n: 



Wildlife Program Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 



SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT 



The draft EIS was released for public review and comment on April 1, 1998. The initial period for 

 the public to review and comment on the draft EIS spanned fi-om April 1 through July 3 1 . At the 

 request of several individuals and groups, the comment period was extended through August 3 1 , 

 1998. The public had a total of 153 days to review and submit comments on the draft EIS. Overall, 

 FWP received 825 comments on the draft EIS from 319 individuals and 23 organizations (see 

 Appendix A), which included public hearings and meetings and comments submitted in writing. 



During May 5-21, public hearings were held in each city (7) where FWP regional headquarters are 

 located to take comment on the draft Wildlife EIS. The hearings spanned a period from 5 to 7 weeks 

 following release of the document. On May 26, FWP took public comment at a meeting held in 

 Libby, which was scheduled at the request of Lincoln County Commissioners. FWP received 94 .^ 

 comments from 36 members of the public who attended these facilitated gatherings. A second public 

 meeting was held in Libby on July 20, 1998, which was attended by 1 16 members of the public. 



FWP received written comment on the draft EIS from 201 individuals and organizations. Of the 

 written comment, 166 individuals and organizations returned the comment form (see Appendix B) 

 sent out with copies of the draft EIS or executive summary; 35 individuals and organizations 

 summarized their comments in letters to FWP of which several included a sixth alternative that would 

 best reflect their concerns. 



After reviewing public comment on the draft EIS, FWP, with the involvement of the Commission, 

 identified a preferred alternative from among the alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS. The preferred ^ j 

 alternative was sent out as a draft supplement for public review and comment for a 30-day period 

 beginning on October 1, 1998. This document also includes a summary of that comment and a list of 

 those who responded (see Appendix C) . , j..-,.. o, , rx^ ^w-, , »„ „ ,., 



Comment Form Accompanying Draft EIS 



Question 1: Do you believe the Wildlife Program should be guided by any of the alternatives as 

 described? 



Of the 166 returned comment forms, 93 (56%) individuals favored alternative 3 (see Appendix D). 

 Sixty-nine forms were from Flathead County for which a response was seemingly motivated by a 

 local issue — a pending application for a permit to operate a game farm. Thirty-five individuals 

 (21%) stated a preference for alternative 1 (the current program), 17 (10%) favored a 6"" alternative 

 that incorporated parts of the five alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, and 14 (8%) did not indicate 

 a preference among the alternatives. 



53 



