OCR Text |
Show Public Comments and Responses on Alternatives Introduction The Great Salt Lake Planning Team developed an array of alternatives for public meetings in the five counties around the lake. These presentations were conducted from January 20, 1999 to February 16, 1999. The comment period began on January 20, 1999 and comments were accepted until March 5, 1999. The public was asked to comment on the array of alternatives, new alternatives or combinations of these options to create viable solutions to management issues identified during public scoping and throughout the process. The alternatives followed several themes. Alternative A is the preferred recommendation of the planning team. Alternative B is an environmentally- weighted alternative. Alternative C is geared toward development or commercial use. These alternatives were developed to provide a range of options for the public to consider. DNR received 40 comment letters. Each letter was numbered internally for tracking purposes. Some letters did not require a response and five were compilations of concerns identified through stakeholder meetings, public meetings and the GSLTT meeting held on March 22, 1999. There was only one multiple signature letter. Planning team members and other experts were assigned comments for response. The planning team summarized these comments in 16 subject areas and formulated responses for each concern. Topics that were outside the proposed array of management alternatives were labeled " other" within the subject area. A public comment summary for each resource proceeds the comments and provides an overview of the questions, concerns and recommendations received by the planning team. The planning team avoided counting responses and instead offers a general overview of the comments received. Coordination with state employees, outside agencies and interested stakeholders was required in some instances to respond to these concerns. Public comments appear in italics. The planning team considered the public comments in formulating recommendations to the GSL Board of Directors and DNR Administration. The directors and administration then determined if changes to the draft array of alternatives were necessary. 1.0HYDROLOGY 1.1 For planning purposes, define GSL flood plain The majority of those who commented support the preferred alternative suggesting designating the flood plain at 4217 feet. Most agree this represents the most recently established level and reflects the flood events of the 1980s. Industry supports using 4212 feet and managing lake level to protect assets above 4212 feet. Other stakeholders support a scientifically determined flood plain. 273 |