When we saw that neither Conaf nor national assets were serving in this case with its responsibility to safeguard the integrity of this protected wilderness area, we focus (March 1, 2006 letter to the regional director of Conama, Jose Pablo Saez, so he demanded, as it establishes the Bases of the environment law in letter d) article 11 the presentation of an EIA to be chores in a location next to protected areas susceptible to be affected, and in this case even within a National Park recalled Hartmann. The response came on March 17, pointing out that it was only up them ask for more information from the aforementioned company and to the corresponding organs of the State, which was supplemented with a response of 15 June after raising its approach to address Executive-that these activities did not require environmental impact assessment to be only observation and not an implementation of project or activitywhich contrasts with the images of the performed tasks and leads to the unreason that under this one criterion could destroy cerro Santa Lucia Santiago and not having to present study to simply label as studies or prospecting operations. Newly on August 4, 2006, after four months of waiting, the new seremi de Bienes Nacionales (former director of Conaf Jorge Burgos) responded explaining that you instructed the company to avoid engaging land declared protected wilderness area.Peter Hartmann expressed there are several irregularities which required that the Comptroller agency appraised and eventually sanction in the facts.One of them is that not were required originally to Endesa, today at HidroAysen – forestry management plan nor nor proposed vegetation restoration technique, which Yes was required to such enterprises for other sectors seized. Only made two audits of Conaf sector one of them by who is now regional director of the Agency, Juan Eduardo Barrientos – and helicopter.Another point is that HidroAysen never assessed the impact of the installation of the dam’s reservoir Baker 2 to inside the Park, where besides his legal and even international protection There is record of populations of Huemul, species in danger of extinction. And this, to not be considered in the EIA, nor could be observed by citizens in the process of citizen participation. All this suggests that both Conaf and the seremi of national property, for reasons we don’t know, acted negligently or smooth and plainly against their responsibilities and legal duties, without making inquiries or studies which he corresponded and ignoring the history that they had on the situation of the affected land, and allowing illegal and unauthorized use of this area pointed out. Similar situation would have happened with Conama that you escudo in subterfuge to not require the evaluation of environmental impacts that corresponded neither complied with its responsibilities in overseeing the complaint.