Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000267 <br /> <br /> <br />United States Department of the Interior <br /> <br />BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION <br />WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 <br /> <br />IN REPLY R.EF!.R TO: <br /> <br />DE C '. 1970 <br /> <br />D72 <br /> <br />Memorandum <br /> <br />To: <br /> <br />Acting Director, Mid-West Region, National Park Service <br /> <br />j <br /> <br />From: Assistant Director for State Grants and Resource Studies, <br />Bureau of Outdoor Recreation <br /> <br />Subject: Wilderness Proposal - Black Canyon of the Gunnison National <br />Monument, Colorado <br /> <br />Thank you for your letter of October 7 in which you invited us to <br />express our views on your management proposals, including a wilderness <br />area, for the subject national monument. Your proposals for this <br />area are to be reviewed in Montrose and Gunnison, Colorado, on <br />December 3 and 5, respectively. <br /> <br />We appreciate the invitation but at this time we do not intend to <br />present a statement, and this memorandum is not intended for inclusion <br />in the records of your hearings. <br /> <br />Again, however, we wish to take this opportunity to question the <br />propriety of enclaves in wilderness areas. In this instance, we refer <br />specifically to the one you propose at Serpent Point. Yet, the <br />two primitive camps proposed along the Gunnison also are suspect. <br />So are the trails leading to these camps. In our opinion, unless <br />the Congress changes its definition of a wilderness area, the <br />facilities you propose at these three points would be very proper <br />in semi-wilderness roadless areas--but not in elements of the National <br />Wilderness Preservation System. This does not mean that we question <br />the propriety of the facilities you propose at these points! On <br />the contrary, we applaud your efforts to get more people into the <br />less developed areas of your parks. <br /> <br />Otf-{-<-'-~/L-LJQ <br /> <br />A. Heaton Underhill <br /> <br />26 <br />