Bob Dent, ARCO 



• The report should include an executive summary. A summary 

 would likely be beneficial for legislators and others 

 who may otherwise just look at the recommendations. 

 There would probably be meri •. in prioritizing the 

 recommendations by assigning a number to each, or at the 

 very least, the top ten recommendations should be listed. 



Response: An executive summary could not be prepared in 

 time for publication of the final report. However, if 

 possible, such a summary and a prioritization of recom- 

 mendations will be prepared for distribution at a later 

 date. 



Phil Tarangeau, Clark Fork Coalition 



• The report should spell out the end results that are hoped 

 to be achieved in upper river reclamation efforts. The 

 report should recognize the SARA 121 cleanup standards 

 that require preference be given to treatments that 

 significantly and permanently reduce toxicity, mobility, 

 and volume of wastes. An integrated, multi-faceted 

 approach is needed to achieve SARA 121 cleanup standards. 



Response: See responses on page A-46 and A-47 to the 

 1- Clark Fork Coalition's written comments regarding this 

 issue. 



• Why are only four monitoring stations on the Clark Fork 

 recommended for the long-term monitoring program? 



Response: See response on page A-45 to the Clark Fork 

 Coalition's written comments regarding this issue. 



• The public comment period should be extended by seven 

 days. 



Response: The public comment period could not be extended 

 due to the publication deadline for this report. 



A-5 



