North Fork Landowners’ Association

North Fork Road


North Fork Road subject of much discussion, controversy, research

We’ve assembled this page to inform landowners about the history of the North Fork Road, provide access to research studies and news stories about the road, and document actions being taken by the North Fork Landowners’ Association to effect better maintenance of the road.
     The materials and links on this Web page do not necessarily reflect the views of the North Fork Landowners’ Association, its officers, directors or membership. They have been posted with minimal comment to help inform the community about issues relating to the North Fork Road—from multiple points of view.

A message from the Road Committee

In the fall of 2008 then NFLA president, Molly Shepherd appointed a NFLA committee to look at various issues concerning the North Fork Road. The committee was chaired by Betsy Holycross and included Margaret Heaphy, Steve Weber, Steve Berg and Ed Heger. In August of 2009 after Betsy had been elected president of the NFLA, Margaret Heaphy took over as chairman.
     During the course of the past year, the committee has met with and worked with numerous federal, state and local officials regarding the road, to include: Glacier National Park, Flathead National Forest, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Department of Transportation, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, County Commissioner, Public Works Director and County Road Department. Summaries of all these meetings can be found on this NFLA website. The road committee reported its findings to the NFLA and the North Fork Road Coalition for Health and Safety.
      The committee has striven to educate the community on the history of earlier efforts to pave the road and the environmental issues that arose during that process in the early ‘80’s. It also has helped to educate the community as well as local officials about the possibility of doing a feasibility study on the road. Additionally, Margaret has done extraordinary research on dust abatement and control measures and reported those to the community. She has worked with and liaised with the county and state regarding these issues.
      Now, over a year later, at the NFLA president’s request, the BOD unanimously agreed to suspend road committee activities and the duties and responsibilities of its members. The email address will be disabled. The summer may be a busy one for road issues but the focus does not belong on the NFLA road committee. Rather, because a State and Flathead County sponsored feasibility study is underway which is looking at the road and road issues, folks should focus on that process and get involved in it! Members who want to stay abreast of what’s going on and/or comment on the process and issues should visit the study website at http://www.mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/northfork/. We will make sure that any updates we receive will be posted on NFLA Road Committee home page, however, the most up-to-date information will be available at the State of MT feasibility study website linked above and members are urged to visit it to stay informed.

Border Patrol numbers are increasing

Posted May 28, 2009—Have you noticed that there are more and more U.S. Border Patrol vehicles and agents on the North Fork Road? We sure have. And if you’ve wondered why, here are some of the reasons:
     The Border Patrol has begun implementing Operation Stone Garden, a federal program mandating an increase in the patrolling of both U.S. borders with the involvement of local law enforcement agencies. The 36.2 miles of Canadian border from the Continental Divide to the Lincoln County line are patrolled out of the Whitefish Border Patrol office.
     David Jet Abegglen, the patrol agent in charge at that office, says that now there are approximately 25 agents in his charge. Abegglen said there were four agents working the North Fork before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
     “There is no maximum number of agents that may be assigned to any one station,” Abegglen told us in an e-mail. “The current threat analysis for the Whitefish Station calls for 50 agents to mitigate current threats. Threat analysis is always ongoing. As the threat evolves, our projection for manpower and other resources will continue to change,” he wrote.
     The Border Patrol (of U.S. Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security) June 2009 Web-site fact sheet states that in 2008, 97.4 percent of apprehensions of foreign nationals who had entered the United States illegally occurred in the Southwest; 1.5 percent occurred in coastal areas; 1.1 percent occurred on the Canadian border.
     There is no official border crossing on the North Fork Road, the only road in this Border Patrol jurisdiction leading to the Canadian border. According to a story in the Jan. 14 Hungry Horse News, agents are patrolling our section of the border in motor vehicles, on foot, and on horseback, snowmobiles, ATVs and watercraft.
     “The 2010 Operation Stone Garden order was recently submitted to Border Patrol Headquarters in Washington D.C.,” Abegglen wrote in an e-mail. “In this most recent request, I asked for more funding and solicited for additional participating agencies. This will be the largest effort for Flathead County since the inception of Operation Stone Garden,” he wrote. “I expect Operation Stone Garden will be funded at a record level in the Flathead and will continue through at least 12/31/2012,” Abegglen stated.
     Currently, the Flathead County Sheriff’s Office is receiving a $500,000-per-year grant from the federal government to ride along with Border Patrol agents. In earlier meetings with Abegglen and Patrol Lieutenant Brad Stahlberg of the Flathead County Sheriff’s Office, we learned that deputies would be “running radar” and performing other duties on the North Fork. In addition, the Border Patrol has delegated authority from the Drug Enforcement Administration to look for illegal drugs.
     According to the Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia, the number of agents on the Canadian border was 340 in 2001, and was to increase to 1,845 by the end of 2009 -- numbers Abegglen confirmed. Currently, he told us, there are more than 20,000 Border Patrol agents nationwide.
     “Congress has mandated the Border Patrol to reach 2,212 agents on the Northern Border by the end of Fiscal Year 2010,” Abegglen stated in his e-mail. “With this mandate and current pending personnel changes, the number of agents at the Whitefish Station will change several times this summer. I believe that the general trend will be that we will continue to increase in numbers.”

