Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock Creek Project March 2018 Volume III Appendix S: Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIS Cliff Lake from Saint Paul Peak Photo by Michael Burnside United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Northern Region Kootenai National Forest The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice or text telephone (TTY)). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-5964 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 2001 FEIS and SEIS Appendices 2001 FEIS Appendix SEIS Appendix Volumes III and IV of the 2001 FEIS Volume III, Appendix S: Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIS APPENDIX S — RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIS Appendix S Responses to Comments on the Supplemental EIS 1.1 Introduction This appendix contains the comments received on the Draft Supplemental EIS document (SEIS) for the Rock Creek Project and the KNF’s responses to those comments. A Draft ROD and Final SEIS were issued in June 2017, and the KNF completed an administrative review of the Draft ROD in accordance with the requirements of 36 CFR 218. After the Draft ROD was issued, a predecisional objection process was conducted. The Objection Reviewing Officer issued a response letter on October 31, 2017, directing the Kootenai National Forest Supervisor to issue a final ROD that will approve only Phase I project activities and to carry out a number of other instructions. Although this appendix has been updated to incorporate clarifications resulting from implementation of the Objection Reviewing Officer’s instructions, where appropriate, responses to comments on the Draft SEIS, which included an analysis of the effect of Phase I and Phase II of the project, were not systematically revised subsequent to the predecisional objection process. 1.1.1 Draft SEIS Comments Issuance of the Draft SEIS was announced in the Federal Register (81 FR 8490) and made available to the public for a 45-day comment period starting on February 19, 2016. Requests made to extend the 45-day comment period were granted, extending the comment period an additional 15 days until April 19, 2016 (81 FR 18852). Two open house meetings, where members of the public had the opportunity to submit written comments and view posters detailing the project, were held in Noxon and Libby, Montana on March 15 and March 16, 2016, respectively. The KNF received 304 letters, emails, and comment sheets and 8,328 form letters during the public comment period. Comments were provided in two formats: 1) letters received either by e-mail or standard mail; and 2) comment sheets provided at the open houses. Excluding form letters, comments came from private individuals (230), federal or state agencies (40), tribal governments (1), local government (6), businesses (8), and other organizations (19). 1.1.2 Comment Coding Each letter, email, or comment sheet was given a unique document identification number. All submitted documents were systematically reviewed for content. Because the identification of form letters was made during the course of comment review, document identification numbers are not sequential; some document numbers are not used where documents were initially assigned document identification numbers but later identified as a form letter. Substantive comments were coded hierarchically according to subject Draft SEIS issues. Substantive comments: • Questioned the accuracy of the information in the document; • Questioned the adequacy of the environmental analysis; • Proposed other alternatives; • Suggested the need for changes in the Draft EIS or revisions to one of the alternatives considered in detail; or • Provided new or additional information relevant to the analysis. Issue codes were developed to correspond with Draft SEIS chapters. Comment codes 1000 to 1999 were assigned to issues in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need; comment codes 2000 to 2999 were assigned to issues in Chapter 2, Alternatives; comment codes 3000 to 4999 were assigned to issues in Chapter 3, Affected Environment; and comment codes 6000 to 8999 were assigned to Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Comments outside the scope of the SDEIS were coded in category 9100. Miscellaneous or general comments were coded in category 9000. 1.1.3 Comment Response Comment letters received from Native American tribes and federal, state, and local agencies on the Draft SEIS were reproduced and are included in this appendix (Table S-1). The KNF’s responses are presented alongside each comment (see Section 1.2). The applicant’s comments on the Draft SEIS (Table S-2) were also reproduced and responded to in the same manner (see Section 1.3). Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock Creek Project S-1 Appendix S Responses to Comments on the Supplemental EIS Substantive comments received by individuals and organizations on the Draft SEIS were organized for response according to issue codes. To reduce repetition, similar comments were grouped together and responded to collectively. Responses to comments from individuals and organizations begin on page S-4. An alphabetical list of individuals and organizations that provided substantive comments along with associated issue codes can be found in Table S-2 (see Section 1.4). Responses to substantive comments are organized by issue codes and can be found in Section 1.4. Where appropriate, the text of the Final SEIS was revised and the section where the change was made is noted in the response to comments. The KNF is not required to respond to every comment made by every person. According to NEPA regulations, “all substantive comments received on the draft statement (or summaries thereof where the response has been exceptionally voluminous), should be attached to the final statement whether or not the comment is thought to merit individual discussion by the agency in the text of the statement” (40 CFR 1503.5(b)). If the comment resulted in changes to the SEIS text, then it is usually so stated in the response, but not all responses required that the text in the SEIS be modified. All of the original comments on the Draft SEIS that the KNF received are available for public inspection at the addresses listed in the abstract at the front of the Final SEIS. The KNF appreciates the public’s interest in the proposed project and their participation in the SEIS. 1.2 Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies and Native American Tribes Comment letters received from Native American tribes and federal, state, and local agencies (Table S-1) on the Draft SEIS were reproduced and are included in this section. The KNF’s responses are presented alongside each comment. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock Creek Project S-2 Appendix S Responses to Comments on the Supplemental EIS Table S-1. Alphabetical list of agency commenters. DocID Commenter 228 City of Thompson Falls 148 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 335 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 293 Libby City Councilor Brian Zimmerman 262 Lincoln County Commission 224 Montana Chamber of Commerce 265 Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 37 Montana State Representative Alan Redfield 297 Montana State Representative Alan Redfield 300 Montana State Representative Dan Salomon 210 Montana State Representative Daniel Zolnikov 258 Montana State Representative Debra Lamm 302 Montana State Representative Frank Garner 243 Montana State Representative Greg Hertz 220 Montana State Representative Jerry Bennett 271 Montana State Representative Keith Regier 301 Montana State Representative Kelly Flynn 290 Montana State Representative Kerry White 298 Montana State Representative Mike Cuffe 263 Montana State Representative Mike Miller 218 Montana State Representative Nancy Ballance 207 Montana State Representative Ray Shaw 230 Montana State Representative Rob Cook 236 Montana State Representative Ron Ehli 259 Montana State Representative Steve Lavin 30 Montana State Senator Bob Keenan 247 Montana State Senator Brian Hoven 277 Montana State Senator Cary Smith 248 Montana State Senator David Howard 223 Montana State Senator Dee Brown 253 Montana State Senator Doug Kary 161 Montana State Senator Duane Ankney 227 Montana State Senator Edward Buttrey 284 Montana State Senator Fred Thomas 267 Montana State Senator Frederick Moore 283 Montana State Senator Janna Taylor 245 Montana State Senator Jedediah Hinkle 222 Montana State Senator John Brenden 241 Montana State Senator Kristin Hansen 221 Montana State Senator Mark Blasdel 273 Montana State Senator Matthew Rosendale 282 Montana State Senator Nels Swandal 229 Montana State Senator Pat Connell 81 Sanders County Board of County Commissioners 274 Sanders County Community Development Corporation 219 Superintendent, Libby School District #4 239 Troy Public Schools, District #1 158 U.S. Environmental