The reclamation alternatives presented are institutional 

 controls (capping, containing, stabilizing, fencing etc.) 

 only. The report should acknowledge that Super fund 

 calls for permanent solutions. Work should be done on 

 assessing technologies for long-term, permanent remedies 

 that will address the mobility, toxicity, and volume of 

 wastes. It is a little dangerous to have a report from 

 the Governor's Office that could potentially drive 

 Superfund by endorsing particular alternatives at the 

 exclusion of others, particularly if these alternatives 

 are not sufficient. We do not want to foreclose any 

 options. 



Response: The report does not endorse or recommend 

 specific remedial technologies for Superfund sites. 

 Please see the responses on pages A-46 and A-47 to the 

 Clark Fork Coalition's written comments regarding this 

 issue . 



If you are talking about exercising beaver control you 

 better stay out of Rattlesnake Creek. 



Response: The report recommends beaver control only in 

 locations where beaver dams are found to affect critical 

 trout spawning habitat. 



Monitoring data are instrumental in helping to resolve 

 conflict and in making better decisions. It is very 

 important to sustain monitoring in the basin. Many of the 

 industries in the basin are very supportive of this. Four 

 stations for long-term monitoring are not adequate to 

 give us the type of information we need. An additional 

 group or an extension of the interagency monitoring group 

 consisting of industries, agencies, and public interest 

 groups should be formed to discuss specifically the 

 funding of monitoring in the basin. A public-private 

 partnership should be established to fund this program so 

 that it is sustainable. 



Response: The report has emphasized the importance of 

 water quality monitoring. A cooperative monitoring 

 program where decisions and funding are shared by 

 industry, government, and citizens has been suggested. 

 We do not believe that another group in addition to the 

 monitoring cooperative is needed. The recommendation has 

 been modified on pages 5-19 to 5-21 to clarify the intent 

 of the program. 



The selection of four monitoring stations is presented as 

 an example of the bare minimum monitoring effort needed to 

 measure long-term trends in water quality. 



A-10 



