Public Comments

Public comments are an essential part of the Environmental Impact Statement study and planning process. All of the comments received have been carefully reviewed and considered by the project team. This section contains a compilation of the comments received at various public meetings, through email, the website, letters, and phone calls. The names of the authors have been removed in this compilation. The original comment forms and letters are kept by the Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD).

For information or comments, please contact any of the project team members listed on the Contact Information page.

Public Comments Received

Comments at and around the time of the May 2004 Open Houses:

1. I have driven this area for over 30 years. Dust and sedimentation is minor now as to what it was 30 years ago. The county has too many miles of poorly maintained paved road to add this to them now. A speedway through Copper King and Snider is not needed. Leave it the way it is now - both sides of the river need access, property rights need to be respected. A gravel road is easier and cheaper to maintain.
2. I think the most important issue is to eliminate the dual roads. Help water quality by eliminating dust and run off in the water. Help cut down maintenance for the county if road is paved. If road is not paved, don't do the project.
3. Thompson Falls needs additional paved roads open all year for travel and emergency ingress and egress. It will help economic growth of the community. Need to preserve the wildlife and environmental quality. Recreation access is important - camping, fishing, hunting. Access to county seat located in Thompson Falls is important too.
4. Because I live in the area and am very concerned with the wildlife, public safety. Where will the by pass for Thompson Falls be? With a large increase of traffic it will be needed.
5. I have cabin 48. I do not want any road paved. Only camp in campgrounds. I think 4 wheelers should be totally outlawed except on main road. Make littering automatic jail time. Should have sheriff patrol more to keep 4 wheelers off private property.
6. The current road system is not user friendly and not cost effective. The road could function as a source for greater recreation opportunities than currently and would allow easier access if one road is established and maintained. I believe strongly that the road should be paved to reduce dust pollution, increase safety and reduce maintenance expenses. This road if well constructed and paved could be a faster, shorter alternative route of travel to Thompson Falls, Spokane and for those people to Kalispell and Glacier.
7. Please leave it as it is. I don't want this road fixed or paved. I don't want the traffic coming through Thompson Falls. I prefer a quite town. This will create too much traffic. We don't need it.
8. Paving the road will only move the back country further away. The present road works just fine. I am concerned that increased travel from a paved hwy will increase vandalism to cabins. We have one at 22 mile. Paving will increase speed. Speed will increase accidents with people and wildlife. Many people already drive too fast on the gravel road. Do you think they will obey speed signs on a paved road? No! I would like to see statistics of accidents on the 42 miles of Thompson River road compared to, say, Bull River road (paved) over the last 10 years. Eliminating some of the dual road is fine. Paving is not necessary or desirable. Right now the back country is 10 feet off the road.
9. This project has the potential for additional economic drain on the already challenged economics of Libby & Troy. Libby is potentially the most affected as currently there is some business that comes to Libby from Thompson Falls with the improved road. There is also the potential that tourists who now travel hwy 2 would route around Libby and Troy taking the Thompson River as an alternate route thus diverting potential business from an already depressed economy. Why not use these funds to fix the already existing roads (hwy 2 at swamp creek) that are in desperate need of repair.
10. I hunt and fish in the Thompson River area. I have had to run off the road on the public road side because of speeding log trucks and their service vehicles. I would only support changing and paving this road if it is left 35-45 mph maximum. A high speed road would ruin this wonderful natural area for y use. Why speed through such a beautiful area. Also higher speed vehicles would kill more wildlife and people. But speed limits would have to be enforced as they are not now.
11. I am concerned about PCTC (Plum Creek) getting more land into development in to Thompson drainage.
12. We have been broken into at least once if not twice a year for many, many year - everyone has this problem- spring and fall are the worst times- wild life needs no more impact then what is there. Low water impact. One road may be nice but can you access everything? We pay taxes for that area- I wish we had a way to help prevent the cabin break-ins there very destructive and in 40 or more years no one has ever been caught- that all 60+ cabins, not a good record.
13. We live on Middle Thompson lake and are very familiar with the area and existing roads. We travel them regularly. We seriously question the reasons stated for doing this project.
    
