Chapter Scoping and Public 6 Involvement 6 SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................... 6-1 6.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 PUBLIC SCOPING .................................................................................................... 6-2 6.2.1 Public Notice .................................................................................................. 6-2 6.2.2 Scoping Meetings ........................................................................................... 6-2 6.2.3 Internal Comments ......................................................................................... 6-3 6.2.4 External Comments ........................................................................................ 6-3 6.3 EXTERNAL REVIEW OF DRAFT CONSERVATION STRATEGIES .............. 6-3 6.3.1 Public Review of Draft Conservation Strategies .......................................... 6-4 6.3.1.1 Comments and Responses for Terrestrial Species........................ 6-4 6.3.1.2 Comments and Responses for Aquatic Species .......................... 6-10 6.3.2 Third-party Scientific Review of Draft Conservation Strategies ............... 6-11 6.4 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES AND OTHER AGENCIES ...................................................................... 6-11 6.5 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE EIS/HCP ................................................................... 6-13 6.5.1 Draft EIS/HCP Updates ............................................................................... 6-13 6.5.2 Distribution of the Draft EIS/HCP .............................................................. 6-13 6.5.3 Open-house Public Meetings for the Draft EIS/HCP ................................. 6-14 6.5.4 Public Comments on the Draft EIS/HCP .................................................... 6-14 6.5.5 Distribution of the Final EIS/HCP .............................................................. 6-21 6.6 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ................................................. 6-21 6.6.1 DNRC Contributors ..................................................................................... 6-21 6.6.2 USFWS Contributors ................................................................................... 6-22 6.6.3 Parametrix Contributors ............................................................................... 6-22 1 6 SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 2 This chapter describes the scoping and public involvement activities that were conducted for the 3 Montana DNRC Forested State Trust Lands Draft EIS/HCP, including consultation with Native 4 American Tribes, as well as third-party scientific review. It also describes internal agency scoping 5 activities that were conducted and lists preparers of and contributors to the HCP and EIS. 6 6.1 Introduction 7 Public participation is a required part of the NEPA, MEPA, and ESA Section 10 planning 8 processes. Public participation is the process by which public agencies inform the public of 9 proposed agency projects and actively seek and incorporate the public’s views in their decisions. 10 The specific public participation objectives of this EIS/HCP are to 11 Ensure that interested parties receive accurate, timely information that clearly identifies the 12 scope and purpose of the EIS/HCP. 13 Promote an understanding of the technical aspects of the project and the full range of 14 potential effects. 15 Provide opportunities for interested parties to voice concerns or opinions and to ask 16 questions. 17 Provide opportunities for the HCP Planning Team to receive and understand the concerns of 18 interested parties. 19 Provide opportunities for the HCP Planning Team to receive and understand ideas or 20 information that may improve the plan or planning process. 21 Clearly communicate what type of input is requested at each stage and explain how that 22 input will be used. 23 Comply with NEPA, MEPA, and ESA. 24 Develop and maintain agency credibility in the eyes of interested parties. 25 The major public participation activities associated with the action include 26 The public scoping period for the EIS began in spring of 2003 with notices, meetings, and 27 preparation of a scoping report. Internal DNRC and USFWS agency scoping was also 28 initiated during this period. 29 A public comment period was opened and public meetings were held for review of the draft 30 conservation strategies during summer and fall of 2005. 31 A project website was developed and has been updated periodically to provide information 32 about the project. Montana DNRC 6-1 Chapter 6 EIS Scoping and Public Involvement 1 A project update was distributed in January 2009 notifying the public of the proposed timing 2 for release of the Draft EIS/HCP and providing an update on the project. 3 With the public release of the Draft EIS/HCP, there was a 90-day public comment period 4 and public meetings. 5 Public comments on the Draft EIS/HCP were used to develop this Final EIS and will be 6 used to prepare the RODs. The USFWS’ and DNRC’s responses to public comments are 7 included in this Final EIS (Appendix G, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS/HCP). 8 The next section provides detailed descriptions of public participation activities that occurred prior 9 to publication of the Draft EIS/HCP. 10 6.2 Public Scoping 11 6.2.1 Public Notice 12 An NOI to prepare the draft EIS/HCP was published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2003 13 (68 FR 81:22412-22414), and a 60-day scoping period was established from April 28 to 14 June 27, 2003. To satisfy federal and state environmental policy act requirements (NEPA and 15 MEPA, respectively), the USFWS and DNRC conducted a joint scoping process for preparation of 16 the HCP and draft EIS. During this period, a project scoping brochure was sent to agencies, private 17 businesses, non-governmental organizations, and interested members of the public. Invitations to 18 attend public scoping meetings were also advertised in local newspapers. The NOI, scoping 19 brochure, and newspaper articles provided information on the project background, purpose, 20 location, and timing of the public scoping meetings. 21 A project website was developed for the HCP within the DNRC website (http://dnrc.mt.gov/HCP). 22 The website has been available to the public throughout the planning and drafting of the HCP and 23 EIS. The website contains information about the HCP process, the HCP scoping brochure, scoping 24 dates, the project schedule, documents published to date in support of the HCP, and links to other 25 relevant sites. 26 6.2.2 Scoping Meetings 27 Public scoping meetings were held in Helena (April 28, 2003), Bozeman (April 29, 2003), Kalispell 28 (May 12, 2003), and Missoula (May 13, 2003). The meetings were attended by representatives 29 from state and federal agencies, organizations, members of the public, and DNRC staff. 30 The meetings introduced the project to the public. Public comments were solicited at the meetings, 31 and comments were also received in writing throughout the scoping period. Because the HCP was 32 not yet developed at the time of scoping, the meetings were primarily focused on answering the 33 public’s questions on the overall HCP planning effort. Topics raised in the comments and questions 34 during the initial public scoping period included the length of the Permit term, the species that were 35 to be included in the HCP, the management activities to be covered in the HCP, and the HCP’s 36 geographic coverage. Several commenters recommended a shorter Permit term than the 50-year Chapter 6 6-2 Montana DNRC Scoping and Public Involvement EIS 1 period selected by DNRC. The EPA supported a multi-species approach, and one individual 2 requested that a plant species, water howellia, be included in the HCP. 3 6.2.3 Internal Comments 4 Many of DNRC’s staff had questions similar to those posed by the public. Specifically, there were 5 many questions about how the HCP process works, how monitoring would be conducted, why a 6 50-year Permit term was chosen, and which activities would be covered. DNRC staff also 7 wondered if the ARMs would have to be revised; whether fire suppression, helicopters, or 8 herbicides would be covered activities; and whether additional surveys would be needed. Some 9 internal DNRC staff wanted to know why species that were not federally listed would be included in 10 the HCP, and whether these species could be added later when listed, rather than in the initial HCP. 11 Most importantly, several staff asked how they would be informed as the project proceeded and 12 encouraged ongoing solicitation of input from the staff. A complete summary of the internal 13 scoping comments is included in the scoping report (DNRC 2003a), which is posted on the project 14 website (http://dnrc.mt.gov/HCP/). 15 6.2.4 External Comments 16 Regarding land management activities, questions brought forth during scoping included the 17 following: 18 How may the HCP affect road closures and recreational access? 19 Will new road management plans developed under the HCP reduce environmental effects? 20 How will noxious weeds and other unwanted vegetation be treated in the HCP? 21 Will fire suppression and fuel loads and fire risk be included in the HCP? 22 What conservation activities will be components of the HCP? 23 How will miscellaneous forest product sales, special use permitting and