Since it wasn't part of the draft RAMP (although I'm sure the agencies were considering it), it should not hold the RAMP up in any way.

I am absolutely certain the critical habitat will be fought in court, probably even by both sides. CBD will say it doesn't adequately protect the PMV and our side will say the PMV doesn't need to be protected so why designate the habitat.

I spoke to FWS yesterday and they reminded me that critical habitat does not automatically mean restrictions especially in this case because of the RAMP process, the biological opinion, and a number of other factors. It's really up to the BLM right now, as to how they want to manage the critical habitat.

Hey, the FWS and BLM are going to get sued anyway so maybe we can put enough pressure on them to get them working in our favor. If critical habitat doesn't have to equal restriction, then let's make sure it doesn't.

As for the RAMP, it will be interesting to hear what the BLM has to say about where it sits at this point. The biological opinion is still tied up in negotiations and then goes back to the judge before it can even be used to release the RAMP, so I guess it mostly depends on where the biological opinion sits. Still.

If the question is asked about the RAMP and critical habitat is mentioned as another reason for it being held up, please ask them how much of a re-write of the draft RAMP is being considered... if it is substantial, the process should start over so that the public can be actively involved again.

Oy, what a nasty mess this is.

Vicki