    • Reduced maintenance and improved safety. There are no serious safety issues with the current two roads. Can you document accidents or deaths caused by these roads? If you make that statement you should be able to prove it.
    • Improved public access. Currently most of the USFS roads in this area are gated. Also Plumb Creek Timber company continues to gate more and more of their roads. What value is there in building a fancy road to drive to gated roads?
    • Sediment into Thompson River. Had there been studies to show exactly how much sediment is getting into the river and is the loading sufficient to make an impact? Throughout northwest Montana there are raods very similar and the streams are still good fisheries and there is no serious degradation of water quality.
    • Allowing loaded trucks to haul during spring thaw. This is the standard mode in the logging business. Logging trucks cannot travel off the main roads to be loaded so what good is a road that will allow loaded trucks? Load limits on all haul roads in this area are common during spring breakup. This is grasping at straws to justify construction.
    • What is wrong with the two road system now? Currently, traveling on one or the other road allows access to both sides of Thompson River along much of this area. This allows better access that reducing to just one road. Why does our Federal Government need to get involved in an issue that has worked sufficiently for 50 years. This had worked well with the counties and private owner handling the roads there.
14. This is a disgusting example of our government searching for ways to spend our tax dollars. It is shameful that the money and effort should be wasted on this issue when there are so many needs that are not being answered. A NO BUILD alternative is the only option that should be decided upon. This is our preferred alternative.
15. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Thompson River Road Proposal. I have had a lifelong relationship with the area and the river. I have read many of the comments, but I would recommend that the department combine the original A.C.M. and county roads to provide a singular paved road extending from south to north. I would recommend the standard plan of replacing culverts, bridges, rehabbing parts of the abandoned double road system, and planting trees/shrubs. I would also encourage a strong position on noxious weed control, as knapweed, hounds tongue and other species are nearly out of control. As to the increased traffic, i.e. truck, I have personally witnessed hundreds of logging trucks, per day, and some with three trailers make their way to the saw mills in Thompson Falls or Libby. The dust has been so thick as to cover the trees and make driving unsafe. Dust control measures such as calcium and others have been tried but of no avail. Potholes and loose gravel have been the standard, but the standard needs to be changed. Thompson River Road will never be a truck route as it is to slow and north to south traffic is via bull river or by hwy 93. Prevelant truck traffic is east - west, not north- south. To my knowledge there never has been a grizzly bear seen or killed by a vehicle on the Thompson River Road, even though there are grizzlies to the west in the cabinet mountains. The wolves are doing all to well in the area so there is no problem with them, residents there can verify that! The fish need a break -- not dust. In summary I would support the concept of paving the TRR as long as it is environmentally and scientifically based on sound principals.
16. I think eliminating the unnecessary portions of the parallel road system and paving the road is a great idea. I've worked in the Thompson River most of my career as a forester, and the double road system as always struck me as wasteful, as well as being a significant problem for the fishery. All of the sediment, as well as the thousands of gallons of magnesium chloride that are put onto the road each season, can not be good for the river itself. Maintaining access to all the tributary roads and camping spots would be high on my priority list. Plenty of safe pullouts for boating and fishing access also need to be considered. Many people fear that these improvements would make the road more dangerous, I disagree. I feel that the road is very dangerous as it currently is, but due to the relatively low amount of traffic it receives, there are not many accidents. However, traffic on the road seems to be increasing all the time, and accidents and fatalities will surely follow as the number of vehicles traveling the road increases. This plan will be good for the local economy, it should bring more people through Thompson Falls as they travel a shorter, quicker route between Spokane/Couer D' Alene and Kalispell/Glacier Park. It will also make a better, and faster haul route for logging and other commercial hauling between highway 200 and highway 2. A public road running north and south would also secure legal access for landowners and commercial users in the Thompson River besides Plum Creek Timber. Many parcels are currently unaccessed due to Plum Creek's control of the ACM road. There is currently no legal access for commercial traffic south of the 17 mile marker. Currently Plum Creek is willing to work with people and sometimes grants temporary road use permits for commercial use. However, Plum Creek may not always maintain this position, or may someday not own this land. Permanent legal access for the public as well as the other landowners in the Thompson River is an important issue to me. Many people do not realize that the "county" road is controlled by the Forest Service throughout much of the lower portions of the river corridor. I think you should emphasize this point when meeting with the interested parties and the general public. I look forward to seeing more details of the proposed project and I hope you will consider my comments in your decision making process.

