OCR Text |
Show sen - Feedback We found that the evaluation sheets on the ProposedStudy Wilderness Areas were signed prior to the public meeting and public comments, com-ments, which we do have copies of, under approval signature, there telling us the Bureau approved it as a Proposed Study Wilderness Area, thus breaking a policy of the Bureau. We were later told November 19, 1978 that the signature was taken off the evaluation sheets. This does not make it right, furthermore, can you erase the thoughts and feelings of the areas? 7. We went on an evaluation Run Sunday, November 19, 1978, at our suggestion and our Invitation to check the areas with the Bureau and some Sierra Club members. We had 3 groups 2 In the McCullough Mountains, and 1 in the Muddy Mountains. We still did not have the time to check all areas or the Delemar Mountains (because (be-cause of distance) and many . people have not gotten their ; photos back. Also, in one particular instance . we found a graded road in the Muddy Mountains ' that went right through the proposed study area. The BLM official suggested that ' we not drive on that road. This told us that he had already made up his mind that this was not a road and did not want us there. There is too much deception and mistrust for us to do a good complete analysis. Wewon-der Wewon-der how many roads are out there that are worthy of checking that we do not know about and were not told about. Again, we would like to ', formally request an additional addi-tional 90 days so the public may have a fair chance to study those areas and turn in constructive comments. Furthermore, we would like this matter checked into as to the deception, lack of information and breaking a policy. Colleen Freeman President Nevada Public Land Users Association ' To Whom it may Concern: This letter is written by the suggestion of Mr. Ashley Hall, representing Senator Paul Laxalt, and the Bureau of Land Management, Mr. Frank Bingham, Acting Director. Furthermore, the Nevada Public Land Users Association feels a strong need for an extension of time on the proposed Wilderness Study Areas. We are requesting an extension ex-tension of 90 days ontheIPP Project and the evaluations that were made by the Bureau because of non -sufficient time for the public to compile their information and because be-cause of lack of information received from the Bureau and possibly a problem with wrong or broken procedures, on the Bureau's part. 1. When the maps were originally mailed out October Octo-ber 11, there were no specifics on areas - which side of the power line we were looking at - size -names of areas - etc. Fur- " thermore; ' we are talking about an area approximately-1 approximately-1 12 to 2 million acres, , which is twice the size of Rhode Island. Virtually nothing to go on. 2. At the public meeting, we were lead to believe there were two men ( for an unbiased un-biased opinion) conducting the survey. Later we found out one of the men mentioned conducting the study, was transferred to Washington, D.C. approximately October 23, 1978. 3. Public Meeting -14 areas were thrown out of the study while 3 remained as possible proposed Wilderness Study Areas, covering an area approximately, 257,000 acres, which we had one month to comment on and turn in our evaluations. (Realizing of course, that we only have week-ends, because be-cause of our own jobs and families). 4. Public Meeting: We feel all the information was not brought forward. The aerial photos and other information and material that the Bureau may have had was not present at the meeting, therefore giving us no real knowledge of where we really stood, or where to start. 5. Public Meeting: It was very difficult to give specifics to the Bureau, which one person DID have, i.e. aerial photos of the 3 areas, and particulars of roads, washes, corrals, mines, buildings etc. That persons did offer copies, but the Bureau did not take them 6. After the public meeting: |