In response to Gail's questions:

"Could Ranger Nelson be referring to the value ($30,000) of the fencing materials that the BLM provided for the fence that marks the boundary lines of your property?"

Fencing materials were a fraction of that amount. Nelson complained that the $30,000 was in addition to the fence material costs. My property was already fenced around its perimeter except for short gaps.

"What was the purpose of this fence?"

The purpose of the fence was to utilize existing private property fence to protect the ACEC from the east. It is on record as a cultural resource protection measure. Protection of Cottonwood Springs from the west was to be accomplished with a post and cable fence along Juniper Flats Rd. That barrier was specified in the BAER plan, funds were accepted, but it was never built. Failure to do so resulted in the creation of route J1299.

"Did you have an influence on where the fencing was placed? Was the placing of this fencing around your property for the purpose of keeping the public off your private lands? Was this fence supposed to have been used to direct the cattle? Is the fence in the place that was determined by the BLM for the best use of the fencing? "

BLM specified the fence location and it was surveyed by a BLM crew. Standard guidelines for placement of fences were used. Short gaps in my fence were filled in at that time.

"This fencing was paid for with public tax dollars. Did the taxpayers get the benefit or did you?"

The taxpayer got the use of my existing property fences for a small investment on their part. The fencing had some benefit to me as it discouraged OHV non-compliance on adjoining public land.

"Does it make sense to erect a fence around a property that the BLM have slated to acquire for public land?"

My property is not for sale.

"The story that I got was that the fence was put up with the cooperation of Tanya Eagan."

It was monitored by Tim Read, Field Manager, including a field visit. Tanya Eagan supervised the project as appropriate to the BLM position that she held at the time.

"The story continued with the BLM having a MOU where they were to maintain the fence (maybe false information)."

That is false information.

"The story was that there was volunteer assistance provided in erecting this fence from an equestrian group."

Completion of the fence project was a condition of lifting the closure prior to Memorial Day weekend. The equestrian group spent a portion of one day in a last minute scramble for completion.

"Moss Mill Road was blocked solely by Mike Castro with no financial assistance or fencing materials from the BLM or volunteers (that I know of). The BLM encouraged and allowed Mike Castro to close Moss Mill Road through illegal means. "

Moss Mill Rd. was physically blocked well before the fence project. The fences around Bowen Ranch were paid for with public funds after the Willow Fire. The labor was also provided.

"The fence put up over there by the BLM after the Willow Fire is the fence around Rancho Las Flores property which resulted in closing of Route 2. This is another property that the BLM have slated to acquire for public domain and were able to put up the fence under an MOU."

The fences in the area of the Las Flores property are on public land and do not require an MOU.

"Ranger Nelson was in charge of this area after the Willow Fire so he would have had direct supervision in these fencing projects. I have heard that many of these fences were erected without proper authority and are now having to be removed."

Field Manager Tim Read was in charge of the area after the Willow Fire and approved the fence project that you are questioning. Ranger Nelson likes to think he is in charge of the Barstow Field Office. He needs to be reminded of his job description.