Road Committee 2008-2009 Final Report

Posted Nov. 5, 2009—The NFLA Road Committee has been working hard throughout 2009 meeting their charge to:

  1. Explore dust abatement and maintenance options and potentially recommend solutions,
  2. Make relevant information available to the NF community, and
  3. Receive and process member suggestions and concerns about the road.

     All of the Road Committee's activities have been summarized in a single document entitled "Final Report 2008-2009." A complete copy of this report maybe be downloaded from here.
     This final report provides an overview of meetings that have taken place throughout 2008-2009. Following are a list of these meetings with links to their summaries:

  • Dec. 12, 2008—First meeting of the NFLA Road Committee
  • Jan. 16, 2009—Phone conversation between members of the NFLA Road Committee and Dave Sanches, Alaska Department of Transportation
  • Jan. 16, 2009—Phone conversation between members of the NFLA Road Committee and Frank Elswick, Midwest Industrial Supply Inc.
  • Jan. 21, 2009—Meeting of the NFLA Road Committee with Flathead County Road & Bridge Department (Road Department) personnel
  • Feb. 20, 2009—Meeting of the NFLA Road Committee
  • Mar. 10, 2009—Meeting of the NFLA Road Committee with invited guest Larry Wilson
  • Apr. 6, 2009— Meeting of the NFLA Road Committee with Chas Cartwright, Superintendent of Glacier National Park
  • Apr. 21, 2009— Meeting of the NFLA Road Committee with Ben Conard and Scott Jackson from U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  • Apr. 23, 2009— Meeting of the NFLA Road Committee with Jim DeHerrera from the U.S. Forest Service and Earl Applekamp from Flathead National Forest
  • May 11, 2009— Meeting of the NFLA Road Committee with Flathead County Public Works Director Dave Prunty and Operations Manager Guy Foy
  • May 27, 2009— Meeting of the NFLA Road Committee with County Commissioner Jim Dupont

Options discussed for the North Fork road

Posted Nov. 4, 2009—Over the last several months, members of the road committee have been busy identifying options for the North Fork road dust abatement. The following are a series of stories summarizing these activities.

Talk on dust control options

Posted Nov. 4, 2009—Laura Fay, a research scientist from the Western Transportation Institute (WTI), spoke on dust control options for the North Fork road at a special meeting held at Sondreson Hall on Sept. 8, 2009. The meeting was arranged by Margaret Heaphy, who chaired the meeting and introduced the speaker.
     The WTI is a National University Transportation Center that focuses on rural road issues. Originally founded in 1994 by Caltrans, MTDOT, and MSU, the WTI is now part of the Engineering Dept at MSU.
     Ms. Fay has a degree in environmental sciences and is an expert in winter road maintenance as well as dirt road dust abatement. Much of the information presented at her talk came from the first international dust conference entitled "2008 Road Dust Management Practices and Future Needs Conference" in which she participated. Rodger Surdahl of Central Federal Lands Highway Division headed this conference that identified four research priorities, all relevant to the North Fork road:

  1. Best Management Practices - Identify
  2. Performance measures - How to build roads
  3. Products - Specifications and Protocols
  4. Education clearing house, outreach and training.

