OCR Text |
Show Request to provide an opportunity to voice comments ( orally) and to provide more background information on why the team chose a particular alternative. What information was utilized ( scoping comments, alternatives comments or other information)? Why was the public meeting presentation on the alternatives so short? Why did you not provide any additional information? While preparing for public meetings it was obvious that, due to the complexity of the GSL Planning Project, it would be impossible within time constraints to present background and reasoning for each of the alternatives presented and provide for a dialogue with those attending. As presented, the alternatives encompassed 16 major categories and 34 individual resource management concerns. Each of those concerns required a statement of its current status and three possible management alternatives. A conservative estimation of the time required to conduct a presentation as suggested is three hours, which does not include any opportunity for those attending to ask questions or make comments to the planning team. As presented, the alternatives required approximately 40 minutes, providing an overview of the alternatives, which then left at least two hours at each meeting for interested individuals to discuss them in detail with planning team members. Planning team members were prepared to provide necessary background information and the reasoning behind the choice of a particular alternative. This structure also afforded those attending the opportunity to skip any area in which they had little or no interest, while guaranteeing that those who wished a detailed discussion on all the alternatives could do so. Alternative B seems to be in direct conflict with most of the other B " amenity'' choices and appears to be more like a development alternative. This alternative could be characterized differently by different people. In this case additional access is perceived to enhance recreational use of sovereign land. The GSLTTincluded representatives of the five counties surrounding the lake, state and federal agencies and interested parties. How will this group be utilized in the future? Why was a planning team selected consisting of employees ofDNR utilized and not the GSLTT? The GSLTT should assist in the development of this management plan for the lake or the process is inadequate. The GSLTT wants to meet in a larger group and utilizing the GSLTT would assist and improve conflict resolution. The planning team recognizes the role the GSLTT played in the past and acknowledges the statutory provision encouraging continued use of the GSLTT. See the " Planning Process and Implementation" section of this plan. A proposal to open vast new wildlife sensitive areas including WMAs should first be based on the future framework for resource planning on the lake. The draft GSL management alternatives do not acknowledge the errors of the SCOT that we identified. By not addressing these errors the state now proposes solutions to problems for which they do not have documentation to support. 331 |