Comments received at the October 2003 Open Houses:

1. I find no reason why we should have two roads - combine the ACM & County Road - make wide enough for two way traffic. A paved road will bring on more traffic accidents, move vandalism, too many camping spots - more garbage, there's so much now. Thompson river is our hunting area - paved road, how will the bears cross? More deer & elk will be killed. Worried about the bull trout - oil the road. Paved road will make loggers (truck drivers) lose money. Pay scale figured on how much gravel road compared to paved road. (Gravel road pays more). Hunting/fishing news brags up the Thompson for the good hunting - I think the paved road will cut down the good hunting. Speed on the paved road will be a bad problem. ACM is 35 mph and everyone goes at least 50-55 mph. What will happen to all the spur roads going off the main road? Who is going to pay for having the police drive that road watching for accidents? All this will do is increase our taxes. I do not want this proposal.
2. American Wildlands questions the need of the road improvements. Our group works on habitat connectivity for predators and ungulates and it seems to us that these improvements will increasingly fragment good predator (bear-wolf-lynx) and prey habitat. Grizzly bear mortality is increasing in this region and AWL fears that these road improvements will add to further habitat degradation. We also question the need for this road, other than corporate welfare for Plum Creek Timber. There are very few residences on the unimproved section of road and there are no schools, or school bus traffic on the major unimproved section of road. Listening to local folks it appears that much of Plum Creeks timberlands in this region is already logged, so the concern is that the improved road will lead to more high-end vacation/residential development, further fragmenting predator habitat. Please keep us informed of progress on this project.
3. My family has had a cabin lease on state land 22 miles up Thompson River for 35 years. As someone who has used the roads for so long, I do not see any of the needs listed in the proposed purpose other than eliminating some sections of the dual road system. However, I do not want to eliminate access to roads up adjacent tributaries such as the West Fork, Fishtrap, Big Prairie, etc. Therefore bridges would need to be built to access these side roads. I think an improved paved road would greatly increase traffic causing greater environmental damage than the gravel road causes. It would also be a security problem for the state lease cabin sites as they are often unoccupied. A paved road would definitely not be safer for motorists or animals. A paved road would not improve access to the back country - it would move the back country further away!
4. I am against the paving of the Thompson River Road (Forest Hwy 56). 1. It will fragment wildlife travel corridors. 2. Increase vehicle vs. wildlife collisions. 3. The rustic nature of the area will be lost 4. Increase fishing pressure & better access will impact bull trout more than the current sedimentation. 5. It will increase pressure for more development. 6. Your need statement is wrong - There is no mail delivery for most of the road, There is no school bus use, except for a small portion, and Commercial trucks can't operate in the spring anyway due to soil & moisture conditions in the woods. 7. Increased speed will only make it more hazardous. 8. It is currently safe, efficient, and offers all access necessary if you follow the speed limits and use common sense. Put the money to rebuilding Highway 28, finishing the last segments of Highway 200, rebuilding Highway 200 from the Montana border to Clarkfork, ID. Combine the 2 roads up the river to one improved gravel road to reduce costs to county. There is no purpose or need to pave the Thompson River Rd!
5. The road has served the needs of the community for over 50 years. Lets keep the road maintained and improve little areas that may be problems with road deteriate into the river. Being a resident on the river I find it hard to believe that 50,000 recreationalists use that road each year -- more realistically, 8000-10,000 vehicles. Most of the commercial traffic is from 17 mile north. The plains cut off is the more popular route south. Plum Creek specifies this as their designated whole route so why do we need to disturb the lower part of the river road? Pavement fits into this picture, as well as grizzly bears in L.A.!
6. The Thompson River road area is one of Montana's beautiful recreation areas which offers tourists a look at the real Montana - beautiful clean trout river, much wild life, moose, big horn sheep, wolf, bear, deer, and on and on. It seems a shame to take away this beautiful area for another highway to possible cut off a half hour or so to Glacier. In reality with all there is to see, it will not be a short cut. A bypass around the two small communities seems a must! Homes are near the road and increased traffic and speed would make for very dangerous living. The beauty of nature will greatly be affected by traffic increase. Are we truly interested in saving our environment!
7. The stated "Purpose & Need" for this project is seriously flawed. It states: "Provide permanent public access…that is safe efficient, and convenient. Improve mobility for area residents, traveling public, emergency vehicle, mail delivery, and school bus service. Reduce maintenance, and improve river conditions by eliminating road surface sediment load and decommissioning unnecessary segments of the dual road system." Having driven the entire road on Tuesday, October 28th, we find that the road is already safe, efficient & convenient, even after 24 hours of rain. Further, virtually all of the year round residents along the road live in the northern or southern 4 miles of the road which is in the best shape, solving the mail & school bus issues as well as mobility of area residents concerns. Having worked in emergency services for 20+ years, we find the road presents virtually no significant problems. We suspect that the actual purpose and need arise from (a) Plum Creek no longer wanting to maintain its road, largely for public use, (b) PC's desire to get more trees out faster & more easily, (c) the county's inability to maintain the road, and desire to turn the problem own to the state of Montana. None is a reason to pave, with tax dollars. USDOT should be honest and up front and simply admit as much.
   
