. I like Alternantive Number 1.

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro ... dramp.html

didnt work, does this one Ramp

Sorry if the link did not work. I will try again.

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/re...cs/isdramp.html

Thanks, good to go.

Alternative #3

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

yeah alt 1 all the way

1 is definitely the best but a couple of the others I could probably live with since those are areas nobody really goes. I don't think any of it should be closed to be honest but of course some yahoo is gonna go get hurt in the middle of nowhere and they can't control it so they want it closed.

1-7-6-4-5-2-3

depending when the "seasonal" closure months are on alt #4

Agreed.

1-7-6-4-5-2-3

fyi...

There WILL be a workshop put on by the ASA when the ramp is actually released. Date of the workshop is dependent on the offical release. I will keep you all posted.

So let me get this right: The whole idea is to protect the allegedly endangered weed? Then how come alternatives 2,3,4,5,and 6 all show closures in areas the MV isnt listed as being according to the 2008 study?

If the comparison chart shows only 11000 +- acres of MV, then why are most closures from 10,500 to 47,000 acres?


If the thing is really about the MV, close the 11,000 acre strip in alt 7, add it to the 25,879 permanently closed areas and leave the rest alone?

Link to comparison chart

Does anyone know which map provides the "no action" alternative?

Alt #2 just by looking at it.

I'll trust your judgement here as you know the dunes better than I.

I want to take a look at the baseline BLM is using. I've alway contended that the "no action" alternative is what was in place at time of the old RAMP and not what was shoved down by the CBD lawsuit.

Actually alternative 1 appears to be the "no action" since it goes back to how things were before the lawsuits and that's the baseline they're using for the "No action".

Remember, they have to show all possibilities here ranging from "no action" (or go back to how it was before the closures) through to almost all closed (#3). So in general #1 and #3 are listed because they have to and realistically have a MUCH lower chance of actually being accepted than the other alternatives.

It appears that:

#1 is "No action"
#2 is "make the temporary solution permanent"
#3 is "Close as much as possible"

So those 3 are pretty much there because they have to be there and are rather unlikely to actually be accepted. So 4-7 are the ones that are most likely to actually be pushed and eventually selected.

#4 and #5 look similar with full N-S access but with the edges closed (Microphoryl woodlands and PMV Critical Habitat) with #5 being a bit better about following the CH.

#6 kind of reminds me of the AMA (Adaptive Management Area) proposed previously...and #7 looks like the "companion" to #3 (i.e. #3 = make enviros happiest, #7 = make duners happiest)


My prediction....#6 is what the BLM is going to push for with #5 as a backup.


While we need to focus on making sure that we push for #7 with #4 as a backup....unless we get some kind of serious change of heart from the FWS and the delisting efforts do show fruit in which case we would have a chance of fighting for #1. But as long as the PMV remains listed fighting for #1 is pretty much wasted breath. By law BLM has to consult with FWS over any listed species (i.e. PMV) and FWS WILL require closures of some areas due to the listed species. In other words even if we did get the BLM to accept #1 it would never make it past the FWS and is essentially impossible to achieve without getting the PMV off the list.

That's why #1 is the "No action" alternative. We fought pretty hard last time to make sure that "no action" was based on the old RAMP and not based on the temporary closures. That was one battle we did win as the CBD fought tooth and nail to get the courts to side with them and declare that the baseline should be based on the current situation and the temporary closures (effectively making the temporary closures 100% permanant.)

Thankfully the courts did show some common sense in this case and did declare that the BLM has to consider the situation under the previous RAMP and prior to the lawsuit and temporary closures as the baseline for "no action".

Thanks for the input and history lesson here Jason.

It sure makes it easy then to compare the alternative maps presented here.

Thanks for the input and history lesson here Jason.

It sure makes it easy then to compare the alternative maps presented here.

I'm going to have to agree with Jason on all counts. Number 1 would be wonderful. But I doubt it will be practicle. And if we are really going to proclaim ourselves the real stewards/environmentalists of the land, then we can get behind not riding in areas we know the listed PMV exists, even though we also know it is not endangered.

I like #4 best. It gives more room in the south dunes so the closed area won't be right up against the camping area.

Just comments.

#4 would effectively end riding at Gordon's well for buggies. It closes practically all of the bigger dunes and just leaves the small fiddly stuff open. #5 is worse...but #4 would basically be the end of Gordon's for most of the people who go there.

I'm not familar with the topography, but based on the maps above, the difference between #4 and #7 is that number 4 closes off the mycrophile woodlands next tot he RR tracks. (North east side) Am I missing something?

and pretty much closes any camping beyond wash 17, forcing everyone in to an even smaller area and also increasing the chances of accidents and capacity limits.

Look closely, you may have to view the originals in the PDF to see it. But in #4 the closure on the west side covers ALL of the green "PMV CH"

In other words all of the big dunes along the western edge all the way from Patton down to the canal.

It's easy to miss though because it follows the CH so close it kind of blends in.

Had to get my magnifyers out. You are correct!

That's too bad. Will poder those maps some more and pick a differnet one in the AM.

one would think that the 50,000 acres on the other side would make thos enviro peeps happy enough.. i hope blm pics the best mapfor the dunners.. i for see if they close the dunes more westmorlands and brawley dry up.. dunner boycot lol..

when will this plan be able to vote?