| OCR Text |
Show Existing contractual obligations should be taken into account in allocating public trust resources. All contractual obligations are subject to consistency with public trust obligations. Under the preferred alternative the Wildlife Board will be asked to determine which of the 23- 21- 5 lands will be designated WMAs. In the interim most of the land included in 23- 21- 5 should be managed to protect potential resource preservation options. DFFSL currently has offered protection to these lands to ensure their suitability as wildlife habitat. 7.0MINERALS AND HYDROCARBONS 7.1 Review mineral leasing plan zones The public did not strongly support any of the proposed alternatives, but did support more resource protection and had a strong interest in utilizing the 1996 MLP recommendations since this process had a good public involvement process and balances multiple uses. This issue received quite a bit attention in this comment period. The public requested more detail and information on this topic to better understand the implications and reasoning supporting these alternatives. While oil and gas development certainly can be done in sensitive areas without environmental damage, as a practical matter unacceptable damage is the norm unless the development is carefully supervised by outsiders. There is no one with the time and capability to provide such supervision. Areas allowing OGH leases should not be expanded beyond the areas indicated in the MLP. Accidents and spills pose a threat. Little experience in doing OGH exploration here and no operations are currently in production. We are strongly opposed to any change in the MLP that would open new areas in the lake for oil and gas leasing. This is not consistent with the Wildlife Board's and DWR's authority and management responsibilities ( 23- 21- 5 and 23- 21- 2.1) and would frustrate legislative policy by making it more difficult to establish WMAs in the future. Also, it would be impermissible to open WMAs to oil and gas leasing. Changes to the MLP categories should require an additional public process. This is an example that the overarching management objectives were not addressed. Highly sensitive wildlife habitat should not be opened for OGH leasing. What new information has surfaced since the 1996 MLP and public scoping in developing this alternative? The preferred alternative is not balanced, unreasonable and would not be considered careful planning for a public trust resource. The draft plan should provide background information supporting this change. There was not a significant interest in opening up these areas just three years ago. The 1996 MLP had a thorough review and public comment process. There has been no additional information forthcoming to demonstrate the desirability or need to open up additional areas for OGH leasing. 310 |