   
   1. The lower one third of the route transects the cabinet-Yaak Griggly Recovery Area. The CYE holds one of the most imperiled grizzly populations in the lower 48, with allowable mortality levels being routinely breached in recent years. One of the greatest perils to grizzly populations are road systems, and nearly all human caused mortalities occur within a kilometer of an open road. In "Restoration of Carnivore Habitat Connectivity in the Northern Rocky Mountains" USFS carnivore road impacts expert Bill Ruediger, etol (2000) states: "Critical points in development of highways occur when: (1) Gravel forest or back country roads are paved (this is the beginning of 'highway' impacts compared to forest road, backcountry or county roads.) This results in higher speeds, higher traffic volumes and increased human developments…The eventual result of such a progression in the highway system on rare carnivores is the slow strangulation of viability due to population isolation, loss of habitat, mortality of individuals and a decline in potential population size." In addition, the proposed paving would occur immediately adjacent to wildlife linkage zones currently being studied by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committees (IGBC) Linkage Zone Task Forces along Highway 200. The potential impacts to grizzlies, wolves, lynx and other wildlife could be serious. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) specifically requires all federal agencies to avoid conducting, authorizing, or funding any project likely to jeopardize listed species. The TRR project violates all of those prohibitions if it involves paving.
   2. Problems relating to sediment can be substantially addressed without paving. First, is USDOT even sure there is a significant problem with sediment loading, and that the roads are the primary source? Have consistent, accurate TMDL measurements been taken over the last decade, and if so, is there a scientifically accurate estimate of the roads contribution? In driving the entire roadway we noticed that in the northern 25 miles, the road only paralleled the stream perhaps 25-30% of the time. The real problem - if one exists - is in the southern 16-17 miles where the stream is sandwiched between the Plum Creek and County roads. It seems to us that 50% of any sediment problem can be solved by USDOT picking the one best route, and closing & revegetating the other - with no paving required. We further suspect that sound engineering of the single remaining route by USDOT, coupled with comprehensive restoration of riparian vegetation, can intercept even more sediment, while improving O2 levels and lowering water temperature. All of the above would significantly improve the situation for another listed species - bull trout. Paving, on the other hand, will bring substantially increased fishing pressure and elevated bull trout mortality from poaching & mistaken id seen elsewhere.
   3. Federal & State agencies, plus private conservation groups just spent $32 million on an easement to keep this area in a wildlife producing, rustic, backcountry state. The single act of paving this route would effectively undermine all of that work and dollars. The TRR currently has a problem with poaching of big game. Paving will only make it worse & can be expected to also increase speeds, accident trash, gate vandalism & illegal ATV use.
   4. The current road is fine for those interested in recreation, as shown by the 50+ hunter vehicles passed as we traveled the route on 10/28. In fact, the entire route was easily passable by passenger cars & 2 wheel drive trucks. Sportsmen, hikers & campers don't need a super highway. In fact, it diminishes their experience.
   5. If the TRR were to be paved, it could seriously impact the number of vehicles/people, traveling through Libby, Troy & Plains, communities already suffering serious economic problems. Have these economic realities been factored in? How about the increased costs of plowing, mail service, increased emergency service calls and personnel, elevated forest fire risk, and development impacts on private lands? It seems to us that the desire of Plum Creek and the County to unburden themselves at taxpayer expenses are driving this project, not the best interests of citizens, wildlife or water quality. We ask that USDOT revisit their thinking on this proposal, incorporate our concerns & their responsibilities under the law, and develop a single, upgraded, environmentally sensitive gravel route.
8. Quit wasting our money. Government hasn't kept promises during dam construction and road construction. Leave western Montana alone and don't try to make it like the other parts of the country. All I have seen is the degradation of our landscape. Never kept any of the commitments they have made. All I see is an agenda for paving a quiet little valley that we can't afford to maintain. Major landholders are the only benefactors. They will get a year round haul road for their property and a means of developing their lands. We need our remoteness. We need to address the dual road. Eliminating portions of the roads and having access for fishing, camping, etc. This can all be done with gravel, calcium chloride, and don't need pavement. There may need to be an upgrade phase and restoration phase. We do not need to accelerate this process. Need to move very cautiously and carefully. Need to look at real cost/benefit analysis. Include wildlife and hunting costs, which depend on better habitats and wildlife protection.
9. [A resident] provided these comments in conversation as we were leaving the meeting: He runs cattle down Highway 2 and needs east / west access. He is very concerned about speed if the road is paved. He thinks it would be more dangerous for the drivers because of the cattle on the road. He likes it the way it is, but is not against progress. He would be supportive of combining the roads. The deeded portion is between the two roads. He has concerns about access if one of the roads is removed.

