This what we have been wating for, a chance to have our say. This web site should help you in putting your thoughts together. Good luck and happy writing!!!

http://glamisrampinfo.com/


The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the draft Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area management plan (RAMP) and environmental impact statement (EIS). The notice of availability in the Federal Register initiates the 90-day public comment period which will end June 24, 2010.

Daniel Steward, acting BLM's El Centro Field manager, said the RAMP/EIS outlines future management of public lands administered by BLM in the 160,000-acre Dunes located in eastern Imperial County. The public assisted BLM in identifying key land use issues in this area through a formal scoping process conducted in 2008.

The draft RAMP/EIS analyzes the environmental impacts of many land management issues, including recreation, renewable energy, and species listed under the Endangered Species Act, including the threatened Peirson's milk-vetch. A range of alternatives are analyzed in the RAMP/EIS, including closure of areas designated as critical habitat by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to off-highway vehicle use

TTT

ttt

Good stuff Joe.

public comment period will end June 24, 2010


when will the new deal happen ??

I vote for alt #1 !

Hard to say. Once the comment period is over, all the comments are "orginizied" by an independent contractor. Once that is done, they are submited to the BLM for review. After they (the BLM) look em all over, they will have to come up with a FINAL RAMP, that will go to court for aprovial.

(Keep in mind, the 8 alternernatives, are just draft proposals. The final RAMP will have to address everyone's concerns. And since Fish and Wildlife refuse to delist the milkvech, it will have to be protected somehow, and the judge needs to see this in the final RAMP).

Obviously this wont be a five minute matter. Neils best guess was that it will be in place for the 2011 season. This coming season will remain the same.




As a side note:

In my Field and Stream magazine, their was an article last month on how they got a wolf de-listed up north. The total cost for the de-listing was over THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS!!! It was a very focused and well orginized assult on the Fish and Wildlife service. Think we can ever be that orginized, focused and determined? I think we can if we try.

TTT

We are orgainzed. We are focused. We are determined. Give us 30 Million and let's give it a try.
In ten years, ASA hasn't spent 10% of that because ASA hasn't HAD 10% of that.

I know very well how focused the ASA is. But can the members of this web site become that focused as well??

Donate to the ASA. Comment on the draft RAMP. Write to your congressman or woman. This fight aint over just yet!!!

You will have another 45 days to review and submit comments on the ISDRA DRAMP.

Comment period extension

BLM Notice

Got that today. Excelent news. Comment period extended to Aug. 9th!!!

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is extending the public comment period for the Draft Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), for 45 days, giving the public until August 9, 2010 to provide input on the plan.

Teri Raml, BLM Desert District Manager said the BLM had received a number of requests for additional time to comment. "Given the complexity of this plan and the broad public interest in its outcome, we decided an extension of the original 90-day comment period was warranted," she said.

The draft RAMP/EIS outlines future management of public lands administered by BLM in the 160,000-acre Dunes in eastern Imperial County. The public assisted BLM in identifying key land-use issues in this area through a formal scoping process conducted in 2008. The draft RAMP/EIS was issued in last March and public meetings on the draft plan were held in April in San Diego, El Centro, and Phoenix.

The draft analyzes the environmental impacts of many land management issues, including recreation, renewable energy, and species listed under the Endangered Species Act, including the threatened Peirson's milk-vetch. A range of alternatives are analyzed in the RAMP/EIS, including closure to off-highway vehicle use of areas designated as critical habitat for the threatened plant by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The draft is available online at http://www.ca.blm.gov/elcentro. Copies are available upon request from the Field Manager, El Centro Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1661 S. 4th Street, El Centro, CA 92243 or the BLM California State Office at 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W 1834, Sacramento, CA 95825. Comments can be provided via email to caisdrmp@ca.blm.gov or by mail to the El Centro address above, attention: Carrie Simmons. For further information, please contact Erin Dreyfuss, RAMP team leader at (916) 978-4642.

TTT

http://glamisrampinfo.com/Uploads/ASA%205-..._Slide_show.ppt

FEDERAL AGENCY STUDIES OF IMPACT OF OHV ON PMV DO NOT SUPPORT THE RAINFALL CLOSURE



• Data from other referenced studies show that many plants consistently show increased levels in areas open to OHV recreation.• BLM PMV monitoring and the Luckenbach and Bury report states "what data were collected showed that PMV density and cover were actually higher in the OHV area than in the closed area…"

• It seems that neither the BLM nor FWS can explain this phenomenon of why these plants seem to do better in areas open to OHV than in areas closed to OHV recreation.