A web search should bring you to one place.
Ms. Fay began her talk at Sondreson Hall with basic definitions and findings from the proceedings of this conference:

  1. Dust suppressants are chemical additives applied to the surface of an unsealed road which temporarily reduce airborne particles but do not strengthen the road.
  2. Soil stabilizers are material additives, which add strength and density to the road surface.
  3. Dust abatement is anything that inhibits the creation of dust.
  4. A palliative keeps dust out of the air.
  5. Particle size of less than 10 microns are indicated by the symbol PM10, less than 2.5 by PM2.5. The EPA regulates at the PM10 level. Air quality standards for EPA are regulated at the PM 10 level and not at the PM2.5 level which means there are smaller particles floating around in the air but they are not being monitored by EPA.
  6. Average daily traffic (ADT), is the total traffic volume for a period divided by the days in that period.
  7. The long term safety and health issues of newer suppressant and stabilizers are not well known. Communities should check material data sheets for known information.

Ms. Fay went on to explain that although there is still much to be learned in the area of dust suppression, some things are known including: how to measure dust, how to model dust plumes, that all suppressants and stabilizers work to some degree, and that road construction is critical including blade maintenance, type of gravel, shape and shoulder, and the crown should be near 1/2 inch per foot or 4%.
     Ms. Fay discussed commonly used products including:

Dust palliatives/suppressants - apply to surface

  • wetting
  • salts, MgCl2 & CaCl2
  • lignosulfonates -byproduct of resin
  • synthetic polymers
  • synthetic oils
  • bitumen, tars- coal, asphalt

Surface Stabilizers

  • synthetic polymer emulsions
  • synthetic oils
  • sulfonated oils
  • Bitumen, asphalt and tar

There are no established standards for testing products to determine the environmental impacts.
Ms. Fay reviewed some basic options for the North Fork road including: 1) do nothing and 2) apply suppressants or stabilizers such as chip/seal and 3) paving.
     She also raised the idea of using a feasibility study as a tool to look at potential options. Ms. Fay said that a feasibility study:

  • Considers all options - no option more important than another,
  • Highlights the best options for the North Fork road,
  • Incorporates community concern (i.e., if vehicle corrosion is a concern than the salt options would rate low on the list),
  • Provides information on cost,
  • Looks at the lifespan, effects and impacts of each treatment, and
  • Tries to find out what is important to the community and where the community is willing to compromise.

In summary, a feasibility study looks at every option for a given road and highlights options. This type of study also provides information on the cost and liabilities of each option, making it a potentially valuable tool for decision makers.
     Several options were discussed regarding the funding of such a study and other investigations. For example, the WTI could be asked to set up some test treatments, a mile treated section with a mile buffer between. WTI is federally funded and can give some matching dollars, up to 1/4 cost of a project. In addition, the Western Federal Lands (WFL) is performing road research and might be interested in either using the North Fork road as a case study or funding the feasibility study. A feasibility study could also include an independent evaluation of the NF road bed. Another option might be participating in a scan tour during the summer of 2010 headed by Roger Surdahl of the Central Federal Lands Highway Division. The intent of this tour is to go around the country to study different dirt roads and find effective dust control treatments.
     Questions were taken from the audience. One NFLA member asked Ms. Fay what she thought would be the best solution for the NF road. She replied, although she does not live here, nor is familiar with the history and complexities of our situation her personal opinion would be to pave it.
The meeting adjourned with a thank you to Ms. Fay and a Happy Birthday chorus for Val Cox and the sharing of coffee and a delicious birthday cake.

Discussions on a feasibility study

Posted Nov. 4, 2009—On Oct. 2, 2009, Margaret Heaphy and Jim Lynch of the Montana Department of Transportation (MTDOT) had a telephone conversation to discuss a feasibility study for the North Fork road. During this conversation, Mr. Lynch said:

  • A feasibility study is transparent and professional (consensus with majority).
  • Allows county and community to look at different alternatives.
  • Allows you to narrow alternatives based on what comes out of the feasibility study.
  • Looks at the cost of doing each alternative and what financial opportunities are out there.
  • Informs the county of all the possibilities.
  • Looks for a direction that the community supports.