Comments from the Comment Wall at the October 2003 Open Houses:

• Need turnouts for viewing wildlife
• Dust and rock chips have been a safety issue
• Garbage along the road is a big problem
• A proves road is another excuse to increase lease fee by State. Improvements will raise the appraised value of land / cabins on leased State land.
• Save the decommissioned roads for trail use.
• People will use the road as a cut off when they travel to Kalispell. Increased traffic and speed will be detrimental to the area.
• Please bypass Snyder and Copper King
• USFS has information on visual and sediment studies - check with Sue Coyler (Chris Partyka has the information also)
• Use 35 mph design section. Examples: McKenzie Bypass / Mt. St. Helens eastside
• Safety not an issues now and won't be improved by this project. Possibly make it less safe. Eliminating the parallel system is a positive.
• Tributaries can have flash flood events: Big Hole, Bay Stat; two unnamed south of Deerhorn Creek.
• State took walking strip when the road was improved. 4 miles to Copper King were lost. No safe walkway at present.
• Existing road is too close to my property. Road goes through Snyder and Copper King communities. Plum Creek Road is a better route for public road. Less impacts to communities housing access.
• I would like to see it consolidated into one road. Never has been maintained properly.
• Widening and paving the road will just increase the vandalism.
• Right now the road is used for recreation and logging - that is all it needs to be used for.
• There use to be a walking path. When MCOT paved the road a couple of years ago, they paved over it.
• Do not want pavement. Existing roadway adequate . Deer kill will increase with pavement - already too high.
• I have a cabin that is vacant most of the year. Improvements will increase volume. Negative impact. I cannot see that the benefits is justified by the cost.
• Commercial traffic (WalMart) might decide to use a paved road through the Thompson Falls River as a shortcut to Kalispell. Is that what is envisioned or even wanted? Build it and they will come.

Comments placed on sticky notes on the maps at the October 2003 Open Houses:

Sheet 1:
• Goat Creek trailhead to Goat Lake - Wolf up Goat Lake
• People dump garbage in this area
• Co Gen plant at end of Thompson River will send out black smoke. Where is the recreation?
• By pass for traffic in Thompson Falls. Maybe up Cherri Creek, Bridge on Clark Fork River
• Shooting range - contaminated area.
• This would be a nice area for RV and recreation parking, rest area "park" way.
• Big Horn Sheep migration area.
• Our houses are here. The C.C.C. Camp? "What gone"
• Please by pass Snider, Copper King. Put Rd. On ACM side
• KooKoo Sint Trail head.
• Moose Habitat Area
• Give back walking path along Thompson R. From 200 to Copper King.
• Fish & Game monitoring as Griz Bear habitat.
• Request by passing Snider/Copper King residential areas.
• Turn around for Semi trucks. Highway 56 does not go anywhere for them right now.
• Spring water areas to feed Snider & Copper King for water supply to communities.
• If ACM Rd. Remains open - request dust abatement control - oil - chip 'n seal, etc.
• Old Dam (1915) for irrigation project (orchards)
• Major swimming rec. area in summer - Great trout hole!
• River flooding in spring - Road is closed at times
• Pond - moose love this spot !!!
• Have to leave access to houses and logging areas.
• Perrigrin Falcon Nest (confidential)
• White water rafters, inner tubes between W. Fork Thompson and Hwy.
• Seen grizzly at cabin lake. Saw wolf.
• Trailhead parking? Cabin Lk. 4 lakes.
• There are beautiful campsites all along river up to West Fork of Thompson River.