• Data such as this would question the advisability and need to restrict camping in areas adjacent to the proposed closed areas.

I take exception to the ASA’s propaganda. Shame on them. I call major BULL$hit.

This is counterproductive. It also flies in the face of one of their CORE MAJOR goals:

INFORM. Passing out misleading or false information is not properly informing the ASA membership.

Yes, there is more PMV in the open areas then closed areas. Well…DUHHHHH! When those areas were closed, no one knew where all the PMV WAS!!!!!!!! That’s like saying:

“There are more deer in areas where hunters hunt, therefore, hunting must increase the number of deer out there.”

Now, after extensive research, we do know where the stuff is and it turns out that it’s in areas open to OHV use. There is no correlation between OHV use and MORE PMV. If there is, show me the SPECIFIC study and data that says so. At least the ASA should use the same logic it wants the Eco’s, BLM and FWS to use in this process.

Any boob with half a brain can drive down hwy 78 between Gecko and the GBS and determine which side of the road the OHV use is on because there is NO VEGITATION on one side. And the ASA wants to make the argument that plants ‘thrive’ in OHV use areas?”

Gimme an f-ing break. Maybe the ASA should hire Daniel Patterson.

Good point you make there. So your saying they closed the wrong aeras, and the closures should be reversed? I'd love to see some of the bigger dunes opened up.



Data from other referenced studies show that many plants consistently show increased levels in areas open to OHV recreation. This has been shown in the BLM PMV monitoring and the Luckenbach and Bury report on page H-8. Quoting this report "…what data were collected showed that PMV density and cover were actually higher in the OHV area than in the closed area…"

The ASA did not say that there was a "correlation between OHV use and MORE PMV". What we said was that the recent studies showed that that there was a greater density of PMV in the areas that have been open to OHV recreation than the areas that have been closed to OHV recreation for almost 40 years. This has been verified by recent BLM and FWS studies.

Have there been increases or reductions from previous time periods? Not that can be determined, as you have stated, as there is not data for those earlier time periods.

This phenomenon can't be explained by anyone from the BLM or FWS. I have specifically asked the BLM scientists to explain why the PMV seems to be doing as well in OHV areas as in the wilderness area north of 78 and they say they have no clue. This is not saying OHV use is helping or hurting the proliferation of the PMV only that it seems that the plant seems to do well in both areas and thus there is no justification for closing a camping area just because it is in the same area as where PMV grow.

I think there is ample evidence that very few, less than 1%, PMV are damaged by OHV recreation.

This statement could have been worded better " seem to do better in areas open to OHV than in areas closed to OHV recreation ". Perhaps the word "better" should have been "as well". This would have conveyed the idea that there is no science to show that OHV recreation has degraded the density of the PMV in the ISDRA. My choice of words was not intended to mislead anyone, just a poor choice of words.

There was not an intent to convey misleading information only point out that the premise that OHV use somehow degrades the density of PMV plants was not supported by any science and a comparison of areas open to OHV use did not show less density. The logic here is that if OHV use did impact the PMV you would think that the density on the plant would be greater in the closed areas. While this premise cannot be determined because there is not enough historical data to get a good correlation, the data that is available does show a greater density in open areas. Perhaps the open area started out with more PMV and there was less in the wilderness area 40 years ago. We will never know.

What does all this say? Nothing except more data is needed before any drastic steps such as closing camping areas when an arbitrary rain threshold is met. This is our main point.

Doc,

Thanks for the clarification. I don’t know who wrote or created the ASA power point presentation. I don’t like picking on you specifically, because I know you are busting your behind for the ASA and more importantly for trying to get as closed area reopened as possible. I do appreciate all the work you and the rest of the ASA folks do.

However, I do need to point out that I am for ever correcting people on this very specific issue at the SSSS and also nearly everywhere I go. Perhaps you don’t run in to it, but I do. There is a definite perception by OHV users that OHV’s are somehow helping the PMV. I regularly get comments like:

“Our paddle tires help spread the seeds around”

Which may be true, but there is no evidence to support that doing so does anything for the plant. This is why the comment “doing better” bothered me so

I agree with your comments as re-written above.

TTT

Good day to sit down and write a letter to help keep mother G open!

Why yes, yes it is!