In addition, a feasibility study makes no commitment to go in any direction, but gathers as much information as possible, usually non-confrontational, looks at what are the issues, looks at what are the opportunities, and is there consensus to move in any direction (e.g., maybe gravel is way to go).
     Mr. Lynch further said that: the State is willing to do the work if the county so requests, does not lock anyone into doing anything and, identifies an end result (i.e., Do we have a possible solution out there?)
     If a clear direction results from the feasibility study, the next step is the Environmental Process. Mr. Lynch stated that this step is needed even for dust abatement. The solution could either be blading/dust abatement/magnesium chloride or prepare the road with more permanent surface treatment such as "triple shot" or called bitumen, not asphalt: 3 steps: prepare road, liquid asphalt, crush gravel.
     Bottom Line of a feasibility study according to Mr. Lynch is: Is there enough support to do anything and is there a direction we, the county and state, want to go?
     The final conclusion of a feasibility study in not automatic. The county does not have to follow through with the conclusion.
     Mr. Lynch concluded by saying that the state is here to assist the county and us the community. They are not telling us what to do. The North Fork road is a gravel state secondary road under county control. If the state is invited by the county they will do the feasibility study. Mr. Lynch is willing to bring his people up and explain how the feasibility study works and lay out the ground rules. He feels the feasibility study is a way to solve the county's problems.
     Before we, the state, decide to jump into the feasibility study, he would like to come and walk through what he can do. He again stated that he is here to help and assist.

Road committee meeting minutes from Oct. 16, 2009

Posted Nov. 4, 2009—A meeting of the NFLA Road Committee was held at 10:20 AM October 16, 2009 at the office of the Flathead County Commissioners, Kalispell, Montana. The following were present at the meeting: Margaret Heaphy, Betsy Holycross, Ed Heger, Steve Berg, and Jim Lynch. Commissioner Jim Dupont was present by telephone. Jim Lynch is the head of the State of Montana Department of Transportation (DOT).
     The meeting began with a conversation between Jim Lynch and Jim Dupont. Lynch noted that although the North Fork road is a county road, the state can assist the county in determining whether the road can be improved and, if so, in what manner. His suggestion was that a Feasibility Study (FS) performed by the DOT be undertaken before money is spent by the county to determine what is feasible with the road. He emphasized to Dupont the DOT could not initiate a FS without an invitation from the county to do so.
     Dupont said the county wanted something done with the road such as improvement of the road base from Camas to Polebridge. There was discussion between Dupont and Lynch about Lynch writing a letter to the county indicating his department would undertake an FS if invited to do so and Dupont said he would initiate the process with the other two commissioners who, he believed, would also approve it.
     Lynch said the FS is a “Pre-NEPA type document” which is used to look at various solutions, figure out what the community wants and identify potential obstacles before a lot of money gets spent. He repeated a letter from the commissioner requesting a FS would suffice as an invitation.
     At this point, Chairwoman Margaret Heaphy introduced Road committee members to Jim Dupont, and briefly summarized committee activities to date. This summary included a reference to the 2006 NFLA survey, a reference to the NFPA and the Coalition, and the goal of the NFLA Road Committee; namely, to work with the county to find solutions to reduce dust pollutants originating from the North Fork Road. Margaret also summarized the committee’s interviews with USFS, NPS and Fish & Wildlife Service representatives. She noted the county has received federal funds this year of 3.2 million dollars based on all federal land within the county. She concluded by noting the focus of today’s meeting concerned the possibility of a FS.
     In response to a question from Betsy about dust abatement measures being categorically excluded from environmental documentation, Lynch said that wasn’t necessarily the case and that an FS is appropriate for dust mitigation. Ed Heger said he thought a FS was a good idea provided the survey had clear parameters. Lynch responded that a FS was “citizen driven,” with the structure of the study set up properly at the start. Lynch said that if a FS is initiated, an environmental engineering company would be hired, and would work with the support of DOT engineers, federal agencies and citizens. The study could take the approach of asking “Is it feasible to do ______?” Or “Is there potential for a project; if so, what?”
     A general discussion then developed on different types of road improvements (chip/seal, litbituminous, etc.) and degrees of maintenance required of the county to maintain each improvement. Betsy referenced the views of Earl Applekamp, Flathead National Forest engineering and administrative staff officer, on this subject.
The meeting concluded at 10:55 AM with the understanding that Lynch would send a letter to Dupont summarizing portions of the meeting, defining a FS in relation to the North Fork Road, and offering to perform a FS upon county invitation. A copy of this letter would be sent to Margaret. Dupont would then discuss the letter with the other two commissioners.

Road improvements underway

Posted Oct. 21, 2009—Dave Prunty, Public Works Director for Flathead County, reports that the Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) project for North Fork road improvements is well underway this fall. Although everyone traveling the road has seen the preparations for weeks, Prunty confirmed that the heavy equipment was moved in last Tuesday, Oct. 13th. The plan is to complete the project this fall, weather permitting.

Archived Road Committee articles

Following are a series of road committee articles that have been archived but are still available for viewing.

 
About Us | Contact Us | ©2007-2010 North Fork Landowners’ Association