Sheet 2:
• Leave pull out for fishing
• Mountain Goats seen here
• Trailhead parking - Princella Pike

Sheet 3:
• Very dangerous intersection - Thompson River & Little Thompson River Rd. 17 mi.

Sheet 4:
• Natural Salt Lick

Sheet 6:
• Old Campground (closed) Meadow Cr. Rd. , Rock Cr. Rd.

Sheet 8:
• What about the Thompson River Road Wildlife Conservation easement.
• What kind of economic issue will this be for Lincoln Co.? Plains? Hot Springs?
• There is no commercial trucks during spring thaw.

Comments received after the public meetings in October 2003:

1. As I am unable to attend either of the meetings concerning the Thompson River Road Hwy 56, I would like to have my voice heard here. I am totally against any further development of this road. My objections are based on a couple of reasons.
   
   First and I must say that I am not a scientist, I believe that by laying black asphalt next to the river would adversely affect the spawning of the salmon fly, which would again adversely affect the habit for all trout in this river, especially the Bull Trout, which this river is now a spawning ground for.
   
   Second the only participant that would benefit would be Plum Creek Timber Co. by reducing their maintenance and moving it to the taxpayer. The increase amounts of traffic would in no way be beneficial to anyone. There will be no more development by the private sector so there will not be any power, mail or other services.
   
   This is a nice pristine river, moderate hunting area, the increase traffic would not help with the hunting pressure either. There are already two corridors to Glacier in the area, a third is not needed. Big business does not need to damage this river road.
2. ACM built road in 1940's and buried portions of the river. Believes this resulted in poor fisheries on the southern portion of the river. Wants to make sure road project does not further damage fisheries and wildlife. Believes commercial truck traffic is a noise nuisance since they own property adjacent to the road. Believes commercial truck traffic contributes to wildlife road kill. Believes commercial traffic should be prohibited or dissuaded from using the road. Believes logging truck traffic is very small now 1st priority is to fix the river channel back from where the ACM road construction channeled it. (improve fisheries) 2nd priority road project integrated with the comments above.
3. Dear Mr. Wood,
   Your letter, dated October 10, regarding changes to Thompson River Road (Route 56), arrived yesterday afternoon. It calls for greater clarification in advance of the Oct. 28 and 30 meetings. A map of the area, indicating specifics, also would have been appropriate. For example, plain English, with a diagram, would help interpret "decommissioning unnecessary segments of the dual road system."
   
   It seems your Environmental Impact Statement will ignore the most obvious: The dramatic negative impact a proposal such as yours would have on the citizens and endangered wildlife that now live in peaceful cohabitation along Thompson River Road. Our long term well-being and conservation of natural resources is at stake, for heaven's sake!
   
   About that "private road" carrying "the majority of the public traffic." This must be a reference to what we know as the logging road, hardly a heavily traveled route beyond the fishermen and loggers. Neither is Thompson River Road heavily traveled. We cherish our valuable natural resources and tranquility, and hope to keep it that way.
   
   The motive of the proposal does not really focus on safety, efficiency or a significant boon to the environment. You propose to trade airborne dust and water quality (?) for exhaust fumes and vacationers racing to take a convenient shortcut to recreation areas beyond. You want to transform beautiful, bucolic Thompson River Road into a hazardous speedway -- a violation of our quality of life. This is a prime habitat for big horn sheep, among other species. The speed limit is already set far too high. Do you want to widen the road too?
   
   Your address is Vancouver, Washington. And Lori Barnes, whose return address appears on the notification envelope, is located in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. We wonder how either of you can possibly relate to those of us directly being affected?
   
   We fail to see how the heavy traffic resulting from your proposal could significantly reduce maintenance. And one would think the air pollution from exhaust fumes would be a far worse assault on the environment than what road surface sediment may do to the river. Certainly, paving the gravel surface is justifiable, but not for all of the reasons you give. Enforcing a reduced speed limit is a safety measure that makes the most sense.
4. Letter from the American Fisheries Society, Montana Chapter  (Acrobat, 30 KB)
5. Letter from the Clark Fork Coalition  (Acrobat, 32 KB)
6. Letter from the Flathead Resource Organization  (Acrobat, 86 KB)
7. Letter from Montana Trout Unlimited  (Acrobat, 58 KB)
8. Letter from the Montana Wilderness Association  (Acrobat, 39 KB)
9. Letter from the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation  (Acrobat, 132 KB)